• Suchismita Paul
  • Peter C. SchalockEmail author


Glues and adhesives are widely used in occupations such as the manufacturing and construction industries, in medicine/dentistry, as well as in various household activities and hobbies. Contact dermatitis from glues and adhesives results due to both irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. A thorough history of possible exposure to irritants and allergens at work or home is crucial for the diagnosis of glue-induced dermatitis. Patch testing is useful for a definitive diagnosis of contact dermatitis; however, sometimes, it is difficult to sort irritant from allergic reactions. A wide variety of glues such as acrylates, epoxy resins, epoxy acrylates, formaldehyde resins, and colophony may cause glue-induced dermatitis. Most often, remaining individual monomers of the final polymerized glue product cause contact dermatitis. Additionally, additives such as curing agents, stabilizers, and antioxidants may cause contact dermatitis. For patch testing, it is helpful to determine the chemical composition of the glue or adhesive that the patient has been exposed to in order to test the individual components and also since some of the unknown components may cause active sensitization or irritant reactions during the patch testing process. In addition to baseline glue patch test trays, patch testing should be performed more extensively with specialized series including several additive chemicals such as hardeners and diluents. In this chapter, common categories of glues and adhesives are discussed in details along with a summary of the most common relevant glue allergens.


Glue Adhesive Dermatitis Allergic Irritant Epoxy Acrylic Colophony/rosin Formaldehyde 


  1. 1.
    Aalto-Korte K, Alanko K, Kuuliala O, Jolanki R. Occupational methacrylate and acrylate allergy from glues. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58(6):340–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aalto-Korte K, Jungewelter S, Henriks-Eckerman ML, Kuuliala O, Jolanki R. Contact allergy to epoxy (meth)acrylates. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61(1):9–21.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aalto-Korte K, Pesonen M, Henriks-Eckerman M. Occupational contact allergy to the epoxy methacrylate 2,2-bis[4-(2-methacryloxyethoxy)phenyl] propane in an anaerobic glue. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(5):314–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruze M, Bjorkner B, Lepoittevin J. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from ethyl cyanoacrylate. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32(3):156–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruze M, Fregert S, Zimerson E. Contact allergy to phenol-formaldehyde resins. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12(2):81–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cavelier C, Jelen G, Herve-Bazin B, Foussereau J. Irritation and allergy to acrylates and methacrylates. – part I: common monoacrylates and monomethacrylates. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1981;108(6-7):559–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Downs A, Sansom J. Colophony allergy: a review. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41(6):305–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freeman S. Shoe dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36(5):247–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fries I, Fisher A, Salvati E. Contact dermatitis in surgeons from methylmethacrylate bone cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975;57(4):547–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garcia-Bravo B, Pons A, Rodreguez-Pichardo A. Oral lichen planus from colophony. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26(4):279.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hausen B, Krohn K, Budianto E. Contact allergy due to colophony (VII), Sensitizing studies with oxidation products of abietic and related acids. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;23(5):352–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hausen B, Kulenkamp D. Allergische kontaktdermatitis auf einem hydrokolloidverband bei kolophoniumallergikern. Aktuelle Dermatol. 1998;24:174–7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heskel N, Sarnour C, Storrs F. Allergic contact dermatitis from dodecyl maleamic acid in Curad adhesive plastic bandages. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1982;7(6):747–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hjorth N. Eczematous allergy to balsams, perfumes and flavouring agents. Dan Med Bull. 1961;8:143–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    James W. Allergic contact dermatitis to a colophony derivative. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10(1):6–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jolanki R, Kanerva L, Estlander T, Tarvainen K, Keskinen H, Henriks-Eckrmaan M. Occupational dermatoses from epoxy resin compounds. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;23(3):172–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jolanki R, Kanerva L, Estlander T, Tarvainen K. Epoxy dermatitis. Occup Med. 1994;9(1):97–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jolanki R. Occupational skin diseases from epoxy compounds. Epoxy resin compounds, epoxy acrylates and 2,3-epoxypropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl. 1991;159:1–80.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R. Active sensitization caused by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate and N, N-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 1992;1(3):165–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karlberg A, Bohlinder K, Boman A, Hacksell U, Hermansson J, Jacobsson S, et al. Identification of 15-hydroperoxyabietic acid as a contact allergen in Portuguese colophony. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1988;40(1):42–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee H, Pokorny C, Law S, Pratt M, Sasseville D, Storrs F. Cross-reactivity among epoxy acrylates and bisphenol F epoxy resins in patients with bisphenol a epoxy resin sensitivity. Dermatitis. 2002;13(3):108–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lushniak B. Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther. 2004;17:272–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malten K. Dermatological problems with synthetic resins and plastics in glues. Part I. Derm Beruf Umwelt. 1984;32(3):81–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Matrolonardo M, Loconsole F, Conte A, Rantuccio F. Allergic contact dermatitis due to para-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin in a hearing aid. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;28(3):197.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sasseville D, Tennstedt D, Lachapelle JM. Allergic contact dermatitis from hydrocolloid dressings. Am J Contact Dermat. 1997;8(4):236–8.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schalock P, Menne T, Johansen J, Taylor J, Maibach H, Liden C, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants – diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(1):4–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schalock P, Zug K. Protection from occupational allergens. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2007;34:58–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sood A, Taylor J. Acrylic reactions: a review of 56 cases. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(6):346–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Suhng E, Byun J, Choi Y, Myung K, Choi H. A case of allergic contact dermatitis due to DuoDERM Extrathin®. Ann Dermatol. 2011;23 Suppl 3:S387.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tarvainen K. Analysis of patients with allergic patch test reactions to a plastics and glues series. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32(6):346–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thorgeirsson A, Fregert S. Allergenicity of epoxy resins in the guinea pig. Acta Derm Venereol. 1977;57(3):253–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Widman T, Oostman H, Storrs F. Allergic contact dermatitis to medical adhesive bandages in patients who report having a reaction to medical bandages. Dermatitis. 2007;18(2):103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations