Search

Psyllium (from Plantago ovata; ispaghula) is used as a dietary supplement and is supplied in the form of husk, granules, capsules, or powder. Consumers using psyllium-containing laxatives, healthcare workers handling these, and pharmaceutical workers in laxative-manufacturing plants are known to be at risk of sensitization and subsequent rhinitis, asthma, contact urticaria, and even anaphylaxis. To our knowledge, the case we present here is the first of baker's immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated occupational allergy due to psyllium exposure. Our patient, a 24-year-old female baker with no previous allergies, was referred to our clinic with suspected occupational rhinitis. After 1 year of baking with cereal flour or gluten-free flour-mix, she began to suffer from rhino-conjunctival symptoms during workdays. Skin prick tests with agents from the patient's workplace revealed allergies not only to wheat and rye flours but also to psyllium, with a remarkable 10 mm wheal. Subsequently, nasal provocation tests confirmed occupational allergic rhinitis to psyllium. We also found work-related sensitization to buckwheat, which she used in gluten-free baking. Due to the increased prevalence of celiac disease and the popularity of gluten-free and vegan food, psyllium has recently become a common ingredient in baking, used as a substitute for gluten or eggs. Bakers handle allergens such as these in high concentrations and this may lie behind the emergence of respiratory and dermal symptoms. It is essential to consider new or recenlty introduced materials as possible allergens if it is suspected that a baker has work-related respiratory or allergic symptoms.

Buckwheat is a known, though uncommon, allergen in occupational settings. It has recently gained popularity as healthy food and as an ingredient in gluten-free diets. We describe a series of six patient cases with occupational immediate allergy to buckwheat. Three cooks, two bakers, and a worker in a grocery store were occupationally exposed to buckwheat flour and developed immediate allergy to buckwheat, which was confirmed by skin prick testing and measurement of specific immunoglobulin E antibodies. Four of the patients were diagnosed with occupational asthma, four with occupational rhinitis, and two with occupational contact urticaria caused by buckwheat. Three of the six patients suffered anaphylaxis as consequence of their occupational buckwheat allergy after ingestion of food that contained buckwheat. The high rate of life-threatening reactions, together with a short exposure time to buckwheat before sensitization occurred in these cases, highlights the importance of a detailed occupational history and a high index of suspicion for occupational food allergens.

Fluorinated hydrocarbons, which can thermally degrade into toxic hydrofluoric acid, are widely used as, for example, cooling agents in refrigerators and air conditioning systems and as medical aerosol propellants. Hydrofluoric acid is a known causative agent of irritant-induced asthma. We report on two patients with asthma initiation shortly after exposure to fluorinated hydrocarbon-based cooling agents while welding or smoking cigarettes in a confined space. Both cases developed respiratory symptoms and headache and later demonstrated nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness. In follow-up, asthma was persistent and responded poorly to asthma medication. Exposure to the fluorinated hydrocarbons themselves is unlikely to have caused asthma due to their low toxicity. Instead, exposure to small amounts of hydrofluoric acid via the thermal degradation of the fluorinated hydrocarbons was considered the most likely cause of asthma onset. This is supported by the typical clinical picture of irritant-induced asthma and acute symptoms resembling hydrofluoric acid poisoning. When fluorinated hydrocarbons are used in the presence of combustion, thermal degradation may lead to the formation of hydrofluoric acid. In confined spaces, this exposure may induce asthma via irritation. Welding, smoking, and other sources of combustion in confined spaces may be a risk in workplaces and other places in which fluorinated hydrocarbons are used.

Reducing the burden of occupational cancers (OCs) is currently one of the most challenging Occupational Health (OH) issues. The European Union (EU) has made efforts to improve the existing legal framework and developed specific legislation aimed at reducing the burden of OC. However, available data suggest that OC are underreported. In August 2019, the European Association of Schools of Occupational Medicine (EASOM) adopted a statement that highlighted the importance of improving the education and training of Medical Doctors (MDs) to facilitate improvements in recognizing and reporting OC. To achieve this, EASOM proposes to promote OH education and training of MDs at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, foster harmonization of OH education and teaching standards and programs across EU countries, and enhance cooperation between universities and international scientific associations. Finally, we suggest that occupational data should be recorded in cancer and medical registers. By engaging MDs more fully in the debate about OCs, they will become more aware of the Occupational Physician's role in reducing the burden of OCs and, furthermore, embed consideration of occupation as a potential cause of cancer into their own practice. These interventions will help promote the implementation of policies and interventions aimed to reduce OC in the workplace. ispartof: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH vol:17 issue:7 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

We describe four cases of slaughterhouse workers with occupational immediate allergy to raw pork allergens, confirmed by positive skin prick testing and specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. Our first patient was diagnosed with occupational asthma from raw pork allergens. Two patients were diagnosed with occupational rhinitis caused by raw pork allergens, which was confirmed by a nasal provocation test. One of these also had occupational contact urticaria caused by raw pork meat. We were unable to diagnose an occupational respiratory or skin disease in the fourth patient, despite signs of immediate sensitization to raw pork meat from occupational exposure. Based on proper diagnoses, measures to prevent allergen exposure were taken, which led to the improvement of symptoms in these four patients. The present patient cases highlight the importance of recognition of early signs of occupational allergy and identification of causative allergens in order to allow avoidance of allergens, with the aim of preventing persistence and worsening of symptoms.

Background Epoxy resin systems (ERSs) are among the leading causes of occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Objectives To identify riskful exposures and sources of skin exposure, and to quantify skin exposure to diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA) epoxy monomer, in construction coating work. Methods Skin exposure to epoxy chemicals was studied in 5 coating companies through (a) interviews and visual observation, (b) quantifying DGEBA on 12 workers' skin by tape-stripping, (c) measuring DGEBA on 23 surfaces by wipe-sampling, and (d) quantifying DGEBA in new sewage pipe. Acetone extracts of the tapes, wipes and sawdust from a newly hardened sewage pipe were analysed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Results Identified riskful exposures were, for example, mixing ERSs, handling coating pots, and working above shoulder level. Epoxy stains on, for example, tools, equipment and clothing were seen in all workplaces. Protective gloves were of varying quality, and were not always suitable for chemicals. The amount of DGEBA on the workers' skin varied considerably. All screened tool handles were contaminated. Two-day-old epoxy sewage pipe contained 3.2% DGEBA. Conclusions Construction coating entails skin contact with ERSs directly and via contaminated surfaces, personal protective equipment, and recently hardened epoxy materials. Observation is a useful method for assessing skin exposure in coating work.

Introduction We examined the impact of noise exposure during pregnancy on the child’s language acquisition at the age of one and two years. Methods We conducted a cohort study among women working in the food industry, as kindergarten teachers, musicians, dental nurses and pharmacists with a new born child. At the age of one year the analyses included 408 mother-child pairs and at the age of two years 288. The mother filled the baseline questionnaire before the child was 12 months old, and the language acquisition questionnaire when the child was 12 months (Infant-Toddler Checklist, ITC) and 24 months (MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories, MCDI) old. An occupational hygienist assessed the noise exposure in three categories: no exposure, low exposure, moderate/high exposure. We analysed the data using linear regression. Results At the age of one there were no statistically significant differences among the adjusted mean language acquisition ITC-scores of the children in different exposure categories. The adjusted scores among boys were 30.1 (95% CI: 28.3 to 31.8) for no exposure, 29.7 (27.4–32.0) for low noise, and 29.3 (26.7–31.9) for moderate/high exposure. Among girls these were 33.7 (31.9–35.5), 33.8 (31.3–36.4), and 33.6 (31.3–36.0), respectively. No associations were found in analyses of social communication, speech production and language comprehension. Noise exposure was associated with lower scores among kindergarten teachers. At the age of two mean MCDI-scores did not differ significantly between the noise exposure groups. The adjusted mean scores for expressive vocabulary among girls were 295 (95% CI: 254 to 336) for no exposure, 303 (243–362) for low exposure, and 269 (212–326) for moderate/high exposure. Among boys the scores were 200 (154–246), 178 (111–246), and 225 (153–298), respectively. Discussion We found no clear association between noise exposure during pregnancy and language acquisition among one-year- or two-year-old children.

Orthopedic plaster casts contain methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI). A few case reports have suggested occupational asthma to MDI in casting work. However, the knowledge of the exposure levels related to the occupational asthma cases is lacking. We report on two occupational asthma cases due to MDI in nurses irregularly applying orthopedic plaster casts, verified with placebo controlled specific inhalation challenge. The levels of MDI in the air were measured in the exposure chamber during the specific inhalation challenges with a quantitative method including filter collection and subsequent liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis of the isocyanate groups. In order to estimate the level of airborne MDI in casting work, measurements were conducted also in two hospitals during the application and removal of synthetic plaster casts using the same method. The concentrations were well below the occupational exposure limit in both specific inhalation challenge and hospital measurements. Based on our findings, even minor exposure to airborne MDI in casting work can cause an asthmatic reaction in some patients. Am. J. Ind. Med. 54:906–910, 2011. 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background: Contact allergy to epoxy (meth)acrylates, 2,2-bis[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacryloxypropoxy) phenyl]propane (bis-GMA), 2,2-bis[4-(2-hydroxy-3-acryloxypropoxy)phenyl]-propane (bis-GA), 2,2-bis[4-(methacryl-oxyethoxy)phenyl] propane (bis-EMA), 2,2-bis[4-(methacryloxy)phenyl]-propane (bis-MA), and glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) is often manifested together with contact allergy to diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA) epoxy resin. Objective: To analyse patterns of concomitant allergic reactions to the five epoxy (meth)acrylates in relation to exposure. Methods: We reviewed the 1994–2008 patch test files at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH) for reactions to the five epoxy (meth)acrylates, and examined the patients' medical records for exposure. Results: Twenty-four patients had an allergic reaction to at least one of the studied epoxy (meth)acrylates, but specific exposure was found only in five patients: two bis-GMA allergies from dental products, two bis-GA allergies from UV-curable printing inks, and one bis-GA allergy from an anaerobic glue. Only 25% of the patients were negative to DGEBA epoxy resin. Conclusions: The great majority of allergic patch test reactions to bis-GMA, bis-GA, GMA and bis-EMA were not associated with specific exposure, and cross-allergy to DGEBA epoxy resin remained a probable explanation. However, independent reactions to bis-GA indicated specific exposure. Anaerobic sealants may induce sensitization not only to aliphatic (meth)acrylates but also to aromatic bis-GA.