(February 2012)

The many aspects of glove safety

Chief Mike Piper of the Arvada (CO) Fire Protection District in “How We Got Burned” (Fire Engineering, November 2011) states: “When it comes to firefighting gloves and hoods, thicker might be better …. The firefighter wearing gloves that were thin but still compliant with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1851, Standard on Selection, Care and Maintenance of Protective Ensemble for Structural Firefighting and Proximity Firefighting, sustained much more serious burns to his hands than the firefighter wearing thicker gloves.” He then goes on to correctly observe that the exact thermal exposure to the hands experienced by the two injured firefighters cannot be determined; yet, he still maintained that the apparent thickness of the protective ensemble cannot be dismissed as a factor.

As a manufacturer of structural gloves compliant with NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, I can understand that in this article where a wind-driven fire contributed to serious hand burns, the thickness of personal protective equipment would become an overriding consideration in the post-incident review.

However, when considering the complexity of the moving hand itself and the wide and varying range of threats to hands on the fireground, a truly successful glove design and construction strategy must be significantly more complex than just a basic consideration for the general thickness of materials.

Vulnerability of the hands to thermal injury (and other injury) varies at different locations of the hand. Specifically, the inside finger sidewalls are significantly less vulnerable than some other areas because the surrounding fingers act as a natural shield to some extent.

Conversely, for example, the large main knuckle of the hand is significantly more vulnerable to thermal injury where the glove component layers typically compress, which results in reduced protection. A well-designed/well-constructed structural glove will recognize and take advantage of these facts by specifically tailoring different levels of protection and applying them to different areas of the hand as dictated by the different levels of threat. The end result is reinforced protection in known vulnerable areas while increasing dexterity, grip, and comfort by using a different, more refined construction along the inner-finger sidewalls.

In contradiction to this strategic design/construction concept, the post-incident review in this article focuses on overall glove thickness while defining dexterity and comfort features as some sort of unnecessary luxury with no apparent relevance to glove performance and safety. The author says that the terms “comfortable” and “lightweight” are nothing more than a “marketing strategy” as it pertains to protective ensembles for structural firefighting and that these features “… should not be taken into consideration when purchasing protective ensembles for structural firefighting.” This thinking ignores the more strategic and sophisticated design concept described above.

In fact, the features of dexterity and comfort in gloves are not luxuries to be dismissed; they are integral to the safety and protection of the hands. Gloves with diminished dexterity and comfort not only restrict a firefighter’s efficient performance but also are much more likely to come off on the fireground or to be substituted for with lighter-weight extrication or work gloves. When gloves come off or nonstructural gloves are used, that is when the most serious hand injuries most often occur. (For obvious reasons, these cases typically don’t come to light when injuries happen, but we know gloves often come off and substitutes are used.)

Better dexterity and comfort also promote efficient grip and reduce hand fatigue, all relevant safety factors when climbing ladders, deploying rope rescue systems, handling power tools, and the like. (I met a Fire Department of New York “truckie” who cut out the palm of his thermal liner to enhance the grip!)

Piper also asks: “Nothing about conducting a primary search requires comfort or dexterity; so why compromise anyone’s health and safety?” But, again, comfort and dexterity features should not be casually dismissed and cannot be separated from the overall safety and protective performance of gloves. These features are integral to allowing the highest level of gloves-on capability, which is vital for hand safety, efficient firefighter performance, and at times even victim safety. A perfect example is the following e-mail I received from a Chicago (IL) Fire Department Squad 2 firefighter:

Funny how things work out. A couple of hours ago, before I read your e-mail, I was thinking of you. As you know, I am a fan and backer of your gloves. I was involved in a rescue New Year’s Eve under heavy fire conditions. Because the victim was blocking the rear door, after I forced the lock side, I then had to take [the door] off the hinges. The dexterity your gloves afford certainly aided in this task.

This firefighter subsequently received a heroism award for this rescue, but that, of course, is not the main point here. The main point is, to effectively evaluate and/or compare the safety and protection of structural gloves, both the physical features (construction and design) and performance features (dexterity and comfort) are crucial safety considerations. The issues to be analyzed are more complex than one might think, even when considering thermal protection alone, and thermal injury is certainly not the only risk that must be accounted for.

It is perhaps understandable that a department recently experiencing serious thermal injuries might, as a result, tend to overly narrow its thinking when evaluating glove protection performance. This urge should be resisted. Do not rely simply on the thicker-is-better concept. More importantly in that regard, determine if thicker applies strategically in the gloves to the well-known vulnerable areas of the hand and not just everywhere, which naturally reduces other important performance features. If thicker equals better by itself, it would also mean that a simple review of thermal protective performance (TPP) scores would for the most part decide which gloves are better or safer. But gloves with a more advanced design and construction receive up to 10 TPP scores in the lab for NFPA 1971 compliance, so a simple comparison of scores is neither meaningful nor even possible in that case. Also, thicker materials typically retain more heat and dissipate it more slowly, which can be a crucial factor in the case of burns.

With all these facts considered then, obviously a more sophisticated evaluation and comparison of construction and performance features are required to make an effective, well-informed selection for structural firefighting gloves.

Andrew Shapiro
Regulatory and Product Manager
TechTrade LLC
Hoboken, New Jersey

Mike Piper did a great service for firefighters everywhere by writing an honest and very compelling account of what went wrong at a wind-driven fire. This is a very valuable “lessons learned” article that will prevent other firefighters from being injured or killed in similar circumstances.

We have learned much about wind-driven fires in recent years thanks to the research conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Fire Department of New York, and the Chicago (IL) Fire Department. These agencies conducted several live fire tests in high-rise buildings scheduled for demolition.

Piper’s article reminds us, however, that wind-driven fires are not just a high-rise phenomenon; they can occur in any type of structure and endanger firefighters in rural areas, suburban towns, and big cities. For example, two Texas firefighters were killed in a wind-driven fire that occurred in a single-family home in April 2009. I encourage every firefighter to read this article and learn its lessons. It may keep them from being burned in a wind-driven fire.

Bill Gustin
Captain
Miami-Dade (FL) Fire Rescue

Fighting fire from burned side sometimes an option

I commend Sean Gray on his article “Attacking from the Burned Side Can Save Lives” (Fire Engineering, November 2011). For years, I have been a voice in the wilderness on “burned side attack.” I have used this approach with great success for the 29 years I have been in the fire service. Surrounding fire departments criticize this method. I don’t see any difference between a ladder pipe in the 10th-floor window and the same attack at ground level. It is time to slay the sacred cow of ALWAYS fighting fire from the unburned side. The goal is to stop the burning process/progression. You cannot use “always” and “never” in the fire service. We all must do our best to learn and evolve, questioning everything.

Rick Duplant
Chief
Northeast Fort Bend County Fire Department
Sugar Land, Texas

Article invaluable for class assignment

I am an EMT/firefighter in an Instructor 1 class. “Salvage Basics” by Jamie C. Morelock (The Truck Company, Fire Engineering, January 2007) was a godsend to me. My final presentation was on salvage operations. My husband and I love reading Fire Engineering.

Stephanie Smitherman
Brierfield, Alabama