Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is the most common form of contact dermatitis and a leading cause of occupational skin disease, but remains underrecognized relative to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Direct chemical or physical injury to the epidermal barrier causes ICD, which can develop in anyone when exposure intensity or duration exceeds the skin’s repair capacity. ICD is increasingly understood to involve more than barrier disruption: it is an innate immune-mediated inflammatory disorder involving keratinocyte-derived cytokines, neutrophil recruitment, C-C motif chemokine ligand 2–C-C motif chemokine receptor 2–interleukin-1β signaling, Toll-like receptor 3, and inflammasome activation. Host factors, particularly atopic dermatitis and filaggrin loss-of-function variants, further influence susceptibility. Clinical phenotypes range from acute irritant reactions to chronic cumulative dermatitis, and occupational wet work is a major preventable exposure. Distinguishing ICD from ACD is difficult because their clinical and histopathological features overlap, they may coexist, and ICD-related barrier damage may facilitate subsequent allergic sensitization. Diagnosis therefore requires assessment of exposure history, lesion distribution, symptom quality, and temporal course, with patch testing when ACD is suspected. Molecular biomarker panels and noninvasive imaging or barrier-assessment techniques may improve diagnostic precision, but remain investigational. Management should prioritize identifying and removing irritants, reducing exposure, implementing appropriate protective measures, and restoring the epidermal barrier. Recognizing ICD as a distinct clinical entity, rather than simply a diagnosis of exclusion, is essential for accurate diagnosis and effective management of contact dermatitis in clinical practice.

Purpose
This study aimed to address gaps in Korean Standard Series (KSS) information, highlight allergens with increasing patch test positivity, describe potential sources encountered in daily life, and provide guidance on selecting allergen-free alternatives.
Methods
Relevant information was identified from KSS patient instruction sheets (Chemotechnique, Sweden), T.R.U.E. TEST patient instruction sheets (SmartPractice, United States), the Contact Dermatitis Institute allergen database, the American Contact Dermatitis Society allergen information sheets, and searches of the PubMed database. English-language review articles, case series, and case reports identified using keywords related to the 25 KSS allergens were selected.
Results
Information was updated for the following allergens: nickel, cobalt, potassium dichromate, balsam of Peru, paraben mix, N-isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, formaldehyde, p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, colophonium, imidazolidinyl urea, and 2-mercaptobenzothiazole. Emerging sources included electronic devices, personal protective equipment, including masks whose use increased during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, nail products, and children’s toy slime. In addition, occupational allergen information sheets were developed for hairdressers, healthcare workers, dentists, dental hygienists, and cooks. The Korean-language allergen sheets are provided in the Supplementary Materials.
Conclusion
Because the KSS has not been revised for more than 2 decades, emerging allergen sources may be inadequately represented in the existing patient information. Accordingly, updated patient instruction sheets were developed to improve patient understanding and facilitate the practical application of patch test results.

Objective

Contact dermatitis is a common clinical problem and frequently caused by cosmetics. Detection of causative allergen is important in prevention and treatment of this disease. Patch rest has been accepted as the only reliable diagnostic method to detect allergens. We analyzed patch test results of dermatologic outpatients and evaluated common new antigens producing cosmetic and noncosmetic contact dermatitis.

Method

We reviewed patch test results of the 324 patients with suggestion contact dermatitis who had visited our department from May 1985 to February 1996. We divided the patients in two groups(cosmetic contact dermatitis group and non-cosmetic contact dermatitis group)and compared the results.

Results

1) High positive reaction rate to nickel sulfate(14.7%), fragrance mix(11.0%), and mercury ammonium chloride(9.6%) was seen in cosmetic contact dermatitis group. Lip cosmetics and make-up preparation were the products to which patients reacted the most. Among the cosmetic products, skin care products ranked the first in positive reaction rate.

2) Nickel sulfate(21.7%) was the most common allergen, followed by cobalt chloride(13.3%), mercury ammonium chloride(10.0%), and fragrance mix(8.3%) in noncosmetic contact dermatitis.

Conclusion

Consmetic contact dermatitis was more common than noncosmetic contact dermatits. Nickel sulfate, mercury ammonium chloride, cobalt chloride and fragrance mix were found to be the most common allergens of cosmetic and noncosmetic contact dermatitis.

The use of rubber gloves has increased in recent years. At the same time, there has been a progressive increase of incidence of occupational and nonoccupational sensitization to rubber components. Chromate sensitivity has been reported as a very common combination in the rubber allergic building workers.

We report a case of contact dermatitis to rubber glove and cement in a 69-year-old man who presented erythematous patches with severe itching on both hands, especially on the lateral sides of fingers. On patch tst, he showed positive reactions to thiuram mix, mercaptobenzothazole, potassium dichromate and rubber glove as is.

The patient was treated with topical and sysmetic corticosteroid and antihistamine with a good clinical responses.