Identification of the etiological chemical agent(s) associated with a case(s) of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is important for both patient management and public health surveillance. Traditional patch testing can identify chemical allergens to which the patient is allergic. Confirmation of allergen presence in the causative ACD-associated material is presently dependent on labeling information, which may not list the allergenic chemical on the product label or safety data sheet. Dermatologists have expressed concern over the lack of laboratory support for chemical allergen identification and possibly quantification from patients' ACD-associated products. The aim of this review was to provide the clinician a primer to better understand the analytical chemistry of contact allergen confirmation and unknown identification, including types of analyses, required instrumentation, identification levels of confidence decision tree, limitations, and costs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
De GrootAC.New contact allergens: 2008 to 2015. Dermatitis, 2015; 26(5):199–215.
2.
HamJE, SiegelPD, MaibachH.Undeclared formaldehyde levels in patient consumer products: formaldehyde test kit utility. Cutan Ocul Toxicol, 2019:112–117.
3.
GoodierMC, SiegelPD, ZangLY, et al.Isothiazolinone in residential interior wall paint: a high-performance liquid chromatographic–mass spectrometry analysis. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(6):332–338.
4.
Goodier MCZLY, SiegelP, WarshawEM. Isothiazolinone content ofU.S. consumer adhesives ultra high performance liquid chromatographic–tandem mass spectrometry analysis. Dermatitis, 2019; 30(2):129–134.
5.
NikleA, EricsonM, WarshawE. Formaldehyde release from personal care products: chromotropic acid method analysis. Dermatitis, 2019; 30(1):67–73.
6.
SiegelPD, FowlerJFJr., StorrsFJ, et al.Allergen content of patient problem and nonproblem gloves: relationship to allergen-specific patch-test findings. Dermatitis, 2010; 21(2):77–83.
7.
LammintaustaK, ZimersonE, HasanT, et al.An epidemic of furniture-related dermatitis: searching for a cause. Br J Dermatol, 2010; 162(1):108–116.
8.
RantanenT.The cause of the Chinese sofa/chair dermatitis epidemic is likely to be contact allergy to dimethylfumarate, a novel potent contact sensitizer. Br J Dermatol, 2008; 159(1):218–221.
9.
Pastor-NietoMA, Quintanilla-LopezJE, GomaraB, et al.Contact dermatitis caused by dimethyl fumarate in wallets. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68(2):118–120.
10.
StingeniL, NeveD, TondiV, et al.Immunological contact urticaria caused by dimethyl fumarate. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 71(3):180–183.
11.
SvecovaD, SimaljakovaM, DolezalovaA. Footwear contact dermatitis from dimethyl fumarate. Int J Dermatol, 2013; 52(7):803–807.
12.
SilvestreJF, ToledoF, MercaderP, et al.Summary of shoe allergic contact dermatitis caused by dimethyl fumarate in Spain. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 65(2):122–123.
13.
FotiC, ZamboninCG, CassanoN, et al.Occupational allergic contact dermatitis associated with dimethyl fumarate in clothing. Contact Dermatitis, 2009; 61(2):122–124.
14.
SantiagoF, AndradeP, GoncaloM, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to shoes induced by dimethylfumarate: a new allergen imported from China. Dermatol Online J, 2010; 16(3):3.
MalinauskieneL, ZimersonE, BruzeM, et al.Textile dyes disperse orange 1 and yellow 3 contain more than one allergen as shown by patch testing with thin-layer chromatograms. Dermatitis, 2011; 22(6):335–343.
20.
RybergK, GoossensA, IsakssonM, et al.Patch testing of patients allergic to disperse blue 106 and disperse blue 124 with thin-layer chromatograms and purified dyes. Contact Dermatitis, 2009; 60(5):270–278.
21.
RybergK, GruvbergerB, ZimersonE, et al.Chemical investigations of disperse dyes in patch test preparations. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 58(4):199–209.
22.
BregnbakD, JohansenJD, JellesenMS, et al.Chromium(VI) release from leather and metals can be detected with a diphenylcarbazide spot test. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73(5):281–288.
23.
ThyssenJP, MenneT, JohansenJD, et al.A spot test for detection of cobalt release—early experience and findings. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 63(2):63–69.
24.
ThyssenJP, SkareL, LundgrenL, et al.Sensitivity and specificity of the nickel spot (dimethylglyoxime) test. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 62(5):279–288.
25.
SchymanskiEL, JeonJ, GuldeR, et al.Identifying small molecules via high resolution mass spectrometry: communicating confidence. Environ Sci Technol, 2014; 48(4):2097–2098.
26.
SamokhinA, SotnezovaK, LashinV, et al.Evaluation of mass spectral library search algorithms implemented in commercial software. J Mass Spectrom, 2015; 50(6):820–825.
27.
ChemCalc. Institute of Chemical Sciences and Engineering ISIC; L'Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne; France. Available at: http://www.chemcalc.org/mf_finder/mfFinder_em_new. Accessed April8, 2019.
28.
DuhrkopK, ShenH, MeuselM, et al.Searching molecular structure databases with tandem mass spectra using CSI:FingerID. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2015; 112(41):12580–12585.
29.
HufskyF, ScheubertK, BöckerS. Computational mass spectrometry for small-molecule fragmentation. TrAC Trends Anal Chem, 2014; 53:41–48.
30.
ScheubertK, HufskyF, BockerS. Computational mass spectrometry for small molecules. J Chem, 2013; 5(1):12.
31.
SimpsonAJ, SimpsonMJ, SoongR. Environmental nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: an overview and a primer. Anal Chem, 2018; 90(1):628–639.
32.
SiegelPD, FowlerJF, LawBF, et al.Concentrations and stability of methyl methacrylate, glutaraldehyde, formaldehyde and nickel sulfate in commercial patch test allergen preparations. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(5):309–315.
