Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Patch test materials for mercury allergic contact dermatitis

T Nakada1, N Higo, M Iijima

  • 1Department of Dermatology, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Contact Dermatitis
|May 1, 1997
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The sodium lauryl sulfate model: an overview.

Contact dermatitis·1995
Same author

A local lymph-node assay validation study of a structure-activity relationship model for contact allergens.

Archives of dermatological research·1995
Same author

Horizons in pharmacologic intervention in allergic contact dermatitis.

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology·1994
Same author

Topical FK506--clinical potential or laboratory curiosity?

Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland)·1994
Same author

Topical FK506: suppression of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in the guinea pig.

Archives of dermatological research·1994
Same author

In vivo and in vitro percutaneous absorption and skin evaporation of isofenphos in man.

Fundamental and applied toxicology : official journal of the Society of Toxicology·1992
Same journal

Contact Allergy and Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Propylene Glycol and Related Glycols: Cosmetic Skin Sensitisers After All?

Contact dermatitis·2026
Same journal

Acrylate Copolymers/Crosspolymers in Sunscreens: Minimally Allergenic, Without Evidence of Need for Avoidance by (Meth)Acrylate-Sensitized Individuals.

Contact dermatitis·2026
Same journal

AI-Assisted Automated Two-Stage Patch Test Interpretation System Using Vision Transformer.

Contact dermatitis·2026
Same journal

Use of Tralokinumab in a Hairdresser With Severe Chronic Hand Eczema and Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis.

Contact dermatitis·2026
Same journal

Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis Caused by Cyclohexyl Diethanolamine in a Metalworking Fluid.

Contact dermatitis·2026
Same journal

Fragrance and Preservative Contact Allergens in Cosmetic and Household Cleaning Products in Turkey: Variation by Target Population, Product Type and Manufacturing Origin.

Contact dermatitis·2026
See all related articles

This study suggests using both ionized and non-ionized mercury for accurate mercury allergy testing. This approach improves the evaluation of mercury hypersensitivity compared to using only mercuric chloride.

Area of Science:

  • Dermatology
  • Toxicology
  • Allergy Immunology

Background:

  • Mercury allergy, specifically mercury allergic contact dermatitis, is a significant clinical concern.
  • Current patch test materials may not adequately capture all forms of mercury hypersensitivity.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine optimal patch test materials for evaluating mercury allergic contact dermatitis.
  • To investigate patient reactions to different forms of mercury, including ionized and non-ionized mercury.

Main Methods:

  • Patch testing with mercuric chloride (ionized) and mercury in petrolatum (non-ionized) was performed.
  • Patients with systemic eczematous contact-type dermatitis (baboon syndrome) and gold-dermatitis were included in the study.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

  • All baboon syndrome patients reacted to both mercuric chloride and metallic mercury.
  • Gold-dermatitis patients showed a significantly higher reaction rate to mercuric chloride (60%) compared to metallic mercury (10.5%).
  • This suggests at least two types of mercury sensitization may exist.

Conclusions:

  • Testing with both ionized and non-ionized mercury may be more reliable for evaluating mercury hypersensitivity.
  • Further research into mercury bioavailability and penetration differences is warranted.