Permeation of human scent through laboratory examination gloves

It is generally accepted in the canine detection industry that a barrier (such as a glove) should be used between a human and evidence or canine training aids in order to prevent contamination and cross‐contamination as well as protect the handler from hazardous materials. However, no studies exist evaluating this assumption. Further, there is no published literature examining the different types of gloves for their utility in handling evidence or training materials used in canine detection work. This study was the first of its kind to address these gaps in the literature. First, GloGerm™ was used as a proxy for human scent and odor(s)/particulate(s) to visualize potential contamination. Then, three types of gloves (nitrile, two layers of nitrile, latex, and polyethylene) were tested for the permeation of human scent using furfural as a proof of concept, followed by pooled human sweat. Finally, the inherent odor of each glove type was identified. Two analytical techniques were used simultaneously as static and standoff dynamic detection systems, respectively: solid‐phase microextraction–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (SPME–GC–MS) and direct analysis in real time‐mass spectrometry (DART‐MS). Using a double layer of nitrile gloves was the most effective in preventing furfural permeation from the analytical standard, while a single layer of nitrile prevented furfural from permeating from human sweat up to 2 h. Polyethylene gloves allowed the highest amount of furfural permeation but had no inherent odor detected. Headspace analysis detected two compounds for nitrile gloves and four compounds for latex gloves, but the nitrile compounds had a higher relative abundance.