This segment reviews the challenges we face as users and customers submit questions about how our garments compare to the AAMI levels of performance.

Today we discuss the misconception about the use of Chemtape on NFPA certified garments. The standards do not allow the use of tape to pass acceptance testing and some misunderstand that to mean it is not allowed during use of the garment.

As we celebrate our 44th birthday, this issue reviews the continuing challenges we face as a company in the face of the corona virus. We salute the brave men and women of the front lines and remember those lost during these unusual times.

This segment reviews questions regarding protection from radiation and how that differs from radioactive particle protection. It also addresses how the term Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) can be confused as it relates to the NFPA standards and other references of that term.

This month’s topic reviews the current state of the coronavirus crisis across the globe and the proper measures to prevent transmission and spread of the disease. It also brings into focus the comparisons with the current influenza statistics for infection, hospitalizations and mortality.

This blog reviews the new challenges faced by the NFPA committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment as they begin work this year to revise all three documents related to hazmat response. We also discuss the issues related to non-encapsulating vs. encapsulating designs for hazmat response and the comparisons between NFPA 1991 and NFPA 1994 Class 1.

This month’s blog discusses the issues around firefighter cancer rates and the causes of them. It reviews actions being taken by NFPA and NIOSH as well as new practices in Europe that should be adopted in the US.

In this segment we review our approach to the establishment of temperature service ranges for our garments and fabrics. We outline the testing conducted to support these claims.

Today we discuss how to clean ChemTape adhesive residue from chemical garments and how it performs with our ProVent and Lantex fabrics.

In this post, we talk about the different biosafety level labs and the types of personal protective equipment (PPE) that is required for the levels.

In this issue, we discuss the recent re-emergence of the ebola virus in Africa and review the lessons learned from the outbreak of 2014.

In this month’s blog, we discuss recent plans by the NFPA to consolidate four NFPA standards into a single document and the challenges the NFPA committees face to accomplish this work as well as provide awareness to first responders of these changes.

Today we review again the comparison of chemical penetration testing vs. chemical permeation testing and how we apply that data properly the exposure criteria that users provide.

In this blog, we discuss our new designs of coveralls that include rear entry zippers and closures. These designs also incorporate elastomeric face seals that integrate with respirator face pieces and provide excellent seals without the use of tapes.

In this issue we discuss recent testing conducting on our Lantex 100 for whole garment particle intrusion resistance. We had this testing done in the UK based on an ISO method that measures how the garment, respirator and gloves perform as a system.

This month’s discussion involves the definition and description of what qualifies liquids to be considered cryogenic and the level of protection required for them. We also evaluate the hazards these liquids present to the skin.

This blog takes a look back at our early development of film based chemical barrier fabrics and how through the years we have continued to test old fabrics and feel confident of our claims related to the shelf lives of our garment fabrics. It also outlines the testing approaches we took to accelerate the aging of fabrics that were not as old.

This month we review the new product Durachem 200, a garment designed for multi-hazard protection. This garment can provide protection against liquid chemical splashes, flash fires and thermal protection against hot liquids and surfaces. It also provides hi-visibility for use in roadway situations.

In this edition we discuss the recent improvements in the Hazmatch App that is available on Google Play or in the Itunes store. It is also available at www.kappler.com. This version has improvements in notifications of new chemicals tested as well as bug fixes.

This episode looks at our new Lantex 100 garment and the applications that it is intended. We review how we test this garment’s fabric, seams and components to support claims of protection against powdered opioid compounds as well as blood and body fluids.

Today we look at the various claims of a garment fabric being resistant to flame or treated to be resistant to flame. We examine the differences in tests that are intended for flame protection and those that measure the rate of flammability.

In this post, we talk about the different biosafety level labs and the types of personal protective equipment (PPE) that is required for the levels.

This month we look at our newly designed garment made from Durachem 500 fabric. This garment is certified to NFPA 1994 Class 1 and 2. This garment has a rear entry zipper and an elastomeric face seal for a vapor tight seal with the respirator face piece.

Today we visit with Judith Mulcay of our R&D department. We are in the plant module that is producing ProVent Plus garments certified to NFPA 1999. She explains the in process testing involved to support product claims and how our testing goes above and beyond industry requirements.

In this segment we review improvement made in our manufacturing process related to spreading and cutting our fabrics. We made work aides for staging rolls that improves process time and reduces worker handling.

Today we discuss the series of events that led to our development of ProVent Plus, which begin with the ebola outbreak of 2014. We review the development activities that caused us to change the processes for manufacturing these garments.

In this month’s topic, we talk with Jay Nicholson, our new Director of Research and Development. Jay outlines a couple of projects that have been on the forefront of our development efforts over the last year or so.

In this episode, we review recent guidance published by the Interagency Board (IAB) that provides details of the personal protective equipment (PPE) that should be considered for response to fentanyl and carfentanil. It specifically outlines the need for a hazard assessment.

Today we review the issues that exist for emergency responders as they try and determine the best personal protective equipment (PPE) for response to opioid compounds. In some cases, responders are even using Level a gas tight garments.

This month we review work being completed by the NFPA technical committee on our three performance standards and new work being done on a standard for the selection, care and maintenance of the garments prescribed in the performance standards.

In this session, we review the new edition of NFPA 1999 Standard on Emergency Medical Operations. It now allows the use of both single and multiple use ensembles. It also provides performance requirements for other personal protective equipment (PPE) items such as eyewear, gloves and face shields.

Today we review the new edition of NFPA 1994 Protective Ensembles for Hazardous Material Emergencies and CBRN Incidents. This new edition has a major change in that the scope now includes response to HAZMAT incidents as well as CBRN.

This month’s topic reviews the issues our Technical Committee had in producing a complete and accurate document and the process we had to go through to correct some issues that were identified late in the revision process.

This edition reviews some history behind the development of the EPA Levels of Protection and how our government provided guidance to workers involved in the Superfund Cleanups during the 1980s.

Today we look at the current guidance available for protection against powdered opioid compounds including fentanyl and carfentanil.

In this post, we look at the changes to the NFPA 1991 Standard for Protective Ensembles for Hazardous Materials Emergencies. The major change being the adoption of cumulative breakthrough vs. normalized breakthrough.

Today we look at the different designs and fabrics that can be considered for protection vs blood and body fluids that are potentially infected with the ebola virus.

In May’s conversation, we’ll cover the upcoming changes to NFPA standards 1991, 1992, and 1994. Since each of these revisions have the potential to affect NFPA certified products, we’ll cover what’s different and how it could impact our market.

This segment reviews the differences in Moisture Vapor Transmission (MVTR) Total Heat Loss (THL) and Evaporative Resistance (RET) test methods. How NFPA committees for Fire Fighter Turn Out Gear, Chemical Protective Clothing, and Emergency Medical Operations Clothing use these test methods to determine comfort levels of PPE. Are any protective properties are sacrificed in order to achieve a higher level of comfort and how do these test methods translate to the real world?

Today’s discussion is on the difference in permeation and penetration testing for chemical protective clothing. Which NFPA standards require specified testing and why? We’ll cover how both test methods can be used to determine the chemical protective abilities of a fabric and what role does penetration or permeation data play in conducting a hazard assessment.