By Division Chief Scott Richardson
Earlier this year I attended the F.I.E.R.O. PPE Symposium in Greenville, South Carolina. For three days, the people who research firefighter turnout gear, build it and wear it were all in the same room. F.I.E.R.O. — the Fire Industry Education Resource Organization — is a nonprofit dedicated to improving firefighter health and safety through education and research, and their biennial PPE Symposium brings together scientists, manufacturers, standards experts and fire service leaders to work through our hardest PPE challenges.
PFAS is at the top of that list.
Dr. Bryan Ormond’s keynote, “Following the Science: Navigating the Shift to Non-PFAS PPE,” drove substantive conversation about the data-driven performance trade-offs of transitioning to non-fluorinated turnout gear. That conversation set the tone for everything that followed.
| READ NEXT: Wanted — PPE that better matches the modern fireground
Where the science actually stands
Turnout gear is built in three distinct layers: an outer shell, a moisture barrier in the middle and a thermal liner closest to the skin. For years, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were used across multiple layers of that composite system. These synthetic chemicals are valued for their ability to repel water and oil, but studies have linked PFAS exposure to an increased risk of certain cancers, elevated cholesterol levels and immune system dysfunction.
The picture today is more nuanced than the headlines suggest, and the nuance matters. Research from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found that PFAS in outer shell materials are closely tied to fluoropolymer-based water-repellent treatments — and were not detected in outer shells without those treatments — while thermal liners consistently showed much lower PFAS concentrations. Non-PFAS outer shells are now widely available from multiple manufacturers. But the thermal liner was never the primary concern.
The one layer still requiring a solution is the moisture barrier, and that’s where the technical challenge becomes genuinely difficult. The moisture barrier has to perform two very different jobs: block liquids and pathogens on vehicle extrications and medical calls while maintaining enough breathability to prevent heat stress at a working fire. Those demands pull in opposite directions. The fluorochemical technology, historically used in moisture barriers, is exceptionally good at managing both. Finding a PFAS-free replacement that meets both performance requirements, clears NFPA certification standards and can be manufactured at scale is not a simple swap.
Manufacturers and researchers at the symposium spoke directly to this dilemma. From a manufacturing standpoint, removing fluorinated chemistry means the moisture barrier can begin acting like a sponge, absorbing rather than repelling liquids. That’s a performance trade-off with real consequences in the field.
The good news is that a fully non-PFAS solution has been developed, certified and deployed. In June 2025, the East Providence Fire Department became the first in the United States to outfit its firefighters with completely non-PFAS turnout gear across all three layers, including the moisture barrier, through a collaborative effort between manufacturer Fire-Dex and textile innovator Milliken and Company. Independent testing confirmed the composite exceeded NFPA performance requirements for heat protection and breathability. Manufacturers across the industry are now either in final development stages or have started offering their own versions.
The real test will be in the field, as departments put these garments through the full range of operations, including fireground conditions, training evolutions and routine cleaning cycles that determine whether lab performance holds over the life of the gear.
There’s also a finding that demands honest attention. A December 2025 study led by Dr. Heather Stapleton at Duke University found that newer gear — including newer gear marketed as PFAS-free — contained elevated levels of brominated flame retardants, chemicals linked to potential hormone and thyroid disruption. The highest concentrations were found in some PFAS-free garments, particularly in the moisture barrier. One chemical appeared at levels suggesting it was intentionally added to meet flammability standards after PFAS were removed. Bottom line: “PFAS-free” on a label is not the same thing as chemically safe. The transition requires scrutiny, not just momentum.
A warning you may not have heard
One of the most sobering presentations at the symposium came from Dr. Dan Madrzykowski, senior director of research at UL’s Fire Safety Research Institute (FSRI), who addressed a physiological disconnect that every firefighter and every officer must understand: Modern turnout gear is so effective at insulating us from our environment that by the time a firefighter actually feels the heat through the gear, they may be only seconds away from second-degree burns or gear degradation.
Our gear has evolved dramatically. Earlier in my career, the tactile feedback from the heat environment was a real-time warning system. Today’s gear is so capable that it has removed many of those instinctual cues. That’s a safety advancement with a built-in risk that leaders need to understand and train against.
Mindset problems and solutions
When this issue first surfaced as a serious concern a few years ago, the dynamic I observed across the fire service was not encouraging. Multiple institutions, including the IAFF, gear manufacturers, standards bodies and fire departments themselves, were each operating primarily from their own set of priorities, with limited shared accountability for the actual outcome. The IAFF pursued litigation and legislation. Manufacturers cited technical constraints and supply chain timelines. Standards bodies navigated competing interests from within their own membership. Departments purchased whatever was available and certified. And throughout all of it, the people absorbing the exposure were the firefighters wearing the gear.
The Arbinger Institute describes this as an “inward mindset,” a state in which an institution becomes so focused on its own objectives, metrics and risk exposure that it loses genuine awareness of how its decisions affect the people it exists to serve. The inward mindset isn’t about bad intentions; most of the people involved in this issue have genuinely good intentions. It’s about where your attention goes when the problem gets hard.
The pattern shows up in specific ways. When manufacturers treat the chemical composition of turnout gear as proprietary competitive information while the people wearing it absorb unknown exposure, that is an inward mindset at work, regardless of intent. Researchers have consistently called for more transparency from manufacturers to help departments make informed purchasing decisions.
The outward mindset works the other way. It is not simply about doing your job well. It is about doing right by the people your job exists to serve. When that standard is held collectively across every institution in the fire service, the entire system shifts. Manufacturers disclose chemical data voluntarily rather than waiting for litigation to force it. Unions approach manufacturers as partners in a hard technical problem rather than solely as adversaries. Departments ask what the gear does to the person wearing it for 30 years, not just whether it passes the current standard. No single institution can move the needle alone. But when all of them are working collaboratively, the solutions to these challenges come faster.
That shift in orientation is exactly what makings events like the F.I.E.R.O. PPE Symposium so impactful. Scientists and manufacturers worked through trade-off data together in real time. Union representatives and gear engineers pushed toward the same outcome. And a fire officer from a department evaluating new gear spoke directly to the researcher who studied the exact issue at hand.
One thing everyone agreed on: We need to solve the PFAS issue without creating the same problem we’ll be facing again in 20 years with its replacement. That’s not a simple ask, but the fact that manufacturers, union officials and scientists were all sharing the same stage, working through the most controversial challenges together, was itself a meaningful shift.
The East Providence deployment is a model worth studying. It didn’t happen because of litigation. It happened because a fire chief, a gear manufacturer and a textile company decided to work toward a shared outcome and invested the resources to do it right. That’s what collaborative, outward-minded problem-solving produces. Transparency in process and solutions, not positional defensiveness, is what will keep us from repeating this cycle.
What you can do right now
You may not attend symposiums or sit on standards committees. But you lead people wearing this gear on every shift, and your posture on this issue has direct consequences for your crew’s long-term health.
Start with exposure reduction today. Guidance from the IAFF, along with recommendations aligned across the IAFC, Metro Chiefs and NFPA standards, emphasizes keeping turnout gear out of firehouse living areas, routinely cleaning apparatus cabs and washing hands after handling gear. These steps require no purchase order. They require a leader who takes them seriously and holds the standard.
Know what you’re actually buying when it’s time for new gear. Understand the difference between a non-PFAS outer shell, now widely available and the minimum acceptable standard, and a fully non-PFAS composite system that addresses the moisture barrier. Ask about the moisture barrier specifically. Ask about seam tape chemistry. Ask for full chemical disclosure on every layer. As more manufacturers advertise “PFAS-free” gear, departments need reliable information to distinguish marketing claims from verified safety.
Pay close attention to what’s replacing PFAS. The brominated flame-retardant data is a warning, not a verdict, but it is exactly the kind of scrutiny that should have been applied to PFAS decades ago. The question a department should ask before purchasing isn’t just “Does this meet the standard?” It’s “What does this do to the person wearing it for 30 years?”
Push for transparency as a non-negotiable purchasing condition. Departments that require full chemical disclosure as a condition of contract are doing something that individual firefighters cannot do alone. That’s a leadership decision, and it’s one of the most direct ways a chief officer can translate good intentions into actual protection for their crew.
The bottom line
The firefighter PFAS turnout gear problem is further along than most people realize, and less resolved than the marketing would suggest. The outer shell is largely addressed. The thermal liner was never the primary risk. The moisture barrier now has a viable non-PFAS solution that has been certified and deployed in the field. And a separate chemical concern is emerging in the transition that demands the same informed attention PFAS never received early enough.
The technical path forward exists. What still needs to catch up is the leadership: whether the institutions involved are willing to operate with enough transparency and shared accountability to close the gap between what’s now possible and what’s actually being deployed.
I know continued progress is possible because I’ve watched this profession make it before. In the 1980s, I started with a long turnout coat made with a cotton-duck outer shell, three-quarter boots and a first-generation Nomex hood. We have come a very long way. Events like F.I.E.R.O. PPE Symposium leave me genuinely optimistic about where we’re heading, because the right people are in the same room, asking the right questions and taking the answers seriously.
Get involved. Understand where we are. Be part of where we can go.
| WATCH: ‘This game of trade-offs’: Jeff Stull talks NFPA standards
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Scott Richardson is the division chief of Special Operations with South Metro Fire Rescue, co-founder of Empower2Evolve, and co-author of “Technical Rescue: Trench Levels I and II” (Cengage Learning, 2009). Richardson holds a master’s degree and a bachelor’s degree in organizational management, as well as an associate degree in public safety. He coaches emergency service leaders on conscious leadership and collaborative culture.
