Short answer: Cleaning removes soil and contamination from firefighter protective equipment through established care procedures. Decontamination focuses on reducing contamination through a defined process. The terms can overlap, but they are not interchangeable in every context. Understanding what a particular process is designed to do, and what evidence supports its performance, helps departments make informed decisions about firefighter protective equipment.
After a fire, firefighters have more to think about than getting the apparatus back in service. Their turnout gear may carry soot, combustion byproducts, and other potentially hazardous substances long after the flames are out.
Cleaning that gear is essential. But a department evaluating its protective equipment program may also encounter a different term: advanced decontamination.
So, what is the difference? And does a department that already washes turnout gear need to consider anything else?
The answer starts with understanding what each process does, what it can reasonably accomplish, and how the two can fit into a broader gear-care program.
What is turnout gear cleaning?
Turnout gear cleaning is the process of removing soil and contamination from firefighters’ protective clothing and equipment.
It can include initial cleaning after an incident, routine laundering, and other procedures established for the specific equipment. The appropriate method depends on the garment, the contamination involved, manufacturer instructions, and applicable standards.
Routine cleaning is a fundamental part of protective equipment care. Fire departments need reliable procedures for removing contamination, preventing its spread, and returning equipment to service when appropriate.
What does routine washing accomplish?
Properly performed washing can remove visible soil and reduce contamination on protective garments. The results depend on factors such as:
- The type of contaminant
- The amount and location of contamination
- The construction and condition of the garment
- The cleaning equipment and process
- The cleaning agents and cycle used
- Whether the procedure follows applicable instructions and requirements
A dedicated turnout gear extractor or other suitable cleaning system can be an important part of that process.
However, visible cleanliness does not establish that every contaminant has been removed. Some substances may be difficult to remove from protective materials, and different cleaning processes can perform differently against them.
That distinction matters when a department is deciding whether its existing procedures address its particular needs.
What is firefighter PPE decontamination?
Decontamination is the process of reducing or removing contamination from equipment, materials, or surfaces through a defined method.
In the firefighter PPE context, the term can refer to different procedures, including initial on-scene efforts and specialized treatments intended to address contaminants associated with firefighting.
The important question is not simply whether a provider calls a service decontamination. It is what the process actually does, which contaminants have been evaluated, and what evidence supports the claimed results.
What makes advanced decontamination different?
Advanced decontamination refers here to specialized processes that provide an additional option for treating contaminated firefighter PPE beyond a department’s routine cleaning procedures.
Liquid carbon dioxide (CO₂) decontamination is one such option. It uses pressurized liquid CO₂ as the cleaning medium. Depending on the equipment and validated process, it may address certain contaminants that can be difficult to remove through conventional methods.
That does not mean every advanced process removes every contaminant, or that every CO₂ system delivers the same results. Performance claims should be tied to the specific equipment, process, and testing that support them.
For departments, the practical distinction is between knowing that gear has been washed and understanding what a particular cleaning or decontamination process has demonstrated it can accomplish.
Cleaning vs. decontamination: the key differences
The two approaches share an objective: reducing contamination on firefighter equipment. The distinction is in the specific process used and the results it is intended and demonstrated to achieve.
| Consideration | Routine cleaning | Advanced decontamination |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Remove soil and contamination through established care procedures | Provide an additional process for reducing specific contaminants |
| Typical approach | Appropriate laundering equipment, cleaning agents, and procedures | Specialized technology and a defined treatment process |
| Performance | Depends on the garment, contaminant, and cleaning method | Depends on the system, process, contaminant, and supporting evidence |
| Role in PPE care | Essential to routine equipment maintenance | An additional option to evaluate based on department needs |
| Key question | Is the cleaning procedure appropriate and properly performed? | What has this specific process demonstrated it can remove or reduce? |
This comparison is not a claim that one approach is always better than the other. It is a reminder that the name of a service alone does not establish its performance.
Conventional washing remains important. Advanced decontamination provides another option for departments to consider when evaluating how they manage contamination.
Why the distinction matters for firefighter health
Firefighters encounter hazardous substances during structural fires, wildland fires, vehicle fires, and other emergency responses. Some contamination can remain on protective equipment after an incident, creating opportunities for continued exposure or transfer to other surfaces.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studied 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.
Those findings demonstrate a serious occupational health concern, but they do not establish that a particular cleaning method prevents cancer. Gear care is one component of a broader approach to managing firefighter exposure.
Departments can take practical steps by establishing consistent cleaning procedures, reducing the spread of contamination, and evaluating available methods based on evidence.
What about PFAS and other persistent contaminants?
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of chemicals used in various 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.
The presence of PFAS in gear raises important questions about potential exposure. However, the health risks attributable specifically to PFAS in protective equipment remain under investigation.
PFAS also represent only one part of the broader contamination conversation. Firefighters may encounter many other substances during their work, and the effectiveness of a cleaning process depends on the contaminant being evaluated.
Departments should therefore avoid treating a single test result as proof that a process addresses every hazard. They should look for testing that identifies the substances evaluated, the conditions used, and the limitations of the results.
How should a fire department decide what it needs?
A department does not have to choose between taking routine cleaning seriously and exploring advanced decontamination. Both can be considered within a comprehensive PPE-care program.
The right approach starts with the department’s actual circumstances.
1. Review current procedures
Begin by examining the department’s written PPE-care procedures. Are firefighters clear about what to do with contaminated gear after a call? Are cleaning responsibilities assigned? Are cleaning and inspection records maintained?
Review procedures against applicable standards and equipment manufacturer instructions. The National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) 2025 edition of NFPA 1850 consolidates requirements for the selection, care, and maintenance of covered protective ensembles and self-contained breathing apparatus.
2. Identify the department’s exposure profile
Consider the types of incidents your personnel routinely encounter and the equipment they use.
A department focused on structural firefighting may have different needs from one with substantial wildland responsibilities. Specialized incidents may also create circumstances that warrant additional attention.
The goal is to make decisions based on documented needs rather than assume every firefighter requires identical services.
3. Evaluate the available evidence
When considering an advanced service, ask the provider specific questions:
- Which contaminants were tested?
- What removal or reduction results were measured?
- Was the testing conducted on the relevant equipment and materials?
- Which machine and treatment process produced the results?
- Are the results independently supported or verified?
- What equipment qualifications and applicable standards should the department consider?
These questions help separate demonstrated performance from general marketing claims.
4. Account for access and cost
Even when a department identifies a service worth considering, the cost may prevent it from moving forward.
Treatment expenses, transportation, equipment availability, and coordination can all affect whether a department can use an advanced service consistently.
For small, rural, volunteer, and combination departments, these practical barriers can be as significant as the technical questions. Eligibility for assistance should be based on documented need, not simply a department’s classification.
Where Afterburn fits into the picture
The Afterburn Foundation exists to help qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way.
Afterburn does not manufacture cleaning equipment or operate a cleaning facility. It connects documented department need with philanthropic funding and qualified independent service providers.
Its annual sponsorship model is built around a simple proposition:
$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.
The program pools sponsorship funds so that service costs can vary with equipment, exposure, geography, and logistics. It does not promise identical services for every firefighter.
For a department that already has routine washing in place but faces financial barriers to advanced decontamination, this can provide another avenue to explore.
You can learn more about the technology in Article 3: Liquid CO₂ Firefighter PPE Decontamination: How It Works and compare approaches in Article 4: Traditional Washing vs. Liquid CO₂ Decontamination.
Frequently asked questions
Is cleaning the same as decontamination?
Not necessarily. Cleaning and decontamination can overlap, but they may describe different processes and objectives. Departments should evaluate what a specific procedure is designed to accomplish and what evidence supports its performance.
Does advanced decontamination replace routine washing?
Not automatically. Routine washing remains an essential part of PPE care. Advanced decontamination should be evaluated as an additional option based on the equipment, exposure, applicable requirements, and demonstrated performance of the process.
Can conventional washing remove hazardous contaminants?
Conventional washing can remove soil and reduce contamination, but performance varies. Some substances may be difficult to remove completely through a given process. Departments should consult relevant testing and equipment guidance rather than assume all contaminants behave the same way.
Does liquid CO₂ decontamination prevent firefighter cancer?
No such guarantee should be made. Advanced decontamination may reduce certain contaminants on protective equipment, depending on the process and evidence. Firefighter cancer has multiple occupational and environmental risk factors, and no single gear-care method can be represented as preventing cancer.
How can a department access funding for advanced decontamination?
The Afterburn Foundation helps qualifying departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost is a barrier. Departments can submit an application for consideration based on their needs and eligibility.
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.
Help another department get access: Sponsor a Firefighter
