There is some give and take when it comes to the differences
between latex and nitrile SafeSkin gloves. Originally, nitrile gloves
were introduced as an alternative to latex, due to the high propensity
for allergic reaction to latex gloves; a fact owing to their increased
use by laboratory and healthcare workers with the emergence of the
HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. The nitrile style of glove offers a
better puncture resistant material. Compared to latex, however, the
increased glove thickness runs the risk of a loss of sensitivity and
manual dexterity. To this end, studies have been performed to actually
test the differences between the two materials with some interesting
results.
Testing Parameters
Before testing, there were questions posed to the participants. First was establishing the clarification as to whether individuals usually wore latex or nitrile gloves while on the job and second, the preference of which glove was the preferred choice amongst workers. Participants were then asked to select the glove size they would typically use.
In addition, hand dimensions were measured using calipers and the findings recorded prior to any actual dexterity testing. The length of the thumb, index and middle fingers were measured as well as their widths at the halfway point on the distal phalanges, or the ends of the fingers that carry the shape of the nails.
Finally, the two types of gloves tested were those used for a range of laboratory work performed. These were the Latex SafeSkin Satin Plus Powder-Free and the SafeSkin Purple Nitrile Powder-Free exam gloves, both manufactured by Kimberly-Clark. Both types of gloves provide a comparable level of protection for workers needing a barrier of protection between themselves and exposure to chemical and biological agents in the course of their work. Among the concerns for health and laboratory workers was a reduction in dexterity and the increased risk of injury from sharps or chemical spills.
Test Results
The only appreciable loss of dexterity found with the nitrile SafeSkin gloves was 8.6 percent less fine finger dexterity when compared to latex with no difference noted in gross dexterity. Participants expressed that the nitrile gloves seemed to be more narrow across the width of the hand, which prompted the decision to go for the next larger size. Those of average hand size found this resulted in some excess material at the ends of the fingers that can lead to trapping and obstructed visual fields. However, those with longer, more narrow fingers found this fit improved dexterity. Smaller sized nitrile gloves are responsible for considerable discomfort, especially among those wearing them for any length of time. The fundamental challenge to glove manufacturers is in having established an "average-sized" glove designed to fit the majority of users.
Participants consistently selected SafeSkin latex gloves on the basis of digit size but avoided choosing Nitrile SafeSkin gloves the same way, indicating nitrile gloves were perceived of as smaller by comparison. Those fearing the latex allergy chose nitrile despite discomfort or dexterity. However, in general, the majority of participants preferred to use the latex gloves, perhaps out of familiarity, perhaps because they simply fit better. While these results cannot be considered conclusive, further tests, including a wider range of gloves, are necessary. In addition, perhaps glove manufacturers can consider alternative sizes, especially for lab workers who are required to wear gloves for extended hours of their day.
Testing Parameters
Before testing, there were questions posed to the participants. First was establishing the clarification as to whether individuals usually wore latex or nitrile gloves while on the job and second, the preference of which glove was the preferred choice amongst workers. Participants were then asked to select the glove size they would typically use.
In addition, hand dimensions were measured using calipers and the findings recorded prior to any actual dexterity testing. The length of the thumb, index and middle fingers were measured as well as their widths at the halfway point on the distal phalanges, or the ends of the fingers that carry the shape of the nails.
Finally, the two types of gloves tested were those used for a range of laboratory work performed. These were the Latex SafeSkin Satin Plus Powder-Free and the SafeSkin Purple Nitrile Powder-Free exam gloves, both manufactured by Kimberly-Clark. Both types of gloves provide a comparable level of protection for workers needing a barrier of protection between themselves and exposure to chemical and biological agents in the course of their work. Among the concerns for health and laboratory workers was a reduction in dexterity and the increased risk of injury from sharps or chemical spills.
Test Results
The only appreciable loss of dexterity found with the nitrile SafeSkin gloves was 8.6 percent less fine finger dexterity when compared to latex with no difference noted in gross dexterity. Participants expressed that the nitrile gloves seemed to be more narrow across the width of the hand, which prompted the decision to go for the next larger size. Those of average hand size found this resulted in some excess material at the ends of the fingers that can lead to trapping and obstructed visual fields. However, those with longer, more narrow fingers found this fit improved dexterity. Smaller sized nitrile gloves are responsible for considerable discomfort, especially among those wearing them for any length of time. The fundamental challenge to glove manufacturers is in having established an "average-sized" glove designed to fit the majority of users.
Participants consistently selected SafeSkin latex gloves on the basis of digit size but avoided choosing Nitrile SafeSkin gloves the same way, indicating nitrile gloves were perceived of as smaller by comparison. Those fearing the latex allergy chose nitrile despite discomfort or dexterity. However, in general, the majority of participants preferred to use the latex gloves, perhaps out of familiarity, perhaps because they simply fit better. While these results cannot be considered conclusive, further tests, including a wider range of gloves, are necessary. In addition, perhaps glove manufacturers can consider alternative sizes, especially for lab workers who are required to wear gloves for extended hours of their day.
No comments:
Post a Comment