Disproportionated Rosin Dehydroabietic Acid in Neoprene Surgical Gloves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a well-recognized immune-mediated disease often associated with the use of vulcanization accelerator-containing latex and nitrile gloves. Potential contact allergens in neoprene (polychloroisoprene, polychloroprene) gloves have not been reported. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to analyze extracts of neoprene surgical and examination gloves for potential contact allergens. METHODS: Four different brands of neoprene-type gloves were purchased, and dichloromethane extracts were derivatized and assayed by gas chromatographic mass spectrometry. A latex surgical glove was used as a negative control. RESULTS: Chemical species consistent with the composition of disproportionated rosin (dehydroabietic acid [DHA], didehydroabietic acid, and other pimaric or isopimaric species) were identified in dichloromethane extracts of neoprene gloves. Levels of DHA, a type IV prohapten that can be air oxidized to an active allergen, ranged from 7 to 31 mg/g of glove. A leaching study of DHA was conducted, and small amounts of DHA leached from the glove materials into artificial sweat. DHA oxidation products were not observed in any of the gloves assayed. CONCLUSION: DHA exposure may occur from neoprene-type glove use, although a potential association with glove ACD has not been established.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".