Restriction to movement in fire-fighter protective clothing: evaluation of alternative sleeves and liners

Huck, Janice

doi:10.1016/0003-6870(91)90307-4

Cited by 48 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the use of a PPE ensemble is of great benefit among workers/personnel who are at risk of exposure to hazardous materials and/or conditions in their occupational sites, several studies have voiced concerns about ergonomic limitations imposed by PPE ensembles (Huck 1988, 1991, Akbar-Khanzadeh et al 1995, Stull 2000, Szczecinska and Lezak 2000, Coca et al 2008. As previous studies have pointed out, improper selection or poor designs of PPE can lead to reduction in fit, possibly restrict wearers' mobility and movement and adversely affect their comfort (Huck 1988, 1991, Akbar-Khanzadeh et al 1995. Also, impaired comfort (perceived discomfort) resulting from wearing and/or being equipped with PPE reduces user acceptance and willingness to use the PPE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subjective perceptions and ergonomics evaluation of a liquid cooled garment worn under protective ensemble during an intermittent treadmill exercise

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While a personal protective equipment (PPE) ensemble effectively provides workers with protection from occupational hazards, working in a vapour-resistant ensemble increases the risk of heat illness/injuries and physiological burdens. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of body cooling via a liquid-cooled garment (LCG) underneath a PPE ensemble on perceived thermal strain, physiological responses and ergonomics during an intermittent treadmill exercise in warm environmental conditions. The results of the present study indicated that the concomitant wearing of LCG underneath the PPE ensemble significantly reduced subjective perception of heat and alleviated overall increase in body temperature and heart rate while no impact of wearing LCG on ergonomic features was found. The extension of the present findings to practical applications in occupational settings requires further research on a LCG system design and performance evaluations while the LCG is incorporated within the PPE ensemble. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: Implementation of a LCG underneath PPE for body cooling was investigated, focusing on its impact on individuals' perceived thermal strain, physiological responses and ergonomics. The findings of the present study indicated that body cooling via a wearable LCG underneath PPE significantly alleviated both perceived thermal and physiological strain in uncompensable heat stress condition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subjective perceptions and ergonomics evaluation of a liquid cooled garment worn under protective ensemble during an intermittent treadmill exercise

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have demonstrated that wearer mobility and comfort are affected by variations in garment design, sizing, and fit (Havenith and Heus 2004;Huck 1988Huck , 1991. Furthermore, improper fit and/or poor design of ensembles may restrict the movement of the wearer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergonomic comparison of a chem/bio prototype firefighter ensemble and a standard ensemble

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Firefighter turnout gear and equipment protect the wearer against external hazards but, unfortunately, restrict mobility. The aim of this study was to determine the ease of mobility and comfort while wearing a new prototype firefighter ensemble (PE) with additional chemical/biological hazard protection compared to a standard ensemble (SE) by measuring static and dynamic range of motion (ROM), job-related tasks, and comfort. Eight healthy adults (five males, three females), aged 20-40 years, participated in this study. The study consisted of two repeated phases, separated by five uses of the ensembles. Subjects randomly donned either the SE or PE in either dry or wet conditions on separate days. In each phase, five tests were carried out as follows: baseline (non-ensemble), SE-dry, SE-wet, PE-dry, and PE-wet. There was a significant reduction (P < 0.05) of wrist flexion for PE-dry condition compared to the same SE-dry condition. Donning the PE took 80 s longer than the SE in phase 1, this difference disappeared in phase 2. There was a significant decrease (P < 0.05) in post-test comfort wearing the PE compared to the SE. The data collected in this study suggest that, in spite of design features to enhance chemical/biological hazard protection, the PE design does not decrease the wearer's overall functional mobility compared to the SE. However, subjects seem to be more comfortable wearing the SE compared to the PE. These overall findings support the need for a comprehensive ergonomic evaluation of protective clothing systems to ascertain human factors issues.

show abstract

“…In general, range of motion (ROM) is applied for wearer mobility [11][12][13][14][15] . For example, 13.7% of the mean ROM of the whole body was restricted and wearer comfort and mobility deteriorated sharply with a 10 kg SCBA 15) .While several studies reported that significant ROM decreases while wearing PPE were found in the shoulder, knee and/ or trunk 11,13) , relatively few studies have investigated PPE wearer mobility compared with the number of studies on physiological strain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational Stress and Strain in Relation to Personal Protective Equipment of Japanese Firefighters Assessed by a Questionnaire

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study was to elucidate differences in actual work environments, mobility and satisfaction between firefighters wearing aluminized and non-aluminized personal protective equipment (PPE), and to suggest a proper standard test method for Japanese firefighters' PPE. A survey from two cities in Japan (City A: aluminized PPE; City B: non aluminized PPE) was undertaken. A total of 525 firefighters from City A and 757 from City B participated. Firefighters spent 22.5 min (City A) and 27.3 min (City B) on average firefighting with the full set of PPE in one incident, but the heat strain experienced among firefighters from City A was twice that of firefighters from City B (57.5% and 28.4%). Firefighters spent 65.9 min on one incident and 24.2 min for suppression of fire with the full set of PPE on average. The toughest task that caused physical strain in City A was 'stair climbing' and in City B was 'drawing up a hose filled with water'. The most restricted body region due to PPE was the knee for both groups. Evaluations revealed that the aluminized fire jacket had worse ventilation and mobility than the non-aluminized, while the non-aluminized one received with more unfavorable evaluations for water resistance and maintainability.

show abstract

Restriction to movement in fire-fighter protective clothing: evaluation of alternative sleeves and liners

Cited by 48 publications

References 5 publications

Subjective perceptions and ergonomics evaluation of a liquid cooled garment worn under protective ensemble during an intermittent treadmill exercise

Subjective perceptions and ergonomics evaluation of a liquid cooled garment worn under protective ensemble during an intermittent treadmill exercise

Ergonomic comparison of a chem/bio prototype firefighter ensemble and a standard ensemble

Occupational Stress and Strain in Relation to Personal Protective Equipment of Japanese Firefighters Assessed by a Questionnaire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About