(43) METABOLIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT MODALITIES CARRIED OVER A TREADMILL MARCH

Personal protective equipment (PPE) increases metabolic demands for professionals. There are large amounts of information on the metabolic costs of wearing firefighting gear and police PPE, but very limited amounts of research investigating explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) equipment. How metabolic demands compare between fire fighting gear and bomb disposal equipment needs to be investigated. This will allow for a relative comparison due to the large volume of research in load carriage concerning fire fighting gear.

Purpose: To compare metabolic demands of wearing fire fighting personal protective equipment compared to bomb disposal equipment and Police PPE.

Methods: 10 recreationally trained college aged students (weight 89.8±16.2 kg, age 24.3±5.6, 3 female, 7 male, height 1.75±.05m, (Mean±SD)) participated in this study. Subjects first came in for familiarization testing, then performed three subsequent visits with load carriage intervention, where they performed the following battery: Blood pressure, resting heart rate, body weight, body composition (percent body fat (BF%)), and temperature were measured. PPE was equipped in a random order each visit, where PPE consisted of either EOD gear, fire fighting gear, or police PPE. Subjects then performed a Bruce treadmill protocol, after which the suit was removed for the loaded visits and the subjects repeated the preliminary testing. During the FAM visit, subjects completed a standard VO2 max protocol (Bruce) on the treadmill. Subjects completed a modified Bruce protocol during the PPE visits (stage 3). Metabolic measurements were recorded during each stage of the test. Subjects self-reported their ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) during each stage. Data was then analyzed for changes in performance between the different PPE. Significant differences at p< .05 to FAM is denoted as *, to EOD is denoted as †, and Fire denoted as ‡. 

Results: Average VO2 values per stage were measured as follows; stage 1: values for FAM were 7.62±1.81 mlO2/kg/min, EOD 10.34±4.2*, Fire 10.48±1.43*, Police 7.61±3.34†‡. Stage 2: FAM 11.74±2.12, EOD 17.15±4.46*, Fire 15.73±2.52*, Police 11.91±2.55†‡, Stage 3: FAM 17.32±2.82, EOD 27.46±4.49*, Fire 22.91±2.68*†‡, Police 17.75±3.53†‡. RPE values were as follows; stage 1: FAM .88±.61, EOD 2.92±1.18*, Fire 1.96±1.16*†, Police 1.20±.77†‡, stage 2: FAM 1.63±1.01, EOD 4.59±1.59*, Fire 2.83±1.86*†, Police 2.27±1.03†, stage 3: FAM 2.58±1.86, EOD 6.18±2.10*, Fire 3.95±2.54*†, Police 3.53±1.60†. Heart rate values were; stage 1: FAM 115.1±17.7bpm, EOD 133.5±14.8*, Fire 124.0±17.4†, Police 119.2±19.7†, stage 2: FAM 123.3±16.0, EOD 154.0±9.5*, Fire 138.0±17.6*†, Police 128.7±18.3†, stage 3: FAM 139.3±19.6, EOD 174.4±8.4*, Fire 158.8±15.1*†, Police 148.1±19.8†.

Conclusions: The bomb suit had the greatest metabolic demand and was perceived as the most difficult of the load carriage configurations followed by the fire fighting gear. The police gear was not significantly different from the familiarization visit for most metrics. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Individuals that work with/train individuals that utilize specific PPE for their occupation should understand that bomb disposal equipment is more demanding than fire fighting gear and in turn likely requires alternative conditioning for field readiness.

Acknowledgements: None.