Allergic contact dermatitis to 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate in a factory worker

A previously healthy 23-year-old male had worn the protective clothing, gloves and goggles and handled acrylic resin. He accidentally spilt 1,6-hexanediol dimethacrylate (1,6-HDDA, CAS no.: 13048-33-4) on his left arm over his work wear. At that time, he felt no discomfort and he did not change his work wear until closing time. At a few hours after he finished work, pruritic erythema appeared on his left arm. He was initially treated with topical corticosteroid, and avoided to contact with 1,6-HDDA. However, the rash spread over his body (Figure 1A-C) at the next day to a week after the exposure to 1,6-HDDA. He was treated with oral prednisolone (0.5mg/kg/day) and topical corticosteroid for a couple of days as well as taking two weeks work-leave. This led to the gradual resolution of the dermatitis.Patch testing was performed using Japanese baseline series 2015, that consisted of the patch test panel ® (S) (Sato Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) and the patch test reagents (Torii Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), 1,6-HDDA (0.1% pet.) and other resins which he possibly came to contact with, including bisphenol A (1% pet.), bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (2% pet.), methyl methacrylate (2% pet.), N.N-dimethyl-ptoluidine (2% pet.), ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) (2% pet.), triethylenegylcol dimethacrylate (2% pet.), diurethane dimethacrylate (2% pet.) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) (1% pet.). The resins except 1,6-HDDA were allergEAZE ® allergens (SmartPractice Canada, Calgary, Canada). 1,6-HDDA was obtained from his workplace and diluted to 0.1% pet. as previously described. 1 The results of the patch tests were determined on days 2, 3 and 7 according to the guidelines of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Positive reactions (++) to 1,6-HDDA (0.1% pet.) were detected (Figure 1D), and weak reactions (?+) to ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate and triethylenegylcol dimethacrylate were seen. Diagnosis of occupational allergic contact dermatitis to 1,6-HDDA was made. After moving to another department to avoid contacting to 1,6-HDDA, he has had no recurrence so far.Acrylates are used as ingredients of extremely wide variety of items, including paints, coatings, adhesives, printing-inks, medical and dental applications, and cosmetics. In their form of monomers, the acrylates are potential sensitizers. However, completely polymerized or cured form is considered to be non-sensitizing and seldom cause allergies. 1,6-HDDA is an acrylic monomer commonly used in printing industries, anaerobic sealants and glues. In this case, the company subcontracted various materials for the industrial use, and their uses were confidential. Therefore, it was not known in which industrial sector the chemical would be used. EGDMA and 2-HEMA are allergens recommended for screening of methacrylate allergy, and these two allergens are considered highly cross reactive. 2 It was reported that among 10 patients with allergic reactions to 1,6-HDDA, 5 patients had positive reaction to EGDMA and 2-HEMA (One was not tested), 3 suggesting that1,6-HDDA may not be highly cross reactive to EGDMA and 2-HEMA. There are only a few cases of accidental exposure in occupational setting. 4,5 Outside the occupational settings, there have been few cases sensitized to this allergen included in a hospital wristband or plastic banknotes. 6,7 Allergic reaction to 1,6-HDDA has rarely been reported, however, Aalto-Korte K et al. reported that among 66 patients with allergic reactions to acrylic monomer, 9 patients (14%) had positive reaction to 1,6-HDDA. Therefore, 1,6-HDDA may has been overlooked as a cause of contact dermatitis.1,6-HDDA has been reported as a strong sensitizer. 2,3 In addition, acrylates can cause airborne dermatitis. 8 Although this patient protected himself with work wear and wore gas mask and goggles, sensitization had occurred presumably by penetration of 1,6-HDDA through his workwear or in an airborne manner. Considering the distribution of skin rashes, we thought that the 1,6-HDDA on his arm had volatilized and spread to the surrounding area in this case. Once sensitized, he had to change his department because handling 1,6-HDDA was not completely isolated in the factory. The workers should be aware of this potentially sensitizing allergen.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.