Literature DB >> 24731086

Concentrations and stability of methyl methacrylate, glutaraldehyde, formaldehyde and nickel sulfate in commercial patch test allergen preparations.

Paul D Siegel1, Joseph F Fowler, Brandon F Law, Erin M Warshaw, James S Taylor.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Epicutaneous patch tests are used to reproduce allergy and diagnose allergic contact dermatitis. Reliable allergen test preparations are required.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to measure the actual concentrations of nickel(II) sulfate hexahydrate (NiSO4 ), methyl methacrylate, formaldehyde, and glutaraldehyde, and to compare them with the labelled concentrations, in commercial patch test allergen preparations found in dermatology clinics where patch testing is routinely performed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The commercial in-date and out-of-date patch test allergen preparations concentrations of NiSO4 , methyl methacrylate, formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde from one to three participating clinics were analysed with chromatographic or wet chemical techniques.
RESULTS: NiSO4 and formaldehyde concentrations were at or above the labelled concentrations; however, formaldehyde loss occurred with storage. NiSO4 particulate was uniformly distributed throughout the petrolatum. 'In-use' methyl methacrylate reagent syringes all contained ≤ 56% of the 2% label concentration, with no observable relationship with expiration date. Lower methyl methacrylate cocentrations were consistently measured at the syringe tip end, suggesting loss resulting from methyl methacrylate's volatility. The concentrations of glutaraldehyde patch test allergen preparations ranged from 27% to 45% of the labelled (1% in pet.) concentration, independently of expiration date.
CONCLUSIONS: Some false-negative methyl methacrylate, formaldehyde or glutaraldehyde patch test results may be attributable to instability of the test preparations.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  concentration and stability; formaldehyde; glutaraldehyde; methyl methacrylate; nickel sulfate; patch test allergens

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24731086      PMCID: PMC4629838          DOI: 10.1111/cod.12169

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contact Dermatitis        ISSN: 0105-1873            Impact factor:   6.600


  16 in total

1.  Poor correlation between stated and found concentrations of diphenylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate (4,4'-MDI) in petrolatum patch-test preparations.

Authors:  Malin Frick; Erik Zimerson; Daniel Karlsson; Asa Marand; Gunnar Skarping; Marléne Isaksson; Magnus Bruze
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 6.600

2.  Glutaraldehyde: patch test, vehicle and concentration.

Authors:  E M Hansen; T Menné
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 6.600

3.  Stability of patch test preparations of methyldibromo glutaronitrile in petrolatum.

Authors:  Birgitta Gruvberger; Margareta Bjerkemo; Magnus Bruze
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.600

4.  Is it possible to improve the patch-test diagnostics for isocyanates? A stability study of petrolatum preparations of diphenylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate and polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate.

Authors:  Malin Frick-Engfeldt; Erik Zimerson; Daniel Karlsson; Gunnar Skarping; Marléne Isaksson; Magnus Bruze
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 6.600

Review 5.  Glutaraldehyde: behavior in aqueous solution, reaction with proteins, and application to enzyme crosslinking.

Authors:  Isabelle Migneault; Catherine Dartiguenave; Michel J Bertrand; Karen C Waldron
Journal:  Biotechniques       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 1.993

6.  Are contact allergens stable in patch test preparations? Investigation of the degradation of d-limonene hydroperoxides in petrolatum.

Authors:  U Nilsson; K Magnusson; O Karlberg; A T Karlberg
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 6.600

7.  Comparison of reactivity to allergens using the TRUE Test and IQ chamber system.

Authors:  Aneta Lazarov; Michael David; David Abraham; Akiva Trattner
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.600

8.  Nickel allergy and atopy. Threshold of nickel sensitivity and immunoglobulin E determinations.

Authors:  J E Wahlberg; E Skog
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  1971-08       Impact factor: 9.302

9.  How to optimize patch testing with diphenylmethane diisocyanate.

Authors:  Malin Frick-Engfeldt; Marléne Isaksson; Erik Zimerson; Magnus Bruze
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 6.600

10.  Stability of the mercaptobenzothiazole compounds.

Authors:  C Hansson; G Agrup
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 6.600

View more
  3 in total

1.  Chemical Identification and Confirmation of Contact Allergens.

Authors:  Paul D Siegel; Brandon F Law; Erin M Warshaw
Journal:  Dermatitis       Date:  2020 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 4.845

Review 2.  Laboratory Techniques for Identifying Causes of Allergic Dermatitis.

Authors:  Itai Chipinda; Stacey E Anderson; Paul D Siegel
Journal:  Immunol Allergy Clin North Am       Date:  2021-06-05       Impact factor: 3.479

3.  Vapor Pressure and Predicted Stability of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergens.

Authors:  Paul C Jou; Paul D Siegel; Erin M Warshaw
Journal:  Dermatitis       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.845

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.