Choosing a chemical ensemble requires looking beyond the OSHA Level. A certification tells you what the suit should do in a lab; it doesn’t tell you what it will do on your job site. Multiple factors on any job site will impact how well the suit performs in specific conditions.

1. Ensemble Specificity: Beyond the Suit

In the US, we don’t just pick a suit; we pick an ensemble. A Level B suit is useless if your team isn’t trained on the required SCBA (Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus). Protection isn’t universal, a suit rated for liquid splashes (Level B/C) offers zero protection against toxic vapors that require a gas-tight Level A seal.

2. The “Minimum Level” Trap

Think of OSHA Levels (A–D) as the bare legal minimum. While a suit may be marketed as “Level B compliant,” that only proves it passed a basic liquid test. For high-risk environments, review available information on independent testing, manufacturer details, and suit specifications.

3. Movement & Mechanical Stress

Most standard certifications test fabric in a static, “perfect” state. They don’t account for the mechanical stress of a job site. If your operators are working on scaffolding or in confined spaces, a certified suit can easily puncture or tear. You must consider garments with high ASTM ratings for abrasion and puncture resistance, regardless of the Level.

4. Permeation vs. Penetration

A suit might be “liquid tight” (preventing leaks through seams), but that doesn’t mean it is chemical proof. Different manufacturers use different materials; a Level B suit from Brand X might resist a specific acid for 4 hours, while Brand Y fails in 20 minutes. Always check the ASTM F739 breakthrough data for your specific chemical exposure risk.

Balancing budgets with safety needs has always been a challenge that companies face across any chemical industry, however those challenges grow exponentially when discussing specific applications for the petrochemical industries and hazmat response. With needs for a wide array of situations and job site applications, having the right suit available when needed, and having that suit also be affordable has been an industry-wide challenge.

The new Xposure Guard CX suit solves that challenge with a superior suit offering Level B and Level C protection, when paired with corresponding respiratory protection. When tested by an independent third party, the suit outperformed nearly all others on the market, while also combining added secondary  FR protection from a flash fire in a single suit. To find comparable protection on the market today, you’d have to combine anywhere from 1-3 different layers of suits or purchase a suit priced at nearly 2x the cost of Xposure Guard CX.

Priced competitively at $70 – $80 MSRP per suit depending on specific features, equivalent protection from any other brand starts around $90 MSRP without FR, and $140 with FR rating. Many of the competitor suits lack the FR rating, something that’s a safety requirement as the outer layer at most refineries.

When faced with the challenge of developing a safer suit for chemical protective wear, ETI drew on their years of experience, coupled with their world-class technological and production excellence, to take their Xposure Guard line to the next level. The Xposure Guard CX surpasses all expectations. With third party independent lab testing showing permeation rates beyond the standard 8h workday for all critical job site chemicals found in the most common petroleum industry situations, the current standards were just the bare minimum. With the addition of the secondary FR rating, the Xposure Guard CX allows facilities to simplify ordering and job site needs, reduce space in storage closets, on work trucks and vans, and provide superior safety with exceptional savings that have never been available before throughout the industry. 

When compared to other protective garments on the market, Kappler Innovation is reducing risk exposure with a multi-purpose garment providing primary chemical protection with secondary FR. This new item is compliant with NFPA 2113 (Section 5.1.10), but only when worn over NFPA 2112 workwear. It has been proven by ASTM F1930 Pyroman testing.

Another competitor, DuPont, makes the Tychem® line of protective wear. In the event that a flash fire occurs, Tychem® 6000 SFR garments won’t contribute to additional burn injury if appropriate primary flame-resistant personal protective equipment, such as DuPont™ Nomex®, is worn beneath. That means in order to match comparable protection offered by Xposure Guard CX, the worker would need to wear both the Tychem® 6000 SFR along with primary flame-resistant PPE underneath.

When tested by an independent third party, the Xposure GuardCX suit outperformed nearly all others on the market at a more affordable price point, while also combining additional fire protection when worn over NFPA 2112 workwear. Xposure Guard CX Meets the NFPA 2113 requirements under Section 5.1.10 and is verified by extensive PyroMan Testing per ASTM F1930.