Principles of Prevention and Protection in Contact Dermatitis (with Special Reference to Occupational Dermatology)

  • Jean-Marie Lachapelle

Abstract

Preventing occupational (and nonoccupational) contact dermatitis is the cornerstone of all our projects. It is crucial that over the next few years the number of cases be reduced. This is particularly true for certain occupations: bakers, hairdressers, the staff of hospitals, nursing homes and restaurants, and many others (see Chap. 11). Two types of considerations must be borne in mind: individual aspects (some workers are disabled by many interruptions to their activities in the course of a year) and socio-economical aspects. Prevention is a difficult task, with many different facets, including both general and individual measures of protection [1]; unavoidably, it also implies a wide range of treatment procedures. There is a general principle: general measures of prevention and protection are more effective than individual measures, since the latter depend upon the personal will and constant application of each individual worker; it is clear that preventive dermatology is not yet accepted as a routine procedure [2]. In most industrialized countries, a relatively safe working environment is provided by most of the largest plants [3]. Nevertheless, at other workplaces contacts with irritants and/or allergens could be avoided more effectively.

Keywords

Dust Chromate Foam Epoxy Hydrocarbon 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lachapelle JM (1984) Abrégé de dermatologie professionnelle. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lachapelle JM (1990) A European overview of occupational dermatology. Occup Health Rev 27: 21–24Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adams RH (1990) Prevention, rehabilitation, treatment. Adams RM (ed) Saunders, Philadelphia, Occupational skin diseases 2nd Edn, pp 261–279Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mathias CGT, Morrison JH (1988) Occupational skin disease, United States. Arch Dermatol 124: 1519 —1524Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lachapelle JM (1987) Industrial airborne irritant contact dermatitis due to dust particles. Boll Dermatol Allerg Prof 2: 83–89Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lachapelle JM (1984) Occupational airborne irritant contact dermatitis to slag. Contact Dermatitis 10: 315–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liden C, Brehmer-Andersson E (1988) Occupational dermatoses from colour developing agents. Clinical and histopathological observations. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 68: 514–522Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liden C, Sollenberg J, Hansen L, Arvidson A (1989) Contact allergy to colour developing agents. Analysis of test preparations, bulk chemicals and tank solutions by high-performance liquid chromatography. Derm Beruf Umwelt 37: 47–52Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thorgeirsson A, Fregert S, Fammas 0 (1978) Sensitization capacity of epoxy resin oligomers in the guinea pig. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 58: 17–21Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calnan CD (1978) Chromate in coolant water of gramophone record presses. Contact Dermatitis 4: 246–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lachapelle JM, Lauwerys R, Tennstedt D, Andanson J, Benezra C, Chabeau G, Ducombs G, Foussereau J, Lacroix M, Martin P (1980) Eau de Javel and prevention of chromate allergy in France. Contact Dermatitis 6: 107–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen SR (1988) Sources of information for occupational dermatology. Dermatol Clin 6: 15–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rycroft RJG (1988) Looking at work dermatologically. Dermatol Clin 6: 1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rycroft RJG (1986) Occupational site survey: principles and significance. In: Maibach HI (ed) Occupational and industrial dermatology, 2nd edn. Year Book Medical Publishers, Chicago, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berardinelli SP (1988) Prevention of occupational skin disease through use of chemical protective gloves. Dermatol Clin 6: 115–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Estlander T, Jolanki R (1988) How to protect the hands. Dermatol Clin 6: 105–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roed-Petersen J (1989) A new glove material protective against epoxy and acrylate monomer. In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle JM, Rycroft RJ, Scheper RJ (eds) Current topics in contact dermatitis. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 603–606Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mahmoud G, Lachapelle JM (1987) Uses of a guinea pig model to evaluate the protective value of barrier creams and/or gels. In: Maibach HI, Lowe NJ (eds) Models in dermatology, vol 3. Karger, Basel, pp 112–120Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nouaigui H, Antoine JL, Lachapelle JM (1988) Evaluation expérimentale du pouvoir protecteur d’une crème siliconée versus son excipient vis-à-vis de I’irritation cutanée par soude caustique. Arch Mal Prof 49: 383–387Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nouaigui H, Antoine JL, Masmoudi ML, van Neste D, Lachapelle JM (1989) Etudes invasive et non invasive du pouvoir protecteur d’une crème siliconée et de son excipient vis-à-vis de I’irritation cutanée induite par le laurylsulfate de sodium. Ann Dermatol Venereol 116: 389–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frosch PJ, Schulze-Dirks A, Hoffmann M, Axthelm I, Kurte A (1993) Efficacy of skin barrier creams, I. The repetitive irritation test ( RIT) in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 28: 94–100Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frosch PJ, Schulze-Dirks A, Hoffmann M, Axthelm I (1993) Evaluation of skin barrier creams, II. Ineffectiveness of a popular “skin protector” against various irritants in the repetitive irritation test in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 29: 74–77Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frosch PJ, Kurte A, Pilz B (1993) Efficacy of skin barrier creams, III. The repetitive irritation test ( RIT) in humans. Contact Dermatitis 29: 113–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Marie Lachapelle

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations