• Marie-Noëlle CrepyEmail author
  • Donald V. Belsito
Reference work entry


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.


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


  1. Aalto-Korte K, Pesonen M (2016) Patterns of simultaneous patch test reactions to thiurams and dithiocarbamates in 164 patients. Contact Dermatitis 75:353–357PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams AK, Warshaw EM (2006) Allergic contact dermatitis from mercapto compounds. Dermatitis 17:56–70PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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 114:347–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Contact Dermatitis Society’s database. Accessed 15 April 2011
  5. Anderson BE (2009) Mixed dialkyl thioureas. Dermatitis 20:3–5PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 68:54–55PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 57:152–157PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 11:461–473PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourrain JL, Woodward C, Dumas V et al (1996) Natural rubber latex contact dermatitis with features of erythema multiforme. Contact Dermatitis 35:55–56PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle 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 3:1–16PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 59:79–89PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 30:221–225PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Conde-Salazar L (1990) Rubber dermatitis: clinical forms. Dermatol Clin 8:49–55PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 29:176–180PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Conde-Salazar L, Guimaraens D, Villegas C et al (1995) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in construction workers. Contact Dermatitis 33:226–230PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Crepy MN (2016) Rubber: new allergens and preventive measures. Eur J Dermatol 26:523–530PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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 78:28–32PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 135–136:515–534PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 174:319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dooms-Goossens A, Loncke S, Michiels SL et al (1985) Pustular reactions to hexafluorosilicate in foam rubber. Contact Dermatitis 12:42–47PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 15:1–10CrossRefGoogle 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 67:149–156CrossRefGoogle 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 30:114–115PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 70:300–308PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 75:223–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 111:593–595PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Kadivar S, Belsito DV (2015) Occupational dermatitis in health care workers evaluated for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis 26:177–183CrossRefGoogle 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 30:26–34PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 31:65–71PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Kilpikari I (1982) Occupational contact dermatitis among rubber workers. Contact Dermatitis 8:359–362PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Kilpikari I, Halme H (1983) Contact allergy to Hypalon® rubber. Contact Dermatitis 9:529PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Knudsen B, Menné T (1996) Contact allergy and exposure patterns to thiurams and carbamates in consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis 35:97–99PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 64:366–372CrossRefGoogle 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 22:812–818PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Lenane P, McKenna D, Murphy GM et al (1998) Pyoderma gangrenosum secondary to allergic contact dermatitis from rubber. Contact Dermatitis 38:238PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Lewis R (1999) Overview of the rubber industry and tire manufacturing. Occup Med 14:707–718PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Li K, Yu S (2000) Oesophageal cancer and occupational exposure to rubber: a nested case-control study. Ann Occup Hyg 44:355–359PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Li K, Yu S (2002) Leukemia mortality and occupational exposure to rubber: a nested case-control study. Int J Hyg Environ Health 204:317–321PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 38:911–918PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al (2000) North American contact dermatitis group patch-test results, 1996–1998. Arch Dermatol 136:272–273PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 14:59–62PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 8:389–395PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 8:147–152PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 11:126–127PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 72:154–63CrossRefGoogle 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 68:103–110PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Pratt MD, Belsito DV, Deleo VA et al (2004) North American contact dermatitis group patch test results 2001–2002 study period. Dermatitis 15:176–183PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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 23:388–393PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 24:37–43PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. Rietschel RL (1984) Role of socks in shoe dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 120:398PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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. 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 24:35–44PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 96:237–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sidi E, Hincky M (1954) Les eczemas aux gants de caout. Presse Med 62:1305–1307PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Solionova L, Smulevich V (1993) Mortality and cancer incidence in a cohort of rubber workers in Moscow. Scand J Work Environ Health 19:96–101PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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. 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 41:1079–1084PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 152:297–306PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 85:626–631PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 161:1124–1129PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  103. Toeppen-Sprigg B (1999) Management of dermatitis in the rubber manufacturing industry. Occup Med 14:797–818PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  104. Usmani N, Wilkinson SM (2007) Allergic skin disease: investigation of both immediate- and delayed-type hypersensitivity is essential. Clin Exp Allergy 37:1541–1546PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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 61:31–38PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 75:345–352PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 50:222–224PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 44:343–354PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  109. Vermeulen R, Kromhout H, Bruynzeel DP et al (2001) Dermal exposure, handwashing, and hand dermatitis in the rubber manufacturing industry. Epidemiology 12:350–354PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  110. Vestey JP, Gawkrodger DJ, Wong WK et al (1986) An analysis of 501 consecutive contact clinic consultations. Contact Dermatitis 15:119–125PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 76:195–203PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  112. Ward EM, Burnett CA, Ruder A et al (1997) Industries and cancer. Cancer Causes Control 8:356–370PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 18:191–202PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  114. Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al (2008a) North American contact dermatitis group patch-test results, 2003–2004 study period. Dermatitis 19:129–136PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 19:261–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 28:154–156PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  121. Zina AM, Bedello PG, Cane D et al (1987) Dermatitis in a rubber factory. Contact Dermatitis 17:17–20PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 20:149–160PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle 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 33:175–181PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyColumbia University College of Physicians and SurgeonsNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Occupational and Environmental Diseases Department UnitHotel-Dieu HospitalParisFrance
  3. 3.Dermatology Department UnitCochin HospitalParisFrance

Personalised recommendations