Premium
Occupational allergic contact dermatitis to HBTU [( o ‐benzotriazole‐10yl)‐ N,N,N ′, N ,‐tetramethyluronium hexafluorophosphate]
Author(s) -
McAleer Maeve A.,
Bourke Breeda,
Bourke Johnny
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
contact dermatitis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1600-0536
pISSN - 0105-1873
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2009.01685.x
Subject(s) - medicine , dermatology , allergic contact dermatitis , contact dermatitis , cork , allergy , chemistry , biochemistry , immunology
∗All three authors were involved in the diagnosis and management of the case described and in writing of the paper. had never been formally tested. She had no other dermatological history or history of atopy. The patient had worked for 14 years in a company that provided technical support for product and process development of foods. Her job involved contact with solvents and peptides. She did not wear gloves until after she developed the dermatitis, and then she used nitrile gloves. On examination, she had dermatitis involving the dorsum of the hands and the eyelids. Patch testing was carried out with the British Contact Dermatitis Society baseline series (Chemotechnique DiagnosticsTM, Vellinge, Sweden), rubber series, HBTU 0.01%, 0.1% and 1% in pet., piperidine 1% in pet., and nitrile gloves ‘as is’. Allergens were applied using Finn chambers® on Scanpor® (Epitest Ltd Oy, Tuusula, Finland). Patches remained in place for 2 days and readings were carried out at 2 and 4 days. Readings were carried out according to the ICDRG criteria (5). Positive reactions were observed at 2 and 4 days to colophonium 20% and HBTU 1% (+D2, +D4). Ten control individuals were subsequently patch tested with 1% HBTU in pet., with no reactions observed.