Registration Dossier

Toxicological information

Sensitisation data (human)

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
sensitisation data (humans)
Type of information:
other: Case study
Adequacy of study:
supporting study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Documentation sufficient for assessment

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
publication
Title:
Contact dermatitis and gastrointestinal symptoms from hydroxyethylmethacrylat
Author:
Mathias C.G.T., Cadwell T.M., Maibach H.I.
Year:
1979
Bibliographic source:
British Journal of Dermatology 100: 447-449

Materials and methods

Type of sensitisation studied:
skin
Study type:
case report
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Case study. Patch testing done to determine cross reactivity
GLP compliance:
no

Test material

Reference
Name:
Unnamed
Type:
Constituent
Details on test material:
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): hydroxyethylmethacrylate

Method

Type of population:
occupational
Ethical approval:
not specified
Subjects:
- Number of subjects exposed: 1
- Sex: Male
- Age: 28
- Race: Black
- Other: laboratory technician
Clinical history:
- Symptoms, onset and progress of the disease: three separate outbreaks occurred, at approximately 2 month intervals, each progressively worse. Characterized by nausea, and diarrhoea and persistent paresthesiac of the fingertips.
- Exposure history: working with 80% hydroxyethylmethacrylate in absolute alcohol
Controls:
Control was used in the vinyl glove patch test
Route of administration:
dermal
Details on study design:
TYPE OF TEST(S) USED: patch test (epicutaneous test)

Patch tests were perfromed to a routine screening series and to a 5% dilution of HEMA in absolute alcohol; results were graded according to the standards of the International contact Dermatitis Research group.

To determine cross reactivity, patch tests containing 5% concentrations in petrolatum of methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, isopropyl-, butyl-, and isobutylmethacrylate were performed.

To determine the ability of vinyl gloves to protect against allergic contact derematitis, further patch tests were performed with HEMA, placing a 4 x 4 cm square piece of a disposable vinyl medical examining glove between the skin and the patch.

Results and discussion

Results of examinations:
HEMA produced a 2 + spreading reaction at 48 and 96 h. The patient noted nausea and mild diarrhoea commencing within 4 hours of initial application of patch tests and persisting for 24 h.

Cross reactions occured to methy-, ethyl-, propyl- and isopropyl methacrylate but not to butyl- or isobutyl meth-acrylate. The methy-, ethyl-, propyl- and isopropyl methacrylate esters produced 2+ spreading reactions at 48 and 96 h. The patient experienced similar nausea and diarrhoea, commencing 4 hours after application and lasting 24 h.

Both the vinyl examining glove and latex surgical control glove produced 2+ spreading reactions by 48 h. The patient experienced nausea and diarrhoea a third time. Patch tests to 5 % hydroxyethyl methacrylate in absolute alcohol in seventeen consecutive controls were negative. None developed nausea or diarrhoea.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Executive summary:

A laboratory technician developed allergic contact dermatitis to HEMA associated with nausea, diarrhoea and persistent paresthesiae of the fingertips. The gastrointestinal symptoms were reproduced by patch testing. HEMA was demonstrated to pass through vinyl gloves. Cross reactions occured to methyl-, ethyl-, propyl- and isopropylmethacrylate but not butyl- or isobutylmethacrylate.