Office of Aerospace Medicine Technical Reports
FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine
Civil Aerospace Medical Institute
Report No: DOT/FAA/AM-83/14
Title and Subtitle: The objective evaluation of aircrew protective breathing equipment: V. Mask/goggles combinations for female crewmembers
Report Date: July 1983
Authors: deSteiguer D, Saldivar JT, Higgins EA, Funkhouser GE
Abstract: A study was conducted to determine the degree of respiratory and visual protection given to the female crewmember by various crew oxygen mask/goggle combinations. The acceptance criteria for the mask/goggle combinations were for 10 of 12 test subjects to maintain a contaminant ratio of 0.05 or less in the oxygen mask and/or simultaneously 0.1 or less in the goggle while wearing eyeglasses.
Of the 23 mask/goggle combinations tested with female subjects, 8 failed to meet the acceptance criteria for adequate protection. Comparison tests on anthropometric data from male and female subjects suggest that the failures may be due, in part, to size differences in cranial and facial dimensions.
Key Words: Crewmember, Protective breathing devices, Anthropometric considerations
No. of Pages: 7
Civil Aerospace Medical Institute
Report No: DOT/FAA/AM-83/14
Title and Subtitle: The objective evaluation of aircrew protective breathing equipment: V. Mask/goggles combinations for female crewmembers
Report Date: July 1983
Authors: deSteiguer D, Saldivar JT, Higgins EA, Funkhouser GE
Abstract: A study was conducted to determine the degree of respiratory and visual protection given to the female crewmember by various crew oxygen mask/goggle combinations. The acceptance criteria for the mask/goggle combinations were for 10 of 12 test subjects to maintain a contaminant ratio of 0.05 or less in the oxygen mask and/or simultaneously 0.1 or less in the goggle while wearing eyeglasses.
Of the 23 mask/goggle combinations tested with female subjects, 8 failed to meet the acceptance criteria for adequate protection. Comparison tests on anthropometric data from male and female subjects suggest that the failures may be due, in part, to size differences in cranial and facial dimensions.
Key Words: Crewmember, Protective breathing devices, Anthropometric considerations
No. of Pages: 7
Last updated: Friday, June 1, 2012