Water Vapor Transport Through Protective Textiles at Low Temperatures.

Textile Research Journal, Oct 2002 by Bartels, Volkmar T, Umbach, Karl Heinz

ABSTRACT

This article surveys the physiological impact of waterproof textiles on the wearers
of protective clothing. Wearer trials with test subjects in a climatic chamber
involve ambient temperatures of +20, 0, and -20 deg C. The physiological
function of breathable materials in comparison to a water vapor impermeable
construction is quantified. Results show that water vapor permeable
constructions offer a clear benefit to wearers at all tested temperatures: moisture
accumulation in the breathable protective garments and in whole clothing
systems are much smaller than in the nonbreathable one. Additionally, the ratio
of evaporated sweat to produced sweat E/P is much higher for breathable
constructions. Differences are statistically significant at levels of p > 0.995 or
higher. There is no indication of a temperature dependency of the water vapor
resistance of hydrophilic membrane laminates, but results show that, especially
at ambient temperatures far below the freezing point, such breathable foul
weather protective textiles still offer a great benefit to wearers.

Foul weather protective clothing for sports and occupational wear is extremely
important to the textile industry throughout the world. However, feelings of
uncertainty have been growing in the market about the function of so-called
breathable (i.e., water impermeable but water vapor permeable) materials at
different climatic scenarios. The literature describes some basic work. Osczevski
and Dolhan [9] and Farnworth et al. [2] reported a strong dependency of the
water vapor resistance of hydrophilic membranes or coatings: the higher the
relative humidity at the membrane, the lower the water vapor resistance (i.e., the
higher the water vapor permeability or breathability). In a temperature dependent
experiment, Osczevski [10] placed a hydrophilic film on an ice block. Water vapor
sublimating from the ice could diffuse only through the film and was collected by
a dessicant. Osczevski measured mass transport through the film, and he found
that water vapor resistance is an exponential function of temperature. In his
experiment, water vapor permeability vanishes nearly completely with decreasing
textile temperature: e.g., at -10 deg C he reported only 2% of the water vapor flux
at room temperature. Because diffusion in hydrophilic materials is non-Fickian,
he also derived from his results a theory of diffusion speed depending on
activation energy epsilon, and he accounted for different relative humidities. He
concluded that "the advantage of a `high-tech' vapor permeable waterproof shell
over a standard [i.e., nonbreathable] waterproof coating is less pronounced in
subfreezing weather." Additionally, Gretton et al. [7] reported an increase in the
moisture vapor transmission rate (MYTh) of hydrophilic and microporous textiles
when measuring with a heated dish instead of an unheated dish. They
interpreted their results by the increased motion of water vapor and polymer
molecules, which they claimed would also work for microporous constructions.
For hydrophilic membranes, they also discussed the influence due to the change
in relative humidity as reported in references 9 and 2. Contrary to their own
results for single layer fabrics, Gretton et al. [7] found a decrease in the MVTR for
some of the microporous constructions as a part of a clothing system measured
with the heated dish method (see Table III of Gretton et al. [7]).

However, the results for temperature dependency published by Osczevski [10]

and Gretton et al. [7] are based on experimental laboratory setups, and they
have not been validated by wearer trials with test persons. Gretton et al. [7]
announced such trials in their conclusions, and we may have overlooked them,
but to our best knowledge, the works of Osczevski and Gretton et al. for practical
use of foul weather protective clothing by man have yet to be tested on people.

Our approach is physiological and directly related to the wearer of protective

clothing-breathability is a physiological parameter of clothing and textiles, hence
this approach promises valuable results. To measure a wearer's related quantity
free of doubt, the best procedure is human subject testing. Thus, in our work we
compare hydrophilic breathable laminates with a water vapor impermeable
coating in wearer trials. The main aim of this article is to determine whether or
not a temperature dependency of the water vapor transport properties of
hydrophilic membranes and coatings can be detected, and if their physiological
function, especially at low temperatures, is still better than that of nonbreathable
constructions.

For readers interested in details, a technical report (in German) [1] is available
from us.

EXPERIMENT

WATER PROOF TEXTILES

The characteristics of textiles used for foul weather protective clothing worn in
the wearer trials are given in Table I. The textiles were supplied by German
manufacturers from their actual production. Physiological properties were tested
by means of Skin Model measurements of the water vapor and thermal
resistances R^sub et^ and R^sub ct^ according to ISO 11092 [8]. In comparison,
1 mm of still air has a water vapor resistance of R^sub et^ = 2.27 m^sup 2^
Pa/W. For thermal resistance (thermal insulation), the well known unit clo in
official SI units is I clo = 155 X 10^sup -3^ m^sup 2^ K/W.

The aim of this work is to survey the temperature dependency of the

physiological function, especially the water vapor transport properties, of
hydrophilic foul weather protective textiles. Therefore, we tested two different
hydrophilic constructions (samples 2 and 8). In comparison, a microfiber woven
fabric (sample 7) and a water vapor impermeable coating (sample 5) were also
tested as reference materials. Because constructions differ significantly, the
water vapor resistances Ret also vary widely. On the other hand, their thermal
resistances Rct (i.e., thermal insulations) are always very small. Thus, when the
constructions are integrated in ready-made clothing systems, their contribution to
the total thermal insulation is minor in comparison to, for example, air layers or
underwear.

Textiles were tailored as two-piece suits of foul weather protective garments

consisting of jacket and trousers. The cut of suits 5, 7, and 8 was identical, and
suit 2's pattern was only slightly different. Thus, differences in the physiological
function of the clothes could be directly attributed to the foul weather protective
textiles.

Additional clothing components were worn, each depending on the test

temperature. These additional clothes were identical for all foul weather
protective suits tested. For each ambient temperature, the additional clothing
components are described in Table II, and details can be found in reference 1.

CONTROLLED WEARER TRIALS WITH TEST PERSONS

Four young healthy men served as test subjects for each clothing system and
each ambient temperature. Every suit was worn twice (i.e., one test repetition) at
each temperature. Additionally, test persons were trained in climatic and activity
conditions in pre-tests.

RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis to be proved is that the physiological function of water vapor

permeable foul weather protective garments is superior to nonpermeable
clothing, not only above 0 deg C, but as well at temperatures far below the
freezing point.

MOISTURE ACCUMULATION

During the wearer trials, it turned out that the amount of moisture being
accumulated in the clothing system led to very significant differences between
the foul weather protective garments (see Figure 1), i.e., the amount of
condensed water sometimes differed dramatically between the various
ensembles. At T^sub a^ = -20 deg C the condensing water froze beneath the foul
weather protective garments and ice (white frost) formed. Again the amount of
ice strongly depended on the foul weather protective clothing used.

Moisture as well as frost accumulation is due to the condensation of evaporated

sweat. Especially at cold temperatures and high temperature gradients, the dew
point is reached within the clothing system. The barrier material leads to the
steepest moisture gradient of all clothing worn, so condensation is usually
comparatively high at that position.

Figure 1 shows the amount of moisture accumulated in the foul weather

protective suits as well as in the whole garment system. Clearly, at all
temperatures, especially at T^sub a^ = -20 deg C, moisture accumulation in the
water vapor impermeable foul weather clothing system, sample 5, is much higher
than in all "breathable" constructions. These differences between sample 5 and
the other constructions are highly significant, mostly at a level of p > 0.999, but
always at p > 0.995.

For physiological tests, our data show large differences and very high
significance levels. Thus, results are free of doubt that in real wearing situations,
moisture accumulation in water vapor permeable suits is much smaller than in
unbreathable garments at all different temperature conditions. The high moisture
accumulation in the water vapor impermeable suit not only impedes comfort, but
it also lowers the thermal insulation of the clothing system by enhanced heat
conductivity, which decreases the protection against cold. Especially at low
temperatures (for example, the test temperature of T^sub a^ = -20 deg C), this
may lead to a critical cooling of the body, e.g., during rest periods following
strenuous work. Hence, high moisture accumulation can be harmful to the
wearer's health (so-called post exercise chill).

We mentioned that suit 8 had been worn by different test persons. Therefore,
results can only be compared to other garments on a limited scale. For example,
it is not understandable that suit 8 shows a smaller moisture accumulation at
T^sub a^ = - 20 deg C than suit 7, made of an identical textile material but
without the membrane, thus having one water vapor barrier less. Therefore, we
must conclude that this result is caused by the different test persons. On the
other hand, differences in the water vapor impermeable suit 5 are significant at p
> 0.999, so that even with other test persons, the differences in moisture
accumulation are still trustworthy.

The data in Figure 1 show that moisture accumulation, especially in sample 2,

increases with decreasing ambient temperature. However, this does not
necessarily mean that water vapor resistance has increased as well: suit 7 has
no membrane and so has no temperature dependency of the water vapor
resistance at all. Nevertheless, sample 7 also shows an increase in moisture
accumulation with decreasing temperature (although smaller than suit 2).
Therefore, we must conclude that the increased moisture accumulation is not
due to increased water vapor resistance. But it is likely that increased moisture
accumulation at low temperatures is due to the changing temperature and water
vapor gradients to be found in the thicker clothing systems. Especially at low
temperatures, the dew point will be reached much sooner in the clothing system.

RATIO OF EVAPORATED TO PRODUCED SWEAT

The ratio E/P of evaporated to produced sweat is a powerful relative assessment
of the physiological function of different clothes. As Figure 2 shows again that the
differences between the water vapor impermeable sample 5 and the breathable
constructions are very large. Data demonstrate that the E/P ratio, and thus the
physiological function, of the water vapor permeable constructions is much
higher and better than for the nonbreathable one, especially at T^sub a^ = -20
deg C. These differences are again highly significant, usually at p > 0.999 and
always at p > 0.998.

E/P decreases slightly with decreasing temperature. This has to be expected,

because at lower temperatures more clothes are worn than at higher T^sub a^,
thus leading to more water vapor barriers. On the other hand, the change in E/P
is less likely to be due to increased water vapor resistance of the foul weather
protective textiles at lower temperatures, because all clothing systems show this
effect, especially suits 5 and 7, with temperature-independent water vapor
resistances.

As we already reported for moisture accumulation, the other test persons

wearing sample 8 yielded slightly different results. Particularly, the higher E/P
ratio at T^sub a^ = -20 deg C in comparison to suit 7 is not logical. However,
again the differences for suit 5 are large enough to be trustworthy.

A high E/P ratio is especially important for people engaged in heavy physical
activity. Even at low temperatures, this is the case for winter sports like cross-
country skiing. For such wear situations, water vapor permeable constructions
obviously allow much better sweat transport, cause less moisture accumulation,
and so offer better cold protection.

Hence, if Osczevski was right, at least at T^sub a^ = - 20 deg C, the ratio E/P
and the moisture accumulation should be quite similar for all the different
garment systems we have tested, except for the microfiber sample 7. However,
our wearer trial results tell a different story. With highly significant differences, the
water vapor permeable materials offer a superior physiological function
compared to the impermeable one. Thus, Osczevski's results show no
correlations to our wearer trials, and so from a physiological point of view, his
technique and predictions cannot be regarded as quantitative, at least down to
ambient temperatures of T^sub a^ = - 20 deg C.

We cannot figure out exactly why Osczevski's theory fails: It could be due to the
measuring technique with an ice block, which, from a physiological point of view,
is not an ideal simulation of the human skin or body.

Checking Osczevski's theory [10] at even deeper temperatures was not possible
for us due to the technical limitations of our climatic chamber. However, most
wear situations for foul weather protective textiles are within the range of
temperatures we have covered with our experiments, especially for heavier
sweating. All our results clearly show a great benefit to the wearer of hydrophilic,
breathable laminates in comparison to a water vapor impermeable coating.

Particularly our results for sample 7, a microfiber woven, can be interpreted

without any temperature dependency of the water vapor resistance, but can be
explained by the thicker underwear, which we believe to be much more likely. On
the other hand, Gretton et al. [7] claimed that a small temperature dependency
leads to a slightly higher water vapor transmission rate for the heated dish
method and single layers. They interpreted this as an increased motion of the
water molecules and polymers caused by a higher temperature. They claimed
that this would not work in clothing systems, because there the outer layer would
be cooler. In this case, these authors even reported a decrease of the MVTR with
higher temperature for some of their material combinations (see Table III of
reference 7).

In our opinion it is more likely that there is no temperature dependency of the

water vapor resistance of microfiber or microporous textiles at all. The water
vapor resistance for such materials is mainly determined by the amount of pores
in the textile [13], which is a matter of construction. This construction is
macroscopic in comparison to the size of a water vapor molecule. The textile's
construction, and thus the motion of water vapor molecules, is also not affected
by the polymer motion, which is on an atomic scale [3, 4].

Higher water vapor molecule motion at an elevated temperature, which is also

used as an explanation by Gretton et al. [7], in our opinion should not affect the
overall steady-state diffusion rate in microporous or woven fabrics: In such
textiles (different from hydrophilic constructions) Fickian diffusion under
geometric constraints takes place. These geometric constraints result from the
fact that free volume is occupied by the textile. The easiest way to treat these
constraints mathematically is to change the diffusion constant D. The speed of
the water vapor molecules and their typical path lengths may change, but
diffusion is a statistical process. If steady state has been reached, a given
number of water vapor molecules passes from inside to outside per area, water
vapor partial pressure, and time units. But other molecules take the opposite
way. Both processes may be speeded up if the temperature is increased, but
they are faster by the same amount. Thus, the ratio of molecules going out to
those coming into the clothing still remains constant. So the argument of Gretton
et al. might explain a faster achievement of the steady state or modified
unstationary properties, but not a change of the steadystate value itself.

In our opinion, the results of Gretton et al. [7] could be interpreted much more like
this: The authors are measuring water vapor permeability in comparison to a
standard material, and the result is given in percent. The differences they found
for each microporous sample at different temperatures (i.e., heated or isothermal
dish method) are quite small. Nevertheless, the authors interpret them to be
significant, because they claim to have extremely good accuracy: The error they
report for the relative water vapor permeability is only 1-2%, i.e., this method
would be much more accurate than any other technique we are aware of.
However, if the accuracy they report was only slightly poorer as given, around
5%, all of their results for the microporous constructions would be perfectly
compatible with a water vapor transmission rate unchanged by temperature.

Our explanation is supported by another fact: If one calculates the mean value
for the differences Gretton et al. report for the microporous textiles (single layers
+ clothing systems), a value of only 0.2% is obtained, which would be extremely
close to our theoretical prediction of 0.

Actually, the results of Gretton et al. [7] for the hydrophilic textiles fit slightly
better into our picture. Again, we would not agree to interpreting their results as
increased molecular motion. But we do support their findings that applying a
temperature gradient changes the relative humidity at the membrane
significantly, which also changes the water vapor permeability of hydrophilic
materials.

CONCLUSIONS

We have surveyed the water vapor transport properties of foul weather protective
textiles and clothing as a function of temperature by means of wearer trials with
human subjects. We have shown that the water vapor transport properties and
the physiological function of water vapor permeable clothing, especially based on
hydrophilic components, are much better than for impermeable clothing, also at
temperatures down to -20 deg C. In particular, the ratio E/P of evaporated to
produced sweat as well as the moisture accumulation in the clothing are much
better in breathable than in nonbreathable garments. These differences are
highly significant on a level of at least p > 0.995. Our results clearly indicate that
the ability to transport water vapor and the physiological function of breathable
foul weather protective clothing still exist at subzero ambient temperatures down
to -20 deg C, and thus are relevant to most common wear scenarios.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the Forschungskuratorium Textil for the financial support of the
research project (AiF-No. 11674), which was funded by the German Ministry of
Economy through a grant of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Industrieller
Forschungsvereinigungen "Otto-von-Guericke." Samples of textiles and clothes
were supplied by German textile manufacturers.

LITERATURE CITED

• Bartels, V. T., Survey on the Moisture Transport Properties of Foul

Weather Protective Textiles at Temperatures Around and Below the
 Freezing Point (in German), technical report no. AiF 11674, Hohenstein
Institute of Clothing Physiology, Boennigheim, Germany, 2001.
• Farnworth, B., Lotens, W. A., and Wittgen, P. P. M. M., Variation of Water
Vapor Resistance of Microporous and Hydrophilic Films with Relative
Humidity, Textile Res. J. 60(1), 50-53 (1990).
• Flory, P. J., "Statistical Mechanics of Chain Molecules," Interscience Pub.,
NY, 1969.
• de Gennes, P. G., "Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics," 3rd ed., Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1988.
• Givoni, B., and Goldman, R. F., Predicting Metabolic Energy Cost, J. Appl.
Physiol. 30(3), 429-433 (1971).
• Givoni, B., and Goldman, R. F., Predicting Rectal Temperature Response
to Work, Environment, and Clothing, J. Appl. Physiol. 32(6), 812-822
(1972).
• Gretton, J. C., Brook, D. B., Dyson, H. M., and Harlock, S. C., Moisture
Vapor Transport Through Waterproof Breathable Fabrics and Clothing
Systems Under a Temperature Gradient, Textile Res. J. 68(12), 936-941
(1998).
• ISO 11092, Measurement of Thermal and Water-vapour Resistance under
Steady-state Conditions (Sweating Guarded-hotplate Test), 1993.
• Osczevski, R. J., and Dolhan, P. A., Anomalous Diffusion in a Water
Vapour Permeable, Waterproof Coating, J. Coated Fabrics 18, 255-258
(1989).
• Osczevski, R. J., Water Vapor Transfer Through a Hydrophilic Film at
Subzero Temperatures, Textile Res. J. 66(1), 24-29 (1996).
• Umbach, K. H., Investigation of Constructional Principles for Clothing
Textiles Made of Synthetic Fibers Worn Next to the Skin with Good
Comfort Properties (in German), technical report no. AiF 3653, Hohenstein
Institute of Clothing Physiology, Boennigheim, Germany, 1977.v
• Umbach, K. H., Methods of Measurement for Testing Physiological
Requirements of Civilian, Work and Protective Clothing and Uniforms,
Melliand Eng. 68, E379-- E383 (1987).
• Umbach, K. H., Moisture Transport and Wear Comfort in Microfibre
Fabrics, Melliand Engl. 74, E78-E80 (1993).

Manuscript received August 27, 2001; accepted March 15, 2002.

VOLKMAR T. BARTELS AND KARL HEINZ UMBACH
Hohenstein Institutes, Department of Clothing Physiology, D-74357
Boennigheim, Germany