Chemical analysis reveals persistent toxic combustion residues on wildland firefighter gear after laundering, highlighting risks of secondary dermal and inhalation exposure.
Prescribed fire releases a complex mixture of volatile and semivolatile organic compounds to the environment. Firefighters are directly exposed to these hazardous mixtures through occupational activities. This study investigated the volatile and semivolatile chemical contamination profile of firefighter protective gear and the effectiveness of laundering as a decontamination strategy. Our results revealed that firefighter gear accumulated a broad spectrum of combustion-derived contaminants, predominantly composed of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and derivatives, phenolic compounds, and aromatic hydrocarbons. Representative compounds identified included toluene, biphenyl, naphthalene, 1-methynaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, phenol, alkylated phenols, and chlorinated phenols. Quantitative analysis revealed representative combustion-derived compounds at concentrations (mean ± standard deviation, SD) including toluene (0.958 ± 0.293 ng/g), biphenyl (0.015 ± 0.004 ng/g), naphthalene (0.053 ± 0.020 ng/g), 1-methynaphthalene (0.468 ± 0.132 ng/g), 2-methylnaphthalene (0.009 ± 0.002 ng/g), and acenaphthene (0.303 ± 0.001 ng/g). Multivariate analysis showed that although laundering substantially reduced contaminant levels, residues of several compounds remained significantly detectable in washed samples. These results demonstrate that firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE) serves as a reservoir for toxic compounds, underscoring the additional risk of secondary exposure to firefighters through dermal contact, handling, and off-gassing. Together, our findings emphasize the need for the safe transport of protective gear (e.g., in sealed bags), proper storage before laundering, and periodic replacement of these protective materials. This will help mitigate secondary exposure and adverse long-term health effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agorsor et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: