Changing patterns of allergy to rubber additives have been identified. Inclusion of carba mix in the European baseline series may be appropriate.

Objectives: Evaluation of the allergenic properties of the metal knee or hip joint implants 24 months post surgery and assessment of the relation between allergy to metals and metal implants failure. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in two stages. Stage I (pre-implantation) -60 patients scheduled for arthroplasty surgery. Personal interview, dermatological examination and patch testing with 0.5% potassium dichromate, 1.0% cobalt chloride, 5.0% nickel sulfate, 2.0% copper sulfate, 2.0% palladium chloride, 100% aluminum, 1% vanadium chloride, 5% vanadium, 10% titanium oxide, 5% molybdenum and 1% ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate were performed. Stage II (post-surgery) -48 subjects participated in the same procedures as those conducted in Stage I. Results: Stage I -symptoms of "metal dermatitis" were found in 21.7% of the subjects: 27.9% of the females, 5.9% of the males. Positive patch test results were found in 21.7% of the participants, namely to: nickel (20.0%); palladium (13.3%); cobalt (10.0%); and chromium (5.9%). The allergy to metals was confirmed by patch testing in 84.6% of the subjects with a history of metal dermatitis. Stage II -10.4% of the participants complained about implant intolerance, 4.2% of the examined persons reported skin lesions. Contact allergy to metals was found in 25.0% of the patients: nickel 20.8%, palladium 10.4%, cobalt 16.7%, chromium 8.3%, vanadium 2.1% Positive post-surgery patch tests results were observed in 10.4% of the patients. The statistical analysis of the pre-and post-surgery patch tests results showed that chromium and cobalt can be allergenic in implants. Conclusions: Metal orthopedic implants may be the primary cause of allergies. that may lead to implant failure. Patch tests screening should be obligatory prior to providing implants to patients reporting symptoms of metal dermatitis. People with confirmed allergies to metals should be provided with implants free from allergenic metals.

No abstract

We report the case of a manicurist who developed an allergic skin reaction to acrylates, manifested by bullous lesions on fingertips and eczema of the hands and ears. Patch tests showed positive reactions to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, 1,6-hexandiol diacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate and triethyleneglycol diacrylate. Because of her skin disorder, she had to give up her job. She was not correctly advised on retraining and started to work as a dental nurse. Soon after re-exposure to acrylates in dental materials, she experienced recurrence of the skin symptoms.

The prevalence of PPD sensitization has not changed over time. Strong and extremely strong patch test reactions are seen more often in the South, probably because of the higher number of PPD-containing hair dye products.

Objectives: To evaluate sensitization to chemicals present in work environment after an outbreak of contact dermatitis in workers of vehicle equipment factory, exposed to polyurethane foam, based on 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI). Material and Methods: From among 300 employees, 21 individuals reporting work-related skin and/or respiratory tract symptoms underwent clinical examination, patch testing, skin prick tests, spirometry and MDI sIgE measurement in serum. Patch tests included isocyanates series, selected rubber additives, metals, fragrances, preservatives, and an antiadhesive agent. Results: Clinical examination revealed current eczema in the area of hands and/or forearms in 10 workers. Positive patch test reactions were found in 10 individuals, the most frequent to diaminodiphenylmethane and 4-phenylenediamine (7 persons).

In recent years occupational skin and respiratory diseases have been more and more frequently diagnosed in small production and service enterprises. The awareness of occupational exposure and its possible health effects among their workers and employers is not sufficient. Beauty salons, in addition to hairdressers and beauticians, frequently employ manicurists and pedicurists. The workers often happen to perform various activities interchangeably. the health status of beauty salons workers has rarely been assessed. The most numerous reports concern hairdressers. In this occupational group, the occurrence of skin lesions induced by wet work and frequent allergy to metals, hair dyes and bleaches and perm solutions has been emphasized, while information about health hazards for being a manicurist or pedicurist in beauty salons is seldom reported. The aim of this paper is to present professional activities (manicure and pedicure, methods of nail stylization), occupational exposure and literature data on work-related adverse health effects in manicurists and pedicurists. Wet work and exposure to solvents, fragrances, resins, metals, gum, detergents may cause skin disorders (contact dermatitis, urticaria, angioedema, photodermatoses), conjunctivitis, anaphylaxis, respiratory tract diseases, including asthma. The discussed occupations are also associated with the increased incidence of bacterial (particularly purulent), viral and fungal infections and cancer.

Objectives: Manicurists are exposed to various chemicals in nail and skin care products and may develop ocular, nasal, respiratory or skin adverse reactions to them. To investigate the occurrence of ocular, nasal, respiratory and skin problems among manicurists and to identify their causal factors, particularly allergic etiology and occupational origin. Material and Methods: Manicurists employed in beauty salons in the central region of Poland were invited to fill in the questionnaire and undergo medical examination, skin prick tests with common aeroallergens, patch tests with European Baseline Series and (Meth)Acrylates Series-Nails and spirometry. Results: In the questionnaire adverse nasal symptoms were reported by 70%, ocular -by 58%, respiratory -by 42%, hand eczema -by 43% of manicurists. In the medical interview, the frequency of those complaints was lower: nasal ones -41%, ocular -24%, cough -18%, hand skin dryness -20%, hand eczema -6%. Cough and hand skin dryness occurred significantly more frequently than in the case of controls. Contact allergy was found for 41% of manicurists and 35% of controls. The prevalence of nickel sensitization was high in both groups (38% and 27%, respectively). Only 3 manicurists reacted to (meth)acrylates. The frequency of atopic diseases was similar in compared groups. Irritant nasal and respiratory reactions were significantly more prevalent among manicurists (nasal -18% vs. 2%, p < 0.01; respiratory -18% vs. 1%, p < 0.001). Work-related nasal irritant reactions were finally diagnosed for 19%, ocular ones -for 13%, respiratory -for 18% and within hand skin -for 23% of manicurists. Conclusions: The frequency of workattributed irritant mucosal and skin symptoms among manicurists is high. Exposure to acrylates is an important source of mucosal irritant reactions while occlusive gloves cause irritation of hand skin. The prevalence of nickel allergy among Polish females is high. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2017;30(6):887-896