Workers in several industries are occupationally exposed to flame retardants. This study characterizes flame retardant exposure for nine industries through air and hand wipe measures for 105 workers. Specifically, we analyzed 24 analytes from three chemical classes: organophosphate flame retardants (OFRs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and non-PBDE brominated flame retardants (NPBFRs). The industries were: carpet installation, chemical manufacturing, foam manufacturing, electronic scrap, gymnastics, rigid board installation, nail salons, roofing, and spray polyurethane foam. Workers wore personal air samplers for two entire workdays and provided hand wipe samples before and after the second work day. Bulk products were also analyzed. The air, hand wipe and bulk samples were evaluated for relevant flame retardants. Spray polyurethane foam workers' tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate air (geometric mean = 48,500 ng/m3) and hand wipe (geometric mean = 83,500 ng per sample) concentrations had the highest mean industry concentration of any flame retardant analyzed in this study, followed by triphenyl phosphate air concentration and tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate hand wipe concentration from chemical manufacturers. Overall, OFR air and hand wipe concentrations were higher and more prevalent than PBDEs or non-PBDE brominated flame retardants. Some industries including spray polyurethane foam application, chemical manufacturing, foam manufacturing, nail salons, roofing, and rigid polyiso board installation had high potential for both air and hand exposure to OFRs. Carpet installers, electronic scrap workers, and gymnastic workers had exposures to all three classes of flame retardants including PBDEs, which were phased out of production in 2013. Air and dermal exposures to OFRs are prevalent in many industries and are replacing PBDEs in some industries.

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.

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.

The fire service has become more aware of the potential for adverse health outcomes due to occupational exposure to hazardous combustion byproducts. Because of these concerns, personal protective equipment (PPE) manufacturers have developed new protection concepts like particulate-blocking hoods to reduce firefighters’ exposures. Additionally, fire departments have implemented exposure reduction interventions like routine laundering of PPE after fire responses. This study utilized a fireground exposure simulator (FES) with 24 firefighters performing firefighting activities on three consecutive days wearing one of three PPE ensembles (stratified by hood design and treatment of PPE): 1) new knit hood, new turnout jacket and new turnout pants 2) new particulate-blocking hood, new turnout jacket and new turnout pants or 3) laundered particulate-blocking hood, laundered turnout jacket and laundered turnout pants. As firefighters performed the firefighting activities, personal air sampling on the outside and inside the turnout jacket was conducted to quantify exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and naphthalene. Pre- and immediately post-fire exhaled breath samples were collected to characterize the absorption of VOCs. Benzene, toluene, and naphthalene were found to diffuse through and/or around the turnout jacket, as inside jacket benzene concentrations were often near levels reported outside the turnout jacket (9.7-11.7% median benzene reduction from outside the jacket to inside the jacket). The PPE ensemble did not appear to affect the level of contamination found inside the jacket for the compounds evaluated here. Benzene concentrations in exhaled breath increased significantly from pre to post-fire for all three groups (p-values < 0.05). The difference of pre-to post-fire benzene exhaled breath concentrations were positively associated with inside jacket and outside jacket benzene concentrations, even though self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) were worn during each response. This suggests the firefighters can absorb these compounds via the dermal route.

Fire training may expose firefighters and instructors to hazardous airborne chemicals that vary by the training fuel. We conducted area and personal air sampling during three instructional scenarios per day involving the burning of two types (designated as alpha and bravo) of oriented strand board (OSB), pallet and straw, or the use of simulated smoke, over a period of 5 days. Twenty-four firefighters and ten instructors participated. Firefighters participated in each scenario once (separated by about 48 hr) and instructors supervised three training exercise per scenarios (completed in 1 day). Personal air samples were analyzed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hydrogen cyanide during live-fire scenarios (excluding simulated smoke). Area air samples were analyzed for acid gases, aldehydes, isocyanates, and VOCs for all scenarios. For the live-fire scenarios, median personal air concentrations of benzene and PAHs exceeded applicable short-term exposure limits and were higher among firefighters than instructors. When comparing results by type of fuel, personal air concentrations of benzene and PAHs were higher for bravo OSB compared to other fuels. Median area air concentrations of aldehydes and isocyanates were also highest during the bravo OSB scenario, while pallet and straw produced the highest median concentrations of certain VOCs and acid gases. These results suggest usage of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) by both instructors and firefighters is essential during training fires to reduce potential inhalation exposure. Efforts should be taken to clean skin and clothing as soon as possible after live-fire training to limit dermal absorption as well.