Firefighting Boots

Are the items designed to keep us safe, actually harming us at the same time?
Safety boots, in any industry, are a crucial part of the personal protective clothing ensemble. But what if the design of these boots is exposing firefighters in other ways? This author is very mindful of the great effort’s firefighters are making to ensure their gear is bagged, laundered and the ever-increasing focus on post-fire washdown is reassuring. We have the clean cab concept a heated topic of discussion but invariably we are still witnessing boots still worn following an incident and also back in the cab on the way back to the station. This article focuses solely on the boots as it appears to be the missing link in what is otherwise some impressive efforts to address health and safety concerns.
(Editor’s Note: decontamination is defined as “the neutralization or removal of dangerous substances, radioactivity, or germs from an area, object, or person”, seeing as we are unable to verify decontamination, this should be referred to as post-fire washdown)
Dirty Boots
Boots are known as a source of contamination in Veterinary Hospitals (Hornig et al., 2016), shoe soles have been shown to transfer infectious microorganisms to floor and ground surfaces leading to human infection (Rashid, Vonville, Hasan, & Garey, 2017) and even chicken farmers have been known to transfer salmonella contamination between flocks carrying the bacteria on their clothes and boots (Marin, Balasch, Vega, & Lainez, 2011). Firefighters also know this, to some degree anyway. Any HazMat technician worth their salt will tell you how important the role of decontamination is upon exiting the Hot Zone from a declared incident. Somewhat ironically, the most dangerous and common HazMat incident a firefighter will attend is a fire. Whether that be a bin/rubbish fire, structure fire, house fire, car fire. You name it, as modern building materials decompose due to heat and flame, they unleash a nasty toxic cocktail just waiting to enter your bloodstream. So how did we miss such an obvious need to decontaminate on the fireground for so long? Research into agriculture workers showed that pesticides were potentially taken back to their homes creating a pesticide exposure pathway for their families, sometimes referred to as “para-occupational exposure” (Fenske, Lu, Negrete, & Galvin, 2013). This research found the presence of azinphos-methyl and malathion in vehicles and to a lesser degree in homes. Richard A. Fenske and his team attributed this transference to an astonishingly familiar list which some, if not all, will resonate with the majority firefighters. Particularly those who volunteer or are in a rural/regional location:
  • most workers did not have an area at the workplace for changing out of work clothes or for washing clothes;
  • most workers washed with soap and water before leaving the workplace;
  • most did not change out of work clothes or boots before leaving the workplace; rather, they stored their work clothes and work boots at home;
  • most wore both work clothes and work boots into their homes;
  • most workers parked their vehicles next to or in the fields and left windows open during work; and
  • most workers received pesticide safety training at the workplace and the training was delivered in a language that they understood but one-third hadn’t received the training in the past year.
Time for Change
Today’s firefighting boots are designed to be lightweight, heat resistant, waterproof and breathable and most have a lace and zipper combination to aid in a personalised fit while still maintaining easy access. But are all these designs to keep us safe also adding to the already susceptibility of firefighters to be further exposed to carcinogens from the fireground. With every added bit of absorbent material and layers, we add to the complexity and time invested in decontamination processes. The image below shows just one example of a boot in service for today’s firefighter. The manufacturer has been deliberately cropped from the image so as not to detract from the conversation. This particular image shows the front of the boot with an outer shell, an inner piece which is held in place with laces and the zipper designed for fast and easy fitting. A great concept for a safe boot but creates some difficulty when it comes to decontamination.
How so?
  • The laces are presumably a mixture of synthetic fibres, but whatever its composition, it can absorb water and as such so too can it absorb contaminants from the fire ground.
  • The stitching around the boot also poses the same hazard as the laces, although potentially to a lesser degree.
  • The additional lace component creates a false layer where contaminants and debris can hide away from post-fire washdown.
  • The design of the inner shell creates some tight points for decontamination.
Today’s firefighting boots have significant technology advancements in their design and as such attract a premium price. It is not the author’s intention to question the purchase price, but with this price comes the likelihood that most fire service agencies will only be able to provide their firefighters with one pair. So when it comes to performing a full wash on the boots, including removal of additional layers and laces, how do we ensure our operational response isn’t adversely affected? What is the recommended practice of performing adequate decontamination? Is this on the manufacturer or the fire service agency? These are somewhat rhetorical questions as the answers will vary between the services and the country you serve in. In response to almost any question that arises from the laundering of PPC or having to take equipment out of service, the only easy answer is to have spares. If you or your organisation can not afford a spare pair of boots, then have spare laces on hand. Order spare zippers. Much like you would firefighting gloves, flash hood, rescue line or any other ancillary equipment. Yes, there is a chance that your boots will be still be wet the next time you have to wear them, but they will be cleaner and therefore limiting the unnecessary exposure. But what about the long game? How do we effect change at an organisational level? A colleague of mine put forward a proposal of moving back to the old “Top Boot” style (see image below) where the boot is void of laces and zippers and can be considered one enclosed piece. Much like our HazMat Technicians who will use boots of a similar design for very similar reasons. They are relatively easy to put on and take off and easy to decontaminate after the incident.
Despite these boots meeting all the regulatory requirements, he was advised by the organisation that they were not fit for purpose. I imagine there is more detail in that response, it is just unclear at present what those reasons are. Regardless of the reasons, this organisational response is not unique when it comes to firefighters raising concerns about the “healthy firefighter” concept and the many ways in which organisational decisions undermine the aspiration to achieve this. From the U.S. to the U.K., from Brazil to Australia and all parts in between, firefighters will need to fight for the change. Sadly, the concept of a healthy firefighter is not an overnight success, it’s not going to happen in a year, this is a generational change and no it’s not all on the responsibility of the fire service. The responsibility for change lies fairly and squarely with every firefighter at every fire station across the globe. Don’t let contaminated boots be the weakness in your game. If you are bagging and tagging your dirty PPC on the fireground then ensure you have a spare pair of boots available. If you don’t have firefighting boots then use your utility boots. Don’t have utility boots? Use whatever other footwear you have available. At the start of your tour, you know you will catch a job. Plan accordingly and ensure you have a change of footwear (along with fresh set of duty wear, including socks) somewhere on the truck. Minimising firefighter exposure to carcinogens is a constant evolution and requires commitment. Especially at a 3AM car fire in the middle of winter. If it could save your life, then it’s worth fighting for. I think you’re worth fighting for!
References
Fenske, R. A., Lu, C., Negrete, M., & Galvin, K. (2013). Breaking the take home pesticide exposure pathway for agricultural families: Workplace predictors of residential contamination. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 56(9), 1063-1071. doi:10.1002/ajim.22225 Hornig, K. J., Burgess, B. A., Saklou, N. T., Johnson, V., Malmlov, A., Van Metre, D. C., . . . Byers, S. R. (2016). Evaluation of the Efficacy of Disinfectant Footmats for the Reduction of Bacterial Contamination on Footwear in a Large Animal Veterinary Hospital. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 30(6), 1882-1886. doi:10.1111/jvim.14576 Marin, C., Balasch, S., Vega, S., & Lainez, M. (2011). Sources of Salmonella contamination during broiler production in Eastern Spain. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 98(1), 39-45. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.09.006 Rashid, T., Vonville, H., Hasan, I., & Garey, K. W. (2017). Mechanisms for floor surfaces or environmental ground contamination to cause human infection: a systematic review. 145(2), 347-357. doi:10.1017/S0950268816002193
Copyright © 2022. All content remains the property of Firefighter C.A.N.C.E.R.