2,3-epoxypropyl phenyl ether

Direct observations: clinical cases, poisoning incidents and other

Administrative data

Endpoint:

direct observations: clinical cases, poisoning incidents and other

Type of information:

other: human case study

Adequacy of study:

other information

Reliability:

4 (not assignable)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: Only short communication available

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Dermatitis from phenyl glycidyl ether

Author:

Rudzkii E, Rebandel P, Grzywa Z, Jakiminska B

Year:

1983

Bibliographic source:

Contact Dermatitis Vol 9 No 1, 90-91

Materials and methods

Study type:

clinical case study

Endpoint addressed:

skin sensitisation

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Case studies from 10 patients positive to phenyl glycidyl ether

GLP compliance:

not specified

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

phenyl glycidyl ether

IUPAC Name:

phenyl glycidyl ether

Details on test material:

- Name of test material: Phenyl glycidyl ether in 0.25 % alc

Method

Type of population:

occupational

Subjects:

No exact data are available concerning either the work conditions of 8 of these patients or the course of their dermatitis. It is possible that epoxy resin was the primary sensitizer, and that phenyl glycidyl ether was a secondary allergen. In the other 2 patients the authors presume that phenyl glycidyl ether was the primary sensitizer.

Ethical approval:

not applicable

Route of exposure:

dermal

Reason of exposure:

intentional, occupational

Exposure assessment:

not specified

Details on exposure:

CASE 1: In 1968, a 34-year-old man started work as a laminater and came into contact with the following epoxy resins: (a) Epidian 5 Polish epoxy resin of bisphenol A type, molecular weight about 360; (b) Epidian 53 containing 90 % Epidian 5 and 10 %, styrene; (c) mixture of phenyl glycosidyl ether and Epidian 5 prepared freshly before use or within 12-24 h. He had used amounts of epoxy resin varying from 0.5 to 20 kg daily. In 1979 he became a joiner but continued to come into contact with epoxy glue which, however, did not contain phenyl glycidyl ether. In 1982, he was returning to his work as a laminater.

CASE 2: A 53-year-old man began to work in 1949 on the production of electric energy measuring instruments where epoxy resins have been used since 1969. At the beginning of 1972 he changed his work. Since March 1973 he has worked solely as a supervisor, with marked improvement but dermatitis recurred, therefore for the next 5 years ceased to have any contact with Epidian. From January 1980 to January 1982, he again supervised the production of electric energy measuring instruments and was in areas where Epidian 5 and phthalic anhydride were used. Because dermatitis appeared on his hands, forearms and face from this time on he ceased to have any contact with epoxy resin and its hardeners. When tested in March 1982, he was positive to epidian 5 and phenyl glycidyl ether (0.1 and 0.25 %) but negative to triethylenetetramine, phthalic anydride and the standard series.

Examinations:

CASE 1: After working for 5 months under the conditions of epoxy resins, he developed dermatitis, at first on the forearms and soon after on the hands. The dermatitis fluctuated and recurred with the amount of resin used, and spread to the legs and face. When he becam a joiner in 1979, in this period, the skin changes almost completely disappeared. When he was seen in April 1982, there was no sign of dermatitis, and he was returning to his work as a laminater. He was patch test positive to phenyl glycidyl ether (0.25% alc.); the reaction to triethylenetetramine was doubtful. He was negative to the standard series and to 1% Epidian 5.

CASE 2: At the beginning of 1972, minimal dermatitis appeared on the skin on his hands but did not last long because he changed his work. After 2 months, he returned to working with epoxy resin. He himself mixed Epidian 5 with phenyl glycidyl ether. After 3 months, an acute dermatitis appeared on his hands and face. Nevertheless he continued to work, but used protective gloves and topical steroid creams, although minimal dermatitis persisted. In January 1974 he had a recurrence of dermatitis and for the next 5 years ceased to have any contact with Epidian, neither did he have any contact with phenyl glycidyl ether. In January 1982 he was obliged to undertake the work which he had previously supervised; a recurrent dermatitis appeared on the hands, forearms and face. From this time on he ceased to have any contact with epoxy resin and its hardeners. When tested in March 1982, he was positive to epidian 5 and phenyl glycidyl ether (0.1 and 0.25 %) but negative to triethylenetetramine, phthalic anydride and the standard series.

Medical treatment:

CASE 2: protective gloves and topical steroid creams

Results and discussion

Clinical signs:

CASE 1: dermatitis, at first on the forearms and soon after on the hands.
CASE 2: dermatitis appeared on the skin, on his hands and on his face

Results of examinations:

In both patients, dermatitis from phenyl glycidyl ether was diagnosed, since Case 1 was positive only to this compound and Case 2 was positive to it as well as to epoxy resin.

Effectivity of medical treatment:

CASE 2: although the man used protective gloves and topical steroid creams, minimal dermatitis persisted.