When it comes to handling cultural heritage objects, few topics spark as much debate as the use of gloves. Should you wear them? If so, which kind? If not, why? The answers to these questions are not as clear-cut as one might think. Recent research and conservation best practices have evolved, highlighting that the decision to wear gloves—or not—depends on a variety of factors, including the type of object, the risks involved, and even sustainability concerns.
The Evolution of Glove Use
For many years, cotton gloves were considered the industry standard for handling delicate objects, particularly historic paper documents, books, and photographs. The white gloves became an iconic image of careful handling, but further study revealed their limitations. Cotton gloves can trap dirt and transfer fibers to objects, and they reduce dexterity, increasing the likelihood of accidental damage.
With these findings, nitrile gloves have largely replaced cotton in many institutions, especially for handling materials sensitive to oils, moisture, or contaminants from human skin. In some cases, handling objects with bare, clean hands has been found to be the safest option, particularly for fragile or friable (flaky or powdery) materials where maximum dexterity is needed.
Image: White gloves became synonymous with professional handling of museum artifacts, as seen in this still from the 2004 movie, National Treasure, where the characters handle the Declaration of Independence. Source: https://wolfsonian.org/blog/2020/08/
Types of Gloves and Their Pros and Cons
Cotton Gloves
______________________________________________________________________________
Pros:
- Provide a barrier against dirt and oils
- Reusable and washable (reducing environmental impact if properly maintained)
Cons:
- Can trap dirt and fibers, which can transfer to objects
- Reduce touch sensitivity and dexterity, increasing the risk of drops
- Offer no protection against hazardous substances
Nitrile Gloves
_______________________________________________________________________________
Pros:
- Provide excellent protection against oils, dirt, and moisture
- Offer a snug fit that maintains dexterity better than cotton gloves
- Less likely to shed fibers onto objects
- Available in accelerator-free versions that reduce the risk of corrosion when handling metals like silver or copper
Cons:
- Can cause skin irritation if worn for long periods
- Less biodegradable than cotton, though sustainable versions are emerging
- Can impede handling of delicate, fragile objects due to loss of touch sensitivity
Image: Preserving the condition of photographic material by wearing nitrile gloves during handling. Source: https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/handling-historic-collections-the-gloves-are-still-off/
Bare Hands
_______________________________________________________________________________
Pros:
- Maximum dexterity and touch sensitivity
- Ideal for handling fragile, friable materials like old paper, books, and some textiles
- Eliminates concerns about glove residue or fibers transferring to objects
Cons:
- Oils, sweat, and dirt from hands can transfer onto objects
- No protection from hazardous substances such as mold, lead, or arsenic
- Requires rigorous and consistent hand-washing practices
Image: Clean, dry bare hands are recommended for handling fragile documents. Source: https://www.archives.gov/preservation/holdings-maintenance/paper
How to Decide: Gloves or No Gloves?
Rather than adhering to a single rule, cultural heritage professionals now assess handling on a case-by-case basis. Key questions include:
What are the risks of hand exposure versus dexterity loss? If an object is fragile, direct handling with clean, dry hands may be preferable.
What is the object made of? Metals, photographic materials, and textiles often benefit from gloves, while paper and books may not.
What are the risks to the handler? If the object contains hazardous substances, gloves are essential.
What is the intended purpose of handling? Short-term examination may require different precautions than prolonged conservation work.
Sustainability Considerations
Sustainability is an increasingly important factor for many institutions. A recent study found that while nitrile gloves are less biodegradable than cotton, their overall environmental impact is lower when considering the full lifecycle, especially since they are more effective at protecting objects, reducing the need for repeated conservation interventions. Institutions can mitigate environmental impact by:
- Reusing nitrile gloves when possible (e.g., handling similar objects in succession)
- Washing and reusing cotton gloves when appropriate
- Exploring biodegradable nitrile options
The decision to wear gloves when handling cultural heritage objects is no longer a simple yes or no question. Best practices now emphasize situational awareness, scientific research, and risk assessment. Whether using cotton gloves, nitrile gloves, or bare hands, the ultimate goal remains the same: minimizing damage and preserving history for future generations.
Additional Resources:
Glove Actually: Confident Decision Making in Artifact Handling - Conservation Center for Art & Historic Artifacts
How To Select Gloves: An Overview For Collections Staff - National Park Service Conserv-O-Gram
No Love for White Gloves, or: the Cotton Menace – Smithsonian Institution Libraries and Archives
White Gloves and the Archivist – Historical Society of Pennsylvania
The Use, Reuse, Refuse, and Recycling of Nitrile Gloves - American Institute for Conservation
Do you have a preservation topic, question, or creative solution you would like us to cover in this series? Reach us by email at info@DHPSNY.org, or connect with us on the DHPSNY Facebook page or DHPSNY Community Facebook Group.