C P Hamann1, J R Nelson. 1. Department of Clinical Research, SmartPractice, Phoenix, AZ 85008.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most studies challenging the integrity of the glove barrier have compared the permeability of vinyl and latex gloves. However, no studies of a new nonlatex, nonvinyl thermoplastic elastomer have been reported. This pilot study therefore compared the protective barriers provided by latex and thermoplastic elastomer surgical gloves against penetration of the bacteriophage phi X174. METHODS: Twenty thermoplastic elastomer gloves and 25 commercially available latex gloves (20 brand 1, 5 brand 2) were filled with a sterile serum surrogate and exposed to the phi X174 virus in a flask, with shaking for 180 minutes at 37 degrees C. Aliquots of 5 ml were withdrawn at baseline, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes and assayed by a standard plaque assay. The remaining contents of the gloves were then tested by an extremely sensitive qualitative assay (plaque assay without dilution of the sample). RESULTS: With the standard plaque assay, virus was detected in 30% of the brand 1 latex gloves, in 80% of the brand 2 latex gloves, but in none of the thermoplastic elastomer gloves. The qualitative assay, which can detect even a single virus in the entire glove contents, had positive results for 30% of the thermoplastic elastomer gloves, 70% of the brand 1 gloves, and 100% of the brand 2 gloves. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small sample, the results of this stringent assay suggest that the mechanical barrier offered by thermoplastic elastomer gloves is equal to or better than that provided by the latex gloves tested. Clinical studies are needed to evaluate thermoplastic elastomer gloves, which may withstand mechanical stress better than latex or vinyl. Thermoplastic elastomer gloves may therefore be a desirable alternative for health care workers in high-risk settings or for individuals with latex allergies.
BACKGROUND: Most studies challenging the integrity of the glove barrier have compared the permeability of vinyl and latex gloves. However, no studies of a new nonlatex, nonvinyl thermoplastic elastomer have been reported. This pilot study therefore compared the protective barriers provided by latex and thermoplastic elastomer surgical gloves against penetration of the bacteriophage phi X174. METHODS: Twenty thermoplastic elastomer gloves and 25 commercially available latex gloves (20 brand 1, 5 brand 2) were filled with a sterile serum surrogate and exposed to the phi X174 virus in a flask, with shaking for 180 minutes at 37 degrees C. Aliquots of 5 ml were withdrawn at baseline, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes and assayed by a standard plaque assay. The remaining contents of the gloves were then tested by an extremely sensitive qualitative assay (plaque assay without dilution of the sample). RESULTS: With the standard plaque assay, virus was detected in 30% of the brand 1 latex gloves, in 80% of the brand 2 latex gloves, but in none of the thermoplastic elastomer gloves. The qualitative assay, which can detect even a single virus in the entire glove contents, had positive results for 30% of the thermoplastic elastomer gloves, 70% of the brand 1 gloves, and 100% of the brand 2 gloves. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small sample, the results of this stringent assay suggest that the mechanical barrier offered by thermoplastic elastomer gloves is equal to or better than that provided by the latex gloves tested. Clinical studies are needed to evaluate thermoplastic elastomer gloves, which may withstand mechanical stress better than latex or vinyl. Thermoplastic elastomer gloves may therefore be a desirable alternative for health care workers in high-risk settings or for individuals with latex allergies.