Dataset Information

The Short-term Protective Effects of 'Non-PPE' Gloves Used by Greenhouse Workers.

ABSTRACT: Task-based worker exposure assessments are used in regulatory product approval for pesticides. Some agricultural workers may be exposed to pesticide residues predominantly via transfer to the hands during plant tending or crop harvesting. They may use thin 'splash-resistant single-use' (SRSU) gloves or cotton gloves as good industry practice, for example, to protect a delicate crop from bruising, rather than specifically for chemical protection. These 'non-personal protective equipment (PPE)' gloves may or may not have been tested for chemical resistance, but can nevertheless give limited protection from chemicals. This paper reports experiments to assess the protection factors (PFs) of 'non-PPE' gloves against chemicals, to better inform the regulatory exposure assessments.One type of lightweight cotton and three types of 0.1 mm SRSU gloves 25cm long (latex, nitrile, and vinyl) that might be used as 'non-PPE' gloves and one type of 0.4 mm PPE nitrile gauntlet 33cm long were worn by 36 volunteers in greenhouses at four nurseries, handling plants sprayed with transferable but non-permeating strontium acetate in four consecutive 1-h sessions, including one session in which no gloves were worn. Dislodgeable foliar residues were measured by rinsing leaves in bags. Each subject carried out their task such as weeding or trimming, for their four sessions on their set of plants. Handwashes followed each session, and the washings were sampled and analysed for strontium. Unprotected hand contamination was taken to be the within-subject 'challenge' in the absence of gloves. It ranged from 166 to 4091 µg equivalent of strontium acetate on the hands and increased with increasing foliar residues. Geometric mean PFs were 60 (95% CI 38-87, n = 22) for PPE gauntlets, 32 (25-41, n = 65) for SRSU gloves and 5.3 (3.5-8, n = 21) for lightweight cotton. The PFs offered by the waterproof gloves (gauntlets and SRSU) increased with challenge, but for the absorbent cotton gloves it decreased. The measurement of protection is restricted by the limit of quantification (LOQ) such that protection must apparently increase with challenge, nevertheless the above trends remained even after removal of data

SUBMITTER: Roff M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4593184 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Short-term Protective Effects of 'Non-PPE' Gloves Used by Greenhouse Workers.

Roff Martin M

The Annals of occupational hygiene 20150802 8

Task-based worker exposure assessments are used in regulatory product approval for pesticides. Some agricultural workers may be exposed to pesticide residues predominantly via transfer to the hands during plant tending or crop harvesting. They may use thin 'splash-resistant single-use' (SRSU) gloves or cotton gloves as good industry practice, for example, to protect a delicate crop from bruising, rather than specifically for chemical protection. These 'non-personal protective equipment (PPE)' gl ...[more]

PMID: 26240197

Similar Datasets

Project description:Gloves are often needed for hand protection at work, but they can impair manual dexterity, especially if they are multilayered or ill-fitting. This article describes two studies of gloves to be worn with airfed suits (AFS) for nuclear decommissioning or containment level 4 (CL4) microbiological work. Both sets of workers wear multiple layers of gloves for protection and to accommodate decontamination procedures. Nuclear workers are also often required to wear cut-resistant gloves as an extra layer of protection. A total of 15 subjects volunteered to take part in manual dexterity testing of the different gloving systems. The subjects' hands were measured to ensure that the appropriate sized gloves were used. The gloves were tested with the subjects wearing the complete clothing ensembles appropriate to the work, using a combination of standard dexterity tests: the nine-hole peg test; a pin test adapted from the European Standard for protective gloves, the Purdue Pegboard test, and the Minnesota turning test. Specialized tests such as a hand tool test were used to test nuclear gloves, and laboratory-type manipulation tasks were used to test CL4 gloves. Subjective assessments of temperature sensation and skin wettedness were made before and after the dexterity tests of the nuclear gloves only. During all assessments, we made observations and questioned the subjects about ergonomic issues related to the clothing ensembles. Overall, the results show that the greater the thickness of the gloves and the number of layers the more the levels of manual dexterity performance are degraded. The nuclear cut-resistant gloves with the worst level of dexterity were stiff and inflexible and the subjects experienced problems picking up small items and bending their hands. The work also highlighted other factors that affect manual dexterity performance, including proper sizing, interactions with the other garments worn at the time, and the work equipment in use. In conclusion, when evaluating gloves for use in the workplace it is important to use tests that reflect the working environment and always to consider the balance between protection and usability.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has revealed vulnerabilities in healthcare systems worldwide, emphasizing the importance of healthcare worker safety through adequate utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE). This study aims to assess the impact of pre-pandemic PPE training on the practices and other associated factors among frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan and provide insights into the implications of such training programs for future initiatives.MethodsA cross-sectional study from May 9th to June 5th, 2020 was conducted among the frontline healthcare workers against COVID-19 in Pakistan, utilizing an online structured questionnaire shared via WhatsApp and Facebook by using purposive sampling. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests for proportion and logistic regression for the association while multi-logistic regression for potential confounders, were performed using SPSS version 22.ResultsA total of 453 healthcare staff participated, with 68.9% (n = 312) reporting no prior PPE training and 31.1% (n = 141) having received training. Significant associations were found between prior training and healthcare group distribution (p = 0.006), with doctors exhibiting the highest proportion of training 82 (37.61%), followed by nurses 50 (27.32%) and paramedics 9 (17.31%). Those who didn't receive any prior training in PPEs showed a higher perceived professional risk of 216 (69.23%) compared to those who received prior PPE training 96 (30.77%, p-value 0.005). Similarly, a higher frequency 137 (63.72%) of Perceived Personal risk was observed in those who didn't receive training, labeled as "high risk" compared to those who were trained 78 (36.28%, P value 0.02). Multi-logistic regression analysis identified paramedics as 0.26 times less likely to have received prior PPE training (Adjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.65, p = 0.01) compared to medical doctors. Healthcare workers in tertiary care hospitals were 0.46 times less likely to undergo PPE training (Adjusted OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.87,p = 0.01) compared to those working at COVID-19 facilities/hospitals/quarantine centers. Likewise, individuals who doffed disposable gowns [Adjusted OR 3.86, (95% CI, 1.23-12.08, p = 0.02] were 3.86 times more interested in getting prior training in PPE compared to those who don't have skills to wear them.ConclusionOur findings highlight that healthcare levels, type of healthcare, and doffing skills are important predictors of whether healthcare workers have taken prior training in PPE. These findings imply developing effective training programs for healthcare workers to ensure safety while providing care during pandemics like COVID-19.

Dataset Information

The Short-term Protective Effects of 'Non-PPE' Gloves Used by Greenhouse Workers.

Publications

The Short-term Protective Effects of 'Non-PPE' Gloves Used by Greenhouse Workers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets