Contact dermatitis in construction workers (CWs) is frequent due to the widespread exposure to sensitizing substances and irritating agents and the wet and cold working conditions.
Objective
Our objectives were to evaluate contact dermatitis characteristics among CWs who underwent patch test in northeastern Italy and to identify related allergens.
Methods
Seven hundred ninety-five CWs were studied and their data were compared to 2.099 male white-collar workers. The associations between patch test results and occupations were assessed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Incidence data were calculated from 1996 to 2016.
Results
CWs with confirmed occupational dermatitis presented an increased risk to be sensitized to potassium dichromate [OR 3.1 (95%IC 2.0-4.8)], to thiurams [OR 8 .6 (95%IC 4.0-18.4)], and to epoxy resins [OR 12.7 (95%IC 6.1–26.4)]. Sensitization to chromate decreased significantly after 2004, following EU regulation of chromate content in concrete, while sensitization to epoxy resins and thiurams increased. The overall incidence of occupational contact dermatitis in CWs decreased significantly.
Conclusion
Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of EU regulations in reducing chromate sensitization in CWs and the overall incidence of occupational contact dermatitis. However, sensitization to other haptens is increasing, though improvement of protective measures is compulsory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Van der MolenHF, de VriesSC, StocksSJ, et al.Incidence rates of occupational diseases in the Dutch construction sector, 2010–2014. Occup Environ Med, 2016; 73:350–352.
2.
TimmermanJG, HeederikD, SpeeT, et al.Contact dermatitis in the construction industry: the role of filaggrin loss-of-function mutations. Br J Dermatol, 2016; 174:348–355.
3.
TimmermanJG, HeedrikD, SpeeT, et al.Contact dermatitis is an unrecognized problem in the construction industry: comparison of four different assessment methods. Am J Ind Med, 2017; 60:879–888.
4.
TimmermanJG, HeederikD, SpeeT, et al.Skin symptoms in the construction industry: occurrence and determinants. Am J Ind Med, 2014; 57:660–668.
5.
TimmermanJG, ZilautH, HeedrekD, et al.Validation of a questionnaire on hand hygiene in the construction industry. Ann Occup Hyg, 2014; 58:1046–1056.
6.
MowitzE, ZimersonE, HaukssonI, et al.Chromate and amine contact allergies in workers manufacturing precast concrete elements. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75:363–369.
ChuCY, PonténA, SunCC, et al.Concomitant contact allergy to the resins, reactive diluents and hardener of a bisphenol A/F-based epoxy resin in subway construction workers. Contact Dermatitis, 2006; 54:131–139.
9.
SpeeT, DuivenboodenC, TerwoertJ. Epoxy resins in the construction industry. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2006; 1076:429–438.
10.
SpeeT, TimmermanJG, RühlR, et al.Determinants of epoxy allergy in the construction industry: a case-control study. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 74:259–266.
11.
RuiF, BovenziM, ProdiA, et al.Nickel, cobalt and chromate sensitization and occupation. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 62(4):225–231.
12.
ProdiA, RuiF, Belloni FortinaA, et al.Healthcare workers and skin sensitization: north-eastern Italian database. Occup Med (Lond), 2016; 66:72–74.
13.
ProdiA, RuiF, FortinaAB, et al.Occupational sensitization to epoxy resins in Northeastern Italy (1996–2010). Int J Occup Environ Health, 2015; 21:82–87.
WilkinsonDS, FregertS, MagnussonB, et al.Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol, 1970; 50:287–292.
16.
IrvineAD, McLeanWH. Breaking the (un)sound barrier: filaggrin is a major gene for atopic dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol, 2006; 126:1200–1202.
17.
BrownSJ. Hand dermatitis in construction workers: a lesson in genetic epidemiology. Br J Dermatol, 2016; 174:348–355.
18.
GeierJ, KrautheimA, UterW, et al.Occupational contact allergy in the building trade in Germany: influence of preventive measures and changing exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2011; 84:403–411.
19.
ButtazzoS, ProdiA, FortinaAB, et al.Sensitization to rubber accelerators in northeastern Italy: the Triveneto Patch Test database. Dermatitis, 2016; 27:222–226.
20.
UterW, RühlR, PfahlbergA, et al.Contact allergy in construction workers: results of a multifactorial analysis. Ann Occup Hyg, 2004; 48:21–27.
21.
European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending for the 26th time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (nonylphenol, nonylphenol ethoxylate and cement). Off J Eur Union 2003;L178/24–L178/27.
22.
AvnstorpC. Risk factors for cement eczema. Contact Dermatitis, 1991; 25:81–88.
23.
ZachariaeCO, AgnerT, MennéT. Chromium allergy in consecutive patients in a country where ferrous sulfate has been added to cement since 1981. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 35:83–85.
24.
RotoP, SainioH, ReunalaT, et al.Addition of ferrous sulfate to cement and risk of chromium dermatitis among construction workers. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 34:43–50.
25.
StocksSJ, McNameeR, TurnerS, et al.Has European Union legislation to reduce exposure to chromate in cement been effective in reducing the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis attributed to chromate in the UK?. Occup Environ Med, 2012; 69:150–152.
26.
BruzeM, GruvbergerB, HradilE. Chromate sensitization and elicitation from cement with iron sulfate. Acta Derm Venereol, 1990; 70:160–162.
27.
BransR, Schröder-KraftC, SkudlikC, et al.Tertiary prevention of occupational skin diseases: prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis and pattern of patch test results. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 80:35–44.
28.
PesonenM, JolankiR, Larese FilonF, et al.Patch test results of the European baseline series among patients with occupational contact dermatitis across Europe—analyses of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy network, 2002–2010. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 72:154–163.
29.
Aalto-KorteK, PesonenM, SuuronenK. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by epoxy chemicals: occupations, sensitizing products, and diagnosis. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73:336–342.
30.
FillenhamG, LidénC, Anveden BerglindI. Skin exposure to epoxy in the pipe relining trade—an observational study. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67:66–72.
31.
SuuronenK, BäckB, Aalto-KorteK, et al.Skin exposure to epoxy chemicals in construction coating, assessed by observation, interviews, and measurements. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 80:18–25.
32.
RuiF, BovenziM, ProdiA, et al.Concurrent sensitization to metals and occupation. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67:359–366.
33.
MedingB, WrangsjöK, BurdorfA, et al.Disability pensions due to skin diseases: a cohort study in Swedish construction workers. Acta Derm Venereol, 2016; 96:232–236.
34.
SchwensenJF, FriisUF, MennéT, et al.One thousand cases of severe occupational contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68:259–256.
35.
Bensefa-ColasL, Telle-LambertonM, ParisC, et al.French National Network of Occupational Disease Vigilance Prevention (RNV3P) Momas I. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis and major allergens in France: temporal trends for the period 2001-2010. Br J Dermatol, 2014; 171:1375–1385.
36.
AlfonsoJH, BauerA, Bensefa-ColasL, et al.Minimum standards on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of occupational and work-related skin diseases in Europe—position paper of the COST Action StanDerm (TD 1206). J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2017; 31:31–43.
