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

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.authorQuinn, Tyler D.
dc.contributor.authorGutiérrez Santamaría, Borja
dc.contributor.authorSáez Gómez de Cadiñanos, Iker
dc.contributor.authorSantisteban Leguina, Aitor
dc.contributor.authorLee, Joo-Young
dc.contributor.authorKim, Jung-Hyum
dc.contributor.authorCoca Núñez, Aitor
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-12T13:37:07Z
dc.date.available2024-11-12T13:37:07Z
dc.date.issued2021-11
dc.date.updated2024-11-12T13:37:07Z
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.en
dc.identifier.citationQuinn, T. D., Gutiérrez-Santamaría, B., Sáez, I., Santisteban, A., Lee, J.-Y., Kim, J.-H., & Coca, A. (2021). Comparison of three internationally certified firefighter protective ensembles: physiological responses, mobility, and comfort. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERGON.2021.103232
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/J.ERGON.2021.103232
dc.identifier.eissn1872-8219
dc.identifier.issn0169-8141
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14454/1783
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.subject.otherErgonomics
dc.subject.otherFirefighter
dc.subject.otherInternational standards
dc.subject.otherPerceived exertion
dc.subject.otherPersonal protective equipment
dc.subject.otherPhysiology
dc.titleComparison of three internationally certified firefighter protective ensembles: physiological responses, mobility, and comforten
dc.typejournal article
dcterms.accessRightsmetadata only access
oaire.citation.titleInternational Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
oaire.citation.volume86
Archivos
Colecciones
Artículos