For decades, the heavy, multi-layered suits worn by structural firefighters have been the gold standard in life-saving protection. Known as turnout gear, these garments are engineered to shield first responders from extreme heat, moisture, and hazardous environments. Although, new evidence suggests that the very gear meant to protect firefighters may carry hidden dangers in the form of toxic chemical treatments.
A study published Dec. 16 in Environmental Science & Technology Letters has documented the presence of brominated flame retardants in firefighter protective equipment. The research represents the first formal U.S. Effort to examine these specific chemicals in turnout gear, raising urgent questions about the health risks associated with the materials used to meet safety standards.
The findings arrive at a critical juncture for the fire service. As the industry moves to phase out per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—the “forever chemicals” long used for water and oil repellency—researchers are discovering that some manufacturers may be replacing one hazardous substance with another to maintain the flammability requirements set by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
The implications are significant for fire departments nationwide, which must now weigh the high cost of equipment replacement against the potential long-term health burdens on their personnel.
The Chemical Shift: From PFAS to Brominated Retardants
For years, the primary chemical concern for first responders has been PFAS. These substances are highly effective at repelling water and oil, but they have been linked in numerous human and animal studies to severe health problems, including certain types of cancer. Because of these risks, several U.S. States have passed legislation that will ban the purchase of PFAS-treated turnout gear starting in 2027.
However, the transition to “PFAS-free” gear has created a transparency gap. Manufacturers typically do not disclose the specific chemical ingredients used in their textile treatments. This lack of disclosure prompted Heather Stapleton, a professor at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, to investigate rumors that brominated flame retardants were being used as substitutes in non-PFAS textiles.
“There was a rumor that one of the turnout gear manufacturers might be using brominated flame retardants in the non-PFAS treated textiles,” Stapleton said. “Because some brominated flame retardants have known toxicity, I requested a sample of the gear in question to test.'”
Understanding the Risks of Brominated Flame Retardants
Brominated flame retardants are chemicals added to fabrics to inhibit ignition. While they serve a clear safety purpose in preventing the gear from catching fire, they are not without biological costs. Exposure to these compounds has been linked to:
- Increased risk of certain cancers
- Thyroid disease and hormonal disruption
- Impaired brain development
The study specifically identified decabromodiphenyl ethane, or DBDPE, as the chemical appearing at the highest “extractable” levels—the portion of the chemical most likely to leach out of the fabric and be absorbed through the skin or inhaled by the wearer.
While U.S.-based health studies on DBDPE are limited, the researchers highlighted a 2019 study of chemical plant workers in China. That research found a correlation between DBDPE exposure and altered thyroid hormone levels, as well as clinical signs of thyroid disease.
Analyzing the Layers of Protection
To understand how these chemicals enter the body, the research team—working with North Carolina State University’s Wilson College of Textiles and the International Association of Fire Fighters—analyzed the three distinct layers of structural turnout gear: the flame-resistant outer shell, the middle moisture barrier, and the inner thermal lining.
The team tested nine sets of used gear manufactured between 2013 and 2020, as well as three sets produced in 2024 that were marketed as non-PFAS treated. Their results revealed a troubling trend: every single set of gear tested contained brominated flame retardants.
| Gear Production Period | PFAS Detection | Brominated Flame Retardant Detection |
|---|---|---|
| 2013–2020 | Detected in all sets | Detected in all sets (High in outer shell) |
| 2024 (Non-PFAS) | Low or non-detectable | Detected in all sets (Highest in moisture barrier) |
The data suggests two different paths of contamination. In older gear, the outer shell showed the highest levels of brominated retardants, likely because these chemicals are released from burning building materials during fires and cling to the fabric. However, in the 2024 non-PFAS gear, the highest concentrations were found inside the moisture barrier.
According to Stapleton, this indicates that manufacturers are intentionally adding these chemicals to the internal layers to meet flammability standards, effectively replacing PFAS with a different, potentially toxic, chemical compound.
The Cost of Safety and the Path Forward
The discovery creates a complex dilemma for municipal budgets and fire chiefs. Turnout gear is an immense investment; a single set can cost thousands of dollars and is intended to be used for several years.
R. Bryan Ormond, an associate professor at NC State’s Wilson College of Textiles, emphasizes that the decision to replace gear is not simple. “Fire departments must consider both the financial and personal safety costs of keeping or replacing gear,” Ormond said.
As a board-certified physician, I recognize that the “cumulative load” is the primary concern here. Firefighters are already exposed to a cocktail of carcinogens and toxins from smoke, soot, and industrial runoff. Adding an internal source of chemical exposure from their own protective clothing increases the physiological burden on their systems.
The researchers noted that some manufacturers are now producing gear that avoids both PFAS and brominated flame retardants. The current goal for advocacy groups and fire departments is to demand full chemical disclosure from manufacturers so that departments can make informed procurement decisions.
“We grasp firefighters receive higher exposure to multiple chemicals from all the hazards they face during their duty, and they shouldn’t have to worry about receiving additional chemical exposures from their gear,” Stapleton said.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Firefighters and department administrators should consult with occupational health professionals and equipment manufacturers regarding specific gear safety and health monitoring.
The next critical checkpoint for the industry will be the 2027 deadline, when several state bans on PFAS-treated gear take full effect. This timeline will likely force a broader industry shift toward fully transparent, non-toxic flame retardant alternatives.
Do you have experience with protective gear transitions in your department? Share your thoughts or questions in the comments below.
