TechTrade Fire Personal Protective Equipment

More than an outfit. More thought than one leg at a time. Putting on the uniform is not just an ordinary daily task, but a habitual part of preparing for the unexpected. Yes, a firefighter’s uniform is more than an outfit. Think about who is wearing it and the risks they are exposed to on a daily basis. The firefighter comes from a long line of heroes, a brotherhood and sisterhood, with traditions to uphold and a reputation to maintain. Their uniform is no different. Its historical navy-blue threads. Classic, professional appearance. Tactical features. Technology-driven fabric. Over time, the uniform’s engineering has needed to adapt with new designs and react to worsened exposures and more dangerous rescue missions. The 21st Century firefighter’s uniform is unique and specific to the job with current trends fixating on the best user experience while future plans focus on preventative and safety measures due to increased societal and architectural risks. Comfortable firefighter uniform So, what does the 21st Century firefighter want? Comfort. Beyond Personal Protective Equipment, it is an overwhelming plea for a more comfortable uniform to wear. This includes garments that are easy “wash and wear” materials that do not require additional ironing. Firefighters do not want to lose the professional appearance or tactical functionality of the uniform The trend calls for lightweight, breathable, cool-weather wear that is less restrictive and offers more give and more stretch so firefighters can perform their job responsibilities more efficiently. However, they do not want to lose the professional appearance or tactical functionality of the uniform. “We need something that looks presentable every time,” said Chief Robert Burdette of Grand Blanc Fire Department, Michigan. Additionally, more firefighters are also starting to wear polo shirts or mesh T-shirts under their Turnout gear, for a lighter weight, more breathable option from the traditional uniform shirt. The trend calls for lightweight, breathable, cool-weather wear that is less restrictive Risk of cancer Unfortunately, comfort is not the only concern firefighters have when it comes to uniforms, or their safety in general. As risky and demanding of a profession the fire service can be, the fires have proven not to be the most hazardous or life threatening. According to the Firefighter Cancer Support Network, “Cancer is the most dangerous threat to firefighter health and safety today.” A study conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) concluded that firefighters have a 9% increased chance of being diagnosed with cancer and a 14% increased chance to die from cancer compared to the general United States population. Chief Dennis Jenkerson of the St. Louis Fire Department in Missouri is one of many chiefs actively fighting these statistics. Responsible for 32 firehouses, Jenkerson has witnessed the reality of this threat with the loss of four of his own and understands the validity of the situation. For the last 18 months, the St. Louis Fire Department has made headway implementing a drastic culture change by evaluating everything from equipment, apparel, lifestyle and more.  Cancer affecting firefighters “It is so prevalent that everything we do anymore has to do with some emphasis on protecting firefighters from getting cancer,” said Chief Mike Ramm of Sylvania Township Fire Department, Ohio. “Cancer is the most dangerous threat to firefighter health and safety today” According to the Firefighter Cancer Support Network, the cancers that have mostly affected firefighters are respiratory (lung, mesothelioma), gastrointestinal (oral cavity, esophageal, large intestine) and kidney. “Testicular cancer is through the roof,” added Jenkerson, who has pushed his firefighters to get tested for cancers earlier than normally necessary. He also explained that the imagery of a firefighter drinking from a fire hydrant can no longer happen. He emphasized the importance of cleaning up instantly after every fire. Think of the simple act of removing grimy gloves after a call – at least one hand has been exposed to the cancerous contaminants if it was accidentally used to take off the other glove. If that unwashed, contaminated hand touches food that goes into the mouth of the firefighter, he/she is essentially eating what may cause esophageal, oral cavity or gastric cancers. Cancer is the most dangerous threat to firefighter health and safety today According to the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) via the Firefighter Cancer Support Network, cancer caused 61% of the career firefighter line-of-duty deaths from January 1, 2002 to March 31, 2017. Additionally, 70% of the line-of-duty deaths for career firefighters were because of cancer in 2016. Unfortunately, this hazard is not going away any time soon. The new building materials and new house furnishings have become the culprit for this major concern. These materials are man-made and are not of natural resources. When burned, they create deadly carcinogens that the firefighters are getting exposed to firsthand. Immediate decontamination process Jenkerson’s implementation of a culture change includes an immediate decontamination process following a fire, which involves getting hosed with water, cleansing wipes for all soft tissue areas of the body and an immediate shower back at the station. “Any place you can get a five degree rise in skin temperature, the absorption level goes up 10 times,” Jenkerson warned. His firefighters are instructed to remove their bunker gear, uniform, helmet and all other equipment right away that get immediately washed once they have returned to the station. Hems, collars, cuffs and cargo pockets are areas of the uniform where toxins get caught He also restricts all firefighters and EMTs from going on a second run until they have showered and have put on a new, clean set of clothes, all the way down to their underwear. “There are no two-runs. We have to get this stuff off [of them].” Uniform manufacturers are tasked with finding a solution to help facilitate Jenkerson’s and other Fire Chiefs’ visions by designing a uniform with as little gaps and fold-over materials as possible. “Everything needs to be sealed tight,” Jenkerson explained. Hems, collars, cuffs and cargo pockets are all areas of the uniform where toxins get caught. A lightweight shirt option that offers a crew collar with a two to three button placket and a lightweight, ventilated hidden cargo pant could be the future of fire uniforms. “There isn’t another profession that has the thousands of dangers that we have every day,” Ramm explained. Additional and ongoing efforts currently underway according to the NFPA Journal, include those by the Firefighter Cancer Support Network, the Congressional Firefighter Cancer Registry, the Fire Protection Research Foundation, the FPRF Campaign for Fire Service Contamination Control, and the International Association of Firefighters. Active shooter emergency response Firefighters and EMTs increasingly need to wear bullet proof vests with the surge in active shooter calls An additional and unfortunate trend that is also sweeping the nation is the need for firefighters and EMTs to wear bullet proof vests. Departments are trying their best to arm their men and women with this protection along with ballistic helmets in certain regions due to the surge in active shooter calls. “In areas that have a lot of gang-related activity, [bullet proof vests] would be beneficial,” said Jason Reyes of Allen Fire Department, Texas. “Sometimes you go on calls when the city doesn’t have enough police to respond to calls, which creates a situation that leaves firefighters unprotected and vulnerable.” Currently the market has ballistic vests available that can either be worn over or under a firefighter’s uniform and under their bunker gear. Uniform manufacturers also offer an external vest carrier option that is worn over a firefighter’s uniform to look like part of the uniform shirt to maintain a professional appearance. Distinguishing firefighters from law enforcement “Firefighters find themselves becoming targets more and more these days,” added Deputy Chief of Operations Dwayne Jamison of Bartow County Fire Department, Georgia. “Many departments, including my own, are looking to outfit their firefighters with bullet proof vests.” Although this trend has not affected every region, industry experts can see the need becoming more widespread if threats continue to increase the way they have been. Along the same lines, firefighters want to be identified as firefighters and not mistaken for law enforcement. “We don’t want to look like police,” Jenkerson said. “We want to be identified as firefighters. Even if it takes a different stripe.” When it comes to uniform trends for firefighters, it is clear there is more to focus on than the technical details. For many fire departments, future trends could serve as a tool to prevent deadly toxins from being absorbed and from lethal bullets puncturing unprotected firefighters and EMTs. The uniform is more than an outfit. With a larger purpose than to shield a body, the uniform goes beyond the navy-blue threads, professional appearance and tactical features to one day supporting what could be a lifesaving concept. Sources Firefighter Cancer Support Network, Preventing Cancer in the Fire Service National Fire Protection Association,  Firefighters and Cancer NFPA Journal, Fast Track: Some of the national efforts underway to fight cancer in the fire service; Roman, Jesse; 2017 

The latest personal protection equipment (PPE) are being designed to meet new regulatory standards Marine firefighting encompasses activities to extinguish any type of fire in a marine environment. For many years, this meant dealing with fires on seagoing vessels, or more specifically, shipping. In this article, Richard Cranham, International Sales Manager at Bristol Uniforms, sheds light on the various fire hazards at sea and the latest protection outfits designed to meet new regulatory standards.   Nature of marine fire hazards At one time, marine fire risks were primarily associated with shipping and the vessels or their cargoes. In the 21st century, however, the seas and oceans are increasingly becoming sites for static structures. Many of these are associated with oil, gas and other mineral exploration and harvesting. Clearly the range of fire hazards associated with these different activities varies widely. In some situations, firefighters will be able to work onboard, depending on the severity of the fire, but, following a blow out or explosion aboard an oil rig or gas production platform, fighting the ensuing fire may only be possible from firefighting vessels. Also, the characteristics of the fires facing firefighters will reflect the volatility and flammability of the materials involved in the conflagration. Some materials burn much hotter than others. Some will throw off burning shards or molten materials, some can be unpredictable either due to the composition of the flammable materials involved (in particular hydrocarbons and chemicals) or prevailing weather conditions. Wind speed and direction can be particularly variable out at sea and can cause rapid changes in the levels of hazard experienced by firefighters. Personal protection equipment (PPE) to suit the conditions As with land-based firefighting, the type of personal protection equipment required is increasingly being designed to protect against the specific nature of the fire hazards most commonly encountered. New marine firefighting standards introduced for use throughout Europe equate the hazards, if not the conditions, associated with typical shipping fires with those commonly experienced in structural fires. This has led to the new Marine Equipment Directive (MarED) standards, enshrined in EU Commission Directive 2010/68/EU, to adopt EN 469 (2005) as its benchmark for basic protective clothing for firefighting (A.1/3.3). This means that, throughout the EU, local fire & rescue authorities can deal with ship-board fires occurring in rivers, docks and coastal waters wearing their regular structural fire kit. As with all PPE, compatibility is important and appropriately matched helmets, boots and gloves should be supplied For parts of the world outside the EU, a new international standard has recently been developed. The new standard, BS ISO 22488:2011 [Ships and marine technology – shipboard firefighters’ outfits (protective clothing, gloves, boots and helmet)], has drawn substantially on the work undertaken for the recently issued European Standard. Close proximity firefighting involving gas and oil fires requires protection from the intense heat and flames produced in such ‘hot fires’ and call for quite different types of protective clothing. In some circumstances this type of firefighting will require PPE satisfying ISO 15538 (2001) - Protective clothing with a reflective outer surface (A.1/3.3). New PPE designs to meet new standards Yellow outerlayer on marine firefighting garments signify its use by emergency incident crews battling different types of fires at sea. Garments meeting EN 469 (2005), as used by European municipal firefighters, can also be deployed by them when dealing with shipping fires on river estuaries, in ports and docks and in coastal waters. For fighting fires involving shipping at sea, and for other marine fire emergencies, an alternative is the new design fleet suits which are being introduced to coincide with the implementation of the new EU Commission Directive. As with all PPE, compatibility is important and appropriately matched helmet, boots and gloves should be supplied. In Europe, these should be to MarED approved standards, and include firefighting helmet to EN 443, gloves to EN 659 and firefighter boots to EN 15090 whilst the new international standard, BS ISO 22488:2011, when introduced, may be adopted in other parts of the world.   Richard CranhamInternational Sales ManagerBristol Uniforms

Weighing the costs and benefits of purchasing new equipment is crucial for the safety of emergency rescue teams 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 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. Cleaning 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.Storage 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.Disposability 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 Comfort 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. Safety 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.Conclusion 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 - Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics