Tensile properties and integrity of clean room and low-modulus disposable nitrile gloves: a comparison of two dissimilar glove types.
Tensile properties and integrity of clean room and low-modulus disposable nitrile gloves: a comparison of two dissimilar glove types.
复制标题
洁净室和低模量一次性丁腈手套的拉伸性能和完整性：两种不同手套类型的比较。
DOI：
10.1093/annhyg/mer116
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Wong,WengKee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Phalen,RobertN;Wong,WengKee
背景技术一次性丁腈检查手套的选择由于（i）几种类型或配方的可用性，（ii）产品的可变性，和（iii）普通质量控制测试无法检测手指上的小孔而变得复杂。聚合物配方（例如填充剂和增塑剂/油含量）和拉伸性能的差异预计会解释观察到的性能变化的大部分原因。目的本研究评估了假设含有不同量的增塑剂/油的两种手套选择的拉伸性能和完整性（泄漏失效率）。主要目的是确定拉伸性能和完整性是否不同，以及这些因素之间是否存在关联。额外的物理和化学properties evaluated.MethodsSix洁净室和5个低模量的产品进行了评估，使用美国测试和材料方法D412和修改后的漏水测试，以检测能够通过病毒或化学试剂的孔。洁净室手套发生泄漏故障的可能性约为三倍（卡方;P= 0.001）。未观察到泄漏失效与拉伸性能之间的相关性。溶剂浸提液（添加增塑剂/油的指示）与泄漏失效无关。然而，手套的最大模量<4 MPa或面积密度（AD）<11 g cm-2约四倍，不太可能leake.ConclusionsOn平均，低模量手套是一个更好的选择，以防止含水化学或生物渗透。观察到的手套产品之间的差异表明，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相比，模量和AD的测量可以帮助选择过程。
BackgroundThe 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.ObjectivesThis 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.MethodsSix 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.ResultsSignificant 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−2were about four times less likely to leak.ConclusionsOn 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.