Dataset Information

Firefighter hood contamination: Efficiency of laundering to remove PAHs and FRs.

ABSTRACT: Firefighters are occupationally exposed to products of combustion containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and flame retardants (FRs), potentially contributing to their increased risk for certain cancers. Personal protective equipment (PPE), including firefighter hoods, helps to reduce firefighters' exposure to toxic substances during fire responses by providing a layer of material on which contaminants deposit prior to reaching the firefighters skin. However, over time hoods that retain some contamination may actually contribute to firefighters' systemic dose. We investigated the effectiveness of laundering to reduce or remove contamination on the hoods, specifically PAHs and three classes of FRs: polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), non-PBDE flame retardants (NPBFRs), and organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs). Participants in the study were grouped into crews of 12 firefighters who worked in pairs by job assignment while responding to controlled fires in a single-family residential structure. For each pair of firefighters, one hood was laundered after every scenario and one was not. Bulk samples of the routinely laundered and unlaundered hoods from five pairs of firefighters were collected and analyzed. Residual levels of OPFRs, NPBFRs, and PAHs were lower in the routinely laundered hoods, with total levels of each class of chemicals being 56-81% lower, on average, than the unlaundered hoods. PBDEs, on average, were 43% higher in the laundered hoods, most likely from cross contamination. After this initial testing, four of the five unlaundered exposed hoods were subsequently laundered with other heavily exposed (unlaundered) and unexposed (new) hoods. Post-laundering evaluation of these hoods revealed increased levels of PBDEs, NPBFRs, and OPFRs in both previously exposed and unexposed hoods, indicating cross contamination. For PAHs, there was little evidence of cross contamination and the exposed hoods were significantly less contaminated after laundering (76% reduction; p = 0.011). Further research is needed to understand how residual contamination on hoods could contribute to firefighters' systemic exposures.

SUBMITTER: Mayer AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8647047 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Chronic health risks associated with firefighting continue to be documented and studied, however, the complexity of occupational exposures and the relationship between occupational exposure and contaminated personal protective equipment (PPE) remains unknown. Recent work has revealed that common PPE cleaning practices, which are becoming increasingly more common in the fire service, are not effective in removing certain contaminants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), from PPE. To better understand the relationship between contaminated firefighter PPE and potential exposure to PAHs, and to gain further understanding of the efficacy of cleaning practices, we used a standardized fire exposure simulator that created repeatable conditions and measured PPE surface contamination levels via wipe sampling and filters attached to firefighter gear worn by standing mannequins. This study examined the effects of repeated (40 cycles) PPE cleaning (laundering and on-scene preliminary exposure reduction (PER) techniques) and repeated exposures on PAH concentration on different surfaces. Further exploration included examination of contamination breakthrough of turnout jackets (comparing outer shell and interior liner) and evaluation of off-gassing PAHs from used gear after different cleaning treatments. When compared by jacket closure type (zipper and hook and dee), total PAH concentration wiped from gear after exposure and cleanings showed no significant differences. Regression analysis indicated that there was no effect of repeated exposures on PAH contamination levels (all sampling sites combined; before fire 10, 20, and 40; after fire 1, 10, 20, and 40; p-value > 0.05). Both laundering and on-scene PER significantly reduced contamination levels on the exterior pants and helmets and were effective at reducing PAH contamination. The jacket outer shell had significantly higher PAH contamination than the jacket liner. Both laundering and wet soap PER methods (post-fire) are effective in reducing surface contamination and appear to prevent accumulation of contamination after repeated exposures. Semi-volatile PAHs deep within the fibers of bulky PPE are not effectively reduced via PER or machine laundering, therefore, permitting continued off-gassing of these compounds. Further research is needed to identify the most effective laundering methods for firefighter turnout gear that considers the broad spectrum of common contaminants.

Project description:As the Fire Service becomes more aware of the potential health effects from occupational exposure to hazardous contaminants, personal protective equipment (PPE) manufacturers, and fire departments have responded by developing and implementing improved means of firefighter protection, including more frequent laundering of PPE after exposures. While laboratory testing of new PPE designs and the effect of laundering on PPE fabric provides a useful way to evaluate these approaches, laboratory scale testing does not necessarily translate to full garment protection. Utilizing a fireground smoke exposure simulator, along with air and/or filter-substrate sampling for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and benzene, this pilot study tested the chemical-protective capabilities of firefighting PPE of different designs (knit hood vs. particulate-blocking hood, turnout jacket with zipper closure vs. hook & dee closure), including the impact of repeatedly exposing and cleaning (through laundering or decontamination on-scene) PPE 40 times. Overall, PAH contamination on filters under hoods in the neck region were higher (median PAHs = 14.7 µg) than samples taken under jackets in the chest region (median PAHs = 7.05 µg). PAH levels measured under particulate-blocking hoods were lower than levels found under knit hoods. Similarly, zippered closures were found to provide a greater reduction in PAHs compared to hook & dee closures. However, neither design element completely eliminated contaminant ingress. Measurements for benzene under turnout jackets were similar to ambient chamber air concentrations, indicating little to no attenuation from the PPE. The effect of laundering or on-scene decontamination on contaminant breakthrough appeared to depend on the type of contaminant. Benzene breakthrough was negatively associated with laundering, while PAH breakthrough was positively associated. More research is needed to identify PPE features that reduce breakthrough, how targeted changes impact exposures, and how fireground exposures relate to biological absorption of contaminants.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters for supplemental aerosol mitigation during exercise testing is unknown and might be relevant during COVID-19 pandemic.Research questionWhat is the effect of portable HEPA filtering on aerosol concentration during exercise testing and its efficiency in reducing room clearance time in a clinical exercise testing laboratory?Study design and methodsSubjects were six healthy volunteers aged 20 to 56 years. In the first experiment, exercise was performed in a small tent with controlled airflow with the use of a stationary cycle, portable HEPA filter with fume hood, and particle counter to document aerosol concentration. Subjects performed a four-stage maximal exercise test that lasted 12 min plus 5 min of pretest quiet breathing and 3 min of active recovery. First, they exercised without mitigation then with portable HEPA filter running. In a separate experiment, room aerosol clearance time was measured in a clinical exercise testing laboratory by filling it with artificially generated aerosols and measuring time to 99.9% aerosol clearance with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) only or HVAC plus portable HEPA filter running.ResultsIn the exercise experiment, particle concentrations reached 1,722 ± 1,484/L vs 96 ± 124/L (P < .04) for all particles (>0.3 μm), 1,339 ± 1,281/L vs 76 ± 104/L (P < .05) for smaller particles (0.3 to 1.0 μm), and 333 ± 209/L vs 17 ± 19/L (P < .01) for larger particles (1.0 to 5.0 μm) at the end of the protocol in a comparison of mitigation vs portable HEPA filter. Use of a portable HEPA filter in a clinical exercise laboratory clearance experiment reduced aerosol clearance time 47% vs HVAC alone.InterpretationThe portable HEPA filter reduced the concentration of aerosols generated during exercise testing by 96% ± 2% for all particle sizes and reduced aerosol room clearance time in clinical exercise testing laboratories. Portable HEPA filters therefore might be useful in clinical exercise testing laboratories to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission.

Dataset Information

Firefighter hood contamination: Efficiency of laundering to remove PAHs and FRs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets