Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 40: 459-463, 1994;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, J. W.
Right arrow Articles by Nichols, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, J. W.
Right arrow Articles by Nichols, R. L.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 40, 459-463, Copyright © 1994 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Variability of laboratory coat resistance to blood strikethrough

JW Smith, AC Muzik, SA Lovitt and RL Nichols
Department of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA 70112.

Protection from contamination by potentially infectious fluids is an increasingly important aspect of hospital safety programs. Technical personnel in clinical laboratories may handle numerous samples of human blood and other fluids daily, and to protect themselves against exposure to bloodborne pathogens they routinely wear laboratory coats. We studied the effectiveness of six disposable (polypropylene; either spun-bond or spun-bond/melt-blown/spun-bond construction) and four reusable (polyester-cotton) laboratory coats in preventing blood passage. Fabrics (1018 samples) were tested at six time durations (1 s- 5 min) and five pressures [1.7-13.8 kPa (0.25-2.0 psi)]. A standard spray test used to evaluate resistance to wetting showed that reusable coats were less repellent than disposables (P < 0.05). Pressure testing showed that reusable and spun-bond coats allowed greater blood passage than the spun-bond/melt-blown/spun-bond. Laboratory coats should be chosen that have sufficient resistance to blood or other body fluid passage for the task performed and for the period of time used.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.