Advertisement

Rubber

  • Donald V. Belsito
  • Marie-Noëlle Crepy
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Sensitization to rubber components often accompanies allergic or nonallergic hand eczemas; however, without patch testing, the diagnosis can be missed.

Sensitizing rubber products contain multiple allergenic constituents; therefore, individuals are often allergic to several rubber allergens.

The allergens in rubber vary greatly depending upon the product and the country of origin. The composition of the same rubber product may change from lot-to-lot without the consumer being aware of any differences in the final product.

Rubber additives are the allergens most strongly associated with occupational contact dermatitis.

The rubber accelerators (thiurams, carbamates, thiazoles, and thioureas) cause the greatest amount of sensitivity among users of rubber products; in contrast, workers involved in the manufacture of rubber are more likely allergic to the amine antioxidants.

Vulcanization produces new allergens.

The amine antioxidants, especially IPPD, are highly sensitizing, and positive patch tests are typically intense.

An individual sensitized to components of rubber must take precautions not only with rubberized products used at work (gloves, masks, rubber bands, etc.) but also with personal products (elasticized garments, condoms, shoes, sporting equipment, etc.) and with nonrubber sources of the allergen(s) such as insecticides, fungicides, and medicaments.

For those sensitized to rubber, it is particularly important to identify specific gloves and shoes which are free of their allergens.

New glove manufacturing processes have been developed to produce accelerator-free medical gloves.

Keywords

Rubber Allergens Accelerators Antioxidants Latex proteins Allergic contact dermatitis Allergic contact urticaria Occupational dermatitis Rubber industry Gloves Accelerator-free medical gloves Contraceptive devices Prevention 

References

  1. Aalto-Korte K, Pesonen M (2016) Patterns of simultaneous patch test reactions to thiurams and dithiocarbamates in 164 patients. Contact Dermatitis 75:353–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams AK, Warshaw EM (2006) Allergic contact dermatitis from mercapto compounds. Dermatitis 17:56–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Allmers H, Schmengler J, John SM (2004) Decreasing incidence of occupational contact urticaria caused by natural rubber latex allergy in German health care workers. J Allergy Clin Immunol 114:347–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Contact Dermatitis Society’s database. http://www.contactderm.org/files/public/GloveFV.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2011
  5. Anderson BE (2009) Mixed dialkyl thioureas. Dermatitis 20:3–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Baeck M, Cawet B, Tennstedt D, Goossens A (2013) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by latex (natural rubber)-free gloves in healthcare workers. Contact Dermatitis 68:54–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baginsky E (1979) Surveillance and reporting. A paper presented at occupational, industrial and plant dermatology conference, San Francisco, 26–29 Mar 1979Google Scholar
  8. Bergendorff O, Persson C, Lüdtke A et al (2007) Chemical changes in rubber allergens during vulcanization. Contact Dermatitis 57:152–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhargava K, White IR, White JML (2009) Thiuram patch test positivity 1980–2006: incidence is now falling. Contact Dermatitis 60:222–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borak J, Slade MD, Russi M (2005) Risks of brain tumors in rubber workers: a meta-analysis. J Occup Environ Health 47:294–298Google Scholar
  11. Bourguet CC, Checkoway H, Hulka BS (1987) A case-control study of skin cancer in the tire and rubber manufacturing industry. Am J Ind Med 11:461–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourrain JL, Woodward C, Dumas V et al (1996) Natural rubber latex contact dermatitis with features of erythema multiforme. Contact Dermatitis 35:55–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brandão FM (1990) Rubber. In: Adams RM (ed) Occupational skin disease. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 462–485Google Scholar
  14. Bruze M, Trulsson L, Bendsöe N (1992) Patch testing with ultrasonic bath extracts. Am J Contact Dermat 3:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burrows D (1972) Thiuram dermatitis and purpura. Contact Dermatitis News 12:333Google Scholar
  16. Calnan CD (1971) Lichenoid dermatitis from isopropylaminodiphenylamine. Contact Dermatitis News 4:237Google Scholar
  17. Calnan CD (1978) Dermatology and industry. Prosser White Oration 1977. Clin Exp Dermatol 3:1–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chaiear N, Sadhra S, Jones M et al (2001) Sensitization to natural rubber latex: an epidemiological study of workers exposed during tapping and glove manufacture in Thailand. Occup Environ Med 58:386–391PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chipinda I, Hettick JM, Simoyi RH et al (2008) Zinc diethyldithiocarbamate allergenicity: potential haptenation mechanisms. Contact Dermatitis 59:79–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clayton TN, Wilkinson SM (2005) Contact dermatoses in health care workers: reduction in type I latex allergy in a UK centre. Clin Exp Dermatol 30:221–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Conde-Salazar L (1990) Rubber dermatitis: clinical forms. Dermatol Clin 8:49–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Conde-Salazar L, del Rio E, Guimaraens D et al (1993) Type IV allergy to rubber additives. A 10-year study of 686 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol 29:176–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Conde-Salazar L, Guimaraens D, Villegas C et al (1995) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in construction workers. Contact Dermatitis 33:226–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crepy MN (2016) Rubber: new allergens and preventive measures. Eur J Dermatol 26:523–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Crepy MN, Lecuen J, Ratour-Bigot C et al (2018) Accelerator-free gloves as alternatives in cases of glove allergy in healthcare workers. Contact Dermatitis 78:28–32Google Scholar
  26. Delzell E, Macaluso M, Sathiakumar N et al (2001) Leukemia and exposure to 1,3-butadiene, styrene and dimethyldithiocarbamate among workers in the synthetic rubber industry. Chem Biol Interact 135–136:515–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diepgen TL, Ofenloch RF, Bruze M et al (2016) Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions. Br J Dermatol 174:319–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dooms-Goossens A, Loncke S, Michiels SL et al (1985) Pustular reactions to hexafluorosilicate in foam rubber. Contact Dermatitis 12:42–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dooms-Goossens A, Debusschere KM, Gevers DM et al (1986) Contact dermatitis caused by airborne agents: a review and case reports. J Am Acad Dermatol 15:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Emmett EA, Risby TH, Taylor J et al (1994) Skin elicitation threshold of ethylbutyl thiourea and mercaptobenzothiazole with relative leaching from sensitizing products. Contact Dermatitis 30:85–90PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Estlander T (1990) Occupational skin disease in Finland. Observations made during 1974–1988 at the Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 155(Suppl):1–85Google Scholar
  32. Eun HC, Park HB, Chun YH (1985) Occupational pitted keratolysis. Contact Dermatitis 12:122PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Fajen JM, Roberts DR, Ungers LJ et al (1990) Occupational exposure of workers to 1,3-butadiene. Environ Health Perspect 86:11–18PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Filon FL, Radman G (2006) Latex allergy: a follow up study of 1040 healthcare workers. Occup Environ Med 63:121–125PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fisher AA (1974) Allergic petechial and purpuric rubber dermatitis: the PPPP syndrome. Cutis 14:25–27Google Scholar
  36. Foussereau J, Cavelier C, Protois JC et al (1988) A case of erythema multiforme with allergy to isopropyl- p-phenylenediamine of rubber. Contact Dermatitis 18:183PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Fregert S (1981) Manual of contact dermatitis, 2nd edn. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, pp 46–48Google Scholar
  38. Geier J, Lessmann H, Mahler V et al (2012) Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves – nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis 67:149–156PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Graff JJ, Sathiakumar N, Macaluso M et al (2005) Chemical exposures in the synthetic rubber industry and lymphohematopoietic cancer mortality. J Occup Environ Med 47:916–932PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. de Groot AC (1994) Patch testing: test concentration and vehicles for 3700 chemicals. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  41. Hansson C (1994) Allergic contact dermatitis from N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)- N′-phenyl- p-phenylenediamine and from compounds in polymerized 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,2-dihydroquinoline. Contact Dermatitis 30:114–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hansson C, Pontén A, Svedman C, Bergendorff O (2014) Reaction profile in patch testing with allergens formed during vulcanization of rubber. Contact Dermatitis 70:300–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heese A, van Hintzenstern J, Peters KP et al (1991) Allergic and irritant reactions to rubber gloves in medical health services. J Am Acad Dermatol 25:831–839PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Helland S, Nyfors A, Utne L (1983) Contact dermatitis to Synthaderm®. Contact Dermatitis 9:504–506PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Hervé-Bazin B, Gradiski D, Duprat P et al (1977) Occupational eczema from N-isopropyl- N′-phenylparaphenylenediamine (IPPD) and N-dimethy-1, 3 butyl- N′-phenylparaphenylenediamine (DMPPD) in tyres. Contact Dermatitis 3:1–15PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Hulstaert E, Bergendorff O, Persson C et al (2018) Contact dermatitis caused by a new rubber compound detected in canvas shoes. Contact Dermatitis 78:12–17PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Ibler KS, Jemec GBE, Garvey LH, Agner T (2016) Prevalence of delayed-type and immediate-type hypersensitivity in healthcare workers with hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis 75:223–229PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (1986) Some chemicals used in plastics and elastomers, vol 39, IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Geneva, p 155Google Scholar
  49. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (1987) Overall evaluations in carcinogenity: an update of IARC monographs, vol 1. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, pp 332–333Google Scholar
  50. Jordan WP Jr, Bourlas MC (1975) Allergic contact dermatitis to underwear elastic. Arch Dermatol 111:593–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kadivar S, Belsito DV (2015) Occupational dermatitis in health care workers evaluated for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis 26:177–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R et al (1996) Allergic patch test reactions caused by the rubber chemical cyclohexyl thiophthalimide. Contact Dermatitis 34:23–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kaniwa MA, Isama K, Nakamura A et al (1994a) Identification of causative chemicals of allergic contact dermatitis using a combination of patch testing in patients and chemical analysis: application to cases from rubber footwear. Contact Dermatitis 30:26–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kaniwa MA, Isama K, Nakamura A et al (1994b) Identification of causative chemicals of allergic contact dermatitis using a combination of patch testing in patients and chemical analysis: application to cases from rubber gloves. Contact Dermatitis 31:65–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kilpikari I (1982) Occupational contact dermatitis among rubber workers. Contact Dermatitis 8:359–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kilpikari I, Halme H (1983) Contact allergy to Hypalon® rubber. Contact Dermatitis 9:529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Knudsen B, Menné T (1996) Contact allergy and exposure patterns to thiurams and carbamates in consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis 35:97–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kogevinas M, Sala M, Boffetta P et al (1998) Cancer risk in the rubber industry: a review of the recent epidemiological evidence. Occup Environ Med 55:1–12PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Korinth G, Weiss T, Penkert S et al (2007) Percutaneous absorption of aromatic amines in rubber industry workers: impact of impaired skin and skin barrier creams. Occup Environ Med 64:366–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Korinth G, Lüersen L, Schaller KH et al (2008) Enhancement of percutaneous penetration of aniline and o-toluidine in vitro using skin barrier creams. Toxicol In Vitro 22:812–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lenane P, McKenna D, Murphy GM et al (1998) Pyoderma gangrenosum secondary to allergic contact dermatitis from rubber. Contact Dermatitis 38:238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lewis R (1999) Overview of the rubber industry and tire manufacturing. Occup Med 14:707–718PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Li K, Yu S (2000) Oesophageal cancer and occupational exposure to rubber: a nested case-control study. Ann Occup Hyg 44:355–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Li K, Yu S (2002) Leukemia mortality and occupational exposure to rubber: a nested case-control study. Int J Hyg Environ Health 204:317–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Magnusson B, Möller H (1979) Contact allergy without skin disease. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 59(Suppl):113–115Google Scholar
  66. Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al (1995) North American contact dermatitis group standard tray patch test results (1992 to 1994). Am J Contact Dermat 6:160–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al (1998) North American contact dermatitis group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol 38:911–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al (2000) North American contact dermatitis group patch-test results, 1996–1998. Arch Dermatol 136:272–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al (2003) North American contact dermatitis group patch-test results, 1998–2000. Am J Contact Dermat 14:59–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McDonald JC, Beck MH, Chen Y et al (2006) Incidence by occupation and industry of work-related skin diseases in the United Kingdom, 1996–2001. Occup Med 56:398–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mitchell JM, Rook A (1979) Botanical dermatology. Greengrass, Vancouver, p 286Google Scholar
  72. Molin S, Bauer A, Schnuch A, Geier J (2015) Occupational contact allergy in nurses: results from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology 2003–2012. Contact Dermatitis 72:164–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nethercott JR (1982) Results of routine patch testing of 200 patients in Toronto. Contact Dermatitis 8:389–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM et al (1991) Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989: I. Frequency of response. Am J Contact Dermat 2:122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nielsen NH, Menné T (1992) Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 72:456–460Google Scholar
  76. Norris P, Storrs FJ (1990) Allergic contact dermatitis to adhesive bandages. Dermatol Clin 8:147–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Oliver EA, Schwartz L, Warren LN (1939) Occupational leukoderma: preliminary report. J Am Med Assoc 113:927–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pecegueiro S, Brandão F (1984) Contact plantar pustulosis. Contact Dermatitis 11:126–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pesonen M, Jolanki R, Larese Filon F et al (2015) Patch test results of the European baseline series among patients with occupational contact dermatitis across Europe – analyses of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy network, 2002–2010. Contact Dermatitis 72:154–63Google Scholar
  80. Plotnick HB (1978) Carcinogenesis in rats of combined ethylene dibromide and disulfiram. J Am Med Assoc 239:1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Plotnick H, Birmingham DJ (1993) Disulfiram alcohol facial flush in rubber industry (abstracts). In: Proceedings of the American contact dermatitis society annual meeting, Washington, DC, p 11Google Scholar
  82. Pontén A, Hamnerius N, Bruze M et al (2013) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by sterile non-latex protective gloves: clinical investigation and chemical analyses. Contact Dermatitis 68:103–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pratt MD, Belsito DV, Deleo VA et al (2004) North American contact dermatitis group patch test results 2001–2002 study period. Dermatitis 15:176–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Proksch E, Schnuch A, Uter W (2009) Presumptive frequency of, and review of reports on, allergies to household gloves. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 23:388–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Reunala T, Alenius H, Turjanmaa K et al (2004) Latex allergy and skin. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 4:397–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rich P, Belozer ML, Norris P et al (1991) Allergic contact dermatitis to two antioxidants in latex gloves: 4,4′-thiobis(6-tert-butyl-meta-cresol) (Lowinox 44 S36) and butylhydroxyanisole: allergic alternatives for glove-allergic patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 24:37–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rietschel RL (1984) Role of socks in shoe dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 120:398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rodriguez E, Reynolds GW, Thompson JA (1981) Potent contact allergen in the rubber plant guayule (Parthenium argentatum). Science 21:1444–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rose RF, Lyons P, Horne H et al (2009) A review of the materials and allergens in protective gloves. Contact Dermatitis 61:129–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rubber World Magazine’s Blue book. http://www.rubberworld.com/bluebook. Accessed 15 April 2011
  91. Samuelsson K, Bergström MA, Jonsson CA et al (2011) Diphenylthiourea, a common rubber chemical, is bioactivated to potent skin sensitizers. Chem Res Toxicol 24:35–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schwensen JF, Menné T, Sommerlund M et al. (2016) Contact Allergy in Danish Healthcare Workers: A Retrospective Matched Case-control Study. Acta Derm Venereol 96:237–40Google Scholar
  93. Sidi E, Hincky M (1954) Les eczemas aux gants de caout. Presse Med 62:1305–1307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Solionova L, Smulevich V (1993) Mortality and cancer incidence in a cohort of rubber workers in Moscow. Scand J Work Environ Health 19:96–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sommer S, Wilkinson SM, Beck MH et al (2002) Type IV hypersensitivity reactions to natural rubber latex: results of a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol 146:114–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Spina Bifida Association of America, Washington, DC. http://www.spinabifidaassociation.org/atf/cf/%7bEED435C8-F1A0-4A16-B4D8-A713BBCD9CE4%7d/LatexList09.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2011
  97. Stankevich VV, Vlasiuk MG, Prokoféva LG et al (1980) Hygienic assessment of organosulfur accelerators for vulcanization of rubbers for the food industry. Gig Sanit 10:88–89Google Scholar
  98. Stewart RE, Dennis LK, Dawson DV et al (1999) A meta-analysis of risk estimates for prostate cancer related to tire and rubber manufacturing operations. J Occup Environ Med 41:1079–1084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Straif K, Keil U, Taeger D et al (2000a) Exposure to nitrosamines, carbon black, asbestos, and talc and mortality from stomach, lung and laryngeal cancer in a cohort of rubber workers. Am J Epidemiol 152:297–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Straif K, Weiland SK, Bungers M et al (2000b) Exposure to high concentrations of nitrosamines and cancer mortality among a cohort of rubber workers. Occup Environ Med 57:180–187PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tarlo SM, Wong L, Roos J et al (1990) Occupational asthma caused by latex in a surgical glove manufacturing plant. J Allergy Clin Immunol 85:626–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T et al (2009) Contact allergy to allergens of the TRUE-test (panels 1 and 2) has decreased modestly in the general population. Br J Dermatol 161:1124–1129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Toeppen-Sprigg B (1999) Management of dermatitis in the rubber manufacturing industry. Occup Med 14:797–818PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Usmani N, Wilkinson SM (2007) Allergic skin disease: investigation of both immediate- and delayed-type hypersensitivity is essential. Clin Exp Allergy 37:1541–1546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Uter W, Ramsch C, Aberer W et al (2009) The European baseline series in 10 European countries, 2005/2006 – results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Contact Dermatitis 61:31–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Uter W, Warburton K, Weisshaar E et al (2016) Patch test results with rubber series in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), 2013/14. Contact Dermatitis 75:345–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Valks R, Conde-Salazar L, Cuevas M (2004) Allergic contact urticaria from natural rubber latex in healthcare and non-healthcare workers. Contact Dermatitis 50:222–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Vermeulen R, de Hartog J, Swuste P et al (2000) Trends in exposure to inhalable particulate and dermal contamination in the rubber manufacturing industry: effectiveness of control measures implemented over a nine-year period. Ann Occup Hyg 44:343–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Vermeulen R, Kromhout H, Bruynzeel DP et al (2001) Dermal exposure, handwashing, and hand dermatitis in the rubber manufacturing industry. Epidemiology 12:350–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Vestey JP, Gawkrodger DJ, Wong WK et al (1986) An analysis of 501 consecutive contact clinic consultations. Contact Dermatitis 15:119–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Warburton KL, Uter W, Geier J et al (2017) Patch testing with rubber series in Europe: a critical review and recommendation. Contact Dermatitis 76:195–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Ward EM, Burnett CA, Ruder A et al (1997) Industries and cancer. Cancer Causes Control 8:356–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Warshaw EM, Schram SE, Belsito DV et al (2007) Shoe allergens: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the North American contact dermatitis group, 2001–2004. Dermatitis 18:191–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al (2008a) North American contact dermatitis group patch-test results, 2003–2004 study period. Dermatitis 19:129–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Warshaw EM, Schram SE, Maibach HI et al (2008b) Occupation-related contact dermatitis in North American health care workers referred for patch testing: cross-sectional data, 1998–2004. Dermatitis 19:261–274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Weiland S, Mundt K, Keil U et al (1996) Cancer mortality among workers in the German rubber industry: 1981–1991. Occup Environ Med 53:289–298PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Wilkinson SM, Beck MH (1993) Allergic contact dermatitis from sealants containing polysulphide polymers (Thiokol®). Contact Dermatitis 29:273–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wilkinson SM, Beck MH (1996) Allergic contact dermatitis from latex rubber. Br J Dermatol 134:910–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. World Health Organization (WHO) (1983) Styrene, vol 26, Environmental health criteria. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  120. Wyss M, Elsner P, Wuthrich B et al (1993) Allergic contact dermatitis from natural latex without contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis 28:154–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Zina AM, Bedello PG, Cane D et al (1987) Dermatitis in a rubber factory. Contact Dermatitis 17:17–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF Jr et al (2009) Patch-test results of the North American contact dermatitis group 2005–2006. Dermatitis 20:149–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Zuskin E, Mustajbegovic J, Kanceljak B et al (1998) Respiratory function and immunological status in workers employed in a latex glove manufacturing plant. Am J Ind Med 33:175–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Occupational and Environmental Diseases Department UnitUniversity Hospital of Centre of Paris-Hotel-Dieu, AP-HPParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of DermatologyUniversity Hospital of Centre of Paris-Cochin, AP-HPParisFrance

Personalised recommendations