Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hpxsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T10:49:17.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evaluation of fabrics in relation to their use as protective garments in nursing and surgery. I. Physical measurements and bench tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

O. M. Lidwell  and
C. A. Mackintosh
O. M. Lidwell
Affiliation:
Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HT
C. A. Mackintosh
Affiliation:
Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Eleven fabrics selected to provide a representative range of yarns and weaves have been examined microscopically and subjected to a series of tests. The observations were directed towards assessing the potential ability of each fabric to resist penetration by particles, such as skin scales, which might carry micro-organisms. The number, size and shape of pores penetrating through the material were estimated and the penetration of test dusts assessed in several ways. While, generally, the relative merits of the fabrics are similar whatever test or measurement is considered there are a number of significant exceptions which reflect peculiarities of the test system or of a fabric. Comparison with the results of dispersal experiments with volunteers wearing garments made of the fabrics is made in a following paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , December 1978 , pp. 433 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

References

REFERENCES

Bloor, W. A. & Dinsdale, A. (1962). Protective clothing as a factor in the dust hazard of potters. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 19, 229.Google Scholar
British Standards Institute (1957). British Standard No. 2831. Methods of test for air filters used in air-conditioning and general ventilation, Fig. 12.Google Scholar
British Standards Institute (1961). British Standard No. 3424. Methods of test for coated fabrics.Google Scholar
British Standards Institute (1969). British Standard No. 3321. Methods of test for the measurement of equivalent pore size of fabrics (bubble pressure test).Google Scholar
Duguid, J. P. & Wallace, A. T. (1948). Air infection with dust liberated from clothing. Lancet ii, 845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambraeus, A. (1973). Attempts to control clothes-borne infection in a burns unit. I. Experimental investigation of some clothes for barrier nursing. Journal of Hygiene 71, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heywood, H. (1963). The evaluation of powders. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, suppl. 15, 56T.Google ScholarPubMed
Lidwell, O. M. & Brock, B., Shooter, R. A., Cooke, E. M. & Thomas, G. E. (1975). Airborne infection in a fully air-conditioned hospital. IV. Airborne dispersal of Staphylococcus aureus and its nasal acquisition by patients. Journal of Hygiene 75, 445.Google Scholar
Lidwell, O. M., Mackintosh, C. A. & Towers, A. G. (1978). The evaluation of fabrics in relation to their use as protective garments in nursing and surgery. II. Dispersal of skin organisms in a test chamber. Journal of Hygiene 81, 453.Google Scholar
Moilliet, J. L. (1963). Waterproofing and Water Repellency. London: Elsevier Publishing Co.Google Scholar