4.5 Article

p-Phenylenediamine exposure in real life-a case-control study on sensitization rate, mode and elicitation reactions in the northern Netherlands

期刊

CONTACT DERMATITIS
卷 72, 期 6, 页码 355-361

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cod.12354

关键词

allergic contact dermatitis; black henna tattoo; contact allergy; hair dye; hairdresser; patch tests; p-phenylenediamine; prevalence

资金

  1. RIFM (Research Institute of Fragrance Materials, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe prevalence of p-phenylenediamine (PPD) sensitization is 4% in the patch tested population and varies between zero and 1.5% in the general population. Hair dye is a recognised sensitization source. ObjectivesTo define the prevalence rates of PPD sensitization in the general and patch tested populations of The Netherlands, and to gain insights into relationships between patch test strength and exposure sources. MethodsPatch test database cases were matched with population-based controls. Analyses were performed based on demographic details, patch test reactions, and potential PPD exposure. ResultsPPD sensitization occurred in 3.3% of the patch tested population and in 1.3% of the general population. Hairdressers had a 4.4-fold increased chance of being sensitized to PPD (p=0.041), and black henna tattoos showed a tendency for a 2.3-fold increased chance of sensitization (p=0.081). Weak elicitation reactions were present in hairdressers and consumers. However, cases who had had black henna tattoos showed significantly more (extremely) strong patch test reactions upon elicitation (p=0.015). ConclusionsThe prevalence rates in the patch tested and general population of The Netherlands are comparable with the prevalence rates of other mid-European centres. PPD sensitization is often attributed to hair dye. However, this study shows that subjects sensitized by black henna tattoos present with very severe elicitation reactions, emphasizing the need for more strict policing the prohibition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据