Search

The studies of Monash and Blank (1) demonstrated that, if the skin barrier is removed, water will evaporate from the skin surface at approximately the same rate as from a free water surface. Matoltsy et al. (2) confirmed the finding that water loss of the barrier becomes almost normal in only two or three days after the barrier is re-formed. Total regeneration however requires about two weeks. Matoltsy et al. (2) stated that soon after removal of the stratum corneum a “temporary barrier” with parakeratotic cells is formed, causing water loss to gradually decrease. The “temporary barrier” persists until the regenerating epidermis becomes capable of forming normally keratinized horn cells, the so-called “final barrier.

Der Autor diskutiert die Moglichkeit von Praventivmasnahmen gegen Hautschaden bei der Verarbeitung von Epoxydharzen an Hand der arbeitsdermatologischen Relation zwischen den zu verarbeitenden Stoffen und dem Arbeiter selber. So wird erlautert, wie durch Ersetzen, Mechanisieren, Absondern, durch arbeitshygienische und-methodische Masnahmen, durch Selektion, personliche Hygiene, Instruktion und Kontrolle eine Erniedrigung der Haufigkeit der Hautschaden bei der Epoxydverarbeitung erreicht werden kann.

In 13 patients with contact allergy to sesame oil, studies were undertaken to elucidate the nature of the allergens. Sesamol, sesamin and sesamolin were identified in crude and purified (pharmaceutical) sesame oil. Patch tests showed 8 of the 13 patients to be positive to sesamol and 12 to sesamolin and sesamin. Patch tests with the pure substances on thin-layer sheets were inconclusive as to any difference between these substances. Group allergy to several substances related to sesamol could not be clearly demonstrated.

Methods for investigating contact eczematous patients and for measuring the sensitizing potential of various substances are well known and in general, sufficiently effective. This is not true for irritant dermatitis, or for possible (skin) irritant substances; moreover, cosmetics commonly do not contain acutely harmful ingredients. The use of various instrumental measurements (insensible H2O loss, CO2 release, electrical impedance, sweat rate) as indicators of the irritant potentials of substances is advocated. At the same time it is suggested that the factory physician actively investigate the workers in his factory, since these workers are exposed to known substances in known concentrations and combinations, possibly for extensive periods. This may prove to be part of a new role for him. A cosmetic may be one of several factors increasing impairment and only beyond a certain limit may this result in overt disease. Below that limit the health reserve is only partially depleted. Whether this is harmful to a person depends on other stresses, such as medicaments, work materials, other cosmetics and environmental chemicals. The effect of these must also be quantified. A model of these cumulative stresses and reactions is presented and discussed.

Thirty-seven substances which may be used in finishing textiles were patch-tested on 66 patients who were suspected of suffering from a textile finish hypersensitivity. Twenty-seven patients reacted positively to one or more of the substances tested (see Table and text). Only seven patients reacted to formaldehyde. This formaldehyde hypersensitivity never occurred alone. In one of these patients the formaldehyde sensitization clearly occurred prior to the outbreak of his textile finish contact eczema. With respect to the other six patients we are inclined to consider the formaldehyde positive patch test likely as a result of group specificity to other textile finishes like dimethylol urea, ethylene urea, urea formaldehyde ether, triazon derivatives, and melamine formaldehyde. In addition to these a number of positive reactions occurred with two compounds derived from stearic acid (substances number 27 and 28) and sporadically also with other compounds.

SUMMARY.— In a series of 4000 patients patch tested in 5 European clinics, 1000 were engaged in domestic work only; they included 281 women with contact dermatitis of the hands. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups as regards age, duration of dermatitis and patch test results. Half of the 281 women had a positive patch test, the responsible allergens in order of rank being balsams, nickel, medicaments, cobalt, rubber, chromate, benzocaine and paraphenylenediamine. But 78% of them were diagnosed as contact dermatitis, 5% atopic and 13% were unclassified. An allergic cause (42%) was as frequent as an irritant (45%) among those with contact dermatitis.