id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentences	flesch	summary	cache	txt
cord-302761-yila2wht	McQuerry, Meredith	Disposable versus Reusable Medical Gowns: A Performance Comparison	2020-10-20		.txt	text/plain	5369	268	49	Level I, II, & III gowns were tested for water resistance and hydrostatic pressure, along with other durability assessments (breaking, tear, and seam strength, pilling resistance, dimensional stability, air permeability, colorfastness, and fabric hand) per standard test methods. The number of samples and specimens taken from each gown type was dependent on the specific standard test method being conducted (i.e. three specimens for impact penetration, hydrostatic pressure, fabric weight, colorfastness, dimensional stability, four specimens for pilling resistance, five specimens for seam strength, and ten specimens for air permeability, breaking strength, tear strength, and thickness). Fabric weight and thickness were measured at new for the disposable gowns and after 1, 25, 50, and 75 industrial launderings (ILs) for the reusable gowns according to the ASTM standards listed in Table 2 . While all reusable gowns met minimum AAMI PB70 requirements for impact penetration and hydrostatic pressure water resistance, the disposable gowns in this study did not.	./cache/cord-302761-yila2wht.txt	./txt/cord-302761-yila2wht.txt