Tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate

Sensitisation data (human)

Administrative data

Endpoint:

sensitisation data (humans)

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

supporting study

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

data from handbook or collection of data

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Three cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis to tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate in an ultraviolet dielectric ink

Author:

Munidasa D., Cooper S.

Year:

2012

Bibliographic source:

British journal of dermatology, 167 (suppl.1), pp144

Materials and methods

Type of sensitisation studied:

skin

Study type:

case report

Principles of method if other than guideline:

This article describes three cases of occupational contact dermatitis to THFA occuring simultaneously in personnel employed at a medical device manufacturer.

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate

EC Number:

219-268-7

EC Name:

Tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate

Cas Number:

2399-48-6

Molecular formula:

C8H12O3

IUPAC Name:

tetrahydrofuran-2-ylmethyl acrylate

Method

Type of population:

occupational

Subjects:

All three workers as machine operators in a rotary screen card printing line using an ultraviolet (UV) ink.
Patient 1 was a 43 -year-old atopic man
Patient 2 was a 41 -year-old woman
Patient 3 was a 38 -year-old man

Results and discussion

Results of examinations:

Patient 1 was a 43 -year-old atopic man who developed dermatitis over the cheeks, eyelids, palm, chest and axillae which took several days to resolve. The skin changes occurred despite wearing standard protective gear and cleared completely when working in another area.
Patient 2 was a 41 -year-old woman who developed eczema over the neck, eyelids, face, flexural arms and knees. The skin eruption was clearly related to work.
Patient 3 was a 38 -year-old man who developed unilateral periorbital redness and swelling after 6h of exposure to the machine. The swelling subsided over several days but recurred every time he returned to work.

All three were patch tested to the british Society for Cutaneous Allergy standard, cosmetic and sunscreen series plus flagrance and acrylates series, THFA (0.2%, 0.5%) and methyl bis diacrylate (0.2%, 0.5%).
All three had positive reactions to THFA:
-patient 1, reaction at 0.2% (D2++, D4++)
-patient 2, reaction at 0.2% (D2++, D4++)
-patient 3, reaction at 0.2% (D2-, D4+) and at 0.5% (D2++, D4++)


Patient 1 had positive tests to butyl acrylate (0.1%, D2+, D4++), tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate (2%, D2-, D4+), hydroxypropyl acrylate (0.1%, D2-, D4+) and diethylene glycol diacrylate (0.1%, D2-, D4+).
Patient 2 had positive tests to butyl acrylate (0.1%, D2-, D4++), and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate (2%, D2-, D4+).

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Executive summary:

This article describes three cases of occupational contact dermatitis to THFA occuring simultaneously in personnel employed at a medical device manufacturer.

Patient 1 was a 43 -year-old atopic man who developed dermatitis over the cheeks, eyelids, palm, chest and axillae which took several days to resolve. The skin changes occurred despite wearing standard protective gear and cleared completely when working in another area.

Patient 2 was a 41 -year-old woman who developed eczema over the neck, eyelids, face, flexural arms and knees. The skin eruption was clearly related to work.

Patient 3 was a 38 -year-old man who developed unilateral periorbital redness and swelling after 6h of exposure to the machine. The swelling subsided over several days but recurred every time he returned to work.

All three workers as machine operators in a rotary screen card printing line using an ultraviolet (UV) ink. A new card printing machine had been installed a few weeks before the onset of dermatitis. Investigation revealed the presence of THFA and methyl bis diacrylate in the UV ink.

All three were patch tested to the british Society for Cutaneous Allergy standard, cosmetic and sunscreen series plus flagrance and acrylates series, THFA and methyl bis diacrylate. All three had positive reactions to THFA. Patient 1 had positive tests to butyl acrylate, tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl acrylate and diethylene glycol diacrylate. Patient 2 had positive tests to butyl acrylate, and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate.

In these three cases, the clinical presentation was suggestive of an-airbone pattern but also penetration through work clothing. The positive reaction to other acrylates may indicate cross-sensitisation or concomitant sensitisation from impurities in the ink.