Original article

Textile Research Journal

2018, Vol. 88(17) 1979–1991

The influence of designs of protective ! The Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
uniforms on firefighters’ performance DOI: 10.1177/0040517517715084
journals.sagepub.com/home/trj
during moderate physical exercises

Izabela Ciesielska-Wróbel1,2, Emiel DenHartog1

and Roger Barker1

Abstract
The aim of this study was to verify whether the minor differences in the design of uniforms and their fit can be quantified
in terms of their impact on firefighters’ cardiorespiratory parameters and subjective perception of these uniforms. The
impact of minor design improvements compared to the existing designs of personal protective clothing (PPC) is still
relatively difficult to quantify due to the lack of sensitive devices used in smart measuring methodologies; however, the
perception of these slight differences is reported by PPC users. The impact of these design differences in PPC on
firefighters was studied via physiological tests based on occupation-related activities in which cardiorespiratory param-
eters were monitored and three-dimensional (3D) silhouette scanning was performed on the firefighters. Apart from
heart rate (beats/min), none of the other measured physiological parameters, for example, oxygen consumption (VO2,
ml/min) demonstrated statistically significant differences when firefighters were testing uniforms: ergonomic (ER), stand-
ard (ST), bulky (BU), and reference outfit (RO), the latter being T-shirt and shorts. A statistically significant correlation
was found between parameters measured via 3D body scanning and selected cross-sections of the silhouettes as well as
subjective assessments of easiness of specific movement performance during the physiological test and assessment of
bulkiness of the uniforms. There is a limited influence of the minor design differences between firefighters’ uniforms on
the selected physiological parameters of the subjects wearing them. The outcome of the study can be utilized when
performing the test on subjects and improving designs of PPC.

Keywords
protective uniforms for firefighters, designs of uniforms, cardiorespiratory parameters, ergonomic comfort in textiles

In order to fulfill personal protective clothing (PPC)
requirements, such as protection against thermal inju-
ries, abrasions and cuts, debris penetration, etc., PPC
must be made of layers of materials composed of high-
performance fibers. These layers are made of high-
density fire-resistant fabrics and sometimes quilted
non-wovens. All these components make PPC bulky,
stiff, and uncomfortable. Ergonomic comfort depends
on design, size, weight, and stiffness of the materials of
the system and on clothing bulkiness.1–3 As previously
demonstrated, PPC utilization adversely affects both
physiological and ergonomic comfort.2,4 Innovation in
the design of PPC or the replacement of only some
parts of the protective fabrics with others usually
takes some time and requires testing the new PPC
against many parameters, with the final tests being
performed on human subjects. Significant improve-
ments in PPC may be easily noticed and measured, as
well as their impact on the firefighter’s performance, for
example, lower oxygen consumption (VO2) in improved
PPC.5,6 However, nowadays we face many mainly small
improvements in the design of the uniforms rather than
1
Textile Protection and Comfort Center (T-PACC), College of Textiles,
North Carolina State University, USA
2
Centre for Textile Science and Engineering, Department of Materials,
Textiles and Chemical Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium
Corresponding author:
Izabela Ciesielska-Wro· bel, Ghent University, Technologiepark 907,
Ghent, Zwijnaarde 9052, Belgium.
Email: Izabela.CiesielskaWrobel@UGent.be
1980
a total change of approach to match firefighter
suits with a self-contained breathing apparatus
(SCBA) in addition to the rest of the necessary equip-
ment. The impact of such improvements compared to
the existing designs of PPC is still relatively difficult to
quantify, especially if the structure and material com-
position remain the same. It is also difficult to detect,
due to lack of sensitive devices used in smart measuring
methodologies, like these presented in previous stu-
dies;7,8 however, these slight differences are often
reported by PPC user groups.9,10 The authors of some
previous studies concluded that the small differences
between the turnout gears in terms of design, and
even thickness and insulation value, had no effect on
the resulting heat physiological strain for the given
experimental conditions, which were cycling for
20 min at 50 W at room temperature to warm up and
then walking at 5 km/h for 30 min at 55 C until exhaus-
tion or until a rectal temperature of 39 C is reached.11
The physiological strain was considerable due to the
combination of physical work and heat stress.
Usually, the test battery utilized in wear trials is com-
posed of occupation-related activities, which are
moving around the accident scene, handling heavy
equipment, dragging ropes, firehoses, casualties,
giving assistance to casualties,12–17 and also walking,
lifting and bending the arms, kneeling, crawling,
ladder climbing, etc., while wearing PPC and equip-
ment.18–22 Therefore, it is worth considering whether
a lower impact, moderate physical exercise, apart
from fast walking, should be utilized in the test battery
to measure the small differences in the uniform designs’
impact on subjects’ performance. In order to verify the
impact of the fit of uniforms on the comfort of their
users, some studies propose three-dimensional (3D)
body scanning. The authors of the current study have
already verified the impact of the ergonomic (ER),
standard (ST), and bulky (BU) parameters on the
range of motion (ROM) of subjects in a separate
study and the results suggested that there is a statistic-
ally significant difference between the ROM in subjects
depending on the tested uniforms.9
The goals of this study were to verify whether the
minor differences in the designs of the uniform and the
uniform fit can be quantified in terms of their impact on
firefighters’ cardiorespiratory parameters and subject-
ive perception of these uniforms. Only a moderate
physical effort is proposed in the test battery to give
subjects the opportunity to remain focused on the
PPC’s designs rather than on physically demanding
tests. In addition, a 3D surface body scanning tech-
nique is applied to observe the effect of very similar
designs of uniforms on the level of difficulty related
to movement performance, overall comfort, fit, and
bulkiness.
Textile Research Journal 88(17)
Materials and methods
Subjects
Ten healthy, physically and professionally active male
subjects from Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, volun-
teered for this study. This research complied with the
American Psychological Association Code of Ethics
and was approved by the Institutional Review Board
at North Carolina State University. Informed consent
was obtained from each subject (firefighters). Each fire-
fighter was invited up to four times (four different days)
to the laboratory so that only one outfit was tested per
day by a subject. The characteristics of the group are
presented in Table 1. None of the subjects had a previ-
ous history of joint, muscle, or gait or posture impair-
ment. None of them were smokers. Subjects did not
take any medication before the study. Subjects utilized
their own comfortable sport shoes instead of boots.
This trial is part of a larger test aiming to assess wear
comfort in firefighters.9
Description of the outfits
Four outfits were tested during the test protocol. Three
of them were structural firefighter uniforms: ergonomic
(ER), which has shaped elbows and knees; standard
(ST), which is larger and expected to be more bulky
and more restrictive in terms of movements; and
bulky (BU), with a very bulky jacket, containing an
additional layer of protective materials to protect
elbows and knees, presented in Figure 1.
The fourth outfit was a reference outfit (RO) – a
regular T-shirt and shorts, composed of 100% cotton.
The reasons for the selection of these uniforms were
their similarities in terms of their mass, design, identical
strata order and their quality, and the composition of
their protective fabrics (Table 2).
The size of all the trousers was the same, 36 L (large),
and the size of the jacket of ER and BU was 42/32R
(chest circumferential/sleeve length/regular), while ST
was 42/35R. In spite of the fact that the ST trousers
were labeled as 36 L, they were one inch longer. The
outer layer of the uniforms was made of 60% para-
aramid, 40% PBI Matrix, with a weight of 7.16 oz/sq
yd (243 g/m2) and a thickness of 0.4 mm. The middle
Table 1. Participant demographic characteristics
Variable Mean  SD
Body mass [kg] 85.20  6.20
Height [m] 1.80  0.10
Age [yrs.] 35.90  6.60
Body mass index [kg/m2] 25.80  2.30
Ciesielska-Wróbel et al. 1981

Figure 1. Three firefighter structural uniforms, which were tested in the course of the study: (a) the ergonomic (ER) jacket; (b) the
standard (ST) jacket; (c) the bulky (BU) jacket; (d) storm flap closure with hook and loop (Velcro) and thermoplastic zipper jacket
closure in the ER jacket; (e) closure with hook and loop (Velcro) and metal clips in the ST jacket; in the BU jacket the system of clips is
attached to the Velcro closure; (f) the ER trousers; (g) the ST trousers; (h) the BU trousers; (i) sleeves of the ER; (j) sleeves of the ST;
(k) sleeves of the BU.9
1982
Table 2. The characteristics of the outfits utilized in the study9
Mass [kg]
Outfit Jacket Trousers Total
ER 2.70 2.26 4.96; the heaviest
ST 2.71 2.20 4.91; the lightest
BU 3.21 1.73 4.94; in between
RO T-shirt & 0.15 Shorts & 0.35 M, L, XL depending
on needs
ER: ergonomic; ST: standard; BU: bulky; RO: reference outfit.
layer of the uniforms, a moisture barrier, was made
with a weight of 4.8 oz/sq yd (163 g/m2) and a thickness
of 0.34 mm. The inner layer of the uniform – the
one that is the closest to the body – was made of
100% aramid quilt, with a weight of 7.52 oz/sq yd
(254 g/m2) and a thickness of 1.23 mm, which consisted
of a multi-layer combination that includes a facecloth
fabric, quilted to a single layer. This was combined with
the moisture barrier. Sports shoes were utilized during
the test. Neither suspenders nor SCBA or other equip-
ment, such as gloves or helmets, were utilized. This set
of uniforms was utilized for another purpose in a pre-
vious study.9
Test protocol
Toward the end of the 15-min period of resting in a
sitting position, which was an acclimatization period
of time, the subjects were familiarized with question-
naires concerning their subjective evaluation of the out-
fits. During this time they were wearing the RO. Next,
they were equipped with a heart rate (HR) sensor strap
by Polar, which was attached to their chests, then asked
to don one of the testing outfits. The RO was always
under each of the tested uniforms. The order of using
uniforms by the subjects was randomized. Next, they
were also equipped with a mask for monitoring respira-
tory parameters. The mask was attached to the Cardio
CoachTM Model 9002 by Korr. Cardiorespiratory par-
ameters were determined by using an automated proto-
col predefined in the Cardio CoachTM software Cardio
CoachTM Monitor 3, so it was synchronized with the
design of the protocol. The following physiological par-
ameters were measured in the course of the experiment:
HR (beats/min), oxygen consumption (VO2, ml/min),
carbon dioxide output (VCO2, ml/min), respiratory
minute volume (Ve, ml/min), and respiratory exchange
ratio (RER). The laboratory conditions were stable at
21 C  1.5 C and 65%  3% relative humidity (RH).
The test protocol contained the following elements:
. first resting in a sitting position for 5 min;
Textile Research Journal 88(17)
. both shoulders abduction and reaching a specific
benchmark for 5 min;
. second resting in a sitting position for 5 min;
. simulation of ladder climbing, which was lifting legs
to reach the second rung alternately for a period of
5 min;
. third resting in a sitting position for 5 min;
. simulation of rope pulling, alternating hands for
5 min;
. fourth resting in a sitting position for 5 min;
. performance of lunges with alternating legs for
5 min.
After completing these tests they were asked to
remove the uniform, mask, and HR sensor, and to sit
and rest. The tests were carried out at least 2 days apart
for each firefighter to allow proper recovery. One sub-
ject could test one outfit per day. The subjects repeated
the movements required by the protocol with the same
speed of 27 beeps/min, measured by a metronome.
After completing the test, they were asked to fill in
two questionnaires, concerning their subjective evalu-
ation of the outfits. Additionally and independently
from the test protocol, subjects’ body surfaces were
scanned when wearing: only underwear (UW); UW +
RO; UW + RO + ER; UW + RO + ST; UM +
RO + BU.
Three-dimensional body scanning and
scan processing
The Size Stream 3D body scanner by Size Stream, LLC,
Cary, NC, USA, is a full-body, non-contact surface
scanner that utilizes depth sensor technology to create
a 3D computer image of the surface, from which accur-
ate measurements can be obtained.23 Each surface body
scanning allowed the collection of 92 measurements
within 12 s, for example, shoulder length, surface
area, etc. The most important for the current study
were the volumes of the whole silhouettes of the sub-
jects wearing specific outfits and the volumes of the
specific parts of their bodies, for example, legs.
Independently from the measurements provided by
Size Stream, all full-body scans – avatars of subjects
wearing different outfits – were uploaded to
MeshLab_64 bit ver. 1.3.4 BETA to perform further
processing of the scans.24 The reason for employing
this software was a need to create cross-sections of
the avatars in selected spots: shoulder level at a height
of 1350 mm; hip level at a height of 770 mm; knee level
at a height of 500 mm. The selection of these spots is
strictly related to the differences in designs of uniforms.
It means that the selected uniforms differ only very little
on the level of design, and the locations of the differ-
ences are the shoulders (with armpits), hips (crotch of
Ciesielska-Wróbel et al.
the trousers), and knees. These cross-sections could
reveal information about the adherence of fabrics to
the body and their drape on the bodies of subjects
when the cross-sections are compared with each
other. This can be assessed by the edge shape of the
avatars’ cross-section curves – a polyline. Polylines,
representing the edges of cross-sections, are continuous
lines composed of one or more line segments and, in
the case of the presented cross-sections, these are the
curves that surround these cross-sections. Information
about the bulkiness of the uniforms can be obtained in
the specific places on the bodies of subjects. In add-
ition, the cross-sections’ surfaces were measured and
compared.
Subjective assessment of the comfort of wearing
outfits and ease of movement performance when
wearing them
In the first questionnaire, subjects were asked to assess
the ease of movement performance – (1) shoulder
abduction; (2) leg lifting; (3) elbow abduction;
(4) lunges – when wearing the tested outfits by ascribing
values from 0 to 4, where 0 refers to ‘no problem, very
easy to move, no restrictions’, and 4 refers to ‘very
strong restrictions, very difficult, or impossible to com-
plete the movements’. A five-level scale of the question-
naires was built and adapted from a common five-level
Likert scale,25 widely utilized in psychometric research,
that employs questionnaires. Another reason for select-
ing a five-level scale is the fact that all the degrees in this
scale are easy to distinguish so the subjects were able to
select a proper degree without difficulty and ambiguity,
and the fact that these questionnaires were already
built.
The second questionnaire was composed of two
sheets, one referring to assessment of the jacket, and
one referring to assessment of the trousers. This ques-
tionnaire was inspired by a previous study.9,26 The
questionnaire contained the following questions: How
does the clothing fit? (1 is ‘too small’ and 7 is ‘too
large’); Do you think this clothing is bulky? (1 is ‘very
bulky’ and 7 is ‘not at all’).
Data analysis
A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was performed utilizing IBM SPSS
Statistics (ver. 22) to compare the effect of outfits
(RO, ER, ST, and BU) on the selected cardiorespira-
tory parameters that were monitored during the eight-
stage experiment (first resting in a sitting position; both
shoulders abduction; second resting in a sitting pos-
ition; simulation of ladder climbing; third resting in a
sitting position; simulation of a rope pulling; fourth
1983
resting in sitting position; performance of lunges).
The two factors in the test were the outfit types and
the stages of the experiment, called ‘time’ for simplicity.
Results
Cardiorespiratory parameter measurements
The exemplary range of HR, VO2, and VCO2 param-
eters monitored during the test for one of the subjects
wearing ER is presented in Figure 2. Furthermore, each
of the images presented below Figure 2 corresponds to
specific tasks taken by the subjects during the test
protocol. In order to demonstrate all the activities
and all the tested outfits, the selected pictures present
different subjects performing different tasks and wear-
ing different outfits.
The ANOVA yielded very few statistically significant
relations between the type of the outfit, the exercise
type performed within a specific period of time, and
the cardiovascular parameters (HR, VO2, VCO2, Ve,
RER) measured during the test. However, this still
may suggest that the effect of the outfit, although
very limited, may enhance or diminish performance.
The results of this ANOVA test indicated a statistically
significant outfit effect only in the case of HR;
F(3,27) ¼ 3.971, p ¼ 0.025. The remaining measured
parameters demonstrated a statistically significant
effect of time, within which eight different stages of
the test took place. In addition, almost all measured
parameters indicated the statistically significant differ-
ence between the interaction of outfit with time,
F(21,189) ¼ 2.2122, p ¼ 0.004. Only in the case of
RER was this interaction not statistically significant.
The detailed comparison was performed by the post
hoc least significant difference (LSD) test, the results
of which are presented in Table 3. The summary of
all cardiorespiratory parameters that were monitored
during the physiological tests on the subjects is pre-
sented in Table 3. This table contains both 40-min aver-
age values and the values concerning specific parts in
the test protocol.
Three-dimensional body surface scanning and
processing outcome
Figure 3 presents an exemplary set of five refined ava-
tars formed based on the subjects’ surface body scans.
The 3D surface body scanning allowed the collection of
measurements of the subject wearing different outfits,
and to compare them in order to select bulkiest one,
which is BU since the silhouette of the subject wearing
it has the highest volume, although in case of the ST the
average volumes both arms and legs were higher. The
measurements are presented in Table 4.
1984 Textile Research Journal 88(17)

Figure 2. Summary of the selected cardiorespiratory parameters monitored during the physiological test on the subjects: (a) oxygen
consumption (VO2), carbon dioxide output (VCO2) and heart rate (HR) level during the test protocol together with pictures
demonstrating elements of the protocol: first sitting corresponds to (b); shoulder abduction corresponds to (c); second sitting
corresponds to (b); ladder climbing corresponds to (d); third sitting corresponds to (b); rope pulling corresponds to (e); fourth sitting
corresponds to (b); performance of lunges corresponds to (f).

The approach of volume overall assessment of the
silhouettes wearing different outfits does not provide
very detailed information about the fit of the uniforms;
however, it is necessary for providing information
about the overall bulkiness of the firefighters’ outfit.
It also allows making a link between the objective
(3D body scans) and subjective research (question-
naires) approach proposed in this study. The avatars
were further processed using MeshLab 64 bit v1.3.4
BETA software to analyze their cross-sections in
selected places (shoulders, hips, and knees) to observe
polylines representing the edges of cross-sections.
Selected polylines are presented in Figure 4 and the
surfaces of the cross-sections at selected places on the
avatars are presented in Table 5. Polylines inform dir-
ectly about the drape-ability of the fabrics on the ava-
tars. In addition, the cross-sections’ surfaces were
measured and compared. Figure 4(a) presents an
avatar of one of the subjects wearing the ER uniform,
with polylines marked at the shoulder level, at a height
of 1350 mm; at hip level, at a height of 770 mm; and at
knee level, at a height of 500 mm.
The polylines that are visible in Figure 4(a) around
the shoulders, hips, and knees are the polylines that
come from the cross-sections performed on the sub-
ject’s avatars when he was wearing other uniforms. In
order to accomplish this, all avatars of a single subject
wearing different outfits were superimposed using
MeshLab 64 bit v1.3.4 BETA software.
The most variated polylines can be observed in the
shoulder cross-sections of the BU and the ST uniforms.
This suggests excess of the fabric, and thus bulkiness of
the jacket around the shoulder area. In the case of
polylines obtained from hip cross-sections, the most
variated one is that of the ST due to the length of the
ST jacket and the fact that the ST jacket has some
limited support on the hip level. The data presented
in Table 5 supports this statement. The surface of the
cross-section at the level of shoulders is the highest in
the case of BU; however, the highest cross-section at
the hip level and at the knee level was found in the case
of ST. This corresponds with the findings presented in
Table 4, where the total volume and the torso volume
were the highest when firefighters were wearing the BU
uniform and the highest volume of legs was observed
for the ST. A very high value of hip cross-section for
the ST comes from the length of the ST jacket, which
can be observed in Figure 3(d).
Ciesielska-Wróbel et al. 1985

Table 3. Mean values  standard deviation (SD) of measured cardiorespiratory parameters obtained when subjects were wearing
the reference outfit (RO), ergonomic (ER), standard (ST), and bulky (BU) outfits. The values per specific task were obtained by
selecting the last 3 min and averaging it for each task

Mean value  SD

Compared parameters RO ER ST BU

HR [bpm] 40-min test ! 76.91  10.35 84.17  11.93 82.12  12.60 79.64  11.60a
1st resting in a sitting position 65.82  9.95* 67.78  8.22* 66.84  10.34 64.11  10.09*a
Shoulder abduction 77.35  9.67* 87.42  14.34* 83.56  13.95 80.58  11.29*a
2nd resting in a sitting position 64.39  9.88* 67.22  9.89* 66.68  11.45 62.70  9.60*a
Ladder climbing 76.77  10.76* 91.11  13.72* 90.74  15.63 86.27  14.54*a
3rd resting in a sitting position 65.21  11.85* 70.99  11.78* 69.35  12.00 66.61  10.09*a
Rope pulling 80.69  10.22* 90.92  12.00* 88.05  13.79a 88.38  13.47*
4th resting in sitting position 64.71  9.54* 70.66  9.37* 68.02  8.79 67.28  10.03*a
Lunges 115.77  17.86* 120.04  26.63* 117.31  24.59a 121.72  20.88*
VO2 [ml/min] 40-min test ! 577.03  53.16 612.94  67.59 598.23  56.33 597.78  49.07a
1st resting in a sitting position 276.60  35.06 297.32  28.21 316.31  51.03 280.89  40.79a
Shoulder abduction 514.70  54.81 551.85  64.13 527.53  38.56a 540.01  45.12
2nd resting in a sitting position 315.38  48.83 325.46  48.68a 334.33  47.85 337.61  45.25
Ladder climbing 698.88  74.50 949.96  158.61 962.99  127.14 891.86  134.01a
3rd resting in a sitting position 355.90  59.40 367.19  39.52 363.31  40.38 345.71  50.17a
Rope pulling 450.44  60.08 476.99  69.45 441.99  74.36a 447.24  64.00
4th resting in sitting position 319.21  54.92 322.90  47.11 305.74  27.01a 336.11  43.40
Lunges 1696.26  136.66 1466.05  456.67a 1565.31  471.46 1709.71  179.61
VCO2 [ml/min] 40-min test ! 515.68  48.38 546.24  65.91 541.13  50.33 532.40  35.16a
1st resting in a sitting position 289.95  44.02 272.23  30.42 259.72  36.61a 264.62  34.76
Shoulder abduction 466.32  57.61 511.54  73.24 493.54  55.93a 509.07  47.76
2nd resting in a sitting position 295.01  42.04 282.91  43.80a 287.26  44.73 299.88  29.72
Ladder climbing 579.34  66.55 779.66  117.66 821.09  125.82 749.20  99.56
3rd resting in a sitting position 322.88  53.66 350.65  36.57 347.63  38.78 334.55  32.44a
Rope pulling 428.28  71.15 441.51  61.28 411.86  62.73a 413.90  62.02
4th resting in sitting position 297.79  51.07 292.90  39.12 279.91  31.81a 302.54  31.67
Lunges 1507.19  196.36 1292.30  422.58a 1403.71  446.75 1522.73  209.37
Ve [ml/min] 40-min test ! 16.93  1.56 18.01  1.79 18.15  1.52 17.86  1.20a
1st resting in a sitting position 10.41  1.59 10.01  1.07 9.86  1.33a 9.95  0.91
Shoulder abduction 15.59  2.11 16.84  2.72 16.71  2.08 16.70  1.76a
2nd resting in a sitting position 10.70  1.27 10.00  1.59a 10.46  1.59 10.94  1.47
Ladder climbing 18.38  2.03 23.71  3.15 25.07  3.55 23.45  3.24a
3rd resting in a sitting position 11.43  1.80 12.33  1.43 12.17  1.35 11.89  0.97a
Rope pulling 15.77  2.31 16.48  1.95 15.67  1.75a 15.80  1.72
4th resting in sitting position 11.14  1.68 11.09  1.95 10.80  1.49a 11.68  0.79
Lunges 42.43  5.57 38.36  12.04a 42.01  12.92 45.05  7.46
RER [no unit] 40-min test ! 0.91  0.03 0.92  0.04 0.92  0.04 0.90  0.04a
1st resting in a sitting position 0.91  0.03 0.91  0.04 0.93  0.05 0.91  0.05
Shoulder abduction 0.90  0.04 0.92  0.09 0.93  0.06 0.91  0.06a
2nd resting in a sitting position 0.88  0.05 0.87  0.05a 0.91  0.06 0.89  0.07
Ladder climbing 0.82  0.02 0.82  0.03a 0.85  0.04 0.83  0.04
3rd resting in a sitting position 0.90  0.04 0.95  0.05 0.96  0.06 0.93  0.06a
Rope pulling 0.95  0.06 0.92  0.05 0.93  0.04 0.92  0.04
(continued)
1986 Textile Research Journal 88(17)

Table 3. Continued

Mean value  SD

Compared parameters RO ER ST BU

4th resting in sitting position 0.94  0.06 0.92  0.06 0.91  0.05 0.91  0.06
Lunges 0.88  0.08 0.88  0.07a 0.90  0.08 0.89  0.08
*Statistically significant difference between RO versus BU and ER versus BU, p  0.05 based on two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance post
hoc least significant difference test.
a
The lowest value out of three tested personal protective clothings.
HR: heart rate; RER: respiratory exchange ratio.

Figure 3. Three-dimensional body scans of one of the subjects, wearing (a) underwear, (b) reference outfit, (c) ergonomic,
(d) standard, and (e) bulky.

Table 4. The average measurements of bodies of subjects wearing different outfits obtained by the means
of three-dimensional surface body scanner  SD

[m3]

Type of Arms average Legs average

outfit Total volume  SD Torso volume  SD volume  SD volume  SD

UW 0.0882  0.0005 0.0591  0.0004 0.0043  0.0001 0.0101  0.0004

RO 0.1044  0.0007 0.0707  0.0005 0.0044  0.0003 0.0124  0.0007
ER 0.1632  0.0008 0.0930  0.0005 0.0101  0.0003 0.0247  0.0008
BU 0.1762  0.0009a 0.1067  0.0007a 0.0106  0.0003 0.0239  0.0009
ST 0.1754  0.0008 0.1002  0.0007 0.0107  0.0005a 0.0268  0.0009a
a
The highest value among the five scanned outfits.
UW: underwear; ER: ergonomic; ST: standard; BU: bulky; RO: reference outfit.

Subjective assessment results

The outcome of the first survey, which contained ques-
tions about ease of movement performance in the tested
outfits, is presented in Figure 5. This suggests that the
BU uniform was the least comfortable and the ER uni-
form the most comfortable during the performance of
specific movements. The ST uniform was only slightly
worse than the ER uniform in most cases. The subject-
ive assessment of the RO was always very positive
(score 0), so it was not included in Figure 5.
Overall, the second survey indicates that the BU
jacket and trousers are the least comfortable and the
ER jacket and trousers the most comfortable. For the
question, How do the jacket/trousers fit?, subjects
answered that the BU is the largest of the jackets and
trousers (perception scale: 4.5). However, this assess-
ment, graphically presented in Figure 6, indicates that
the BU jacket and trousers are perceived the same way
as the ST trousers and both are slightly larger than the
ER trousers.
Ciesielska-Wróbel et al. 1987

Figure 4. The set of images includes: (a) an avatar of a subject wearing ergonomic (ER) uniform with orientation lines and several
polylines representing the lines of cross-sections for ER and other outfits; polylines representing the edges of cross-sections of a
subject wearing different outfits were performed (b) at a height of 1350 mm – shoulders; (c) at a height of 770 mm – hips; (d) at a
height of 500 mm – knees; polylines reflecting the shapes of the cross-sections performed at the level of shoulder for the (e) nude
subject; (f) subject wearing the reference outfit; (g) subject wearing ER; (h) subject wearing bulky, and (i) subject wearing standard.

Table 5. The average surface of avatars’ cross-sections per- Comparison of the results of the tests obtained by
formed at shoulder level, hips, and knees using MeshLab software
subjective and objective assessment of the outfits
Surface of the cross-sections [pixels]
at the level of: In order to compare the selected results of the test pre-
Type of sented in the study, Pearson’s correlation was per-
outfit shoulders hips knees formed for several dependent variables for all four
outfits, for example, HR, avatars’ total volume (vol.),
UW 99,608 70,850 24,768
avatars’ shoulder cross-section surface, and the out-
RO 106,054 88,811 37,855
come of the subjective assessment of the outfits by the
ER 136,365 118,728 64,208 subjects, ease of task performance in the outfits (ease),
BU 149,843a 118,240 76,516 their bulkiness (bulkiness), and their fit (fit). The cor-
ST 140,790 147,107a 77,243a relation results are presented in Table 6.
a
The highest value among the five scanned outfits. As was expected, there are correlations between
UW: underwear; ER: ergonomic; ST: standard; BU: bulky; RO: reference selected parameters of the avatar volumes and their
outfit. cross-sections, for example, between the total avatar
vol. and torso vol. (r ¼ 0.98), arms vol. (r ¼ 0.98). In
For the question, How bulky are the jacket/trousers?, addition, there is a correlation between total avatar
subjects answered that the BU jacket and trousers were vol. and ease of movement perception (r ¼ –0.96) and
the most bulky and the ER jacket and trousers were the perception of the bulkiness of uniforms (r ¼ 0.96).
least bulky, which is graphically presented in Figure 7. There is no statistically significant correlation between
1988 Textile Research Journal 88(17)

negative ER BU ST

PERCEPTION SCALE

2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6

1.5
1.1
0.8

0.8
1

0.7
positive ARMS LIFTING SHOULDER ELBOW FLEXION KNEELING
ABDUCTION

Figure 5. The assessment of ease of performing the following movements: arm lifting, shoulder abduction, elbow flexion, kneeling
when wearing different uniforms: ergonomic (ER); bulky (BU), and standard (ST).

test. Although their impression of the ER uniform did

too large
HOW DO THE JACKET/TROUSERS FIT? not change much after the physiological test, and this
uniform was believed to be the most comfortable, car-
PERCEPTION SCALE

jacket trousers
diorespiratory parameters demonstrated that the BU
4.5
4.5

4.5
4.1
3.9

3.9

was in fact the most comfortable of the uniforms.

4
4

ideal
When performing physical effort in the BU uniform,
the 40-min average of HR was at its lowest to compare
too small to ER and ST. In addition, it was at its lowest in almost
ER RO BU ST
all protocol stages, apart from rope pulling and lunges.
HR was significantly different from the RO (p ¼ 0.004)
Figure 6. Average perception of the fit of the tested uniforms. and from the ER (p ¼ 0.003). This means that wearing
ER: ergonomic; RO: reference outfit; BU: bulky; ST: standard. the BU uniform was less tiring for subjects when they
were making physical effort or subjects performed less
effort. It may seem that the BU uniform limits subjects
in their motions to such an extent that they lower their
HOW BULKY ARE THE JACKET/TROUSERS? effort due to perceived restriction coming from wearing
6.6
6.6

not bulky the BU uniform. This would explain the reduced

PERCEPTION SCALE

jacket trousers physiological strain combined with the worse comfort

4.6

scores in the case of BU. HR was the only physiological

4.3

3.5
3.4

mediocre parameter that was found to be significantly different

2.9

when a physiological test was performed in four sets of

2.1

outfits. Comparisons of VO2 and VCO2 between the

very bulky
ER
Figure 7. Average perception of the bulkiness of the tested
jackets and trousers.
ER: ergonomic; RO: reference outfit; BU: bulky; ST: standard.
HR and subjective assessment (easiness, bulkiness,
and fit).
Discussion
Before the start of the experiment, the subjects all felt
that the BU uniform seemed heavy and bulky com-
pared to the ER and ST, and that they might feel dis-
comfort when wearing it. They reported a similar but
less intense sensation after the physiological test, which
was not supported by the results of the physiological
RO BU ST
different outfits showed that these parameters were
close to the statistically significant threshold
(p > 0.05). It is believed that the main factor influencing
this result was the design of the uniforms being related
to their mass (Table 2).
ER was the heaviest of all uniforms, although the
ER jacket was much lighter than the bulky BU jacket.
The ER jacket and trousers had leather patches on
shoulders, elbows, and knees, which made these uni-
forms heavier. At the same time, the overall volume
when the ER was worn by subjects was the lowest of
all three tested uniforms. The excess draped fabric may
be considered an additional burden, which was the case
with the BU uniform. In reality, more fabric was used
to produce the ergonomic design of the ER uniform
where a large number of its elements were shaped,
and these elements remained close to the body. The
larger pieces of fabric in the BU uniform were draped
Ciesielska-Wróbel et al. 1989

Table 6. Summary of Pearson’s correlation between selected parameters

HR Total Torso Arms Legs Shoulders Hips Knees

[bits/ avatar vol. vol. vol. sec. sec sec.
min] vol. [m3] [m3] [m3] [m3] [pixels] [pixels] [pixels] Ease Bulkiness Fit

HR [bits/min] 1 0.66 0.54 0.77 0.83 0.60 0.69 0.61 0.48 0.45 0.01
Total avatar 1 0.98* 0.98* 0.96* 0.98* 0.87 0.99** 0.96* 0.96* 0.75
volume [m3]
Torso vol. [m3] 1 0.96* 0.90 0.99** 0.77 0.98* 0.99** 0.99** 0.81
Arms vol. [m3] 1 0.98* 0.97* 0.85 0.97* 0.93 0.92 0.63
Legs vol. [m3] 1 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.57
Shoulders sec. 1 0.75 0.97* 0.99** 0.98* 0.75
[pixels]
Hips sec. [pixels] 1 0.88 0.70 0.73 0.62
Knees sec. [pixels] 1 0.96* 0.97* 0.80
Ease 1 0.99** 0.82
Bulkiness 1 0.86
Fit 1
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
HR: heart rate.

over the body of the wearer, increasing the total volume
of the whole silhouette. However, HR, VO2 and VCO2
achieved higher values than when wearing the ST
(although no statistically significant differences were
observed between ER and ST), and they were the
lowest when they were wearing the BU. RER is
known to increase during physical exercise due to the
increased CO2 excretion, which was also noticed in this
study, but the RER value was never more than 0.96
and, thus, the quantity of VCO2 was always lower
than that of VO2. This suggests that the intensity of
physical effort was rather moderate, especially for the
subjects who were professional firefighters accustomed
to physical effort.27 Table 3 containing the summary of
all physiological parameters monitored, and from this it
is clear that there is no steady increase of the monitored
parameters in the case of any specific uniform. Thus,
the 40-min average values of parameters should not be
considered only in their entirety. It is necessary to refer
to the parameters measured within specific stages of the
protocol; for example, when subjects were wearing the
ER during lunge performance, they obtained the lowest
value of VO2 (1466.05  456.67 [ml/min]) compared to
the ST (1565.31  471.46 [ml/min]) and the BU
(1709.71  179.61 [ml/min]). This suggests that the
design of the ER trousers could enhance the lunge per-
formance. As proof of this statement, one proposes
utilization of a parameter called the surface of the
cross-section, which in the case of the performance of
lunges can be related to the shape of the knees in the
legs of the trousers. In the case of the ER trousers, the
surface of the cross-section measured on the level of
the knee in the ER is the lowest (64,208 pixels). This
suggests a modest leeway between the skin of the sub-
jects and the fabric of the trousers.
The BU uniform had the lowest overall value of VO2
(597.78  49.07 [ml/min]). Three-dimensional body
scanning is a reliable tool allowing study of the bulki-
ness of the uniforms as worn by subjects, and also the
drape of the fabric of the outfits. Further analysis of the
avatars provides detailed information about the silhou-
ettes of subjects when wearing the outfits. Three-dimen-
sional body scanning seems to provide a connection
between the opinions of the subjects and the objective
information obtained by measuring cardiorespiratory
parameters. It seems that none of the tested uniforms
was ideal in the opinion of subjects and in the light of
the evidences, although the most satisfying seems to be
design solutions present in the ER uniform. In order to
offer better protection for firefighters, one may com-
pose a new uniform based on the design solutions
offered by all three tested uniforms, for example, the
elbow and the knees of the re-designed novel uniform
can be shaped as in case of the ER uniforms, but the
hip could be re-designed along the lines of the BU
trousers.
Conclusions
Even if the design of the uniforms is the only major
factor differentiating them, it is still possible to reveal
the impact of this factor on the physiological param-
eters of subjects wearing them. It is probably possible
due to low impact test battery utilized in this study.
1990
The design of the uniforms has an effect on the HR of
subjects performing physical effort when wearing these
uniforms, and this is the only parameter found to be
statistically significant among all compared parameters.
In contrast to the sensation subjects had after wearing
all tested uniforms, the BU uniform rated the best for
physiological comfort, as the most bulky, compared to
the other uniforms tested. The bulkiness of the outfits
and the drape of the fabric can be successfully visua-
lized using a 3D body scanning system that allowed
avatars of the subjects to be obtained, and their math-
ematical assessment. The changes in physiological par-
ameters recorded during the physical effort were very
limited in relation to the uniforms used in the experi-
ment, but it was enough to demonstrate that the BU
uniform had a lower physiological load. Drape of the
fabric on the silhouette wearing PPC, the overall and
the detailed bulkiness should be assessed in studies
similar to the that proposed by the authors, as these
parameters may provide the additional information
helping to draw conclusions about the ergonomic
wear comfort in PPC. The limitation of the proposed
methodology is related to the great similarity of the
PPCs and the fact that they offer a great leeway
between the surface of the body and the outer shell of
the clothing, which does not provide many contact
points/restrictors between the body and clothing.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr Cynthia L Istook and Dr
Katherine Annett-Hitchcock for their support in 3D body
scanning and to Mr Anthoney Deaton for his help in wear
trials performance.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This work was supported by the European Commission, the
7th European Framework, Marie Curie International
Outgoing Fellowship Magnum Bonum project (Grant
Number 622043).
References
1. Boorady LM, Barker J, Lee Y-A, et al. Exploration of
firefighter turnout gear; Part 1: identifying male firefighter
use needs. J Text Apparel Technol Manag 2013; 8: 1–13.
2. Dorman LE and Havenith G. The effects of protective
clothing on energy consumption during different activities.
Eur J Appl Physiol 2009; 105: 463–470.
Textile Research Journal 88(17)
3. Park H, Park J, Lin S, et al. Assessment of Firefighters’
needs for personal protective equipment. Fashion Text
2014; 1: 8.
4. Murphy MM, Patton J, Mello R, et al. Energy cost of
physical task performance in men and women wearing
chemical protective clothing. Aviat Space Environ Med
2001; 72: 25–31.
5. Lee J-Y, Bakri I, Kim J-H, et al. The impact of firefighter
personal protective equipment and treadmill protocol on
maximal oxygen uptake. J Occup Environ Hyg 2013; 10:
397–407.
6. Song G, Mandal S and Rossi R. Thermal protective cloth-
ing for firefighters. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Woodhead
Publishing, 2016.
7. Coca A, Roberge RJ, Williams WJ, et al. Physiological
monitoring in firefighter ensembles: wearable plethysmo-
graphic sensor vest versus standard equipment. J Occup
Environ Hyg 2010; 7: 109–114.
8. Smith DL, Haller JM and Dolezal BA. Evaluation of a
wearable physiological status monitor during simulated
fire fighting activities. J Occup Environ Hyg 2014; 11:
427–433.
9. Ciesielska-Wróbel I, DenHartog E and Barker B.
Measuring the effects of structural turnout suits on fire-
fighter range of motion and comfort. Ergonomics 2016; 9:
1–11.
10. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T). Study report Advanced
Personal Protection System (APPS), Wildland
Firefighter Personal Protection Equipment (WLFF
PPE) Clothing System Program, https://www.dhs.gov/
sites/default/files/publications/APPS%20-%20WLFF%
20PPE%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf (June 2014,
accessed 23 March 2017).
11. Holmér I, Kuklane K and Gao C. Test of firefighter’s
turnout gear in hot and humid air exposure. Int J
Occup Saf Ergon 2006; 12: 297–305.
12. Beach T, Frost D, McGill S, et al. Physical fitness
improvements and occupational low-back loading – an
exercise intervention study with firefighters. Ergonomics
2014; 57: 744–766.
13. Hsiao H, Whitestone J, Kau T-Y, et al. Sizing firefighters:
method and implications. Hum Factor 2014; 56: 873–910.
14. Kong P, Suyama J, Cham R, et al. The relationship
between physical activity and thermal protective clothing
on functional balance in firefighters. Res Q Exercise
Sport 2012; 83: 546–552.
15. Mamen A, Oseland H and Medbø J. A comparison of
two physical ability tests for firefighters. Ergonomics
2013; 56: 1558–1568.
16. Snow CR and Gregory DE. Perceived risk of low-back
injury among four occupations. Hum Factor 2016; 58:
586–594.
17. Young P, Gibson A, Partington E, et al.
Psychophysiological responses in experienced firefighters
undertaking repeated self-contained breathing apparatus
tasks. Ergonomics 2014; 57: 1898–1906.
18. Phillips M, Payne W, Netto K, et al. Oxygen uptake and
heart rate during simulated wildfire suppression tasks
Ciesielska-Wróbel et al.
performed by Australian rural firefighters. Occup Med
Health Aff 2015; 3: 198.
19. Davis J and Gallagher S. Physiological demand on fire-
fighters crawling during a search exercise. Int J Ind Ergon
2014; 44: 821–826.
20. Perroni F, Guidetti L, Cignitti L, et al.
Psychophysiological responses of firefighters to emergen-
cies: a review. Open Sports Sci J 2014; 7: 8–15.
21. Von Heimburg E and Medbø JI. Energy cost of the
Trondheim firefighter test for experienced firefighters.
Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2013; 19: 211–225.
22. Von Heimburg E, Medbø JI, Sandsund M, et al.
Performance on a work-simulating firefighter test versus
approved laboratory tests for firefighters and applicants.
Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2013; 19: 227–243.
1991
23. Size Stream, LLC. http://www.sizestream.com/ (accessed
6 February 2016).
24. MeshLab 64bit v1.3.4 BETA software. http://meshlab.
sourceforge.net/ (accessed 6 February 2016).
25. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the
‘‘laws’’ of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ 2010; 15:
625–632.
26. Son S, Xia Y and Tochihara Y. Evaluation of the effects
of various clothing conditions on firefighter mobility and
the validity of those measurements made. J Hum Environ
Syst 2010; 13: 15–24.
27. Vandersmissen GJM, Verhoogen RAJR, Van
Cauwenbergh AFM, et al. Determinants of maximal
oxygen uptake (VO2 max) in fire fighter testing. Appl
Ergon 2014; 45: 1063–1066.