The persistent, difficult-to-treat, allergic contact dermatitis from hexavalent chromium in European construction workers has diminished significantly since the legislative measurements that came into force in January 2005. However, sensitization to hexavalent chromium continues to be a problem. Barrier creams have been tried for various allergens with divergent results.
Objective
The aim of the study was to investigate the protective capacity of barrier cream candidates against hexavalent chromium in a patch test situation.
Methods
An experimental study was performed to investigate the reductive properties of glutathione and iron sulfate on the patch test reactivity in chromium-allergic individuals when exposed to hexavalent chromium. In this study, we also investigated the protective properties of a commercially available barrier cream.
Conclusions
A higher number of volunteers (16/18) showed reactions on the skin treated with the commercially available barrier cream, compared with the untreated skin (13/18) on test reading day 3/4 or day 7. The skin treated with petrolatum or Essex cream showed fewer and less prominent allergic reactions than the skin treated with the commercially available barrier cream.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending for the 26th time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (nonylphenol, nonylphenol ethoxylate and cement). Off J Eur Union, 2003; L178/24-L178/27.
2.
StocksSJ, McNameeR, TurnerS, et al. Has European legislation to reduce exposure to chromate in cement been effective in reducing the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis attributed to chromate in the UK?Occup Environ Med 2012;69:150–152.
3.
GeierJ, KrautheimA, UterW, et al.Occupational contact allergy in the building trade in Germany: influence of preventive measures and changing exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2011; 84:403–411.
4.
MowitzM, ZimersonE, HaukssonI, et al.Chromate and amine contact allergies in workers manufacturing precast concrete elements. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75:363–369.
5.
RomagueraC, GrimaltF, VilaplanaJ, et al.Formulations of a barrier cream against chromate. Contact Dermatitis, 1985; 13:49–52.
6.
IsakssonM, NiklassonB. Allergic contact dermatitis from nickel is prevented using a novel barrier cream. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75(suppl 1):68.
7.
WöhrlS, KriechbaumerN, HemmerW, et al.A cream containing the chelator DTPA (diethylenetriaminepenta-acetic acid) can prevent contact allergic reactions to metals. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 44:224–228.
8.
GawkrodgerDJ, HealyJ, HoweAM. The prevention of nickel contact dermatitis, a review of the use of binding agents and barrier creams. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 32:257–265.
9.
LittleMC, GawkrodgerDJ, MacneilS. Chromium- and nickel-induced cytotoxicity in normal and transformed human keratinocytes: an investigation of pharmacological approaches to the prevention of Cr(VI)-induced cytotoxicity. Br J Dermatol, 1996; 134:199–207.
10.
HostynekJJ.Factors determining percutaneous metal absorption. Food Chem Toxicol, 2003; 41:327–345.
11.
FisherT, RystedtI. Influence of topical binding substances, vehicles, and corticoid creams on the allergic patch test reaction in metal-sensitive patients. Dermatol Clin, 1990; 1:27–31.
12.
MenonAA, MolokhiaMM, FriedmannPS. The inhibitory effects of topical chelating agents and antioxidants on nickel-induced hypersensitivity reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1994; 30:560–565.
13.
VemulaPK, AndersonRR, KarpJM. Nanoparticles reduce nickel allergy by capturing metal ions. Nat Nanotechnol, 2011; 6:291–295.
14.
KurtisA, OrentreichN. Preliminary and short report. Chelation deactivation of nickel ion in allergic eczematous sensitivity. J Invest Dermatol, 1954; 23:441–445.
15.
MahatoM, ShermanNE, MudnakuduNKK, et al.Chapter 18: prevention of metal exposure: chelating agents in barrier creams. In: ChenJK, ThyssenJP, eds. Metal Allegry. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG; 2018:227–246.
16.
SamitzMH, ShragerJ. Prevention of dermatitis in the printing and lithographic industries. Arch Dermatol, 1966; 3:307–309.
17.
BerndtU, Wigger-AlbertiW, GabardB, et al.Efficacy of a barrier cream and its vehicle as protective measures against occupational irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 42:77–80.
18.
WahlbergJE.Absorption-inhibiting effect of barrier creams. Paper presented at the 19th Meeting of the Fenno-Scandinavian Association of Dermatology; June 1971, Oslo, Norway. Band 19, 197–207.
19.
TeichmannA, JacobiU, WaiblerE, et al.An in vivo model to evaluate the efficacy of barrier creams on the level of skin penetration on chemicals. Contact Dermatitis, 2006; 54:5–13.
IsakssonM.Successful inhibition of allergic contact dermatitis caused by methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone with topical glutathione. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73:126–128.
22.
LejdingT, EngfeldtM, BruzeM, et al.Skin application of glutathione and iron sulfate can inhibit elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2020; 82:45–53.
23.
Frick-EngfeldtM, GruvbergerB, IsakssonM, et al.Comparison of three different techniques for application of water solutions to Finn Chambers®. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 63:284–288.
24.
FregertS.Manual of Contact Dermatitis. 2nd ed. Copenhagen, Denmark: Munksgaard; 1981.
25.
JohansenJD, Aalto-KorteK, AgnerT, et al.European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing—recommendations on the best practice. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73:195–211.
26.
HindsénM, BruzeM, ChristensenOB. The significance of previous allergic contact dermatitis for elicitation of delayed hypersensitivity to nickel. Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 37:101–106.
27.
SiemundI, MowitzM, ZimersonE, et al.Variation in aluminium patch test reactivity over time. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 77:288–296.
