{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,27]],"date-time":"2026-02-27T20:28:12Z","timestamp":1772224092964,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":34,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2016,8,24]],"date-time":"2016-08-24T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1471996800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"funder":[{"name":"Symrise AG"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Contact Dermatitis"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Summary<\/jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background<\/jats:title><jats:p>Majantol\u00ae [2,2\u2010dimethyl\u20103\u2010(3\u2010methylphenyl)propan\u20101\u2010ol; <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">CAS<\/jats:styled-content> no. 103694\u201068\u20104] has been identified as a contact allergen in humans, despite negative animal tests. Hence impurities, specifically organochlorines, in <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>ajantol\u00ae might have been the reason for positive patch test reactions in the past.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives<\/jats:title><jats:p>To assess elicitation via patch testing with a standard market\u2010quality version of <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>ajantol\u00ae (\u2018normal\u2019) with a normal content of organochlorine impurities, as compared with an ultra\u2010purified version of <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>ajantol\u00ae (\u2018pure\u2019), without detectable organochlorine impurities.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>Between 1 <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">O<\/jats:styled-content>ctober 2013 and 31 <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">D<\/jats:styled-content>ecember 2014, two different <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>ajantol\u00ae patch test preparations of the above\u2010mentioned quality were tested 5% pet. in parallel in the \u2018monitor series\u2019, that is, together with the baseline series, in 8005 consecutive patients from 33 departments of dermatology of the <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">I<\/jats:styled-content>nformation <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">N<\/jats:styled-content>etwork of <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">D<\/jats:styled-content>epartments of <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">D<\/jats:styled-content>ermatology (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">IVDK<\/jats:styled-content>).<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>Fifty\u2010three of 7740 [0.69% (95%<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">CI<\/jats:styled-content>: 0.51\u20130.87)] patch tested patients reacted to at least one <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>ajantol\u00ae preparation. The majority (n = 32) (60.4%) reacted to both preparations, 13 (24.5%) reacted to the \u2018normal\u2019 version only, and 8 (15.1%) reacted to the \u2018pure\u2019 version only. There was good concordance between results [<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">C<\/jats:styled-content>ohen's kappa 0.75 (95%<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">CI<\/jats:styled-content>: 0.65\u20130.85)], and there was no significant difference in frequency or intensity between the two preparations. More doubtful or irritant reactions than positive reactions were observed, and&gt; 80% of all positive reactions were weak positive.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title><jats:p>Organochlorine impurities are very probably not the cause of allergic reactions to <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>ajantol\u00ae.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1111\/cod.12650","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,8,24]],"date-time":"2016-08-24T06:42:47Z","timestamp":1472020967000},"page":"11-18","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":6,"title":["Differences in contents of organochlorine impurities do not influence responses to patch testing with <scp>M<\/scp>ajantol\u00ae"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"76","author":[{"given":"Axel","family":"Schnuch","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK)  37075 G\u00f6ttingen Germany"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Boris P.","family":"M\u00fcller","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Symrise AG  37603 Holzminden Germany"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Johannes","family":"Geier","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK)  37075 G\u00f6ttingen Germany"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"name":"Departments of Dermatology","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2016,8,24]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_7_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S1046-199X(96)90078-0"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1034\/j.1600-0536.2002.460302.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1600-0536.2006.01062.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1600-0536.2009.01648.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1600-0536.2010.01759.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1080\/00015550410025921"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_8_1","unstructured":"RIFM.Human Repeated Insult Patch Test on Majantol\u00ae. RIFM Report No. 53799: Unpublished report from Symrise.Woodcliff Lake NJ RIFM 2007."},{"key":"e_1_2_7_9_1","unstructured":"Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD QSAR Toolbox(version 3.3.5) 2015. Available at:http:\/\/www.oecd.org\/chemicalsafety\/risk\u2010assessment\/theoecdqsartoolbox.htm(last accessed 12 February 2016)."},{"key":"e_1_2_7_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0300-483X(95)03132-Y"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1021\/tx700024w"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_12_1","unstructured":"IFRA \u2013 International Fragrance Association. Standard on 2 2\u2010Dimethyl\u20103\u2010(3\u2010tolyl)propan\u20101\u2010ol 2010. Available at:www.ifraorg.org: Standards section (last accessed 25 April 2016)."},{"key":"e_1_2_7_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1398-9995.2012.02834.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_14_1","volume-title":"Manual of Contact Dermatitis","author":"Fregert S","year":"1981"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s001050170048"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-03827-3_24"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5414\/DBP53107"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_18_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1600-0536.1997.tb02435.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1600-0536.1995.tb02070.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_20_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1034\/j.1600-0536.2003.00033.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_21_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.0105-1873.2004.00406.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_22_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.fct.2011.10.042"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.0105-1873.2005.00693.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1600-0536.2009.01506.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_25_1","unstructured":"SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety).Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products 26\u201327 June 2012. SCCS\/1459\/11.http:\/\/ec:europa:eu\/health\/scientific\u2010committees\/consumer_safety\/docs\/sccs_o_073pdf2012:1\u2010334."},{"key":"e_1_2_7_26_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1600-0536.2007.01088.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_27_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/DER.0000000000000003"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_28_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/pds.1268"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_29_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/pds.1588"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_30_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1159\/000063356"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_31_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1046\/j.1365-2133.2002.48776.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_32_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/cod.12125"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_33_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1053\/ajcd.2001.26669"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_34_1","first-page":"99","article-title":"Concomitant sensitivity between fragrances","volume":"145","author":"Buckley D A","year":"2001","journal-title":"Br J Dermatol"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_35_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/ffj.3242"}],"container-title":["Contact Dermatitis"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fcod.12650","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fcod.12650","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/cod.12650","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,10,3]],"date-time":"2023-10-03T19:50:38Z","timestamp":1696362638000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/cod.12650"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2016,8,24]]},"references-count":34,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,1]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/cod.12650"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/cod.12650","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0105-1873","1600-0536"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0105-1873","type":"print"},{"value":"1600-0536","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2016,8,24]]}}}