Skip header and navigation

Refine By

9 records – page 1 of 1.

Can simultaneous contact allergies to phenyl glycidyl ether and epoxy resins of the bisphenol A/F-types be explained by contamination of the epoxy resins?

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature154480
Source
Contact Dermatitis. 2008 Nov;59(5):273-9
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-2008
Author
Ann Pontén
Erik Zimerson
Magnus Bruze
Author Affiliation
Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Malmö University Hospital, SE-20502 Malmö, Sweden. ann.ponten@skane.se
Source
Contact Dermatitis. 2008 Nov;59(5):273-9
Date
Nov-2008
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Allergens - chemistry - diagnostic use
Benzhydryl Compounds
Cohort Studies
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - diagnosis - epidemiology - etiology
Dermatitis, Occupational - diagnosis - epidemiology - etiology
Epoxy Compounds - chemistry - diagnostic use
Epoxy Resins - chemistry - diagnostic use
Female
Humans
Incidence
Male
Mass Spectrometry
Middle Aged
Occupational Exposure - adverse effects
Patch Tests
Phenols - chemistry - diagnostic use
Retrospective Studies
Risk factors
Severity of Illness Index
Sweden - epidemiology
Young Adult
Abstract
Simultaneous contact allergies to epoxy resins based on diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA-R) or epoxy resins of the bisphenol F-type and the reactive diluent phenyl glycidyl ether (PGE) have been reported. The reason might be cross-reactivity, exposure to an epoxy resin system with PGE as a component, or contamination by PGE in the epoxy resin.
To study contamination by PGE, 20 commercial epoxy resins were analysed for the presence of PGE. To study contact allergy to PGE and its relation to epoxy resins by inserting PGE in the standard series.
Among 2227 patients, 7 reacted to PGE. Of 23 (30%) patients, 7 with contact allergy to DGEBA-R and 7/19 (37%) with contact allergy to an epoxy resin of the bisphenol F-type reacted to PGE. All 7 patients with contact allergy to PGE reacted both to the DGEBA-R and to the epoxy resin of the bisphenol F-type. PGE was found in 90% of the investigated resins. The amounts of PGE ranged between 0.004% w/w and 0.18% w/w.
Most probably, the presence of PGE as a contaminant in epoxy resins is of minor importance for the sensitization, but possibly the contamination of PGE might elicit contact dermatitis in individuals with a high reactivity to PGE.
PubMed ID
18976377 View in PubMed
Less detail

Concomitant contact allergies to formaldehyde, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, methylisothiazolinone, and fragrance mixes I and II.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature281951
Source
Contact Dermatitis. 2016 Nov;75(5):285-289
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-2016
Author
Ann Pontén
Magnus Bruze
Malin Engfeldt
Inese Hauksson
Marléne Isaksson
Source
Contact Dermatitis. 2016 Nov;75(5):285-289
Date
Nov-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Cohort Studies
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology
Female
Formaldehyde - adverse effects
Humans
Male
Patch Tests
Perfume - adverse effects
Preservatives, Pharmaceutical - adverse effects
Sweden
Thiazoles - adverse effects
Abstract
Contact allergies to the preservatives formaldehyde and methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI) have been reported to appear together at a statistically significant level. Recently, revisions concerning the patch test preparations of MCI/MI, MI and formaldehyde have been recommended for the European baseline series.
To investigate (i) the number of concomitant contact allergies to the preservatives, (ii) the number of concomitant contact allergies to the preservatives and the fragrance mixes (FM I and FM II) and (iii) gender differences.
Patients tested with the Swedish baseline series during the period 2012-2014 at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology in Malmö, Sweden were investigated.
2165 patients were patch tested with the baseline series (34% males and 66% females). Contact allergies to formaldehyde and MCI/MI and/or MI were significantly associated (p?
PubMed ID
27145058 View in PubMed
Less detail

Epoxy-based production of wind turbine rotor blades: occupational contact allergies.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature177142
Source
Dermatitis. 2004 Mar;15(1):33-40
Publication Type
Article
Date
Mar-2004
Author
Ann Pontén
Ole Carstensen
Kurt Rasmussen
Birgitta Gruvberger
Marléne Isaksson
Magnus Bruze
Author Affiliation
Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Malmö University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. ann.ponten@skane.se
Source
Dermatitis. 2004 Mar;15(1):33-40
Date
Mar-2004
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Allergens - adverse effects
Denmark - epidemiology
Dermatitis, Occupational - diagnosis - epidemiology - etiology
Epoxy Resins - adverse effects
Female
Humans
Male
Medical Records
Middle Aged
Patch Tests
Questionnaires
Retrospective Studies
Abstract
An industry producing rotor blades for wind turbines with an epoxy-based technology had experienced an increasing number of workers with dermatitis, among whom the frequency of occupational contact allergy (OCA) was suspected to be underestimated.
To investigate the frequency of OCA by patch-testing with a specially profiled occupational patch test series.
In a blinded study design, 603 workers were first interviewed and thereafter clinically examined. Based on a history of work-related skin disease, clinical findings of dermatitis, or both, 325 (53.9%) of the workers were patch-tested with an occupational patch test series and the European Standard patch test series.
Of the 603 investigated workers, 10.9% had OCA and 5.6% had contact allergy to epoxy resin in the standard test series. Contact allergy to amine hardeners/catalysts was found in 4.1% of the workers. Among the workers with OCA, 48.5% reacted to work material other than epoxy resin in the European Standard patch test series.
Approximately 50% of the workers with OCA would not have been detected if only the European Standard patch test series had been used.
PubMed ID
15573646 View in PubMed
Less detail

Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy is rising to alarming heights also in southern Sweden.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature266547
Source
Acta Derm Venereol. 2015 Jan;95(1):31-4
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jan-2015
Author
Marléne Isaksson
Inese Hauksson
Monica Hindsén
Ann Pontén
Cecilia Svedman
Magnus Bruze
Source
Acta Derm Venereol. 2015 Jan;95(1):31-4
Date
Jan-2015
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - diagnosis - epidemiology
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Female
Humans
Male
Patch Tests
Predictive value of tests
Preservatives, Pharmaceutical - diagnostic use
Sweden - epidemiology
Thiazoles - diagnostic use
Time Factors
Abstract
The preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) is a well-known sensitiser and present in most baseline series since at least 20 years. The proportions of MCI/MI are 3:1. MI alone has been used as a preservative in occupational and household products, and cosmetics since less than 10 years. MCI/MI tested at 100 ppm fails to detect a significant percentage of contact-allergic reactions to MI. Our aim was to investigate whether a separate test preparation with MI picks up additional cases of contact allergy to MI not detected with MCI/MI 200 ppm. MI was inserted into the baseline series of the Malmö clinic in 2003 starting at 475 ppm, then 900 ppm, then 1,000 ppm, 1,500 ppm and finally 2,000 ppm. In 5,881 consecutively tested dermatitis patients the contact allergy rate for MI varied between 0.5 and 6.5%, with a marked increase in recent years. The contact allergy rate to MI 2,000 ppm alone, not traced by MCI/MI 200 ppm, varied between 0 and 1.9 %. In conclusion, due to the increase of contact allergy to MI not traced by MCI/MI 200 ppm, MI in water at 2,000 ppm should be tested in a baseline series. Independent of patch test technique a dose of 60 µg/cm should not be exceeded to avoid adverse reactions and particularly patch test sensitisation.
PubMed ID
24676461 View in PubMed
Less detail

Occupational dermatoses in a metalworking plant.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature71374
Source
Contact Dermatitis. 2003 Feb;48(2):80-6
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2003
Author
Birgitta Gruvberger
Marléne Isaksson
Malin Frick
Ann Pontén
Magnus Bruze
A N N Pontén
Author Affiliation
Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Malmö University Hospital, Sweden.
Source
Contact Dermatitis. 2003 Feb;48(2):80-6
Date
Feb-2003
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Age Distribution
Allergens - diagnostic use
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - diagnosis - epidemiology - etiology
Dermatitis, Occupational - diagnosis - epidemiology - etiology
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Metallurgy
Middle Aged
Occupational Health
Patch Tests
Questionnaires
Risk assessment
Sex Distribution
Sweden - epidemiology
Abstract
In a plant producing advanced components for engines and drivelines we undertook a survey of occupational dermatoses, based on a questionnaire, clinical examination, and patch testing with a standard series and a series of samples from the working environment. The questionnaire was given to all 430 employees and it was answered and returned by 382 of these. 214 reported having had or having skin manifestations during the time of employment suspected of being work-related. 183 employees (164 metal workers, 19 office staff) participated in the clinical investigation, 182 (163 metal workers, 19 office staff) being patch tested. Occupational dermatoses were diagnosed in 23 of these 163 (14.1%) and in 1 of these 19 (5.3%). In all, irritant contact dermatitis was diagnosed in 12 metal workers, occupational allergic contact dermatitis in 11 (10 metal workers and 1 office clerk) and folliculitis in 1 metal worker. In the 11, neat oils were the cause in 4 workers, a water-based cutting fluid in 3 and various biocides in 4.
Notes
Erratum In: Contact Dermatitis. 2003 Jun;48(6):350Ponten, A N N [corrected to Ponten, Ann]
PubMed ID
12694210 View in PubMed
Less detail

Prevalence, incidence and predictive factors for hand eczema in young adults - a follow-up study.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature106462
Source
BMC Dermatol. 2013;13:14
Publication Type
Article
Date
2013
Author
Arne Johannisson
Ann Pontén
Åke Svensson
Author Affiliation
Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, Box 157, 221 00 Lund, Sweden. arne.johannisson@med.lu.se.
Source
BMC Dermatol. 2013;13:14
Date
2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Eczema - epidemiology - etiology
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Hand Dermatoses - epidemiology - etiology
Hand Disinfection
Humans
Incidence
Logistic Models
Male
Prevalence
Prospective Studies
Questionnaires
Risk factors
Sex Distribution
Sweden - epidemiology
Young Adult
Abstract
Hand eczema is common in the general population and affects women twice as often as men. It is also the most frequent occupational skin disease. The economic consequences are considerable for society and for the affected individuals.
To investigate the prevalence and incidence of hand eczema and to evaluate risk factors for development of hand eczema in young adults. Subjects and methods; This is a prospective follow-up study of 2,403 young adults, 16 - 19 years old in 1995 and aged 29 - 32 years, 13 years later, in 2008. They completed a postal questionnaire that included questions regarding one-year prevalence of hand eczema, childhood eczema, asthma, rhino-conjunctivitis and factors considered to affect hand eczema such as hand-washing, washing and cleaning, cooking, taking care of small children and usage of moisturisers. These factors were evaluated with the multinominal logistic regression analysis.
The one-year prevalence of hand eczema was 15.8% (females 20.3% and males 10.0%, p?
Notes
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2001 Aug;45(2):99-10311553120
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2001 Dec;45(6):341-511846749
Cites: J Invest Dermatol. 2002 Apr;118(4):719-2311918722
Cites: Am J Clin Dermatol. 2002;3(4):283-912010073
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2002 Aug;47(2):71-712423403
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2003 Aug;49(2):70-614641353
Cites: Br J Dermatol. 2003 Dec;149(6):1214-2014674899
Cites: J Invest Dermatol. 2004 Apr;122(4):873-715102075
Cites: Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1985;117:1-592931938
Cites: Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1986;128:1-632949472
Cites: Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1990;153:1-432145721
Cites: Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1992;173:1-261636360
Cites: Acta Derm Venereol. 1997 Nov;77(6):455-79394981
Cites: Acta Derm Venereol. 1998 Sep;78(5):371-49779258
Cites: Br J Dermatol. 2006 Sep;155(3):557-6016911281
Cites: Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(6):409-1516804763
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2006 Sep;55(3):186-9116918619
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2007 Aug;57(2):110-517627651
Cites: Br J Dermatol. 2009 Mar;160(3):616-2118811687
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):MR00000819588449
Cites: Br J Dermatol. 2009 Aug;161(2):397-40319302069
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2010 Feb;62(2):75-8720136890
Cites: Br J Dermatol. 2005 May;152(5):975-8015888155
Cites: Acta Derm Venereol. 2005;85(5):429-3216159736
Cites: Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005 Dec;31(6):474-816425589
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2006 May;54(5):272-716689812
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2006 Jun;54(6):334-716787455
Cites: Scand J Public Health. 2010 Jun;38(4):368-7420228157
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2010 Mar;62(3):170-620565504
Cites: Hautarzt. 2011 Mar;62(3):168-921424895
Cites: Acta Derm Venereol. 2011 Jun;91(4):452-821547337
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2011 Sep;65(3):146-5021545601
Cites: Contact Dermatitis. 2000 Aug;43(2):65-7110945743
Cites: Br J Dermatol. 2000 Mar;142(3):485-910735955
Cites: BMC Public Health. 2011;11:66921867490
Cites: Br J Dermatol. 2001 Mar;144(3):523-3211260009
PubMed ID
24164871 View in PubMed
Less detail

Routine diagnostic patch-testing with formaldehyde 2.0% (0.6 mg/cm2) may be an advantage compared to 1.0%.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature141061
Source
Acta Derm Venereol. 2010 Sep;90(5):480-4
Publication Type
Article
Date
Sep-2010
Author
Inese Hauksson
Ann Pontén
Birgitta Gruvberger
Marléne Isaksson
Magnus Bruze
Author Affiliation
Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Source
Acta Derm Venereol. 2010 Sep;90(5):480-4
Date
Sep-2010
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - diagnosis
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Female
Formaldehyde - diagnostic use
Humans
Irritants - diagnostic use
Male
Middle Aged
Patch Tests - methods
Predictive value of tests
Sweden
Young Adult
Abstract
Our clinical experience has suggested that the presently recommended patch-test concentration (1.0%) for formaldehyde in the baseline series might be too low. Therefore, consecutively patch-tested dermatitis patients were tested simultaneously with formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% (w/v) in aqua. Formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% were applied with a micro-pipette (15 microl) to filter paper discs in Finn Chambers (0.30 mg/cm(2) and 0.60 mg/cm(2), respectively). A total of 1397 patients with dermatitis were patch-tested. In all, 68 (4.9%) patients reacted positively to formaldehyde; 37 reacted only to 2.0%, 29 reacted to both concentrations, and 2 reacted only to 1.0%. Significantly more patients were thus diagnosed with contact allergy to formaldehyde 2.0% compared with 1.0% (p
PubMed ID
20814622 View in PubMed
Less detail

The validity of a questionnaire-based epidemiological study of occupational dermatosis.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature167138
Source
Contact Dermatitis. 2006 Nov;55(5):295-300
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-2006
Author
Ole Carstensen
Kurt Rasmussen
Ann Pontén
Birgitta Gruvberger
Marléne Isaksson
Magnus Bruze
Author Affiliation
Department of Occupational Medicine, Herning Hospital, DK-7400 Herning, Denmark. heckra@ringamt.dk
Source
Contact Dermatitis. 2006 Nov;55(5):295-300
Date
Nov-2006
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Cross-Sectional Studies
Denmark - epidemiology
Dermatitis, Occupational - diagnosis - epidemiology
Epoxy Resins - adverse effects
Humans
Interviews as Topic
Medical History Taking
Patch Tests
Physical Examination
Plastics - adverse effects
Predictive value of tests
Questionnaires
Sensitivity and specificity
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of a questionnaire and medical anamnesis to identify persons with dermatitis in an occupational setting. The design was a clinical epidemiological cross-sectional study. The study was performed between the second and fourth week of January 2001. A questionnaire was followed a week later by a medical occupational interview and a clinical dermatological examination, including a comprehensive patch test with potential workplace chemicals. The anamnesis and the clinical examination were made independently by occupational and dermatological physicians, and the skin examination was performed blinded to anamnestic data. The setting was the mother plants of a Danish-based international company producing wind turbine systems. The study population was a workplace cohort, highly exposed to epoxy resin systems and other chemicals, and totalled 724 production workers at 4 facilities. The rate of participation was 84.7%. Using enquete questions of current skin rash against the clinical presence of dermatitis, we found a sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 89%, compared to 45% and 87%, respectively, when the anamnestic work history, taken by an occupational physician, was the screening parameter. Using 'workplace periodic prevalence' of dermatitis, we found sensitivities in the range of 63-76% by a questionnaire and 70-83% by medical anamnesis. Questionnaire screening by skin symptoms gave the highest values for redness, a sensitivity of 33% and a specificity of 76%, and decreasing validity parameters as more symptoms were added to the list of screening questions. We found that the use of a questionnaire and medical anamnesis were problematic, when the purpose was screening for contact dermatitis and allergy, in this industrial cohort manufacturing reinforced plastic products. But these instruments might be useful for epidemiological surveillance, when the questionnaire has been validated in the given occupational setting.
PubMed ID
17026696 View in PubMed
Less detail

9 records – page 1 of 1.