Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39035801›Full record

ArticleSafety and health at work2024

Evaluating the Protective Effectiveness of Rubber Glove Materials Against Organic Solvents Upon Repeated Exposure and Decontamination.

Li-Wen Liu, Cheng-Ping Chang, Yu-Wen Lin, Wei-Ming Chu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Safety and health at work, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Li-Wen LiuInstitute of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health, Taiwan.
Cheng-Ping ChangDepartment of Occupational Safety and Health, School of Safety and Health Sciences, Chang Jung Christian University, Taiwan.
Yu-Wen LinDepartment of Public Health, College of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan.
Wei-Ming ChuDepartment of Occupational Safety and Health, School of Safety and Health Sciences, Chang Jung Christian University, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Glove reuse poses risks, as chemicals can persist even after cleaning. Decontamination methods like thermal aeration, recommended by US OSHA, vary in effectiveness. Some studies show promising results, while others emphasize the importance of considering both permeation and tensile strength changes. This research advocates for informed glove reuse, emphasizing optimal thermal aeration temperatures and providing evidence to guide users in maintaining protection efficiency. Methods: The investigation evaluated Neoprene and Nitrile gloves (22 mils). Permeation tests with toluene and acetone adhered to American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F739 standards. Decontamination optimization involved aeration at various temperatures. The experiment proceeded with a maximum of 22 re-exposure cycles. Tensile strength and elongation were assessed following ASTM D 412 protocols. Breakthrough time differences were statistically analyzed using Results: At room temperature, glove residuals decreased, and standardized breakthrough time (SBT) Conclusions: Thermal aeration at 100°C for 1 hour proves effective, restoring protection without compromising glove strength. The study, covering twenty cycles, suggests safe glove reuse with proper decontamination, reducing costs significantly. However, limitations in chemical-glove combinations and exclusive focus on specific gloves caution against broad generalization. The absence of regulatory directives on glove reuse highlight the importance of informed selection and rigorous decontamination validation for workplace safety practices.

Indexed as

Glove permeationProtective gloveRubber strengthThermal decontamination

Identifiers

PMID39035801
PMCPMC11255945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.