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

14. Overall Results 7 glove styles show best degradation resistance
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.