{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03038309114927345, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019374724790841038, 'mean_word_length': 5.074866310160428, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Allergic contact dermatitis to azodicarbonamide

Azodicarbonamide is a condensation product of hydrazine and urea (Fig. 1 ). It is widely used as a blowing agent in the manufacture of expanded polyvinyl chloride and polyolefin plastics for wall coverings, floor coverings, insulation and packaging materials. Azodicarbonamide is a potent pulmonary sensitiser. Slovak (1), in his prevalance study of occupational asthma among a group of 151 workers exposed to azodicarbonamide, found that 18.5% of people without previous asthma gave a history of episodes of late onset asthma following azodicarbonamide exposure. Prick-testing with concentrations of 0.1, 1.0, and 5.0% (w/v) solutions of azodicarbonamide in dimethyl-sulphoxide was negative, whether workers had pulmonary sensitivity or not. In 1982, a case of dermatitis presented in an otherwise fit man aged 33, who had suffered for the previous 10 years with occasional eczema of the forearms and legs. As the reaction did not improve during periods of absence from work, an occupational cause was not suspected, particularly as the distribution was atopic. In 1982, following accidental overexposure to the compound, he developed dermatitis over various parts of the body, but not on the face, hands or wrists. In view of the co-incidental relationship, he was patch tested to azodicarbonamide in pet. at concentrations ofO.l, 1.0, 10.0% (w/w). A++ reaction was present at 48 and 72 h to 1.0% concentration. A patch test with hydrazine was negative. A search of the patient records held by his employer indicated that approximately 10 other people had complained of skin problems whilst handling azodicarbonamide. 5 of them were available for testing, and were investigated in a similar manner with negative results. The case in question had been investigated for pulmonary sensitivity during 1980; prick testing was negative, and he did not have any pulmonary sensitisation. It has not been possible to trace any previouslyreported cases of allergic contact dermatitis to azodicarbonamide, although pulmonary sensitisation occurs readily. Nevertheless, this case does indicate that whilst the dermal allergic potential of azodicarbonamide is low, it should be considered as a cause of dermatitis in exposed workers.