THE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF AIRCREW PROTECTIVE BREATHING EQUIPMENT:
V. MASK/COGGLES COMBINATIONS FCR FEMALE CREWMEMBERS

INTRODUCTION

The requirements for protective breathing devices and the rationale for
equipment selection have been reviewed in previous publications (1,2,3,4).
These same publications also presented the results of contaminant leak
testing of 118 mask/goggles combinations designed for use by flight deck
crewmembers. The acceptance criteria for the mask/goggles combinations were
for 10 of 12 test subjects to maintain a contaminant ratio of 0.05 or less
in the oxygen mask and/or simultaneously 0.1 or less in the goggles while
wearing eyeglasses (2,4). These criteria were developed at joint meetings
between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and industry representa-
tives held in Los Angeles, California, August 1974, and in Washington, D.C.,
September 1974 (5). Of the 118 mask/goggles combinations tested, 106 failed
to meet the acceptance criteria. These tests demonstrated the necessity for
venting the goggles, the need for application of some amount of positive
pressure within the equipment, very high cylinder drainage rates for most
combinations tested with positive pressure, and significant donning problems
for goggles equipped with venting tubes.

At the request of the FAA Flight Standards Service, the testing program
was continued to support the development of protective breathing devices
that would meet the approved performance criteria. As a result of this test
program, several major manufacturers and suppliers of oxygen mask/goggies
combinations initiated developmental programs in an effort to correct the
identified deficiencies,

This report presents the results of an evaluation made to determine the
effectiveness of 23 mask/goggles/regulator combinations in providing protec~
tion for the female crewmember. Criteria evaluated include pass/fail ratios
for the various combinations, cylinder drainage rates, and the influence of
regulator delivery pressure on cylinder drainage. Since females generally
have smaller facial dimensions than do males, and since most mask/goggles
combinetions are sized to fit the male face, a comparison between selected
anthropometric parameters was made to determine the -nfluence of face size
on the pass/fail ratio of the various combinations tested.

METHODS

The general analytical method developed for testing of protective
breathing equipment has been described elsewhere (4). Briefly, a simple
exposure chamber of sufficient size to accommodate a subject and the equip-
ment to be tested was used to contain the challenge atmosphere of 120 ppm
n-pentane, Small needles were inserted into the protective breathing device
and the goggles to provide for the collection of gas samples from specific
locations. Small~bore flexible tubing, passed through the chamber wall,
connected the sample needles to a selector valve located outside the chamber.
The sample gas was drawn through a twin-loop collector valve where a known
aliquot was collected and delivered to a gas chromatograph equipped with a



TABLE 3. Comparison* of Selected Anthropometric Measurements,
in Millimeters, of Female and Male Subjects

Parameter N Mean S.D. t PL
Head Length

Female 23 188 6

Male 12 198 4 4,93 <.95

Head Breadth

Female 23 146 5
Male 12 153 3 4.42 <.05

Face Length

Female 23 109 5

Male 12 120 7 5.32 $.05
Face Breadth

Female 23 UL 5

Male 12 141 4 5.60 <.05

*Analysis of variance, two independent samples

SUMMARY

With modern aircraft operating at ever-increasing altitudes, the perform
ance and facial fit of crew oxygen masks becomes more critical if acceptable
protection is to be provided. In addition, the possibility of toxic cargo
spills, or the possibility of in-flight fires with the release of toxic
combustion products and smoke, make protection of the visual processes
another important factor for consideration in the design of protective equip~
ment for crewmembers. The increasing number of female pilots in the civil
air fleet make it imperative that existing equipment, as well as new designs,
be evaluated for their suitability and efficiency in affording protection to
the female crewmember.

Several of the protective breathing devices included in this study that
provided venting to the goggles by means of a valve incorporated into the
mask have passed the proposed acceptance criteria, are reasonably easy to
don, and do not cause high cylinder drainage rates. These systems have been
designed so as not to compromise the oxygen mask when used for decompression
purposes. Every protective breathing device that has passed the proposed
acceptance criteria has required some amount of positive pressure within the
device. Therefore, a regulator with positive pressure output probably should
be included in the system and the regulator outlet pressure specified for a
given system. If the regulator does not provide positive pressure



RESULTS

Of the 23 mask/goggles combinations tested, 8 failed to meet the accepted
criteria of maintaining a contaminant ratio of less than 0.1 for the gcggles
and simultaneously 0.05 in the mask when there were 3 failures in 12 or fewer

tests (Table 1).

All of these failures were attributed to failures in the

goggles. Several identifiable factors contributed to these failures.

TABLE 1. Types of Mask/Goggles Combinations Tested
and a Summary of the Results
Robertshaw Controls Company
Pressure Cylinder Drainage
Mask P/N Goggles P/N Regulator in H20* Pass/fail (L/min)
595-900-051 595-900-058 Robertshaw 1.7 11/1 15,2
595-900-051 595-900-057 Robertshaw 1.7 li/l 11.3
595-900-049-01 595-900-058 Robertshaw 1.7 11/1 10.7
595-900-049-01 595-900-057 Robertshaw 1.7 10/2 12.3
595-900-046 595-900-058 Robertshaw 1.7 11/2 9.6
595-900-046 595-900-057 Robertshaw 1.7 11/2 9.5
595-900-029 595-900-058 Robertshaw 1.7 12/0 12.7
595-900-029 595-900-057 Robertshaw 1.7 12/0 11.0
Sierra Engineering Company

358-1028V** 322-01 Robertshaw 1.7 12/0 10.2
358~-1028V** 322-01 Bendix 1.5 1i/1 9.3
358-1028V4* 322-01 Bendix 3.5 9/3 15.9
358-1025 322-01 Robertshaw 1.7 10/2 9.3
358-1025 322-01 Bendix 1.5 10/2 8.3
358-1025 322-01 Bendix 3.5 10/2 11.0
358-1223 322-01 Robertshaw 1.7 8/4 12.6
358-1223 322-01 Bendix 1.5 8/4 8.8
358-1223 322-01 Bendix 3.5 8/4 18.7

Puritan Equipment Company
114322-03 118072-01 Robertshaw 1.7 10/2 18.2
114120-51 118072-01 Bendix 1.5 4/6 10.3
114120-51 118072-01 Bendix 3.5 8/5 25.8
114020-40 118072-01 Robertshaw L.7 8/4 10.4 Por
114020-40 118072--01 Bendix 1.5 12/0 8.3 ae >

Scott Company &

Eros 36864-21 Eros 1.8
(MC-1022-EX)  (MXP-210)
*1 in H20 = 0.249 kN/M?

**Not tested on male subjects



hydrogen flame ionization detectc-. Nonexaggerated eyeglasses were worn Ly
all subjects during testing. American Optical Corporation frames F9848SM,
ranging in size from 46 x 20 mm to 48 x 22 mm, with plano lenses were used.

The subject population consisted of 23 females trained in test procedures
and equipment use. Selected anthropometric measurements were taken for each
subject and compared to measurements made on male subjects in prior evaluation
tests (4). Eleven types of oxygen masks and five types of goggles were tested.
All of these devices were designed for use with some amount of positive
pressure applied to the mask. Four aircraft oxygen regulators, two mask-
mounted and two panel-mounted, were used to provide pressure to the masks.

The protective breathing devices submitted by the Robertshaw Controis
Company consisted of standard aviator’s crew oxygen masks, goggles equipped
with venting tubes that require positioning within the cone of the oxygen
mask, and a Robertshaw mask-mounted regulator. The goggles (two pairs)
differed only in the suspension strap--one pair having an adjustable head
strap, and the other pair having a nonadjustable strap. The venting tubes
included internal soft wires which provided for forming and positioning the
tubes. In addition, the venting tubes had flow orifices approximately 1 in
from the tube ends.

The devices submitted by the Sierra Engineering Company consisted of
standard Sierra crew oxygen masks and a prototype, S/N 358-1028V, designed
to fit the smaller dimensions of the female face. All masks were modified
to include manually activated flow valves in the upper portion of the nose
cups. These valves, when opened, and with positive pressure applied to the
mask, directed a venting flow of air into the goggles. The goggles were a
standard Sierra product. A Robertshaw mask-mounted regulator and two Bendix
panel-mounted regulators were used for testing Sierra equipment.

The devices submitted by the Puritan Equipment Company consisted of
standard Puritan crew oxygen masks modified to include automatically activated
flow valves in the upper portion of the nose cups. These valves, when opened
by the pressure of the goggles and with positive pressure applied to the mask,
directed a venting flow into the goggles. The goggles were a new Puritan
product. A Robertshaw mask-mounted regulator and two Bendix panel-mounted
regulators were used for testing the ecuipment.

The protective breathing devices submitted by the Scott Company consisted
of an Eros mask provided with a mask-mounted regulator and a manually
activated valve which provided venting to the goggles. The mask is of a
quick-don type which utilizes the aircraft oxygen system to inflate an
expandable harness by means of a triggering mechanism positioned under the
nose cup, The harness is then slipped over the head and the triggering
mechanism released, resulting in a deflation of the harness which secures
the mask to the face. The goggles provided were an experimental model
designed specifically to fit the mask.



eee

Comparisons of the facial and cranial dimensions of the female subjects

used in this study (Table 2) to those of U.S. Air Force women (7) showed
them to be generally within the 5th to 95th percentiles of the reference

populat:

ion. However, when the same data were compared to the anthropometric
measurements of the group of male subjects used in the prior test to evaluate
the mask/goggles/reguiator combinations (4), it was found that the dimensions

of the male face and cranium were larger for all selected parameters than

those of the females, and that the differences were statistically significant
at the p <.05 level (Table 3).

Selected Anthropometric Measurements, in Millimeters,

of Subject Population Compared to U.S. Air Force

TABLE 2.
Women (1972)
Subject Head Head
No, Lengtn Breadth
1 200 148
2 181 139
3 193 156
4 184 155
5 191 145
6 188 140
7 184 140
8 193 148
9 195 isk
10 183 144
11 190 150
12 189 145
13 186 141
14 185 142
15 187 140
16 179 147
17 180 147
18 192 154
19 197 147
20 175 142
21 182 149
22 197 149
23 189 144
U.S. Air Force Women (1972)
5% 173 135
95% 195 155
5

Face

Length

108
109
105
109
108
112
lll
111
104
100
115
118
113
113
113
106
107
103
114
101
120
108
109

96
117

Face

Breadth

126
123
136
135
128
12€
127
134
136
127
134
131
124
130
128
134
136
141
130
128
135
138
122

119
138



FAA-AM-83-14

AIBFG fo

z
3
“4
nz
=

THE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF AIRCREW PROTECTIVE BREATHING EQUIPMENT:
V. MASK/GOGGLES COMBINATIONS FOR FEMALE CREWMEMBERS

D. deSteiguer
J. T. Saldivar
E. A. Higgins
G. E. Funkhouser

Civil Aeromedical Institute
Federal Aviation Administration
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

July 1983

Document is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service .
Springfield, Virginia 22161

Prepared for
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Aviation Medicine
Washington, D.C. 20591

88 11 28 015



4.

REFERENCES

deSteiguer, D., E. B. McFadden, M. S. Finski, and J, R, Bannister:
The Use of n-Pentane as a Tracer Gas for the Quantitative Evaluation
of Aticrew Protective Br-athing Equipment, SAFE Symposium, San Diego,
California, 1976.

deSteiguer, D., M. S. Pinski, J, R. Bannister, and E. 5. McFadden:
The Objective Evaluation of Aircrew Protective Breathing Equipmen.:
I. Oxygen Mask/Goggles Combinations, SAFE Symposium, San Diego,
California, 1976.

deSteiguer, D., M. S. Pinskz, J. R. Bannister, and E, B. McFadden:
The Objective Evaluation of Aircrew Protective Breathing Equipment:
II. Pullface Masks and Hoods, SAFE Symposium, San Diego, California,
1976.

deSteiguer, D., M. S. ?inski, J. R. Bannister, and E. B. McFadden:
Aircrew and Passenger Protective Breathing Equipment Studies, FAA
Office of Aviaticn Medicine Report No. FAA-AM-78-4, 1678.

deSteiguer, D., M. S. Finski, J. R. Bannister, and E. B. McFadden:
An Objective Evaluation of Smoke Protective Equipment Designed for
Use by Aircraft Crewmembers. «femorandum Report No. AAC-119-75-5(S),
July 1975 (unpublished).

deSteiguer, D., M. S. Pinski, and E. B. McFadden: The Objective
Evaluation of Aircrew Protective Breathing Equipment: III. Impreved
Types of Mask/Goggles Combinations, SAFE Symposium, San Diego,
California, 1976,

Clauser, C. E., er al., Anthropometry of Air Force Womea, United States
Air Force Aerospace Medical Division Report No. AMRL~TR-70-5, April
1972,



automatically, the crewmember should be trained to manually set the regulator
to 100 percent oxygen and to positive (emergency) pressure.

Every mask/goggles combination tested in this study had passed the
proposed acceptance criteria for male subjects in the prior study (6). The
compatative statistical analyses of the anthropometric data gathered from
male and female subjects suggest that improper sizing of protective equipment
was the cause for failures. To provide adequate protection for both sexes
will require: (1) equipment that will accommodate the different facial and
cranial sizes, or (2) different sized equipment ‘or the two groups.

Cert



Among those noted most often were a failure of the goggles to mate with the
contour of the oxygen mask, gaps caused by penetration of the eyeglasses
frames at the goggles/temple interface, and improper goggles/face mating due
to either goggles design or the facial dimensions of the subject.

It would appear that the data in Table 1 indicate a much higher
failure rate for the 3.5 in H20 pressure regulator than for the two lower
pressures (1.5 and 1.7 in H20). But, in order to make meaningful comparisons
for the failure rates between the highest pressure and the two lower pres
sures, the data should be evaluated only for those mask/goggles combinations
tested using the highest pressure regulator and at least one of the two lower
pressure regulators, There are four such mask/goggles combinations listed in
the table. The results are summarized below.

Pass/Fail by Regulator Pressure

Company Mask P/N Goggles P/N 1.5 1.7 3.5
Sierra Engineer- 358-1028V 322-01 1Ifl 12/9 9/3
ing Company (The 3.5 pressure had the

highest failure rate.)

358-1025 322-01 10/2 10/2 10/2
{The failure rates were identi-
cal for all three pressures.)

358-1223 322-01 8/4 8/4 8/4
(The failure rates were identi-
cal for all three pressures.)

Puritan Equip- 114120-51 118072-01 4/6 N/A 8/5
ment Company (The 3.5 pressure had the
lower failure rate.)

Thus, a higher failure rate for the 3.5 in pressure is evident in only one
mask/goggles combination; it is the same for two combinations; and it is
actually lower for one combination. Therefore, we cannot state that the
failure rate for the highest pressure is consistently greater.

For all of the other mask/goggles combinations there were only one or
two of the lower pressures used and no data were available from the highest
pressure regulator. Therefore, no comparisons could be made. It is evident
from the data, however, that those mask/goggles combinations which did not
use the highest pressure regulator, had better pass/fail ratios than those
combinations tested using the 3.5 in H90 pressure regulator, But, because the
lower pressures produced failure rates similar to the highest pressure's
rates when tested with identical mask/goggles combinations, the amount of
pressure delivered to the mask/goggies probably had little effect on the
failure rate. The differences seen are most likely due to the differences
in the design and the fit of the various mask/goggles combinations.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION © 6 ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee i
METHODS. © 6 6 6 6 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee i
RESULTS. 2 2 6 eee ee ee ee ee ee ee 2
SUMMARY. 2 6 ee 2 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 4

REFER"NCES © 6 6 ee ee ee ee ee ee eee eee ee 7

Accession For

NTIS GRA&I
DIIc TAB
Unannounced oO

Justification

By.
Distributions

Availability Uodes
[Avail and/or
Dist Special

ili/iv



eG study was conducted to determine the degree of respiratory and visual protection

Technical Report Documentation Page

T. Report No. 2. GG. .ament Aczession No. | 3. Reeipient’s Catalog No. “|
!

FAA~AM~83-14 AY yea oO Ve

4. Title ond Subtinle 3. Report Date

THE CBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF AIRCREW PROTECTIVE July 1933

BREATHING EQUIPMENT: VV. MASK/GOGGLES COMBINATIONS $. Performing Organizanan Code

FOR FEMALE CREWMEMBERS

[8. Performing Orgenszation Report No

7 Authors) deSteiguer, J. T. Saldivar, E. A. Higgins

,and G, E. Funkhouser

9. Pertorming Orgcni zation Name ond Address YO. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute
P.O. Box 25082 TY. Contract or Grant No.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

13. Type of Report and Period Covered “tT

12. Sponsoring Agency Nome and Address
Office of Aviation Medicine
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D.C. 20591
15. Supplementary Notes
Research leading to preparation of this report was performed under tasks
AM-B~81~PRS~-13 and AM-B-82-PRS-13.

16. Abstract

given to the female crewmember by various crew oxygen mask/goggle combinations.

The acceptance criteria for the mask/goggle combinations were for 10 of 12 test
subjects to maintain a contaminant ratio of 0.05 or less in the oxygen mask and/or
simultaneously 0.1 or less in the goggle while wearing eyeglasses. Of the 23 mask/
goggle combinations tested with female subjects, 8 failed to meet the acceptance
criteria for adequate protection. Comparison tests on anthropometric data from male
and female subjects suggest that the failures may be due, in part, to size differ-
ences in cranial and facial aia

J7. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Crewmember, Protective Breathing Devices,|Document is available to the public
Anthropometric Considerations through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22161

19. Security Clarsif. (of this report) BD. Security Clossif. (of this page) Bi. No. of Pages | 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 7 |
Form DOT F 1700.7 (6-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

a/ii



NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the
Department of Transportation in the interest of information
exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability
for the contents or use thereof.