Worn shoes are known to contribute to slip-and-fall risk, a common cause of workplace injuries. However, guidelines for replacing shoes are not well developed. Recent experiments and lubrication theory suggest that the size of the worn region is an important contributor to the shoe tread's ability to drain fluid and therefore the under-shoe friction. This study evaluated a simple test for comparing the size of the worn region relative to a common object (AAA and AA battery) as a means of determining shoe replacement. This study consisted of three components involving slip-resistant shoes: Experiment #1: a longitudinal, mechanical, accelerated wear experiment; Experiment #2: a longitudinal experiment where the same shoes were tested after each month of worker use; and Experiment #3: a cross-sectional experiment that exposed participants to a slippery condition, while donning their own worn shoes. The COF (Experiments #1 and #2); under-shoe fluid pressure (all experiments); and slip severity (Experiment #3) were compared across outcomes (fail/pass) of the battery tests. Larger fluid pressures, lower coefficient of friction, and more severe slips were observed for shoes that failed the battery tests compared with those passing the tests. This method offers promise for assessing loss in friction and an increase in slip risk for slip-resistant shoes.

众所周知，磨损的鞋子会导致滑倒风险，这是工伤的常见原因。然而，更换鞋子的指南并没有得到很好的制定。最近的实验和润滑理论表明，磨损区域的大小是影响鞋面排出流体的能力以及鞋底摩擦的重要因素。本研究评估了一个简单的测试，用于比较磨损区域相对于普通物体（AAA 和 AA 电池）的大小，作为确定换鞋的一种手段。这项研究由三个涉及防滑鞋的部分组成： 实验#1：纵向、机械、加速磨损实验；实验#2：纵向实验，在工人使用一个月后测试相同的鞋子；和实验#3：一项横断面实验，让参与者在穿着自己的旧鞋时处于湿滑的环境中。COF（实验#1 和#2）；鞋底流体压力（所有实验）；和滑动严重性（实验#3）在电池测试的结果（失败/通过）之间进行了比较。与通过测试的鞋子相比，未通过电池测试的鞋子具有更大的流体压力、更低的摩擦系数和更严重的滑动。这种方法为评估摩擦损失和防滑鞋的滑倒风险增加提供了希望。与通过测试的鞋子相比，未通过电池测试的鞋子会出现更严重的滑倒。这种方法为评估摩擦损失和防滑鞋的滑倒风险增加提供了希望。与通过测试的鞋子相比，未通过电池测试的鞋子会出现更严重的滑倒。这种方法为评估摩擦损失和防滑鞋的滑倒风险增加提供了希望。