Post Use Analysis of Firefighter Turnout Gear: Phase III. Abstract

Post Use Analysis of Firefighter Turnout Gear: Phase III Meredith Cinnamon, University of Kentucky Abstract The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 28 edition, recommends a retirement age of ten years for firefighting turnout gear. However, many firefighters, disagree with the ten year retirement age. The purpose of this research was to perform a post-use evaluation on firefighter turnout gear that is years or greater from their manufacture date in order to understand how the care and use by firefighters impacts the performance, durability, and wear life of turnout gear components. In Phase III of the Firefighter Durability Study at the University of Kentucky, 8 turnout garments were evaluated according to NFPA 1851, 28 edition and NFPA 1971, 27 edition. Inspection and procedures were followed to evaluate the current recommended ten year wear life (retirement age). Quantitative data included an advanced visual inspection (closure system functionality, light evaluation, leakage evaluation, and flashlight test) and performance measurements (retroflectivity and fluorescence of trim) completed on 8 outer shell garments and 91 liner systems. The care, maintenance, uses pattern and ten-year retirement ages were objectives to evaluate. Key Terms Turnout Gear, Post Use, Firefighter, Retirement, NFPA Standards Introduction The profession of fire fighting is one in which safety is imperative, starting with the garment that the firefighter dons. The firefighter s turnout is the first line of defense against fire, sharp objects, steam, and hazardous chemicals. In 211, 61 firefighters died while on duty in the United States; 49% of these deaths occurred while firefighters were operating on the fire ground. 5 In addition to the hazards posed by fire and heat there are multiple examples of heat stress contributing to firefighter injuries and fatalities. Therefore, the firefighter suit should provide protection from heat and offer the wearer adequate comfort and functionality in order to reduce the amount of heat stress and overexertion. 2 This protection should last throughout the life of the garment until it is retired and removed from service. The current NFPA 1851 ten-year retirement requirement is often disagreed upon and should therefore be evaluated. NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 27 edition, defines the structural fire fighting protective garment as the coat, trouser, and coverall elements of the protective ensemble. 7 The coat and trousers of the protective ensemble are made up of three layers that include a flame resistant outer shell, a middle layer that prevents water from soaking the wearer, and an inner layer. 6 The function of the outer shell is to provide a tough, durable first line of defense against heat, flame and abrasion. 3 The component of an ensemble element or item that principally prevents the transfer of liquids is known as the moisture barrier. 8 The liner is the inner most layer of the protective ensemble that

is closest to the body. The thermal liner provides the bulk of the thermal insulation in a composite ensemble. 14 The condition of the garment is most noticeably judged by the appearance of the outer shell, as the moisture barrier and thermal liner layers are not visible from the outside. Together the moisture barrier and thermal liner layers can make up approximately 75 percent of the protective ensemble s thermal protective performance. Although not in NFPA requirements, evaluations can be performed on protective elements to determine the overall effectiveness of the design of a protective ensemble; motor tests for flexibility, reach, and stress areas, time studies for how quickly the wearer of the protective gear can perform tasks, and work energy studies to determine how much energy wearers need to accomplish a mission while in the gear. Firefighters tend to have love-hate relationships with their ensembles because they provide excellent insulation during fire-fighting, but they get too hot in the summertime. 1 From a firefighter s perspective, it is important for gear to be functional, yet non-restrictive and light. Current NFPA 1851 requirements apply only to new or pre-use firefighter turnout gear. Therefore it is vital to determine the ability of the protective ensemble to meet these requirements throughout use and post-use. In order to ensure that the garments are functional and suitable for use, a post-use evaluation was conducted. The term post-use can be defined as, materials collected from outside the individual manufacturing industry after it has been used for its primary purpose. 11 Little research has been completed on firefighter gear postuse, other than Phases I and II of the Firefighter Durability Study at the University of Kentucky. In order to evaluate the functional design and durability of firefighter turnout gear, the ensembles in Phase III were evaluated after their primary purpose had been served by the user, or post-use. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1851 Standard on selection, care, and maintenance of protective ensembles for structural fire fighting and proximity fire fighting, 28 edition, recommends a retirement age of ten years for firefighting turnout gear. 8 However, the majority of firefighters disagree with the ten year retirement age. It is essential that turnout gear be retired when it no longer provides an adequate level of safety required to protect the firefighter. It is difficult, however, to determine when the gear no longer provides the necessary protection. Some types of degradation of the gear are easier to detect than others. Rips and tears in the outer shell, holes in the moisture barrier, or other visual cues easily alert the inspector that a repair or replacement needs to be made. Other forms of degradation are not as apparent such as reduction in flammability resistance, a decrease in water penetration resistance, or weakening of the fabric structure. As David Torvi explains, Simply stating that a garment can be used for a certain number of years of service is not sufficient. 13 Each garment is used and cleaned under different conditions and the retirement of each garment is dependent upon those conditions. Review of Literature NFPA 1851 now notes that, Fire departments that respond to a higher than average number of emergency incidents or that have frequent or extensive working fire operations might want to plan for replacement of ensembles or ensemble elements on a more frequent cycle. 8 This recommendation however, does not specify what constitutes frequent or extensive working fire operations or quantify what a higher than average number of incidents is. This leaves it open to the individual departments to define, in which case, there is potential for continued use of garments that have exceeded their useful life.

Without further research to show the specific useful life of turnout gear, there is potential for the actual useful life to be less than or greater than the NFPA specified years. There are multiple variables that would affect the useful life of the garment such as number of uses, types of fire exposure, type of incidents incurred, proper inspection, care, and maintenance, as well as how a specific firefighter wears the gear. If proper care and maintenance procedures were followed, a garment ten years from manufacture may still function properly and it would therefore benefit the department to continue its use. However, there could also be a garment much younger that is no longer functional. Over time, the wear and tear on a firefighter ensemble begins to show through outward appearance. Many within the fire service see this wear and tear as a symbol of pride and seniority but in actuality it is proof of degradation and in many cases represents a loss of safety provided by the gear. As Brehm explains, It is both a tribute and an embarrassment to the fire service that firefighters often continue to wear PPE that s unsafe simply because it s a particular style or color or just has that experienced look. 1 The factors that influence the ageing and degradation of firefighters protective clothing include the type of material, the nature of firefighting operations, ultra violet radiation exposure, wear and abrasion to clothing, and the specific maintenance procedures used. 9 Currently, most guidelines for the retirement of firefighter turnout gear are based upon visual inspections and economic analyses. 12 The level of use for a garment differs from department to department and from firefighter to firefighter. Therefore, may not be realistic to say that all firefighter turnout gear should be retired after a specific number of uses or years. Further research should be completed to evaluate the safety performance of gear that is at least ten years from manufacture date and even greater. A difficulty in using research to determine the useful life of protective clothing is the majority of tests are destructive, meaning the gear that is studied cannot be put back into service after testing. This automatically results in the retirement of the garment, regardless of the results of the testing, causing heavier economic burdens for those departments donating the gear and/or those trying to conduct the research. 12 A second option is a non destructive test technique which is defined as a type of examination in which the quality of a specimen for further operation is assessed without affecting its future performance. 12 Non destructive test methods should be evaluated for their ability to predict performance. This would allow the firefighter or a third party to conduct these tests in order to determine if the gear is safe. Consequently, the unnecessary retirement of gear would be prevented once it is tested for safety. Methodology The methodology used for this research was a visual inspection and laboratory testing completed according to NFPA 1851, 28 edition and NFPA 1971, 27 edition industry standards. All results of testing were compared to the performance requirements for new gear as outlined in these standards. Sample The garments evaluated in Phase III of the Firefighter Durability Study at the University of Kentucky were obtained from career fire departments that were willing to donate their already used and retired firefighter turnout gear. The collected gear is a convenience sample that is not randomized. The sample size of retired turnout gear collected in Phase III totaled8 garments.

Due to proprietary liner materials, only 91 liner systems were evaluated out of the 8 garments. The outer shell materials in Phase III consisted of Nomex, Kevlar, Basofil, and PBI fibers. Moisture barriers evaluated included Aquatech, Crosstech, and Goretex. Thermal liners studied in Phase III were composed of aramid fibers and TenCate Caldura SL Quilt. Different combinations of outer shells, moisture barriers, and thermal liners were chosen in order to provide as representative of a sample as possible. These materials tend to be most commonly found in the fire service. Due to the older age of many of the garments, there are some materials no longer used in the fire service. The garments were obtained from different regions of the United States in order to obtain a broad sample that was as representative of the population as possible. Testing The 8 outer shell garments in Phase III of the Firefighter Durability Study underwent an advanced visual inspection, photographs, closure system functionality test, flashlight test, and retroflectivity and fluorescence test. 91 liner systems were evaluated through an advanced visual inspection, photographs, closure system functionality test, light evaluation, and leakage evaluation. All tests were performed using non destructive test methods according to NFPA 1851, 28 edition or NFPA 1971, 27 edition. Advanced Visual Inspection The advanced visual inspection included a thorough examination of all three layers of the protective ensemble composite for soiling, rips, tears, cuts, abrasions, discoloration, thermal damage, broken or missing stitches, loss of material integrity, loss of wristlet elasticity, reflective trim integrity, label legibility, liner attachment systems, and compatibility between the size of the outer shell and inner liner as specified in section 6.3.5.1 of NFPA 1851, 28 Edition. 8 Photographs were taken and individual damage was documented on the front, back, and inside of the garments and labels. During the advanced visual inspection, the functionality of each closure system on the gear was evaluated. The closures inspected on all fire fighting turnout gear include the hooks, loops, and zippers. After opening and closing the closure systems as if they would be by a firefighter wearing the garment, the specimens were given a pass or fail result. 91 liner systems were evaluated according to NFPA 1851, 28 edition, section 12.1 for liner light evaluation. Specified areas of the 91 thermal liner coats and pants were tested. The front and back panels, upper back panel, shoulders and underarms underwent evaluation for the coats. The pants were evaluated on the front and back panels, seat area, and crotch area. Brighter areas were noted as an indication of insulating material shifting or migrating, resulting in a thin or bare spot. The thermal liner was given a "pass" or "fail" according to the researcher's view of the amount of light passing through the thermal liner. A flashlight test was conducted according to NFPA 1851, 28 edition, section A.6.3.5.1 (9). Visibility markings can appear to the human eye to be undamaged when in actuality they have lost much of their ability to reflect light. 8 The retroflectivity properties of the outer shell were checked on 8 outer shell garments in Phase III. If the reflected light from the trim being tested was significantly less than the light reflected from the new trim, the garment was given a "fail." Leakage Evaluation A leakage evaluation (cup test) was conducted according to NFPA 1851, 28 edition, Section 12.2 on all 91 liner systems. For this study, the right pass, left pass, shoulder seam, and underarm seam were tested for coats. The right seat, left knee, seat seam, and crotch seam areas were evaluated for pants. The liner area was cupped above a waterproof container, and one cup of an

alcohol-tap water solution was poured over the liner into the cupped area. The liner was evaluated after three minutes. The liner is determined a fail if any liquid passes through the moisture barrier and wets the thermal barrier according to Section 12.2.5.2. 8 Retroflectivity Fluorescence Test 4 5 The retroflectivity and fluorescence testing was completed by a third-party 11 tester, 3M, using a 6 12 7 1 19 2 3M Retrophotometer RM-2 with a.2 degree observation 2 21 22 23 24 8 angle, five degree entrance angle, and 3 9 a ½ aperture after calibration at a testing distance of 5 ft (15.2m). This testing was completed 13 14 15 16 17 18 following NFPA 1971, 27 edition, section 8.46 which requires trim to be tested for retroflectivity and fluorescence and have a Coefficient of Retroflection (R A ) of not less than cd/lux/m 2. 7 In order to acquire a representative sample of testing from each garment, the coats were evaluated in 46 locations and the pants were evaluated in 12 locations (Figure 1). Results are given in candelas/lux/m 2 1 2 3 4 5 6. 4 5 11 6 12 7 1 19 2 2 21 22 23 24 8 3 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 34 35 36 31 32 33 42 43 44 45 46 37 38 39 4 41 28 29 25 26 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 Fig. 1 Retroflectivity Test Locations 34 28 35 29 36 Results 31 42 43 44 45 46 25 32 26 33 27 37 38 39 Advanced Visual Inspection of Turnout Gear 4 41 The advanced visual inspection (AVI) included an overall visual inspection of the garments, evaluation of the closure system functionality, barrier leakage evaluation, a light evaluation of garment liners, and a flashlight test on reflective trim. The advanced visual inspection followed 7 8 9 11 12 the requirements of NFPA 1851; label integrity and compatibility, soiling, contamination, tears and cuts, missing or damaged hardware, closure system functionality, discolorations, thermal damage, and functionality were all noted. Data from Phase III of the Firefighter Durability study found that 13 of 91 (14.29%) liner labels on the garments were not legible. When addressing the legibility of outer shell labels, it was discovered that 12 out of 8 (11.11%) were not legible. Reasons for labels being illegible include soiling, or fading of handwritten or printed ink. The evaluation of outer shell trim during the AVI showed 7.4% of garments had unsecured detached trim in at least one area. 56.6% (61 garments) exhibited visual trim damage such as thermal damage, melting, rips, tears, detachment, and/or holes. Figure 2 shows the evaluation given to each outer shell garment. Most retired outer shell garments (77.8%) were classified as being in poor or fair condition during the physical inspection. When inspecting for holes, rips, cuts, and tears, it was noted that 76.9% of outer shells showed damage. Figure 3 shows the overall condition of the 91 moisture barriers included in the study. The majority of moisture barriers (58.2%) were in fair condition after retirement.

Count Count Count Of the 74 garments with seal seam tape, 48 (64.9%) had seal seam tape damage. The overall condition of the thermal liners is shown in Figure 4. Of the 91 thermal liners, 37 (4.7%) were in fair condition after retirement. 71.4% of the retired thermal liners had missing or broken stitching. Chart of Shell Evaluation 6 Chart of Moisture Barrier Evaluation 4 5 4 2 2 Extremely Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Shell Evaluation Fig 2. Chart of Outer Shell Condition Poor Fair Good Excellent Moisture Barrier Evaluation Fig. 3 Chart of Moisture Barrier Condition 4 Chart of Thermal Liner Evaluation 2 Extremely Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Thermal Liner Evaluation Fig. 4 Chart of Thermal Liner Condition Closure System Functionality The advanced visual inspection included an evaluation of the functionality of each closure system. If functioning properly, the closures opened and closed without separating on their own, and they were given a pass rating. A fail rating was given if the closures failed to stay attached, or failed to un-attach when attempting to open. A total of 7 (6.5%) out of the 8 garments failed the closures system functionality testing. Flashlight Test The flashlight trim reflectivity test results determined that % of the garments passed the field evaluation. It was noted that five of the garments evaluated has small dark spots on the trim due to soiling or damage. Even though these garments displayed a slight loss of reflectance, they were still highly visible and received a passing rating. The chart below in Figure 5 shows the results of the trim damage evaluation. 61 (56.5%) out of 8 outer shell garments had trim damage.

Count Percent 6 Chart of Trim Damage 5 4 2 No Trim Damage Yes Percent within all data. Fig. 5 Outer Shell Trim Damage Thermal Liner Light Evaluation Figure 6 below shows the results of the thermal liner light evaluation in which 91 liner systems were evaluated for material shifting or migration of the liner. This migration resulting in bright spots through the liner was noted as a fail. The retired liner systems had a failure rate of 98.9% with only one thermal liner passing the light evaluation. Chart of Thermal Liner Light Evaluation 9 8 7 6 5 4 2 Pass Fail Thermal Liner Light Evaluation Fig. 6 Thermal Liner Light Evaluation Leakage Evaluation 57 (62.6%) of the 91 retired liner systems passed the cup test for leakage evaluation. 19 out of 42 pants and 15 out of 49 coats failed the leakage evaluation. The highest failure area (42.9%) for the pant liners was the crotch seam. All coat liners passed the leakage evaluation in the left pass area of the coat. The highest failure area for the coats was the shoulder seam area. Figure 7 below shows the pass and fail rate for both the pant and coat liners.

Count Chart of Leakage Evaluation, Garment Type 6 5 Garment Type Pant Coat 4 2 Leakage Evaluation Fail Pass Fig. 7 Leakage Evaluation by Garment Type Retroflectivity Test For this phase of the durability study, 22 coats were tested in 46 difference locations, and 11 pants were tested in 12 locations for retroflectivity. In total, the trim on 33 garments was evaluated. The retroflectivity results were reported as R A (candelas/lux/m 2 ). The results indicated that the average R A value for coats was 23 while the average R A value for the pants was 19 A. On average, both the coats and pants were significantly above the NFPA requirement for R A for new materials. However, many coats and pants did not meet the NFPA requirement for R A. Individually, 6 (27.3%) out of 22 coats and 2 (18.2%) out of 11 pants failed to meet to the NFPA requirement. Figures 7 and 8 below show the average R A value for the coats and pants by age category ( to 15 years and 16 to 2 years). The to 15 year old gear, on average, passed the NFPA requirement for both the coats and pants. The 16 to 2 year old gear, on average, failed the NFPA requirement for both coats and pants. Fig. 7 Average Coat Coefficiency by Age Fig. 8 Average Pant Coefficiency by Age Conclusions The majority of the 8 outer shell garments were found to be equally in fair or poor condition after ten or more years from manufacture and/or use. According to the advanced visual inspection, the majority of the 91 liner systems were in fair condition after retirement. Over half of the outer shells did have some type (holes, cuts, tears, missing stitches, thermal damage, etc.) of trim damage. The majority of the liner systems had broken stitches on the thermal liners

and seal seam tape damage on the moisture barriers. The post-use analysis of retired firefighter gear shows the majority of garments do not meet the NFPA specifications for new materials. Results from the post-use closure system functionality test showed 93.5% of garments met the NFPA specifications. Although 56.5% of garments exhibited some form of trim damage, all 8 passed the flashlight test for trim reflection. The flashlight test was determined to be an appropriate and effective post-use field test for evaluating reflectivity. Evaluation of post-use thermal liners determined that less than one percent of the retired liners passed advanced inspection criteria. Only one of the 91 liner systems did not exhibit properties of migration or bright spots when evaluated over the Smart Light 5 device. The light evaluation is an effective means of evaluating post-use thermal liners for migration of materials that could be hazardous to the wearer. These results demonstrate the degradation of material over time. Leakage evaluation results demonstrated the majority of retired moisture barriers passed cup testing. The greatest areas for failure were the crotch seam for pants and the shoulder seam for coats. The left pass area of the coat and the knee area of the pant exhibited the least damage. Retroflectivity results determined on average, garments between the ages of and 15 meet the NFPA 1971 specification of R A (cd/lux/m 2 ) and garments between the ages of 16 and 2 years do not. In all, 24.2% of the 33 garments tested post-use for retroflectivity failed the requirements for new materials. Three quarters of these garments that failed to meet the requirements were between the ages of 16 and 2 years. This post-use analysis of retroflectivity demonstrates a significant decrease in reflectance within this age category, even though 2 garments did fail within the to 15 year category. Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge her major professor, Dr. Elizabeth Easter, for all of her hard work and many doors she has opened. The author would like to thank the following industry committee members: Rich Young, DuPont; Pat Freeman, Globe; Karen Lehtonen, Lion Apparel; Tricia Hock, Safety Equipment Institute; and Deena Cotterill, FireDex for their support and commitment to this study. References 1. Brehm, D. (27). Well worn: NFPA 1851 provides new guidance on personal protective ensembles. Fire Rescue Magazine, 25(6), 54-56. 2. Bumbarger, S. (2). Reducing the hazard of High Heat. Occupational Health & Safety, 69(5), 44-47. 3. Corner, C. (29). Turnout Gear 1 Outershells & Thermal Barrier. 4. Di Giovanni, A. (26). Technology Today: Fire Protective Clothing: As Complex as any other PPE. Fire Engineering, 159(4) 126-128. 5. Fahy, R., Leblanc, P., & Molis, J. (212). Firefighter Fatalities in the United States, 211. [Journal]. National Fire Protection Association. 6(4), 75-83. 6. Hasenmeier, P. (28). The History of Firefighter Personal Protective Equipment. Fire Engineering.

7. National Fire Protection Association. (26). NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting (27 Edition ed., pp.126). Quincy, MA. 8. National Fire Protection Association. (27). NFPA 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting (28 Edition ed., pp.5). Quincy, MA. 9. Rezazadeh, M., & Torvi, D. (211). Assessment of Factors Affecting the Continuing Performance of Firefighters Protective Clothing: A Literature Review. Fire Technology, 47, 565-599.. Shanley, L.A., Slaten, L. B., & Shanley, P. S. (1993). Military Protective Clothing: Implications for Clothing and Textiles Curriculum and Research. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 11(55), 55-59. doi:.1177/8872x918 11. The Green Architect. (n.d.). Green Glossary Retrieved 11/19/12, 212, from http://www.thegreenarchitect.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1 1&Itemid=8 12. Torvi, D.A., & Hadjisophocleous, G.V. (2). Development of Methods to Evaluate the Useful Lifetime of Firefighters Protective Clothing (ASTM STP 1386 ed. Vol. Seventh). West Conshohoken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. 13. Watkins, S. M. (1984). Clothing The Portable Environment (Second ed.). Ames, Iowa; Iowa State University Press. 14. Young, R. (25). Firefighter Outer Shell Materials and Performance: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. Author Meredith Cinnamon, 318 Erikson Hall, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 454, USA; phone +1 859 257 9743; fax +1 859 257 1275; mlcinn3@g.uky.edu.