Advertisement

Printers and Lithographers

  • Catriona I. Wootton
  • John S. C. EnglishEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

Printing is a high-risk industry for occupational dermatitis. Among the many different roles within the printing industry, some are more prone to occupational dermatitis than others, especially contact with acrylates. Wide range of chemicals are used including photosensitive compounds. UV-cured acrylates are one of the main causative agents for occupational allergic contact dermatitis in this industry. High prevalence of irritant contact dermatitis is found among printers and lithographers. Increased risk of malignancy is found among this cohort of workers.

Keywords

Printers Occupational contact dermatitis Allergic contact dermatitis UV-cured acrylates Irritant contact dermatitis Malignancy 

References

  1. Ashworth J, White IR (1991) Contact allergy to ethoxylated phenol. Contact Dermatitis 24:133–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjorkner B, Dahlquist I, Fregert S (1980) Allergic contact dermatitis from acrylates in ultraviolet printing inks. Contact Dermatitis 6:405–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calnan CD (1980) Acrylates in industry. Contact Dermatitis 6:53–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Creytens K, Gilissen L, Huygens S, Goossens A (2017) A new application for epoxy resins resulting in occupational allergic contact dermatitis: the three-dimensional printing industry. Contact Dermatitis 77:349–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 590–595Google Scholar
  6. Dahlquist I, Fregert S, Trulson L (1983) Contact allergy to trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA) in an aziridine plastic hardener. Contact Dermatitis 9:122–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. English JSC, White IR, Rycroft RJ (1986) Sensitization by 1-methylquinoxalinium-p-toluene sulfonate. Contact Dermatitis 14:261–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman S (1984) Allergic contact dermatitis due to 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one in gum Arabic. Contact Dermatitis 11:146–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garabrant DH (1985) Dermatitis from aziridine hardener in printing ink. Contact Dermatitis 12:209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ibbotson SH, Lawrence CM (1994) Allergic contact dermatitis from aziridine crosslinker cx100. Contact Dermatitis 30:306–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Illchyshyn A, Cartwright PH, Smith AG (1987) Contact sensitivity to newsprint a rare manifestation of coal tar allergy. Contact Dermatitis 17:52–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jolanki R, Kanerva L, Estlander T, Tarvainen K (1994) Concomitant sensitization to triglycidyl isocyanurate, diaminodiphe-nylmethane and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate from silk-screen printing coatings in the manufacture of circuit boards. Contact Dermatitis 30:12–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T (1996) Offset printer’s occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by cobalt-2-ethylhexoate. Contact Dermatitis 34:67–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Korinth G, Goen T, Lakemeyer M, Broding HC, Drexler H (2003) Skin strain and its influence on systemic exposure to a glycol ether in offset printing workers. Contact Dermatitis 49(5):248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Livesley EJ, Rushton L, English JS, Williams HC (2002) The prevalence of occupational dermatitis in the UK printing industry. Occup Environ Med 59(7):487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lynge E, Rix BA, Villadsen E, Andersen I, Hink M, Olsen E, Moller UL, Silfverberg E (1995) Cancer in printing workers in Denmark. Occup Environ Med 52:738–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malten KE (1977a) Contact sensitization to letterflex urethane photoprepolymer mixture used in printing. Contact Dermatitis 3:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Malten KE (1977b) Letterflex photoprepolymer sensitization in newspaper printers due to pentaerythritol tetrakis-3-merc-aptopropionate and 3 mercaptopropionic acid. Contact Dermatitis 3:257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McLaughlin JK, Malker HS, Blot WJ, Ericsson JL, Gemne G, Fraumeni JF Jr (1988) Malignant melanoma in the printing industry. Am J Ind Med 13:301–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nethercott JR (1988) Dermatitis in the printing industry. Dermatol Clin 6:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen H, Henriksen L, Olsen JH (1996) Malignant melanoma among lithographers. Scand J Work Environ Health 22:108–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pedersen NB, Chevallier MA, Senning A (1982) Secondary acrylamides in nyloprint printing plates as a source of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 8:256–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pedersen NB, Senning A, Nielsen AO (1983) Different sensitising acrylic monomers in Napp printing plate. Contact Dermatitis 9:459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peltonen L, Fraki J (1983) Prevalence of dichromate sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 9:190–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rafnsson V (2001) Incidence of cancer among bookbinders, printers, photoengravers and typesetters. Occup Environ Med 58(8):523–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rietschel RL, Huggins R, Levy N, Pruitt PM (1984) In vivo and in vitro testing of gloves for protection against UV-curable acrylate resin systems. Contact Dermatitis 11:279–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Warshaw EM, Hagen SL, Belsito DV, DeKoven JG, Maibach HI, Mathias CGT, Zug KA, Sasseville D, Zirwas MJ, Fowler JF Jr, Fransway AF, DeLeo VA, Marks JG Jr, Pratt MD, Taylor JS (2017) Occupational contact dermatitis in North American print machine operators referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the North American contact dermatitis group 1998–2014. Dermatitis 28(3):195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zimmerman EH (1981) Letterflex in printers. Dermatology News, pp 1–11Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyCircle NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Department of Dermatology, Nottingham Circle Treatment CentreNottingham University HospitalNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations