Hammer, it’s not something I’ve done previous research on but I’ve now had a quick look.
Firstly, the US fire service appears to use lots of different uniforms and a range of fabrics. There are also different standards which apply to the layers of garments – NFPA 1971 for the outer protective or “turnout” gear, NFPA 1975 for the work uniforms or “station wear” and no standard for undergarments. It also appears that it is individual departments which make the decisions about what is worn in their jurisdictions.
Summarising just the NFPA 1975 standard for station wear…
When the NFPA 1975 standard first came out, FR fabric was mandated for station wear. Both FR treated fabrics and inherent fabrics such as Aramid were used. Belief that the FR treatments could eventually wash out led to an added requirement to demonstrate that FR treated fabrics would remain flame resistant after at least 100 wash cycles.
By the 1990’s the fire service was split on the acceptability of these uniforms. Major concerns were the high costs of fabric and certification and low comfort of the materials used - they were stiff, hot and didn’t absorb moisture. NFPA 1975 was overhauled to provide two classes of performance — baseline heat-resistant uniforms that could be 100% cotton or wool or flame-resistant uniforms. Later, the “heat-resistant” fabric requirement was revised in favour of fabric that passed a thermal stability test that demonstrated the fabric was safe from melt/drip/ignition/sticking to surfaces.
A 2014 update of NFPA 1975 added optional requirements for odour resistance, water resistance and insect repellence.
Importantly, it is stated in one article that the proportion of the fire service that uses NFPA 1975 compliant uniforms is very small. I suspect that cost and comfort are still major factors at play.
The FR Suppliers
It seems that the two main suppliers of FR fabric for the firefighter uniforms are Tencate (Tecasafe and Tecasafe Plus) and Dupont (Nomex) – both of which use aramids. I suspect that FR treatments aren’t currently used and that the main fabric alternative to the aramid-blends is 100% untreated cotton.
The Opportunity?
Given the NFPA 1975 standard, I’d say that Alexiflam could definitely provide a great alternative solution for firefighter station wear, perhaps even incorporating odour and water resistance and insect repellance. But given the non-centralised decision making structure within the fire service and the existing non-compliance rate with NFPA 1975, I’m not convinced that this is a market to actively target at this time.
(20min delay)