Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (lyral) in patch test preparations under varied storage conditions

Laboratory Techniques for Identifying Causes of Allergic Dermatitis

This article reviews the laboratory's role in identifying causes of chemical-induced allergic dermatitis. Several topics will be discussed. Allergen hazard identification refers to testing of chemicals for their sensitization potential. Animal-based, in silico, in chemico, and in vitro tests have been developed to identify the skin sensitization hazard of potential chemical allergens, but only a few of these are accepted by regulatory agencies. Laboratory investigations have also evaluated the stability of several commercially available allergic contact dermatitis patch tests. Such studies are considered product testing and are usually conducted in analytical chemistry laboratories.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Fragrances

Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrance is common. The prevalence of fragrance allergy in the general population is between 0.7% and 2.6%. In patch-test populations, the positive reaction rate to fragrances ranges from 5% to 11%. The most common fragrance screeners in most baseline series include fragrance mix 1, fragrance mix 2, and Balsam of Peru. The addition of hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, hydroperoxides of limonene, and hydroperoxides of linalool to screening series can further aid in the diagnosis of fragrance allergy. In the proper clinical setting, supplemental patch testing with an additional fragrance or essential oil series should be considered.

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

BACKGROUND

Accurate patch testing is reliant on proper preparation of patch test allergens. The stability of patch test allergens is dependent on several factors including vapor pressure (VP).

OBJECTIVE

This investigation reviews the VP of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergens and compares stability predictions based on VP with those established through clinical testing.

METHODS

Standard references were accessed for determining VP in millimeters of mercury and associated temperature in degrees celsius. If multiple values were listed, VP at temperatures that most approximate indoor storage conditions (20°C and 25°C) were chosen. For mixes, the individual component with the highest VP was chosen as the overall VP, assuming that the most volatile substance would evaporate first. Antigens were grouped into low (≤0.001 mm Hg), moderate (<1 to >0.001 mm Hg), and high (≥1 mm Hg) volatility using arbitrary cutoff values.

CONCLUSIONS

This review is consistent with previously reported data on formaldehyde, acrylates, and fragrance material instability. Given lack of testing data, VP can be useful in predicting patch test compound stability. Measures such as air-tight multidose reagent containers, sealed single-application dispensers, preparation of patches immediately before application, and storage at lower temperatures may remedy some of these issues.