Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 19 September 2006 14:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By halesowen Baggie
Afternoon all,

Can anybody tell me what gloves are suitable for use with MEK?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 19 September 2006 14:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Have you given any thought to trying to eliminate the need for gloves?

If redesign of the process is impracticable, and gloves are necessary, nitrile gloves are probably your best bet as they have good chemical resistance. However, all nitrile gloves are not the same and you should get some from a number of manufacturers for a trial. Check the gloves for breakdown (they may go sticky or stiff) and permeation (when the gloves will be unchanged) under your actual conditions of use as the chemical resistance charts of glove manufacturers have only a passing resemblance to reality and should not be relied upon!

Once the gloves has been decided upon, do not allow your purchasing dept to go to another manufacturer (because they are cheaper) as the performance of the gloves is likely to be very different.

Paul
Admin  
#3 Posted : 19 September 2006 14:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Descarte
Is this for splash resistance, submersion, 10 minutes, 8 hours?
Admin  
#4 Posted : 19 September 2006 15:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Young
Could be wrong but I recall that nitrile disolved in MEK and that latex was more appropriate for short term use. A call to a company like ARCO can confirm this
Admin  
#5 Posted : 19 September 2006 15:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi
A manufacturer has a selection chart for various chemicals --for MEK refer to the web address, but as Paul has indicated, these are based on tests and your assessment needs to take into account the actaul conditions.

http://www.ansell.be/ind...rial/index.cfm?chemical=!EN!217!0&lang=EN
Admin  
#6 Posted : 19 September 2006 15:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Catman
Two of the biggest glove manufacturers will actually help you carry out a thorough assessment of your glove requirements, prescribe appropriate gloves and provide you with written evidence of the assessment.

I worked closely with one of them and they used information from our scenario in development of a new glove.

Clearly they do it to sell gloves but in my experience the service is worth its weight in gold as gloves can be a pain to specify.

Only thing is you will have to put up with a glove salesman invading your office for an hour or so.

Cheers
TW
Admin  
#7 Posted : 19 September 2006 15:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By halesowen Baggie
Nitrlie gloves are dissolving the gloves very quickly.
These gloves are being trialled on advice from a major ppe supplier.
MEK is used for very short periods of time (1 minute x 8 times a day) to clean a small area of ink.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 19 September 2006 15:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter
I stand corrected; sorry! From your description, are gloves really needed?

Paul
Admin  
#9 Posted : 19 September 2006 17:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson
I was under the impression that the first rule of Risk management was to eliminate the risk and use PPE as a lst resort.

I was also under the impression that MEK was really nasty and orrible and was banned, cant you use a less hazardous product??
Admin  
#10 Posted : 19 September 2006 18:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
The only glove suitable for MEK is from butyl rubber.

Even these, relatively expensive, gloves are only class 5 (i.e. permeation breakthrough to EN347-3 is 240-480 minutes). Bear in mind that this is a value achieved in static laboratory test and that the test to EN374 is actually specified at the wrong temperature. The test also does not take account of degradation, flexing etc. Thus the manufacturers' published breakthrough time is not an indication of what you will get in practice but merely shows which is the optimum glove. What you may get in practice can be quite different.

In a pilot test we carried out with a U.K. university, testing glove performance under actual working conditions, performance varied widely and bore little resemblance to what had been published by the manufacturers. In one test with nitrile gloves and xylene (manufacturer's published permeation breakthrough time was 36 minutes) the actual performance varied from over 2 hours to under 10 minutes, depending upon the task being carried out.

For those who haven't been involved with this before, permeation is the invisible passage of the chemical through the glove at a molecular level. It is undetectable by the wearer and not to be confused with degradation, which is the actual destruction of the glove material by the chemical.

If you need more on this contact me direct.
Chris
Admin  
#11 Posted : 19 September 2006 19:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
Further to my comments re gloves, I suspect from the very limited information provided, that we could find a way of cleaning without the need for gloves. Using MEK for cleaning printing heads etc. is something I am famliar with. Solutions are often very simple and inexpensive.
Chris
Admin  
#12 Posted : 20 September 2006 09:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By halesowen Baggie
Is Mek Banned
Admin  
#13 Posted : 20 September 2006 09:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
Is MEK banned. The short answer to this is NO!
Chris
Admin  
#14 Posted : 20 September 2006 09:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Holliday
As Chris says MEK is not banned but a number of industries have restricted its use. This is due to data that suggests it may lead to birth defects, see http://www.ccohs.ca/osha...icals/chem_profiles/mek/

MEK is easily substituted for a less harmful solvent (isopropyl alcohol (IPA) or ethanol) in many printing applications. Speak to you printer manufacturers to advise.

Steve
Admin  
#15 Posted : 20 September 2006 11:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By halesowen Baggie
Thanks for replies,

Steve,
How is IPA less harmful than MEK,
I have looked at data sheets and they look the same both irritants and flammable?
Admin  
#16 Posted : 20 September 2006 11:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
Take a look at my comments on MSDS in the thread of that name. This should explain why safety data sheets might not actually tell you what you need to know!

Chris
Admin  
#17 Posted : 20 September 2006 12:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
One piece of information about MEK versus Isopropanol:

It has been shown that this is a very quick skin penetrant and is also quickly metabolised. In fact, it can be detected in exhaled breath in around 3 minutes after skin exposure. There is no similar evidence for isopropanol.

Chris
Admin  
#18 Posted : 20 September 2006 13:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By halesowen Baggie
Thanks everybody for the info
Paul
Admin  
#19 Posted : 06 November 2006 22:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By benedict
Currently, using MIBK as substitude for MEK. For application in the aviation industry,normally auditor will ask the source of information or the authority which issue the directive. Can anyone assist me to get hold of this directive?
thanks
Admin  
#20 Posted : 06 November 2006 22:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Webster
Don't times change.

I used to use MEK day in, day out for cleaning prior to jointing PVC and ABS pipework. Tipped onto a labwipe held in the bare hand!

I dread to think what damage I might have done back in the unenlightened past. Nobody really knew or cared that some of these things might have long term health effects, if it didn't knock you over or burn you it must be OK, was the attitude.

Did we really clean with benzene, separate with hand shaken and vented carbon tetrachloride, only wear a mask if the acid or ammonia fumes made you cough too much, hand wash flasks of unspecified poly-chlorinated polyphenols in acetone, clean old engine oil from our hands with paraffin. As for asbestos....

CoSHH may be a pain, but with hindsight I think I prefer today.
Admin  
#21 Posted : 07 November 2006 15:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
MIBK (Methyl Iso Butyl Ketone)
The only suitable glove for this is again butyl rubber. Even a thick butyl rubber glove is only class 5 (EN374-3). Nitrile is not acceptable as permeation will occur within a very short time, even with a relatively thick nitrile gauntlet. All glove materials, other than butyl, suffer from significant degradation if in contact with MIBK as well as being quickly permeated.

Chris
Admin  
#22 Posted : 07 November 2006 15:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richie
According to 'a University' guide, a suitable glove for use with MIEK would be Poly Vinyl Alcohol (PVA). Likewise, a suitable glove for use with MEK would be PVA.

Information Source is free here:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~p...afety/ppe/gloves/ad.html

Richie
Admin  
#23 Posted : 07 November 2006 16:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
In theory PVA would be fine. However, the only PVA gloves I have ever found are PVA coated on to a cotton substrate.

I have concerns about the performance of these, since during coating fibres from the cotton will protrude up into the coating. Thus the effective coating will only be as thick as the distance from the tip of the fibre nearest the surface and the actual surface. I know that some manufacturers claim that they "flame" the cotton to remove any fibres, but no manufacturer so far has been prepared to guarantee to me that all such fibres have been removed.

Once the chemical has reached the tip of a fibre it can wick down the fibre and potentially contaminate the cotton material. Under such conditions the glove could actually be increasing exposure rather than preventing it.

Chris
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.