Everyone dealing with hazardous materials - fire fighters, emergency personnel, frontline staff in defence departments and other such professionals - has something in common: they all recognize the crucial importance of safety. Maintaining a robust, compliant arsenal of chemical-protective suits is essential to being readily equipped for an emergency situation. Yet, a factor that always comes into the equation when selecting fire safety equipment is cost.

Because safety is not something one would want to compromise on, cost-benefit analyses are crucial for ensuring that the best solution is chosen. In this article, Ian Hutcheson, Marketing and Development Manager of Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, discusses total cost of ownership of chemical & fire protection equipment, focusing his analysis on gas-tight chemical-protective suits.

The use of fully-encapsulated gas-tight protective suits is standard for monitoring and inspecting the scene of serious emergencies, as well as for mounting rescue, containment or clean-up operations. In terms of protecting emergency teams, the choice is often between limited-life and reusable gas-tight chemical protective suits. Both of these suit types have similar safety standards and application areas, as set out by the European Standard EN 943-2 certification, established by the European Committee for Standarization (CEN).  Yet, cost-effectiveness must be considered when looking for new equipment. Value for money is a common theme across municipal and corporate organisations alike, as leaders try to squeeze already-tight budgets to ensure that the job they have to do is done. Limiting expenditure for new equipment without compromising safety is challenging and requires informed decision-making.

The most important question to answer in this decision-making process is: “How can organisations ensure they receive the utmost in safety and value when selecting chemical-protective gear for their team?” Too often, this decision is made by purchasing departments based on list price alone. However, the acquisition price only provides a partial picture as it merely reflects one portion of the entire cost.  An analysis of the total cost of ownership (TCO) is not only a more comprehensive method for determining the full cost of chemical-protective suits but is also an imperative from a business perspective. A TCO analysis will take into account indirect costs such as maintenance, inspection and repair costs, which can have a dramatic impact on the overall spend level that lead to unanticipated budget over-runs.

Here, a Total Cost of Ownership Analysis shall be applied to the two available classes of gas-tight chemical-protective suits: limited life and reusable. There are suit options in both classes that are EN-certified, as per EN943-2, for use in protecting wearers in emergency situations. This certification, as well as the mandatory CE mark, ensures that minimum safety levels are in place for the suits.  A TCO analysis of both types of these protective suits will thoroughly demonstrate that they differ significantly in several aspects, all of which are relevant to purchasers looking for quality and value.

Direct costs

Acquisition Price

While the list price should not be the sole consideration in the purchase of chemical-protective gear, it is nonetheless the starting point of any cost analysis, being the most basic and easily determinable element of cost. A comparison between the two different types of chemical-protective suits is, therefore, very straightforward: the average price for a reusable suit is €2,500-4,000 while a limited life suit runs €1,000-1,500. However, it is important to understand the various factors which influence cost.

Limiting expenditure for new equipment without compromising safety is challenging and requires informed decision-making

Indirect factors that influence costs

When moving beyond acquisition price, there are several additional factors that serve to increase the overall cost of chemical-protective suits.

Inspection and Recertification

While financial aspects must be taken into consideration, no organisation can afford to compromise on safety to save a few pence or cents. Consequently, regular inspection is crucial for protective suits that are intended for more than one use. Such inspection obviously entails costs that need to be considered in a TCO analysis.

Reusable suits generally have a shelf life of 5 to 10 years and are required to be inspected annually by the manufacturers, which costs €250-500 per suit. Here again, the upfront price alone is not the only source of cost. It should also be taken into account that the suits need to be sent out for annual inspection and re-certification, a process that can take two to three months per suit. During this time, replacement suits must be at the ready to protect personnel, resulting in additional investment.

Basically, an organisation must have more suits in its inventory than is actually required, in order to ensure preparedness in the event of an incident. Add to the cost of such,  the cost of shipping and logistics, along with the time needed for administrative purposes, and the inspection and recertification process could be quite an expensive exercise.

The inspection of reusable suits becomes more complicated if the suits have been used. In this case, a certificate of decontamination is required before sending the suits out to ensure the safety of those transporting and handling them. Organisations must ensure they have Standard Operating Procedures governing this process. Here, human error is also a possibility, with the risk of indirect contamination if suits are not properly cleaned, or if contaminants are particularly difficult to remove.

For limited-life suits, inspections are only needed if the suit has been removed from its package but not exposed to any chemicals, for instance, in the case of a false alarm. Here, inspection procedures are straightforward as the suit simply has to be visually inspected and a pressure-test performed to ensure that it is still gas-tight. This operation can be performed by emergency personnel themselves or at cost of approximately €100-150 by the main suit-providers. If a limited-life suit is contaminated, it must be disposed of (see section on Disposability below).

It should also be noted that most suit usage takes place during practice sessions, making it advisable to dedicate a certain number of suits to training to minimize the cost of replacing or reinspecting suits that have never been used in real action.

Maintenance and repair

Protective fire equipment
Maintenance and repair costs must be factored into cost analyses for total cost of ownership

As with any object of utility, damage can occur, necessitating repair, even though both types of suits are highly robust. The cost of repairs for both limited-life and reusable suits varies, depending on what needs to be fixed and could range from as little as €50 for the patching of a small cut, to, many hundreds of euro and more. If a suit is significantly impaired, for example, if a zip or visor is damaged, it may not be worth repairing, as the cost of such may exceed the acquisition price. Maintenance and repair costs must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, thus creating extra administration costs.


No one wants to put on a suit that features odorous evidence of previous wearers, so for the purpose of personal hygiene, the cleaning of reusable suits is necessary. Cleaning infrastructures must be set up, including cleaning areas, access to liquid and detergents, and drying rooms to accommodate a large number of suits. In the case of limited-life suits, cleaning is a much less regular occurrence, therefore the same level of work and infrastructure is not needed.


Chemical-protective suits present unique storage challenges. Fortunately, the infrequency of chemical incidents leads to most of these suits being disposed of at the end of their shelf lives without ever actually being used in a “hazmat” incident.  Nonetheless they need to be conveniently and safely stored yet readily accessible, as one can never predict the timing of such incidents.

Specific and rather tedious storage requirements must be followed for reusable suits. Due to their thick, often rubber-like material composition, they typically need to be laid flat or hung up - repeated folding may cause stress-cracking or seam tape delamination. This means that a large amount of space is required to store the suits, which can be costly and inconvenient. By contrast, limited-life suits are typically lighter, more flexible and take up significantly less room. Owing to this, they can be stored folded in their original package and removed anytime in a ready-to-use condition.


The disposal process for limited-life and reusable suits is much the same. Both will need to be decontaminated before disposal, in accordance with organisational procedures. However, if limited-life suits have been contaminated during use, they must be disposed of, whereas reusable suits have the option of being inspected and reused. Of course, there is always the possibility that reusable suits may need to be destroyed after a chemical incident if deemed too risky or costly to inspect or repair. Additionally, damage is not immediately obvious in all cases and there is always the risk that the suit has not been 100 per cent effectively decontaminated, especially if a mix of hazardous chemicals is present at an incident.

Non-monetary, yet important factors to consider

While total cost is a very important consideration when deciding on a chemical-protective suit, there are other factors that can’t be given a monetary value but should still be taken into account. These "money can’t buy" features include user comfort and safety.

The infrequency of chemical incidents leads to most suits being disposed of at the end of their shelf lives without ever actually being used


Working in gas-tight chemical-protective suits is strenuous as they are heavier and less flexible than non-encapsulated protective clothing. Features that improve comfort and manoeuvrability can significantly enhance the user’s ability to work efficiently; therefore such features should certainly be considered as part of an overall assessment of suit options.

In general, the lighter the suit, the less arduous it is for the user to wear. Some limited-life suits weigh less than their reusable counterparts.  Furthermore, limited-life suits tend to offer more flexibility than thicker rubber-like reusable suits.


As mentioned previously, organisations can find certified options for both reusable and limited-life suits. It is important to note that these suits are also rated against various performance criteria. During the selection process, the purchasing organisation should also consider the test results in terms of factors such as flex-cracking as well as flame and puncture resistance.


Safety and value are equally paramount considerations when selecting a chemical-protective suit. It is apparent that there are many important factors beyond initial list price that need to be considered in order to determine the true cost of limited life and reusable suits. As demonstrated above, a TCO analysis may prove a useful tool in helping decision makers weigh their options. By exposing hidden and ongoing expenses, an accurate picture of overall cost is revealed.

Ian Hutcheson of Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics

Ian Hutcheson - Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics

Download PDF version

Author profile

In case you missed it

School Shootings Highlight Need For Alternatives To Manual-Pull Fire Alarms
School Shootings Highlight Need For Alternatives To Manual-Pull Fire Alarms

During the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Feb. 14, the gunman activated a manual fire alarm and shot at students as they left the building. The alarm promoted confusion during the calamity, in part because there had been a fire drill earlier in the day. It's not the first time a fire alarm has played a role in an active shooter scenario. Twenty years ago, a similar tactic was used at the Westside Middle School shooting in Jonesborough, Ark.  A fire alarm also was pulled at Columbine High School during the 1998 massacre. The concern is not new. Alternatives To Manual-Pull Fire Alarms Manual pull fire alarms also present other problems, especially nuisance alarms. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has addressed the problem for more than a decade in its Life Safety Standards, which allow for the elimination of manual pull alarms as long as there are other measures that provide the same benefits. “We have had a provision to relieve schools from having to install pull boxes in common areas for 12 to 15 years,” says Robert Solomon, Director for Building Fire Protection and Systems at NFPA. “Many school administrators don’t realize we have given them alternatives.”Many school administrators don’t realize we have given them alternatives” Alternatives include use of smoke detectors, automatic sprinklers, and/or locating pull stations in school administration or office areas. NFPA Life Safety Code The NFPA Life Safety Code was created in 1911 and has been updated every three years since then. Committees that include architects, engineers, code consultants, manufacturers, testing labs, and universities meet periodically to discuss what changes are needed. In fact, the committees are meeting this summer in Minneapolis to discuss the next version of the Life Safety Code. NFPA manages the code but has no authority to enforce it. State policy makers and legislative bodies (and some municipalities) adopt various versions of the code as local requirements. Which version of the NFPA Life Safety Code has been adopted in a locality determines how much flexibility there is to eliminate pull station alarms. Allowances to eliminate them have been included since 2006. However, some localities are still using earlier versions of the code, in which case a change in the law would be required to provide the additional flexibilities. The 2018 Life Safety Code allows the elimination of manual pull stations in some circumstances NFPA And Manual-Pull Fire Alarms Sections in the code address issues and concerns related to new construction (Chapter 14) and existing occupancy (Chapter 15). In the case of existing facilities, a school administrator could act to phase out manual pull stations in common areas as long as the move is allowed under the code version (year) that the jurisdiction has adopted. For example, a jurisdiction still operating under the 2000 code could not eliminate pull stations unless the local jurisdiction adopted a more recent version of the code. The 2018 Life Safety Code allows the elimination of manual pull stations if: Interior corridors are protected by smoke detectors in accordance with the code; Auditoriums, cafeterias, and gymnasiums are protected by heat-detection devices or other approved detection devices; Workshops and laboratories with dust and vapor are protected by heat-detection devices or other approved detection devices; and There is a provision at a central point to manually activate the evacuation signal or to evacuate only affected areas. Manual pull alarms can also be eliminated if there is a sprinkler system with a pressure sensor that activates an alarm when the water starts to flow.No student has died in a school fire in the United States since 1958 Another measure schools can adopt is to install a cover for the pull station that sounds a local horn if it is lifted to gain access to the manual fire alarm box. This approach is a deterrent and alerts local personnel before a full-blown fire alarm is activated. A security camera installed near an alarm can also be activated when the alarm is pulled. School Fire Risk No student has died in a school fire in the United States since 1958 when the Our Lady of Angels School fire in Chicago claimed 92 fatalities. (Chicago did not use the NFPA Life Safety Code at the time.) The tragic fire was a wakeup call to pay more attention to school fire risks. Since 1958, the level of planning, training and systems that have been installed in schools (including use of the NFPA Life Safety Code) has paid dividends in student safety. Today, it is more likely a student will die at the hands of an active shooter than in a fire. That reality has driven the need to adapt provisions of the Life Safety Code. For example, door-locking options need to allow for school lockdowns while still enabling safe exit during a fire. Some door-locking or barricade devices on the market do not adhere to code requirements. A section on “classroom door locking to prevent entry” is included in the 2018 edition of the code. Raising Awareness Of Life Safety Codes Awareness is a challenge for NFPA. While code officials or architect/engineers may be familiar with Life Safety Code requirements, that awareness may not extend to busy school administrators. NFPA is working to communicate code requirements to this group, including development of one-page executive summaries that make complex code requirements more digestible. “Policy makers should understand they have an obligation to review code provisions and work toward staying more current on codes,” says Solomon. Alarms activated during an active shooter event are a variation on a problem that has plagued pull-station alarms for years – the issue of nuisance alarms. It’s a scary and potentially deadly new angle on an age-old problem, but one the NFPA Life Safety Code has already been addressing.

Continuity Of Power Throughout Buildings Is Key During A Fire
Continuity Of Power Throughout Buildings Is Key During A Fire

The continuity of power in the event of a real fire has never been more important as modern buildings become more complex and the need for the highest quality of products comes under the spotlight. With power for lighting and fire alarms, the fire and rescue services can use the intelligence gathered to evacuate people quickly, confident that they have found all the people in the building. Without power, they are literally scrambling in the dark without good information upon which to make their rescue. The continuity of power will also ensure that sprinkler or water mist systems can continue to operate where they exist. In commercial buildings, there may also be smoke evacuation fans which help to enable safe evacuation. Fire alarms may be digital, with loop systems which will provide information for fire and rescue services  Appropriate Cabling  At the start of a project, the most appropriate cabling should be specified as part of the electrical system rather than at the end of a project. Fire alarms may be digital, with loop systems which will provide information for fire and rescue services across individual areas and floors. At the same time, there are new designs, materials and products continually coming on to the market for major projects, and with it an increasing need for the various parties involved to work closely together to make sure they get it right. There has been an increasing incidence of non-approved cables on the market and unfortunately it is not until cables have been installed, tested or used that issues become clear. For installers, or those procuring cables, there is a need to check the cable when it arrives to make sure it is exactly what was specified. Should there be a problem, have it checked and seek good advice. Keep records of purchase, including reel flanges with batch markings and a sample of the cable markings. Send lengths for testing and then decide on the most appropriate course of action. Choice of cabling is crucial at the start of major projects as issues may occur later  Meeting Rigorous Third-Party Tests  For some buildings, it is crucial to select the highest quality products to meet the most rigorous third-party tests and real-life fire scenarios. These include environments such as hospitals, schools and care homes where older people and children move about. Specifiers looking at new large public sector projects such as hospitals should refer to BS 8519 for the electrical supply, and the most relevant cabling system. It is crucial to select the highest quality products to meet the most rigorous third-party tests This Code of Practice specifies that the type of system selected during the design phase ‘should be derived from a detailed process of consultation with the relevant authorities’ and that ‘the design should be agreed at an early stage.’ The decision-making process for cable selection relevant for life safety and firefighting systems is clearly defined here. This covers three categories ranging from 30 minutes to 120 minutes fire survival time.  Categories 1 and 2 cover means of escape for 30 minutes and then 60 minutes respectively, and these cables are tested in accordance with the relevant codes. Category 3 for firefighting to 120 minutes refers to power and control cables meeting the 120-minute test according to the relevant standards. It should be emphasised that only Mineral Insulated Cable (MIC) or a cable meeting the requirements of BS7846 F120 will meet this criteria. For clarity, BS 8519 does not take precedence over BS 5839 for alarm systems and BS 5266 for emergency lighting. In essence, choosing the most relevant cabling and electrical accessories which will continue to operate under fire conditions has become critical. Application Of Medium Voltage Cables  As the incidence of non-approved cables continues then so the application of Medium Voltage (MV) cables into high-risk environments including hospitals, schools, care homes, industrial sites and sub-stations serving infrastructure sites also becomes critical. In the context off fire engineering, it is important to select the relevant MV Cables in these areas. Adhering to the latest regulations is no longer enough - there needs to be a risk assessment. In order to do this effectively, it is important to ask – are the fire safety procedures up to date? All AEI MV cables are third party tested and approved by BASEC. Educational establishments including schools, colleges and laboratories are some of the most prone structures to fire hazards The whole supply chain needs to take consideration of these areas where vulnerable people often move about such as children or elderly people in hospitals or care homes. The fire and rescue services may need a little more time than a conventional building including reading complex fire alarm information to ensure a safe rescue in the event of a real fire. Educational establishments including schools, colleges and laboratories are some of the most prone structures to fire hazards. This is due to ageing structures, high volume of combustible materials, and changing use in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths programmes where more combustible and flammable liquids are being used. Concerns have been raised by architects and and designers about fire protection regimes  Sufficient Fire Risk Assessment  Recent research by the Fire Brigades Union, for example, showed that a key focus for all educational institutions must be ensuring that there is an effective fire risk management process in place, delivered by suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment carried out by an expert in the field. The best practice under Business Information Modelling (BIM) and all best practice of fire safety engineering methods should be observed in conjunction with project partners. There have been concerns over a number of years around the fire protection regime for new buildings expressed by the architects and designers themselves. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) points to the delays to Approved Document B with regard to the relationship of Building Regulations to changing design and construction. AEI Cables provides a full range of cabling products through its Total Fire Solutions service RIBA says the virtual disappearance of the role of the clerk of works or site architect and the loss of independent oversight of construction and workmanship on behalf of the client is a further issue for concern. In essence, RIBA believes that future proposals for the fire safety regulatory regime should be informed by the specialist fire safety expertise of relevant professional organisations and groups, and also take full account of this wider set of construction industry AEI Cables provides a full range of cabling products through its Total Fire Solutions service with the support of its parent company Ducab based in Dubai, with the design, manufacture and supply of MIC, Firetec Enhanced or Firetec Power depending on specific needs. The choice of cabling and accessories should not be underestimated at the earliest opportunity to ensure the fire and rescue services are given every chance of success in rescuing people and saving property.

Modern Mass Notification Systems Adapt With Evolving Communications Technology
Modern Mass Notification Systems Adapt With Evolving Communications Technology

If anyone tells you that the use of Mass Notification Systems (MNS) is a new trend, it is likely that they do not fully understand it. You have been impacted by mass notification your whole life. Surprised? Every time there is a fire drill at an elementary school, or a bell chimes noon or a blinking light announces a snow-related parking ban, an MNS is being deployed. Ultimately, mass notification is just mass communications. What has changed is the distribution methodology, the granularity and specificity of the message, and the ability to customise it to individual recipients or groups Growing Need For Mass Communications Our capacity to communicate vastly improved through the 80s and 90s; 1G analog in 1983 was followed by 2G digital in 1990, paving the way for text messaging and IBM’s Simon, the first smart phone in 1993. Digital cable connected to nearly seventy million people by the end of the 20th century. By 1995, wide-scale commercialisation of the internet had begun, with social media and instant online chats prevailing through the early 2000s. So when did the genesis of modern mass notification occur? The problem garnered little national attention until the 1995 Murrah Federal Building bombing and the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, which saw issues with the immediate and post-crisis victim response. The tipping point was 9/11. Advances in communications integration and interoperability can be traced to the communications failures experienced by responders to the attack on the World Trade Center. These failures went beyond those traditionally involved in a crisis. The 9/11 Commission report states: “the ‘first’ first responders on 9/11, as in most catastrophes, were private sector civilians. Because 85 percent of our nation’s critical infrastructure is controlled not by government, but by the private sector, private-sector civilians are likely to be the first responders in any future catastrophe. For that reason, we have assessed the state of private sector and civilian preparedness in order to formulate recommendations to address this critical need.” Managing The Disaster Life Cycle Communications failures were tied inexorably to governmental and civilian command and control failures with frustration spreading all the way to the White House. President George Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5): “to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies, the United States Government shall establish a single, comprehensive approach to domestic incident management.” The result was the National Incident Management System (NIMS). NIMS is intended to help manage the disaster life cycle and meet the challenges of timely emergency communication. The NIMS provides a comprehensive approach to incident management to meet the challenges of timely emergency communication to civilians and emergency services Most of the fire detection industry views Mass Notification through the "standards" looking glass, with NFPA 72 Chapter 24, UL2572 and the Defence Department UFC 4-021-01 as the primary players. The UFC standard best exemplifies the most commonly recognized MNS definition in its introduction: "Mass notification provides real-time information and instructions to people in a building, area, site, or installation using intelligible voice communications along with visible signals, text, and graphics, and possibly including tactile or other communication methods. "The purpose of mass notification is to protect life by indicating the existence of an emergency situation and instructing people of the necessary and appropriate response and action.” While there is nothing wrong with that definition, it is often misinterpreted. This stigma unintentionally creates operational silos. Mass notification isn’t just for your building, your campus, or your people. In fact, the greatest value of a well-architected mass notification system is that it can deliver communications to large diverse groups of people sharing a commonality. Holistic Mass Notification System While many people associate MNS with fire alarms and text message alerts, today’s systems incorporate numerous other modes of communication from an email notification to strobe lights or automated phone calls, similar to a reverse 911 call. For larger open campuses, an MNS could include a loud speaker, which can sound a siren notification or even an automated message. Through distributed messaging systems, MNS can also broadcast alert notifications and evacuation route directions to targeted areas in the event of an emergency. For example, in an active shooter situation, leaving a building may actually put more people in harm’s way in some cases. Depending on the situation, it may be safer for occupants to move to a different floor or area in the building. The same could be said about a weather-related issue, where a display board or email notification would share an alert to take shelter in a basement due to a tornado. The 21st century mass notification system will be holistic, highly configurable, intuitive and interactive enabling two-way multi modal communication. It will be inherently network-driven and adaptable to diverse individual and group perceptions, behaviours and needs. Article published courtest SourceSecurity.com®, a division of Notting Hill Media Limited. View the original article here