In an age of absolutes, things are usually reported as good or bad. Any news or content around polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is bad and for good reason. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines PFAS as “a chemical substance that contains at least one of the three following structures: R-(CF2)-CF(R′)R″, R-CF2OCF2-R′, or CF3C(CF3)R′R″. It’s commonly referred to as a forever chemical and has been linked to a variety of health issues, including cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute.
While the use of PFAS has negative health and environmental issues, there are some upsides to them that many may not recognize. At the NFPA 2025 Conference and Expo, NC State University Associate Professor Bryan Ormond presented his data examining the role of PFAS in firefighting clothing and gear. From listening to his presentation as an attendee, some conclusions can be reached.
Functionality
Currently, there’s no alternative for PFAS-coated gear that effectively withstands and reflects oil/gas off garments, thereby helping to eliminate the risk of burns. Regardless of this, Ormonds’s testing and work show that the current alternatives are less effective than PFAS-coated gear after three years of use. Furthermore, even when new, the current options are far more likely to absorb liquids like diesel fuel and oil, causing garments to burn more quickly and intensely. In the majority of testing, the gear indicated the wearer would have received burns, whereas the PFAS-coated gear would not have caused harm to the individual.
Exposure
While concerns over cancer risk have driven much of the movement to phase out PFAS, Ormond’s findings prompt a broader perspective. His research highlights that, in practice, firefighters contend with numerous hazards on the job, with heat stress and airborne toxin exposure among them. The data suggests that replacement gear, though free of PFAS, often lacks the breathability of current options, thereby elevating the risk of overheating in demanding environments. In this light, the immediate occupational dangers associated with less breathable, alternative gear may, in some cases, outweigh the longer-term cancer risks posed by PFAS exposure.
Conclusion
Was Ormond suggesting we continue the use of PFAS in gear? Not necessarily. He presented the research findings, stating that we cannot simply assume the next generation of firefighting gear is inherently better and safer without question. This approach would continue to empower firefighters to perform their jobs more effectively and safely. Ormond’s presentation notes are available below.
Image via Shutterstock.
