429
1 INTRODUCTION
Marineabandonmentimmersionsuitsaredesignedto
provide personal protection against harsh
environmental elements and the dangers of cold
shock,hypothermiaanddrowning(CanadianGeneral
Standards Board [CGSB], 2005). In the event of an
emergency, the thermal properties and functionality
of an immersion suit can impact users’ chances of
survival (Kozey, Reilly & Brooks, 2005). The ba
sic
design and components of the “modern” era of
immersionsuitshaveremainedessentiallyunchanged
for over seventy years (Vanggard, 2007). Research
conducted during World War Two identified issues
critical to suit construction: lightness, simplicity,
closure, flammability resistance, donning ease,
effectiveandreliablez
ippers,wristandneckseals,as
well as hand protection design and configuration
(Hiscock, 1980). Unfortunately, with a generally
unchanged design the inherent equipment
deficiencies cited in the nineteen forties are still
relevant and continue to pose difficulties for
manufacturersanduserstoday.
Brooks, McCable & Lamont (2001) found overall
user confidence in immersion suits was higher tha
n
what anecdotal evidence of suit performance in
marine incidents suggest. The ability to maintain a
suits’watertightintegrityisoftheutmostimportance,
as even small amounts of water ingress can have
significanteffectsonthebody’sthermalconservation
capabilities (Allan, Higgenbottam & Redm
an, 1985).
Therearethreemainconditionswhichmustbemetin
order for a user to maximize immersion suit
effectiveness:thesuitmust(1)beproperlymaintained
andingoodworkingorder,(2)correctlyfittheuser,
and (3) donned correctly (Mallam, Small &
MacKinnon,2012).Theoperationaleffectivenessofa
wellmaint
ainedandcorrectlyfittedsuithingesonthe
abilityofausertocorrectlydonasuitsystemandone
must possess the knowledge and skills to do so in
dynamic,real‐worldemergencyscenarios.
Immersion Suit Donning in Dynamic Environments:
Implications for Design, Construction & Use
S.C.Malla
m
ChalmersUniversityofTechnology,Gothenburg,Sweden
MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland,St.John’s,NL,Canada
G.R.Small&S.N.MacKinnon
M
emorialUniversityofNewfoundland,St.John’s,NL,Canada
ABSTRACT:Marineabandonmentimmersionsuitsareavital piece ofsafetyequipmentintendedto protect
individualsfromexposuretoharshenvironmentalelements.Theoperationaleffectivenessofawellmaintained
andfittedsuitdependsontheabilityofausertocorrectlydonasuitsystem.Thirty‐twopart
icipantsperformed
immersionsuitdonningtrialsinsixexperimentalconditions.Dynamic, pre‐abandonmentmarine emergency
scenariosweresimulatedusingasixdegreesoffreedommotionplatformandvaryingenvironmentallighting
levels. This article details user‐suit interaction challenges encountered throughout immersion suit donning
tasks and examines their connection to safety and survival in ma
rine emergencies. Analysis of user‐suit
functionality during the donning process is critical for identifying current deficiencies in order to develop
futuredesignsolutions,trainingmethodologiesandultimatelyimproveusers’practicalcompetencies.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 8
Number 3
September 2014
DOI:10.12716/1001.08.03.15
430
2 BACKGROUND&PURPOSE
Recentresearchinvestigatingimmersionsuitdonning
indynamicenvironmentsexaminedtheperformance
of donning tasks in simulated emergency scenarios
(Mallametal.,2012).Theaforementionedpublication
examined donning timing, but also provided a
platform which captured user‐suit interaction
throughout the donning process. Over the course
of
data collection, unforeseen and reoccurring issues
arose which impeded successful completion of
various donning tasks, prompting a lengthy
quantitativeanalysisoftask errors. Thepurpose of
this article is to qualitatively detail immersion suit
donning barriers observed during data collection by
analysing specific suit components and donning
procedures. Analysis
of user‐suit functionality
throughoutthe donning processcan advance design
solutions for manufacturers and contribute to user
training procedures and competencies under the
constraints of current equipment. The goal is to
increase awareness of potential challenges present
duringthe pre‐abandonmentdonningphase relating
tobothimmersionsuitdonningand
itsconnectionto
more general applications of safety and survival in
emergencies.
3 MATERIALS&METHODS
Thirty‐two novice participants (male=18, female=14;
age22.9
±2.0years;stature173.5±8.6cm;mass75.6±
12.9kg;BodyMassIndex24.9±2.8)performedseven
donningtrialseach(totaltrials=224)takingplaceon
a six degrees of freedom (6DOF) electric motion
simulator (Series 6DOF2000E Electric Motion
Platform, MOOG Inc., East Aurora, New York).
The
motionsimulatorwasmountedwitha2mx2mmetal
platform enclosed by 103cm safety railings and a
215cmcanopyintendedtoeliminatevisualreferences.
Participants were randomly assigned one of two
marine abandonment immersion suit models, both
commerciallyavailableandadheringtointernational
regulatory standards. Both models are
of similar
design: traditional front entry, central split neck
immersion suits sealed by one ma in zipper on the
anterior side of the suit, detached hand protection
stowedinthesuits’sleevesandrubberwristandface
seals(seeFigure1).Allsuitsusedintheexperiment
were direct from the retailer
and were new or
professionallyrefurbished.Thesuitswerefoldedand
stowed in carry bags for each trial as per
manufacturerinstructions.
Participant anthropometric and mass
measurements were collected. Standardized test
clothing (basic one‐piece coveralls) was provided to
wear for the duration of the experiment. A specific
suit size
was issued based on each respective
manufacturer sizing chart and participant
morphological data. Participants were asked to
remove potentially obstructive items such as
jewellery, eyeglasses and watches, whilst long hair
was tied back. A heart rate monitor was attached
around the chest and a ten‐minute baseline
measurementwasrecordedto
determinethelengthof
inter‐donningtrialrestperiods.Eachrestperiodwas
unique and defined by the participants’ Recovery
Threshold (RT) formula as defined by Larson &
Potteiger (1997) using real‐time heart rate
measurements.Theminimumrestperiodlengthwas
establishedatfiveminutes,regardlessofhowquickly
aparticipantreachedtheirRT.
Figure1. Comparison of the two immersion suit models
used
Uponcompletionofafamiliarizationperiodwitha
standardizedsetofdonninginstructionsparticipants
were asked to complete seven semi‐randomized
donningtrialsinsixexperimentalconditions(baseline
condition‐Condition1‐repeatedtwice)(seeTable1).
Two lighting conditions were used with each
platformcondition:“Light”and“Dark”.The“Light”
condition
was defined as normal, ambient room
lighting in a windowless space, with all overhead
laboratorylightsactivated.The“Dark”conditionwas
defined as having all overhead and task lights
deactivated,includingshieldingofcomputermonitor
screens, creating a black‐out environment. Three
platform motion conditions were used: (1) flat
motionless,
(2)fifteendegree staticplatform listand
(3) 6DOF motion replicating vessel movements in
heavyseas.
Table1.Experimentalconditions
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Condition PlatformCondition PlatformConditionCriteriaVisibility
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
1StableFlatPlatform,ZeroMotionHigh(Light)
2List15°PlatformList,ZeroMotionHigh(Light)
3Motion6DOF:+/‐30deg/spitch,roll,yaw;+/‐0.5gheave,surgeswayHigh(Light)
4StableFlatPlatform,ZeroMotionLow(Dark)
5List15°PlatformList,ZeroMotionLow(Dark)
6Motion6DOF:+/‐30deg/spitch,roll,yaw;+/‐0.5gheave,surgeswayLow(Dark)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
431
Donning trials were captured via two video
cameras(1infrared,wideanglelensmountedwithin
the motion platform; 1 standard hand held video
camera mounted externally). Video data was
streamed live to monitor participant progress and
safety, while recordings were reviewed post‐hoc to
analyseparticipantdonningprocedures.Restperiods
were given between each donning trial while the
researchersinspectedandrepackagedthesuitintothe
carrybag.
4 RESULTS&DISCUSSION
4.1 SuitSizing
Ideally, everyone working on or near cold water
would have access to a custom fit immersion suit
specifically manufactured for individual body
morphology. In reality,
this is rarely feasible or
practical in commercial operations. Thus,
manufacturers design immersion suits for the
populace using universal size ranges. Operational
benefitsanddrawbacksexistforbothcustomfitand
universalsizesuits.
The greatest advantage of a universal size
immersionsuitisthatitshouldfitalargepercentage
oftheadultpopulationandthus,adequatefora range
of individuals. Universal sizes facilitate and
encouragesmallercommercialownersandoperators
topurchaseimmersionsuitsknowingthattheyshould
fitthemajorityoftheircrewregardlessofshiftchange
or personnel turnover, keeping costs comparatively
lower. In practice, during
emergency muster and
escape,individualsmaynothavetheabilitytoaccess
or identify a suit of specific make or size. This can
become increasingly difficult with larger crew sizes,
rig or vessel size/design, suit stowage areas, muster
locationsandahostofadditionalvariablesspecificto
aparticularemergency.Universal
sizesmakeitmore
probable that a suit of acceptable fit is available
duringemergencyegress,allowingformoreefficient
disseminationandsuccessfulfit.
However, the greatest advantage of a universal
size is also its greatest disadvantage. Manufacturers
useanthropometricdatafromsamplesofpopulations
toestablishsuitsizing. For
theconsumer,sizerange
informationisgenerallyrepresentedbystatureand/or
mass figures. This method fails to communicate
diversity of body morphologies across a population,
as reiterated by the popular adage regarding
immersionsuits:“onesizefitsnone”.Onewould,and
shouldassumethattheyareabletocorrectlyfitinto
animmersionsuitiftheirstatureandmassfallwithin
the specified sizing range established by a
manufacturer.Variabilityofanthropometricsacrossa
similarlysizedpopulationmayresultinloosefitting
seals, poor mobility, restricted respiration and
impededvision,reducingfunctionalityandsafety.In
addition, post‐abandonment thermal protective
properties
are reduced by water ingress and
additionalwaterweightreducesbuoyancy,impeding
anindividual’sabilitytomanoeuvreandstayafloat.
Individualswithbodymorphologiesatthe lower
end of an immersion suit size range tend to be too
small to properly fit within a suit. Due to their
relatively smaller statures
in comparison to the suit
size,excessmaterialcreatesfoldingandbunchingin
thechestandwaistregions(Reilly,Kozey&Brooks,
2005).Accumulationsofsurplusmaterialwasshown
tointerferewiththezippingprocess,impedeproper
head location within the immersion suit hood,
preventadequatesealsfrombeingformed
aroundthe
face and compromised overall mobility, hand
function,respirationandvision.
Experimental observations suggest that
individualswith massand stature figures located in
the mid‐to‐upper range of immersion suit sizing
specifications achieve best fit and functionality.
Despitehavingstatureandmassvaluesgreaterthana
particular size specification,
individuals who lay in
thelowerrangeofasuitsizemaybenefitfromusinga
smaller suit. Reducing excess suit material can have
several advantages: increase of overall mobility and
functionality, facilitation of faster donning through
use of a smaller, more manageable suit and the
creationoftighterneck
andwristseals.Itmustalsobe
stressed that a suit which is too small for an
individual has disadvantages that can be as
detrimental as an oversized suit. If a body and its
extremities are too large to fit within a suit zipper
closuremaybeimpeded,wristandneck
sealmaybe
restrictive and overall mobility and comfort can be
compromised.Itisimperativethattheindividualwho
intendstouseaparticularsuitnotonlytryitonfor
size, but also perform functional tests prior to
purchase or departure for a marine environment
(Leese&Norman,1979).
4.2 CarryBags&AdditionalContents
Immersion suits should be stowed in their
accompanying carry bag until needed. Carry bags
provideseveralbenefits,mostnotablysuitprotection,
organizedstowage,convenienttransportationandthe
ability to combine several types of survival
equipmentintoonepackage.Asuitstowedwithouta
carry bag
is functionally less diverse then a suit
stowed in a carry bag. In an emergency, immersion
suitsmayhavetobetransportedtoamusterareaor
alternativesafezonepriortodonning.Anunpacked
suit can impede user speed and mobility in escape
proceduresandincreasechancesforsuit
damagedue
toexposuretothesurroundingenvironment.
Some carry bag models are comparatively
spacious and study observations revealed that this
allows for easier removal of the suit from the bag.
Althoughlargerbagsallowforeasiersuitextraction,
extra space within a carry bag can be used to stow
additional
equipment which may be helpful during
emergencyegress;turningastandardimmersionsuit
and carry bag into a more comprehensive survival
package. Examples of small, light additional
equipment include clothing, visual aids and tools.
Easy to stow, useful clothing include heavy, loose
fittingsocks,insulatedpants,shirts, capsandgloves.
Apart from clothing, watertight flashlights, multi‐
tools,smallfirstaidkitsordisposableglowstickscan
be valuable additions to carry bag contents. Glow
sticks can aid vision during suit donning and
abandonment, while also provide a supplementary
lightsourceforsurvivorsandsearcherstolocateeach
432
other. Special precaution and protective measures
should be taken to ensure that potentially corrosive
chemicalsthatcandamageimmersionsuits,including
batteries and glow sticks are adequately sealed and
quarantinedincaseofaccidentaldischarge. Ducttape
canhelpsealanimmersionsuit,whilealsoaversatile
tool which may
be useful for a variety of purposes.
Brooks et al. (2001) note that duct tape is often
brought to sea and used at muster stations for the
purpose of shutting loose seals (i.e. wrist seals) in
order to maximize the watertight integrity of an
immersionsuit.
Theseareonly a
sampleofuseful,light, compact
andeconomicalequipmentwhichcanbestowedand
transported within a carry bag to create a more
comprehensive personal survival system. Although
these items may not have the ability or need to be
used during an emergency, their presence could be
instrumental in contributing to successful
abandonment,survivalandrescue.
4.3 PersonalVulnerabilityDuringInitialDonning
Procedures
Donning an immersion suit in benign, stable
conditions can be a difficult procedure for many
individuals. However, being forced to don an
immersion suit in a marine emergency can prove to
be both more physically and psychologically
challenging. Initial
gross movements needed for
donning include removing footwear (if necessary‐
immersion suit models vary), unpacking the carry
bag, unfolding the suit and entering the extremities
withinitsconfines.Thesemovementscanleadtoloss
of balance and increase the possibility of slips, trips
and falls. An unprotected body may be exposed
to
wet, slippery, cold, crowded environments, laden
with sharp objects or other hazards. Prior to, and
during abandonment it is important if possible, to
find a relatively unobstructed, dry and safe area to
donanimmersionsuit.
Itis recommended that users practicedonningin
various settings and try differing
techniques and
methods.Throughoutthetrialsitswasobservedthat
participantsemployedarangeofvaryingprocedures
duringinitialdonningtasks,familiarizingthemselves
with what felt and worked best for them. For
example,incertainmotionrichenvironmentsitmay
beadvantageous to siton the floor to decrease ones
centre
ofmass,leanagainstobjectsortakeadvantage
ofitemsinthesurroundingenvironmentforstability
andsupport.
4.3.1 CardiovascularDemands
Overall, the mean peak cardiac output recorded
was82.1%ofparticipants’theoreticalmaximumheart
rate,definedas“vigorous‐intensityphysicalactivity”
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(2011). Heart rate values ranged from a “moderate”
52.3% cardiac intensity to 100.0% of participants’
predicted maximum heart rate. Donning an
immersionsuitisnotextendedphysicalactivity,nor
is it uniform in its physical demands or intensity.
However, the rapid escalation of physical demand
andstressplacedonthecardiovascular
andmuscular
systems during the initial gross‐movements of
donning procedures can be hazardous to health,
especiallyforuntrainedindividualsunaccustomedto
intensephysicalexertion.
4.4 RemovableLiner
Immersionsuitsareconstructedofsingleormultiple
layers of material. Single layer designs consist of
waterproof fabric with thermal properties, while
multi‐layer suits generally have a waterproof outer
shell, lined with an insulating layer. Brooks (2003)
notesthattheremovableoptionisadvantageousasit
allows the ability to change liners based on specific
cold water conditions, while also convenient for
laundering. Experimental observations revealed that
duringthedonningprocessliners
usingsnapbuttons
as an attachment mechanism within the suit
periodically interfered with participant donning and
in extreme scenarios prevented successful donning
completion.
Linerattachmentbuttons,particularlywithinsuits’
lowerlegswereshowntodetachfromtheoutershell
during the physically vigorous process of rapid suit
unpacking and donning.
This is concerning for two
important reasons: first, the presence of loose,
unbuttoned fabric increases the potential to cause
tangling and obstruction within the legs or arms;
second,shouldanindividualsuccessfully don a suit
with a detached liner, the shifting fabric within the
extremities could leave part of the body
without
thermal coverage. In this event, a thin waterproof
layer may be the only barrier between the skin and
water,increasingtherateoftotalbodyheatloss.
4.5 LiftingHarness
Immersion suit lifting harnesses are a component
offered by manufacturers (whether optional or
standard) designed to aid in the
retrieval of an
individual from water (see Figure 2). Observations
revealedthatrapiddonningdislodgedthisparticular
harness system, consequently interfering and in
extreme cases prohibiting donning completion. If a
harness is dislodged from its intended stowage
position after successful donning completion the
material presents a tangle hazard and can
compromise
user retrieval via the system. Although
theadditionofaliftingharnessonanimmersionsuit
canaidintherescueprocess,designand location of
the component can have negative impacts upon
donning.
433
Figure 2. A properly configured lift harness system post‐
donning
4.5.1 DetrimentalEffectsofLiftingHarness:TwoCase
Studies
During the trials two issues regarding the lifting
harness commonly occurred throughout donning
procedures.Thefirstscenariosawtheliftingharness
unintentionallyreleasedfromitsVelcrostrapslocated
on the chest leaving the harness dangling from the
suit. The second scenario saw
the harness which is
intended to be looped between the legs, dislodged
fromitsstowagepositionduringdonningandendup
atthesideofanindividual’sbodyoncedonned.Both
unintended harness positions can create tangle
hazards during egress and may render the system
inoperable. The two scenarios described
above
regularly occurred across participant donning trials,
butgenerallydidnotinterferewiththesuccessoftask
completion. However, two specific cases were
observed during the experimental trials where the
lifting harness played a direct role in prolonging or
entirelypreventingcompletionofsuitdonning.
Inthefirstcase,aparticipant
donninghissuitina
darkened, motion rich environment (Condition 6)
became entangled in the lifting harness when he
accidently dislodged it in the initial donning stages.
Afterrepeatedfailedattemptsingettinghisarmsinto
thesuit,heeventuallyrealizedthathewastangledin
thelifting harness on
theposterior side of his body.
Upondiscoveringthis, theparticipantunhooked the
harness buckle and wriggled free. The remainder of
thetaskswerethensuccessfullycompleted,whilethe
inoperableliftingharnesshungfromthesuitaround
hislowerextremities.
Thesecondparticipantencounteredsimilarlifting
harness trouble while donning his
suit in the same
darkened, motion rich condition (Condition 6).
However, in this scenario the participant did not
realizethedislodgedanddanglingliftingharnesswas
preventing his upper limbs from entering the suit.
Comparabletocase one, the participant successfully
unpacked and got his lower body within the suit.
However,duringthisprocesstheliftingharnesswas
unintentionallyreleasedfromitsstowagepositionon
the chest and became entangled behind him and
within the now half‐donned immersion suit. This
restrictedhistrunkandshouldersfromfittingintothe
top‐halfofthesuit,subsequentlyrestrictinghisarms
fromfitting
intothesleeves.Afteroverthreeminutes
of struggling and many repeated attempts, the
participant failed to get his arms within the suit
sleeves,donthehoodorsealthezipperandgaveup
disorientated,exhaustedandfrustrated.
Although this particular design of lifting harness
routinely became dislodged, it rarely
created
problemsduringdonning.However,asdescribed,the
potentialforthispa rticularloosefittingliftingharness
design to have a drastically negative impact is
present. Further study into lifting harness
configurations and their performance in rapid
immersion suit unpacking and donning is necessary
to provide an effective device which eliminates the
possibilityofimpedingdonningtasks.Usersneedto
beawareofhowaliftingharnesscanhinderdonning,
aswellashowtoidentifyandmitigatesuchissuesif
andwhentheyarise.
4.6 Zipper
Theanteriorzipperofanimmersionsuitisa critical
andfragilecomponentof the
suitsystem, long cited
as a major concern due to its vulnerability to
corrosion and physical damage (Brooks, 2003). Even
whileusingbrand new suitswithlubricatedzippers
in perfect working order, participants encountered
issues which both increased donning times and
decreased levels of reported user confidence and
comfort.
Experimental observations
revealed that a major
factor in preventing optimal zipper function is the
presence of excess, loose suit material creating
bunching around the trunk of the body; a potential
by‐product of one‐size fits all suits. Excess suit
material bunching adds variability to zipper track
positioningalongthesuitaffecting
zippermovement
efficiency. Throughout the trials participants
routinely commented about being nervous and
hesitantwhen attemptingtoclosethezipper,due to
its seemingly unpredictable and erratic movement
whenforcewasapplied,especiallynearthefaceand
mouth region. This often led to participants not
wanting to fully close the zipper,
which in turn
compromisedthefacesealandwatertightintegrityof
the entire suit system. These findings support the
rationale for an offset neck seal closure design.
Moving the zipper track away from the chin and
mouth to a less sensitive region of the body would
combat user hesitation to
fully close the zipper, as
seenincentralsplitnecksealdesign.
Heavy immersion suit zippers move easier and
with less force when the suit material and zipper
tracks are flat. Additionally, even new, lubricated
zippers may still have a tendency to stick during
closure. Zipperclosure can be facilitatedby
holding
the bottom portion of the track and applying force
downwardswithonehand,whiletheopposinghand
pulls the zipper towards the head. This keeps the
zippertrackasstraightandflatas possible allowing
for the smoothest movement and efficiency of force
transfer.
434
4.7 WristCuffs
Immersion suit wrist cuffs must be tight enough to
preventwaterleakageintothesuit,yetlooseenough
toaccommodatearangeofhandandwristsizeswhile
maintaininghandfunctionandcomfort.Avarietyof
materialsmaybeusedforimmersionsuitwristcuffs,
though both
suits used in the experiment had cuffs
constructed exclusively of rubber. All thirty‐two
participantswereabletogettheirhandsthroughthe
wrist seals and adequately position the cuffs.
Observations indicated that for a given suit size,
individualsonthelowerendofasizerangefittheir
hands
through cuffs easier and with less effort than
individuals of larger stature and mass, suggesting
that the wrist cuffs may not have established a
completelywatertightseal.Althoughthis hypothesis
wasnottestedintheexperimenttheuseofducttape
for sealing wrist cuffs suggested by Brooks et al.
(2001)
would introduce a safeguard against
potentiallyill‐fittingseals.
Wristcuffdesignalsoaffectshowhandprotection
securesagainstthewristandlowerforearmofasuit.
In comparing the two suits, notable differences
appeared which affected hand protection and
function. The immersion suit on the left of Figure 3
showsaflat,unobstructedcuffdesign.Thisallowsthe
hand protection to slip over and lay on top of the
wristcuffmaterialflushandwithlittlehindrance.In
contrast,theimmersion suit on the rightof Figure 3
reveals a wrist cuff design where excess, loose
material from the sleeve
creates bunching, which in
turnobstructsthewristcuff.Thebunchingofexcess
material over the wrist cuff can be attributed to the
sleeve design and a larger suit size range, creating
excess material in comparison to the individuals’
morphology.Excesssleevematerialcanimpedehand
protection donning and placement
on the hand and
forearm. Additionally, once donned excess sleeve
material can place force on the base of the glove,
slidingitoutofitsintendedposition.
Figure3.Comparisonoftwopopulardesignsofwristcuffs
&handprotectionstowagecompartments
4.8 HandProtection
An inverse relationship exists between bulky hand
protectionconstructionanduserhandperformancein
cold environments. Without physical protection,
exposedhandscool relatively quicklyand thus, lose
dexterity, grip strength and function (Bensel &
Lockhart, 1974; Geng, Kuklane & Holmér, 1997). In
contrast,implementinghandprotectioninthe
formof
variousgloveormittenconfigurations(Note:forthe
convenience of shorthand this article uses the terms
“hand protection” and “gloves” interchangeably to
refer to all designs and configurations of hand
protection) will provide physica l and thermal
protection, but reduce hand mobility and dexterity
duetothepresenceof
obstructivematerialaroundthe
fingersandhands.
The ultimate goal of immersion suit hand
protectionistoprovideadequatefitandfunctionfor
users’ hands while maximizing thermal properties.
However, historic and contemporary commercial
hand protection fails to fully optimize these
requirements, while the degradation of manual
function continues to be
of concern. Current hand
protection has trade‐offs and users must judge
accordingly under the specific circumstances when,
and if hand protection should be implemented.
Marine abandonment immersion suits offer various
configurations and designs of hand protection. The
current discussion will not focus on specific hand
protection sizing, materials, designs
(i.e. mitten vs.
index finger free vs. five finger hand protection) or
between integrated and detached hand protection
configurations. These issues deserve their own
detailedanalysisanddiscussionoutsidethescopeof
this research. The immersion suits used in the
experiment both had detached hand protection
configurations. Discussion here within will
focus on
the user interaction and performance of the systems
during hand protection unpacking, donning and
functionality.
4.8.1 DetachedHandProtectionStowage&Release
Brooks(2008)suggeststhathandprotectionisbest
provided as a separate item stowed on the sleeve
rather than incorporated into the suit itself. The
rationale
beingthatitallowshandstobeunimpeded
and free to carry out tasks which may otherwise be
hindered by the presence of bulky gloves. Hand
protection which is not integrated into a suit are
generallystowedinpouchesonthesuitsforearmand
attachedbyatethertoprevent
loss.Therearevarious
stowage pouch configurations but generally have a
comparatively (1) open, unimpeded or (2) secure,
protectedstowagedesign(seeFigure3).
A more open, unimpeded design allows for
quicker and easier deployment but may promote
handprotectionreleaseatunwantedtimes,especially
duringthevigorousmotionsofcarry
bagunpacking
and initial suit donning procedures. While this
eliminatestheneedforanindividualtoextracthand
protection from stowage pouches, a dangling glove
can get caught in surrounding obstructions, tear the
tether and damage the suit. Several instances
occurred where released tethered hand protection
became caught inside the
suit and prevented the
anterior zipper from being closed. Additionally, a
releasedglovecanspinfreelyandentanglewithitself
or with the other hand protection when released. A
more secure, protected design ensures that hand
protection release requires intentional and specific
actionsby theuser. The suitused in the
experiment
features a flap of material sealed by Velcro and a
435
single snap button which firmly stows the tethered
glove.Althoughthismoreprotecteddesignkeeps the
hand protection stowed and out of the way until
desired,itsreducedaccessibilitycaninhibittheglove
frombeingreleased.
Hand protection should only be released from
stowage pouches after initial donning and zipper
sealing and immediately prior to when the user
intends to don them. This maximizes bare hand
function for completing critical tasks and minimizes
the probability of hand protection tangling and
damageoncereleased.Bothglovesshouldbereleased
prior to any hand protection donning. If not, the
opposinghandnow
coveredbyaglovemayprevent
successful release of the opposing hand protection
from its stowage pouch due to reduced manual
dexterityandfunction.
4.8.2 DetachedHandProtectionDonning
Oncehandprotectionisreleasedfromthestowage
pouchestheprocessofenteringhandsintothegloves
can commence. Observations suggest that
the initial
task of fitting hands into gloves subjects a large
amount of stress and uneven pulling on hand
protection,contributingtosuitdamage.Pullingfrom
thebaseofagloverequiresanindividualtogripthe
material by the thumb and finger(s) to exert force.
Evenasmallreduction
inhand/fingerstrengthorthe
addition of a wet and/or cold environment may
preventthisfrombeingsuccessfullyachieved.
When donning the first glove, one is able to use
the opposite, bare hand to secure and position the
handprotection,allowingunfetteredhandandfinger
function throughout the process. However, when
donning the second glove, the opposing hand is
coveredbytherecentlydonnedhandprotection.This
resultsinamoredifficultprocedure due to the now
reducedmanualfunctionofa gloved hand. Poorfit,
reduced hand function and compromised physical
andthermal protection areby‐productsof having to
donasecondglove;anunavoidabletaskindetached
handprotectiondonning.
4.8.3 DetachedHandProtectionWristStraps
Wrist straps are intended to tighten and secure
hand protection against immersion suit cuffs. This
providestheonlydefence againstwater ingress into
the glove and thermal protection for the hand.
Additionally,
they act as a secondary barrier of
protectionfromwateringressintothesuitbywayof
the wrist seals. This procedure must be completed
with either one or two hands covered by hand
protection,dependingontheorderinwhichtasksare
performed. Due to the fine, accurate movements
needed
to accomplish the task, high hand dexterity
andunobstructedvisionareadvantageous.
Thewriststrapsofthesuitsusedintheexperiment
had several design deficiencies which either
prevented participants from attaching the system
correctly, or in some cases, if successfully attached,
failedtoprovideafunctionaladditionalsealaround
the wrist. It was observed that even in well‐lit
conditions participants had difficulty distinguishing
betweenthewriststrapmaterialandthemale‐female
Velcroattachments.Acontributingfactorwasthelow
contrast between the wrist strap, wrist cuff, hand
protection and Velcro attachment points, all being
black. Low visual contrast
combined with poor
manual function and somatosensory information
forcedparticipantstoestimatewheretheVelcrostrap
attachmentpointlocationswere, contributingtohigh
task error rates. One participant, after several failed
attempts, rubbed both sides of the strap against her
exposed face in order to feel which side was rough
Velcro,andthuswhichwasthecorrectwaytocircle
thestraparoundthewristforattachment.
In addition to donning issues, the actual
usefulnessofthewriststrapswasquestionedbysome
participants. While wrist straps themselves were of
adequatelength to fit all participants’ wrists, Velcro
attachmentsrelativeto
wristsizewerenotalwaysin
idealpositionstoachieveatightseal,especiallythose
with smaller wrist circumferences. A wrist strap
which fails to provide a tight seal around the glove
andwristfailstoserveanypurpose.
4.8.4 HandProtectionStowagePouchDesignFlaw:A
CaseStudy
It
wasrevealedthatthesuitwiththemoresecure
handprotectionstowagesystemhasacrucialdesign
flaw which was shown to inhibit hand protection
donningduetoinadvertentmale‐femaleVelcrobeing
able to connect. The flap adorned with Velcro
intended to seal the stowage pouch shut can
inadvertently impede
entrance of the hand into the
glove when hand protection is deployed. Once
deployed,theVelcro on the stowage pouchflap can
attach to the Velcro on the glove, intended for the
wrist strap, thus blocking the hand protection
entrance at its base (see Figure 4). Several similar
instances during
the trial revealed that once the
inadvertent attachment of unintended male‐female
Velcropiecesoccurred,participantshaddifficultiesin
bothidentifyingandremedyingtheproblemthatwas
preventinghandentryintotheglove.
Figure4.Designflaw:Inadvertentblockingofentranceinto
handprotection
436
4.8.5 ImprovingHandProtectionDesigntoFacilitate
Functionality
Numerous factors must be assessed in order to
optimize immersion suit hand protection design; a
reinvention of the traditional system is needed.
Increasedemphasis on researchand development in
this area is necessary to address a number of
underlying design issues related
to immersion suit
hand protection in abandonment and survival.
However,overthecourseofexperimentationthrough
observation and discussion with participants several
simple, cost‐effective design modifications were
proposed for current detached hand protection
systemimprovements:
Theadditionofanexternalpulltab(s)aroundthe
base of a glove
would facilitate hand protection
donning and the ability to adequately fit hands.
This would serve two main purposes: (1) more
effectively utilize muscular strength of larger
muscles, relying less on fine finger strength and
dexterity and (2) reduce direct stress placed on
handprotectionitself,reducingwearanddamage.
Increasing
handprotection surface frictiononthe
palm and fingers would contribute to improved
usergripandcontrolindonningandexecutionof
post‐donning tasks requiring manual operation.
This is especially valuable in cold and/or wet
environments.
High suit colour contrast would help users
differentiatebetweencomponents.Thisis
truenot
only for the hand protection and wrist strap
system,butalsootherimmersionsuitcomponents
to facilitate easier, quicker donning with less
hesitationandnumberoferrors.
The wrist strap concept needs to be designed to
better facilitate easy attachment. This could be
achieved through a clasp‐like
addition to the
system which maintains position and restricts
strapmovement,guidingtheattachmentprocess.
Increasing the size (both length and width) of
Velcroattachmentsoneachpartofthewriststrap
system would ensure that regardless of wrist
circumferenceusersareabletoadequatelysecure
thestrapsto
maximizewatertightintegrity.
4.9 FaceShield
Over one third of the entire human body’s resting
metabolicheatproductionislostfromtheface,while
overonehalfislostfromtheheadasawhole(Golden
& Tipton, 2002). The immersion suits used in the
experiment were equipped with face shields
which,
whendonnedareintendedtocoverthechin,mouth,
mid‐to‐lower cheeks and lower nose, leaving the
forehead and eye region exposed (which varies
slightly depending on individual physical
characteristics).
4.9.1 FaceShieldStowage, Deployment &Attachment
Both suits use a similar face shield stowage
configuration: the face
shield flap folds back and
attaches via Velcro to the posterior side the
immersion suit hood. When released it spans
horizontallyacrossthefacetoattachtotheopposing
sideofthehoodviaVelcro.Itwasrevealedthatthis
stowagedesignpreventedparticipantsfrom locating
orsuccessfullydeployingthesystem.
Alternatively,if
the face shield is stowed detached it would provide
easier access during donning procedures. Although
this makeslocating the system easier byeliminating
thedetachmenttask,thefreeandloosefaceshieldcan
impedehooddonning,zippersealingandothertasks.
Additionally, if subjected to windy conditions or
violent motions, a flapping face shield can obstruct
visionandposeasafetyrisktotheeyes.
Deploymentofthefaceshieldisgenerallythelast
task to perform in the suit donning process. At this
point, the majority of users will have donned hand
protection and with their now reduced
manual
function may struggle to feel the face shield in its
stowage location. Some participants chose to release
and don the face shield prior to hand protection
donning to take advantage of bare hands. This
usually resulted in higher levels of task success,
however, in many of these instances participants
quickly complained of two issues: (1) obstructed
vision, some being completely blinded by the face
shieldonceattachedacrosstheface,and(2)increased
respiratorydifficultyduetothephysicalbarrierover
the mouth and nostrils (see Figure 5). This reduced
efficiency of air exchange and obstructed vision,
posing risk for
subsequent donning tasks or
abandonment procedures. During the experimental
trialsafterparticipantsattachedthefaceshieldmany
immediatelydetacheditduetofeelinguncomfortable
andclaustrophobic.
Some participants were unable to attach the face
shield beca use the system was too short to span
across the face. Physical head size, orientation
and
positioning within the hood may influence whether
face shields can be successfully attached and if so,
whatpositionitliesinacrosstheface.
Figure 5. Comparison of Velcro male‐female face shield
attachmentsitesacrosstheface
5 CONCLUSIONS
Marineabandonmentimmersionsuitsarevitalsafety
equipment which can dramatically increase chances
of survival for individuals exposed to harsh
environments. However, there are opportunities to
improve current immersion suit systems to reduce
437
equipment donning challenges users face. There are
inherent design problems in immersion suit
components and construction which transfer
negatively and impact upon donning and survival
procedures. It is inadequate to simply have a well
maintained and properly fitted suit. Survival in an
emergency at sea depends on the ability for
individuals to be able to successfully identify and
negotiate problems. A high level of immersion suit
proficiency is only achieved through practice and
interaction with the specific suit system intended to
be used in an emergency. Familiarity of one’s
immersion suit is imperative in order to recognize
how to maximize
a suit’s effectiveness, while
avoiding or mitigating any detrimental effects in its
designorfunctionality.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Theauthorswould liketothank theOffshoreSafety
and Survival Centre of Memorial University’s
Fisheriesand Marine Institutefor allowingaccess to
facilities and equipment and for the provision of
technical support. Use of
the motion bed was
provided through Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agencyfunding.
REFERENCES
Allan, J.R., Higgenbottam, C., & Redman, P.J. (1985). The
effect of leakage on the insulation provided by
immersion‐protective clothing. Aviation, Space, and
EnvironmentalMedicine,56(11),1107‐1109.
Brooks, C.J. (2003). Survival in Cold Waters: Staying Alive
(Report No. TP13822E). Ottawa, Canada: Transport
Canada.
Brooks, C.J.(2008). Immersion Suits: Their
Development.
InC.Brooks(TechnicalCourseDirector),SurvivalatSea
for Mariners, Aviators and Search and Rescue Personnel
(RTO‐AG‐HFM‐152) (pp. 9C1‐9C13). Neuilly‐sur‐Seine,
France: Research and Technology Organization of the
NorthAtlanticTreaty Organization.
Brooks,C.,McCabeJ.,&Lamont,J.(2001,October).Whatis
the
SurvivalSuitDesignedto Do,andwillitworkformein
the Event of a Ditching or Ship Abandonment? Paper
presentedatthemeetingoftheResearchand
Technology Organization of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization,Dresden,Germany.
Bensel, C.K., & Lockhart, J.M. (1974). Cold‐induced
vasodilatation onset and
manual performance in the
cold.Ergonomics,17(6),717‐730.
Canadian General Standards Board. (2005). National
Standard of Canada. Immersion Suit Systems
(CAN/CGSB‐65.16‐2005).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Target
Heart Rate and Estimated Maximum Heart Rate. Atlanta,
Georgia:CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention.
Golden, F., & Tipton,
M. (2002). Essentials of Sea Survival.
HumanKinetics,Windsor,Canada.
GengQ.,Kuklane,K.,&Holmér,I.(1997).Tactilesensitivity
of gloved hands in the cold operation. Applied Human
Science,16(6),229‐236.
Hiscock,R.C.(1980,January).DevelopmentofExposureSuits.
Paper presented at the International Hypothermia
ConferenceandWorkshop,
UniversityofRhodeIsland,
Kingston,RhodeIsland.
Kozey,J.,Reilly,T.,&Brooks,C.(2005).Personalprotective
equipment affecting functional anthropometric
measurement.OccupationalErgonomics,5(2),121‐129.
Larson, G.D., & Potteiger, J.A. (1997). A Comparison of
Three Different Rest Intervals Between Multiple Squat
Bouts. The Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research,
11(2),115‐118.
Leese,W.L.,&Norman,J.N.(1979).Helicopterpassenger
survivalsuitstandardsintheUKoffshoreoilindustry.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 50(2), 110‐
114.
Mallam, S.C., Small, G.R., & MacKinnon, S.N. (2012).
DonningTimeofMarineAbandonmentImmersionSuits
Under Simulated
Evacuation Conditions. Journal of
OceanTechnology,7(3),45‐59.
Reilly, T., Kozey, J. & Brooks, C. (2005). Structural
anthropometric measurements of Atlantic offshore
workers.OccupationalErgonomics,5(2),111‐120.
Vanggaard, L. (2007). Immersion Suits. In R. Goldman, B.
Kampmann (Eds.), Handbook on Clothing: Biomedical
Effects of Military Clothing and Equipment
Systems (2
nd
ed.). ResearchStudy Group 7 on Bio‐Medical Research
AspectsofMilitaryProtectiveClothing.
