DEGRADATION OF PROTECTIVE GLOVE MATERIALS EXPOSED TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TENSILE STRENGTH AND GRAVIMETRIC ANALYSES

Transcription

1 Califoria State Uiversity, Sa Berardio CSUSB ScholarWorks Electroic Theses, Projects, ad Dissertatios Office of Graduate Studies DEGRADATION OF PROTECTIVE GLOVE MATERIALS EXPOSED TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TENSILE STRENGTH AND GRAVIMETRIC ANALYSES Todd B. Pelham tpelham1@gmail.com Follow this ad additioal works at: Recommeded Citatio Pelham, Todd B., "DEGRADATION OF PROTECTIVE GLOVE MATERIALS EXPOSED TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TENSILE STRENGTH AND GRAVIMETRIC ANALYSES" (2014). Electroic Theses, Projects, ad Dissertatios. Paper 107. This Thesis is brought to you for free ad ope access by the Office of Graduate Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has bee accepted for iclusio i Electroic Theses, Projects, ad Dissertatios by a authorized admiistrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more iformatio, please cotact scholarworks@csusb.edu.

2 DEGRADATION OF PROTECTIVE GLOVE MATERIALS EXPOSED TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TENSILE STRENGTH AND GRAVIMETRIC ANALYSES A Project Preseted to the Faculty of Califoria State Uiversity, Sa Berardio I Partial Fulfillmet of the Requiremets for the Degree Master of Sciece i Earth ad Evirometal Sciece by Todd Bracewell Pelham September 2014

3 DEGRADATION OF PROTECTIVE GLOVE MATERIALS EXPOSED TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TENSILE STRENGTH AND GRAVIMETRIC ANALYSES A Project Preseted to the Faculty of Califoria State Uiversity, Sa Berardio by Todd Bracewell Pelham September 2014 Approved by: Dr. Robert N. Phale, Committee Member, Health Sciece Dr. James Noblet, Committee Member, Chemistry Dr. Rewu Zhag, Committee Member, Chemistry

4 2014 Todd Bracewell Pelham

5 ABSTRACT Curret glove guides attempt to assist i recommedig which type of glove is appropriate for hadlig chemicals; however, they iclude iformatio o less tha 1% of the 89 millio chemical products available today. This study offers a solutio by testig five durable polymer materials agaist 50 chemicals, usig two rapid chemical degradatio assessmet techiques. The first techique ivolves gravimetric aalysis of the weight chage followig costat immersio agaist the chemical mixture. The secod method uses tesile stregth to assess molecular chages i the polymer structure. This study is focused o addressig three issues of cocer. First, this study examies if curret degradatio testig methods are adequate to determie chemical resistace agaist complex mixtures. Secodly, this study will be used to determie if curret degradatio iformatio o pure chemicals is effective i predictig degradatio of complex chemical mixtures, based o the major igrediet(s). Lastly, this study will start a chemical resistace idex for complex mixed chemicals. The results of this study clearly show that glove recommedatios of pure ad mixed chemicals are frequetly differet. I more tha 58.4% of the cases, the mixed chemical requires a differet glove tha that of its pure chemical compoets. Results also show that glove recommedatios based solely o weight chage ad/or permeatio results are missig importat iformatio o iii

6 tesile test performace. There are several istaces (15.2%) i which the iitial glove recommedatio would be chaged to a lower recommedatio ratig if the results of a tesile test were icluded. iv

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dr. Robert Phale PhD, CIH Kadace Steele Califoria State Uiversity, Sa Berardio Carpool Techicias Califoria State Uiversity, Sa Berardio Plumbers Califoria State Uiversity, Sa Berardio Evirometal Health Specialists v

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... iii v LIST OF TABLES... viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION... 1 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Backgroud... 6 Curret Glove Guides... 7 Hypothesis CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS Polymer Selectio Chemical Selectio Equipmet Gravimetric Aalysis Tesile Testig Mixed- ad Pure- Chemical Aalysis Determiig Pure Chemical Compositio Usig the SDS Determiig Recommedatios Usig Available Guidelies Determiig Degradatio Based o Tesile Stregth CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Gravimetric Aalysis Results Tesile Stregth Test Results vi

9 CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS Orgaizig Results to Establish a New Library Pure- ad Mixed- Chemical Aalysis for Polymer Selectio Weight ad Tesile Stregth Data Weight ad Tesile Stregth Ratigs for Polymer Selectio CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION Pure Chemicals ad Mixed Chemicals Weight versus Tesile Results More Coservative Polymer Recommedatios CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX A: PROPERTIES OF THE 50 MIXED CHEMICALS TESTED APPENDIX B: PROPOSED NEW GLOVE MATERIALS INDEX REFERENCES vii

10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Gravimetric Aalysis Results Table 2. Tesile Stregth Test Results Table 3. Weight ad Tesile Stregth Variaces i Polymer Recommedatio viii

11 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Gloves ca act as both the first ad last lies of defese i protectig idividuals from chemical exposure i both idustrial ad household settigs. Gloves, classified as a type of Persoal Protective Equipmet (PPE), are desiged to provide barriers agaist potetially dagerous chemicals from havig direct cotact or prologed exposure to ski. Accordig to OSHA, a estimated 60,000 deaths ad 860,000 occupatioal illesses per year i the US are attributed to occupatioal exposure, a relatively small percetage caused by ski exposure would represet a sigificat health risk. (1) Chemical burs, wouds, ifectio, ad death could result if a glove were to ot effectively protect agaist chemical exposure. Accordig to Reuscher (2012), there are several factors to cosider whe choosig the right gloves, icludig: splash or immersio protectio, characteristics of the chemical beig hadled, temperature ad cocetratio of the chemical, legth of exposure time to chemical, dexterity eeded to do task, ad whether disposable or reusable are the best optio. (2) Gloves are ot solely used as protectio agaist pure chemicals hazards, but are frequetly used as protectio agaist exposure to idustrial or commercial products, which ca iclude complex mixtures of various chemical compoets. Idustrial ad commercial products will be referred to as mixed chemicals i this study. These complex mixed chemicals ca have very differet 1

12 chemical properties from their pure chemical igrediets. There is curretly o published idex eablig cosumers to properly idetify which glove choice ca best protect agaist a variety of mixed chemical idustrial ad commercial products. This lack of iformatio could lead to udue ijury, illess or death. The wrog glove could be chose because of the miscoceptio that the chemical resistace to protect agaist a mixture is equal to the chemical resistace of the pure chemical igrediets. This belief i equal chemical resistace excludes ay potetial chages i chemical hazard or stregth resultig from the pure chemicals beig mixed together. Gravimetric studies aalyze the differeces i the weight of the glove material prior to ad after chemical exposure. Variatios i weight sigify that a chemical reactio or physical chage i the polymer occurred. Procedures for methods to evaluate weight chage as a measure of degradatio ca be foud i the America Society for Testig ad Materials (ASTM) Method D 471 Stadard Test Method for Rubber Property Effect of Liquids. (3) Aother degradatio stadard, the America Natioal Stadards Istitute s Iteratioal Safety Equipmet Associatio (ANSI/ISEA) Stadard 105 Had Protectio Selectio Criterio (4), provides a set of criteria to aalyze the pucture resistace of a polymer glove, which is related to the tesile properties of the material. Aalyzig the tesile properties of a glove material before ad after exposure to a chemical ca help determie if a breakdow i the polymer structure has occurred, which is whe the glove material breaks or tears more easily after exposure to a 2

13 chemical. A sigificat differece i measuremets for either a weight or tesile test idicates that the glove may ot completely protect agaist the chemical ad a more suitable glove may eed to be chose. However, most curret guides eglect to iclude iformatio o chages i pucture resistace or tesile properties, limitig the scope of coverage for the guides, which ca potetially result i the recommedatio of a iadequate glove material. May guides, such as the Asell Guide (5) or Forsberg et al. Quick Selectio Guide to Chemical Protective Clothig (6), evaluate permeatio data i place of chemical degradatio weight or tesile chages, which further complicates the selectio process. Sigificat differeces are aticipated i comparig the degradatio results of glove material exposed to mixed chemicals to that of the idividual pure chemical igrediets. These differeces are worth otig because if a glove is uable to withstad a chemical, the its use could result i ijury, illess or death. The aalysis of weight ad tesile stregth chages, followig exposure to chemical mixtures, i compariso to their pure chemical compoets will help determie if curret degradatio methods ca be used to determie proper glove choice for chemical resistace. Curret published glove guides are limited i their scope of icluded chemicals. The America Chemical Society s Chemical Abstract Service database (CAS), icludes roughly 89 millio chemicals that existece today. (7) Of the 89 millio chemicals i existece, the Asell Guide lists PPE recommedatios for 167 chemicals (5), ad the Forsberg et al. Quick Selectio 3

14 Guide to Chemical Protective Clothig lists PPE recommedatios for approximately 1000 chemicals (6). There are also other smaller database systems, such as the Natioal Istitutes for Occupatioal Safety ad Health (NIOSH) Recommedatios for Chemical Protective Clothig: A Compaio to the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. (8) The NIOSH guide is also limited i scope ad applicatio for the vast myriad of chemicals o the market today. It is evidet that there is a lack of available iformatio o glove recommedatios for safe chemical hadlig. There is a estimated oe ew chemical discovered or created every 2.3 secods. (7) However, chemical resistace data exist for less tha 1% of the available chemicals. (7) This study offers a solutio for determiig appropriate chemical protective glove materials used i both idustrial ad household applicatios. It does so by testig five durable polymer materials, commo glove materials available o the market, usig two rapid chemical degradatio assessmet techiques. The first techique ivolves gravimetric aalysis of the weight chage followig costat immersio i the chemical compoet or mixture, i a maer similar to ASTM Method D 471. (3) The secod method uses tesile stregth to assess molecular chages i the polymer structure, similar to a previous study by Gao ad Tomaovic (2005). (9) A total of 50 chemicals, foud i a variety of idustrial ad household settigs, were used to evaluate the effectiveess of these methods i determiig a polymer material best suited to resist chemical degradatio to complex mixtures ad commercial products. 4

15 This study is focused o addressig three issues of cocer. First, this study examies if curret degradatio testig methods, which focus o weight chage (ad i some cases permeatio) are adequate to determie glove chemical resistace to degradatio. Secodly, this study will be used to determie if curret degradatio results o pure chemicals are effective i predictig degradatio of complex chemical mixtures, based o the major igrediet(s). Lastly, this study will start a idex ad create a chemical guide that ca be used for complex mixed chemicals. 5

16 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Backgroud Exposures to chemicals happe every day ad i a variety of settigs. Whether at home cleaig or at a idustrial work eviromet, safe practices i choosig the correct persoal protective equipmet, such as gloves, ca prevet burs, wouds, ifectio, ad eve death. Gloves come i all differet types of materials ad thickesses. They ca rage i cost betwee two cets for a sigle-use, disposable latex glove to over $110 dollars for a multi-use, heavy duty polyviyl chloride glove. Accordig to Hatada et al. (1996), degradatio is defied as the chemical chages i a polymeric material that result i udesirable chages i the values of i-use properties of the material. (10) Glove degradatio is ofte thought of as occurrig whe the polymer material breaks dow eough for a uwated chemical to come i cotact with the ski. This ca still occur eve if there is o apparet sig of either holes or tears i the polymer material. To prevet a potetially harmful chemical comig i cotact with ski, oe must use a glove that ca offer the best protectio for that exact idividual applicatio. To determie if degradatio is occurrig, oe may be able to observe chages followig exposure to a chemical, as a glove may begi to swell, shrik, harde, stiffe, brittle or blister. Accordig to Chemical Protective Clothig (Aa, 2003), 6

17 the best way to describe glove degradatio is whe a glove has lost its ability to provide adequate protectio to the user of the glove. (11) To choose the glove that offers the best protectio, a cosumer must first look up the exact idividual chemical igrediets of a product by usig the Safety Data Sheets (SDS), (12) formerly kow i the Uited States as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). (13) Oe would the have to look up these idividual chemical igrediets i a PPE recommedatio guide, such as the Asell Guide (5) or the Forsberg et al. Quick Selectio Guide to Chemical Protective Clothig (6) to determie which polymer is the least likely to degrade durig chemical exposure. The questio that still remais uaswered is whether or ot the selected glove material will provide the predicted level of protectio. For simplificatio, i this study, idividual chemical igrediets will be referred to as pure chemicals ad complex chemical products will be referred to as mixed chemicals. Curret Glove Guides Oe guide that provides chemical iformatio is the Safety Data Sheets most commoly kow as the SDS. Every commercial chemical i the Uited States has a SDS, displayig data o idetificatio, hazard idetificatio, compositio/iformatio o igrediets, first-aid measures, fire-fightig measures, accidetal release measures, hadlig ad storage, exposure cotrols/persoal protectio, physical ad chemical properties, stability ad 7

18 reactivity, ad toxicological iformatio. (12) There are two mai problems with utilizig the SDS for glove recommedatios. First, it is geerally writte i laguage more suited for busiess applicatios ad the promotio of employee safety, rather tha layma laguage for idividual use. Secodly, the SDS guides do ot ofte recommed specific glove materials for idividual chemicals. To esure that the SDS does ot give improper regimetatios, the prit will ofte state somethig vague, such as use a chemically resistat glove. (14) Although the SDS does ot ofte provide resolutio i determiig the appropriate glove to use, it ca be utilized to research the pure chemical igrediets cotaied withi each listed commercial product, as the chemical compoets are ofte provided. The Asell Chemical Resistace Guide is commoly used i order to determie whether a Asell glove product ca withstad chemical permeatio, (5) as well as, chemical degradatio i some cases. Accordig to Chemical Protective Clothig (Aa, 2003), permeatio is a process that occurs whe a chemical passes through a surface without goig through a opeig such as a hole or tear, at a molecular level. (11) The Asell Guide (5) is a compilatio of test results ad charts that assist i determiig the degradatio of a Asell glove product i a hazardous chemical. This helps a cosumer decide which Asell glove product ca work best give the type of pure chemical they will be exposed to. The Asell charts use a letter ratig system ad a color-coded system i order to show the cosumer the recommeded ratig of each glove material. The color-coded system is based o chemical permeatio. Gree colored boxes 8

19 mea the glove is excellet or good ad the permeatio breakthrough is 30 mi or loger. Red colored boxes mea that the glove is poor or ot recommeded for that chemical. Lastly, yellow colored boxes are used to show that the glove did ot fail the testig, but that material is also ot recommeded for use with that chemical. The letter degradatio ratig is based o the percetage of chage i glove coditio, where a excellet ratig (E) is based o a chage of less tha 10%, a good ratig (G) is based o a chage of betwee 11-20%, a fair ratig (F) is based o a chage of betwee 21-30%, a poor ratig (P) is based o a chage of betwee 31-50%, ad fially if the chage of the glove is more tha 50% the glove is ot recommeded (NR) for that chemical. The Asell degradatio guidelie primarily focuses o which glove is the best agaist permeatio of a pure chemical usig ATSM Method F 739 Stadard Test Method for Permeatio of Liquids ad Gases through Protective Clothig Materials uder Coditios of Cotiuous Cotact. (15) A critical issue with the Asell Guide is that may of the recommedatios are based o permeatio data oly, without cosideratio of degradatio testig. Because permeatio is the molecular movemet of chemicals through the polymer ad degradatio is the chemical chages of the polymer itself, the exclusio of degradatio data meas that if there are chemical chages, but o icreased molecular movemet, the recommedatios will ot chage. The cosequece ca be the selectio of a glove material that ca perform oce for 30 plus miutes, but may be uacceptable thereafter. Chemical 9

20 degradatio testig is a essetial compoet of chemically protective glove performace testig. The Forsberg et al. Quick Selectio Guide to Chemical Protective Clothig (6) is a guide that shows roughly 1000 geeral polymer recommedatios. The provided chart also shows the results i a color coded format depedet o permeatio time ad degradatio ratig of a pure chemical o polymer material. Although, this chart has more data tha the Asell chart, it is a little harder to use as there is o specific idicatio of chemical degradatio or permeatio data, whereas Asell does provide separate guidelies ad data for these two parameters, albeit degradatio results are ofte ot provided. The Natioal Istitute for Occupatioal Safety ad Health (NIOSH) complies a database called Recommedatios for Chemical Protective Clothig: A Compaio to the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. (8) However, this guide is limitig i its actual recommedatios for ski protectio. The guide ofte states three levels of recommedatios, which do ot assist i coclusively recommedig specific glove materials that will prevet ski cotact. The first level of recommedatio that the NIOSH uses is prevet ski cotact, which is defied as wear appropriate persoal protective clothig to prevet ski cotact. Suggested barriers for use should be cofirmed with the vedor ad for additioal iformatio ad use limitatios. The secod NIOSH recommedatio frequetly used is Frostbite, which is defied as wear appropriate persoal protective clothig to prevet the ski from becomig froze from cotact with the 10

21 evaporatig liquid or from cotact with the vessel cotaiig the liquid. Lastly, the NIOSH recommedatio of N.R. is defied as o specific recommedatio ca be made. Actual workig coditios will determie the eed for persoal protective equipmet. These three recommedatios do ot provide clear guidelies or appropriate persoal protective optios. This lack of specificity i recommedatios for determiig glove use for ski protectio meas this particular guide for chemical protective clothig does ot assist i makig appropriate glove decisios. Polymer recommedatios based solely o pure chemical use, mea that the glove maufacturer (e.g., Asell), NIOSH, ad Forsberg et al. Quick Selectio Guide to Chemical Protective Clothig are limited i usage ad do ot beefit those who use complex chemical mixtures, ot i pure form. (5,8,4) These guides do ot ofte publish glove recommedatios that iclude mixed chemical products for commercial or idividual use. Examiig the idividual pure chemicals with a chemical mixture (e.g., usig SDS iformatio) may also ot be helpful, as combied chemicals may ehace degradatio of the gloves. This lack of mixed chemical ad glove data creates a opportuity for further study. Hypothesis The MSDS, SDS, NIOSH, Asell Guide, Forsberg et al. Quick Selectio Guide to Chemical Protective Clothig, etc. all provide basic iformatio o glove recommedatios for primarily pure chemicals. (13,12,8,5,6) The results of the mixed 11

22 chemical weight ad tesile stregth tests will be compared with predicted performace to see if the curret accepted stadards or guides are adequate i determiig polymer material recommedatios. The data i these guides will also be used as a basis for comparig ad cotrastig polymer material recommedatios for pure chemicals with complex mixed chemicals. This compariso will help to determie if curret degradatio testig methods o pure chemicals ca be used to predict chemical resistace to complex chemical mixtures. If i comparig polymer material weight ad tesile stregth to 50 complex-mixed chemical solutios, there are sigificat differeces betwee the predicted ad actual results, the it would stad to reaso that mixed-chemical testig should be doe. If results coclude that degradatio of polymer materials is differet tha those aticipated based o the pure chemical compoets, the additioal studies could yield a more i-depth database that icludes exposure to mixed chemical compositios ad provides polymer material ratigs for improved glove selectio. 12

23 CHAPTER THREE MATERIALS AND METHODS Polymer Selectio The five polymer materials tested were butyl, atural latex, eopree, itrile, ad viyl. These materials were chose because similar o-disposable multi-use gloves of these same compositios appeal to both idustrial workers ad idividual cosumers, accordig to the US Departmet of Eergy. (16) Sheets of the polymer material, rather tha actual gloves, were used due to cost restrictios. Each sheet was 1/16 ich (0.16 cm) thick, which is ear the actual glove thickesses for similar products. The polymer material sheets were purchased from MSC Idustrial Supply (Melville, NY). Natural latex gloves, which were 1/32 ich thick (0.32 cm) were used because they were less expesive tha the sheet material. The brad of latex gloves used was Marigold, Maufacturer model #326Y, purchased from W. W. Graiger, Ic. (Chicago, IL). Each sheet of polymer material ad the atural latex gloves were cut ito 3.00 x 0.5 ich (7.62 x 1.27 cm) strips, as 155 strips of each material would be eeded. The strip size was ecessary for tesile stregth testig accordig to methods used by Phale ad Wog (2012). (17) To cut the polymer material ito exact 3.00 x 0.5 ich (7.62 x 1.27 cm) strips, a precisio die cuttig press made by W. R. Sharples Compay, Ic. (North Attleboro, MA) was used. The die cuttig press was used by placig the polymer materials oto a piece of wood, 13

24 betwee layers of paper, ad the the die cuttig press was placed o top of the material ad struck with a mallet, producig exact 3.00 x.005 (7.62 x 1.27 cm) ich strips. Oce the material was cut ito uiform strips they were placed ito humidifiers for a twety four hour period to esure uiformity of gravimetric ad tesile testig results throughout the study. Chemical Selectio Fifty assorted commo products (complex mixed chemicals) were chose. The product ames ad correspodig maufacturer, hazardous chemical compositio iformatio, specific health hazards, recommeded PPE, ad Natioal Fire Protectio Agecy (NFPA) ratigs for health, flammability, ad istability/reactivity are provided i Appedix A. The provided iformatio came from the SDS for each product. These chemicals were chose because of their potetial hazard ad expasive rage i uses, icludig pest cotrol, cleaig, degreasig, automotive, ad plumbig fuctios. The polymer materials ad chemicals used were paid for or doated by private doors, Califoria State Uiversity, Sa Berardio Carpool Techicias, Califoria State Uiversity, Sa Berardio Plumbers, ad Califoria State Uiversity, Sa Berardio Evirometal Health Specialists. 14

25 Equipmet A Fisher Scietific (Los Ageles, Califoria) ALF104 aalytical balace was used to weigh the strips. A calibrated Maratho Electroic Digital Micrometer with ratchet torque cotrol (CO 030C25, Fisher Scietific, Los Ageles, Califoria) was used to measure thickess. Tesile stregth was measured usig a Admet Expert 7601 tesiometer (Norwood, Massachusetts) with a ep2 Digital Cotroller ad mechaical force grips. Gravimetric Aalysis The test strips of each type of prepared polymer material were weighed usig a aalytical balace. The the thickess was measured at three differet places o the strips usig a digital micrometer. The measuremets were take at the top, middle, ad bottom of the strip, with the average of these three measuremets calculated ad recorded. As these measuremets were take, the polymer materials were also labeled usig a umberig system that correspoded to the chemicals that they would be placed i. Five pieces of each polymer were the marked for use as the cotrol ad placed ito a humidifier to prevet damage due to dryig out i room temperature air. The 50 chemicals were poured ito separate 15mL glass vials. Each vial was umbered ad catalogued so that the cotets could be easily idetified. O the outside of each vial, the umber 1 was placed o the left side, 2 was placed o the middle, ad 3 was placed o the right side. Three strips of 15

26 polymer material samples were the completely submerged ito each of the 50 chemically filled 15mL glass vials ad the sample polymer material was recorded accordig to which vial placemet positio it was placed i: 1, 2, or 3. The polymer material samples were the left to soak i the chemical vial for a period of twety-four hours. After twety-four hours the polymer material samples were removed from the vials ad rised off usig distilled water. This risig process was to prevet the assiged chemical from cotiuig to react with the sample ad to prevet other cotaimets from iterferig with the study. After the polymer material samples were rised off, they were pat dried with a paper towel ad were left for oe hour for the outer surface to air dry. After the dryig process was complete, the samples were agai weighed ad measured usig the same process as the iitial weighig ad measurig. The samples were the placed ito a humidifier to prevet further degradatio from occurrig due to damage that could be caused by the strips dryig out i room temperature air. The average of the recorded pre-test weights of each polymer material sample per assiged chemical was the calculated usig the formula, (sample polymer material 1 + sample polymer material 2 + sample polymer material 3) / 3 = Average Pre-Test Material Weight. This calculatio was repeated usig the recorded post-test weights to determie the Average Post-Test Weight. The percetage chage i weight of sample polymer material was the calculated 16

27 usig these calculated average weights ad the formula, (( Average Post-Test Weight - Average Pre-test Weight ) / Average Pre-test Weight = Percetage Chage (%). Tesile Testig First, the five cotrols for each polymer were tested as described by Phale ad Wog (2011) (18). The cotrols were take out of the humidifier ad tested usig the tesiometer. The tesiometer digitally displayed the tesile stregth (i MPa) ad elogatio at break (i percet). The average was calculated usig the formula, (cotrol 1 + cotrol 2 + cotrol 3 +cotrol 4 + cotrol 5) / 5 = Average Cotrol Tesile Stregth. This data was the recorded. Upo completio of the cotrols beig tested ad recorded, the test strips of each chemically exposed polymer material were idividually tested, ad the tesile stregth ad elogatio at break recorded. The three data poits recorded for each of the 50 chemical ad polymer combiatios were averaged usig the formula, (sample polymer material 1 + sample polymer material 2 + sample polymer material 3) / 3 = Average Post-Test Tesile Stregth. The percetage chage i tesile stregth of each polymer material sample per assiged chemical was the calculated usig these calculated average posttesile stregth data poits ad the formula, (( Average Post-Test Tesile Stregth - Average Cotrol Tesile Stregth ) / Average Cotrol Tesile Stregth = Percetage Chage (%). 17

28 Mixed- ad Pure- Chemical Aalysis Determiig Pure Chemical Compositio Usig the SDS The SDS was used to determie the top three hazardous pure chemical igrediets cotaied withi each of the 50 mixed chemical products. These pure chemicals were the recorded ad used to predict the chemical resistace of the polymer material. Determiig Recommedatios Usig Available Guidelies The average percet chage i weight for each of the 250 combiatios of polymer materials ad mixed chemical was compared to the Chemical Protective Clothig (Aa, 2003) (11) 5-tier ratig system, based o ASTM Method F 471: Excellet (0-10% weight chage), Good (11-20% weight chage), Fair (21-30% weight chage), Poor (31-50% weight chage), ad Recommeded (over 50% weight chage). This 5-tier system was used to determie polymer recommedatio ratigs for each of the mixed chemicals so there would be a greater breakdow i performace level tha the 3-tier system. The Asell Guide (5) ad the Forsberg et al. Quick Selectio Guide to Chemical Protective Clothig (6) were both used to research each pure chemical. These guides use a 3-tier ratig systems: Excellet to Good (0-20% weight chage), Fair to Poor (21-50% weight chage), ad Recommeded (over 50% weight chage) to determie polymer recommedatio. They also use permeatio data i their recommedatios, but this is a commo practice ad 18

29 oe that caot be evaluated separately. These existig systems were used to determie the polymer recommedatio ratig for each of the pure chemical igrediets. Determiig Degradatio Based o Tesile Stregth The ANSI/ISEA 105 Stadard calculates the performace level of a material that has udergoe pucture resistace testig, which is a form of tesile testig. (4) A equivalet test was performed usig tesile stregth measures istead of pucture resistace measures. The revised ratig system was determied by calculatig the average percetage chage i tesile stregth for each of the 50 chemical ad polymer material experimetal groups i compariso with the appropriate polymer cotrol group. The same ratig system as the ANSI/ISEA 105 stadard was used, which was based o a 5-tier recommedatio system: 4 - Excellet (<20% chage), 3 - Good (<40% chage), 2 - Fair (<60% chage), 1 - Poor (<80% chage), ad 0 Recommeded (>80% chage). The average results of the tesile stregth tests of the experimetal samples compared to the cotrol group were calculated ad recorded based o this 5-tier system. The 5-tier system was chose to fulfill two objectives: 1) evaluatig the chemical resistace associated with molecular chages i the polymer structure that would affect tesile properties ad 2) providig a additioal evaluatio to gravimetric aalysis, which serves to ehace a correct determiatio of chemical resistace. Ultimately, both tesile stregth ad gravimetric aalyses will provide a better idicatio of chemical 19

30 degradatio ad result i a more accurate ratig system tha those curretly i use. 20

31 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS Gravimetric Aalysis Results I total, 750 polymer material samples were tested i 50 differet chemical products to determie the impact the chemicals would have o weight chage. A sigificat weight chage would idicate a reductio i user protectio agaist the chemical. Table 1 summarizes the weight test results by categorizig the Average Pre-test Weight, Average Post-Test Weight, Percetage Chage (%) ad orgaizig it by Chemical ad Polymer Material Sample Type. Table 1 also sigifies which polymer per assiged chemical had the least percetage chage, by desigatig the lowest percetage chage result with a asterisk (*). For example, the results for Chemical 1 (Diversey s Speed Track-Clea & Burish Fragrace Free) clearly show that the butyl polymer material sample had a average pretest weight of g, a average posttest weight of g, yieldig a percetage chage equal to 0.68%. This result shows less chage tha the other polymer material samples; eopree 0.85%, itrile 1.04%, viyl 1.28%, ad latex 1.87%. This asterisk (*) desigatio helps to determie which polymer material optio ca best resist chemical actio of the specific mixed chemical i compariso to the other polymer materials. 21

32 Table 1: Gravimetric Aalysis Results Chemical Glove Material Sample Type Average Pre-Test Weight Average Post-Test Weight Percetage Chage (%) Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % 22

33 Table 1. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % 23

34 Table 1. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % * 24

35 Table 1. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % * Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % * Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % 25

36 Table 1. Cotiued Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % * Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % * Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % 26

37 Table 1. Cotiued Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % 27

38 Table 1. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % 28

39 Table 1. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Tesile Stregth Test Results I total, 750 polymer material samples were tested i 50 chemicals to determie the impact each chemical would have o a polymer material s tesile stregth, sigifyig a reductio i user protectio agaist the chemical. Table 2 summarizes the tesile stregth test results by categorizig the Average Pre-test Tesile Stregth, Average Post-Test Tesile Stregth, Percetage Chage (%) ad orgaizig it by Chemical ad Polymer Material Sample Type. Table 2 also sigifies which polymer had the lowest percetage chage i tesile stregth, by desigatig the lowest percetage chage result with a asterisk (*). For example, the results for Chemical 1 (Diversey s Speed Track-Clea & Burish Fragrace Free) clearly show that the butyl polymer material sample had a average pretest tesile stregth of MPa, a average posttest tesile stregth of MPa, yieldig a percetage chage 29

40 equal to -0.17%. This result shows less chage tha the other polymer material samples; eopree 1.96%, itrile 5.02%, viyl -6.08%, ad latex -3.81%. Table 2: Tesile Stregth Test Results Chemical Glove Material Sample Type Average Cotrol Tesile Stregth Average Post-Test Tesile Stregth Percetage Chage (%) Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % 30

41 Table 2. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % 31

42 Table 2. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % * Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % 32

43 Table 2. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % * Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % 33

44 Table 2. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % * Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % * Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % 34

45 Table 2. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % * Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % 35

46 Table 2. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % * Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % * Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % Viyl % Latex % * 36

47 Table 2. Cotiued Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % Neopree % Butyl % Nitrile % * Viyl % Latex % 37

48 CHAPTER FIVE DATA ANALYSIS Orgaizig Results to Establish a New Library To best determie the most appropriate polymer material to miimize a chemical exposure, the data sets were reorgaized. Appedix B is a proposed format for a ew library that displays both mixed chemical ad pure chemical data results ad a polymer recommedatio. The 50 mixed chemicals are listed dow the left side of the table. Usually they would be listed i alphabetical order, but for the ease of data flow withi this study they are listed i order of their assiged sample umber. Uder each mixed chemical are the most abudat SDS pure chemical igrediets that are cotaied withi each mixed chemical product. Across the top of each sectio are the five polymer material types that were studied. Uder the polymer type the Test preformed ad Percetage Chage is listed for each polymer material s weight, thickess, tesile stregth, ad elogatio at break. The Weight Test ratigs are listed for the polymer s chage i weight i both the mixed chemical ad the correspodig pure chemicals. Also listed are the tesile stregth ratigs of each polymer s tesile stregth test results for each tested mixed chemical. Appedix B also has a colum titled Recommedatio. I this colum the overall usage recommedatio for chemical resistace to degradatio is listed. To appropriately recommed polymer materials for mixed chemicals, the 38

49 recommedatio is based o a compariso of both the weight test ratigs ad the tesile stregth test ratigs, usig the most coservative recommedatio ratig. Although elogatio to break ad thickess measuremets are show o Appedix B, this data was ot used to determie mixed chemical polymer recommedatios, as they could ot be compared with preexistig methods commo to idustry. These observed mixed chemical recommedatios are based o a 3-tier system: 1. Recommeded (both weight ad tesile tested at Excellet or Good), a. Weight chage withi 0% to 20% chage b. Tesile stregth with Less tha 40% chage 2. Use Cautio (oe or both tests received a score ratig of Fair or Poor, but either test received a ratig score of Recommeded), ad a. Weight chage betwee 21% ad 50%. b. Tesile stregth betwee 41% ad 80% chage. 3. Recommeded (oe or both tests received a score ratig of Recommeded). a. Weight chage greater tha 50%. b. Tesile stregth greater tha 80% chage. The recommedatio level of the polymer material exposed to the pure chemicals is based o either the Asell Guide (5) or the Forsberg et al. Quick 39