American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society · 1999
Occupational protein contact dermatitis to cornstarch in a paper adhesive.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Guin J D, Westfall C, Ruddell D, Caplinger K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Protein contact dermatitis is better known in food-service and health-care workers than in industrial workers. Cornstarch has seldom been a problem, although it can cause contact urticaria to glove powder.
OBJECTIVE: To present the case of a paper-bag maker who developed severe occupational (protein) contact dermatitis within two-three hours after returning to work. She lacked any evidence of urticaria and demonstrated largely negative patch-test results.
METHODS: Following a history of occupational exposure to a cornstarch-based adhesive, the patient was patch-tested to materials with which she had worked, which she contacted, and with which she had attempted treatment. Following patch testing, she was prick-tested to cornstarch, the principal ingredient in the adhesive.
RESULTS: Patch testing was negative except for a very mild reaction to the adhesive. Prick testing to cornstarch was more severe than the histamine control. The test site became eczematous and remained so for more than ten weeks. Avoidance of cornstarch and the adhesive was followed by clearing.
CONCLUSION: Workup for prominent occupational contact dermatitis without urticaria may sometimes require testing for type 1 allergy.
OBJECTIVE: To present the case of a paper-bag maker who developed severe occupational (protein) contact dermatitis within two-three hours after returning to work. She lacked any evidence of urticaria and demonstrated largely negative patch-test results.
METHODS: Following a history of occupational exposure to a cornstarch-based adhesive, the patient was patch-tested to materials with which she had worked, which she contacted, and with which she had attempted treatment. Following patch testing, she was prick-tested to cornstarch, the principal ingredient in the adhesive.
RESULTS: Patch testing was negative except for a very mild reaction to the adhesive. Prick testing to cornstarch was more severe than the histamine control. The test site became eczematous and remained so for more than ten weeks. Avoidance of cornstarch and the adhesive was followed by clearing.
CONCLUSION: Workup for prominent occupational contact dermatitis without urticaria may sometimes require testing for type 1 allergy.