Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Gloves are personal protective equipment designed to prevent contamination and reduce the spread of microorganisms. This study aimed to assess in vitro the physical integrity of latex gloves and the retention of biological contamination in healthcare simulation.
METHODS: Three different batches of latex procedure gloves from five different brands and specific batches were evaluated before use for physical integrity by the standard protocols of the Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and of the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Moreover, the retention of biological contamination by latex procedure gloves in needlestick injury simulation with crystal violet and bacteriophages were applied in order to mimic human blood and virus presence.
RESULTS: Brands D and C showed the best and worst results in the immediate inspections and after 2 min, respectively. For Brand C, damage occurred in one finger/region in a total of 12 gloves, while seven gloves were damaged/unable to be worn. Brand D presented only two gloves with tears and/or holes in one finger/region. Regarding the viral contamination, in a simulated needlestick injury, data showed no significant difference among the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: All glove brands presented physical damage that might affect the spread of microorganisms. The gloves did not exert an additional protective effect during a needlestick injury simulation in accordance with the two techniques used in this study.
METHODS: Three different batches of latex procedure gloves from five different brands and specific batches were evaluated before use for physical integrity by the standard protocols of the Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and of the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Moreover, the retention of biological contamination by latex procedure gloves in needlestick injury simulation with crystal violet and bacteriophages were applied in order to mimic human blood and virus presence.
RESULTS: Brands D and C showed the best and worst results in the immediate inspections and after 2 min, respectively. For Brand C, damage occurred in one finger/region in a total of 12 gloves, while seven gloves were damaged/unable to be worn. Brand D presented only two gloves with tears and/or holes in one finger/region. Regarding the viral contamination, in a simulated needlestick injury, data showed no significant difference among the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: All glove brands presented physical damage that might affect the spread of microorganisms. The gloves did not exert an additional protective effect during a needlestick injury simulation in accordance with the two techniques used in this study.
摘要：
背景：手套是设计用于防止污染和减少微生物传播的个人防护设备。这项研究旨在评估体外乳胶手套的物理完整性和医疗保健模拟中生物污染的保留。
方法：在使用前，根据材料与试验协会（ASTM）和美国食品药品监督管理局（FDA）的标准方案，对来自五个不同品牌和特定批次的三个不同批次的乳胶工艺手套的物理完整性进行了评估。此外，在用结晶紫和噬菌体进行针刺损伤模拟中，乳胶程序手套保留生物污染，以模拟人类血液和病毒的存在。
结果：品牌D和C在立即检查和2分钟后显示出最佳和最差的结果，分别。对于品牌C，总共12个手套中的一个手指/区域发生了损伤，而七只手套损坏/无法佩戴。品牌D只提供了两个手套，一个手指/区域有眼泪和/或孔。关于病毒污染，在模拟的针刺伤中，数据显示各组间无显著差异。
结论：所有手套品牌都表现出可能影响微生物传播的物理损伤。根据本研究中使用的两种技术，手套在针刺损伤模拟过程中并未发挥额外的保护作用。
方法：在使用前，根据材料与试验协会（ASTM）和美国食品药品监督管理局（FDA）的标准方案，对来自五个不同品牌和特定批次的三个不同批次的乳胶工艺手套的物理完整性进行了评估。此外，在用结晶紫和噬菌体进行针刺损伤模拟中，乳胶程序手套保留生物污染，以模拟人类血液和病毒的存在。
结果：品牌D和C在立即检查和2分钟后显示出最佳和最差的结果，分别。对于品牌C，总共12个手套中的一个手指/区域发生了损伤，而七只手套损坏/无法佩戴。品牌D只提供了两个手套，一个手指/区域有眼泪和/或孔。关于病毒污染，在模拟的针刺伤中，数据显示各组间无显著差异。
结论：所有手套品牌都表现出可能影响微生物传播的物理损伤。根据本研究中使用的两种技术，手套在针刺损伤模拟过程中并未发挥额外的保护作用。
