Skip Navigation


Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on September 16, 2009
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2009 53(7):772-773; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mep064
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
53/7/772    most recent
mep064v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lin, Y.-W.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lin, Y.-W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society

Reply

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Thank you for the opportunity to reply to the letter by Mr Packham. I agree about the limitations of the ASTM test conditions in not taking into account factors such as temperature variation, degradation, flexing, or abrasion. In a similar study for hair dye components, Lind et al. (2007) concluded that ‘all tested gloves give considerable protection against permeation’ of 1,4-phenylenediamine (PPD), toluene-2,5-diaminesulphate and resorcinol. The statement was also drawn . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Yu-Wen Lin

Fu-Jen Catholic University, Sinjhuang City, Taipei County 242, Taiwan


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?