Original paper Allergy to propolis in Polish beekeepers

K. Basista, B. Filipek
{"title":"Original paper Allergy to propolis in Polish beekeepers","authors":"K. Basista, B. Filipek","doi":"10.5114/PDIA.2012.32391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: According to the literature propolis is a non-toxic and safe substance. However, propolis can induce allergy. Beekeepers may be the group most affected by contact allergy and propolis is an occupational contact aller gen for them. Aim: To determine the prevalence of propolis contact allergy in beekeepers and theirs families and its possible asso ciation with other coexistent conditions. Material and methods: The questionnaire ‘Allergy to propolis among beekeepers’ was distributed to beekeepers by hand through the Beekeepers Associations, especially the Provincial Association of Apiarists in Krakow. The study was conducted on adults of both genders who had given informed consent to participate in the study. The program Statistica was used for data management and statistical analysis. Results: A total of 2540 questionnaires were distributed, including 1360 questionnaires from Malopolska region. Five hundred and fifty-eight questionnaires were returned, including 345 from Malopolska region. The response rate was 21.97% (25.4% Malopolska region). Among 558 beekeepers propolis contact allergy occurred in 17 cases (3.05%). Four hundred anf four of 558 beekeepers used propolis as a therapeutic agent. Eleven of 404 (2.72%) beekeepers report ed propolis allergy. Only 5 beekeepers reported concomitant propolis allergy after contact with this substance dur ing beekeeping and using propolis as a therapeutic agent. Among 2205 members of families who were using propo lis only 14 patients (0.63%) reported propolis allergy. Conclusions: Allergy to propolis in Polish beekeepers does not seem to be a common phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":7212,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postȩpy Dermatologii i Alergologii","volume":"852 1","pages":"440-445"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postȩpy Dermatologii i Alergologii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/PDIA.2012.32391","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Introduction: According to the literature propolis is a non-toxic and safe substance. However, propolis can induce allergy. Beekeepers may be the group most affected by contact allergy and propolis is an occupational contact aller gen for them. Aim: To determine the prevalence of propolis contact allergy in beekeepers and theirs families and its possible asso ciation with other coexistent conditions. Material and methods: The questionnaire ‘Allergy to propolis among beekeepers’ was distributed to beekeepers by hand through the Beekeepers Associations, especially the Provincial Association of Apiarists in Krakow. The study was conducted on adults of both genders who had given informed consent to participate in the study. The program Statistica was used for data management and statistical analysis. Results: A total of 2540 questionnaires were distributed, including 1360 questionnaires from Malopolska region. Five hundred and fifty-eight questionnaires were returned, including 345 from Malopolska region. The response rate was 21.97% (25.4% Malopolska region). Among 558 beekeepers propolis contact allergy occurred in 17 cases (3.05%). Four hundred anf four of 558 beekeepers used propolis as a therapeutic agent. Eleven of 404 (2.72%) beekeepers report ed propolis allergy. Only 5 beekeepers reported concomitant propolis allergy after contact with this substance dur ing beekeeping and using propolis as a therapeutic agent. Among 2205 members of families who were using propo lis only 14 patients (0.63%) reported propolis allergy. Conclusions: Allergy to propolis in Polish beekeepers does not seem to be a common phenomenon.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
波兰养蜂人对蜂胶过敏
文献介绍:蜂胶是一种无毒、安全的物质。然而,蜂胶会引起过敏。养蜂人可能是受接触性过敏影响最大的群体,蜂胶对他们来说是一种职业性接触过敏原。目的:了解养蜂人及其家庭中蜂胶接触性过敏的发生率及其与其他共存疾病的关系。材料和方法:通过养蜂人协会,特别是克拉科夫省养蜂人协会,向养蜂人手工分发了“养蜂人对蜂胶过敏”问卷。这项研究是在知情同意参加研究的成年人中进行的。使用Statistica程序进行数据管理和统计分析。结果:共发放问卷2540份,其中Malopolska地区共发放问卷1360份。共收到558份问卷,其中345份来自马洛波尔斯卡地区。应答率为21.97% (Malopolska地区为25.4%)。558名养蜂人中发生蜂胶接触性过敏17例(3.05%)。558名养蜂人中有400人使用蜂胶作为治疗剂。404名养蜂人中有11人(2.72%)报告对蜂胶过敏。只有5名养蜂人报告在养蜂期间接触这种物质并使用蜂胶作为治疗剂后伴随蜂胶过敏。在2205例使用蜂胶的家庭成员中,仅有14例(0.63%)报告蜂胶过敏。结论:蜂胶过敏在波兰养蜂人似乎不是一个普遍现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mutation in the KRT1 gene causing epidermolysis bullosa simplex Rare skin tumours in organ transplant recipients The B7 family molecules in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Part II: B7-1, B7-2, B7-H2, B7-H3, B7-H4, B7-H5 (VISTA), B7-H6 and B7-H7 Relationship between quality of life and anxiety aspects in chronic spontaneous urticaria Behçet’s syndrome and relationship with the ratio of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1)/IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1