The Effects of Chemical Protective Clothing on Manual Dexterity

  • Peng-Cheng SungEmail author
  • Yuan-Shyi Peter Chiu
  • Yung-Ping Liu
  • I-Lung Chen
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1215)


This study evaluated the effects of wearing chemical protective clothing on manual dexterity. In addition, this study tested whether the manual dexterity measured from the protective glove only can represent the manual dexterity for the full protective clothing. The results indicated that the completing time required for the bare hand, glove only, and full protective clothing settings were 45.97 ± 5.87, 127.36 ± 45.45, and 129.44 ± 48.77 s, respectively. Wearing protective device (glove only and full protective clothing) decrease the manual dexterity, however, no significant differences were found between these two settings. Therefore, the traditional way which uses the glove only to establish the dexterity data can be used for selection of the full chemical protective clothing to meet the dexterity requirements.


Manual dexterity Glove Chemical protective clothing Hand protection 



The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of Taiwan (Grants No. NSC 102-2221-E-324-026) and the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (Grants No. MOST 108-2221-E-324-007) for financially supporting this research.


  1. 1.
    OSHA Technical Manual Section VIII: Chapter 1. Chemical Protective Clothing on the internet at. Accessed 22 Jan 2020. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor, U.S
  2. 2.
    Dianat, I., Haslegrave, C.M., Stedmon, A.W.: Methodology for evaluating gloves in relation to the effects on hand performance capabilities: a literature review. Ergonomics 55, 1429–1451 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sung, P.C.: Effects of glovebox gloves on grip and key pinch strength and contact forces for simulated manual operations with three commonly used hand tools. Ergonomics 57(10), 1512–1525 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Makofske, B.: Manual Dexterity. In: Kreutzer, J.S., DeLuca, J., Caplan, B. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology. Springer, New York, NY (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drabek, T., Boucek, C.D., Buffington, C.W.: Wearing the wrong size latex surgical gloves impairs manual dexterity. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 7, 152–155 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muralidhar, A., Bishu, R.R., Hallbeck, M.S.: The development of an ergonomic glove. App. Ergo. 30, 555–563 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wells, R., Hunt, S., Hurley, K., Rosati, P.: Laboratory assessment of the effect of heavy rubber glove thickness and sizing on effort, performance and comfort. Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. 40(4), 386–391 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berger, M.A.M., Krul, A.J., Daanen, H.A.M.: Task specificity of finger dexterity tests. App. Ergon. 40(1), 145–147 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson, R.F., Sleeper, L.A.: Effects of chemical protective handwear and headgear on manual dexterity. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. 29 September–3 October 1986, Dayton, OH. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 994–997 (1986)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bennett, G.K.: Hand-tool Dexterity Test. Psychological corporation, San Antonio (1981)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plummer, R., Stobbe, T., Ronk, R., Myers, W., Kim, H., Jaraiedi, M.: Manual dexterity evaluation of gloves used in handling hazardous materials. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. 29 September–3 October 1985, Baltimorem MD. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 819–823, Santa Monica, CA (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Betts, L. (ed.): Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test Examiner’s Manual. Educational Test Bureau. Educational Publishers, Minneapolis (1946)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bensel, C.K.: The effects of various thicknesses of chemical protective gloves on manual dexterity. Ergonomics 36(6), 687–696 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yao, Y., Rakheja, S., Gauvin, C., Marcotte, P., Hamouda, K.: Evaluation of effects of anti-vibration gloves on manual dexterity. Ergonomics 61(11), 1530–1544 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bishu, R.R.: Klute, G: The Effects of extra vehicular activity (EVA) gloves on human performance. Int. J. Ind. Ergonom 16, 165–174 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Okunribido, O.O.: A survey of hand anthropometry of female rural farm workers in Ibadan, Western Nigeria. Ergonomics 43, 282–292 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peng-Cheng Sung
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yuan-Shyi Peter Chiu
    • 1
  • Yung-Ping Liu
    • 1
  • I-Lung Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering and ManagementChaoyang University of TechnologyTaichungRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations