LAUSR

A 55-year-old general labourer worked for 2 months in a company producing electrical wiring devices, capacitors, and insulators. He was operating a metal press that injected a mixture of epoxy resin and hardener onto the manufactured parts. There was occasional skin contact with the mix when he flushed out or cleaned the feeding hose and the injection system of the machine. Six weeks after beginning this work, he developed mild dermatitis on the forearms. Two weeks later, he was asked to clean and scrub a barrel containing residues of hardened resin, which he solubilized with acetone. Within <24 hours, acute facial dermatitis developed, and he was withdrawn from work. The lesions cleared over a period of 2 weeks with applications of desoximetasone 0.25% cream. However, upon returning to his regular work, the patient suffered a relapse after the first day and had to quit his job. We reviewed relevant material safety data sheets and obtained, from the employer, samples of 2 epoxy resins (Epalloy 5200 and Lindoxy 190) and 2 hardeners (LS-252 and Lindride 52). They were diluted 1% pet. according to the recommendations of de Groot. Patch testing was performed with the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) baseline series (AllergEAZE; SmartPractice, Calgary, Canada) applied on Finn Chambers (SmartPractice), and with a glues and plastics series (Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Vellinge, Sweden) on IQ-Ultra chambers (Chemotechnique). The patient was also tested with the above-mentioned 4 products from his workplace, which failed to induce a positive reaction in 4 controls. One additional control subject, who was already known to be allergic to epoxy resins, including cycloaliphatic epoxy, had a ++ reaction to Epalloy 5200. Readings of patch tests were performed on day (D) 2 and D4 according to NACDG standards. The results of patch testing are shown in Table 1.