THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF PARTICLE MASKS
It's February 2020 and New South Wales is entering its sixth successive month of a long and arduous bushfire campaign. Our firefighters are weary and our media have mostly moved on to other significant stories as the viewers and readers also experience the fatigue of constant bombardment of the atrocities.
One atrocity that has gone largely under the radar is the lack of practical and adeqaute respiratory protection afforded to our firefighters. You see, our firefighters are issued with particle dust masks as a control measure against bushfire smoke exposure.
The AFAC publication "Smoke Exposure Management Guideline" from 2018 clearly sets out the toxic chemistry consistently present in bushfire smoke. Bushfire smoke contains potentially deadly toxins such as "major biomass pollutants to be carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, benzene, acrolein, formaldehyde, respirable particles (RP) and benzo(a)pyrene". The same document goes on to state that P2 masks and dust masks do not filter out potentially deadly toxins.
This carcinogenic exposure to bushfire smoke is not new. Annemarie De Vos has released two reports on the effectiveness of filters in bushfire smoke in the mid to late 2000's.
"Effect of protective filters on fire fighter respiratory health during simulated bushfire smoke exposure." (American Journal of Industrial Medicine) in 2006 which saw 64 career firefighters in Western Australia given one of 3 types of masks. A Particle Filter mask (P), A Particle and Organic Vapour Filter Mask (POV) and finally a Particle and Organic Vapour and Formaldehyde Filter (POVF) mask and were then subjected to a controlled simulated bushfire smoke in an open smoke chamber for 15 min.
A significantly higher number of participants in the P and POV filtergroups self-reported an increase in coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath compared to the POVF group. Air sampling demonstrated a significantly higher level of formaldehyde and acrolein inside the masks fitted with P filters compared to POV and POVF filters.
Testing the effectiveness of P, POV, and POVF filters under controlled conditions has demonstrated that the POVF filter provides statistically significant better protection for the fire fighters’ airways in a simulated bushfire exposure chamber.
The author closes with the note that "further research is needed to determine the breakthrough times of the filters and the efficacy of the filters over longer time periods".
So De Vos then followed up with another report in 2008.
"Effect of protective filters on fire fighter respiratory health: field validation during prescribed burns." (American Journal of Industrial Medicine) in 2008
67 career firefighters in Western Australia were given one of 3 types of masks. A Particle Filter mask (P), A Particle and Organic Vapour Filter Mask (POV) and finally a Particle and Organic Vapour and Formaldehyde Filter mask (POVF).
A significant higher number of participants in the P filter group reported increases in respiratory symptoms after the exposure. Air sampling inside the respirators demonstrated formaldehyde levels significantly higher in the P filter group compared to the POV and the POVF filter group.
A two hour test under bushfire smoke conditions demonstrated that the Particle filter is ineffective in filtering out respiratory irritants. The performance of the POV and the POVF filter appears to be equally effective after 2 hours. So how is it it on today Tuesday, 4th February, World Cancer Day 2020 that we still see firefighters struggling to get access to better respiratory protection? Both tests summarised above were run in Western Australia. It is no coincidence that the firefighters in that state have a much higher level of protection. Here in NSW, some 14 years later, we're still running around breathing in cancer through particle masks. Still witnessing bullying and standover tactics on volunteers who are trying to look after themselves by wearing a higher level of protection. It is totally unacceptable. This is why we set about effecting change at a higher level with our online petition which now has over 180,000 signatures. It's not to late to sign and share. http://change.org/firefightercancer (Read more about the invisible smoke plume and your real exposure here: http://firefightercancercoalition.com/articles/smokeplume/)
Firefighting can bring all sorts of accolades to reward you for your service. Cancer should not be one of them!
Reach out to us here at Firefighter C.A.N.C.E.R. for more information on preventing unnecessary exposure to carcinogens and we will get back to you. info@firefightercancercoalition.com or via Facebook and Instagram
"Effect of protective filters on fire fighter respiratory health during simulated bushfire smoke exposure." (American Journal of Industrial Medicine) in 2006 which saw 64 career firefighters in Western Australia given one of 3 types of masks. A Particle Filter mask (P), A Particle and Organic Vapour Filter Mask (POV) and finally a Particle and Organic Vapour and Formaldehyde Filter (POVF) mask and were then subjected to a controlled simulated bushfire smoke in an open smoke chamber for 15 min.
A significantly higher number of participants in the P and POV filtergroups self-reported an increase in coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath compared to the POVF group. Air sampling demonstrated a significantly higher level of formaldehyde and acrolein inside the masks fitted with P filters compared to POV and POVF filters.
Testing the effectiveness of P, POV, and POVF filters under controlled conditions has demonstrated that the POVF filter provides statistically significant better protection for the fire fighters’ airways in a simulated bushfire exposure chamber.
The author closes with the note that "further research is needed to determine the breakthrough times of the filters and the efficacy of the filters over longer time periods".
So De Vos then followed up with another report in 2008.
"Effect of protective filters on fire fighter respiratory health: field validation during prescribed burns." (American Journal of Industrial Medicine) in 2008
67 career firefighters in Western Australia were given one of 3 types of masks. A Particle Filter mask (P), A Particle and Organic Vapour Filter Mask (POV) and finally a Particle and Organic Vapour and Formaldehyde Filter mask (POVF).
A significant higher number of participants in the P filter group reported increases in respiratory symptoms after the exposure. Air sampling inside the respirators demonstrated formaldehyde levels significantly higher in the P filter group compared to the POV and the POVF filter group.
A two hour test under bushfire smoke conditions demonstrated that the Particle filter is ineffective in filtering out respiratory irritants. The performance of the POV and the POVF filter appears to be equally effective after 2 hours. So how is it it on today Tuesday, 4th February, World Cancer Day 2020 that we still see firefighters struggling to get access to better respiratory protection? Both tests summarised above were run in Western Australia. It is no coincidence that the firefighters in that state have a much higher level of protection. Here in NSW, some 14 years later, we're still running around breathing in cancer through particle masks. Still witnessing bullying and standover tactics on volunteers who are trying to look after themselves by wearing a higher level of protection. It is totally unacceptable. This is why we set about effecting change at a higher level with our online petition which now has over 180,000 signatures. It's not to late to sign and share. http://change.org/firefightercancer (Read more about the invisible smoke plume and your real exposure here: http://firefightercancercoalition.com/articles/smokeplume/)
Firefighting can bring all sorts of accolades to reward you for your service. Cancer should not be one of them!
Reach out to us here at Firefighter C.A.N.C.E.R. for more information on preventing unnecessary exposure to carcinogens and we will get back to you. info@firefightercancercoalition.com or via Facebook and Instagram