Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Rubber Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 27 September 2019

This article has been updated

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 27 September 2019

    The original version unfortunately contained mistakes. The institution of the author Jitladda Sakdapipanich was wrong.

References

  1. Lushniak BD (2004) Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17:272–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 324–345

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jungbauer FHW, Lensen GJ, Groothoff JW, Coenraads PJ (2004) Exposure of the hands to wet work in nurses. Contact Dermat 50:225–229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 46:197–206

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 88:1047–1051

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 157:713–722

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pal TM, de Wilde NS, van Beurden MM et al (2009) Notification of occupational skin diseases by dermatologists in the Netherlands. Occup Med 59:38–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 75:213–222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Carøe TK, Ebbehøj NE, Agner T (2017) Occupational dermatitis in hairdressers-influence of individual and environmental factors. Contact Dermat 76:146–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 28:335–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 26:276–283

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 57:108–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 71:364–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 171:313–323

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 55:20–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Warner RR, Stone KJ, Boissy YL (2003) Hydration disrupts human stratum corneum ultrastructure. J Invest Dermatol 120:275–284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 157–168

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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 Raton

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pattanakul V (2011) Natural rubber and synthetic rubber. Faculty of Science Mahidol University, Nakhonpathom

    Google Scholar 

  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 77:214–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 24:170–175

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 73:172–181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Diepgen TL, Scheidt R, Weisshaar E, John SM, Hieke K (2013) Cost of illness from occupational hand eczema in Germany. Contact Dermat 69:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Politiek K, Oosterhaven JAF, Vermeulen KM, Schuttelaar MLA (2016) Systematic review of cost-of-illness studies in hand eczema. Contact Dermat 75:67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Euser AM, Zoccali C, Jager KJ, Dekker FW (2009) Cohort studies: prospective versus retrospective. Nephron Clin Pract 113:214–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Leibert MA (1983) Final report on the safety assessment of sodium laureth sulfate and ammonium laureth sulfate. J Am Coll Toxicol 2:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chumnankarn S (2013) Factors which affected the migration of tetramethylthiuram disulfide and dithiocarbamates from food contact rubber gloves. Prince of Songkhla University, Songkhla

    Google Scholar 

  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 91–108

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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 York

    Google Scholar 

  31. National Statistical Office Thailand. Cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking survey in 2017. NSO Thailand, Bangkok. https://bit.ly/2BFFb6w. Accessed 27 Feb 2019

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Occupational Medicine, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand

    Attasit Rattanarak & Naesinee Chaiear

  2. Department of Chemistry, Center of Excellence for Innovation in Chemistry (PERCH-CIC), Faculty of Science and Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Mahidol University, Salaya Campus, Putthamonthon Sai 4, Putthamonthon, Nakornpathom, 73170, Thailand

    Jitladda Sakdapipanich & Jinjutha Wiriyanantawong

Authors
  1. Attasit Rattanarak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naesinee Chaiear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jitladda Sakdapipanich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jinjutha Wiriyanantawong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naesinee Chaiear.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rattanarak, A., Chaiear, N., Sakdapipanich, J. et al. An uncommon outbreak of irritant contact dermatitis caused by rubber accelerators: a historical cohort study. J Rubber Res 22, 145–152 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42464-019-00023-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42464-019-00023-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation