English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We report a case of an allergic skin reaction to ultraviolet-cured acrylates in a windscreen repair worker. The patient presented with a 6 month history of fingertip dryness, vesicles and desquamation. He had worked as a self-employed car windscreen repairer for 19 years. Previous management with vinyl glove protection and treatment with clobetasol propionate ointment had produced little improvement. He was patch tested to the British Society for Cutaneous Allergy standard and preservatives series and to the two acrylates used in his work environment, identified using safety data sheets, methyl methacrylate 2% pet and 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate (2-HEMA) 2% pet. A positive reaction was seen at Day 4 to 2-HEMA, but all other patch tests were negative. An occupational allergic contact dermatitis to 2-HEMA was diagnosed. The patient was given avoidance advice and advised to use nitrile gloves. Although he was unable to give up his current work, he has continued his job using nitrile gloves with marked improvement.

Acrylate-induced allergic contact dermatitis in a car windscreen repairer