Contact dermatitis · 2012
Several cases of work-related allergic contact dermatitis caused by isocyanates at a company manufacturing heat exchangers.
Клинический случайСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Engfeldt Malin, Isaksson Marléne, Zimerson Erik, Bruze Magnus
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A 43-year-old woman was referred by her occupational health service with suspected occupational contact dermatitis. In connection with the investigation, a workplace visit was undertaken at her company, which used an adhesive based on pre-polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate in one of its units. During the visit, we became aware of six other employees with skin problems who were then referred to our department for investigation.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the seven employees complaining about skin problems.
METHODS: Seven employees were patch tested with a baseline series, an isocyanate series, and a series with work material.
RESULTS: Five of seven patients had occupational contact allergy. Four reacted to isocyanate-related test preparations, and one to a cleanser used at the workplace.
CONCLUSIONS: Workplace visits constitute an important part of an occupational investigation, as they might give a broader picture of the problems at a company. In this case, it was found that 5 of 100 employees currently had or had previously had occupation-related skin problems. Owing to 'healthy worker selection', some of these patients might have been missed if we had not performed a full-scale workplace visit.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the seven employees complaining about skin problems.
METHODS: Seven employees were patch tested with a baseline series, an isocyanate series, and a series with work material.
RESULTS: Five of seven patients had occupational contact allergy. Four reacted to isocyanate-related test preparations, and one to a cleanser used at the workplace.
CONCLUSIONS: Workplace visits constitute an important part of an occupational investigation, as they might give a broader picture of the problems at a company. In this case, it was found that 5 of 100 employees currently had or had previously had occupation-related skin problems. Owing to 'healthy worker selection', some of these patients might have been missed if we had not performed a full-scale workplace visit.