More applied research needed
Drew R. Smith
Commander
Lincolnwood (IL) Fire Department
I read with great interest the article “Physiological Response to Working in Bunker Gear: A Comparative Study” in the November 1994 issue. It is exactly this type of research that is long overdue and the fire service needs. One might draw the hypothesis that we should revert to traditional gear. After some thought, I concluded that further research is still needed. Using the same criteria, the fire service needs to conduct additional research using the following:
the same ensembles, but evaluating each group with and without protective hoods. It is well documented that the head is responsible for a significant portion of body heat loss; perhaps hoods alone–and not bunker pants–elevate heart rate and temperature.
the same ensembles, but with the same fabric. One group wore Nomex® while the other was in PBI®. Since PBI® is noted for its greater heat protection, perhaps the hypothesis that it retains body heat is equally true.
the same ensembles, but with different fabric weights. Both ensembles were with 8.5-oz. fabric. What about 7.5-oz. or other weights?
Additional questions are
What was the overhang of the traditional coat with relationship to the area of the subject`s thigh covered by the three-quarter boots? Could some subjects in traditional gear be more exposed than others due to height or body size?
What would the results have been if those in bunker pants wore leather, lace-up, NFPA-compliant fire suppression footwear?
What role, if any, does the fitness level of the firefighter play with regard to heat stress related to the wearing of protective gear?
While I support the use of both protective trousers and hoods, the concerns presented in this article must be addressed. The only way to do this is through additional re-search that then can be incorporated into future protective gear designs.
