Cancer incidence appears to be higher amongst firefighters compared to the general population. Given that many cancers have an environmental component, their occupational exposure to products of carbon combustion such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is of concern. This is the first UK study identifying firefighters exposure to PAH carcinogens. Wipe samples were collected from skin (jaw, neck, hands), personal protective equipment of firefighters, and work environment (offices, fire stations and engines) in two UK Fire and Rescue Service Stations. Levels of 16 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) PAHs were quantified together with more potent carcinogens: 7,12-dimethylbenzo[a]anthracene, and 3-methylcholanthrene (3-MCA) (12 months post-initial testing). Cancer slope factors, used to estimate cancer risk, indicate a markedly elevated risk. PAH carcinogens including benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P), 3-MCA, and 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene PAHs were determined on body surfaces (e.g., hands, throat), on PPE including helmets and clothing, and on work surfaces. The main exposure route would appear to be via skin absorption. These results suggest an urgent need to monitor exposures to firefighters in their occupational setting and conduct long-term follow-up regarding their health status.

No abstract

This paper uses fire statistics to show the importance of fire toxicity on fire deaths and injuries, and the importance of upholstered furniture and bedding on fatalities from unwanted fires. The aim was to compare the fire hazards (fire growth and smoke toxicity) using different upholstery materials. Four compositions of sofa-bed were compared: three meeting UK Furniture Flammability Regulations (FFR), and one using materials without flame retardants intended for the mainland European market. Two of the UK sofa-beds relied on chemical flame retardants to meet the FFR, the third used natural materials and a technical weave in order to pass the test. Each composition was tested in the bench-scale cone calorimeter (ISO 5660) and burnt as a whole sofa-bed in a sofa configuration in a 3.4 × 2.25 × 2.4 m test room. All of the sofas were ignited with a No. 7 wood crib; the temperatures and yields of toxic products are reported. The sofa-beds containing flame retardants burnt somewhat more slowly than the non-flame retarded EU sofa-bed, but in doing so produced significantly greater quantities of the main fire toxicants, carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide. Assessment of the effluents' potential to incapacitate and kill is provided showing the two UK flame retardant sofa-beds to be the most dangerous, followed by the sofa-bed made with European materials. The UK sofa-bed made only from natural materials (Cottonsafe) burnt very slowly and produced very low concentrations of toxic gases. Including fire toxicity in the FFR would reduce the chemical flame retardants and improve fire safety.

No abstract

Firefighters suffer an increased risk of cancer from exposures to chemicals released from fires. Our earlier research has found that fire toxicants not only remain on firefighters’ PPE, but are also tracked back to fire stations. The UK Firefighter Contamination Survey assesses firefighters’ risk of developing cancer due to occupational exposure to fire toxins. Over 4% of surveyed firefighters were found to have a cancer diagnosis, with the age-specific cancer rate up to 323% higher (35–39 year olds) than that of the general population. Firefighters who had served ≥ 15 years were 1.7 times more likely to develop cancer than those who had served less time. Firefighters were at least twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer if they noticed soot in their nose/throat (odds ratio (OR) = 2.0, 1.1–3.5), or remained in their PPE for more than four hours after attending a fire incident (OR = 2.3, 1.1–5.2). Also associated with an increased likelihood of cancer was: eating while wearing PPE (OR = 1.8, 1.2–2.7); failing to store clean/dirty PPE separately (OR = 1.3, 1.0–1.7); working in a station that smells of fire (OR = 1.3, 1.0–1.8) or not having designated (separated) clean and dirty areas (OR = 1.4, 1.1–1.7); using an on-site washing machine to launder fire hoods (OR = 1.3, 1.0–1.7); feeling that cleaning is not taken seriously at work (OR = 1.5, 1.2–2.0).