Arts Josje, Kimber Ian
AkzoNobel NV, Velperweg 76, 6824 BM, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017 Oct;89:268-278. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.07.018. Epub 2017 Jul 20.
Azodicarbonamide (ADCA) is widely used by industry in the manufacture of a variety of products. ADCA has been classified as a respiratory allergen, and the purpose of this article was to consider whether this classification is appropriate based upon the available data. Here both clinical experience and relevant experimental data have been reviewed. Although there have been reports of an association between workplace exposure to ADCA and symptoms of respiratory allergy and occupational asthma, the evidence is less than persuasive, with in many instances a lack of properly controlled and executed diagnostic procedures. In addition, ADCA fails to elicit positive responses in mouse and guinea pig predictive tests for skin sensitisation; a lack of activity that is regarded as being inconsistent with respect to respiratory sensitising potential. Collectively, the data reviewed here do not provide an adequate basis for the classification of ADCA as a respiratory allergen.
偶氮二甲酰胺（ADCA）在工业上被广泛用于制造各种产品。ADCA已被归类为呼吸道过敏原，本文旨在根据现有数据探讨这一分类是否恰当。在此对临床经验和相关实验数据进行了综述。尽管有报告称工作场所接触ADCA与呼吸道过敏症状和职业性哮喘之间存在关联，但证据缺乏说服力，在许多情况下缺乏适当控制和执行的诊断程序。此外，ADCA在小鼠和豚鼠皮肤致敏预测试验中未能引发阳性反应；这种缺乏活性的情况被认为与呼吸道致敏潜力不一致。总体而言，此处综述的数据并未为将ADCA归类为呼吸道过敏原提供充分依据。
