AfterburnFOUNDATION

What Contaminants Can Remain in Firefighter Turnout Gear?

The fire is out. The crew is back at the station. The turnout gear may look dirty, or it may look surprisingly clean. Either way, appearance alone cannot tell you everything about what remains on or within a firefighter’s protective equipment.

Smoke, burning materials, and other fireground exposures can leave a mixture of substances on protective clothing. The exact contaminants depend on the incident, the materials involved, and the conditions firefighters encountered. Some can be reduced through appropriate cleaning, while others may be more difficult to remove through a particular process.

For fire chiefs, health and safety officers, and personal protective equipment (PPE) officers, the practical question is straightforward: what might remain on the gear, and how should the department respond?

Understanding the main categories of contamination helps departments make informed decisions about cleaning, handling, and when additional decontamination may be appropriate.

What contaminants can remain in firefighter turnout gear?

Firefighter turnout gear can encounter several categories of contaminants during emergency responses. These may include combustion-related chemicals, particulate matter, metals, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) associated with some protective materials.

Not every incident exposes gear to every category. Contamination also varies by material, equipment, and the conditions under which the gear was used.

The following categories help explain what departments should consider.

1. Chemicals produced by combustion

When buildings, furnishings, vehicles, plastics, and other materials burn, they can release complex mixtures of gases, particles, and chemical compounds.

The composition of that mixture depends on what burns and how it burns. A residential structure fire, vehicle fire, and wildland fire can produce different exposure profiles.

Some combustion-related chemicals can deposit on protective clothing or become associated with particles that settle on the gear. Depending on the substance and the cleaning process, residues may remain after an incident.

This is one reason departments should not rely on visible soot alone to assess contamination. The absence of obvious discoloration does not establish that a garment is free of hazardous substances.

#### Why the materials involved matter

Modern fires can involve synthetic furnishings, plastics, treated materials, fuels, and many other products. Their combustion can produce different substances, so there is no single contaminant profile that applies to every fire.

Departments should focus on consistent post-incident procedures and appropriate cleaning rather than trying to identify every possible chemical from the appearance of a garment.

2. Particulate matter and soot

Smoke contains particles that can settle on clothing and equipment. Soot is the visible residue associated with many fires, although not all contamination is visible.

Particles can accumulate on the outer surfaces of protective garments and may also become associated with seams, closures, and other parts of the equipment.

Appropriate cleaning can remove soil and reduce contamination. The extent of removal depends on the particles, the garment, and the cleaning method.

Soot can be a useful visual warning that gear needs attention, but it is not a complete measure of contamination. Gear that appears clean may still require cleaning based on the incident and the department’s procedures.

3. Metals and other inorganic contaminants

Fireground exposures may include metals and other inorganic substances originating from burning materials, building components, equipment, and other sources.

Whether a particular metal is present, and in what amount, depends on the incident. Departments should avoid assuming that every fire produces the same contaminants.

Research and testing of specialized cleaning processes have examined the removal of certain metals from firefighter protective equipment. However, results depend on the specific substance, process, and test conditions.

A general claim that a method removes one metal should not be interpreted as proof that it removes every metal or every other category of contamination.

4. Semivolatile organic compounds

Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) are chemicals that can exist in both vapor and particle-associated forms under different conditions. Some can be produced during combustion and may be present in fireground contamination.

Their behavior depends on the particular compound, the materials involved, and environmental conditions. Some substances may associate with surfaces or particles rather than remaining entirely in the air.

This category is relevant when evaluating specialized cleaning methods because different compounds can respond differently to a cleaning process.

For example, Emergency Technical Decon (ETD) publishes testing results for its Liquid CO₂+ process that include removal of tested SVOCs. Those findings apply to the compounds and process evaluated; they should not be generalized to all SVOCs or every liquid carbon dioxide (CO₂) system.

5. PFAS associated with protective equipment

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, are a large group of chemicals used in a range of industrial and consumer applications.

Research from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has identified PFAS in structural firefighter turnout gear textiles and in other protective equipment, including gloves, hoods, and wildland firefighting textiles.

This introduces an important distinction: some contaminants can come from the fireground, while some substances may be present in the protective materials themselves.

The presence of PFAS in protective equipment raises questions about potential exposure. However, the health risks attributable specifically to PFAS in firefighter gear remain under investigation.

Departments should not assume that all PFAS are the same, that every piece of gear contains identical amounts, or that a particular cleaning process removes every PFAS compound. The relevant evidence must be specific to the substance, material, and treatment process.

How can contaminants move beyond the gear?

Contamination is not only an equipment problem. It can also become a handling and storage problem.

NIOSH explains that substances on turnout gear can transfer to firefighters’ skin, other equipment, and station areas. Some contaminants may also release vapors into the air after the incident. These pathways can create opportunities for exposure after firefighters have left the fireground.

Several everyday practices can help limit that spread:

These measures address different stages of exposure control. None replaces appropriate cleaning, and cleaning alone does not address every possible exposure pathway.

Can routine washing remove these contaminants?

Routine washing is essential, but its performance depends on the substance being removed, the equipment, and the process.

NIOSH research has found that some contaminants, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), can remain on turnout gear after typical cleaning procedures. Researchers have also studied how laundering conditions affect the removal of selected organic chemicals.

This research does not mean conventional washing is ineffective. It means cleaning performance should be evaluated rather than assumed.

For department leaders, the practical response is to maintain appropriate routine cleaning while understanding where additional treatment may be worth considering.

When should departments consider advanced decontamination?

Advanced decontamination may be appropriate when a department wants an additional option for addressing contaminants that can remain after conventional cleaning.

Liquid CO₂ decontamination is one available approach. Its performance depends on the specific system, process, and contaminants being evaluated.

Before selecting a provider, departments should ask:

A result demonstrated for one substance or system should not be generalized to every contaminant or every CO₂ technology.

What if a department cannot afford advanced decontamination?

The technical question is only part of the problem. Departments also need a realistic way to access services that fit their equipment and operational needs.

For some departments, the cost of advanced decontamination, transportation, and coordination can make access difficult. Smaller, rural, volunteer, and combination departments may face different constraints from larger agencies. Eligibility should depend on actual documented need, not assumptions about department type.

The Afterburn Foundation helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way.

Afterburn is an access and funding organization, not a manufacturer or cleaning facility. It connects documented department need with philanthropic funding and qualified independent service providers.

Its annual sponsorship model is built around a straightforward commitment:

$500. One firefighter. One year.

A $500 sponsorship provides one firefighter with one year of funded access to qualifying advanced PPE decontamination services. The standard annual model is designed around two advanced CO₂ decontamination cycles and one annual advanced inspection, with flexibility to fund services according to actual need.

Sponsorship funds are pooled, allowing services to vary according to equipment, exposure, geography, and logistics. The model funds annual access rather than promising identical services for every firefighter.

If your department is considering advanced decontamination but cost is a barrier, Afterburn offers a way to seek assistance.

Frequently asked questions

What are the most common contaminants found in firefighter turnout gear?

Potential contaminants include soot, particulate matter, combustion-related chemicals, metals, and semivolatile organic compounds. PFAS may also be present in some protective textiles. The actual contaminants depend on the incident, equipment, and materials involved.

Can contaminants remain in turnout gear after washing?

Yes. Research has found that some contaminants can remain after typical laundering procedures. Cleaning performance varies by substance, garment, and process, so departments should follow applicable procedures and evaluate the evidence for their cleaning methods.

Can firefighter gear look clean but still be contaminated?

Yes. Appearance alone cannot establish that all hazardous substances have been removed. Departments should base cleaning decisions on exposure, equipment requirements, and established procedures rather than visible soil alone.

Does liquid CO₂ decontamination remove all contaminants?

No universal claim of complete removal is justified. Performance depends on the particular CO₂ system, treatment process, contaminant, and supporting test results. Departments should examine evidence specific to the service being considered.

Can Afterburn help a department pay for advanced decontamination?

Yes. The Afterburn Foundation helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way. Departments can apply for funding to have their needs evaluated.

Better decontamination shouldn’t depend on your department’s budget.

Afterburn helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way.

Apply for Funding

Help another department get access: Sponsor a Firefighter

Firefighter PPE, PFAS & Contamination: What Departments Should Know

Firefighter protective gear is designed to protect the people wearing it. But research has identified a complicated question for fire departments: some of the textiles used to make that gear contain chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

These chemicals are used in a wide range of products, including materials designed to resist water. In firefighter gear, those properties can serve an important protective purpose. At the same time, the presence of PFAS has raised questions about potential exposure and long-term health effects.

For fire chiefs, health and safety officers, and personal protective equipment (PPE) officers, the issue requires a measured response. The research establishes that PFAS are present in certain firefighter gear textiles. It does not, by itself, establish the health risk attributable to those chemicals in a particular garment or show that a specific cleaning method eliminates that risk.

Understanding what researchers have found, what they have not yet established, and how gear care fits into exposure management can help departments make better-informed decisions.

What are PFAS?

PFAS is the abbreviation for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a large group of synthetic chemicals used in many industrial and consumer applications.

Some PFAS have been used in treatments that make materials resistant to water, oil, or stains. Those properties help explain why certain PFAS-related chemistries have been used in textiles, including some materials used to manufacture firefighter protective equipment.

PFAS is not one chemical with one set of properties. The group includes many different substances, and their behavior and health effects can vary.

Some PFAS are persistent in the environment, which is why they are often called “forever chemicals.” Certain PFAS have been associated with adverse health effects, including some cancers. However, those findings cannot automatically be applied to every chemical in the PFAS group or to every possible exposure scenario.

That distinction matters when interpreting research about firefighter PPE.

What has NIST found in firefighter turnout gear?

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has conducted research to characterize PFAS in firefighter protective clothing and better understand potential exposure sources.

In its 2023 Technical Note 2248, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in New Firefighter Turnout Gear Textiles, NIST examined PFAS in textiles used in new structural firefighting coats and pants.

The researchers found measurable amounts of PFAS in the tested materials, with substantial variation among textile samples. The findings suggested that the amount of PFAS in new turnout gear can differ depending on the specific textiles used in manufacturing.

This research matters because it shows that potential PFAS exposure is not necessarily limited to substances deposited on gear during a fire. Some PFAS may already be present in the materials themselves.

However, the study measured chemical concentrations in selected textiles. It did not establish how much PFAS a firefighter absorbs while wearing a particular garment, nor did it determine the health risk attributable to those textiles.

PFAS have also been found in gloves, hoods, and wildland gear

In December 2024, NIST published additional research examining PFAS in structural firefighting gloves and hoods, as well as wildland firefighter clothing.

The study examined 32 textile samples and identified measurable PFAS in 25 of them. Concentrations varied considerably across the samples, with different patterns observed in gloves, hoods, and wildland gear.

The researchers found that PFAS levels were generally low in the hood textiles tested, while some glove and wildland gear samples contained higher concentrations.

This expanded the research beyond structural firefighting coats and pants to other protective garments, including items that contact skin more directly.

It also reinforces an important point for PPE officers: gear is not one uniform material. Different components may contain different textiles, and PFAS concentrations can vary significantly among them.

Does the presence of PFAS in gear mean firefighters face a health risk?

The presence of PFAS establishes a potential exposure source. It does not, by itself, quantify a firefighter’s exposure or establish the resulting health risk.

NIST has explicitly stated that its research on PFAS in firefighter gear does not assess the health risks attributable to the chemicals found in that equipment. The studies provide measurements that toxicologists, epidemiologists, and other researchers can use to investigate those questions.

Several questions remain important:

These are not minor details. They determine whether the presence of a chemical translates into a meaningful exposure and what that exposure means for health.

The appropriate response is neither to dismiss the findings nor to claim more certainty than the research supports. PFAS in firefighter gear is a legitimate subject for continued study, careful exposure management, and informed equipment decisions.

What does wear and tear change?

Protective gear experiences repeated use, movement, laundering, heat, and environmental exposure. Researchers are investigating how these conditions affect measurable PFAS in gear textiles.

In May 2026, NIST published Technical Note 2375, examining PFAS in structural firefighter gloves and hoods and wildland gear after simulated abrasion, thermal stress, or weathering.

The results varied by equipment and treatment. Measured PFAS concentrations increased in some glove and hood textiles after certain stress tests, while measured concentrations decreased in wildland textiles after abrasion and weathering. The researchers noted that these changes may reflect chemical transformations or changes in how readily PFAS could be extracted from the materials for measurement.

These findings do not mean that every worn garment releases more PFAS or that a particular service history predicts a specific health risk. They demonstrate that the relationship between textile condition and measurable PFAS is complex.

For departments, the practical takeaway is to maintain equipment according to manufacturer instructions and applicable standards, track its condition, and follow emerging research rather than make assumptions based on a garment’s age or appearance alone.

Can cleaning remove PFAS from firefighter gear?

Cleaning may reduce certain contaminants, but its effectiveness depends on the substance, the textile, and the process used.

PFAS are a large chemical group. Results for one compound or cleaning process should not be generalized to all PFAS or all protective materials.

When evaluating a cleaning or decontamination service, departments should ask:

For example, Emergency Technical Decon publishes results for its Liquid CO₂+ process that include removal of 84% of tested PFAS. That figure is specific to its tested process and the substances evaluated. It does not establish that every PFAS compound can be removed at the same rate or that every liquid carbon dioxide (CO₂) system performs identically.

Cleaning should be considered one part of a broader PPE-care and exposure-management program, not proof that a garment is free of PFAS or that all health risks have been eliminated.

What should fire departments do now?

Departments do not need to wait for every scientific question to be settled before maintaining sensible equipment-care practices. They can take practical steps while recognizing the limits of current evidence.

Maintain established PPE-care procedures

Follow the applicable National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and equipment manufacturer instructions. Ensure firefighters know how to handle contaminated gear, arrange appropriate cleaning, and store equipment safely.

Reduce opportunities for contamination to spread

Use established procedures for removing, transporting, and storing contaminated equipment. Keep gear handling separate from areas where people eat, sleep, or spend extended periods whenever department procedures call for that separation.

Evaluate cleaning claims carefully

Do not choose a process based solely on broad claims about PFAS. Request evidence that identifies the chemicals tested, the materials treated, and the results measured.

Follow developments in research

NIST continues to study PFAS in firefighter equipment. Its research provides a basis for improving measurement, understanding potential exposure sources, and evaluating future equipment designs.

Departments should rely on credible technical research and current standards rather than treating preliminary findings as definitive answers about health risk.

Where advanced decontamination access fits

Understanding PFAS is part of a larger conversation about contamination in firefighter gear. PFAS are not the only substances firefighters may encounter, and the presence of PFAS in protective materials does not mean every exposure comes from the gear itself.

Routine washing remains essential. Advanced decontamination provides another option for departments to evaluate based on their equipment, exposure profile, and the evidence supporting a particular process.

For some departments, the obstacle is cost rather than a lack of interest in better gear care.

The Afterburn Foundation helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way. Afterburn is an access and funding organization, not a manufacturer or cleaning facility. It connects documented department need with philanthropic funding and qualified independent service providers.

Its annual sponsorship model is built around a clear commitment:

$500. One firefighter. One year.

A $500 sponsorship provides one firefighter with one year of funded access to qualifying advanced PPE decontamination services. The standard annual model is designed around two advanced CO₂ decontamination cycles and one annual advanced inspection, with flexibility to fund services according to actual need.

Sponsorship funds are pooled, allowing services to vary according to equipment, exposure, geography, and logistics. This is a funding model for access to qualifying services, not a guarantee that every contaminant will be removed or that a particular health outcome will follow.

If your department wants to evaluate advanced decontamination but cost is a barrier, Afterburn offers a way to seek assistance.

Frequently asked questions

What does PFAS mean in firefighter turnout gear?

PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a large group of synthetic chemicals. NIST research has identified PFAS in textiles used in structural firefighting coats and pants, gloves, hoods, and wildland gear.

Why are PFAS used in firefighter protective equipment?

Certain PFAS-related chemistries have been used in textile treatments that provide water and other resistance properties. Those properties can serve a protective function, but the presence of PFAS has prompted research into potential exposure and alternative materials.

Does NIST research prove PFAS in turnout gear causes cancer?

No. NIST’s studies characterize PFAS in gear textiles but do not establish the health risks attributable specifically to PFAS in that equipment. Some individual PFAS have been associated with adverse health effects, but gear-specific exposure and risk require further study.

Can washing remove PFAS from firefighter gear?

Cleaning performance varies by the PFAS compound, textile, and process. Departments should seek process-specific test results and should not assume that ordinary washing or a specialized decontamination service removes every PFAS compound.

Can Afterburn help pay for advanced PPE decontamination?

Yes. The Afterburn Foundation helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way. Departments can apply for funding to have their needs evaluated.

Better decontamination shouldn’t depend on your department’s budget.

Afterburn helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way.

Apply for Funding

Help another department get access: Sponsor a Firefighter

Firefighter Gear and Cancer Risk: What the Research Actually Says

Firefighters put on their protective gear to do a dangerous job. But what happens to that gear after a fire matters, too.

Smoke, combustion byproducts, and other hazardous substances can contaminate protective clothing during emergency responses. Some contamination may remain after the incident, creating opportunities for continued exposure or transfer to other surfaces.

That raises an important question for fire departments: what does the research actually tell us about firefighter gear and cancer risk?

The evidence supports taking occupational cancer seriously and managing exposure wherever practical. It does not support claiming that contaminated gear is the sole cause of firefighter cancer, that one cleaning method prevents cancer, or that advanced decontamination eliminates every occupational hazard.

For fire chiefs, health and safety officers, and personal protective equipment (PPE) officers, understanding that distinction is essential to making informed decisions about equipment care.

What does research say about firefighter cancer risk?

Firefighters encounter a wide range of exposures during their careers. Depending on the incident, these may include combustion products, particulates, chemicals from burning materials, and other hazardous substances.

Large-scale research has documented elevated cancer rates in firefighter populations.

A study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) examined nearly 30,000 career firefighters from Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Researchers found 9% more cancer diagnoses and 14% more cancer-related deaths than expected based on U.S. population rates.

These findings are important because they document an occupational health concern across a substantial firefighter population.

They do not, however, establish that every firefighter faces the same level of risk or that a particular source of exposure explains the entire difference. Firefighter cancer risk involves multiple exposures and circumstances, and population-level findings cannot predict an individual’s outcome.

The practical conclusion is clear: departments should take exposure management seriously and use evidence to guide the steps they can control.

How does contaminated gear fit into the picture?

Protective equipment is intended to help firefighters perform their work safely. During an incident, however, that equipment can become contaminated by substances encountered on the fireground.

Contamination may remain on protective clothing after the incident. Handling and transporting the gear can also transfer material to skin, vehicles, equipment, and station areas.

These pathways are part of the reason PPE care matters.

NIOSH guidance emphasizes appropriate handling, bagging, laundering, and storage of contaminated firefighter gear as components of reducing opportunities for exposure after an incident.

Exposure can continue after the fire is out

The fireground is not the only place where exposure management matters.

Contaminated clothing can come into contact with other surfaces during removal, transport, and storage. Depending on the substances involved, material may also move from the gear into the surrounding environment.

This does not mean every contact creates a meaningful health risk. It means departments should avoid treating the end of the incident as the end of all exposure-related responsibilities.

Consistent post-incident procedures help address these practical pathways.

Gear is one part of a larger exposure picture

Firefighters encounter occupational hazards through multiple routes and under different conditions. Protective equipment can be one source or carrier of contamination, but it is not the only potential contributor to exposure.

That distinction matters because a department cannot address the full cancer problem through gear cleaning alone. Equipment care should sit alongside other occupational health and safety practices appropriate to the department’s operations.

What do we know about chemicals in firefighter gear?

Researchers have studied different categories of contaminants associated with firefighting, including combustion-related chemicals and substances present in protective textiles.

Two areas are particularly relevant to departments evaluating PPE care.

Combustion-related contaminants

Smoke and burning materials can produce complex mixtures of chemicals and particles. Some substances can deposit on protective clothing during an incident and may be difficult to remove completely through a particular cleaning process.

The specific contaminants depend on the materials involved and the conditions of the fire. No single list describes every firefighter’s exposure.

Research into cleaning performance helps determine how effectively different processes reduce particular contaminants. Such findings should be interpreted according to the specific substances and conditions tested.

PFAS in protective textiles

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of synthetic chemicals used in various industrial and consumer applications.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has identified PFAS in structural turnout gear textiles, gloves, hoods, and wildland firefighting textiles.

These findings show that certain PFAS can be present in protective materials themselves, not only as contamination deposited during a fire.

However, NIST’s textile studies do not establish the health risks attributable specifically to PFAS in firefighter gear. The presence of a chemical in a material is an important finding, but it is not the same as quantifying a person’s exposure or determining the resulting health risk.

Departments should follow credible research as it develops and avoid drawing conclusions that the evidence does not support.

Can cleaning or decontamination reduce cancer risk?

This is where careful wording matters.

Appropriate cleaning can remove soil and reduce contamination on protective equipment. Specialized decontamination processes may provide an additional option for reducing particular contaminants, depending on the equipment and process used.

But demonstrating contaminant removal is not the same as demonstrating cancer prevention.

A laboratory test may show that a cleaning process reduced a particular substance under specified conditions. That result does not, by itself, establish how much a firefighter’s total exposure changes, how that change affects long-term health, or whether the process prevents cancer.

Departments should view PPE care as one component of exposure reduction, not as a guarantee of a particular health outcome.

What should departments look for in cleaning evidence?

When evaluating a cleaning or decontamination service, ask:

These questions help departments distinguish demonstrated performance from broader claims that may not be supported by the evidence.

For more information, see What Contaminants Can Remain in Firefighter Turnout Gear? and Liquid CO₂ Firefighter PPE Decontamination: How It Works.

What can fire departments do to manage exposure?

Departments do not need to solve every scientific uncertainty before taking practical steps to manage contamination.

Establish consistent post-incident procedures

Firefighters should know how to handle contaminated equipment after an incident. Procedures should address initial decontamination where appropriate, removal, transportation, cleaning, and storage.

Consistency matters. A policy that exists on paper but is not followed reliably will not provide the same benefit as a process personnel understand and can carry out.

Maintain appropriate cleaning schedules

Follow the applicable National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirements, manufacturer instructions, and department procedures. Address contamination as needed rather than relying solely on a calendar.

Routine washing remains essential. Additional cleaning or specialized decontamination should be evaluated according to the equipment, exposure, and available evidence.

Track equipment care

Maintain records of cleaning, inspections, repairs, and other required maintenance. These records help PPE officers understand equipment history, identify gaps, and plan future service.

Evaluate advanced decontamination when appropriate

Liquid carbon dioxide (CO₂) decontamination is one specialized option departments may consider when evaluating how to address particular contaminants.

The relevant questions are whether the process is suitable for the equipment, what its testing demonstrates, and how it fits into the department’s broader care program.

The decision should be based on evidence and actual needs, not on a promise that any one technology eliminates cancer risk.

The access problem: when cost limits better gear care

Knowing that contamination management matters does not guarantee that a department can access every service it considers appropriate.

Advanced decontamination may involve treatment fees, transportation, and coordination. Those costs can be difficult to accommodate alongside equipment replacement, staffing, training, and other operational needs.

The burden can look different for a large career department than for a small rural or volunteer agency. What matters is the department’s actual financial and logistical situation, not an assumption based on its classification.

The Afterburn Foundation helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way.

Afterburn is an access and funding organization, not a manufacturer or cleaning facility. It connects documented department need with philanthropic funding and qualified independent service providers.

Its annual sponsorship model is built around a simple commitment:

$500. One firefighter. One year.

A $500 sponsorship provides one firefighter with one year of funded access to qualifying advanced PPE decontamination services. The standard annual model is designed around two advanced CO₂ decontamination cycles and one annual advanced inspection, with flexibility to fund services according to actual need.

Sponsorship funds are pooled so services can vary according to equipment, exposure, geography, and logistics. The model funds access to qualifying services; it does not promise identical treatment for every firefighter or guarantee a health outcome.

For departments that want to evaluate advanced decontamination but face a financial barrier, Afterburn offers a way to seek assistance.

Frequently asked questions

Does contaminated firefighter gear cause cancer?

Research establishes that firefighters face occupational cancer risks and that protective gear can carry hazardous substances. However, the presence of contamination on gear does not, by itself, establish that a particular garment caused cancer. Risk depends on multiple factors, including the substances involved and the nature of exposure.

What does NIOSH research say about firefighter cancer?

A NIOSH study of nearly 30,000 career firefighters from three U.S. cities found 9% more cancer diagnoses and 14% more cancer-related deaths than expected based on U.S. population rates. These are population-level findings, not predictions for individual firefighters or proof that one exposure source explains the results.

Can cleaning turnout gear prevent firefighter cancer?

Cleaning can remove soil and reduce contamination, and appropriate gear care is part of exposure management. However, evidence of contaminant reduction does not establish that a cleaning method prevents cancer. No such guarantee should be made.

Does PFAS in turnout gear mean the gear is unsafe?

NIST has identified PFAS in several types of firefighter protective textiles. The presence of PFAS is a legitimate subject for research, but those findings do not establish the specific health risk attributable to PFAS in a particular garment. Departments should follow current research, manufacturer guidance, and applicable requirements.

Can Afterburn help departments access advanced decontamination?

Yes. The Afterburn Foundation helps qualifying departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way. Departments can apply for funding to have their needs evaluated.

Better decontamination shouldn’t depend on your department’s budget.

Afterburn helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way.

Apply for Funding

Help another department get access: Sponsor a Firefighter

Firefighter Cancer Prevention: The Role of Clean Gear

The fire is out. The crew is back at the station. The next call could come at any time.

But what happens to the gear after an incident is an important part of firefighter safety. Protective clothing can carry soot, combustion byproducts, and other potentially hazardous substances away from the fireground. Appropriate handling and cleaning help departments manage that contamination instead of treating it as someone else’s problem once the emergency ends.

That matters in the larger conversation about firefighter cancer.

Research has documented elevated cancer rates in firefighter populations, and researchers continue to investigate occupational exposures and their effects on health. Cleaning contaminated gear is one practical part of managing exposure. It is not a guarantee against cancer, and no single cleaning method addresses every hazard firefighters encounter.

For fire chiefs, health and safety officers, and personal protective equipment (PPE) officers, the goal is to build a consistent approach to gear care that reflects the evidence, follows applicable requirements, and accounts for the department’s actual needs.

What does clean gear have to do with firefighter cancer prevention?

Firefighters can encounter hazardous substances through multiple occupational exposure pathways. Depending on the incident, these may include smoke, particulate matter, and chemicals produced by burning materials.

Protective gear can become contaminated during that work. Some substances may remain on the equipment after the incident, while handling and transportation can create opportunities for contamination to spread to skin, vehicles, and station areas.

Cleaning and decontamination procedures are intended to manage that contamination.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has published guidance on contaminated firefighter gear that addresses appropriate handling, bagging, laundering, and storage as parts of reducing exposure opportunities after an incident.

These practices matter because the end of the emergency does not necessarily mark the end of exposure-related responsibilities.

However, reducing contamination on equipment is not the same as proving that a particular procedure prevents cancer. The appropriate claim is that gear care is one component of occupational exposure management.

What does the cancer research tell us?

A NIOSH study of nearly 30,000 career firefighters from Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco found 9% more cancer diagnoses and 14% more cancer-related deaths than expected based on U.S. population rates.

The findings provide important evidence of occupational cancer concerns in the study population. They do not establish that every firefighter has the same risk or that any single exposure source explains the results.

Firefighters encounter different substances, work under different conditions, and have different occupational histories. Cancer risk can involve multiple exposures and other factors.

The practical lesson is not that one intervention can solve the problem. It is that departments should take occupational health seriously and address the parts of exposure management they can reasonably influence.

Gear care is one of those parts.

How contamination can follow firefighters home

Contaminated PPE can create opportunities for exposure beyond the immediate incident.

Handling and removal

Removing protective clothing can bring firefighters into contact with contaminated surfaces. Departments should train personnel to follow established procedures that minimize unnecessary contact and prevent contamination from spreading.

Transportation

Gear transported in passenger compartments or personal vehicles can transfer contamination to surfaces used by firefighters and their families. Appropriate containment and transportation procedures help manage that possibility.

Storage and laundering

Contaminated equipment should be handled and stored according to department procedures. Cleaning arrangements should avoid unnecessarily introducing contamination into living spaces or other areas where people spend extended periods.

These steps are practical exposure-management measures. Their purpose is to reduce opportunities for contamination to spread, not to claim that every contact causes harm or that following a particular procedure eliminates all risk.

What should departments include in a clean-gear program?

A useful PPE-care program does more than set a washing schedule. It establishes clear responsibilities from the moment contaminated gear comes off until the equipment is cleaned, inspected as required, and returned to service.

1. Establish post-incident procedures

Firefighters should know what to do with gear after an incident, including when initial decontamination is appropriate, how to remove and transport equipment, and where contaminated items should be stored.

Procedures should be practical enough to follow consistently, including during busy shifts and back-to-back calls.

2. Follow applicable cleaning requirements

Use the applicable National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, manufacturer instructions, and department procedures to determine the appropriate cleaning and maintenance process.

Routine washing remains essential. The schedule should also account for incident-related contamination rather than relying only on a fixed calendar.

3. Maintain cleaning and inspection records

Track cleaning dates, service methods, inspection findings, repairs, and other required maintenance.

These records help PPE officers identify missed service, understand equipment history, and demonstrate that the department is following its procedures.

4. Evaluate the evidence for additional cleaning methods

Conventional washing can remove soil and reduce contamination, but its performance varies by substance, garment, and process. Some contaminants may be difficult to remove completely through a particular method.

Advanced decontamination, including liquid carbon dioxide (CO₂) processes, offers another option to evaluate. Departments should look for testing specific to the contaminants and equipment involved, and they should verify that the proposed process is appropriate under applicable requirements.

The goal is not to replace every existing procedure with a new technology. It is to understand what the department’s current process accomplishes and where additional treatment may be appropriate.

What about PFAS in firefighter gear?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of synthetic chemicals used in a variety of industrial and consumer applications.

Research from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has identified PFAS in structural firefighter turnout gear textiles, gloves, hoods, and wildland firefighting textiles.

These findings matter because some potential exposure sources may come from the materials used to make protective equipment, not just contamination deposited during a fire.

But an important distinction remains: identifying PFAS in a textile does not establish the health risk attributable specifically to those chemicals in a particular garment. Researchers continue to investigate the relationship between PFAS in protective equipment, potential exposure, and health.

Departments should follow credible research and evaluate cleaning claims carefully. A process that demonstrates removal of certain PFAS under specified conditions should not be assumed to remove every PFAS compound or eliminate associated health risks.

Can advanced decontamination prevent firefighter cancer?

No cleaning or decontamination process should be represented as a guarantee against cancer.

Advanced decontamination may reduce particular contaminants on protective equipment, depending on the system, process, and substances tested. That is a measurable outcome worth evaluating.

Cancer prevention is a different claim. Establishing that a particular cleaning method prevents cancer would require evidence supporting that health outcome, not simply a laboratory measurement showing that certain contaminants were reduced.

Firefighter occupational health involves multiple hazards and exposure pathways. PPE care should be part of a broader approach to reducing exposure, alongside other applicable safety practices.

This distinction does not make cleaning less important. It makes the case for cleaning more accurate: departments can take practical steps to manage contamination without promising a health outcome the evidence does not establish.

The access problem: when cost gets in the way

For some departments, the challenge is not recognizing the importance of gear care. It is finding the resources to provide the services they believe their personnel need.

Advanced decontamination can involve service fees, transportation, and coordination. Those expenses may be difficult to accommodate alongside equipment replacement, training, staffing, and other operational priorities.

Smaller, rural, volunteer, and combination departments can face different financial and logistical circumstances from larger agencies. Their needs should be evaluated individually rather than assumed from department type alone.

The Afterburn Foundation helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way.

Afterburn is an access and funding organization, not a manufacturer or cleaning facility. It connects documented department need with philanthropic funding and qualified independent service providers.

Its annual sponsorship model is built around a straightforward commitment:

$500. One firefighter. One year.

A $500 sponsorship provides one firefighter with one year of funded access to qualifying advanced PPE decontamination services. The standard annual model is designed around two advanced CO₂ decontamination cycles and one annual advanced inspection, with flexibility to fund services according to actual need.

Sponsorship funds are pooled, allowing services to vary according to equipment, exposure, geography, and logistics. The model funds access to qualifying services; it does not promise that every firefighter receives identical services or that decontamination prevents cancer.

For departments that want to evaluate advanced decontamination but face a financial barrier, Afterburn offers a way to seek assistance.

Frequently asked questions

Does cleaning firefighter gear help prevent cancer?

Cleaning helps remove soil and reduce contamination on protective equipment, making it one component of occupational exposure management. However, evidence of contaminant reduction does not establish that a particular cleaning method prevents cancer.

How often should firefighter gear be cleaned?

Departments should follow applicable NFPA requirements, manufacturer instructions, and written procedures. Cleaning should also address incident-related contamination rather than depend solely on a fixed calendar.

Can contaminated turnout gear expose firefighters after a fire?

Contaminated gear can create opportunities for continued exposure or transfer to skin, vehicles, and station areas. Appropriate handling, transportation, cleaning, and storage procedures help manage these pathways.

Does advanced CO₂ decontamination eliminate cancer risk?

No. A CO₂ process may reduce specific contaminants under tested conditions, but that does not establish that it eliminates occupational exposure or prevents cancer.

Can Afterburn help pay for advanced decontamination?

Yes. The Afterburn Foundation helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way. Departments can apply for funding to have their needs evaluated.

Better decontamination shouldn’t depend on your department’s budget.

Afterburn helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way.

Apply for Funding

Help another department get access: Sponsor a Firefighter