Quick Assessment of the Navy Mark V CBR Respirator 

After 13 Years in Storage 

by Ryan J. Felling, Gregory A. Cherry, and Ronald A. Weiss 

ARL-TR-3069 September 2003 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068 

ARL-TR-3069 September 2003 

Quick Assessment of the Navy Mark V CBR Respirator 

After 13 Years in Storage 

Ryan J. Felling, Gregory A. Cherry, and Ronald A. Weiss 

Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

September 2003 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

May–June 1997 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Quick Assessment of the Navy Mark V CBR Respirator After 13 Years in Storage 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Ryan J. Felling, Gregory A. Cherry, and Ronald A. Weiss 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

Office of Special Technology Task T-510 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRL-SL-BE 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT 

NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3069 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

This study was a quick assessment of the Mark V CBR respirator for its fit factor and physiological effectiveness using two 

volunteer subjects. The assessment included tests for fit factor, vision, and carbon dioxide buildup during exercise. Having 

been manufactured in 1984, the ability of this respirator to provide adequate nuclear, biological, and chemical and hazardous 

materials protection for civil authorities was questionable. Three of these respirators still in their original packages were 

supplied for testing. The assessment indicated that the masks should be discarded or used only for training. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Mark V, respirator, storage effects, physiology, vision, CBR, NBC, fit factor 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Ronald A. Weiss 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED UL 16 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-5709 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents 

List of Figures iv

List of Tables iv

1. Introduction 1

2. Methodology 1

2.1 Physiological Testing ......................................................................................................2 

2.2 Fit Factor .........................................................................................................................3 

3. Results 4

3.1 Physiological Testing ......................................................................................................4 

3.2 Fit Factor .........................................................................................................................6 

4. Discussion 6

5. Conclusions 8

6. References 9
iv

List of Figures 

Figure 1. The Mark V protective respirator....................................................................................2 

Figure 2. Diagram of visual field measurements in a standard binocular field..............................3 

Figure 3. Leak locations and percent penetration in the Mark V respirators. ................................6 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Results from vision testing of Mark V respirator. ............................................................5 

Table 2. Results from CO2 testing of Mark V respirator................................................................5 

Table 3. Results of the human fit factor test. ..................................................................................7 
1

1. Introduction 

The Navy Mark V chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) gas masks evaluated in this 

expedient assessment were supplied by the Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services 

Agency (EMSA). EMSA had obtained 2000 masks and 10,000 vacuum-packed filter canisters 

packaged in original, unopened boxes (dated 1984). The masks were given to EMSA 

Emergency Response teams for use in early 1997. The purpose of this study was to evaluate, 

after 13 years in storage, the amount of protection the masks would provide, as well as their 

physiological effectiveness, including their visual capability and breathing proficiency during 

heavy workloads. Acoustic capability was not addressed because the mask does not cover the 

ears and would therefore have no effect. 

The three Mark V respirators evaluated in this study had a molded medallion under the forehead 

strap tabs marked February 1984. It was not known whether the masks were new or 

reconditioned after manufacturing due to slight scuff marks found on the face pieces and lenses. 

It was originally assumed that the masks had been reconditioned after their manufacturing. In 

1984, the Navy explored the possibility of adding a nosecup to this mask but no nosecups were 

present in the masks used in this study. A report (Chambers, 1984) surveying the effects of age 

with shipboard storage indicated that the Mark V lenses, at least 17 years old, turned yellow to 

orange in color. The older masks also had a tendency to take the compression set of both the 

face piece and lens because they were folded during storage. Because the three masks supplied 

for testing did not outwardly show these characteristics during their known 13 years in storage, 

this supported the assumption that the masks were new. 

Figure 1 shows the Mark V nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) protective respirator. It is 

mounted on the head with a five-strap harness and buckle system with only the bottom two 

straps being adjustable while wearing the mask. A seal is formed around the face by a hollow 

tube, internally molded within the perimeter of the mask. There is a single lens made of a clear 

plastic material. The mask lacks a nosecup, but there is an exhalation valve directly in front of 

the mouth with inhalation valves on both sides within the metal filter canister mounting disks. 

Each filter canister has a 0.5-in-wide rubber mounting/sealing toroidal gasket fastened to the 

outer edge of its posterior surface that stretches over a large metal mounting plate to attach the 

canister to the mask. The internal edge of the rubber gasket is loose. 

2. Methodology 

The volunteers used as test subjects in this evaluation were well-conditioned 19-year-old males 

weighing ~80 kg and were 1.85 m in height. The tests were conducted in an air-conditioned 

laboratory where the temperature was maintained at 21 °C. The testing was conducted in 

compliance with an approved human-use protocol. 
2

Figure 1. The Mark V protective respirator.

2.1 Physiological Testing 

The physiological portion of the procedure consisted, in part, of a series of standard tests used to 

evaluate mask performance and to determine if any visual degradation was caused by wearing 

the mask (North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] Army Armaments Group, 1977). Two 

tests were conducted to determine if the lens of the Mark V respirator had any effect on the color 

acuity of the wearer due to either aging or construction. Color acuity was evaluated by the 

Farnsworth-Munsell Dichotomous Test for Color Blindness, which uses a series of 15 colored 

caps that the subject must arrange in the correct color sequence (Lakowski, 1969; Whitcomb and 

Benson, 1996; The Psychological Corporation, 1947) and by Ishihara’s Test for Color Blindness 

(Kanehara and Company, 1920), which consists of a book of plates displaying a number that the 

subject must discern within a specific color pattern. The Howard-Dolman Test (Armstrong, 

1943; Howard, 1919) was used to determine the effect that the distortion or material degradation 

of the lens might have on depth perception by having the subject attempt to align two movable 

arrows from a distance of 6 m. While wearing the mask, static visual acuity was determined by 

having the subject read the standard Snellen charts (Westheimer, 1981; Snellen, 1862) which are 

commonly used in clinical visual testing. Any deviation from the unmasked baseline 

measurement of the subject would be an indication of visual distortion caused by the lens. Glare 

from light hitting the lens could also present a problem; therefore, the subjects’ contrast 

sensitivity was also tested while wearing the mask using the Pelli-Robson chart (Metropia Ltd., 

1989). 

Finally, the visual field and Esterman field were measured with the Marco Perimeter, a 

hemisphere around which a small moveable light can trace a subject’s visual limits (NATO 

Army Armaments Group, 1977). Separate measurements were taken for each eye, except for the 

Esterman field, which was done with binocular vision. The visual field test determines the 

extent to which the mask reduces the total visual field, both peripheral and binocular. The 
3

Esterman Field test measured the visual ability across the full visual field. Values were 

calculated as percentages of the normal fields when the subject did not wear a mask. Figure 2 

shows the various measurements that were taken. The peripheral field is the overall field of 

view while the binocular field is the overlapping intersection of the fields of view for both the 

left and right eye. The lateral, inferior, and medial efficiency indexes (Weiss, 1991; NATO 

Armaments Group, 1977) were measured for the right eye from 70 to 135°, from 135 to 180°, 

and from 250 to 310°, respectively. The specific visual efficiency indices were calculated as a 

percent of the normal field for the same degree wedges. 

Figure 2. Diagram of visual field measurements in a standard binocular field. 

A second physiological evaluation was performed to measure the potential build-up of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) within the mask during exercise. While wearing a mask, the subject would pedal 

a Monark stationary bicycle for 10 min with a braking resistance of 1.0 kilopond (kp) and 

another 10 min at a braking resistance of 2.0 kp. A mask internal air sample was continually 

extracted through a hollow plug inserted in the lens of the mask and directed through an Ametek 

Model CD3A gas analyzer to determine CO2 concentration. The percentage of CO2 was 

averaged and recorded every minute. 

2.2 Fit Factor 

This test determined if the mask was leaking by comparing the concentration of a mineral oil 

aerosol within the mask to its concentration outside the mask in the surrounding ambient air 

environment. This ratio of inside concentration to outside concentration is known as a “fit or 

leakage” factor because it makes no judgment of the toxicity of the material being measured. If 
4

the toxicity of the aerosol and its physiological threshold concentration were known, it would be 

a protection factor. 

Testing used to determine the fit factor of the masks was done using the TDA-99D Mask 

Leakage Detector made by Air Techniques, Inc., Owings Mills, MD. Leakage tests were 

conducted both statically and dynamically using Emory 3004 aerosol with the Mark V respirator 

placed both on a face-form (static method) and on a human subject (dynamic method). With the 

mask mounted on the face-form, a vacuum was created inside the face-form at the rate of 

15 L/min. Using a wand emanating the aerosol, a narrow spray of Emory 3004 was directed 

around the peripheral edge of the mask and then over each component of the mask. Any mask 

penetration was pulled by a vacuum through a sensor and recorded by the detector. The narrow 

stream emitted from the wand made it possible to pinpoint locations of any leaks in the mask. 

The second test to determine the fit factor of the mask was performed under a hood into which 

the Emory 3004 aerosol was released. A human subject would then stand within the hood while 

wearing the Mark V respirator and perform the following series of exercises for 1 min each: 

• Breathe normally. 

• Breathe deeply. 

• Move head from side to side. 

• Move head up and down. 

• Recite the “Rainbow Passage.” 

• Perform facial expressions. 

• Look up and move head from side to side. 

• Jog in place. 

• Breathe normally. 

Air samples were continually extracted by a vacuum through the same narrow plug in the lens of 

the mask. The percent penetration readings were recorded for each activity and later converted 

to determine fit factor. 

3. Results 

3.1 Physiological Testing 

The results of the vision testing are presented in Table 1. The Farnsworth-Munsell Test and 

Ishihara Test were each passed without error by both subjects. Negligible differences were 
5

Table 1. Results from vision testing of Mark V respirator. 

Test Subject A Subject B 

Farnsworth-Munsell Pass Pass 

Ishihara Pass Pass 

Depth perception — — 

 Trial 1 2 mm 5 mm 

 Trial 2 1 mm 0 mm 

 Trial 3 5 mm 6 mm 

 Average 2.7 mm (2.3 mm) 3.7 mm (2.3 mm) 

Acuity 20/15 (20/15) 20/20 (20/20) 

Contrast sensitivity 1.95 (1.95) 1.95 (1.95) 

Visual field — — 

 Peripheral 61.4% 68.1% 

 Binocular 38.2% 39.4% 

 Lateral eff. index 88.6% 91.4% 

 Inferior eff. index 27.5% 23.9% 

 Medial eff. index 66.2% 52.5% 

Esterman field 93.3% 90.5% 

Note: Unmasked baseline measurements are shown in parentheses for comparison. 

found between the baseline and masked conditions during the depth-perception testing. Visual 

acuity and contrast sensitivity were also unaffected by the mask. Reductions were discovered in 

the sizes of visual and Esterman fields of view. The visual field and Esterman field results are 

given as percentages of the normal, unmasked fields of view. 

The CO2 testing did show an accumulation of CO2 in the mask during heavy exercise, as 

recorded in Table 2. Subject A voluntarily stopped the test after 6 min when the inhaled CO2

level reached 2.65%. The CO 2 concentration for Subject B reached a high of 1.49% after 8 min 

of exercise, but it then appeared to drop, even though the workload was increased after the first 

10 min. 

Table 2. Results from CO2 testing of Mark V respirator. 

Subject A Subject B 

Time 

(min) 

CO2 

(%) 

Time 

(min) 

CO2 

(%) 

Time 

(min) 

CO2 

(%) 

Time 

(min) 

CO2 

(%) 

1 1.83 11 — 1 0.62 11 0.74 

2 2.12 12 — 2 1.17 12 0.81 

3 2.45 13 — 3 1.01 13 1.10 

4 2.55 14 — 4 1.03 14 0.99 

5 2.65 15 — 5 1.32 15 0.85 

6 2.12 16 — 6 1.05 16 0.55 

7 Cancel 17 — 7 1.08 17 0.62 

8 — 18 — 8 1.49 18 0.50 

9 — 19 — 9 1.08 19 0.41 

10 — 20 — 10 0.72 20 0.60 
6

While no acoustic testing was done on the mask because the ears were not covered and the mask 

contained a voicemitter in front of the mouth, it was observed that a voicemitter in one of the 

masks tested contained at least three moderate wrinkles in its diaphragm. These wrinkles would 

impede clear communication as a result of the slackness in the diaphragm. 

3.2 Fit Factor 

Figure 3 illustrates the locations where leaks were found in three Mark V respirators using the 

face-form leakage detector. In mask no. 1, leaks were found at the top of the face seal, at the top 

of the lens where the lens meets the mask, at the bottom of the face seal, at the exhalation valve, 

and at various spots around the canister-mask connection. Mask nos. 2 and 3 also showed leaks 

at the exhalation valve and around the rubber mounting/sealing gasket of the filter canisters, and 

mask no. 3 showed an additional leak at the top of the lens. 

0.400

0.130

0.055

MARK V - #1

0.005

0.008

0.063

0.005

 0.400

0.050

0.035

MARK V - #2

 1.059

(0.060 after cleaning valve)

0.410 0.030

0.030

0.005

MARK V - #3

Figure 3. Leak locations and percent penetration in the Mark V respirators. 

This part of the fit factor testing pinpointed where the problem areas of the mask were. The 

human testing conducted under the hood showed the cumulative effect of all the leaks in each 

mask. Table 3 compares the test results of each mask conducted on a single human subject. The 

fit factor numbers were converted from the raw concentrations of aerosol displayed by the TDA 

99D. The averages shown in Table 3 represent the geometric mean of the values of the nine 

exercises when each mask was worn. Mask no. 2 had a geometric mean of 0 because exercises 

4 and 6 had a reading of 0. 

4. Discussion 

The Mark V respirator has very little effect on the visual capability of the wearer. The most 

significant problem with regard to vision is the reduction in the size of the visual fields of view. 

While wearing the mask, the size of the overall visual field is reduced to <70% of the normal 

unmasked field. This is a significant decrease; however, it is not nearly as severe as some of the 

masks that are in use today. The most problematic aspects of the visual field are the binocular 

field and the inferior field, or downward-looking region. The filter canisters protrude into the 
7

Table 3. Results of the human fit factor test. 

Exercise Minimum Fit Factor 

 Mask no. 1 Mask no. 2 Mask no. 3 

Breathe normally 1020 690 250 

Breathe deeply 330 450 170 

Move head from side to side 180 420 220 

Move head up and down 190 0 170 

Recite “Rainbow Passage” 210 180 140 

Perform various facial expressions 370 0 130 

Look up, moving head side to side 800 310 220 

Jog in place 540 500 340 

Breathe normally 800 500 130 

Geometric average 407 0 187 

field of view, limiting sight below the nose line. Fogging did not present as much of a problem 

as would have been expected considering the lack of a nosecup. One subject complained of 

fogging during exhalation due to the high humidity of the exhaled air, but the mask immediately 

defogged in a cyclic manner once fresh, less humid air was inhaled. 

The most critical physiological problem with the mask occurred during exercise when the level 

of CO2 increased. Subject A exhibited breathing difficulty after the mask accumulated CO2

levels of ~3%. Fogging also became an increasing problem due to the saturated warm exhaled 

air accumulating inside the mask causing condensation on the cooler lens. In this case, the test 

was stopped after only 6 min due to breathing difficulty. The second subject did not encounter 

as severe a problem with increased CO2 levels, possibly because the mask did not have a tight 

seal. After reaching a high of 1.5% at ~8 min into the test, the CO2 level actually began to 

subside. This is possibly due to an accumulation of sweat around the face seal, which facilitates 

the exchange of gases between the environments inside and outside the mask. 

The physiological problems of the mask become irrelevant when one sees the results of the fit 

factor tests. According to these results, the wearer of this mask in a toxic environment would 

probably be incapacitated before he or she had to worry about vision or prolonged exercise. The 

current U.S. Army requirement is a fit factor of 1667 as a minimum standard for gas masks 

(King, 1983). The Mark V respirator did not meet this standard even during quiet breathing. 

The primary problem areas of the mask appear to be the exhalation valve and the canister 

connections. Rather than using threaded filter canisters, the Mark V respirator uses filter 

canisters that are held to a mounting plate by an attached rollable rubber mounting/sealing 

gasket. When these rubber gaskets are relatively new, they may provide adequate protection 

against leakage. However, as the gaskets get older, as seen by all three sets of filter canisters 

used in this evaluation, they could crack and leak. The problem with the exhalation valve could 

be due to one or more of several reasons: (a) loss of stiffness with age allowing the valve to 

prolapse, (b) turbulent backflow or, (c) a simple design flaw. 
8

The face seal of the mask, by itself, appeared to be adequately functional when tested on the 

faceplate of the TDA 99D mask leakage detector, but this seal could very well have been broken 

by the various head movements performed during the dynamic human fit factor test. Low-level 

leakage at the top-center of the face piece, top center of the lens, and bottom center of the face 

piece in mask no. 1 suggested that a compression set had begun because it was folded during 

storage. When the three masks evaluated were removed from their original packaging at the 

beginning of this study, they were mounted on a stiff cardboard three-dimensional (3-D) frame in 

their carrier bags to prevent compression set during storage. This storage frame had a wide, flat 

central surface to preclude the mask folding in the center and thus should inhibit the compression 

set. There was no visual indication of the compression set in any of the masks during our initial 

inspection. The onset of compression set was only suggested in one of the three masks when a 

leakage test was performed. When the U.S. Navy conducted a survey on Mark V respirators 

aboard 10 ships (Chambers, 1984), they found 52.2% of the 78 masks surveyed had slight to 

severe permanent compression set in masks 1–27 years old. Unfortunately, the data presented in 

Chamber’s report did not indicate the ages of the masks showing a compression set, nor did they 

indicate if they were mounted on the 3-D frame in their carrier. 

Before testing was even begun on the Mark V respirator, another problem was found with the 

filter canisters. After being sealed in a vacuum for so long (13 years), the rubber attachment 

gasket of one of the canisters split radially as soon as it was stretched over the mounting plate on 

the mask. Furthermore, the buckles on the straps used to hold the mask in place make it very 

uncomfortable to wear as well as being relatively difficult to tighten in comparison to other 

masks. 

5. Conclusions 

Overall, the results of this study indicate that the Mark V respirator does not provide sufficient 

fit factor protection to the user against toxic materials after 13 years in storage; the masks should 

be discarded or possibly used solely for training purposes when such compromised mask use is 

appropriate and acceptable. Because the Mark V respirator was designed without a nosecup, 

CO2 has a tendency to rapidly accumulate within the mask. This dramatically affects the 

breathing capability of the wearer and limits his or her ability to work. Visual capability when 

wearing the mask appears acceptable except that the lower visual field of view is reduced. 
9

6. References 

Armstrong, H. Principles and Practice of Aviation Medicine, 2nd ed.; Williams and Wilkens: 

Baltimore, MD, 1943; p 82. 

Chambers, G. L. Initial Survey for Evaluation of Navy Mark V Protective Mask. PE S0410-SL, 

Task No. IP3S, August 1984. 

Howard, H. J. A Test for the Judgment of Distance. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1919, 

2, 656. 

Kanehara and Company. Ishihara’s Series of Plates Designed as a Test for Color Blindness. 

Tokyo, 1920. 

King, Kenneth J. Revised Joint Service Operational Requirement (JSOR) for the Protective 

Mask. USATRADOC ACN 11954, April 1983. 

Lakowski, R. Theory and Practice of Color Vision Testing: A Review, Part II. British Journal 

of Industrial Medicine 1969, 26, 265. 

Metropia Ltd. Pelli-Robson Chart. Instructions Version 6/89, 1989. 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Army Armaments Group. Combined Operational 

Characteristics, Technical Specifications and Evaluation Criteria for the Protective Mask: 

Unclassified Version. Publication D-103, NBC Defence Panel, January 1977. 

Snellen, H. Optotypes: Scala tipografica per mesurare il visus; P. W. Vander Weijer: Utrecht, 

Netherlands, 1862. 

The Psychological Corporation, Farnsworth Dichotomous Test for Color Blindness. Panel D15; The Psychological Corporation: New York, NY, 1947. 

Weiss, R. A. Concept of a Unit Circle and Unit Sphere as a Method of Expressing Respirator 

Physiology Function and Degradation—I: Vision. Journal of the International Society for 

Respiratory Protection 1991. 

Westheimer, G. Visual Acuity. In Adler’s Physiology of the Eye, 7th ed.; Moses, R. A., Mosby 

Company: St. Louis, MO, 1981; p 530. 

Whitcomb, M. A.; Benson, W., Eds. Armed Forces Committee on Vision; National Academy of 

Sciences, National Research Council: Washington, DC, October 1996. 
10

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

1

 2 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 INFORMATION CENTER 

 DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 COMMANDING GENERAL 

 US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

 AMCRDA TF 

 5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

 THE UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

 3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 US MILITARY ACADEMY 

 MATH SCI CTR EXCELLENCE 

 MADN MATH 

 THAYER HALL 

 WEST POINT NY 10996-1786 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL D 

 DR D SMITH 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CS IS R 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CS IS T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 2 DIR USARL 

 AMSRL CI LP (BLDG 305) 

 AMSRL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600) 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

2

 1 USARL 

 AMSRL SL M 

 J PALOMO 

 WSMR NM 88002-5513 

 1 USARL 

 AMSRL SL EA 

 R FLORES 

 WSMR NM 88002-5513 

 1 USARL 

 AMSRL SL EI 

 J NOWAK 

 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5601 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 US ARMY DEV TEST COM 

 CSTE DTC TT T 

 APG MD 21005-5055 

 1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR 

 CSTE AEC SVE S 

 R POLIMADEI 

 4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE 

 APG MD 21005-3013 

 1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR 

 CSTE AEC SV L 

 R LAUGHMAN 

 4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE 

 APG MD 21005-3013 

 33 DIR USARL 

 AMSRL SL 

 DR WADE 

 J BEILFUSS 

 AMSRL SL B 

 P TANENBAUM 

 J FRANZ 

 J MORRISSEY 

 AMSRL SL BB 

 M RITONDO 

 S JUARASCIO 

 D FARENWALD 

 AMSRL SL BD 

 R GROTE 

 AMSRL SL BE 

 E DAVIS (10 CPS) 

 L ROACH 

 R WEISS (10 CPS) 

 AMSRL SL E 

 M STARKS 

 AMSRL SL EC 

 J FEENEY 

 E PANUSKA