As first responders, firefighters employ thorough preventive measures to avoid the plethora of occupational hazards they encounter during emergencies. And yet, when the gear that is supposed to protect them contains potential carcinogens, preventing toxic exposure is next to unachievable.
Since the 1970s, firefighters were unknowingly exposed to per/polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a group of over 14,700 synthetic compounds dubbed 'forever chemicals' because their solid molecular bonds prevent natural decomposition.
Not only are PFAS remarkably resilient and chemically stable, they can withstand high temperatures, are non-stick, repel water and oil, and can be used as surfactants.
Sharp
| Courtesy photo
The firefighting solution known as aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) primarily relied on the PFAS subtypes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) to quickly extinguish difficult liquid fuel fires. As asbestos' relation to cancer became ever more obvious, 'forever chemical' variants like polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) were adopted as safer substitutes in firefighters' protective equipment.
Although PFAS manufacturing companies like 3M and DuPont provided reassurances that their compounds were inert and benign, internal documents going back decades show that not only were they aware of the chemicals' hazardous potential, they knowingly covered up this information and didn't disclose it to the relevant federal authorities.
Despite vital non-partisan research being suppressed for years, independent studies have found 'forever chemicals' to be insidiously persistent and mobile toxic contaminants that progressively build up in tissues and blood. Prolonged PFAS exposure is associated with greater risks of developing certain cancers and other debilitating afflictions.
Given firefighters' higher occupational cancer rates and fatalities, researchers have aimed to determine fire service professionals' PFAS exposure risks due to the compounds' carcinogenic links. Problematically, 'forever chemicals' are prevalent in firefighters' protective equipment, also known as turnout gear.
Since 1976, PFAS have been used in turnout gear for their fire-resistant and moisture-repellent properties. However, recent studies found that PFAS-coated fabrics in firefighting gear represent a previously unaccounted-for exposure pathway. When such fabrics wear down, 'forever chemicals' in the outer and mid layers can dislodge and migrate to the thermal barrier right above the skin, increasing dermal exposure risks.
Earlier this year, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published a study that analyzed twenty firefighting textiles. Twenty-six different types of 'forever chemicals' were detected across all analyzed fabrics, most prevalently in the top outer shells and middle moisture barriers treated with PFAS coatings.
In addition to hazardous firefighting foams and turnout gear, the smoke, dust, and debris emanating from emergency sites can also harbor lingering 'forever chemical' particulate. Compared to the general population, firefighters' cumulative occupational exposures result in higher blood serum PFAS levels.
While PFAS-free firefighting foams have been developed and have even been mandatorily adopted by institutions such as the Department of Defense, replacing 'forever chemicals' in turnout gear is significantly more difficult.
Notably, the safety standard developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requires firefighter fabrics to be subjected to 40 hours of intense UV light exposure without deteriorating, which can only be achieved with PFAS. Although this standard is voluntary and also under review, the fact remains that no other material can currently provide the same level of safety as 'forever chemicals' do.
"Forever chemicals" are a major part of the moisture barrier in turnout gear. As of 2022, most manufacturers offer PFAS-free, durable water repellent finishes, but expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene moisture barriers still contain and release these harmful substances. Turnout gear manufacturers use PFAS in it in the absence of more feasible alternatives. The properties of "forever chemicals" can impart water and oil resistance to fabrics, which is why they are used to help firefighting gear meet the safety standards of the National Fire Protection Association Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting (NFPA 1971) criteria for resistance to heat and water.
According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, an organization that challenged the NFPA's standard, practically every type of protective equipment available on the market contains PFAS, and only one kind of coating has been independently verified to be 'fluorine-free.'
While potential PFAS alternatives for textiles carry their own inherent toxic risks, and independent research into safer substitutes is underway, a recent legislative proposal aims to provide significant funding to help drive innovation and develop safer firefighting equipment.
Introduced by Rep. Debbie Dingell along with several other cosponsors, the PFAS Alternatives Act would provide grants totaling $100 million (2024 through 2028) for the research, development, and testing of viable non-PFAS materials for firefighting gear and other purposes.
Special considerations are provided for research projects that address a broader range of related issues, including better protection from exposure to combustion byproducts, reduced equipment maintenance and cleaning, visible warning indicators of hazardous exposures, and equipment designed for multiple body compositions.
Finally, the bill would also provide $2 million annually to develop best practice guidance and training for firefighters and other first responders on effectively mitigating toxic exposure risks by properly wearing, decontaminating, and caring for next-generation turnout gear.
Sharp is CFO at the Birmingham, Alabama-based Environmental Litigation Group PC, a law firm with over 30 years of experience handling toxic exposure cases.