Damping Rates of Anti-Vibration Gloves Made of Different Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article by İlknur titled “Damping Rates of Anti-Vibration Gloves Made of 2 Different Materials” presents a study of different work gloves protecting from vibrations from jackhammer. This study addresses real situations when deciding what protective equipment protects the best from vibrations and its results are highly applicable. After addressing minor issues listed below, I believe the article can be published at MDPI Applied Sciences.

• Line 46 – hyphen missing between percentage 15%21%
• Lines 62,63 – number format of vibrations needs to be adjusted to match 2.120.7 m/s², is it 2120.7 m/s²? Please correct
• Line 95 – caption of Figure 2.1 misses full stop at the end
• Line 98 – what is Wh filter?
• Line 102 – caption of Figure 2.2 misses full stop at the end
• Table 2.1 – CHLOROPENE needs to be changed to CHLOROPRENE
• Table 3.5 – values do not need to be presented with such precision as there is no need for it, 6.66212 Std. Deviation, can be rounded 6.66 etc
• Line 272 - Mining Engineering Mineral Processing Laboratory – please add some location indicators as city, state
• Line 348 – Reference to Amazon is no longer valid – after clicking there is an error, try to either use dated version of web or some other way for the product

Author Response

I have implemented the revisions you requested in the article and listed them point by point. Thank you for your attention and support.

The corresponding comments and their replies are listed below:

• Line 46 – hyphen missing between percentage 15%21%

15%-21%

• Lines 62,63 – number format of vibrations needs to be adjusted to match 2.120.7 m/s², is it 2120.7 m/s²? Please correct

 2.1 to 20.7 m/s² for the right hand and 2.7 to 29.1 m/s² for the left hand

• Line 95 – caption of Figure 2.1 misses full stop at the end

Figure 2.1 Jackhammer in operation

• Line 98 – what is Wh filter?

The Wh filter is a frequency weighting filter defined in the TS EN ISO 5349 standard (also known as ISO 5349) for evaluating hand-arm vibration (HAV).

• Line 102 – caption of Figure 2.2 misses full stop at the end

Figure 2.2 Hand-arm vibration meter

• Table 2.1 – CHLOROPENE needs to be changed to CHLOROPRENE

Palm is made of CHLOROPRENE RUBBER.

• Table 3.5 – values do not need to be presented with such precision as there is no need for it, 6.66212 Std. Deviation, can be rounded 6.66 etc

The numerical results are presented with two digits after the decimal point

• Line 272 - Mining Engineering Mineral Processing Laboratory – please add some location indicators as city, state

Mining Engineering Mineral Processing Laboratory located in Adana, Turkey.

• Line 348 – Reference to Amazon is no longer valid – after clicking there is an error, try to either use dated version of web or some other way for the product

Amazon.de (2024) https://www.amazon.de/s?k=anti+vibRAT%C4%B0ON+GLOVES (Last Access Date: 02.06.2025).

The gloves were purchased from amazon.de; therefore, this address has been provided as a reference. It has also been verified that the webpage opens when the link is clicked.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, 12 commercially available anti-vibration gloves comprising different 69 materials were examined to determine which gloves minimize the hand-arm vibration 70 exposure of jackhammer operators, and their vibration damping rates (%) were measured. One-way analysis of variance was performed to determine the differences among the damping ratios obtained from 3 separate field measurements for the 12 different gloves. Vibration exposure was measured with and without gloves for operators using a vibrating sieve set with standard vibration in a laboratory environment. The type of glove that provides the most effective protection was determined from both the laboratory and field measurement results. The corresponding comments are in the following:

1. The abstract should be concise before “ In this study,” and include specific methods, results, and highlights conclusions.

2. The transmission of vibration from tools to the hands through work gloves is influenced by the material properties of the gloves, vibration properties of the tool, temperature, and grip strength. Why does this work focus on materials? Please explain the reason.

3. Where do two formulas in this manuscript originated from?

4. How to determine the vibration damping rate? Please clarify by combining necessary formulas.

5. In the conclusion section of Conclusions and Recommendations, it should be appropriately refined.

Author Response

I have implemented the revisions you requested in the article and listed them point by point. Thank you for your attention and support.

The corresponding comments and their replies are listed below:

1. The abstract should be concise before “ In this study,” and include specific methods, results, and highlights conclusions.

The transmission of vibrations generated by high-powered machines to the hands can lead to serious health problems and various work-related difficulties for the operators. These issues result in a loss of workforce and increased operational costs due to compensation payments made to affected workers. Exposure to hand-arm vibration can be controlled through the use of vibration-dampening gloves. In this study, the hand-arm vibration exposure of operators using a jackhammer in 3 different mines was measured with and without gloves, and the vibration damping ratio of each glove was calculated. One-way analysis of variance was performed to determine the difference between the vibration damping ratios (%) obtained from 3 separate field measurements of 12 different gloves, and significant differences were detected. In addition, vibration exposure was measured with and without gloves for operators using a vibrating sieve set with standard vibration in a laboratory environment. From both the field and laboratory measurements, the gloves made of chloroprene rubber provides the most effective protection.

2. The transmission of vibration from tools to the hands through work gloves is influenced by the material properties of the gloves, vibration properties of the tool, temperature, and grip strength. Why does this work focus on materials? Please explain the reason.

This sentence was removed from the abstract.

3. Where do two formulas in this manuscript originated from?

First formula originated from reference 17.

17. TS EN ISO 5349-1 (2005) Turkish Standards, Mechanical Vibration–Measurement and Evaluation of Hand-Transmitted Vibration to Which Persons Are Exposed–Part 1: General Rules, TSE, Ankara.

Second formula originated from reference 18.

18. TS EN ISO 5349-2 (2015) Turkish Standards, Mechanical Vibration - Measurement and Evaluation of Human Exposure to Hand-Transmitted Vibration - Part 2: Practical Guidance for Measurement at the Workplace, TSE, Ankara.

4. How to determine the vibration damping rate? Please clarify by combining necessary formulas

Vibration damping rate (%) is determined using Equation 3.

As an example, consider the measurements in Table 3.1

Un Gloved A(8)avg: 20.95 m/s²

Gloved A(8)avg:16.14 m/s²

Vibration Damping Rate (%)= (((20.95-16.14)/20.95)*100)= 22.96

5. In the conclusion section of Conclusions and Recommendations, it should be appropriately refined.

The Conclusions and Recommendations section has been reviewed, and some corrections have been made.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the author for submitting this interesting and practical study on the damping rates of anti-vibration gloves, a topic of significant importance for occupational health and safety, particularly in the mining industry. The research addresses a relevant problem, and the approach of combining field and laboratory measurements provides valuable insights. The finding that chloroprene rubber gloves performed best is noteworthy, as is the crucial observation that no glove reduced exposure below regulatory limits in the demanding field conditions.

While the manuscript has several strengths, including a generally clear presentation of results and appropriate statistical analysis, there are areas where revisions would significantly enhance its quality, clarity, and scientific rigor. I recommend revisions to address the following points:

1. Materials and Methods: This section requires substantial improvement to ensure other researchers can replicate your work and fully understand the context of your findings.

1.1. Glove Specifications (Table 2.1): This is a critical point. The current descriptions are insufficient for a scientific study. Please provide:

1.1.1. Specific manufacturer and model names/numbers for each glove if possible. If not, much more detailed material specifications are needed.

1.1.2. Quantitative details about the damping materials: thickness (e.g., for polyurethane, foams, gels in mm), density if known, and specific formulations where possible. "SPECIAL FOAM 20%" or "SMART FOAM" are unclear.

1.1.3. Correct the typo "Pedded" to "Padded" for glove 9.

1.2. Vibration Source Characterization:

1.2.1. Jackhammers (Field): Specify the type, model, and operating characteristics (e.g., impact energy/frequency, air pressure) of the jackhammers used. Clarify if the same model was used in all three mines or detail any variations.

1.2.2. Vibrating Sieve (Laboratory): Provide the make/model of the sieve set. Crucially, the "standard vibration" needs full characterization: its frequency spectrum, dominant frequencies, amplitude, and direction of vibration.

1.3. Experimental Procedure Details:

1.3.1. Operator Details: Specify the number of operators involved in each mine. While challenging in field conditions, describe any instructions given or efforts made to standardize operator grip force or posture.

1.3.2. Measurement Duration: For A(8) calculations, clarify the actual duration of the short-term vibration measurements (with and without each glove) that were subsequently extrapolated to 8 hours.

1.3.3. Laboratory Setup (Figure 2.4): Elaborate on how the glove was coupled to the sieve during laboratory measurements. Was hand pressure simulated (e.g., with a standard weight), or how was consistent contact ensured?

1.4. Damping Rate Calculation: Explicitly state the formula used to calculate the "Vibration Damping Rate (%)" from the A(8) values (ungloved vs. gloved) in the methods section.

2. Specific Section Comments:

2.1. Introduction: Consider briefly mentioning relevant standards for anti-vibration glove testing (e.g., ISO 10819) if applicable, to provide further context for the challenges in glove performance.

2.2. Results:

2.2.1. Tables 3.1-3.3 (Field Results): For enhanced clarity and consistency, please ensure the single baseline "Ungloved" A(8)avg value for each respective mine is prominently and clearly stated within each table, against which all gloved values are compared (Table 3.4 for lab data handles this well).

2.2.2. Figure 3.4 (Histogram): For the overlaid curve labeled "Normal," please specify if it's a theoretical normal distribution fitted to the data (based on sample mean and SD) or a non-parametric kernel density estimate.

2.3. Conclusions: The statement that the difference in performance between Glove No. 1 and Glove No. 2 "was not significant" needs clearer statistical backing. The provided post-hoc analysis (Table 3.10) does not show a direct comparison between Glove 1 and Glove 2. Please provide this comparison or rephrase the conclusion cautiously based on observed means and confidence intervals if a direct test was not performed.

3. Figures and Tables:

3.1. Table 2.1 (Vibration damping gloves and their properties): Beyond the need for more technical detail mentioned under "Methods," please improve image quality if possible, consider a more standardized scientific table format, and correct the formatting style for reference [16] (Amazon).

3.2. Figure 2.4 (Laboratory measurements): The image of the "gloved" setup (b) could be clearer in illustrating the interaction between the glove, accelerometer, and sieve.

4. References: Please correct the formatting style for reference [16] (Amazon) according to the Journal's requirements. Using manufacturer datasheets or technical specifications would be preferable to a general retail website if such information is obtainable for the gloves.

I believe that addressing these points will substantially strengthen your manuscript and make it a more impactful contribution to the field. I look forward to seeing a revised version.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is generally understandable. However, a thorough proofread to correct minor typos, ensure consistent terminology (e.g., "damping ratio" vs. "damping rate"), and refine phrasing for conciseness and precision would improve the manuscript's polish. For example, "included in the palm area of the glove, which can isolate or reduce vibration" could be phrased more directly.

Author Response

I have implemented the revisions you requested in the article and listed them point by point. Thank you for your attention and support.

The corresponding comments and their replies are listed below:

1. Materials and Methods: This section requires substantial improvement to ensure other researchers can replicate your work and fully understand the context of your findings.

Corrections have been made to the article.

1.1. Glove Specifications (Table 2.1): This is a critical point. The current descriptions are insufficient for a scientific study. Please provide:

• Specific manufacturer and model names/numbers for each glove if possible. If not, much more detailed material specifications are needed.

I did not specify the brand and model of the gloves because I thought it might be problem. I purchased anti-vibration gloves from Amazon.de. I have shared the information available there in Table 2.2. Apart from that, I could not find any detailed information about the anti-vibration gloves.

1.1.2. Quantitative details about the damping materials: thickness (e.g., for polyurethane, foams, gels in mm), density if known, and specific formulations where possible. "SPECIAL FOAM 20%" or "SMART FOAM" are unclear.

For certain gloves, information about the material thickness was provided. These details have been included in Table 2.2.

1.1.3. Correct the typo "Pedded" to "Padded" for glove 9.

It is corrected.

1.2. Vibration Source Characterization:

1.2.1. Jackhammers (Field): Specify the type, model, and operating characteristics (e.g., impact energy/frequency, air pressure) of the jackhammers used. Clarify if the same model was used in all three mines or detail any variations.

Table 2.1 Technical specifications of the jackhammer [16].

Air Consumption at 6 Bar	60 I/s
Air Hose Diameter	8 mm
Water Pipe Diameter	5 mm
Impact Rate	≥31 Hz
Hole Diameter	34-42 mm
Sank Size	22x108
Piston Stroke	70 mm
Working Pressure	6 Bar
Weight	24 kg

1.2.2. Vibrating Sieve (Laboratory): Provide the make/model of the sieve set. Crucially, the "standard vibration" needs full characterization: its frequency spectrum, dominant frequencies, amplitude, and direction of vibration.

Additionally, hand-arm vibration exposure measurements were conducted 3 times with and without gloves using a RETSCH brand, AS 200 model vibrating sieve set producing vibration at a certain frequency in the Mineral Processing Laboratory of the Mining Engineering Department (Figure 2.4).

AS 200 devices operate at their natural frequencies, meaning the vibration frequency of the device is independent of the power frequency. AS 200 offers a digitally adjustable amplitude range of 0 – 3 mm. AS 200 models operate with a 3D throwing motion, which ensures even distribution of the sample across the sieve surface, thereby achieving high separation efficiency.

 

1.3. Experimental Procedure Details:

1.3.1. Operator Details: Specify the number of operators involved in each mine. While challenging in field conditions, describe any instructions given or efforts made to standardize operator grip force or posture.

One jackhammer operator was involved in each mine.

No specific instructions were given regarding the jackhammer operator’s posture or grip force.

• Measurement Duration: For A(8) calculations, clarify the actual duration of the short-term vibration measurements (with and without each glove) that were subsequently extrapolated to 8 hours.

 

Vibration exposure measurements, both with and without gloves, were conducted over a 15-minute work period. Subsequently, the exposure values were extrapolated to an 8-hour duration.

1.3.3. Laboratory Setup (Figure 2.4): Elaborate on how the glove was coupled to the sieve during laboratory measurements. Was hand pressure simulated (e.g., with a standard weight), or how was consistent contact ensured?

The vibration exposure measurement was conducted by applying hand pressure onto the sieve set.

1.4. Damping Rate Calculation: Explicitly state the formula used to calculate the "Vibration Damping Rate (%)" from the A(8) values (ungloved vs. gloved) in the methods section.

         

As an example, consider the measurements in Table 3.1

Un Gloved A(8)avg: 20.95 m/s²

Gloved A(8)avg:16.14 m/s²

Vibration Damping Rate (%)= (((20.95-16.14)/20.95)*100)= 22.96

     

A(8)_ungloved: Daily personal vibration exposure measured without wearing gloves (m/s²)

A(8)_gloved: Daily personal vibration exposure measured with wearing gloves daily (m/s²)

2. Specific Section Comments:

2.1. Introduction: Consider briefly mentioning relevant standards for anti-vibration glove testing (e.g., ISO 10819) if applicable, to provide further context for the challenges in glove performance.

The test that must be applied for a glove to be marketed as an anti-vibration glove is specified in the international standard ISO 10819:2013 [15].

 

2.2. Results:

2.2.1. Tables 3.1-3.3 (Field Results): For enhanced clarity and consistency, please ensure the single baseline "Ungloved" A(8)avg value for each respective mine is prominently and clearly stated within each table, against which all gloved values are compared (Table 3.4 for lab data handles this well).

The results obtained from all three mines are presented in Table 3.1.

 

2.2.2. Figure 3.4 (Histogram): For the overlaid curve labeled "Normal," please specify if it's a theoretical normal distribution fitted to the data (based on sample mean and SD) or a non-parametric kernel density estimate.

The corrected statement is provided below.

Figure 3.4 shows that the histogram resembles the bell curve for a theoretical (based on a sample mean and SD) normal distribution.

2.3. Conclusions: The statement that the difference in performance between Glove No. 1 and Glove No. 2 "was not significant" needs clearer statistical backing. The provided post-hoc analysis (Table 3.10) does not show a direct comparison between Glove 1 and Glove 2. Please provide this comparison or rephrase the conclusion cautiously based on observed means and confidence intervals if a direct test was not performed.

I derived this sentence from the conclusions.

3. Figures and Tables:

3.1. Table 2.1 (Vibration damping gloves and their properties): Beyond the need for more technical detail mentioned under "Methods," please improve image quality if possible, consider a more standardized scientific table format, and correct the formatting style for reference [16] (Amazon).

Table 2.2 has been revised.

Amazon.de (2024) https://www.amazon.de/s?k=anti+vibRAT%C4%B0ON+GLOVES (Last Access Date: 02.06.2025).

The gloves were purchased from amazon.de; therefore, this address has been provided as a reference. It has also been verified that the webpage opens when the link is clicked.

3.2. Figure 2.4 (Laboratory measurements): The image of the "gloved" setup (b) could be clearer in illustrating the interaction between the glove, accelerometer, and sieve.

The measurement was made by borrowing a vibration dosimeter. I do not have the opportunity to take the photo again.

4. References: Please correct the formatting style for reference [16] (Amazon) according to the Journal's requirements. Using manufacturer datasheets or technical specifications would be preferable to a general retail website if such information is obtainable for the gloves.

I thought it might be problematic to share the manufacturers’ datasheets for the gloves. I didn’t even mention the glove brands in the paper. Therefore, I generally cited Amazon.de, where I purchased the gloves.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made a commendable effort to address the comments from the previous review, and the manuscript has improved in several key areas. The addition of jackhammer specifications, clarification of measurement durations, more details on the laboratory setup, inclusion of the damping rate formula, and improved table structures are all positive changes that enhance the paper's clarity and methodological description. The inclusion of ethical statements is also a welcome addition.

However, some significant points raised previously, particularly concerning the detailed specification of the anti-vibration gloves, have only been partially addressed. While the core findings remain interesting and relevant, these outstanding points still affect the manuscript's overall rigor and reproducibility.

Based on a comparison between the original and revised manuscripts, a number of previous concerns (typical for a first review round) appear to have been corrected. Nevertheless, the following aspects still need improvement:

1. Critical details for several other gloves regarding the thickness or specific composition of their primary damping material are still missing (e.g., Glove No. 1 "Palm is made of CHLOROPRENE RUBBER"; Glove No. 3 "special anti-vibration pad"; Glove No. 4 "FOAM LATEX RUBBER coating"; Glove No. 5 "35% POLYURETHANE"; Glove No. 8 "POLYMER"). Without these specifics, fully understanding the performance differences and replicating the study remains challenging. The source for the corresponding Table 2.2 (Ref [19], Amazon.de) has to be corrected and formatted according to the Journal's requirements.

Recommendation 1: 

Detailed glove specifications (Table 2.2) remain the most significant point. For gloves where specific padding material thickness or detailed composition is not provided (Gloves 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), the author should make every effort to find and include this information. If this information is genuinely unobtainable from the manufacturer or supplier, this should be explicitly stated as a limitation in the discussion, as it impacts the ability to fully correlate material properties with performance.

2. The manuscript states "One jackhammer operator was involved in each mine" (line 89). This clarifies the number of operators per site for the specific measurements but does not address any efforts to standardize grip force or posture, which can influence HAV measurements. This could be mentioned as a limitation if not controlled.

Recommendation 2:

A brief acknowledgment of study limitations, such as the use of a single operator per mine for the measurements, or the aforementioned missing glove specification details.

3. The discussion on why chloroprene might be better than latex foam is still somewhat brief, appearing mainly in the conclusion (lines 343-347). Expanding this slightly in the discussion section with reference to material properties could be beneficial.

Recommendation 3:

While the conclusions are good, the main "Results and Discussion" section could benefit from a slightly more detailed discussion on:

- Potential reasons for the superior performance of chloroprene rubber based on its known material properties (e.g., damping coefficient, resilience, frequency response) compared to other materials like latex foam, beyond just stating the observation.

- The implications of the much higher damping rates observed in the laboratory versus the field. What factors might contribute to this (e.g., different vibration spectra, standardized contact in lab vs. variable grip in field)?

4. The statement "Likewise, Glove No. 2 contained a coating of chloroprene rubber, but glove No. 1 showed slightly higher performance, although the difference was not significant" (lines 346-347) still appears. As noted in the previous review, the post-hoc analysis (Table 3.10) does not present a direct statistical comparison between Glove No. 1 and Glove No. 2. This statement needs to be directly supported by a statistical test comparing these two specific gloves, or it should be rephrased more cautiously (e.g., based on overlapping confidence intervals if a direct test isn't feasible/performed) or removed.

Recommendation 4:

The statement in the Conclusion (lines 346-347) that the difference in performance between Glove No. 1 and Glove No. 2 was "not significant" needs to be explicitly supported by a direct statistical comparison (e.g., a t-test or by showing they are not significantly different in the post-hoc analysis if it were designed to compare them). If this direct comparison is not available or was not performed, the statement should be removed or carefully rephrased based only on observed means and their confidence intervals.

Once these points are addressed, the manuscript will be suitable for publication in Applied Sciences.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The corresponding comments and their replies are listed below:

1. Critical details for several other gloves regarding the thickness or specific composition of their primary damping material are still missing (e.g., Glove No. 1 "Palm is made of CHLOROPRENE RUBBER"; Glove No. 3 "special anti-vibration pad"; Glove No. 4 "FOAM LATEX RUBBER coating"; Glove No. 5 "35% POLYURETHANE"; Glove No. 8 "POLYMER"). Without these specifics, fully understanding the performance differences and replicating the study remains challenging. The source for the corresponding Table 2.2 (Ref [19], Amazon.de) has to be corrected and formatted according to the Journal's requirements.

Recommendation 1: 

Detailed glove specifications (Table 2.2) remain the most significant point. For gloves where specific padding material thickness or detailed composition is not provided (Gloves 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), the author should make every effort to find and include this information. If this information is genuinely unobtainable from the manufacturer or supplier, this should be explicitly stated as a limitation in the discussion, as it impacts the ability to fully correlate material properties with performance.

Replies: The thicknesses of the vibration-damping pads inside the gloves have been determined (TABLE 2.2). Ref [19] corrected.

2. The manuscript states "One jackhammer operator was involved in each mine" (line 89). This clarifies the number of operators per site for the specific measurements but does not address any efforts to standardize grip force or posture, which can influence HAV measurements. This could be mentioned as a limitation if not controlled.

Recommendation 2:

A brief acknowledgment of study limitations, such as the use of a single operator per mine for the measurements, or the aforementioned missing glove specification details.

Replies: One jackhammer operator was involved in each mine. Hand-arm vibration exposures of jackhammer operators working in three different mines (A, B, and C) were measured three times, both with and without gloves, and the average values were compared. Repeating the measurements three times and taking the average helped reduce deviations caused by individual differences (LINE 88-93).

In field studies, standardizing biomechanical factors such as grip force and posture of the jackhammer operator is particularly challenging. However, certain measures were implemented to enhance the reliability and comparability of the data.

Prior to the measurements, jackhammer operators were given verbal instructions on how to apply the appropriate grip force. The standard grip and posture were demonstrated through practical examples. Stabilizing the machine in a fixed position and ensuring that the operator maintained a specific posture contributed to preserving a consistent position during measurements. When grip errors were observed during testing, immediate feedback was provided to the operators, allowing for prompt corrections. These measures were implemented to minimize the inherent variability of field conditions and to enhance the reliability of the collected data (LINE106-116).

3. The discussion on why chloroprene might be better than latex foam is still somewhat brief, appearing mainly in the conclusion (lines 343-347). Expanding this slightly in the discussion section with reference to material properties could be beneficial.

Recommendation 3:

While the conclusions are good, the main "Results and Discussion" section could benefit from a slightly more detailed discussion on:

- Potential reasons for the superior performance of chloroprene rubber based on its known material properties (e.g., damping coefficient, resilience, frequency response) compared to other materials like latex foam, beyond just stating the observation.

- The implications of the much higher damping rates observed in the laboratory versus the field. What factors might contribute to this (e.g., different vibration spectra, standardized contact in lab vs. variable grip in field)?

Replies: The properties of the material used in a glove affect the transmissibility of vibrations through the material to the palm of the hand [21-22] (LINE 257-258).

Chloroprene (Neoprene), a type of synthetic rubber known for its chemical resistance, flexibility, and thermal stability. Chloroprene rubber is commonly used in anti-vibration gloves, typically as an inserted padding or surface coating. Its texture is generally firmer and more durable, and it may be slightly thicker. Latex Foam, a foam material derived from natural rubber obtained from rubber trees. It is characterized by its softness, high elasticity, and flexibility, making it suitable for comfort-focused applications. It is especially used as a palm coating in gloves because it is both flexible and has vibration-dampening properties. Its texture is softer, spongy, and flexible. However, its chemical resistance is lower compared to chloroprene. This situation may help explain the difference in vibration damping rates between glove No. 1 and glove No. 12(LINE 262-272)

The vibration damping rates of the gloves observed in the laboratory environment were higher than those observed in the field environment. This difference is thought to result from different vibration spectra, standardized contact conditions in the laboratory, and varying grip patterns in the field (LINE 249-252).

4. The statement "Likewise, Glove No. 2 contained a coating of chloroprene rubber, but glove No. 1 showed slightly higher performance, although the difference was not significant" (lines 346-347) still appears. As noted in the previous review, the post-hoc analysis (Table 3.10) does not present a direct statistical comparison between Glove No. 1 and Glove No. 2. This statement needs to be directly supported by a statistical test comparing these two specific gloves, or it should be rephrased more cautiously (e.g., based on overlapping confidence intervals if a direct test isn't feasible/performed) or removed.

Recommendation 4:

The statement in the Conclusion (lines 346-347) that the difference in performance between Glove No. 1 and Glove No. 2 was "not significant" needs to be explicitly supported by a direct statistical comparison (e.g., a t-test or by showing they are not significantly different in the post-hoc analysis if it were designed to compare them). If this direct comparison is not available or was not performed, the statement should be removed or carefully rephrased based only on observed means and their confidence intervals.

Replies: The p-values are ≥ 0.05 for some relationships in Table 3.8. This indicates that there are not significant differences between the vibration damping ratio of glove No. 1 and the vibration damping ratios of gloves Nos. 2. (LINE 336-338).

Glove No. 1 is coated with chloroprene rubber, and the palm of glove No. 12 is coated with latex foam. Chloroprene (Neoprene) is a type of synthetic rubber known for its chemical resistance, flexibility, and thermal stability. Its texture is generally firmer and more durable. Latex Foam, on the other hand, is a foam material derived from natural rubber obtained from rubber trees. Its texture is softer, spongy, and flexible. The chemical resistance of latex foam is lower compared to chloroprene. This may help explain the difference in vibration damping rates between gloves No. 1 and No. 12. (LINE 359-376).

The vibration attenuation rates of the gloves, as measured under controlled laboratory conditions, were found to be higher than those recorded in field environments. This discrepancy is likely attributable to variations in vibration spectra, the standardized and repeatable contact conditions in laboratory settings, and the inconsistent grip forces and hand postures typically encountered during field operations (LINE 373-378).

Likewise, Glove No. 2 contained a coating of chloroprene rubber, but glove No. 1 showed slightly higher performance, although the difference was not significant (Table 3.8) (LINE 382-384).

Thank you for your contributions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf