Studies on the prevalence of hand dermatitis in construction painting are rare. Our aim was to study the painters' chemical exposure and the prevalence of self‐reported skin symptoms on hands and forearms. A cross‐sectional questionnaire survey was conducted on 1000 Finnish male construction painters and 1000 carpenters (response rates 60.6% and 60.4%, respectively). We used 2 definitions for symptom‐based hand dermatitis (liberal ≥ 2 symptoms and strict criteria ≥ 3) and logistic regression analysis, adjusted with age and atopy. Painters reported more symptoms of hand dermatitis than carpenters (12‐month prevalence 22.5% and 14.2%, P < 0.05; strict criteria 13.3% and 6.4%, P < 0.05). A dose–response relationship was found for reporting symptoms and exposure to several solvent‐based (SB) and water‐based (WB) products. When exposure was combined into 1 variable, daily use of SB epoxy/urethane paints (OR 5.3, 95% CI 2.2–12.9; strict criteria 6.8, 2.3–19.9) and WB putties/plasters (1.9, 1.2–3.0; strict criteria 2.0, 1.1–3.9) were associated with hand dermatitis, whereas using only WB paints was not a risk factor. In conclusion, painters reported significantly more symptoms of hand dermatitis than carpenters. Putties/plasters emerged as a risk factor for dermatitis in construction painting.

Contact DermatitisVolume 52, Issue 2 p. 108-109 Allergic contact dermatitis due to MDI and MDA from accidental occupational exposure Timo Hannu, Corresponding Author Timo Hannu Section of Dermatology, and Section of Occupational Diseases, Department of Occupational Medicine, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, FinlandTimo Hannu, MD, PhD, Department of Occupational Medicine Finnish Institute of Occupational Health Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A FIN-00250 Helsinki Finland Tel: +358 30 474 2575 Fax: +358 30 474 2149 e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorTuula Estlander, Tuula Estlander Section of Dermatology, andSearch for more papers by this authorRiitta Jolanki, Riitta Jolanki Section of Dermatology, andSearch for more papers by this author Timo Hannu, Corresponding Author Timo Hannu Section of Dermatology, and Section of Occupational Diseases, Department of Occupational Medicine, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, FinlandTimo Hannu, MD, PhD, Department of Occupational Medicine Finnish Institute of Occupational Health Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A FIN-00250 Helsinki Finland Tel: +358 30 474 2575 Fax: +358 30 474 2149 e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorTuula Estlander, Tuula Estlander Section of Dermatology, andSearch for more papers by this authorRiitta Jolanki, Riitta Jolanki Section of Dermatology, andSearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 February 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00498b.xCitations: 15Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume52, Issue2February 2005Pages 108-109 RelatedInformation

Plastic gloves are made of polymers including polyvinylchloride, polyvinylalcohol, polyethylene and polyvinylacetate. Additives such as plasticizers, stabilizers, UV light absorbers, fungicides, bactericides, flame retardants and colourants are added to the polymer, and these are potential allergens. Contact allergy to plastic gloves is rare. The allergen responsible for the sensitization usually remains unknown. An organic pigment, Irgalite Orange F2G, and bisphenol A have both caused contact allergy from household‐type PVC gloves. 1 patient with allergic contact dermatitis from his PVC gloves reacted also to tricresyl phosphate and triphenyl phosphate, chemicals known to be used as plasticizers in PVC. A plasticizer, di(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate (DOP), caused 1 case of contact urticaria from the vinyl chloride slip guard of cotton gloves. 1 patient with contact urticaria from his polyethylene gloves reacted to 3 antioxidants, octadecanoic acid methyl ester and di‐tertiary butyl phenol of the gloves on scratch testing. We report 3 additional cases of allergic contact dermatitis from PVC gloves due to bisphenol A. 2 of the patients reacted also to para‐tertiary butyl catechol, a polymerization inhibitor in PVC. In chemical analysis, the connection between sensitization to para‐tertiary butyl catechol and the use of vinyl gloves could not be proven. We analysed 16 brands of disposable PVC gloves for medical use, covering at least 80% of the Finnish market. We found a very small amount of bisphenol A in 1 brand, and no para‐tertiary butyl catechol in any of the gloves. However, bisphenol A should be remembered as a possible allergen in PVC gloves.

Bisphenol A is used as an antioxidant in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics and as an inhibitor of end polymerization in PVC. Since 1998, we have investigated 4 cases of contact allergy from bisphenol A in PVC gloves. Only the case of the first patient, a packer in the food industry, has been reported in detail. A dentist and an oral hygienist apprentice had used disposable PVC gloves made by the same manufacturer, both in 1999. The dentist's PVC gloves contained 0.044% bisphenol A. In 2002, a cabin servant had used 2 brands of household-type PVC gloves. Her gloves contained 0.12% and 0.07% bisphenol A. Moreover, 2 of the patients reacted to p-tertiary butyl catechol, a polymerization inhibitor in PVC, but the connection between the allergic reaction and the PVC gloves could not be proven. In 2002, we analysed 16 brands of disposable PVC gloves for medical use, covering at least 80% of the Finnish market. We found a very small amount of bisphenol A in 1 brand, and no p-tertiary butyl catechol in any of the gloves. Nowadays, it seems that manufacturers avoid using bisphenol A in the production of disposable gloves for medical use, but bisphenol A should be remembered as a possible contact allergen in PVC products.

Melamine‐formaldehyde resin (MFR) is used as a textile finish, in tableware, in surface coatings, and in glues in the furniture and wood industry. MFR is considered to be an infrequent sensitizer. Contact allergy to MFR is often combined with formaldehyde allergy. Patients allergic to textile finish often react to MFR, although other finishes are nowadays more commonly used. Besides allergy to textile finish, allergic contact dermatitis from MFR has been described in workers in composite production and in an orthopaedic plaster technician. To our knowledge, there are no previous reports of contact allergy in the plywood industry from MFR. We describe 3 cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis from MFR without contact allergy to formaldehyde, 1 in the plywood industry, 1 in the production of melamine‐laminated chipboard and 1 in laboratory work.

Contact DermatitisVolume 47, Issue 6 p. 361-364 Biochemist's occupational allergic contact dermatitis from iodoacetamide and acrylamide K. Aalto-Korte, K. Aalto-Korte Section of Dermatology, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH), Helsinki, FinlandSearch for more papers by this authorR. Jolanki, R. Jolanki Section of Dermatology, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH), Helsinki, FinlandSearch for more papers by this authorK. Suuronen, K. Suuronen Section of Dermatology, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH), Helsinki, FinlandSearch for more papers by this authorT. Estlander, T. Estlander Section of Dermatology, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH), Helsinki, FinlandSearch for more papers by this author K. Aalto-Korte, K. Aalto-Korte Section of Dermatology, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH), Helsinki, FinlandSearch for more papers by this authorR. Jolanki, R. Jolanki Section of Dermatology, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH), Helsinki, FinlandSearch for more papers by this authorK. Suuronen, K. Suuronen Section of Dermatology, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH), Helsinki, FinlandSearch for more papers by this authorT. Estlander, T. Estlander Section of Dermatology, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH), Helsinki, FinlandSearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 February 2003 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.4706092.xCitations: 16Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume47, Issue6December 2002Pages 361-364 RelatedInformation

Synthetic mineral fibres (i.e. man-made vitreous fibres, MMVF) are classified into glass filament, mineral wool (glass wool, rock wool and slag wool), refractory ceramic fibres, and fibres for special purposes. This paper analyses the data on occupational irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) caused by MMVF during 1990-99 in Finland according to the Finnish Register of Occupational Diseases (FROD). A total of 63 cases from MMVF were reported. 56 were diagnosed as ICD, and 2 as allergic contact dermatitis, both from rock wool. 53 out of 63 cases were due to mineral wool or glass filaments; half of the cases, according to a rough estimate, were due to mineral wool and a half due to glass filaments used in lamination work. Carpenters, building workers and insulation workers have the highest risk of ICD from mineral wool. 4 cases in carpenters, 4 in building workers and 2 in insulation workers were reported from MMVF. For every 100 000 employed workers, only 1.6 cases of ICD in carpenters, 2.7 in building workers and 9.1 in insulation workers were annually due to MMVF, respectively. Mineral wool used in construction work, insulation, etc., cannot be considered to be a common cause of occupationally induced ICD. However, information on harmful skin effects of MMVF is useful to exposed persons in the prevention of the effects.

Objective: The aim was to study the causes of respiratory hypersensitivity in dental personnel based on the statistics of the Finnish Register of Occupational Diseases (FROD; 1975–1998) and the patient material of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH; 1990–1998). Methods: Details about the cases of respiratory hypersensitivity were compiled from the FROD. The occupational rhinitis diagnoses studied at the FIOH were based on work-related symptoms and a change in the status of the nasal mucosa during challenge testing; and the diagnosis of occupational asthma based on reactions in challenge testing, or on IgE positivity and peak flow monitoring at work and during days off. Results: A total of 64 cases of occupational respiratory diseases (ORDs) was diagnosed in dental personnel during 1975 to1998 according to the FROD; two cases in 1975 to 1989, and 62 in 1990 to 1998. Twenty-eight cases were of occupational asthma (18 caused by methacrylates), 28 occupational rhinitis (six caused by methacrylates), seven allergic alveolitis and one organic dust toxic syndrome (ODTS). The non-acrylate-material diagnosed in 1990–1998 at the FIOH comprised three cases of asthma and one of rhinitis caused by chloramine-T (sodium-N-chlorine-p-toluene sulphonamide); as well as one case of asthma, seven cases of rhinitis, and two cases of combined rhinitis and conjunctivitis caused by natural rubber latex (NRL). Furthermore, one case of occupational rhinitis caused by Nobetec containing colophony was diagnosed. The incidence rate (IR) of ORD increased from 0 in 1988 to a peak of 105.1 new cases per100,000 working years in 1995. During the last observation year, i.e. 1998, the IR was 55 new cases per 100,000 workers. The IR in dental personnel was lower than in the whole working population in Finland up until 1992, but since then has been greater than in the whole population, peaking in 1995 when the IR of dental personnel was 2.55 times greater than in the whole population. Conclusion: The present study shows the increasing frequency of respiratory hypersensitivity among dental personnel. Besides methacrylates, important causes of respiratory hypersensitivity are NRL and chloramine-T.

Background: Epoxy resin ( ER) is a common cause of occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but contact urticaria from ER is very rare.Methods and Results: A plastic-product worker first developed ACD from diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA) epoxy resin, and subsequent exposure resulted half a year later in contact urticaria: first with edema of the lips and eyelids, and later an urticarial reaction on the upper chest, with strong swelling of the eyelids and tightness of the throat. The diagnosis was based on a positive skin prick test to his own ER compound, a positive prick test reaction to DGEBA, and a positive skin provocation test with the ER compound and DGEBA. The contact urticaria test reaction was strongly aggravated when the allergen was wiped off with an alcohol solution, apparently because the solution enhanced the penetration of the allergen.Conclusions: Our case is of interest, first, because contact urticaria from ER is very rare, and second, because this is the second report in which a strongly intensified contact urticaria reaction was provoked by an alcohol solution. We suggest that if the contact urticaria provocation test with low-molecular-weight chemicals is negative, a contact urticaria provocation test with alcohol (CUPTA) should be performed.

Unsaturated polyester (UP) cement caused allergic contact dermatitis in car repair work. The resin was a condensate of polyols and maleic anhydride with reactive solvent, auxiliary substances, and inorganic reinforcement substances. To identify the causative chemicals, the cement was tested on a sensitized patient. For analysis, samples of the resin were eluted with acetone and eluted with hexane to precipitate inorganic material and large polyester molecules. The eluate was evaporated. The remainder, dissolved in acetone, was separated into fractions on silica plates by thin layer chromatography (TLC). On the developed (hexane/chloroform, 15/85) plates, 20 bands were obtained under UV‐light at 254 nm. Samples of the bands were scraped and used for patch testing. The scraping at a retention factor (Rf) of 0.24 caused a skin reaction. The bands at this retention were removed from six plates, combined, eluted with acetone and purified again by TLC. The purified fraction mixed in petrolatum in the dilution series was used for conclusive patch testing on the patient. An allergic reaction was induced at down to 0.003% wt/wt. According to MS and IR analyses, the isolated compound was diethyleneglycol maleate (DEGM, MW204). In addition to the resin part, the sanding dust also contained this monomer.

BACKGROUND:At present the diagnosis of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to phthalic anhydride (PA) is based on conjugates that are not characterized or standardized. The aim of this study was to develop optimized and molecularly characterized PA conjugates that can be used to improve the diagnosis of PA-allergy.METHODS:The PA conjugates were synthesized and the number of haptens bound on a carrier protein was estimated by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of light (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry. The ability of conjugates to bind IgE and IgG antibodies was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Reactivity of the conjugates in vivo was evaluated by skin prick testing.RESULTS:The most active IgE-binding conjugates had a PA : HSA molar ratio of 80 : 1. In the optimal conjugates the average numbers of PA haptens per carrier molecule of human serum albumin (HSA) were 14-16. In ELISA, all 13 patients and none of the 20 controls had IgE antibodies to optimized PA conjugate. The sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA was comparable to commercial CAP RAST. PA conjugates elicited positive test results in skin prick testing showing that conjugates are immunologically active also in vivo.CONCLUSIONS:These results indicate that optimized and molecularly characterized PA-HSA conjugates can be used both in vitro and in vivo assays to improve the diagnosis of PA allergy.

BACKGROUND:Dental products contain many allergens, and may cause problems both for patients undergoing dental treatment and for dental personnel because of occupational exposure. Individual patch test clinics may not study sufficient numbers of patients to collect reliable data on uncommon allergens.OBJECTIVE:To collect information on dental allergens based on a multicenter study.MATERIALS AND METHODS:The Finnish Contact Dermatitis Group tested more than 4,000 patients (for most allergens, 2,300 to 2,600 patients) with dental screening series. Conventional patch testing was performed. The total number and percentage of irritant (scored as irritant [IR] or doubtful [?]) and allergic (scored as +, ++, or +++) patch test reactions, respectively, were calculated, as well as the highest and lowest percentage of allergic patch test reactions recorded by the different patch test clinics. A reaction index (RI) was calculated, giving information on the irritancy of the patch test substances.RESULTS:The most frequent allergic patch test reactions were caused by nickel (14.6%), ammoniated mercury (13%), mercury (10.3%), gold (7.7%), benzoic acid (4.3%), palladium (4.2%) and cobalt (4.1%). 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.8%) provoked most of the reactions caused by (meth)acrylates. Menthol, peppermint oil, ammonium tetrachloroplatinate, and amalgam alloying metals provoked no (neither allergic nor irritant) patch test reactions.CONCLUSION:Patch testing with allergens in the dental screening series, including (meth)acrylates and mercury, needs to be performed to detect contact allergy to dental products.