Contact dermatitis · 2008
Occupational methacrylate and acrylate allergy from glues.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Aalto-Korte Kristiina, Alanko Kristiina, Kuuliala Outi, Jolanki Riitta
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Glues and sealants are important causes of methacrylate and acrylate allergy.
AIM: This study aimed to analyse patterns of allergic patch test reactions to acrylic monomers in relation to exposure in patients sensitized from glues.
PATIENTS/METHODS: We screened the patch test files at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health from 1994 to 2006 for allergic reactions in the 'Methacrylate series' and analysed the clinical records of sensitized patients. Only patients who had handled acrylic glues at work were included.
RESULTS: 10 patients had allergic reactions to acrylic monomers and had been sensitized from glues at work. 9 of them had used anaerobic sealants, 3 cyanoacrylate-based instant adhesives, and 1 patient a bi-component instant adhesive. All the patients reacted to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA); reactions to 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate were also common. The first 4 methacrylates were found in the glues used by the patients. Ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA) gave no reactions, but 1 patient reacted weakly to her own ECA-based glue.
CONCLUSION: 2-HEMA and EGDMA are good screeners for contact allergy to anaerobic sealants and also detected a single case deriving from bi-component acrylic glue.
AIM: This study aimed to analyse patterns of allergic patch test reactions to acrylic monomers in relation to exposure in patients sensitized from glues.
PATIENTS/METHODS: We screened the patch test files at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health from 1994 to 2006 for allergic reactions in the 'Methacrylate series' and analysed the clinical records of sensitized patients. Only patients who had handled acrylic glues at work were included.
RESULTS: 10 patients had allergic reactions to acrylic monomers and had been sensitized from glues at work. 9 of them had used anaerobic sealants, 3 cyanoacrylate-based instant adhesives, and 1 patient a bi-component instant adhesive. All the patients reacted to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA); reactions to 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate were also common. The first 4 methacrylates were found in the glues used by the patients. Ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA) gave no reactions, but 1 patient reacted weakly to her own ECA-based glue.
CONCLUSION: 2-HEMA and EGDMA are good screeners for contact allergy to anaerobic sealants and also detected a single case deriving from bi-component acrylic glue.