Textile Research Journal

http://trj.sagepub.com Evaluating the Effects of Material Component and Design Feature on Heat Transfer in Firefighter Turnout Clothing by a Sweating Manikin
Jun Li, Roger L. Barker and A. Shawn Deaton Textile Research Journal 2007; 77; 59 DOI: 10.1177/0040517507078029 The online version of this article can be found at: http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/77/2/59

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Textile Research Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://trj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/77/2/59

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

Textile Research Journal

Article

Evaluating the Effects of Material Component and Design Feature on Heat Transfer in Firefighter Turnout Clothing by a Sweating Manikin
With a sweating manikin, the heat exchange efficiency through firefighter turnout clothing system from the wearer to the environment and the effects of material component and design feature on heat transfer were evaluated in a climatic chamber. Material component and design feature were varied to measure thermal insulation (It in clo units) and moisture permeability index (im dimensionless) of firefighter turnout clothing under two circumstances, with openings at the neck, wrists, waist and ankles sealed or not. Two new indices CIt and Cim were proposed to evaluate heat and moisture transfer capabilities of firefighter turnout clothing, which were defined as the changing rates of It and im from conditions of the clothing dressed in a regular way with openings unsealed to the openings sealed. The results showed that CIt indicated the effects of clothing design differences on heat transfer through firefighter turnout clothing, while Cim was dependent greatly on material properties (moisture permeability).

Abstract

Jun Li1
Fashion Design and Engineering Department, Fashion Institute, Donghua University, 1882 Yan-An Road West, Shanghai 200051, Peoples Republic of China Center for Research on Textile Protection and Comfort, College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA

Roger L. Barker and A. Shawn Deaton

College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA

Key words firefighter turnout clothing, thermal insulation, moisture permeability index, sweating manikin

Firefighters must wear heavy protective clothing ensembles to protect them from fire. They cannot function satisfactorily if they feel uncomfortable, or even worse, become incapacitated due to excessive heat stress [1, 2]. For firefighter protective clothing, the thermal protective performance is of primary importance; its contribution to comfort and heat stress of the firefighter should be a consideration. Therefore, the design of firefighter clothing is a compromise between protection and comfort. The extent to which the clothing affects the heat exchange between the fire fighter and the environment is a crucial parameter that should be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of fire protective clothing [3].1

Despite improvements in the protection of firefighters afforded by new technology, there are still some areas of firefighter protective clothing performance which are not well understood [4]. One of the most difficult areas that receives continuous attention is heat and moisture transport in firefighter turnout clothing [5]. Clothings heat and moisture transfer performance is affected not only by material properties, such as fabric thick-

Corresponding author: Fashion Institute, Donghua University, Shanghai 200051, Peoples Republic of China. Tel.: 8621 2833 8655; fax: 8621 6237 9188; e-mail: lijun@dhu.edu.cn

Textile Research Journal Vol 77(2): 5966 DOI: 10.1177/0040517507078029 Figures 1, 4, 5 appear in color online: http://trj.sagepub.com

www.trj.sagepub.com 2007 SAGE Publications

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

TRJ

60

Textile Research Journal 77(2)

Figure 1 Test garments on the sweating manikin. ness, weight and air permeability, but also by design (style), size (fitness) and accessory (design detail in clothing) and how a garment is worn [6]. The nature and thickness of the materials reduce the permeability of clothing and, consequently, inhibit the evaporation of moisture from the body. The clothing weight, as well as its stiffness, thickness and bulkiness, can increase the wearers metabolic heat production during activity, as well as restrict heat exchange between the body and the environment. The air gap between the skin and the material and the garment design, open or closed, are also important factors. The effects of the clothing design features, therefore, need to be understood [7]. Various approaches have been used to evaluate heat exchange efficiency in researches conducted in the comfort area of firefighter protective clothing. At present, the testing and evaluation of firefighting clothing have mainly dealt with the properties of the materials used. Most tests typically refer to material heat and vapor resistance, flammability, etc [8]. Experiments like sweating guarded hot plate test procedures have been done to analyze the comfort properties of fabrics. These material tests can help evaluate heat and moisture transfer property in textiles, but it is hard to relate them to the comfort performance of clothing, which is also affected by design features. These tests often neglect the effect the garment manufacturing process has brought on the material properties (stitching, seams, treatments), the effects of clothing design, sizing and fit, as well as the effect of the interaction of the clothing with other components of the standard gear for the profession (helmet, gloves) and how the clothing performs in actual use. Such effects can only be tested by looking at the protective clothing ensemble as a whole [9]. In principle, ready-made garments should be tested in conditions similar to actual use, so tests that take into account real wearing situations are necessary [10]. Wear trials are desirable for this purpose; however, they have poor reproducibility. Evaluating the clothing with a full-scale instrumented manikin in a climatic chamber is the best alternative [11]. Therefore, the purpose of this laboratory study was to develop a methodology to assess quantitatively the effects of clothing factors on heat and moisture transfer performance of firefighter turnout clothing. Two novel indices were defined to evaluate the heat exchange efficiency through firefighter turnout clothing system between the wearer and the environment and the effects of material component and design feature on heat transfer. To demonstrate these new indices, the following example of testing fire-fighting protective clothing was followed. A sweating manikin [12] was used to measure thermal insulation It and moisture permeability index im of firefighter turnout clothing with different material combination and design feature. The data presented are meant as illustrations of the tests and will provide useful information to develop more protective, less heat stressful firefighter protective clothing system.

Experimental
Test Garments
In order to assess how the firefighter turnout clothing system affected total heat exchange between the firefighter and the environment through turnout clothing system, it was essential to differentiate the effects of clothing factors on heat and moisture transfer in firefighter turnout clothing. The clothing factors exist in two aspects, material combination and design feature. The standard firefighter turnout clothing is a three-layer construction consisting of an outer heat resistant shell, inner water resistant moisture barrier and thermal liner. Consequently outer shell, moisture barrier and thermal liner become the three variables to define material system. As far as design aspect is concerned, clothing design (style), size (fitness) and accessory (design detail in clothing) are summarized as the other three factors. Design/style includes openings, closure, etc. Size/fit refers to girth, length and other dimension features. Accessory involves trim, pockets, reinforced/enhanced sections, etc. Combining nine types of material systems (Table 1) and different clothing design features (Table 2), 11 different firefight turnout clothing (Figure 1) were designed as test garments.

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

Evaluating the Effects of Material Component and Design Feature on Heat Transfer J. Li et al.

61

TRJ

Table 1 Details of clothing materials.

Garment code B1 Component Outer shell
2

Moisture barrier

Thermal liner

Weight (g/m2) 676.4

Thickness (mm) 4.98

Liner 1 Barrier 1 255 g/m ripstop weave, 60 % Kevlar/40 PTFE laminated on aramid/para- 238 g/m2 aramid/para-aramid aramid spunlace % PBI blend spunlace quilted to aramid facecloth Same as B1 Barrier 1 Liner 2 238 g/m2 para-aramid batt quilted to aramid facecloth Liner 2 Liner 2 Liner 3 Nomex-para-aramid batt laminated to Nomex multifilament Liner 1 Liner 4 241.4 g/m2 layer aramid/paraaramid spunlace quilted to aramid facecloth Liner 5 267 g/m2 para-aramid batt quilted to aramid facecloth Liner 6 316 g/m2 aramid batt quilted to aramid face cloth

B2

664.2

5.28

B3 B4 B5

Same as B1 Same as B1 Same as B1

Barrier 2 Polyurethane laminated fabric Barrier 3 Neoprene enduit/polycotton Barrier 1

672.0 923.9 661.5

5.08 4.17 4.90

B6 G1~ G2

Same as B1 Same as B1

Barrier 2 Barrier 4 PTFE laminated on 170 g/m2 Nomex substrate Barrier 4

684.6 664.6

4.88 2.70

G3 ~ G4

Same as B1

690.0

4.01

G5

Same as B1

Barrier 5 Polyurethane laminated to nonwoven substrate 146 g/m2

715.4

5.39

The Sweating Manikin

The sweating manikin used in this study was located in the Textile Protection and Comfort Center of North Carolina State University and possessed unique measurement capabilities [12]. The manikin (size 40, USA) was capable of internally generating a controlled supply of moisture through 187 individually controlled sweat glands. Moisture and heat loss were able to be continuously monitored for clothing ensembles in a variety of climatic conditions and simulated activity levels. The manikin was housed in a climatic chamber. Water was supplied from a reservoir, placed on a balance near the ceiling in the chamber. A micro valve system distributed the water to the 187 sweat glands and the computer system allowed individual control of each sweat gland to have the desired sweating rate. A process that used analogue signal inputs from 18 separate RTDs did the continuous temperature control of the 18 body segments. The total thermal insulation was calculated from the temperature gradient between surface and environment and the heat supply, whereas the fact that a part of the heat supply was used to

evaporate water was considered in the corrected thermal insulation.

Test Procedure
The testing environment was set as T = 25 C, RH = 65% and wind velocity = 1.0 m/s to simulate firefighters mild working conditions. The air was steady flowing from the chamber roof. The whole manikin body was heated to keep 35 C mean skin temperature. The sweating rate was set at 200 g/m2 to keep the manikin surface moist, with the exception of head, hands and feet. For some test garments with poor moisture permeability, the surplus sweat condensed and dropped into the sink under the manikin. Firefighter turnout clothing is typically worn together with boots, helmet, gloves and a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA); little air ventilation occurs at the neck, waist (sealed by the harness), wrists and ankles. In order to evaluate heat and moisture transfer capability of firefighter turnout clothing worn in a real fire fighting situation, test garments were dressed in the manikin by

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

TRJ

62

Textile Research Journal 77(2)

Table 2 Clothing design features.

Garment code B1 ~ 6 coat Design/style Traditional Trim style Closure NFPA basic Inside zipper; hook & 7.6 cm trim pile on storm flap Pocket 2 patch pockets; 1 liner pocket 2 expansion slash pockets Enhanced/ reinforced section Elbow with extra layer Knee with extra layer Other accessory Size/ Length (cm) 44/85 38/73.7 42/89

B1 ~ 6 pants Traditional NFPA basic Inside hook & pile; (waist-length) 7.6 cm trim take up straps G1 coat Traditional 7.6 cm trim Inside hook & dee rings; velcro closure on storm flap Inside snap fasteners and leather take-up strap on right side

2 expansion pockets; Shoulders/upper back Letter patch 1 liner pocket; 2 radio and elbows padded; on back elbows reinforced pockets; 1 mask pocket 2 expansion pockets; 2 front rear pockets Thermal seat/knees padded with extra layer in liner; seat reinforced No Flashlight loop

G1 pants

NYC 7.6 Traditional (waist-length) cm trim

36/71

G2 coat

Same as G1

No

Inside snap fasteners; 1 liner pocket hook & dee rings on storm flap Same as G1 No

42/89

G2 pants G3 coat

Same as G1 Jacket

No Same as G1 Same as G1 Same as G1 Same as G1

No Shoulders/upper back Universal clip; Nomex padded with extra hand guard layer in liner Back bib padding for SCBA; knees padded and reinforced

36/71 42/81

Zipper on inside; hook 2 expansion pockets; & pile on wide storm 1 radio pocket flap 2 expansion pockets; Inside hook & pile; take-up strap on right 2 rear pockets side and waist sides Inside zipper; hook & pile on storm flap Same as G3

G3 pants

Bibbed pants

36/71

G4 ~ 5 coat

Same as G3

2 hand warmer dual- Shoulders/upper back action pockets; 1 liner padded with extra layer in liner pocket 2 expansion pockets Back bib padding for SCBA; knees padded

42/89

G4 ~ 5 pants Same as G3

36/71

tightening the wrists, ankles, neck and waist with impermeable tapes to inhibit chimney effects. On the contrary, all the garments were tested in a regular way with openings unsealed.

The total thermal insulation expressed in clo units (It) was calculated as It = 6.45Rt. (2)

Clothing Thermal Insulation It and Moisture Permeability Index im

When the manikin was not sweating, the total thermal insulation including the insulation of clothing and surface air layer was calculated as Rt = (Ts Ta) As/Hd (1)

When the manikin was sweating, the total evaporative resistance was calculated as Ret = (Ps Pa) As/[Hw (Ts Ta) As/Rt] (3)

where Rt is total thermal insulation of the clothing plus the air layer (m2C/W), Ts is area-weighted mean skin temperature (C), Ta is ambient air temperature (C), As is total surface area of the manikin sections heated (m2) and Hd is power input with manikin not sweating (W).

where Ret is total moisture evaporative resistance of the clothing plus the air layer (m2kPa/W), Ps is water vapor pressure at the skin temperature (kPa), Pa is water vapor pressure in the ambient air (kPa) and Hw is power input with manikin sweating (W). The difference of Rt when the manikin was dry and sweating [13] was neglected [14] in this study. The moisture permeability index im for a clothing system plus the air layer was calculated by the relationship

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

Evaluating the Effects of Material Component and Design Feature on Heat Transfer J. Li et al.

63

TRJ

Table 3 The sweating manikin test results.

Garment code Itu (clo) Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. B1 1.915 0.009 0.379 0.023 2.315 0.001 0.351 0.022 B2 2.103 0.020 0.402 0.005 2.546 0.008 0.383 0.022 B3 2.065 0.022 0.353 0.020 2.476 0.009 0.305 0.010 B4 2.075 0.021 0.256 0.025 2.488 0.003 0.163 0.001 B5 1.761 0.019 0.347 0.012 2.119 0.006 0.344 0.009 B6 2.044 0.017 0.376 0.022 2.449 0.020 0.331 0.016 G1 2.253 0.006 0.370 0.020 2.515 0.010 0.295 0.014 G2 1.897 0.011 0.396 0.021 2.247 0.005 0.386 0.017 G3 2.416 0.008 0.463 0.008 2.658 0.006 0.380 0.032 G4 2.230 0.013 0.405 0.020 2.505 0.011 0.363 0.008 G5 2.430 0.004 0.350 0.007 2.748 0.007 0.309 0.009

imu

Its (clo)

ims

im = 0.0094ItHe/(Ps RHaPa)

(4)

where im is the permeability index for a clothing system including the surface air layer, Ps is the saturated water vapor pressure at the skin temperature (kPa), RHa is the relative humidity of the surrounding environment, Pa is the saturated water vapor pressure of the surrounding environment (kPa) and He is the evaporative heat loss (W/m2).

New Indices CIt and Cim

With firefighters vigorous activities, the air escaping from the openings at wrists, ankles, neck, and waist of turnout clothing becomes an important way for heat loss from the wearer. In sweating manikin tests, new indices CIt and Cim were proposed to describe the effects of unsealing the garments openings on It and im. CIt and Cim were defined as the changing rates of It and im from the status of the clothing dressed on the manikin in a regular way with openings unsealed (Itu, imu) to the openings sealed status (Its, ims). The two new indices were calculated by the following equations: CIt (%) = |It|/Itu 100 = |Its Itu|/Itu 100 Cim (%) = |im|/imu 100 = |ims imu|/imu 100 (5) (6)

Figure 2 LSD grouping result.

insulation (It) increased significantly (confidence level a = 0.05), while im decreased significantly (a = 0.05), than with openings unsealed. Since the test garment did not fit the manikin tightly, the air trapped in the enclosure between the skin surface and the inner thermal liner was not completely still, convection existed in the air gaps. As the main effect, sealing the openings made heat loss more difficult from thick and heavy firefighter turnout clothing. In Figure 2, the test garments whose sample IDs (listed in a decreasing order by their It or im means) share the same underline had no significant difference in It or im (a = 0.05).

where lowercase u stands for openings unsealed and lowercase s stands for openings sealed.

Effects of Material Components

All test garments had an identical outer shell (Table 1), which was a must to provide protection. Therefore, the heat and moisture transfer properties of moisture barrier and thermal liner are discussed.

Results and Discussion

The manikin testing results of each ensemble are reported in Table 3 as an average of at least three independent replications. SAS Fishers LSD tests were used to analyze the data. For all test garments, the sweating manikin differentiated It and im with openings sealed or unsealed. As shown in Table 3, with openings sealed all test garments thermal

(a) Moisture Barrier

B2, B3 and B4 only differed in moisture barrier (Table 1). From Table 3, although B4s total thermal insulation It was not the highest (B2 > B4 > B3, confidence level a = 0.05),

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

TRJ

64

Textile Research Journal 77(2)

Figure 3 im/It of test garments.

Figure 4 CIt of test garments.

it had the lowest im (B4 < B3 < B2, confidence level a = 0.05). Both B2 and B3 had much higher im/It values (B2 > B3 > B4), as shown in Figure 3. The air/moisture impermeable moisture barrier (Barrier 3) incorporated in B4 was inferior to the moisture permeable barrier (Barrier 1) in B2 and Barrier 2 in B3 considering latent heat transmission. Air/moisture impermeable moisture barriers in protective clothing resisted evaporative heat loss from the wearer. B1 and B6 were identical except for their moisture barriers (Table 1). B6 had a significantly higher It and lower im value (a = 0.05). Consequently, Barrier 1 in B1 was better than Barrier 3 in B6, based on the fact that B1 had a higher im/It value (Figure 3). Incorporated in clothing, different types of moisture barriers had different im values. It was concluded that the moisture barrier strongly affected the moisture permeability of firefighter turnout clothing.

in B3 in the same condition. Thermal liner affected heat and moisture transmission through firefighter turnout clothing.

Effects of Clothing Design Features

(a) Design/Style
Although test garments B1 ~ 6 had different material combination, as shown in Figure 4, their CIt were very close (20 ~ 21 %) because of their identical design features (style, size, and accessory) (Table 2). Possessing identical design features, G4 and G5 had similar CIt (12 ~ 13 %). With same design features the garments had close CIt values. In addition, CIt values of the B1 ~ 6 group (traditional style) were different to those of the G4 G5 group (jacket with bibbed pants), because of two groups different design styles. Compared with G4 and G5, the ventilation in B1 ~ 6 group test garments contributed more to heat loss because of higher CIt. As seen in Figure 5, B1 ~ 6 had obviously different Cim individually, as did G4 and G5. Although having exactly

(b) Thermal Liner

B1, B2 and B5 were identical with the exception of thermal liner (Table 1). At confidence level a = 0.1, their It values were different (B2 > B1 > B5), but im values were close (B2 > B1 > B5 with openings sealed). The difference was not obvious based on their im/It values (B1 = B5 > B2 with openings unsealed; B5 > B1 = B2 with openings sealed) (Figure 3). It was concluded that Liner 3 in B5 was a little superior to Liner 1 in B1 and B2s Liner 2 was not as good as Liner 3 in B5 and Liner 1 in B1, but Liner 3, Liner 1 and Liner 2 did not show significantly different properties. B3 and B6 had the same clothing design features, outer shell and moisture barrier (Tables 1 and 2). Their different It and im values, therefore, came from different thermal liners. Compared with that of B6, B3s im was lower, while It was higher (Table 3). Consequently, B6 had a higher coefficient of evaporative heat transfer (im/It), which indicated Liner 1 incorporated in B6 had more heat loss than Liner 2

Figure 5 Cim of test garments.

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

Evaluating the Effects of Material Component and Design Feature on Heat Transfer J. Li et al. the same design features, different material combinations made big differences on Cim values due to their different moisture permeability. The garment with better moisture permeability (higher im) certainly had a lower Cim. As seen in Figure 5, B1 ~ 6 had obviously different Cim individually, as did G4 and G5. Although having exactly the same design features, different material combinations made big differences on Cim values due to their different moisture permeability. The garment with better moisture permeability (higher im) certainly had a lower Cim. Traditional style test garments (except B4 with an impermeable moisture barrier) in general had lower It and higher CIt than G3, G4 and G5. This suggested traditional style had a comparative advantage over the style with bibbed pants on heat loss by ventilation from the openings.

65

TRJ

Figure 6 A schematic diagram of a three-layer test garment on the manikin.

(b) Accessory
G1 and G2 only differed in accessory (Table 2). G1 had as many accessories as traditional firefighter turnout clothing could have, while there was no accessory in G2. From Table 3 and Figure 4, G2s CIt was higher than G1s. G1 had a significantly higher It and lower im. Apparently, G1 had a more efficient heat loss than G2. Table 2 shows that with the same material combination, G3 and G4 were different in accessory, but identical at other features (G3s jacket was a little shorter than G4). Their im values had no significant difference; while with more accessories G3 had significantly higher It. G3s lower CIt was related to the thinner air gap under clothing caused by heavy accessories. In general, accessory was not helpful to heat transfer, especially when moisture existed. By changing the garments thickness and surface area and restricting moisture evaporation, accessory reduced the heat loss from the wearer.

(c) Size/Fit
Size was undoubtedly a crucial factor to determine the thickness of air gap under clothing. B1 ~ 6 and G1 - G2 were all traditional firefighter turnout clothing (Table 2) with similar style. As shown in Figure 4, B1 ~ 6s CIt values (about 20 ~ 21 %) were higher than that of G1 (11.66 %) and G2 (18.46 %), mainly because B1 ~ 6 were larger than G1 and G2. From a broader view, in this study all B1 ~ 6 test garments with large size universally had higher CIt than G1 G2 test garments with small size. Large size resulted in thick air gaps under clothing, which contributed to ventilation through openings.

ings such as neck and diffusion through fabrics were two ways for the air trapped between fabric layers to escape. Under non-sweating conditions, dry heat loss by the air diffused through the thick three-layer material system with a moisture barrier was very small. Comparing testing garments with openings sealed or not sealed, CIt indicated the effects of size or style on heat loss by ventilation from the openings of test garments and the contribution of the forced ventilation to the heat exchange of clothing in dry state. Under sweating conditions, evaporation became increasingly important to eliminate the heat. Even with openings sealed, the moisture diffused through material system made a big difference on evaporative heat loss of different firefighter turnout clothing. Consequently, Cim closely related to material properties, but was also affected by clothing design features. The amount of garment ventilation depended on the design features. Different style, size, accessory and other clothing design features changed ventilation differently. Consequently, by evaluating the efficiency of ventilation through openings, CIt successfully quantified the effects of clothing design features on heat transfer through firefighter turnout clothing. Cim was dependent greatly on im, which was used as an index to evaluate the moisture permeability of firefighter turnout clothing system, especially on the condition of same design.

Conclusions
With a sweating manikin, this research evaluated heat and moisture transfer performance of firefighter turnout clothing. Outer shell, moisture barrier and thermal liner in the aspect of clothing material, design (style), size (fitness) and accessory (design detail in clothing) in the aspect of clothing design were concluded as six explainable factors. Their effects on heat loss of firefighter protective clothing were differentiated by the indices It, im, CIt and Cim.

The Characteristics of CIt and Cim

In sweating manikin tests, since firefighter turnout clothing did not fit exactly, air gaps existed inevitably between fabric layers, as shown in Figure 6. Ventilation from the open-

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

TRJ

66

Textile Research Journal 77(2)

5. Myhre, L., Barker, R., Scruggs, B., Shalev, I., Prahsarn, C., and Miszko, T., Effect of Measured Heat Loss Through Turnout Materials on Firefighter Comfort and Heat Stress, Performance of Protective Clothing, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 519534 (2000). Yoo, H. S., Hu, Y. S., and Kim, E. A., Effects of Heat and Moisture Transport in Fabrics and Garments Determined with a Vertical Plate Sweating Skin Model, Textile Res. J. 70(60), 542549 (2000). Havenith, G., Heus, R., and Lotens, W. A., Resultant Clothing Insulation: A Function of Body Movement, Posture, Wind, Clothing Fit and Ensemble Thickness, Ergonomics 33(1), 67 84 (1990). En469, Protective Clothing for Firefighters, Europe Standard, CEN, Brussels (1995). George, H., and Ronald, H., A Test Battery Related to Ergonomics of Protective Clothing, Appl. Ergon. 35, 320 (2004). Marianne Karlsson, I. C., and Rosenblad, E. F. S., Evaluating Functional Clothing in Climatic Chamber Tests Versus Field Tests: A Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Product Development, Ergonomics 41(10), 13991420 (1998). Fan, J., and Chen, Y. S., Measurement of Clothing Thermal Insulation and Moisture Vapor Permeability Using a Novel Perspiring Fabric Thermal Manikin, Meas. Sci. Technol. 13, 11151123 (2002). Roger, L., Barker, M. G., McCord, P. A., and Tucker, I. S., Transport Phenomena in Comfortable Passive and Active Barrier Textile Systems, Code Number S9524, National Textile Center Annual Report, pp. 293300 (1995). Chen, Y. S., Fan, J., and Zhang, W., Clothing Thermal Insulation During Sweating, Textile Res. J. 73(2), 152157 (2003). McCullough, E. A., Jones, B. W., and Tamura, T., A Data Base for Determining the Evaporative Resistance of Clothing, ASHRAE Trans. 95, 316328 (1989).

CIt and Cim, the changing rates of It and im, respectively, under two different dressing ways, with openings sealed or not, were proposed as new indices in the study. CIt quantified the effects of clothing design features (design, size, accessory) on heat transfer through firefighter turnout clothing, while Cim was dependent greatly on the material moisture permeability.

6.

Acknowledgement
This research was conducted at the Center for Research on Protection and Comfort (TPACC) at North Carolina State University, USA.

7.

8. 9.

Literature Cited
1. Huck, J., and McCullough, A. E., Fire Fighter Turnout Clothing: Physiological and Subjective Evaluation, Performance of Protective Clothing, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 439442 (1988). Heus, R., and Heukelom, J., Fire Fighting and Human Factors; What Does EN469 Mean for Fire Fighters, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Thermal Protection of Man under Hot and Hazardous Conditions, Paris, France, pp. 5158 (1999). Slater, K., Comfort or Protection: The Clothing Dilemma, Performance of Protective Clothing, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 486490 (1996). Stull, O. J., The Effects of Moisture on Firefighter Protective Clothing Thermal Insulation: A Review of Industry Research, Performance of Protective Clothing, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 557576 (2000).

10.

2.

11.

12.

3.

13. 14.

4.

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009