Comparison of three internationally certified firefighter protective ensembles: Physiological responses,mobility, and comfort |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;2. Department of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Education and Sport, University of Deusto, Spain;3. Seoul National University, College of Human Ecology, Department of Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design, Seoul, South Korea;4. Kyung Hee University, College of Physical Education, Department of Sports Medicine, Yongin-si, South Korea;1. Engineering Management, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, USA;2. Industrial Engineering, Hofstra University, USA;3. Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Iowa, USA;1. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA;2. Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA;1. School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, 100083, China;2. School of Reliability and System Engineering, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China;3. Key Laboratory of Deep Geodrilling Technology, Ministry of Land and Resources, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, 100083, China;1. Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA;2. Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA;3. School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundFire protective ensembles (FPEs) are essential to safely perform firefighting job tasks; however, they are often burdensome to the workers. The aim of this study was to compare three internationally certified fire protective ensembles from the European Union (EU), South Korea (SK), and United States (US) on physiological responses, mobility, and comfort.MethodsTen male professional firefighters performed a battery of exercises in the laboratory following the ASTM F3031-17 standard to evaluate mobility, occupation-specific performance, and physiological responses (body weight, heart rate (HR), core temperature (Tc), breathing rate (BR), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE)) to 20 min of treadmill walking (3.2 mph, 5% incline). All participants carried out the evaluation wearing each FPE in a random order. Mixed effects models examined time (pre-vs. post-) by ensemble (EU, SK, US) interactions for all physiological variables and compared comfort, performance, and subjective variables across ensembles.ResultsNo interaction effects were observed for body weight, HR, Tc, BR, or RPE (p = 0.890, p = 0.994, p = 0.897, p = 0.435, and p = 0.221; respectively). SK had greater trunk flexion than EU (78.4° vs. 74.6°, p = 0.026) and US had lower standing reach than EU (105.5 cm vs. 115.4 cm, p = 0.004). Agility circuit time was lower in US (9.3 s) compared to EU (9.8 s) or SK (9.9 s) (p = 0.051 and p = 0.019, respectively).ConclusionsThe findings suggest that physiological burden remained largely unchanged across the international FPEs. However, mobility, performance, and comfort may be significantly influenced across types. International stakeholders and end users should consider design implications when choosing fire protective ensembles. |
| |
| Keywords: | Firefighter Personal protective equipment Ergonomics Physiology Perceived exertion International standards |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
