4.4 Article

The effects of chlorination, thickness, and moisture on glove donning efficiency

Journal

ERGONOMICS
Volume 64, Issue 9, Pages 1205-1216

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2021.1907452

Keywords

Donning; Chlorination; Medical Examination Gloves; Nitrile; Personal Protective Equipment

Funding

  1. Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) though the integrated Tribology Centre for Doctoral Training (iT-CDT)
  2. Synthomer (UK) plc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Thicker gloves took longer to don, while higher chlorination strength was less effective when hands were wet but more effective when dry.
Changing gloves more frequently is encouraged, more now than ever given the COVID-19 pandemic. When the donning process has moisture introduced, however, complications can arise, which consumes vital time. Most commonly, gloves undergo a chlorination treatment to reduce glove tack, allowing easier donning. To assess the effects of different chlorination strengths and glove thicknesses on donning, acrylonitrile butadiene gloves were manufactured at two different thicknesses (0.05 and 0.10 mm) with 4 different chlorination treatments: 0, 500, 1000 and 2000 ppm. Six participants were used to assess the time taken to don each of the glove sets with dry and wet hands (16 tests in total). Overall, the thicker gloves took longer to don, due to differences in the material stiffness hindering the donning process. The quickest performance from the chlorinated gloves was noted in the 1000 and 2000 ppm concentrations. Wet conditions also showed significant increases in the donning time. Practitioners Summary: The study was conducted based on the gaps identified in previous literature reviews which revealed the requirement for a greater understanding of glove donning process. It was found a stronger chlorination was detrimental when the hands were wet, but better when dry. Thicker gloves were also found to be detrimental.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available