Occupational Stress and Strain in Relation to Personal Protective Equipment of Japanese Firefighters Assessed by a Questionnaire

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to elucidate differences in actual work environments, mobility and satisfaction between firefighters wearing aluminized and non-aluminized personal protective equipment (PPE), and to suggest a proper standard test method for Japanese firefighters' PPE. A survey from two cities in Japan (City A: aluminized PPE; City B: non aluminized PPE) was undertaken. A total of 525 firefighters from City A and 757 from City B participated. Firefighters spent 22.5 min (City A) and 27.3 min (City B) on average firefighting with the full set of PPE in one incident, but the heat strain experienced among firefighters from City A was twice that of firefighters from City B (57.5% and 28.4%). Firefighters spent 65.9 min on one incident and 24.2 min for suppression of fire with the full set of PPE on average. The toughest task that caused physical strain in City A was 'stair climbing' and in City B was 'drawing up a hose filled with water'. The most restricted body region due to PPE was the knee for both groups. Evaluations revealed that the aluminized fire jacket had worse ventilation and mobility than the non-aluminized, while the non-aluminized one received with more unfavorable evaluations for water resistance and maintainability.

The Impact of Firefighter Personal Protective Equipment and Treadmill Protocol on Maximal Oxygen Uptake

“…Firefighters complained much more about heat stress from bad ventilation and sweat inside PPE rather than from the heavy PPE when worn in the line of duty. (28) Peak heart rate during exercise wearing firefighter PPE (19 kg) was significantly greater at an air temperature of 32°C than at 22°C (180 ± 17 and 168 ± 18 bpm, respectively). (6) Thus, air temperature should be considered when suggesting a standard test method for the VO 2max of firefighters wearing PPE.…”

The Impact of Occupational Load Carriage on Carrier Mobility: A Critical Review of the Literature

“…While research suggests that some specialist personnel are heavier, stronger, and fitter than their predecessors [4,5,6], the loads that these personnel are required to carry are likewise increasing [6,7,8]. As an example, during World War I, American and Australian military soldiers carried an average load of 30-40 kg [6], whereas during recent conflicts in Afghanistan, soldiers have carried an average load of 44-48 kg [6,9,10].…”

“…While the occupational loads carried by these specialists may be required to minimize the risks associated with their performance of tasks in unpredictable and hostile environments [6,10], the survival of these specialists and their subsequent mission success can depend on their mobility [11]. For military soldiers, reductions in mobility have been shown to alter the tactics of warfare [12,13], impact on mission success [14], and lead to soldiers receiving combat wounds [15] and suffering mortalities [16].…”

“…For military soldiers, reductions in mobility have been shown to alter the tactics of warfare [12,13], impact on mission success [14], and lead to soldiers receiving combat wounds [15] and suffering mortalities [16]. For firefighters, the loads they carry have been claimed to notably restrict movement across the knees and arms [10], and increase the time taken to negotiate emergency escape routes in the wilderness [17]. For police officers, the ability to pursue and apprehend an offender is thought to be impeded [18].…”

Soldier occupational load carriage: a narrative review of associated injuries

“…These occupational loads protect and sustain soldiers during tasks that are often performed in unpredictable and hostile environments (Orr, 2010a;Son, Lee, & Tochihara, 2013). The stores and equipment that constitute these loads can be carried around the body, from helmets, helmet cameras and night vision goggles on the head, to weapons systems in the hands and loads in a backpack (Orr, 2012).…”