Contact dermatitis · 2020
Ten years of contact allergy from acrylic compounds in an occupational dermatology clinic.
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, Suuronen Katri
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Contact allergy from acrylic compounds is a "hot topic". Knowledge on the exact chemical composition of acrylic products is superficial.
AIMS: To retrospectively describe patients with allergic reactions to acrylic compounds.
METHODS: We included patients who had been tested with acrylate patch test series and displayed allergic reactions to at least one acrylic compound. Chemical analyses were often performed when safety data sheets of implicated products failed to reveal acrylic compounds to which the patient tested positive.
RESULTS: In 2010-2019 a total of 55 patients met the inclusion criteria. Eight cases of allergic contact dermatitis were due to anaerobic sealants, seven to dental products, three to windscreen glues, seven to eyelash glues and/or nail products in the beauty sector, three to UV-cured printing inks, two to paints/lacquers, and one to polyester resin system. The origin of these contact allergies was occupational with the exception of four beauty sector workers who had developed eyelid symptoms from eyelash extensions glued onto their own eyelashes. We invariably detected methacrylate monomers in 15 chemical analyses of 12 different anaerobic sealants.
CONCLUSIONS: Safety data sheets of anaerobic sealants often lack warnings for skin sensitization, although these products regularly contain sensitizing methacrylates.
AIMS: To retrospectively describe patients with allergic reactions to acrylic compounds.
METHODS: We included patients who had been tested with acrylate patch test series and displayed allergic reactions to at least one acrylic compound. Chemical analyses were often performed when safety data sheets of implicated products failed to reveal acrylic compounds to which the patient tested positive.
RESULTS: In 2010-2019 a total of 55 patients met the inclusion criteria. Eight cases of allergic contact dermatitis were due to anaerobic sealants, seven to dental products, three to windscreen glues, seven to eyelash glues and/or nail products in the beauty sector, three to UV-cured printing inks, two to paints/lacquers, and one to polyester resin system. The origin of these contact allergies was occupational with the exception of four beauty sector workers who had developed eyelid symptoms from eyelash extensions glued onto their own eyelashes. We invariably detected methacrylate monomers in 15 chemical analyses of 12 different anaerobic sealants.
CONCLUSIONS: Safety data sheets of anaerobic sealants often lack warnings for skin sensitization, although these products regularly contain sensitizing methacrylates.