The PFAS Problem and the Search for Alternatives

For years, firefighters have expressed concerns about PFAS, a class of chemicals used to create water- and oil-resistant coatings in their turnout gear. These chemicals, linked to a range of health issues including cancer, thyroid disease, and developmental problems, have been difficult to eliminate entirely due to their effectiveness in repelling hazardous substances. Although a direct causal link between PFAS exposure from gear and adverse health outcomes remains under investigation, the potential risks prompted manufacturers to begin exploring alternative solutions.

BFRs: A Potential Replacement with its Own Risks

Researchers, led by Heather Stapleton, an environmental chemist at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, suspected that as PFAS were phased out, manufacturers might turn to BFRs as replacements. Their investigation, published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, tested turnout gear manufactured between 2013 and 2020, as well as newer, PFAS-free gear released in 2024. The results were concerning. While newer gear showed significantly reduced levels of PFAS – likely due to environmental contamination rather than intentional use – all gear tested contained BFRs. Critically, the highest concentrations of these chemicals were found in the newer gear specifically marketed as PFAS-free.

Decabromodiphenyl Ethane: A Chemical of Particular Concern

The most prevalent BFR identified in the study was decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDE), a compound linked to thyroid disruption. This finding raises serious questions about the long-term health implications for firefighters, who are already at increased risk of certain cancers and other health problems due to the nature of their work. What are the long-term consequences of swapping one potentially harmful chemical for another?

The Need for Transparency and Further Research

Stapleton and her team emphasize the urgent need for greater transparency from gear manufacturers regarding the chemicals used in turnout gear. Without a clear understanding of the full chemical profile of protective clothing, it’s difficult for fire departments to assess the potential risks to their firefighters. Additional research is also crucial to fully evaluate the health effects of BFR exposure and to develop safer alternatives. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) offers resources and guidance on firefighter health and safety, including information on chemical exposures: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/firefighter/

“These first responders are a critically important component of our public safety and deserve to be respected and protected,” Stapleton stated. She also leads ongoing research into cancer risk among firefighters, highlighting the complex interplay between occupational hazards and long-term health outcomes.

Beyond BFRs, researchers are also investigating other potential chemical replacements and their associated risks. The goal is to find materials that provide the necessary protection without compromising the health of those who rely on them.

Could a comprehensive, standardized testing protocol for turnout gear chemicals be the key to safeguarding firefighter health? What role should government regulation play in ensuring the safety of protective equipment?

Frequently Asked Questions About Firefighter Gear and Chemical Exposure