The low prevalence of occupational asthma and antibody-dependent sensitization to diphenylmethane diisocyanate in a plant engineered for minimal exposure to diisocyanates

https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-6749(93)90117-XGet rights and content

Abstract

Background: Diisocyanate chemicals are leading causes of occupational asthma (OA).

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 243 workers exposed to diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI) in a methane mold plant that had been designed to minimize MDI exposure (levels were maintained below 0.005 ppm and were continuously monitored). All participants were screened by questionnaire and tests for serum antibodies to MDI-human serum albumin (HSA). On the basis of questionnaire responses, diagnoses were derived that included OA; non-OA; work-related and non-work-related rhinitis; and lower respiratory irritant responses. Serial peak expiratory flow rate studies were performed for 2 weeks in 43 workers with and in 23 workers without lower respiratory symptoms.

Results: Results of serial peak expiratory flow rate studies were abnormal in 3 (33%) of 9 workers with OA, in 2 (50%) of 4 with non-OA, and in 2 (9%) of 23 case control subjects. A significant association was found between peak flow rate variability and a questionnaire asthma diagnosis (χ2 p < 0.002). Physicians confirmed three cases of OA, one of which occurred in a control worker who was free of symptoms. In all three cases asthma symptoms remitted after the worker left the workplace. Serum specific IgE and IgG levels were elevated in 2 of 243 workers, one of whom was prick test positive to MDI-HSA and had had cutaneous anaphylaxis after MDI exposure.

Conclusions: On the basis of these cases, specific work activities associated with exposure to MDI were identified and corrective measures were instituted. Strict control and monitoring of ambient MDI exposure was associated with a low prevalence of specific sensitization to MDI and a lower than expected prevalence of OA.

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (116)

  • Occupational exposure and asthma

    2018, Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
    Citation Excerpt :

    For severe asthma associated with chemical or protein sensitizers, this could require leaving the workplace or relocating to an area lacking exposure to the offending substance. Complete remission of diisocyanate asthma is possible with an early diagnosis and timely elimination of exposure.57 For RADS, affected workers can continue to work provided that adequate measures to prevent future accidental high-level irritant exposures are in place.10

  • Occupational Rhinitis

    2016, Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America
  • Management of the individual worker with occupational asthma

    2013, Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
    Citation Excerpt :

    As already mentioned, once a worker develops OA, chemical exposure cannot be realistically prevented to the degree required to avert work-related asthma symptoms. Therefore, prompt recognition of OA and immediate cessation from work-related exposure to chemical (or protein) sensitizers should be strongly recommended to the worker and employer and can be justified by published evidence indicating that early intervention may result in complete remission or cure of asthma.17 The recommended approach, however, differs with respect to environmental interventions for workers with irritant-induced OA (eg, acute irritant-induced asthma).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text