Inter-Laboratory Comparison of the Performance of Firefighting Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus

Details

• Personal Author:
  Parker J
• Description:
  Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the performance of all available NIOSH and NFPA approved firefighting SCBAs in two NIOSH laboratories when tested against the major NIOSH certification tests and the NFPA air flow performance test. Methods: Testing was performed on eight NIOSH approved SCBAs that also meet the requirements of NFPA 1981 Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services, 2007 edition. NIOSH certification tests for positive pressure, rated service time (duration), exhalation resistance, static pressure, remaining service-life indicator, and gas flow at zero facepiece pressure were conducted. The NFPA air flow performance test at maximum work rate was also performed. For comparing the Morgantown Laboratory measurements to the Pittsburgh Laboratory measurements, the difference measured within each "Run" was used for statistical analysis. Because of the small sample sizes (n=3) for each system, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank (WSR) test was used to test if the difference is zero, and p-values were calculated. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the sign test were also used to test if the results are different. Results: For the rated service time test, no statistically significant differences comparing Morgantown to Pittsburgh results were found. For the positive pressure test, the results indicated that Morgantown results are higher than the Pittsburgh results. For the remaining service-life indicator test, the static pressure test and the exhalation resistance test, the results indicated no statistically significant differences between the Morgantown results and the Pittsburgh results. For the positive pressure, gas flow and NFPA tests, the results indicated a statistically significant difference between the Morgantown results and the Pittsburgh results. Conclusions: There is good agreement between the test labs for all tests except for positive pressure, gas flow and NFPA tests. The differences in the positive pressure test were attributed to differences in the equipment, which have been eliminated, and further testing has shown no significant differences. New equipment has been ordered for the gas flow and NFPA tests. Agreement in test results between the laboratories contributes to the validation of the test methods. [Description provided by NIOSH]
• Subjects:
  Fires Occupational Health Safety
• Keywords:
  Equipment Testing Fire Fighting Equipment Performance Tests SCBA Self Contained Breathing Apparatus
• Publisher:
  American Industrial Hygiene Association
• Document Type:
  Text
• Genre:
  Abstract or Summary
• Place as Subject:
  Maryland ; OSHA Region 3 ; West Virginia
• CIO:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Division:
  RHD - Respiratory Health Division
• Topic:
  Workplace Safety & Health
• Location:
  North America
• Pages in Document:
  81
• NIOSHTIC Number:
  nn:20066040
• Citation:
  AIHce 2016: American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition Pathways to Progress, May 21-26, 2016, Baltimore, Maryland. Falls Church, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2016 May; :81
• Contact Point Address:
  J. Parker, CDC/NIOSH, Pittsburgh, PA
• Federal Fiscal Year:
  2016
• Peer Reviewed:
  False
• Source Full Name:
  AIHce 2016: American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition Pathways to Progress, May 21-26, 2016, Baltimore, Maryland
• Collection(s):
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:76ca7bd6142b7a35f80f65d35634888634abe716ef045989b0f9553222b41ba0c49b1b894b7fc747a7675a8e49514e0203b1c020da559d58ca5c5f772ce47602
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/209123/cdc_209123_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 1.41 MB ]