Irritant laboratory technicians

A young woman employed as a dental laboratory technician complains of conjunctivitis, skin irritation, and hair loss. On examination, she has perforation of the nasal septum and a milk and roses complexion. These signs and symptoms are most likely to be due to... 

Itchy rash-like eruptions on exposed skin areas in the factory workers who coat car badges with the resin have been reported within 1 week to 6 months of exposure to DMDI (White et al. 1983). The same was reported in workers of a glass-bottle factory, where DMDI was used to coat the bottles (Israeli et al. 1981), as well as in the workers of a PU-molding plant (Emmett 1976). Irritant dermatitis appearing in a laboratory technician within a few hours of contact with TDI and in a repair man have also been described (Rothe 1976). 

Chemical laboratory technicians and associate laboratory workers are exposed to a great number of chemicals that cause irritant or allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria or skin burns. Laboratories that deal with biological specimens or laboratory animals, e.g., in hospitals, university clinical departments and pharmaceutical companies, share the hazards of chemistry laboratories however, human and animal tissue specimens, and laboratory animals contribute additional risks of contact urticaria and skin infections. Laboratory assistants are at greater risk of sensitization than workers in general. Also, the risk of skin infections is increased (Karjalainen et al. 1997)-... 

Wakelin SH, McFadden JP, Leonard JN, Rycroft RJG (1998) Allergic contact dermatitis from d-limonene in a laboratory technician. Contact Dermatitis 38 164-165 Wang M-T, Wenger K, Maibach HI (1997) Piperazine diacrylamide allergic contact dermatitis. Contact dermatitis 37 300 Warshaw TG (1988) Primary irritant effect of 3,4,5-trichloro-pyridazine. Contact Dermatitis 18 257-258 Weller R, Ormerod A (1996) Water tester s dermatitis due to a para-phenylenediamine derivative. Contact Dermatitis 34 138 White IR (1983) Allergic contact dermatitis from a colour film process chemical (PBAi). Contact Dermatitis 9 323-324 Wigger-Alberti W, Eisner P (1997) Occupational contact dermatitis due to pyritinol. Contact Dermatitis 37 91-92... 

To assess the adequacy of the currently employed eye irritation tests in fulfilling the objectives behind their use, we must evaluate them in terms of (1) their accuracy (how well they predict the hazard to humans) (2) whether comparable results can be obtained by different technicians and laboratories and (3) what methods and designs have been developed and are being employed as alternatives to rabbit eye irritation tests. Assessing the accuracy of rabbit eye irritation tests - or indeed, of any predictive test of eye irritation - requires that the results of such tests be compared to what happens in humans. Unfortunately, the human database for making comparisons is not large. The concerns, however, have been present almost as long as the tests have been performed. 

Several protocols have been published in the literature, differing in terms of mode of application, body site, and so forth. The advantage of these tests is mainly to be more realistic than the soap chamber test they also offer the possibility of discontinuing product application at any time if excessive irritation starts to develop. The main disadvantage of the exaggerated use test is the low number of test materials that can be tested simultaneously on a single subject most of the procedures have been designed for only two products applied on the contralateral body sites, hands, (fore)arms, the antecubital flex, half-face or half-head, and so forth. Under such conditions, the test product is compared to only one reference product or solution per test. The method is also more tedious to perform on 25-30 subjects than a classical soap chamber test, as the applications, sometimes three to five per day and per subject, have to be done in the laboratory by a technician. 

---