POST-USE ANALYSIS OF FIREFIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR: PHASES I, II, & III

Transcription

1 POST-USE ANALYSIS OF FIREFIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR: PHASES I, II, & III Meredith Cinnamon, Stacy Trenkamp, Deena Cotterill & Dr. Elizabeth Easter University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY ABSTRACT The purpose of the research was to conduct a post-use evaluation of firefighter turnout gear that had been in use for time intervals between 2 years and retirement. Inspection and testing procedures required by National Fire Protective Association (NFPA) 1851 Standard on Selection, Care and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting and NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting were followed. Sixty seven garments from career fire departments were evaluated during Phase I of the study; 76 garments from volunteer fire departments during Phase II, and during Phase III, 108 retired garments were tested The specific objectives of the study were to compare the durability and performance properties of used fire fighter turnout gear against the requirements of NFPA 1971; to determine if the physical inspection protocol for structural turnout gear in NFPA 1851 is predictive of laboratory testing results and to determine if the recommended ten year retirement age is appropriate for coats and trousers by evaluating the ensemble using methods outlined in both NFPA 1851, 2008 and NFPA 1971, Assessments of the used garments included a visual inspection (closure system functionality, light evaluation, leakage evaluation, and flashlight test) and component and composite performance properties (thermal protective performance (TPP), total heat loss (THL), flammability, tear strength, seam strength and water penetration). The requirements regarding retirement, care and maintenance outlined in the NFPA 1851 standard were used as parameters for evaluation. The results of the visual inspection and physical testing of the turnout gear helped determine if the current recommended ten year wear life (retirement age) was appropriate by assessing the performance criteria after specified increments of time. The results confirmed that the flashlight test allows the firefighter to effectively evaluate trim reflectance on their turnout gear according to NFPA The results of the leakage evaluation did not validate similar results with water penetration testing. When assessing the water penetration barrier evaluation, 58 garments showed a false pass in the cup test, and 7 garments showed a false fail. It was concluded that the leakage evaluation did not verify the results of the water penetration barrier evaluation. TPP, THL and flammability supported the ten year wear life; however, tear resistance, breaking strength, seam strength, and water penetration did not support the ten-year retirement. All garments evaluated in the Firefighter Durability Study met the NFPA requirement for Thermal Protective Performance (100%). A positive correlation between thickness and TPP value was established. The majority of garments tested met the flammability requirements mandated in NFPA Only 1.27% of garments tested failed to meet the requirements. All outer shells passed flammability testing. Two moisture barrier components and two thermal liner materials failed to meet flammability requirements. Therefore, inspection of the liner system every three years as mandated by NFPA 1851 was not supported by the results.

2 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 2011, 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 a point of controversy between user and supplier and should therefore be evaluated. NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2007 edition, defines the structural fire fighting protective garment as the coat, trouser, and coverall elements of the protective ensemble. 8 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 thermal 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 thermal 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. 15 The condition of the garment is often 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 7. 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. 11 From a firefighter s perspective, it is important that the gear be functional, yet non-restrictive and light. Current NFPA 1971 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. 12 Little research has been completed on firefighter gear post-use, 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 (retirement), 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, 2008 edition, recommends a retirement age of ten years for firefighting turnout gear. 9 However, the majority of firefighters disagree with the ten year retirement age. However, to protect the user, 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

3 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 states 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. 9 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 determine when 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 10 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, a garment that is less than ten years old may no longer provide functional protection for the worker. 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. 10 Currently, most guidelines for the retirement of firefighter turnout gear are based upon visual inspections and economic analyses. 13 The level of use for a garment differs from department to department and from firefighter to firefighter. Therefore, it 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 between the ages of two and at least ten years from manufacture date. METHODOLOGY The methodology used for this research included visual inspection and laboratory testing of the gear according to NFPA 1851, 2008 edition and NFPA 1971, 2007 edition industry standards. All results of testing were compared to the performance requirements for new gear as outlined in the standards.

4 Sample The garments evaluated in the Firefighter Durability Study at the University of Kentucky were obtained from career and volunteer fire departments that were willing to donate their already used and retired firefighter turnout gear. The collected gear was a convenience sample as it was not randomly collected. Phase I included 67 garments obtained from career fire departments and Phase II included 76 garments from volunteer fire departments. Garments in Phases I and II were between two and ten years of age. The sample size of retired turnout gear collected in Phase III totaled108 garments and the age of all gear was at least ten years or greater from manufacture date. Due to proprietary liner materials, only 91 liner systems were evaluated out of the 108 garments in Phase III. The outer shell materials in the study consisted of Nomex, Kevlar, and PBI fibers. Moisture barriers evaluated included Aquatech, Crosstech, Goretex, PTFE membranes and RT Thermal liners studied were composed of aramid fibers, E-89, 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. The garments were acquired 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 143 garments between the ages of two and ten years and the 108 garments ten years or older underwent an advanced visual inspection, photographs, closure system functionality test, flashlight test, and retroflectivity and fluorescence test. Only 91 liner systems from Phase III were evaluated through an advanced visual inspection, photographs, closure system functionality test, light evaluation, and leakage evaluation. All tests were performed using test methods according to NFPA 1851, 2008 edition or NFPA 1971, 2007 edition. Advanced Visual Inspection (AVI) of Turnout Gear 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 of NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition. 9 Photographs were taken and individual damage was documented for 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 included the hooks, loops, and zippers. After opening and closing the closure systems as if they would be worn by a firefighter the specimens were given a pass or fail result. A liner light evaluation was performed to determine if there were any holes or migration of the batting or quilt material. One hundred and forty three liners ranged from two to ten years old and 91 liners were ten years old or greater. All liners were evaluated according to NFPA 1851, 2008 edition, section 12.1 for liner light evaluation. Specified areas of the coats and pants were tested: front and back panels, upper back panel, shoulders and underarms of 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. Leakage Evaluation A leakage evaluation (cup test) was conducted according to NFPA 1851, 2008 edition, Section 12.2 on all liner systems in the study. The right panel, left panel, 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

5 was determined a fail if any liquid passed through the moisture barrier and wets the thermal barrier according to Section of NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition. 8 Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation The water penetration barrier evaluation was conducted on all liner systems in the study, according to NFPA 1851, 2008 edition, Section The same areas that were evaluated in the leakage evaluation were evaluated under the water penetration barrier evaluation (two seam areas and two fabric areas per garment). The garments were clamped down in a low pressure hydrostatic tester so that the side of the barrier that was against the shell faced the water. The sample was placed under pressure for 15 seconds and any water leakage that was visible was indicated as a fail rating. A fail rating does not indicate whether or not the leakage is repairable, as with the leakage evaluation test. Flashlight Test A flashlight test was conducted according to NFPA 1851, 2008 edition, section A 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 all 251 outer shell garments in the combined study. 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." Retroreflectivity Fluorescence Test 4 10 The retroflectivity and fluorescence testing was completed 5 by a third-party 11 tester, 3M, using a 3M Retrophotometer RM-2 with a 0.2 degree observation angle, five degree entrance angle, and a ½ aperture after calibration at a testing distance of 50 ft (15.2m). This testing was completed following NFPA 1971, 2007 edition, section 8.46 which requires 13 trim to be 18 tested for retroflectivity and fluorescence and have a Coefficient of Retroflection (R A ) of not less than 100cd/lux/m 2. 8 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 garments were tested for retroreflectivity (33 of which were ten years old or older) Fig. 1 Retroreflectivity Test Locations Flammability ASTM D 6413 Standard Test Method for Flame Resistance of Textiles (Vertical Test) as specified in NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition, was used to 46 measure the vertical flame resistance of the protective fabric. 27 The procedure determines the flame resistance, after flame, afterglow, and char length of materials, products, or assemblies to heat and flame. One specimen (3 in. x 12 in.) from each layer (outer shell, moisture barrier, thermal liner) was taken for testing from the 143 garments between the ages of two and ten. Specimens were positioned and clamped in place vertically above a controlled flame and exposed for a 12 ± 0.2 second time period. The gas pressure was adjusted to 17.2 ±1.7 kpa (2.50 ± lbf/in 2 ) for the duration of the test. The flame was ignited to a height of approximately 38 mm.

6 The researcher measured the after flame time, after glow time (not required by NFPA 1971) and char length following the test. Any evidence of dripping or melting was also noted. Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) This test measures the time that elapses and the amount of heat energy required at which the temperature and energy transferred to the back of the fabric reaches a level which would cause a second-degree burn to the wearer. In order to perform the test, three composites were cut from each coat less than ten years old (70 coats). The researcher recorded the TPP time, TPP value, and pain time. Pass or fail determinations were then made based upon the average TPP value of all specimens tested for the respective garment. NFPA mandates that protective garment elements composite of outer shell, moisture, barrier and thermal liner shall be tested for thermal insulation and shall have an average TPP of not less than 35.0 cal/cm 2. 8 Total Heat Loss (THL) Total heat loss has a direct relationship with thermal protective performance (TPP); researching TPP and THL values provides a predictive indication of safety and performance levels in firefighter s protective clothing (Globe Holding Company LLC, 2011). Total heat loss (THL) testing was completed in accordance with ASTM F-1868 Standard Test Method for Thermal and Evaporative Resistance of Clothing Materials Using a Sweating Hot Plate Part C and the 2007 Edition of NFPA 1971 section garments less than ten years old were tested for total heat loss. This method covers the measurement of the thermal resistance and the evaporative resistance, under steady-state conditions for use in clothing systems. Total heat loss requires at least three specimens, cut in 20 in. x 20 in. squares that contain all three layers of fabric (outer shell, moisture barrier, thermal liner). According to NFPA , garment composites consisting of outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal barrier shall be tested for evaporative heat transfer and shall have a total heat loss of not less than 205 W/ m 2. 8 It should be noted that the results of the THL testing for the study are questionable due to the lack of three samples, and also due to the presence of seams, pleats, damage, and creases on the samples. The samples sent to TenCate, Inc for THL testing were obtained from used fire fighting turnout gear. The samples sent to W.L. Gore & Associates were composed of new, washed, and unwashed flat fabrics. Seam Strength ASTM D Standard Test Method for Failure in Sewn Seams of Woven Apparel Fabrics is used to measure the sewn seam strength in woven fabrics by applying a force perpendicular to the sewn seams. The seat seam and inseam of 67 trousers less than 10 years old and 14 trousers ten years or older, were cut in the outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner layers. Coats were not included in seam breaking strength testing. The samples were clamped into the apparatus and testing ceased once the seam was torn. The force required for seam failure was recorded in lbf (pounds of force). Garments were given a pass or fail rating based on the requirements of NFPA Performance requirements in section state that the garment shall have a seam breaking strength of not less than 667 N (150 lbf) for all Major A seams (those seams on the outermost layer of the garment). 8 The researcher recorded whether the break in the specimen was due to seam failure or fabric failure. Seam breaking strength was considered acceptable where the fabric broke before the seam and the seam did not fail after continuation of elongation, according to Tear Strength The apparatus, located in the University of Kentucky Textile Testing Lab, was a 400 lb load cell on an Instron 33R4465A. BlueHill software was used to assist in measuring and recording the five highest peaks of force necessary to tear the specimens. Two outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner samples (one in the horizontal direction, one in the vertical direction) from each garment were cut (6

7 Count Count in. by 3 in.) and marked with an isosceles triangle measuring one inch at the top and four inches on the bottom. In total 143 outer shells, 47 moisture barriers, and 67 thermal liners less than ten years old were tested. A preliminary cut measuring 15 mm was made at the center of one edge of each specimen. The tensile testing machine (Instron ) was used on the conditioned specimens to determine the average tear resistance of the fabric. Both the apparatus and the researcher will record the pounds of force (lbf) required to tear the specimens. Garments were given a pass or fail rating based on the requirements of NFPA Performance requirements in section state that the garment outer shells shall have a tear resistance of not less than 100N (22 lbf) and moisture barriers and thermal liners shall have a tear resistance of not less than 22N (5 lbf). 8 Breaking Strength Specimens were taken from the outer shell layer only of both the coats and pants. ASTM D , Standard Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Grab Test) recommends five specimens in the warp direction and eight specimens in the fill direction be taken from each garment; due to lack of space, only three specimens in the warp direction and three specimens in the fill direction were taken from each garment. Throughout the entire study, 251 outer shells were tested for breaking strength, 108 were ten years old or older. An Instron 33R4465 using a 400 lb load cell was used to test all specimens. The pounds of force (lbf) necessary to break the fabric was recorded and averaged by garment, total warp, total fill, and overall average by the researcher. Garments were given a pass or fail rating based on the requirements of NFPA Performance requirements in section state that the garment outer shells shall have a breaking strength of not less than 623 N (140 lbf). 8 RESULTS Advanced Visual Inspection of Turnout Gear Data from visual inspection of the gear two to ten years old are shown in Figure 2 below for the overall average condition of outer shell garments. The majority of garments, both less than four years and greater than 5 years were in good condition. Figure 3 shows the overall evaluation of outer shell garments for those ten years or greater from manufacture date. The majority of retired garments were in poor or fair condition. Fig 2. Phases I & II Chart of Outer Shell Condition Fig. 3 Phase III Chart of Outer Shell Outer Shell Evaluation Chart of Shell Evaluation Shell Evaluation Years of Use 1 Poor Fair Good <4 1 Excellent 2 Poor Fair Good >5 6 Excellent 10 0 Extremely Poor Poor Fair Shell Evaluation Good Excellent The result of light evaluations of the liners ten years or older are shown in Figure 4 below. Of the 91 liner systems tested that were ten years or older, only 1 passed the evaluation for migration of material and holes. Out of the gear less than ten years old, only 14 liners failed (8 pants failed in the seat and 8 pants failed in the crotch). These liners were between two and three years from manufacture date.

8 Count Fig 4. Phase III Thermal Liner Light Evaluation Chart of Thermal Liner Light Evaluation Pass Thermal Liner Light Evaluation Fail An evaluation of the closure system s functionality was performed during the AVI in which two garments in the nine to ten year old range failed and 6.5% of garments greater than ten years failed to stay attached or failed to un-attach when attempting to open. The zippers on the garments had a 100% pass rate. Leakage Evaluation (Cup Test) Figure 5 below shows the results of evaluating leakage of gear less than ten years old versus the retirement and years of use of the moisture barrier garments. Forty-three out of 143 (30.06%) of moisture barrier garments failed the leakage evaluation. Garments greater than five years of age showed 36.67% leakage and garments less than four years of age showed 18.87% leakage. Fig 5. Phases I and II Leakage Evaluation Garments ten years or greater from manufacture date had a 62.6% failure rate for the leakage evaluation. Nineteen 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 panel area of the coat. The highest failure area for the coats was the shoulder seam area. Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation Of the 143 garments, 65.73% showed leakage during the water penetration barrier evaluation (hydrostatic test). Garments less than four years of age showed 23.77% leakage. Of the failures, 43.4% were found in the seam of the garment and 42.1% were due to a fabric failure. Figure 7 below shoes the results for Phases I and II.

9 Fig 6. Phases I and II Hydrostatic Testing Of the 91 liner systems evaluated for hydrostatic testing that were ten years old or older, 73 (80.2%) failed the water penetration barrier evaluation. The seam area failed in 38.4% of the garments, 26% failed in the fabric area and 35.6% of moisture barriers failed in both the fabric and seam areas in Phase III. Flashlight Test The results of flashlight trim reflectivity testing determined that 100% of the garments passed the field evaluation for all three phases in the study. It was noted that some garments evaluated had 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. Retroreflectivity Fluorescence Test The NFPA minimum requirement for retroreflectivity is not less than 100R a (Coefficient of Reflectance). In Phase I, the average value for 23 coats was 337 R a and 310 R a for the pants. In Phase II, the coats averaged 292 R a and the pants averaged 230 R a. In Phase III, the average value for the coats was 203 R a and 190 R a for the pants. Individually however, 8 garments out of 33 in Phase III failed to meet the minimum 100 R a reflectance requirement. The figures below show the average R A value for the coats and pants in Phase III by age category (10 to 15 years and 16 to 20 years). Fig 7. Phase III Average R A for Coats and Pants by Age Category

10 Count Flammability When evaluating after flame time for gear less than ten years old 100% of outer shell fabrics passed and 97.8% of all moisture barrier and thermal liner materials passed. Note that all samples tested for vertical flammability were taken from the right front coat sleeve and left front pant leg. Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) & Total Heat Loss (THL) Of the 70 garments tested for TPP, all met or exceeded the minimum TPP requirement of 35 cal/cm 2. The median TPP value was cal/cm 2, which was an average of 20% increase in TPP values over the manufacturer s 2000 certification value % of the 70 samples tested for THL did not meet the minimum requirements of 205 w/m 2. Results showed that retirement status and outer shell type have a significant relationship with the THL value. Seam Strength The data from gear two to ten years old indicated a borderline relationship between seam strength performances of the outer shell seat seam and the use and/or age of the garment. This statistical significance was not true for the moisture barrier and thermal liner materials. A relationship was also found between seam strength and visual evaluation. The pants inseam of the moisture barrier had a constant decrease in strength with the years of use and/or age. For the retired gear older than ten years, 35.7% of pants failed overall seam strength testing in at least one area (inseam or seat seam). Tear Strength The results of tear testing showed the average strength decreased slightly with age but all three age categories exceeded the minimum of 22 lbf, with the exception of two garments in the nine to ten year old and retired category. Figure 9 below shows the overall results of tear strength testing on garments between the ages of two and ten years. Fig 9. Phases I and II Tear Strength Results Tear Strength (Outer Shell) and Years of Use Years of Use TS-OS-Rate <4 Fail >5 <4 >5 Pass Breaking Strength Overall, 16.9% of the outer shell garments failed to meet the minimum requirement set by NFPA 1971 of 140 lbf breaking strength. Sixteen out of 40 (40%) retired garments, ten years or older, did not meet the minimum specification. The average break was 190.2lbf for garments between the ages of two and ten years of age. The average break for garments between the ages of ten and 22 years of age was 163 lbf. It was found that 5 outer shell garments less than four years of age did not meet the minimum requirement.

11 CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, it was found that the Advanced Visual Inspection criteria of NFPA 1851 is effective in evaluating garment performance for the flashlight test, total heat loss, and seam breaking strength. The AVI is not predictive of performance in water penetration or tear strength testing. When comparing the results of the leakage evaluation field test to the results of the water penetration hydrostatic testing, 65.73% of garments showed leakage in the water penetration (hydrostatic test) evaluation whereas only 30% showed leakage in the field evaluation cup test. It should be noted that the field test may indicate that particular garments are okay for further use, when in fact the hydrostatic water penetration test indicates they are not safe. When evaluating the correlation between turnout gear material and composite performance and the age/use pattern of the garment there was no statistical difference found for thermal protective performance (TPP), water penetration, or total heat loss (THL). There was a slight difference between char length and age/use of the moisture barrier when conducting flammability testing. There was a slight relationship between pant shell seat seam strength results and the age/use of the garment. The examination of whether or not retired garments pass or fail the performance properties specified in NFPA 1851 and NFPA 1971 showed that thermal protective performance (TPP), flammability, and retroreflectivity (for Phases I and II) met the requirements. Total Heat Loss (THL), tear strength, breaking strength, seam strength, and water penetration do not meet the requirements. Retroreflectivity results from Phases I and II met the requirements whereas the retired gear tested in Phase III, did not meet the results for gear 16 to 20 years old. Retired garments in Phase III failed to meet the minimum requirements for the liner light evaluation as specified in NFPA The performance properties of the used gear were compared to the requirements in NFPA 1971 and the results from thermal protective performance (TPP), flammability, and retroreflectivity (for Phases I and II) met the requirements. Total Heat Loss (THL), tear strength, breaking strength, seam strength, water penetration and retroreflectivity (for Phase III) did not meet the requirements. It was also noted that the results of the leakage evaluation (cup test) did not match the results of the water penetration hydrostatic testing. 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. She would like to acknowledge and thank the previous graduate students, Deena Cotterill and Stacy Trenkamp, for paving the path to complete the third phase of this study. The author would like to thank the following industry committee members: Rich Young, DuPont; Pat Freeman, Globe; Karen Lehtonen, Lion; Tricia Hock, Safety Equipment Institute; Deena Cotterill, FireDex; and Stacy Klausing, ArcWear, for their support and commitment to this study.

12 REFERENCES 1. BREHM, D Well worn: NFPA 1851 provides new guidance on personal protective ensembles. Fire Rescue Magazine, 25, BUMBARGER, S Reducing the Hazard of High Heat. Occupational Health & Safety, 69, CORNER, C Turnout Gear 101 Outershells & Thermal Barrier. 4. DI GIOVANNI, A Technology Today: Fire Protective Clothing: As Complex as any other PPE. Fire Engineering, 159, FAHY, R., LEBLANC, P. & MOLIS, J Firefighter Fatalities in the United States, National Fire Protection Association, 106, HASENMEIER, P The History of Firefighter Personal Protective Equipment. Fire Engineering. 7. LION APPAREL Understanding High Heat and Fire. e-facts [Online], MMIII. Available: [Accessed November 24, 2008]. 8. NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighing and Proximity Fire Fighting 2007 Edition ed. Quincy, MA. 9. NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION NFPA 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting Edition ed. Quincy, MA. 10. REZAZADEH, M. & TORVI, D Assessment of Factors Affecting the Continuing Performace of Firefighters' Protective Clothing: A Literature Review. Fire Technology, 47, SHANLEY, L. A., SLATEN, L. B. & SHANLEY, P. S Military Protective Clothing: Implications for Clothing and Textiles Curriculum and Research. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 11, THE GREEN ARCHITECT. n.d. Green Glossary [Online]. The Green Arrchitect. Available: emid=8 [Accessed 11/19/ ]. 13. TORVI, D. A. & HADJISOPHOCLEOUS, G. V Development of Methods to Evaluate the Useful Lifetime of Firefighters' Protective Clothing, West Conshohocken, PA, American Society for Testing and Materials. 14. WATKINS, S. M Clothing The Portable Environment, Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press. 15. YOUNG, R 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 40504, USA; phone ; fax ; mlcinn3@g.uky.edu.