Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 399}406

An evaluation of physiological demands and comfort between the use

of conventional and lightweight self-contained breathing apparatus
A.J. Hooper *, J.O. Crawford , D. Thomas

Industrial Ergonomics Group, School of Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

West Midlands Fire Service, Lancaster Circus Queensway, Birmingham B4 7DE, UK
Received 21 April 1997; accepted 2 January 2001

Abstract
The additional physiological strain associated with the use of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) is mostly linked to the
additional weight. Lightweight and conventional SCBA were assessed in a submaximal step test performed in full "rekit (total weights
15 and 27 kg, respectively). Factors assessed were: comparative energy expenditure of the two sets, relationship between comparative
energy expenditure and aerobic "tness and subjective discomfort. Measured variables were: oxygen consumption, heart rate,
estimated VO
and subjective discomfort (body part discomfort scale). The lightweight SCBA displayed a signi"cant oxygen
 
consumption bene"t, which was independent of dynamic workrate and valued at 0.256 l min\. Mean heart rate responses were
signi"cantly lower with the light set. No relationship was found between comparative energy expenditure and aerobic "tness. The
light set was rated as signi"cantly more comfortable than the heavy. Further research is required to assess the extent of the energy
consumption bene"t in realistic "re suppression protocols and the contribution of ergonomic factors to the energy and comfort
bene"ts.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fire "ghters; PPE; Oxygen consumption

1. Introduction
The physically arduous nature of "re "ghting has been
well documented. Many studies, both simulated and in
the "eld, have measured work loads at 60}80% of maximal oxygen consumption (VO
) and up to 95% of
 
maximum heart rate (HR ) (Lemon and Hermiston,

1977; Manning and Griggs, 1983; O'Connell et al., 1986;
Romet and Frim, 1987; and Sothmann et al., 1992).
This physically demanding pro"le is due not only to the
environmental stressors faced, but also to cumbersome
equipment used by "re personnel, most signi"cantly
breathing apparatus (BA). Studies assessing the physical
stress associated with "rekit and breathing equipment
(with weights between 20 and 30 kg), have shown signi"cant increases in oxygen consumption, heart rate and
ventilation rate, as compared with exercising without

* Corresponding author. Tel.: #44-121-414-4240; fax: #44-121414-3958.

E-mail address: j.o.crawford@bham.ac.uk (A.J. Hooper).

equipment (Louhevaara, 1984; Borghols et al., 1978;

Sykes, 1993; Love et al., 1994; Donovan and McConnell,
1998).
UK Fire Brigades almost exclusively use open circuit
self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to supply
"re-"ghters with respirable air (Love et al., 1994). A review carried out by Louhevaara (1984) identi"ed four
parameters a!ecting physical work performance with the
use of SCBA: additional breathing resistance; external
dead space; added weight of the apparatus and "tness of
the individual.
Added inspiratory breathing resistance is negligible,
due primarily to the positive pressure under which modern SCBA operates (Louhevaara, 1984; Louhevaara
et al., 1984). However, the e!ects of expiratory resistance
are appreciable*leading to a reduction in ventilation,
with consequent hypoventilation due to a reduction in
tidal volume (Gee et al., 1968; 0.5 kPa at 2.01 s\). Nevertheless, e!ects on VO
and exercise tolerance seem
 
only to be signi"cant at breathing resistances higher than
those of modern SCBA (Cerretelli et al., 1969; Demedts
and Anthonisen, 1973; Louhevaara, 1984).

0003-6870/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 7 - 2

400

A.J. Hooper et al. / Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 399}406

The study by Louhevaara et al. (1984) found that all

the respirators tested caused hyperventilation due to
a large dead space due to rebreathing of expired air.
Despite the di$culties of accurately measuring the dead
space associated with respiratory devices (Stromberg
et al., 1996), submaximal exercise whilst breathing
through external dead space has been shown to cause an
approximately linear increase in ventilation rate, through
increased tidal volume (Bizal and Kamon, 1984; Kelman
and Watson, 1973; Louhevaara, 1984). Bizal and Kamon
(1984), found that ventilation rate was elevated when the
external dead space was greater than 50 ml. Given that
the amount of dead space introduced in modern full-face
mask SCBA is approximately 90 ml, the e!ects could
therefore appear signi"cant.
Carrying additional weight (in a shoulder mounted
harness) has been shown to give rise to signi"cant increases in oxygen consumption, heart rate and ventilation rate at submaximal exercise levels (Borghols et al.,
1978; Lind and McNichol, 1968; Gordon et al., 1983;
Louhevaara, 1984; Sykes, 1993; Love et al., 1994). In his
(1984, p. 278) review Louhevaara concluded that `the
extra weight of the SCBA was found to cause almost all
the additional strain measured during submaximal exercisea.
Recommendations have repeatedly been made with
regard to aerobic capacity requirements for "re "ghting,
ranging from 33.5 to 45.0 ml/(kg min) (Lusa, 1994). However, concern has been expressed that many "re-"ghters
do not achieve these levels (Sothmann et al., 1992).
Louhevaara et al. (1984) make a recommendation of at
least 3.5 1 min\ (44 ml/(kg min) for an 80 kg man) for
heavy work lasting longer than 20 min using SCBA. This
was based upon the observation that SCBA results in
a sharp rise in percentage VO
at a given workload.
 
This is explained by a dual e!ect, "rstly increased oxygen
consumption as compared with no SCBA at a given
workload, and secondly a reduction in VO
(at 
tributed to the serious hindrance to maximal ventilation
caused by SCBA, in particular its shoulder harness).
Additionally, there is some evidence that the increase in
oxygen consumption associated with the use of SCBA is
less for those individuals who are "tter (Louhevaara
et al., 1984; Sykes, 1993).
The weight of SCBA equipment is clearly important
from a physiological point of view. However, this issue
raises fundamental questions regarding the use of lightweight breathing apparatus. Traditionally, ergonomics
attempts to adapt the working environment and equipment to "t the user. In this particular case advocating
lightweight SCBA could potentially be interpreted as
contradictory to recommendations for improvements in
aerobic "tness amongst "re-"ghters and a maintenance
of "tness levels achieved during initial training through
out extended "re-"ghting careers. In fact, these two issues
are entirely separate, as illustrated by the &&ecological''

model of "re-"ghting activities proposed by Reichelt and

Conrad (1995). Their model splits the determinants of the
physiological stress of "re-"ghting activities into: external environmental factors; equipment factors and personal factors. Given that environmental factors (such as
heat) are unchangeable, management of both equipment
and personal factors are important in order to reduce the
physiological demands of "re."ghting. Therefore, introduction of lightweight apparatus (as an equipment factor)
as a means of reducing physiological loading, in no way
removes or diminishes the importance of physical conditioning (a personal factor) as a means of ensuring there is
an emergency reserve.
1.1. Design of SCBA
In addition to weight, a number of other factors would
seem to have some bearing on the physical demand
placed on the wearer of SCBA. These are primarily concnered with the ergonomics of the user-equipment interface. Indeed, Love et al. (1994) in a questionnaire survey
and biomechanical analysis identi"ed a number of issues
with regard to BA use. The sample surveyed for the
questionnaire used 10 di!erent types of BA. From the
questionnaire to 1026 "re "ghters (response rate 76.3%),
24.5% of respondents had problems with the weight of
the BA sets and 23.7% had problems with the size of the
sets. Harnessing was also examined and 24.5% had problems with harnessing material and tangling of straps.
Furthermore, Love et al. (1994) reinforce the view of
Louhevaara et al. (1984), that strap and harness design is
often poor, but examphasise the detriment caused by
twisting and loosening of straps rather than the alterations in breathing pattern observed during exercise.
The backplate design was also considered in this work.
From the questionnaire, 15.3% reported problems from
backplate discomfort due to lack of contouring and padding. On examination of the dimensions of the backplates, the length of those measured in the study ranged
from 386 to 457 mm. This range is greater than the
anthropometric dimensions cited in the report indicating
that the backplate length is too long for the majority of
users and a recommended length would be 380 mm with
a 20 mm adjustment each way (Love et al., 1994).
Biomechanical analysis of six types of BA found that it
was not only the weight of the set that could cause high
moments of inertia but the position of the cylinder relative to the centre of gravity of the individual. From the
study by Love et al. (1994), those BA sets which produced
lower moments of inertia for either static or dynamic
movement, were found to have fewer problems associated with the weight of the set from the questionnaire
survey data. Thus it would be recommended that for any
SCBA set, the area producing most weight, i.e., the cylinder, should be placed as close to the centre of gravity as
possible.

A.J. Hooper et al. / Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 399}406

Other advances in terms of cylinder shape have included the development of a toroidal `doughnut shapeda
pressure vessel by DERA (DERA News, 1997). With the
use of non-standard shapes for air containment, there
may well be a further means of reducing the biomechanical stress on those wearing SCBA. The toroidal shaped
pressure vessel alleviated the need of a backplate on the
apparatus design and reduced the biomechanical loading
due to its position lower on the back.
A more recent study examined the lumbar spine loads
reached during training exercises wearing SCBA (KuK pper
and Haisch, 2000). This study was carried out because of
complaints of lumbar back pain after training. The researchers modelled the load on the lumber spine during
the Schlaghammer exercise, which involves pulling down
on a load of 250 N from a height of 2.15 m. The study
found that there was no dangerous load during the exercise unless improper techniques were used through fatigue or lack of training and recommendations suggested
that the exercise should be carried out with a straight
back and no bending of the lumber spine (KuK pper and
Haisch, 2000). Although training is given in terms of the
postural impact of BA in the UK, there are times during
"re-"ghting tasks when good posture may not be achievable.
Additionally, in assessing alternative designs of "re"ghting uniforms, Huck (1991) found the greatest restriction to movement was caused not by clothing design
rather by the con"gurations of SCBA equipment and
harnessing. Although secondary to the weight of such
equipment, the literature clearly points to improvements
in interface design and ergonomics consideration as being important in determining the level of physiological
strain associated with heavy, bulky equipment such as
SCBA.

401

(15 kg)). This, however, is probably due to the type of

testing protocol employed*being anaerobic in nature,
all subjects rapidly achieved maximum heart rates which
were maintained for the remainder of the test. The tests
were conducted under time pressure and consequently
the maximum heart rates were re#ective of maximal
e!ort in all conditions, regardless of equipment con"guration. Any bene"t of lighter equipment would more
likely be re#ected in a reduction of the time for task
completion, although statistical signi"cance of these differences could not be demonstrated (Manning and
Griggs, 1983).
A study conducted by Sykes (1993) demonstrated the
bene"ts of lightweight cylinders (6.5 kg) in respect of
oxygen consumption, heart rate and ventilation rate, as
compared with more conventional weight sets (12.5, 11
and 9 kg). However, the use of a fairly low intensity,
continuous treadmill protocol must be questioned in its
ability to realistically model actual "re-"ghting activities,
since these have been repeatedly documented as involving varying intensity, discontinuous tasks (Manning and
Griggs, 1983; Sothmann et al., 1990; Sothmann et al.,
1992).
1.3. Aims of the study
From previous research, it is obvious that a reduction
in the weight of the SCBA set will reduce the physiological loading on individual "re "ghters. The aim of this
study was to compare physiological strain (heart rate),
energy expenditure (oxygen consumption), subjective
comfort and the interaction between energy expenditure
and aerobic "tness while using a lightweight SCBA set
(10 kg) and the currently used conventional weight set
(22 kg).

1.2. Benexts of lightweight SCBA

The expected bene"ts of lightweight SCBA can be
summarised as follows: lower physiological strain and
energy expenditure with consequent increases in &&emergency reserve'' with respect to physical work capacity and
extended working times (due both to a longer time to
fatigue and extended cylinder duration through a reduction in physiological loading). Additionally, one would
expect the level of discomfort for a given backplate and
harnessing con"guration to be lower through reduction
in pressure points and thoracic restriction.
Only two previous studies have directly addressed the
question of the bene"t of lightweight breathing apparatus (Manning and Griggs, 1983; Sykes, 1993). The study
of Manning and Griggs monitored the heart rate responses of "ve "re "ghters performing a simulated anaerobic "re-"ghting exercise, (lasting just under 2 min). They
revealed no signi"cant di!erences between the three test
conditions (no SCBA, light SCBA (7 kg) and heavy SCBA

2. Method
2.1. Sample characteristics
Twenty-two professional "re "ghters volunteered to
take part in the study (physical characteristics given in
Table 1 below). All completed a health and lifestyle
questionnaire and a consent form prior to taking part.
2.2. Equipment
Equipment used included a wooden step (height
20 cm), a TEEM 100 metabolic analyser, a Polar 3000
Heart Rate Monitor and a metronome. The SCBA used
for testing were a lightweight composite cylinder (carbon
"bre wrapped, 10 kg) and a conventional steel cylinder
(22 kg). Firekit (minus gloves and anti-#ash hood) added
an additional 5 kg in weight.

402

A.J. Hooper et al. / Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 399}406

Table 1
Physical characteristics of the participants
Subject

Sex (M/F)

Age (Years)

Height (m)

Weight (kg)

Bodyfat (%)

VO
 
(l min\)

VO
 
ml/(kg min)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M

46
32
26
26
40
21
27
41
42
29
26
33
33
36
33
35
32
40
45
25
54
42

1.61
1.75
1.72
1.83
1.69
1.74
1.78
1.68
1.86
1.73
1.87
1.76
1.76
1.74
1.74
1.84
1.72
1.88
1.72
1.77
1.78
1.86

82.0
80.0
85.5
89.0
80.0
77.0
75.0
77.0
98.0
73.0
92.0
79.0
67.0
71.0
73.5
77.5
74.5
79.0
81.0
75.0
79.0
98.0

23.68
20.98
24.59
17.42
28.26
30.50
18.75
26.42
20.90
15.60
19.67
19.68
16.33
19.31
17.70
13.93
20.55
18.66
26.30
15.50
34.50
26.30

4.28
2.94
3.28
3.71
3.12
3.00
3.03
3.12
4.29
4.22
4.19
2.71
3.25
3.25
3.35
4.19
3.30
3.40
3.23
4.08
2.85
3.97

51.44
36.75
38.36
41.68
39.00
38.96
40.40
40.52
43.78
57.80
45.54
34.30
48.51
45.77
45.58
54.06
45.29
43.04
39.88
54.40
36.08
40.51

34.73
$8.26

1.76
$0.07

80.14
$8.04

3.489
$0.52

43.71
6.31

Mean
$S.D.

2.3. Test protocol

Insurance and equipment restrictions meant the protocol had to utilise a stepping activity and be of submaximal type. However, c1imbing objects, stairs and ladders
are regularly part of "re-"ghting activities, and as such it
was considered no less representative than treadmill
walking. The protocol was of an interval type (to model
the discontinuous nature of "re "ghting) with four or "ve
stages (dependant on heart rate of the participant) of
4 min duration, 4 min rest between each stage and increasing intensity through increased stepping rate. Subjects rested for 24 h between conditions. Two subjects
had to complete both SCBA conditions on the same day,
separated by 4 h, due to the nature of the shift system
operating.
2.4. Experimental design and procedure
There were three conditions to the experiment. Each
subject completed all the conditions. The "rst condition
was a &&baseline'' test (performed in standard issue
trousers and T-shirt and standard issue shoes or training
shoes). This condition comprised "ve submaximal stages
and served two purposes. Firstly, the initial three stages
allowed for comparison to SCBA and "rekit conditions.
Secondly, the addition of two more stages of increasing

intensity made estimation of VO

more accurate. The
 
second and third conditions were performed in "rekit
and light or heavy breathing apparatus, respectively.
These conditions comprised four stages: one for the purposes of warm-up and three for comparative purposes.
Readings for heart rate and oxygen consumption were
averaged over the last minute of each stage. Discomfort
was assessed at all stages of the SCBA testing by use of
a body part discomfort scale (BPD) based on Corlett and
Wilson (1992). Subjects were presented with the
bodymap immediately after completion of each test and
asked to rate discomfort in terms of numbered body
parts and a numeric scale. The order of the tests was
randomly assigned to each participant. Stepping rates for
each subject, at each stage of each condition were calculated on the basis of the following formula (Heyward,
1991):
Workrate (kg m/min)"weight (kg);step height (m)
;stepping rate (steps/min).
This formula allowed participants to work at the same
workrate although their body weights and actual stepping rates were di!erent (step height remained constant
in all cases). All participants completed the "rst three
stages of the baseline test at 300, 350 and 400 kg m/min.
The last two workrates of the session were set to attain an

A.J. Hooper et al. / Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 399}406

appropriate level for estimation of VO

but to stay
 
within 90% of predicted maximum heart rate. Typically,
workrates were set at 500 and 600 kg m/min. The two
SCBA sets were tested using the same protocol at workrates of 300, 350 and 400 kg m/min.
Equipment enabling analysis of expired breath whilst
subjects breathed through the SCBA could not be obtained for the study. The sample was thus split into two
groups (each containing 11 subjects), henceforth Groups
1 and 2. Group 1 carried out the experiment whilst
carrying the SCBA set (measured variables: heart rate
and oxygen consumption). Group 2 carried out the experiment whilst wearing and breathing through the
SCBA set (measured variable: heart rate). This allowed
some measurements to be taken in fully operational
mode (wearing and breathing). The two groups were
matched as far as possible with each other for height,
weight, body mass index and age.

3. Results
3.1. Heart rate responses
The mean heart rate responses for all subjects are
shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2 below. Heart rates for Group
2 (wearing) are higher than for Group 1 (carrying) in all
cases. Also, heart rates are higher with heavy SCBA than

403

light SCBA in all cases. A three way ANOVA was performed omitting the baseline data and showed signi"cant
e!ects due to kit and worklevel (F
"16.36, p(0.00l;

F
"259.69, p(0.00 l, respectively) but no overall

di!erence due to group (F "0.44, p'0.05). Pairwise

comparisons between selected combinations of means
(highest and lowest worklevels, for light and heavy
SCBA, both groups) within each of the two groups established the di!erences between light and heavy conditions
to be signi"cant at the 5% 1evel. The only signi"cant
interaction proved to be that between kit and worklevel
(F
"7.57, p(0.0 l), which when considered in con
junction with inspection of the data indicates a larger
di!erence in physiological strain at higher worklevels.
3.2. Group 1 carrying SCBA oxygen consumption
Fig. 2 and Table 2 show the mean oxygen consumption whilst carrying SCBA for Group 1. The data were
analysed using ANOVA, revealing signi"cantly reduced
oxygen consumption with the lighter, composite cylinder
(F
"35.15, p(0.00 l). This "nding was supported by

pairwise comparisons of two selected combinations of
means (highest and lowest worklevels for light and heavy
SCBA). In this case, however, the interaction between kit
and worklevel was found not to be signi"cant (p'0.05).
3.3. Oxygen consumption and aerobic xtness
Predictions of VO
were made for each subject on
 
the basis of the baseline data using regression analysis.

Fig. 1. Mean heart rate data for both groups in all conditions.

Fig. 2. Mean oxygen consumption (carrying SCBA).

Table 2
Physiological variables measured at 400 kg m/min
Group 1 carrying

Group 2 wearing

Variable

Lightweight

Conventional

Lightweight

Conventional

Average HR (beats/min\)
$S.D.
% HR

VO (l min\)

$S.D.
% VO
 

137.39
13.26
74
1.98
0.175
55

144.33
17.98
78
2.245
0.250
62

139.67
17.11
75.5
*
*
*

151.24
18.06
82
*
*
*

404

A.J. Hooper et al. / Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 399}406

Fig. 3. Comparison of mean bodymap scores.

These estimates of aerobic "tness were then compared,

in turn with the di!erences in oxygen consumption and
heart rate, for Group 1 and the entire sample, respectively, using correlation and regression. None of the regressions were signi"cant at the 5% 1evel. These results
were little improved when the highest common baseline
workrate (600 kg m min\) was used as a secondary indicator of aerobic "tness, the so-called, &&exercise economy''.
Additionally, regressions were performed to investigate the relationship amongst the sample of age and
oxygen consumption di!erence between light and heavy
SCBA sets. Again none of the results were signi"cant.
3.4. Bodypart discomfort data
These data were analysed as follows: all scores related
to parts of the body not a!ected by the BA set-body
interface (e.g. thighs and calves) were omitted. The remaining scores were aggregated to give a score of total
discomfort due to BA set. The data are presented in
Fig. 3. A signi"cant di!erence between the scores for the
light and heavy SCBA sets (H"713, p(0.01), with no
signi"cant di!erence found between kit and worklevel.

4. Discussion

wearing of "rekit. Thus, using heart rate as a measure of

overall physiological strain in the absence of emotional
stress; the di!erence in physiological strain between using
the lightweight SCBA set and the conventional SCBA set
while wearing "rekit is greater at higher workloads in
ambient temperatures of 203C to 263C. Increased thermal
stress during exercise in "rekit is well known (Skoldstrom,
1987) and as such, cannot be discounted in this case. Thus,
although the di!erence in overall physiological strain appears to be greater at higher worklevels, the bene"t in
terms of energy expenditure is consistent through all the
workloads. A nominal value can thus be given for this
saving: based on the highest workrate this value is 0.256
l min\ (approx. 22ml/(kg min) or 76 kcal h\*based on
a non-protein respiratory quotient of 0.90). This is in
broad agreement with the "ndings of Borghols et al.
(1978*33.5 ml/(kg min)) and Sykes (1993*0.38 l min\),
although given the di!ering exercise modalities employed
in these studies (treadmill walking as opposed to stepping) comparisons must be made cautiously.
4.2. Physiological ewect of breathing resistance and dead
space
The non-sign"cance of group as a main e!ect in the
ANOVA comparing carrying and wearing equipment
would indicate no e!ect due to increased breathing resistance and dead space. However, uncontrolled inter-individual variation due to the between-subjects nature of
this variable casts doubt upon any inferences made.
Matching of groups and the very small variation between
mean heart rate responses in the baseline condition o!er
some support for the claim that they respond equally to
exercise, but these comparisons are merely collective, not
individual. As such, a more rigorous examination of these
parameters would be required in order to draw any "rm
conclusions.
4.3. The relationship between benext of lightweight SCBA,
aerobic xtness and age

4.1. Physiological loading and energy expenditure benext

The data presented above show clear bene"ts of lightweight SCBA over conventional weight SCBA, both in
terms of heart rate response and oxygen consumption.
When considering the relationship between these bene"ts
and workload, however, the data appear to con#ict. Oxygen consumption shows the bene"t to be independent of
workload, while heart rate response shows greater bene"ts
at greater workloads. However, this con#ict is resolved
when consideration is given to the unspeci"c nature of
heart rate as a cardiovascular strain response as compared
with the direct relationship between oxygen consumption
and energy produced within the body during aerobic
exercise. That is, the increased level of heart rate may be
due to the impact of increased thermal stress from the

The data provide no evidence to support the "ndings

of Sykes (1993) in respect of the relation between aerobic
"tness and oxygen consumption bene"t. This lack of
relationship is unlikely to be due to a small sample size,
given that Sykes used only seven subjects. It is possible,
however, that the sample used in the study was unrepresentative. Given that all subjects had voluntarily consented the possibility of some form of self-selection
process cannot be discounted, although the study of
Sykes (1993) similarly used volunteers. Moreover, the
average VO
of 58.0 ml/(kg min) in the Sykes' study is
 
in excess of the average level that has been repeatedly
quoted in other studies, where large numbers of "re
"ghters have been mandatorily tested (e.g. Louhevaara et
al., 1984; Sothmann et al., 1992). In contrast, the average

A.J. Hooper et al. / Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 399}406

"gure of the present study (43.71$6.3 l ml/(kg min))

although still above the accepted population average, is
far more representative.
The issue is further complicated by consideration of
the relative inaccuracy of the submaximal method used
in the present study to estimate VO
as compared
 
with more reliable tests (up to 10}15% according to
Astrand and Rodahl (1986). Not only does this raise
questions regarding the population validity of the
VO
estimates, but it also casts some doubt over the
 
validity of the regression results. Additionally, any comparison involving VO
across exercise modalities
 
must be made cautiously, given the specifcity of this
measure to the form of exercise concerned (Astrand and
Rodahl, 1986). This also has implications for the ecological validity of such results when generalising to actual
"re-"ghting tasks. There is clearly a need for further
investigation in this area.
4.4. Discomfort and SCBA design
The lightweight set displayed a clear advantage over
the heavier set. However, this bene"t cannot be attributed solely to the reduced weight, since cylinder attachment, backplate design and harness design di!ered
considerably between the two sets. Nevertheless, some
combination of these factors produced a considerably
improved user}equipment coupling. It is likely that the
reduced weight as well as having its own comfort bene"ts, allowed the redesign of other components, such as
a slimmer, better pro"led backplate (resulting in improved biomechanics, through reduced moments of inertia about the base of the spine) and less cumbersome
harnessing. It is possible that more in-depth consideration of these factors could result in even greater energy
consumption and comfort improvements for lightweight
sets.

5. Conclusions
As expected, the main "nding was that lightweight
breathing apparatus resulted in lower energy expenditure
than conventional weight cylinders during submaximal
exercise. Furthermore, this bene"t was shown to be independent of workload and was valued at 0.256 l min\.
Additionally, the lightweight set proved to be signi"cantly more comfortable than the conventional. Of major
interest was the lack of any relationship found between
energy consumption bene"t and aerobic "tness: this contradicts previous research which found that bene"ts were
greater for those who were less "t. This further reinforces
the suggestion that for the moment, "re "ghters will need
to continue to improve and maintain "tness levels, regardless of the equipment they are using.

405

6. Further research
6.1. Practical implications
The energy consumption and comfort bene"ts of lightweight SCBA have been quantitatively established in the
laboratory setting using exercise tests. However, these
results require validation with respect to realistic simulation or "re suppression protocols (such as those employed by Sothmann et al. (1992), Love et al. (1994) and
Donovan and McConnell (1998). However, since submission of the paper, the majority of UK Fire Services
either have evaluated or are using lighweight SCBA. This
does have "nancial implications in that the costs of "bre
wrapped cylinders are estimated at double the price of
conventional steel cylinders. However, their long-term
bene"ts in terms of reduction of physiological loading in
terms of both weight and biomechanical stress and possible increases in emergency reserve, may well surpass
initial outlay costs.
6.2. Ergonomic assessment of SCBA
There is a need for the assessment of equipment}user
interface factors of lightweight SCBA, such as cylinder
attachment and backplate pro"ling, backplate length
and harnessing design, in order to optimise energy consumption bene"ts and to minimise hindrance to physical
activities. Although future designs may reduce the need
for a backplate, consideration still has to be made of the
position of the load on the back. This is also a requirement under the PPE Regulations (HSE, 1992) where all
equipment must be assessed for compatibility with other
protective equipment and its "tness for use. In this case
the interaction between SCBA and other protective
equipment including clothing will continue to be an issue.
The development of new SCBA or other lighter weight
respiratory protection may also bene"t others involved
in work or leisure pursuits including diving or where
work requires them to carry respiratory equipment.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the West Midlands
Fire Service and Judy Wilson of Interspiro for their help
and co-operation.

References
Astrand, P.O., Rodahl, K., 1986. A textbook of work physiology:
physiological bases of exercise. McGraw-Hill, London.
Bizal, C.L., Kamon, E., 1984. The e!ect of treadmill exercise and
imposed airway resistance on breathing waveform shape factors.
Med. Sci. Sports 16, 179.

406

A.J. Hooper et al. / Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 399}406

Borghols, E.A.M., Dresen, M.H.W., Hollander, A.P., 1978. In#uence of

heavy weight carrying on the cardiorespiratory system during exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 38, 161}169.
Cerretelli, P., Sikand, R.S., Farhi, L.E., 1969. E!ect of increased airway
resistance on ventilation and gas exchange during exercise. J. Appl.
Physiol. 27, 597}600.
Defence Evaluation Research Agnency, 1997. Article in DERA News,
July 28, p. 1.
Demedts, M., Anthonisen, N.R., 1973. E!ects of increased external airway
resistance during steady-state exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 35, 361}366.
Donovan, K.J., McConnell, A., 1998. The e!ects of self-contained
breathing apparatus on gas exchange and heart rate during "re"ghter simulations. Contemporary Ergonomics 1998, Proceedings
of the Ergonomics Society Conference, Cirencester, pp. 535}539.
Gee, J.B.L., Burton, C., Vasallo, C., Gregg, J., 1968. E!ects of external
airway obstruction on work capacity and pulmonary gas exchange.
Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 98, 1003}1012.
Gordon, M.J., Goslin, B.R., Vasallo, C., Gregg, J., 1983. Comparison
between load carriage and grade walking on a treadmill. Ergonomics 26, 289}298.
Heyward, V.H., 1991. Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription. 2nd Edition, Human Kintestics, Champaign, Illinois.
HSE, 1992. Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations:
Guidance on the Regulations Health and Safety Commision. HSE
Books, Su!olk.
Huck, J., 1991. Restriction to movement in "re-"ghter protective clothing:
evaluation of alternative sleeves and liners. Appl. Ergon. 22, 91}100.
Kelman, G.R., Watson, A.W.S., 1973. E!ect of added dead-space on
pulmonary ventilation during sub-maximal steady-state exercise. Q.
J. Exp. Physiol. 58, 305}313.
KuK pper, T., Haisch, M., 2000. Lumbar spine loads during education
and training with self-contained breathing apparatus. Int. Arch.
Occup. Environ. Health 73, 35}40.
Lemon, P.W.R., Hermiston, R.T., 1977. Physiological pro"le of professional "re"ghters. J. of Occup. Med. 19, 337}340.
Lind, A.R., McNichol, G.W., 1968. Cardiovascular responses to holding
and carrying weights by hand and shoulder harness. J. Appl.
Physiol. 25, 261}267.
Louhevaara, V.A., 1984. Physiological e!ects associated with the use of
respiratory protective devices: a review. Scand. J. Work, Environ.
Health 10, 275}281.

Louhevaara, V.A., Tuomi, T., Korhonen, O., Jaakkola, J., 1984.

Cardiorespiratory e!ects of respiratory protective devices
during exercise in well-trained men. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 52,
340}345.
Love, R.G., Johnstone, J.G.B., Crawford, J., Tesh, K.M., Graveling,
R.A., Ritchie, P.J., Hutchison, P.A., Wetherill, G.Z., 1994. Study of
the Physiological E!ects of Wearing Breathing Apparatus. Institute
of Occupational Medicine Technical Memorandum TM/94/05,
Edinburgh.
Lusa, S., 1994. Job demands and assessment of the physical work
capacity of "re "ghters, Studies in Sport, Physical Education and
Health. University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla Finland.
Manning, J.E., Griggs, T.R., 1983. Heart rates in "re"ghters using
light and heavy breathing equipment: similar near maximal exertion
in response to multiple work conditions. J. Occup. Med. 25,
215}218.
O'Connell, E.R., Thomas, P.C., Cady, L.D., Karwasky, R.J., 1986.
Energy costs of simulated stair climbing as a job-related task in
"re"ghting. J. Occup. Med. 28, 282}284.
Reichelt, P.A., Conrad, K.M., 1995. Musculoskeletal injury: ergonomics
and physical "tness in "remen. Occup. Med. 10, 738}746.
Romet, T.T., Frim, J., 1987. Physiological responses to "re"ghting
activities. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.. 56, 633}638.
Skoldstrom, B., 1987. Physiological responses of "re"ghters to workload and thermal stress. Ergonomics 34, 1469}1474.
Sothmann, M., Saupe, W., Jasehnhof, D., Blaney, J., Fuhrman, S.,
Woulfe, T., Raven, P., Pawekczyk, J., Dotson, C., Landy, F., Smith,
J., Davis, P., 1990. Advancing age and cardiorespiratory stress of "re
suppression: determining a minimum standard for aerobic "tness.
Human Performance 3, 217}236.
Sothmann, M., Saupe, K., Jasenhof, D., Blaney, J., 1992. Heart rate
responses of "re"ghters to actual emergencies: implications for
cardiorespiratory "tness. J. Occup. Med. 34, 27}33.
Stromberg, T., Eklund, J., Gustafsson, P.M., 1996. A method for
measuring the CO dead space volume in facial visors and respirat
ory protective devices in human subjects. Ergonomics 39,
1087}1106.
Sykes, K., 1993. Comparison of conventional and light BA cylinders.
Fire Int. 143, 23}24.
Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N., 1992. Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology. Taylor and Francis, London.