• Vera MahlerEmail author


Rubber materials are ubiquitous. In patients with suspected rubber allergy, contact allergies (type IV allergies) to rubber additives are frequent, whereas type I allergies (presenting as contact urticaria syndrome) to natural rubber latex (NRL) proteins occur much less frequently. Hundreds of different rubber additives may be used in different blends of rubber. They are added to natural rubber latex as well as to synthetic rubber elastomers during the manufacturing process. During the production of rubber for polymerization of monomers, vulcanizing agents (accelerators) are indispensable. Even from fully cured rubber products, sensitizers may leach out over time. The rubber accelerators (thiurams, carbamates, thiazoles, and thioureas) and antioxidants (mainly p-phenylenediamine (PPD) derivatives) constitute the most frequent contact allergens among the rubber chemicals. Types of rubber, consumer and occupational exposures, clinical signs of rubber allergy, diagnostic measures and pitfalls as well as preventive measures and occupational implications of rubber allergy are presented in this chapter.


Types of rubber Contact dermatitis to rubber allergens Contact urticaria syndrome to natural rubber latex proteins Exposure Patch test with rubber materials and commercial rubber allergens Prick test with latex fluids Component resolved diagnosis in vitro Specific IgE (Hev b 1-Hev b 15) Avoidance Occupational implications 


  1. 1.
    Adams AK, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis from mercapto compounds. Dermatitis. 2006;17:56–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allmers H, Schmengler J, John SM. Decreasing incidence of occupational contact urticaria caused by natural rubber latex allergy in German health care workers. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114:347–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersen BE. Mixed dialkyl thioureas. Dermatitis. 2009;20:3–5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andersen KE, Burrows D, Cronin E, Dooms-Goossens A, Rycroft RJ, White IR. Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;19:389–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belsito DV. Rubber. In: Rustemeyer T, Elsner P, John SM, Maibach HI, editors. Kanerva’s occupational dermatology. Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 727–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergendorff O, Hansson C. Spontaneous formation of thiuram disulfides in solutions of iron (III) dithiocarbamates. J Agric Food Chem. 2002;50:1092–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruze M, Andersen KE, Goossens A. Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline patch test series. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:129–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Busch M, Schröder C, Baron JM, Ott H, Bruckner T, Diepgen TL, Mahler V. Glove-derived foreign proteins induce allergen-specific IgE in a mouse model. J Invest Dermatol. 2008;128:890–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cao LY, Taylor JS, Sood A, Murray D, Siegel PD. Allergic contact dermatitis to synthetic rubber gloves: changing trends in patch test reactions to accelerators. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146:1001–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chipinda I, Hettick JM, Simoyi RH, Siegel PD. Oxidation of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole in latex gloves and its possible haptenation pathway. Chem Res Toxicol. 2007;20:1084–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clemmensen KK, Carøe TK, Thomsen SF, Ebbehøj NE, Agner T. Two-year follow-up survey of patients with allergic contact dermatitis from an occupational cohort: is the prognosis dependent on the omnipresence of the allergen? Br J Dermatol. 2014;170:1100–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diepgen TL, Dickel H, Becker D, John SM, Geier J, Mahler V, Rogosky E, Schmidt A, Skudlik C, Wagner E, Weisshaar E. Beurteilung der Auswirkung von Allergien bei der Minderung der Erwerbsfähigkeit im Rahmen der BK 5101: Thiurame, Mercaptobenzothiazole, Dithiocarbamate, N-Isopropyl-N-phenyl-p-phenylendiamin. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt. 2008;56:11–24.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geier J, Gefeller O. Sensitivity of patch tests with rubber mixes: results of the information network of departments of dermatology from 1990 to 1993. Am J Contact Dermat. 1995;6:143–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geier J, Uter W, Schnuch A, Brasch J, German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG). Diagnostic screening for contact allergy to mercaptobenzothiazole derivatives. Information network of departments of dermatolgy (IVDK). Am J Contact Dermat. 2002;13:66–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Geier J, Lessmann H, Uter W, Schnuch A, Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Occupational rubber glove allergy: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:39–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geier J, Uter W, Schnuch A, Brasch J, Gefeller O. Both mercaptobenzothiazole and mercapto mix should be part of the standard series. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:314–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geier J, Lessmann H, Mahler V, Pohrt U, Uter W, Schnuch A. Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves – nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:149–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamilton RG, Adkinson Jr NF, Multicenter Latex Skin Testing Study Task Force. Diagnosis of natural rubber latex allergy: multicenter latex skin testing efficacy study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;102:482–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamilton RG, Rossi CE, Yeang HY, Bernstein DI, Biagini R. Latex-specific IgE assay sensitivity enhanced using Hev b 5 enriched latex allergosorbent. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;111:S174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hansson C, Agrup G. Stability of the mercaptobenzothiazole compounds. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;28:29–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hansson C, Pontén A, Svedman C, Bergendorff O. Reaction profile in patch testing with allergens formed during vulcanization of rubber. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:300–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). The rubber industries. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Hum. 1982;28:1–486.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liippo J, Ackermann L, Hasan T, Laukkanen A, Rantanen T, Lammintausta K. Sensitization to thiourea derivatives among Finnish patients with suspected contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:37–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mahler V. Skin protection in the healthcare setting. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2007;34:120–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mahler V, Gutgesell C, Valenta R, Fuchs T. Natural rubber latex and hymenoptera venoms share immunoglobin E-epitopes accounting for cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants. Clin Exp Allergy. 2006;36:1446–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Merget R, van Kampen V, Sucker K, Heinze E, Taeger D, Goldscheid N, Haufs MG, Raulf-Heimsoth M, Kromark K, Nienhaus A, Bruening T. The German experience 10 years after the latex allergy epidemic: need for further preventive measures in healthcare employees with latex allergy. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010;83:895–903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pesonen M, Jolanki R, Larese Filon F, Wilkinson M, Krecisz Kiec-Swierczynska, Bauer A, Mahler V, John SM, Schnuch A, Uter W. Patch test results with the European baseline series in patients with occupational dermatitis across Europe – analyses of the ESSCA network, 2002–2010. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:154–63.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Raulf-Heimsoth M, Rihs HP, Rozynek P, Cremer R, Gaspar A, Pires G, Yeang HY, Arif SA, Hamilton RG, Sander I, Lundberg M, Brüning T. Quantitative analysis of immunoglobulin E reactivity profiles in patients allergic or sensitized to natural rubber latex (Hevea brasiliensis). Clin Exp Allergy. 2007;37:1657–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simons FE, Ardusso LR, Dimov V, Ebisawa M, El-Gamal YM, Lockey RF, Sanchez-Borges M, Senna GE, Sheikh A, Thong BY, Worm M, World Allergy Organization. World allergy organization anaphylaxis guidelines: 2013 update of the evidence base. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013;162:193–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sullivan JB, van Ert M, Lewis R. Tire and rubber manufacturing industry. In: Sullivan JB, Krieger GR, editors. Clinical environmental health and toxic exposures. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 475–88.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Uter W, Aberer W, Armario-Hita JC, Fernandez-Vozmediano JM, Ayala F, Balato A, Bauer A, Ballmer-Weber B, Beliauskiene A, Fortina AB, Bircher A, Brasch J, Chowdhury MM, Coenraads PJ, Schuttelaar ML, Cooper S, Czarnecka-Operacz M, Zmudzinska M, Elsner P, English JS, Frosch PJ, Fuchs T, García-Gavín J, Fernández-Redondo V, Gawkrodger DJ, Giménez-Arnau A, Green CM, Horne HL, Johansen JD, Jolanki R, Pesonen M, King CM, Krêcisz B, Chomiczewska D, Kiec-Swierczynska M, Larese F, Mahler V, Ormerod AD, Peserico A, Rantanen T, Rustemeyer T, Sánchez-Pérez J, Sansom JE, Silvestre JF, Simon D, Spiewak R, Statham BN, Stone N, Wilkinson M, Schnuch A. Current patch test results with the European baseline series and extensions to it from the ‘European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy’ network, 2007–2008. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:9–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uter W, Hegewald J, Pfahlberg A, Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Gefeller O. Contact allergy to thiurams: multifactorial analysis of clinical surveillance data collected by the IVDK network. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010;83:675–81.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Kampen V, de Blay F, Folletti I, Kobierski P, Moscato G, Olivieri M, Quirce S, Sastre J, Walusiak-Skorupa J, Kotschy-Lang N, Müsken H, Mahler V, Schliemann S, Ochmann U, Sültz J, Worm M, Sander I, Zahradnik E, Brüning T, Merget R, Raulf-Heimsoth M. Evaluation of commercial skin prick test solutions for selected occupational allergens. Allergy. 2013;68:651–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    von Hintzenstern J, Heese A, Koch HU, Peters KP, Hornstein OP. Frequency, spectrum and occupational relevance of type IV allergies to rubber chemicals. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;24:244–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    von Krogh G, Maibach HI. The contact urticaria syndrome- an updated review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1981;5:328–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wagner S, Breiteneder H. Hevea brasiliensis latex allergens: current panel and clinical relevance. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2005;136:90–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Williams PJ, King C, Arslanian V. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by a cell phone cover. Australas J Dermatol. 2012;53:76–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ylitalo L, Mäkinen-Kiljunen S, Turjanmaa K, Palosuo T, Reunala T. Cow’s milk casein, a hidden allergen in natural rubber latex gloves. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;104:177–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyUniversity Hospital of Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations