Search

To examine possible ethnic variations in perception of sensitive skin, an epidemiological survey was performed in the San Francisco area. Approximately 800 telephone interviews were conducted with women from four different ethnic groups (Afro-Americans, Asians, Euro-Americans, Hispanics; approximately 200 women per group). In addition to sensitive facial skin assessments, age and other general skin condition data were collected. 52% of the subjects identified themselves as having sensitive facial skin. There was no statistical difference between the ethnic groups in terms of sensitive skin prevalence. Nevertheless, some differences were noted between ethnic subgroups of sensitive skin. Euro-Americans were characterized by a higher skin reactivity to wind and tended to be less reactive to cosmetics. Afro-Americans presented diminished skin reactivity to most environmental factors and a lower frequency of recurring facial redness. Asians appeared to have greater skin reactivity to spicy food, to sudden changes in temperature and to wind, and tended to suffer from itching more frequently. Hispanics presented a lower incidence of skin reactivity to alcohol. The differences in skin sensitivity between ethnic groups concerned mostly factors of skin reactivity and, to a lesser extent, its symptomatology. But, taken together, we note the similarities in comparing how women of varying ethnic backgrounds perceive the sensitive skin condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nursery workers have previously been identified as a group at high risk for occupational skin disease among the subgroups of California agricultural workers. As a beginning attempt to define the portion of skin disease in this population due to allergic contact dermatitis, patch testing was performed in 21 occupationally unexposed controls and 39 occupationally exposed subjects. Inorganic sulfur was tested because of its overall frequency as a reported source of skin disease in California agricultural workers. 2 additional materials, dichloronitroaniline and pentachloronitrobenzene, were also included because of their structural similarity to other nitrobenzene sensitizers. The reactions to sulfur could represent a systematic variation in irritant response between exposed and control subjects, rather than true allergic reactions.

At the University of California Patch Test Clinic at San Francisco, California during 1975-78. 26 patients examined for suspect plant dermatitis showed 20 positive patch test reactions to plants. Fourteen patients showed positive patch test reactions to juniper extract. Some of the 14 patients also had positive patch test reactions and to other extracts of the species.

Benzene levels in human breath and in ambient air were compared in the urban area of San Francisco (SF) and in a more remote coastal pristine setting of Stinson Beach, Calif. (SB). Benzene analysis was done by gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS). Ambient benzene levels were sevenfold higher in SF (2.6 +/- 1.3 ppb, n = 25) than SB (0.38 +/- 0.39 ppb, n = 21). In SF, benzene in smokers' breath (6.8 +/- 3.0 ppb) was greater than in nonsmokers' breath (2.5 +/- 0.8 ppb) and smokers' ambient air (3.3 +/- 0.8 ppb). In SB the same pattern was observed: benzene in smokers' breath was higher than in nonsmokers' breath and ambient air. Benzene in SF nonsmokers' breath was greater than in SB nonsmokers' breath. Marijuana-only smokers had benzene breath levels between those of smokers and nonsmokers. There was little correlation between benzene in breath and number of cigarettes smoked, or with other benzene exposures such as diet. Of special interest was the finding that benzene in breath of SF nonsmokers (2.5 +/- 0.8 ppb) was greater than that in nonsmokers ambient air (1.4 +/- 0.1 ppb). The same was true in SB, where benzene in nonsmokers breath was greater than ambient air (1.8 +/- 0.2 ppb versus 1.0 +/- 0.1 ppb on d 1 and 1.3 +/- 0.3 ppb versus 0.23 +/- 0.18 ppb on d 2). This suggests an additional source of benzene other than outdoor ambient air.