Occupational allergy in an entomological research centre. I. Clinical aspects of reactions to the sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina.

Abstract

Twenty eight per cent (15) of 53 workers engaged in a sheep blowfly breeding programme designed to control genetically the pest Lucilia cuprina experienced allergic manifestations resulting from contact with this insect. The most common symptoms were rhinitis, affected eyes, rashes, and lower respiratory symptoms, usually, but not always, immediate in type. A personal history of noninsect related asthma, allergic rhinitis, or eczema, or a combination of these was more common in the fly allergic group but some workers experienced allergic symptoms only when exposed to the adult sheep blowfly. Raised levels ofserum IgE antibodies specific for adult and larval allergens were found in approximately 70% of symptomatic workers, whereas only 30% and 7% of two groups of asymptomatic workers were found to have these antibodies. It is concluded that the sheep blowfly is an important source of airborne allergens and can prove a considerable occupational health hazard. Measures designed to reduce worker contact with blowflies and their emanations considerably reduced the incidence of allergic symptoms in the exposed workers.The true flies, members ofthe insect order Diptera, are widespread and common in our environment and many species impinge on our health and wellbeing.

The risky business of being an entomologist: A systematic review

“…A number of entomologists either transferred to other areas to minimise contact with the allergens (Frankland, 1953;Harris-Roberts et al, 2011;Kaufman et al, 1986;Lunn and Hughes, 1967;Solley and Hyatt, 1980;Tee et al, 1985), or terminated their employment (Kaufman et al, 1989;Monk, 1988;Stevenson and Mathews, 1967). In one case (Stevenson and Mathews,, 1967) this was not sufficient to resolve his symptoms, as it was revealed he had worn his dirty work clothes home with him, and later he tested positive to dust from the rugs, mattress and stuffed furniture within his home, indicating that he had brought the allergens home on his clothing (Stevenson and Mathews, 1967).…”

“…Wirtz (1980) reported in a cross-sectional survey that 27.8% of their respondents with allergic symptoms either left their job, or transferred to other areas, because of their symptoms. Kaufman et al (1989) reported in their cross-sectional study that asthma and chest tightness was either improved or eliminated by employing occupational hygiene measures. Furthermore, nine of the 12 workers who reported upper respiratory symptoms reported an elimination or significant reduction of symptoms a range of preventive measures, such as respirator use, local air extractor systems, wearing protective clothing, including a mask, and wet cleaning of cages and benches.…”

“…1980;Burge et al 1980;de las Marinas et al, 2014;Frankland 1953;Kaufman et al 1986Kaufman et al , 1989Lugo et al, 1994;Lunn and Hughes, 1967;Monk, 1988;Schroeckenstein et al 1988Schroeckenstein et al , 1990Sheldon and Johnston, 1941;Solley and Hyatt, 1980;Steinberg et al, 1987;Stevenson and Mathews, 1967;Tee et al, 1985;Teranishi et al, 1995), and in many instances symptoms became more severe over time (Bagenstose et al, 1980;de lasMarinas et al, 2014;Frankland, 1953;HarrisRoberts et al, 2011;Kaufman et al, 1986;Lunn and Hughes, 1967;Schroeckenstein et al 1988Schroeckenstein et al , 1990Soparkar et al, 1993;Stevenson and Mathews, 1967). In terms of bites and stings, previous occurrences had not elicited a response of the same severity (Bush et al, Lopata et al (2005) Low Cross-sectional with a non-random sample (Level 3) Draper et al (2003) Low Cross-sectional with a consensus sample (Level 1) Siracusa et al (2003) Moderate Cross-sectional with a consensus sample (Level 1) Dyne et al 1996 Low Cross-sectional with a non-random sample (Level 3) Baur and Liebers (1992) Low Cross-sectional with a non-random sample (Level 3) Kaufman et al (1989) Low Cross-sectional with a non-random sample (Level 3) Burge et al (1980) Moderate Cross-sectional with a consensus sample (Level 1) Wirtz (1980) Low Cross-sectional with a non-random sample (Level 3)…”

Berufsbedingte Inhalationsallergie gegen die gemeine Hausfliege (Musca domestica)

“…Die Sensibilisierung erfolgt per inhalationem und manifestiert sich als Rhinokonjunktivitis, Asthma bronchiale oder seltener perkutan mit der Folge einer Proteinkontakt urtikaria [17,18]. Berufsbedingte Sensibilisierungen gegenüber Insekten, verursacht durch Heuschrecken, Schmeißfliegen oder Kakerlaken sind wiederum v. a. bei im Labor exponierten Personen keine Seltenheit [2, 5,12,20,22]. Eine Untersuchung an Personen mit beruflichem Labortierkontakt von 1999-2000 in Groß britannien ermittelte eine Inzidenz berufsbedingter relevanter Inhalationsallergien durch die Arbeit mit Insekten im Labor für die Rhinitis mit 21/1000/Jahr und asthmatische Beschwerden mit 2,35/1000/Jahr, welche als hoch eingestuft wird [6].…”

Allergic Reactions to Arthropods

“…Thus occupational allergies to houseflies and blow flies are related to the degree of exposure to dust from cages or fly rooms [22,23], However, airborne fragments of fly bodies may prove equally allergenic since the opera tion of electrocuting fly traps in the laboratory tests cause an increase in respirable particle counts of up to 500 times the background level [24], In a similar reaction to the adult flies, reactions to fly larvae may also be related to peritrophic membrane extract. Those who breed maggots or use them as fishing bait may show asthma, rhinoconjunctival reactions or urticaria.…”