Skip to content
Every shift, firefighters enter environments laced with a complex cocktail of toxic combustion products — PAHs, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and more. Their suits protect against heat and flame. But do they protect against the chemicals?
The fourth ECPC 2027 webinar PPE and Protection Against the Ingress of Combustion, hosted by TTK University of Applied Sciences, confronted that question directly, with findings from the Czech FirePro project presented by Kamila Lunerova and Jakub Vaněk from National Institute for NBC Protection, Czech Republic.
The webinar is part of a series leading up to the European Conference of Protective Clothing (ECPC2027), which will take place at TTK University of Applied Sciences in May 2027.
The toxic cocktail firefighters face
Combustion products vary dramatically with what burns. Vegetation fires produce carbon monoxide, VOCs, and PAHs. Modern building fires — plastics, foams, composites — generate far more dangerous mixtures: hydrogen cyanide, isocyanates, dioxins, and more. Evidence links firefighting exposures to DNA damage, oxidative stress, and hormonal disruptions, all associated with cancer.
The project team used polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as model contaminants — the EPA’s group of 16 compounds, from naphthalene (2 rings) to the highly carcinogenic benzo[a]pyrene (5 rings) — abundant, measurable, and representative of the broader chemical threat.
Where do the chemicals get in?
Working with the Technical University of Ostrava, the team sampled firefighters during a real training fire in a plastic-filled interior space. Passive samplers were placed on the garment, in pockets, and on skin under the suit. PAHs were detected under the suit and on skin after interventions as short as 10–15 minutes. The moisture barrier proved especially problematic — acting as a chemical reservoir that slowly releases contaminants toward the skin.
A toxicology chamber test using yellow indicator underwear — which turns pink on contact with model gas — mapped precisely where ingress occurs:
- Structural (3-layer) suits: Problematic at the hood interface, glove-sleeve and boot-trouser junctions. The belt plays a critical role — without it, ingress also occurred at the waist and neck.
- Wildland (1-layer) suits: The underwear turned pink across virtually the entire body. Naphthalene broke through in under 5 minutes — no meaningful chemical protection.
- Hoods: Five models tested; almost all showed immediate breakthrough. The sole exception was a hood made from activated carbon fabric (ACF). Popular thin aramid/viscose designs failed entirely.
The case for activated carbon fabric
Controlled permeation tests with benzene and naphthalene vapours made the contrast stark: structural suits broke through in 10–15 minutes, wildland suits in under 5 — but adding an ACF layer to either produced no measurable breakthrough within a typical firefighting shift.
ACF is lightweight, flexible, and textile-like in drape. Compared to spherical carbon adsorbents and carbon mesh fabrics, it offers longer breakthrough delay times. A prototype ACF undergarment eliminated the widespread ingress seen with the wildland suit in toxicology chamber tests.
A key practical concern: does extra protection mean extra heat strain? Thermal mannequin tests at Brno University of Technology showed virtually identical thermal resistance with and without the ACF layer. Physiological tests on three volunteers in a climatic chamber confirmed no significant increase in heat strain — and endurance time was actually slightly longer with ACF.
The decontamination problem
The most urgent unsolved challenge is cleaning. PAHs are notoriously hard to remove, especially from the moisture barrier membrane. Conventional laundering removes only a fraction; supercritical CO₂ extraction performs better but is not yet standard.
For ACF, the problem is compounded: standard detergents block the micropores that give it protective capacity. After just 10 wash cycles, BET surface area dropped from hundreds of square metres per gram to near zero, and micropore volume collapsed. The material loses its adsorptive function entirely — a serious obstacle to practical use.
No current European standards address chemical protection for firefighter suits, leaving manufacturers and certification bodies without clear targets.
Key conclusions
- Structural suits allow naphthalene penetration within 10 minutes; wildland suits within 5.
- An ACF layer — integrated or worn as an undergarment — dramatically improves chemical protection without meaningfully increasing heat strain.
- Decontamination of PAH-contaminated gear remains inadequate; ACF loses adsorptive capacity after repeated washing.
- No EU chemical protection standards exist for firefighter suits.
- Educating firefighters and first responders about combustion product risks remains urgently needed.
The webinar is available to watch in full HERE.
The next webinar in the series Improving the thermal protection of cold protective garments by the application of phase change material (PCM) will take place in September, 2026. Speaker of the webinar is Barbara Pause, webinar is moderated by Professor Ada Traumann. Register for the webinar HERE.
Learn more about the ECPC2027 conference and the webinar series: https://ecpc2027.ee and ECPC LinkedIn.
Additional information:
