Contact dermatitis from animal feed additives

Neldner, K. H.

doi:10.1001/archderm.106.5.722

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We wish to stress the presence of allergic contact dermatitis (to our knowledge hitherto unreported in the literature) to the following substances: . On the other hand, various publications report allergic contact dermatitis to the antimicrobial agents we tested, including tylosin and spiramycin (6,7), nitrofurazone (8,9), neomycin (10, 11) and bacitracin (12). Contact allergy to the antioxidants and the colourings we tested have been reported elsewhere (13)(14)(15)(16).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Occupational dermatitis in animal feed mill workers

Mancuso¹,

Staffa²,

Errani³

et al. 1990

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an epidemiological study of occupational dermatitis in 15 different northern Italian animal feed mills, 204 workers were interviewed, examined and patch tested to 34 allergens, selected from the additives most commonly used in the animal feed mills under consideration. The prevalence of occupational contact dermatitis was 13.7% (28/204): 7.8% (16/204) irritant contact dermatitis and 5.8% (12/204) allergic contact dermatitis from animal feed additives. Among the latter, there were sensitizations, to our knowledge hitherto unreported in the literature: to indigo carmine (2 cases), monensin sodium (1 case), thiabendazole (1 case), methylchlorpindol (1 case) and amprolium hydrochloride (1 case). 3.9% (8/204) of the workers complained only of pruritus sine materia on exposed areas of the body. Contact dermatitis increased with respect to duration of employment: the difference in the rate of contact dermatitis between workers employed in animal feed mill for greater than 10 years and those employed for less than 10 years was statistically significant (p less than 0.05). 6.8% (14/204) had latent sensitivity, which was more frequent in workers with less than 1 year of employment with respect to more experienced colleagues.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Occupational dermatitis in animal feed mill workers

Mancuso¹,

Staffa²,

Errani³

et al. 1990

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The handling of animal feed by workers in the industry and by farmers distributing the feed to animals can result in contact sensitivity to various components, such as cobalt sulfate (Breuckner & Hofs 1966), furazolidine (Scharfenberg 1967), ethoxyquin (Melhorn & Beetz, Schubert et al 1973, Burrows 1975, "a pphenetidine-containing anti-oxidant", probably ethoxyquin (Pambor 1971), tylosin (Neldner 1972), quindoxin (Scott & Dawson 1974), and halquinol (Burrows 1975).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact dermatitis to ethoxyquin in animal feeds

Hecke

1977

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…During the use of veterinary medicines, and especially medicated feeds, there is potential for worker exposure to antimicrobial drugs and allergic reactions have occurred as a result of such exposures (Mauranges, 1972;Neldner, 1972;Becker, 1976). Dermatitis has also occurred following occupational exposure to penicillin residues in the milk of treated cattle (Erskine, 1958;Zimmerman, 1959;Borrie & Barrett, 1961).…”

Section: Antimicrobial Drugsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinary pharmacovigilance. Part 4. Adverse reactions in humans to veterinary medicinal products

Woodward¹

2005

Vet Pharm & Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although seemingly rare, adverse reactions to veterinary products do occur. These may arise from inadvertent exposure during use or as a result of occupational accidents. They are often mild in nature and include adverse effects such as minor skin reactions. However, more serious reactions may occur, and they are not restricted to the effects of the veterinary medicines themselves. For example, high-pressure injection injuries may occur as a result of accidents occurring during animal vaccination operations. This paper reviews some of these events, mentions where appropriate the regulatory actions taken, and describes some of the measures used to minimise such effects in the future, and serves to bring the issues discussed here to the attention of pharmacologists, pharmacoepidemiologists and others who train those who use veterinary medicinal products.

show abstract

Contact dermatitis from animal feed additives

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Occupational dermatitis in animal feed mill workers

Occupational dermatitis in animal feed mill workers

Contact dermatitis to ethoxyquin in animal feeds

Veterinary pharmacovigilance. Part 4. Adverse reactions in humans to veterinary medicinal products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About