Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate thermal properties of lab gowns developed from the point of safety and work efficiency. We evaluated thermal and subjective responses of subjects wearing functional new lab gowns (Type B, C, D) and a popular lab gown on the market (Type A). Type B was a new lab gown made of woven fabric with functional cuffs. Type C was a new apron made of woven fabric with arm protectors. Type D was a new lab gown made of non-woven material with functional cuffs and openings around the armpits. Temperature in the climatic chamber was set at 19$^{\circ}$C as an indoor temperature in winter and at 24$^{\circ}$C in summer. There were no significant differences in rectal temperature and heart rate among four types of gowns and between two air temperatures for 120 min. Mean skin temperature was much higher in the type A and B than in He type C and D (p .05). In the 19$^{\circ}$C air, clothing microclimate temperature on the back was the highest in the type B and was the lowest in the type C (p .05). Clothing microclimate humidity was not significant differences among gowns. In subjective .esponses, subjects perceived that Type B was the warmest gown in the 19$^{\circ}$C and the hottest and more humid in the 24$^{\circ}$C than other gowns. Inversely, type C was the coolest gown among four gowns. Both in the 19$^{\circ}$C and in the 24$^{\circ}$C, the Type D had gained most responses of being comfortable. In conclusion, the temperature difference of 5$^{\circ}$C was more of an influencing factor than the difference from four types of lab gowns. Secondly, we recommend the manufacturers to make lab gowns with functional cuffs for safety purposes. Thirdly, the spread of the type of apron with arm protector will contribute to increase of the frequency of wearing in summer. Fourthly, it is necessary to study continuously about lab gowns with non-woven materials for researchers exposed to toxic chemical and biological materials.
