Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-06
Occupational Contact Dermatitis in North American Print Machine Operators Referred for Patch Testing: Retrospective Analysis of Cross-Sectional Data From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 1998 to 2014
Little is known about the epidemiology of contact dermatitis (CD) in print machine operators (PMOs).
Objective
The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of CD and characterize clinically relevant and occupationally related allergens among PMOs undergoing patch testing.
Methods
This was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group data from 1998 to 2014.
Results
Of 39,332 patch-tested patients, 132 (0.3%) were PMOs. Among PMOs, most were male (75.0%) and white (92.4%). The majority were printing press operators (85.6%). The most frequent sites of dermatitis were hands (63.6%), arms (29.5%), and face/scalp (24.2%). More than half had an occupationally related skin condition (56.1%). Final diagnoses were most commonly allergic CD (58.3%) and irritant CD (33.3%). Cobalt (20.8%), carba mix (12.5%), thiuram mix (8.3%), and formaldehyde (8.3%) were the most frequent occupationally related allergens. The top allergen sources included inks (22.9%), gloves (20.8%), and coatings/dye/copy/photographic chemicals (14.6%).
Conclusions
Allergic CD, irritant CD, and involvement of exposed body areas were common among PMOs. Common allergens included rubber accelerators, metals, and preservatives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Skin Exposures and Effects. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/skin/. Published 2013. Accessed May19, 2016.
MeyerJD, ChenY, HoltDL, et al.Occupational contact dermatitis in the UK: a surveillance report from EPIDERM and OPRA. Occup Med (Lond), 2000; 50(4):265–273.
4.
LivesleyEJ, RushtonL, EnglishJS, et al.The prevalence of occupational dermatitis in the UK printing industry. Occup Environ Med, 2002; 59:487–492.
5.
Printing and related support activities industry profile. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Available at: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/026.nsf/eng/h_00077.html. Published 2016. Accessed September20, 2016.
AndersonSE, TappL, DurgamS, et al.The identification of a sensitizing component used in the manufacturing of an ink ribbon. J Immunotoxicol, 2012; 9(2):193–200.
10.
BjörknerB, DahlquistI, FregertS. Allergic contact dermatitis from acrylates in ultraviolet curing inks. Contact Dermatitis, 1980; 6(6):405–409.
MagnussonB, MobackenH. Allergic contact dermatitis from acrylate printing plates in a printing plant. Berufsdermatosen, 1972; 20(3):138–142.
14.
MaltenKE.Letterflex photoprepolymer sensitization in newspaper printers due to penta erythritol tetrakis 3 mercaptopropionate and 3 mercaptopropionic acid. Contact Dermatitis, 1977; 3(5):257–262.
15.
MaltenKE.Contact sensitization to Letterflex urethane photoprepolymer mixture used in printing. Contact Dermatitis, 1977; 3(3):115–121.
16.
MaltenKE, BendeWJ. 2-Hydroxy- ethyl-methacrylate and di- and tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate: contact sensitizers in a photoprepolymer printing plate procedure. Contact Dermatitis, 1979; 5(4):214–220.
17.
MorganVA, FewingsJM. 1,6-Hexanediol diacrylate: a rapid and potent sensitizer in the printing industry. Australas J Dermatol, 2000; 41(3):190–192.
18.
NethercottJR.Skin problems associated with multifunctional acrylic monomers in ultraviolet curing inks. Br J Dermatol, 1978; 98(5):541–552.
19.
NethercottJR.Allergic contact dermatitis due to an epoxy acrylate. Br J Dermatol, 1981; 104(6):697–703.
20.
NethercottJR, JakubovicHR, PilgerC, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis due to urethane acrylate in ultraviolet cured inks. Br J Ind Med, 1983; 40(3):241–250.
21.
NoilesK, KudlaI, DeKovenJ. Propylene glycol dermatitis in the printing industry: the fundamental role of a workplace visit. Dermatitis, 2010; 21(1):E1–E4.
22.
PedersenNB, SenningA, NielsenAO. Different sensitising acrylic monomers in Napp printing plate. Contact Dermatitis, 1983; 9(6):459–464.
23.
WahlbergJE.Contact sensitivity to NAPP printing plates secondary to a relapsing hand dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 1983; 9(3):239.
WidströmL.Contact allergy to acrylate monomer in a printing plate. Contact Dermatitis, 1982; 8(1):68–69.
26.
WarshawEM, HagenSA, DeKovenJ, et al.Occupational contact dermatitis in North American production workers referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 1998 to 2014. Dermatitis In press.
27.
WarshawEM, MaibachHI, TaylorJS, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2011–2012. Dermatitis, 2015; 26(1):49–59.
28.
US Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Alphabetical Index of Industries and Occupations. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census; 1992.
29.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. Household Data Annual Averages. Table 11b. Employed persons by detailed occupation and age. Bureau of Labor Statistics Population Survey. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.htm. Published 2015. Accessed August4, 2016.
30.
SmithW.Allergic dermatitis due to a triacrylate in ultraviolet cured inks. Contact Dermatitis, 1977; 3(6):312–314.
31.
GeierJ, LessmannH, MahlerV, et al.Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves—nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67(3):149–156.
32.
PonténA, HamneriusN, BruzeM, et al.Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by sterile non-latex protective gloves: clinical investigation and chemical analyses. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68(2):103–110.
33.
SchwensenJF, MennéT, JohansenJD, et al.Contact allergy to rubber accelerators remains prevalent: retrospective results from a tertiary clinic suggesting an association with facial dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2016; 30(10):1768–1773.
34.
JolankiR, TarvainenK, TatarT, et al.Occupational dermatoses from exposure to epoxy resin compounds in a ski factory. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 34(6):390–396.
35.
FowlerJF Jr. Cobalt. Dermatitis, 2016; 27(1):3–8.
36.
KanervaL, JolankiR, EstlanderT, et al.Incidence rates of occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by metals. Am J Contact Dermat, 2000; 11(3):155–160.
37.
FischerT, AdamsR.Paints, varnishes, and lacquers. In: AdamsR, ed. Occupational Skin Disease. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Co; 1990:426–438.
38.
SassevilleD.Acrylates in contact dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2012; 23(1):6–16.
39.
EmmettEA.Contact dermatitis from polyfunctional acrylic monomers. Contact Dermatitis, 1977; 3(5):245–248.
40.
GoossensA, ConinxD, RommensK, et al.Occupational dermatitis in a silk-screen maker. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 39(1):40–41.
