Improved Liquid Integrity Test

Project OverviewNFPA TC on Structural/Proximity

Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment

International Personnel Protection, Inc.Intertek Testing Services

1-2 October 2013

1

Current Liquid Integrity Test

• Method: ASTM F 1359• Origin:

– Adapted from W. L. Gore rain chamber test (developed by NFPA committee)

– Adopted by ASTM in 1991

• Key Elements:– Surfactant-treated water (32-34

dyne/cm) sprayed from 5 nozzles – Liquid-absorptive garment worn over

manikin underneath suit to aid detection

– Exposure in 4 different orientations– Pass/fail test (visual/tactile/toweling)

1

23

4

Ensemble rotations

Plane of nozzles

2

Current Liquid Integrity Test (cont’d)

3

Overhead nozzle Surfactant

Flow controllers Rotating platformNozzle specifications

Current Liquid Integrity Test (cont’d)

Nozzle Locations Liquid Detection

Current Liquid Integrity Test (cont’d)

• Procedures:– Don test suit on manikin over liquid-absorptive garment

– Spray suit in each orientation for specified time (after nozzle calibration)

– Wipe liquid off suit exterior

– Open suit and examine suit interior and liquid-absorptive garment for evidence of wetness

• Shortcomings:– “Static” test

– Inconsistent results

– Difficulty in determining failure modes

– Uncertainty for purpose and relevance5

Specification of Test in Standards

Standard Ensemble Type Conditioning Spray Pass/Fail*

NFPA 1951 Technical rescue Washing 10X 20 min. ILAG, interior

NFPA 1971 Structural firefighting Room temp. 20 min. ILAG only

NFPA 1991 Vapor-protective Room temp. 60 min. ILAG, interior†

NFPA 1992 Liquid splash-protective Simulated use 20 min. ILAG, interior† ‡

NFPA 1994 CBRN Class 2 Room temp. 20 min. ILAG, interior† ‡

CBRN Class 3 Room temp. 4 min. ILAG, interior† ‡

NFPA 1999 Emergency medical Washing 25X 8 min. ILAG only

NIJ 0116.01 LE CBRN LERL-1 Room temp. 8 min. ILAG, interior

LE CBRN LERL-2 Room temp. 8 min. ILAG, interior

LE CBRN LERL-3 Room temp. 4 min. ILAG, interior

LE CBRN LERL-4 Room temp. 2 min. ILAG, interior

* ILAG = inner liquid absorptive garment; interior = garment interior; † also liquid in gloves; ‡ one manikin arm bent upwards

6

Other Liquid Integrity Test Variations

7

Upward Bent Arm Blocked Off Sleeve End Blocked Off Garment Collar

Statistics for Liquid Integrity Test Use

• 36 manufacturers with certified products requiring liquid integrity testing (13 are foreign companies)

• 7-8 facilities conducting liquid integrity testing

• Approximately 1200 tests conducted annually 0 20 40 60 80 100

NIJ 0116.00

NFPA 1999

NFPA 1994

NFPA 1992

NFPA 1991

NFPA 1971

NFPA 1952

NFPA 1951

Relative Frequency

8

Impact of Liquid Integrity Testing

• Benefits:– “Tighter” closures

– More attention to interface areas

• Disadvantages:– Possible over-

design of product

– Discourages manufacturer certification

9

TSWG Project Scope and Approach

• Develop improved liquid integrity evaluation techniques– Replace visual methods with liquid sensors

– Provide real time detection

– Revise exposure to account for field exposures

• Validate test method through interlaboratory test program

• Promote changes to existing test methods and standards

10

Project Technical Panel Members

Interest Category Candidate Member Organization

Manufacturer – fire service Pat Freeman Globe Manufacturing Co.

Manufacturer – EMS/LE/CBRN Tom Ames Blauer Manufacturing

Manufacturer - HazMat Phil Mann Kappler

Manufacturer – fire service/CBRN Karen Lehtonen Lion Apparel

End user – fire service Jim Reidy San Antonio Fire Dept.

End user – law enforcement Tom Nolan Nat’l Tactical Officers Assoc.

End user – HazMat response Paul Rodgers FDNY HazMat

Laboratory – certification Steve Corrado Underwriters Laboratory

Standards development Dave Trebisacci NFPA

Government representative Bill Haskell NIOSH NPPTL

Subject matter expert Paul Dacey W. L. Gore & Associates

CTTSO/TSWG, Int’l Personnel Protection, Intertek participate as observers11

Sensor Selection and Development

• Basic principle – conductivity bridge (water completes circuit of parallel conductors)

• Selected sensors being evaluated in 2-stage process:– Bench scale tests for determining sensitivity and factors

affecting performance (separation, dwell time, etc.)

– Larger scale tests to assess sensor implementation

• Sensors will be integrated as “patches” or directly into liquid absorptive garments

Polyimide layer

Copper foil

Water droplet bridging conductors

12

Potential Test Method Changes

• Type of test liquid (surfactant)

• Location and volumetric output flow of liquid spray nozzles

• Liquid exposure duration• Manikin and inner-

absorptive garment fabric specifications

• Methods for dressing and drying manikin

13

Possible System Configuration

Manikin Detection

Garment

+

Integrity Test Platform

With Test Ensemble

Data

Acquisition

Laptop or PC with

LabView

Programming

Program display

depicting ensemble

leakage (by location

and severity)*

* The number and size of

detection locations will be

dependent on the ease of

implementing sensor

technology

Baseline Testing Ensembles

NFPA 1971 NFPA 1994 Class 2 NFPA 1994 Class 3 Positive Control

Prototype Turnout Coat and Pants (PBI Matrix)Neck collar and sleeves blocked off

Saint Gobain ONESuitShieldRear closureWorn with SCBA

Blauer XRTFront diagonal closureWorn with APR

Uncertified chemical protective coverall with elasticized hood, sleeves, and legs cuffs

Multi-pieceTextile exterior

One pieceFilm exterior

One pieceTextile exterior

One pieceFilm exterior 15

Baseline Testing – Turnout Gear

16

Coat/pants testing: No leakage Improperly secured closure: Small leak

How Often Firefighters Become Wet

17

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

< 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 75% 75 to 100% Every time

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

spo

nse

s

Wet from external sources Wet from liquids other than water

Frequencies for Liquid Exposures

18

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sewage or other contaminated water

Blood or body fluids

Industrial chemicals

Fire ground chemicals (e.g, gasoline,battery acid)

Cold or freezing water

Hot or scalding water

Room temperature water (including rain)

Percentage of Responses

Never

Rarely

Occasionally

Frequently

Always

Perspectives on Liquid Exposures

19

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Do you believe that turnout clothing should keepliquids out?

Has liquid entered through front closure?

Has liquid entered through interface area inclothing?

Is getting wet from liquid penetration frequent(>50%)?

Have you become wet as result of liquidpenetrating clothing?

Percentage of Responses

Yes No Do not know

SAFD Field Evaluation

• IRB approved protocol• Performed at training academy

8-14-13• Structural fire fighting simulation

– 8 firefighters– 3 variations of hose spray scenarios– Own turnout clothing (< 2 years

old)

• HazMat wet decon simulation– 3 firefighters/HazMat personnel– 2-minute wet decon– 3 different ensembles

20

SAFD Approach/Data Collection

• Base individual test subject weights

• Breathable, waterproof coveralls worn as sweat barrier

• Sweat clothing weights– Prewashed 95/5 cotton sweat shirt

and pants

– Used as visual indicator of penetrating liquid

• Ensemble weights

• Visual recording of wetted areas

21

Structural Firefighting Simulation

• 3 scenarios

– Short duration, low pressure (engine company)

– Long duration, higher pressure (engine company)

– Long duration, higher pressure (ladder company)

22

Specific Path/Hose Spray Exposure

23

Stop to direct

hose spray

FurnitureFurniture

Garage

Door

12

3

4Secondary

Door

Ground Floor

Walking

upright

Crawling,

duckwalking XHose spray

target

Entry Door

Raised

Floor

Overhead Grill

Interior Firefighting Operations

24

Engine Company Light Engine Company Heavy Ladder Company Heavy

Firefighting General Observations

• Significant differences between light and heavy scenario – coat and pants

– Relatively little wetting during light scenario

– Extensive wetting during heavy scenario

• Hood interface

– Light scenario: water spotting on hood

– Heavy scenario: hood became saturated

– Most likely source of liquid penetration

25

Firefighting Ensemble Weights

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

B F A E H G C D

Pe

rce

nt

Wat

er

We

igh

t G

ain

Firefighter

Turnout Coat Turnout Pants

Engine Heavy Ladder Heavy

26

Engine Light

Firefighting Sweat Clothing Weights

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

B F A E H G C D

Pe

rce

nt

Wat

er

We

igh

t G

ain

Firefighter

Sweat Shirt Sweat Pants

Engine Heavy Ladder Heavy

27

Engine Light

Engine Company Light Exposure

28

Engine Company Heavy Exposure

29

Ladder Company Heavy Exposure

30

Field/Lab Test Comparisons

31

New Shower Spray Configuration

32

Swivel clamp

connector

Standard shower

nozzle

Connect to existing

liquid manifold

Red circles depict

primary target areas

Preliminary Testing with New System

33

Test Set-Up Coat/Pants Testing with Blocking

Coat/Pants Testing with Other Elements

Results of Two Tests

34

Test 6 with blocking

Test 4 as ensemble

Discussion Areas

• Interpretation of field test results

– Ability to differentiate exposure/products

– Relation to goals of testing

• Direction for test method changes

– Different test methods garments vs. ensembles

– Replication of field findings

35

Questions/Comments

• Project Contacts

– TSWG: Beth Lancaster: beth.lancaster.ctr@cttso.gov

– Intl Personnel Protection: Jeff Stull intlperpro@aol.com

• Project Partners

– Intertek Testing Services

– Fire Protection Research Foundation

36