Advertisement

Journal of Rubber Research

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 145–152 | Cite as

An uncommon outbreak of irritant contact dermatitis caused by rubber accelerators: a historical cohort study

  • Attasit Rattanarak
  • Naesinee ChaiearEmail author
  • Jitladda Sakdapipanich
  • Jinjutha Wiriyanantawong
Original Paper
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Our aim was to study the association between the rubber accelerators and predisposing factors of irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) among the semiconductor factory workers. The research design was a historical cohort study. The study population was divided into two groups: (1) the rubber accelerator exposure group, including workers who wore natural rubber finger cots containing 2,2 dibenzthiazyl disulfide (MBTS), zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC), and zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate (ZDBC); and (2) the non-rubber accelerator exposure group, including the workers who wore finger cots with less accelerators and without ZDBC (i.e., the non-exposed group). The samples were calculated, and each group comprised 99 workers. The content of rubber accelerators in the finger cots was determined using high-performance liquid chromatography technique. Cases of ICD and the respective associated factors were collected from the medical records as well as information derived from the questionnaire. Inferential statistics using multiple regression analysis were applied and the results presented as relative risk (RR), adjusted relative risk (adjusted RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI). The demographics of the exposed and non-exposed group were statistically different in age, duration of employment, duration of contact to rubber accelerators, underlying atopic diseases, underlying allergic rhinitis, family history of atopic diseases, and family history of allergic rhinitis. The results showed that the ICD occurred in 27 (27.3%) of workers in the exposed group compared to 4 (4.0%) of workers in the non-exposed group. The adjusted RR of rubber accelerators containing MBTS, ZDEC, and ZDBC was 9.84 (95% CI 3.70, 26.15) and the predisposing factors which associated with ICD were finger cot contact duration more than 4 years, underlying allergic rhinitis, and family history of atopic diseases [1.78 (95% CI 1.03, 3.08), 1.50 (95% CI 0.85, 2.64) and 1.97 (95% CI 1.12, 3.46), respectively], while having underlying atopic dermatitis was found to be a protective factor adjusted RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.10, 4.13). Rubber accelerators MBTS, ZDEC, and ZDBC were the causes of ICD. The possible agent was ZDBC. Other predisposing factors play less important role in this epidemic.

Keywords

Irritant contact dermatitis Occupational Natural rubber latex Rubber accelerators 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was granted by Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand (Grant No. IN61114). In addition, we would like to acknowledge Mr. Bryan Roderick Hamman, for editing the MS via Publication Clinic KKU, Thailand.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Lushniak BD (2004) Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17:272–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Salako KB, Chowdhury MMU (2007) Occupational skin disorder. In: Ladou J, Harrison RJ (eds) Current occupational and environmental medicine, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 324–345Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jungbauer FHW, Lensen GJ, Groothoff JW, Coenraads PJ (2004) Exposure of the hands to wet work in nurses. Contact Dermat 50:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dickel H, Bruckner T, Bernhard-Klimt C et al (2002) Surveillance scheme for occupational skin disease in the Saarland, FRG. First report from BKH-S. Contact Dermat 46:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaufman JD, Cohen MA, Sama SR et al (1998) Occupational skin diseases in Washington State, 1989 through 1993: using workers’ compensation data to identify cutaneous hazards. Am J Public Health 88:1047–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Turner S, Cardner M, Van Tongeren M et al (2007) The incidence of occupational skin disease as reported to The Health and Occupation Reporting (THOR) network between 2002 and 2005. Br J Dermatol 157:713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pal TM, de Wilde NS, van Beurden MM et al (2009) Notification of occupational skin diseases by dermatologists in the Netherlands. Occup Med 59:38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Higgins CL, Palmer AM, Cahill JL, Nixon RL (2016) Occupational skin disease among Australian healthcare workers: a retrospective analysis from an occupational dermatology clinic, 1993–2014. Contact Dermat 75:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carøe TK, Ebbehøj NE, Agner T (2017) Occupational dermatitis in hairdressers-influence of individual and environmental factors. Contact Dermat 76:146–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park JB, Lee SH, Kim KJ, Lee G-Y, Yang J-M, Kim DW et al (2016) Clinical features and awareness of hand eczema in Korea. Ann Dermatol 28:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coman G, Zinsmeister C, Norris P (2015) Occupational contact dermatitis: workers’ compensation patch test results of Portland, Oregon, 2005–2014. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug 26:276–283Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cahill JL, Williams JD, Matheson MC, Palmer AM, Burgess JA, Dharmage SC et al (2016) Occupational skin disease in Victoria, Australia. Australas J Dermatol 57:108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friis UF, Menné T, Schwensen JF, Flyvholm MA, Bonde JPE, Johansen JD (2014) Occupational irritant contact dermatitis diagnosed by analysis of contact irritants and allergens in the work environment. Contact Dermat 71:364–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mortz CG, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE (2014) Hand eczema in The Odense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Diseases and Dermatitis (TOACS): prevalence, incidence and risk factors from adolescence to adulthood. Br J Dermatol 171:313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mirza R, Maani N, Liu C, Kim J, Rehmus W (2006) A randomized, controlled, double-blind study of the effect of wearing coated pH 5.5 latex gloves compared with standard powder-free latex gloves on skin pH, transepidermal water loss and skin irritation. Contact Dermat 55:20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Warner RR, Stone KJ, Boissy YL (2003) Hydration disrupts human stratum corneum ultrastructure. J Invest Dermatol 120:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salminen WF, Roberts SM (2000) Dermal and ocular toxicity: toxic effect of the skin and eyes. In: Williams PL, James RC, Roberts SM (eds) Principles of toxicology environmental and industrial applications, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Truscott WM (2009) Latex glove use: essentials in modern hospital safety. In: Charney W (ed) Handbook of modern hospital safety, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pattanakul V (2011) Natural rubber and synthetic rubber. Faculty of Science Mahidol University, NakhonpathomGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vindenes HK, Svanes C, Lygre SHL, Hollund B-E, Langhammer A, Bertelsen RJ (2017) Prevalence of and work-related risk factors for hand eczema in a Norwegian general population (The HUNT Study). Contact Dermat 77:214–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Callahan A, Baron E, Fekedulegn D, Kashon M, Yucesoy B, Johnson VJ et al (2013) Winter season, frequent hand washing, and irritant patch test reactions to detergents are associated with hand dermatitis in health care workers. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug 24:170–175Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bhatia R, Sharma VK, Ramam M, Sethuraman G, Yadav CP (2015) Clinical profile and quality of life of patients with occupational contact dermatitis from New Delhi, India. Contact Dermat 73:172–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Diepgen TL, Scheidt R, Weisshaar E, John SM, Hieke K (2013) Cost of illness from occupational hand eczema in Germany. Contact Dermat 69:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Politiek K, Oosterhaven JAF, Vermeulen KM, Schuttelaar MLA (2016) Systematic review of cost-of-illness studies in hand eczema. Contact Dermat 75:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Euser AM, Zoccali C, Jager KJ, Dekker FW (2009) Cohort studies: prospective versus retrospective. Nephron Clin Pract 113:214–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of Household Cleaning Products (HERA) (2013) Linear alkylbenzene sulphonate (revised HERA report 2013). HERA, Brussels. https://bit.ly/2SuAVfO. Accessed 27 Feb 2019
  27. 27.
    Leibert MA (1983) Final report on the safety assessment of sodium laureth sulfate and ammonium laureth sulfate. J Am Coll Toxicol 2:1–34Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chumnankarn S (2013) Factors which affected the migration of tetramethylthiuram disulfide and dithiocarbamates from food contact rubber gloves. Prince of Songkhla University, SongkhlaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lepoittevin JP (2011) Molecular aspects in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact dermatitis, 5th edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amado A, Sood A, Taylor JS (2012) Irritant contact dermatitis. In: Goldsmith LA, Katz SI, Gilchrest BA, Paller AS, Leffell DJ, Wolff K (eds) Fitzpatrick’s dermatology in general medicine, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    National Statistical Office Thailand. Cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking survey in 2017. NSO Thailand, Bangkok. https://bit.ly/2BFFb6w. Accessed 27 Feb 2019

Copyright information

© The Malaysian Rubber Board 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Occupational Medicine, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of MedicineKhon Kaen UniversityKhon KaenThailand
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry, Center of Excellence for Innovation in Chemistry (PERCH-CIC), Faculty of Science and Institute of Molecular BiosciencesMahidol UniversityPutthamonthonThailand

Personalised recommendations