NIST Technical Note 1861

A Review of Test Methods for 

Determining Protective Capabilities of 

Fire Fighter Protective Clothing from 

Steam

Shonali Nazaré

Daniel Madrzykowski

February 2015
NIST Technical Note 1861

A Review of Test Methods for 

Determining Protective Capabilities of 

Fire Fighter Protective Clothing from 

Steam

Shonali Nazaré

Daniel Madrzykowski

Fire Research Division

Engineering Laboratory

February 2015

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1861

Natl. Inst. Stand. Techn. Techn. Report 1861, 36 pages (February 2015)

CODEN: NTNOEF

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1861
iii

Abstract

Firefighters working inside a burning structure often experience burns related to hot water vapor 

inside firefighter protective clothing (FFPC). For these burns to occur, the water vapor is heated 

by the high temperatures outside the FFPC and it diffuses across the FFPC fabric layers. 

Condensation of this vapor on the firefighter’s cooler skin releases the water’s latent heat of 

vaporization, rapidly raising the temperature of the skin. Burns from this moisture-driven heat 

transfer are often called “steam burns.”

The water vapor can come from humidity in the burning-structure environment that penetrates 

through the outer shell of the FFPC. The humidity arises from firefighter water sprays and from 

combustion (which produces water vapor as a byproduct). The water vapor can also come from 

firefighter perspiration. The moisture, through a wicking process, spreads to the outer layers of 

the FFPC, where it is vaporized from a flashover exposure. 

In this technical note, we review existing test methods for quantifying steam burns and evaluating

moisture-driven heat transfer in protective clothing are reviewed, with an emphasis on the 

instrumentation, methodology, merits, and limitations of each method. We discuss bench-scale 

test methods using pre-wetted samples (simulating perspiration-sourced water vapor) as well as 

those using external steam exposures (simulating water vapor from humid environments). Gaps 

in test methodology are identified and suggestions for improvements in bench scale testing are

made. From this review, we note that research on moisture-driven heat transfer through FFPC has 

primarily focused on perspiration-sourced water vapor. Better bench scale test methods are needed 

for quantifying the moisture-driven heat transfer through FFPC resulting from the humidity in 

environments such as those encountered during interior firefighting.

Keywords

Fire suppression; water vapor; steam burns; heat and mass transfer; fire fighter’s protective 

clothing; thermal protective performance.
iv

This page left intentionally blank.
v

Contents

Abstract.........................................................................................................................................iii

List of Tables................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. vii

List of Acronyms........................................................................................................................ viii

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Humidity and steam-burn fundamentals.............................................................................. 2

1.2. Fire fighters’ protective clothing and its thermophysical properties................................... 3

2. Heat and Moisture Transport Mechanisms in FFPC............................................................ 7

2.1. Factors affecting heat and moisture transfer in FFPC ......................................................... 8

3. Existing Test Methods to Assess Heat and Mass Transfer in FFPC................................ 10

3.1. Test methods with moisture from pre-wetted samples................................................... 13

3.2. Test methods with moisture from external steam exposures ......................................... 18

4. Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................... 23

5. References................................................................................................................................ 25
vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Physical and thermal properties of typical fabrics used in FF turnout gear [15,16]......... 4

Table 2. Thermophysical properties of fabric and fabric assemblies used in FFPC [18]............... 6

Table 3. Standards for evaluating comfort characteristics of FFPC............................................. 11

Table 4. Standards for evaluating thermal protective performance of FFPC ............................... 12

Table 5. Moisture add-on levels and corresponding fire fighter conditions [32] ......................... 13

Table 6. Steam exposure conditions previously studied............................................................... 23

 

 
vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Schematic of heat and moisture transfer process associated with a typical fire 

suppression scenario ....................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2. Test set up to measure thermal protective performance for low-level radiant exposures 

[32]................................................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 3. Test apparatus to assess radiant protective performance of fabrics [27]....................... 15

Figure 4. Schematic of experimental set up to assess protective performance of fabrics exposed 

to open flame [28]......................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 5. Schematic of test set-up to assess protective performance of pre-wetted fabrics [8].... 17

Figure 6. Schematic of test apparatus to measure temperature distribution in a clothing assembly 

exposed to low thermal radiations [34]......................................................................................... 18

Figure 7. Schematic of bench scale test device with (a) steam jet and (b) steam atmosphere 

configurations [36]........................................................................................................................ 19

Figure 8. Schematic of experimental set up to assess protective performance of fabrics exposed 

to external pressurized steam [31] ................................................................................................ 21

Figure 9. Schematic of TPP test apparatus with modified specimen assembly to accommodate 

microclimate between the specimen and the copper calorimeter [30].......................................... 22

Figure 10. Apparatus for evaluation of fabric protection against industrial steam hazard [38] ... 23
viii

List of Acronyms

ASTM ASTM International

CCHR Conductive Compressive Heat Resistance 

DMPC Dynamic Moisture Permeation Cell

FF Fire Fighter

FFPC Fire Fighters Protective Clothing

IMO International Standards Organization

MB Moisture Barrier

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

OS Outer Shell

PBO Polyphenylenebenzobisozazole

PBI Polybenzimidazole

PEEK Polyether ether ketone

PPI Poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide)

PPT Poly(p-phenylene terephthalamide)

PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene

RH Relative Humidity

RPP Radiant Protective Performance

STE Stored Thermal Energy

STI Steam Transfer Index

T Temperature

THL Total Heat Loss

TL Thermal Liner

TPP Thermal Protective Performance

WVTR Water Vapor Transmission Rate
1

1. Introduction

Fire fighters working inside a burning structure are exposed to a hot and wet environment. As 

common household furnishings and interior finishes burn, one of the combustion products is water 

vapor. As fire fighters work to extinguish the fire using water sprays, water vapor inside the fire 

room may increase. This water vapor is commonly addressed as steam. Pure steam is a transparent 

gas that is formed by heating water at a temperature of 100 oC and is not generally seen by the 

human eye [1]. The white cloud that forms along with the steam is mostly made up of tiny water 

particles that are formed due to condensation of steam in the air. The water vapor and/or water 

droplet temperature is below the boiling point of water 100 oC but higher than the temperature at 

which irreversible skin damage could occur (T > 48 oC). 

When the fire fighters’ protective clothing (FFPC) is exposed to external steam or an environment 

with high vapor concentration, then a concentration gradient may serve as a driving force for 

transfer of moisture from the environment with higher humidity to the environment having the 

lower humidity. As the humidity of the surrounding environment increases, the clothing system 

absorbs moisture, which may then diffuse across the fabric layers. These two processes continue 

until the clothing system is completely saturated and is dependent on water vapor temperature, 

fabric temperature, and types of fabric in the clothing system [2]. Additionally, prolonged 

exposure to high temperature environments can quickly raise the temperature of protective 

clothing and the skin underneath it. Even after the fire is extinguished, the skin temperature may 

still keep increasing. This is because of the energy stored within the fabric, the air gaps between 

the fabric layers, and the air gap between garment and the wearer’s skin during the heat exposure. 

Furthermore, due to the high heat capacity of water, moisture in a clothing system increases the

amount of stored energy [3]. This is particularly true when moist clothing is exposed to low heat 

flux conditions for longer durations. 

The temperature of the water vapor to which the FFPC is exposed is lower than that of steam 

(100 oC) but could be significantly higher than the skin temperature. Under such conditions, 

condensation could occur as the water vapor comes in contact with skin. Water thus formed may 

conduct heat with dangerous and unpredictable efficiency. Condensation of water vapor releases 

the latent heat of evaporation, which causes increased fabric and skin temperatures and can lead 

to skin burns, often referred to as steam burns. The human skin experiences discomfort or pain at 

about 44 oC [4]. However, Rossi [5] reported a firefighter suffering burn injuries at a measured

skin temperature of 42 oC. Burn injuries result when the temperature of the skin cells becomes 

high enough for the proteins to undergo a physical change. This process occurs at temperatures 

around 48 oC and thereafter the rate of damage increases exponentially with temperature [6]. The 

progression of a burn injury is largely related to the amount of time the skin temperature is above 

44 oC. The rate at which damage occurs is roughly tripled for each degree the skin cells are above 

this threshold temperature [7]. 

Studies have shown that wet protective clothing has a 50 % higher heat transfer rate compared to 

that of dry protective gear [8]. In presence of moisture, the rate of heat transfer is much faster [9] 

and since skin is permeable to water vapor, studies [10] on pig skin have suggested that part of the 

steam may be absorbed by the skin leading to more severe burns than dry burns. Moreover, studies 
2

by Veghte [9] have shown that once a fire fighter begins to sweat, he/she becomes susceptible to 

moisture-related thermal injuries. 

To date, there are very few studies examining the ability of FFPC to protect the wearer from steam 

burns. The issue of steam burns is not adequately addressed by the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and 

Proximity Fire Fighting standard, which uses the thermal protective performance (TPP) index to 

specify the minimum thermal performance of structural firefighting ensembles (a dry test). Based 

on these requirements, the design of protective clothing is largely based on engineering protective 

performance to mitigate flash-fire exposures. Such an ensemble may not always protect the wearer 

from extended low-heat flux radiant exposures, particularly in the presence of moisture. 

Previous research on heat and moisture transfer mechanisms has primarily focused on moisture 

generated due to excessive sweating of the firefighters and subsequent exposure to high-risk 

environments including flash-over exposures. The effect of external moisture and thereby the heat 

and moisture transfer through the protective clothing received very little attention. The main 

objective of this study is to understand the effects of external water vapor/steam exposures on 

protective performance of turnout gear. Existing test methods that quantify steam burn injuries 

have been reviewed and the gaps in test methodologies identified such that improvements in bench 

scale testing can be made. The long term goal is to develop a bench scale test method that 

quantifies heat and moisture diffusion through FFPC when fire fighters are exposed to an 

environment that simulates the thermal/water vapor conditions during interior fire fighting.

1.1. Humidity and steam-burn fundamentals

The phase change of water from liquid to vapor, which occurs at 100 °C at a pressure of 101325 Pa 

(1 atm), is an endothermic process. The latent heat of vaporization (or the enthalpy of 

vaporization) for water is much greater than that of most other substances [11]. Properties of 

water-vapor/air mixtures that are relevant to this technical note are dew point and relative 

humidity. The dew point is the temperature at which water vapor condenses into liquid form, and 

depends on water concentration and pressure [12]. The dew point of pure water vapor is 100 oC 

but decreases as the water concentration decreases. Relative humidity is the ratio of actual water 

concentration to dew-point water concentration, and depends on water concentration, pressure and 

temperature [12]. It is usually expressed as a percentage. Relative humidity of 100 % indicates 

the dew point is equal to the current temperature and that the air is maximally saturated with water.

Since most structural/residential fires occur at atmospheric pressure, the properties of watervapor/air mixtures primarily depend on water concentration and temperature.

The phase change of water from vapor to liquid through condensation results in a decrease in its 

enthalpy and is therefore an exothermic process. Consequently, moist air has a great capacity to 

heat any surface or object that is cooler than its dew point. Condensation of steam to a liquid 

transfers all of the latent heat to the cooler object. In other words, a firefighter with a body 

temperature (<37.7 oC) is at great risk from steam burns from high dew-point water vapor if the 

vapor is inside the FFPC. 
3

1.2. Fire fighters’ protective clothing and its thermophysical properties

Most turnout gear commonly used by firefighters in the United States is comprised of three layers, 

each performing a distinct function. The outer shell (OS) fabric provides flame protection and 

serves as a primary defense to mechanical injury, heat, and fire. The outer shell fabric is 

predominantly made from high performing, fire resistant fiber blends of poly (m-phenylene 

isophthalamide) (PPI), poly (p-phenylene terephthalamide) (PPT), polybenzimidazole (PBI), 

polyphenylenebenzobisozazole (PBO), and melamine. The waterproof middle layer, which often 

is a poly (tetrafluoroethylene) permeable film barrier laminated to a thin polyaramid woven or 

nonwoven backing substrate, acts as a moisture barrier (MB). The moisture barrier may totally 

prevent the passage of water droplets but permit the passage of water vapor. The permeability of 

the moisture barrier to water vapor generated from the perspiration of human skin has a strong 

influence on the water vapor transmission rate of FFPC and hence the body core temperature. 

Studies [12] have shown that the water vapor from human perspiration readily escapes through

FFPC with a permeable moisture barrier and keeps the body core temperature lower by 

approximately 1 oC compared to FFPC with an impermeable moisture barrier. With an

impermeable moisture barrier, water vapor pressure in the air gap between the skin and clothing 

layers increases and becomes saturated. Consequently, due to lack of heat exchange, a significant 

increase in air temperature and skin temperatures may be seen [13]. The thermal liner (TL) which 

is next to the skin provides thermal insulation and protects the wearer from burn injury. This layer 

typically consists of a nonwoven layer quilted to woven fabric, which slides easily along the skin 

or work station uniform (also known as station wear) to reduce the work required to move, and a 

spun-laced nonwoven insulating fabric. 

The fabrics that constitute the three layers in turnout gear have varied fabric structure, fiber content 

and thermal properties. Physical and thermal properties including the thermal conductivity, 

specific heat capacity, and the thermo-optical properties of absorptivity, reflectivity, and 

transmissivity for representative fabrics used in turnout gear are given in Table 1 [14,15]. Thermal 

inertia (which is the product of density, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity) is another factor 

that determines heat transfer through fabrics and is largely influenced by the density of fabrics. 

Thermal conductivity relates to the rate of heat transfer through the material. Thermal conductivity 

of fabrics measured at ambient temperature fall within a narrow range of 0.03 W/m·K to 

0.08 W/m·K and the average thermal conductivity values increase as exposure temperature and 

density of the fabrics increase. For outer shell fabric II in Table 1, thermal conductivity values of 

0.12 W/m·K at 450 oC have been registered by Zhu et al. [16]. They measured thermal 

conductivity values of protective fabrics when exposed to radiant heat. Thermal conductivity of 

dry fabrics is largely influenced by the amount of air (thermal conductivity of air at ambient 

temperature = 0.024 W/m·K) trapped within the fibers and the yarns. For wet conditions, the 

thermal conductivity of the fabric is influenced by the thermal conductivity of water

(0.56 W/m·K).
4

Table 1. Physical and thermal properties of typical fabrics used in FF turnout gear [14,15].

 

I- 100 % cotton fabric.

II- 93 % meta-aramid, 5 % para-aramid and 2 % antistatic fiber blend fabric.

III- 40 % polybenzimidazole (PBI) and 60 % poly (p-phenylene terephthalamide) (PPA) fiber blend fabric.

IV- Non-crosslinked polyurethane membrane laminated to polyaramid woven fabric.

V- Crosslinked polyurethane membrane laminated to polyaramid woven fabric.

VI- Microporous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane laminated to polyaramid woven fabric.

VII- Non-breathable neoprene coated aramid fabric.

VIII- Microporous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane laminated to polyaramid woven fabric.

IX- Poly aramid batting quilted with 100 % meta-aramid woven fabric.

§ Values weighted with blackbody function at typical flame temperatures of ≈1127 °C (1400K).

ǂ Values weighted with material temperature of ≈ 77 °C (350K)

Properties* Uncertainty Outer shell Moisture barrier Thermal 

liner

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Thickness, mm 1.32 0.82 0.80 1.22 1.12 0.52 0.96 0.80 3.59

Density, kg/m3 ± 10 % 519 317 322 121 179 317 143 322 74

Thermal 

conductivity, 

W/m·K

± 11.7 

%

20 oC 0.0823 0.0483 0.0484 0.0340 0.0370 0.0352 0.0664 0.0423 0.0353

48 oC 0.1020 0.0628 0.0697 0.0427 0.0433 0.0425 0.1172 0.0602 0.0445

55 oC 0.1017 0.0679 0.0730 0.0441 0.0461 0.0479 0.1005 0.0621 0.0462

72 oC 0.1081 0.0715 0.0838 0.0494 0.0476 0.0491 0.1248 0.0679 0.0494

Specific heat

capacity, J/g·°C

± 54 % 1.62 1.75 1.24 2.28 2.07 1.24 1.53 2.05 1.75

Reflectance§, ± 0.011 Front 0.223 0.215 0.219 0.437 0.113 0.268 0.159 0.239 0.236

Back 0.304 0.294 0.277 0.237 0.221 0.288

Absorptance§, ± 0.018 Front 0.673 0.637 0.661 0.439 0.759 0.545 0.707 0.537 0.643

Back 0.571 0.575 0.540 0.627 0.570 0.591

Transmittanceǂ, ±

0.0035

Front 0.718 0.708 0.713 0.672 0.732 0.719 0.724 0.715 0.714

Back 0.690 0.679 0.693 0.704 0.693 0.688
5

Specific heat capacity values give the estimate of energy required to maintain a material at a given 

temperature. For fabrics used in turnout gear, the specific heat capacity varies between 1.24 J/g·oC 

and 2.28 J/g·oC. For comparison, specific heat capacity of water, air, and steam is 1.00 J/g·oC, 

0.24 J/g·oC, and 0.45 J/g·oC respectively [9]. Water has a high specific heat compared to dry air,

meaning that it takes much more energy to cause a change in the water temperature. For turnout 

gear, this essentially means that higher amount of energy is required to heat and cool wet gear 

compared to dry gear. The wet turnout gear also retains heat for a longer duration [14]. 

Optical properties relate how materials absorb, reflect, and transmit incident radiative energy.

When thermal energy reaches a fabric surface, some may be reflected, some absorbed, and the 

remainder either conducted or transmitted through the fabric. Energy absorbed by the exposed 

surface of FFPC raises its temperature and produces a temperature gradient through the material. 

Thermo-optical data of fabrics is for new materials and is primarily used in computer modeling to 

predict thermal protective performance. It can be noted from the thermo-optical data in Table 1 

that transmittance, which is the fraction of incident radiant energy transmitted through a material 

[14], for front and back faces of fabrics with different surface finishes and dyes was similar,

whereas the differences in reflectance were substantial. Reflectivity is the fraction of energy 

reflected from a material and is generally low for textile materials [17]. Absorptivity is closely 

related to emissivity and is measured as a comparison to the emissive power of a black body at the 

same temperature. Absorptivity for nonmetallic materials is generally high and is low for polished 

metal surfaces [14].

The thermal protective performance of protective clothing is primarily based on the thickness, area 

density and type of fiber of the fabric. However, since the FFPC is made from a multi-layered 

fabric composite, the thermal protective performance of the clothing system cannot be estimated 

using a simple additive law. While such data for structural FFPC is not currently available, data 

for wildland fire fighter’s protective clothing is used as an example. Thermophysical and transport 

properties of typical fabrics and fabric assemblies that are used for wildland firefighters are given 

in Table 2 [18]. It can be noted from Table 2 that simple additive law overestimates the radiant 

protective performance (RPP) of multi-layered fabric composite while thermal resistance increases 

linearly with the total thickness of the composite. The types of fiber and fabric weave have very 

little impact on thermal resistance of the fabric. The air permeability values in Table 2 suggest 

that an inverse additive law is applicable to predict permeability of fabric composites. The 

moisture evaporation rate however, is largely influenced by the number of layers and the thickness 

of the fabric assembly. Similar studies [19] of fabric assemblies have shown that moisture 

permeability of each layer is important and that the low permeability of any layer would lower the 

moisture evaporation rate of the fabric assembly. 
6

Table 2. Thermophysical properties of fabric and fabric assemblies used in FFPC [18]

Code Fiber Weave Thickness, 

mm

Weight,

g/m2

Air permeability,

m3/min/m2

Radiant 

protective 

performance 

(RPP),

J/cm2

Thermal 

resistance, 

oC/m2/W

Moisture 

evaporation, 

g/m2·h

Single-layered fabrics

A Cotton Twill 0.56 237 48 37.7 0.171 45

B Poly aramid basket 0.55 187 67 33.5 0.161 54

C Cotton 45 % /

modacrylic 55 %

twill 0.52 305 20 42.3 0.160 52

D Poly aramid Twill 0.73 288 22 39.3 0.170 50

E Cotton knit 0.56 237 156 33.9 0.169 50

Multilayered fabric composites

B+E - - 1.11 - 47 61.1 0.194 47

B+C - - 1.07 - 16 79.1 0.188 44

B+A - - 1.11 - 27 70.7 0.189 48

B+A+E - - 1.64 - 15 83.7 0.202 32
7

2. Heat and Moisture Transport Mechanisms in FFPC

Three types of heat transfer exist in a firefighting environment or any thermal environment that 

could cause skin burns: conduction, convection, and thermal radiation. Conduction is the direct 

transfer of heat through contact with the hot object. Convection is the transfer of heat through a 

moving medium, for example, flowing air. Thermal radiation is the radiative transfer of heat 

caused by the temperature difference between two facing surfaces, for example the surface of 

protective clothing and surrounding surfaces. Radiant heat becomes stored thermal energy as it is 

absorbed by the surfaces of protective clothing. As the stored thermal energy increases, it is 

transferred inward from the outer (shell) layer and may cause burn injuries. 

Fire fighter protective clothing exposed to a prolonged severe fire undergoes three heating phases. 

During an initial warm-up phase, the temperature of the fibers in the fabric increases at a rate 

dictated by the system's thermal properties and by the intensity of the incident heat. The second 

heating phase is marked by the onset of changes in the thermal properties of the fabric. If the fiber 

does not melt, or the transition temperature is not exceeded, the structural integrity of the fabric 

system is maintained during this phase of heating. A third and final phase of the exposure is 

marked by chemical and structural degradation of the protective fabric. This phase is followed by 

rapid fabric decomposition or combustion. At this point, the garment is no longer protecting the 

wearer since the fabric itself becomes a source of off-gassing heat and flame. 

Similarly a piece of dry fabric exhibits three stages of transport behavior in responding to external 

humid transients [20,21]. The first stage is dominated by two fast processes: water vapor diffusion 

and liquid water diffusion in the air filling the interfiber voids, which can reach steady states in a 

fraction of a second. During this period, water vapor diffuses into the fabric due to the 

concentration gradient across the two surfaces. The second stage features the moisture sorption of 

fibers, which is a relatively slow process and takes a few minutes to a few hours to complete, 

depending on the type of fibers and heat transfer processes. In this period, sorption of water into 

the fibers takes place as the water vapor diffuses into the fabric, which increases the relative 

humidity at the fiber surfaces. Finally, the third stage is reached as a steady state which is mainly 

dominated by liquid water transmission (liquid diffusion or capillary wicking) through a fabric. 

The steady state flow of liquid moisture is most strongly influenced by wettability (i.e., surface 

tension), fabric weave (pore distribution) and thickness of the fabric. 

During fire suppression activities, heat and mass transfer processes are coupled by evaporation

and condensation. These processes could occur on either side of the clothing system as shown in 

Fig1. Figure 1 depicts a scenario that is of interest to this work: a fire fighter involved in fire 

suppression activity is exposed to external heat and moisture flux and at the same time is sweating 

profusely to regulate body heat. It is important to note here that the FFPC includes layers of 

different types of fabrics with different thermophysical properties, air permeabilities, and water 

vapor resistances. Absorption, distribution, and transport of moisture originating from sweat 

depend on the presence of an underlying clothing layers (station wear and underwear), the type of 

thermal liner, and the breathability of the moisture barrier. The processes associated with this part 

of moisture transfer include wicking, evaporation and condensation. Whereas, absorption and 

diffusion of external moisture depend primarily on air and water vapor permeability of the outer 

shell and moisture barrier. Combined heat and moisture transfer in protective clothing represents 
8

a more complex phenomenon. Factors influencing heat and moisture transfer in FFPC are briefly 

discussed in the section below. 

Figure 1. Schematic of heat and moisture transfer process associated with a typical fire 

suppression scenario

2.1. Factors affecting heat and moisture transfer in FFPC

Many researchers [8, 9,19, , 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33] have studied heat and 

moisture transfer in fire fighter’s protective clothing. The range of studies include effects of high 

[3] and low heat exposures [3,32,34], location [3,8], and amount [3,30] of moisture in the clothing 

system on skin burns. 

The presence of moisture in clothing systems can either increase or decrease the effectiveness of 

thermal insulation, depending on the nature of the heat exposure. Barker and Lee [26] explored 

the relationship between heat exposure conditions and moisture effects on thermal protective 

performance of single-layered high performance fabrics. They measured thermal protective 

performance of single-layered high performance fabrics by exposing dry and pre-wetted specimens 

to three different heat exposures; 1) 50/50 radiant/convective heat flux of 84 kW/m2, 2) 100 % 

radiant heat flux of 20 kW/m2, and 3) 100 % radiant heat flux of 84 kW/m2. The heat transferred 

through the fabric was measured by a copper calorimeter often referred to as a copper sensor [35]. 

They concluded that presence of moisture in flame-resistant fabrics enhances thermal protective 

performance as compared to dry fabrics, particularly when exposed to a combined radiant and 

convective heat flux of 84 kW/m2. They suggested that convective action of flames has ablative 

effects. However, under high radiant heat fluxes, the radiant thermal energy and the water vapor 

are directly transported from the fabric to copper calorimeter thereby registering higher heat 

Air gap

Air gap

Combined heat and moisture flux

Metabolic heat

Moisture from perspiration

Turnout gear

Station wear

Skin

Vapor diffusion

Combined

heat transfer
9

transfer rates. By contrast, when exposed to low radiant heat fluxes, reduced heat transfer to the 

copper calorimeter was recorded. The authors attributed lower heat transfer rates to the increased 

thermal capacity of pre-wetted fabrics.

Similar findings were reported by Lawson [3] and Zhu et al. [27]. Lawson [3] studied heat and 

moisture transfer in wildland firefighters’ clothing systems by varying the amount and location of 

moisture. The fabric systems, comprised of outer wear and underwear, were subjected to two types 

of heat exposure including a high-heat-flux (84 kW/m2) flame and a low-heat-flux (10 kW/m2)

radiant exposure. Their findings were very much in agreement with Barker et al. [26] revealing 

that the moisture could affect the thermal protective performance, either negatively or positively. 

For both, high-flaming (30/70 radiant/convective heat flux) and low-radiant heat exposures (100 % 

radiant), the moisture in the outer layers of the clothing system resulted in reduced heat transfer. 

The moisture in the outer layer evaporates and escapes from the fabric (away from the skin) to the 

external environment thereby registering low heat transfer though the clothing system. The 

moisture in the internal fabric layers however, responds differently to the two different heat 

exposures. With high-heat-flux, open-flame exposures, the moisture in internal layers was unable 

to escape the clothing system and consequently condensed on the copper calorimeter. The 

convective heat flux forces the heat energy towards the copper calorimeter thereby registering high 

heat transfer. When exposed to radiant heat flux, moisture in the internal layer absorbs most of 

the incident thermal energy and slows the heat transfer to the copper calorimeter. 

Zhu et al. [27] developed a numerical model to predict heat and moisture transfer through singlelayered fabrics when exposed to low (21 kW/m2) and high (42 kW/m2) radiant heat fluxes. They 

validated their model experimentally and showed that moisture within the pre-wetted fabric 

decreases heat transfer to the skin-simulating sensor1 when exposed to the low radiant heat flux. 

The reduction in heat transfer to the skin simulant is again attributed to absorption of thermal 

energy by the moisture in the fabric. The authors also predicted that vapor density in the air gap 

between the fabric and skin simulant increases as it gains moisture from the pre-wetted fabric 

exposed to radiant heat flux. However, when the radiant heat source is shut down, the vapor 

density decreased. They presumed that the moisture in the air gap is transferred back to the fabric 

due to reduction of fabric temperature. In a separate study, Zhu and Zhou [28] concluded that the 

moisture evaporation rate increased due to rapid increase in fabric temperature. In their 

experiments they suggested that evaporated moisture from the fabric moves into the air gap and 

re-condensation of this water vapor releases heat thereby registering higher temperatures. The 

authors however, did not quantify the conditions of the microclimate produced in the air gap 

between the fabrics.

Studies on external, pressurized steam exposures [36,37,38] reported that maximum heat transfer 

occurs at highest steam pressure and that the laminated and coated fabrics performed better than 

permeable fabrics. Permeable fabrics exhibit an instantaneous peak of heat flux on exposure to 

steam. However, Schimid et al. [36] noticed that impermeable fabrics progressively became 

permeable due to denaturation of coated layer when exposed to steam. The process of denaturation 

was not instantaneous but was dependent on the intensity of steam exposure. With regards to

fabric properties that affect protective performance against external steam exposures, studies [36, 

 

1 Skin-simulating sensor uses a glass ceramic block instrumented with thermocouples. The glass ceramic block has 

thermal properties resembling to that of a human skin. 
10

37,38] have suggested that heat transfer during steam exposure depends primarily on fabric 

thickness, water vapor permeability, fabric structure, and insulative properties of fabrics. Sati et 

al. [37] noted that both steam pressure and distance between test specimen and the skin-simulating 

sensor significantly influence heat transfer.

Considering the complexity of heat and moisture transfer through clothing systems, the 

microclimate in the air gaps within the clothing system and between the clothing and the skin is 

expected to play a significant role. The effect of air gaps on heat [39,40,41,42] and moisture 

[23,24,27,28,30] transfer has been extensively studied. However, conditions of the microclimate 

have never been quantified. Better understanding of the properties of the microclimate can help 

understand steam diffusion mechanisms through the layers of FFPC and thereby the occurrence of 

steam burns in fire fighters. Furthermore, understanding contributions of different layers of FFPC 

on heat and moisture transfer are important. The role of finishes on water repellency and thereby 

the moisture absorption by the outer shell, permeability of moisture barriers to water vapor, and 

effects of the thermal liner on moisture accumulation need to be investigated.

3. Existing Test Methods to Assess Heat and Mass Transfer in FFPC

Assessment of heat and mass transfer in protective clothing has largely examined two topics: (a) 

comfort related to human perspiration and evaporation of sweat produced, and (b) thermal 

protection related to thermal damage of skin. Various test methods adopted by standards 

committees for protective clothing are given in Table 3 and Table 4. Standards listed in Table 3 

correspond to the comfort (physiological) characteristics of protective clothing. These tests are 

designed to measure the ability of a fabric or fabric assemblies to transfer heat and moisture. These 

measurements can be used to quantify the relative capability of the garment to dissipate metabolic 

heat to the surrounding environment. The total heat loss (THL) value and the water vapor 

transmission resistance (WVTR) relate to breathability of a fabric or fabric assemblies. The 

description of test methods and test devices that quantify comfort properties is available elsewhere 

[25,43,44,45] and is beyond the scope of this review.
11

Table 3. Standards for evaluating comfort characteristics of FFPC

Standard Material 

tested

Test apparatus Property evaluated

ASTM F 1868, Part C 

[46].

Multi-layered 

fabric 

composite

Sweating hot 

plate

Total heat loss, W/m2

THL > 450 W/m2

ASTM E 96 [47] Multi-layered 

fabric 

composite

Dish/cup Water vapor transmission rate, 

g/h·m2

ISO 11092-DIN EN 

31092 [48]

Multi-layered 

fabric 

composite

Sweating hot 

plate

Thermal resistance, K·m2/W

Evaporative resistance, 

kPa· m2/W

NFPA 1971 Moisture 

barrier

WVTR cup Water vapor transmission rate, 

g/h· m2

ASTM F 1291 [49] Full clothing 

system

Sweating thermal 

manikin

Total thermal insulation, 

oC·m2/W

ASTM F2370 [50] Full clothing 

system

Sweating thermal 

manikin

Evaporative resistance, 

kPa·m2/W

ASTM F2371 [51] Full clothing 

system

Sweating Heated 

Manikin

Average cooling rate, W/s

ASTM F 2298 [52] Fabric 

specimen

Dynamic 

moisture 

permeation cell 

(DMPC)

Water vapor transmission rate, 

g/h·m2

ISO 15831 [53] Full clothing 

system

Thermal manikin Thermal insulation, oC·m2/W

Standards and test methods related to thermal protective performance of FFPC are listed in

Table 4. These bench scale tests methods are usually designed to characterize performance of 

materials in given conditions and not necessarily to reproduce a particular hazard for e.g., steam 

burns. These test methods assess the properties of materials in pseudo equilibrium, i.e., they do 

not give any information on any of the dynamic properties of the test materials that may be 

important under transient conditions. Two such tests that are usually applied to FFPC materials 

are known commonly as “Thermal Protective Performance (TPP)” [54] and “Radiant Protective 

Performance (RPP)” [55]. Both of these test methods use a small sample of material which is 

exposed to a defined heat energy source and the heat energy transfer through the material is 

measured. The endpoint of the test is usually when the energy transfer is predicted to be just 

sufficient to result in a second degree burn injury (Stoll criteria [56]) or when a fixed amount of 

energy has been transferred through the material. These test methods use time to second degree 

burn as the criterion for evaluation of thermal protective performance, which is dependent on the 

rise in temperature and dry heat transfer. 
12

Table 4. Standards for evaluating thermal protective performance of FFPC

Standard Material tested Test apparatus Property evaluated

ASTM F 2702 [57] Flame resistant 

clothing materials

RPP test device Heat transfer, kW/m2

ASTM F 2703[58]

NFPA 1971 [54]

Flame resistant 

clothing materials

TPP test device Heat transfer, kW/m2

Time to second degree 

burn, s

ISO 17492 [59] Flame resistant 

clothing materials

TPP device Heat transfer, kW/m2

Time to second degree 

burn, s

ASTM F1939 [60]

NFPA 1977 [55]

Flame resistant 

clothing materials

RPP test device Heat transfer , kW/m2 or 

RPP rating

ASTM F2731 [61]

NFPA 1971 [54]

Flame resistant 

clothing materials

Stored thermal 

energy (STE) 

device

Heat transfer, kW/m2

Time to second degree 

burn, s

ISO 9151[62] Flame resistant 

clothing materials

Flame exposure 

apparatus

Heat transfer index

ASTM F 1060 [63]

NFPA 1971 [54]

Clothing materials Conductive and 

Compressive 

Heat Resistance 

(CCHR) test 

device

Heat absorption

Thermal conduction, 

W/m·K

ASTM F 1930 [64] Full clothing 

system

Instrumented 

Manikin

Heat transfer, kW/m2

Time to second degree 

burn, s

ASTM F955 [65]

ISO 9185/BS373 [66]

Clothing materials Molten metal 

exposure 

apparatus

Temperature rise, oC

Time to second degree 

burn, s

Visual rating for charring, 

shrinkage, adherence and 

perforation

Both test methods were originally designed to rate the materials used in protective clothing and 

not to measure the true protection offered by the clothing. A rating method is based on times to 

second degree burn criteria for a given heat flux exposure (TPP/RPP rating = time to second degree 

burn x incident heat flux). According to NFPA 1971, a TPP rating of 35 is required for a fabric 

assembly to be used in fire fighter turnout gear. A TPP rating of 35 essentially means that a fire 

fighter can withstand a flashover fire condition (84 kW/m2) for 17.5 s without getting second 

degree burns. An RPP rating of 20 is specified by NFPA 1971 for a FFPC assembly which 

translates to 20 s protection time at approximately 42 kW/m2radiant exposure. European standards 

for protective clothing, however, measure the time to increase the skin temperature by 12 oC and 

24 oC. This time does not provide any information about steam transfer or steam condensation on 

the skin that could cause second degree burns. 
13

3.1. Test methods with moisture from pre-wetted samples

Most test methods evaluating steam burns simulate moisture accumulation in the clothing system 

due to perspiration of fire fighters during strenuous fire suppression activities [34]. These methods 

assume that the fire fighters have sweated profusely and that sweat is absorbed by the fabric. The 

test specimen, therefore, includes pre-wetted fabric samples with varying amounts of moisture. A 

precise laboratory preconditioning protocol was developed [26] and further modified by Barker et 

al. [32]. The turnout composite was moistened to mimic moisture gradients that would occur in 

actual wear. Different moisture add-on levels and corresponding fire fighter conditions are given 

in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Moisture add-on levels and corresponding fire fighter conditions [32]

Fire Fighter condition Amount of water*, g % by weight of turnout 

gear system

Dry 0 0

Sweating due to physical 

exercising in warm environment

2.5 15

Sweating at a rate of 1.5 L/h 8 50

Sweating at a rate of 3 L/h 16 100

* Amount of water per 152 mm x 152 mm specimen.

Barker et al. studied effects of moisture on the thermal protective performance of heat-resistant 

fabrics [26] and fabric composites in firefighter’s turnout gear [32]. In [32] they used a test set up

(see Fig 2) to measure thermal protective performance of fabric composites exposed to low-level 

radiant heating. To reduce heat losses during testing, a water-cooled chamber was located around 

the perimeter of the test samples and the complete test apparatus was placed in a controlled 

environment. Such a test arrangement assumes that the fire fighter is exposed to dry radiant heat 

and that the presence of moisture in a clothing system is only due to sweat production. 
14

Figure 2. Test set up to measure thermal protective performance for low-level radiant exposures 

[32]

Zhu et al. [27] studied heat and moisture transfer behavior of single-layered flame retarded cotton 

fabric during combined drying and pyrolysis processes. The schematic of the test apparatus is 

shown in Fig. 3. A modified RPP test apparatus based on the NFPA 1977 [55] method was used.

The heat source was provided by 13 quartz tubes of 500-watt power, horizontally oriented as 

opposed to the 9 vertically oriented quarts tubes used in the NFPA 1977 [ 55] RPP test method. 

The temperature rise and heat flux as a function of time was measured using a skin-simulating 

sensor instrumented with thermocouples. Weight loss of pre-wetted samples due to combined 

drying and pyrolysis was measured using a high resolution (0.01 g) electronic balance. 
15

Figure 3. Test apparatus to assess radiant protective performance of fabrics [27]

In a separate study, Zhu and Zhou [28] studied heat and moisture transfer in pre-wetted, singlelayered fabrics made from inherently heat resistant fibers. In this study, they exposed the prewetted samples to two heat fluxes (21 kW/m2 and 42 kW/m2). The heat source was provided by a 

gas burner and corresponded to ISO 91541 (Protective clothing-Protection against heat and firedetermination of heat transmission on exposure to flame). An air gap of 50 mm was maintained 

between the fabric specimen and the copper calorimeter. A schematic of the test apparatus is 

shown in Fig. 4. The thermocouple embedded in the calorimeter measured temperature and the 

time for a temperature rise of 12 oC and 24 oC was recorded. Such experimental set up, however,

records higher temperatures mainly by the condensing heat released by water condensation onto 

the surface of the copper calorimeter. The mass loss due to evaporation of moisture was 

determined by weighing fabric samples after heat exposure. The moisture mass-loss rate of prewetted fabrics was determined for a given heat flux by measuring mass-loss of heat exposed fabrics 

for different times.
16

Figure 4. Schematic of experimental set up to assess protective performance of fabrics exposed 

to open flame [28]

Wakatsuki et al. [8] investigated heat transfer through a complete clothing system (including the 

FFPC, station wear, and underwear) under low incident heat fluxes (12 kW/m2, 14 kW/m2, 

17 kW/m2, and 20 kW/m2). They pre-wetted the station wear and/or the underwear to reproduce 

sweating in a fire fighter during fire suppression. Mean water content in the station wear (100 %) 

and underwear (257 %) was obtained by soaking respective fabrics in water. In all the tests, the 

FFPC was dry, assuming that the moisture barrier in the FFPC would prevent any moisture 

transmission from the inner layers to the outer turnout gear. They used an ISO 5660 cone heater 

as a heat source and a copper calorimeter was placed at the back of the clothing system (Fig. 5). 

The heat transfer index (HTI) and heat transfer rate for different test conditions (varying moisture 

location in the clothing system) was measured. While the study focused on heat transfer through 

pre-wetted samples, no attempt on investigating moisture transfer was made. 
17

Figure 5. Schematic of test set-up to assess protective performance of pre-wetted fabrics [8]

In all of the test methods described above, the heat flux transferred through the test specimen is 

measured using a copper calorimeter. The heat flux data from the copper calorimeter are used to 

make human skin burn predictions using either the Stoll second degree burn criterion [56] or 

Henriques’ burn integral [6]. Test specimens are rated based on the calculated time or the total 

incident heat energy required to reach second degree burns. However, it is worth noting here that 

such a test principle can only rank the test materials for their protective capabilities. Such a test 

principle cannot be employed to measure true protection offered by the test specimens [35]. The 

test specimen is exposed to a defined heat flux until a second degree burn criterion or a given 

sensor temperature is exceeded. These tests, however, do not provide any information about the 

first degree burns which might occur during or after exposure ends.

A systematic approach was adapted by Keirser and Rossi [34] to assess steam formation in multilayer FFPC at low-level thermal radiation. They used temperature measurements to predict 

evaporation rate within the clothing assembly. A schematic of the test apparatus used in their 

study is shown in Fig. 6. An infrared lamp was used as the source of constant radiant heat flux. 

The distance between the infrared lamp and the outer shell of the clothing assembly was positioned

to supply a constant radiant heat flux of 5 kW/m2. The clothing assembly, including the wet layer,

was placed inside an upright standing polyether ether ketone (PEEK) tube and irradiated at 

5 kW/m2for 10 min. The test assembly was arranged such that moisture evaporating in the clothing 

system was not able to move sideways, thus minimizing convective heat transfer effects. T-type 

(copper- constantan) thermocouples were placed between each of the layers to measure the 

temperature distribution through the textile assembly. In their experiments, they found that during 

evaporation of moisture from pre-wetted internal layers of FFPC, there was no noticeable increase 

in the temperature. The energy consumption used for the phase change of moisture dominated the 

heat transfer process. They also noted that the moisture in the outer layers evaporated faster and 

at slightly higher temperatures than the moisture located in the inner layers. The authors indicated 

risk of steam burns by monitoring moisture condensation on the lid of the measuring unit and 
18

suggested that if the steam burns occurred, they might not be due to higher heat transfer under wet 

conditions, but more likely due to condensation of moisture on the skin. 

Figure 6. Schematic of test apparatus to measure temperature distribution in a clothing assembly 

exposed to low thermal radiations [34]

3.2. Test methods with moisture from external steam exposures

Compared to several studies [3, 8,19,23,24,27,28,32,34,67] that included pre-wetted samples, 

there are a limited number of studies wherein heat and moisture transfer in protective clothing was 

investigated by exposing dry samples to external steam. Derscuell and Schimid [36] developed a 

bench scale test as well as a full-scale thermal manikin test to study the effects of hot steam 

exposures on human physiology and protective capacities of fabrics respectively. The bench scale 

tests varied with steam exposure types. Schematics of bench scale test devices are shown in Fig. 

7. Figure 7 (a) shows the steam jet configuration where the sample is movable and is exposed to

a jet of steam. Figure 7 (b) shows a steam atmosphere configuration where a sample is stationary 

and a steam atmosphere is generated in an isolated box. Both devices included a steam generator, 

sample holder with thermo-regulated heat flux sensor, and a data acquisition system. The total 

and average amount of heat transfer through high-performance protective fabrics over a 10-min 

exposure time was measured at three different distances between the steam output and surface of 

the sample. Samples were classified by their physical characteristics and capacities to limit or 

modify heat transfer under the given steam exposures.
19

Figure 7. Schematic of bench scale test device with (a) steam jet and (b) steam atmosphere configurations [36]

Steam 

generator

Thermoregulato

r

Sample 

Computer

Data 

Logger

Heat flux 

sensor

Steam box

Electrovalve

Thermal regulator

Temperature 

sensor

(b)

(a)

Steam 

generator

Thermoregulator

Sample 

Computer

Data 

Logger

Heat flux 

sensor Steam jet
20

The protective performance of the garment was also evaluated in a steam chamber where the air 

temperature was maintained at 80 oC and the humidity was increased stepwise using a heating 

system and a humidifier. The researchers [36] failed to reach complete saturation within the 

chamber due to excessive condensation on the surface of a thermally-regulated manikin. A heat

flux value at saturation was therefore extrapolated using exponential regression. The results of the 

bench-scale fabric test and the full-scale garment test with the manikin showed good correlation. 

The major limitation of Derscuell and Schimid’s work [36] was that the heat flux sensors were 

thermally regulated, registering higher heat fluxes than would actually occur if the skin 

temperature was to rise with heat exposure.

A test device, similar to the one developed by Derscuell and Schimid [36], was developed by Sati 

et al. [37] to measure heat transfer through fabrics under high pressure steam exposures (207 kPa 

and 69 kPa ). Steam exposure conditions in their studies simulated conditions in the oil and gas 

industry. Sati et al. [37] used a cylindrical mounting surface to simulate a human torso. Skin 

simulant sensors incorporating a colerceran2(inorganic mixture of calcium, aluminum, silicate 

with asbestos fibers and a binder) plug and copper constantan thermocouples were mounted on the 

cylinder. Fabric samples were placed on the sensors with no air gap between the samples and the 

sensors. The peak temperature, peak heat flux, time to reach peak heat flux and total energy 

transferred during a 90 s time period (including a 10 s exposure time) were recorded to assess heat 

transfer properties of protective fabrics at two distances (50 mm and 100 mm) between cylinder 

and steam nozzle. 

Rossi et al. [29] analyzed the steam transfer through multi-layer FFPC exposed to free flowing 

steam. The steam was produced by heating a water container with a Bunsen burner. A copper 

calorimeter with an attached thermocouple was used to measure the heat flux generated by the 

steam and to determine the rise in temperature at the back of the fabric specimen respectively. The 

steam produced a heat flux of 30 kW/m2 ± 2 kW/m2. They defined the steam transfer index, STI12 

as the time to reach a temperature increase of 12 oC and STI24 for an increase of 24 oC. The effects 

of sweating on heat and mass transfer were assessed by pre-wetting the fabric layers. However, 

since sweating is a continuing phenomena, Rossi et al. [29] used a “sweating” cylinder in a separate 

experiment to assess heat and mass transfer. The experiments showed contradicting effects of 

sweating on heat and mass transfer. Experiments with pre-wetted samples exhibited higher 

thermal conductivity and hence high heat transfer. Measurements with a sweating cylinder showed 

a beneficial effect of sweating. This result cannot be easily interpreted since a sweating cylinder 

is not fully representative of a human body as the metallic cylinder has a much higher thermal 

conduction than the human skin. This study, however, did not quantify the amount of steam 

transferred through the fabric ensemble. 

Liu et al. [31] investigated protective performance of single-layer heat resistant fabrics with 

different air permeabilities under hot steam exposures. Their apparatus (see Fig. 8) consisted of 

four major parts: a steam chamber, the fabric, a copper calorimeter designed to simulate the human 

skin, and a data acquisition system. The test method used external pressurized steam and did not 

use pre-wetted fabric layers as a source of moisture. Two different steam pressure (50.6 kPa and 

152 kPa) exposures were studied and samples were exposed for fixed period of 20 s. The effect 

of different types of heat resistant fabrics on heat and moisture transfer was assessed at two steam 

 

2 Colerceran has thermal absorptivity similar to that of human skin.
21

pressures and air-gap thicknesses (distance between the fabric and skin simulant). In this setup, 

the steam pressure pushed the fabric closer to the skin sensor, leading to compulsive hot steam 

transfer through the fabrics and higher thermal conduction. 

Figure 8. Schematic of experimental set up to assess protective performance of fabrics exposed 

to external pressurized steam [31]

Very recently Li et al. [30] studied effects of humidity in the air gaps between garment and skin 

on heat transfer properties under flash fire conditions. They modified the TPP apparatus (Fig. 9) 

to accommodate the microclimate between the specimen and the sensor. They used a commercial 

ultrasonic atomizing humidifier to generate water vapor with a temperature of 33 oC ± 1 oC. Three 

microclimates with three relative humidities (35 %, 65 %, and 95 %) were investigated. Their 

findings suggested that the RH in a microclimate improves thermal protective performance of 

fabrics by 18 % to 33 %, depending on the air gap, i.e. the height of the microclimate chamber. 

They proposed that the water droplets in the microclimate evaporate due to high temperature and 

absorb heat, thereby reducing the heat energy transferred from the heated fabric to the thermal 

sensor. The authors, however, failed to measure moisture absorption and transmission properties 

of fabrics using the modified TPP apparatus. The experimental set up in their study addresses 

clothing microclimates under human sweating. It does not, however, take into consideration

external humidity that a firefighter may encounter during fire suppression activities.
22

Figure 9. Schematic of TPP test apparatus with modified specimen assembly to accommodate 

microclimate between the specimen and the copper calorimeter [30]

Ackerman et al. [38] developed a test method and associated apparatus to evaluate protective 

performance of fabrics against industrial, low pressure steam hazards. The bench–scale test 

apparatus (Fig. 10) facilitates steam exposure conditions over range of pressures (69 kPa to

620 kPa) for both saturated and superheated steam. Superheated steam was produced by 

electrically heating the saturated steam generated in a boiler. The computer program controls the 

steam conditions, exposure time and also monitors the sensor output. Researchers also developed 

a sample holder to accommodate impermeable membranes in the test specimen. This essentially 

avoided any undue buildup of pressure and thereby heat transfer. The test output in the form of 

peak heat flux and total absorbed energy enabled differentiation amongst fabrics and/or fabric 

systems. 

The steam exposure conditions used in the test methods described in this section are summarized 

in Table 6. It is clear from the table that almost all exposures are high steam pressures. Even the 

test apparatus described by Ackerman et al. [38], employs steam pressure that is significantly 

higher than the pressures encountered during structural firefighting. Differential pressures of 50 Pa 

above ambient or less are typically noted in a fire room [68]. Clearly, a test device and test method 

is required where the steam exposure conditions simulate the thermal/water vapor conditions 

encountered during structural firefighting.

PTFE test box
23

Figure 10. Apparatus for evaluation of fabric protection against industrial steam hazard [38]

Table 6. Steam exposure conditions previously studied

Steam 

configuration

Distance*, 

mm

Temperature, 

oC

Pressure, 

kPa

Exposure 

time, s

Reference

Jet NA 140 300 600 Derscuell and 

Schimid [36]

Steam 

atmosphere in an 

enclosure

NA 80 NA NA Derscuell and 

Schimid [36]

Jet 50 to 100 115 to 134 69 to 207 10 Sati et al.[37]

Steam 

atmosphere in an 

enclosure

- 112 to 128 50.6 to

152

20 Liu et al. [31]

Steam 

atmosphere in an 

enclosure

NA 33 NA ** Li et al. [30]

Jet 50 to 150 NA 69 to 620 10 Ackerman 

et al.[38]

* Distance between steam jet and heat sensor. 

** Exposure until occurrence of 2

nd degree skin burn.

NA: not available.

4. Summary and Conclusions

A review of the literature suggests that research on heat and moisture transfer mechanisms in FFPC

has primarily focused on moisture generated due to excessive sweating of the firefighters and 

subsequent exposure to high-risk environments including flash-over exposures. The effect of 

external moisture and thereby the heat transfer through protective clothing has received very little 

attention. 

Teflon sample holder 

with heat flux sensor and 

drainage channels

Steam outlet
24

It is evident that the moisture present in a protective clothing system has a complex influence on 

heat transmission and potential for skin burn injuries. In all of the above studies, test devices 

measured heat transfer through the clothing system either in the presence of high pressure external 

steam or internal moisture. The time to second degree burn is often used for evaluating thermal 

protective performance of fabrics. Available test methods for estimation of steam burns are 

insufficient as they provide static values that are achieved by testing the specimen under one 

defined condition. There is no test method available for evaluating effects of simultaneous 

diffusion of external steam and evaporation of moisture generated due to sweating on formation 

of steam burns. A major obstacle in the development of such testing methodologies is the lack of 

basic understanding of how moisture is absorbed in turnout clothing systems when exposed either 

to perspiration from sweating fire fighters or to water from fire suppressing activities. Better

understanding of mass and heat transfer in fire fighters’ protective clothing will help the 

development of better engineered clothing systems to accommodate a wide range of environments 

and reduce steam burns in fire fighters. 

An advanced physical model of the heat and mass transfer in FFPC would provide better 

understanding of water vapour absorption, diffusion, and evaporation within the protective layers 

exposed to hot and humid environments. Application of such an advanced physical model would 

allow optimisation and improved design of next generation FFPC. 
25

5. References

[1] J. R. Lawson, Thermal performance and limitations of bunker gear, Fire Engineering 

August (1998).

[2] C. V. Le, N. G. Ly, and R. Postle, Heat and mass transfer in the condensing flow of steam 

through an absorbing fibrous medium, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 

38(1), 81-89 (1995).

[3] L.K. Lawson, E. M. Crown, M. Y. Ackerman, and J. D. Dale, Moisture effects in heat 

transfer through clothing systems for wildland firefighters, International journal of 

Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 10 (3), 227-238 (2004). 

[4] SFPE Task Group on Engineering Practices, “Predicting 1st and 2nd Degree Skin Burns 

from Thermal Radiation,” Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD, 2000.

[5] R. Rossi Experimental investigation of the interaction of protection and physiology in fire 

fighters’ protective clothing, The Institute of Hygiene and Applied Physiology at ETH 

Zurich.

[6] F. C. Henriques, A. R. Moritz, Studies of Thermal Injury: The Conduction of Heat 

Through Skin and the Temperatures Attained Therein. A Theoretical and

Experimental Investigation, American Journal of Pathology, (1947).

[7] I. Hymes, The Physiological and Pathological Effects of Thermal Radiation, United

Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, SRD/HSE R275, 1983.

[8] K. Wakatsuki, N. Morii, Y. Ogawa, and H. Tsuji, Influence on skin burns by water 

absorbed station wear and underwear in firefighting clothing, Advanced Materials 

Research (2013), 796: 623-629.

[9] J. H. Veghte Effect of moisture on the burn potential of fire fighters gloves, Fire 

Technology 23 (4), 313-322 (1987).

[10] T. A. Braus, R. P. Dutrieux, M. J. Hoekstra, R. W. Kreis, and J. S. DuPont, 

Histopathological evaluation of scalds and contact burns in the pig model, Burns 20, 48-

51 (1994).

[11] J. D. Wiseman Jr., The myth of superheated steam, Physics L archives, August 1999. 

Available from: http://www.phys-l.org/archives/1999/08_1999/msg00919.html 

[12] J. H. Veghte, Physiologic response of fire fighters structural and hazmat protective 

clothing, Second annual conference on protective clothing, Clemson University, May 

1988.

[13] I. Holmér, Protective clothing in hot environments, Industrial Health 44, 404-413(2006).

[14] J. Lawson, W. D. Walton, N. P. Bryner, and F. K. Amon, Estimates of thermal protective 

properties for fire fighters’ protective clothing materials. NISTIR 7282, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, June 2005.

[15] J. Lawson, and T. A. Pinder, Estimates of thermal conductivity for materials used in fire 

fighters’ protective clothing. NISTIR 6512, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, May 2000.

[16] F. Zhu, and W. Zhang, Measuring the thermal conductive property of protective fabrics to 

radiant heat exposure, Journal of Industrial Textiles 37, 175-186 (2007).

[17] T. Haran, Short-wave infrared diffuse reflectance of textile materials, Doctoral Thesis, 

Georgia State University, 2008. Available from: 

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=phy_astr_theses

 
26

 

[18] H. S. Yoo, G. Sun, and N. Pan, Thermal protective performance and comfort of wildland 

firefighter clothing: the transport properties of multilayer fabric system, Performance of 

Protective clothing: Issues and Priorities for the 21st Century: Seventh Volume, ASTM 

STP 1386 C. N. Nelson and N. W. Henry, eds., American Society for Testing Materials, 

West Conshohocken, PA, 2000, pp 504-518.

[19] Z. Cui, and W. Zhang, Study of the effect of material assembly on the moisture and thermal 

protective performance of firefighter clothing, Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe 17(6), 

80-83 (2009).

[20] J. A. Wehner, L. Rebenfeld, and B. Miller, Dynamic moisture sorption and transport 

characteristics of textile materials, Lenzinger Berichte 58, 48-52(1985). Also available 

from: 

http://www.lenzing.com/fileadmin/template/pdf/konzern/lenzinger_berichte/ausgabe_58_1985/LB_1985_0

7_Wehner.pdf

[21] Y. Li and Q. Zhu, Simultaneous heat and moisture transfer with moisture sorption, 

condensation and capillary liquid diffusion in porous textiles, Textile Research Journal 

73(6), 515-524 (2003).

[22] Y. Wang, Y. Zong, J. Li and M. Zhao, Evaluating the moisture transfer property of the 

multi-layered fabric system in firefighter turnout clothing, Fibres & Textiles in Eastern 

Europe 19(6), 101-105 (2011).

[23] P. Chitrphiromsri and A. V. Kuznetsov, Porous medium for investigating transient heat 

and moisture transport in firefighter protective clothing and high-intensity thermal 

exposure, Journal of Porous Media 8(5), 511-528 (2005).

[24] P. Chitrphiromsri and A. V. Kuznetsov, Modelling heat and moisture transport in 

firefighter protective clothing during flash fire exposure, Heat and Mass Transfer 41, 206-

215 (2005).

[25] C. Keiser Steam burns: Moisture management in firefighter protective clothing. A 

dissertation submitted to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland (2007).

[26] Y. M. Lee and R. L. Barker, Effect of moisture on the thermal protective performance of 

heat-resistant fabrics, Journal of Fire Sciences 4, 315-330 (1986).

[27] F. Zhu and K. Li, Numerical modeling of heat and moisture through wet cotton fabric using 

the method of chemical thermodynamic law under simulated fire, Fire Technology 47, 801-

819 (2011).

[28] F. L. Zhu and Y. Zhou, Modelling heat-moisture transport through firefighters’ protective 

fabrics from an impinging flame jet by simulating the drying process, Fibres and Textiles 

in Eastern Europe 21(101), 85-90 (2013).

[29] R. Rossi, E. Indelicato and W. Bolli, Hot steam transfer through heat protective clothing 

layers, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 10(3), 239-

245 (2004).

[30] J. Li, Y. Lu, and X. Li Effect of relative humidity coupled with air gap on heat transfer of 

flame-resistant fabrics exposed to flash fires, Textile Research Journal 82, 1235-1243

(2012).

[31] H. Liu, Z. Cui, F. Zhu, and W. Zhang, Investigation of protective performance of heat 

resistant fabrics under external hot steam exposures. In proceedings of the third 

international conference on Modelling and Simulation (ICMS2010) Volume 4: Modelling 

and Simulation in Biology, Ecology and Environment, Wuxi, People’s Republic of China, 

June 4-6, 2010.
27

 

[32] R. L. Barker, C. Guerth-Schacher, R. V. Grimes and H. Hamouda, Effects of moisture on 

the thermal protective performance of firefighter protective clothing in low-level radiant 

heat exposures, Textile Research Journal (2006), 76: 27-31.

[33] K. Prasad, W. Twilley, and J. R. Lawson, Thermal performance of fire fighters’ protective 

clothing. 1. Numerical study of transient heat and water vapor transfer. NISTIR 6881, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, August 2002.

[34] C. Keiser and R. M. Rossi, Temperature analysis for the prediction of steam formation and 

transfer in multi-layer thermal protective clothing at low level thermal radiation, Textile 

Research Journal 78, 1025- 1035 (2008).

[35] D. A. Trovi, J. D. Dale, M. Y. Ackerman and E. M. Crown, A study of new and existing 

bench top tests for evaluating fabrics for flash fire protective clothing, Performance of 

Protective Clothing: Sixth volume, ASTM STP 1273, J. O. Stull and A. D. Schwope, eds., 

American Society for Testing and Materials, 1997.

[36] A. V. Desruelle and B. Schmid, The steam laboratory of the institute de médecine navale 

du service de santé des armées: a set of tools in the service of the French Navy, European 

Journal of Applied Physiology, 92, 630-635 (2004).

[37] R. Sati, E. M. Crown, M. Ackerman, J. Gonzalez, and D. Dale Protection from steam at 

high pressures: Development of a test device and protocol, International journal of 

Occupational Safety and Egronomics 14(1), 29-41(2008).

[38] M. Y. Ackerman, E. M. Crown, J. D. Dale, G. Murtasa, J. Batcheller and Gonzalez, 

Development of a test apparatus/method and material specifications for protection from 

steam under pressure, Performance of Protective Clothing and Equipment: Emerging 

Issues and Technologies on 16 April 2011 in Anaheim, CA; STP 1544, A. M. Shepherd, 

Guest edt., pp. 1–21, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA 2012.

doi:10.1520/STP104104,

[39] A. M. Stoll, M. A. Chianta, and L. R. Munroe, Flame-contact studies, Journal of Heat 

transfer 86, 499-456 (1964).

[40] D. A. Trovi, D. Dale, and B. Faulkner, Influence of air gaps on bench-top test results of 

flame resistant fabrics, Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 10 (1), 1-12 (1999).

[41] G. Song, Clothing air gap layers and thermal protective performance in single layer 

garment, Journal of Industrial Textiles 36(3), 193-205 (2007).

[42] H. Song, H. Dongmei, Q. Zhengkun, Y. Hui, H. Yin, and H. Zhang, The effect of air gap 

thickness on heat transfer in firefighters’ protective clothing under conditions of short 

exposure to heat, Heat Transfer Research 43(8), 749-76 (2012).

[43] K. H. Umbach Physiological tests and evaluation models for the optimization of the 

protective clothing, In Environmental Ergonomics, I. B. Mekjavic, E. W. Banister, J. B.

Morrison, eds., Taylor and Francis, New York (1988) pp.139-161.

[44] Fournier M., Duvaut T., Chirtoc M and Bachmann JM. Measurement of textile thermal 

properties, European Physical Journal Special Topics (2008), 153: 143-145.

[45] L. Hes, Non-destructive determination of comfort parameters during marketing of 

functional garments and clothing, Indian Journal of Fiber and Textile Research 33, 239-

245 (2008).

[46] ASTM F 1868: Standard Test Method for Thermal and Evaporative Resistance of Clothing 

Materials Using a Sweating Hot Plate.

[47] ASTM E96: Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials.
28

 

[48] ISO 11092: Textiles- Physiological effects- Measurement of thermal and water-vapour 

resistance under steady-state conditions (sweating guarded-hotplate test).

[49] ASTM F 1291: Test Method for Measuring the Thermal Insulation of Clothing Using a 

Heated Manikin.

[50] ASTM F2370: Standard Test Method for Measuring the Evaporative Resistance of 

Clothing Using a Sweating Manikin. 

[51] ASTM F2371: Standard Test Method for Measuring the Heat Removal Rate of Personal 

Cooling Systems Using a Sweating Heated Manikin.

[52] ASTM F 2298 : Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Diffusion Resistance and Air 

Flow Resistance of Clothing Materials Using the Dynamic Moisture Permeation Cell

[53] ISO 15831: Clothing -Physiological effects- Measurement of thermal insulation by means 

of a thermal manikin.

[54] NFPA 1971: Standard on protective ensembles for structural firefighting and proximity 

firefighting.

[55] NFPA 1977: Standard on protective clothing and equipment for wildland firefighting. 

[56] A. M. Stoll, M. A. Chianta, Method and rating system for evaluation of thermal protection, 

Aerospace Medicine 40(11), 1232-1237 (1996).

[57] ASTM F2702: Standard Test Method for Radiant Heat Performance of Flame Resistant 

Clothing Materials with Burn Injury Prediction.

[58] ASTM F2703: Standard Test Method for Unsteady-State Heat Transfer Evaluation of 

Flame Resistant Materials for Clothing with Burn Injury Prediction.

[59] ISO 17492: Clothing for protection against heat and flame- Determination of heat 

transmission on exposure to both flame and radiant heat

[60] ASTM F1939: Standard Test Method for Radiant Heat Resistance of Flame Resistant 

Clothing Materials with Continuous Heating.

[61] ASTM F2731: Standard Test Method for Measuring the Transmitted and Stored Energy of 

Firefighter Protective Clothing Systems.

[62] ISO 9151: Protective clothing against heat and flame- Determination of heat transmission 

on exposure to flame.

[63] ASTM F1060: Standard Test Method for Thermal Protective Performance of Materials for 

Protective Clothing for Hot Surface Contact.

[64] ASTM F1930: Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Flame Resistant Clothing for 

Protection Against Fire Simulations Using an Instrumented Manikin.

[65] ASTM F955: Standard Test Method for Evaluating Heat Transfer through Materials for 

Protective Clothing Upon Contact with Molten Substances.

[66] ISO 9185: Protective clothing- Assessment of resistance of materials to molten metal

splash.

[67] F. Zhu, Z. Weiyuan, and C. Minzhi, Investigation of materials combinations for firefighter’s protective clothing on radiant protective and heat-moisture transfer performance,

Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe 15(1), 72-75 (2007).

[68] S. Kerber and W.D. Walton, Effect of Positive Pressure Ventilation on a Room Fire.

NISTIR 7213, National Institute of Standards and Technology, December 2005.