204746 wrote:
Hello, a number of our workers are familiar with Fire Fighting Bunker gear being retested before going back in service after a fire and have asked how we know they have washed off combustible materials adequately from their FR-Arc Rated work clothing to safely put back in service.
Does anyone have any established approach on this subject? Kind regards, Jason Hoffman
There's no retesting I've ever seen done. The actual test for the fabrics (ASTM 1959 is not a clothing test, it's a fabric test) is destructive. You expose samples of cloth covering copper calorimeters at different distances to an arc source looking for the threshold value where either 50% of the samples break open or 50% of the samples fail to keep the incident energy measured by the calorimeters below the Stoll curve. The Stoll curve is based on the onset (50% point) of a second degree burn on human skin. It is about 1.2 cal/cm2 at 1 second, and grows to about 2 cal/cm2 at 2 seconds.
Needless to say, you can't duplicate that kind of test in the field, nor is it in any way a nondestructive test.
A Canadian mining company had several work uniforms (coveralls) tested under various typical working conditions for them (soaked in salt water to simulate sweat, used uniforms after 2 years in service, soaked in oil, smeared with grease). The only case that really "failed" as such is the grease test. In this case they smeared a huge glob of grease on a uniform. What happened in the video is that the grease lit on fire and burned for several seconds after the arc flash stopped, and eventually went out. The uniform itself as I understand it from someone that sponsored the test didn't look all that damaged. The cloth itself doesn't support combustion so essentially from what he described and it looked like on the video, the grease lit on fire and burned, then went out, leaving the uniform with minor damage. This test failed the ASTM 1959 test because of the grease fire, not because the FR PPE actually "failed" by itself. It's been almost 10 years and I'm sure if I've misspoke here Hugh would respond but to me this was a real eye opener as to conditions other than an office environment.