Integrity of Disposable Nitrile Exam Gloves Exposed to Simulated Movement

Abstract

Every year, millions of health care, first responder, and industry workers are exposed to chemical and biological hazards. Disposable nitrile gloves are a common choice as both a chemical and physical barrier to these hazards, especially as an alternative to natural latex gloves. However, glove selection is complicated by the availability of several types or formulations of nitrile gloves, such as low-modulus, medical grade, low filler, and cleanroom products. This study evaluated the influence of simulated movement on the physical integrity (i.e., holes) of different nitrile exam glove brands and types. Thirty glove products were evaluated out-of-box and after exposure to simulated whole-glove movement for 2 hr. In lieu of the traditional 1 L water-leak test, a modified water-leak test, standardized to detect a 0.15 ± 0.05 mm hole in different regions of the glove, was developed. A specialized air inflation method simulated bidirectional stretching and whole-glove movement. A worst-case scenario with maximum stretching was evaluated. On average, movement did not have a significant effect on glove integrity (chi-square; p = 0.068). The average effect was less than 1% between no movement (1.5%) and movement (2.1%) exposures. However, there was significant variability in glove integrity between different glove types (p ≤ 0.05). Cleanroom gloves, on average, had the highest percentage of leaks, and 50% failed the water-leak test. Low-modulus and medical grade gloves had the lowest percentages of leaks, and no products failed the water-leak test. Variability in polymer formulation was suspected to account for the observed discrepancies, as well as the inability of the traditional 1 L water-leak test to detect holes in finger/thumb regions. Unexpectedly, greater than 80% of the glove defects were observed in the finger and thumb regions. It is recommended that existing water-leak tests be re-evaluated and standardized to account for product variability.

Keywords:

• dermal protection
• infection control
• penetration
• personal protective clothing
• personal protective equipment
• protective gloves

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research activities were supported by Grant 1R21OH009327-01A2 from CDC-NIOSH. Funding for preliminary results and equipment was also provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH Grant HD052368). Special thanks go to student research assistants Paul Lawrence, Brett Griffin, Carrie Cushman, Thi Le, and Hou Ung for their assistance in the development and testing of the methods described in this project.

The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.