LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment

Tuesday, December 16, 2025

Study documents potentially hazardous flame retardants in firefighter gear

Duke University

Some firefighter gear is manufactured with chemicals called brominated flame retardants that could pose a risk to firefighter health, according to a new study published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters on Dec. 16.

The study is the first published research in the U.S. to investigate and document the use of brominated flame retardants in firefighter turnout gear, worn for protection on the job. The findings could inform fire department decision-making when it comes to keeping or replacing gear.

Structural firefighters — those working in the built environment — wear turnout gear consisting of three layers: a flame-resistant outer shell; a middle layer, called a moisture barrier, that shields against germs while providing breathability; and an inner layer to prevent overheating.

These protective qualities stem in part from chemical treatments added to the garments by manufacturers to meet rigorous standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association, according to lead author Heather Stapleton, Ronie-Richele Garcia-Johnson Distinguished Professor at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

For several years, firefighters have been concerned about turnout gear treatments containing chemicals called PFAS, which confer oil and water resistance and sometimes flame resistance. Multiple human and animal studies have found associations between PFAS exposures and various health problems, including some cancers.

Although no studies have directly linked use of PFAS in turnout gear exposure to subsequent health risks in firefighters, gear manufacturers have been phasing out use of the chemicals. Additionally, several states have passed legislation that will prohibit the purchase of turnout gear treated with PFAS starting in 2027.

These actions have prompted questions about what other substances manufacturers might use in turnout gear. Companies do not typically disclose chemical ingredients in their treatments.

“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.’”

Brominated flame retardants are added to textiles and other products to reduce flammability. Exposure to the chemicals has been associated with negative health effects including cancer, thyroid disease and neurodevelopmental problems.

Stapleton’s informal experiment found evidence of brominated flame retardants in the turnout gear sample, spurring a more robust study with partners at North Carolina State University’s Wilson College of Textiles and the International Association of Fire Fighters. Their aim was to better understand the occurrence of PFAS and brominated flame retardants in gear manufactured in different years.

Peeling Back the Layers

The researchers collected nine sets of used turnout gear produced between 2013 and 2020, and three sets from 2024 that were marketed as non-PFAS treated. Using two types of analyses, they tested each layer of gear for PFAS and brominated flame retardants. The analyses enabled them to determine the total amount of chemicals in the gear and the amounts that might rub off during wear — what they called “extractable” levels.

“We wanted to know which chemicals were intentionally applied during manufacturing, and we wanted to know what was likely to leach out over time, which could raise the risk of exposure through skin absorption or inhalation,” Stapleton said.

As expected, the team detected PFAS in all sets of turnout gear manufactured between 2013 and 2020. However, turnout gear made in 2024 contained only low or non-detectable levels of extractable PFAS, indicating that the garments had not been treated with the chemicals, as the manufactures had indeed advertised. Rather, those minor amounts had likely glommed onto the garments from the surrounding environment during use, the authors noted.

Each set of turnout gear also showed evidence of brominated flame retardants, at extractable levels generally greater than those measured for PFAS.

The highest extractable concentrations of brominated flame retardants occurred in garments advertised as non-PFAS treated, especially in the moisture barrier. The finding suggests that manufacturers intentionally added brominated flame retardants to help pass the flammability standard, and likely to compensate for the loss of a certain PFAS previously used in moisture barriers, Stapleton said.

Of the brominated flame retardants identified, a chemical called decabromodiphenyl ethane, or DBDPE, occurred at the greatest extractable levels.

Although no studies have examined the health effects of DBDPE exposure in the U.S., according to the team, a 2019 study of workers at a chemical manufacturing plant in China found associations between exposure to DBDPE, changes in thyroid hormone levels and signs of thyroid disease.

“I was really surprised that the manufacturers used DBDPE in turnout gear,” Stapleton said. “It has similar properties as a toxic chemical called decaBDE that has been largely phased out globally, raising questions about its safety.”

For most of the turnout gear manufactured between 2013 and 2020, the outer shell contained greater extractable concentrations of brominated flame retardants than either the moisture barrier or the inner lining, likely reflecting accumulation from exposure to soot and smoke associated with fires, according to Stapleton.

“When building materials burn, they can release brominated flame retardants into the air that stick to gear and don’t wash out very well,” she explained.

However, the presence of brominated flame retardants in internal layers indicates that some manufacturers had been using these chemicals in turnout gear treatments for years, before PFAS were phased out of gear treatments, according to the authors.

Weighing the Costs

Although firefighters’ specific exposure levels to these chemicals and the potential associated health effects have yet to be established, fire departments now have new data to consider when evaluating gear.

“Turnout gear is really expensive — one set costs thousands of dollars — and firefighters often use these garments for many years. Fire departments must consider both the financial and personal safety costs of keeping or replacing gear,” said coauthor R. Bryan Ormond, an associate professor at the Wilson College of Textiles and director of NC State’s Milliken Textile Protection and Comfort Center, who has studied trade-offs in gear performance.

According to Stapleton, some turnout gear suppliers have pivoted and are now selling garments untreated with PFAS or brominated flame retardants. To that end, she suggests fire departments advocate for more transparency about the chemical treatments used.

“We know 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,” said Stapleton, who also leads a study on cancer incidence in firefighters. “These first responders are a critically important component of our public safety and deserve to be respected and protected.”

Funding: This project was supported by the North Carolina Collaboratory at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with funding appropriated by the North Carolina General Assembly (to HMS and BO). HMS also wishes to thank Michael and Annie Falk for establishing the Falk Exposomics Laboratory.

Journal

Environmental Science & Technology

There are fewer online trolls than people think

PNAS Nexus

Americans overestimate online toxicity, believing 43% of Reddit users post severely toxic comments when only 3% actually do, and this misperception inculcates pessimism about society.

Angela Y. Lee, Eric Neumann, and colleagues surveyed 1,090 American adults via the online platform CloudResearch Connect to compare people’s perceptions of harmful online behavior with platform-level data from past research. Participants overestimated the prevalence of Reddit users posting toxic content by 13-fold and overestimated the prevalence of Facebook users sharing false news by 5-fold, guessing 47% of users post false news while only 8.5% actually do. Even when participants accurately identified toxic content in a signal detection task, many still overestimated how many users post such content. In an experiment, correcting this misperception made participants feel more positive, reduced their perception of moral decline, and decreased related misperceptions about how many Americans desire less harmful content online. According to the authors, people mistake an extremely vocal minority posting toxic and harmful content online for a majority, failing to realize that such content mostly comes from a small group of prolific users. Correcting this misperception could help mitigate the negative effects of social media on social cohesion.

Journal

PNAS Nexus

Article Title

Americans overestimate how many social media users post harmful content

Article Publication Date

16-Dec-2025

Development of the Japanese version of WHO indicators to assess inclusive social participation of persons with disabilities

University of Tsukuba

Tsukuba, Japan—The World Health Organization (WHO) has long promoted community-based rehabilitation (CBR) as a practical strategy for building inclusive communities, in which persons with disabilities can fully participate. The CBR framework, comprising health, education, livelihood, social, and empowerment components, has been implemented in more than 100 countries. Evidence suggests that CBR activities improve access to rights and opportunities for social participation. However, most previous evaluations relied on qualitative data. To address this gap, in 2017, the WHO introduced standardized quantitative CBR indicators (CBR-Is), including 40 items designed to identify community needs and guide interventions.

In Japan, critical barriers to employment and social participation persist for persons with disabilities. To better understand these challenges and promote social inclusion, University of Tsukuba research team developed a Japanese version of the CBR-Is (J-CBR-Is). The goal was to ensure that J-CBR-Is could serve as a culturally adapted tool for assessing community and individual needs in Japan.

Following WHO approval, J-CBR-Is was translated into Japanese, in accordance with international guidelines for linguistic and cultural adaptation, including expert review and cognitive debriefing. To assess its reliability and validity, an online survey was conducted among persons with and without disabilities in Japan. Participants responded to J-CBR-Is based on their circumstances and experiences. Statistical analyses demonstrated strong internal consistency, high test-retest reliability, and construct validity, confirming that J-CBR-Is is suitable for use in Japan.

The validated J-CBR-Is provides a standardized framework for evaluating CBR activities and monitoring social inclusion in Japan. It supports evidence-based community development and facilitates international comparisons aligned with global disability inclusion goals.

###
This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKEN HI Grant Number 22K13557.

Original Paper

Title of original paper:
Development and validation of the Japanese version of Community-Based Rehabilitation Indicators

Journal:
Disability and Rehabilitation

DOI:
10.1080/09638288.2025.2588062

Correspondence

Associate Professor GOTO, Ryohei
Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba

Related Link

Institute of Medicine

Journal

Disability and Rehabilitation

DOI

10.1080/09638288.2025.2588062

Article Title

Development and validation of the Japanese version of Community-Based Rehabilitation Indicators

Solar panels over crops may boost farmworkers’ comfort

Benefits include accessible shade, cooler water, and less fatigue, according to direct testimony from farmworkers

American Geophysical Union

NEW ORLEANS — Putting solar panels above agricultural crops may do more than produce food and clean energy on the same land: It can also significantly augment quality of life for farmworkers, according to new research to be presented at AGU’s 2025 Annual Meeting in New Orleans. Worker-reported benefits include shelter from the sun, cooler drinking water and reduced fatigue, while physical measurements indicate the panels can help farms avoid conditions conducive to dangerous heat stress.

“In a lot of [food] sustainability conversations, we’re thinking about resource use and not about farmworkers and their bodies,” said Talitha Neesham-McTiernan, a human-environment researcher at the University of Arizona who led the research. She will present her work on 15 December at AGU25, joining more than 20,000 scientists discussing the latest Earth and space science research.

A bundle of overlooked, but crucial, benefits

Hybrid solar-food fields, better known as “agrivoltaics” systems, typically involve solar panels mounted at or above head height, spaced among crops to allow sunlight to pass through the gaps between. In addition to making efficient use of land, these systems can benefit crops by reducing both sun damage and water lost to evaporation — and even by trapping some heat near the ground during colder months, Neesham-McTiernan said.

In her four years of fieldwork on farms like these, often during brutal Arizona summers, Neesham-McTiernan noticed a pattern: Researchers and farmworkers alike would strategically plan to work in the panels’ shade during the hottest hours.

“It just seemed to be something that people in these systems were doing, but nobody in the research area was talking about it,” she said. That struck her as odd, as farmworkers are 35 times more likely to die from heat-related illness than non-agricultural workers. With climate change pushing that figure higher, making any tool to reduce heat stress would be increasingly valuable.

To end that silence, Neesham-McTiernan and her coauthors asked seven full-time farmworkers at Jack’s Solar Garden, a small agrivoltaics farm near Longmont, Colorado, how their experiences differed from those on traditional farms.

The biggest reported perk, by far, was shade. One worker, Neesham-McTiernan said, confessed they found it hard to imagine ever going back to work on traditional full-sun farms — where, they added, their favorite crops had always been tomatoes, because of the shade the tall plants offered.

“By 9 a.m., in the summer, you’re just cooking,” Neesham-McTiernan said. “Being able to take that direct heat load off makes such a difference.”

Shade keeps drinking water cool too, the workers noted — a crucial benefit, given water’s role in mitigating heat stress. “They can pop their bottles under the panels and they stay cool all day,” Neesham-McTiernan said, “rather than it being, as one of the farmworkers described it, like drinking tea.”

Another worker said these benefits helped them feel less exhausted by day’s end, leaving more energy for social life and allowing a faster recovery for the next day’s work. Others said simply knowing shade was nearby reduced their mental stress.

To tell the full story of heat stress, gather stories and numbers alike

The researchers also recorded air temperature, wind speed, humidity and solar radiation to quantify heat stress metrics such as wet bulb globe temperature, which is commonly used to identify dangerous outdoor work conditions. Compared to open-field farms, they found, agrivoltaics reduced wet bulb globe temperature by up to 5.5 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit) — the difference, Neesham-McTiernan estimates, between stop-work conditions and simply requiring a break every hour. “When that builds up over a day, over a season, over a lifetime of harvesting, that’s really significant.”

That’s not to say the measurements always matched farmworkers’ testimonies: for instance, they occasionally disagreed over which parts of the farm were hottest at which times of day. But fully understanding the experience of heat stress, Neesham-McTiernan said, requires both personal and measured evidence.

“Every farmworker said one benefit was being able to lean against the beams that hold up the panels, just to take the weight off a bit,” she noted. “If I just had my sensors in the field, I wouldn’t know that, but it clearly makes such a difference in their day-to-day comfort.”

Neesham-McTiernan said she’s working to expand the research into other regions to see whether the benefits apply in different environments. She also hopes to eventually collect more rigorous physiological and health data to quantify the impacts of agrivoltaics on workers’ bodies.

“[Agrivoltaics] isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution,” she said. “It can’t be used everywhere. But with the threat of heat, we need a catalog of ways we can protect farmworkers. Without them, we can’t feed ourselves. Protecting them and their bodies should be paramount to everyone.”

Abstract information:

Farmworker experiences reveal heat mitigation advantages of agrivoltaics

Monday, 15 December, 10:40 – 10:50 CST

Room 278-279 (Convention Center)

AGU’s Annual Meeting (#AGU25) will bring more than 20,000 Earth and space scientists to the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans, LA from 15-19 December. Members of the press and public information officers can request complimentary press registration for the meeting now through the end of the conference. Learn more about the press AGU25 experience in our online Press Center.

AGU (www.agu.org) is a global community supporting more than half a million professionals and advocates in Earth and space sciences. Through broad and inclusive partnerships, AGU aims to advance discovery and solution science that accelerate knowledge and create solutions that are ethical, unbiased and respectful of communities and their values. Our programs include serving as a scholarly publisher, convening virtual and in-person events and providing career support. We live our values in everything we do, such as our net zero energy renovated building in Washington, D.C. and our Ethics and Equity Center, which fosters a diverse and inclusive geoscience community to ensure responsible conduct.