Natural Rubber Latex: Glove Use, Sensitization, and Airborne and Latent Dust Concentrations at a Denver Hospital
Exposure to natural rubber latex may cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Published latex sensitization prevalence rates range from 2.9% to 22% among health care workers, and from 0.12% to about 20% of occupationally unexposed populations. In this study, self-administered questionnaires addre...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of occupational and environmental medicine 2000-06, Vol.42 (6), p.613-620 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 620 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 613 |
container_title | Journal of occupational and environmental medicine |
container_volume | 42 |
creator | Page, Elena H. Esswein, Eric J. Petersen, Martin R. Lewis, Daniel M. Bledsoe, Toni A. |
description | Exposure to natural rubber latex may cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Published latex sensitization prevalence rates range from 2.9% to 22% among health care workers, and from 0.12% to about 20% of occupationally unexposed populations. In this study, self-administered questionnaires addressed job and personal characteristics, glove use, and symptoms in two groups of hospital workers: those who regularly used latex gloves and those who did not. Serum was tested for latex-specific immunoglobulin E. Air, surface, and air-filter dust samples for natural rubber latex were collected. The prevalence of latex sensitization was 6.3% in the non-users and 6.1% in the latex glove users (P = 0.9); 81.3% of sensitized workers were atopic compared with 59.5% of non-sensitized workers (P< 0.05). Reporting of work-related hand dermatitis was more common in the latex glove users (23.4%) than in the non-users (4.9%), as were rhino-conjunctivitis (16.3% and 7.9%, respectively, [P< 0.01]), and hand urticana (9.9% and 2.1%, respectively, [P< 0.01]). There was no significant difference in work-related symptoms between the sensitized and non-sensitized wokers. Environmental concentrations of latex were higher in the work areas of the non-sensitized workers, but higher in the clinical than in the non-clinical areas. Occupational latex glove use was not a risk factor for sensitization. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/00043764-200006000-00010 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_29752427</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>44998751</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44998751</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4410-ba7c8ea9a193501f9098ccae998adc8e9c7bbe57d760ed88acf86849a3d3a1243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFklFrFDEQxxdRbK1-BCWI-NTVZDfZJL6Vq7bCoaD2Ocxls3TPXHJNsq366Z3enlUE8SFkhvz-w8z8U1WE0VeMavmaUspb2fG6wYh2eGo8jN6rDplou1poru5jTGVXN1I0B9WjnNdICEbFw-qAUSV5J_hhtf0AZUrgyadptXKJLKG4b2_ImY_Xjlxkd0w-u5DHMv6AMsZwTCD05GRMq5iC2yW3ilDI6ZQLWcRgMUk7NhMoBMipC9dY-Dzm7VjAP64eDOCze7K_j6qLd2-_LM7r5cez94uTZW05Z7RegbTKgQamW0HZoKlW1oLTWkGPL9pK7FfIXnbU9UqBHVSnuIa2b4E1vD2qXs51tyleTS4Xsxmzdd5DcHHKptG4F97I_4JMKtZiSwg-_wtcxykFHMI0rOmkFDtIzZBNMefkBrNN4wbSd8OoufXO_PLO3Hlndt6h9Nm-_rTauP4P4WwWAi_2AGQLfkgQ7Jh_c5w1ohOI8Rm7ib64lL_66cYlc-nAl0vzr6-DsqezbJ1LTHdVOceV42jtTwiwuWc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>212677510</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Natural Rubber Latex: Glove Use, Sensitization, and Airborne and Latent Dust Concentrations at a Denver Hospital</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Page, Elena H. ; Esswein, Eric J. ; Petersen, Martin R. ; Lewis, Daniel M. ; Bledsoe, Toni A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Page, Elena H. ; Esswein, Eric J. ; Petersen, Martin R. ; Lewis, Daniel M. ; Bledsoe, Toni A.</creatorcontrib><description>Exposure to natural rubber latex may cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Published latex sensitization prevalence rates range from 2.9% to 22% among health care workers, and from 0.12% to about 20% of occupationally unexposed populations. In this study, self-administered questionnaires addressed job and personal characteristics, glove use, and symptoms in two groups of hospital workers: those who regularly used latex gloves and those who did not. Serum was tested for latex-specific immunoglobulin E. Air, surface, and air-filter dust samples for natural rubber latex were collected. The prevalence of latex sensitization was 6.3% in the non-users and 6.1% in the latex glove users (P = 0.9); 81.3% of sensitized workers were atopic compared with 59.5% of non-sensitized workers (P< 0.05). Reporting of work-related hand dermatitis was more common in the latex glove users (23.4%) than in the non-users (4.9%), as were rhino-conjunctivitis (16.3% and 7.9%, respectively, [P< 0.01]), and hand urticana (9.9% and 2.1%, respectively, [P< 0.01]). There was no significant difference in work-related symptoms between the sensitized and non-sensitized wokers. Environmental concentrations of latex were higher in the work areas of the non-sensitized workers, but higher in the clinical than in the non-clinical areas. Occupational latex glove use was not a risk factor for sensitization.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1076-2752</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-5948</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00043764-200006000-00010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10874654</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JOEMFM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</publisher><subject>Adult ; Air Pollution, Indoor - adverse effects ; Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis ; Allergic diseases ; Allergies ; Biological and medical sciences ; Case-Control Studies ; Colorado - epidemiology ; Dust ; Dust - adverse effects ; Dust - analysis ; Environmental Monitoring - statistics & numerical data ; Epidemiological Monitoring ; Female ; Gloves ; Gloves, Protective - adverse effects ; Health Personnel - statistics & numerical data ; Hospitals ; Hospitals, Urban ; Humans ; hypersensitivity ; Hypersensitivity, Immediate - epidemiology ; Hypersensitivity, Immediate - etiology ; Immunoglobulin G - blood ; Immunopathology ; latex ; Latex Hypersensitivity - diagnosis ; Latex Hypersensitivity - epidemiology ; Latex Hypersensitivity - immunology ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Occupational Exposure - adverse effects ; Occupational Exposure - statistics & numerical data ; Occupational health ; Odds Ratio ; ORIGINAL ARTICLES ; Respiratory and ent allergic diseases ; Risk Factors ; Rubber ; Sampling Studies ; Seroepidemiologic Studies ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 2000-06, Vol.42 (6), p.613-620</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2000 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine</rights><rights>2000 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Jun 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4410-ba7c8ea9a193501f9098ccae998adc8e9c7bbe57d760ed88acf86849a3d3a1243</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44998751$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44998751$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,800,27905,27906,57998,58231</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1412565$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10874654$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Page, Elena H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Esswein, Eric J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petersen, Martin R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Daniel M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bledsoe, Toni A.</creatorcontrib><title>Natural Rubber Latex: Glove Use, Sensitization, and Airborne and Latent Dust Concentrations at a Denver Hospital</title><title>Journal of occupational and environmental medicine</title><addtitle>J Occup Environ Med</addtitle><description>Exposure to natural rubber latex may cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Published latex sensitization prevalence rates range from 2.9% to 22% among health care workers, and from 0.12% to about 20% of occupationally unexposed populations. In this study, self-administered questionnaires addressed job and personal characteristics, glove use, and symptoms in two groups of hospital workers: those who regularly used latex gloves and those who did not. Serum was tested for latex-specific immunoglobulin E. Air, surface, and air-filter dust samples for natural rubber latex were collected. The prevalence of latex sensitization was 6.3% in the non-users and 6.1% in the latex glove users (P = 0.9); 81.3% of sensitized workers were atopic compared with 59.5% of non-sensitized workers (P< 0.05). Reporting of work-related hand dermatitis was more common in the latex glove users (23.4%) than in the non-users (4.9%), as were rhino-conjunctivitis (16.3% and 7.9%, respectively, [P< 0.01]), and hand urticana (9.9% and 2.1%, respectively, [P< 0.01]). There was no significant difference in work-related symptoms between the sensitized and non-sensitized wokers. Environmental concentrations of latex were higher in the work areas of the non-sensitized workers, but higher in the clinical than in the non-clinical areas. Occupational latex glove use was not a risk factor for sensitization.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Air Pollution, Indoor - adverse effects</subject><subject>Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis</subject><subject>Allergic diseases</subject><subject>Allergies</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Colorado - epidemiology</subject><subject>Dust</subject><subject>Dust - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dust - analysis</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Epidemiological Monitoring</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gloves</subject><subject>Gloves, Protective - adverse effects</subject><subject>Health Personnel - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Hospitals, Urban</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>hypersensitivity</subject><subject>Hypersensitivity, Immediate - epidemiology</subject><subject>Hypersensitivity, Immediate - etiology</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G - blood</subject><subject>Immunopathology</subject><subject>latex</subject><subject>Latex Hypersensitivity - diagnosis</subject><subject>Latex Hypersensitivity - epidemiology</subject><subject>Latex Hypersensitivity - immunology</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Occupational Exposure - adverse effects</subject><subject>Occupational Exposure - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Occupational health</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>ORIGINAL ARTICLES</subject><subject>Respiratory and ent allergic diseases</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Rubber</subject><subject>Sampling Studies</subject><subject>Seroepidemiologic Studies</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>1076-2752</issn><issn>1536-5948</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFklFrFDEQxxdRbK1-BCWI-NTVZDfZJL6Vq7bCoaD2Ocxls3TPXHJNsq366Z3enlUE8SFkhvz-w8z8U1WE0VeMavmaUspb2fG6wYh2eGo8jN6rDplou1poru5jTGVXN1I0B9WjnNdICEbFw-qAUSV5J_hhtf0AZUrgyadptXKJLKG4b2_ImY_Xjlxkd0w-u5DHMv6AMsZwTCD05GRMq5iC2yW3ilDI6ZQLWcRgMUk7NhMoBMipC9dY-Dzm7VjAP64eDOCze7K_j6qLd2-_LM7r5cez94uTZW05Z7RegbTKgQamW0HZoKlW1oLTWkGPL9pK7FfIXnbU9UqBHVSnuIa2b4E1vD2qXs51tyleTS4Xsxmzdd5DcHHKptG4F97I_4JMKtZiSwg-_wtcxykFHMI0rOmkFDtIzZBNMefkBrNN4wbSd8OoufXO_PLO3Hlndt6h9Nm-_rTauP4P4WwWAi_2AGQLfkgQ7Jh_c5w1ohOI8Rm7ib64lL_66cYlc-nAl0vzr6-DsqezbJ1LTHdVOceV42jtTwiwuWc</recordid><startdate>200006</startdate><enddate>200006</enddate><creator>Page, Elena H.</creator><creator>Esswein, Eric J.</creator><creator>Petersen, Martin R.</creator><creator>Lewis, Daniel M.</creator><creator>Bledsoe, Toni A.</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</general><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc</general><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200006</creationdate><title>Natural Rubber Latex: Glove Use, Sensitization, and Airborne and Latent Dust Concentrations at a Denver Hospital</title><author>Page, Elena H. ; Esswein, Eric J. ; Petersen, Martin R. ; Lewis, Daniel M. ; Bledsoe, Toni A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4410-ba7c8ea9a193501f9098ccae998adc8e9c7bbe57d760ed88acf86849a3d3a1243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Air Pollution, Indoor - adverse effects</topic><topic>Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis</topic><topic>Allergic diseases</topic><topic>Allergies</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Colorado - epidemiology</topic><topic>Dust</topic><topic>Dust - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dust - analysis</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Epidemiological Monitoring</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gloves</topic><topic>Gloves, Protective - adverse effects</topic><topic>Health Personnel - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Hospitals, Urban</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>hypersensitivity</topic><topic>Hypersensitivity, Immediate - epidemiology</topic><topic>Hypersensitivity, Immediate - etiology</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G - blood</topic><topic>Immunopathology</topic><topic>latex</topic><topic>Latex Hypersensitivity - diagnosis</topic><topic>Latex Hypersensitivity - epidemiology</topic><topic>Latex Hypersensitivity - immunology</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Occupational Exposure - adverse effects</topic><topic>Occupational Exposure - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Occupational health</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>ORIGINAL ARTICLES</topic><topic>Respiratory and ent allergic diseases</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Rubber</topic><topic>Sampling Studies</topic><topic>Seroepidemiologic Studies</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Page, Elena H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Esswein, Eric J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petersen, Martin R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Daniel M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bledsoe, Toni A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of occupational and environmental medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Page, Elena H.</au><au>Esswein, Eric J.</au><au>Petersen, Martin R.</au><au>Lewis, Daniel M.</au><au>Bledsoe, Toni A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Natural Rubber Latex: Glove Use, Sensitization, and Airborne and Latent Dust Concentrations at a Denver Hospital</atitle><jtitle>Journal of occupational and environmental medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Occup Environ Med</addtitle><date>2000-06</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>613</spage><epage>620</epage><pages>613-620</pages><issn>1076-2752</issn><eissn>1536-5948</eissn><coden>JOEMFM</coden><abstract>Exposure to natural rubber latex may cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Published latex sensitization prevalence rates range from 2.9% to 22% among health care workers, and from 0.12% to about 20% of occupationally unexposed populations. In this study, self-administered questionnaires addressed job and personal characteristics, glove use, and symptoms in two groups of hospital workers: those who regularly used latex gloves and those who did not. Serum was tested for latex-specific immunoglobulin E. Air, surface, and air-filter dust samples for natural rubber latex were collected. The prevalence of latex sensitization was 6.3% in the non-users and 6.1% in the latex glove users (P = 0.9); 81.3% of sensitized workers were atopic compared with 59.5% of non-sensitized workers (P< 0.05). Reporting of work-related hand dermatitis was more common in the latex glove users (23.4%) than in the non-users (4.9%), as were rhino-conjunctivitis (16.3% and 7.9%, respectively, [P< 0.01]), and hand urticana (9.9% and 2.1%, respectively, [P< 0.01]). There was no significant difference in work-related symptoms between the sensitized and non-sensitized wokers. Environmental concentrations of latex were higher in the work areas of the non-sensitized workers, but higher in the clinical than in the non-clinical areas. Occupational latex glove use was not a risk factor for sensitization.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</pub><pmid>10874654</pmid><doi>10.1097/00043764-200006000-00010</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1076-2752 |
ispartof | Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 2000-06, Vol.42 (6), p.613-620 |
issn | 1076-2752 1536-5948 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_29752427 |
source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete; Jstor Complete Legacy |
subjects | Adult Air Pollution, Indoor - adverse effects Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis Allergic diseases Allergies Biological and medical sciences Case-Control Studies Colorado - epidemiology Dust Dust - adverse effects Dust - analysis Environmental Monitoring - statistics & numerical data Epidemiological Monitoring Female Gloves Gloves, Protective - adverse effects Health Personnel - statistics & numerical data Hospitals Hospitals, Urban Humans hypersensitivity Hypersensitivity, Immediate - epidemiology Hypersensitivity, Immediate - etiology Immunoglobulin G - blood Immunopathology latex Latex Hypersensitivity - diagnosis Latex Hypersensitivity - epidemiology Latex Hypersensitivity - immunology Logistic Models Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Occupational Exposure - adverse effects Occupational Exposure - statistics & numerical data Occupational health Odds Ratio ORIGINAL ARTICLES Respiratory and ent allergic diseases Risk Factors Rubber Sampling Studies Seroepidemiologic Studies Statistics, Nonparametric Surveys and Questionnaires |
title | Natural Rubber Latex: Glove Use, Sensitization, and Airborne and Latent Dust Concentrations at a Denver Hospital |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T06%3A39%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Natural%20Rubber%20Latex:%20Glove%20Use,%20Sensitization,%20and%20Airborne%20and%20Latent%20Dust%20Concentrations%20at%20a%20Denver%20Hospital&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20occupational%20and%20environmental%20medicine&rft.au=Page,%20Elena%20H.&rft.date=2000-06&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=613&rft.epage=620&rft.pages=613-620&rft.issn=1076-2752&rft.eissn=1536-5948&rft.coden=JOEMFM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00043764-200006000-00010&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E44998751%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=212677510&rft_id=info:pmid/10874654&rft_jstor_id=44998751&rfr_iscdi=true |