TYPE IV ALLERGIES:

REDUCING THE RISK OF SENSITIZATION WITH DPG- FREE GLOVES

Skin diseases are one of the most common occupational illnesses in Europe.¹
The primary among these is contact dermatitis², which can be divided into irritant toxic and allergic contact dermatitis ( Type I V allergy).

Allergic contact dermatitis

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is triggered by a cellular immune reaction. Approximately 20% of the population have a predisposition to this condition.³ ⁴ ⁵

ACD often results in skin redness (erythema), itching, or burning eczema. In sensitized patients, the onset of symptoms typically takes 24 to 48 hours.

Contact dermatitis accounts for 95% of work-related skin diseases.² It is prevalent in the healthcare sector³, with nurses and nursing assistants accounting for the largest share at 40%, followed by medical assistants (22%) and physicians (18%).⁶

Our synthetic and DPG-free portfolio

Synthetic polyisoprene (IR) is chemically identical to natural rubber and therefore has the same physical properties as natural rubber. It is therefore ideal for the production of skin-friendly gloves, provided that
appropriate accelerators are used.

HARPS Global exclusively offers DPG-free products in its portfolio and does not use Thiurams in glove production.

Allergy despite elimination of latex

Despite the transition to powder-free latex gloves and synthetic gloves since the turn of the millennium, resulting in a significant decline in latex allergy (Type I allergy), Type IV allergies such as allergic contact dermatitis have noticeably increased.⁷
In hospitals, the switch from latex to synthetic gloves has led to a rising number of contact allergies among employees who previously did not show hand dermatitis.⁷ ⁸ ⁹

Successful risk reduction with DPG- and accelerator-free gloves

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by gloves is primarily attributed to sensitization to accelerators and other process chemicals. ¹⁰ ⁶ The most relevant allergens identified were thiuram and 1,3-diphenylguanidine (DPG), with the significance of DPG increasing significantly in recent years.⁷ ¹¹
Research suggests that DPG is particularly allergenic.⁷ ¹² ¹³ 

DPG-free gloves recommended

It is advised to choose accelerators with low allergenic potential (e.g., long-chain or highly branched accelerators) or accelerators that are decomposed or broken-down during manufacture.⁷
Studies indicate that the presence of alcoholic solvents (e.g., from the use of hand sanitizers prior to donning sterile gloves) may increase the release of DPG.¹⁴ Therefore, the use of DPG-free gloves is recommended.

OUR DPG- AND LATEX-FREE PORTFOLIO

For our conventionally crosslinked products (syntegra IR and syntegra green), we use an accelerator system consisting of a long-chain accelerator (from the dithiocarbamate group) in combination with a thermo-reactive molecule that decomposes residue-free during manufacturing.

For highly sensitized users, we offer a product (syntegra UV) that completely avoids the use of vulcanization accelerators. Instead, crosslinking is achieved through UV light. This product is therefore ideal for people with Type IV allergies.

Sempermed Syntegra UV sterile latex-free surgical glove dispenser

sempermed® syntegra UV

BECAUSE WE VALUE YOUR SKIN AS MUCH AS YOU DO: The non-latex polyisoprene surgical glove with latex properties is latex- and accelerator-free in addtion to being powder-free with quick-don™ synthetic inner coating.

Surgical
Sempermed Syntegra Green sterile latex-free surgical glove dispenser

sempermed® syntegra green

THE INNER GLOVE FOR HIGH-RISK PROCEDURES: The non-latex polyisoprene green surgical underglove for double gloving with latex properties. It is powder-free and latex-free with a special synthetic quick-don™ inner coating.

Surgical
Sempermed Syntegra IR Surgical Glove Dispenser

sempermed® syntegra IR

The award winning syntegra IR is a polyisoprene surgical glove with latex properties is not only latex-free but powder-free. Its specially developed synthetic inner coating quick-don™ allows for quick donning.

Surgical

You want to know more?

Read our brochure and learn more about DPG.

FoldersBrochures_DPGfreeGloves_EN

We are happy to advise you on our solutions

CONTACT OUR EXPERTS

References

To access references click

¹ Bauer, A., Pesonen, M., Brans, R., Caroppo, F., Dickel, H., Dugonik, A., Filon, F. L., Geier, J., Arnau, A. G., Napolitano, M., Patruno, C., Rustemeyer, T., Simon, D., Schuttelaar, M. L. A., Śpiewak, R., Stingeni, L., Vok, M., Weißhaar, E., Wilkinson, S. M., . . . Uter, W. (2023). Occupational contact allergy: The European perspective–Analysis of patch test data from ESSCA between 2011 and 2020. Contact Dermatitis, 88(4), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/ cod.14280https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14280

² Bains, S. N., Nash, P. & Fonacier, L. (2018). Irritant contact dermatitis. Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, 56(1), 99–109. doi.org/10.1007/s12016-018-8713-0

³ Pesonen, M., Jolanki, R., Filon, F. L., Wilkinson, S. M., Kręcisz, B., Kieć-Swierczyńska, M., Bauer, A., Mahler, V., John, S. M., Schnuch, A. & Uter, W. (2015). Patch test results of the European baseline series among patients with occupational contact dermatitis across Europe – analyses of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy network, 2002–2010. Contact Dermatitis, 72(3), 154–163. doi.org/10.1111/cod.12333

⁴ Alinaghi, F., Bennike, N. H., Egeberg, A., Thyssen, J. P. & Johansen, J. D. (2018). Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Contact Dermatitis, 80(2), 77–85.  doi/10.1111/cod.13119

⁵ Krob, H., Fleischer, A. B., D’Agostino, R. B., Haverstock, C. L. & Feldman, S. R. (2004). Prevalence and relevance of contact dermatitis allergens: A meta-analysis of 15 years of published T.R.U.E. test data. Journal Of The American Academy Of Dermatology, 51(3), 349–353. doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2003.11.069

⁶ Huang, C. H., Greig, D. & Cheng, H. (2021). Allergic contact dermatitis in healthcare workers. Occupational Medicine, 71(6–7), 294–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab118 Allergic contact dermatitis in healthcare workers. Occupational Medicine, 71(6–7), 294–297. doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab118

⁷ Dejonckheere, G., Herman, A. & Baeck, M. (2019). Allergic contact dermatitis caused by synthetic rubber gloves in healthcare workers: Sensitization to 1,3‐diphenylguanidine is common. Contact Dermatitis, 81(3), 167–173. doi.org/10.1111/cod.13269

⁸ Baeck, M., Cawet, B., Tennstedt, D. & Goossens, A. (2012). Allergic contact dermatitis caused by latex (natural rubber)‐free gloves in healthcare workers. Contact Dermatitis, 68(1), 54–55. doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02054.x

⁹ Cao, L., Taylor, J. S., Sood, A., Murray, D. A. & Siegel, P. D. (2010). Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Synthetic Rubber Gloves. Archives Of Dermatology, 146(9). doi.org/10.1001/archdermatol.2010.219

¹⁰ Geier, J., Lessmann, H., Mahler, V., Pohrt, U., Uter, W. & Schnuch, A. (2012). Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves – nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis, 67(3), 149–156. doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02139.x

¹¹ Geier, J., Lessmann, H., Uter, W. & Schnuch, A. (2003). Occupational rubber glove allergy: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 1995-2001. Contact Dermatitis, 48(1), 39–44. doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.480107.x

¹² Pontén, A., Hamnerius, N., Bruze, M., Hansson, C., Persson, C., Svedman, C., Andersson, K. T. & Bergendorff, O. (2012). Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by sterile non‐latex protective gloves: clinical investigation and chemical analyses. Contact Dermatitis, 68(2), 103–110. doi.org/10.1111/cod.12010

¹³ Crépy, M. (2016). Rubber: new allergens and preventive measures. European Journal Of Dermatology, 26(6), 523–530. doi.org/10.1684/ejd.2016.2839

¹⁴ Services, D. O. H. A. H., Prevention, C. F. D. C. A. & Health, N. I. S. A. (2013). Effects of Skin Contact with Chemicals: What a Worker Should Know. CreateSpace.
Back to Allergies