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 Robert Venable on
-
Under Armor will trap and hold flammable gases if exposed.Then guess what comes next!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Dumser on
-
Good food for thought. I had always thought that my t-shirt would be ok while under my properly worn structural firefighting gear. As much as I love my F.D. I don't need their name scorched into my back!
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon "Gopher" Runer on
-
Now that would be a sign of true dedication!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Vito on
-
forged by fire....
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
and it occurred 15 years ago,
This is where I'm struggling Mike- it would have been old technology, old uniforms, etc.
We're killing oursleves from the inside, not the radiant heat from the outside with new PPE....
-
Permalink Reply by Jenny Holderby on
-
Some years ago the designs on tshirts were made of paint, adhesive or plastics, all petroleum based materials which were bonded to the fabric with heat. The designs often cracked, peeled or melted in the sun or the dryer. These days most of them are printed on with dyes. Some "novelty shirts" do still have plastics sewn or glued on to the fabric. All of the job shirts that I have researched are 100% cotton and dyes are used in the designs. This process is more cost effective for the manufacturer and the consumer. What we refer to as "Station wear" is normally made of nomex or at least a nomex blend.
Radiant heat causes your body temperature to rise. Any "poly" or poly blended fabric will hold heat longer and at higher temperatures than cotton. Radiant heat, at high enough temperatures will cause plastics to melt.
Underarmor was designed to wick moisture away from the wearer's skin to lessen chaffing and galling which in severe enough cases can be considered 1st degree burns and will cause blistering of the skin. Gasses could cause a problem with any fabric. Your PPE has a vapor barrier for that reason. If gasses get through that you probably aren't going to be too worried about what material your shirt is made of or decorated with because you are going to have much bigger problems than that. In that case, you should have been in HAZMAT gear. That vapor barrier is also the reason your body temperature rises in your PPE even when you aren't exposed to radiant heat. It keeps your body from cooling itself through perspiration. You perspire but there is no way to evaporate the moisture away from your skin so you perspire more because your body is still trying to cool itself causing dehydration.
Practically ANY fabric, even flame resistant or flame retardant will melt to skin (including PPE) when exposed to direct flame for a long enough period.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
I have a problem with using one isolated incident to write a blanket standard that affects all firefighters in all situations. If I'm not mistaken, the CALFIRE incident involved wildland gear, not structural firefighting gear. Radient heat is a much bigger problem with wildland gear, since it is thinner and doesn't have a vapor barrier or thick inner layer as does structural gear.
If enough heat makes it inside structural gear to melt t-shirt lettering, then the firefighter is going to be badly burned, regardless.
I agree with Luke that the primary firefighter safety problem with modern structural gear is internally-generated heat stress, not radiant heat from the outside.
The NFPA annual firefighter fatality reports note the prevalance of fatal firefighter heart attacks at or immediately following structural fires, and the relative lack of firefighter heart attacks at wildland fires.
The bottom line - one isolated incident 15 years ago doesn't equal the need to completely re-write a standard.
-
-
Luke,
I couldn't agree more on what to wear to wildland fires.
Unfortunately, fire chiefs whose departments lack the funds for wildland gear are likely to mandate structural gear for wildland fires because that's all their department has. The chiefs tend to be more worried about burn injuries than heat stress caused by the gear or firefighters who can't retreat from trouble because they're in gear that is too hot, heavy, and bulky for quick retreats in the wildland environment.
If you're going for a hike in the woods, dress for a hike in the woods, even if wildland firefighting is part of the hike.
Ben
-
-
Jenny,
I disagree with some of your statements above...
1) "Station wear" is made from whatever each individual department determines it is.
In most places, that means cotton or poly-cotton pants and t-shirts,
Nomex or nomex blend station uniforms are not the norm in most of the U.S.
Cost is the primary factor for most fire departments, and cotton BDUs, work pants, and t-shirts are much less expensive than nomex uniforms.
2) Hot gases can still penetrate inside structural PPE despite the vapor barrier. The turnout coat vapor barrier has gaps at the neck and waist that allow gases to get inside the coat. Likewise, the turnout pants have gaps at the ankles and waist that are not gas-tight.
3) You said "If gasses get through that you probably aren't going to be too worried about what material your shirt is made of or decorated with because you are going to have much bigger problems than that. In that case, you should have been in HAZMAT gear." That is simply not accurate when referring to heat problems during firefighting. Most hazmat gear has very poor heat resistance, since it isn't designed for firefighting. Since this conversation is about firefighting, not hazmat, advocating hazmat gear for prevention of exposure to hot gases is highly questionable, at best.
4) Under Armor was designed to wick sweat in non-fire environments. It was originally designed for police officers to wear beneath ballistic body armor not fire firefighters. (thus the name "Under Armor") Under Armor and similar artificial fabrics wick sweat away from the body but dry quickly, unlike cotton or cotton blends that wick sweat but rely on exposure to ambient air to continue evaporative cooling. Under Armor and similar artificial fabrics reduce the chilling effect that cotton or other fabrics have when they get sweaty in cold environments, too. (Remember the "We will protect this house" Under Armor football ads for cold weather wear?) Under Armor is vulnerable to melting in any high heat environment just like polyester or other artificial fabric that is not specifically designed to resist heat. The primary reason for firefighters to avoid Under Armor for firefighting is the potential for melting and shrink-wrap syndrome if hot gases get inside the turnout gear through the gaps. The reduction of chafing, galling, etc. is a minor issue compared to not having your underwear melted into your skin.
Under Armor is fine for wilderness SAR and cold-weather EMS response when exposure to fire isn't a problem.
Under Armor also makes a good base layer under swiftwater rescue PPE.
Ben
-
Permalink Reply by BillySFCVFD on
-
You're right Mac about the ban that included other synthetic moisture wicking tee shirts worn by combat vehicle crew members. The US Army replacement tee is 100% cotton and the color was even changed from tan to green so a leader could easily check his team for wear during pre-combat checks. Makes sense to me. TCSS
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
This "cotton or cotton blends that wick sweat but rely on exposure to ambient air to continue evaporative cooling" is another point - natural fabric holding all the moisture against your skin. Currently we wear all-natural fibre PPE. Soon I'll be getting my Nomex. We've been advised that ridding ourselves of our own metabolic heat wil be the big issue - more and longer rest periods on the job than we currently need. I think the Nomex will be getting a pair of shorts and a t-shirt underneath and that's about it! We are a warm to hot climate, we don't get the extremes of cold that it seems effect so many places in North America.
Hazmat gear? We train that the best clothing to wear under Hazmat gear is as little as possible. My avatar has me in a splash-suit - and I just about melted that day with just shorts and a tee. It was fine when I eventually got that suit off and the air started drying me off, but phew!
-
-
The bottom line - one isolated incident 15 years ago doesn't equal the need to completely re-write a standard.
well said ...
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
