The Gloves as Effective Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) of Indonesian Batik Workers

Background: Batik substances may increase the risk of biological function disruption to batik workers.Objective: To Determine the effectiveness of using test gloves in transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skinhydration level, and skin acidity (pH).Methods: This study was one group pretest-posttest design of 16 batik workers. Subjects use test glovesmade from neoprene on right hands and personal gloves made from thermoplastic polymer of vinyl chlorideon left hands in first and second week. Washed out for 2 weeks, last 2 weeks use test gloves on left handand personal gloves on right hand. TEWL, skin hydration level, and pH was examined by Cutometer dualMP-580Result: First and second week using test gloves on the right hand, significantly differences of TEWL levelon extensor and dorsum manus; skin hydration level on flexor, extensor, palmar, and dorsum manus; pHon extensor, palmar and dorsum manus (p<0.05; CI 95%). Fifth and sixth week using test gloves in theleft hand, significantly difference of TEWL level on dorsum manus, all area of skin hydration level and pHresults (p<0.05; CI 95%). No significant differences of comparison right and left hand in the first, second,fifth, and sixth week, that showed any types of gloves can protect batik workers from skin barrier disruption.Conclusion: Personal gloves and test gloves usage for protection doesn’t have much significant difference.Wearing gloves may also give risk to trigger contact dermatitis if not used properly or using incompatiblematerial.

[1]  Fajar Waskito,et al.  Occupationally relevant positive patch test reactions in Indonesian batik workers , 2020, Contact dermatitis.

[2]  E. Zimerson,et al.  Twenty‐eight‐day follow‐up of patch test reactions to p‐phenylenediamine and p‐phenylenediamine dihydrochloride: A multicentre study on behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group , 2019, Contact dermatitis.

[3]  A. Brasileiro,et al.  Textile allergic contact dermatitis caused by occupational exposure—An overlooked condition , 2018, Contact dermatitis.

[4]  T. Agner,et al.  Effect of glove occlusion on the skin barrier , 2016, Contact dermatitis.

[5]  Chandra Tresnadi,et al.  Identification of Values of Ornaments in Indonesian Batik in Visual Content of Nitiki Game , 2015 .

[6]  E. Zimerson,et al.  Contact allergy from disperse dyes in textiles–a review , 2012, Contact dermatitis.

[7]  J. English,et al.  Evidence‐based guidelines for the prevention, identification and management of occupational contact dermatitis and urticaria * , 2010, Contact dermatitis.

[8]  H. Williams,et al.  Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  David Haldane,et al.  Fitness for Work. The Medical Aspects , 2007 .

[10]  R. Maynard Fitness for work: the medical aspects, 4th edition , 2007, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[11]  M. Zirwas,et al.  Role of protective gloves in the causation and treatment of occupational irritant contact dermatitis. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[12]  B. Kręcisz,et al.  An epidemic of occupational contact dermatitis from an acrylic glue , 2005, Contact dermatitis.

[13]  T. Diepgen Occupational skin-disease data in Europe , 2003, International archives of occupational and environmental health.

[14]  P. Elsner,et al.  Do barrier creams and gloves prevent or provoke contact dermatitis? , 1998, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[15]  C. Mathias Prevention of occupational contact dermatitis. , 1990, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[16]  L. Halkier‐Sørensen Occupational skin diseases. , 1996, Contact dermatitis.

[17]  Sz Mansdorf,et al.  Risk assessment of chemical exposure hazards in the use of chemical protective clothing: An overview , 1986 .