Przeprowadzono analizę porównawczą trzech znormalizowanych dynamicznych metod badawczych stosowanych do oceny odporności obuwia na wodę, zgodnych z trzema normami: PN-EN 13073, PN-O-91123 oraz PN-EN ISO 20344. Celem było zwrócenie uwagi na możliwości i ograniczenia każdej z tych metod, wynikające z zasady prowadzenia badań, zaangażowania ludzi lub konstrukcji oprzyrządowania. Stwierdzono, że konsekwencją dużych różnic w metodach, wynikających z powyższych czynników są zróżnicowane możliwości i ograniczenia dotyczące np. potrzeby zaangażowania osoby testującej w badanie, powierzchni wymaganej do przeprowadzenia badań, bezpieczeństwa i wygody prowadzenia badań, dokładności odczytu pomiaru lub typu badanego obuwia. Te ograniczenia w drodze doskonalenia metod, można i powinno się eliminować. Bez względu na wyniki analiz, wszystkie te metody z powodzeniem mogą być stosowane do prowadzenia testów obuwia pod względem odporności na wodę, jednak wyniki uzyskane z tych metod dla tego samego rodzaju obuwia mogą się różnić. Dla weryfikacji tej tezy konieczne jest przeprowadzenie badań porównawczych tego samego obuwia przy użyciu trzech analizowanych metod.
EN
A comparative analysis of three standard dynamic test methods used to evaluate water resistance of footwear was carried out, compliant with three standards: PN-EN 13073, PN-O-91123, PN-EN ISO 20344. The aim of study was to draw attention to the possibilities and limitations of each of these methods, resulting from the principle of measurements, people involvement or equipment design. It was found that the consequence of large differences between methods, resulting from above factors led to diverse possibilities and restrictions such as: the need to involve testers, the area required for testing, the safety and comfort for testing, accuracy of measurement readings as well as the range of tested shoe types. These limitations can and should be eliminated by means of improvement methods. Regardless of the results of the analysis, all of these methods can be successfully used for water resistance testing of footwear; however the results of these methods, for the same type of footwear may vary. For verification of this thesis it is necessary to conduct comparative studies of the same footwear using the three analysed methods.
This study aimed to evaluate professional footwear comfort, functionality and style as well as their relationships with the foot structure among nurses. Methods: We examined 120 clinical nurses aged 40–50 years, occupationally active, wearing specific type of footwear at work for a minimum of 7 h a day, for 5 days prior to the research. The study relied on the CQ-ST podoscope for measurements of foot. Perception of footwear comfort, functionality and style scales were also used in the research. The results were analysed with the use of Mann–Whitney U-test and Spearman’s rank correlation. Results: Statistically significant negative associations were found between right and left foot length and overall comfort of footwear ( p = 0.045, p = 0.045) as well as between right and left foot width and arch height ( p = 0.015, p = 0.028). Heel angle positively correlated with safety ( p = 0.008, p = 0.050), ease of donning and doffing ( p = 0.001, p = 0.004), as well as shoe style ratings ( p = 0.047). Variables determining shoe comfort were positively correlated with most shoe functionality characteristics as well as with shoe style (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Tested medical footwear meets the requirements of nurses in terms of comfort, functionality and aesthetics, and the studied features of footwear can be a useful guideline for the selection of shoes for representatives of this professional group. These footwear can be an element of workwear, and even, in the case of women with transverse flat feet – an alternative to ordinary utility shoes. There is a need to consider different widths for the same length size in medical footwear designs.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.