Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

K L Hatch

Publications and source records attributed to K L Hatch.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Ultraviolet protection factor of fabrics: comparison of laboratory and field-based measurements.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Spectrophotometry has become an accepted laboratory-based method for the determination of the ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) of fabrics. However, the validity of the UPF determined in the laboratory has been a controversial issue with regard to its significance in the field. To compare UPF values obtained by spectrophotometry, determination of the minimal erythema dose (MED), and biological dosimetry, we conducted laboratory and field-based measurements on various fabric materials. METHODS: One cotton, two viscose, and two polyester fabrics were enrolled into the study. Spectrophotometric (SP) testing was performed in accordance with the European standard. In vivo "on skin" (IV) testing on human subjects was performed with and without fabric protection. For determination of MED, a solar-simulator was used. In another part of the study, biological dosimetry (BD) testing was employed for laboratory testing with solar-simulated radiation (laboratory BD testing) as well as field-based measurements with natural sunlight in stationary (stationary BD testing) and "real life" exposure situations (mobile subject BD testing). For field-based measurements one light-weight polyester fabric was selected. RESULTS: The differences of the mean UPF values obtained by the laboratory-based methods were significant (MANOVA; P = 0.05), except for fabric no. 2 (MANOVA; P = 0.097). In 4 of the 5 fabrics tested, UPF values obtained by IV testing were significantly lower than those obtained by SP testing (t-test; P = 0.05). In 3 fabrics, SP testing revealed significantly higher UPF values in comparison to laboratory BD testing (t-test; P = 0.05). The differences of UPF values obtained by the laboratory and field-based measurements employed for the light-weight polyester fabric were significant (ANOVA; P = 0.05). In comparison to SP testing (UPF 3.8), stationary BD testing resulted in significantly lower (UPF 3.5) and mobile subject BD testing in a significantly higher UPF of 4.4 (t-test; P = 0.05). The UPF obtained by mobile subject BD testing differed significantly from the UPF obtained by stationary BD testing (t-test; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of the presented methods indicates that IV testing generally results in lower UPF values. By contrast BD testing in "real life" exposure situations reveals relatively high UPF values. Although an overestimation of the spectrophotometrically measured UPF has been observed in comparative laboratory testing, UPF values obtained by field-based measurements are in relatively good agreement, or even surpass UPF values obtained by spectrophotometry. It is, therefore, suggested that SP testing provides "safe" UPF values which may be also valid in extreme real exposure situations. Biological UV dosimetry is, however, a promising alternative method for UPF testing: the test is easily performed in realistic exposure situations, the test is relatively inexpensive, and the measurements are valid.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2000

Textile dye allergic contact dermatitis prevalence.

This article summarizes textile dye prevalence studies and makes recommendations for advancing knowledge about textile-dye sensitization. Prevalence data is provided by study and by dye. Dermatology teams are encouraged to conduct textile-dye prevalence studies in countries other than Italy, include dyes for which the least prevalence data has been collected, to standardize method of application and reading, and to verify purity and identity of dyes used for patch testing. Testing with pure dyes and other chemicals in dye formulations should provide insights in choosing dye systems that will decrease sensitization.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Textile dye dermatitis.

The literature concerning textile dye dermatitis published during the last decade was reviewed. Sixty-one cases of dye-allergic contact dermatitis in which the presentation or course of the dermatitis was unusual or the dye allergen was one not previously reported have been described. The four new dye allergens discovered were Disperse Blue 106, Disperse Blue 85, Disperse Brown 1, and Basic Red 46. The incidence of dye dermatitis varied from 1% to 15.9% depending on the country, patient sample, and number of dyes in the patch test series. The 10 new dye allergens discovered in these studies were Disperse Blue 153, Disperse Orange 13, Basic Black 1, Basic Brown 1, the acid dyes Supramine Yellow and Supramine Red, the direct dye Diazol Orange, the basic dye Brilliant Green, Turquoise Reactive, and Neutrichrome Red. Disperse Blue 106 and Disperse Blue 124 were shown to be the strongest clothing dye sensitizers to date. Standard screening patch test series were found to be inadequate for the detection of textile dye sensitivity; therefore textile dye patch test series should be used. It is difficult to determine whether the incidence of dye dermatitis is increasing or decreasing because controlled epidemiologic studies are lacking, but data suggest that textile dye sensitivity is more common than previously believed.

Allergens↗
PubMed1995

Textile dermatitis: an update. (I). Resins, additives and fibers.

Cases of textile-related dermatitis reported in the medical literature after the mid-1980s are reviewed. Part I focuses on cases in which textile resins, fiber additives, or fibers were the causal agent. Studies which provide insight into understanding fabric-induced prickle and itch are included.

Animals↗
PubMed1986

Textile chemical finish dermatitis.

Chemicals used on fabrics to improve 10 different performance characteristics have resulted in irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. The most significant problem is due to formaldehyde and N-methylol compounds to produce durable press fabrics. Little is known about incidence of finish dermatitis or mode and amount of transfer of chemicals from fabric to skin.

Amino Alcohols↗
PubMed1985

Textile dye dermatitis. A review.

The occurrence of dermatologic problems caused by consumer exposure to dyes on clothing is reviewed. Thirty-one dyes, mainly disperse with anthraquinone or azo structures, have caused allergic contact dermatitis. Phototoxic dye dermatitis is rare.

Azo Compounds↗
PubMed1985

Textile fiber dermatitis.

The review discusses acute and cumulative irritant, allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, and exacerbation of atopic dermatitis due to the physical and chemical nature of textile fibers.

Animals↗