Everyone dealing with hazardous materials - fire fighters, emergency personnel, frontline staff in defence departments and other such professionals - has something in common: they all recognize the crucial importance of safety. Maintaining a robust, compliant arsenal of chemical-protective suits is essential to being readily equipped for an emergency situation. Yet, a factor that always comes into the equation when selecting fire safety equipment is cost.
Because safety is not something one would want to compromise on, cost-benefit analyses are crucial for ensuring that the best solution is chosen. In this article, Ian Hutcheson, Marketing and Development Manager of Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, discusses total cost of ownership of chemical & fire protection equipment, focusing his analysis on gas-tight chemical-protective suits.
The use of fully-encapsulated gas-tight protective suits is standard for monitoring and inspecting the scene of serious emergencies, as well as for mounting rescue, containment or clean-up operations. In terms of protecting emergency teams, the choice is often between limited-life and reusable gas-tight chemical protective suits. Both of these suit types have similar safety standards and application areas, as set out by the European Standard EN 943-2 certification, established by the European Committee for Standarization (CEN). Yet, cost-effectiveness must be considered when looking for new equipment. Value for money is a common theme across municipal and corporate organisations alike, as leaders try to squeeze already-tight budgets to ensure that the job they have to do is done. Limiting expenditure for new equipment without compromising safety is challenging and requires informed decision-making.
The most important question to answer in this decision-making process is: “How can organisations ensure they receive the utmost in safety and value when selecting chemical-protective gear for their team?” Too often, this decision is made by purchasing departments based on list price alone. However, the acquisition price only provides a partial picture as it merely reflects one portion of the entire cost. An analysis of the total cost of ownership (TCO) is not only a more comprehensive method for determining the full cost of chemical-protective suits but is also an imperative from a business perspective. A TCO analysis will take into account indirect costs such as maintenance, inspection and repair costs, which can have a dramatic impact on the overall spend level that lead to unanticipated budget over-runs.
Here, a Total Cost of Ownership Analysis shall be applied to the two available classes of gas-tight chemical-protective suits: limited life and reusable. There are suit options in both classes that are EN-certified, as per EN943-2, for use in protecting wearers in emergency situations. This certification, as well as the mandatory CE mark, ensures that minimum safety levels are in place for the suits. A TCO analysis of both types of these protective suits will thoroughly demonstrate that they differ significantly in several aspects, all of which are relevant to purchasers looking for quality and value.
Direct costs
Acquisition Price
While the list price should not be the sole consideration in the purchase of chemical-protective gear, it is nonetheless the starting point of any cost analysis, being the most basic and easily determinable element of cost. A comparison between the two different types of chemical-protective suits is, therefore, very straightforward: the average price for a reusable suit is €2,500-4,000 while a limited life suit runs €1,000-1,500. However, it is important to understand the various factors which influence cost.
Limiting expenditure for new equipment without compromising safety is challenging and requires informed decision-making |
| Maintenance and repair costs must be factored into cost analyses for total cost of ownership |
Non-monetary, yet important factors to consider
While total cost is a very important consideration when deciding on a chemical-protective suit, there are other factors that can’t be given a monetary value but should still be taken into account. These "money can’t buy" features include user comfort and safety.
The infrequency of chemical incidents leads to most suits being disposed of at the end of their shelf lives without ever actually being used |
Comfort
Working in gas-tight chemical-protective suits is strenuous as they are heavier and less flexible than non-encapsulated protective clothing. Features that improve comfort and manoeuvrability can significantly enhance the user’s ability to work efficiently; therefore such features should certainly be considered as part of an overall assessment of suit options.
In general, the lighter the suit, the less arduous it is for the user to wear. Some limited-life suits weigh less than their reusable counterparts. Furthermore, limited-life suits tend to offer more flexibility than thicker rubber-like reusable suits.
Safety
As mentioned previously, organisations can find certified options for both reusable and limited-life suits. It is important to note that these suits are also rated against various performance criteria. During the selection process, the purchasing organisation should also consider the test results in terms of factors such as flex-cracking as well as flame and puncture resistance.
| Ian Hutcheson - Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics |