Advanced

Comparison of three different techniques for application of water solutions to Finn Chambers®.

Engfeldt, Malin LU ; Gruvberger, Birgitta LU ; Isaksson, Marléne LU ; Dubnika Hauksson, Inese LU ; Pontén, Ann LU and Bruze, Magnus LU (2010) In Contact Dermatitis 63(5). p.284-288
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With regard to contact allergy, the dose of a sensitizer per unit skin area is an important factor for both sensitization and elicitation, and therefore a known amount/volume of test preparation should be applied at patch testing. OBJECTIVES: To compare three different techniques for the application of aqueous solutions to Finn Chambers, in order to determine the precision and accuracy of each technique when the recommended 15 µl volume is applied. METHODS: Four technicians applied formaldehyde 1.0% aq. (wt/vol) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 200 ppm (wt/vol) in sets of 10 onto Finn Chambers, with three different techniques: (i) micro-pipetting; (ii) dripping the solutions; and (iii) dripping the... (More)
BACKGROUND: With regard to contact allergy, the dose of a sensitizer per unit skin area is an important factor for both sensitization and elicitation, and therefore a known amount/volume of test preparation should be applied at patch testing. OBJECTIVES: To compare three different techniques for the application of aqueous solutions to Finn Chambers, in order to determine the precision and accuracy of each technique when the recommended 15 µl volume is applied. METHODS: Four technicians applied formaldehyde 1.0% aq. (wt/vol) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 200 ppm (wt/vol) in sets of 10 onto Finn Chambers, with three different techniques: (i) micro-pipetting; (ii) dripping the solutions; and (iii) dripping the solutions followed by removal of excess solution with a soft tissue. Assessment of the variations was performed with the use of descriptive data. The ability to apply the exact amount was assessed by Fisher's exact test by categorizing each application as in or out of the range 12-18 µl. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The micro-pipette technique had the best accuracy and precision, as well as the lowest inter-individual variation. The technique in which excess solution was removed had good precision, but failed in the application of the defined amount, i.e. 15 µl. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
appropriate amount, patch test, dose, application technique, liquid, test preparation
in
Contact Dermatitis
volume
63
issue
5
pages
284 - 288
publisher
Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and Blackwell Publishing Ltd
external identifiers
  • wos:000283081000007
  • pmid:20946457
  • scopus:78349293065
ISSN
0105-1873
DOI
10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01797.x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
24cb9557-58a5-4242-9544-495123389295 (old id 1711157)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20946457?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2010-11-05 15:59:36
date last changed
2018-05-29 09:23:39
@article{24cb9557-58a5-4242-9544-495123389295,
  abstract     = {BACKGROUND: With regard to contact allergy, the dose of a sensitizer per unit skin area is an important factor for both sensitization and elicitation, and therefore a known amount/volume of test preparation should be applied at patch testing. OBJECTIVES: To compare three different techniques for the application of aqueous solutions to Finn Chambers, in order to determine the precision and accuracy of each technique when the recommended 15 µl volume is applied. METHODS: Four technicians applied formaldehyde 1.0% aq. (wt/vol) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 200 ppm (wt/vol) in sets of 10 onto Finn Chambers, with three different techniques: (i) micro-pipetting; (ii) dripping the solutions; and (iii) dripping the solutions followed by removal of excess solution with a soft tissue. Assessment of the variations was performed with the use of descriptive data. The ability to apply the exact amount was assessed by Fisher's exact test by categorizing each application as in or out of the range 12-18 µl. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The micro-pipette technique had the best accuracy and precision, as well as the lowest inter-individual variation. The technique in which excess solution was removed had good precision, but failed in the application of the defined amount, i.e. 15 µl.},
  author       = {Engfeldt, Malin and Gruvberger, Birgitta and Isaksson, Marléne and Dubnika Hauksson, Inese and Pontén, Ann and Bruze, Magnus},
  issn         = {0105-1873},
  keyword      = {appropriate amount,patch test,dose,application technique,liquid,test preparation},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {284--288},
  publisher    = {Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and Blackwell Publishing Ltd},
  series       = {Contact Dermatitis},
  title        = {Comparison of three different techniques for application of water solutions to Finn Chambers®.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01797.x},
  volume       = {63},
  year         = {2010},
}