Laura Malinauskiene

Are allergenic disperse dyes used for dyeing textiles

Background. There are no data showing that disperse dyes, used to patch test patients, are currently being used for dyeing synthetic garments. It is unknown whether disperse dyes, which are currently routinely patch tested, are in fact present in synthetic textiles on the market.

Sensitizing capacity of Disperse Orange 1 and its potential metabolites from azo reduction and their cross-reactivity pattern.

Simultaneous contact allergies to Disperse Orange 1, 4‐nitroaniline and p‐aminodiphenylamine (PADPA), as well as to other disperse azo dyes and to p‐phenylenediamine (PPD), have been reported. Cross‐reactivity is one of the possible explanations for simultaneous reactions between PPD and disperse azo dyes. Some metabolites from the azo reduction of these disperse azo dyes could be sensitizers, as human skin bacteria produce azo reductases.

Textile Dyes Disperse Orange 1 and Yellow 3 Contain More Than One Allergen As Shown by Patch Testing with Thin-Layer Chromatograms

Background: It is known that some patch‐test preparations containing disperse dyes contain impurities with unknown relevance for the development or elicitation of contact allergy. Objective: To evaluate the significance of the impurities found in the commercial dyes Disperse Orange 1 (DO1) and Disperse Yellow 3 (DY3) regarding contact allergy in patients with known sensitivity to them. Methods: Ten patients allergic to DY3 and/or DO1 were tested with a dilution series of commercial and purified DY3 and DO1 (with water‐soluble parts prepared from the commercial dyes) and with naphthalene sulfonate. Nine patients were additionally tested with thin‐layer chromatograms (TLCs) made from the commercial DO1 and DY3 and with paper chromatograms made from the water‐soluble part of these dyes. Results: Eight of nine and three of six patients tested positively to the TLCs of DO1 and DY3, respectively. Among them, 4 of 8 and 2 of 3 patients, respectively, were positive also to another spot on the TLCs. One patient was positive to the paper chromatogram from the water‐soluble part of DO1. None of the tested patients reacted to naphthalene sulfonate. Conclusion: The results of our study suggest that there are more relevant allergens in the fat‐soluble and water‐soluble fractions of the commercial disperse dyes.

Patch testing with the textile dyes Disperse Orange 1 and Disperse Yellow 3 and some of their potential metabolites, and simultaneous reactions to para-amino compounds

Background. It is known that, in vitro, human skin bacteria are able to split disperse azo dyes into the corresponding aromatic amines, some of which are sensitizers in the local lymph node assay. We hypothesize that the molecules of disperse dyes migrate onto the skin while garments are worn, and are metabolized and degraded by commensal skin bacteria. These molecules penetrate the skin and induce sensitization.

Late patch test reaction to Disperse Orange 1 not related to active sensitization

One of the most important adverse consequences of patch testing is active sensitization, when subjects previously not allergic become sensitized to one or more of the test chemicals by the test procedure. The allergic test reaction then shows up about 10 or more days (late reaction) after the test application. Sometimes, however, late reactions are seen without active sensitization being present, as some allergens are known to give late reactions in the absence of active sensitization. Here, we describe a female patient shown to be allergic to Disperse Orange 1 from previous patch testing, who was only positive at patch test readings on D7 on the first test occasion and on D14 when patch tested repeatedly.

Formaldehyde may be found in cosmetic products even when unlabelled

Abstract Concomitant contact allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers remains common among patients with allergic contact dermatitis. Concentration of free formaldehyde in cosmetic products within allowed limits have been shown to induce dermatitis from shortterm use on normal skin. The aim of this study was to investigate the formaldehyde content of cosmetic products made in Lithuania. 42 samples were analysed with the chromotropic acid (CA) method for semi-quantitative formaldehyde determination. These included 24 leave-on (e.g., creams, lotions) and 18 rinse-off (e.g., shampoos, soaps) products. Formaldehyde releasers were declared on the labels of 10 products. No formaldehyde releaser was declared on the label of the only face cream investigated, but levels of free formaldehyde with the CA method was >40 mg/ml and when analysed with a high-performance liquid chromatographic method – 532 ppm. According to the EU Cosmetic directive, if the concentration of formaldehyde is above 0.05% a cosmetic product must be labelled “contains formaldehyde“. It could be difficult for patients allergic to formaldehyde to avoid contact with products containing it as its presence cannot be determined from the ingredient labelling with certainty. The CA method is a simple and reliable method for detecting formaldehyde presence in cosmetic products.

Protein Contact Dermatitis Caused by Allergy to Chapatti Flour

© 2013 The Authors. doi: 10.2340/00015555-1365 Journal Compilation

Patch testing with the Swedish baseline series supplemented with a textile dye mix and gold in Vilnius, Lithuania and Malmö, Sweden

Lithuania and southern Sweden are close neighbours, being separated only by the Baltic Sea; however, patch testing has a longer tradition in Sweden than in Lithuania. This study was aimed at examining contact allergy prevalences at a Lithuanian Allergy clinic and comparing these with those in a Swedish centre, patch testing being performed during the same time period with the Swedish baseline patch test series, supplemented with gold sodium thiosulfate 2.0% pet. and textile dye mix (TDM) 6.6% pet., consisting of eight disperse dyes (DDs).