You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.


    A Comparison of Test Methods for Evaluating Textiles for Protection from Hot Water Splash

    Published: 2016

      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (188K) 14 $25   ADD TO CART
    Complete Source PDF (17M) 417 $125   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    The number of lost-time accidents associated with hot fluids and steam is of the same magnitude as those attributed to flash fire, yet little attention has been paid to protection against these hazards. Conventional materials that are used in the petrochemical industry for protection against short-duration flash fires do not perform well against either a hot liquid or steam hazard primarily because the fluid is able to penetrate the materials. ASTM F2701, Evaluating Heat Transfer Through Materials for Protective Clothing Upon Contact with a Hot Liquid Splash, was compared to two other similar test methods developed at the University of Alberta. Tests of the three methods were conducted using materials intended to protect individuals against a hot liquid splash. All materials used in the evaluation contained either a semipermeable membrane (polytetrafluoroethylene or polyurethane) or were impermeable to liquid penetration; as a result, energy transfer rates were low in comparison to permeable, or more conventional, flame-resistant materials. The analysis used in the evaluation of test methods utilized energy absorbed at the sensor surface rather than Stoll because, in most cases, the materials were protective enough to prevent burn injury under the chosen fluid temperatures and exposure durations. Both alternative test methods were found to provide superior differentiation among fabrics compared to the existing standard. In the set of fabrics tested (a mix of semipermeable and impermeable), SPSS (a statistical package) was used to evaluate test results. The ASTM F2701 method was only able to separate the samples into three groups based on energy transferred through the material. Both alternative test methods were able to separate the test fabrics into six distinct groups, indicating that both alternative tests provided better differentiation among fabrics than ASTM F2701.


    hot water splash, scalds, protective clothing, burn prevention

    Author Information:

    Murtaza, Ghulam
    University of Alberta, Dept. of Human Ecology, Edmonton,

    Batcheller, Jane C.
    University of Alberta, Dept. of Human Ecology, Edmonton,

    Paskaluk, Stephen A.
    University of Alberta, Protective Clothing and Equipment Research Facility, Edmonton,

    Ackerman, Mark Y.
    University of Alberta, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, 10-203 Donadeo Innovation Centre for Engineering, Edmonton,

    Committee/Subcommittee: F23.50

    DOI: 10.1520/STP159320160021