Biomonitoring in California Firefighters

Abstract

Objective:To assess California firefighters' blood concentrations of selected chemicals and compare with a representative US population.Methods:We report laboratory methods and analytic results for cadmium, lead, mercury, and manganese in whole blood and 12 serum perfluorinated chemicals in a sample of 101 Southern California firefighters.Results:Firefighters' blood metal concentrations were all similar to or lower than the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) values, except for six participants whose mercury concentrations (range: 9.79 to 13.42 μg/L) were close to or higher than the NHANES reporting threshold of 10 μg/L. Perfluorodecanoic acid concentrations were elevated compared with NHANES and other firefighter studies.Conclusions:Perfluorodecanoic acid concentrations were three times higher in this firefighter group than in NHANES adult males. Firefighters may have unidentified sources of occupational exposure to perfluorinated chemicals.

Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances in a Cohort of Women Firefighters and Office Workers in San Francisco

“…The interview captured demographic information, basic health information, and possible sources of PFAS exposure from occupational activities, consumer product use, and dietary factors that prior literature indicates are potential sources of PFAS exposure. 28,49,50 Food frequency responses were converted to times per week and categorized into quartiles, tertiles, or ever/never. Sample Collection and Processing.…”

“…Specifically, we plotted the geometric mean (GM) and 95% confidence interval from the WFBC firefighter and office worker groups and compared them to adult women from the 2013−2014 cycle of the NHANES and the Firefighter Occupational Exposure (FOX) study, in which samples were collected from a cohort of mostly male firefighters in Southern California between 2010 and 2011 (N = 101). 28,52,56 WFBC firefighter and office worker levels below the LOD were replaced by the LOD reported for each congener divided by √2 to facilitate comparison of our results to the FOX and NHANES cohorts, which also used this approach (LOD/√2).…”

“…12−16 Additionally, hazardous chemicals have been identified in fire station dust, firefighting foams, diesel emissions, contaminated fire equipment, and firefighter protective gear. 17−21 Previous studies have shown that firefighters are occupationally exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 14,22−25 formaldehyde, dioxins, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), organophosphate flame retardants, 26,27 and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), 20,26,28,29 among others. 26,30,31 Many of these chemicals have been associated with adverse health outcomes including breast cancer and breast tumor development in both animal and human studies.…”

“…43−46 Several firefighter biomonitoring studies measured PFAS levels and found higher levels among firefighters compared to the general population. 26,28,29 These studies, however, included few or no women. Overall, women remain under-represented in studies of firefighters, and very little is known about the extent of their chemical exposures or occupational health risks for diseases such as breast cancer.…”

Organophosphate and organohalogen flame-retardant exposure and thyroid hormone disruption in a cohort of female firefighters and office workers from San Francisco

“…In addition to limited studies of cancer risk among women firefighters, few studies have assessed their exposures to occupational hazards, including environmental chemicals, although occupational exposures have been well documented among male firefighters. Common exposures measured in firefighters and fire stations include polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), formaldehyde, benzene, dioxins, diesel, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and flame retardants including organohalogen flame retardants, like polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), and organophosphate flame retardants (OPFR) (Caux et al 2002; Dobraca et al 2015; Fent et al 2014; Grashow et al 2020; Jin et al 2011; Laitinen et al 2014; Park et al 2015; Shaw et al 2013; Shen et al 2015, 2018; Trowbridge et al 2020). Many of these chemicals have demonstrated their potential for breast tumor development in animal and human studies (Rodgers et al 2018; Rudel et al 2011, 2014) and their capacity as endocrine disrupting compounds (EDC) (Gore et al 2015; Rudel et al 2011).…”