Fighting fire and fumes: risk awareness and protective practices among Western Australian firefighters

Data revealed that all volunteer firefighter participants had limited knowledge about the potential health risks associated with bushfire smoke. They perceived bushfire smoke as a natural product and, therefore, did not consider it harmful. For example, Jordan, a senior volunteer firefighter with over 10 years of experience explained how he was educated when he began his service:

When we started [with the brigade], we were told that bushfire smoke classified as Class A [contaminant], which consists of naturally occurring fuel, was believed to be less toxic than some processed plastics and fuels. We were told it was ‘good smoke’ and that it was okay to breathe it in.

A majority of these participants reported that their training did not include information about contaminants they might be exposed to while combatting bushfires. This is highlighted by the lack of awareness and uncertainty about compounds present in bushfire smoke noted by participants. For example, Michael, a volunteer firefighter of 9 years and a lieutenant, stated:

I don’t know. It’s unknown to me. I don’t even think about it because I simply have no knowledge. I can make guesses based on what’s in front of me, but I’m not a chemist and I have no idea what compounds are present in the bush.

These findings highlight the need to address knowledge gaps among volunteer firefighters as smoke emitted from burning vegetation is known to be harmful (Reisen et al. 2011). Furthermore, firefighters’ knowledge of possible personal health risks arising from exposure to bushfires is crucial as it may influence their decision-making, particularly around risk-taking behaviours (Kruger and Beilin 2014). Volunteer firefighters reported their awareness that career firefighters attend a 2-day course dedicated to the exposures they may experience at different types of fires, highlighting education inequities between different services. Previous research from Sadler et al. (2007) supports these findings, indicating a low understanding of risk among volunteer firefighters compared with their paid full-time counterparts (i.e. career firefighters). Our findings suggest that little has changed in the last 16 years since Sadler et al. published their research, highlighting the need for urgent education programs to protect the health of volunteer firefighters.

Whereas volunteer firefighters lacked knowledge about the potential exposures they might experience, forestry firefighters consistently demonstrated greater overall knowledge about burning vegetation being harmful to health.

Jane, a forestry firefighter with only 1 year of service and a degree in conservation biology, drew on her tertiary studies to link her knowledge of contaminants found in bushfire smoke with their potential negative effects on her health:

Given the poisonous nature of certain chemicals found in our native bushes, it’s reasonable to assume that inhaling the smoke would have negative effects on us as well. While I’m uncertain about the exact extent of these effects, breathing in such chemicals can’t be good for us.

Jane highlights that education is key, as the knowledge she gained from her tertiary studies leads to a better understanding of the potential harms. This knowledge among forestry firefighters may also be attributed to their greater exposure to fires compared with their volunteer counterparts offering increased opportunities for on-the-job learning (Sommer and Njå 2011). Whereas volunteer firefighters typically attend 5–10 bushfires per season, forestry firefighters spend approximately 9 months of the year working on prescribed burning or fighting bushfires. This increased experience appeared to contribute to their understanding of the differing ecological regions of WA, the influence of weather on smoke conditions and the specific species of plants burning, all factors affecting the makeup of smoke (Dong et al. 2020; Hou and Orth 2020; Price et al. 2023).

Roy, a forestry firefighter, explained his understanding of different types of bushfire smoke built from 15 years of experience on the fireground and no formal training:

The way something burns and the type of smoke it produces significantly impact our breathing. When we are in swampy areas like Swan Coastal, for instance, it tends to burn hotter and produce a different type of smoke compared to the regions in the east or north. It’s not just the excess moisture in the ground; it also depends on the type of plants burning.

Although Roy’s observations do align with the current knowledge of the factors that affect the toxicity of bushfire smoke, potentially, these assumptions could be incorrect. Providing training on the potential adverse health effects of bushfire smoke and how to mitigate these risks should be prioritised, as this is a topic not routinely addressed in the training currently offered to volunteers or forestry firefighters.

The level of knowledge among individual firefighters regarding the health risks associated with bushfire-associated smoke appeared to influence their risk and/or protective behaviours when fighting fires. Participants with more experience and knowledge of the health risks of bushfire smoke frequently reported how they became more cautious when fighting fires, striving to avoid bushfire smoke whenever possible. With more experience in the field, participants noted using increased patience, taking time to assess fire conditions before advancing to the fire line. Additionally, participants commonly reported their increasing knowledge about bushfire smoke prompted them to change their protective behaviours, with those having access to RPE using it more frequently, and some refusing to enter smoky conditions without it.

Cheryl, a senior firefighter with 9 years’ experience spoke about how she changed her RPE behaviour over her career in response to feeling unwell following a shift:

I have gotten to the point where I am putting on [RPE] in the truck before I was getting out of the truck… I didn’t want to have to feel sick afterwards [after her shift]. So, I would start [wearing RPE] right at the beginning, whereas at the beginning of my firefighting career, I would wait until I started feeling sick before I started putting any measures in place.

Conversely, it is important to note a small minority of participants expressed growing indifference towards potential exposures as they gained more firefighting experience. These participants viewed smoke exposure as an afterthought compared with the primary task of extinguishing fires. Michael, a volunteer firefighter with over 8 years’ experience, said:

I would say it [care about potential exposures] has gone the other way. Like I just don’t really care anymore. It is there, I’m not intentionally trying to get exposed or anything, it is just a part of it [firefighting]. If I focus on the exposures, I’m not paying attention to what might kill me right there and then.

Overall, our findings align with previous qualitative research on firefighters (Martinez-Fiestas et al. 2020) that reported that increased experience and knowledge of potential risk factors can lead to varying behavioural responses depending on the individual. We found that the vast majority of firefighters evolved more protective behaviour and a small minority signalled riskier behaviour.

Many participants from the volunteer bushfire service shared stories of being influenced by older brigade members to forgo wearing RPE, underpinned by the notion they needed to learn how to cope with and work in a smoky environment. For example, Aaron, a volunteer bushfire firefighter with 3 years’ experience, recalled one of his first firefighting experiences when a senior firefighter advised him not to wear a mask:

I remember going out with one firefighter when I first started, […] it was just one of the pile burns we were at, and he [a senior firefighter] told us not to put on our masks because we needed to learn how to breathe inside the smoke. I followed his advice because, at the time, I didn’t know any better.

Similarly, Jordan, a senior volunteer firefighter with over 10 years of experience, shared his experiences of being a novice firefighter. He recounts how he was actively discouraged from wearing RPE.

Wearing a mask was considered weak and discouraged. At that time, I was involved in semi-professional sports, so I didn’t want to lose my cardio, which is why I religiously wore a mask. I faced ridicule for wearing it. Our training didn’t include proper instruction on mask usage or when to use it. I even broke my first mask because I didn’t know how to use it.

A few participants reported that they were not issued with RPE and had to purchase their own masks privately. Dane, a volunteer firefighter with 8 years’ experience, recalled his early days in the brigade when he had to endure smoke without proper protection:

I was given a tunic, helmet, and managed to find some gloves and pants. But there was no mask of any kind. I remember going to one of my first jobs, tears streaming down my face, unable to do anything… I actually bought my first mask because I couldn’t handle it [the smoke].

A few volunteer firefighter participants discussed the previous existence of a culture within their brigade that influenced them against wearing RPE – at a cost to their health. For example, Jordan described how:

…some people have left the brigade due to health issues. Even a slight whiff of smoke triggers severe coughing fits in them, as if they had severe asthma, which they don’t. Some individuals have inhaled embers and suffered throat damage, struggling to breathe comfortably for a long time before eventually leaving firefighting. If they had worn their PPE and not listened to the toxic culture, this wouldn’t have happened…

Previous research has explored the potentially toxic aspects of the hegemonic masculine nature of bushfire firefighting (Mannick 2021), a pervasive problem found in fire brigades globally. A recent report, prompted after a young firefighter took his own life, highlighted the masculinity-fuelled bullying occurring in the firefighting profession (Afzal 2022).

Firefighters being discouraged from wearing PPE, specifically RPE, was also reported by Maglio et al. (2016), whose participants chose not to wear PPE to avoid ridicule and harassment from more experienced peers. However, our findings also found that individual will, fuelled by knowledge of contaminants in bushfire smoke, resulted in some participants (e.g. Jordan) overcoming these hurdles and choosing to wear RPE to protect their health.

The workplace culture where breathing protection was not routinely worn and coworkers were discouraged from wearing it, as described in the previous section, appears to be changing for the better. Now, most volunteer firefighter participants state that in recent years, their brigades have prioritised protection more. These same participants, now more experienced with bushfire smoke, PPE use, and firefighting tactics and strategies, recounted stories of how they now influence other firefighters to prioritise protection when attending bushfires, signalling a cultural shift.

Michael, a senior volunteer firefighter of 9 years, spoke about the positive cultural changes emerging:

Well, I think it’s [the culture towards RPE] slowly changing now, which is a good thing. But when I first joined, there was a prevalent attitude that wearing a mask made you weak or effeminate, with remarks like, ‘Why are you wearing that, you homo?’ That attitude is changing more and more as we bring in individuals with better education, different backgrounds, and understanding of the importance of safety.

Aaron, a novice volunteer firefighter who was advised he should ‘learn how to breathe inside the smoke’, ensures new firefighters follow the guidelines to wear their RPE:

… if I’m with any new people, I always tell them to put their masks on right away, no questions asked. Don’t breathe in the smoke.

Dane spoke about new volunteer firefighters being equipped differently from when he started:

Now, over 5 years later, as soon as you walk in, you’re given a full-face [P3] mask.

Jordan, the volunteer who broke his mask through lack of training and ‘religiously wore his mask’ in the face of ridicule to protect himself from smoke, spoke of the training new recruits must undertake:

But now, the formal training dedicates an entire section to managing full-face masks, including donning and doffing, cleaning and teaching new firefighters how to position themselves to avoid smoke exposure.

Although the forestry firefighters have struggled with gaining access to RPE (which is discussed in the next section), the PPE culture appears to also be shifting for the better. Peter, a forestry firefighter with 20 years’ experience, has seen the cultural change around wearing PPE. He stated that he believed most firefighters now adhere to PPE requirements, partially owing to a younger work force whom he thought were more likely to prioritise safety:

Most people wear it. I’d say 99% of people adhere to the PPE requirements now. This is partly due to an increase in younger firefighters and a higher turnover rate. The older guys are set in their ways and are the most resistant to change.

Over the past decade, there has been a worldwide effort to improve the safety cultures of firefighting agencies (Pupulidy 2020). Overall, these findings demonstrate the complex dynamics of interpersonal influences on firefighters’ decisions to wear PPE and RPE. The shift toward prioritising personal protection and positive role modelling among experienced firefighters is effecting a gradual cultural change in the bushfire firefighting profession. Participants’ concerns for their health and their active efforts to protect themselves and influence others to do the same highlight the importance of ongoing education and support within the firefighting community.

All volunteer firefighters interviewed said that today they were provided with machine washing facilities in the station to decontaminate their PPE and that their brigade had an informal policy to wash their PPE after each use, which all interviewed volunteers said they followed strictly. Many participants shared that this culture of PPE washing was enforced by senior members reprimanding those wearing dirty PPE during training.

In sharp contrast, every forestry firefighter interviewed revealed no set procedures existed and there were no facilities provided to decontaminate PPE after fire events. All forestry firefighters conveyed a basic understanding of the risks of not cleaning their PPE. As a result of not having washing facilities at the workplace, some forestry firefighter participants said this meant their PPE was not cleaned often. Cameron, a forestry firefighter with over 15 years’ experience, reported he would not wash his PPE for months:

I didn’t [wash my PPE]. I’ll just stuff it in my bag. And when I think it smells bad enough, I just put it in the wash. Simple as that.

Several forestry firefighters mirrored this response, emphasising that at some points, their jacket could ‘stand up on its own’, suggesting it was rigid from dirt and contaminant. Although a shift toward better cleaning practices has occurred in recent years, participants stated that when they did wash their PPE, it was always, without exception, done in their home washing machines. Sarah, a forestry firefighter of 8 years, expressed her concerns about washing PPE at home:

I personally don’t like to wear it much at all [i.e. multiple times]. I would prefer to wash it after it’s been worn [once] because I know that the toxic carcinogens would sit on your clothes. Probably not great to be against your skin… and this is something I also don’t agree with that we are forced to wash our own clothing in our home machines.

This was a common sentiment expressed by all forestry firefighter participants. Those with children expressed their unease about washing their dirty PPE at home, believing it could potentially harm their family. Jake described the complex home laundry routine he practised in an attempt to protect his family from perceived contaminants:

[I wash my gear] in my everyday washing machine at home, I try to get my missus to wash all her stuff and all my other clothing non-related to work first. And then I’ll wash mine [PPE] afterwards at the end, then I’ll do two drum cleans and hope that it gets rid of the particulates, I am worried about the particles that will come off the clothing and impact the kids one day.

Our findings reinforce results from other studies in which US wildland firefighters reported not isolating contaminated PPE, washing it at home and transporting it in personal vehicles – all significant deviations from US wildland firefighting standards (McQuerry and Easter 2022). There is a need to better protect forestry firefighters and their families from unnecessary and avoidable secondary exposures.

Firefighters’ skin may be exposed to contaminants during bushfire firefighting activities, making personal decontamination an important process to protect their health and well-being (Fent et al. 2017). At most WA volunteer firefighter stations, there are limited showering facilities for firefighters. Volunteer firefighter participants shared that their station had two showers for the crews to decontaminate after their shift; however, there were no strict procedures or policies to enforce showering after a shift.

However, all forestry firefighters reported no specific decontamination workplace showering facilities were available but the collective desire for these to be provided was apparent. Forestry firefighters collectively expressed their frustration in having to drive, dirty from a shift, to shower at home, believing it was their employer’s duty to provide appropriate facilities. Harrison, a forestry firefighter, explained why this is necessary:

…having showers, just so you can go finish your shift, have a shower, get home, and you just leave everything at work. Because when you get home, you got ticks on you, you’re covered in black stuff. Your house stinks of smoke, your car stinks of smoke.

Some forestry firefighting work centres do have shower facilities, but these are not specifically designed for personal decontamination after fire events. Charlie, a forestry firefighter for 21 years, said:

We’ve got one shower here for 20 blokes! So it’s not really designed for us to be showering here, so we don’t shower until we get home. So, you’re still taking it [contaminants] home with you. It is like designed for you not to get clean before you go home.

Research on the barriers preventing these procedures from being adopted by worldwide forestry firefighting forces is still under study. However, our research supports the findings of other studies (Stricker 2023), suggesting the need for clear policies, procedures and facilities for personal and equipment decontamination.