By Jeff and Grace Stull
The fire service has changed faster than firefighter PPE. Today’s firefighters are not simply responding to structure fires; they are operating as all-risk responders at EMS calls, vehicle crashes, hazmat incidents, technical rescues, wildland and WUI fires, lithium-ion battery fires, extended-duration events and other non-traditional incidents. Yet for many departments, the practical PPE choice remains largely binary: structural turnout gear or alternative clothing (e.g., technical rescue, EMS, wildland firefighting) garments.
That mismatch is the central message emerging from an IAFF-sponsored survey and related interview effort prepared by the Wildland Conservancy team, led by Dr. Kelcey Stricker.
| READ NEXT: Study — Used turnout gear during training not a source of PFAS ‘forever chemicals’
The project, titled Reimagining PPE: Insights and Recommendations for a National Change in Perspective, asked firefighters what they experience in their PPE, what trade-offs they are willing to accept, and what protection priorities should guide the next generation of gear. The study included 576 survey responses from 294 fire departments across the United States, with respondents averaging 18 years in the fire service, and reporting that structure fire responses represented, on average, 29% of their annual calls. (The full report will be made public by the IAFF in the near future.)
The results suggest that firefighters recognize a problem that many have lived with for years: PPE designed for the most extreme thermal events is being worn across many responses where the dominant hazards may be mobility demands, heat stress, biological exposure, liquid contamination, long work duration, or routine task performance. Bottom line: The survey points toward a need for PPE that is more scalable, more modular and better aligned with actual incident hazards.
A high-protection model for a broader mission
Survey respondents rated thermal protection as highly important, even though most reported that high heat exposure occurs in only a small portion of the responses where they wear turnout gear. Specifically, 73% of participants reported that high heat exposure occurred in 10% or fewer of their incident responses involving turnout gear, while only 9% reported elevated temperatures or high radiant heat in 25% or more of those responses.
So while firefighters still need gear that protects them when the event turns bad, they also need gear that does not unnecessarily punish them physiologically and functionally during the much larger share of responses where full structural protection may not be required.
The survey also identified specific areas where firefighters believe additional thermal protection may be warranted, namely pant knees, coat sleeves, coat shoulders and upper back, the hood and the backs of gloves. These callouts make sense. Knees, sleeves and shoulders are areas where kneeling, crawling, reaching and tool work can compress air spaces, stretch fabric systems and reduce the insulation that otherwise contributes to thermal protection. Gloves, especially the backs of hands, are often close to heated surfaces, tools and fireground hazards.
The better question, therefore, is not whether thermal protection is important; it is how to provide needed thermal protection where and when it is required while reducing unnecessary burden when it is not.
Heat stress is not a comfort complaint
One of the strongest findings from the survey involved physiological stress. Nearly half of respondents (49.2%) reported heat stress or other physiological stress on 25% or more of the responses where they wear turnout gear. In addition, 53.9% were willing or somewhat willing to trade off thermal protection for lower physiological stress, and 51.7% were willing or somewhat willing to accept reduced liquid protection in exchange for gear that was less heavy and hot.
These findings should not be dismissed as firefighters asking for “comfortable” gear in the casual sense. In PPE, comfort is a safety feature. Gear that is too hot, too heavy, too stiff or poorly fitted can drive early doffing, improper wear, fatigue, reduced work capacity and impaired decision-making. Heat stress also competes directly with the operational mission. A firefighter who is overheated, exhausted or unable to move effectively is less capable of performing the job safely.
Comfort and mobility are not luxuries; they are essential to health and safety. The same materials emphasize that an ill-fitting garment can reduce mobility, increase physiological stress and injury, and reduce safety compliance.
This is especially important as departments work to reduce cancer and cardiovascular risk. The fire service has spent years emphasizing exposure control, preliminary exposure reduction, clean cab practices and laundering. Those efforts remain essential. But a PPE system that adds unnecessary thermal and physiological load on a large percentage of responses may create a different type of risk. The next step in firefighter health and safety is to recognize that over-encumbrance can itself be a hazard.
Mobility is part of protection
The survey also found that 31.8% of firefighters reported mobility challenges on a significant number of responses where they wore turnout gear. Moreover, 60.4% were willing or somewhat willing to accept reduced thermal protection for improved mobility, and the same percentage were willing or somewhat willing to accept reduced liquid protection for improved mobility.
This finding reflects the reality of fireground and emergency response work. Firefighters climb, crawl, kneel, force doors, carry hose, operate saws, package patients, move through confined spaces, work around vehicles, perform rescues and operate in unpredictable environments. If PPE limits these actions, it can reduce safety rather than enhance it.
The report’s interviews add important context. Firefighters described gear that becomes more uncomfortable as incidents progress, shoulder straps that dig in, wet outer shells that become heavier from hose water and sweat, and new fabrics that can feel stiff before they are broken in. One interview subject captured the experience plainly: “I’ve never been in gear that got more comfortable as the incident progressed.”
Fit issues are also not evenly distributed. The interviews identified recurring concerns for female firefighters and firefighters with atypical body dimensions. Poorly fitting pants, coats, boots and gloves can cause chafing, bleeding, reduced dexterity, altered wear and unauthorized modifications. These are not secondary concerns. If firefighters must hitch up pants while hiking, roll sleeves that are too long, remove gloves to perform tasks, or alter certified garments outside authorized channels, the protective system is not working as intended.
Liquid contamination remains a persistent hazard
The survey also addressed hazardous liquid exposures. Respondents most frequently identified fuels, oils, greases and lubricants as the hazardous liquids they were most likely to encounter, at 67.6%. Blood and body fluids were the second most common category, at 10%. A notable 15.6% of participants reported that PPE had caught fire after contamination with a flammable liquid.
That number should be interpreted carefully. It does not mean that contaminated gear routinely ignites, nor does it establish that any single material finish or fabric system is responsible. But it does confirm that fuel and liquid contamination are not theoretical concerns. Firefighters encounter these substances during vehicle incidents, machinery responses, wildland operations, extrications, overhaul, EMS responses and other events. These exposures can create ignition concerns, dermal exposure concerns and long-term material integrity concerns.
The survey also found no uniform approach for handling liquid-contaminated gear. Responses were split among rinsing gear at the scene, using a washing machine, sending gear to a third-party cleaning service, and isolating or removing gear from service.
That inconsistency is important. PPE design, department policy and training must work together. If fabrics resist liquid exposure but cannot be effectively cleaned, the hazard may simply be transferred to the apparatus, station, firefighter’s skin or next shift. If gear is easy to clean but absorbs hazardous liquids too readily, firefighters may face both exposure and ignition risks. The survey supports a dual expectation: Future PPE should resist relevant liquids and be easier to clean when contamination occurs.
PFAS transition adds urgency, not a reason to stop innovation
The report also discusses firefighter concerns about non-fluorinated finishes. Firefighters were not specifically asked about PFAS in the interviews, but some independently raised concerns that non-fluorinated outer shell finishes appeared to show reduced liquid resistance or durability.
This is a critical moment for the fire service. Movement away from intentionally added PFAS in turnout gear is already underway in some jurisdictions, and firefighter concerns about chemical exposures are legitimate. At the same time, the transition cannot be treated as a simple one-for-one material substitution. New finish technologies must be judged against realistic performance expectations: liquid repellency, absorption resistance, durability after laundering, cleanability, flexibility, breathability, thermal performance and long-term field performance.
The correct lesson is not that the fire service should return to legacy chemistries without question. It is that new materials must be evaluated in a broader PPE performance framework that includes both health-related chemical concerns and operational performance.
The case for modular PPE
Perhaps the clearest implication of the IAFF-sponsored survey is the need to move beyond a one-size-fits-all model. This sentiment is best reflected in the statement: “A ‘one size fits all’ approach to PPE development does not reflect the modern fireground.”
A modular PPE approach does not mean firefighters choose convenience over protection. It means departments define ensembles that match reasonably anticipated hazards. Interior structural firefighting still requires structural firefighting PPE. But many responses may call for an intermediate ensemble that provides flame resistance, limited liquid protection, contamination control, durability, weather protection, visibility and mobility without imposing the full thermal burden of structural turnouts. Wildland and WUI operations may require their own scalable solutions, including respiratory protection, cleaner cab strategies and gear that can be worn for long-duration work.
The survey found that many firefighters wear structural PPE for non-structure responses, including medical aid, hazmat response, technical rescue and interface fires. That finding reinforces why firefighters are asking for better options. They are not necessarily rejecting protection; they are reacting to being over-dressed for many tasks and under-supported by a limited PPE menu.
Culture and leadership will determine success
The report also makes clear that PPE change is not just a technical problem. Firefighting culture places high value on tradition, visible experience, toughness and risk acceptance. Those values can support safety, but they can also slow adoption of improved PPE and care practices. The report’s review of prior wildland research found that leadership strongly influences whether firefighters follow decontamination practices. When leaders model and enforce cleaning practices, firefighters participate, but when leaders downplay them, others often follow that example.
The same will be true for modular PPE. If new gear is presented as weaker, less traditional or less “firefighter-like,” it may fail regardless of its technical merits. If it is introduced as the right tool for the right job — supported by chiefs, company officers, union leaders, trainers and respected informal leaders — it has a much better chance of becoming accepted practice.
A new design question
For decades, much of firefighter PPE design has been driven by the question: How much protection can we provide against the worst hazards? That question remains important. But the IAFF survey suggests an additional question: What combination of protection, mobility, heat-stress reduction, fit, cleanability and situational awareness best protects firefighters over the full range of work they actually perform?
The answer is unlikely to be a single garment or a single ensemble. It will require modular systems, better fit options, improved material technologies, clearer contamination protocols, stronger training and leadership-supported implementation. It will also require standards and procurement practices that give greater weight to physiological burden, ergonomic performance, cleaning effectiveness and field usability.
At the end of the day, firefighters still want to be protected. They also want PPE that lets them do the job. The next generation of firefighter PPE must accomplish both.
| WATCH: ‘This game of trade-offs’: Jeff Stull talks NFPA standards
