Ritsuko Hayakawa

Results of patch testing with lavender oil in Japan

We report the annual results of patch testing with lavender oil for a 9‐year period from 1990 to 1998 in Japan. Using Finn Chambers and Scanpor tape, we performed 2‐day closed patch testing with lavender oil 20% pet. on the upper back of each patient suspected of having cosmetic contact dermatitis. We compared the frequency of positive patch tests to lavender oil each year with those to other fragrances. We diagnosed contact allergy when patch test reactions were + or <+ at 1 day after removal. The positivity rate of lavender oil was 3.7% (0–13.9%) during the 9‐year period from 1990 to 1998. The positivity rate of lavender oil increased suddenly in 1997. Recently, in Japan, there has been a trend for aromatherapy using lavender oil. With this trend, placing dried lavender flowers in pillows, drawers, cabinets, or rooms has become a new fashion. We asked patients who showed a positive reaction to lavender oil about their use of dried lavender flowers. We confirmed the use of dried lavender flowers in 5 cases out of 11 positive cases in 1997 and 8 out of 15 positive cases in 1998. We concluded that the increase in patch test positivity rates to lavender oil in 1997 and 1998 was due to the above fashion, rather than due to fragrances in cosmetic products.

2-Ethyl-1-hexanol in Indoor Air as a Possible Cause of Sick Building Symptoms.

Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya City Public Health Research Institute, Department of Medical Technology, Nagoya University School of Health Sciences, Department of Environmental Dermatology, Nagoya University School of Medicine, Second Department of Internal Medicine, Nagoya University School of Medicine and Research Center for Radiation Emergency Medicine, National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Japan

Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in beauticians

We patch tested 13 beauticians with hand dermatitis between 1982 and 1986. They were all young female novice beauticians or those in training. The onset of their allergic dermatitis was noticed within 1 month to 1 year of their starting this occupation. Definite positive reactions to products were seen from hair dyes (as is, open test) (6/12), cold permanent wave primary solutions (as is, open test) (7/13) and a shampoo (1% aq., closed test) (1/13). Positive reactions to allergens were seen with para‐phenylenediamine (1% pet) (12/13), ammonium thioglycolate (5% aq., open test) (3/7), para‐toluylenediamine (1% pet) (7/9), para‐aminophenol (1% pet) (1/4), ortho‐aminophenol (1% pet) (1/4), Quinoline yellow SS (0.5% pet) (1/4), nickel sulfate (2.5% pet) (1/12), cobalt sulfate (2.3% pet) (1/12), thimerosal (0.05% pet) (1/12) and procaine hydrochloride (1% pet) (1/12). Study of the prognosis showed that 5 out of 12 cases could continue their occupation, but 4 cases had persistent hand dermatitis despite protecting their hands from hair dyes with gloves, 7 cases quitted their jobs, and in 5 their hands healed while 2 cases continued to have atopic hand dermatitis. A personal or family history of atopy was frequent among the cases, so we recommend that those who have such a history should not become beauticians.

Airborne pigmented contact dermatitis due to musk ambrette in incense

We reported 2 patients with pigmented contact dermatitis caused by occupational airborne contactants, whitening dyes in clothes and formaldehyde in packing adhesive tapes. A woman developed airborne pigmented contact dermatitis due to musk ambrette in incense. Patch testing confirmed the diagnosis. Since olden times, people in Japan have burnt incense when they worshipped their ancestors. Recently, it has been in fashion to enjoy perfumes and people may burn incense all day long every day. Our patient burnt 2 kinds of incense every day for about 5 years. We assumed musk ambrette was volatilized when incense was burnt, and contact on her face being dissolved in sebum, thus inducing allergic pigmented contact dermatitis.

Experimental study on phototoxicity and the photosensitization potential of ketoprofen, suprofen, tiaprofenic acid and benzophenone and the photocross‐reactivity in guinea pigs

Background: Ketoprofen, suprofen and tiaprofenic acid are arylpropionic anti‐inflammatories. Their chemical structures share the same elements as the benzoyl radical and the tiophene ring. We experienced nine cases of ketoprofen photoallergy, seven cases of suprofen photoallergy and three cases of tiaprofenic photoallergy.

Experimental study on skin sensitization potencies and cross‐reactivities of hair‐dye‐related chemicals in guinea pigs

In screening patch testing of hairdressers with occupational contact dermatitis, multiple positive reactions to hair dye‐related chemicals, such as p‐phenylenediamine (PPD), p‐toluenediamine ·  2HCI (PTD) and p‐aminophenol (PAP), a fabric dye p‐aminoazobenzene (PAB), and a tar dye Sudan III, were frequently encountered. To investigate individual skin sensitization potency and the cross‐reactivities among above chemicals, a guinea pig maximization test with the above 5 chemicals was performed. In each group, 6 animals were induced with one of the chemicals at 0.1% concentration by intradermal injection and at 1.0% by topical application. The animals were challenged with all 5 chemicals in concentrations of dilution by 10 from 0.1% to 0.001%. Under the conditions of 0.1% challenges, similar sensitization potencies were observed in PPD (6/6), PTD (6/6), PAP (5/6) and PAB (6/6) groups, but no positive reactions were elicited in the Sudan III group. The cross‐reactivities to PPD were confirmed in the animals challenged with PTD (6/6), PAP (6/6), PAB (6/6) and Sudan III (3/6). In the PTD‐induced group, positive responses to cross‐challenges were elicited by PPD (5/6), PAP (3/6), PAB (5/6) and Sudan III (1/6). The cross‐reactivities to PAP were observed only with PPD (2/5) and PAB (5/5). PAB‐induced animals responded only to PPD (1/6). The results indicate that all these chemicals except Sudan III are strong sensitizers. Their cross‐reactivities are different in sensitized conditions, respectively. The cross‐reactivities to PPD were higher than those to PTD, PAP and PAB.

A case of contact urticaria syndrome due todi(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate (DOP) in work clothes

We previously reported a case of contact urticaria syndrome (CUS) due to di(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate (DOP) in a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) grip on cotton gloves. The patient reported in this previous paper was careful not to have any contact with PVC products in his daily life or in his working environment. He discontinued the use of protective gloves with a PVC grip that was the cause of CUS. When working, he used cotton gloves without a PVC grip. We prescribed antihistamines which slightly improved his condition. However, when he wore work clothes while on duty, CUS relapsed. This condition was severe and made him feel anxious. When we advised him to wear a cotton shirt under his work clothes, the contact urticaria did not develop. We suspected that some component of the work clothes was the cause of his symptoms. A prick test with the extract solution of his work clothes showed a wheal and flare at the 15 min reading. The common component of the grip and the work clothes was found by analysis to be DOP.

Is sesamaol present in sesame oil

Sesame oil has been reported to contain sesamolin, sesamin and sesamol as contact allergens. A female patient had chelitis due to sesame oil in a lipstick. She reacted to sesamolin and sesamin, but not to sesamol. We earned mil analysis of the sesame oil by high performance liquid chromatography. We detected sesamolin and sesamin but not sesamol in sesame oil.

Contact urticaria due to polyethylene gloves

We report a rare case of contact urticaria due to polyethylene gloves. The patient, a 46‐year‐old cook, had had had chronic urticaria since 1985, and first visited our hospital in June 2000. We began by prescribing antihistamine and antiallergenic drugs for him, but his condition did not improve. From a detailed interview, we established that when he put on polyethylene gloves at work, his condition worsened. We suspected some component of his gloves to be the cause of his symptoms. Prick and scratch tests with a solution extracted from his gloves showed a wheal‐and‐flare reaction at 15 min. We advised him to wear a cotton shirt under his clothes in daily life, and to put on cotton gloves under his polyethylene gloves while at work. Subsequently, the size and the number of wheals were markedly smaller and the subjects symptoms were reduced.

Tinuvin® P in a spandex tape as a cause of clothing dermatitis

We report a 54‐year‐old female with allergic Contact dermatitis from 2‐(2‐hydroxy‐5‐methytphenyl) benzotriazole (Tinuvin® P) in a spandex tape sewn into underwear. Tinuvin® P is used us an ultraviolet light absorber for stabilizing plastics and the other organic materials against discoloration and deterioration. It is effective in protecting synthetic and natural fibers, polyesters, chlorinated polyesters, polyvinyls, cellulose acetate, ethyl cellulose, acrylates, dyes, waxes, detergents, cosmetic formulations, etc. Our patient developed itchy erythema on her shoulders, chest and upper back after wearing underwear for I night. She showed positive reactions to spandex tape sewn into the underwear. She also reacted to 2‐(2‐hydroxy‐5‐meihylphenyl)benzotriazole (Tinuvin P), which was contained in the spandex. No cross‐reaction to other benzotriazoles was seen.