Advertisement

Contact sensitizations in metalworkers with occupational dermatitis exposed to water-based metalworking fluids: results of the research project “FaSt”

  • Johannes Geier
  • Holger Lessmann
  • Axel Schnuch
  • Wolfgang Uter
Original Article

Abstract

Background: The composition of water-based metalworking fluids (wb MWF) is complex, and various admixtures may be added before or during usage. Wb MWF may cause irritant as well as allergic contact dermatitis. While several current case reports point towards allergens particularly related to wb MWF, systematic studies have not been performed for several years. From 1999 to 2001, a study on contact allergies among patients with occupational dermatitis (OD) called “Frühzeitige Erkennung allergener Stoffe bei beruflicher und nicht-beruflicher Exposition” (German acronym: FaSt) was conducted by the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), funded by the employers’ liability insurances in Germany (HVBG). Objective: The objective of FaSt was to detect sensitization patterns related to particular occupational exposures. Methods: Anamnestic and clinical data were gathered using a standardised questionnaire. Patch test results were recorded by computer within the IVDK routine procedure. In addition to descriptive statistical analyses, logistic regression analysis was performed to control the effect of potential confounders. Results: Among the 1842 OD patients in the FaSt study, there were 160 metalworkers exposed to wb MWF, whose data is presented in this paper. A specific allergen pattern of these patients can be described: most frequently, sensitizations to monoethanolamine (MEA), colophony/abietic acid, and fragrance mix were observed. Additionally, cobalt, formaldehyde, formaldehyde releasers and other biocides are important allergens in these patients. Conclusions: Preventive measures and aimed in-depth research may be based on these results. The special MWF test series have to be kept up to date based on exposure information from the MWF industry and on continuos surveillance of the target group.

Keywords

Cobalt Colophony Formaldehyde releaser Fragrance Monoethanolamine 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to all those members of the IVDK who took part in the FaSt study: Berlin Charité (T. Zuberbier), Bochum (C. Szliska, M. Straube, M. Freitag), Dortmund (P.J. Frosch, C. Pirker), Dresden (G. Richter, R. Aschoff), Duisburg (J. Schaller), Essen (U. Hillen), Göttingen (Th. Fuchs), Graz (W. Aberer, B. Kränke), Halle (D. Lübbe, G. Gaber), Heidelberg (A. Schulze-Dirks, M. Hartmann, U. Jappe), Homburg/Saar (P. Koch), Jena (A. Bauer, W. Wigger-Alberti, M. Kaatz, S. Schliemann-Willers, P. Elsner), Mainz (D. Becker), Marburg (I. Effendy, H. Löffler), München Schwabing (M. Agathos), München TU (J. Rakoski), Osnabrück (S.M. John, H.J. Schwanitz), Rostock (H. Heise), Ulm (H. Gall, G. Staib, P. Gottlöber), Wuppertal (O. Mainusch, J. Raguz). The FaSt study was funded by the employers’ liability insurances in Germany (Hauptverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften, HVBG).

References

  1. Alomar A, Conde-Salazar L, Romaguera C (1985) Occupational dermatoses from cutting oils. Contact Dermatitis 12:129–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1991) DIN 51385 Schmierstoffe; Kühlschmierstoffe; Begriffe. Beuth, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous (1993) Technische Regeln für Gefahrstoffe (TRGS) 611, Verwendungsbeschränkungen für wassermischbare bzw. wassergemischte Kühlschmierstoffe, bei deren Einsatz N-Nitrosamine auftreten können. Carl Heymanns, CologneGoogle Scholar
  4. Anonymous (1999) Berufsgenossenschaftliche Regel für Sicherheit und Gesundheitsschutz bei der Arbeit BGR 143. Carl Heymanns, CologneGoogle Scholar
  5. Anonymous (2000) Kühlschmierstoffe. In: Greim, H. (Hrsg.): Gesundheitsschädliche Arbeitsstoffe. Toxikologisch-arbeitsmedizinische Begründungen von MAK-Werten. 31. Lieferung. VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  6. Berndt U, Hinnen U, Iliev D, Elsener P (2000) Hand eczema in metalworker trainees—an analysis of risk factors. Contact Dermatitis 43:327–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brasch J, Geier J (1997) Patch test results in schoolchildren. Results from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) and the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG). Contact Dermatitis 37:286–293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinkmeier T, Geier J, Lepoittevin J-P, Frosch PJ (2002) Patch test reactions to Biobans in metal workers are often weak and not reproducible. Contact Dermatitis 47:27–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruze M, Hradil E, Eriksohn I-L, Gruvberger B, Widström L (1995) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from alkanolamineborates in metalworking fluids. Contact Dermatitis 32:24–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, McFadden JP (2003) The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol 149:986–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. de Boer EM, van Ketel WG, Bruynzeel DP (1989a) Dermatoses in metal workers. (I). Irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 20:212–218Google Scholar
  12. de Boer EM, van Ketel WG, Bruynzeel DP (1989b) Dermatoses in metal workers. (II). Allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 20:280–286Google Scholar
  13. Fewings J, Menné T (1999) An update of the risk assessment for methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) with focus on rinse-off products. Contact Dermatitis 41:1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher AA (1998) Ethylenediamine hydrochloride versus amines in cutting oils. Am J Contact Dermat 9:139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Funke U, Fartasch M, Diepgen TL (2001) Incidence of work-related hand eczema during apprenticeship: first results of a prospective cohort study in the car industry. Contact Dermatitis 44:166–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Geier J, Schnuch A (1996) No cross sensitization between MCI/MI, benzisothiazolinone, and octylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis 34:148–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Geier J, Fuchs Th, Schnuch A (1996) Zunahme der Kontaktallergien gegen Methyldibromoglutaronitril in Deutschland. Allergologie 19:399–402Google Scholar
  18. Geier J, Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Fuchs Th (1997) Kontaktallergien durch formaldehydabspaltende Biozide. Eine Analyse der Daten des IVDK aus den Jahren 1992 bis 1995. Allergologie 20:215–224Google Scholar
  19. Geier J, Lessmann H, Schumacher Th, Eckert Ch, Becker D, Boveleth W, Buß M, Eck E, Englitz H-G, Koch P, Müller J, Nöring R, Rocker M, Rothe A, Schmidt A, Uter W, Warfolomeow I, Zoellner G (2000a) Vorschlag für die Epikutantestung bei Verdacht auf Kontaktallergie durch Kühlschmierstoffe. 1. Kommerziell erhältliche Testsubstanzen Dermatol Beruf Umwelt 48:232-236Google Scholar
  20. Geier J, Schnuch A, Brasch J, Gefeller O (2000b) Patch testing with Methyldibromoglutaronitrile. Am J Contact Dermat 11:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geier J, Lessmann H, Graefe A, Fuchs Th (2002a) Contact allergy to diglycolamine in a water-based metalworking fluid. Contact Dermatitis 46:121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Geier J, Uter W, Lessmann H, Schnuch A (2002b) Forschungsvorhaben “Frühzeitige Erkennung allergener Stoffe bei beruflicher und nicht-beruflicher Exposition” (FaSt). Abschlussbericht des IVDK, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  23. Geier J, Lessmann H, Schmidt A, Englitz H-G, Schnuch A (2003) Kontaktekzeme durch Kühlschmierstoffe in der Metallindustrie. Akt Dermatol 29:185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grattan CEH, English JSC, Foulds IS, Rycroft RJG (1989) Cutting fluid dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 20:372–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Frick M, Pontén A, Bruze M (2003) Occupational dermatoses in a metalworking plant. Contact Dermatitis 48:80–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hausen BM, Krohn K, Budianto E (1990) Contact allergy due to colophony. (VII). Sensitizing studies with oxidation products of abietic and related acids. Contact Dermatitis 23:352–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hausen BM, Börries M, Budianto E, Krohn K (1993) Contact allergy due to colophony. (IX). Sensitization studies with further products isolated after oxidative degradation of resin acids and colophony. Contact Dermatitis 29:234–240Google Scholar
  28. Hausen BM, Brinkmann J, Dohn W (1998) Lexikon der Kontaktallergene, 6. Ergänzungs-Lieferung, Kolophonium, K 4, ecomed, Landsberg, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  29. Hornstein OP (1984) Ekzemkrankheiten. Therapiewoche 34:400–409Google Scholar
  30. Ippen H (1979) Allergische Hautschäden bei der Metallbearbeitung. Derm Beruf Umwelt 27:71–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Isaksson M (2002) Delayed diagnosis of occupational contact dermatitis from sodium pyrithione in a metalworking fluid. Contact Dermatitis 47:248–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Isaksson M, Frick M, Gruvberger B, Pontén A, Bruze M (2002) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from the extreme pressure (EP) additive, zinc, bis ((O,O′-di-2-ethylhexyl)dithiophosphate) in neat oils. Contact Dermatitis 46:248–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jensen CD, Andersen KE (2003) Allergic contact dermatitis from a condensate of boric acid, monoethanolamine and fatty acids in a metalworking fluid. Contact Dermatitis 49:45–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kanerva L, Tupasela O, Jolanki R (2001) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from ethylhexylzinc dithiophosphate and fatty acid polydiethanolamide in cutting fluids. Contact Dermatitis 44:193–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Karlberg A-T (1991) Air oxidation increases the allergenic potential of tall-oil rosin. Colophony contact allergens also identified in tall-oil rosin. Am J Contact Dermat 2:43–49Google Scholar
  36. Koch P (1995) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from oleyl alcohol and monoethanolamine in a metalworking fluid. Contact Dermatitis 33:273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Krbek F, Schäfer Th (1991) Untersuchungen an Tropfen und Rückständen von wassermischbaren Kühlschmierstoffen. Arbeitsmed Sozialmed Präventivmed 26:411–416Google Scholar
  38. Le Coz C-J (2001) Allergic contact dermatitis from sodium pyrithione in metalworking fluid. Contact Dermatitis 45:58–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lehmann E, Fröhlich N (1993) Kühlschmierstoffe—Zusätzliche Belastungen durch Metallionen? Amtliche Mitteilungen der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz, Januar 1993, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  40. Majoie IML, van Ginkel CJW (2000) The biocide iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC) as an allergen in cutting oils. Contact Dermatitis 43:238–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Meding B (1996) Occupational contact dermatitis from tertiary-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) in a cutting fluid. Contact Dermatitis 34:224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Minkwitz R, Fröhlich N, Lehmann E (1983) Untersuchungen von Schadstoffbelastungen an Arbeitsplätzen bei der Herstellung und Verarbeitung von Metallen—Beryllium, Cobalt und deren Legierungen. Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz, Fb. 367, DortmundGoogle Scholar
  43. Mowad CM (2000) Methylchloroisothiazolinone revisited. Am J Contact Dermat 11:114–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nethercott JR, Rothman N, Holness DL, O’Toole T (1990) Health problems in metal workers exposed to a coolant oil containing Kathon 886 MW. Am J Contact Dermat 1:94–99Google Scholar
  45. Owen CM, August PJ, Beck MH (2000) Contact allergy to oak moss resin in a soluble oil. Contact Dermatitis 43:112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pryce DW, Irvine D, English JSC, Rycroft RJG (1989a) Soluble oil dermatitis: a follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis 21:28–35Google Scholar
  47. Pryce DW, White I, English JSC, Rycroft RJG (1989b) Soluble oil dermatitis: a review. J Soc Occup Med 39:93–98Google Scholar
  48. Robinson MK, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, McNamee P, White IR, Basketter DA (2000) The importance of exposure estimation in the assessment of skin sensitization risk. Contact Dermatitis 42:251–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Schäfer T, Böhler E, Ruhdorfer S, Weigl L, Wessner D, Filipiak B, Wichmann HE, Ring J (2001) Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 56:1192–1196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Schnuch A (1996) PAFS : population-adjusted frequency of sensitization (I). Influence of sex and age. Contact Dermatitis 34:377–382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Schnuch A, Aberer W, Agathos M, Brasch J, Frosch PJ, Fuchs Th, Richter G für die Deutsche Kontaktallergie-Gruppe (2001) Leitlinien der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft (DDG) zur Durchführung des Epikutantests mit Kontaktallergenen. Hautarzt 52:864–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Skudlik C, Schwanitz H-J (2003) Berufsbedingte Handekzeme—Ätiologie und Prävention. Allergo J 12:513–520Google Scholar
  53. Sonnenschein G (1998) Kühlschmierstoffe. In: Konietzko J, Dupuis H (Hrsg.): Handbuch der Arbeitsmedizin, 20. Ergänzungslieferung 5/98, Kap. IV-2.47.1, ecomed, Landsberg, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  54. Tiedemann K-H, Zoellner G, Adam M, Becker D, Boveleth W, Eck E, Eckert Ch, Englitz H-G, Geier J, Koch P, Lessmann H, Müller J, Nöring R, Rocker M, Rothe A, Schmidt A, Schumacher Th, Uter W, Warfolomeow I, Wirtz C (2002) Empfehlungen für die Epikutantestung bei Verdacht auf Kontaktallergie durch Kühlschmierstoffe. 2. Hinweise zur Arbeitsstofftestung. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt 50:180–189Google Scholar
  55. Uter W, Schnuch A (2004) Fragrance allergy increases with age (letter). Br J Dermatol 150:1218–1220 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Uter W, Schaller S, Bahmer FA, Brasch J et al. (1993) Contact allergy in metal workers—a one-year analysis based on data collected by the “Information Network of Dermatological Clinics” (IVDK) in Germany. Derm Beruf Umwelt 41:220–227Google Scholar
  57. Uter W, Geier J, Ippen H (1996) Nachrichten aus dem IVDK: Aktuelle Sensibilisierungshäufigkeiten bei der DKG-Testreihe “Metallverarbeitung”. Derm Beruf Umwelt 44:34–36Google Scholar
  58. Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J, Frosch PJ (1998) Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. The information network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in Germany. Eur J Dermatol 8:36–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O (2001)Association between occupation and contact allergy to the fragrance mix: a multifactorial analysis of national surveillance data. Occup Environ Med 58:392–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Uter W, Gefeller O, Geier J, Lessmann H, Pfahlberg A, Schnuch A (2002a) Untersuchungen zur Abhängigkeit der Sensibilisierung gegen wichtige Allergene von arbeitsbedingten sowie individuellen Faktoren. Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, Forschung, Fb 949. Wissenschaftsverlag NW, BremerhavenGoogle Scholar
  61. Uter W, Geier J, Pfahlberg A, Effendy I (2002b) The spectrum of contact allergy in elderly patients with and without lower leg dermatitis. Dermatology 204:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wahlberg JE (2001) Patch testing. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P (eds) Textbook of contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 435–468Google Scholar
  63. Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, Brandao FM et al. (2002) Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview (1991–2000). Contact Dermatitis 46:207–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Geier
    • 1
  • Holger Lessmann
    • 1
  • Axel Schnuch
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Uter
    • 2
  1. 1.Informationsverbund Dermatologischer KlinikenUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and EpidemiologyUniversity of Erlangen/NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations