On this week’s Humpday Hangout, Frank Ricci and P.J. Norwood are joined by Dr. Graham Peaslee and Bobby Halton to discuss the latest study on PFAS and firefighter health.
Join us live on Fire Engineering’s Facebook at 1 p.m. Eastern on January 26, 2022, or watch this space for the discussion.
Below are Dr. Peaslee’s replies to some questions posed online.
Q. How many pounds of carbon, VOC, and PAH are in a firefighters’ gear after the average house fire?
A. I am guessing the turnout gear weighs about 20-lbs for jacket and pants, and that the polymeric PFAS that make up the waterproofing on the jacket could easily be a pound or two of that weight. All of which would be released to the environment after a few decades in the landfill. The weight of the gasses, black carbon, VOCs, and PAHs that accumulate on the textiles would probably be measured in the fraction of an ounce range…gaseous combustion products, although terribly toxic, and gases and occupy large volumes with small weight…so even very dirty gear won’t have as much as an intentional waterproofing agent in the textile. Of course you don’t want to be exposed to either…
Q. Most all landfills in America are burning underneath the top (earthen cover). This may not qualify as incineration but it means we all breath in our garbage in the form of air pollution.
A. Yes, absolutely, the volatile combustion products from landfill fires are undoubtedly toxic and blowing around near landfills…Unfortunately, the temperature in these fires are sufficient to volatilize many dangerous chemicals (including some PFAS), but not high enough to decompose PFAS into its elemental forms. For that you need modern high-temp incinerations that go over 1,000 degrees. Takeaway: minimize breathing near burning landfills…
Q. I noticed that one concern was the neck area. I also noticed from comments made in Grenfell Towers from firefighters, they commented on their necks burning. Would a redesign of the neck coverings be worth looking into?
A. I can’t comment on the fire safety aspects of the neck coverings, but I know most of the hoodies are made out of Nomex, which is not treated with PFAS necessarily. Some hoods can be, but we measured several that were not treated. So in terms of PFAS exposure, it isn’t necessarily a problem. The neck, underarms, and groin are areas when the skin layers are typically thin, and there is more sorption of chemicals possible.
Q. Applying plain water at fires creates a tremendous amount of runoff. Because PFAS is in so many manmade products that burn in fires, the runoff is now loaded with PFAS.
A. Very true…these chemicals are very water soluble/dispersible, and when exposed to/mixed with AFFF, these chemicals go a long way.
Q. Although you are not versed in exposure, is there an external function that makes PFAS more volatile? i.e.A heat/high oxidants?
A. I am going to say that the reason that some of these chemicals are volatile is because of their internal structure mostly….for example the usual acids and sulfonates (PFOA and PFOS) are heavy and like staying in water because of the acid and sulfonate end-groups. The fluorotelomer alcohols are like alcohols everywhere, and for the same size molecules, there are much more volatile because of the alcohol end-group. Same thing with ethers…like GenX…much more volatile because of the mass of the molecule the internal bonding structure.
Q. Could future research (legislation maybe) lead to a time where PPE manufacturers have to list how much by percentage PFAS is in the composition of their product? Much like nutrition labels?
A. It’s a good idea to label what’s in a product, but it will be difficult to label by percentage, because it depends on which layer we are talking about. Much easier would be to develop “green” chemistry approaches to make the gear without any PFAS, and then simply have a label on those products that says: “no intentional PFAS added.” It is relatively cheap to add four printed words to a label that covers a whole lot of ground…as long as it is accurate…and then you will know which is the safe gear with respect to PFAS in the textiles.
Q. All firefighting foam is not bad. Firefighters don’t know the difference between Class A (non PFAS) foam and Class B (PFAS) foam.
A. This is true, most class A foams or encapsulating agents are completely fluorine free. It is only the Class B foams that have been fluorinated with PFAS for the last 50 years.
Q. Make it a requirement of manufacturers who use these chemicals to take them back for proper disposal.
A. It is a great idea–but difficult to enforce. Probably easier to put a buy back offer or deposit back offer on each item to get them returned at end of life.
Q. Surely construction have the same issue if it’s used as waterproofing, their old gear would also need to be stored and disposed of?
A. Well, once again the fire services are special…your gear has the best waterproofing possible (using PFAS), while most of the ordinary folk get the cheaper forms of waterproofing. There are other uniforms that have PFAS, but usually not as many as the typical turnout gear!
Q. The manufacturers that sold these products should be responsible to properly dispose of it.
A. It is a reasonable idea in general—it can be done in the form of an “emissions tax” on the gear (or a refundable deposit if you turn it back in) and that extra cost can be used to treat the returned gear. Unfortunately, the manufacturers would likely pass on the disposal costs to the consumers…which again would be the fire services paying for it…
Audio only below.
RELATED
- APS Radio: IAFF Resolutions and PFAS
- Researcher Responds to Claims About PFAS, Firefighter PPE
- It’s Time for Firefighters to Demand PFAS-Free PPE
- Your Gear, Your Life: Firefighter PPE Toxins and What to Do About Them
