4.5 Editorial Material

Occupational contact dermatitis in hairdressers: an analysis of patch test data from the Danish Contact Dermatitis Group, 2002-2011

期刊

CONTACT DERMATITIS
卷 70, 期 4, 页码 233-237

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cod.12176

关键词

allergic contact dermatitis; ammonium persulfate; atopic dermatitis; chloroacetamide; cysteamine hydrochloride; hairdressers; healthy worker effect; occupational contact dermatitis; p-phenylenediamine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Occupational contact dermatitis among hairdressers is frequent, owing to daily exposure to irritants and allergens. Objectives. To identify sensitization to the most common allergens associated with the occupation of hairdressing. Methods. Patch test results of 399 hairdressers and 1995 matched controls with contact dermatitis, registered by the Danish Contact Dermatitis Group between January 2002 and December 2011, were analysed. All patients were patch tested with the European baseline series, and hairdressers were additionally tested with the hairdressing series. Results. Occupational contact dermatitis (p < 0.001) and hand eczema (p < 0.001) were observed significantly more often among hairdressers than among controls. Atopic dermatitis was less commonly observed among hairdressers (21.3%) than among controls (29.4%) (p < 0.01). Allergens from the European baseline series with a statistically significant association with the occupation of hairdressing were p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, and benzocaine. Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series were ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol. Cysteamine hydrochloride and chloroacetamide emerged as new sensitizers. Conclusions. These results indicate a healthy worker effect among hairdressers diagnosed with eczema. Ammonium persulfate and p-phenylenediamine remain frequent sensitizers in hairdressers with contact dermatitis. Cysteamine hydrochloride and chloroacetamide should be included in future surveillance studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据