ASI Magazine
  Home
  ASI Green
  Subscribe
  eNewsletter Subscription
  Subscription Customer Service
  Updates
  Calendar of Events
  Call for Papers
  Features
  Columns
  Today's Headlines
  Price Adjustments
  New Products
  Ad Index
  Podcasts
  Ask Dr. Dave
  ASI Blog
  Online Exclusives
  Adhesives in the News
  Resources
  Books
  Archives
  Digital Edition Archives
  Classified Ads
  Career Center
  Tech ManufactureXPO
  Industry Links
  Online Solutions Web Seminars
  This to That
  Services Marketplace
  E-Newsletter Archives
  Green Opportunities E-News Archives
  Market Research
  Literature Showcases
  Glossaries
  Directories
  ASI Info
  Media Kit
  Contact Us
  Sales Staff
  Reprints
  List Rental
Search in: EditorialProductsCompanies
Natural Rubber Latex Adhesive Issues
by Michael Dochniak
July 1, 2008

ARTICLE TOOLS
EmailEmailPrintPrintReprintsReprintsshareShare



It is well known that natural rubber latex adhesives, extracted from the rubber tree of Hevea Brasiliensis, contain antigenic proteins that may cause adverse immune responses in some individuals, such as latex allergy.

Tapping a rubber tree involves cutting channels into the bark (controlled wounding) and bleeding out the milky white latex extract. The latex is produced by special cells called laticifiers and is thought to be a defense against insect pathogens and possibly a site for the depositing of metabolic waste of the tree.

Hevea Brasiliensis latex contains about 2-5% by weight protein. Analysis indicates about 200 dissimilar proteins therein, about 50-60 of which are suspected allergens. The World Health Organization - International Union of Immunological Societies has assigned names to about 13 of these allergens (e.g., Hev-b 1-13).

Repeated exposure to these allergens through dermal absorption has been shown to cause an increased incidence of sensitization, adverse allergic reactions and death through anaphylactic shock. Research has shown that cysteine residues in some Hev-b proteins play a major role in allergenicity. For example, research has shown that recombinant NRL allergens wherein the cysteine residues are replaced with alanine form peptide variants that have markedly decreased IgE binding. Furthermore, basophil activation testing has shown decreased activation with successive cysteine exclusion.1

A study that evaluated percutaneous penetration of natural rubber latex proteins concluded that the skin is not only a plausible route for latex sensitization, but can be a major exposure route when the integument has been compromised.2

In the medical industry, efforts continue to substantially eliminate natural rubber latex in the health care environment. For example, John Hopkins Hospital recently announced that it will no longer use nearly all medical latex products. Studies show some 15% of healthcare workers are allergic to latex.

It is important to reduce natural rubber exposure in that the frequency of exposure to the Hev-b proteins may influence the prevalence of an allergy. For example, a primary challenge to the Hev-b proteins may induce the activation of virgin T & B cells, and long-lived memory T & B cells. Thereafter, repeated exposure to the Hev-b proteins activate existing memory T & B cells and stimulate further production of T & B cells (i.e., virgin cells and memory cells).

It is understood that repeated exposure to the Hev-b proteins often increases the specific-antibody population (i.e., IgE primed mast-cells) affecting the intensity and duration of the immune response. Alternatively, exclusion of the Hev-b proteins inhibit re-activation of associated T & B cells, allowing such cells to substantially decay, dampening the immune response. For example, in a follow-up study on latex allergy in children, researchers concluded that strict compliance with latex avoidance should be practiced. Furthermore, greater emphasis should be placed on reducing latex exposure in the home and school environments to reduce contact which could maintain positive IgE-antibody levels.3

Allergic responses to foodstuff proteins have also been associated with latex allergy.4-5 What can be perplexing is natural rubber latex allergy can go into remission, from reduced exposure, while cross-react allergies (e.g., food allergies) may remain persistent based on repeated exposure to such food proteins. Thus, the after effects of latex allergy may continue to stress immunity long after the latex allergy has gone into remission. Consumer groups are calling for warning labels on food packaging containing latex, saying the substance poses a potential threat to people with allergic sensitivities.6

Most recently, it has been proposed in the Journal of Medical Hypotheses that increased Hev-b protein exposure may have affected the incidence of autism spectrum disorders. The timing, frequency, intensity, and type of exposure to such proteins may have increased atopy and allergy induced autism.7

Natural rubber latex adhesives formed from Hevea Brasiliensis are not required by law to meet the minimum standard of protein content based on The American Society for Testing and Materials method ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4) that defines latex containing less than 200 micrograms total protein per gram dry weight of latex. Although this may be moot in that the threshold of sensitivity to the Hev-b proteins is unknown.

The adhesive industry has been responsive to the health and safety issues associated with Hevea Brasiliensis-based products for the medical industry. For example, adhesive companies have developed hypoallergenic formulations, which are free of natural rubber latex, for medical-packaging applications.
Although the price/performance relationship between natural rubber latex and synthetic rubber continues to give life to Hevea Brasiliensis-based adhesives, research efforts continue to develop alternative water-based formulations that have an effective combination of properties including strong wet-tack and reduced dry-tack allowing them to compete with natural rubber latex.


Michael Dochniak
Michael Dochniak is CTO of Mallard Adhesives LLC.

References
1. Alexander C. Drew et al. “Hypoallergenic Variants of the Major Latex Allergens Hev- b 6.01, Retaining Human T Lymphocyte Reactivity.” The Journal of Immunology, 2004, 173: 5872-5879.
2. Benjamin B. Hayes et al. “Evaluation of Percutaneous Penetration of Natural Rubber Latex Proteins.” Toxicological Sciences, 56, 262-270 (2000).
3. M.C. Dieguez Pastor et al. “Latex Allergy in Children - A Follow-Up Study.” Allergologia et immunopathologia, Domingo L Enero 2006, Volumen 34, Numero 01, p. 17-22.
4. Vanderbilt University Medical Center: “Latex and Food Allergies.” The Protein Connection.
5. O. Palomares et al. “1,3-B-glucanases as Candidates in Latex-Pollen-Vegetable Food Cross-Reactivity.” Clinical Experimental Allergy; vol. 35, pg. 345, March 2005.
6. Consumeraffairs.com: Latex in Food Packaging Poses Risk www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/latex.html.
7. M.J. Dochniak. “Autism Spectrum Disorders – Exogenous Protein Insult.” Med Hypotheses (2007), Volume 69, Issue 3, page 545-549.

|PrintEmail

Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.







© 2010 BNP Media. All rights reserved. The publisher is not responsible for product claims and representations. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent those of ASI magazine, its staff, Editorial Advisory Board or BNP Media. | Privacy Policy