This presentation was shown at 9th Textile Bioengineering and Informatics Symposium Proceedings (TBIS 2016)

1. Restrictions of Motions in Firefighters
Wearing Uniforms
Izabela Ciesielska-Wrobel, Emiel DenHartog, Roger Barker
Ghent, Belgium Raleigh, NC, USA

2. PRESENTATION PLAN
1. Introduction: identification of the problem – uncomfortable outfit.
2. Research questions.
4. Results – objective and subjective methods.
5. Summary + Future trends.
3. Materials and Methods – uniforms, subjects, tests.

3. http://www.striveforgoodhealth.com/?p=6453
Figure 1. Different size of clothing needed!
Figure 2. Lumbar range of motion measurement.
Source: Effects of restrictive clothing on lumbar range of motion and trunk muscle activity in
young adult worker manual material handling; Applied Ergonomics, 44, 6, Nov. 2013, pp
1024–1032.
INTRODUCTION

4. http://www.army-technology.com/
contractors/personal/cpe/cpe5.html
Figure 4. CPE- Ballistic Armour, Riot
Armour and Protective Training Gear
Figure 3. Bavaria's minister unveiled new uniforms for region's police.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3336727/
Figure 6. Houston, TX, fire-fighters during the rescue mission.
Figure 5. Firefighter-sailor
at navy ship.
INTRODUCTION
http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/A-challenge-for-Houston-firefighters-
5274917.php
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/firies-want-to-take-off-their-new-uniforms/story-e6freuy9-1226479484321
Figure 7. NSW, fire-fighters.

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• Can design and/or bulkiness of the outfit cause reduction in ROM?
• Precision of the methodology (what kind of differences one may expose?).
• Methodology for testing the restrictions of motion (test with electro-goniometers,
subjective assessment, 3-D surface body scanning).
The challenge: to test similar FF uniforms

6. THE SAME COMPOSITION, STRUCTURE/LAYERS
DIFFERENT DESIGNS
Ergonomic Standard
Houston
36L pants 36L pants
36L pants4232R jacket
4235R jacket4232R jacket
MATERIALS AND METHODS

7. Ergonomic Houstonshaped pieces
Differences:
-knees;
-armpits;
-elbows;
-length of jacket
-crotch.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Standard

8. ELECTRO-GONIOMETERS
Accuracy: ±2° measured over 90°
Repeatability better than ±1°
MATERIALS AND METHODS

9. Max. value [deg.] = 6.6
Min. value [deg.] = - 158.3
ROM [deg.] = 6.6 + 158.3 = 164.9
How to read the graphs?

10. 7 MOVEMENTS (10 reps. after warm up/1 test per day/4 tests per firefighter/
10 firefighters)
Shoulders abduction
Shoulder vertical flexion
leather, ER, ST
statistically significant diff. p≤ 0.05: RO vs. uniforms
no statistically significant diff.

11. Shoulder vertical
extension
statistically significant diff. p≤ 0.05: RO vs. HO
Statistically
significant diff.
p≤ 0.05:
ER vs. HO;
ST vs. HO;
RO vs. HO
Elbow flexion

12. Shoulder horizontal extension
Shoulder horizontal flexion -
crosstalk
statistically significant diff. p≤ 0.05: RO vs. HO

13. Squat
?
no statistically significant diff. p≤ 0.05
no statistically significant diff. p≤ 0.05: ER v. HO

14. 1
(0) - No problem, very easy to move, no restrictions;
(1) - Some minor restrictions could be noticed, but they don’t influence the ability to complete the movement;
(2) - The restrictions are noticeable and they can limit the movements;
(3) - Strong restrictions, not easy to complete the movement;
(4) - Very strong restrictions, very difficult or impossible to complete the movements.
SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT– 2 separate sets of questionnaires
5 out of 7 movements – ERGONOMIC is the best
2 out of 7 movements – STANDARD is the best

15. Mass of the uniforms [lb]
jacket trousers total
Houston 7.07 3.81 10.88 middle
Ergonomic 5.96 4.97 10.93 the heaviest
Standard 5.98 4.85 10.83 the lightest
How bulky this jacket is?
Very Not at
bulky 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all
How heavy this jacket is?
Heavy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Light
Was your mobility reduced when wearing this jacket ?
Strongly Not
reduced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 at all
How bulky this pair of trousers is?
Very Not
bulky 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 at all
Was your mobility reduced when wearing the trousers?
Strongly Not
reduced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 at all
How heavy this pair of trousers is?
Heavy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Light
2

16. Volume [inch cubic] Torso Volume
Arm Volume
Left
Arm Volume
Right
Leg Volume
Left Leg Volume Right
Surface Area
Total [inch sq]
Surface Area
Torso
Surface Area Arm
Left
9955.23 5679.39 630.106 574.015 1503.57 1519.31 4470.35 1394.16 437.506Ergonomic
6371.5875 4315.65 262.535 279.40125 756.20125 757.9 3394.0375 1216.2125 297.83125T-shirt
10705.6 6114.23 696.428 607.754 1609.18 1664.61 4634.34 1506.67 430.658Houston
10753.6 6511.65 729.448 611.335 1426.62 1493.98 4588.95 1575.52 459.887Standard
5380.6777 3606.0666 259.4955556 266.49 615.5555556 628.22 3143.311111 1116.711111 288.3144444Underwear
3-D surface body scanning by Size Stream

17. Goniometry
(shoulder, elbow, hip *)
Jacket -Subjective
assessment
Trousers - Subjective
assessment
3-D body
scanning -total
3-D body
scanning - arms
3-D body
scanning - legs
Ergonomic Ergonomic Ergonomic Ergonomic Ergonomic Standard The best uniform
Standard Standard Standard Houston Houston Ergonomic Average
Houston Houston Houston Standard Standard Houston The worst uniform

18. SUMMARY
• Limitations of electro-goniometer system and the test battery.
• Modified protocol may help to fully verify the differences between outfits.
• The most reliable exercise/movement demonstrating the difference between the outfits is Elbow
Flexion, next Shoulder vertical flexion and extension.
• A simple movement is more reliable in case of ROM test.
• THE BEST uniform of the three tested is ERGONOMIC, next STANDARD, and the worst is HOUSTON.

19. FUTURE TRENDS
• New standards in Europe and in US -goniometry
• 3-D motion analysis, 3-D surface body scanning in poses - drape of
the fabric – more can be done here.
• EMG + ROM.

20. Emiel DenHartog Roger Barker
http://www.magnum-bonum.eu/
Modelling of human body and protective textiles
for estimation of skin sensorial comfort and life risk of
fire-fighters working in extreme external conditions