Occupational allergy in health personnel

BACKGROUND: Health care workers are exposed to many agents that can cause irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. In nurses with eczema of the hands latex sensitivity can play an important role in the occurrence of urticaria, rhinitis and asthma. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis and contact urticaria and the role of skin sensitization to common and occupational haptens and allergens in a group of health care workers with skin problems. METHODS: Retrospective review of 204 health care workers assessed by prick and patch testing in an occupational health clinic. RESULTS: The diagnoses included 35.3% with irritant contact dermatitis, 64.7% with allergic contact dermatitis and 7.3% with contact urticaria to latex. Three workers complained of asthma and 5 complained of rhinitis related to latex sensitization. At present 12.9% of atopic subjects were sensitized to latex by skin prick against 21.9% in 1998, so sensitization showed a decline in the years considered. CONCLUSIONS: Contact dermatitis and sensitization to natural rubber latex is a significant problem and nurses should be tested for both types of hypersensitivity, as well as being patch tested to standard, rubber and disinfectants series. The need is stressed for preventive measures to prevent the onset of contact dermatitis and to avoid latex exposure.     

Occupational allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in workers exposed to polyurethane foam

Objectives

To evaluate sensitization to chemicals present in work environment after an outbreak of contact dermatitis in workers of vehicle equipment factory, exposed to polyurethane foam, based on 4,4′-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI).

Material and Methods

From among 300 employees, 21 individuals reporting work-related skin and/or respiratory tract symptoms underwent clinical examination, patch testing, skin prick tests, spirometry and MDI sIgE measurement in serum. Patch tests included isocyanates series, selected rubber additives, metals, fragrances, preservatives, and an antiadhesive agent.

Results

Clinical examination revealed current eczema in the area of hands and/or forearms in 10 workers. Positive patch test reactions were found in 10 individuals, the most frequent to diaminodiphenylmethane and 4-phenylenediamine (7 persons). Reactions to an antiadhesive agent were assessed as irritant (5 workers). Except for sensitization to common aeroallergens, no significant abnormalities were found in the remaining tests. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis was diagnosed in 7 workers, irritant contact dermatitis in 10 and coexisiting allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in 3 workers.

Conclusions

In workers manufacturing products from polyurethane foam, attention should be paid to the risk of developing contact dermatitis. Skin problems in our study group were attributable probably to insufficient protection of the skin.     

Investigation of the cause of contact dermatitis due to heavy metal in a metal spray process in a film-condenser factory]

To investigate causes of contact dermatitis in the metal spray process in a film-condenser factory, we developed a questionnaire survey for workers exposed to metal dust, analyzed the metal dust, and conducted patch tests with the metal dust and its constituents. In the questionnaire survey, we identified 12 workers (12/26, 46.2%) who had had dermatitis. The main symptoms were itching, itchy red skin and itchy papules. Analysis of the metal dust showed that there was no copper oxide, but nickel, not contained in the materials of the metal spray, was detected. One worker with dermatitis had a positive reaction to 2.5% nickel sulphate. Some of the workers showed primary irritant reactions to 5% copper sulphate. As a result, we considered that these cases of dermatitis involved irritant contact dermatitis due to copper and/or allergic contact dermatitis due to nickel. To prevent dermatitis, we recommended improvement in ventilation, reducing the room temperature to reduce sweating, and to educate workers on the importance of frequent hand washing. Thereafter, the incidence of dermatitis decreased, and there were no cases requiring medication.     

Occupational contact dermatitis in the UK: a surveillance report from EPIDERM and OPRA

Since February 1993 the EPIDERM surveillance scheme has collected data on occupational skin disease from consultant dermatologists in the UK. Reporting by occupational physicians to the scheme began in May 1994 and was superseded in January 1996 by the Occupational Physicians Reporting Activity (OPRA). The schemes currently receive reports on incident cases from 244 dermatologists and 790 occupational physicians. An estimated total of 9937 cases of contact dermatitis reported by dermatologists was calculated from surveillance data; 8129 contact dermatitis cases were estimated from reports by occupational physicians. The annual incidence of occupational contact dermatitis from dermatologist reports was 6.4 cases per 100,000 workers and 6.5 per 100,000 from reports by occupational physicians, an overall rate of 12.9 cases per 100,000 workers. Manufacturing industries account for the greatest number of cases seen by both sets of reporting physicians, with health care employment second. Reports from dermatologists also indicate high rates of dermatitis in the personal service industries (mainly hairdressers and barbers) and in agriculture. With the exception of an increase in cases seen in nurses in both schemes, the numbers and proportions of cases of contact dermatitis within occupations have remained fairly constant over the 6-year reporting period. Agents accounting for the highest number of allergic contact dermatitis cases were rubber (23.4% of allergic cases reported by dermatologists), nickel (18.2), epoxies and other resins (15.6), aromatic amines (8.6), chromium and chromates (8.1), fragrances and cosmetics (8.0), and preservatives (7.3). Soaps (22.0% of cases), wet work (19.8), petroleum products (8.7), solvents (8.0), and cutting oils and coolants (7.8) were the most frequently cited agents in cases of irritant dermatitis. The national scope of the data, together with the parallel structure by which both dermatologists and occupational physicians report incident cases, is useful in determining the extent of skin hazards in UK industry and may help in better targeting efforts to reduce the burden of skin disease at work.     

Allergic contact dermatitis due to urethane acrylate in ultraviolet cured inks

Seven workers exposed to ultraviolet printing inks developed contact dermatitis. Six cases were allergic and one irritant. A urethane acrylate resin accounted for five cases of sensitisation, one of which was also sensitive to pentaerythritol triacrylate and another also to an epoxy acrylate resin. One instance of allergy to trimethylpropane triacrylate accounted for the sixth case of contact dermatitis in this group of workers. An irritant reaction is presumed to account for the dermatitis in the individual not proved to have cutaneous allergy by patch tests. In this instance trimethylpropane triacrylate was thought to be the most likely irritating agent. Laboratory investigation proved urethane acrylate to be an allergen. The results of investigations of the sensitisation potentials of urethane acrylate, methylmethacrylate, epoxy acrylate resins, toluene-2,4-diisocyanate, and other multifunctional acrylic monomers in the albino guinea pig are presented. The interpretation of such predictive tests is discussed.     

Allergic contact dermatitis due to urethane acrylate in ultraviolet cured inks.

Seven workers exposed to ultraviolet printing inks developed contact dermatitis. Six cases were allergic and one irritant. A urethane acrylate resin accounted for five cases of sensitisation, one of which was also sensitive to pentaerythritol triacrylate and another also to an epoxy acrylate resin. One instance of allergy to trimethylpropane triacrylate accounted for the sixth case of contact dermatitis in this group of workers. An irritant reaction is presumed to account for the dermatitis in the individual not proved to have cutaneous allergy by patch tests. In this instance trimethylpropane triacrylate was thought to be the most likely irritating agent. Laboratory investigation proved urethane acrylate to be an allergen. The results of investigations of the sensitisation potentials of urethane acrylate, methylmethacrylate, epoxy acrylate resins, toluene-2,4-diisocyanate, and other multifunctional acrylic monomers in the albino guinea pig are presented. The interpretation of such predictive tests is discussed.     

Effects of infection control measures on skin of health care workers

A review of patients presenting to a contact dermatitis investigation clinic in 1999 showed that almost half (60/124) of those with occupational hand dermatitis were health care workers. The use of fragrance-free products would be a simple intervention to reduce the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis without affecting antimicrobial efficacy; other measures are discussed.     

Prevalence and risk factors of occupational hand dermatoses in electronics workers

The electronics industry is becoming an important mainstream in the workforce in some developed countries and in Taiwan. Among patients with occupational hand dermatitis in northern Taiwan, workers from electronics industries were one of the most important groups. We conducted a field investigation to determine the prevalence, patterns and risk factors of occupational hand dermatoses among electronics workers. The survey was conducted in five electronics plants using a self-administered questionnaire on skin symptoms and risk factors. Skin examination and patch testing were followed for those with symptoms compatible with hand dermatitis. A total of 3070 workers completed the questionnaire. Among them, 302 (9.8%) reported to have symptoms (itching and with either redness/scaling) compatible with contact dermatitis on hands. Hand dermatitis was associated with working in the fabrication unit and personal history of atopy and metal allergy, as well as the following job titles: wafer bonding, cutting, printing/photomasking, softening/degluing, impregnation and tin plating. Among those with reported hand dermatitis, 183 completed skin examination and patch testing, 65/183 (35.5%) were diagnosed as having irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) and 7/183 (3.8%) allergic contact dermatitis. The most important allergens were nickel, cobalt and phenylenediamine. In conclusion, Taiwanese electronics workers have a high risk of having hand dermatitis, especially ICD. Preventive efforts should be focused on the workers with risk factors or at certain worksites.     

Chromium induced contact dermatitis and indices for diagnosis

Chromium exposure plays an important role in development of contact dermatitis. The prevalence of contact dermatitis among tannery workers and cement-exposed workers is high. This study was designed to determine the prevalence of contact dermatitis among some Egyptian workers exposed to chromium and to investigate the role of patch test and IgE immunoassay in diagnosis of contact dermatitis. Eighty-three male workers who were exposed to chromium were selected after application of certain exclusion criteria to be the target population of this study. Forty male workers away from exposure to chromium were taken to be the controls. All the exposed and non exposed workers were investigated through an interview questionnaire, clinical examination, patch test and determination of blood and urine chromium levels, absolute eosinophilic count and total IgE level. The results showed that there was no significant difference between exposed workers with clinically diagnosed contact dermatitis and the clinically free exposed workers regarding age and work duration. 7.7% of exposed workers with positive patch test suffered from contact dermatitis while 31.6% of exposed workers with negative patch test suffered from contact dermatitis. There was no statistically significant difference between clinically diagnosed contact dermatitis workers and clinically free workers regarding blood and urine chromium levels. IgE level and absolute eosinophilic count were statistically higher among exposed workers with contact dermatitis than among clinically free exposed workers. According to the results of this study, it is concluded that the diagnosis of skin hypersensitivity to chromium should depend upon the history of chromium exposure, clinical examination and a battery of investigations including IgE level, eosinophilic count and patch test.     

Six cases of occupational skin diseases caused by cement: considerations from the aspect of occupational dermatology]

Cement, in particular Portland cement, is now widely used in the field of civil engineering and the construction industry. High alkalinity of wet cement and its tiny content of water-soluble chromate can cause occupational skin diseases. In this paper, we report four cases of contact dermatitis by cement and two cases of cement burn. The occupation of the patients included two plasterers, a truck driver, a manufacturer of cement ware and two construction workers. Skin of the hands and fingers of the cement dermatitis cases was dry and fissured, and had hyperkeratotic papules and erythemas or acute exudative eczematous lesions. In one of these cases, the eczematous lesions spread to the face, extremities and trunk. All cases resulted in a positive patch testing for sodium dichromate. The cement burn cases developed severe necrotic ulcers on the leg and/or foot following prolonged contact with wet cement inside their boots. Patch testing was negative for chromate. A field trip to a construction worksite showed that method of working as well as worker's clothing at present could not thoroughly protect the skin. Therefore we concluded that better protective clothing and gloves should be used and that working conditions be improved. Most skin diseases caused by cement occur among workers at small-scale enterprises. Therefore it is desirable that regional occupational health centers, which were established to promote the health care system for workers at small-scale enterprises, take prompt measures to avoid the skin diseases.     

Latex allergy in health care workers: frequency, exposure quantification, efficacy of criteria used for job fitness assessment

BACKGROUND: The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the latex allergy prevalence in a large population of health care workers, to quantify latex exposure deriving from use of gloves and to verify the efficacy of job fitness evaluations in allergic workers. METHODS: In the period 2001-2002, latex allergy prevalence was evaluated in 1962 health care workers by means of a self-administered questionnaire, clinical evaluation and specific allergological tests. Also, the total protein content (by means of Lowry method modified EN455-3: 1996) and the antigenic latex proteins (by means of RAST inhibition) in 4 different types of gloves were measured. Job fitness assessments for latex allergic workers were made in accordance with the criteria established by the Italian Association of Preventive Medicine for Health Care Workers criteria. The efficacy was verified one year later. RESULTS: 1557 questionnaires out of 1962 (79.35%) were completed; 504 (32.4%) reported work-related symptoms, in particular 283 subjects had probable irritant contact dermatitis, 66 allergic contact dermatitis and 118 reported irregular non-specific symptoms related to the use of both vinyl and latex gloves; 20 subjects out of the remaining 37 had a latex allergy (1.3% out of the 1557 workers responding to the questionnaire), 8 subjects had only urticaria while 12 subjects had urticaria associated with respiratory symptoms and/or angioedema. The measurement of total protein and antigenic protein content showed the highest levels in powdered latex examination gloves, the lowest levels in surgical powder-free latex gloves. Low concentrations of antigenic proteins were also found in nitrile gloves. Job fitness evaluations were efficacious in 11 out of 20 workers, and inefficacious in 3 cases (6 workers had resigned). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed a very low prevalence of latex allergy probably due to the fact that we examined an unselected population, and only symptomatic subjects were considered; moreover, in our hospital, vinyl examination gloves had been prevalently used during the last ten years. The criteria followed for job fitness assessment seem to be efficacious on the whole. In spite of a low prevalence of latex allergy, we found a high frequency of irritant contact dermatitis in the examined workers, mainly due to the lubricant powder in both synthetic and natural rubber gloves. Most workers made a complete recovery when they started using powder-free gloves. The high biocompatibility of powder-free gloves was confirmed by the measurement of total protein and latex antigenic protein content in the gloves used in the hospital. Moreover, it should be noted that latex antigenic proteins were also demonstrated in nitrile gloves, this is a relevant information since nitrile gloves are often used as an alternative in latex allergic workers.     

Medicament contact dermatitis in patients with chronic inflammatory ear disease

Patch testing of 40 patients with chronic inflammatory ear disease demonstrated medicament allergic contact dermatitis in 35%. The most frequent sensitizers were neomycin, framycetin, clioquinol and gentamicin. Although allergic contact dermatitis to dewaxing ear drops was unusual, irritant reactions were common.     

Occupational dermatoses in composite production

In a plant that produces fiber-resin composite by impregnation of cellulose fibers with phenol-formaldehyde and melamine-formaldehyde resins, a new technique was introduced that resulted in problems in the handling of uncured products. Many workers suffered dermatitis on areas of exposed skin. A primary investigation found that some workers had an occupationally related skin disease with contact allergy to work materials. We undertook a survey of occupational dermatoses, based on a questionnaire, clinical examination, and patch test with a standard series and a series of products and chemicals representing the work environment. Eighty-eight workers participated in the clinical investigation. In six workers, contact allergy to phenol-formaldehyde resin was seen, and in five workers, contact allergy to melamine-formaldehyde resin was noted. Two workers were allergic to both resins. Occupational dermatitis was diagnosed in nine of 88 (10.2%) workers. In this article, we discuss possible preventive measures for avoiding occupational dermatitis.     

Skin disease in the pottery industry

The only common skin disease in the pottery industry is eczematous dermatitis. Low-grade dermatitis, not necessitating absence from work, may affect 5-10% of the workforce. In perhaps only 1% is the condition severe enough to cause significant absence from work and the attendant financial problems. Mostly the problem is that of a cumulative irritant dermatitis associated particularly with wet work. Such a pattern is more common in patients with a history of childhood eczema. As the prognosis of industrial dermatitis is poor, such subjects should be counselled against work that occasions exposure to potential skin irritants. More rarely the problem is due to allergic contact dermatitis. Here identification and replacement or avoidance of the allergen may resolve the problem.     

Effects of pressure on contact dermatitis

In human volunteers, firm pressure was applied to deformable plastic chambers containing chemical irritants, glass fibers, and selected allergens to which the subjects were sensitive. Pressure variably intensified irritant dermatitis and strikingly enhanced fiberglass dermatitis. Pressure did not influence allergic contact dermatitis. Pressure is one of several mechanical factors that can aggravate nonallergic contact dermatitis.     

Occupational ceramic fibres dermatitis in Poland

Recently, the use of asbestos has been considerably limited in Poland, with the simultaneous increase in the manufacture, processing and application of man-made mineral fibres, which includes ceramic fibres. The aims of this study were (1) to assess the type and frequency of dermal changes caused by the irritant activity of ceramic fibres among workers at the plants that manufacture packing and insulation products; and (2) to compare the irritant activity of Polish-made L-2 and L-3 ceramic fibres with that of the Thermowool ceramic fibres made in England. Workers (n = 226) who were exposed to ceramic fibres underwent dermatological examination. Patch tests with the standard allergen set, together with samples of the fibres L-2, L-3, and Thermowool fibres, were applied to all the workers. It has been shown that the Polish-made L-2 and L-3 fibres differed from Thermowool fibres in that the L-2 and L-3 fibres contained zirconium and were coarser. The proportion of filaments with diameters above 3 microns was 11.1% in the L-3 fibre and 6.3% in the L-2 fibre samples. The Thermowool fibre did not contain filaments thicker than 3 microns. Evident dermal changes, resulting from strong irritant activity of the fibres, were detected in 109 (48.2%) of the workers examined. Irritant contact dermatitis acuta (maculae, sometimes papulae and small crusts on the upper extremities, trunk, and lower extremities), disappearing after 2-3 days, was found in 50 (22.1%) workers. Irritant contact dermatitis chronica (diffuse permanent erythema with numerous telangiectasiae on the lateral portions of the face and neck, on the trunk, behind the auricles) was detected in 40 (17.7%) workers. The remaining 19 (8.4%) workers had both types of dermal change. All examined workers complained of very strong itching. The results of the patch tests confirmed the irritant activity of the ceramic fibres. Erythema without oedema, persisting for up to 96 h, appeared at the places where the fibres had been applied to the skin in 44 (19.5%) workers. In addition, the irritant activity of the fibres has been shown to be correlated with their thickness. The Thermowool fibre was the weakest irritant, because it did not contain filaments above 3 microns in diameter; the L-2 fibre containing 6.3% filaments above 3 microns caused somewhat stronger skin irritation; while the L-3 fibre, which contained 11.1% filaments thicker than 3 microns, was the strongest irritant. A few cases of allergy to nickel, chromium and colophony (rosin) were also detected.     

Contact allergens for armpits--allergenic fragrances specified on deodorants

According to the so-called “26 allergens rule” 26 supposedly allergenic fragrances must be specified on the containers of cosmetic products if they are present above 0.001% in leave-on products and, 0.01% in rinse-off products. This declaration is meant to inform the consumers of potential risks of skin sensitizers in the products. As many consumers of deodorants suffer from allergic or irritant contact dermatitis in the axillae, the presence of allergens in deodorants deserves special attention.     

Hand disinfection: how irritant are alcohols?

Irritant contact dermatitis is commonly found on hands of healthcare employees and is often explained by contact to water and detergents. Studies on the dermal tolerance clearly show that the degree of skin irritation is significantly lower after application of alcohol in comparison to detergents. It has also been shown in standardised wash tests using a foam roller that the application of alcohol or water immediately after a detergent-based wash can significantly decrease the degree of skin irritation, probably due to a wash-off of residual detergent. If evidence-based hand hygiene is taught early during nurses training it can substantially reduce irritant contact dermatitis supporting initiatives of primary prevention among healthcare employees. The irritant potential of commonly used alcohols in hand antiseptics is very low. If the skin is pre-irritated, e.g. by detergents or water, alcohols can cause a burning sensation which is, however, not an allergic reaction and does not further harm the skin. True allergic reactions to alcohols have so far not been confirmed. From the dermatological point of view the use of alcohols for hand hygiene has clear advantages over washing with water and detergents.     

Dermatological aspects of a successful introduction and continuation of alcohol-based hand rubs for hygienic hand disinfection

With the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline on hand hygiene, hospitals often introduce alcohol-based hand rubs for hand disinfection. Healthcare workers, however, may reject the new products because of skin irritation or other skin-related problems, which they experience after years of handwashing. In order to facilitate a successful introduction and continued use of alcohol-based hand rubs in hospitals, we have reviewed and summarized the major studies on the topic. Occupational hand dermatitis may occur in up to 30% of healthcare workers. It is mainly described as an irritant contact dermatitis caused by detergents. The diagnosis is usually clinical. Allergic reactions are very rare. After using an alcohol-based hand rub for the first time, healthcare workers may have a burning skin sensation that can be explained by pre-irritated skin. In this case the skin barrier has usually been impaired by frequent handwashing or occlusive gloves. This may result in a vicious circle whereby the healthcare worker increases the frequency of handwashing and reduces the frequency of hand disinfection. Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis is possible by selection of a low-irritating hand rub, which contains emollients, the correct use of the hand rub and a clear guideline when to disinfect and wash hands in the clinical setting. Common mistakes in the use of alcohol-based hand rubs are application to pre-irritated skin and washing hands before hand disinfection, which is, in general, not necessary, or after hand disinfection, which results in washing off the emollients. Clear preparation and guidance of healthcare workers before the introduction of alcohol-based hand rubs can help to enhance compliance in hand hygiene. The switch from handwash to alcohol-based hand rub will improve healthcare workers skin if mistakes are avoided and hand rinses are used correctly.     

Occupational dermatitis from a one-component naphthalene type epoxy adhesive

In an electronics plant, a new one-component naphthalene type epoxy resin was used as an adhesive for reinforcing a circuit board. The resinous part of the adhesive consisted of diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA) and 1,6-bis(2,3-epoxypropoxy)naphthalene type epoxy resins. The hardener was methylhexahydrophthalic anhydride (MHHPA). Of 54 workers, 15 (27.8%) were diagnosed to have work-related dermatitis but were not patch tested. Therefore, it was impossible to determine the specific agent responsible for the worker's symptoms or to distinguish between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. They worked without protective gloves until they started to develop skin symptoms. The hands were the commonly affected region (13 out of 15 cases). The latent period of dermatitis was very short (mean 2.2 weeks). Of these, 10 cases (66.7%) received medication for dermatitis, and 9 cases (60%) were transferred to other work. The work-related skin symptoms were closely related to the specific tasks, i.e., filling dispensers with the adhesive and manual application of the adhesive to a portion of a circuit board using a dispenser. For occupational hygiene reasons, contact with epoxy resins should be minimized by taking all possible measures into use, including protective gloves. Further studies are required to clarify the allergenicity of 1,6-bis(2,3-epoxypropoxy)naphthalene, since very little is known about the mechanism through which it leads to the symptoms of dermatitis.