Emmanuelle Amsler1, Olivier Aerts2, Nadia Raison-Peyron3, Michèle Debons4, Brigitte Milpied5, Françoise Giordano-Labadie6, Julie Waton7, Marie C Ferrier-Le Bouëdec8, Isabelle Lartigau9, Catherine Pecquet1, Haudrey Assier10, Martine Avenel-Audran11, Claire Bernier12, Florence Castelain13, Evelyne Collet14, Marie-Noëlle Crépy15, Nathalie Genillier16, Pascal Girardin13, Pauline Pralong17, Florence Tetart18, Dominique Vital-Durand19, Angele Soria1, Annick Barbaud1,7. 1. Dermatology and Allergology Department, Tenon Hospital (AP-HP), Sorbonne Universities, UPMC University Paris 06, 75020, Paris, France. 2. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Antwerp and University of Antwerp, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650, Antwerp, Belgium. 3. Department of Dermatology, Saint Eloi Hospital, 34295, Montpellier, France. 4. Private Office, 44277, Nantes, France. 5. Department of Dermatology, Saint André Hospital, 33000, Bordeaux, France. 6. Department of Dermatology, Larrey University Hospital, CHU Toulouse, 31059, Toulouse, France. 7. Dermatology and Allergy Department, Brabois Hospital, University Hospital of Nancy, 54500, Vandoeuvre les Nancy, France. 8. Department of Dermatology, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, University Clermont Auvergne, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 9. Department of Dermatology, Huriez Hospital, 59000, Lille, France. 10. Department of Dermatology, Henri Mondor Hospital, 94010, Créteil, France. 11. Department of Dermatology, CHU, 49933, Angers, France. 12. Department of Dermatology, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, 44093, Nantes, France. 13. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, CHU Jean Minjoz, 25030, Besançon, France. 14. Department of Dermatology, CHU-François Mitterand Hospital, 21000, Dijon, France. 15. Department of Occupational Disease, CHU Hôtel Dieu, 75004, Paris, France. 16. Private Office, 64100, Bayonne, France. 17. Department of Dermatology, Allergology and Photobiology, CHU, 38700, Grenoble, France. 18. Department of Dermatology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, 76031, Rouen, France. 19. Department of Dermatology, Edouard Herriot Hospital, 69437, Lyon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by paints containing isothiazolinones has been recognized as a health hazard. OBJECTIVES: To collect epidemiological, clinical and patch test data on airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by isothiazolinone-containing paints in France and Belgium. METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective study was initiated by the Dermatology and Allergy Group of the French Society of Dermatology, including methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI)- and/or MI-sensitized patients who developed airborne allergic contact dermatitis following exposure to isothiazolinone-containing paint. RESULTS: Forty-four cases were identified, with mostly non-occupational exposure (79.5%). Of the patients, 22.5% of also had mucosal symptoms. In several cases, the dermatitis required systemic corticosteroids (27.3%), hospitalization (9.1%), and/or sick leave (20.5%). A median delay of 5.5 weeks was necessary to enable patients to enter a freshly painted room without a flare-up of their dermatitis. Approximately one-fifth of the patients knew that they were allergic to MI and/or MCI/MI before the exposure to paints occurred. CONCLUSION: Our series confirms that airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by paints containing isothiazolinones is not rare, and may be severe and long-lasting. Better regulation of isothiazolinone concentrations in paints, and their adequate labelling, is urgently needed.
BACKGROUND:Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by paints containing isothiazolinones has been recognized as a health hazard. OBJECTIVES: To collect epidemiological, clinical and patch test data on airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by isothiazolinone-containing paints in France and Belgium. METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective study was initiated by the Dermatology and Allergy Group of the French Society of Dermatology, including methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI)- and/or MI-sensitized patients who developed airborne allergic contact dermatitis following exposure to isothiazolinone-containing paint. RESULTS: Forty-four cases were identified, with mostly non-occupational exposure (79.5%). Of the patients, 22.5% of also had mucosal symptoms. In several cases, the dermatitis required systemic corticosteroids (27.3%), hospitalization (9.1%), and/or sick leave (20.5%). A median delay of 5.5 weeks was necessary to enable patients to enter a freshly painted room without a flare-up of their dermatitis. Approximately one-fifth of the patients knew that they were allergic to MI and/or MCI/MI before the exposure to paints occurred. CONCLUSION: Our series confirms that airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by paints containing isothiazolinones is not rare, and may be severe and long-lasting. Better regulation of isothiazolinone concentrations in paints, and their adequate labelling, is urgently needed.
Authors: Timothy M Gross; Joydeep Lahiri; Avantika Golas; Jian Luo; Florence Verrier; Jackie L Kurzejewski; David E Baker; Jie Wang; Paul F Novak; Michael J Snyder Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Wolfgang Uter; Thomas Werfel; Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin; Ian R White Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 3.390