This non-branded guide focuses on disposable (single-use) cleanroom gloves and compares four common materials—nitrile, natural rubber latex, neoprene (polychloroprene), and polyurethane (PU)—so you can align material choice with process purity, operator safety, and ergonomic needs.

What matters most in cleanrooms

• Particulates & extractables: low particle shed; low non‑volatile residue (NVR); tightly controlled ionic extractables (e.g., Na⁺, K⁺, Cl⁻).

• ESD behavior: predictable surface resistance for electronics/ATEX work; compatibility with grounding protocols.

• Chemical barrier: resistance to IPA wipe-downs, disinfectants, process chemicals and sterilants.

• Bioburden/endotoxin (when relevant): sterile variants with tight endotoxin limits for aseptic processing.

• Donning & durability: easy to don; cuff integrity; double-gloving without bunching.

• Ergonomics & skin health: fit, elasticity, and accelerator content (Type IV allergy risk) or proteins (Type I latex allergy risk).

• Process purity extras: silicone-free when paint/wire-bonding is sensitive; low fragrance; minimal surface additives.

1. Nitrile (NBR)

Why cleanrooms use it: The modern default: balances low particles, good solvent/oil barrier, and puncture resistance with consistent ionic/extractable profiles. Broad availability in clean‑processed and accelerator‑free grades.

Strengths

• Strong barrier to many oils/solvents; handles routine disinfectants (e.g., IPA 70%) well.

• Low particle shed in clean‑processed formats; suitable for ISO 5–7 with proper validation.

• Good puncture resistance; stable fit; effective for double‑gloving.

• Available in multiple gauges/textures; color options enable visual tear detection when double‑donning.

Limitations

• Not ideal for certain ketones (e.g., MEK) and some aggressive solvents—verify permeation data.

• Elasticity/“hand feel” typically below latex or neoprene, though modern formulations have improved.

Best‑fit scenarios

• Aseptic pharma/biotech tasks (sterile nitrile, low endotoxin).

• Electronics assembly needing silicone‑free, predictable particulates, and stable ESD practices.

• Long shifts where accelerator‑free options reduce Type IV allergy risk.

2. Natural Rubber Latex (NRL)

Why cleanrooms use it: Unmatched elasticity and tactile sensitivity ease donning and reduce hand fatigue—useful for micro‑manipulation.

Strengths

• Benchmark for fit and dexterity; excellent ‘feel’ for critical handling.

• Good barrier to many aqueous solutions and alcohols.

• Stable grip and comfort across wear periods.

Limitations

• Contains natural rubber proteins that can trigger Type I latex allergy—manage with strict policy and alternatives.

• Susceptible to ozone/UV aging; compatibility gaps with some solvents.

• Only powder‑free, clean‑processed latex is appropriate for cleanrooms.

Best‑fit scenarios

• Ultra‑fine dexterity tasks when workforce allergy risk is demonstrably low and controlled.

• Short‑to‑medium wear in ISO 6–8 rooms with robust glove policy and latex‑free alternatives available.

3. Neoprene (Polychloroprene)

Why cleanrooms use it: Chosen as a latex‑like feel without natural rubber proteins, with broad chemical resistance (especially acids/caustics/alcohols).

Strengths

• Elasticity and hand feel closer to latex than nitrile; good grip wet or dry.

• Broad chemical compatibility for aqueous/acidic environments; durable under frequent disinfectant exposure.

• No natural rubber proteins (helps mitigate Type I allergy concerns).

Limitations

• May include sulfur accelerators (Type IV allergy risk)—seek accelerator‑free grades if dermatitis is a concern.

• Typically higher cost than standard nitrile.

• Solvent resistance differs from nitrile—confirm against your chemical list.

Best‑fit scenarios

• ISO 5–7 environments seeking latex‑like ergonomics without latex proteins.

• Wet chemistry steps (acid/base handling) where comfort plus chemical coverage are needed.

4. Polyurethane (PU)

Why cleanrooms use it: Valued in electronics for very low particle generation and ionic extractables with excellent tactility; disposable PU films/cots exist for niche cleanroom needs.

Strengths

• Extremely low particle shed and NVR when clean‑processed; gentle on sensitive surfaces.

• Excellent tactility and soft ‘hand feel’.

• Generally strong choice for ESD‑sensitive assembly when paired with proper grounding and garments.

Limitations

• Lower puncture/tear resistance than nitrile/neoprene at similar gauges.

• Narrower chemical resistance; can soften/swell with certain solvents.

• Some PU films may yellow/brittle under gamma—verify sterilization compatibility (ETO often preferred).

Best‑fit scenarios

• ISO 5–7 electronics/optics handling where surface cleanliness and ESD control dominate and chemical exposure is minimal.

• Short precision tasks where tactility outweighs heavy barrier strength needs.

Quick comparison (typical cleanroom‑grade disposables)

* Verify against specific solvents (e.g., certain ketones).

Selection guide by use case

• Aseptic pharma/biotech (ISO 5–7, sterile needed): Start with sterile nitrile or sterile neoprene, low endotoxin, validated particulate/ionic profiles. Consider accelerator‑free for long wear. Use double‑gloving with a contrasting inner color for rapid breach detection.

• Electronics/semiconductor/optics (ISO 5–7): If chemical exposure is minimal, PU is compelling for ultra‑low particles/ions and tactility. Where solvent wiping is routine, choose clean‑processed nitrile with documented ionic/NVR data and confirm silicone‑free.

• Analytical labs & wet chemistry (ISO 6–8): Neoprene shines for acids/caustics and comfort; nitrile is a versatile alternative with strong puncture resistance. Confirm permeation against your exact chemical list.

• Medical device assembly (ISO 7–8): Default to nitrile for balanced barrier/cleanliness; use accelerator‑free when dermatitis is an issue. For ultra‑delicate handling where ESD and residue control are paramount, consider PU for select tasks.

Practical tips for validation & use

• Ask for cleanroom‑specific data: particle counts, NVR, and ionic extractables for the exact glove and lot range.

• Match sterilization & disinfectants: confirm gamma/ETO compatibility and performance post‑sterilization; verify IPA 70% wipe‑down does not leave tack or film.

• Control allergies proactively: maintain latex‑alternative pathways; prefer accelerator‑free or low‑dermatitis formulations for long shifts.

• Double‑glove smartly: light‑colored inner glove under a darker outer glove makes pinholes and tears obvious; avoid cuff micro‑tears when stripping.

• Integrate ESD controls: pair gloves with ESD garments, flooring, and grounding; confirm surface resistance meets device requirements.

• Specify silicone‑free where needed: for paint, wire bonding, and optics to prevent fisheyes or bond failures.

• Right‑size thickness: choose the thinnest gauge that still meets puncture/snags and dwell‑time needs to reduce fatigue without compromising safety.

Bottom line

• Choose nitrile for an all‑round cleanroom workhorse: low particles, strong barrier, good durability, with sterile and accelerator‑free variants widely available.

• Choose latex only when unmatched dexterity is critical and your allergy program is robust; otherwise favor latex‑free materials.

• Choose neoprene for latex‑like comfort without natural rubber proteins and for wet‑chemistry coverage.

• Choose PU for electronics/optics tasks where ultra‑low residue and tactility trump heavy chemical resistance or puncture strength.

Note: Always validate glove performance with your site SOPs and chemical/permeation data for the exact product and lot used.