Despite being well-known allergens, mercaptobenzothiazole and its derivatives continue to be widely used in natural and synthetic rubber, in the mining industry, and in a variety of nonrubber products. The purpose of this article is to review the epidemiology and the clinical characteristics of allergic contact dermatitis from mercapto compounds.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BonnevieP.Etiologico-pathogenetical experiences of professional skin diseases with a view to their prophylaxis. Acta Derm Venereol, 1938; 20:645.
2.
BonnevieP, MarcussenP. Rubber products as a widespread cause of eczema. Report of 80 cases. Acta Derm Venereol, 1944; 25:163-78.
3.
MarksJ, DeLeoV, editors. Standard allergens. In: Contact and occupational dermatology. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997. p. 98-102.
4.
SassevilleD, MuhnCY, Al-SowaidiM. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from xanthates and carbamates in mining processes. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14:166-8.
5.
UterW, SchnuchA, GeierJ, FroschPJ. Epidemiology of contact dermatitis: the information network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in Germany. Eur J Dermatol, 1998; 1:36-40.
6.
RudnerEJ, ClendenningWE, EpsteinE, et al.Epidemiology of contact dermatitis in North America: 1972. Arch Dermatol, 1973; 108:537-40.
7.
North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Interim report 2003-2004. Chicago: North American Contact Dermatitis Group;. 2005.
8.
PrattMD, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001-2002 study period. Dermatitis, 2004; 1:1-8.
9.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998-2000. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14:59-62.
10.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1996-1998. Arch Dermatol, 2000; 136:272-3.
11.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayedtype hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1998; 38:911-8.
12.
KrobHA, FleischerAB, D'AgostinoR, et al. Prevalence and relevance of contact dermatitis allergens: a meta-analysis of 15 years of published T.R.U.E. Test data. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2003; 51:349-53.
13.
GeierJ, LessmannH, UterW, et al.Occupational rubber glove allergy: results of the information network of departments of dermatology (IVDK), 1995-2001. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48:39-44.
14.
BlankIH, MillerOG. A study of rubber adhesives in shoes as the cause of dermatitis of the feet. JAMA, 1952; 149:1371-4.
NethercottJR, HolnessDL, AdamsRM, et al.Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989: I. Frequency of response. Am J Contact Dermat, 1991; 2:122-9.
17.
NethercottJR, HolnessDL, AdamsRM, et al.Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989: III. Age and response. Am J Contact Dermat, 1991; 2:198-201.
18.
AngeliniG, MeneghiniCL. Contact and bacterial allergy in children with atopic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 1977; 3:163-74.
RomagueraC, VilaplanaJ. Contact dermatitis in children: 6 years experience (1992-1997). Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 39:277-80.
21.
WohrlS, HemmerW, FockeM, et al.Patch testing in children, adults, and the elderly: influence of age and sex on sensitization patterns. Pediatr Dermatol, 2003; 20:119-23.
22.
NethercottJR, HolnessDL, AdamsRM, et al.Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989: II. Gender and response. Am J Contact Dermat, 1991; 2:130-4.
23.
VarigosGA, DuntDR. Occupational dermatitis. An epidemiological study in the rubber and cement industries. Contact Dermatitis, 1981; 7:105-10.
24.
SinghalV, ReddyBSN. Common contact sensitizers in Delhi. J Dermatol, 2000; 27:440-5.
25.
ChenH-H, SunC-C, TsengM-P. Type IV hypersensitivity from rubber chemicals: a 15-year experience in Taiwan. Dermatology, 2004; 208:319-25.
26.
MedingB, SwanbeckG. Occupational hand eczema in an industrial city. Contact Dermatitis, 1990; 22:13-23.
27.
McDonaldCJ.Dermatological problems in black skin. Prog Dermat, 1973; 4:15-20.
28.
FischerAA.Contact dermatitis in black patients. Cutis, 1977; 20:303-20.
29.
DeLeoVA, TaylorSC, BelsitoDV, et al.Understanding skin of color: the effect of race and ethnicity on patch test results. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2002; 46Suppl:S107-12.
30.
DickelH, TaylorJS, EveyP, et al.Comparison of patch test results with a standard series among white and black racial groups. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12:77-82.
HanssonC, AgrupG. Stability of the mercaptobenzothiazole compounds. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 28:29-34.
33.
RorsmanH, AlbertssonE, EdholmL-E, et al.Thiols in the melanocyte. Pigment Cell Res, 1988; 1Suppl:54-60.
34.
PerssonB, AnderssonA, HultbergB, et al.The redox state of glutathione, cysteine and homocysteine in the extracellular fluid in the skin. Free Radic Res, 2002; 36:151-6.
35.
MeisterA, AndersonME. Glutathione. Annu Rev Biochem, 1983; 52:711-60.
36.
BelsitoDV.The immunologic basis of patch testing. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1989; 21:822-9.
37.
The pathogenesis of allergic contact hypersensitivity. In: RietschelRL, FowlerJF, editors. Fisher's contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 1-7.
38.
WangX, TaborMW. Studies of the reactivity of morpholine, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole and 2 of their derivatives with selected amino acids. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 19:16-21.
39.
FregertS.Cross-sensitivity pattern of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole. Acta Derm Venereol, 1969; 49:45-8.
Dermatitis from medical devices, implants, and equipment. In: RietschelRL, FowlerJF, editors. Fisher's contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 323-4.
AnconaA, TorreRS, EviaJR. Dermatitis from mercaptobenzothiazole in a Foley catheter. Contact Dermatitis, 1985; 13:339-40.
51.
BransburyAJ.Allergy to rubber condom urinals and medical adhesives in male spinal injury patients. Contact Dermatitis, 1979; 5:317-23.
52.
ReepmeyerJC, JuhlYH. Contamination of injectable solutions with 2-mercaptobenzothiazole leached from rubber closures. J Pharm Sci, 1983; 72:1302-5.
53.
AiraudoCB, Gayte-SorbierA, MomburgR, et al.Leaching of antioxidants and vulcanization accelerators from rubber closures into drug preparations. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 1990; 1:231-41.
54.
AlomarA.Occupational skin disease from cutting fluids. Dermatol Clin, 1994; 12:537-46.
55.
MedingB, TorénK, KarlbergA-T, et al.Evaluation of skin symptoms among workers at a Swedish paper mill. Am J Ind Med, 1993; 23:721-8.
56.
De WeverH, BesseP, VerachtertA. Microbial transformations of 2-substituted benzothiazoles. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2001; 57:620-5.
57.
HindererRK, KnickerbockerM, KoschierFJ. Mutagenic evaluations of two rubber accelerators. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1982; 62:335-41.
58.
SectionII.Ingredients index. In: GosselinRE, SmithRP, HodgeHC, BraddockJE, editors. Clinical toxicology of commercial products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1999. p. II320-1.
59.
EmaM, SakamotoJ, MuraiT, et al.Evaluation of the teratogenic potential of the rubber accelerator dibenzthiazyl disulphide in rats. J Appl Toxicol, 1989; 9:413-7.
60.
HindererRK, MyhrB, JagannathDR, et al.Mutagenic evaluations of four rubber accelerators in a battery of in vitro mutagenic assays. Environ Mutagen, 1983; 5:193-215.
61.
National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (CAS No. 149-30-4) in F334/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTPTR 332. Research Triangle Park (NC): National Institutes of Health; 1988. Report No.: 88-2588.
62.
CollinsJ, StraussM, RiordanS. Mortalities of workers at the nitro plant with exposure to 2-mercaptobenzothiazole. Occup Environ Med, 1999; 56:667-71.
63.
SorahanT, HamiltonL, JacksonJR. A further cohort study of workers employed at a factory manufacturing chemicals for the rubber industry, with special reference to the chemicals 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT), aniline, phenyl-β-naphthylamine and ö-toluidine. Occup Environ Med, 2000; 57:106-15.
BelsitoDV.Contact urticaria caused by rubber. Dermatol Clin, 1990; 8:61-6.
67.
TurjanmaaK, ReunalaT.Latex-contact urticaria associated with delayed allergy to rubber chemicals. In: FroschPJ, Dooms-GoosensA, LachapelleJ-M, et al, editors. Current topics in contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1988. p. 460-4.
68.
ShepardNA, KrallS. Poisons in the rubber industry. J Indust Hyg, 1920; 2:33-8.
69.
DowningJG.Dermatitis from rubber gloves. N Engl J Med, 1933; 208:196-8.
70.
MaurerT, ThomannP, WeirichEG, et al.Predictive evaluation in animals of the contact allergenic potential of medically important substances: II. Comparison of different methods of cutaneous sensitization with “weak” allergens. Contact Dermatitis, 1979; 5:1-10.
71.
WangX, SuskindRR. Comparative studies of the sensitization potential of morpholine, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole, and 2 of their derivatives in guinea pigs. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 19:11-5.
72.
IkarashiY, TsuchiyaT, NakamuraA. Evaluation of contact sensitivity of rubber chemicals using the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 28:77-80.
73.
De JongWH, TentijM, SpiekstraSW, et al.Determination of the sensitizing activity of the rubber contact sensitizers TMTD, ZDMC, MBT, and DEA in a modified local lymph node assay and the effect of sodium dodecyl sulfate pretreatment on local lymph node responses. Toxicology, 2002; 176:123-34.
74.
MaibachHI.Possible cosmetic dermatitis due to mercaptobenzothiazole. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 34:72.
75.
EmmettEA, RisbyTH, TaylorJ, et al.Skin elicitation threshold of ethylbutyl thiourea and mercaptobenzothiazole with relative leaching from sensitizing products. Contact Dermatitis, 1994; 30:85-90.
76.
Conde-SalazarL, del-RíoE, GuimaraensD, et al.Type IV allergy to rubber additives: a 10-year study of 686 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1993; 29:176-80.
77.
CorreiaS, BrandaoFM. Contact dermatitis of the feet. Dermatosen, 1986; 34:102-6.
78.
VarelzidesA, KatsambasA, GeorgalaS, et al.Shoe dermatitis in Greece. Dermatologica, 1974; 149:236-9.
79.
VenturaMT, DagnelloM, MatinoMG, et al.Contact dermatitis in students practicing sports: incidence of rubber sensitization. Br J Sports Med, 2001; 35:100-2.
80.
LevineN.Dermatologic aspects of sports medicine. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1980; 3:415-24.
81.
NethercottJR, HolnessDL, AdamsRM, et al.Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989: IV. Occupation and response. Am J Contact Dermat, 1991; 2:247-54.
82.
RietschelRL, MathiasCGT, FowlerJF, et al.Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermat, 2002; 13:170-6.
83.
DickelH, KussO, SchmidtA, et al.Occupational relevance of positive standard patch-test results in employed persons with an initial report of an occupational skin disease. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2002; 75:423-34.
84.
NettisE, MarcandreaMC, ParadisoMT, et al.Results of standard series patch testing in patients with occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Allergy, 2003; 58:1304-7.
85.
BaraC, MilpiedB, GerautC, et al.Erythema multiforme with occupational rubber contact sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49:269-70.
86.
FregertS.Occupational dermatitis in a 10-year material. Contact Dermatitis, 1975; 1:96-107.
87.
HeeseA, von HintzensternJ, PetersK-P, et al.Allergic and irritant reactions to rubber gloves in medical health services. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1991; 25:831-9.
88.
FisherAA.Management of dermatitis due to surgical gloves. J Dermatol Surg Oncol, 1985; 11:628-31.
89.
FisherAA.Contact dermatitis in surgeons. J Dermatol Surg, 1975; 1:63-7.
90.
von HintzensternJ, HeeseA, KochHU, et al.Frequency, spectrum and occupational relevance of type IV allergies to rubber chemicals. Contact Dermatitis, 1991; 24:244-52.
91.
KnudsenBB, HametnerC, SeycekO, et al.Allergologically relevant rubber accelerators in single-use medical gloves. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43:9-15.
92.
FisherAA.“Hypoallergenic” surgical gloves and gloves for special situations. Cutis, 1975; 15:797-811.
SchemanA, OsburnA. Use of a breathable glove liner for prevention of delayed hypersensitivity to rubber accelerators [letter]. J Occup Environ Med, 1997; 39:605.
95.
LushniakB, MathiasCGT, TaylorJS. Barrier creams: fact or fiction. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14:97-9.
96.
GaulLE.Results of patch testing with rubber antioxidants and accelerators. J Invest Dermatol, 1957; 29:105-10.
97.
ShawC.Dermatitis due to shoes. Arch Dermatol Syph, 1944; 49: 191-3.
98.
MarcussenPV.Rubber footwear as a cause of foot eczema. Acta Derm Venereol 1942-1943;23:331-42.
99.
ShatinH, ReischM. Dermatitis of the feet due to shoes. Arch Dermatol Syph, 1954; 69:651-66.
ShackelfordKE, BelsitoDV. The etiology of allergic-appearing foot dermatitis: a 5-year retrospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2002; 47:715-21.
103.
JordanWP.Clothing and shoe dermatitis: recognition and management. Postgrad Med, 1972; 52:143-8.
104.
LearJT, EnglishJSC. Hand involvement in allergic contact dermatitis from mercaptobenzothiazole in shoes. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 34:432.
105.
RietschelRL.Role of socks in shoe dermatitis. Arch Dermatol, 1984; 120:398.
106.
FoussereauJ, MuslmaniM, CavelierC, et al.Contact allergy to safety shoes. Contact Dermatitis, 1986; 14:233-6.
107.
SahaM, SrinivasCR, ShenoySD, et al.Footwear dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 28:260-4.
108.
LyndeCW, WarshawskiL, MitchellJC. Patch test results with a shoewear screening tray in 119 patients, 1977-80. Contact Dermatitis, 1982; 8:423-5.
109.
BelsitoDV.Common shoe allergens undetected by commercial patch-testing kits: dithiodimorpholine and isocyanates. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14:95-6.
110.
LazzariniR, DuarteI, MarzagãoC. Contact dermatitis of the feet: a study of 53 cases. Am J Contact Dermat, 2004; 15:125-30.
111.
WestonJA, HawkinsK, WestonW. Foot dermatitis in children. Pediatrics, 1983; 72:824-7.
112.
TrattnerA, FarchiY, DavidM. Shoe contact dermatitis in Israel. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14:12-4.
113.
BjajAK, GuptaSC, ChatterjeeAK, et al.Shoe dermatitis in India. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 19:372-5.
114.
AdamsRM.Possible substitution for mercaptobenzothiazole in rubber. Contact Dermatitis, 1975; 1:246.
115.
GaigP, Miguel-MoncinMMS, BartraJ, et al.Usefulness of patch tests for diagnosing selective allergy to captopril. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol, 2001; 11:204-6.
116.
RudzkiE, OstaszewskiK, GrzywaZ, et al.Sensitivity to some rubber additives. Contact Dermatitis, 1976; 2:24-7.
117.
DickelH, TaylorJS, BickersDR, et al.Multiple patch-test reactions: a pilot evaluation of a combination approach to visualize patterns of multiple sensitivity in patch-test databases and a proposal for a multiple sensitivity index. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14:148-53.
118.
BraschJ, UterW, GeierJ, et al.Associated positive patch test reactions to standard contact allergens. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12:197-202.
119.
KaniwaM-A, IsamaK, NakamuraA, et al.Identification of causative chemicals of allergic contact dermatitis using a combination of patch testing in patients and chemical analysis: application to cases from rubber footwear. Contact Dermatitis, 1994; 30:26-34.
120.
KaniwaM-A, IsamaK, NakamuraA, et al.Identification of causative chemicals of allergic contact dermatitis using a combination of patch testing in patients and chemical analysis: application to cases from industrial rubber products. Contact Dermatitis, 1994; 30:20-5.
121.
KaniwaM-A, IsamaK, NakamuraA, et al.A method for identifying causative chemicals of allergic contact dermatitis using a combination of chemical analysis and patch testing in patients and animal groups: application to a case of rubber boot dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 1992; 27:166-73.
122.
JungJH, McLaughlinJL, StannardJ, et al.Isolation, via activity-directed fractionation, of mercaptobenzothiazole and dibenzothiazyl disulfide as 2 allergens responsible for tennis shoe dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 19:254-9.
123.
KaniwaM-A, IkarashiY, KojimaS, et al.Chemical approach to contact dermatitis caused by household products. IV. Analysis of mercaptobenzothiazole-type accelerators in commercial rubber products and incidence of positive reactions in patch testing. Eisei Kagaku, 1987; 33:140-8.
124.
Practical aspects of patch testing. In: RietschelRL, FowlerJF, editors. Fisher's contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 9-25.
MitchellJC.Patch testing with mixes: note on the mercaptobenzothiazole mix. Contact Dermatitis, 1981; 7:98-104.
127.
EpsteinE.Simplified patch test screening with mixtures. Arch Dermatol, 1967; 95:269-74.
128.
MitchellJC, CledenningWE, CroninE, et al.Patch testing with mercaptobenzothiazole and mercapto-mix. Contact Dermatitis, 1976; 2:123-4.
129.
LyndeCW, MitchellJC, AdamsRM, et al.Patch testing with mercaptobenzothiazole and mercapto-mixes. Contact Dermatitis, 1982; 8:273-4.
130.
GeierJ, GefellerO. Sensitivity of patch tests with rubber mixes: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology from 1990 to 1993. Am J Contact Dermat, 1995; 6:143-9.
131.
GeierJ, UterW, SchnuchA, et al.Diagnostic screening for contact allergy to mercaptobenzothiazole derivatives. Am J Contact Dermat, 2002; 13:66-70.
132.
FregertS, SkogE. Allergic contact dermatitis from mercaptobenzothiazole in cutting oil. Acta Derm Venereol, 1962; 42:235-8.
133.
FisherAA.Condom dermatitis in either partner. Cutis, 1987; 39:281-5.
134.
JordanWP.24-, 48-, and 48/48-hour patch tests. Contact Dermatitis, 1980; 6:151-2.
135.
SharmaVK, SethuramanG, GargT, et al.Patch testing with the Indian standard series in New Delhi. Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 51:319-21.
136.
SharmaVK, ChakrabartiA. Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India: a study of 200 patients with the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 38:127-31.
137.
SchnuchA, GeierJ, UterW, et al.National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 37:200-9.
138.
Al-SheikhOA, El-RabMOG. Allergic contact dermatitis: clinical features and profile of sensitizing allergens in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Int J Dermatol, 1996; 35:493-7.
139.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard tray patch test results (1992 to 1994). Am J Contact Dermat, 1995; 6:160-5.
140.
WangXM, LinWF, ChengXF, et al.Patch testing with the European standard series in Shanghai. Contact Dermatitis, 1994; 30:173-4.
141.
LimJTE, GohCL, NgSK, et al.Changing trends in the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis, 1992; 26:321-6.
142.
FanWX, ZhaoB. Study on Chinese common allergens of contact dermatitis. Dermatosen, 1990; 38:158-61.
143.
HoganDJ, HillM, LanePR. Results of routine patch testing of 542 patients in Saskatoon, Canada. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 19:120-4.
144.
LammintaustaK, KalimoK. Sensitivity to rubber: study with rubber mixes and individual rubber chemicals. Dermatosen, 1985; 33:204-8.
145.
HiaranoS, YoshikawaK. Patch testing with European and American standard allergens in Japanese patients. Contact Dermatitis, 1982; 8:48-50.
146.
HammershoyO.Standard patch test results in 3,225 consecutive Danish patients from 1973 to 1977. Contact Dermatitis, 1980; 6:263-8.
147.
CamarasaJMG.First epidemiological study of contact dermatitis in Spain-1977. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl, 1979; 59:33-7.
148.
SongM, DegreefH, De MaubeugeJ, et al.Contact sensitivity to rubber additives in Belgium. Dermatologica, 1979; 158:163-7.
149.
DeguchiM, TagamiH. Contact dermatitis of the ear due to a rubber earplug. Dermatology, 1996; 193:251-2.
150.
CorazzaM, MaraniniC, VenturiniD, et al.Contact allergy to mercaptobenzothiazole in a bank clerk from a wet sponge. Contact Dermatitis, 1999; 41:105-6.
151.
EllisonJM, KapurN, YuRC, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis from rubber bands in 3 postalworkers. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49:311-2.
152.
KirtonV, WilkinsonDS. Rubber band dermatitis in post office sorters. Contact Dermat Newsletter, 1972; 11:257-60.
FisherAA.Condom conundrums: Part II. Cutis, 1991; 48:433-4.
155.
FisherAA.Allergic reactions to contraceptives. Cutis, 1974; 13:337-8.
156.
WilsonHTH.Rubber-glove dermatitis. Br Med J, 1960; 2:21-3.
157.
WilsonHTH.Rubber dermatitis: an investigation of 106 cases of contact dermatitis caused by rubber. Br J Dermatol, 1969; 81:175-9.
158.
ErikssonG, ÖstlundE. Rubber bank note counters as the cause of the eczema among employees at the Swedish post giro office. Acta Derm Venereol, 1968; 48:212-4.
159.
FisherAA.Allergic reactions to nonrubber products by testing with rubber mixes. Part II: The mercapto mix. Cutis, 1995; 56:197.
160.
Kiéc-SwierczynskaM, KreciszB, SzulcB. An unusual case of contact allergy to mercaptobenzothiazole in antifreeze. Contact Dermatitis, 1999; 41:303-4.
161.
FisherAA.Dermatitis due to mercaptobenzothiazole in veterinary medication. Cutis, 1975; 16:21, 27.
162.
AdamsRM.Mercaptobenzothiazole in veterinary medications. Contact Dermatitis Newsletter, 1974; 16:514.
163.
RudzkiE, NapioórkowskaT, Czerwińska-DihmI. Dermatitis from 2-mercaptobenzothiazole in photographic films. Contact Dermatitis, 1981; 7:43.
