Search

The effective toxicological evaluation of skin sensitization demands that potential contact allergens are identified and that the likely risks of sensitization among exposed populations assessed. By definition, chemicals which possess the toxicological property of skin sensitization potentially are capable of causing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in humans. However, this hazard is not an all-or-none phenomenon; clear dose-response relationships can be discerned and thresholds identified for both the induction of sensitization and the elicitation of contact dermatitis. Commonly, these parameters are grouped under the heading of potency, determination of which is vital for risk assessment. In the present investigation, the local lymph node assay (LLNA) has been employed to determine the relative potency of a range of 20 chemicals. The parameter used is the estimated concentration required to produce a 3-fold increase in draining lymph-node cell proliferative activity, the EC3 value. These measurements have been compared with an assessment of the human sensitizing potency of the 20 selected chemicals, each being assigned to 1 of 5 classes based on their human sensitizing potency. The EC3 value, derived from LLNA work carried out in acetone/ olive oil vehicle, correlated well with the human classification, with the strongest sensitizers having low EC3 values (O.1%), weaker sensitizers having EC3 values generally in the 1-10% range, and non-sensitizing chemicals having EC3 values in excess of 100%. In conclusion, the derivation of the EC3 for a chemical provides an objective and quantitative estimate of potency that is of considerable utility for skin sensitization risk assessment.

Fragrances are widely encountered in our daily environment and are known to be a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis. We have reviewed our patch test data from 1980 to 1996 to establish whether the pattern of fragrance allergy has changed with time. During this period, 25,545 patients (10,450 male, 15,005 female) were patch tested with the European standard series. The mean annual frequency of positive reactions to the fragrance mix was 8.5% in females (range 6.1-10.9) and 6.7% in males (range 5.1-12.9). Females were 1.3 times more likely to be allergic to fragrance (P0.001, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.17-1.41). Males with fragrance allergy were older than females by 5.6 years (mean age 48.2 vs. 42.6 years; P0.001, 95% CI 3.9-7.3). The incidence of a concomitant positive patch test to balsam of Peru in fragrance-sensitive patients showed wide variation, suggesting that it is not a reliable marker of fragrance allergy. There was a positive correlation between the isomers isoeugenol and eugenol. Oak moss remained the most common overall allergen throughout the study, positive in 38.3% of females and 35.6% of males who were tested to the constituents of the fragrance mix. During the period of the study the incidence of positive tests to oak moss increased by 5% yearly (P = 0.001, 95% CI 2.2-8.7). The frequency of allergic reactions to eugenol and geraniol remained relatively constant. Isoeugenol and alpha-amyl cinnamic aldehyde sensitivity increased and hydroxycitronellal showed a slow decline. There was a striking reduction in the frequency of sensitivity to cinnamic aldehyde (by 18% yearly; P0.001, 95% CI 14.3-21.0) and cinnamic alcohol (by 9% yearly; P0.001, 95% CI 5.2-12.9); these are now uncommon fragrance allergens. These data show temporal trends which may reflect the frequency of population exposure to individual fragrances.

For 15 years, hand dermatitis accounted for a quarter of patients seen in this clinic. The highest proportion occurred in women aged 17-30 years. Overall, the male to female ratio was 0.8, which contrasts with population-based studies. Catering was most frequently associated with occupational hand dermatitis. Other frequent occupational associations included metalworking, hairdressing, healthcare and mechanical work.

To obtain data on the frequency of sensitization among European hairdressers, the patch test results from 9 centres were evaluated. 8 allergens recommended by the ICDRG and EECDRG in the hairdressing series and PPD from the standard series were used to patch test 809 hairdressers and 104 clients suspected of contact sensitization. Among hairdressers, the mean frequencies of sensitization ranked as follows: GMT 19%, PPD 15%, APS 8%, PTD 8%, ONPPD 4% and PADH 4%. In contrast to GMT in acid permanent waves, the frequency of sensitization to AMT in alkaline permanent waves was only 4%. Frequencies of sensitization to pyrogallol and resorcinol were 0.8% and 0.6%, respectively. The frequencies of sensitization showed marked regional variations, particularly that to GMT, which was highest in Germany (51%), followed by Spain (22%) and London (19%). Clients of hairdressers showed a similar rank order of sensitization frequency, with the exception of APS, which was completely negative in this (small) series.

In most cases occupational contact dermatitis is primarily caused by direct localised skin contact with chemical or physical agents, but its development may also depend on wider aspects of the occupational environment. Firstly, allergens may widely contaminate surfaces in sufficient quantity to elicit dermatitis; this is not as often true of irritants. Secondly, occupational contactants may enter the air as molecules, particles or droplets and elicit dermatitis. This can occur with irritants as well as allergens. Thirdly, low humidity of the air itself can cause dermatitis, as well as promoting the action of irritants and allergens on the skin. Specific examples are given of each of these wider environmental aspects and preventive methods are discussed.

As offices have become more complex environments, the number of skin problems among office workers has increased. Among the agents implicated are carbonless copy paper, duplicating machines, formaldehyde, video display terminals, and rubber bands. Accurate diagnosis can be difficult but usually results in complete cure.

I hope that this brief review has been sufficient to prove the importance that looking at patients' work should have in the investigation of suspected occupational dermatoses. For the dermatologist subspecializing in occupational cases, visits are, I believe, a continuing necessity in the weekly routine. For all other dermatologists, even occasional visits can make an important contribution to the accuracy with which diagnoses and advice on prevention can be provided in suspected cases of occupational dermatoses.

A localised epidemic of scabies lasting nearly a year occurred among crews on river pleasure craft. There was a sharp contrast between the paucity of scabietic lesions, especially burrows, and an unusually high infectivity. Scarcely a crew member was free from itching, yet individually diagnosis proved extremely difficult.