Mercury

Sensitisation data (human)

Administrative data

Endpoint:

sensitisation data (humans)

Type of information:

other: Human data

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

other: Relevant

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: Relevant

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Mercury allergy in a contact dermatitis clinic in Northern Ireland

Author:

Handley, J. et al.

Year:

1993

Bibliographic source:

Contact Dermatitis 29, 258-261.

Materials and methods

Type of sensitisation studied:

skin

Study type:

survey

Test guideline

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

other: International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) scale (European standard series (Trolab)

Deviations:

not specified

GLP compliance:

not specified

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Mercury

EC Number:

231-106-7

EC Name:

Mercury

Cas Number:

7439-97-6

Molecular formula:

Hg

IUPAC Name:

mercury

Constituent 2

Reference substance name:

Aminomercury chloride

EC Number:

233-335-8

EC Name:

Aminomercury chloride

Cas Number:

10124-48-8

IUPAC Name:

aminomercury(1+) chloride

Constituent 3

Reference substance name:

Mercury dichloride

EC Number:

231-299-8

EC Name:

Mercury dichloride

Cas Number:

7487-94-7

IUPAC Name:

mercury dichloride

Details on test material:

- Name of test material (as cited in study report): Mercury metal (1 % pet.)
- Molecular formula (if other than submission substance): Hg
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): Ammoniated mercury chloride (1% pet.)
- Molecular formula (if other than submission substance): HgNH2Cl
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): Mercuric chloride (0.1 % aq.) (Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Batch number 91174A)
- Molecular formula (if other than submission substance): HgCl2
No further information on the test material was stated.

Method

Type of population:

general

Ethical approval:

not applicable

Remarks:

This is not a volunteer study.

Subjects:

- Number of subjects: 441 consecutive patients were patch tested
- Sex: 294 female / 147 males
- Age: Age range of 23 to 55 years (This is only the age range of patients that reacted positive to mercury ocompounds during the patch test.)
- Demographic information: different occupations were stated for the patients, which reacted positive to mercury compounds during the patch test: hairdresser, office housewife, radiographer, spinner, kitchen, stitcher, nurse, and cleaner.

Clinical history:

Of the 14 patients, which reacted positive to the mercury compounds tested during the patch test, 2 of these patients gave a history of clinical symptoms related to mercruy allergy. One patient developed swelling, itching and redness of the cheek following insertion of amalgam fillings on 3 separate occasions. Another patient developed stomatitis more than a year after insertion of amalgam fillings. The stomatitis resolved after the removal of the fillings. The patient also subsequently developed allergic contact dermatitis on separate occasions from contact lens solutions, shampoos, cosmetics and paints, all of which contained mercury preservatives. All 14 patients had been vaccinated in childhood with vaccines containing thimerosal and had had dental amalgam restorations. No other sources of mercury sensitization were identified.

Controls:

no data

Route of administration:

dermal

Details on study design:

TYPE OF TEST(S) USED: patch test (epicutaneous test)
During a 12-month period, all patients attending a clinic with suspected contact dermatitis were routninely patch tested to the European standard series (trolab) and mercury metal (HG) (1 % pet.), ammoniated mercury chloride (HgNH2Cl (1 % pet.) (both Trolab), and mercuric chloride (HgCl2) (=.1 % aq.) (Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Batch number 91174A). Patch test allergens were applied in Finn Chambers mounted on Scanpor tape to the upper back, removed at 2 days and read at 3 days. Grading was according to the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) scale. Any patient who showed a + or greater response to any of the mercury compounds answered a standard questionnaire. Patients were specifically asked about the following: (a) childhood vaccinations, especially for diphteria and tetanus, and any adverse reactions; (b) insertion of amalgam fillings and any related adverse reactions; (c) tattoos, especially regarding reactions to red colouring; (d) direct contact with mercury metal, e.g., from a broken thermometer; (e) any adverse reactions to antiseptic preparations, cosmetics, shampoos, skin bleaching creams, paints, herbicides or fungicides.

Results and discussion

Results of examinations:

14 patients (3.2%) showed a + or greater response to 1 or more of the 3 mercury compounds. 7 patients to all 3 compounds, 4 to both ammoniated mercury chloride and mercury metal, 2 to mercury metal alone and 1 to ammoniated mercury chloride alone.
No patient reacted to mercuric chloride alone.
12 of these mercury-sensitive patients were female and 6 also reacted to nickel sulphate.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:

14 patients (3.2%) showed a + or greater response to 1 or more of the 3 mercury compounds. 7 patients to all 3, 4 to both ammoniated mercury and mercury metal, 2 to mercury metal alone and 1 to ammoniated mercury alone. No patient reacted to mercuric chloride alone. 12 of these mercury-sensitive patients were female and 6 also reacted to nickel sulphate.