Cherrie John W, Semple Sean, Brouwer Derk
Institute of Occupational Medicine, Research Park North, Riccarton Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2004 Oct;48(7):607-15. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/meh060. Epub 2004 Sep 23.
There are standardized laboratory tests for chemical protective gloves that provide estimates of breakthrough time and steady-state permeation flux. However, there is evidence to suggest that these tests may not be completely relevant to glove usage in the workplace. There is no consensus about how glove workplace effectiveness should be assessed, although a few studies have attempted to measure the effectiveness of chemical protective gloves. We have used a conceptual model of dermal exposure to help analyse how workers' skin may become exposed while wearing gloves, and propose a new glove workplace protection factor (PFgloves), which is based on the ratio of the estimated uptake of chemicals through the hands without gloves to the uptake through the hands while wearing protective gloves. Mathematical simulations demonstrate that glove protection factor is unlikely to be constant for a glove type, but will be strongly influenced by the work situation and the duration of the exposure. This has important consequences for the selection of protective gloves.
对于化学防护手套有标准化的实验室测试,这些测试可提供穿透时间和稳态渗透通量的估计值。然而,有证据表明这些测试可能与手套在工作场所的实际使用情况并不完全相关。尽管有一些研究试图测量化学防护手套的有效性,但对于如何评估手套在工作场所的有效性尚无共识。我们使用了一个皮肤暴露的概念模型来帮助分析工人戴手套时皮肤可能如何暴露,并提出了一个新的手套工作场所防护系数(PFgloves),它基于估计的无手套时手部化学物质摄入量与戴防护手套时手部化学物质摄入量的比值。数学模拟表明,对于一种手套类型,手套防护系数不太可能是恒定的,而是会受到工作情况和暴露持续时间的强烈影响。这对于防护手套的选择具有重要意义。