Comparison of three internationally certified firefighter protective ensembles: Physiological responses, mobility, and comfort

NEWS
제품소개
빠른상담
  • 빠른상담전화
  • SITE_TEL
  • - -

Environemtal & Exercise Physiology Lab

RESEARCH
The Environmental & Exercise Physiology Lab
Publication
Comparison of three internationally certified firefighter protective ensembles: Physiological responses, mobility, and comfort
Tyler D. Quinn, Borja Gutiérrez-Santamaría, Iker Sáez, Aitor Santisteban, Joo Young Lee, Jung Hyun Kim, Aitor Coca
Global CampusGraduate School of Physical Education

Abstract

Background: Fire 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. Methods: Ten 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. Results: No 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). Conclusions: The 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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number103232
JournalInternational Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
Volume86
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier B.V.