Dermatitis in the Printing Industry

Occupational dermatoses by type of work in Greece

Background

To elucidate the relationship between seven occupational dermatoses (ODs) and 20 types of work in Greece.

Methods

This was a prevalence epidemiologic study of certain ODs among 4,000 workers employed in 20 types of enterprise, in 104 companies, in 2006–2012, using data from company medical records, questionnaires, occupational medical, and special examinations. The χ² test was applied to reveal statistically significant relationships between types of enterprises and occurrence of ODs.

Results

A high percentage (39.9%) of employees included in the study population suffered from ODs. The highest prevalence rates were noted among hairdressers (of contact dermatitis: 30%), cooks (of contact dermatitis: 29.5%), bitumen workers (of acne: 23.5%), car industry workers (of mechanical injury: 15%), construction workers (of contact urticaria: 29.5%), industrial cleaning workers (of chemical burns: 13%), and farmers (of malignant tumors: 5.5%). We observed several statistical significant correlations between ODs (acute and chronic contact dermatitis, urticaria, mechanical injury, acne, burns, skin cancer) and certain types of enterprises. There was no statistically significant correlation between gender and prevalence of ODs, except for dermatoses caused by mechanical injuries afflicting mainly men [χ² (1) = 13.40, p < 0.001] and for chronic contact dermatitis [χ² (1) = 5.53, p = 0.019] afflicting mainly women.

Conclusion

Prevalence of ODs is high in Greece, contrary to all official reports by the Greek National Institute of Health. There is a need to introduce a nationwide voluntary surveillance system for reporting ODs and to enhance skin protection measures at work.

The identification of a sensitizing component used in the manufacturing of an ink ribbon

Skin diseases including dermatitis constitute ≈ 30% of all occupational illnesses, with a high incidence in the printing industry. An outbreak of contact dermatitis among employees at an ink ribbon manufacturing plant was investigated by scientists from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Employees in the process areas of the plant were exposed to numerous chemicals and many had experienced skin rashes, especially after the introduction of a new ink ribbon product. To identify the causative agent(s) of the occupational dermatitis, the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) was used to identify the potential of the chemicals used in the manufacture of the ink ribbon to induce allergic contact dermatitis. Follow-up patch testing with the suspected allergens was conducted on exposed employees. Polyvinyl butyral, a chemical component used in the manufacture of the ink ribbon in question and other products, tested positive in the LLNA, with an EC3 of 3.6%, which identifies it as a potential sensitizer; however, no employees tested positive to this chemical during skin patch testing. This finding has implications beyond those described in this report because of occupational exposure to polyvinyl butyral outside of the printing industry.

Role of protective gloves in the causation and treatment of occupational irritant contact dermatitis

Irritant contact dermatitis of the hands is a significant occupational problem. Management primarily involves cessation of exposure to hazardous substances. Protective gloves can reduce or eliminate exposure of the hands to hazardous substances if used correctly, but if not selected and used correctly, protective gloves can actually cause or worsen irritant contact dermatitis of the hands by increasing exposure of the hands to hazardous chemicals. We present two cases of occupational irritant contact dermatitis of the hands caused by incorrect use of protective gloves. Glove failure can occur by penetration, permeation, or contamination, and all 3 mechanisms were operative in these cases. These cases demonstrate that correct use of gloves is at least as important as selection of gloves made of the appropriate material. By understanding mechanisms of glove failure, clinicians can make more appropriate recommendations for the selection and use of protective gloves in the workplace.