Registration Dossier

Diss Factsheets

Toxicological information

Sensitisation data (human)

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

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

Data source

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

Materials and methods

Type of sensitisation studied:
Study type:
case report
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Case study. Patch testing done to determine cross reactivity
GLP compliance:

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate
EC Number:
EC Name:
2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate
Cas Number:
Molecular formula:
2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate
Details on test material:
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): hydroxyethylmethacrylate


Type of population:
Ethical approval:
not specified
- 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
Control was used in the vinyl glove patch test
Route of administration:
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.