Advantages and Disadvantages of Gloves
Although gloves protect hands from hazardous environmental factors, there are problems associated with their frequent use.
Dirt, irritation, maceration, allergy, and lack of comfort are the most important problems for consideration.
Permeation of gloves, spillage onto the skin from gloves, and absorption through gloves are means for contamination and irritation.
Irritant dermatitis by polymeric gloves is common in the occupational setting and can be caused by the polymer itself, additives to the polymer, or glove powders.
Allergic contact dermatitis to glove material may be delayed (type-IV) allergy or immediate (type-I) allergy and is perhaps less common than irritant contact dermatitis.
Allergic sensitization is an ongoing concern as presence of allergens imposes on integral precautions within the healthcare setting such as preventing allergic reactions in patients during procedures and protection of patients and healthcare workers from biohazardous materials.
Allergic sensitization may impose upon an employee’s ability to perform tasks necessary for employment within the occupational setting.
KeywordsAllergic contact dermatitis Irritant contact dermatitis Maceration Skin Patch test Dermatology Gloves Natural rubber latex (NRL) Polyvinyl chloride Carbamates Thioureas
- Amin S, Lahti A, Maibach HI (eds) (1997) Contact urticaria syndrome. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Aoyama M, Sugiura K, Fujise H, Naruse M (1982) On use of gloves in the home and their influence upon skin irritation. Nagoya Med J 27:65–74Google Scholar
- Boman A, Estlander T, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (eds) (2005) Protective gloves for occupational use, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Cabanillas B, Rodriguez J, Blanca N, Jimenez MA, Crespo JF (2010) Clinically relevant cross-reactivity between latex and passion fruit. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 103:1Google Scholar
- Cao L, Taylor J, Sood A, Murray D, Siegel P (2010) Allergic contact dermatitis to synthetic rubber gloves. Arch Dermatol Res 146:7Google Scholar
- Chowdhury M, Maibach HI (eds) (2004) Latex intolerance. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Chowdhury MMU, Maibach HI (eds) (2005) Latex intolerance. Basic science, epidemiology, and clinical management. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- de Souza CR, Beezhold D, Carvalho LJ (2008) Pt2L4 protein, a homologue to Hev b 5 from rubber tree, may not be responsible for the cross-reactions to cassava show by people allergic to latex. Protein Pept Lett 15:3Google Scholar
- Ebo DG, Hagendorens MM, Bridts CH, De Clerck LS, Stevens WJ (2004) Sensitization to cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants and the ubiquitous protein profilin: mimickers of allergy. Clin Exp Allergy 34:8Google Scholar
- Estlander T, Jolanki R (2005) Allergic contact dermatitis from rubber and plastic gloves. In: Boman A, Estlander T, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (eds) Protective gloves for occupational use, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 127–144Google Scholar
- Estlander T, Kanerva L, Jolanke R (1995) Rubber additive sensitization from synthetic rubber gloves and boots. Allergologie 18:470Google Scholar
- Field EA, King CK (1990) Skin problems associated with routine wearing of protective gloves in dental practice. Br Dent J 168:5Google Scholar
- Ford JL, Phillips P (2007) Are aloe-coated gloves effective in healthcare? Nurs Times 103:2Google Scholar
- Gamboa PM, Sánchez-Monge R, Díaz-Perales A, Salcedo G, Ansótegul J, Sanz ML (2005) Latex-vegetable syndrome due to custard apple and aubergine: new variations of the hevein symphony. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 15:4Google Scholar
- Giménez-Arnau AM, Maibach HI (eds) (2015) Contact urticaria syndrome. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Heese A, Peters K-P, Koch HU, Hornstein OP (1995) Allergien gegen Latexhandschuhe. Allergologie 18:358–365Google Scholar
- Jolanki R, Kanerva L, Estlander T (1987) Organic pigments in plastics can cause allergic contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl 134:95–97Google Scholar
- Mäkelä EA, Väänänen V, Alanko K, Jolanki R, Estlander T, Kanerva L (1999) Resistance of disposable gloves to permeation by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate. Occup Hyg 5:121–9Google Scholar
- Mellström G, Boman BA (1997) Protective gloves: test results compiled in a database. In: Brune D, Gerhardsson G, Crockford GW, D’Auria D (eds) International occupational safety and health information Centre (CIS), vol 1. International Labour Office/Scandinavian Science Publisher, Geneva/Oslo, pp 716–730Google Scholar
- Mellström GA, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (eds) (1994) Protective gloves for occupational use. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Palosuo T (1997) Latex allergens. Rev Fr Allergol Immunol Clin 37:1184–1187Google Scholar
- Rycroft R (1986) Environmental factors of occupational dermatology. Dermatosen 34:157–159Google Scholar
- Taylor JS (1986) Rubber. In: Fisher A (ed) Contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 603–643Google Scholar
- Taylor JS, Sood A (2005) Other reactions from gloves. In: Boman A, Estlander T, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (eds) Protective gloves for occupational use. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 203–217Google Scholar
- Wahlberg J (2005) Irritation and contact dermatitis from protective gloves-an overview. In: Boman A, Estlander T, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (eds) Protective gloves for occupational use, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 121–125Google Scholar
- Woo DK, Militello G, James WD (2004) Neoprene. Dermatitis 15:4Google Scholar
- Wrangsjö K, Meding B (1994) Occupational allergy to rubber chemicals. A follow-up study. Dermatosen 42:184–189Google Scholar