Evaluation of Anti-Contamination Garments in Use …/67531/metadc623489/...Evaluation of Anti-Contamination Garments in Use at LLNL Kirk J. Staggs, Kent R. Wilson, Donald P. Eadens

UCRL-ID-128830

b

Evaluation of Anti-ContaminationGarments in Use at LLNL

KJ. StaggsK.R. WilsonD.P. EadensJ.W. StengelY.P. Chong

December 1997

DISCLAIMER

This document w= prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United StatesGovernment nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makea any warranty, express or imptied, or assumes any legalliability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or USefuMss of any information, apparatus, productj or process disctosed, orrepresents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or serviceby trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, orfavoring by the United States Government or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do notnecmsarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the University of Caiiforniaj and shatt not be used for advertisingor product endorsement purposes.

This report has been reproduceddirectly from the best available copy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from theOfikc of Scientific and Tecludcal Information

P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37S31Prices available from (61S) 576-8401, lWS 6%4401

Available to the public from theNatiomd Technicat Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce5285 Port Royal Rd.,

Springfield, VA 22161

?

b


K.J. StaggsK.R. WilsonD.P. EadensJ.W. StengelY.P. Chong

December 1997

..

..


Kirk J. Staggs, Kent R. Wilson, Donald P. EadensJerry W. Stengel, and Yee Ping Chong

Lawrence Liverrnore National LaboratoryPO Box 808,Liverrnore,CA94551

●

ABSTRACT

This paper describes tests conducted on LLNL anti-contamination and clean-roomgarments using flame exposures derived from federal and industry standards. Each garmentwas assigned to one of three groups (low, moderate, and high) based on its fire responseand performance. Test results and analysis provide guidance in selecting protective clothingfor operations involving high temperatures or potential ignition sources.

INTRODUCTION

On February 13, 1997, a fatal accidentoccuned at the Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory (ORNL) when a worker’sclothing caught fw during a torch-cuttingoperation. Following this incident, theHazards Control Department at LawrenceLiverrnore National Laboratory (LLNL)conducted flammability tests of all anti-contamination and clean-room garmentsused for operations. Of special concern wasthe performance of protective clothing usedin areas where personnel are exposed topotential ignition sources from operationsinvolving welding, cutting, pyrophoricmetals, and other high-energy sources suchas lasers. Tests were conducted to deter-mine various parameters (ignition, flame-spread rate, after-burn time, char length,amount of rnaterkd consumed, and after-glow time) for each garment. The resultswill provide guidance in the selection ofprotective clothing best suited for LLNLoperations involving high temperatures orpotential ignition sources.

TESTING

Twenty-two anti-contamination and clean-room garments were collected from withinLLNL. Each garment was assigned a

number (1–22), then subdivided alphabet-ically into sets (e.g., 1A-E; 2A-E; etc.) inorder to apply the equivalent flame expo-sures specified in the American Society forTesting and Materials (ASTM) D-1230Standardl and the Federal Test Method(FTM) 191 Standard.z The flame exposurefor the ASTM D-1230 Standard is reason-ably reproducible, so the number ofsamples tested for each garment was limitedto three. On the other hand, the flameexposure for the I?TM 191 Standard ismore severe and generally burns faster, sofive samples of each garment were testedand the results averaged to account for anyvariations in the flame-spread rate.

ASTM D-1230 Standard

To create the flame exposure specifiedin this standard, a small burner wasfabricated using a 26-gauge needle. Butanewas used as the fuel source, and the flamewas adjusted to a length of 5/8 inch(1.59 cm) and controlled with precisionvalves and pressure gauges. Each samplewas then inserted into a specimen holder ata 45° incline, with the flame positioned3/4 inch (1.91 cm) from the lower end ofthe test sample. A thread was then placedacross the sample (five inches up from theexposed area) to gauge the flame spread.The sample was exposed to the test flamefor approximately one second (see Fig. 1).

Automatickick-4acksolenoid

k~

Figure 1. Test apparatus. The sample holder was placed at a 45° angle for samplestested using the ASTM D-1230 flame exposure and at a 90° angle for samples testedusing the FTM 191 flame exposure.

Photographs and video records weretaken of each test and used to calculate theflame-spread rate as well as other para-meters for each sample. In some tests, thelower section of the sample being testedmelted or burned but the flame did notextend up to the thread. In these cases, thetotal area burned or melted was measuredand correlated with the length of burn timeto derive an ornni-directional flame-spreadrate (i.e., areakec). These results can befound in Table A- 1, Appendix A.

FTM 191 Standard

The flame exposure for this standardwas created using a 3/8-inch (0.95 cm)diameter Bunsen burner, with the ventscompletely closed, and a special gasmixture as required by the standard. Theflame was adjusted to extend approximately1-1/2 inch (3.8 1 cm) above the burner.Each sample was then placed in a 3 x 12inch (7.62 x 30.05 cm) specimen holderand held vertically 3/4 inch (1.9 1 cm)

above the flame. Samples were exposed tothe flame for 12 seconds. If ignitionoccurred, the sample was allowed to burnuntil either it was consumed or the f~e self-extinguished. The burn time was recordedafter the flame was removed. If there wasany afterglow, it was recorded from thetime the flame went out until the glowingstopped. In cases where the afterglow timewas lengthy, it was recorded as greater thana minute. A video record was made of eachtest and used to calculate the measurementsfor the various parameters. These resultscan be found in Table A-2, Appendix A.

Char-length measurements were calcu-lated for test samples that did not com-pletely burn. Asrequired by the FTM 191standard, a 4-ounce weight was attached tothe sample corner exposed to the flamewhile the opposite corner was lifted. Thematerial was allowed to tear (or pull apart)as the weight was lifted. These measure-ments can also be found in Table A-2,Appendix A.

2

RANKING PROCESS

The 22 anti-contamination garmentstested were categorized into one of thegroups (low, moderate, and high) based ontheir ignition characteristics and flame-spread rates. Table 1 summarizes thegarments tested and their group ranking.The criteria used in the ranking process areshown in Table 2. Figures 2 through 4provide examples of the test results for eachgroup.

The garment’s ease of ignitionconstituted one of the ranking criteria.Ignition was considered to occur if thegarment burned for more than one secondafter flame removal. Brief ignition isdefined as obvious burning that self-extinguished within one second of flameremoval, while sustained ignition iscontinued burning for three or moreseconds after flame removal. titedignition falls between sustained and briefignition.

Table 1. Anti-contamination garments collected and tested.

Sample Description Model/manufacturer Group

12345

67

8

91011

12

13

14

151617

18

192021

22

Green paper coverallsBlue paper coverallsYellow-coated paper coverallsBlue paper coverallsBlue- and white-coated paper

coverallsWhite-coated paper coverallsBlue cloth coveralls

White cloth coveralls

Yellow cloth coverallsWhite-coated paper coveralls100~o polypropylene coveralls,

style GB-103OBlue lab coat, 65% polyester

and 35 Yo cottonOrange lab coat, 65 Yo polyester

and 35 Yo cottonBlue lab coat, 50% polyester

and 5090 cottonWhite and orange lab coatBlue lab coatBlue lab coat, 6570 dacron and

359’0 cottonWhite lab coat, 65% polyester

and 35 YO cottonYellow cloth coverallsWhite, full body suitOrange lab coat, 6570 polyester

and 3590 cottonOrange coveralls, 65 YO polyester

and 3590 cotton

Tempro/KapplerPrevail/Kimberly-Clark

—’

SontaralllurafabMicro Clean 2-1-2/

PharmesealTyvek/KapplerMaximun/Dryden

Engineering Co.Maximun/Dryden

Engineering Co.—’—’—’

—’

Euclid

Uniforms Manufacturer,Inc.

—“.—-

KWB Manufacturing Co.

Best Manufacturing, Inc.

Defense Apparel, Inc.Tyvek/KapplerWranglers

.

LowLow

ModerateLowHigh

HighHigh

High

ModerateModerateModerate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

ModerateModerateModerate

Moderate

ModerateModerate

High

Moderate

‘Model and manufacturer information was not visible on garment tags.

3

Table 2. Criteria used for categorizing anti-contamination garments.

IF the garment exhibited THEN, it was placed in the

“ Brief ignition (<1 see) using the ASTM Low group. This indicates thatD-1230 Standard flame exposure the garment has a low

and probability of ignition and a low● Limited or brief ignition (<3.0 see) and a flame-spread rate.

slow flame-spread rate (<0.5 cm/see) usingthe FTM 191 Standard flame exuosure

Limited ignition (between 1.0 and 3.0 see) Moderate group. This indicatesand a moderate flame-spread rate that the garment has a higher(<1.0 cmlsec) using the ASTM D-1230 probability of ignition than theStandard flame exposure low group and a moderate flame-

and spread rate.Sustained ignition Q3.O see) and a moderate

flame-spread rate (S2.0 cm/see) using theFTM 191 Standard flame exposure

● Sustained ignition &3.O see) and a fast High group. This indicates thatflame-spread rate (>1.0 cm/see) or thread the garment passed the test, buttime (>3.5 sees) using the ASTM D-1230 will ignite with a high flame-Standard flame exposure spread rate.

and● A fast flame-spread rate (>2.0 cm/see) using

the FTM 191 Standard flame exposure

The other criteria for group rankinginvolved the flame-spread rate-eitherlinear or area (omnidirectional)-over agiven time period. A fastflame-spread ratefor samples tested using the ASTM D-1230Standard is faster than 1.0 cm per second.At this rate, a flame could travel the fulllength of a garment at any angle less than45° from vertical in approximately two min-utes. A fast flame-spread rate for samplestested using the FTM 191 Standard isfaster than 2.0 cm per second, which couldbe compared to a flame traveling the fulllength of a garment in just over a minute.Flame-spread rates slower than these areconsidered to be moderate; a flame-spreadrate of 0.5 cm or less using the FTM 191Standard is slow.

Garments ranked in the low group willnot contribute to a fue or allow flames toeasily spread. These garments will melt butdo not ignite, and if ignited will not burnafter the energy source is removed.Garments in the moderate group resistignition, but if ignited will burn slowly.These garments would be suitable for

LLNL operations if the user is fully awareof the hazards involved and could easily orquickly sense fm or smoke from theburning garment, allowing time to extin-guish the flames. (Code of F’edmdRegulation, Title 29, Part 1910. 132(f)requires workers to be trained on thehazards involved in and limitations ofselected personal protective equipment.3)Garments in the high group will ignite witha high flame-spread rate. Therefore, thesegarments are unsuitable for operationsinvolving high temperature, pyrotechnicoperations, welding, or other tasks thatmight produce a spark, flame, high-energylight source, or incandescent surface.

DISCUSSION

The testing and ranking process did nottake into account the burning characteristicsof multi-layered clothing. Certain combi-nations of clothing might bum with moreintensity and become difficult to extinguishin a very short time. It is also possible that

.

*

,

.

5

layering some garments would inhibit f~growth. Thus, careful consideration mustbe given to garments that melt easily but donot bum. If such garments are the onlylayer of clothing worn, the intense heat ofthe melt itself will likely cause skin burns.Furthermore, if these garments are wornover more combustible clothing, the under-garments may dominate f~e growth.

In situations where a garment will beexposed to ignition sources, then a fxe-resistant garment such as Nomex orKevlar/PBI should be worn. If this type ofgarment is too costly for ongoing opera-tions, then overgarments constructed of alightweight material that will developminimal flaming if ignited should be worn.Careful consideration should be given tothe exposed areas of the user’s body (i.e.,chin, face, and hands).

Ignition of any garment fkom openflames, hot slags, or embers will be influ-enced by factors such as frayed ends, openpockets, crevices, and wrinkles. Frayedends, particularly around the garment’scuffs, are much easier to ignite. Hot slagsor embers trapped in garment folds havemo~ time to elevate the material to ignitiontemperature. In addition, folds will increasethe exposed surface area which can igniteand bum, reinforcing and intensifying thefire. Therefore, garments should be fittedproperly with as few folds and wrinkles aspossible to help guard against ignition andminimize fiie growth. All pockets and cuffsshould be sewn shut or removed. Garmentsthat become frayed should be repaired orreplaced immediately. Repeated launderingshould be limited as much as possible, asthis will wear the fabric and remove thechemical f~e retardant from fro-retardantcotton coveralls.

CONCLUSION

Flammability tests were conducted atLLNL to determine the fme response andperformance of various anti-contamination.Durability, wear, comfort, and other factorswere not considered for this study. Theresults obtained were used to rank variousanti-contamination garments into three riskgroups (low, moderate, and high), and toprovide guidance on selecting garmentsbest suited for use in areas where ignitionsources may exist. Garments in the highgroup should not be used in situationswhere contact with open flame or hotsparks is likely. Those in the moderategroup should be used with discretion andadditional controls. Garments in the lowgroup are the most fm ~sistant and arepreferable to those in the previous twogroups. However, these may not be safefor use in all areas.

Code of Federal Regulation, Title 29,Part 1910. 132(d) requires written hazardassessments to include the selection basisand limitations of personal protectiveequipment for each tasks Thus, carefulconsideration must be given to both ignitionsources and protective equipment needswhen selecting garments for work in anarea with multiple hazards (e.g., contam-inants). In some cases, it maybe prudent touse garments made of proven fue-resistantmaterials (e.g., Nomex, Kevlar/PBI) whenconducting welding or pyrotechnic opera-tions. Garments that bum with a low heat-release rate could be used over fue-resistantgarments to minimize high replacementcosts. Other testing would be required todetermine the flammability of such muki-layered garments.

6

1. American Society for Testing and Materials, “Standard Test Method for Flammabilityof Apparel Textiles,” ASTM D-1230-85 (1995).

2. General Service Administration, “Federal Standard for Textile Test Methods,” FederalTest Method 191A (1978).

3. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1910.132, “Personal ProtectiveEquipment-General Requirements,” Occupational Safety and Health Administration,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors express their gratitude to Steve Leeds, for his technical advice; Mike Trent, forbringing up this subject; Dave Myers, for providing the funding; and the ES&H TeamLeaders, for providing the test garments.

7

APPENDIX A

This appendix contains two tables with data for the samples tested. Table A-1 includes thedata for samples tested using the flame exposure for the American Society for Testing andMaterials (ASTM) D-1230 Standard. Table A-2 includes the data for samples tested usingthe flame exposure for Federal Test Method (FI’M) 191 Standard.

,,

4

4 .

Table A-1. Results for samples tested using the ASTM D-1230 Standard.

Length of flame Linear burn rate Omni-directional Thread timeSample Location Group Descriptiona exposure (see) Ignitionb (Cm/see) bum rate (crrdsec) (WC)

1A

lBlC

2A

m2C

3A

3B3C

4A

4B4C

B490/491

B490/491B490/491

B49W491

B490/491B490/491

—c

—cc—

d—

d.

d—

Low Green paper coveralls; model: Tempro;manufacture Kappler; density: 2.452.Garment in new condition.

Same as above.Same as above.

0.978 NI — — —

1.0631.042

MM

LowLow

— ——

———

Low Blue paper coveralls; model: Prevail;manufacturer: Kimberly<lark; density:2.532. Garment in new condition.


0.971 Pa — — —

LowLow

1.044

1.042MP/I

— ——

———

0.734Moderate Yellow-coated paper coveralls thatresemble Durafab; density: 2.102.Garment in new condition.


0.952 BI 0.324 —

0.3480.177

0.5690.356

ModerateModerate

1.0441.042

LILI

——

Blue paper coveralls; model: Sontarwmanufacture Durafab; density: 2.626.Garment in new condition.


0.953 NLow — — —

LowLow

1.0371.032

NINI

——

——

——

‘Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.bNI = no ignition; BI = brief ignition; LI = limited ignition; S1 = sustained ignition.‘Garment might be from B490/491 or B 175.‘Garment might be from B 175 or B331/332.

Table A-1. Cent’d

Length of flame Linear burn rate Omni-directional Thread timeSample Location Group Description” exposure (see) Ignitionb (crn/see) bum rate (crn/see) (See)

5A 0.969 LI 0.274 1.61 —B4901491

B4901491B4901491

B391

B391B391

B391

B391B391

B391

B391B391

Moderate

ModerateModerate

Modmte

ModerateModerate

High

HighHigh

High

HighHigh

Blue- and white-coated paper coveralls;model: Micro Clean 2-1-2;manufacturer: Phannaseal; density: 1.353.Garment in new condition.


White-coated paper coveralls;model: Tyvek; manufacture~ Kapplevdensity: 1.229. Garment in used condition.


Blue cloth coveralls; model: Maximun;manufacturer Dryden Engineering Co.Garment in slightly used condition.


White cloth coveralls; model: Maximun;manufacturrx Dryden Engineering Co.Garment in used condition.


m5C

6A

1.0441.026

LILI

0.5780.563

1.150.881

——

0.971 LI 0.105 0.835 —

6B6C

7A

1.0351.025

LILI

0.7140.232

0.7790.958 —

17.7S1 3.79—

7B7C

8A

11.033

S1S1

3.1233.018

13.6419.62

——

1 S1 4.488 11.44—

8B8C

1.0391.03

S1S1

5.1934.781

109.57

——

‘Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.bNI= no ignition; BI = brief ignition; LI = limited ignition; S1 = sustained ignition.

* ,. .

& .

Table A-1. Cent’d

Length of flame Linear burn rate Omni-directional Thread timeSample Location Group Description’ exposure (see) Ignitionb (Crrdsec) burn rate (cn-dsec) (See)

9A

9B9C

10A

10B10C

11A

1lB1lC

12A

12B

12C

c .— Yellow cloth coveralls that resemble

Defense Apparel, Inc. Garment in usedcondition.


White-coated paper coveralls that resembleTyvek; density: 1.29. Garment in usedcondition.


100% Polypropylene coveralls, style GB-1030; density: 1.503. Garment inslightly used condition.


Blue lab coat, 65% polyester and 35%cotton. Garment in worn condition.

Same as above.

Same as above.

0.952 M — — —Low

LowLow

Moderate

ModerateModerate

Low

LowLow

Low

Low

Low

c.

c—

e—

e—

e—

Plant Eng

Plant EngPlant Eng

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

1.0231.026

MNI

— ——

———

0.947 BI 0.208 0.719 —

1.0291.006

0.947

1.4290.769

0.7370.783

BILI

M

——

. — —

1.0411.005

0.934

1.032

1.032

NINI

M

NI

M

——

—.

—.

— —

— —

— —

‘Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.~1 = no ignition; BI = brief ignition; LI = limited ignition; S1= sustained ignition.‘Garment might be fromB490/491 or B 175.‘Garment is probably from B361.

Table A-1. Cent’d

Length of flame Linear bum rate Omni-directional Thread timeSample Location Group Descriptiona exposure (see) Ignitionb (Cdsec) bum rate (cm/see) (See)

13A

13B

13C

14A

14B

14C

15A

1!3315C

16A

16B

16C

B321 C(nc shop)’

B321 C(nc shop)’B321 C

(nc shop)’

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321

B321B321

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

LowLow

Low

Low

Low

Orange lab coat, 65% polyester and 35%cotton; manufacture Euclid. Garment inworn condition.

Same as above.

Same as above.

Blue lab coat, 50% polyester and 50%cotton; manufacturer: UniformsManufacturer, Inc. Garment in usedcondition.

Same as above.

Same as above.

White and orange lab coat. Garment inbadly worn condition.


Blue lab coat. Garment in worn condition.

Same as above.

Same as above.

0.935 M — — —

1.022 M

1.047 NI

0.962

1.026

1.032

0.932

1.0221.014

0.936

1.031

1.031

NI

NI

M

M

NINI

NI

M

M

—

—

—

—

—

—

——

.

.

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

——

—

—

—

‘Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not be

—

—

—

—

—

—

——

—

—

—

provided for all samples.bNI = no ignition; BI = brief ignition; LI = limited ignition; S1 = sustained ignition.‘nc shop = numerically controlled (special material) machine shop.

* ;

r, ●● ✎

Table A-1. Cent’d

Length of flame Linear burn rate Omni-directional Thread timeSample Location Group Description’ exposure (see) Ignitionb (cm/see) burn rate (cm/see) (See)

17A

17B

17C

18A

18B18C

19A

19B19C

20A

20B20C

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 C

B321 CB321 C

B332

B332B332

B331

B331B331

Low

Low

Low

Low

LowLow

Low

LowLow

Moderate

ModerateModerate

Blue lab coat, 65% dacron and 3570 cotton; - ‘-”.-l.ulo Nl — — —

manufacturer KWB Manufacturing Co.Garment in worn condition.

Same as above. 1.032 M

M

—

—

— —

— —Same as above. 1.006

White lab coat, 65% polyester and 35%cotton; manufacturer Best ManufacturingCo. Garment in worn condition.


0.95 M — — .

1.021.029

N(M

NI

——

— .— —

Yellow cloth coveralls that resembleDefense Apparel, Inc. Garment in newcondition.


0.954 — — —

1.0241.042

NINI

LJ

——

——

——

White, full body suit model: Tyvek;manufacture Kapple~ density: 1.324.Garment in new condition.


1.097 0.214 1.232 —

1.0191.031

BILI

0.60.363

0.5461.028

.—

‘Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.bNI = no ignition; BI = brief ignition; LI = limited ignition; S1= sustained ignition.

Table A-1. Cont’d

Length of flame Linear bum rate Omni-directional Thread timeSample Location Group Description’ exposure (see) Ignitionb (Cndsec) burn rate (cm/see) (See)

21A B321 C Low Orange lab coat, 65% polyester and 35% 0.952 M — — —

cotton, possibly style 52-RG;manufacturer: Wranglers. Garment in usedcondition.

21B B321 C Low Same as above. 1.033 M — — —

21C B321 C Low Same as above. 1.049 M — — —

22A B332 Low Orange coveralls, 65% polyester and 35% 0.952 NI — — —

cotton. Garment in used condition.22B B332 Low Same as above. 1.033 NI — — —

22C B332 Low Same as above. 1.005 M — — —

‘Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.bNI = no ignition; BI = brief ignition; LI = limited ignition; S1 = sustained ignition.

.- ●

Table A-2. Results for samples tested using the FTM 191 Standard.

Burn rate Afterbum time Afterglow time Char lengthSample Location Group Description’ (Cdsec) (W) (W) (in.)

1A

lBlClDlE

2A

m2C2D2E

3A

3B3C3D3E

4A

4B4C4D4E

B4901491

B4901491B4901491B490/491B490/491

B490/491

B490/491B490/491B490/491B490/491

b—

b—

_b

b—

b—

c—

—c

c—

—c

—c

Low

LowLowLowLow

Low

LowLowLowLow

Moderate

ModerateModerateModerateModerate

Low

LowLowLowLow

Green paper coveralls; model: Tempro; manufactureKappler; density: 2.452. Garment in new condition.

Same as above.Same as above.Same as above.Same as above.

Blue paper coveralls; model: Prevail; manufacturerKimberly-Clark; density: 2.532. Garment in new condition.


Yellow-coated paper coveralls that resemble Durafab;density: 2.102. Garment in new condition.


Blue paper coveralls, model: Sontarw manufacture~ Durafab;density: 2.626. Garment in new condition.


— — — 2

2.251.75

22

————

————

————

2— — —

2.252.252.5

2.25

————

————

————

10.5— —

8.58.258.5

9.75

————

————

————

1.75— — —

1.752.5

2.252.5

————

————

————

‘Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer’s tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.bGarrnent might be from B490/491 or B 175.‘Garment might be from B 175 or B331/332.

Table A-2. Cent’d

Bum rate Afterbum time Afterglow time Char lengthSample Location Group Descriptiona (crn/see) (w) (see) (in.)

5A

5BSC5D5E

6A

6B6C

6D

6E

7A

m7C7D7E

8A

8B8C8D8E

B490/491

B4901491B4901491B490/491B49W491

B391

B391B391

B391

B391

B391

B391B391B391B391

B391

B391B391B391B391

Moderate

HighHigh

ModerateHigh

High

HighHigh

Moderate

High

Modemte

ModerateModerate

LowModerate

Moderate

ModerateModerateModerateModerate

Blue- and white-coated paper coveralls; model: Micro Clean2-1-2; manufacturer Pharmaseal; density: 1.353. Garmentin new condition.


White-coated paper coveralls; model: Tyvek; manufactureKappler; density: 1.229. Garment in used condition.


Same as above.

Same as above.

Blue cloth coveralls; model: Maximun; manufacturer DrydenEngineering Co. Garment in slightly used condition.


White cloth coveralls; model: Maximun; manufacturerDryden Engineering Co. Garment in used condition.


—

————

—

—.

—

.

—

———

0.598

0.7257

1.271.6931.6931.494

— — 10.5

1110.759.511

————

———.

12— —

11.7511

10.5

11.5

——

—

—

——

—

—

d—9 —

d—

d.

96

—.——

—

26

12 — —

431730

21.2

————

————

‘Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer’s tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples. -‘No forward propagation of flame after source removal.

... ●

Table A-2. Cent’d

Bum rate Afterbum time Afterglow time Char lengthSample Location Group Descriptiona (Cdsec) (See) (See) (in.)

14A

14B

14C

14D

14E

15A

15B15C15D15E

16A

16B

16C

16D

16E

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321

B321B321B321B321

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A

. . ..- ... . -n -.. . -A- .-. 0.9407 34 84 —lvmcterate J5melab coat, wv” polyester ana xm cotton; manufacturer:Uniforms Manufacturer, Inc. Garment in used condition.

Moderate Same as above.




—

1.134

1.129

1.954

41

39

38

35

104

69

85

76

—

—

—

—

Moderate White and orange lab coat. Garment in badly worncondition.


1.847 30 4 —

HighMaderateModerateModerate

2.38131.8681.6391.764

23242125

——

62

————

Moderate Blue lab coat. Garment in worn condition. 1.639 40 20 —

Moderate Same as above. 1.104 33 21 —



Moderate Same as above, 1.27 44 29 —

(main bay)

‘Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer’s tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.

Table A-2. Cent’d

Burn rate Afterburn time Afterglow time Char length

13A

13B

13C

13D

13E

(main bay)B321 A

(main bay)B321 A

(main bay)B321 A

(main bay)B321 A

(main bay)

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Sample Location Group Description’ (Cmkec) (See) (see) (in.)

12A B321 A Moderate

12B

12C

12D

12E

Ii321 C(nc shop)’B321 C

(nc shop)’B321 C

(nc shop)’B321 C

(nc shop)’B321 C

(nc shop)’

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Blue lab coat, 65% polyester and 35%. Garment in worncondition.

Same as above.

Same as above.

Same as above.

Same as above.

Orange lab coat, 65% polyester and 3590 cotton;manufacture Euclid. Garment in worn condition.

Same as above.

Same as above.

Same as above.

Same as above.

0.5644

0.5522

0.8944

0.7144

0.5976

41

57

45

40

54

7

—

22

8

5

—

—

.

—

—

0.7362

1.134

1.058

1.2451

1.2451

52

35

38

41

38

9

12

14

18

19

—

—

—

—

—

“Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer’s tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.‘nc shop= numerically controlled (special material) machine shop.

.- ●-1

Table A-2. Cent’d

Bum rate Afterbum time Afterglow time Char lengthSample Location Group Descriptiona (Cn-dsec) (See) (w) (in.)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

Moderate Blue lab coat, 50% polyester and 50% cotton; manufacturer:Uniforms Manufacturer, Inc. Garment in used condition.


0.9407 34

— 41

1.134 39

1.129 38

1.954 35

84

104

69

85

76

—

14B

14C

14D

14E

—

Moderate Same as above. —

Moderate Same as above. —

Mcderate Same as above. —

15A B321 Moderate White and orange lab coat. Garment in badly worncondition.

High Same as above.Moderate Same as above.Moderate Same as above.Mcderate Same as above.

1.847 30 4 .

15B15C15D15E

B321B321B321B321

2.38131.8681.6391.764

23242125

——

62

————

16A B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

Moderate Blue lab coat. Garment in worn condition. 1.639 40 20 —

16B Moderate Same as above. 1.104 33 21 —

16C

16D

16E




‘Some anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer’s tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.

Table A-2. Cent’d

Burn rate Afterburn time Afterdow time Char length

18A

18B18C18D18E

19A

19B19C19D19E

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 A(main bay)

B321 C

B321 CB321 CB321 CB321 C

B332

B332B332B332B332

KWB Manufacturing Co. Garment in worn condition.Moderate Same as above.



Moderate Same as above,

Sample Location Group Description’ (Crnkec) (w) &c) (in.) -

17A Modemte Blue lab coat, 65% dacron and 3570 cotton; manufacture

17B

17C

17D

17E

High White lab coat, 659’opolyester and 35% cotton;manufacturer Best Manufacturing Co. Garment in worncondition.

Modemte Same as above.High Same as above.

Moderate Same as above.Moderate Same as above.

Moderate Yellow cloth coveralls that resemble Defense Apparel, Inc.Garment in used condition.

Moderate Same as above.Moderate Same as above.Moderate Same as above.Moderate Same as above.

1.451

0.9676

1.089

1.176

0.7471

49

42

39

94

36

34

17

25

39

31

—

—

—

—

—

2.117

1.5242.541.5881.671

1.451

1.81431.6931.9582.048

27

24232525

36

35363534

22

301157

37

25364725

—

———.

—

————

aSome anti-contamination garments were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer’s tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.

. ●

Table A-2. Cent’d

Burn rate Afterburn time Afterglow time Char lengthSample Location Group Descriptiona (Cm/see) (See) (s=) (in.)

20A B331 Moderate White, full body suit; model: Tyvek; manufacturer Kappler;density: 1.324. Garment in new condition.

Moderate Same as above.Moderate Same as above.Moderate Same as above.Me&rate Same as above.

10

20B B331

20C B33120D B33120E B331

9.258

7.757.75

— — —— . .— — —— — .

21A B321 C High Orange lab coat, 65% polyester and 35% cotton, possiblystyle 52-RG; manufacturer: Wranglers. Garment in usedcondition.

Moderate Same as above.High Same as above.High Same as above.High Same as above.

2.032 29 8 —

21B B321 C21C B321 C21D B321 C

21E B321 C

1.3552.1772.6283.266

21241828

6

364

———.

22A B332 Moderate Orange coveralls, 6590 polyester and 35’%0cotton. Garment inused condition.

Moderate Same as above.Moderate Same as above.Moderate Same as above.Moderate Same as above.

0.847 48 6 —

22B B33222C B33222D B33222E B332

0.5770.6930.896

0.747

39444044

612

75

————

‘Some anti-contamination gan-nents were badly worn or had no visible manufacturer’s tag. Therefore, the model, manufacturer, or fabric content could not beprovided for all samples.

. .

Technical Inform

ation Departm

ent • Lawrence Liverm

ore National Laboratory

University of C

alifornia • Livermore, C

alifornia 94551

Documents

Evaluation of Anti-Contamination Garments in Use …/67531/metadc623489/...Evaluation of Anti-Contamination Garments in Use at LLNL Kirk J. Staggs, Kent R. Wilson, Donald P. Eadens