Physiological determinants of performance during simulated shipboard firefighting activities
Abstract
Approved for Public ReleaseShipboard fires can result in injury, loss of life, and reduce fleet readiness. A review of 15 major fires occurring both in dock and at sea reported a loss of over $4 billion dollars, which does not reflect the loss of the USS Miami and the USS Bonhomme Richard (5). More recently, a fire aboard the USS Antietam resulted in 13 crew members being injured while operating in the Philippine Sea (11). When fires occur, responsibility for extinguishing that fire falls to crew who typically serve in non-firefighting roles. Therefore, it is critical to understand the physiologic responses of sailors during firefighting and damage control operations and the physical attributes (e.g., strength power, aerobic capacity) required to ensure safety and operational readiness.We have previously reported that structural firefighting results in near maximal heart rates and hyperthermia after relatively short exposures (1,7,10). Among structural firefighters, sudden cardiac death is the most common cause (46%) of line of duty death (6). These fatalities are often attributed to a reduction of myocardial blood flow immediately following fire suppression (9). Certain shipboard firefighting activities (e.g., direct fire suppression) are similar to structural firefighting and require high aerobic fitness to protect against this pathology, but other activities (e.g. carrying extinguishers and foam buckets) may be prolonged and rely more on strength or power.Damage control is an essential function of all crew members at sea but the literature on shipboardfirefighting is scant and incomplete. A study from Naval Health Research Center (NHRC) reported peak core body temperature over 39#C and near maximal heart rates in nine damage control personnel performing fire suppression (2). A Finnish study of 35 male firefighting students reported near maximal heart rates during a smoke diving exercise that required subjects to complete a victim rescue (9). There are only two studies, both conducted in the United Kingdom, that included women (3,4). Both studies required subjects to perform four firefighting tasks for five minutes with 60 min rest between each task. These studies made recommendations for minimum aerobic fitness to complete the required tasks but neither fully considered the role of strength, muscular endurance, or anaerobic capacity. Collectively, these studies are more than 20 years old and 75% were conducted in foreign navies using protective ensembles that differ from those specified in NSTM 077.Fitness, protective garments, and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) affect individual performance among structural firefighters. To our knowledge, none of these factors have been adequately explored for shipboard firefighting tasks. It is also unknown how long sailors can perform these tasks before becoming too fatigued to safely continue. Finally, one study has adequately documented physiologic responses to isolated shipboard firefighting activities (3) but no study has examined the recovery interval or performance in a second bout of work.We propose to address these gaps in the literature through the following specific aims.Specific Aim #1 Document the physiological responses to simulated shipboard firefighting tasks and examine the predictors of performance in a cohort of male and female subjects.Specific Aim #2 Using best fireground rehab practices from the structural firefighting literature, we will determine if a structured 10 min recovery period following 20 minutes of simulated shipboard firefighting activity allows subjects to adequately complete a second work interval.
Document Details
- Document Type
- DoD Grant Award
- Publication Date
- Aug 11, 2023
- Source ID
- N000142312829
Entities
People
- David Hostler
Organizations
- Office of Naval Research
- Research Foundation for the State University of New York
- United States Navy