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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of occupational and environmental medicine 2000-06, Vol.42 (6), p.613-620
Hauptverfasser: Page, Elena H., Esswein, Eric J., Petersen, Martin R., Lewis, Daniel M., Bledsoe, Toni A.
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&lt; 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&lt; 0.01]), and hand urticana (9.9% and 2.1%, respectively, [P&lt; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data ; Epidemiological Monitoring ; Female ; Gloves ; Gloves, Protective - adverse effects ; Health Personnel - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Wilkins, Inc.</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Lippincott Williams &amp; 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&amp;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&lt; 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&lt; 0.01]), and hand urticana (9.9% and 2.1%, respectively, [P&lt; 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 &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Epidemiological Monitoring</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gloves</subject><subject>Gloves, Protective - adverse effects</subject><subject>Health Personnel - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Wilkins</general><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</general><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Epidemiological Monitoring</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gloves</topic><topic>Gloves, Protective - adverse effects</topic><topic>Health Personnel - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; 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&lt; 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&lt; 0.01]), and hand urticana (9.9% and 2.1%, respectively, [P&lt; 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 &amp; 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