Glove permeation of chemicals: The state of the art of current practice—Part 2. Research emphases on high boiling point compounds and simulating the donned glove environment

Abstract

This second part of the review of the 21^st century literature on glove permeation is divided into the following major themes; permeation data and mathematical models, exposure/risk assessment, and manufacturer data. The major issues in the literature were the demonstrations that increasing temperature and applying forces increased permeation; and that glove manufacturer data were sometimes not reproducible. Double gloving of disposable gloves was found to be effective in resisting chemical permeation for short periods of time. Harmonization of standards and commercial glove classifications were called for at conditions that were closer to the temperature and applied forces actually present in the workplace, including whole glove testing and quantitative rather than just qualitative criteria. More research was recommended in each section and subsection with particular emphasis on defining the efficiency of solid phase collection devices, and more data in areas like exposure to cosmetics, household products, liquid foods, drinks, and cleaning liquids. More research in exposure assessment for permeated chemicals with sensors on the inner glove surface and on the skin was called for. Finally, it was decided that the state of the art of current practice was in a situation that needed the permeation standards, research, and the permeation charts of glove manufacturers to be at conditions that better reflected those encountered by workers with donned gloves.

Keywords:

• Commercial permeation classifications
• glove permeation review
• mathematical models
• risk assessment

Acknowledgments

Thanks for the support of the UCLA Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, and the Southern California NIOSH Education and Research Center. Sean Banaee was partially supported by a Graduate Fellowship of the Southern California NIOSH Education and Research Center, Grant Agreement Number T42OH008412 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the CDC.

Disclaimer

The authors deny conflict of interest in the present study.

Notes

* Note: There are the 8th (2008) and Ansell Guardian, 2016 editions of this guide that are non-quantitative relative to SSPR. The 8th edition is available at https://www.ansellpro.com/download/Ansell_8thEditionChemicalResistanceGuide.pdf. [Accessed 2020 January 6]. The 2016 Ansell Guardian Chemical Glove Resistance Guide is available at https://www.ansellpro.com/download/Ansell-Chemical-Glove-Resistance-Guide.pdf. [Accessed 2020 January 6]. The Ansell 2013 Chemical Handling Glove Guide for Europe and the overseas Pacific rim is available at: https://www.labtek.com.au/SuppliersData/Ansell/Chemical%20Handling%20Glove%20Guide.pdf. [Accessed 2020 January 6]. No update relative to European Union Regulation 2016/425 has appeared though the effective date was March 2018.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the UCLA Center for Occupational and Environmental Health and the Southern California NIOSH Education and Research Center, Grant Agreement Number T42OH008412.