液態化學防護衣性能檢測評估探討

Evaluation and Discussion on Performance Testing of Liquid Chemical Protective Clothing

作業環境中針對化學性危害暴露之個人防護設備，除以呼吸防護具減少吸入途徑的暴露外，對於具腐蝕性和可經由皮膚吸收之危害物，則須以防護手套和防護衣降低經皮膚接觸暴露的風險。於各行業別、同一行業中不同的作業型態，對於皮膚防護具的選用及風險管理觀念有限，無法正確選用合宜的皮膚個人防護具，導致無法有效降低高風險作業勞工之皮膚危害。因應不同接觸形式的皮膚暴露風險，所對應的皮膚防護等級的選用亦為嚴重的缺口，我國防護衣的選用一般以場域環境類型作區分之ABCD 4級為考量，而非以防護衣類型及功能區分的歐規1至6型作為選用標準。本文收集美國、歐盟及臺灣之各國有關化學防護衣（Chemical protective clothing,CPC）的規範與管理措施之相關文獻及法規標準，比較分析各國標準之異同，彙整美國、歐盟及臺灣化學防護衣的標準及試驗項目，以我國CNS16103化學防護衣規範之檢測方法為基礎進行驗證，選擇較常被使用之液密型防護衣（3型）潑濺液密型防護衣（4型）和霧型密閉型防護衣（6型）等3款液態防護衣進行測試驗證評估之資料建立。針對較常使用之4款市售防護衣，參考CNS16103，以潑濺液密型防護衣的檢測標準進行檢測，其中2款4、5、6型及1款5、6型防護衣通過檢測。1款5、6型的防護衣於重複檢測總穿透污染面積分別為19.32及13.48 cm2，皆大於3倍的標準染污面積，比例分別為3.27及3.19，顯示性能定位為5型及6型，可能無法滿足4型耐霧穿透性潑濺試驗B法的性能測試要求。此檢測標準流程可提供為建立檢測實驗室之參考。有1款3型耐液體穿透性噴射試驗樣品總穿透染污面積與標準染污面積比率分別為4.01及5.40，大於標準要求?3倍，未通過測試。測試結果與防護衣原廠測試結果一致，來自實驗室間或產品批次之差異未來則需再進一步測試比對釐清。

In the work environment, personal protective equipment (PPE) for chemical hazards should not only reduce inhalation exposure through respiratory protection, but also reduce the risk of dermal exposure to corrosive or skin-absorbable substances through protective gloves and clothing. However, in various industries and even within different operations of the same industry, there is limited awareness and understanding of the selection and risk management of skin protection gear. This often leads to the inability to properly select appropriate skin PPE, resulting in ineffective reduction of skin hazards for high-risk workers.
There is also a significant gap in selecting appropriate levels of skin protection according to the type of dermal exposure. In Taiwan, the selection of protective clothing is generally categorized into four levels (A, B, C, D) based on the environmental setting, rather than using the European classification of types 1 through 6 based on clothing type and function.
This study collects and reviews relevant literature and regulatory standards on chemical protective clothing (CPC) from the United States, the European Union, and Taiwan, to compare and analyze the similarities and differences in national standards. It compiles the standards and testing items for CPC in the U.S., EU, and Taiwan, and uses Taiwan’s CNS 16103 chemical protective clothing testing methods as a foundation for verification. Testing and evaluation data were established using three commonly used types of liquid protective clothing: Type 3 (liquid-tight), Type 4 (spray-tight), and Type 6 (mist-tight).
Among four commonly available protective suits tested according to CNS 16103 spray-tight (Type 4) standards, two suits classified as Types 4, 5, and 6, and one suit classified as Types 5 and 6 passed the tests. However, one suit classified as Types 5 and 6 failed, showing total penetration contamination areas of 19.32 cm²and 13.48 cm²in repeated tests—more than three times the standard contamination area (ratios of 3.27 and 3.19). This indicates that the suit, though designated as Type 5 and 6, may not meet the Type 4 spray penetration resistance requirements of Method B. The testing process established here can serve as a reference for setting up test laboratories.
One sample of Type 3 suit tested for jet liquid penetration showed contamination area ratios of 4.01 and 5.40, exceeding the≤3x standard and thus failed the test. These results are consistent with those from the manufacturer's tests, suggesting the discrepancy may stem from inter-laboratory variation or product batch differences, which will require further comparative testing to clarify.