Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

UCLA

UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations bannerUCLA

Permeation of Cyclohexanol Through Disposable Nitrile Gloves

Abstract

This research was conducted to determine whether permeation of gloves on a robotic moving hand would produce shorter normalized breakthrough times (tb) and faster steady state permeation rates (Ps) compared with a non-moving hand and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) F739-96 closed loop method. Cyclohexanol was used to complete this research because of its high boiling point and previous open loop data were available from glove manufacturers. A method was first developed to detect imperfections in glove material. Four glove products were selected for testing from one manufacturer. The ASTM closed loop method was used to generate new data for cyclohexanol. A dynamic whole glove permeation method was developed using a robotic hand, a water circulation system, and a sampling point to allow for interval sampling. This method was used to test still and moving hand configurations, and GC-MS analysis was used to analyze for cyclohexanol. The closed loop data for the Safeskin, Kimtech Science Blue, Purple, and Sterling nitrile gloves had tb of 29±2, 26±1, 18±1, and 8±1 minutes, respectively. Open loop data for the Sterling glove had a tb of 112 minutes. The respective Ps for the same gloves were 2.2±0.6, 12±1, 12±2, and 21±1 ìg/cm2/min. Compared to the ASTM closed loop method, whole glove permeation (still hand) for the Safeskin gloves produced a shorter tb (20±3 minutes). The Safeskin gloves also produced a higher Ps (10.0±0.7 ìg/cm2/min). The most protective gloves for the whole glove still hand were the Blue nitrile gloves with a tb of 22±5 minutes and Ps of 9±1 ìg/cm2/min. For moving hand whole glove experiments, the Safeskin and Blue nitrile gloves produced shorter tb (14±4 and 18±5 minutes, respectively) compared to the ASTM closed loop method. For Ps the Safeskin and Sterling gloves were higher (11.8±0.7 and 29±3, respectively). Results for tb and Ps were not consistent between the different types of gloves. The Safeskin and Kimtech Science Blue gloves were the best performing gloves overall. It is not recommended to wear the Sterling gloves when working with cyclohexanol.

Main Content
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
Current View