Effect of Floor Coatings on Slip-Resistance of Safety Shoes

Abstract

Slippery flooring often leads to unintentional slips and falls, which results in traumatic injuries. To reduce slipping risks, adequate traction at the shoe and flooring contact is essential. In addition, viscous slippery contaminants like water or oil reduce a floor’s traction performance and increase slipping hazards. In this work, the effect of commonly available protective floor coatings on the traction performance of safety-labelled shoes was extensively studied. The study included three floor coatings, namely acid-based etchant coating, epoxy floor paint, and polyurethane, which were tested across five safety shoes. The coated floorings were tested using a robotic slip-testing device in dry and in the presence of water and machine oil—as separate contaminants. The application of floor coatings produced varying surface roughness for the flooring. Significant traction was generated by the etchant coating for the dry flooring, epoxy coating for the wet flooring, and polyurethane coating for all flooring conditions. A comparison of uncoated and coated floorings showed a high effectiveness of generating traction with epoxy coating on wet flooring and polyurethane coating on both wet and oily conditions. The study results are novel and are anticipated to provide valuable guidelines for the selection of slip-resistant coatings for different slippery floorings, and to reduce risks related to slips and falls.

1. Introduction

Non-fatal accidents resulting from slips and falls are a major distress for the public’s health and safety [1]. Out of all the non-fatal accidents, slips and falls have been reported as a cause for over 29% of cases [2]. Falls and unintentional slips have been ranked amongst the top reasons for an overall economic burden of more than $10 billion in the US [3]. Furthermore, the consequences from non-fatal slips and falls include joint dislocations, muscle or ligament tears, and fractures, which can lead to the absence of employees in their workplaces for more than 30 days [4]. These leaves cause delays in work and have also led to the workers drawing considerable compensation from their organizations [5]. Unintentional slips occur due to several factors, such as type of footwear, flooring, presence of floor contaminants, shoe outsole wear, etc. [6,7]. These factors lead to variations in the traction performance of the footwear. Friction at the shoe-floor contact is quantified by dividing the forces that oppose slipping (i.e., shear forces) by the vertical force (i.e., body weight) and is typically stated as the available coefficient of friction (ACOF) [8]. Hence, ensuring adequate friction over common floorings is essential for the well-being of workers.

Friction at the shoe and floor interface is affected by the type of flooring, outsole design, outsole material, presence of slippery contaminants (i.e., water or oil), and the wear of shoes [6,7,9,10,11,12]. Recently, Gupta et al. [7] quantified the ACOF of fully worn footwear and found high slip risks over floorings contaminated with water or oil. Certainly, the presence of slippery contaminants on floorings result in a high probability of slips and falls [6,13,14,15,16]. In recent studies [7,12,14,17], the type of flooring, such as laminate, porcelain, anti-skid, matt, and glossy, were found to have highly varied influences on the footwear and barefoot slipping risks. Hence, surface modifications with coatings, which influence the topographical features of a flooring, are required to ensure sufficient friction by considering any footwear material or type.

The coatings that are employed to enhance the slip resistance of a floor include anti-slip coatings and surface treatments [18]. A few studies in the past have tested floor coatings to assess slip risks [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Shibata et al. [22] tested a urethane coating on a vinyl flooring sheet and found that the slip resistance offered by any surface coating is affected by the type of footwear worn. In another study [23], waxed floor coatings were found to be hazardous in the case of wet slipping conditions. Similarly, in a study by Kim [24], waxed asphalt floorings in water-contaminated conditions were tested with three slip meters and reported low interfacial friction between the contacting bodies. Industrial floorings in food sectors were assessed for their safety in providing slip resistance in water-contaminated conditions in a study by Leclercq and Saulnier [26]. The changes in the surface features were found to be the reason for unexplained variations in the friction values. In another study by Blanco et al. [25], the traction performance of a flooring was enhanced by mixing nanoparticles with an epoxy floor paint coating. A significant increase in the overall traction at the surface was reported. In all these studies, limited and different footwear–floor-coating combinations were investigated using different traction measurement systems, thereby inhibiting comparative assessment of the coatings.

In this work, the effect of commonly available slip-resistant floor coatings on the traction performance of safety-labelled shoes was investigated. The study included three floor coatings, namely acid-based etchant solution, epoxy floor paint, and polyurethane, which were tested for five safety shoes having high volumes of sales in India. The coated floorings were tested using a biofidelic and portable robotic slip-testing device in dry conditions and in the presence of water and machine oil as separate contaminants. The effectiveness of the coated floorings were compared with an ACOF threshold value of 0.3, above which the slip risks decrease significantly [6]. It is anticipated that the results of this pioneering work will help guide the selection of floor coatings for different applications to mitigate slip and fall risks.

2. Materials and Methods

To study the effect of floor coatings on the slip resistance of safety shoes, three instant and commonly available coatings were considered in this work. The first coating used in this study was an etchant-based acidic solution (Oxon Paints and Chemicals LLP, India) comprising of urea and hydrochloride, which are known to chemically modify the surface properties of the flooring [27]. The etching process initiated the formation of microscopic pores on the flooring, which eventually increased its surface roughness. For its application, 50 mL of the etchant solution was mixed with 100 mL of water and continuously stirred for 2 min. Post-stirring, the final etchant solution was applied on the floorings. A visible froth formation was noticed over the floorings and left to react for 30 min before the final cleaning process. The second coating implemented in our study was a common two-part epoxy-based floor coat comprising of epoxy as a primary formula and hardener as a solvent (Asian Paints, India). Epoxy floorings are widely used in hospitals and industries to enhance the glossiness with increased slip resistance. For the preparation, primary epoxy paint was mixed with the hardener with a ratio of 3:1 by weight and continuously stirred for 5 min. The stirring was stopped when the mixture showed a light yellowish coloration, which indicated the start of its curing process. The coating was then evenly distributed over the floorings and left to dry for 5 h. The third floor coating used in this work was comprised of a water-dispersible poly-isocyanate and a hard cyclic-diol-based polyurethane spray (Samurai, Malaysia). Urethane-based coatings have wide applications in the industrial and sports industry [28]. A 100 mL polyurethane-based coating was sprayed with controlled speed to ensure an even distribution over the flooring. The applied coating was then left to dry in a clean environment for 10 min. Figure 1 represents the surface roughness values of the uncoated laminate and coated floorings along with their respective scale bars. The dimensions of all the floorings represented in the figure are 300 mm × 300 mm.

To measure the surface roughness of the floorings, a digital surface profile meter (Precise Instruments, New Delhi, India) was used. The roughness was quantified for five different locations over the flooring and averaged (Figure 1). The laminate flooring had an average surface roughness of 13.18 µm. The resulting floorings generated a surface roughness of 27.32 µm for etchant-based, 72.10 µm for epoxy-based, and 83.92 µm for polyurethane-based coatings. Instead of the actual surface profile imaging through SEM or AFM, the average peak-to-valley measurements (Ra) were considered in this work to focus on understanding the overall traction offered by floor coatings to a range of safety shoes in the presence of different slippery contaminants. The Ra metric has previously been employed to measure the range of clean floorings in the evaluation of slip risk potentials [6,29]. In another recent study by Chanda et al. [29], Ra was reported to be effective in predicting the slipping chances in the simulated testing environments. In addition to Ra, the quantification of other surface parameters, such as the 3D surface profile, kurtosis, skewness, etc., through SEM, AFM, or WLI techniques may be valuable for understanding the science behind the traction offered by different floor coatings. Future studies including these scanning techniques will help understand the dry and fluid film behaviour of the footwear across the floor coatings and contaminants for the evaluation of slipping risks. To quantify the effect of coated floors on the slip resistance of footwear, five safety labelled shoes with high sales volumes in India, and irrespective of brand heterogeneity, were considered. The shoes had visually varying tread patterns. All the shoes were of the UK-9 size and had a shore A hardness ranging from 75 to 78, which was measured using a durometer (Precise Instruments, New Delhi, India). The shoes were named SS1, SS2, SS3, SS4, and SS5. Figure 2 shows the outsole design of the safety shoes considered in this study.

The traction performance (i.e., ACOF) of the floorings was estimated by employing a robotic whole-shoe slip risk measurement device (DIML-IITD, New Delhi, India) that mimics realistic slipping biomechanics (Figure 3). The developed device was based on the slip-testing standard prescribed by The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM F2913-19) [30]. The portable slip tester was carried to location where the coatings were applied, and the selected shoes were attached to the shoe last. Simulation of realistic slipping biomechanics was conducted by applying a sliding speed of 0.5 m/s, shoe slipping angle of 17° ± 2.5°, and a vertical load of 250 ± 25 N, as implemented in previous studies [6,7,9,31,32,33,34,35]. Furthermore, the floorings were separately tested in dry conditions and in water- and machine-oil-contaminated conditions. A total of 20 mL of water and machine oil were spilled over the flooring area covered by the slip tester. To quantify the ACOF, five trials of each shoe on different slipping conditions were performed and averaged.

The ACOF of the safety shoes were quantified using the slip tester across dry, wet, and oily slipping conditions on uncoated, etchant-treated, epoxy-coated, and polyurethane-coated flooring. The flooring traction was quantified to assess the quality of slip resistance generated by the coated floorings. Furthermore, the effectiveness was measured based on the threshold ACOF value of 0.3, above which, reportedly, slip risks decrease [6].

3. Results

3.1. Traction Performance of Safety Shoes on Uncoated and Coated Floorings

The ACOF across the shoes on uncoated laminate flooring ranged from 0.08 to 0.28, including each slippery condition. After the application of etchant-based coating on the uncoated flooring, the ACOF of the shoes varied from 0.08 to 0.32 across all the slipping simulations. On the application of epoxy coating, the ACOF of the safety shoes across all the slipping conditions varied between 0.09 to 0.34, whereas the average ACOF of the shoes tested varied from 0.17 to 0.40 in the case of the polyurethane-coated flooring. The subsequent sections represent the detailed results of the traction performance of shoes in each slip setting.

3.1.1. Uncoated Laminate Flooring

The ACOF of the shoes ranged from 0.08 to 0.28, including each slippery condition, on uncoated laminate flooring (Figure 4). Specifically, in the case of machine-oil-contaminated flooring, low variations in the friction values were observed, which ranged from 0.08 to 0.12. Shoe SS4 exhibited the highest ACOF (i.e., 0.12), whereas shoe SS5 showed the lowest ACOF (i.e., 0.08) in the oil-contaminated condition. Apart from SS4, SS3 and SS2 showed similar ACOF values. As compared to SS4, SS1 exhibited a reduction in the ACOF value by 28%, SS2 by 12%, SS3 by 20%, and SS5 by 36%. In the case of water-contaminated laminate flooring, the ACOF of the shoes ranged from 0.18 to 0.20. In this case, SS3 showed the highest ACOF of 0.20, followed by SS2, SS5, SS4, and SS1. As compared to SS3, SS1 exhibited a reduction in the ACOF value by 10%, SS2 by 4%, SS4 by 8%, and SS5 by 5%. Overall, the reduced variations in the ACOF were observed in wet slippery conditions on uncoated flooring. For dry slip testing, the ACOF values of safety-labelled shoes ranged from 0.21 to 0.28. ACOF were found to vary widely in the case of dry, uncoated laminate flooring. Amongst all the shoes, SS4 exhibited the highest ACOF of 0.28. As compared to SS4, SS1 exhibited a decrease in the friction value by 12%, SS2 by 10%, SS3 by 2%, and SS5 by 25%.

3.1.2. Etchant Coated Flooring

The average ACOF of the shoes tested on the flooring when etchant coating was used varied from 0.08 to 0.32 across all the slipping simulations (Figure 5). ACOF varied widely in the case of etchant-coated flooring across each slippery condition. Specifically, in the case of dry slip testing, the ACOF values were considerably increased and ranged from 0.26 to 0.32. Shoe SS1 exhibited the highest ACOF (i.e., 0.32), whereas shoe SS5 experienced the lowest ACOF (i.e., 0.26) in dry etchant-coated flooring. As compared to SS1, SS2 showed a reduction in the ACOF value by 5%, SS3 by 12%, SS4 by 9%, and SS5 by 17.5%. In the case of water-contaminated etchant-coated flooring, the ACOF of shoes ranged from 0.18 to 0.21. In this case, SS3 showed the highest ACOF of 0.21, followed by SS2, SS4, SS1, and SS5. As compared to SS3, SS1 experienced a decrease in the traction value by 9%, SS2 by 4%, SS4 by 7%, and SS5 by 14%. Overall, further reduction in the variations of ACOF were observed in wet slippery conditions on etchant-coated flooring. In the case of etchant-coated flooring contaminated with machine oil, the friction values of the considered shoes varied between 0.08 to 0.10. Amongst all the shoes, SS2 and SS4 exhibited the highest ACOF of 0.10. As compared to SS4 and SS2, SS1 exhibited a reduction in the ACOF value by 23%, SS3 by 9%, and SS4 by 12%.

3.1.3. Epoxy-Coated Flooring

On epoxy coating, the ACOF of the safety shoes across all the slipping conditions varied between 0.09 to 0.34 (Figure 6). In the case of flooring coated with epoxy and contaminated with machine oil, highly-generalized ACOF values were observed, which ranged between 0.09 to 0.12. Shoe SS1 exhibited the highest ACOF (i.e., 0.12), whereas shoe SS3 showed the lowest ACOF (i.e., 0.09) in oil-contaminated conditions. Apart from SS1 and SS2, SS4 and SS5 showed similar ACOF values of 0.11. As compared to SS1, SS2 exhibited a reduction in the ACOF value by 8%, SS3 by 25%, SS4 by 8%, and SS5 by 8% again. In the case of epoxy-coated flooring contaminated with water, the ACOF outcomes of the safety shoes varied from 0.23 to 0.28. Specifically, SS4 experienced the highest ACOF of 0.28, followed by SS5, SS3, SS1, and SS2. As compared to SS4, SS1 exhibited a reduction in the ACOF value by 18%, SS2 by 11%, SS3 by 7%, and SS5 by 4%. Overall, increased variations in the ACOF were reported in the case of flooring coated with epoxy and contaminated with water. In the case of dry slip testing, the ACOF outcomes of the shoes ranged between 0.28 to 0.35. Amongst all the shoes, SS1 showed the highest ACOF of 0.35. As compared to SS1, SS2 exhibited a decrease in the friction value by 6%, SS3 by 16%, SS4 by 10%, and SS5 by 18%.

3.1.4. Polyurethane-Coated Flooring

In the case of flooring coated with polyurethane, the average ACOF of the shoes tested varied from 0.17 to 0.40 across each slipping condition (Figure 7). More generalized ACOF outcomes were observed in the case of polyurethane-coated flooring across each slippery condition. Specifically, in the case of dry slip testing, considerably increased ACOF values were observed, which ranged from 0.36 to 0.40. Shoe SS4 exhibited the highest ACOF (i.e., 0.40), whereas shoe SS1 experienced the lowest ACOF (i.e., 0.36) for dry polyurethane-coated flooring. As compared to SS4, SS1 exhibited a change in the ACOF value by 10%, SS2 by 4%, SS3 by 6%, and SS5 by 2%. In the case of flooring coated with polyurethane and contaminated with water, the ACOF of shoes varied from 0.27 to 0.30. In this case, SS3 showed the highest ACOF of 0.30, followed by SS1, SS4, SS5, and SS2. Apart from SS3, SS1, SS4, and SS5 showed similar ACOFs of 0.29±0.01 in wet conditions. As compared to SS3, SS1 experienced a decrease in the traction value by 3%, SS2 by 10%, SS4 by 3%, and SS5 by 3%. Overall, highly-generalized ACOF outcomes were observed in wet slippery conditions on polyurethane-coated flooring. In the case of polyurethane-coated flooring contaminated with machine oil, the ACOF values of the safety shoes ranged between 0.17 to 0.18. Amongst all the shoes, SS1 and SS3 showed the highest ACOF of 0.18, whereas the remaining shoes experienced an ACOF of 0.17.

3.2. Effectiveness of Coatings to Provide Slip Resistance across Slipping Conditions

The effectiveness of floorings coated with etchant, epoxy, and polyurethane was quantified by comparing them individually with the uncoated laminate flooring and estimating the percentage enhancement in slip resistance (i.e., ACOF) for any shoe-contaminant condition using Equation (1). Where, ACOF (Coated) is the ACOF of the coated flooring and ACOF (Uncoated) is the ACOF of the uncoated laminate flooring.

$$effectiveness=\frac{ACOF \left(Coated\right)-ACOF \left(Uncoated\right)}{ACOF \left(Uncoated\right)}\times 100$$

(1)

Figure 8 demonstrates the compared effectiveness of uncoated and coated floorings in each slippery condition (i.e., dry, wet, machine oil). As compared to uncoated laminate flooring, the application of etchant-based coating over the uncoated flooring showed high effectiveness (i.e., 30%) in the dry condition (Figure 8). Shoes SS1 and SS5 were amongst the shoes that showed effective slip resistance in the case of dry etchant-coated flooring. On the contrary, in the case of the wet contaminant condition, insignificant slip resistance on the etchant-based floorings were reported. In this case, all the safety shoes performed with a similar trend in both the flooring conditions. In the case of machine oil as a contaminant, etchant-coated flooring was found to be effective for only approx. 40% of the safety shoes. Overall, high effectiveness was reported in dry conditions followed by machine oil and wet slipping conditions.

Epoxy-coated flooring, when compared with uncoated laminate flooring, showed a significant increase in the overall slip resistance in each slippery condition (Figure 9). A comparison between dry uncoated and epoxy-coated flooring exhibited a maximum effectiveness of 40% amongst all the shoes. Shoes SS1, SS2, and SS5 showed the highest effectiveness in these conditions. In the case of wet uncoated and epoxy-coated floorings, a maximum effectiveness of 50% was observed. All the shoes were found to be effective on wet epoxy-coated flooring when compared to uncoated flooring. In the case of the presence of machine oil over the uncoated and epoxy-coated flooring, only two shoes (i.e., SS1 and SS5) were found to be effective. Overall, high effectiveness was reported in dry and wet conditions, and low effectiveness in machine-oil-contaminated conditions.

As compared to uncoated laminate flooring, polyurethane-coated flooring showed significant effectiveness in each slipping condition across all the shoes (Figure 10). The maximum effectiveness values observed were 80% for dry, 60% for wet, and 110% for machine oil as a contaminant condition. In the case of dry uncoated and polyurethane-coated flooring, except SS3, all the shoes showed effectiveness of more than 40%. In the case of wet uncoated and polyurethane-coated flooring, nearly all the shoes showed increased effectiveness, which ranged from 40% to 60%. Similarly, in the case of oily uncoated and polyurethane-coated flooring, all the safety shoes exhibited high effectiveness ranging from 35% to 110%. Overall, high effectiveness was reported across each slipping setting.

The effectiveness of floorings coated with etchant, epoxy, or polyurethane, when applied one after another, was also quantified by estimating the percentage enhancement in slip resistance (i.e., ACOF) for any shoe-contaminant condition. Epoxy-coated floorings when compared with etchant-coated floorings showed minimal to moderate improvement in effectiveness for dry and machine oil slipping conditions (Figure 11). Specifically, across etchant- and epoxy-coated floorings, the effectiveness improvement values ranged from 4% to 8% for all the shoes in dry conditions, and 4% to 18% for the majority of the shoes in oily conditions. On the contrary, in the case of wet etchant- and epoxy-coated floorings, high effectiveness improvement was reported across all safety shoes. The effectiveness improvement values ranged from 19% to 50%, in which SS1 showed the lowest and SS5 showed the highest. Overall, high effectiveness improvement was reported across slipping simulations on wet etchant over epoxy.

As compared to etchant-coated flooring, polyurethane-coated flooring showed significant effectiveness improvement in most of the slipping conditions across all the shoes (Figure 12). The maximum effectiveness improvement values observed were 45% for dry, 60% for wet, and 125% for machine oil as a contaminant condition. Comparing dry etchant- and polyurethane-coated flooring, except SS1 and SS2, all the shoes showed effectiveness improvement of more than 25%. Comparing oily-etchant and polyurethane-coated flooring, nearly all the shoes showed increased effectiveness, which ranged from 60% to 125%. Comparing wet etchant- and polyurethane-coated flooring, the majority of the safety shoes exhibited moderate effectiveness improvement ranging from 25% to 45%. Overall, high effectiveness improvement was reported across the machine oil slipping setting.

Polyurethane-coated floorings when compared with epoxy-coated floorings showed varying effectiveness improvements across all the slipping conditions (Figure 13). Specifically, polyurethane-coated flooring exhibited effectiveness improvements ranging from 2% to 25% for all the shoes in both dry and wet conditions. On the contrary, in the case of oily-coated floorings, polyurethane showed high effectiveness improvement across all the safety shoes. The effectiveness improvement values ranged from 45% to 100%, in which SS3 exhibited the highest and SS1 exhibited the lowest improvements. Overall, high effectiveness improvement was reported across slipping simulations on oily polyurethane over epoxy.

4. Discussion

In this study, the influence of commercially available floor coatings on the traction performance of common safety-labelled footwear was investigated comparatively. Three well-known floor coatings, namely acid-based etchant solution, epoxy floor paint, and polyurethane, were tested across five safety shoes commonly available in India. Coated floorings were evaluated utilizing a biofidelic and portable robotic slip testing apparatus under dry conditions, as well as in the presence of water and machine oil as contaminants. The significant impact of floor coatings on the enhancement of slip resistance was observed for the varying shoe designs when slip tested across dry, wet, and machine-oil-contaminated conditions. Slip risks on oil-contaminated floorings showed highly-generalizable ACOF outcomes, and the study results were comparable with previous studies [6,29].

Slip testing experiments across dry, wet, and machine oil conditions on uncoated laminate flooring showed high slip risks, with none of the shoes crossing the ACOF threshold of 0.3. Shoes across dry slipping conditions showed reasonable slip-resistance, whereas in wet and oil contaminant conditions, high slipping potential was observed. Floorings coated with etchant showed a significant increase in the shoe–floor friction, where around 40% of the shoes were able to surpass the slip threshold in dry conditions. Specifically, in wet and oily conditions, etchant-coated floorings showed highly generalizable ACOF outcomes. This trend indicated the etchant coating’s inability to provide sufficient friction to mitigate slipping risks in the presence of contaminants. Floorings coated with epoxy floor paint showed good slip-resistant performance, as all the shoes were able to cross the threshold ACOF when tested in dry condition. Moreover, more than 50% of the shoes showed near slip-resistance behavior in the case of water-contaminated epoxy flooring. On the contrary, in the presence of machine oil as a contaminant on epoxy-coated flooring, low ACOF and highly generalizable results were observed. Finally, floors with thick polyurethane coating observed highly slip-resistant performances across all the shoes in dry and water-contaminated floorings. These outcomes indicate the ability of the polyurethane coating to mitigate slipping and falling risks in dry and even in water-spilled conditions. This could be due to the increased surface roughness, which resulted in high variations of ridges and valleys. The fluid film formation could have been dominated by these surface irregularities. In the case of polyurethane-coated flooring contaminated with machine oil, a slight increase in ACOF was observed as compared to other coated floorings, which was still not enough to ensure considerable slip-resistance. Figure 14 summarizes the slip testing results across each shoe–floor-contaminant-based slip setting (total 60). Slip testing results across uncoated floorings generated ACOFs that were considerably below 0.3. For the etchant- and epoxy-based coatings, only 20% of the total slip testing results were able to surpass the threshold, and only in dry conditions. Whereas, with the polyurethane coating, almost 66% of the traction results were observed to be above the slip safety threshold.

Analyzing the effectiveness of going from uncoated to etchant-coated flooring indicated that places, such as offices, academic institutions, or public places, where laminate floorings are commonly used, can be effective in providing slip-resistant performance only in dry conditions. In places where the flooring is more often contaminated by water or oil, etchant-based coating over the laminate flooring may not help mitigate slipping risks. Uncoated floorings, when coated with epoxy, had outcomes that indicated moderate effectiveness in dry conditions and high effectiveness in wet conditions. Places such as hospitals or packaging industries, where epoxy coatings are generally used, could provide effective slip-resistance in the presence of water, but not in oily conditions. Laminate floorings, when coated with thick polyurethane, showed high effectiveness in oily conditions as compared to dry or wet conditions. In the case of floorings already coated with etchant when compared with floorings coated with epoxy, high effectiveness improvements in the water-spilled condition indicated that etchant-coated floorings could be enhanced using an epoxy-based coating. For etchant- and epoxy-coated flooring, when compared with polyurethane-based coating, minimal effectiveness improvement in dry conditions, but highly significant effectiveness improvement in oil-contaminated conditions, could be expected. Hence, a flooring already coated with etchant or epoxy, and reapplied with polyurethane, would not affect the overall friction in dry conditions, but may help in oil-contaminated conditions.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the application of several floor coatings (i.e., etchant, epoxy, and polyurethane) produced varying surface roughness of the floorings. Uncoated laminate flooring was found to provide limited traction, resulting in high slip risks. Etchant-coated flooring showed significant improvement in slip-resistance in dry conditions. Epoxy-coated flooring was found to enhance the overall traction performance in water-contaminated conditions. Polyurethane-coated flooring exhibited slip-resistant performance across all the slipping conditions. Furthermore, epoxy-coated flooring showed effectiveness improvements across slip testing results in wet conditions. Polyurethane-coated flooring, when compared with other coated floorings, exhibited increased effectiveness in wet and oil contaminant conditions. The results from this study are anticipated to provide strategies and guidelines for coating based slip-resistance performance enhancement on common slippery floorings to reduce the risk of falls.