Fire departments already know that contaminated turnout gear needs proper care. The harder question is whether their existing cleaning procedures are enough for the exposures their firefighters encounter, or whether additional decontamination options deserve consideration.
Traditional washing remains a fundamental part of firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE) care. Liquid carbon dioxide (CO₂) decontamination offers another approach, using specialized equipment and a different cleaning medium.
These methods are not interchangeable in every situation, and neither should be judged by a blanket claim that it works or does not work. The useful comparison is more specific: What does each process do? What evidence supports its performance? And which approach fits the department’s equipment, needs, and resources?
Traditional washing and liquid CO₂ decontamination: the short answer
Traditional washing uses an appropriate laundering process to remove soil and contamination from protective equipment. Liquid CO₂ decontamination uses pressurized liquid carbon dioxide as a specialized cleaning medium intended to reduce targeted contaminants.
Both approaches have a place in the broader conversation about firefighter gear care. Routine washing remains essential. Advanced CO₂ decontamination provides an additional option that departments can evaluate based on the contaminants involved, the specific system, supporting test results, and applicable PPE-care requirements.
The important distinction is not that one method is universally good and the other is universally bad. It is that different processes may produce different results against different contaminants.
How traditional turnout gear washing works
Traditional washing uses a controlled laundering process to remove contamination from protective garments.
Departments commonly use dedicated turnout gear extractors or other equipment designed for protective clothing. The process may involve water, appropriate cleaning agents, mechanical action, and a specified cycle.
What washing can accomplish
Proper washing can remove visible soil and reduce contamination on firefighter gear. Its performance depends on the garment, the contaminant, the cleaning equipment, and the procedures used.
A well-managed washing program also supports the broader maintenance of PPE. It gives departments a repeatable way to care for equipment, document service, and prepare garments for any required inspection or return-to-service decisions.
These are important functions. Advanced decontamination does not make them unnecessary.
Where washing requires careful evaluation
Not all contaminants respond to cleaning in the same way. Some substances may be difficult to remove fully from particular materials using a given washing process.
That does not mean water-based washing is ineffective. It means departments should understand the limits of their specific procedures and avoid assuming that a garment’s appearance proves every contaminant has been removed.
When evaluating performance, the relevant questions concern the contaminants tested, the equipment used, the treatment conditions, and the results measured.
How liquid CO₂ decontamination works
Liquid CO₂ decontamination uses carbon dioxide maintained in liquid form under pressure. Specialized equipment brings the cleaning medium into contact with protective materials to help remove targeted contaminants.
The process differs from conventional water-based laundering in its cleaning medium and operating conditions.
What makes the process different?
Liquid CO₂ has physical properties that make it useful in specialized cleaning systems. Manufacturers describe its low viscosity and surface tension as properties that can help the medium move through complex spaces and between layers of material.
However, the fact that a cleaning medium can contact a material does not prove that every contaminant has been removed. Results depend on the machine, process, garment construction, and substance being evaluated.
What does the testing show?
Emergency Technical Decon (ETD) publishes results from testing of its Liquid CO₂+ process. Its reported results include 84% removal of tested per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), 99.9% of tested semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), 99.8% of heavy metals, and 99.9999% of tested biological contaminants.
Those figures are specific to the tested process and contaminants. They should not be generalized to every CO₂ system or treated as proof of performance against all possible contaminants.
For departments, the value of these results is that they provide specific performance claims to examine. A sound evaluation should identify what was tested, how results were measured, and whether the evidence applies to the service being considered.
Comparing the two approaches
| Consideration | Traditional washing | Liquid CO₂ decontamination |
|---|---|---|
| Cleaning medium | Typically water and appropriate cleaning agents | Pressurized liquid carbon dioxide |
| Primary role | Routine removal of soil and contamination | Additional treatment option for targeted contaminants |
| Equipment | Suitable turnout gear extractors or other approved laundering equipment | Specialized liquid CO₂ cleaning system |
| Performance | Depends on garment, contaminant, and washing process | Depends on system, process, contaminant, and supporting evidence |
| Place in PPE care | Essential component of routine care | Evaluated as an additional option |
| Department considerations | Procedures, equipment, detergent, maintenance, and records | Certification, performance evidence, PPE compatibility, provider qualifications, and logistics |
The table describes general differences between the approaches. It is not a performance ranking, and it does not establish that either process will deliver the same results across every garment or contaminant.
Which contaminants are we talking about?
The answer matters because firefighter gear can encounter many different substances, and the effectiveness of a cleaning process depends on what it is being asked to remove.
Combustion-related contaminants
Structural fires can expose protective equipment to soot, particulates, and chemicals produced by burning materials. Wildland fires, vehicle fires, and other emergency responses can create different exposure mixtures.
The presence and concentration of contaminants vary by incident. Departments should not assume every garment carries the same substances or requires identical treatment.
PFAS in protective equipment
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called PFAS, are a large group of chemicals used in many industrial and consumer applications. Research from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has identified PFAS in structural turnout gear textiles, gloves, hoods, and wildland firefighting textiles.
The findings raise important questions about exposure from protective equipment. However, the health risks attributable specifically to PFAS in firefighter gear remain under investigation.
When comparing cleaning methods for PFAS, departments should look for test results tied to the actual process and materials. A result for one tested substance or system does not establish equivalent performance against all PFAS or other contaminants.
Other substances
Firefighter PPE may also encounter metals, semivolatile organic compounds, and biological contaminants, depending on the incident.
Testing for one category should not be treated as evidence that a process addresses every other category. Departments should examine which substances were tested and what the results actually demonstrate.
How should a department compare cleaning performance?
A useful comparison begins with evidence rather than broad claims about technology.
Look for testing that identifies the process
Ask providers to identify the specific equipment and process used in their testing. Results from one liquid CO₂ system cannot automatically be applied to another. The same principle applies to washing equipment and different laundering procedures.
Examine the contaminants tested
A report should identify the substances evaluated and explain the conditions under which they were tested.
A high removal percentage for one substance does not establish the same result for another. Departments should also distinguish between a measured reduction and complete removal.
Consider the equipment and test conditions
Protective garments have different materials, layers, and construction. Results obtained under one set of conditions may not translate directly to every garment or service configuration.
Ask whether the evidence applies to the PPE your department uses and whether the proposed treatment is compatible with manufacturer instructions and applicable requirements.
Keep performance claims separate from health outcomes
A test demonstrating reduced contamination on gear is not proof that a cleaning process prevents cancer.
Firefighter occupational cancer is a serious concern, and managing exposure is an important part of occupational health. But no single cleaning method should be presented as eliminating exposure or guaranteeing a health outcome.
The goal is to make decisions supported by evidence while continuing to address the many sources of occupational exposure firefighters encounter.
What do standards mean for this decision?
The National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) 2025 edition of NFPA 1850 consolidates the previous NFPA 1851 and NFPA 1852 standards, addressing the selection, care, and maintenance of covered protective ensembles and self-contained breathing apparatus.
Departments should review the current standard and their equipment manufacturers’ instructions when evaluating cleaning procedures and alternative technologies.
The relevant question is not whether a service uses a particular cleaning medium. It is whether the specific equipment and process are appropriate for the gear, meet applicable requirements, and have adequate supporting evidence.
A provider should be able to explain its process, identify relevant equipment qualifications, and document the services performed.
Cost, logistics, and access matter too
Even when a department identifies a promising cleaning option, practical constraints can determine whether it can use the service.
Consider:
- Service costs: What does the treatment cost for the equipment your department needs serviced?
- Transportation: Does the service require shipping or travel to a provider?
- Turnaround: How long will the gear be unavailable, and what arrangements are needed to maintain operational readiness?
- Inspection: What inspections or other maintenance steps are required before the gear returns to service?
- Documentation: Will the department receive records of the service and any relevant findings?
- Availability: Is a qualified provider accessible to your department’s location?
These considerations are particularly important for small, rural, volunteer, and combination departments. Geography can affect access just as much as a line item in the annual budget.
A technology is not a practical solution for a department if it cannot reasonably access the service or manage the associated logistics.
Where Afterburn fits
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 the following 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, while allowing the funded services to vary according to actual need.
Sponsorship funds are pooled so that differences in equipment, exposure, geography, and logistics can be accommodated. The model funds annual access rather than promising that every firefighter will receive the same set of services.
For departments that already have routine washing in place but face a financial barrier to advanced decontamination, Afterburn offers a way to explore potential assistance.
If your department is considering advanced decontamination but cannot afford the service, you can apply for funding.
Frequently asked questions
Is traditional washing effective for firefighter turnout gear?
Yes. Properly performed washing is an essential part of PPE care and can remove soil and reduce contamination. Results depend on the contaminants, equipment, and cleaning procedures used. Some substances may be difficult to remove fully through a particular process.
Is liquid CO₂ decontamination better than traditional washing?
There is no universal answer. Performance depends on the contaminant, garment, equipment, and process. Departments should compare relevant test results and applicable requirements rather than assume one approach is superior in every situation.
Can liquid CO₂ decontamination replace a gear extractor?
Departments should not assume that advanced CO₂ decontamination eliminates the need for routine cleaning equipment or established PPE-care procedures. They should evaluate how the specific service fits into their overall program and applicable requirements.
Does liquid CO₂ decontamination remove PFAS?
Testing published by Emergency Technical Decon reports removal of 84% of tested PFAS using its Liquid CO₂+ process. That result applies to the substances and process tested. It should not be generalized to every PFAS compound or every CO₂ cleaning system.
Can Afterburn help pay for advanced decontamination?
Yes. Afterburn helps qualifying fire departments access advanced PPE decontamination when cost stands in the way. Departments can apply for funding and 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.
Help another department get access: Sponsor a Firefighter
