CDC logoSafer Healthier People CDC HomeCDC SearchCDC Health Topics A-Z
NIOSH - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Skip navigation links Search NIOSH  |  NIOSH Home  |  NIOSH Topics  |  Site Index  |  Databases and Information Resources  |  NIOSH Products  |  Contact Us
NIOSH Home > Safety and Health Topics >Skin Exposures and Effects >Occupational & Environmental Exposures of Skin to Chemicals- 2005> Abstracts

• Main Page
• General
Information
• Co-sponsors
• List of Planners
• Poster Awards
• Program
• Concise Schedule
• Workshops
• Short Courses
•

Talks, Workshops and Posters by Theme

• Vendor Exhibits and Seminars
• Author Index

Abstract for Poster 106

 

 

Allergic reactions to (meth)acrylates in a 10-year period

K. Alanko*. J. Jolanki
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland

Background

The use of plastic materials in dental work has increased much in the past 20 years in Finland. Consequently allergies to (meth)acrylate chemicals have increased as well (1-2). Acrylate allergy usually manifests as allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) on hands, espe­cially fingertips. We present 10-year data (October 1994 – September 2004) of patch testing with an extensive (meth)acrylate series at FIOH.

Methods

From October 1994 to September 2004, a total of 405 patients with a history of exposure to (meath)acrylates were tested. The patch tests were performed and scored as recom­mended by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group ICDRG (3). The (meth)acrylate series comprised 36 chemicals (Table 1). During the 10 years the series went through minor changes and all patients were not tested to all acrylates. The providers and concentrations of the test chemicals are shown in Table 1. The sensitizing capacities of (meth)acrylates, based on animal studies, according to Björkner (4), are also given.

Results

The results are shown in Table 1. Among the 405 patients tested, at least one allergic patch test reaction was shown by 52 patients (13%). Allergic reactions were most com­monly seen to 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (2-HPMA), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA).

Conclusions

We have used a large pattern of chemicals to detect (meth)acrylate allergy because their cross-reactivity patterns are not well known (5). Neither can the safety data sheets be reliable; not all acrylic components are given in the sheets (6). At FIOH, in an earlier 10-year period (1985-1995), 48 out of 275 tested patients (17%) had an allergic reaction to (meth)acrylates (7). In the present data, more patients were tested, which may reflect the increase of exposures and ACD. However, knowledge about the sensitizing capacity of (meth)acrylates has improved. Also, techniques to avoid skin exposure have been developed, e.g. non-touch techniques in dental work. It may be hoped that these factors will reduce the induction of new allergies.

References

1. Kanerva L, Lahtinen A, Toikkanen J, Forss H, Estlander T, Susitaival P, Jolanki R. Increase in occupational skin diseases of dental personnel. Contact dermatitis 1999; 40: 104-108.

2. Kanerva L, Alanko K, Estlander T, Jolanki R, Lahtinen A, Savela A. Statistics on occupational dermatitis from (meth)acrylates in dental personnel. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42: 175-176.

3. Lachapelle J-M, Maibach HI (eds). Patch testing and prick testing. A practical guide. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2003.

4. Björkner B (1984) Sensitizing capacity of ultraviolet curable acrylic compounds. Thesis, Lund, Sweden, pp 1-78.

5. Kanerva L. Cross-reactions of multifunctional methacrylates and acrylates. Acta Odontol Scand 2001; 59: 320-329

6. Henriks-Eckerman M-L, Suuronen K, Jolanki R, Alanko K. Methacrylates in dental restorative materials. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50: 233-237

7. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T. 10 years of patch testing with the (meth)acrylate series. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37: 255-258.

 

Table 1. Allergic (meth)acrylate patch test reactions of 405 patients.

(Meth)acrylate series Abbreviations

Source

Test conc. (%)

Allergic/ tested

Allergic (%)

Rank order

Sensitiz. capacity

EA

C

0.1

13/404

3.2

7

NG

BA

C

0.1

4/403

1.0

19

NG

2-EHA

C

0.1

2/403

0.5

27

V

MMA

C/T

2

7+4/258+305

2.0

10

NG

EMA

C

2

14/402

3.5

6

NG

BMA

C

2

3/402

0.7

23

NG

2-HEMA

C/T

2/1

12+18/93+304

7.6

2

I

2-HPMA

C

2

33/403

18.2

1

I

EGDMA

C/T

2

11+16/91+302

6.9

3

I

TREGDMA

C/T

2

3+7/92+306

2.5

8

I

BUDMA

C

2

7/397

1.8

12

I

UDMA

C

2

3/397

0.8

21

II

BIS-EMA

C

1

3/403

0.7

23

IV

BIS-MA

C

2

0/332

0

–

V

BIS-GMA

CT

2

1+2/90+303

0.8

21

I

BUDA

C

0.1

8/402

2.0

10

III-V

HDDA

C

0.1

5/396

1.3

15

III-V

DEGDA

C

0.1

16/403

4.0

4

II

DPGDA

O

0.1

2/174

1.1

17

NG

TPGDA

C

0.1

6/403

1.5

13

IV

TREGDA

C

0.1

3/77

3.9

5

I

TMPTA

C

0.1

5/403

1.2

16

IV

PETA

C

0.1

2/403

0.5

27

V

OTA 480

C

0.1

2/403

0.5

27

III

BIS-GA

C

0.5

3/401

0.7

23

III–V

al-UDA

C

0.1

1/403

0.2

32

V

ar-UDA

C

0.05

4/403

1.0

19

II

MBAA

C

1

1/403

0.2

32

NG

THFMA

C

2

10/396

2.5

8

NG

DMAEMA

C

0.2

0/66

0

–

NG

GMA

O

0.1

5/324

1.5

13

NG

EBADMA

O

0.2

2/175

1.1

17

NG

EEA

O

0.1

1/324

0.3

30

NG

PEA

O

0.1

2/338

0.6

26

NG

IBA

O

0.1

0/338

0

–

NG

ECA

O

10

1/341

0.3

30

NG

Source of (met)acrylates: C = Chemotechnique Diagnostics AB, Malmö, Sweden; T = Trolab, Hermal, Reinbeck, Germany; O = manufactured by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH)

Sensitizing capacity: NG, not given; I, weak; II, mild; III, moderate; IV, strong; V, extreme.

 

Content last modified: 22 May 2005

Return