The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
NFPA 1977 & Silk Screening Emblems on Tee Shirts... Uh oh...
NFPA 1977 is where the language is found that discusses silk screening tee shirts. I don't have access to these codes and am hoping that one of you out there in FFN land might have access to this data. What I was able to found in a draft NFPA 1975 was the following DRAFT language...
NFPA 1975 DRAFT
3.3.7* Emblems. Shields, heraldry, or printing that designates a governmental entity or a specific organization; rank, title, position, or other professional status that is painted, screened, embroidered, sewn, glued, bonded, or otherwise attached in a permanent manner to station/work uniform garments.
A.3.3.7 Emblems. Emblems or patches used on station/work uniforms are not included in the test requirements of this standard. Users are cautioned that emblems or patches with thick adhesive backings could melt and contribute to burn injury. In particular, users are cautioned about using large emblems or patches on station/work uniforms because these items are not tested for heat or flame resistance.
Executive Summary: As many as 15 years ago, an accident investigation report was published after a burn over had occurred to CALFIRE firefighters. The burned firefighters had the word CALFIRE branded on their back, or so the story goes. The explanation that I was told about focused on the requirements to use a dye instead of a plastic or paint, i.e.. something that would support combustion, possibly melt and spread. Only 100% cotton is recommended for undergarments, or is it. Common sense tells me that the plastic or paint acts as a heat sink, even through the nomex. Certainly there must be "NFPA 1977 Approved Stenciling Inks"...
Conclusion: Regardless, if you are wearing a cool tee shirt when you are on duty that has anything other than intumescent dye (non-flame supporting), then you have the chance of receiving burns, even from radiant heat. This is another example of where keep it simple applies for the fire service.
Happy Holidays!
Mike
"It's all about being able to go home the next morning..."
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by PFC Harmon on
-
Huh...I never thought about the screen printing on t-shirts getting hot. Our uniforms are bdu style emt pants and a t-shirt (poly/cotton blend) with screen printing on them.
Stay safe and happy holidays to you Mike.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
to be honest, I never did either until it came time for having to order large quantities of shirts... seemed like a reasonable question to talk about and get some cool feedback so we can all make the right decisions. Stay safe Lt. Harmon. Hope you get cool treats under the tree!
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
In my short memory, it's always been suggested that we (vols) wear only 100% cotton under our PPE. Interestingly, only t-shirts were specifically mentioned. There's another part of me that I wouldn't really like to have 'shrink-wrapped' ! After a career FF was burned in a fire, we're now told that we must only wear 100% cotton. Quite a change, from a suggestion to a ruling.
So, the poly-cotton blend T's that most of us wear are now no good. I can understand the reasoning. However, in my own experience? Our wildfire PPE is retardent-treated cotton - in our view if you need Nomex you're too damned close! So now to incident #1. After a day out at a wildfire I saw a burn mark on the left upper arm of my wildfire jacket. A small hole had been burnt by an ember. I had felt nothing, my poly-cotton t-shirt was unmarked. Oh well thinks I, it happens. Incident #2. At a wildfire I felt pain on my upper right arm - rapidly moved to flick the offending ember off of my jacket (that tiny ember hurt!). Take the jacket off to check and there was a nice burn, right through the jacket (like the first time, the fabric scorched and smouldered, didn't flame). My arm was unmarked even though I'd felt pain from the burn. Funny, the t-shirt was also unmarked. So poly-cotton is too flammable is it?
What do I do now? I wear 100% cotton most of the time. The times I happen to be wearing a poly blend, I have a pure cotton T hanging with my PPE, and I'll change if I can. When the rush is on and there's no time, I'll be wearing a poly-cotton T under my PPE. Such is life.
But to get back to a point to which I alluded earlier. What about the rest of the underclothes? I wear cotton blend underpants. The only cotton ones generally available I wouldn't wear if you paid me. And what's going to keep them in place, cotton elastic? I also wouldn't wear 100% synthetic boxers - just imagine if the temp got high enough to work on your nylon or rayon undies !!! Then of course there's the socks. Once again, I wear blended - wool this time. Pure cotton socks? Not common. Pure wool? I find them too hot for most of the year. And even so-called pure wool socks usually have some synthetic thread in the weave to provide elasticity.
I understand the risk. I understand the gamble I take.
Now, the point of all this? How many of us wear plain solid colour T's? I do, when I'm not wearing one of the old poly-cotton T's that used to be Station wear. What are most of the designs on the decorated T's made from? Looks like some sort of paint to me. Or even bonded plastic on some of them! Perhaps you can't find that NFPA 1977 because it was realised that's a hard one? Therefore it was put into the 'too-hard' box?
PS. If I were to be injured, I'm still covered no matter what I wear. The Service doesn't provide us with clothing, apart from the PPE, and they know that as vols we can't always turn out to the Station in what to me is still the 'reccomended' fabric. Should we all have spare clothing at the Station? We're only allowed four minutes from page to truck on the road - changing isn't always an option.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
I'm struggling a bit with this whole concept- if you're wearing your t-shirt under your turn out jacket which is properly done up, surely with today's PPE technology, this is a non event?
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Venable on
-
NFPA 1975 Standard for Station/Work Uniforms for Fire and Emergency Services
This standard applies to Fire Service station uniforms made from 100% cotton and flame-resistant fabrics. Recently revised to exclude vertical flammability testing, this standard requires that fabrics do not shrink more than 15% after being tested in a 500°F oven for 5 minutes. This is the only thermal requirement of this standard. Garments are subject to 3rd party testing and inspections. In the past, NFPA 1975 was often used by industries beyond the Fire Service to specify industrial FR garments. However, with the elimination of vertical flammability testing, this standard is no longer adequate for industrial FR garments.
NFPA 1977 Standard on Protective Clothing and Equipment for Wildland Fire Fighting
This standard is used by the Forest Service and Fire Departments involved in forest, field and other natural fires (in contrast to structural fires). Garments that meet this standard must pass vertical flammability tests (maximum 2 sec afterflame and 4 in. char length). Fabrics must not melt, drip, separate or ignite, nor shrink more than 10% after being tested in a 500°F oven for 5 minutes. Fabrics must have a minimum Radiant Protective Performance Value of 7. Garments are subject to 3rd party testing and inspections.
NFPA 2112 Standard for Flame-Resistant Garments for Protection of Industrial Personnel Against Flash Fire
This is the first US standard that specifically addresses the need for industrial flame-resistant uniforms. This standard requires FR fabrics to pass a comprehensive battery of thermal tests, including
• Vertical flammability (2 sec after flame and 4 in. char length)
• Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) test (minimum TPP of 6 acl/cm2 spaced and 3 cal/cm2 in contact)
• Thermal Stability Test (fabric must not melt or drip, separate or ignite after 5 minutes in a 500°F oven)
• Thermal Shrinkage Test (less than 10% after 5 min in a 500°F oven)
• ASTM F1930 Thermal Mannequin Test (maximum 50% body burn after 3 sec flash fire)
This standard is not yet finalized, and therefore the thermal performance requirements will probably change. Once published, this standard is likely to form the basis of future laws and regulations for FR clothing in the petroleum, chemical and other industries with a hazard of flash fire. Third party testing and certification is being discussed as a component of this standard.
Hope this helps you!
-
-
Thanks Robert - very interesting!
I love all those references to 5 minutes at 500F (or 5 mins at 260C for us). I think that equates to a shirt that is still viable on a body that isn't?
Looking at the wildfire ratings, are people going to suggest that structural style PPE be worn at wildfires? Stand by for a lot of funerals... I see photos of people doing just that in the USA (and I've seen people doing it here), and they're exposing themselves to too much heat stress, way too much. It's always said that their departments just can't afford to buy the extra gear, which could well be the case. If it is? Wear a pair of cotton workpants or jeans, a long sleeved cotton shirt, leather boots and a construction helmet. Far safer.
-
-
Luke? Yes. And we say it all the time. If it's too hot for your t-shirt, especially under all the lovely new gear we're getting, then you're probably dead. Lovely new gear? Yes, we're finally catching up with the rest of the western world. Though there're a few of us that would be quite happy to stay with the old fashioned stuff. (The Mets ahve already discovered how hot the new stuff is, their procedures are changing to allow enough people on scene at an incident to allow for more rest periods.)
-
-
So we can expect even more Mets trucks at a scene doing bugger all just for man power??!! :)
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon "Gopher" Runer on
-
So where does things like Under Armour fall? Should we be wearing that under everything for those of us who are where it gets cold. Just wondering if anyone might know.
thanks
Gopher
-
-
Correct. Apparently any going structure will be at least a 2nd Alarm. Where we support in, they know that we can get another 4 to 6 people to a job quickly and have had us roll a second truck a couple of times recently. For us, it means that more people will be tasked with BA - as we usually get more people on scene anyway.
-
-
unfortunately, the research discovered that they graphics, especially ones that have plastic, become a heat sink, causing deep burns where the lettering had been placed on the shirt. the firefighters were essentially branded with the word CALFIRE on their back, and this was from the radiatnt heat... who would have thought this could have been a possibility? and it occurred 15 years ago, hence NFPA 1977 echoing these concerns and risks.
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Conant on
-
Hm. I probly outta stop wearing Under Armour then.
The military banned them because in wounds that include flame (Ie a IED) the material would stick to the wound, or melt and get inside the skin, ect. a big mess.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
