1 / 22

A Comparative Analysis of Glove Permeation Resistance to Paint Stripping Formulations

This study evaluates the resistance of different glove types against various paint stripping formulations, providing insights for glove selection.

yul
Download Presentation

A Comparative Analysis of Glove Permeation Resistance to Paint Stripping Formulations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Comparative Analysis of Glove Permeation Resistance to Paint Stripping Formulations Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc. Richard W. Thomas, TRI/Austin, Inc. Lawrence E. James, BASF Corporation

  2. Scope • a multiphase study was undertaken to evaluate how several types of gloves resist multi-chemical based paint stripping formulations

  3. Background • Paint stripping involves prolonged, continuous contact with chemical solvent mixtures • Conventional paint strippers include: • methylene chloride, methanol, isopropanol, acetone and toluene • New strippers include less volatile chemicals: • N-methylpyrrolidone, d-limonene, -butyrolactone, and dibasic esters

  4. Background • Relatively little information is available to guide the end user in selecting the gloves against paint strippers • Basing glove selection on individual mixture components does not account for possible synergistic mixture permeation

  5. Approach • 20 different glove styles evaluated • 7 different surrogate formulations created • 4 different phases • Phase I: degradation screening • Phase II: continuous contact permeation testing • Phase III: intermittent contact permeation testing • Phase IV: permeation testing against selected actual paint stripping formulations

  6. Surrogate Paint Strippers

  7. Surrogate Paint Strippers

  8. Commercial Paint Strippers

  9. Glove Selection Criteria • Variety of different glove polymers • Butyl rubber – Nitrile rubber • Natural rubber – PVC • Neoprene – Polymer combinations • Permeation resistance against paint stripping formulation chemicals • Unsupported gloves only • Some gloves available to consumers

  10. Glove Selection

  11. Degradation Testing • Industry practice (no standard available) • One sided contact • 4-hour exposure • Measurement of weight/thickness changes • Visual observation ratings (swelling, discoloration, curling, delamination, and deterioration) • “0” - no effect • “1” - mild or moderate effect • “2” - severe effect

  12. Permeation Testing • Standard Test Method • ASTM F 739 (continuous contact) • ASTM F 1383 (intermittent contact) • Test Parameters • 4-hour duration • room temperature (25 + 2oC) • splash collection method • GC/FID for formulations I - III • GC/MS for formulations IV - VII

  13. Permeation Rate Time Permeation Testing • Intermittent contact approach • 5 minutes chemical exposure • 10 minutes purge • Test measurements • Breakthrough time (normalized) • Permeation rate • Determined for each mixture component

  14. Overall Results Degradation screening • 7 glove styles show best degradation resistance • Continuous permeation testing shows longer BTs for plastic laminate and butyl gloves • No improvement for intermittent permeation testing • Permeation of gloves by commercial strippers consistent with surrogate strippers Continuous permeation testing Intermittent permeation testing Testing against commercial paint strippers

  15. Degradation Criteria • Acceptance criteria • Weight change < 25% • Thickness change < 25% • Overall rating < 3 • No penetration of test specimens

  16. Degradation Weight Change

  17. Degradation Test Results • Gloves failing against one formulation • Glove E (4H glove); Glove J (North Butyl B-161), Glove P (Comasec Butyl Plus) • Gloves failing against two formulations • Glove S (Guardian Butyl-standard) • Gloves failing against four formulations • Glove G (Pioneer Strip&Stain), Glove H (Pioneer Neoprene NS 401), Glove K (Thompson & Formby Refinishing gloves)

  18. Permeation Test Results Lowest Breakthrough Time (minutes) E - Safety 4; P - Comasec Butyl Plus; S - Guardian Butyl K - North Butyl B-161, K - Thompson & Formby Refinishing

  19. Comparison of Permeation

  20. Actual Paint Stripper Results Lowest Breakthrough Times (minutes)

  21. Conclusions • Multi-stage testing program useful for determining permeation resistance • Glove permeation resistance did not always improve with decreasing exposure • Surrogate paint strippers do not always emulate actual stripper permeation • Paint strippers with volatile solvent permeate quicker than those containing NMP or dibasic esters

  22. Acknowledgement This work was supported by a grant from the N-Methylpyrrolidone Producers Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.

More Related