Epoksit rakennusalalla – ammatti-ihotautien ehkäisy : Loppuraportti tutkimuksesta epoksiyhdisteiden aiheuttamat ammatti-ihotaudit ja niiden ehkäisy rakennusalalla

Epoksit tehdään yleensä kahdesta komponentista: hartsiosasta ja kovetteesta. Molemmat komponentit aiheuttavat allergista kosketusihottumaa, joka voi olla vaikeaoireinen ja aktivoitua hyvin pienen altistumisen seurauksena. Epoksiallergia alentaa huomattavasti työntekijän työkykyä, johtaa yleensä sairauslomiin ja usein myös alan vaihtoon. Tyypillisiä ammattiryhmiä, joissa on epoksi-ihottumien vaara, ovat rakennusmaalarit, lattianpäällystäjät, laatoittajat, viemäriputkien pinnoittajat ja injektiotyöntekijät. Epoksien aiheuttamat ihottumat sijaitsevat yleensä käsissä, käsivarsissa tai kasvoissa. Kemikaalinsuojakäsineiden käyttöä ja käsivarsien suojausta tulee tehostaa. Hyviä suojautumisohjeita löydät tämän kirjan lisäksi Epoksikansiosta: http://www.ttl.fi/epoksikansio. Tässä tutkimusraportissa esitetyllä epoksiyhdisteiden epikutaanitestisarjalla epoksiyhdisteiden aiheuttamat allergiset kosketusihottumat voidaan diagnosoida luotettavasti

Ihonsuojauksen ja turvallisten työtapojen merkitys MDI-uretaanityössä

Tämän tutkimuksen avulla saatiin uutta tietoa ihosuojauksen ja turvallisten työtapojen merkityksestä MDI-uretaanityössä.1

Formaldehyde-releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Contact allergy to formaldehyde and inventory of formaldehyde-releasers

This is one of series of review articles on formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers (others: formaldehyde in cosmetics, in clothes and in metalworking fluids and miscellaneous). Thirty-five chemicals were identified as being formaldehyde-releasers. Although a further seven are listed in the literature as formaldehyde-releasers, data are inadequate to consider them as such beyond doubt. Several (nomenclature) mistakes and outdated information are discussed. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde allergy are reviewed: applications, exposure scenarios, legislation, patch testing problems, frequency of sensitization, relevance of positive patch test reactions, clinical pattern of allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde, prognosis, threshold for elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis, analytical tests to determine formaldehyde in products and frequency of exposure to formaldehyde and releasers. The frequency of contact allergy to formaldehyde is consistently higher in the USA (8-9%) than in Europe (2-3%). Patch testing with formaldehyde is problematic; the currently used 1% solution may result in both false-positive and false-negative (up to 40%) reactions. Determining the relevance of patch test reactions is often challenging. What concentration of formaldehyde is safe for sensitive patients remains unknown. Levels of 200-300 p.p.m. free formaldehyde in cosmetic products have been shown to induce dermatitis from short-term use on normal skin

Methyl methacrylate and respiratory sensitization: A Critical review

Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer that has been associated with occupational asthma in a small number of case reports. Those reports have raised concern that it might be a respiratory sensitizer. To better understand that possibility, we reviewed the in silico, in chemico, in vitro, and in vivo toxicology literature, and also epidemiologic and occupational medicine reports related to the respiratory effects of MMA. Numerous in silico and in chemico studies indicate that MMA is unlikely to be a respiratory sensitizer. The few in vitro studies suggest that MMA has generally weak effects. In vivo studies have documented contact skin sensitization, nonspecific cytotoxicity, and weakly positive responses on local lymph node assay; guinea pig and mouse inhalation sensitization tests have not been performed. Cohort and cross-sectional worker studies reported irritation of eyes, nose, and upper respiratory tract associated with short-term peaks exposures, but little evidence for respiratory sensitization or asthma. Nineteen case reports described asthma, laryngitis, or hypersensitivity pneumonitis in MMA-exposed workers; however, exposures were either not well described or involved mixtures containing more reactive respiratory sensitizers and irritants.The weight of evidence, both experimental and observational, argues that MMA is not a respiratory sensitizer