In the January/ February issue of The Fire Services Journal, I discussed a recent report by the American Society for Testing and Material. I identified some of the most common and hazardous contaminants…
typically found on firefighter turnout clothing. The purpose of the study was to ” … characterize contaminants found in fire fighter turnout clothing, evaluate contaminant removal by selected cleaning practices, and determine effects of these cleaning practices on clothing.” In this issue of FSJ, I will look at effectiveness of certain cleaning practices in reducing contamination hazards and how cleaning practices themselves can affect the protective characteristics of turnout gear.
I remember vividly when dirty turnout clothing was considered, in the words of the report, a “badge of honor.” These were also the days when firefighters were judged individually by how dirty they were and collectively by the nature of the business – tough, dirty, and heroic. It was true then. And it remains true now.
Two significant differences in structural firefighting between now and then are the products we encounter within the structures we fight fire and the knowledge of what those products can do to our quality of life. Somebody changed the rules of the game – and we found out. Probably, and thankfully, due to studies such as this one. Now, you are only as safe as your clothing is protective. And it must be clean clothing to be protective clothing.
How are we cleaning turnout clothing?
Initially, when new ‘bunker’ style turnout clothing replaced older long coats and high boots, little changed in the maintenance techniques. Typically, firefighters would scrub clothing with mild soaps and brushes, rinse the soap with water and hang to dry.
When this study surveyed the cleaning practices of nine fire departments and the cleaning recommendations of 40 manufacturers, suppliers, etc., it obtained varied responses. Fire department survey results indicated protocols ranging from ” … no routine cleaning… to hand or machine washing, to cleaning by a professional.. service.” Typically, cleaning was “as needed” and ” … with a mild household detergent in a home style washing machine.”
Results of manufacturers surveys generally included; “hand or machine wash… inside-out or placed in a laundry bag… use warm water… mild detergent, not soap… no chlorine bleach… line dry [and store] out of direct sunlight.” The many cleaning products recommended by manufacturers ranged from simple “mild and heavy duty detergents… pretreatments,. spot removers, and oxygenated bleaches… ” to more complex ” … anionic detergents, spot-cleaning emulsionsof solvents and surfactants, [and] moisture barrier cleaners [with] surfactants, sequestrants, and disinfectants…” The recommended method by manufacturers ranged from industrial washing machines and extractors ,”capable of cleaning, disinfecting and impregnating garments with water repellent finishes…” to drying racks.
The study appeared to expose a variance between recommended and actual cleaning methods. In a ‘best case’ scenario, proper cleaning methods and schedules result in high level maintenance assuring the most protective clothing and thus enhancing firefighter health and safety. The worst case however, is either a lack of cleaning or improper cleaning. Lack of cleaning means firefighters are wearing contaminated clothing repeatedly and unnecessarily exposing themselves to toxic chemicals and reduced protection. Improper cleaning which can ” … rapidly destroy clothing … [and] cause some degradation of clothing properties” may mean clean clothing which is visually satisfying but nevertheless seriously compromised.
The Experimental Process
The experiment began with analysing 12 used donated coats to determine types of chemical contamination. Heavily soiled swatches were cut out and subjected to various destructive analyses. Based upon these analyses and some past fireground studies, six chemicals were chosen as representative of typical turnout clothing contamination, including anthracene, chrysene, dioctyl phthlate, ethyl benzene, naphthalene and octanol.
Several more common turnout gear fabrics were also chosen for testing. From the report, these were; woven Nomex (outer shell); woven PBI/Kevlar (outer shell); Nomex Pajama Check Goretex laminate (breathable moisture barrier); Neoprene coated Polycotton (non-breathable moisture barrier); Pajama Check Face Cloth with meta-aramid needle punch batt (thermal liner); and Neoprene coated Nomex (combination outer shell and moisture barrier).
To determine cleaning and decontamination effectiveness as well as any “mechanical effects” (degradation) from the cleaning procedure used, both material swatches and complete coats were used. Concentrations of the six representative chemicals were analyzed in soiled and unsoiled clothing both before cleaning and afterward. As well, sample clothing was dipped in canine blood and studied to evaluate possible retention of biological contaminants throughout the cleaning and decontamination process. Measurement of degradation was based on compliance with certain standards, including NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Clothing for Structural Fire Fighting (1991 ed.).
Six standard cleaning/decontamination methods were then studied, including from hand washing to what the report calls “simple aeration”, or 72 hours of only line drying the clothing with the air temperature at 30 degrees Celsius.
Cleaning/Decontamination Results – When results were tabulated, they revealed “some specific trends.” Specifically, the report states:
For a given material and cleaning method, the decontamination effectiveness
was generally higher for the lighter, more volatile chemicals….higher molecular weight polynuclear aromatics (PNA’S) …remained at relatively higher levels…
Removal of dioctyl phthalate (DOP) … proved .. least effective for most cleaning techniques. Only simulated dry cleaning was consistently effective in removing the majority of chemical contaminants… Other than dry cleaning, no one other method appeared superior in removing chemical contaminants. (Emphasis mine)
The most successful means for removing chemical contamination was dry cleaning material cleaning combinations and aeration – with dry cleaning being “consistently more effective than aeration in all cases.” The authors suspect that the reason for the success of aeration is the allowance for “off gassing” of contaminants over the time period and with the raised temperature of moving air.
But before we set up dry cleaning programs for our turnout clothing maintenance, we should carefully consider the limitations of the report. Especially those which are expressed within the report itself. Dry cleaning can destroy the reflective trims we use and desperately need on turnout clothing. It can also alter the characteristics or altogether remove the water repellent finishes.
As well, the experiment did not study particulate contaminants, i.e. those which adhere to the soot on the turnout clothing. It dealt only with contamination of the fibers and coatings. Accordingly, “Cleaning techniques which are able to remove soot particles would most likely be able to remove much of the heavier chemicals absorbed into the soot.”
This appears to leave us with material cleaning combinations and aeration, or perhaps even both, as the most common. most easily available and most effective cleaning methods. This essentially means that different methods (soap products and washing techniques) work differently for different materials. Which also appears to mean that no one particular method appears universally better given the differing materials used to produce an overall turnout outfit.
Biological Contamination
Dry cleaning appeared to be the one exception for effectively removing blood from the outer shell. However, the authors believe this relates to dry cleaning removing the surface treatments on the clothing. It appeared that ” … dry cleaning was effective
in removing blood proteins in the coated or laminated materials…” inside the clothing. Although they are somewhat less likely to be contaminated with blood in the first place.
It should be noted that measurement of effectiveness of blood removal was visual and therefore did not speak to the possibility of remaining ‘invisible’ harmful virus, even where the study concluded effective removal.
Clothing Degradation
The report noted certain trends in clothing degradation. The summary on this topic in the report states it best; ” … most… clothing retains most… performance after multiple washings with each of the techniques.” Exceptions included; ” … the loss of water penetration resistance from the impermeable moisture barrier, the increase in afterflame time for Nomex IH outer shell, and… decreases in thermal protective performance for certain material combinations and cleaning methods.”
Our Response?
We should be thankful for the heightened awareness that research such as this has provided. Unfortunately, it has also caused some confusion. In the past few years, many departments have scrambled to respond to this issue by purchasing expensive turnout clothing washing machines. Unfortunately, they may not have also committed the human and other resources required for an effective washing program. It appears, from this research, that simply purchasing expensive equipment may not be the best answer.
We may also have to provide a regular and emergency washing schedule which permits for clothing to be cleaned and decontaminated not only whenever it is exposed to fire and/ or other contamination but frequently even when it is not. We may have to regularly train specialized personnel so they recognize the varying materials which comprise the total turnout garment and use the most effective cleaning/decontamination technique for those materials, e.g. proper cleaning solutions in proper concentrations together with proper washing and drying techniques. We may also have to provide for effective records to be kept to respond to issues of exposure, health and safety, liability, etc. Unfortunately, without the specialized human resources support, the protective features of clothing and its longevity may be seriously compromised.
The past few years has also seen a number of private industrial laundering companies which offer the fire services total turnout clothing maintenance, usually combining a cleaning, decontamination and drying procedure with a full inspection and repair service. Some even go so far as to provide a full record keeping service – essentially taking the matter (and perhaps headache) of turnout clothing maintenance out of the fire service agency’s responsibility.
To evaluate the benefit of utilizing any such service, we would probably do well to ask them the same questions we must ask ourselves if we decide to purchase on site cleaning equipment Are they familiar with the current research?
Can they (not necessarily do they) alter the cleaning and decontamination processes to best fit the materials? Are they familiar with the materials? Do they inspect for overall compliance? Do they repair within those compliance? Do they keep records for you? Are those records precise and accurate? Do they supply them to you regularly or at your request? And the list continues. In fact, this list is only relevant to the cleaning and decontamination issues. One must also inquire about overall business practices and reputations, perhaps gained from experience and through good references. And let’s not forget the cost.
The study was consistent in directing readers to its limitations and recommending further research, as any good scientific study must be. I support both the need for further research and to respond to the issues presented by this research by implementing effective turnout clothing maintenance programs. Perhaps, deep down inside, I wish it weren’t so that it must be clean to be protective. But perhaps when we seek a badge of honour to display our expertise at firefighting in the future, insistence on clean, well maintained protective clothing will be viewed as a sign of experience and wisdom. The simple fact is, the more firefighting you do, the more the gear needs to be maintained.
The research above was reported in Performance of Protective Clothing: Fifth Volume. ASTM STP 12371 lames 5. Johnson and S.Z. Mansdorf, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1995.
©1998 by Dan Haden and The Fire Services Journal. This article may not be copied reproduced,stored or transmitted in any form without written permission.