Search

Background Objectives Methods Results Conclusions Rubber gloves contain rubber accelerators that may cause contact allergy. The content of sensitising rubber accelerators in contemporary rubber gloves is not well known.Identify and quantify the content of rubber accelerators in disposable rubber gloves.Fifty‐one gloves of 49 different brands were collected. Forty‐eight of the gloves were disposable and three re‐usable. The gloves were analysed for their content of sensitising rubber accelerators, that is, zinc dithiocarbamates, thiurams, thiazoles/benzothiazoles, diphenylguanidine, and thioureas by high‐performance liquid chromatography.Rubber accelerators were identified in 43/48 (90%) of the disposable gloves. In total, 39 gloves contained zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate (ZDBC) (0.18–1.96 mg/g), 34 zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC) (0.032–2.78 mg/g), three zinc dibenzyldithiocarbamate (0.65–1.4 mg/g), one zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate (0.23 mg/g), and one 1,3‐diphenylguanidine (0.21 mg/g). 2‐cyanoethyl dimethyldithiocarbamate (CEDMC) was identified in three gloves (<0.052 mg/g). The one glove labelled as accelerator free contained ZDBC (1.07 mg/g). Only few glove packages had the specific content of rubber accelerators labelled.The most frequent rubber accelerators in rubber gloves are ZDEC and ZDBC. Accelerator‐free gloves may contain rubber accelerators. Full labelling of rubber gloves is needed and producers should be sure not to falsely claim that the rubber gloves are free of rubber accelerators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Objective Methods Results Conclusion The use of methylisothiazolinone (MI) as a preservative in cosmetic products caused an alarming increase in MI contact allergy across Europe in the 2010s. This was followed by regulations of use with a total ban on leave‐on (implemented in 2017) and reduced use concentrations in rinse‐off cosmetics (2018).To follow‐up on the prevalence of contact allergy to MI and the related benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and octylisothiazolinone (OIT) in consecutively patch‐tested patients in Europe.A cross‐sectional audit following the design of two previous audits on MI contact allergy from 1 May 2022 to 31 October 2022 included all patients patch tested with the European baseline series, including or supplemented with MI, BIT and OIT across 10 departments in eight European countries.A total of 2554 patients were consecutively patch tested with the three isothiazolinones during the study period. The prevalence of MI and BIT contact allergy was 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3%–3.7%; range 1.1%–5.8%) and 3.1% (95% CI: 2.4%–3.9%; range 0.0%–6.6%), respectively; that of OIT was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.4%–1.1%; range 0%–3.2%). Rinse‐off cosmetic (73.3%) and leave‐on cosmetic products (13.3%) were still associated with eliciting allergic contact dermatitis to MI.We confirmed a positive impact of regulatory measures on the prevalence of MI contact allergy in Europe, which halved compared to 2015. However, our data suggest that consumers may still be exposed to older cosmetic products containing MI. BIT has superseded MI in causing contact allergy, despite not being allowed for use in cosmetic products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rubber accelerators are used in the production of rubber gloves and may cause contact allergy. Objectives: To estimate long‐term trend and prevalence of contact allergy to rubber accelerators for a 30‐year period in Denmark, high‐risk occupations, and exposures. Methods: Data from all patients with contact dermatitis consecutively patch tested at the department of Skin and Allergy Gentofte hospital with the rubber accelerators from the European baseline series (EBS) from 1990 to 2019, were analysed. Further, patients under suspicion of rubber accelerator contact allergy were additionally patch‐tested with rubber accelerators from the specialised rubber series from 2005 to 2019 and these were additional extracted. Results: The overall prevalence of contact allergy to one or more of the rubber accelerators from the EBS series was 2.7% with a significant decline in the first 12‐years, followed by a stable frequency in the past 18‐years. Associations with occupational contact dermatitis, hand dermatitis, and leg/foot dermatitis were found. Wet‐work occupations were most often affected and gloves the most frequent exposure. Conclusions: Contact allergy to one or more of the rubber accelerators from the EBS is frequent and has been unchanged for several decades, which calls for prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a summary of two scientific articles related to contact allergies. The first article focuses on the prevalence of contact allergy to N-isopropyl-N0-phenyl paraphenylenediamine (IPPD) in eczema patients in Denmark. The study found a low prevalence of IPPD contact allergy, with no significant associations between the allergy and various variables. The second article discusses the prevalence of occupational contact allergies in Europe based on patch test data collected from 2011 to 2020. The study provides insights into the types and frequency of allergens causing contact allergies. Both articles provide valuable information for researchers studying contact allergies. [Extracted from the article]

Background Objectives Methods Results Conclusions Rubber accelerators are used in the vulcanization of rubber. However, rubber accelerators for example tetraethylthiuram disulfide (TETD) and zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC) may cause contact allergy. Concomitant reactions between ZDEC and TETD have been observed in patients which could be explained by co‐ or cross‐reactivity.To investigate cross‐reactivity between TETD and ZDEC and vice versa.Groups of mice were sensitized with TETD or ZDEC based on reported EC3‐values. Proliferation of lymphocytes were measured on day 5. To test cross‐reactivity, mice were sensitized and challenged 3 weeks later with TETD or ZDEC. The inflammatory response was measured by changes in ear thickness and the proliferative response in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the submandibular and cervical draining lymph nodes.Sensitization of mice with doses of ZDEC 3%, TETD 5.6% or TETD 16.2% induced significant increased ear thickness and proliferation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Challenge with ZDEC or TETD in these groups induced significant increased ear thickness. Challenge with ZDEC in mice sensitized to TETD 5.6% or TETD 16.2% induced significant increased proliferation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells.We show cross‐reactivity between TETD and ZDEC. Patients sensitized to TETD or ZDEC should avoid exposure to both ZDEC and TETD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]