Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Sensitizing Properties (sensitizing + property)
Selected AbstractsSynthesis, Characterization, and Sensitizing Properties of Heteroleptic RuII Complexes Based on 2,6-Bis(1-pyrazolyl)pyridine and 2,2,-Bipyridine-4,4,-dicarboxylic Acid LigandsEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INORGANIC CHEMISTRY, Issue 36 2007Athanassios I. Philippopoulos Abstract Starting from the Ru(bpp)Cl3 precursor (1), a family of novel heteroleptic RuII complexes of the general formulae [Ru(bpp)(dcbpyH)(X)] [X = Cl, (2a), NCS,, (3)] and Na[Ru(bpp)(dcbpy)(CN)] (4) with the ligands 2,6-bis(1-pyrazolyl)pyridine (bpp) and 2,2,-bipyridine-4,4,-dicarboxylic acid (dcbpyH2) has been synthesized, spectroscopically characterized, and attached to nanocrystalline TiO2 electrodes to be tested as solar cell sensitizers. Addition of HCl to (2a) led to the corresponding cationic derivative [Ru(bpp)(dcbpyH2)Cl]Cl (2b). All complexes were characterized by FT-IR, FT-Raman, UV/Vis, 1H NMR spectroscopy, elemental analysis, and mass spectrometry. Complex 4 and the previously reported [Ru(bdmpp)(dcbpyH2)Cl](PF6) (5) [bdmpp is 2,6-bis(3,5-dimethyl-1-pyrazolyl)pyridine] were characterized by single-crystal X-ray diffraction. The photo-electochemical properties of the dyes 2,4 were investigated and the efficiency of the corresponding dye-sensitized solar cells was compared to the sensitizing performance of the cis -[Ru(dcbpyH)2(NCS)2](NBu4)2 (N719) dye.(© Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2007) [source] Shoe contact dermatitis from dimethyl fumarate: clinical manifestations, patch test results, chemical analysis, and source of exposureCONTACT DERMATITIS, Issue 5 2009Ana Giménez-Arnau Background: The methyl ester form of fumaric acid named dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is an effective mould-growth inhibitor. Its irritating and sensitizing properties were demonstrated in animal models. Recently, DMF has been identified as responsible for furniture contact dermatitis in Europe. Objective: To describe the clinical manifestations, patch test results, shoe chemical analysis, and source of exposure to DMF-induced shoe contact dermatitis. Patients, Materials, and Methods: Patients with suspected shoe contact dermatitis were studied in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Patch test results obtained with their own shoe and the European baseline series, acrylates and fumaric acid esters (FAE), were recorded according to international guidelines. The content of DMF in shoes was analysed with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Results: Acute, immediate irritant contact dermatitis and non-immunological contact urticaria were observed in eight adults and two children, respectively. All the adult patients studied developed a delayed sensitization demonstrated by a positive patch testing to DMF , 0.1% in pet. Cross-reactivity with other FAEs and acrylates was observed. At least 12 different shoe brands were investigated. The chemical analysis from the available shoes showed the presence of DMF. Conclusion: DMF in shoes was responsible for severe contact dermatitis. Global preventive measures for avoiding contact with DMF are necessary. [source] Skin sensitizing properties of the ethanolamines mono-, di-, and triethanolamine.CONTACT DERMATITIS, Issue 5 2009Data analysis of a multicentre surveillance network (IVDK, review of the literature Numerous publications address the skin sensitizing potential of the short chain alkanolamines triethanolamine (TEA), diethanolamine (DEA), monoethanolamine (MEA), which are not skin sensitizing according to animal studies. Regarding TEA, we analysed patch test data of 85 098 patients who had been tested with TEA 2.5% petrolatum by Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) to identify particular exposures possibly associated with an elevated risk of sensitization. Altogether, 323 patients (0.4%) tested positive. The profile of patch test reactions indicates a slightly irritant potential rather than a true allergic response in many cases. Although used widely, no exposure associated with an increased risk of TEA sensitization was identified. Therefore, the risk of sensitization to TEA seems to be very low. MEA and DEA were patch tested in a much more aimed fashion in 9602 and 8791 patients, respectively when prevalence of contact allergy was 3.8% and 1.8%. MEA is the prominent allergen in metalworkers with exposure to water-based metalworking fluids (wbMWFs); DEA is probably used in cutting fluids less frequently nowadays. Chronic damage to the skin barrier resulting from wbMWF, the alkalinity of ethanolamines (increasing from TEA to MEA), and other cofactors may contribute to a notable sensitization risk. [source] Patch testing with components of water-based metalworking fluids: results of a multicentre study with a second seriesCONTACT DERMATITIS, Issue 6 2006Johannes Geier Background:, Although many allergens in metalworking fluids (MWF) are identified, there are still some MWF components, which are not sufficiently investigated concerning their sensitizing properties. Objectives:, To investigate sensitization to 10 frequently used MWF components, which are not part of the established MWF test series, in metalworkers with suspected occupational dermatitis due to MWF. Patients/Methods:, Oleyl alcohol, myristyl alcohol, dimethylolurea, 4,4,-methylenebis morpholine, imazalil, 1-amino-2-propanol (monoisopropanolamine; MIPA), 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol (AEPD), 2,5-bis(n-octyldithio)-1,3,4-thiadiazole, zinc alkyl dithiophosphate and dibenzyl disulfide have been patch tested in 144 patients. Results:, 7 patients reacted positively to the formaldehyde releaser 4,4,-methylenebis morpholine, and 6 of these patients also reacted to formaldehyde and/or other formaldehyde releasers. 4 patients reacted positively to myristyl alcohol tested at 10% petrolatum (pet.). Additionally, 20 doubtful or irritant reactions occurred. 1 patient each reacted positively to oleyl alcohol, MIPA, and AEPD. None of the other test substances mentioned above elicited any clear-cut positive reaction. Patch testing with well-known MWF allergens showed proportions of positive reactions, which were comparable to those from other studies, e.g. 11% to monoethanolamine, 8% to colophonium and 3%,5% to various preservatives. Conclusions:, 4,4,-methylenebis morpholine may be an important MWF allergen, although clinical relevance could not be stated definitely in every case. Myristyl alcohol should not be patch tested at 10% pet., but at a lesser concentration, due to irritant properties. [source] Severe allergic contact dermatitis induced by paraphenylenediamine in paint-on temporary ,tattoos'AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, Issue 3 2000Matheen Mohamed SUMMARY Paraphenylenediamine (PPD) is a black dye with well known sensitizing properties. Its increasing use as a skin paint to produce temporary ,tattoos' has led to recent reports of allergic contact dermatitis. Hitherto, such cases of allergic contact dermatitis due to PPD have been localized to the original site of application of the skin paint. We report two cases of severe allergic reactions to paint-on ,tattoos'. Both of these patients had no prior history of sensitivity to PPD, although case 2 had previously used permanent hair dyes. In both cases, the primary eruption at the ,tattoo' site was followed within days by a generalized eruption which ultimately required treatment with oral corticosteroids, because the initially prescribed topical corticosteroids proved ineffective. [source] | ||||||||||