vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/600/R-92/014
February 1992
Limited-Use Chemical
Protective Clothing for
EPA Superfund Activities
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-92/014
February 1992
LIMITED-USE CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
FOR EPA SUPERFUND ACTIVITIES
by
Jack C. Sawicki, Carla Mond, and Arthur D. Schwope
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, MA 02140-2390
and
Susan Watkins
Dept. of Design and Environmental Science
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-4401
Contract No. 68-03-3293
WA 3-60.1
Project Officer
Michael Gruenfeld
Releases Control Branch
Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3293 to Arthur D. Little,
Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
n
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and
practices frequently cany with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly
dealt with, threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and
water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities
and the ability of natural systems to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts,
and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing,
and managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative,
defensible engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA
with respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous
wastes, and Superfund-related activities. This publication is one of the products of that
research and provides a vital communication link between the researcher and the user
community.
This study was undertaken to better understand the limitations and potentials of
limited-use chemical protective clothing used in Superfund activities. The findings are
directly applicable to pesticides and toxic substance operations.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
m
-------
ABSTRACT
Because contractor field personnel complained about the poor durability and fit of
limited-use chemical protective clothing (CPC) most commonly used at hazardous waste site
operations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a study to
• characterize use of CPC
• determine problems encountered
• develop solutions to problems, and
communicate results in publications and procurement guidelines.
Personnel at two Superfund hazardous waste sites were surveyed about CPC problems.
Poor fit of coveralls and lack of fabric durability resulted in garment failures, especially in the
seat, crotch, and underarms. Some fabrics were identified that provided improved
performance.
The commercial market was surveyed, and commercial fabrics for limited-use CPC
were identified and obtained. In addition, two experimental fabrics were obtained. All
available fabrics were tested for breaking strength and flexibility. Based on these tests and
the field survey, acceptable minimum values for breaking strengths of coated and uncoated
fabrics and acceptable maximum values for stiffness were determined. One of the
experimental fabrics, DuPont Tyvek® 1445 coated with polyethylene, was found to be
especially promising when compared with these values.
Available standards and specifications describing size and fit parameters for limited-
use CPC were identified and reviewed relative to EPA Superfund CPC needs. None of the
standards were found to be fully acceptable. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
Standard 101-1985, however, provided a satisfactory baseline for further standards
development. Problems with CPC were analyzed and suggested changes to ANSI 101 were
developed as a proposed procurement guideline. This information was presented to the
Industrial Safety Equipment Association, which developed the ANSI standard.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract 68-03-3293, Work Assignment
3-60.1, by Arthur D. Little, Inc., under sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This report covers the period from September 1988 through September 1989.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page No.
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
Acknowledgment vii
1. Introduction 1
Purpose 2
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 3
3. Field Experience with Limited-Use CPC 5
Background 5
Field Investigation 6
4. Laboratory Investigation 13
Procedure 13
Results 13
Discussion 18
5. Evaluation of Fit and Sizing 21
Existing Standards 21
Standards Modification 25
Appendices
A. Proposed User Questionnaire for Limited-Use Coveralls 31
B. Proposed Limited-Use Coverall Procurement Guidelines 37
-------
FIGURES
Figure No. Page No.
1 Limited-use coverall seat failure • • • • 7
2 Limited-use coverall armpit failure 8
TABLES
Table No. Page No-
1 Limited-use chemical protective clothing fabrics 14
2 Standard test methods for evaluating chemical protective
clothing fabrics 15
3 Physical characteristics of limited-use chemical protective
clothing fabrics 16
4 ANSI 101-1985 minimum requirements 21
5 Measurements of ten commercial limited-use coveralls 23
6 Reproducibility of measurements of two, commercial,
limited-use coveralls 24
7 Measurements of military coverall (size large) 25
8 Proposed minimum finished dimensions for limited-use coveralls 29
B-l Proposed limited-use coverall measurement procedures 39
B_2 Proposed minimum finished dimemsions for limited-use coveralls 41
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the Engineered Nonwoven Structures Division,
DuPont Co., Inc., Durafab, Inc., and Kappler, Inc., for their assistance.
vn
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
With the promulgation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA, A.K.A. "Superfund"), and the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been tasked with the
lead responsibility for management of hazardous substances/hazardous waste (HS/HW)
mitigation activities in the United States and its territories. The EPA has been involved in
thousands of HS/HW actions since 1980.
HS/HW include gases, liquids, and solids that may be flammable, reactive, corrosive,
or toxic. In many cases, the composition of the waste or substance is unknown.
Furthermore, the waste or substance may present multiple hazards.
Consequently, personnel involved in HS/HW mitigation activities are potentially at
risk. To address these risks to personnel, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) promulgated 29 CFR 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response in 1988. This regulation, based largely on the EPA manual Health and Safety
Requirements for Employees Engaged in Field Activities, requires special training,
supervision, procedures and personal protective equipment (PPE) to be provided to workers
involved in HS/HW activities.
In EPA operations, the determination of the appropriate PPE to be utilized for each
operation is the responsibility of the on-scene coordinator (OSC) and the site safety officer
(SSO). To assist such personnel in making these critical decisions, the EPA has sponsored
research into various aspects of PPE. This study focuses on chemical protective clothing
(CPC) that is designed to be discarded after becoming contaminated or a few uses, known as
limited-use CPC.
While strictly speaking, any CPC must be considered disposable in cases where
effective decontamination is impossible, CPC priced up to approximately $100 is generally
termed "limited-use" by the HS/HW community, and this value was used as a guide for
selecting the clothing evaluated in this study.
It is estimated from interviews with OSCs that nearly all EPA hazardous waste
operations use CPC consisting of a coverall constructed of a coated fabric, with approximately
1
-------
90% costing less than $20, and most of the balance costing from $20 to $100. Less than 1%
of EPA operations appear to require the use of CPC costing in excess of $100; these are
almost exclusively Level A suits used for emergency response applications.
PURPOSE
The purposes of this study were to:
• identify and characterize representative usage of limited-use CPC by the EPA
and its contractors who are responsible for investigation and mitigation of
HS/HW;
• identify and document the problems with limited-use clothing experienced by
on-site personnel;
• hypothesize and investigate solutions to these problems; and
• communicate solutions to the HS/HW community through publication of the
results and promulgation of a guideline document to be utilized in procurement
applications.
It is anticipated that this study will result in safer and more efficient HS/HW
operations for the EPA.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Improvements described for both fabrics and coverall sizing are considered a starting
point for continuing efforts to provide imprpved protective clothing for EPA hazardous waste
workers. It is hoped that this study will give direction for manufacturers both, to improve
current products and develop new products that provide superior performance.
This study has resulted in the production of a new fabric, DuPont Tyvek 1445/PE, that
appears to have improved physical performance over those Tyvek materials previously
utilized for limited-use garments. In addition to DuPont, many other manufacturers are
currently continuing research and development in this area, and it is hoped that a commercial
fabric with similar or better physical characteristics will result. Identification of other new
fabrics that provide better performance, including enhanced chemical resistance and increased
breaking strength, is promising. However, the increased stiffness of these fabrics over those
currently considered acceptable requires further evaluation to determine the compatibility with
field work assignments. Interviews clearly demonstrated the importance of human factors in
the selection of protective clothing by field personnel.
The data developed has been presented to the Industrial Safety Equipment Association
(ISEA) committee responsible for ANSI 101. It is hoped that the information will be useful
in the current efforts to revise and upgrade the standard.
During this study, several questions were identified which could not be readily
answered.
One was the role of fabrics which provide various degrees of liquid and vapor
resistance (especially uncoated nonwovens such as Tyvek and Kleenguard) in providing
effective protection from chemicals. Another was the protection provided by seams and
closures of various types to similar threats. While it. can be assumed that coated fabrics,
baffled closures, and sealed seams provide superior protection, the level of acceptable
protection has not been defined. Evaluation of various fabrics and designs using available
spray and liquid resistance test methods is certainly indicated.
Another area where little is currently known is flame resistance. Many EPA waste
sites contain solvents and petroleum products that are flammable or combustible, yet most
limited-use fabrics are not considered flame resistant. While proposed NFPA standards
-------
address flame resistance for fire fighters emergency response operations, identification of test
methods appropriate for EPA operations has not yet been done. Again, additional research is
indicated.
Effective transfer of information regarding protective clothing is another area which
should be addressed. Many OSCs and SSOs noted that current 40 hour courses that are
utilized to fulfill requirements of 29 CFR 19101.120 do not provide up-to-date information
regarding personal protective equipment. One OSC suggested that a "hotline" should be
established for EPA activities to provide state-of-the-art information regarding protective
clothing and equipment selection and use.
While many questions remain regarding limited-use protective clothing, one point was
made very clear during the field investigations. Workers at EPA hazardous waste activities
utilize limited-use protective clothing for protection from many potentially dangerous
chemicals that can cause severe injury—or even death—upon exposure. It is critical that these
workers are provided clothing that they can rely on to provide effective protection.
-------
SECTION 3
FIELD EXPERIENCE WITH LIMITED-USE CPC
BACKGROUND
Problems being encountered with limited-use CPC were identified at an EPA
workshop on PPE held for OSCs at Edison, New Jersey in 1986. OSCs commented that
failures of limited-use CPC were common at EPA operations. They reported that coveralls
were tearing at stress points, such as the underarms, crotch, across the back, and at the neck
and hood. Particular problems occurred with coveralls constructed of uncoated Tyvek1 1422
spunbonded polyolefin. Coveralls constructed of Tyvek 1422 coated with polyethylene (PE)
or laminated to Saranex 23-P2 were judged to be somewhat more durable, bui: were still not
as tough as desired. It was noted that these coveralls were typically discarded after each shift
or workday. At a 1989 PPE workshop, some OSCs reported that coveralls constructed of
Kleenguard3, another brand of nonwoven fabric, provided more acceptable durability than
uncoated Tyvek 1422. However, Kleenguard is not available in Coated form, and is thus
considered unsuitable for those HS/HW applications where hazardous liquids are encountered.
The OSCs identified additional problems relating to coverall fit. In pairticular, with
large persons, or when coveralls are worn over winter clothing or other PPE such as hard hats
and cooling vests, binding occurred in the hood, chest, back, seat, armholes, and thighs, even
with the largest available sizes of coveralls.
Because of these complaints, it was decided to do the following: (a) investigate the
problems identified; (b) investigate limited-use CPC sizing and fabric durability; and (c)
devise practical, cost-effective solutions that could be implemented to provide better
protection to field personnel.
1 Registered trademark of DuPont, Inc.
A
Registered trademark of Dow Chemical, Inc.
Q
J Registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark, Inc.
5
-------
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Procedure
In order to better understand the problems faced by EPA field personnel, several EPA
Superfund sites were visited. Hazardous waste mitigation workers at each site were asked to
fill out a questionnaire regarding their experience with limited-use CPC. Information
collected was evaluated to determine the extent and nature of the problems encountered with
limited-use CPC.
Based on the experience with the questionnaire/interviewing process, a more structured
questionnaire was developed and is recommended for similar information gathering activities
in the future. The proposed questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.
Results
In general, most workers reported very similar experiences. The 24 survey forms
returned indicated that: 100% of the workers had trouble with sizing and found their
garments, including hoods, to fit poorly, and used duct tape to seal and/or tailor their
garments; and 96% of the workers surveyed found that their garments tear frequently in the
crotch, arms, and seat. However, most workers seemed unaware of the fabrics being utilized
or available for use, the manufacturers or sizes of their garments, the costs of purchase or
disposal or any other factors associated with their CPC. To gather more information,
interviews were conducted with workers at two Superfund sites.
The first site visited was Seaway Boats, Inc., in Winthrop, Maine, a former boat yard
which constructed fiberglass boats. On the day of the visit, air temperatures were between 0°
and 10°F, and workers were wearing winter clothing (thermal underwear, flannel shirts, denim
jeans, sweatshirts, and insulated coveralls) beneath their CPC. PPE in use was Level C, with
coveralls with attached or separate hoods constructed of uncoated Tyvek 1422, from several
different suppliers. Work being performed on the site included heavy equipment operation,
soil removal, and overpacking of drums. Garment failures were observed during the site visit,
including tears in stress areas at the crotch, buttocks, underarms, and back (Figures 1 and 2).
The garments were examined to determine the mode of failure. The tears consisted of
separation of fabric, not seam failures (although one worker commented that Tyvek 1422/PE
garments were prone to failure at the seams). Workers noted that the most common failures
were in the crotch when coveralls were donned over safety shoes, which were worn except
when actually in contaminated areas, when rubber boots were donned. Some coveralls in use
on the site did not include hoods, which were purchased separately and duct taped to the
garments. The reason given for this was that attached hoods were too small to don over hard
hats and respirators. It was also noted that hoods with elastic edges were unacceptable, as
they interfered with visibility and the fit of the respirator facepiece. Elastic cuffs on sleeves
and legs were also undesirable due to difficulty in donning and doffing. Workers noted that
-------
8
1=5
a
D
O
O
(D
M
I
s
-------
O
(D
-------
cuffs and ankles were usually cut to proper length and fastened with duct taipe. Duct tape
was also used to alter the fit of coveralls if sizes that were too large were issued.
Worker comments indicated that it is apparently a common practice to order only one
size of coverall, usually extra- or extra-extra-large, and expect workers of all sizes to fit into
it, using duct tape around the waist to adjust sizing. While several workers noted that this
was acceptable (they would rather have garments too big than too small) others, particularly
smaller persons, stated that this practice resulted in a very poor fit that interfered with ability
to work and made it difficult to see the ground, thus creating a hazard. Many workers noted
that the currently available coveralls were not sized properly between the body and the
sleeves and legs to allow winter clothing to be worn, even if oversize garments were chosen.
Larger workers, with large torsos or protruding abdomens complained that this was a
particular problem for them, noting that there was inadequate room in the seat. One female
worker noted that the bust in smaller coveralls was not sized properly for females.
The primary chemicals present on this site were epoxy resins and solvents, especially
acetone. The manufacturer's product information for uncoated Tyvek 1422 does not
recommend its use for protection from acetone or other solvents. Interviewees gave insights
into their choice of fabric. One stated that they were almost always issued Tyvek 1422
garments, no matter what chemicals were present on a site (most of the workers generically
referred to chemical protective clothing as "Tyveks"). One worker commented that he
preferred Tyvek 1422 due to its greater comfort, which he attributed to its light weight and
"breathability," when compared to coated fabrics. The site safety officer was questioned
regarding the selection of CPC for use at the site. He indicated that Tyvek 1422 was utilized
as he believed that the chance of contact with significant levels of solvent was low due to the
characteristics of the site and the cold weather, and noted that workers were told to change
clothing immediately if any contamination occurred. He stated that uncoated Tyvek worked
well due to its flexibility and low bulk, and especially when larger sizes were rolled up and
taped to fit. He further observed that coated fabrics were less adaptable to this practice due
to lower flexibility and higher bulk.
The second Superfund site was on South Street in Walpole, Massachusetts. On the
day of the visit, temperatures were between 30° and 40°F, and again workers were wearing
winter clothing under their CPC. Garments constructed of Tyvek 1422/PE fabric were in use.
Work being performed included drilling and sampling. No failures of the clothing were
observed during the visit but workers commented that failures occurred with both Tyvek
1422/PE and Tyvek 1422/Saranex 23-P. The most common area of coverall failure was again
the crotch, when coveralls were donned while wearing safety shoes. Comments regarding
poor fit were made, with larger workers again having more problems, particularly with
binding in sleeves and legs when garments were worn over winter clothing. Sizes available
on the site included both large and extra-large. Tailoring was accomplished with duct tape,
although the OSC noted that this took a lot of time to do properly and "was a real pain".
One worker stated that when oversize garments were tailored with tape, squatting and
kneeling caused the leg inseams to tear when moving. Several workers commented that metal
-------
zippers on some coveralls jammed repeatedly and constituted a real hazard, as the garments
could not be doffed quickly if required due to chemical splash or fire.
Telephone interviews were also conducted with two EPA OSCs and several OSCs and
SSOs for EPA contractors. In general, these interviews amplified the comments made during
the site visits.
An EPA OSC with extensive emergency response experience, particularly at
transportation incidents, noted that the newer limited-use fabrics such as Barricade4,
Responder5, and Chemrel Max6 were creating a new type of CPC consisting of a fully
encapsulated disposable suit that was not operated under positive pressure; he believed that
these garments should be termed encapsulating Level B, rather than Level A. These new
materials were also available in Level B and Level C coveralls. He stated that these new
fabrics were much stiffer than Tyvek-based fabrics and could not be tailored with duct tape,
and thus required more sizes to adequately fit personnel.
The same OSC also noted that Sijal Chemtex7, a coated, woven fabric, provided
superior field durability, although it was heavier and less comfortable than the coated
nonwoven fabrics. He stated that Chemtex coveralls were routinely cleaned and reused.
These garments were also too heavy and bulky to tailor with duct tape. He stated that what
was required was a fabric that was as light and flexible as uncoated Tyvek 1422, but which
was as durable as Chemtex.
An OSC stated that he used a policy similar to that practiced at the Seaway site.
Uncoated Tyvek 1422 coveralls were sometimes worn even when not a recommended
application for this fabric, and workers were required to change them immediately if
contamination occurred. He noted that this was the only way he could do required work in
the tropical climate where his last site was located (Puerto Rico) due to problems with heat
stress associated with coated fabrics.
An EPA contractor SSO commented that he utilized uncoated fabrics (Tyvek 1422 and
Kleenguard) only for applications where contaminated soil and dust were the main hazard,
and noted good results with Tyvek 1422/PE for aqueous chemicals and Tyvek 1422/Saranex
23-P for oil-based toxic materials (such as PCBs) and for non-flammable solvents. For strong
acids and bases he preferred Chemtex coveralls, decontaminating them daily and discarding
after each job. Noting that no coated limited-use garments are flame resistant, he utilized
4 Proprietary product of DuPont, Inc.
5 Proprietary product of Lifeguard, Inc.
6 Proprietary product of Chemron, Inc.
7 Registered trademark of Bata, Inc.
10
-------
PVC or neoprene-coated garments for flammable materials due to their relative flame
resistance, even if not recommended for the chemicals involved.
Discussion
The survey findings indicate considerable problems with limited-use garments utilized
in the field in the area of durability. Complaints regarding tearing are most often directed at
uncoated Tyvek 1422, but were also registered for coated, nonwoven fabrics.
The survey also indicates a common discontent with the fit of limited-use coveralls.
Almost all workers surveyed found fit problems that they believe interfere with their safety,
productivity, or comfort. In part this situation is due to the common practice of stocking only
one or two sizes. However, the survey findings also suggest that the current sizing in the
industry is inadequate, especially in ease in leg and sleeve holes.
Cost is a very significant factor in the selection of fabrics and garments. As noted
previously, most garments now utilized in EPA activities cost less than $20. The evidence
collected in this study suggests that $40 suits are reused routinely, thus there; appears to be a
price point somewhere between $20 and $40 above which disposal after use is prohibitive and
discouraged in actual practice. Consequently, improvements to limited-use coveralls that
increase costs above this price range may be resisted. However, consistent complaints of
fabric failures during routine use require that more durable materials be identified or
developed.
11
-------
-------
SECTION 4
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
Due to the problems with both fit and durability noted in the field investigation,
limited-use fabrics and coveralls were obtained for evaluation in the laboratory.
PROCEDURE
Physical properties of fabrics are related to both durability and comfort. Durability is
critical to the safety as well as the usefulness of CPC worn while performing such arduous
tasks as sampling, drum handling, spill cleanup, and heavy equipment operation, as fabric
failure could directly expose the wearer to hazardous chemicals. A basic measure of fabric
durability is breaking strength. Failures in fabrics at EPA sites showed breaks nearly
identical to those that occur with standard textile breaking strength tests. For this reason,
breaking strength was selected for measurement in laboratory evaluations. Since increasing
breaking strength generally requires increases in weight and stiffness which are detrimental to
comfort and ease of motion, these physical properties were also examined. Twenty fabrics
meeting the cost requirement defined for limited-use garments (i.e., approximately $100 or
less) were selected and are listed in Table 1.
RESULTS
Fabrics that could be obtained were tested for breaking strength and flexibility using
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods (Table 2). The results of these
tests are presented in Table 3.
The uncoated fabrics (Kleenguard, Tyvek 1422, Enhance) were the lightest in weight,
ranging from 1.24 to 1.88 ounces/square yard. Coated fabrics constructed of nonwoven
fabrics ranged from 2.14 ounces/square yard for Tyvek 1422/PE, to 8.23 ounces/square yard
for Responder. Woven fabrics were heavier; for example, Chemtex weighed 9.52
ounces/square yard. Field data suggested that lighter fabrics were preferred, to heavier fabrics,
but as workers had little experience with the intermediate weight fabrics (those greater than
3.6 but less than 9.52 ounces/square yard) conclusions regarding the maximum acceptable
weight of fabrics were impossible to make. However, workers considered the heavier woven
fabrics significantly more uncomfortable than the lightweight nonwoven fabrics.
13
-------
TABLE 1. LIMITED-USE CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FABRICS
Fabric/Garment
Tyvek 1422
Kleenguard LU
Kleenguard
Enhance
Tyvek 1422/PE
Tyvek 1443**/PE
Tyvek 1445**/PE
Encase n
Chemtuff
PP/Saranex 23-P
Tyvek 1422/
Saranex 23-P
Chemrcl
Barricade
Chemrel Max
Greengard
Chemgard
Chemtex
Neonyl
Responder
Blue Max
Approximate
Experimental
Manufacturer
DuPont
Kimberly-Clark
Kimberly-Clark
Abandaco
DuPont
DuPont
DuPont
Abandaco
Chemron
Abandaco
DuPont
Chemron
DuPont
Chemron
Mine Safety
Appliance
Rainfair
Bata-Sijal
Rainfair
Lifeguard
Mine Safety
Appliance
price of Level C coverall
Composition
Polyethylene (PE) nonwoven
(NW)
Polypropylene (PP) NW
PPNW
PENW
PE NW/PE coating
PE NW/PE coating
PE NW/PE coating
PP NW/PE coating
Proprietary, coated NW
PP NW/Saranex 23-P film
PE NW/Saranex 23-P film
Proprietary, coated NW
Proprietary, coated NW
Proprietary, coated NW
Woven nylon-polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) coating
Woven nylon/PVC coating
Woven nylon/PVC coating
Woven nylon/neoprene
coating
Proprietary, coated NW
Proprietary, coated NW
with hood.
Price, $*
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
15-20
15-20
15-20
30-40
40-50
40-50
40-50
40-50
40-50
50-50
60-70
60-70
fabric provided by DuPont.
14
-------
TABLE 2. STANDARD TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING
CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FABRICS
Test Number
Test
ASTM D 1682
ASTM D 1388
ASTM D 3776
Breaking Load and Elongation of Textile Fibers
Stiffness of Textile Fabrics
Mass per Unit Area of Textile Fabrics
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103
15
-------
TABLE 3. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LIMITED-USE CHEMICAL
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FABRICS
Weight*
Fabric (SD++)
Uncoated Nonwovens
Enhance
Kleenguard
Kleenguard LU
Tyvek 1422
Coated/Laminated Nonwovens
Barricade
Blue Max
Chemrel
Chemrel Max
Chemtuff
Encase n
Greenguard
PP/Saranex 23-P
Responder
Tyvek/Saranex 23-P
Tyvek 1422/PE
1.88
(0.2)
1.85
(0.1)
1.24
(0.15)
6.39
(0.45)
4.08
(0.45)
5.19
(0.6)
3.60
(0.35)
2.33
(0.3)
3.53
(0.25)
8.23
(0.9)
3.60
(0.2)
2.14
(0.15)
Breaking Strength**
(SD, SD)
9.5 x 9.8
(0.9, 0.9)
9.8 x 12.2
(0.7, 1.2)
Sample not received
5.2 x 7.5
(0.2, 0.6)
24.9 x 31.4
(6.1, 4.0)
Received insufficient sample for
27.6 x 15.0
(1.1, 1.0)
44.9 x 33.1
(3.1, 5.5)
41.6x51.2
(2.9, 4.7)
11.1 x 13.8
(2.0, 2.4)
Sample not received
16.0 x 10.1
(1.7, 1.9)
40.3 x 34.8
(4.9, 4.4)
13.6 x 13.6
(1.5, 1.4)
11.7x 12.5
(1.8, 1.1)
Bending Length"1"
(SD, SD)
1.7x2.15
(0.15, 0.1)
1.65 x 1.6
(0.05, 0.05)
1.15 x 1.3
(0.05, 0.05)
5.95x4.2
(0.35, 0.2)
testing
5.2 x 3.3
(0.6, 0.2)
>10.0f x 3.0*
(NA, 1.0)
5.2 x 4.5
(1.35, 1.4)
1.1 x 1.65
(0.2, 0.15)
1.85 x 1.85
(0.1, 0.15)
4.5 x 4.35
(0.4, 0.35)
1.85 x 2.2
(0.2, 0.25)
1.65 x 1.80
(0.25, 0.25)
16
(continued)
-------
Fabric
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Weight*
Breaking Strength
(SD, SD)
Bending Length"4"
(SD, SD)
Tyvek 1443/PE
Tyvek 1445/PE
2.18
(0.2)
2.23
(0.25)
12.7 x 13.9
(1.2, 1.1)
14.2 x 15.6
(1.2,2.2)
1.75 x 1.90
(0.15, 0.3)
1.85 x 2.1
(0.45, 0.3)
Coated Wovens
Chemgard
Chemtex
Neonyl
10.40
(1.1)
9.52
(1.2)
15.19
(0.6)
115.8x91.7
(9.5, 5.9)
61.2 x 70.0
(2.8, 9.3)
130.4 x 104.13
(12.7, 9.0)
1.85 x 1.5
(0.1, 0.15)
1.9 x 1.0
(0.1, 0.05)
1.62 x 1.53
(0.2 x 0.1)
*
**
ASTM D 3776, option C; ounces/square yard.
ASTM D 1682, rate of extension, 5 inch/minute; pounds, direction A x direction B,
where direction A is 90° to direction B.
ASTM D 1388, option A; inches, direction A x direction B, where direction A is 90°
to direction B.
Standard deviation, n=5.
Samples curled upward through full range of apparatus.
Samples curled downward without flexing.
17
-------
Examination of laboratory breaking strength data for uncoated fabrics provides some
explanations for the field preferences and performances. The fabric most commonly found to
fail in the field, Tyvek 1422, showed the lowest breaking strength of any fabric tested, 5.2 x
7.5 pounds. (Fabric strength was measured with specimens cut at a 90°angle to one another,
hence the convention of reporting the results as A x B.) Kleenguard, the other commonly
utilized uncoated fabric, which was reputed to provide better durability, tested at 9.8 x 12.2
pounds. Enhance, which has not yet been widely used in the field had a breaking strength of
9.5 x 9.8 pounds.
The most commonly used coated fabric, Tyvek 1422/PE, had a breaking strength of
11.7 x 12.5 pounds, while the next most commonly used fabric, Tyvek 1422/Saranex 23-P,
measured 13.6 x 13.6 pounds. Encase n, and the same polypropylene base fabric laminated
to Saranex 23-P, measured 11.1 x 13.8 pounds, and 10.1 x 16.0 pounds, respectively.
The experimental fabrics, Tyvek 1443/PE and Tyvek 1445/PE, showed higher breaking
strengths of 12.7 x 13.9 and 14.2 x 15.6, respectively, compared to Tyvek 1422/PE.
The flexibility test selected uses relative bending performance as a means of
comparison; more flexible fabrics show a lower bending length. The uncoated fabrics
exhibited high flexibility, with bending lengths of 1.15 x 1.3 inches for Tyvek 1422, 1.6 x
1.65 inches for Kleenguard, and 1.7 x 2.15 inches for Enhance.
The coated fabrics showed a much wider range of flexibility, with bending lengths
ranging from 1.65 inches for Encase n to over 10 inches for Chemrel Max. The most
commonly utilized, Tyvek 1422/PE showed a bending length of 1.65 x 1.80 inches. The two
experimental coated fabrics, Tyvek 1443/PE and 1445/PE, showed somewhat increased
stiffness of 1.75 x 1.9 and 1.85 x 2.1 inches, respectively. The heavier Tyvek 1422/Saranex
23-P measured 1.85 x 2.2 inches.
The coated, woven fabrics, Chemtex, Chemgard8, and Neonyl8 exhibited breaking
strengths ranging from 61.2 to 130.4 pounds. Compared to the coated nonwoven fabrics, the
coated, woven fabrics are more flexible, with bending lengths ranging from 1.0 to 1.9 inches,
but this is offset by their higher weight (9.52 to 15.19 ounces/square yard). These
characteristics were noted in interviews with field personnel; in the words of one OSC, "It's
heavy, but doesn't rip on every twig or nail."
DISCUSSION
While garments with greater flexibility are preferred by workers surveyed, limited
experience with garments constructed of the stiffer fabrics makes it difficult to accurately
determine acceptable flexibility parameters. However, examination of the laboratory data
Registered trademark of Rainfair, Inc.
18
-------
suggest that the fabrics tested can be divided into two distinct categories: those with bending
lengths of 2.2 inches or less; and those with bending length of 4.2 inches or greater. Since a
lower bending length is indicative of a more flexible fabric, field personnel would be
expected to prefer clothing of fabrics from within the first grouping.
There is not an overall correlation of stiffness with fabric weight. The lightest and the
heaviest fabrics have similarly low stiffness. Among the fabrics based on nonwoven fabrics,
however, those fabrics with weights under approximately 3.5 ounces per yard have bending
lengths less than 2.2 inches and those fabrics over approximately 3.5 ounces per yard have
bending lengths greater than 4.2 inches.
Relative to fabric weight, breaking strengths seem to be in three groups. Fabrics with
weights less than approximately 3.5 ounces per yard have breaking strengths less than 20
pounds. The heavier nonwovens (i.e., from about 3.5 to 8.5 ounces per yard) have breaking
strengths in the range of 20-45 pounds. Finally, the three woven fabric based materials,
which are the heaviest, have strengths greater than 60 pounds, in two cases > 100 pounds.
It is tempting to conclude that fabrics selected for use should have the light weight
and high flexibility found in the first grouping and the high strength found in the second, or
as one OSC said: "give me something as light as Tyvek and as strong as Chemtex." It is
apparent from the data, however, that none of the current nonwoven, limited-use fabrics
possess these characteristics.
The production of the experimental Tyvek 1445/PE fabric demonstrates that
approximately 30% greater strength can be achieved with an increase of less than 10% in
weight and stiffness compared to the standard Tyvek 1442/PE. This suggests that additional
fabric engineering, such as changes in machine speed or web construction, or substitution of a
higher-strength polyethylene or polypropylene resin for the nonwoven base fabric, could
increase strength, while minimizing increases in stiffness, weight, and cost. It is also possible
that proper engineering of a lightweight knit base fabric (e.g., 15 denier nylon tricot) might
allow construction of a coated fabric with improved performance.
19
-------
-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF FIT AND SIZING
In response to the problems with fit identified in the field study, further investigation
of garments and garment specifications and standards was performed.
EXISTING STANDARDS
Limited-use garments currently purchased by EPA are, in many cases, designed to
meet the requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard 101-1985,
Men's Limited-Use and Disposable Protective Coveralls-Size and Labeling Requirements.9
This voluntary standard was developed by the Industrial Safety Equipment Association
(ISEA) and is utilized by many of the major manufacturers to define minimum dimensions for
coveralls.
ANSI 101 defines seven dimensions for five sizes: small through extra-extra-large.
These dimensions and sizes are listed in Table 4.
TABLE 4. ANSI 101-1985 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Size*
Small
Medium
Large
X-Large
XX-Large
Chest
21%
23%
25%
27%
29%
Leg
Inseam
27%
28
29
29%
30
Sleeve
Outseam
31%
32%
33%
35
36%
Body
Length
35
36
37
38%
39
Sleeve
Opening
6%
7
7
7
7
Leg
Opening
9%
10
10
10
10
Front
Opening
Length
29%
29%
30
30%
31
All dimensions in inches.
9American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.
21
-------
Measurements for these dimensions are taken from the finished garment in the
following manner:
• The chest is measured from one inch below the base of the armhole, across the
chest from folded edge to folded edge.
• The leg inseam is measured from the center of the crotch seam, down the leg
inseam, to the leg bottom.
• The sleeve outseam length is measured from the center back point to the top of
the neckline at the center back point to the top edge of the sleeve hem.
• The body length is measured from the top of the neckline at the center back
point to the crotch seam with the coveralls flat and front side up.
• The sleeve opening is measured from one folded edge to the other folded edge
at the sleeve end with the sleeve flattened.
The leg opening is measured from one folded edge to the other at the leg end
with the leg flattened.
• The front opening length is measured from the center back point to the bottom
of the front opening with the coverall flat and the front side up.
To determine the extent of compliance with this standard, 10, size large, coveralls
were purchased from several manufacturers, including some of the manufacturers whose
garments were encountered on EPA sites. Five Tyvek 1422 and five Tyvek/Saranex 23-P
composed the sample. Each garment was measured according to ANSI 101. Results are
given in Table 5. Only one of the commercial coveralls met or exceeded all the minimum
dimensions specified in ANSI 101.
One Tyvek 1422/PE and one Tyvek 1422/Saranex 23-P coverall were measured
multiple times to determine if there were significant variations in measuring technique.
Results are presented in Table 6. The data indicate that, in the worse case, the standard
deviations are only 2% of the average value.
Two military specifications for limited-use coveralls were identified: MIL-C 29133A,
Coveralls, Disposable, General Purpose and MIL-C 87069A, Coveralls, Disposable.
MEL-C 29133A is otherwise similar in design to commercial coveralls utilized by the EPA
and one of the fabrics used by the military for this coverall is Tyvek 1422/PE. MIL-C
87069A was not analyzed as it does not have a front closure and is made of other types of
fabrics. Examination of the size and measurement chart contained in MDL-C 29133 shows
compliance with ANSI 101 in the listed dimensions. To determine actual concurrence of the
military garments with all ANSI 101 requirements, a coverall was manufactured in accordance
with MEL-C 29133A and was measured. Results are presented in Table 7.
22
-------
CO
^«
W
8
W
CO
5
frl
|
3
J"d
S
U
|
^j£J
O
u
!z;
s
t™^
8
CO
c
H
§
§
i-^)
CO
s
in
W
_1
PQ
H
g
3
4— »
O
1
"
^5
DH
co
CM
X
|
1
•^t-
""""
1
^t
H
3
*3
y
3
C
oi
*5
^*
CM
CM
^ [
i.
U
£
H
in
•^f
CO
CM
i-H
in
^f
ro
CM
r— 4
S '
£3 ^^
•| z 2
s
^5-
.2
en
1
O
£
o
00
CM
o\
cs
p
CM
rt
vd
p
f-^
CM
00
\Q
cs
CS
*o
C*J
oo
od
CM
CM
vd
CM
in
in
U
od
CM
O
p^
CM
CM
d>
co
in
od
CM
in
^O
CM
CM
ON
CM_
^^
CS
O
^
CM
CM
O
0
ON
CM
O
ON
inseam
jjjf
o
o
p
(-»!
CO
CM
vd
CO
oo
CO
co
rt
co
CO
p
vd
CO
0
co
CO
in
CO
CO
p
•^f
CO
in
T^
co
if)
CO
CO
1
3
o
CO
oo
od
CO
p
CO
^^
o
ON
CO
oo
vd
co
r>
o
p
in
co
CM
O
CM.
^5
**^
in
t~!
CO
r-4
vd
co
p
CO
+-*
c
m
CM
vd
CM
f»I
oq
f»^
p
ON
f^.
oo
vd
CM
od
CM.
p —
CM
vd
m
f^
0
f-
B
1
CO
m in
^ ON
— < CM
m m
r-J VO
1-" CM
«n CM
^ £5
T-H CO
p p
r— 1 CO
O ON
i-< 00
«-i CM
in p
ON od
CM
OO OO
o d
— < co
CM OO
d> ON
-H CM
p p
ON od
CM
p oo
r-J ON
«-i CM
0 0
d> C3
•^ CO
bO
bo B
.s *s
* f~* (J^
o §
41 w
( ] |"T t
00
ON
O
c>
in
r-;
r-H
^H
O
"-*
0
T— H
p
T— <
O
ON
O
«— (
T-^
in
c—
CM'
VO
ON
*
*
-3
1
in
in
in
in
i-H
in
Tj"
1—1
in
in"
i-H
CM
in*
1-H
in
^f
i-H
O
in
CO
iri
i-^
p
•^f
T— C
r-
rf
*
*
60
ffi
f
on
1
• T-H
*2 c
c
-------
TABLE 6. REPRODUCmiLITY OF MEASUREMENTS OF TWO, COMMERCIAL,
LIMITED-USE COVERALLS
Coverall
Tyvek 1422
Average
Standard Deviation
Tyvek 1422/
Saranex 23-P
Average
Standard Deviation
ANSI 101 Minimum
Requirement
Chest
25.75*
26.20
26.00
25.75
25.50
25.84
0.24
26.75
26.50
26.25
26.25
26.50
26.45
0.19
25.50
Leg
Inseam
29.00
28.75
28.25
28.50
28.50
28.60
0.10
26.75
26.50
26.25
26.50
26.50
26.50
0.16
29.00
Sleeve
Outseam
33.50
33.50
33.25
33.00
33.25
33.30
0.19
33.25
33.25
33.25
33.50
33.50
33.35
0.12
33.50
Body Leg
Length Opening
37.50
37.00
36.75
36.50
36.00
36.75
0.50
40.75
40.50
40.75
40.75
40.75
40.70
0.10
37.00
6.50
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
6.90
0.20
8.00
7.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.90
0.20
7.00
Sleeve
Opening
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.25
10.00
10.05
0.10
10.75
11.00
11.25
11.00
11.00
11.00
0.16
10.00
Front
Opening
32.00
31.50
30.75
30.50
30.25
31.00
0.65
28.75
28.75
29.00
29.00
29.00
28.90
0.12
30.00
All measurements in inches.
24
-------
TABLE 7. MEASUREMENTS OF MILITARY COVERALL (SIZE LARGE)
Coverall
MIL-C-299B3A
ANSI 101
Minimum
Requirement
Chest
27.00
25.50
Leg
Inseam
35.00
29.00
Sleeve
Outseam
35.00
33.50
Body
Length
37.25
37.00
Sleeve
Opening
7.50
7.00
Leg
Opening
10.00
10.00
Front
Opening
26.50
30.00
These results indicate that with the exception of front opening length, the military
coveralls meet the requirements of ANSI 101. Subsequent conversations with the
manufacturer and the specification agency (U.S. Navy Clothing and Textile Research Facility)
suggest that this military design is essentially equivalent to those commercial models now
utilized by the EPA.
A General Services Administration (GSA) schedule for limited-use coveralls was
identified. The May 1, 1989 Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) lists these items under Group
84, Part II, Section B, Class 8435. However, the GSA FSS does not include an actual
specification, but rather vendors that are authorized as sources for government purchases of
commercial coveralls. Not surprisingly, the vendors identified included those that were found
to have supplied the garments that were examined in the field and laboratory studies.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is currently preparing a standard on
certain limited-use coveralls to be used by firefighters during decontamination at emergency
response operations. The scope of this standard, however, may not apply to EPA operations.
Because of the lack of definitive data suggesting that any available stamdards or
specifications provide superior fitting coveralls compared to the currently available
commercial garments constructed to meet ANSI 101, garment design was investigated to
determine:
• the impact of sizing dimensions on the types of coverall failures encountered in
the field.
• alternative sizing dimensions that could be utilized to minimize; such failures.
ANSI 101 was used as a starting point for the investigation, with the hope that results
could be useful in efforts to update the standard.
STANDARDS MODIFICATION
Since the field survey indicated that larger workers had difficulty fitting into currently
available extra-extra-large coveralls, an expansion of the current five sizes to six sizes to
25
-------
address this problem was investigated. Changes in the measurement technique and definition
of current sizing parameters were also considered, as described below.
In most clothing items, strain in the crotch area tends to be due to two actions:
bending of the leg at the hip, causing the length of the buttocks to increase, and raising the
arms, causing the length of the torso to increase. Adding additional clothing layers for winter
wear would be equivalent to both of these actions. In addition, with coveralls, bending and
climbing place considerable stress over the back of the hip. The field data suggest that
insufficient back body length exists in present coverall designs. Since ANSI 101 specifies
front body length but not back body length, the standards cannot define additional ease in the
area where it is required. Since there is approximately a 45% increase in length directly over
the buttocks when the hip is fully bent, additional length is required for back body length
over front body length. ANSI 101 should be modified to include dimensions for back body
length. Back body length should be measured from the top of the neckline at the center back
collar seam to the crotch seam. Front body length should be measured from the top of the
neckline at the center back point to the crotch seam with the coveralls flat and front side up.
Tearing under the arm may be related to inadequate back width and armhole width.
Most coveralls do not allow enough width across the shoulder blades to allow for the full
range of motion required for all work activities, from arms at sides, through arms fully
outstretched forward, to arms extended fully overhead. Based on the field failures, the area in
which width needs to be increased is midway between the current ANSI 101 chest
measurement and the neckline, that is, the area over the shoulder blades. It is difficult to
establish standard measurement procedures for the chest, however, because the landmarks for
the measurement are different for each pattern style. For example, both raglan and set-in
sleeves may be used, and even the slant of the raglan line may vary considerably. Thus, there
is no alternative at present to using the base of the armhole as a reference point, even though
it may not always accurately describe the area in question. Using the armhole itself is
preferred to the current one inch below the armhole, as it is closer to the ideal. To allow for
female bustlines and persons with larger chests, abdomens, or torsos, it is advantageous to
specify requirements for both front and back dimensions. Based on these factors, and using
the ANSI 101 chest width as a starting point, an increase in the difference between front and
back width will increase range of motion. Additional back width will reduce garment stress
associated with forward reach, and will assist in reducing stress in the underarm area. Adding
additional width to the back will not interfere with movement except with very stiff fabrics.
Front chest width should be measured from the base of the armhole across the front chest to
the base of the other armhole. Back width should be measured from the base of the armhole
across the back to the base of the other armhole, including all of the fullness that lies between
these two points. If there is no underarm seam on either sleeve or body of coverall, lay the
sleeve and body of coverall at an angle where both are flat and establish an underarm point at
the juncture of the sleeve and torso.
The primary importance of armhole width is to allow room for garments worn
underneath to fit in the coverall without placing stress on the underarm area. One of the key
26
-------
factors in this is the circumference of the armhole of the largest garments to be worn over the
coverall. For example, a size large, cotton or cotton/polyester coverall (of the type favored
by EPA workers) has a 26-inch external circumference. Assuming that an extra-large size
limited-use coverall would be worn over this garment in winter, additional ease for this
dimension is required. To determine armhole width, establish a line from the base of the
armhole which is parallel to the center front. Measure up from the armhole base to the top of
the sleeve with the coveralls stretched flat
Improved sleeve outseam and leg inseam measurements are relatively easy to
establish. Additional length increases the range of fit. To decrease costs, smaller sizes can
use slightly smaller lengths. Sleeve outseam is measured from the center back point to the
top of the sleeve at the wrist edge. Leg inseam is measured from the crotch seam down the
leg inseam to the bottom edge.
Little problem with the size of the sleeve opening seems to exist with the current
ANSI 101 requirement of seven inches, however, some gradation of sleeve opening over the
sizes specified would serve to reduce bulk from hindering smaller sizes (generally persons
with relatively small hands), and allow easier doffing for the larger persons. To measure
sleeve opening, flatten sleeve at wrist end. Measure from one folded edge to the other.
Leg opening size represents more of a problem, as workers universally noted problems
with crotch tear-out when donning and doffing coveralls over safety shoes. An increase in
this dimension will provide a wider range of fit. As with sleeve openings, gradation of the
leg opening over the size range is desirable. To measure leg opening, flatten leg at bottom
and measure from one edge to the other.
While coverall front opening length is essential to allow easy donning and doffing, the
current ANSI 101 requirement appears to be generally adequate. However, an increase in
range will accommodate up-sizing. Front opening length is measured from the center back
collar base to the bottom of the front opening with the coverall flat and froni: side up.
ANSI 101 does not currently include hood dimensions; however, hoods are considered
desirable for EPA activities, and must fit when worn over hard hats. Communication with
manufacturers indicates that most have not understood this requirement, and suggests that
they are readily able to supply attached hoods that fit over hard hats. Measurement of hard
hats as worn were taken to establish dimensions that should allow wearing the hat without
raising the coverall on the shoulder or hindering the turning of the head. This requires a
surprisingly large hood. To measure hood opening length, flatten the hood along the center
seam so that the sides are superimposed. Measure on a flat vertical line that extends upward
from the neckline seam to the highest point on the top of the hood. To measure hood depth,
flatten the hood along the center seam so that the left and right sides are superimposed.
Measure on a horizontal line from the center front (face) edge to the back of the hood at the
point of greatest depth.
27
-------
An associated dimension to allow full coverage of the neck when a respirator is worn,
is the neckline length. This is also critical when winter clothing is worn. To measure
neckline length, stretch neckline seam flat with the coverall facing up. Measure from one end
of seam to the other.
Using the measurement dimensions and procedures discussed above, requirements
were developed for six sizes of limited-use coveralls. These sizes include extra-small, small,
medium, large, extra-large and extra-extra-large. The measurement values are presented in
Table 8. The procedure for taking these measurements is summarized in Appendix B.
The six sizes developed add an additional size to current ANSI 101 requirements. In
the new sizing system, extra-small and small have been optimized for females, medium
represents a compromise for larger females and smaller than average males, large represents a
slightly larger than average male, and extra-large and extra-extra-large are optimized for
upper-percentile-size males. It is anticipated that extra-extra-large will fit a 95th percentile
worker wearing typical temperate winter clothing. While the coveralls specified are upsized
from the current standard, the dimensions of critical body fit areas have also been modified,
so the current practice of selecting a larger size garment to allow for freedom of movement
should no longer be required.
28
-------
TABLE 8. PROPOSED MINIMUM FINISHED DIMENSIONS FOR LIMITED-USE
COVERALLS
Size
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
• *
Dimension
BACK BODY LENGTH
FRONT BODY LENGTH
ARMHOLE WIDTH
SLEEVE OUTSEAM
SLEEVE OPENING
FRONT CHEST
BACK CHEST
LEG INSEAM
LEG OPENING
FRONT OPENING LENGTH
HOOD LENGTH
HOOD DEPTH
NECKLINE LENGTH
XS
38
33
12
31
6
22
23
28
13
29
16
11
16
S
39
34
13
32
6
23
24
29
13
30
16
12
16
M
40
35
13
33
7
24
26
30
14
30
17
12
18
L
41
36
14
34
7
26
29
31.
14
30
17
13
19
XL
42
38
14
35
8
28
32
32
15
31
18
13
20
XXL
43
40
15
37
8
30
34
33
15
32
18
14
20
All measurements in inches.
29
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED USER QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LIMITED-USE COVERALLS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information on the nature and extent of
problems experienced by individuals wearing limited-use coveralls. Please complete the
following questions and add any comments you might have that would further describe your
experiences while wearing these types of coveralls. Please check off as many responses as
are appropriate for the multiple choice questions.
REGION
AGE
HEIGHT.
SITE NAME
GENDER
WEIGHT
JOB DESCRIPTION
YEARS ON JOB
DATE
EMPLOYER
1. How often do you wear limited-use coveralls
daily
_two or three times weekly
.weekly
.other
31
-------
2. What size coverall do you wear in the winter?
x small
small
medium
large
x large
xx large
xxx large
2.1 Do you wear the same size in the summer?
yes
no
2.2 If not, what size do you wear in the summer?
x small
small
medium
large
x large
xx large
xxx large
3. What is the name of the manufacturer or brand of the garments you wear?
unknown
3.1 Have you ever worn garments made by other manufacturers/brands?
yes, name of manufacturers .
no
32
-------
3.2 Why did you switch manufacturers?
.sizing was a problem
.garment frequently tore
.garment unavailable in a suitable range of sizes
.cost
.availability
.don't know (organization I work for makes decision)
.other
3.3 How long have you been using this brand of coveralls?
4. What kinds of problems do you encounter when wearing uncoated limited-use
coveralls?
.tearing and ripping
.excess material bulk
.restricted overhead reach
.restricted forward reach
.restricted kneeling
.restricted climbing
.discomfort from tight fit
.no problems experienced
.too hot in summer
.hard to put boots through legs
5. If you do not encounter problems with your coveralls, could you please offer your
opinion as to why this is the case?
6. Do you use duct tape to tailor your coveralls?
_yes
.no
33
-------
6.1 Where do you apply the duct tape?
waist
wrist
ankles
other
7. Do you believe that using oversized garments and tailoring them with duct tape
eliminates the occurrence of problems associated with tearing?
yes
no
8. How often do you change your coveralls each day?
once
twice
not at all
_more often than twice a day, If so, how many?
9. How often do your coveralls rip?
daily
twice a day
other
10. When your coveralls rip, do you change them?
_^ immediately
at your next convenient break
not at all
not at all, but you tape over the torn part
11. Do you have more problems with garments tearing during the winter?
yes
no
34
-------
12. Do your coveralls have a hood attached to them?
yes
no
13. Does the hood adequately cover your head? In particular, does it fit over winter
hats and hard hats?
yes
no
Additional comments
14. Have you found that the coveralls you wear currently have fewer problem s
associated with the fit of the hoods?
yes
no
15. How are your coveralls procured?
16. How much do you pay for coveralls?
17. How are your coveralls disposed of?
35
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED LIMITED-USE COVERALL PROCUREMENT GUIDELINES
1. DEFINITIONS
Coverall. A garment, with a front closure extending from the crotch to the neck,
designed to provide protection for the torso, neck and head (with the exception of the
face), arms (with the exception of the wrists and hands), and legs (with the exception
of the ankles and feet).
2. DESIGN. Coveralls shall meet the following requirements:
2.1 Sleeve and leg hems unhemmed such that they may be cut to correct length and taped
to gloves and boots.
2.2 Front closure with full-length nylon- or polyester-coil zipper and pressure-sensitive
tape-sealed splashflap that completely covers closure when fastened.
2.2.1 On garments constructed of coated fabric, seam affixing flap to coverall shall be
sealed.
2.3 Hood with drawstring, fastened to the collar for its full length, and suitable for wear
over a protective helmet with front brim and with a full-face respirator.
2.4 When hood and front closure are properly fastened the neck shall be completely
covered to immediately beneath the chin.
3. FABRIC. Fabric shall meet the following requirements:
3.1 Breaking strength when tested in accordance with ASTM D 1682:
Uncoated fabrics: not less than 9.0 pounds
Coated fabrics: not less than 12.0 pounds
3.2 Stiffness when tested in accordance with ASTM D 1388-1975 of not more than 2.5
inches in any direction.
37
-------
4. SEAMS. All seams shall meet the following requirements:
4.1 Breaking strength when tested in accordance with ASTM D 1683 of not less than 75%
of the fabric breaking strength.
4.2 On garments constructed of coated fabrics, seams shall be bonded, heat-sealed, or
sewn and taped.
4.3 Stitched with not less than 6 nor more than 10 stitches per inch.
5. SIZING. Coveralls shall be offered in not less than 6 sizes with minimum dimensions
as described in Table B-l. Measurements for determining dimensions shall be made
in accordance with Table B-2.
6. LABELING. All garments shall have a label attached or printed on the inside near the
collar. The following information shall be provided:
6.1 Manufacturer's name and address
6.2 Size
6.3 Statement of compliance with this guideline
6.4 "WARNING: WHEN USING THIS GARMENT FOR PROTECTION FROM
CHEMICALS, CONSULT THE MANUFACTURER REGARDING THE
SUITABILITY OF THE FABRIC FOR THE INTENDED USE."
38
-------
TABLE B-l. PROPOSED LIMITED-USE COVERALL MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
A. BACK BODY LENGTH. Measure from the top of the neckline at the center back
collar seam to the crotch seam.
B. FRONT BODY LENGTH. Measure from the top of the neckline at the center back
point to the crotch seam with the coveralls flat and front side up.
C. ARMHOLE WIDTH. Establish a line from the base of the armhole that is parallel to
the center front. Measure up from the armhole base to the top of the sleeve with the
coveralls stretched flat.
D. SLEEVE OUTSEAM. Measure from the center back point to the top of the sleeve at
the wrist edge.
E. SLEEVE OPENING. Flatten sleeve at wrist end, completely stretching elastic if
present. Measure from one folded edge to the other.
F. FRONT AT CHEST. Measure from the base of the armhole across the front chest to
the base of the other armhole. If there is no underarm seam on either sleeve or body
of coverall, lay the sleeve and body of coverall at an angle -where both are flat and
establish an underarm point at the juncture of the sleeve and torso.
G. BACK AT CHEST. Measure from the base of the armhole across the back to the
base of the other armhole, including all of the fullness that lies between these two
points. If there is no underarm seam on either sleeve or body of coverall, lay the
sleeve and body of coverall at an angle where both are flat and establish an underarm
point at the juncture of the sleeve and torso.
\
H. LEG INSEAM. Measure from the crotch seam down the leg inseam to the bottom
edge.
I. LEG OPENING. Ratten the leg at the ankle end, completely stretching elastic if
present. Measure from one folded edge to the other folded edge.
J. FRONT OPENING LENGTH. Measure from the center back collar base to the
bottom of the front opening with the coverall flat and front side up.
K. HOOD OPENING LENGTH. Flatten the hood along the center seam so that the
sides are superimposed. Measure on a flat vertical line that extends upward from the
neckline seam to the highest point on the top of the hood.
(continued)
39
-------
TABLE B-l (Continued)
L. HOOD DEPTH. Flatten the hood along the center seam so that the left and right
sides are superimposed. Measure on a horizontal line from the center front (face)
edge to the back of the hood at the point of greatest depth.
M. NECKLINE LENGTH. With front of coverall facing up, stretch neckline seam flat.
Measure from one end of seam to the other.
40
-------
TABLE B-2. PROPOSED MINIMUM FINISHED DIMEMSIONS FOR LIMITED-USE
COVERALLS
Size
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
Dimension
BACK BODY LENGTH
FRONT BODY LENGTH
ARMHOLE WIDTH
SLEEVE OUTSEAM
SLEEVE OPENING
FRONT CHEST
BACK CHEST
LEG INSEAM
LEG OPENING
FRONT OPENING LENGTH
HOOD LENGTH
HOOD DEPTH
NECKLINE LENGTH
XS
38
33
12
31
6
22
23
28
13
29
16
11
16
S
39
34
13
32
6
23
24
29
13
30
16
12
16
M
40
35
13
33
7
24
26
30
14
30
17
12
18
L
41
36
14
34
7
26
29
31
14
30
17
13
19
XL
42
38
14
35
8
28
32
32
15
31
18
13
20
XXL
43
40
15
37
8
30
34
33
15
32
18
14
20
All measurements in inches.
•U.S. Government Printing Office: 1992— 648-003/40724
41
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
= „
I! »!
o 5
3-S"
™ 2.
O :
0>
00
m
im
. TJ i
G)
01
------- |