Latex and vinyl nonsterile examination gloves: Status report on laboratory evaluation of defects by physical and biological methods

25Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We have reported previously (H.R. Kotilainen, J.P. Brinker, J.L. Avato, and N.M. Gantz, Arch. Intern. Med. 149:2749-2753, 1989) that the quality of nonsterile examination gloves available for clinical use may be extremely variable. In view of the concern over human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus transmission to health care workers, the continuing variability of gloves available for use, and the need for a simple and safe test, we have evaluated 2,500 vinyl (five brands) and 2,000 latex (four brands) gloves by the 300-ml and the newly proposed 1,000-ml water tests and for permeability to herpes simplex virus type 1 and poliovirus type 1, respectively. While all 300-ml watertight gloves were unlikely to leak herpes simplex virus type 1 (1.3% vinyl; 0.5% latex), poliovirus was recovered much more frequently (8.9% vinyl, 6.1% latex). In all gloves that passed the 1,000-ml test, herpes simplex virus type 1 was not recovered. Poliovirus was recovered infrequently (1.4% vinyl, 1.5% latex). Preliminary analyses suggest that the 1,000-ml water test has significantly increased sensitivity over the 300-ml water test in the detection of small holes in both vinyl and latex gloves that may allow the passage of viral particles. Gloves that pass a 1,000-ml water challenge are unlikely to allow the passage of a small virus such as poliovirus. Given that human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus and herpes simplex virus type 1 are larger particles than poliovirus, gloves that pass the 1,000-ml water test theoretically could provide better protection.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kotilainen, H. R., Avato, J. L., & Gantz, N. M. (1990). Latex and vinyl nonsterile examination gloves: Status report on laboratory evaluation of defects by physical and biological methods. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 56(6), 1627–1630. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.56.6.1627-1630.1990

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free