In-Use Testing and Interpretation of Chemical-Resistant Glove Performance

Boeniger, Mark F.; Klingner, Thomas D.

doi:10.1080/10473220252864978

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A discussion about available in-use sampling techniques and the development of toxicologically based comparison criteria is the subject of a companion article. (48) Unfortunately, detailed studies that evaluate the actual performance of glove use in workplaces and the way some of the variables mentioned affect the performance are virtually nonexistent. The available eld studies evaluated only a small number of workers and present a mixed picture of success and failure related to the use of CPC.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

A Critique of Assumptions About Selecting Chemical-Resistant Gloves: A Case for Workplace Evaluation of Glove Efficacy

Klingner

Boeniger

2002

Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wearing chemical-resistant gloves and clothing is the primary method used to prevent skin exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace. The process for selecting gloves is usually based on manufacturers' laboratory-generated chemical permeation data. However, such data may not reflect conditions in the workplace where many variables are encountered (e.g., elevated temperature, flexing, pressure, and product variation between suppliers). Thus, the reliance on this selection process is questionable. Variables that may influence the performance of chemical-resistant gloves are identified and discussed. Passive dermal monitoring is recommended to evaluate glove performance under actual-use conditions and can bridge the gap between laboratory data and real-world performance.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

A Critique of Assumptions About Selecting Chemical-Resistant Gloves: A Case for Workplace Evaluation of Glove Efficacy

Klingner

Boeniger

2002

Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is important for employers to select the most appropriate glove for a particular application and to determine how long it can be worn, and whether it can be reused. However, the authors are unaware of any approaches that are presently available for the practical performance of these evaluations or for the interpretation of the results, apart from some recently published proposals Boeniger and Klingner 2002).…”

Section: Occupational Safety and Health Administrationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in the USA

Boeniger

Ahlers

2003

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are at least 14 federal regulations and three agencies that are involved in the regulation of occupational skin exposures in the USA. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the reporting of health effects information on chemicals, and such information is used to assess the risks of human and environmental exposure. The health effects information and any resulting risk assessments are generally available to the public. A fair amount of this information relates to skin irritation, sensitization, and dermal absorption. The EPA can require the submission of new data necessary for it to carry out its risk assessments, and has the authority to ban hazardous chemicals for certain uses. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the correct labeling of cosmetics and requires safety and efficacy data on new products that are claimed to have preventive or health benefits. Commercial distribution of topical skin-care and protection products, therefore, can be potentially scrutinized by the FDA, which can control the use of hazardous chemicals in such products. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has the most direct contact with workplaces through its field inspection compliance activity, which is directed at the reduction of workplace injuries and illnesses. Our analysis suggests that although considerable amounts of health effects information is generated and available, such information may not always be adequately conveyed to the end users of chemical products. In addition, the most effective and practical means of preventing exposure is often not apparent or generally known. Current regulations may have created a reliance on use of chemical protective equipment that may not always be the best approach to protecting workers. Lack of performance criteria that are measurable has hampered industry from objectively assessing skin exposures. This lack of performance criteria or guidance has also hindered the implementation of prevention strategies and a critical assessment of their effectiveness. Better guidance from regulatory agencies directed at performance-based control of occupational skin hazards is presently needed.

show abstract

“…Cherrie et al 2004 argued that the Kp value may be changed further when sweat is present as the permeation rate through the protective layer is limited by the skin permeation rate at saturated water concentration (the maximum concentration that the sweat may achieve). In fact, , the compounds should first dissolve in sweat to permeate skin since sweat reduces the concentration gradient between the stratum corneum and the subcutaneous tissues (Boeniger and Klingner 2002;Chan et al 2010). However, water solubility is not the only factor according to Williams et al (2005), who suggested that sweat influences the permeation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%