Station Wear: Nomex, FR Clothing, Merino
Bryan Goodman, BS, MAOL (candidate)
Charlene Beach, AS
Kevin Lyons, BS, MBA (candidate)
Author Note
Bryan Goodman, Charlene Beach, Kevin Lyons
We have no conflict of interest to disclose. We are representing ourselves.
Abstract
Firefighting gear and uniforms have been in existence since the 1800s, when fire departments researched how to keep their members safe while entering an IDLH environment. Throughout its history, Fire Department PPE and station wear have undergone many independent scientific tests. With the technology available today, these tests have uncovered the toxicity of Nomex, fire retardant fabrics, and their effects on the human body. From the tireless work of Notre Dame Nuclear Physicist Dr. Graham Peaslee and many other scientists, it is now known that all firefighter turnout gear are some of the most heavily fluorinated textiles known to man. This means it contains per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as forever chemicals. This paper will discuss more of the toxicity of these substances and other safer and more natural options.
Keywords: Station Wear, PFAS, Safe, Tests
Nomex is a flame-resistant meta-aramid material developed in the early 1960s by DuPont and marketed in 1967. After Nomex was first sold to the public, Nomex was praised for how well it repelled stains, provided an extra layer of protection for firefighters, and was commended on the comfortability aspect of it as well. As the years have progressed, cancers and other illnesses started to rise nationwide. Research was initiated on what exactly Nomex was and what chemicals were applied to its fabric. Multiple research projects have been conducted on Nomex and Nomex products and have concluded that most have per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in them. These are forever chemicals that do not degrade over time and have a long list of cancer-causing effects. DuPont (2019) stated,
“Under less severe heating conditions, Nomex degrades very slowly, releasing small quantities of a wide variety of organic compounds. These include carbon dioxide, acetone, acetamide, acetaldehyde, Benzene, butane, toluene, and many other compounds (p.12).”
Our team had our Nomex station-wear tested to research what chemicals, if any, were present. In June 2021, Dr. Graham Peaslee notified the team that the three samples of station wear sent, ranging from 2014 to 2021, did contain PFAS. They also included Brominated Flame Retardant (FR) and Benzene from DuPont’s literature. Coincidentally, Brominated FR and Benzene together mirror the exact effects that PFAS has on the human body. Brominated FR and Benzene are both bio-accumulative and bio magnifying. The more they build up in the body, the more significant harm they cause. These chemicals often have half-lives measured in years. As stated, Nomex degrades slowly. In return, the off-gassing of these chemicals induces additional toxicity to the wearer. The most prominent is Benzene. According to the EPA, Benzene is a known human carcinogen for all routes of exposure at any quantity. Outside of Benzenes carcinogenic effects, cancer, endocrine disorders, chromosomal mutations, and infertility are just a few of the running issues found with Benzene exposure, including death with high-level exposures (EPA, 2012).
Brominated Flame Retardants used in FR Rated Clothing
Brominated FR has been banned in the US since 2004. Yet somehow, it remains in firefighter station wear. Brominated FR causes a wide array of health issues in the human body. Exposure to these PBDEs has been associated with neurological problems, endocrine disruption, cancer, and infertility in humans. Like PFAS, Brominated FR also remains persistent in the environment. So persistent that newborn infants born today will have Brominated FR in their bodies at birth (Stoiber, 2017). As detailed in the documentary “Toxic Hot Seat,” a collusion was uncovered between big tobacco and chemical companies that lobbied for the use of Brominated FR because big tobacco didn’t want to develop a self-extinguishing cigarette to curb cigarette caused house fires. Evensen (2014) stated, “the tobacco industry redirected the blame onto furniture manufacturers, claiming that they have a responsibility to make furniture less susceptible to fire. The door was opened for the chemical industry, which lobbied heavily for the use of flame retardants in furniture” (para. 4). Consequently, this allowed big tobacco and chemical companies to open a pandora’s box of environmental and human health hazards.
FR Clothing
Flame retardants are a class of chemicals added to everything from furniture electronics to clothing to help prevent fires. Many states have followed the European Union in banning or partially banning the use of flame retardants. Safer States (2022) stated, “Flame Retardants have been shown to cause neurological damage, hormone disruption, and cancer. One of the biggest dangers of some flame retardants is that they bio-accumulate in humans, causing long-term chronic health problems (para. 2). The team was asked to do a comparative analysis on a Lyocell, Aramid, and Modacrylic mixed FR fabric. Lyocell is made from wood pulp derived from sustainable tree farms. However, a substantial amount of tree waste is required to produce Lyocell. The positives of Lyocell include it is bio-degradable when not mixed with other fabrics. Its high absorbency makes it easy to dye, naturally breathable, fifty percent greater moisture absorption than cotton, antibacterial, lightweight, soft, wrinkle-resistant, and durable. The negatives include it must be hand-washed, requires zero waste laundry detergent, and too much heat can scorch the fabric in the drying process (Sewport, 2022).
Aramid fibers were first developed in the early 1960s by DuPont and marketed in 1967. Aramid fibers have high strength, good resistance to impact, good compressive strength, and offer good resistance to abrasion, chemical, and thermal degradation. However, they are toxic and break down when exposed to UV light (Composites World, 2020). Marsh et al. (1994) stated, “Results of cytotoxicity tests indicated that Aramid was as toxic to HTE and RL90 cells as were crocidolite and chrysotile asbestos when expressed on both an equal mass and equal fiber number basis (para. 1).” When aramid was tested, the fiber exhibited the same effects as asbestos on the epithelial cell in vitro, as well as DNA damage to the cell itself (Marsh et al., 1994).
Chemical Retrieval on the Web (2022) stated, “Modacrylic is a modified acrylic fiber that is composed of less than 85% but at least 35% by weight of acrylonitrile monomer. These substances are added to the fiber to give it better flame retardant properties (para. 1).” Modacrylic is made with acrylonitrile, an explosive, flammable liquid that has toxic effects similar to cyanide poisoning. Dupont found in 1977, after a preliminary epidemiological study, an excess of cancer among workers. Additionally, the Manufacturing Chemist Association (CMA) found that rats with ongoing ingestion and inhalation of acrylonitrile had developed tumors and carcinomas.
Dr. Lawton of the Combat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center and the University of Georgia complied a material rating score (MRS) score based on the toxicity of fabrics. The higher the MRS score, the more toxic, the lower the score, the less harmful. The top three most poisonous fabrics were all Nomex. Nomex blend fabric C was 108, m-aramid 75.4, p-aramid was 61.5. Modacrylic was next with 38.3. For reference, the healthier fabrics scored in single digits. Lyocell had an MRS score of 6.3 (Lawton, 2020).
Merino (Wool)
Wool, in general, has a long, somewhat complicated history in the fire service. All of which is undeserving. Many of our seasoned firefighters worldwide have stories of wool being used in the ’70s and ’80s. Mysteriously, sometime in the ’80s, wool disappeared. It was replaced with Nomex. Believe it or not, 100% wool and cotton were the only approved fabrics for firefighting until the NFPA changed the standard in 1999. Research today proves that wool is making a comeback. Wool, specifically Merino Wool, performs equal to if not better than Nomex in all areas of thermo-resistance, thermoregulation, and performance. Merino is superior to all known manmade/synthetic fabrics like Nomex. It can assist the wearer in thermo-regulation, which in turn will aid in the reduction of cardiac events in the field. A research study conducted at the University of Otago (New Zealand) concluded that Merino performs exceptionally well in both hot and cold environments, was perceived as the most comfortable fabric, and significantly slowed down the onset of sweating (Laing et al., 2007).
In firefighting applications, wool’s intrinsic qualities are natural, superior, and do not require chemicals. Wool is naturally flame resistant due to its natural chemical structure. Wool has a high nitrogen content and high moisture content. This means the fiber only ignites at temperatures between 570 degrees Celsius — 600 degrees Celsius (1058 degrees Fahrenheit — 1112 degrees Fahrenheit), and even then, wool doesn’t melt. Wool has a low heat release rate self-extinguishing capabilities and produces minimal toxic smoke and gasses during combustion. In addition, Merino has a higher UPF (ultraviolet protection factor) than all known synthetic fabrics across the entire UV light spectrum. Merino Wool has natural wicking properties. The hydrophobic exterior and hydrophilic interior absorb moisture from the body while releasing a small amount of heat that prevents chilling of the skin. Lastly, it is sustainable, non-toxic, natural, and biodegradable (Rodgers, 2013).
Merino Care
Contrary to popular belief, Merino is easy to care for and maintain. The Merino fabric is environmentally conscious, compostable, doesn’t need chemicals, and is sustainable. Merino is washed using cold water, which reduces energy usage. Merino is also a fast-drying fabric. Drying Merino can occur by setting the dryer to tumble on low or hang drying outside, further reducing energy costs. It is important to note; you can dry Merino outside as opposed to Nomex as Merino is not affected by the sun. It is also naturally an antimicrobial and antibacterial fabric. In reference to the price, Merino wool is exceptionally cheaper than any Nomex product on the market. With the cost of Nomex increasing another 36% in the next few months, Merino wool is both cheaper and safer than any of its competitors.
Conclusion
With a price point cheaper than Nomex, Merino Wool outperforms in almost every possible category used by the NFPA 1975 performance test except thermal stability. With current scientific data, we know for every 1-degree Celsius increase in temperature, dermal absorption increases 400% in the pelvic region, along the neck, groin, and armpits. Nomex Station Wear is not supposed to be exposed to heat and moisture. Consequently, every time we go into a fire, our station wear is exposed to heat and moisture. Nomex cannot be exposed to sunlight. Doing so causes irreversible damage to the fabric itself. Exposure to sunlight damages Nomex in as little as three days. It is crucial to note Benzene’s carcinogenic nature on all routes of exposure, and Brominated FR has been banned in the US since 2004. As stated, Merino is 100% organic, compostable, and natural fiber. Simply, it is nature’s performance fabric for both hot and cold environments.
References
Armadillo Merino® | Armadillo Merino® next to skin performance clothing. (2022). Why Merino. Retrieved March 10, 2022, from https://armadillomerino.com/
CompositesWorld. (2020, November 3). Aramid fiber: The basics. Retrieved March 12, 2022, from https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/aramid-fiber-the-basics
CROW. (2022). Modacrylic Fibers. Polymerdatabase.Com. Retrieved March 14, 2022, from https://polymerdatabase.com/Fibers/Modacrylic.html
Dupont. (2019). Technical Guide for Nomex Fiber. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from https://www.dupont.com/content/dam/dupont/amer/us/en/personal-protection/public/documents/en/Nomex(R)%20Fiber%20Technical%20Guide.pdf
EPA. (2012). Hazard Summary. Retrieved October 22, 2021, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/benzene.pdf
Evensen, H. (2014, February 18th). Uncovering the Flame Retardant Scandal. Harvard University Sustainability. https://green.harvard.edu/news/uncovering-flame-retardant-scandal
Laing, R.M, Sims, S.T, Wilson, C.A, Niven, B.E, and Cruthers, N.M (2007) Difference in Wearer Response to Garments for Outdoor Activity. Ergonomics, p.1–19
Lawton, T. (2020, September). New Methodology to Assess Health and Environmental Impact of Flame Resistant (FR) Textiles. Combat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center. https://t.co/prwbhhi3jp
Lion. (2014). User Instruction, Safety, and Training Guide.
J. P. Marsh, B. T. Mossman, K. E. Driscoll, R. F. Schins & P. J. A. Borm (1994) Effects of Aramid, a high Strength Synthetic Fiber, on Respiratory Cells in Vitro, Drug and Chemical Toxicology, 17:2, 75–92, DOI: 10.3109/01480549409014303
McKay, J. (2021, March 4). Firefighter Gear Full of Chemicals — How Dangerous Are They? GovTech. Retrieved March 21, 2021, from https://www.govtech.com/em/safety/firefighter-gear-is-full-of-chemicals-how-dangerous-are-they.html
NIOSH. (1977, July 1). Current Intelligence Bulletin 18: Acrylonitrile (78–127) | NIOSH | CDC. CDC. Retrieved March 14, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/78-127/78127_18.html
Rogers, C. (2013). Saving your skin. Twist, 46–47.
Safer States. (2022). Toxic Flame Retardants. Retrieved March 12, 2022, from https://www.saferstates.org/toxic-chemicals/toxic-flame-retardants/
Sewport. (2022). What is Lyocell Fabric: Properties, how it’s made and where. Sewport. Retrieved March 12, 2022, from https://sewport.com/fabrics-directory/lyocell-fabric
Stoiber, T. (2017, July 11). Study: Banned Since 2004, Toxic Flame Retardants Persist in US Newborns. Environmental Working Group. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/study-banned-2004-toxic-flame-retardants-persist-us-newborns
