Pesticide contact dermatitis in agricultural workers of Himachal Pradesh (India)

• Published in: Contact dermatitis Vol. 79; no. 4; pp. 213 - 217
• Main Authors: Sharma, Aditi, Mahajan, Vikram K., Mehta, Karaninder S., Chauhan, Pushpinder S., Sharma, Vikas, Sharma, Anuj, Wadhwa, Dhaarna, Chauhan, Shailja
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.10.2018; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Acetaldehyde - adverse effects; Acetaldehyde - analogs & derivatives; Adult; Aged; agricultural workers; Agriculture; Allergies; Antifungal agents; Benzothiazoles - adverse effects; Case-Control Studies; Contact dermatitis; Cypermethrin; Dermatitis; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - diagnosis; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology; Dermatitis, Occupational - diagnosis; Dermatitis, Occupational - etiology; Eczema; Farmers; Farmworkers; Female; formaldehyde; Formaldehyde - adverse effects; Humans; India; Isoproturon; Male; mercaptobenzothiazole; metaldehyde; Middle Aged; Neck; occupational dermatitis; Occupational exposure; Patch Tests; Pesticides; Pesticides - adverse effects; Phenylurea Compounds - adverse effects; Propiconazole; Pyrethrins - adverse effects; Sulfhydryl Compounds - adverse effects; Thiram - adverse effects; thiuram; Triazoles - adverse effects; India; mercaptobenzothiazole; cypermethrin; formaldehyde; occupational dermatitis; thiuram; propiconazole; isoproturon; metaldehyde; India; agricultural workers
• ISSN: 0105-1873; 1600-0536
• DOI: 10.1111/cod.13049

Background Common pesticides used in the region by agricultural workers may cause contact allergy. Methods Thirty agricultural workers with a history of pesticide exposure and dermatitis involving the face, neck, trunk or extremities, and 20 controls comprising 2 groups of 10 subjects each, group 1 with dermatitis and no exposure to pesticides, and group 2 with neither exposure to pesticides nor dermatitis, were patch tested with 10 pesticides commonly used in the region by use of the Finn Chamber method. Results The 30 patients, 20 of whom were male, aged 30‐77 years, had dermatitis for 1 month to 18 years, with relapses and remissions. Seasonal exacerbation was present in 18 patients. Six patients attributed aggravation of their dermatitis to pesticide exposure, and 2 of these reacted positively to propiconazole. Positive patch test reactions to pesticides occurred in 10 patients, but not in controls. Thiuram was the commonest sensitizer (4 patients). Three patients were sensitized to propiconazole, and 2 patients reacted positively to metaldehyde. Formaldehyde, mercaptobenzothiazole, cypermethrin and isoproturon gave positive reactions in 1 patient each. Conclusion The sensitizing potential of pesticides remains a concern. Apparently, pesticide contact dermatitis is more common than expected, but remains under‐reported, as the implicated pesticides vary across regions and according to the crop patterns.