Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uoeh20

Download by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] Date: 07 November 2017, At: 06:50

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

ISSN: 1545-9624 (Print) 1545-9632 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uoeh20

Contamination of firefighter personal protectiveequipment and skin and the effectiveness ofdecontamination procedures

Kenneth W. Fent, Barbara Alexander, Jennifer Roberts, Shirley Robertson,Christine Toennis, Deborah Sammons, Stephen Bertke, Steve Kerber, DeniseSmith & Gavin Horn

To cite this article: Kenneth W. Fent, Barbara Alexander, Jennifer Roberts, Shirley Robertson,Christine Toennis, Deborah Sammons, Stephen Bertke, Steve Kerber, Denise Smith & Gavin Horn(2017) Contamination of firefighter personal protective equipment and skin and the effectiveness ofdecontamination procedures, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 14:10, 801-814,DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2017.1334904

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2017.1334904

This article not subject to U.S. copyright law View supplementary material

Accepted author version posted online: 21Jun 2017.Published online: 21 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1394 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE, VOL. , NO. , –https://doi.org/./..

Contamination of firefighter personal protective equipment and skin and theeffectiveness of decontamination procedures

Kenneth W. Fenta, Barbara Alexanderb, Jennifer Robertsb, Shirley Robertsonb, Christine Toennisb,Deborah Sammonsb, Stephen Bertkea, Steve Kerberc, Denise Smithd,e, and Gavin Horne

aDivision of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Cincinnati, Ohio;bDivision of Applied Research and Technology (NIOSH), Cincinnati, Ohio; cFirefighter Safety Research Institute, Underwriters Laboratories,Northbrook, Illinois; dHealth and Exercise Sciences Department, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, New York; eIllinois Fire Service Institute,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois

KEYWORDSContaminants;decontamination;evaporation; firefighters;PAHs; turnout gear

ABSTRACT

Firefighters’skinmay be exposed to chemicals via permeation/penetration of combustion byproductsthrough or around personal protective equipment (PPE) or from the cross-transfer of contaminants onPPE to the skin. Additionally, volatile contaminants can evaporate from PPE following a response andbe inhaled by firefighters. Using polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic com-pounds (VOCs) as respective markers for non-volatile and volatile substances, we investigated thecontamination of firefighters’ turnout gear and skin following controlled residential fire responses.Participants were grouped into three crews of twelve firefighters. Each crew was deployed to a firescenario (one per day, four total) and then paired up to complete six fireground job assignments.Wipesampling of the exterior of the turnout gearwas conducted pre- and post-fire.Wipe sampleswere alsocollected from a subset of the gear after field decontamination. VOCs off-gassing from gear were alsomeasured pre-fire, post-fire, and post-decon. Wipe sampling of the firefighters’ hands and neck wasconducted pre- and post-fire. Additional wipes were collected after cleaning neck skin. PAH levels onturnout gear increased after each response andwere greatest for gear worn by firefighters assigned tofire attack and to search and rescue activities. Field decontaminationusingdish soap,water, and scrub-bing was able to reduce PAH contamination on turnout jackets by a median of 85%. Off-gassing VOClevels increasedpost-fire and thendecreased 17–36min later regardless ofwhether field decontamina-tionwas performed. Median post-fire PAH levels on the neck were near or below the limit of detection(< 24microgramsper squaremeter [µg/m2]) for all positions. For firefighters assigned to attack, search,and outside ventilation, the 75th percentile values on the neck were 152, 71.7, and 39.3 µg/m2, respec-tively. Firefighters assigned to attack and search had higher post-firemedian hand contamination (135and 226 µg/m2, respectively) than other positions (< 10.5 µg/m2). Cleansingwipes were able to reducePAH contamination on neck skin by a median of 54%.

Introduction

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)classified occupational exposure as a firefighter as pos-sibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).[1] Since thisdetermination was made in 2010, a number of epidemi-ology studies continue to find elevated risks of severalcancers in firefighters. In the largest cohort mortalitystudy to date (30,000 firefighters), Daniels et al.[2] foundincreased mortality and incidence risk for all cancers,

CONTACT Kenneth W. Fent kfent@cdc.gov Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth, Tusculum Ave., MS R- Cincinnati, OH .Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uoeh.

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at tandfonline.com/uoeh. AIHA and ACGIH members may also access supplementary material athttps://oeh.tandfonline.com/.

mesothelioma, and cancers of the esophagus, intestine,lung, kidney, and oral cavity, as well as an elevated risk forprostate and bladder cancer among younger firefighters.In a follow-on study, Daniels et al.[3] found a dose-response relationship between fire-runs and leukemiamortality and fire-hours and lung cancer mortality andincidence. Other studies corroborate the elevated riskof a number of these cancers and provide evidence forthe increased risk of other cancers, like melanoma and

This article not subject to U.S. copyright law.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

802 K. W. FENT ET AL.

myeloma.[4–6] While chemical exposures encounteredduring firefighting are thought to contribute to the ele-vated risk of these cancers, the role that contamination onPPE and skin plays in this risk has not been well defined.

The materials found in modern buildings and furnish-ings are increasingly synthetic and can generate manytoxic combustion byproducts when they burn.[7–9] Toxicsubstances identified in fire smoke include polycyclic aro-matic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds(VOCs), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and several otherorganic and inorganic compounds.[8,10–18] Many of thesecompounds are known or potential human carcinogens.A number of these compounds have been measured onfirefighter PPE.[19–24] VOCs and HCN have also beenmeasured off-gassing from turnout gear following use inlive fires.[25,26] These contaminants, particularly the lessvolatile substances, could be transferred to fire depart-ment vehicles and firehouse living spaces.[27–29]

Skin exposure can occur during firefighting by wayof permeation or penetration of contaminants throughthe hood, turnout jacket and trousers, in between inter-face regions of this ensemble (possibly aided by the bel-lows effect during firefighter movements), or throughthe cross-transfer of contaminants on gear to skin. Fentet al.[30] found significantly elevated levels of PAHs inskin wipes from firefighters’ necks following controlledburns. In this and other studies, biomarkers of benzeneand PAHs were identified post firefighting, even thoughSCBA were used, suggesting that dermal absorption con-tributed to firefighters’ systemic levels.[30–33]

Differences in PPE and skin contamination by jobassignment and firefighting tactic have not been wellcharacterized. It is likely that exposures are not uni-form among firefighting personnel. For example, the inci-dent commander who is stationed outside is unlikely tohave the same exposure as a firefighter who is operat-ing on the interior of a smoke-filled room while advanc-ing a charged hoseline or conducting search and rescueoperations.

Laundering of firefighter turnout gear may not beroutinely conducted following a fire response, but is morecommonly performed only once or twice per year. Inbetween launderings, toxic substances are likely to accu-mulate on the gear from each subsequent fire responseand could transfer to the skin of firefighters. Likewise,field decontamination is rarely completed following afire response. Field decontamination of firefighters’ PPEis advocated by several firefighter support organiza-tions.[34–36] Performing gross decontamination in thefield following a fire event may remove a large quantityof hazardous substances from firefighters’ PPE. A fewdepartments have instituted new policies requiring field

decontamination and even laundering of turnout gearfollowing live-fire responses. Some departments now pro-vide skin cleansing wipes for firefighters to use followinga response.[34] However, we are unaware of any studiescharacterizing the effectiveness of field decontaminationof firefighter PPE or skin cleaning measures. Efficacydata are needed to justify and support these efforts morebroadly.

The purpose of this study was to characterize the con-tamination of a representative portion of firefighters’ pro-tective ensembles (turnout jackets and helmets) and skin(hand and neck skin) following structural firefightingactivities involving realistic residential fires. Additionally,we aimed to investigate contamination levels on gear andskin by job assignment and firefighting tactic, as well asbefore and after decontamination measures. The effec-tiveness of skin wipes and three types of field decontam-ination methods were quantified. While contaminationcould consist of hundreds of compounds, for this articlewe focused primarily on PAH particulate (for surface andskin testing) and VOC and HCN gases and vapors (foroff-gas testing).

Methods

Study population and controlled burns

This study was performed at the University of Illinois FireService Institute with collaboration from the NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Firefighter SafetyResearch Institute (FSRI). IRB approval was obtainedfromboth theUniversity of Illinois atUrbana-Champaignand NIOSH. Forty-one firefighters (37 male, 4 female)participated in this study. All firefighters were requiredto wear their self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)and full PPE ensemble (including hood) prior to enteringthe burn structure. Use of SCBA outside the structure wasat the discretion of the individual firefighter. Firefighterswere instructed to use their own fire department pro-tocols to determine if smoke exposure warranted SCBAusage. Each participant was provided brand new turnoutjackets, trousers, hoods, and gloves at the beginning ofthe study. All PPE adhered to NFPA standards.

This study had a total of 12 scenarios (one per day andno more than four scenarios per person). For each sce-nario, a team of 12 firefighters completed a realistic fire-fighting response that involved a multiple-room fire (twoseparate bedrooms) in a 111 squaremeter (m2) residentialstructure.[37] The bedrooms where the fires were ignitedwere fully furnished. Additional details on the structureare provided in the supplemental file.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE 803

Table . Deployment protocol, job assignments, and response times.

ApparatusJob assignment ( firefighters

per assignment) Specific tasksMedian time outside

structure (min)Median time insidestructure (min)

Engine Outside Command/Pump Incident command and operate the pump Inside Attack Pull primary attack line from engine and suppress all

active fire

Truck Inside Search Forcible entry into the structure and then search forand rescue two victims (weighted manikins)

Outside Vent Deploy ladders to the structure and create openingsat windows and roof (horizontal and verticalventilation)

Engine Overhaul/Backup Pull a second attack line and support the first-inengine (from outside the structure) and thenperform overhaul operations inside the structureafter fire suppression

Overhaul/RIT Set up as a rapid intervention team (RIT) and thenperform overhaul operations inside the buildingafter fire suppression

The 12 firefighters on each teamworked in pairs to per-form six different job assignments (Table 1) that includedoperations inside the structure during active fire (fireattack and search & rescue), outside the structure duringactive fire (command, pump operator and outside venti-lation), and overhaul operations after the fire had beensuppressed (firefighters searched for smoldering items,removed drywall from walls/ceilings, and removed itemsfrom the structure). After ignition, the fires were allowedto grow until the rooms flashed over and became venti-lation limited (typically 4–5 min) and then the firefighterparticipants were dispatched by apparatus in 1-min incre-ments following the order in Table 1.

Thirty-one firefighters participated in a total of fourscenarios, nine participated in two scenarios, and onewithdrew from the study. For the firefighters who com-pleted four scenarios, they were assigned to new jobassignments upon completing the first two scenarios. TheInside Attack firefighters on each team used the followingtactics: (a) traditional interior attack from the “unburnedside” (advancement through the front door to extinguishthe fire) and (b) transitional fire attack (water appliedinto the bedroom fires through an exterior window priorto advancing through the front door to extinguish thefire). These tactics were alternated so that each tacticwas used during the first two scenarios and again forthe last two scenarios. Once firefighters completed theirprimary assignments, they were released to the “PPE bay”approximately 40 m from the structure to doff their gear.After doffing their gear, the firefighters promptly enteredthe adjacent “biological collection bay” for skin wipesampling. Investigators began sampling from the turnoutgear after they had been removed. After sampling, theturnout gear was stored on hangers in the PPE bay untilsubsequent decontamination and/or use. Large fans wereused to dry turnout gear that had undergone wet-soapdecon.

Experimental procedure

Table 2 provides a summary of our sample collectionand analysis methods. The main purpose of the sam-pling was to assess the contamination levels on firefighterPPE and skin after a structural firefighting response. Sam-pling was conducted pre-fire, post-fire, and post fielddecontamination of PPE and post skin cleaning. The fol-lowing sections provide an abbreviated version of themethods. More details are provided in the supplementalfile.

Wipe sampling of firefighter skinAfter cleaning his/her skin using commercial cleansingwipes (Essendant baby wipes NICA630FW), one fire-fighter from each scenario was randomly selected forpre-fire sampling of his/her neck (right side) and hands.After firefighting, wipe samples were collected from allfirefighters’ hands and the right side of their necks. Inves-tigators then used two cleansing wipes to clean the necksof firefighters assigned to Inside Attack, Inside Search,Outside Vent, or Overhaul (3–4 per scenario). A subse-quent wipe sample was then collected from the left sideof their necks. This was done to provide a comparisonof neck exposures to PAHs before and after cleaning. Afresh pair of gloves were worn for each skin cleaning andsample collection procedure.

Dermal wipe sampling involved the use of cloth wipes(TX1009, Texwipe) and corn oil as a wetting agent, whichis similar to the sample technique used by Väänänenet al.[38] Experiments were conducted prior to this studyto determine the collection efficiency of using corn oil asa wetting agent. These experiments found>75% recoveryof the majority of PAHs from glass slides at various spik-ing levels (i.e., 5, 50, and 200 micrograms [µg]) (unpub-lished data). Lesser collection efficiency can be expectedfrom skin due to its absorptive nature. Thus, the actual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

804 K. W. FENT ET AL.

Table . Summary of sampling methods.

Sampling performed Collection periodsSample time

(min) n Analytes Method

Wipe sampling of exteriorsurface of turnoutjackets

Pre-firePost-firePost-decon

NANANA

Dry-brush: Air-based: Wet-soap:

PAHs Individually packaged wipescontaining .% isopropanoland benzalkonium chlorideanalyzed by HPLC/UV/FL(NIOSH Method )[]

Wipe sampling of handand neck skin

Pre-fire

Post-fire

Post-skin cleaning

NA

NA

NA

Hands: Neck: Hands: Neck: Neck:

PAHs Cloth wipes with corn oilanalyzed by HPLC/UV/FL(NIOSH Method )[]

Offgas sampling ofturnout jackets andtrousers

Pre-firePost-firePost-decon

VOCs and HCN Thermal desorption tube, cc/min, analyzed by GC/MSand soda lime sorbent tube, cc/min, analyzed byUV/VIS

VOCs= volatile organic compounds (i.e., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and styrene); GC/MS= gas chromatography/mass spectrometry; HCN= hydro-gen cyanide; HPLC/UV/FL= high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet and fluorescence detection; UV/VIS= ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy.

dermal dose was likely higher than the reportedmeasure-ments in this article.

Dermal exposure levels of PAHs were standardized bythe surface area of the skin collection site. The surface areaof both hands (0.11 m2) was based onmean dermal expo-sure factor data for adultmales.[39] The surface area of halfof the neck (0.021m2) was determined based ondata fromLund and Browder[40] showing the neck accounts for 2%of the total body surface area, which is 2.1 m2 for adultmales 30–39 years of age.[39]

Wipe sampling of firefighter PPEWipe samples from turnout jackets were collected beforefirefighting (n = 36, upper sleeve), after firefighting(n = 36, middle sleeve) and after each of three types offield decontamination methods (n = 36, lower sleeve),with a primary focus on gear worn by Inside Attack,Inside Search, and Overhaul/Backup firefighters. Thissampling regimen assumed that PAH contamination wasdistributed equivalently across the sleeve. Wipe sampleswere also collected from turnout gear that had not beendecontaminated after use by firefighters assigned to eachof the six jobs after two scenarios (n = 18). Gear thathad not been decontaminated after use in four scenariosand last assigned to Inside Attack, Inside Search, andOverhaul/Backup firefighters were also sampled (n = 9).In addition, wipe samples were collected from 4 helmets(new at the beginning of the study) after use in fourscenarios by firefighters assigned to Inside Attack, InsideSearch, Outside Vent and Outside Command/Pump.Helmets were assigned to the position rather than theindividual firefighter and were not decontaminated. Thewipe samples were collected inside 100 cm2 templatesaffixed to the PPE. The wipes (Allegro R© 1001) weredesigned to remove contaminants from PPE; however,the collection efficiency for PAHs is unknown.

DecontaminationField decontamination was carried out after firefightershad doffed their gear and post-fire off-gas and surfacesampling had taken place. For dry-brush decon, the inves-tigator used an industrial scrub brush to scrape debris andcontaminants from the gear. For air-based decon, an air jetprovided by a modified electric leaf blower was directedover the entire surface of the turnout jackets and pantsto remove contaminants. For wet-soap decon, the inves-tigator prepared a 2 gallon (7.6 liter) pump sprayer filledwith a mixture of water and ∼10 mL of Dawn R© (Procterand Gamble) dish soap. The investigator pre-rinsed thegear with water, sprayed the gear with the soap mixture,scrubbed the gear with soap mixture using an industrialscrub brush, and then rinsed the gear with water until nomore suds remained.

Off-gas sampling of firefighter turnout gearOff-gas sampling preceded the wipe sampling of theturnout gear. Turnout jackets and trousers for each crewwere split evenly by job assignment into two groups:decontaminated and non-decontaminated gear. Beforeand after each scenario, each group (consisting of 6 setsof gear) was hung on 1.8 m high bars inside one of two7.1 cubic meter enclosures for testing the off-gassing ofsubstances contaminating the gear. The enclosures wereintended to represent the volume of a typical 6-seat appa-ratus cabin. The enclosures were lined in Tyvek (DuPont),located inside an open bay, sheltered from the sun, andkept at ambient temperature during the study, whichranged from 18–22°C.

Sampling for VOCs and HCN took place over 15 min,which was intended to be representative of the drivingtime for crews returning from the incident to the firestation. Afterward, half the gear was decontaminated inthe field using dry brush, air-based, or wet-soap methods

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE 805

Figure . Median PAH levels on turnout jacket by job assignment and use in fires without field decontamination being performed (n= for each observation, error bars represent minimum and maximum values).

Figure . PAH levels on turnout jacket after use in four fires by job-assignment pairing (first assignment – last assignment).

(four scenarios each). Following field decontamination,all gear (decontaminated and non-decontaminated) werereturned to their separate enclosures and tested again foroff-gassing compounds.

Data analysis

Most of the descriptive comparisons for PPE surfaceand skin contamination were carried out using total

PAHs, which was the sum of the 15 quantified PAHs.Zero was used for non-detectable concentrations inthis summation. For PPE surface measurements, if allPAHs were non-detectable, the resultant zero value wasimputed using the limit of detection for fluoranthene(0.2–0.3 µg/wipe) divided by the square root of 2.[41] Onaverage, fluoranthene was the most abundant substancedetected in the surface wipe samples. In presenting the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

806 K. W. FENT ET AL.

levels of individual PAHs measured from turnout jacketsand skin, non-detectable PAHs were assigned values bydividing the limits of detection by the square root of 2. Thesame imputation method was used for non-detectableVOCs off-gassing from turnout gear.

To quantify the effectiveness of the different typesof decontamination methods, we calculated the percentchange in PAH levels by decon type, restricting the anal-ysis to gear that had detectable levels of PAHs post-fire. Itwas assumed that decontamination can only be assessedif the gear is truly contaminated. A Kruskal-Wallis testwas used to test whether PAH levels remaining on turnoutgear after decontamination were equivalent across thethree decon-types. To quantify the effectiveness of skincleaning using cleansing wipes, we calculated the percentchange in PAH levels measured on the right neck (post-fire) vs. the left neck (post-cleaning), restricting the anal-ysis to subjects with detectable levels of PAHs post-fire.In doing so, we assumed that (1) the PAH levels wereevenly distributed across the entire neck and (2) that skincleaning cannot be evaluated if the neck is not contam-inated. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to deter-mine whether the change in PAH levels after decontam-ination procedures was significantly different from zero.This test was also used to assess whether PAH levels onhands were increasing on subsequent study days or dif-fered between jobs, and whether PAH levels on turnoutgear or skin differed by type of tactic. SAS 9.4 was usedfor carrying out the statistical analyses.

Results

Figure 1 provides a summary of the PAH contamina-tion levels measured from non-decontaminated turnoutjackets over the first two fires by job assignment. Mea-surements collected before the first fire (from new gear)are also provided for reference. As expected, the medianPAH levels increased with successive use in fires. Samplesfrom gear worn by firefighters assigned to Outside Com-mand/Pump, Outside Vent, and Overhaul/RIT were onlycollected after the gear had been used in two fires.

Firefighters were assigned new jobs after the secondfire. Figure 2 provides the PAH contamination levelsmeasured from non-decontaminated turnout jacketsafter use in four fires by job-assignment pairings (firstassignment – last assignment). Generally, higher contam-inationwas foundwhen the last job assignmentwas InsideAttack or Inside Search. For comparison, the PAH levelsmeasured from helmets worn by firefighters assigned toOutside Command/Pump, Outside Vent, Inside Search,and Inside Attack (after use in 4 fires) were <0.2, 3.1,54, and 78 micrograms per 100 square centimeters

(µg/100 cm2) of sampled surface. Helmet contamina-tion appeared to follow a similar trend as the turnoutjackets, whereby helmets worn by inside crews (Attackand Search) were much more contaminated than helmetsworn by outside crews (Vent and Command/Pump).

We explored the contamination of turnout gear bytype of tactic (interior attack vs. transitional attack). Toaccount for the efficacy of the different decontaminationmethods and the effect of job assignment on contamina-tion levels, our analysis was based on the percent changein the pre- to post-fire PAH levels on turnout gear wornby firefighters assigned to InsideAttack and Inside Search.According to this analysis, transitional attack resultedin similar changes in PAH contamination (median =662%, range −35% to 6710%, n = 12) as interior attack(median = 1080%, range 136% to 8440%, n = 12)(Wilcoxon P = 0.48). This variability illustrates that thefirefighters’ movement and orientation during firefight-ing likely plays an important role in PPE contamination,possibly obscuring the effect of tactic.

Figure 3 provides a summary of the percent change inPAH levels from post-fire to post-decon by decon-type.The three decon-types differed significantly in theireffectiveness (Kruskal-Wallis P< 0.001).Wet-soap deconwas most effective in reducing PAH contamination, witha median reduction of 85%, compared to a reductionof 23% for dry brush decon and an increase of 0.5%for air-based decon. The latter finding is probably anartifact as it is unlikely that the contamination actuallyincreased after air-based decon. In fact, if we restrict theanalysis to turnout jackets worn by firefighters assignedto Inside Attack and Inside Search (and exclude the less

Figure . Box and whisker plots showing the percent difference inPAH levels measured on turnout jackets before and after decon-tamination. Theminimum, th percentile, median, th percentile,andmaximumvalues are provided.One sample eachwas excludedfrom air and wet-soap decon because post-fire levels werenon-detectable.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE 807

contaminated Overhaul/Backup jackets), we find thatthe air-based decon provides a median change of −1.9%(interquartile range 12 to −30%).

Another way of testing the effectiveness of fielddecontamination is to compare decontaminated gearto non-decontaminated gear after both have been usedin four fires. This comparison was conducted for eachdecon type by the firefighters’ last job assignments(Inside Attack, Inside Search, and Overhaul/Backup).For example, decontaminated gear last assigned to InsideAttack was compared to non-decontaminated gear lastassigned to Inside Attack. The job-assignment pairingswere similar between the decontaminated and non-decontaminated groups (by design) and were unlikely tohave biased the results. According to this analysis, gearthat had undergone air-based, dry-brush, and wet-soapdecon had 12–43%, 62–91%, and 90–95% lower contam-ination levels, respectively, than non-decontaminatedgear (n = 3 pairs of comparisons for each decontype).

Figure 4 provides a summary of the VOCs and HCNconcentrations measured off-gassing from decontami-nated and non-decontaminated turnout gear. Horizontallines are provided in the figure to denote the limits ofdetection. Median pre-fire levels were below the limits ofdetection for each analyte (and hence represent imputedvalues). As expected, the off-gas concentrations of thesesubstances increased from pre-fire to post-fire and thendecreased after that. The post-fire levels were well belowapplicable short-term exposure limits or ceiling limits; forexample, the NIOSH recommended short-term exposurelimit for benzene is 3,200 micrograms per cubic meter(µg/m3), which is the lowest short-term exposure limitof all sampled compounds.[42] Post-decon levels fromthe decontaminated gear did not differ from the levelsmeasured simultaneously from the non-decontaminatedgear (Wilcoxon P > 0.24). This appeared to remain truewhen stratified by the different types of decontamination,although we had inadequate power to make statisti-cal interpretations. Many of the compounds remainedabove the limits of detection during the post-decontesting period. For both the decontaminated and non-decontaminated gear, this testing took place an averageof 24 min (ranging 17–36 min) after the culmination ofthe post-fire measurements.

Table 3 summarizes the PAH dermal exposure levelsmeasured on the firefighters’ hands and neck in micro-grams per square meter (µg/m2) of sampled skin. A largepercentage of the measurements were non-detectable,particularly on the neck. Note that neck samples had ahigher limit of detection than hand samples due to thesmaller surface area of the neck being sampled. For alljob assignments other than Outside Command/Pump,

Figure . Median air concentrations of VOCs and HCN measuredoff-gassing from six sets of (a) decontaminated turnout gear duringpre-fire, post-fire, and post-decon periods (n = for each obser-vation, except for the post-fire VOC observations in which n = due to sample loss) and (b) non-decontaminated turnout gear dur-ing pre-fire, post-fire, and simultaneous to the post-decon periods(n = for each observation). Horizontal lines represent the lim-its of detection for each analyte. Error bars represent theminimumand maximum values.

the median PAH levels increased on the hands frompre- to post-fire. The percentage of detectable levels onthe neck increased after firefighting, but the medianlevels were below detection for all job assignments. Afterfirefighting, PAHs were detected more frequently onhands (76%) than neck (41%). For firefighters assignedto Inside Attack and Inside Search, the median post-firePAH levels on the hands were more than four times thelevels on the neck. Inside Search firefighters had signifi-cantly higher post-fire hand exposures than Inside Attackfirefighters (Wilcoxon P = 0.0248), even though bothperformed inside operations during active fire. The 75th

percentile post-fire levels of PAHs on the neck and handswere higher for firefighters assigned to Inside Attack andInside Search than other positions. Outside Vent wasthe only job where detectable levels from the neck were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

808 K. W. FENT ET AL.

Table . PAH levels measured on skin before and after firefighting.

Job assignment Skin site Period n No. of NDs Median (µg/m)a Interquartile range (µg/m)a

All Hands Pre-fire < . < .Post-fire . .–

Neck Pre-fire < < –.Post-fire < < –.

Inside Attack Hands Post-fire –Neck Post-fire < b < –

Inside Search Hands Post-fire –Neck Post-fire < b < –.

Overhaul/Backup Hands Post-fire . < .–.Neck Post-fire < < –.

Overhaul/RIT Hands Post-fire . .–.Neck Post-fire < < –.

Outside Vent Hands Post-fire . .–.Neck Post-fire . < –.

Outside Command/Pump Hands Post-fire < . < .Neck Post-fire < <

aValues of < . and < µg/m were based on the lowest limit of detection for the measured PAHs (. µg) divided by the surface area of the sampled skin site(. m for hands and . m for neck).

bThe median was somewhere between a non-detectable and a detectable measurement; therefore, a value of less than the detectable measurement is provided.

found in more than half the subjects (58%). For firefight-ers assigned to Outside Vent, the median post-fire PAHlevels on the neckwere three times the levels on the hands.

To test whether the accumulation of contaminants onPPE was contributing to skin contamination (i.e., cross-transfer to hands), we explored the levels of PAHs on thehands of firefighters over time. The analysis was restrictedto firefighters who wore gear that was not being decon-taminated (n = 18 firefighters). We compared post-firePAH levels on hands measured in scenario 2 to scenario 1and those measured in scenario 4 to scenario 3. The anal-ysis was split this way because firefighters changed jobassignments after the second scenario. According to thisanalysis, we found no evidence that PAH levels on handswere increasing with subsequent study day (WilcoxonP > 0.85) despite an increase in contamination on PPE(see Figures 1 and 2).

To test whether the tactic employed had any effecton dermal exposure, we investigated the post-fire neckand hand contamination levels for firefighters assigned toInside Attack and Inside Search by type of tactic (Table 4).According to this analysis, hand and neck exposures didnot differ significantly (Wilcoxon P = 0.37 and 0.28,respectively) between interior and transitional attack.

For firefighters who used cleansing wipes to cleantheir neck skin post-firefighting, we found a 54% medianreduction in PAH levels on the neck (Interquartilerange = −18% to −100%), which was statistically

significant (Wilcoxon P = 0.0043). Again, this analysiscompared levels measured from the right neck (post-fire)to the left neck (post-cleaning) and was restricted onlyto the 22 firefighters who had detectable post-fire PAHlevels on their right neck.

The composition of PAHs measured on turnout gearand skin may be of interest as certain types of PAHs aremore hazardous than others. Figure 5 provides a sum-mary of the individual PAHs measured from turnoutgear and hands of firefighters assigned to Inside Search(a higher exposure group). Overall, fluoranthene was themost abundant species identified on turnout gear and skin(constituting>25% of the total PAHs). The IARC classifi-cations are also given in this figure. Benzo[a]pyrene is theonly species that is a known human carcinogen (1) and itaccounted for 5% of the PAHsmeasured on hands and 8%of the PAHsmeasured on turnout gear. Several PAHs clas-sified as probably (2A) or possibly (2B) carcinogenic werealso detected and accounted for 26% of the total levels onskin and 37% of the total levels on turnout gear. SimilarPAH composition was found on jackets and hands of fire-fighters assigned to Inside Attack.

Discussion

This is the first study to investigate both the contam-ination of firefighters’ PPE and skin as well as theeffectiveness of field decontamination of PPE and skin.

Table . Post-fire PAH levels measured on the skin of firefighters assigned to interior attack and search by tactic.

Skin site Type of tactic n No. of NDs Median (µg/m) Interquartile range (µg/m)

Hands Interior –Transitional –

Neck Interior . < –Transitional < < –

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE 809

Figure . Median levels of specific PAHsmeasured on (a) jackets offirefighters assigned to Inside Search after use in four fires with-out any field decontamination (n= jackets) and (b) hands of fire-fighters assigned to Inside Search after firefighting (n = ). Alsoprovided are the median percentage of total PAHs and IARC clas-sification for each PAH species. Class = carcinogenic to humans;A=probably carcinogenic tohumans, B=possibly carcinogenicto humans, and = not classifiable. Error bars represent the maxi-mum levels measured.

This study was limited somewhat by sample size and thesensitivity of the sampling and analytical methods. Inaddition, the collection efficiency of the wipe samplingmethods is unknown for the surfaces sampled in thisstudy. Based on laboratory testing of these wipes (orsimilar wipes) at collecting PAHs from a non-poroussurface, it is likely that a large percentage of PAH contam-ination on skin and turnout jackets (25% or more) maynot have been collected. As such, our sampling resultsshould be considered an underestimation of the actualsurface loading. Despite these limitations, we were ableto identify important contaminants on firefighter PPEand skin and quantify the change in contamination levelsfollowing decontamination measures. The data provideimportant scientific evidence of exposure risk from fire-fighting by job assignment and will support departments

in developing and refining policies to clean their gear andskin following live-fire responses.

We found that PAH contamination on PPE increasedwith each use in a fire. For firefighters assigned to InsideAttack, Inside Search, and Overhaul/Backup, the medianlevels on jackets were 7.4, 6.0, and 0.31 µg/100 cm2 afteruse in a single fire and 9.3, 8.8, and 1.1 µg/100 cm2 afteruse in two fires (without any decontamination), corre-sponding to a 1.3–3.5 fold increase. Post-fire PAH con-tamination on turnout jackets assigned to Inside Attackand Inside Search for the last two scenarios ranged up to21 and 27 µg/100 cm2, respectively. Increasing accumula-tion of PAHs with each fire response has been shown inother studies as well.[24,26]

In two separate studies involving live fire trainingusing particle boards as fuel, Kirk and Logan[13,26] mea-sured deposition of PAHs onto turnout gear of 6.9–29 µg/100 cm2 and deposition flux of 3.3–16 nanogramsper square centimeter perminute (ng/cm2/min). The fire-fighting activities in these studies were most similar tothose performed by Inside Attack and Inside Search inour project. Taking the median time inside the struc-ture for Inside Attack and Inside Search of 8 min, thislevel of flux would result in 2.6–13 µg/100 cm2 of PAHcontamination after each fire. Because of differences infuels, it would not be surprising if deposition flux in ourstudy differed from Kirk and Logan,[26] but our data sug-gest similar levels of flux. It should be noted, however,that Kirk and Logan[13,26] used fabric swatches attachedto the gear to sample PAH deposition. This would likelyresult in a higher collection efficiency than could beexpected from our sampling methodology. Our method-ology was intended to collect substances that could eas-ily transfer to skin, while methods that extract bulkmaterials may also measure substances embedded in thefabric.

The PPE wipes used in our study, containing 0.45%isopropanol and benzalkonium chloride, have not beentested for their collection efficiency of PAHs. Becausebenzalkonium chloride is a surfactant, these wipes maybe more effective at removing lipid soluble PAHs thanPPE wipes containing 70% isopropanol, which, accordingto our unpublished data, may provide <40% collectionefficiency from non-porous surfaces. Additional studiesare underway to test the collection efficiency of differenttypes of sampling wipes (wetting agents) in comparisonto PAHs measured on a filter substrate affixed to turnoutgear. Of note, we would expect higher wipe-samplingcollection efficiency from the helmets (non-porousmaterial), but at the same time, contamination on thehelmets may be more likely to transfer to the skin duringhandling.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

810 K. W. FENT ET AL.

As expected, VOC and HCN levels measured off-gassing from turnout gear increased from pre-fire to post-fire. Median post-fire VOC concentrations were highestfor styrene (340 µg/m3) and benzene (230 µg/m3). In ourprevious study, we measured a median of 25 µg/m3 ofbenzene and 85 µg/m3 of styrene off-gassing from a sin-gle set of gear (inside a 0.18 m3 enclosure).[25,26] Kirk andLogan[26] reported similar off-gas concentrations of ben-zene and styrene from a single set of gear as our previousstudy. Kirk and Logan[26] also measured HCN concen-trations ranging from 630–1300 µg/m3, which were wellabove the post-fire levelswe found in this current study (<26–620 µg/m3). The higher HCN concentrations may bedue to the fuel package being composed primarily of engi-neered wood products in the Kirk and Logan[26] study.

Our current study further differs from these previousstudies in that six sets of turnout gear were placed insidean enclosure representative in volume to an apparatuscabin. Hence, the VOC air concentrations we measuredcould be expected if six firefighters were to wear or storetheir turnout gear inside an enclosed apparatus cabin dur-ing a 15-min ride back to their station, provided theyembarked on this trip soon after completing overhaul.While the levels we measured are well below applicableshort-term exposure limits or ceiling limits, these findingsindicate that firefighters could inhale a number of chemi-cals in the period following a fire response. Although not amajor focus of this study, semi-volatile compounds wouldevaporate much more slowly and could pose a longer-term inhalation hazard for firefighters.

While effective at removing PAH contamination, fielddecontamination had no apparent effect on the VOC con-centrations as decontaminated gear provided similar off-gas levels as the gear that had not been decontaminated.Our results suggest that a large proportion of the VOCsevaporated naturally from PPE that was not decontami-nated (but allowed to air out on a hanger) over the timeit took to decontaminate the other half of gear. Althoughwe lacked the power to test the changes in off-gas con-centrations by type of decontamination, the primary pur-pose of field decontamination is not to remove VOCs,but rather to remove soot and other particulate from thegear. Because soot can be composed of semi-volatile com-pounds or act as a sorbent for other organic substances,field decontamination could conceivably help reduce thelevels of off-gassing semi-volatile compounds, and thisshould be investigated in future studies.

If PAH contamination was not distributed similarlyacross the sleeve, the decontamination findings couldbe biased upward or downward. However, the pre- andpost-decon wipe samples were consistently collectedfrom abutting (middle and lower) sleeve locations to

minimize this bias. Of the three types of field decontam-ination methods investigated in this study, the wet-soapdecon method was clearly the most effective at removingsurface contamination, providing a median reduction inPAH levels of 85%. Soot is generally composed of lipidsoluble compounds like PAHs. Surfactants, like those indish soap, are designed to surround lipid molecules andliberate them from surfaces so that water can then takethem away. Future studies should investigate how water-only decon compares with wet-soap decon. Although thedry-brush method was not as effective as the wet-soapdecon method, a median PAH reduction of 23% is cer-tainly better than doing nothing. This method wouldbe relatively easy to implement at any department andwould not take PPE out of service while drying. Theair-based decon method has similar advantages to thedry-brush method, but it was not as effective in removingPAHs (∼2% reduction). We suspect that the air-velocitywas able to remove “loose” particulate, but could notovercome the surface tension of much of the “sticky” sootcoating the turnout gear. Airflow across the surface of theturnout gear could also facilitate the evaporation of morevolatile contaminants (e.g., naphthalene), however, manyof these components would evaporate naturally in a well-ventilated space. An air-based system could be effectivein certain firefighting situations (e.g., when ash or dustare abundant) and this should be investigated further.

After use in four fires, gear that had undergone post-firefighting decontamination had markedly lower levelsof PAHs than gear that had not undergone decontami-nation, with the largest effect found for wet-soap decon.This further demonstrates that field decontaminationcould be used routinely to manage PPE contamination.However, laundering through commercial extractors thatadhere to NFPA requirements[43] would likely providethe greatest cleaning efficacy; quantifying the efficacyof extractors is currently a topic of ongoing research.How repeated laundering compares with wet-soap deconin terms of material degradation and the effects on theprotective properties of the turnout gear also requiresfurther study. Our findings indicate that PAH contam-ination varies by job assignment, and so departmentsshould consider prioritizing gear for laundering based ona firefighter’s assignment during the response.

For nearly all positions, 50% or more of the post-firePAH measurements from the neck were non-detectable(i.e., <24 µg/m2). The one exception was for firefight-ers assigned to Outside Vent who had 14 of 24 detectablePAH measurements from the neck after firefighting witha median level of 30.5 µg/m2. When PAHs were detectedon the neck, firefighters assigned to Inside Attack andInside Search had higher values than other positions as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE 811

evidenced by their respective 75th percentiles (152 and71.7 µg/m2 compared to <40 µg/m2 for all other posi-tions). In a previous study, we measured PAH levels onfirefighters’ necks ranging from<57–187 µg/m2 and only33% of the measurements were non-detectable.[30] In ourprevious study, firefighters observed the growth of a fire(involving furniture) inside a two-room structure whilestanding, crouching, crawling, or performing other activ-ities to simulate firefighting tasks. These firefighters werepositioned a little higher in the target rooms and had alonger smoke exposure (∼10 min) that was not as opera-tionally relevant as the scenarios conducted here. We alsocollected samples across the entire neck in our previousstudy rather than only half the neck, which could explainthe higher frequency of detectable levels.

Contaminants measured on neck skin in both stud-ies are likely penetrating or permeating the protectiveNomex R© hoodsworn by firefighters or infiltrating aroundthe hood/coat or the hood/SCBA interface and there-fore may be directly affected by the duration of timespent in smoke. Firefighters assigned to Inside Attack andInside Search in our current study were operating fromthe crawling position, low in the smoke layer for much ofthe response, which would lessen their exposures. Fireswere also quickly suppressed (within a few minutes afterentry). Firefighters assigned to other job assignments didnot enter the structure at all or entered after the fire hadbeen suppressed. Any firefighters not wearing hoods onthe fireground may have been at risk for neck exposures.In reviewing video footage, we found that several of theOutside Vent firefighters did not wear their hoods whileconducting exterior operations, which could explain thehigher frequency of detectable PAHs on their necks.This illustrates the importance of wearing the Nomexhood when performing exterior operations (i.e., Out-side Vent). The research and development of hoods thatoffer additional chemical protection may be warrantedespecially for use in interior operations (i.e., Attack andSearch).

Nearly all (47 of 48) post-fire PAH measurementstaken from the hands of firefighters assigned to InsideAttack and Inside Search were detectable, with interquar-tile ranges of 67–190 µg/m2 for Inside Attack and144–313 µg/m2 for Inside Search. The respective medianpost-fire levels of PAHs on hand skin (135 and 226µg/m2)were higher than on neck skin (<32 and <27 µg/m2).This contradicts our earlier study that found higherlevels on the neck (median 52 and 63 µg/m2) than thehands (median 16 and 24 µg/m2).[30] For firefightersassigned to the other jobs, the median post-fire handexposures (<4.5–10.5 µg/m2) were similar to our earlierstudy. Our current findings corroborate the findings by

Fernando et al. 2016[33] which found an increase in PAHand methoxyphenol contamination on firefighter skinafter conducting training fires, with higher loading onthe fingers than the other skin sites (back, forehead, wrist,and neck).

Hands may become contaminated during the doffingof gear. However, our analysis did not show an increas-ing trend in PAH levels on hands with each subsequentstudy day in firefighters who wore non-decontaminatedgear even though the contamination levels on the jack-ets increased (see Figures 1 and 2). The gloves had amoisture barrier between the inner and outer materials,and as such, we do not believe the PAHs permeated thegloves. Penetration of contaminants around the gloves(likely facilitated by sweat or water on the fireground)is another possible mechanism. Inside Search firefight-ers in our study likely spent more time crawling than anyother job assignment and as such, their gloves would havecontacted contaminants and water that collected on thefloor. This could explainwhy they had significantly higherpost-fire hand exposures than the Inside Attack firefight-ers, even though both performed inside operations duringactive fire.

While this paper does not report biomarker lev-els of PAHs, PAHs were measured on skin and havebeen shown to readily absorb through skin.[44,45] Thus,it is likely that firefighters in this study, especially theinterior crews, had biological uptake of PAHs. Biolog-ical absorption will be thoroughly evaluated in futuremanuscripts.

When executed successfully, transitional attack willknock down or substantially retard the fire from theexterior of the structure (through a window or otheropening). When firefighters then enter the structure toperform final suppression and search and rescue oper-ations, their smoke exposures should theoretically beless than if interior attack were performed. However,we did not find statistically significant differences inPPE or skin exposures by tactic for firefighters assignedto Inside Attack and Inside Search; although, medianexposures were generally lower for transitional attack.Several factors can influence the magnitude of expo-sures during transitional attack, including exposure tosmoke while outside the structure and regrowth of thefire while inside the structure. These factors may havecontributed to the overall variability in PPE and skincontamination during transitional attack, thereby reduc-ing our power to detect statistical differences. Furtherinvestigation into how tactics affect personal exposures iswarranted.

One possible way of mitigating dermal contamina-tion is by using cleansing wipes after firefighting. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

812 K. W. FENT ET AL.

median reduction in PAH levels on neck skin after usingcommercial cleansing wipes (i.e., baby wipes) was 54%.It is important to note that this analysis assumed equaldistribution of PAHs across the neck skin. If the leftside of the neck was biased to have higher exposuresthan the right side, our stated efficacy would be under-estimated. If the opposite were to have occurred, thenour stated efficacy would be overestimated. Also, byexcluding firefighters who had non-detectable levels ontheir neck post fire, we may have introduced some biastoward higher efficacy. Despite the inherent limitationsof this field experiment, we provide the first ever evi-dence that cleansing wipes can be effective at reducingPAH contamination from skin. Not all cleansing wipesmay have equal efficacy and further investigation iswarranted. The data show that some level of contami-nation is likely to remain on the skin after using thesewipes. As such, showering, hand washing or other meansof more thorough cleaning of the skin should be con-ducted as soon as feasible following any exposure on thefireground.

Conclusions

Personal protective equipment, neck skin, and hand skinbecame contaminated with PAHs during firefighting. Themagnitude of contamination varied by job assignment.Firefighters assigned to Inside Attack and Inside Searchgenerally had the most contamination on their turnoutgear and skin following each response, and their handskin was more contaminated than their neck skin. InsideSearch firefighters had significantly more PAH exposureto their hands than the Inside Attack firefighters, possiblybecause Inside Search firefighters spentmuchof their timecrawling on contaminated floors. Outside Vent crews hadthe highest frequency of detectable PAHs on their necksand this contamination was higher than the levels mea-sured on their hands. This finding was likely due to theinconsistent use of hoods by the Outside Vent crews.

Contamination on turnout gear increased with eachfire response if not decontaminated. Three types offield decontamination methods were evaluated and wet-soap decon was found to be the most effective atremoving PAH contamination from turnout gear. Com-mercial cleansing wipes also showed some benefit atremoving PAH contamination from neck skin. Whileturnout gear became contaminated with VOCs, off-gas levels were low (below short-term exposure lim-its) and a large proportion evaporated within 24 min.Overall, this study provides a greater understanding ofthe exposure pathways associated with firefighting andthe measures that can be implemented to reduce theseexposures.

Acknowledgments

This was a collaborative project that could not have beencompleted without the help from several people. We thankMatthewDahm for conducting the surfacewipe sampling,Don-ald Booher for performing the off-gas sampling, Kenneth Sparksfor preparing and maintaining our sampling equipment, andBureau Veritas North America for analyzing the surface andskin wipe samples.We also thankGlobeManufacturing for pro-viding turnout gear for this study. Most of all, we thank the fire-fighters for participating in this study. Participants were com-pensated up to $599 to participate in this study. This study wasapproved by the Institutional Review Boards at NIOSH and theUniversity of Illinois. The findings and conclusions in this arti-cle are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent theviews of NIOSH. Mention of any company or product does notconstitute endorsement by NIOSH.

Funding

This study was funded through a U.S. Department of Home-land Security, Assistance to Firefighters Grant (EMW-2013-FP-00766). This project was also made possible through apartnership with the CDC Foundation.

References

[1] International Agency for Research on Cancer: Painting,firefighting, and shiftwork. In IARC Monographs on theEvaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Vol 98. Lyon,France: World Health Organization, 2010.

[2] Daniels, R.D., T.L. Kubale, J.H. Yiin, et al.: Mortalityand cancer incidence in a pooled cohort of US firefight-ers from San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia (1950–2009). Occup. Environ. Med. 71(6):388–397 (2014).

[3] Daniels, R.D., S. Bertke, M.M. Dahm, et al.: Exposure-response relationships for select cancer and non-cancerhealth outcomes in a cohort of US firefighters from SanFrancisco, Chicago and Philadelphia (1950–2009).Occup.Environ. Med. 72(10) (2015).

[4] Tsai, R.J., S.E. Luckhaupt, P. Schumacher, R.D. Cress,D.M. Deapen, and G.M. Calvert: Risk of cancer amongfirefighters in California, 1988–2007. Am. J. Ind. Med.58(7):715–729 (2015).

[5] Pukkala, E., J.I. Martinsen, E. Lynge, et al.: Occupationand cancer – follow-up of 15million people in five Nordiccountries. Acta Oncol. 48(5):646–790 (2009).

[6] Glass, D., M. Sim, S. Pircher, A. Del Monaco, C.Dimitriadis, J. Miosge: Final Report AustralianFirefighters’ Health Study. Monash Centre for Occu-pational and Environmental Health. Available athttp://www.coeh.monash.org/downloads/finalreport2014.pdf (accessed April 21, 2017).

[7] Fabian, T., J. Borgerson, P. Gandhi, et al.: Charac-terization of firefighter smoke exposure. Fire Technol.50(4):993–1019 (2014).

[8] Brandt-Rauf, P.W., L.F. Fallon, Jr., T. Tarantini, C.Idema, and L. Andrews: Health hazards of fire fight-ers: exposure assessment. Br, J, Ind, Med. 45(9):606–612(1988).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE 813

[9] Kerber, S.: Analysis of changing residential fire dynamicsand its implications on firefighter operational timeframes.Fire Technol. 48(4):865–891 (2012).

[10] Austin,C.C.,D.Wang,D.J. Ecobichon, andG.Dussault:Characterization of volatile organic compounds in smokeat municipal structural fires. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A63(6):437–458 (2001).

[11] Bolstad-Johnson, D.M., J.L. Burgess, C.D. Crutchfield,S. Storment, R. Gerkin, and J.R. Wilson: Characteriza-tion of firefighter exposures during fire overhaul. AIHA J.61(5):636–641 (2000).

[12] Edelman, P., J. Osterloh, J. Pirkle, et al.: Biomonitoringof chemical exposure among New York City firefightersresponding to the World Trade Center fire and collapse.Environ. Health Perspect. 111(16):1906–1911 (2003).

[13] Kirk, K.M., and M.B. Logan: Firefighting instructors’exposures to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons dur-ing live fire training scenarios. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg.12(4):227–234 (2015).

[14] Evans, D.E., and K.W. Fent: Ultrafine and respirable par-ticle exposure during vehicle fire suppression. Environ.Sci. Process. Impacts 17:1749–1759 (2015).

[15] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health:Evaluation of Chemical and Particle Exposures duringVehicle Fire Suppression Training, by Fent, K.W., D.E.Evans J. Couch (Report #HETA 2008-0241-3113). U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, 2010.

[16] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health:Evaluation of Dermal Exposure to Polycyclic AromaticHydrocarbons in Fire Fighters, by Fent, K.W., J. Eisenberg,D.C. Evans, et al. (Report #2010-0156-3196). U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, 2013.

[17] Fent, K.W., and D.E. Evans: Assessing the risk to fire-fighters from chemical vapors and gases during vehiclefire suppression. J. Environ. Monit. 13(3):536–543 (2011).

[18] Horn, G.P., S. Kerber, K.W. Fent, B. Fernhall,and D. Smith: Cardiovascular & Chemical Expo-sure Risks in Modern Firefighting: Interim Report,2016. Illinois Fire Service Institute. Available athttps://www.fsi.illinois.edu/documents/research/CardioChemRisksModernFF_InterimReport2016.pdf (accessedApril 21, 2017).

[19] Alexander, B.M., andC.S. Baxter: Plasticizer contamina-tion of firefighter personal protective clothing – a poten-tial factor in increased health risks in firefighters. J. Occup.Environ. Hyg. 11(5):D43–D8 (2014).

[20] Alexander, B.M., and C.S. Baxter: Flame retardant con-tamination of firefighter personal protective clothing –a potential health risk for firefighters. J. Occup. Environ.Hyg. 1–26 (2016).

[21] Stull, J.O., C.R. Dodgen, M.B. Connor, and R.T.McCarthy: Evaluating the effectiveness of different laun-dering approaches for decontaminating structural firefighting protective clothing. In Performance of ProtectiveClothing: Fifth Volume, J.S. Johnson and S.Z. Mansdorf,(eds.). American Society for Testing and Materials, 1996.

[22] Baxter,C.S., J.D.Hoffman,M.J.Knipp,T.Reponen, andE.N. Haynes: Exposure of firefighters to particulates andpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg.11(7):D85–D91 (2014).

[23] Baxter, C.S., C.S. Ross, T. Fabian, et al.: Ultrafine parti-cle exposure during fire suppression – is it an important

contributory factor for coronary heart disease in firefight-ers? J. Occup. Environ. Med. 52(8):791–796 (2010).

[24] Easter, E., D. Lander, and T. Huston: Risk assessment ofsoils identified on firefighter turnout gear. J Occup. Envi-ron. Hyg. 13(9):647–657 (2016).

[25] Fent,K.W.,D.E. Evans,D. Booher, et al.: Volatile organiccompounds off-gassing from firefighters’ personal pro-tective equipment ensembles after use. J. Occup. Environ.Hyg. 12(6):404–414 (2015).

[26] Kirk, K.M., and M.B. Logan: Structural fire fightingensembles: accumulation and off-gassing of combustionproducts. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12(6):376–383 (2015).

[27] Brown, F.R., T.P. Whitehead, J.S. Park, C. Metayer, andM. X. Petreas: Levels of non-polybrominated diphenylether brominated flame retardants in residential housedust samples and fire station dust samples in California.Environ. Res. 135:9–14 (2014).

[28] Park, J.S., R.W. Voss, S. McNeel, et al.: High exposure ofCalifornia firefighters to polybrominated diphenyl ethers.Environ. Sci. Technol. 49(5):2948–2958 (2015).

[29] Shen, B., T.P. Whitehead, S. McNeel, et al.: High lev-els of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in vacuum cleanerdust from California fire stations. Environ. Sci. Technol.49(8):4988–4994 (2015).

[30] Fent, K.W., J. Eisenberg, J. Snawder, et al.: Systemicexposure to PAHs and benzene in firefighters suppressingcontrolled structure fires.Ann.Occup.Hyg. 58(7):830–845(2014).

[31] Laitinen, J., M. Makela, J. Mikkola, and I. Huttu:Fire fighting trainers’ exposure to carcinogenic agentsin smoke diving simulators. Toxicol. Lett. 192(1):61–65(2010).

[32] Laitinen, J., M. Makela, J. Mikkola, and I. Huttu: Fire-fighters’ multiple exposure assessments in practice. Toxi-col. Lett. 213(1):129–133 (2012).

[33] Fernando, S., L. Shaw, D. Shaw, et al.: Evaluation of fire-fighter exposure to wood smoke during training exercisesat burn houses. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50(3):1536–1543(2016).

[34] Fire Fighter Cancer Support Network: “Taking Actionagainst Cancer in the Fire Service.” Available at http://firefightercancersupport.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Taking-Action-against-Cancer-in-the-Fire-Service.pdf (accessed April 21, 2017).

[35] International Firefighter Cancer Foundation: “Fire-fighter Decontamination Shower.” Available at http://iwww.ffcancer.org/ndex.cfm (accessed April 21, 2017).

[36] InterAgency Board: “Evaluation of hazards in thepost-fire environment.” Available at https://iab.gov/Uploads/evaluation_of_hazards_in_the_post-fire_environment.pdf (accessed April 21, 2017).

[37] Horn, G.P., R.M. Kesler, S. Kerber, et al.: Thermalresponse to firefighting activities in residential structurefires: impact of job assignment and suppression tactic.Ergonomics. 1–16 (2017).

[38] Vaananen, V., M. Hameila, P. Kalliokoski, E. Nykyri,and P. Heikkila: Dermal exposure to polycyclic aro-matic hydrocarbons among road pavers.Ann. Occup. Hyg.49(2):167–178 (2005).

[39] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Exposure Fac-tors Handbook: 2011 Ed., (Report #EPA/600/R-09/052F).National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2011.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17

814 K. W. FENT ET AL.

[40] Lund, C.C., and N.C. Browder: The estimation of areasof burns. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 79:352–358 (1944).

[41] Hornung, R.W., and L.D. Reed: Estimation of averageconcentration in the presence of non-detectable values.Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 5(1):46–51 (1990).

[42] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health:“Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards.” Available athttp://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/ (accessed April 21,2017).

[43] National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): 1851:Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protec-tive Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and ProximityFire Fighting. [Standard]. Quincy, MA: NFPA, 2014.

[44] VanRooij, J.G., M.M. Bodelier-Bade, and F.J. Jonge-neelen: Estimation of individual dermal and respiratory

uptake of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in 12 cokeoven workers. Br. J. Ind. Med. 50(7):623–632 (1993).

[45] VanRooij, J.G., J.H. De Roos, M.M. Bodelier-Bade, and F.J. Jongeneelen: Absorption of poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons through human skin:differences between anatomical sites and indi-viduals. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 38(4):355–368(1993).

[46] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health:Manual of Analytical Methods 4th ed. Publication No.94–113 (August 1994); 1st Supplement Publication 96–135, 2nd Supplement Publication 98–119, 3rd Supple-ment Publication 2003–154. P.C. Schlecht, P.F. O’Connor(eds). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, 2013.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 0

6:50

07

Nov

embe

r 20

17