Analysis of Phthalates and Alternative Plasticizers in Gloves by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry and Liquid Chromatography-UV Detection: A Comparative Study.

Kelly Poitou,Cécile Danel,Marie Lecoeur,Catherine Foulon,Tiphaine Rogez-Florent,Romain Regnault,Christelle Monteil,Philippe Vérité

doi:10.3390/toxics9090200

Abstract

Gloves represent an essential feature for hand protection because it is a requirement in the professional framework to comply with both hand hygiene standards and the principles of good laboratory practice. Despite their wide use, there is a knowledge gap regarding their composition, including phthalates. The purpose of the present study was to develop two orthogonal methods, GC–MS and HPLC–DAD, for the screening of plasticizers in gloves. Performances of these two methods were compared in terms of ease of use, number of analyzed plasticizers, and sample preparation. The two methods were validated and applied for the identification and quantification of plasticizers in ten gloves made with different materials (vinyl, nitrile, latex, and neoprene). Results revealed the presence of three main ones: DEHP, DEHT, and DINP. Additionally, the contents of plasticizers were extremely variable, depending on the glove material. As expected, the results point out a predominant use of plasticizers in vinyl gloves with an amount that should be of concern. While DEHP is classified as a toxic substance for reproduction 1B, it was, however, quantified in the ten different glove samples studied. This study provides new data regarding the plasticizers’ content in protective gloves, which could be useful for risk assessment.

Highlights

In 2007, a report from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration estimated the number of workers wearing gloves for chemical protection in the United States at 5.8 million [1]
Several adjustments were made to optimize the method for the plasticizers of the study, including eleven phthalates (BBP, dibutyl phthalate (DBP), di-cyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), dimethyl phthalate (DMP), di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP), diphenyl phthalate (DphP), and dipropyl phthalate (DPP)) and two non-phthalate plasticizers (DEHT and tri-octyl trimellitate (TOTM))
It should be noted that DphP, which was not studied in the work of Gimeno et al, was selected for our study because of its interesting status as an alternative plasticizer

Summary

Introduction

In 2007, a report from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration estimated the number of workers wearing gloves for chemical protection in the United States at 5.8 million [1]. Different types of protective gloves are employed, such as vinyl, latex, neoprene, or nitrile. Beyond these categories, protective gloves can be classified according to the benefit of their use, i.e., as personal protective equipment (PPE), for protection from hazardous substances, as well as medical devices (MD) in the health sector. Protective gloves can be classified according to the benefit of their use, i.e., as personal protective equipment (PPE), for protection from hazardous substances, as well as medical devices (MD) in the health sector For such use, gloves such as vinyl gloves must comply with both PPE and MD regulations. Plasticizers such as phthalates (PAEs) are added to the polymer in order to confer characteristics of flexibility, softness, durability, and malleability. Some are of great concern because human health effects involving carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, and fertility impairment have been described [2,3,4]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion