Resistance of Medical Gloves to Permeation by Methyl Methacrylate (MMA), Ethylene Glocol Dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and 1,4-Butanediol Dimethacrylate (1,4-BDMA)

• Autorzy: Lonnroth E. C. , Ruyter I. E.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Gloves afford hand protection by minimizing skin contact. The effectiveness of medical gloves to protect against permeation of the monomers, methyl methacrylate (MMA), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate (1,4-BDMA), was assessed focusing on permeation rates and degradation of glove materials caused by monomer contact. Fifteen different brands of gloves were tested using a European Standard procedure. Surface images of glove materials before and after exposure to the monomer mixture were obtained using a scanning electron microscope. The standard is not applicable as the only method for estimating the safety of gloves, but it is useful as guideline together with the cumulative permeation of acrylic monomers. Monomer contact on the outside resulted in substantial swelling of most glove materials, and structure changes of the inside surface.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

permeation rate; degradation; breakthrough time; bone cement; adhesives; prosthetic materials

PL

substancje niebezpieczne; rękawice ochronne; ochrona skóry

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2003
• Tom: Vol. 9, No. 3
• Strony: 289--299
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 14 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Lonnroth E. C.

• Scandinavian Institute of Dental Materials (NIOM), Haslum, Norway
• Department of Human Work Sciences, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden

autor

Ruyter I. E.

• Scandinavian Institute of Dental Materials (NIOM), Haslum, Norway

Bibliografia

• 1.European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (1994). Protective gloves against chemicals and microorganisms-Part 3: Determination of resistance to permeation by chemicals (Standard No. EN 374-3:1994). Brussels, Belgium: Author.
• 2.Gebhardt, M., & Geier, J. (1996). Evaluation of patch test results with denture material series. Contact Dermatitis, 34, 191-195.
• 3.Geukens, S., & Goossens, A. (2001). Occupational contact allergy to (meth)acrylates. Contact Dermatitis, 44, 153-159.
• 4.Kanerva, L., Alanko, K., Estlander, T., Jolanki, R., Lathinen, A., & Savela, A. (2000). Statistics on occupational contact dermatitis from (meth)acrylates in dental personnel. Contact Dermatitis, 42, 175-176.
• 5.Kanerva, L., Estlander, T., & Jolanki, R. (1997). Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylic tri-cure glass ionomers. Contact Dermatitis, 37, 49-50.
• 6.Kanerva, L., Estlander, T., Jolanki, R., & Hendricks-Eckerman, M.-L. (1995). Allergy caused by acrylate compounds at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH) 1975-1995. In Proceedings of Sixth FIOH-NIOSH Joint Symposium on Occupational Health and Safety (pp. 128-134; People and Work; Research Reports, 3). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.
• 7.Kanerva, L., Jolanki, R., Leino, T., & Estlander, T. (1995). Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate in a modified structural adhesive. Contact Dermatitis, 33, 84-89.
• 8.Kanerva, L., Lauerma, A., Estlander, T., & Alanko, K. (1996). Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by photobonded sculptured nails and a review of (meth)acrylates in nail cosmetics. American Journal of Contact Dermatitis, 7, 109-115.
• 9.Klein, R.C., Party, E., & Gershey, E.L. (1990). Virus penetration of examination gloves. Biotechniques, 9(2), 196-199.
• 10.Lönnroth, E.-C., Wellendorf, H., & Ruyter, I.E. (in press). Permeability of different type of dental protective gloves to methyl methacrylate (MMA), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) and 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate (1,4-BDMA). European Journal of Oral Sciences.
• 11.Rickards, J.M., Sydiskis, R.J., Davidson, W.M., Josell, S.D., & Lavine, D.S. (1993). Permeability of latex gloves after contact with dental materials. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 104, 224-229.
• 12.Rustemeyer, T., & Frosch, P.J. (1996). Occupational skin diseases in dental laboratory technicians (1). Clinical picture and essential factors. Contact Dermatitis, 34, 125-133.
• 13.Ruyter, I.E., & Øysæd, H. (1988). Analysis and characterisation of dental polymers. CRC Critical Reviews in Biocompatibility, 4, 247-279.
• 14.Wrangsö, K., Swartling, C., & Meding, B. (2001). Occupational dermatitis in dental personnel: Contact dermatitis with special references to (meth) acrylates in 174 patients. Contact Dermatitis, 45, 158-163.