Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Occupational and Environmental Medicine logoLink to Occupational and Environmental Medicine
. 1994 Jun;51(6):371–380. doi: 10.1136/oem.51.6.371

A study of chromium induced allergic contact dermatitis with 54 volunteers: implications for environmental risk assessment.

J Nethercott 1, D Paustenbach 1, R Adams 1, J Fowler 1, J Marks 1, C Morton 1, J Taylor 1, S Horowitz 1, B Finley 1
PMCID: PMC1127992  PMID: 8044228

Abstract

Over the past 60 years, dose-response patch test studies by various methods have been conducted in an attempt to identify the minimum elicitation threshold (MET) concentration of hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) that produces an allergic response in Cr(VI) sensitive subjects. These data are not adequate, however, to provide an accurate estimate of the MET because of the variability in the patch testing techniques and the variability in diagnostic criteria used. Furthermore, the data were not reported in terms of mass of allergen per surface area of skin (mg Cr/cm2-skin), which is necessary for conducting occupational or environmental health risk assessments. Thus the purpose of this study was to determine the MET (mg allergen/cm2) for Cr(VI) and trivalent chromium (Cr(III)) by patch testing techniques. A patch test method that delivers a controlled amount of allergen per surface area of skin was used. A group of 54 Cr(VI) sensitised volunteers were patch tested with serial dilutions of Cr(VI) and Cr(III) to determine the cumulative response rate at several concentrations. The results indicate that the 10% MET for Cr(VI) based on the cumulative response was 0.089 micrograms Cr(VI)/cm2-skin. Only one of the 54 volunteers may have responded to 33 micrograms Cr(III)/cm2-skin, otherwise Cr(III) was unable to produce allergic contact dermatitis in these highly sensitive volunteers. Two supplemental studies were also conducted to assess whether the surface area of the patch and the concentration of Cr(VI) in the patch (related to patch thickness) were likely to influence the results. The data from these studies were used to assess the risk of developing allergic contact dermatitis due to contact with Cr(VI) and Cr(III) in soil. The findings indicated that soil concentrations at least as high as 450 ppm Cr(VI) and 165,000 ppm Cr(III) should not pose an allergic contact dermatitis hazard for at least 99.99% of the people in the community who might be exposed.

Full text

PDF
371

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bagdon R. E., Hazen R. E. Skin permeation and cutaneous hypersensitivity as a basis for making risk assessments of chromium as a soil contaminant. Environ Health Perspect. 1991 May;92:111–119. doi: 10.1289/ehp.92-1519389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bruynzeel D. P., van Ketel W. G., von Blomberg-van der Flier M., Scheper R. J. Angry back or the excited skin syndrome. A prospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1983 Mar;8(3):392–397. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(83)70044-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Burrows D., Calnan C. D. Cement dermatitis. II. Clinical aspects. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc. 1965;51(1):27–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. FREGERT S., RORSMAN H. ALLERGY TO TRIVALENT CHROMIUM. Arch Dermatol. 1964 Jul;90:4–6. doi: 10.1001/archderm.1964.01600010010003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fischer T., Maibach H. I. Easier patch testing with TRUE Test. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Mar;20(3):447–453. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70056-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fischer T., Maibach H. Amount of nickel applied with a standard patch test. Contact Dermatitis. 1984 Nov;11(5):285–287. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1984.tb01011.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. GEISER J. D., JEANNERET J. P., DELACRETAZ J. [Eczema due to cement and sensitization to cobalt]. Dermatologica. 1960 Jul-Sep;121:1–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gammelgaard B., Fullerton A., Avnstorp C., Menné T. Permeation of chromium salts through human skin in vitro. Contact Dermatitis. 1992 Nov;27(5):302–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb03284.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hjorth N. Contact dermatitis in children. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 1981;95:36–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Horowitz S. B., Finley B. L. Setting health-protective soil concentrations for dermal contact allergens: a proposed methodology. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1994 Feb;19(1):31–47. doi: 10.1006/rtph.1994.1003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Horowitz S. B., Finley B. L. Using human sweat to extract chromium from chromite ore processing residue: applications to setting health-based cleanup levels. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1993 Dec;40(4):585–599. doi: 10.1080/15287399309531820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hostynek J. J., Maibach H. I. Chromium in US household bleach. Contact Dermatitis. 1988 Apr;18(4):206–209. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1988.tb02804.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kligman A. M. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. 3. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol. 1966 Nov;47(5):393–409. doi: 10.1038/jid.1966.160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. LEVIN H. M., BRUNNER M. J., RATTNER H. Lithographer's dermatitis. J Am Med Assoc. 1959 Feb 7;169(6):566–569. doi: 10.1001/jama.1959.03000230022005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. MALI J. W., VAN KOOTENW, VAN NEERF SOME ASPECTS OF THE BEHAVIOR OF CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS IN THE SKIN. J Invest Dermatol. 1963 Sep;41:111–122. doi: 10.1038/jid.1963.83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. MORRIS G. E. Chrome dermatitis: a study of the chemistry of shoe leather with particular reference to basic chromic sulfate. AMA Arch Derm. 1958 Nov;78(5):612–618. doi: 10.1001/archderm.1958.01560110058008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Nethercott J. R. Results of routine patch testing of 200 patients in Toronto, Canada. Contact Dermatitis. 1982 Nov;8(6):389–395. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1982.tb04264.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Paustenbach D. J., Jernigan J. D., Bass R., Kalmes R., Scott P. A proposed approach to regulating contaminated soil: identify safe concentrations for seven of the most frequently encountered exposure scenarios. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1992 Aug;16(1):21–56. doi: 10.1016/0273-2300(92)90020-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Paustenbach D. J., Meyer D. M., Sheehan P. J., Lau V. An assessment and quantitative uncertainty analysis of the health risks to workers exposed to chromium contaminated soils. Toxicol Ind Health. 1991 May;7(3):159–196. doi: 10.1177/074823379100700304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Paustenbach D. J., Sheehan P. J., Paull J. M., Wisser L. M., Finley B. L. Review of the allergic contact dermatitis hazard posed by chromium-contaminated soil: identifying a "safe" concentration. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1992 Sep;37(1):177–207. doi: 10.1080/15287399209531664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Preliminary studies of the TRUE test patch test system in the United States. TRUE Test Study Group. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Oct;21(4 Pt 2):841–843. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70262-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Romaguera C., Alomar A., Camarasa J. M., Garcia Bravo B., Garcia Perez A., Grimalt F., Guerra P., Lopez Gorretcher B., Pascual A. M., Miranda A. Contact dermatitis in children. Contact Dermatitis. 1985 May;12(5):283–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1985.tb01140.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Rudzki E., Rebandel P., Grzywa Z. Patch tests with occupational contactants in nurses, doctors and dentists. Contact Dermatitis. 1989 Apr;20(4):247–250. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1989.tb03140.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. SAMITZ M. H., KATZ S. A STUDY OF THE CHEMICAL REACTIONS BETWEEN CHROMIUM AND SKIN. J Invest Dermatol. 1964 Jul;42:35–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Schachner L., Ling N. S., Press S. A statistical analysis of a pediatric dermatology clinic. Pediatr Dermatol. 1983 Oct;1(2):157–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1470.1983.tb01108.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Skog E., Wahlberg J. E. Patch testing with potassium dichromate in different vehicles. Arch Dermatol. 1969 Jun;99(6):697–700. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Spruit D., van Neer F. C. Penetration rate of Cr (3) and Cr (VI). Dermatologica. 1966;132(2):179–182. doi: 10.1159/000254417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Stern A. H., Bagdon R. E., Hazen R. E., Marzulli F. N. Risk assessment of the allergic dermatitis potential of environmental exposure to hexavalent chromium. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1993 Dec;40(4):613–641. doi: 10.1080/15287399309531822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Storrs F. J., Rosenthal L. E., Adams R. M., Clendenning W., Emmett E. A., Fisher A. A., Larsen W. G., Maibach H. I., Rietschel R. L., Schorr W. F. Prevalence and relevance of allergic reactions in patients patch tested in North America--1984 to 1985. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Jun;20(6):1038–1045. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70129-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tunnessen W. W., Jr A survey of skin disorders seen in pediatric general and dermatology clinics. Pediatr Dermatol. 1984 Jan;1(3):219–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1470.1984.tb01120.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Upadhye M. R., Maibach H. I. Influence of area of application of allergen on sensitization in contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1992 Nov;27(5):281–286. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb03280.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. WINSTON J. R., WALSH E. N. Chromate dermatitis in railroad employees working with diesel locomotives. J Am Med Assoc. 1951 Nov 17;147(12):1133–1134. doi: 10.1001/jama.1951.73670290002011a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Weston W. L., Weston J. A. Allergic contact dermatitis in children. Am J Dis Child. 1984 Oct;138(10):932–936. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1984.02140480034012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wright R. W. Evaluation of contact dermatitis using the TRUE patch test. J Ark Med Soc. 1991 Nov;88(6):271–272. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. ZELGER J. ZUR KLINIK UND PATHOGENESE DES CHROMAT-EKZEMS. Arch Klin Exp Dermatol. 1964 Mar 10;218:499–542. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Zelger J., Wachter H. Uber die Beziehungen zwischen Chromatund Dichromat-Allergie. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse der Chrom(VI)-Allergie. Dermatologica. 1966;132(1):45–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Occupational and Environmental Medicine are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES