Chemical burn injury mechanisms and causative agents (alkalis, acids, caustics)

Overview¶

A chemical burn is irritation and destruction of tissue caused by exposure to a chemical, usually by direct contact with the chemical or its fumes ^[1]. The injuring agents are predominantly acidic and basic compounds, drawn from a vast universe of more than a million known chemicals, several hundred of which are formally classified as highly hazardous ^[3]. What sets chemical burns apart from thermal injury is that necrosis can continue despite cessation of exposure, so the wound can deepen and its depth is hard to assess after the initial contact ^[55]. That single fact reorganizes how these injuries are recognized and treated.

Chemical burns are a small minority of all burns but carry weight out of proportion to their numbers. They account for roughly 10.7% of burn injuries yet are reported to cause about 30% of burn deaths ^[3], and they are potentially life-threatening with serious aesthetic and functional consequences ^[13]. Most cutaneous chemical burns happen in domestic or industrial settings ^[16], and the hand and upper extremity are the most frequently involved body parts, so loss of function is a recurring theme ^[17].

This entry treats the chemical burn as a disease entity defined by its mechanism and its agent. Three ideas anchor everything that follows: the distinction between alkali and acid injury, the principle that copious water irrigation is the most time-critical intervention ^[7], and the recognition that chemicals, alkalis in particular but also acids, cause profound damage to the ocular surface and deeper eye structures ^[9]. Hydrofluoric acid appears here as one agent class; its calcium-directed management is detailed in its own entry.

Epidemiology¶

Chemical burns are uncommon relative to scald and flame injury. Across the literature their incidence ranges from about 2.4% to 10.7% of burn admissions, with a substantial male predominance ^[16]. In one regional series spanning two decades, the proportion of chemical burns rose from 2.7% to 7.9%, with a striking shift in setting: industrial chemical burns fell while domestic chemical burns more than tripled, a change attributed to improved industrial health and safety practice ^[16]. The headline figure that recurs throughout the field is the disproportion between frequency and lethality. Chemical burns account for roughly 10.7% of injuries but are reported to cause about 30% of burn deaths ^[3].

The agent mix is dominated by alkalis and acids. In a large single-center series, alkalis caused 55% of chemical burns and acids 26% ^[16], and over three-quarters of injuries occurred in domestic or industrial settings ^[16]. Other series, particularly those drawn from heavy-industry regions, find acid predominance: in an occupational cohort from an industrial Chinese province, hydrofluoric acid and sulfuric acid were the most frequent agents, and most victims were injured at work in small private enterprises ^[22]. An older regional audit similarly found alkaline materials responsible for 37% of accidents (caustic soda alone for 26%) and acids for a further 27%, with hydrofluoric acid accounting for half the acid burns ^[23]. The recurring epidemiologic signal is that chemical burns are predominantly occupational and largely preventable, attributable to mishandling of chemicals and failure to use protective equipment ^[22].

Geography and intent reshape the picture. In Jamaica, a threefold greater incidence of chemical burns than in other industrialized countries was driven by the use of household chemicals such as sulfuric acid from batteries and sodium hydroxide as assault weapons ^[24], a pattern of intentional injury that differs sharply from the accidental, occupational burns of most published series. Deliberate acid assault, or vitriolage, is a distinct category: the Acid Survivors Trust International estimates roughly 1,500 attacks reported worldwide per year, likely an underestimate, and the UK has recorded a steep rise from 228 attacks in 2012 to 601 in 2016 ^[25]. Corrosive substance attacks have prompted calls for the specialist multidisciplinary burn team and for public-health prevention strategies ^[26].

Caustic ingestion is its own epidemiologic domain. Corrosive ingestions are a major problem worldwide, especially in developing countries but also in the United States and parts of Europe; they are deliberate suicide attempts in adolescents and adults and accidental in young children ^[11]. In adults, caustic exposures cluster in occupational and suicidal settings, whereas in children they occur most often by unintentional ingestion ^[12]. Ocular chemical burns are common enough to be treated as an ophthalmic emergency in their own right, and they span a wide severity range whose more severe end carries profound visual and medicolegal consequences ^[53].

Pathophysiology¶

The single most important concept in chemical burns is the difference between alkali and acid injury, because it predicts depth, progression, and the urgency of decontamination. Chemical burns are caused by corrosive agents, both acids and alkalis, that produce extensive tissue damage ^[13], and understanding the mechanism and identifying the offending agent is what makes management rational rather than reflexive ^[13].

Acids injure by denaturing and coagulating proteins ^[3]. The coagulated protein forms an eschar that tends to limit further penetration, which is why acid burns are often described as more self-limiting at the surface. This behavior is visible at the bedside: nitric acid produces characteristic yellow- to brown-stained wounds with slower accumulation of eschar and slower demarcation than thermal burns ^[18], and the remaining eschar can induce no systemic inflammatory reaction ^[18]. The coagulation principle, however, is not protection. Concentrated sulfuric acid causes severe skin injury ^[19], and the exothermic chemistry of strong acids adds a thermal component; sulfuric acid burns, like quicklime burns that form slaked lime, generate considerable heat ^[5].

Alkalis are the more dangerous mechanism. Alkaline burns cause deeper burns than acid burns ^[3], because alkalis produce necrosis with liquefaction and penetrate deeply into tissue ^[4]. In the gastrointestinal tract this is explicit: strong alkalis cause necrosis with liquefaction of the esophagus, penetrating deeply with a high risk of perforation ^[4]. In the eye the speed is dramatic, with alkali penetrating within seconds into the anterior chamber ^[5]. The general statement that alkaline chemical burns are more detrimental than acidic chemical burns is one of the most consistent findings across the corpus ^[14]. Corrosive reactions in general can produce either coagulation or liquefaction necrosis ^[2], and the distinction between an irritant, which causes reversible damage, and a corrosive, which produces irreversible visible necrosis into the integumentary layers, defines the clinical threshold that matters ^[2].

A defining pathophysiologic feature shared by both classes is ongoing injury. Some agents, such as trifluoroacetic acid, cause extensive, progressive, full-thickness tissue injury that may initially appear superficial ^[15]. Some agents have an outright latency period of several hours before the burn wound develops ^[27], so the initial presentation can appear deceptively benign and warrants close observation ^[27]. The corrosive class also reaches beyond the contact site: caustics cause local damage upon contact and can lead to systemic toxicity ^[12].

Agent class is therefore the organizing framework. Alkalis include lye (sodium hydroxide), cement and lime, and ammonia; wet cement causes alkaline chemical burns ^[31], cement-related injury spans contact dermatitis through frank chemical burns ^[32], and ammonia exposure can cause severe cutaneous, ocular, and the most lethal of all, inhalation injury ^[33]. Acids include sulfuric, hydrochloric, nitric, acetic, and hydrofluoric. Hydrofluoric acid deserves separate mention: dermal contact produces a chemical burn characterized by severe pain and deep tissue necrosis ^[20], and it can cause electrolyte imbalances with lethal consequences ^[20]. Beyond the classic acids and bases, the corpus documents oxidizing and reducing agents and unusual entities such as white phosphorus, which is both caustic and thermal and produces a characteristic wound with a garlic odor and spontaneous combustion on contact with air ^[21].

Classification¶

Chemicals are most usefully classified as acid, alkali, organic, and inorganic compounds ^[3]. For clinical purposes the acid-versus-alkali axis carries the most predictive weight, but two further classifications matter in practice. The first is corrosivity by pH: ingestion of an agent with a pH less than 2 or greater than 12 induces burns of the upper gastrointestinal tract and is the threshold that triggers endoscopy ^[4]. The second is the irritant-versus-corrosive distinction, where an irritant produces reversible damage and a corrosive produces irreversible visible necrosis into the integumentary layers ^[2].

Cutaneous chemical burns are graded by depth and total body surface area, like thermal burns, and chemical burns skew deep. Wet cement, for example, often causes full-thickness burns, particularly on the knees, lower limbs, and ankles where prolonged kneeling contact occurs ^[31].

The eye and the esophagus have their own grading systems because prognosis hinges on them. For ocular alkali and acid burns, the Roper-Hall modification of the Hughes classification is the most widely used system, staging injury by the size of the stromal opacity and the extent of limbal ischemia ^[29]; it is now supplemented by the Dua and Wagoner classifications, which grade by the extent of limbal stem cell deficiency ^[29]. For caustic ingestion, endoscopy performed within 12 to 24 hours grades the esophageal injury and serves as a prognostic tool to guide management ^[35], and the general principle that ingestion of alkalis tends to produce more severe injuries than ingestion of acids holds across most series ^[35].

Assessment¶

The cardinal rule of chemical burn assessment is that the early appearance lies. The initial presentation often does not reflect the exact extent of injury, and clinicians should expect to initiate appropriate acute management while waiting for the wound to demarcate ^[56]. Some agents have a latency of several hours before the burn wound becomes visible, so a patient with an acute exposure should be observed closely even when the wound looks trivial ^[27]. This is why identifying the offending agent and understanding its mechanism is treated as part of the assessment itself: prompt assessment and management reduces the deleterious effect of the compound ^[13].

For cutaneous burns, depth is genuinely hard to judge, and the nature of chemical cutaneous burns makes wound-depth assessment difficult ^[54]. Laser Doppler imaging, an accurate technique for determining depth in thermal burns, is an area of future interest for chemical burns but is not yet established ^[54]. The practical default is serial clinical observation ^[27] and a willingness to wait for demarcation before committing to definitive management ^[56].

Ocular chemical burns demand structured, immediate ophthalmic assessment without unnecessary delay because the eye is a medical emergency ^[9]. Grading the injury is critical, because the grade determines acute treatment and visual prognosis ^[53]. Lack of early management and higher injury grade both correlate strongly with poor visual outcome; in one cohort, patients without eyewash before consultation had roughly three times the odds of low vision, and higher Dua classification carried nearly five times the odds ^[30].

For caustic ingestion, the assessment priorities are different again. The first priority is the airway, with a definitive airway secured in any patient with compromise ^[34]. In a stable patient with no clinical or radiologic sign of perforation, medical therapy is started and urgent esophagogastroduodenoscopy is arranged within the first 24 hours to grade the injury and establish long-term prognosis ^[34]. The recurring caveat is that external signs do not predict the degree of injury ^[43], so early endoscopy, not symptoms, remains the standard for predicting stricture formation ^[43].

Management¶

Decontamination by copious water irrigation is the universal first principle, and it is the single intervention with the strongest evidence behind it. The mechanism by which corrosives produce chemical burns is itself the argument for early and plentiful irrigation, removal of contaminated clothing, and careful clinical assessment ^[54]. The supporting data are unusually concrete for this field. In a comparative analysis, patients who received immediate water lavage, done within 10 minutes and continued for at least 15 minutes, had far fewer burns progress to full thickness than those who did not (12.5% versus 63%) ^[7]; patients lavaged within 3 minutes were similarly protected (13.5% versus 60.8% progressing to full thickness) and had fewer delayed complications ^[7]. Patients who received adequate early decontamination also had shorter length of stay, lower mortality, and fewer skin grafts than those who did not ^[7]. The authors of that work concluded that the data support water as the best decontaminating solution, being efficacious, widely available, and inexpensive ^[7]. The dominant clinical signal is that outcome tracks the speed of irrigation.

For the chemically burned eye, the same principle is even more time-critical. Copious irrigation is the most important emergency treatment of the chemically burned eye ^[6], and it should begin immediately at the scene with any non-toxic liquid ^[6], with removal of any particulate matter to prevent further injury ^[6]. Because the clinical outcome is directly related to how quickly treatment begins ^[6], irrigation continued during rapid transport minimizes ocular damage and enhances the eventual outcome ^[6]. Source guidance recommends immediate ophthalmologic referral for all but the most trivial chemical eye burns ^[35].

Amphoteric and chelating solutions are the principal proposed alternative to water. Diphoterine and Hexafluorine are amphoteric, hypertonic chelating solutions that rapidly neutralize both acid and alkali agents without releasing heat and limit diffusion ^[37]. One review reports that Diphoterine is safe and effective in improving healing time, sequelae, and pain, with outcomes significantly improved compared with water ^[36]. The evidence base, however, remains contested: Diphoterine has not been approved by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration as an alternative to the water-rinse method because of a lack of human safety and efficacy data ^[36], and uptake in emergency departments and plastic surgery units remains low ^[37].

Beyond decontamination, cutaneous management follows burn principles, with the chemical-specific twist that demarcation is slow and excision is often delayed. Severe burns require operative intervention at high rates; in one chemical-burn series, 86% of patients required operative intervention ^[47]. Agent-specific measures matter for particular exposures: white phosphorus management centers on decontamination and prevention of re-ignition through aqueous irrigation, immersion to exclude air, and topical cooling, with disposal of all contaminated gear to protect rescuers ^[21]. Hydrofluoric acid is the agent whose management diverges most sharply from generic burn care; this entry notes only that high-risk hydrofluoric acid exposures warrant cardiac monitoring and serial calcium measurement ^[35], and defers the calcium-gluconate detail to the dedicated entry.

For caustic ingestion, management is supportive and endoscopy-directed. The airway comes first, then early endoscopy to grade injury and guide therapy ^[34]. Pharmacologic prophylaxis against stricture is the major controversy and is addressed below; the durable principle is that severity at initial evaluation, not the agent label alone, drives both treatment and prognosis.

Complications¶

The complications of chemical burns fall into three anatomic theaters: the skin and soft tissue, the eye, and the aerodigestive tract. Their severity is what makes chemical burns punch above their epidemiologic weight.

In the skin and soft tissue, deep chemical burns produce the expected burden of scarring and functional loss. In one series, morbidity took the form of skin defects in 80% of cases, soft-tissue defects with exposed tendon, bone, or vessels in 16%, and contracture or hypertrophic scar in a smaller fraction ^[47]. Systemic toxicity is the more dangerous dimension: severe chemical injury can cause life-threatening emergencies beyond the wound itself ^[8], and corrosive ingestion can drive disseminated intravascular coagulation, multi-organ failure, and sepsis ^[11].

The eye is where chemical burns inflict their most feared sequelae. Severe ocular chemical burns produce extensive damage including limbal stem cell deficiency and can lead to irreversible visual loss ^[10]. Glaucoma is a frequent complication, especially after alkali injury, and can appear in the acute stage or as a late development ^[44]. For eyes that progress to corneal blindness, keratoprosthesis can restore vision, and B-Kpro type 1 implantation has shown excellent anatomical retention and visual recovery in eyes with severe chemical injuries ^[45]; postoperative glaucoma, however, remains difficult to manage ^[44]. The general lesson is that poor immediate ocular management begets more treatment-resistant chronic disease.

The aerodigestive tract carries the signature complications of caustic ingestion. The upper gastrointestinal tract is predominantly affected, with severity ranging from mild inflammation to full-thickness necrosis that may result in perforation and death ^[28]. Stricture formation is the most common chronic complication, causing dysphagia and malnutrition ^[28]. The long shadow of caustic ingestion is malignancy: ingestion of caustic products is a recognized risk factor for esophageal cancer, typically squamous carcinoma arising roughly 30 to 40 years after the injury ^[42], which is the rationale for long-term endoscopic surveillance ^[42]. Ammonia exposure adds inhalation injury, the most lethal manifestation of that agent ^[33]; in one mass-casualty anhydrous ammonia release, ten victims died of severe inhalation injury at the scene and five more died during evacuation ^[38]. White phosphorus can produce delayed systemic toxicity and jaw osteonecrosis with chronic exposure ^[21].

Special Considerations¶

Chemical burns map onto distinct populations and exposure settings, and the population shapes both the agent and the prevention strategy.

Children are injured differently from adults. Pediatric chemical burns are frequently caused by household chemicals through accidental exposure ^[54], and caustic ingestions in children occur most often by unintentional swallowing ^[12], driven by accidents at home and inadequate storage of caustic agents ^[4]. The objects involved have shifted toward modern hazards: alkalotic household cleaning products and lithium button batteries are increasingly common and damage the esophagus quickly ^[41]. Lithium-powered consumer devices add a further hazard, being susceptible to overheating and destruction through thermal runaway when heat dissipation fails ^[40]. Even seemingly innocuous products injure children, from cyanoacrylate nail glue, where every burn in one case series occurred in a child through accidental spillage ^[51], to wood ash, which is dangerous despite appearing harmless ^[52]. The consistent prevention message is safe storage out of children's reach ^[51].

Occupational exposure is the dominant adult setting. Most work-related chemical burns are preventable injuries attributable to mishandling of chemicals and the absence of effective protective equipment and training ^[22]. In adults, caustic exposures cluster in occupational and suicidal contexts ^[12], a different risk profile from the accidental pediatric pattern. The elderly are a vulnerable subgroup: in a caustic-ingestion cohort, mortality was significantly higher in elderly patients than in younger ones, and the risk of a fatal outcome was increased by acid ingestion, particularly hydrochloric acid ^[39].

Assault is a third setting with its own epidemiology and prevention agenda. Deliberate acid attacks, or vitriolage, involve throwing acid or a similarly corrosive substance and have risen sharply in the UK ^[25], and managing the survivors requires the full specialist multidisciplinary burn team to address both the physical and psychological trauma ^[26]. Across all of these populations, the prevention thread is the same: better public and professional education and planning strategies to reduce incidence ^[26].

The eye and the aerodigestive tract recur as special considerations because they concentrate the worst outcomes regardless of the population, and severe ocular and esophageal burns frequently demand tertiary referral and reconstructive expertise.

Outcomes¶

Outcome in chemical burns is governed less by the chemical identity than by two modifiable factors: how fast decontamination happens and how severe the injury is at presentation. Chemical burns are largely preventable, and when properly managed they have a good outcome ^[47]. The same series that reported high operative-intervention rates also recorded low mortality with appropriate care ^[47], reinforcing that the prognosis is favorable when the early steps are done well. When death does occur, the strongest predictors are the patient and the burn rather than the chemical: in a hospital cohort, the extent of burn injury and the patient's age independently predicted mortality, with age over 60 years and burns exceeding 30% total body surface area carrying the highest odds ^[46].

The strongest outcome signal is the decontamination-timing effect already described, where immediate water lavage sharply reduced progression to full-thickness injury and delayed complications ^[7]. The clinical corollary appears in the eye: the outcome of an ocular chemical burn is directly related to the expediency with which treatment is begun ^[6], and lack of early management is associated with several-fold higher odds of low vision ^[30]. For chronic ocular disease, limbal stem cell deficiency can be treated by autologous limbal stem cell transplantation ^[10], and the evolution of these strategies has substantially improved visual and cosmetic outcomes in the chronic phase ^[53]; even so, the most reliable lever remains minimizing the acute injury, since poor immediate management produces more treatment-resistant chronic disease ^[53].

For caustic ingestion, the extent of injury at initial evaluation is the best predictor of morbidity and mortality ^[57]. Severity also depends on host factors and agent: elderly patients and acid ingestions, particularly hydrochloric acid, carry the highest risk of fatal outcome ^[39]. Overall, the recurring theme across cutaneous, ocular, and ingestion injury is that early, correct action converts a potentially devastating injury into a recoverable one, while delay or wrong first aid drives the worst outcomes.

Controversies and Evidence Gaps¶

Several long-standing debates in chemical burn care remain unresolved, and they share a common root: the absence of large controlled trials for an injury that is uncommon, heterogeneous, and often managed under emergency conditions.

The most durable controversy is the use of corticosteroids to prevent esophageal stricture after caustic ingestion. A systematic review concluded that the available evidence does not support the use of corticosteroids for preventing esophageal strictures following caustic ingestion ^[48], and an earlier analysis went further, with the authors arguing that systemic corticosteroids are not beneficial for second- and third-degree corrosive burns ^[49] and recommending that their use be abandoned because they do not prevent strictures and may cause serious adverse effects ^[49]. Despite this, steroid prophylaxis persists in practice in some centers, and the question is not formally closed across all injury grades.

The decontamination fluid itself is contested. While water has the strongest supporting evidence and is endorsed as the best decontaminating solution ^[7], amphoteric chelating solutions such as Diphoterine are reported to outperform water in some series ^[36], yet Diphoterine has not been approved by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration as a water-rinse alternative because of insufficient human safety and efficacy data ^[36]. The gap is a head-to-head human evidence base, not a mechanistic rationale.

For ocular burns, the role of amniotic membrane transplantation is unsettled. One review found uncertain evidence that amniotic membrane transplantation added to standard therapy benefits moderate acute ocular surface burns, and for severe burns the available evidence does not indicate significant benefit ^[50]. This sits within a broader gap in ophthalmic chemical-burn care, where the evidence base for commonly used acute treatments is poor and often rests on experimental animal studies, and where reduced treatment adherence and high clinic non-attendance further weaken it ^[53].

The unifying evidence gap is structural. Various acute-phase interventions to reduce the severity of caustic injury have been attempted, but there are no large controlled clinical trials demonstrating efficacy ^[11]. The honest summary is that decontamination speed is the one intervention with robust support, while most adjunctive and pharmacologic measures remain thinly evidenced.

References¶

[1] Agbenorku P et al. "Chemical Burn Injury in Kumasi: The Trend and Complications following and Their Management." Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 2015. PMID: 26579354 ↩

[2] Tovar R, Leikin JB. "Irritants and corrosives." Emergency medicine clinics of North America 2015. PMID: 25455665 ↩

[3] Akelma H, Karahan ZA. "Rare chemical burns: Review of the Literature." International wound journal 2019. PMID: 31446674 ↩

[4] Mas E, Breton A, Lachaux A. "[Management of caustic esophagitis in children]." Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie 2012. PMID: 23141564 ↩

[5] Reim M, Redbrake C, Schrage N. "Chemical and thermal injuries of the eyes. Surgical and medical treatment based on clinical and pathophysiological findings." Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia 2001. PMID: 11228610 ↩

[6] Burns FR, Paterson CA. "Prompt irrigation of chemical eye injuries may avert severe damage." Occupational health & safety (Waco, Tex.) 1989. PMID: 2733955 ↩

[7] Brent J. "Water-based solutions are the best decontaminating fluids for dermal corrosive exposures: a mini review." Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) 2013. PMID: 24003912 ↩

[8] Held M et al. "Methyl Iodide Exposure Presenting as Severe Chemical Burn Injury with Neurological Complications and Prolonged Respiratory Insufficiency." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2016. PMID: 27031431 ↩

[9] Arnljots T, Samolov B. "[Emergency management of chemical eye burns]." Lakartidningen 2018. PMID: 30277554 ↩

[10] Mohanna S et al. "Surgical approaches to autologous limbal stem cell transplantation (LSCT) following severe corneal chemical burns." Journal francais d'ophtalmologie 2022. PMID: 35063298 ↩

[11] Hall AH et al. "Corrosive substances ingestion: a review." Critical reviews in toxicology 2019. PMID: 32009535 ↩

[12] Wightman RS, Read KB, Hoffman RS. "Evidence-Based Management Of Caustic Exposures In The Emergency Department." Emergency medicine practice 2016. PMID: 27074641 ↩

[13] Walsh K, Hughes I, Dheansa B. "Management of chemical burns." British journal of hospital medicine (London, England : 2005) 2022. PMID: 35377199 ↩

[14] Sandaruwan HHPB et al. "Next-generation methods for precise pH detection in ocular chemical burns: a review of recent analytical advancements." Analytical methods : advancing methods and applications 2025. PMID: 39564777 ↩

[15] Rochlin DH et al. "Full-Thickness Chemical Burn From Trifluoroacetic Acid: A Case Report and Review of the Literature." Annals of plastic surgery 2018. PMID: 30059387 ↩

[16] Hardwicke J et al. "Chemical burns--an historical comparison and review of the literature." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2012. PMID: 22037150 ↩

[17] Robinson EP, Chhabra AB. "Hand chemical burns." The Journal of hand surgery 2015. PMID: 25653184 ↩

[18] Kolios L et al. "The nitric acid burn trauma of the skin." Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS 2010. PMID: 19875347 ↩

[19] Flammiger A, Maibach H. "Sulfuric acid burns (corrosion and acute irritation): evidence-based overview to management." Cutaneous and ocular toxicology 2006. PMID: 16702054 ↩

[20] Holla R et al. "[Hydrofluoric acid burns]." Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde 2016. PMID: 27189091 ↩

[21] Kemp Bohan PM et al. "Solid Metal Chemical and Thermal Injury Management." Military medicine 2025. PMID: 39190559 ↩

[22] Zhang YH et al. "Factors associated with chemical burns in Zhejiang province, China: an epidemiological study." BMC public health 2011. PMID: 21958110 ↩

[23] Herbert K, Lawrence JC. "Chemical burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1989. PMID: 2624694 ↩

[24] Branday J et al. "Chemical burns as assault injuries in Jamaica." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1996. PMID: 8634127 ↩

[25] Lewis CJ, Hodgkinson EL, Allison KP. "Corrosive attacks in the UK - Psychosocial perspectives and decontamination strategies." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2020. PMID: 31784238 ↩

[26] Song M, Armstrong A, Murray A. "Acid attacks: Broadening the multidisciplinary team to improve outcomes." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2020. PMID: 31230799 ↩

[27] Sue GR et al. "The unusual presentation of a burn from methyl bromide exposure: A case report and review of the literature." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2017. PMID: 28069343 ↩

[28] Agarwal A, Srivastava DN, Madhusudhan KS. "Corrosive injury of the upper gastrointestinal tract: the evolving role of a radiologist." The British journal of radiology 2020. PMID: 32706982 ↩

[29] Merle H, Gérard M, Schrage N. "[Ocular burns]." Journal francais d'ophtalmologie 2008. PMID: 18971859 ↩

[30] Robayo-Velásquez JF et al. "Ocular Chemical Burns: Epidemiological Trends in a Colombian Medical Center." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2024. PMID: 38367189 ↩

[31] Long ZH, Xie WG. "[Wet cement skin burns]." Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns 2018. PMID: 29609283 ↩

[32] Chung JY et al. "Cement-related injuries: review of a series, the National Burn Repository, and the prevailing literature." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2007. PMID: 17925652 ↩

[33] Wu G et al. "[Advances in the research of clinical features and treatment of ammonia burns]." Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns 2015. PMID: 25876641 ↩

[34] Bird JH et al. "Controversies in the management of caustic ingestion injury: an evidence-based review." Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery 2017. PMID: 28032947 ↩

[35] Eyer F, Zilker T. "[Caustic injuries of the eye, skin and the gastrointestinal tract]." Therapeutische Umschau. Revue therapeutique 2009. PMID: 19401989 ↩

[36] Lynn DD, Zukin LM, Dellavalle R. "The safety and efficacy of Diphoterine for ocular and cutaneous burns in humans." Cutaneous and ocular toxicology 2017. PMID: 27486965 ↩

[37] Lewis CJ et al. "Is it time for a change in the approach to chemical burns? The role of Diphoterine® in the management of cutaneous and ocular chemical injuries." Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS 2017. PMID: 28330646 ↩

[38] Zhang F et al. "Mass chemical casualties: treatment of 41 patients with burns by anhydrous ammonia." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2015. PMID: 26117274 ↩

[39] Caganova B et al. "Caustic Ingestion in the Elderly: Influence of Age on Clinical Outcome." Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) 2017. PMID: 29036912 ↩

[40] Mankowski PJ et al. "Cellular phone collateral damage: A review of burns associated with lithium battery powered mobile devices." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2016. PMID: 26847612 ↩

[41] Kurowski JA, Kay M. "Caustic Ingestions and Foreign Bodies Ingestions in Pediatric Patients." Pediatric clinics of North America 2017. PMID: 28502435 ↩

[42] Predescu D et al. "From Caustic Stenosis to Esophageal Cancer, a Challenging Evolution - Narrative Review." Chirurgia (Bucharest, Romania : 1990) 2024. PMID: 39520189 ↩

[43] Arnold M, Numanoglu A. "Caustic ingestion in children-A review." Seminars in pediatric surgery 2017. PMID: 28550877 ↩

[44] Ştefan C et al. "Glaucoma after chemical burns and radiation." Romanian journal of ophthalmology 2016. PMID: 29450351 ↩

[45] Salvador-Culla B et al. "Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1 in Chemical Burns." Cornea 2016. PMID: 27078002 ↩

[46] Mulatu D et al. "Outcome of burn injury and associated factor among patient visited at Addis Ababa burn, emergency and trauma hospital: a two years hospital-based cross-sectional study." BMC emergency medicine 2022. PMID: 36494642 ↩

[47] Akhtar MS et al. "Epidemiology and Outcome of Chemical Burn Patients Admitted in Burn Unit of JNMC Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India: A 5-year Experience." Journal of family medicine and primary care 2015. PMID: 25810999 ↩

[48] Katibe R et al. "Corticosteroids for Preventing Caustic Esophageal Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition 2018. PMID: 29216023 ↩

[49] Pelclová D, Navrátil T. "Do corticosteroids prevent oesophageal stricture after corrosive ingestion?" Toxicological reviews 2005. PMID: 16180932 ↩

[50] Clare G, Bunce C, Tuft S. "Amniotic membrane transplantation for acute ocular burns." The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2022. PMID: 36047788 ↩

[51] Coles C et al. "Paediatric burns secondary to nail adhesives: a case series." Burns & trauma 2016. PMID: 27597983 ↩

[52] Kiliç A, Kiliç A. "Wood ash: an unusual cause of a chemical burn." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2002. PMID: 11834340 ↩

[53] Bizrah M, Yusuf A, Ahmad S. "An update on chemical eye burns." Eye (London, England) 2019. PMID: 31086244 ↩

[54] Nguyen ATM, Chamberlain K, Holland AJA. "Paediatric chemical burns: a clinical review." European journal of pediatrics 2021. PMID: 33403450 ↩

[55] Gnaneswaran N, Perera E, Perera M, Sawhney R. "Cutaneous chemical burns: assessment and early management." Australian family physician 2015. PMID: 25770579 ↩

[56] Gunasagaran J, Sian KS, Ahmad TS. "Nail bed and flap reconstructions for acute fingertip injuries - A case review and report of a chemical burn injury." Journal of orthopaedic surgery (Hong Kong) 2019. PMID: 30943852 ↩

[57] Elshabrawi M, A-Kader HH. "Caustic ingestion in children." Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology 2011. PMID: 21910581 ↩