Occupational asthma, rhinitis and contact urticaria from greenhouse work.

BACKGROUND: The current knowledge about occupational allergic diseases among greenhouse workers is scant. AIMS: To describe greenhouse workers' occupational allergic diseases. METHODS: We identified 28 greenhouse workers with occupational allergic diseases in 2002-2020 by conducting a systematic search in the patient register of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. All the patients worked in tomato- or cucumber-growing greenhouses and showed immunoglobulin-E-mediated sensitization to occupational agents. Specific inhalation challenges or workplace peak expiratory flow monitoring confirmed occupational asthma (OA), nasal allergen challenges confirmed occupational rhinitis (OR) and open skin tests confirmed occupational contact urticaria (OCU). RESULTS: Most patients had more than one occupational disease and were sensitized to several workplace agents. Tomato plants were the most common cause of occupational diseases and induced 22 allergic diseases in 14 patients. Cucumber plants caused occupational diseases in 10 patients (3 OA, 7 OR and 6 OCU). The pest control mite Amblyseius swirskii and a mixture of parasitic wasps Encarsia formosa and Eretmocerus eremicus both induced two OA cases. Three patients had an occupational disease caused by storage mites and three others had a work-related systemic reaction to a bumblebee sting. CONCLUSIONS: The greenhouse workers typically suffered from several occupational allergic diseases and were sensitized to cultivated plants, various pest control organisms and storage mites. All these can cause OA and OR, but in this study, OCU was only induced by cultivation plants. Cucumber plant is a novel cause of OA and OR, and A. swirskii is a novel cause of OA.

Occupational asthma and rhinitis caused by cyanoacrylate-based eyelash extension glues.

BACKGROUND: Eyelash extensions are applied on top of customers' lashes using instant glue containing cyano acrylate, known to cause occupational rhinitis (OR) and occupational asthma (OA). The number of beauty professionals applying these extensions is increasing due to their popularity. AIMS: To report on a case of OA with OR and a case of OR attributable to lash extension glue and to evaluate respiratory exposure in lash extension work. METHODS: Two beauty professionals with suspected OA and/or OR underwent inhalation challenge, including both control challenge and work-mimicking challenges using the lash extension glue, each with a 24-h follow-up. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present were assessed during the lash extension glue challenge. The glues were analysed for their (meth)acrylate content. RESULTS: Both beauty professionals (case 1 and case 2) applied lash extensions regularly for several hours per day as part of their work and had work-related rhinitis. Case 1 had a longer history of lash extension work and also had asthmatic symptoms. The first lash extension glue challenge was negative in both cases, but positive OR reactions were detected in the second test. Case 1 also had a late asthmatic reaction. During the lash extension glue challenge, VOC were present in total concentrations below the irritant threshold and ethylcyanoacrylate (ECA) was detected in a concentration of 0.4mg/m(3). Chemical analysis of the glues revealed ECA was the major component. CONCLUSIONS: Application of eyelash extensions using small amounts of cyanoacrylate-based glues can cause OA and OR.

Occupational asthma in professional cleaning work: a clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Several epidemiological studies have reported an increased risk of asthma among professional cleaners. To date, however, no analysis of large patient series from clinic of occupational medicine has been published. AIMS: To describe the cases of occupational asthma (OA) diagnosed at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH) during the period 1994-2004 in workers employed in professional cleaning work. METHODS: OA was diagnosed according to patient history, lung function examinations and specific challenge tests with measurements of the forced expiratory volume in 1 second and peak expiratory flow values. RESULTS: Our series comprised 20 patients, all female, with a mean age of 48.8 years (range 27-60 years). The mean duration of cleaning work before the onset of the respiratory symptoms was 14.3 years (range 1-36 years), and the mean duration of cleaning work before the FIOH examinations was 18.6 years (range 3-38 years). OA was triggered by chemicals in 9 cases (45%) and by moulds in 11 cases (55%). The chemicals were cleaning chemicals (wax-removing substances containing ethanolamines in five cases and a cleaning agent containing chloramine-T in one case) and chemicals used in the industrial processes at workplaces (three cases). Of the moulds, the most frequently associated with OA was Aspergillus fumigatus (nine cases). CONCLUSIONS: OA was attributed not only to cleaning chemicals but also to other chemicals used in work environments. Moulds are presented as a new cause of OA in cleaners.

Occupational contact allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers.

BACKGROUND: Formaldehyde allergy is common and usually derives from formaldehyde-releasing biocides in cosmetic and other products. OBJECTIVES: To analyse patterns of patch test reactions to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing compounds and the sources of sensitization. PATIENTS/METHODS: At the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, we screened the patch test files for allergic reactions to formaldehyde and 12 formaldehyde-releasing compounds. All patients with contact allergy to any of the substances were included, and their records were reviewed. RESULTS: Between January 2001 and May 2007, we had patch tested 81 patients with formaldehyde allergy and 18 with independent allergy to some formaldehyde releaser. Of the formaldehyde allergies, 60 were new sensitizations, 25 of which were considered to be occupational. The most common source of occupational sensitization was metalworking fluids followed by creams and related products. Exposure to formaldehyde-releasing preservatives in liquid soaps and other rinse-off products was common in both occupational and non-occupational cases. Reactions to formaldehyde-releasing compounds were seen in 79% of the formaldehyde-allergic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational formaldehyde allergy was common and occurred in metalworkers, hairdressers, masseurs, and workers using protective creams, detergents, and liquid soaps. When compared with studies on general dermatological patients, contact allergy to formaldehyde releasers without formaldehyde allergy was rare.