Skip Navigation


Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on June 15, 2006
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2006 50(6):545-548; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mel033
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
50/6/545    most recent
mel033v1
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by PACKHAM, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by PACKHAM, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society

Gloves as Chemical Protection—Can They Really Work?

CHRIS PACKHAM

EnviroDerm Service 2 Amery Lodge Farm, North Littleton, Evesham, WR11 8QY, UK

Tel: +44 1386 832 311; fax: +44 1386 830 163; e-mail: Chris.Packham@enviroderm.co.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Gloves are probably the commonest form of personal protective equipment used to protect workers against damage to health from workplace skin exposure. It has been estimated that around £30 million is spent annually in the UK alone for this purpose. Unfortunately, studies suggest that many of these gloves will not actually provide the protection that both employer and user believe is being obtained. This is illustrated by the results of a study of dermatitis in printers. In this study, in which a questionnaire was returned by over 1000 respondents working in the printing industry, 26% reported a skin problem at the time of responding. When these workers were clinically examined by a consultant dermatologist, all were found to be correct. The highest prevalence was in workers involved in actual printing, ‘although over 90% of them wore personal protective equipment, such as gloves’. The conclusion from these statistics can only be . . . [Full Text of this Article]

HOW RELEVANT IS CE MARKING?

REASONS WHY GLOVES FAIL

CREATING AN EFFECTIVE GLOVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

So can gloves work?

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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
E. Lechtenberg-Auffarth and R. Ruhl
Safety of Gloves for Chemical protection
Ann. Hyg., November 1, 2007; 51(8): 739 - 740.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
T. OGDEN
Annals of Occupational Hygiene at Volume 50: Many Achievements, a Few Mistakes, and an Interesting Future
Ann. Hyg., November 1, 2006; 50(8): 751 - 764.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]