Notes: Based on the information of the interdisciplinary task force on allergy diagnostics in the metal branch, in 2001, the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG) compiled two metalworking fluid (MWF) test series with currently and previously used components, respectively. After 2 years of patch testing, we present results obtained with these series, based on data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). 251 metalworkers who were patch tested because of suspected MWF dermatitis in 2002 and 2003 were included in this retrospective data analysis. Of these, 206 were tested with the current MWF series and 155 with the historical MWF series. Among the current MWF allergens, monoethanolamine ranked 1st with 11.6% positive reactions. Diethanolamine (3.0%), triethanolamine (1.1%), and diglycolamine (1.9%) elicited positive reactions far less frequently. Allergic reactions to p-aminoazobenzene were frequently observed (6.0%), but the relevance of these reactions is still obscure. Positive reactions to biocides ranged from 4.5% for Bioban® CS 1135 to 0.5% for iodopropynyl butylcarbamate and 2-phenoxyethanol. Concomitant reactions to formaldehyde, which caused positive reactions in 3.3%, and formaldehyde releasers occurred to varying extents without conclusive pattern. No positive reactions were seen to dibutyl phthalate, di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, tricresyl phosphate, isopropyl myristate or benzotriazole. With the historical MWF test series, positive reactions to methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) were observed most frequently. However, sensitization via allergen sources other than MWF seems likely, as MDBGN, during the study period, has been one of the most frequent preservative allergens in cosmetics and body care products. Other historical MWF allergens comprised morpholinyl mercaptobenzothiazole (3.3%), benzisothiazolinone (BIT; 2.0%) and Bioban® P 1487(1.3%). BIT is currently used in MWF again, so it was shifted to the current MWF test series. As decreasing reaction frequencies to former MWF allergens that are no longer used can be expected, the historical series should be re-evaluated after some years. The test series with current MWF allergens has to be kept up-to-date based on information from industry and to be kept concise by eliminating test substances which never cause positive reactions.

Notes: Objectives:  The strip patch test (SPT), proposed by Spier and Sixt (Hautarzt 1955;6:152–9), is a modification of the patch test (PT). This technique is used to enhance penetration through the stratum corneum for poorly penetrating substances such as medicaments. So far, a standardised procedure is lacking. This multicentre study aims at standardising the SPT procedure.Methods:  A total of 83 healthy volunteers participated. In each subject, we determined the number of strips (A) until the surface became glistening and then calculated the median number of strips in the sample (Ā = 26). We ascertained the median number of strips in the sample (ā = 11) that was necessary to achieve a first statistically significant and medically relevant increase of the TEWL revealing a critical stratum corneum strip depth. For the finally calculated number of strips for each subject (a/A = (ā/Ā)⇔a = A × (ā/Ā)), the actual increase in test sensitivity was substantiated employing SLS 0.125% aqueous.Standardisation results:  Perform stripping at one upper part of the back until the surface becomes glistening: gently press a 25 mm diameter adhesive tape downward vertically for about 2 seconds and then remove it in one quick movement at the angle in direction of adherence; continue stripping with a new tape cut on exactly the same skin area. Multiply number of strips by the correction factor (cf = ā/Ā = 11/26 = 0.4). Perform calculated number of strips likewise on the contralateral site and then apply there the test preparation for 24 hours.Conclusions:  If clinically an allergic contact dermatitis is expected but PT is negative, the SPT might reveal the potential allergen.

Notes: Epoxy resin systems (ERSs) are a frequent cause of occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Sensitization occurs not only to the resins, but also to hardeners and reactive diluents. However, only a fraction of the ERS components currently in use are available for patch testing. With the multicentre study EPOX 2002, we attempted to improve diagnostics in this field by patch testing with components currently used in ERSs. During the first study period (October 2002 to July 2003), in addition to commercially available ERS patch test substances, 16 study substances (1 resin, 9 hardeners and 6 reactive diluents) were patch tested in 70 patients with suspected contact allergy due to ERSs and 22 patients with a prior positive patch test reaction to epoxy resin (ER) in the standard series. Most frequently, allergic reactions to ER based on diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A and F were observed (55.2% and 43.7%, respectively). Agreement between positive reactions to both resins, which can be explained by immunological cross-sensitization and/or coexposure, was substantial [Cohen's kappa 0.65 (95% CI: 0.49–0.80)]. Among the reactive diluents, 1,6-hexanediol diglycidyl ether (1,6-HDDGE) and 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether (1,4-BDDGE) were the most frequent allergens, with 19.5% and 18.4% positive reactions, respectively. Although agreement between positive reactions to 1,6-HDDGE and 1,4-BDDGE was even better than with the 2 resins, the sample size is considered too small to decide reliably whether 1,6-HDDGE alone could serve as a marker allergen for both. Allergic reactions to p-tert-butylphenyl glycidyl ether and to phenyl glycidyl ether (PGE) occurred in 11.5% of the patients tested, with only moderate agreement. All patients positive to cresyl glycidyl ether (6.8%) also reacted to PGE. Of the hardeners tested, m-xylylene diamine was the most frequent allergen (13.8%), followed by isophorone diamine (5.7%). No reactions were observed to several substances, the test concentration of which may have been too low and will be increased in the future.