A

pplie
dErg
o n
omics6
8(2
018
)18–
619
6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ergonomics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

Manual work in cold environments and its impact on selection of materials

for protective gloves based on workplace observations
Emilia Irzmańska∗, Paulina Wójcik, Agnieszka Adamus - Włodarczyk
Central Institute for Labour Protection, National Research Institute, Department of Personal Protective Equipment, Wierzbowa 48, Łódź 90-133, Poland

ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This article presents a workplace observations on manual work in cold environments and its impact on the
Protective gloves selection of materials for protective gloves. The workplace observations was conducted on 107 workers in 7
Work in cold companies and involved measurements of the temperature of air and objects in the workplaces; in addition the
Ergonomic factors type of surface and shape of the objects was determined.
Laboratory tests were also carried out on 11 materials for protective gloves to be used in cold environments.
Protective characteristics, including mechanical properties (wear, cut, tear, and puncture resistance), insulation
properties (thermal resistance), functional parameters, and hygienic properties (resistance to surface wetting,
material stiffness) were evaluated. Appropriate levels of performance and quality, corresponding to the pro-
tective and functional properties of the materials, were determined. Based on the results of manual work and
laboratory tests, directions for the selection of materials for the construction of protective gloves were for-
mulated with a view to improving work ergonomics.

1. Introduction becoming significant below 15–16 °C (Vincent and Tipton, 1988).

Cold environments are defined as places with a temperature equal
to or less than 10 °C (Holmer, 1993). They may affect the entire human
body causing hypothermia and a subjective feeling of being cold
(Virgílio, et at., 2014), or distal body parts only, e.g. hands, through
contact with cold surfaces.
The effect of low temperatures on humans, and in particular the
problem of hand and finger cooling, as well as the influence of various
factors on this process, is the object of interest of many research centers
in different countries. Special attention has been given to situations in
which human exposure to cold concerns not only occupational activity,
but also everyday life (Rintamäki el al., 2016). The main objective of
scientific research has been primarily to understand the impact of
various factors on the process of hand cooling, and also the influence of
low temperatures on manual dexterity. Some data concerning de-
termination of the limits of exposure to cold environments are also
available in the literature (Zander and Morrison, 2008). Hand skin
temperature is an important predictor of manual performance (Gaydos
and Dusek, 1958; Enander, 1998; Schiefer et al., 1984; Giesbrecht et al.,
1995). Fox (1967) suggested that manual dexterity deteriorates below a
critical hand skin temperature of 8 °C, and that tactile sensitivity is
impaired below 12–16 °C. Further studies have documented a decrease
in finger dexterity starting below a skin temperature of 20–22 °C, and
Daanen (1993) documented decreased finger dexterity below 14 °C.
It is known that gloves used for protection from heat loss in workers
exposed to cold should be characterized by adequate insulation prop-
erties, which in turn depend on glove design and are primarily asso-
ciated with the type of materials used. Most frequently, such gloves are
produced from textiles, possibly with the addition of waterproof lea-
thers or materials coated with polyvinyl chloride, nitrile rubber, or
polyurethane. Higher thermal insulation is achieved by applying ad-
ditional inserts or linings with insulating properties. Sari et al. (2004)
found that protective gloves reduced hand heat losses in a cold air
environment by 60–90% and that heat losses were 50–100% greater
from the fingers than the palm and the back of the hand. Finger skin
temperature is also affected by manipulation of objects or tools. The
rate of change in skin temperature has been shown to depend on the
pressure exerted on the fingers, the weight of the objects handled,
material type, and glove thickness (Havenith et al., 1992; Lotens, 1992;
Chen et al., 1994), with gloves greatly reducing sensitivity to different
materials (Havenith et al., 1992).
Currently, the main standard defining the technical requirements
and test methods for gloves designed for cold protection is EN
511:2006, which concerns gloves protecting the user from heat loss
through convection and contact with cold the effects of which are
comparable to those of air temperature equal to −50 °C. Based on the

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: emirz@ciop.lodz.pl (E. Irzmańska), pawoj@ciop.lodz.pl (P. Wójcik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.11.007
Received 7 March 2017; Received in revised form 7 November 2017; Accepted 9 November 2017
Ava
ilableonlin
e0 1D
e cem ber2017
0
003 -6
8 70
/© 2
017ElsevierLtd
.Allrig
htsre
serv
ed.
E. Irzmańska et al. A
ppliedErgo
nomics6
8(2
018
)18–
6196

results of material laboratory tests, the protective properties of gloves Table 1

are classified into four performance levels for each of the parameters Characteristics of tested materials for protective gloves.

tested. However, it is difficult to correlate glove properties assessed in

Symbol of Composition Thickness Type of material,
the laboratory with the actual protection they afford workers, taking material [mm] weave/construction
into account different work conditions and exposure to cold (Voelcker,
2014). A 60% polyamide, 0.77 Synthetic leather
40% polyurethane
The type of glove material has a significant impact on glove fit and
B 100% polyester 1.98 Bilayer composite:
ergonomics. This fact affects manual dexterity and the feasibility of - Knitted jacquard,
performing a variety of manual tasks (Wang et al., 2007; Geng et al., double-knitted cast-on
1997a,b). Manual dexterity is also affected by the kind of occupational - Knitted plush fabric
(weft-knitted)
tasks and the shape and surface of objects handled by workers (Holmer,
C 84% polyester, 1.62 Bilayer composite
1993). Surface type has a significant effect on hand cooling and dex- 16% elastomer - Single jersey plated
terity of the worker (Jussila et al., 2017). A direct contact of fingers with elastomer thread
with a cold surface causes a greater thermal trauma than exposing the 94% polyester, - Double weft-knitted
fingers to a cold atmosphere (Geng et al., 2006). Moreover, heat loss is 6% elastomer after scratch treatment
D 50% polyamide, 2.65 Weft-knitted plush
greater upon hand contact with a metal surface than, for example, with
50% polyurethane fabric
a wooden one, all other things being equal. Hand cooling dangerously E 50% polyester, 8.46 Fur knitted fabric
reduces the precision and speed of occupational task performance 50% wool
(Havenith et al., 1992). Thus, to fulfil their basic function in cold en- F 100% polyacrylonitrile 1.90 Plated single-jersey
vironments, gloves should be characterized not only by appropriate fabric
G External coat: 100% 3.01 Triple-layer composite
protective properties, but also by ergonomic features suitable for polyester External coat: knitted
manual work under such conditions. The aim of this study was to de- Membrane: 100% PTFE fabric, Middle layer:
velop design options for improving the construction of protective Lining: 100% polyester membrane, Lining:
gloves used in cold environments taking into account the ergonomic knitted fabric
H Polyester 6.44 Nonwoven fabric
factors linked to occupational exposure and the shape and surface type
I 50% wool, 3.49 Weft-knitted plush
of objects handled. 50% polyester fabric
The study adopted a two-pronged approach. First, workplace ob- J 100% polyester 5.24 Weft-knitted plush
servations was conducted in workplaces in order to obtain objective fabric
data about manual work. Second, materials for protective gloves were K 100% natural leather 0.76 Lambskin

subjected to instrumental tests. Both aspects are important and should

be considered in parallel when designing protective gloves for cold
2.2. Materials
work environments with a view to improving manual ergonomics.
This section gives the results of laboratory tests performed on
2. Methods
commercially available materials most commonly used in the produc-
tion of cold protective gloves (Table 1). Materials were selected based
2.1. Workplace observations
on years of experience of a company producing such gloves. The
company is one of Europe's leading manufacturers of a wide range of
The study involved 107 workers performing tasks in refrigerated
gloves for both occupational and non-occupational use which holds ISO
environments in 7 companies (A-G). Companies A, B, and C specialized
9001:2008 and ISO 14001:2004 management certificates and whose
in processing meat, manual sorting of frozen products, and meat cutting
high-quality products are EC-certified by European Notified Bodies. The
and boning. Companies D and E dealt with manual product handling
highest quality raw materials, supplied for many years by the same
and loading. Companies F and G were mainly engaged in weighing
manufacturer, guarantee reproducibility of the protective and func-
intermediate products, multi-packaging, as well as product labelling.
tional parameters of the gloves produced. The company operates its
The companies were divided by type of predominant worker activity
own quality control laboratory.
into production, warehouse, and packaging sectors (see Table 5).
It was assumed that each of the studied materials should be char-
Workplace temperature as well as the surface type, weight, tempera-
acterized by good protective properties over a range of parameters such
ture, and shape of objects handled by workers during routine manual
as hygiene, mechanical properties, insulation, and ergonomics.
work were assessed for each sector.
2.3. Laboratory tests
• An integrated moisture and temperature sensor (iButton, USA) made
of acid-proof steel and equipped with a temperature measuring and
The suitability of the selected materials for the construction of
recording system, was used to measure workplace temperature
protective gloves was assessed in terms of mechanical, hygienic, and
parameters. Readings were made every 10 min with a resolution of
ergonomic properties in cold environments using combined methods
0.5 °C.
for evaluation of personal protective equipment and glove materials.
• The surface temperature of objects was determined by means of an
infrared thermometer with a built-in hygrometer (Laserliner
The test methods were developed using European standards (EN
14058:2004, EN 24920:1992, EN 31092:1993/A1:2012, EN 388:2003,
CondenseSpot Pro, Germany). The device enables contactless mea-
EN 511:2006). Moreover, the method for evaluating bending stiffness,
surement of surface temperature in the range of −40°C–600 °C
which is directly linked to the ergonomics of grip and manual dexterity,
(with an accuracy of ± 1 °C in the range of −10°C–60° C
is proprietary and has been described detail in another paper
and ± 1.5 °C in the range of < 10 °C and > 60 °C).
(Irzmańska and Stefko, 2015).
• The weight of objects was determined by means of non-automatic
electronic scales (Radwag, Poland).
Laboratory tests of the following protective and functional para-
meters were performed for the studied materials (Table 1):
• Surface type and shape of objects were assessed visually in a de-
scriptive manner without quantitative data.
• Mechanical parameters according to the standard EN 388:2003 with
samples acclimatized prior to tests for at least 24 h at (23 ± 2)°C

1
8
7
E. Irzmańska et al. A
ppliedErgo
nomics6
8(2
018
)18–
6196

Table 2 Table 3
Performance levels for mechanical parameters. Degrees of wetting (the hygienic parameter).

Mechanical parameter Performance level Degree of wetting Type of surface wetting

1 2 3 4 5 1 Complete wetting of the entire tested surface

2 Partial wetting of the tested surface
Abrasion resistance [number of cycles] 100 500 2000 8000 – 3 Wetting of the tested surface at spray points
Cut resistance [index] 1.2 2.5 5.0 10.0 20.0 4 Adhesion of isolated water droplets or wetting
Tear resistance [N] 10 25 50 75 – 5 No wetting of the tested surface
Puncture resistance [N] 20 60 100 150 –

wetting of the sample surface (hydrophobic surface), and degree 1

and a relative humidity of (50 ± 5)%.
✓ Abrasion resistance (using a Martindale abrasion tester) – four
samples were subjected to an incremental number of abrasion
cycles until they wore down. The lowest number of cycles to
wear-down was taken as the test result with performance level 1
corresponding to the lowest resistance and level 4 to the highest
resistance (Table 2).
✓ Cut resistance (using a coupe test apparatus) – the cut resistance
index was determined on the basis of the number of cycles
causing a cut in standard and tested samples. Performance levels
1 and 5 denoted the lowest and highest levels of protection, re-
spectively (Table 2).
✓ Tear resistance (using an Instron machine) – tearing force was
recorded for four samples at a given speed of jaw movement until
complete material failure. Performance levels 1 and 4 corre-
sponded to the lowest and highest resistance, respectively
(Table 2).
✓ Puncture resistance (using an Instron machine) – the maximum
force required for a complete puncture of four samples by a pin
was determined. Performance levels 1 and 4 corresponded to the
lowest and highest resistance, respectively (Table 2).
• Hygienic parameter according to the standard EN 24920:1992 –
three samples were sprayed with 250 mL of water over 30 s. The
degree of surface wetting was assessed visually based on a de-
scriptive and photographic scale (Fig. 1). Degree 5 signified no
signified complete wetting of the entire surface (hydrophilic sur-
face) (Table 3).
• Insulation parameter (dry thermal resistance) – according to the
standard EN 31092:1993/A1:2012 – three samples were placed on
the hotplate of a “skin model” apparatus, on which thermal re-
sistance of a material was measured under conditions of a pre-set
equilibrium. Prior to the test the samples were acclimatized for at
least 24 h at (20 ± 2)°C and a relative humidity of (65 ± 5)%.
Insulation classes 1 and 3 signified the lowest and highest values of
material insulation properties (Table 4).
• Ergonomic properties (bending stiffness) according to the standard PN-
73/P-04631 – the bending length of two samples was determined
considering unidirectional force action with longitudinal and trans-
verse bending moduli being determined. The results were assessed in a
comparative system, i.e., the lower the bending length, the more elastic
the material - it is ≤ 1500 kPa (Irzmańska and Stefko, 2015).
Table 4
Thermal resistance classes.
Class Thermal resistance Rct [m2K/W]
1 0,06≤ Rct ≤0,12
2 012 ≤ Rct ≤ 0,18
3 0,18 ≤ Rct ≤0,25

Fig. 1. Photographic scale of wetting degrees.

1
8
8
E. Irzmańska et al. A
ppliedErgo
n om
ics6
8(2
018)1
86–
1 9
6

Table 5 temperature (−10 °C) among warehouse workers. Their hands come in
Participant demographics. contact with frozen surfaces with a temperature of −10 °C or 0 °C. The
objects were spherical in shape (sacks) and weighed 1000–5000 g.
Type of work Gender Age Ethnicity
Workers manually moving loads were exposed to an ambient tem-
Male Female perature 0 °C–6 °C with the objects having frosted surfaces with a
temperature of 0 °C–6 °C. The objects were cubic (cardboard boxes) and
Production 15 27 20–55 Caucasian
weighed 5000–7000 g. Workers handling loads at 0 °C–3 °C worked
Warehousing 39 6
Packaging 5 15 with objects which had dry surfaces at a temperature of 0 °C–6 °C. The
objects were cubic (crates) and weighed 5000–7000 g.
Packaging workers were exposed to ambient temperatures of be-
3. Results tween 0 °C and 6 °C and came into contact with objects of the same
temperature. Workers weighing products had to deal with frosted sur-
3.1. Workplace observations faces. The shape of the objects was cubic (containers) and the weight
was 1000–5000 g. Workers packaging products into multipacks and
The study showed that the majority of workers handled cold or labeling products worked with slippery surfaces. In the case of multi-
frozen objects which were spherical, cubic, or cylindrical in shape packing and labelling, the objects were spherical (sacks and meat, re-
(Tables 6 and 7). spectively) and weighed 1000–7000 g.
Analysis showed that production workers manually sorting frozen
products were exposed to the coldest ambient temperature (−10 °C or
3.2. Laboratory tests
0 °C), and their hands came in contact with frozen and frosted surface
types (−15 °C and −10 °C, respectively). The objects were spherical
In terms of abrasion resistance (Fig. 2), the tested materials showed
(fruit) or cylindrical (vegetables) with a weight of 10 g–400 g. Workers
performance levels from 3 to 1. The highest performance level (3) was
processing cold cuts and meat, as well as meat cutting and boning, were
found for synthetic and natural leathers A and K; knitted fabrics E, G,
exposed to an ambient temperature of 4 °C–6 °C and came in contact
and I exhibited level 2; while the lowest level was obtained for knitted
with wet surfaces with a temperature of 0 °C or 6 °C. These workers
jacquard combined with knitted plush B, weft-knitted fabric C, and
handled cylindrical objects (meat pieces). Workers processing cold cuts
knitted plush D and J.
and meat handled objects weighing 500–2000 g and those cutting and
The tested materials generally revealed low cut resistance (perfor-
boning meat manipulated objects with a weight of 100–1500 g.
mance levels 1 and 2, see Fig. 3). The knitted fabrics E and G were the
Workers loading frozen products were exposed to the lowest
most resistant to cutting. The remaining materials, that is, leathers A

Table 6
Low temperature exposure and surface type of objects handled during manual work in gloves.

Type of work Air Surface type of Surface

temperature in object temperature [°C]
the workplace
[°C]

a) Production sector
Manual sorting of frozen products (–10, 0) frosted frozen (–15, −10)
_ _
X= − 5 x = −12,5
SD = 7.1 SD = 3.5
Processing of cold cuts (4, 6) wet (0, 6)
Processing of meat _ _
Meat cutting and boning x = 5 x = 2
SD = 1.4 SD = 4.2
b) Warehousing sector
Loading of frozen products −10 frozen (-10, 0)
_
X = 5
SD = 7.1
Manual movement of loads (0, 6) frosted (0, 6)
_ _
x = 2 x = 2
SD = 4.2 SD = 4.2
Load handling (0, 3) dry
_
x = 1.5
SD = 2.1

c) Packaging sector
Intermediate product weighing (0, 6) frosted (0, 6)
_ _
x = 2 x = 2
SD = 4.2 SD = 4.2
Multi-packaging slippery
Product labelling

1
8
9
E. Irzmańska et al. A
ppliedErgo
n om
ics6
8(2
018)1
86–
1 9
6

Table 7
Shape of objects handled during manual work while wearing gloves.

Type of work Air Object shape Object weight [g]

temperature
in the
workplace
[°C]

a) Production sector
Manual sorting of frozen products (–10, 0) (10–400)
_ _
X=− 5 X = 205
SD = 7.1 SD = 275.8
Spherical cylindrical
(fruit) (vegetables)
Processing of cold cuts (4, 6) (500–2000)
Processing of meat _ _
x=5 X = 1250
SD = 1.4 Cylindrical (meat pieces) SD = 1060.7
Meat cutting and boning (100–1500)
_
X = 800
SD = 989.9
b) Warehouse sector
Loading of frozen products −10 (1000–5000)
_
X = 3000
SD = 2828.4
Spherical (sacks)
Manual movement of loads (0, 6) (5000–7000)
_ _
x=2 X = 6000
SD = 4.2 Cubic (cardboard boxes) SD = 1414.2
Load handling (0, 3)
_
x = 1.5
SD = 2.1 Cubic (crates)
c) Product packaging sector
Intermediate product weighing (0, 6) (1000–5000)
_ _
x=2 X = 3000
SD = 4.2 SD = 2828.4
Cubic (containers)
Multi-packaging (1000–7000)
_
X = 4000
SD = 4242.6
Spherical (sacks)
Product labelling

Cylindrical (meat)

*x – mean.
SD – standard deviation.

Fig. 2. Results of the abrasion resistance test [number of cycles].

1
9
0
E. Irzmańska et al.
Fig. 4. Results of the tear resistance test [N].
Fig. 5. Results of the puncture resistance test [N].
and K, combined knitted fabrics B and C, knitted plush D and I, single-
jersey F and nonwoven fabric H achieved performance level 1.
In terms of tear resistance (Fig. 4), individual materials exhibited
performance levels ranging from 4 to 1 with the most resistant one
being knitted plush J. Knitted fabrics B, F, and I were characterized by
performance level 3. Level 2 was found for synthetic leather A and level
1 for natural leather K.
Puncture resistance testing (Fig. 5) revealed the lowest performance
level (1) for leathers (synthetic A and natural K) and knitted fabrics G,
C, B, I, D, and E. Interestingly, nonwoven fabric H, plated single-jersey
F, and weft-knitted plush J failed to reach even performance level 1
(Fig. 4).
1
9
1
A
ppliedErgo
n om
ics6
8(2
018)1
86–
1 9
6
Fig. 3. Results of the cut resistance test [index I].
The surface wetting test (Fig. 6) showed natural leather K to have
the best resistance in this respect (degree 4 – no surface wetting). De-
gree 3 was found for synthetic leather A, bilayer knitted fabric C, and
plush fabrics I and J. Knitted fabrics G, B, E, and F, and nonwoven H
were characterized by degree 2 resistance to surface wetting.
The thermal resistance test (Fig. 7) showed fur knitted fabric E to
have the best insulation properties. Nonwoven fabric H and knitted
plush J were found to have class 3 thermal resistance. Knitted fabrics B,
E, F, and G were assigned to class 2, while synthetic and natural lea-
thers A and K offered the lowest level of insulation.
The bending stiffness test (Fig. 8) revealed the highest bending
modulus (corresponding to the lowest elasticity) for synthetic and
E. Irzmańska et al. A
ppliedErgo
n om
ics6
8(2
018)1
86–
1 9
6

Fig. 6. Results of the surface wetting test [degree of wetting].

Fig. 7. Results of the thermal resistance test [m2K/W].

Fig. 8. Results of longitudinal and transverse bending stiffness laboratory tests [kPa].

1
9
2
E. Irzmańska et al.
Fig. 9. Scheme of materials selection for the construction of protective gloves for warehouse work.
natural leather A and K, while the lowest modulus (the highest elasti-
city) was found for knitted fabrics F, C, and D.
4. Discussion
In order to select gloves appropriate for cold working environments
it is important to know the conditions of exposure and temperature
range experienced by the hands of workers, as well as the type of
manual work to be performed since all of these factors may affect the
intensity and rate of hand cooling. Therefore, it is reasonable to use
different types of protective gloves under different conditions of ex-
posure to cold (Onyebeke et al., 2016).
Based on workplace observations conducted in workplaces and la-
boratory tests, it was indeed found that different glove materials should be
applied to different types of work performed in cold environments.
Protective gloves should be made of materials, and their combinations,
which are differentially characterized by mechanical, hygienic, insulation,
and ergonomic properties (Holmér, 1992). Also the shape and surface type
of the handled objects should be taken into account, which is consistent
with Geng et al. (1997a,b), according to whom object size has a significant
impact on hand heat loss, especially at −25 °C. Cold protective gloves
should possess thermal insulation and mechanical resistance appropriate
for the expected conditions of use (Song et al., 2015).
Glove materials should be characterized by low thermal flux while
maintaining the elasticity required for performing manual tasks at low
temperatures (Matusiak and Sybilska, 2015). Thus, the choice of sui-
table materials for cold protective gloves is crucial. Both theoretical
considerations and empirical studies show that hydrophilic materials
with a well-developed porous structure are optimal from the point of
1
9
3
A
ppliedErgo
n om
ics6
8(2
018)1
86–
1 9
6
view of user comfort (hygiene). Hydrophobic materials with a compact
layer formed at high temperature gradients, with low vapor transpir-
ability and high capacity for moisture accumulation, have unfavorable
thermal properties below the freezing point. In cold environments, such
materials contribute to intense hand cooling (Cybulska et al., 2002;
Park et al., 1992).
The present study showed that glove materials for warehouse work
under conditions of exposure to cold (+6 °C) involving manual hand-
ling of cubic or cylindrical objects with a frosted surface with a tem-
perature of 0–6 °C, should be characterized by high or medium abrasion
resistance (levels 3 and 2), good hygienic properties (surface wetting
level 4, 3, or 2), medium insulation (class 2 thermal resistance), and
good ergonomic properties (low bending modulus). Examples of sui-
table materials include a triple-composite made of knitted fabrics and a
membrane (G), weft-knitted plush fabric (I), and lambskin (K). This
analysis was the basis for the development of the scheme of materials
selection for the construction of protective gloves for warehouse work
(Fig. 9).
Production workers exposed to an ambient temperature of −10 °C
who handle frozen spherical or cylindrical objects with a surface tem-
perature of −10–0 °C should don gloves made of materials with
medium to low abrasion resistance (levels 2 and 1), medium hygienic
properties (surface wetting degree 3 or 2), high to medium insulation
(thermal resistance level 3 or 2) and good ergonomic properties (low
bending modulus). Examples include a bilayer material composed of
double-knitted cast-on jacquard and knitted plush fabric (B) and weft-
knitted plush fabric (J). This analysis was the basis for the development
of the scheme of materials selection for the construction of protective
gloves for production work (Fig. 10).
E. Irzmańska et al.
Fig. 10. Scheme of materials selection for the construction of protective gloves for production work.
Workers exposed to an ambient temperature of +6 °C who manu-
ally load and unload cubic objects with frozen surfaces having a tem-
perature of −10–0 °C should use gloves composed of materials char-
acterized by high to medium abrasion resistance (level 3 or 2), medium
wetting resistance (degree 3 or 2), high to medium thermal resistance
(class 3 or 2) and good ergonomic properties (low bending modulus).
Materials which fulfil these criteria are weft-knitted plush fabric (I), fur
knitted fabric (E), and a triple-layer composite consisting of knitted
fabrics and a membrane (G). This analysis was the basis for the de-
velopment of the scheme of materials selection for the construction of
protective gloves for production work (Fig. 11).
Finally, workers performing inspection and monitoring tasks at an
ambient temperature of 0–10 °C who handle cylindrical objects with
dry surfaces having a temperature 5–10 °C should wear gloves made of
materials characterized by medium to low abrasion resistance (level 2
or 1), low surface wetting resistance (level 1), medium to low thermal
resistance (level 2 or 1), and high ergonomic properties (low bending
modulus). In the case of inspection and monitoring activities requiring
a substantial degree of dexterity, it is particularly important to use
elastic materials that do not impair hand movement, such as weft-
knitted plush fabric (D, I) and a triple-layer composite consisting of
knitted fabrics and a membrane (G).
Importantly, the results obtained in the present study may be used
as guidelines for the selection of materials for protective gloves to be
used in cold environments taking into consideration the surface, shape,
and temperature of objects handled by workers.
5. Conclusions
The present study showed that the type of contact of workers’ hands
with cold surfaces and the nature of manual tasks performed should be
taken into account while selecting materials for protective gloves to be
1
9
4
A
ppliedErgo
n om
ics6
8(2
018)1
86–
1 9
6
used in cold working environments.
Workplace observations revealed that protective gloves for each of
the three types of work investigated (production, warehousing, and
packaging) should be made of materials with appropriate mechanical,
hygienic, insulating, and ergonomic characteristics. The properties of
objects handled, such as: surface type (wet, dry, slippery), shape (cy-
lindrical, cubic, spherical), and weight were taken into account and
guidelines were developed for the selection of suitable materials for
protective gloves.
In the case of production work (manual sorting of frozen products,
processing of meat, meat cutting and boning), performed at ambient
temperatures ranging from −10 °C to 6 °C and involving small spherical
or cylindrical objects (fruits, vegetables, meat pieces) with frozen or
wet surfaces, the recommended materials should have hydrophobic
properties characterized by considerable wetting resistance (degree 4 or
3), good thermal resistance (class 3 or 2), and favorable ergonomic
properties (low bending modulus) due to the high degree of manual
dexterity required in this type of work.
For warehouse work (loading of frozen products, load handling)
performed at ambient temperatures from −10 °C to 6 °C and involving
cubic objects (containers, cardboard boxes) with dry or frosted surfaces,
glove materials should exhibit moderate resistance to wetting (degree 3
or 2), good thermal resistance (class 3 or 2), and medium ergonomic
properties in terms of bending modulus as the performed tasks do not
require high manual dexterity.
Packaging and labelling work performed at ambient temperatures
ranging from 0 °C to 6 °C involving cubic or spherical objects (e.g. sacks
or meat) with slippery surfaces requires glove materials with good
hygienic properties in terms of low wetting (degree 3 or 2), good
thermal insulation (class 3 or 2), and good ergonomics (low bending
modulus) due to the high degree of manual dexterity required.
E. Irzmańska et al.
Fig. 11. Scheme of materials selection for the construction of protective gloves for packaging work.
Acknowledgments
The paper is based on the results of COLDPRO project number 223/
IP/2015/NO: ‘The use of active ecological mineral compounds in the
production of cold-protective gloves and footwear’ funded in the years
2015–2018 by National Centre for Research and Development in
Poland.
References
Chen, F., Nilsson, H., Holmer, I., 1994. Finger cooling by contact with cold aluminium
surfaces: effects of pressure, mass and whole body thermal balance. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. 69, 55–60.
Cybulska, M., Snycerski, M., Ornat, M., 2002. Qualitative evaluation of protective fabrics.
AUTEX Res. J. 2 (2), 69–77.
Daanen, H., 1993. Deterioration of manual performance in cold and windy climates. In:
Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development Conference Proceedings
540: the Support of Air Operations under Extreme Hot and Cold Weather Conditions,
pp. 15.1–15.10.
EN 14058:2004 Protective clothing. Garments for protection against cool environments.
EN 24920:1992 Determination of resistance to surface wetting (spray test) of fabrics.
EN 31092:1993/A1:2012 Textiles. Physiological effects. Measurement of thermal and
water-vapour resistance under steady-state conditions (sweating guarded-hotplate
test).
EN 388:2003 Protective Gloves against Mechanical Risks.
EN 511:2006 Protective Gloves against Cold.
Enander, A., 1998. Effects of thermal stress on human performance. Ergonomics 30, 1431–
1445.
Fox, W.F., 1967. Human performance in the cold. Hum. Factors 9, 203–220.
Gaydos, H.F., Dusek, E.R., 1958. Effects of localized hand cooling versus total body
cooling on manual performance. J. Appl. Physiol. 12, 377–380.
1
9
5
A
ppliedErgo
n om
ics6
8(2
018)1
86–
1 9
6
Geng, Q., Chen, F., Holmer, I., 1997a. The effect of protective gloves on manual dexterity
in the cold environments. JOSE 3 (1–2), 15–29.
Geng, Q., Holmer, I., Hartoq, D.E., Havenith, G., Jay, O., Malchaire, J., Piette, A.,
Rintamaki, H., Rissanen, S., 2006. Temperature limit values for touching cold sur-
faces with the fingertip. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 50 (8), 851–862.
Geng, Q., Kuklane, K., Holmer, I., 1997b. Tactile sensitivity of gloved hands in the cold
operation. Appl. Hum. Sci. 16 (6), 229–236.
Giesbrecht, G., Wu, M., White, M., Johnston, C., Bristow, G., 1995. Isolated effects of
peripheral arm and central body cooling on arm performance. ASEM 66, 968–975.
Havenith, G., van de Linde, E.J.G., Heus, R., 1992. Pain, thermal sensation and cooling
rates of hands while touching cold materials. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 65, 43–51.
Holmér, I., 1992. Protective clothing against cold–performance standards as method for
preventive measures. Arct. Med. Res. 51 (7), 94–98.
Holmer, I., 1993. Work in the cold. Int. Arch. Occ. Env. Hea 65, 147–155.
Irzmańska, E., Stefko, A., 2015. Simulation method for assessing the end of service life of
gloves used by workers exposed to mineral oils and mechanical factors. Int. J. Ind.
Ergon. 47, 61–71.
Jussila, K., Sormunen, E., Remes, J., 2017. Case study: perceived usability of emergency
communication equipment with and without protective gloves in the cold. JSAR Res.
1 (2), 1–15.
Lotens, W.A., 1992. Simulation of hand cooling due to touching cold materials. Eur. J.
Appl. Physiol. 65, 59–65.
Matusiak, M., Sybilska, W., 2015. Thermal resistance of fabrics vs. thermal insulation of
clothing made of the fabrics. J. Tex. Inst. 107 (7), 842–848.
Onyebeke, L.C., Papazaharias, D.M., Freund, A., Dropkin, J., McCann, M., Sanchez, S.H.,
Hashim, D., Meyer, J.D., Lucchini, R.G., Zuckreman, N.C., 2016. Access to properly
fitting personal protective equipment for female construction workers. Am. J. Ind.
Med. 59 (11), 1032–1040.
Park, Y.S., Kim, J.S., Choi, J.K., 1992. Increase of heat loss by wearing gloves and boots in
wet-suited subjects working in cold water. Ann. Physiol. Anthropol. 11 (4), 393–400.
PN-73/P-04631 Determination of stiffness of textiles.
Rintamäki, H., Rissanen, S., Manttari, S., Oksa, J., Jussila, K., 2016. Low hand tem-
peratures can be a risk factor in arctic surface mining. A143.3–A144. Inj. Prev.
22 (2).
E. Irzmańska et al. A
ppliedErgo
n om
ics6
8(2
018)1
86–
1 9
6

Sari, H., Gartner, M., Hoeft, A., Candas, V., 2004. Glove thermal insulation: local heat
transfer measures and relevance. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 92, 702–705.
Schiefer, R., Kok, R., Lewis, M., Meese, G., 1984. Finger skin temperature and manual
dexterity- some inter-group differences. Appl. Ergon. 15 (2), 135–141.
Song, W., Lai, D., Wang, F., 2015. Evaluating the cold protective performance (CPP) of an
electrically heated garment (EHG) and a chemically heated garment (CHG) in cold
environments. Fiber. Polym. 16 (12), 2689–2697.
Vincent, M.J., Tipton, M.J., 1988. The effects of cold immersion and hand protection on
grip strength. ASEM 59, 738–741.
Virgílio, A., Oliveira, M., Gaspar, A.R., André, J.S., Quintela, D.A., 2014. Subjective
analysis of cold thermal environments. Appl. Ergon. 45, 534–543.
Voelcker, T., 2014. Prediction of thermal comfort range of gloves in regard of individual
thermal sensations. In: Conference Paper in Conference: 10th International Meeting
for Mainikin and Modelling, at Tampere, Finland.
Wang, S.X., Li, Y., Tokura, H., Hu, J.Y., Han, Y.X., 2007. Effect of moisture management
on functional performance of cold protective clothing. Text. Res. J. 77 (12), 968–980.
Zander, J., Morrison, J., 2008. Effects of pressure, cold and gloves on hand skin tem-
perature and manual performance of divers. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 104, 237–244.

1
9
6