Phalen Robert N, Wong Weng Kee
Department of Health Science and Human Ecology, California State University San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397, USA.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2012 May;56(4):450-7. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mer116. Epub 2011 Dec 26.
The selection of disposable nitrile exam gloves is complicated by (i) the availability of several types or formulations, (ii) product variability, and (iii) an inability of common quality control tests to detect small holes in the fingers. Differences in polymer formulation (e.g. filler and plasticizer/oil content) and tensile properties are expected to account for much of the observed variability in performance.
This study evaluated the tensile properties and integrity (leak failure rates) of two glove choices assumed to contain different amounts of plasticizers/oils. The primary aims were to determine if the tensile properties and integrity differed and if associations existed among these factors. Additional physical and chemical properties were evaluated.
Six clean room and five low-modulus products were evaluated using the American Society for Testing and Materials Method D412 and a modified water-leak test to detect holes capable of passing a virus or chemical agent.
Significant differences in the leak failure rates and tensile properties existed between the two glove types (P ≤ 0.05). The clean room gloves were about three times more likely to have leak failures (chi-square; P = 0.001). No correlation was observed between leak failures and tensile properties. Solvent extract, an indication of added plasticizer/oil, was not associated with leak failures. However, gloves with a maximum modulus <4 MPa or area density (AD) <11 g cm(-2) were about four times less likely to leak.
On average, the low-modulus gloves were a better choice for protection against aqueous chemical or biological penetration. The observed variability between glove products indicated that glove selection cannot rely solely on glove type or manufacturer labeling. Measures of modulus and AD may aid in the selection process, in contrast with common measures of tensile strength and elongation at break.
一次性丁腈检查手套的选择较为复杂，原因如下：（i）有多种类型或配方可供选择；（ii）产品存在变异性；（iii）常规质量控制测试无法检测出手指部位的小孔。聚合物配方的差异（如填料以及增塑剂/油含量）和拉伸性能预计是观察到的性能变异性的主要原因。
本研究评估了两种假定含有不同量增塑剂/油的手套的拉伸性能和完整性（泄漏故障率）。主要目的是确定拉伸性能和完整性是否存在差异，以及这些因素之间是否存在关联。还评估了其他物理和化学性质。
使用美国材料与试验协会D412方法和改良的漏水测试对六种洁净室产品和五种低模量产品进行评估，以检测能够使病毒或化学试剂通过的孔洞。
两种手套类型的泄漏故障率和拉伸性能存在显著差异（P≤0.05）。洁净室手套发生泄漏故障的可能性大约是其他手套的三倍（卡方检验；P = 0.001）。未观察到泄漏故障与拉伸性能之间存在相关性。溶剂提取物（增塑剂/油添加量的指标）与泄漏故障无关。然而，最大模量<4 MPa或面密度（AD）<11 g·cm⁻²的手套发生泄漏的可能性大约低四倍。
平均而言，低模量手套在防止水性化学或生物渗透方面是更好的选择。观察到手套产品之间的变异性表明，手套的选择不能仅仅依赖于手套类型或制造商标签。与拉伸强度和断裂伸长率的常规测量方法相比,模量和AD的测量方法可能有助于手套的选择过程。
