Reply

摘要

Thank you for the opportunity to reply to the letternby Mr Packham. I agree about the limitations ofnthe ASTM test conditions in not taking into accountnfactors such as temperature variation, degradation,nflexing, or abrasion. In a similar study for hairndye components, Lind et al. (2007) concluded thatn‘all tested gloves give considerable protectionnagainst permeation’ of 1,4-phenylenediaminen(PPD), toluene-2,5-diaminesulphate and resorcinol.nThe statement was also drawn from the tests followingnthe ASTM standard for permeation breakthroughnunder static laboratory-based conditions.nSimilarly, Zainal and Que Hee (2006) evaluated thenpermeation of Comiteu0003 through protective glovesnalso by ASTM F739-96 permeation method. Theynconcluded that chemically protective Sol-Vex nitrilenprotected against the aqueous solution and the undilutednformulation. Along a similar line, in the examinationnof the permeation of the salt formulation ofn4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid through fourncommercially available gloves, all of them werenfound to provide a high degree of protection withnno breakthrough of the ASTM F739-91 24-h testsn(Purdham et al., 2001). Apparently, the test resultsnof ASTM F739 method at constant temperature werenaccepted to interpret the glove performance whilencontact the challenge chemicals even though it mightnnot fully reflect the glove use in the fields.