Safety, Hazard Containment & Sterilising Equipment
What are the Top 3 Considerations for Thin Mil Glove Selection? Protection, Comfort and Sustainability
Manish Raval, Kimberly-Clark Professional Global PPE Business
Gloves are one of the most critical elements of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in a lab environment. Not only do they protect scientists and researchers from known and unknown risks, they also protect the scientifi c process or application.
Consider these statistics: • Wearing gloves has been proven to reduce the relative risk of injury by 60% [1] • 70% of workers who experienced a hand injury were not wearing gloves [2] • Another 30% were wearing gloves, but they were damaged or inadequate for the task [3] • The median number of workdays missed from a hand injury is fi ve [4] • Worker’s compensation costs for hand, fi nger or wrist injuries averaged over $25,000 [5]
• Even the most carefully manicured person generates particles from their skin every day. Gloves provide barrier protection, which helps minimize the risk of submicron particles from the hand contaminating the product, process or equipment [6]
• Poor quality gloves can contaminate the scientifi c process or application by introducing glove powder or residual surfactants, which can interfere with laboratory testing and lead to false results [7]
Why Hands are So Vulnerable to Injury
The anatomy of the hand is complicated. With bones, tendons, nerve fi bres and blood vessels protected by a thin layer of muscle and fat, hands are especially vulnerable to injury. This makes the task of selecting the correct glove both important and challenging. According to Health & Safety International, ‘even small defi ciencies in glove design may reduce grip, strength and manual dexterity’. The glove must also be well- suited for the intended purpose without compromising protection or comfort.
For example, thicker gloves may provide the right level of chemical protection, but they can reduce dexterity and impact the user’s ability to perform a specifi c task. As a result, scientists may select thinner alternatives, providing adequate dexterity but compromising on protection or even requiring more frequent replacements. Worse still, they may choose to not wear gloves at all, risking injury or chemical exposure.
Glove Selection Criteria
On fi rst inspection, many choosers of hand protection solutions might fi nd it diffi cult to distinguish between the myriad of options available.
Not all gloves can protect the integrity of your science and the safety of your scientists. Appearances can be deceiving, which makes it crucial to perform an adequate risk assessment prior to selecting the desired solution.
The Top 3 considerations for glove selection are critical, but sometimes challenging to realise through a single hand protection solution:
• Protection. Laboratory workers are regularly exposed to a range of chemical agents. In fact, according to a 2021 study cited by Lab Manager, exposure to toxic and hazardous substances is a laboratory’s third most prominent cause of injury [8]. In another study, 25-38% of lab personnel surveyed said they had been involved in a lab accident or injury that was not reported to a supervisor or principal investigator [9]. And, in a laboratory PPE poll, 85% of respondents said that compliance - getting people to protect themselves from exposure to chemicals or bloodborne pathogens - was their biggest challenge [10]. This highlights the important role that protection plays in glove selection. But protection is not a one-size-fi ts-all solution. You also need to determine the level of protection required based on the use case.
Here are some questions to ask:
• Is protection against a wide range of lab chemicals required, including cytotoxic and other hazardous drugs? • Do the gloves need to offer chemical splash protection or full immersion protection? • Are tasks requiring high levels of durability performed?
• Are the gloves tested for elongation and tensile strength to ensure they can stretch and remain intact during a variety of movements while using a wide range of laboratory equipment and instrumentation?
• Do they have a low AQL for pinholes to ensure manufacturing quality and glove integrity?
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
