58 ABSTRACTS

15

DIAZOLIDINYL UREA: A SURVEY OF ITS FREQUENCY OF USE t SENSITIZATION RATE AND REPORTED CASES OF ALLERGIC CONTACT DERMATITIS (ACD)

Edward M. Jackson, Ph.D. Jackson Research Associates, Inc. Sumner, Washington

OBJECT: TO determine if there is a relationship between the increasing use of the preservative, diazolidinyl urea, and the number of reported cases of ACD. METHOD: The frequency of use of diazolidlnyl urea in cosmetics and drugs will be summarized from FDA's database of voluntary product formulation registrations. Literature searches of contact dermatitis databases will provide information on sensitization rates and reported cases of ACD to diazolidinyl urea. RESULTS: Since its introduction in 1982, the use of diazolidinyl urea to preserve products has increased 900%. Sensitization rates for diazoli- dinyl urea have been variously reported from 0.0% to 2.4%. The number of clinically reported ACD cases to diazolidinyl urea does not match either the number of products preserved with diazolidinyl urea or the number of reported cases of ACD. CONCLUSION: The disparity between diazolidinyl urea's frequency of use s reported rates of sensitization and actual clinically diagnosed cases of ACD will continue to produce confusion about the sensitization potential of diazolidinyl urea. A more accurate method to determine the sensitization potential of new preservatives will h~ ~xplnre~=

16

WHAT IS THE COMPOSiTiON OF THE THIURAM MIX?

Bo Kreilq&rd, Ulla Hoeck, Dick Fransson PHARMACIA RESEARCH CENTER AS, Hiller~d, Denmark

Examination of the Thiuram mix in petrolatum and in TRUE Test TM shows that even if production of the test material is done by mixing the four components tetramethylthiuram monosulfide, tetramsthylthiuram disulphide, tetraethylthiuram disulphide and pentamethylenethiuram disulphide, the final product contains seven components.

The three new components were identified as "mixed disulphides" formed by interaction between the different disulphides. The rate of the chemical reactions is dependent on the type of solvent and the pH of the solvent, The reactions proceed to an equilibrium within one day.

17

CONTACT SENSITMTY TO FOOD ADDITIVES CAUSING ORAL SYMPTOMS

Piona M Lewis. Manu Shah, David J Gawkrodger University Department of Desmatology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield SI0 2JF, UK.

Contact sensitivity to food additives is uncommon. We report five patients whose era( symptoms were found to be due to these substances. Between March 1992 and July 1994, 1153 patients were patch tested in our Contact Dermatitis Clinic. Of these, 47 (4%) were referred with oral symptoms. As a result of patch testing, the symptoms in five patients were considered to be due to delayed grpe hypersensitivity to food additives.

Four patients presented with lip swelling and one with mouth ulceration. Four patients bad positive reactions to single allergens (menthol, butylhydroxyanisole, octyl gallato end dodegyl gallate). One patient reacted to six allergens (N-isopropyl.N-phenyl paraphenylenediamiae, balsam of Peru, fi'agrance mix, Tdclosan, peppermim oil end menthol). In all cases symptoms improved after patients were commenced on diets excluding the relevant allergen. One patient was re-challenged end developed further symptoms.

Patch testing may he useful in patients with unexplained oral symptoms. Expert dietary advice is an imporrattt part of management in patients with proven delayed type hypersensitivity to food additives.

We would like to thank Dr C Yeoman of the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield, for referring some of the patients.

18

S u r v e i l l a n c e o f O c c u p a t i o n a l D e x l ~ a t i t i s - SENSOR D e n a a t i t i s A n a l y s i s o f W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n D a t a i n T h r e e S t a t e s

3 . 1 Lushniak BD I , Barnett M 3, DeBruyckere D , HalperlnWE , 4 Heumann MA , Kaufman JD , Migliozzi AA 2, Ordin DL I,

Socie EM 2, Shields JW 4 1. NationalInstitute~r Occupational Safety and Heal~ (NIOSH) 2. Ohio Depa~ment of Heal~ 3. O~gon Hea l~ Division 4. Was~ngtonSto~ l~pa~mentof Labor and ~dus t r i~

In 1992, NIOSH and three states (Ohio, Oregon, and Washington) embarked upon an experiment to develop surveillance systems for occupational dermatitis (SENSOR- Der~atitis). As an initial step, each state conducted a four to six year retrospective analysis of workers" compensation (WC) data for Occupational dermatitis (OD). This analysis provided information on the statewide magnitude of OD, the common causes or sources of OD, and the occupations or industries most affected. There were 5675 WC claims for OD in Ohio for 1986-1991; 2646 claims in Oregon for 1988-1992; and 6094 claims in Washington for 1987-1990. Common causes of dermatitis included: chemicals, plants, soaps, and solvents/degreasers. Occupations commonly affected included: machine operators, laborers, janitors/cleaners, food preparers/dishwashers, and farmworkers. WC data has limitations, which include inter- !state program variability, selection bias, under- !ascertainment, and misclassification. A surveillance system Ibased upon these data can meet many of the goals of surveillance including identification of sew and persistent problems, estimation of magnitude and trends, and identification of worksites with greatest prevention needs.