International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Analysis of the Effectiveness of Decontamination
Fluids on the Level of Biological Contamination of
Firefighter Suits
Andrzej Polanczyk 1, * , Aleksandra Piechota-Polanczyk 2 , Anna Dmochowska 1 ,
Malgorzata Majder-Lopatka 1 and Zdzislaw Salamonowicz 1
1 The Main School of Fire Service, Slowackiego 52/54 Street, 01-629 Warsaw, Poland;
admochowska@sgsp.edu.pl (A.D.); mmajder@sgsp.edu.pl (M.M.-L.); zsalamonowicz@sgsp.edu.pl (Z.S.)
2 Department of Medical Biotechnology, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7 Street, 30-387 Krakow,
Poland; aleksandra.piechota-polanczyk@uj.edu.pl
* Correspondence: andrzej.polanczyk@gmail.com




Received: 21 February 2020; Accepted: 16 April 2020; Published: 19 April 2020


Abstract: The scope of tasks of chemical and ecological rescue procedures includes prevention of
terrorist attacks with biological weapons. After each action, firefighters are obliged to clean and
disinfect their outfits to prevent the potential spreading of harmful microorganisms. This study
aimed to analyze the effectiveness of decontamination fluids used to disinfect firefighter’s suits.
Two types of clothes were analyzed: special combat clothing (NOMEX), and the heavy gas-tight
chemical type 1a suit. Swabbed places were cut out and sterilized mechanically using detergent
and alcohol. Each time, smears were made on sterile glass, fixed in pure ethanol and stained using
the Gram method. After this, the staining samples were air dried and photographed under a light
microscope at magnification 1000×. Each smear was made in triplicate and the relative number of
stained microorganisms was analyzed using ImageJ software. The results showed that detergent
significantly decreased the number of pathogens in the chest area on the NOMEX suit and the type
1a-gas-tight clothing and was more effective than alcohol, especially in case of the NOMEX suit.
In conclusion, the detergent was more efficient in decontaminating the NOMEX outfit than the heavy
gas-tight clothing, whose surface was better cleaned by the alcohol.

Keywords: biological decontamination; Gram’s method; decontamination; firefighter special outfit

1. Introduction
Without knowing the causes of disease formation, the development of methods for biological
contamination treatment is impossible [1–3]. The presence of biological threats does not only refer
to war conflicts, bioterrorism, and the criminal world, but also to chemical spills and biological
contamination [4–6]. One of the major problems associated with chemical warfare is the use of
proper protective clothing [7–9]. Numerous occupations require the wearing of personal protective
equipment [10,11] such as protective hoods, coats, helmets, and self-contained breathing apparatus
wear by firefighters [12]. According to the Polish regulation of the Minister of Health from 25 April 2005,
“on harmful biological factors for health in the work environment and health protection of workers
exposed to these factors”, employees in some enterprises, institutions, and companies are also exposed.
These include, but are not limited to, work related to (1) food production; (2) cultivation of agriculture,
as well as places where there is contact with products of animal origin or animals; (3) waste management
and wastewater treatment; (4) health care and diagnostic, clinical, or veterinary laboratories.
Pursuant to the ordinance of the Minister of Interior and Administration on the detailed
organization of the national rescue and fire-fighting system, the State Fire Service includes chemical

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2815; doi:10.3390/ijerph17082815 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2815 2 of 10

and ecological rescue, whose purpose is to plan, organize, and carry out rescue operations in such a
way as to remove or reduce the threat caused by dangerous substances. The scope of tasks of chemical
and ecological rescue also includes the prevention of terrorist events with the use of biological factors
including bacteria (Regulation of the Minister of Interior and Administration of 3 July 2017).
Pathogens, among which are bacteria, can be spread by air-droplet, air-dust, food, by the bite
of blood-born arthropods, and damaged skin or through carriers [13–15]. Firefighting is one of the
most challenging and dangerous professions [16,17]. During action, the firefighter’s skin is exposed
to contamination in between interface regions of the turnout jacket and trousers, or through the
cross-transfer of contamination on gear to skin [18]. Additionally, firefighters are at increased health
risks of simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals [19]. Biological pathogens cause severe or fatal
diseases. However, not all are infectious, but to determine this, it is necessary to take a sample and
examine it in laboratory conditions. Analytical methods can determine the presence and type of
bacteria that caused the disease. Therefore, in most cases, it is suitable enough to identify the shape
of the bacteria under a microscope. In other cases, dyeing methods, such as Gram staining, can be
applied. This method helps to differentiate bacteria and assign them to a specific group, which may
help to choose the proper way of decontamination to minimize the risk of further spreading pathogens.
The process of decontamination is defined as “a set of actions carried out on the spot by
emergency services, in order to reduce the absorption of substances by the injured, stop the spread of
contamination and prevent secondary contamination of rescuers” (Regulation of the Minister of Interior
and Administration of 3 July 2017). The decontamination process can be carried out in four ways:
(1) mechanical, (2) chemical, (3) physical, and (4) mixed. The decontamination options include wet
decontamination, air decontamination, and dry decontamination [20]. The decontamination process
consists of immersing or rubbing with absorbent materials of a contaminated person or equipment.
To this end, appropriate substances should be selected that are adjusted to the threat. In the case of
biological hazards, only cleaning and disinfecting agents can be used for decontamination purposes [21].
Types of preparations are classified by the State Sanitary Inspection of the Ministry of the Interior
depending on the microorganism found. These agents are fungicidal, tuberculocidal, bactericidal,
virucidal, and sporicidal. The most commonly used preparations in the fire service are: PearSafe,
Virkon, BX 29, and BX 24. However, soap and alcoholic solutions are also used. For instance, surfactants
such as dish soap are designed to surround lipid molecules and liberate them from surfaces so that
water can then take them away [20]. Therefore, the aim of the study was to analyze the effectiveness of
the most commonly used decontamination fluids on biological contamination level of a firefighter’s suit.
This paper is organized as follow. In Section 2, the analyzed material, investigated method and
statistical analysis applied in the paper are described. Section 3 presents the results of the Gram
staining of firefighters’ suits. In Section 4, obtained results are discussed, while Section 5 concludes
the paper.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection

Two types of clothes were analyzed during the tests: special combat clothing (NOMEX), which is
most often used during rescue operations threatened with biological contamination, and the heavy
gas-tight chemical type 1a suit (Figure 1). Four suits of each type were analyzed. The outfits were used
for one month in field conditions (during cadets’ one-month training in closed campus) before being
tested for biological contamination using Gram staining.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2815 3 of 10
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 3 of 10
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 3 of 10

Figure 1. Special
Special combat
combat clothing
clothing (NOMEX
(NOMEX clothing)
clothing) (on the left) and
and type
type 1a
1a heavy
heavy gas-tight
gas-tight clothing
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Special combat clothing (NOMEX clothing) (on
(on the
the left)
left) and type 1a heavy gas-tight clothing
clothing
(on
(on the
the right
right side).
side).
(on the right side).

Special
Special combat
combat clothing
clothing (NOMEX)
(NOMEX)consistsconsistsof four
fourlayers:
layers:(1) outer fabric (outer layer), (2)
Special combat clothing (NOMEX) consists ofoffour layers: (1) (1) outer
outer fabric
fabric (outer
(outer layer),
layer), (2)
waterproof
(2) waterproof andandvaporvapor permeable
permeable membrane,
membrane, (3)(3)thermal
thermalinsulation
insulationlayer,
layer,and
and(4)(4) lining.
lining. TheThe outer
outer
waterproof and vapor permeable membrane, (3) thermal insulation layer, and (4) lining. The outer
fabric
fabric consists ofof 60% aramidaramid fibers, while
while the other other 40% is is viscose. The membrane contains 50%
fabric consists
consists of 60% 60% aramid fibers,fibers, while the the other 40% 40% is viscose.
viscose. The
The membrane
membrane contains
contains 50%50%
polyester
polyester and
and 50%
50% polyurethane.
polyurethane. The
The only
only component
component of
of the
the thermal
thermal insulation
insulation insert
insert is
is the
the aramid
aramid
polyester and 50% polyurethane. The only component of the thermal insulation insert is the aramid
fiber.
fiber. The lining
lining was made made of 50% 50% aramid fibers
fibers and 50% 50% viscose.
fiber. The
The lining was was made of of 50% aramid
aramid fibers and and 50% viscose.
viscose.
Meanwhile,
Meanwhile, the
the type
type 1a 1a gas-tight
gas-tight clothing
clothing consists
consists of of polyamide
polyamide coveredcovered with a polyvinyl
with a polyvinyl chloride
Meanwhile, the type 1a gas-tight clothing consists of polyamide covered with a polyvinyl
chloride
(PVC) (PVC) layersides.
on both sides.material
Similarismaterial is usedshoes
to make shoes and a visor. The gloves area
chloride (PVC) layer on both sides. Similar material is used to make shoes and a visor. The glovesof
layer on both Similar used to make and a visor. The gloves are made are
made
mixture of of
a mixture
nitrile of nitrile
rubber and rubber and chloroprene
chloroprene rubber. These rubber.
two These
suits aretwo
the suits
most are the mostused
commonly commonly
during
made of a mixture of nitrile rubber and chloroprene rubber. These two suits are the most commonly
used
events during events with
with biological biological
threats, threats,
therefore theytherefore
were chosen they for
were thechosen for the analysis.
analysis.
used during events with biological threats, therefore they were chosen for the analysis.
Sterile
Sterile cotton swabs were used
used to take
take biological samples samples from 33 cm cm2 areas of of analyzed suitssuits
Sterile cotton
cotton swabs
swabs werewere used to to take biological
biological samples from from 3 cm2 areasareas of analyzed
analyzed suits
(Figure
(Figure 2). Each time, 3 separate swabs were taken. Tested places included the chest, the front of the
(Figure 2).
2). Each
Each time,
time, 33 separate
separate swabs
swabs were
were taken. Tested places
taken. Tested places included
included the the chest,
chest, thethe front
front of
of the
the
thigh,
thigh, and
and hard
hard to
to reach
reach places,
places, such
such as
as the
the knee
knee and
and elbow
elbow flexion,
flexion, armpit,
armpit, and
and crotch.
crotch. Swabs
Swabs were
were
thigh, and hard to reach places, such as the knee and elbow flexion, armpit, and crotch. Swabs were
transferred
transferred each time
time on sterile
sterile glass to
to create smears
smears which were were further fixedfixed in pure
pure ethanol.
transferred each
each time on on sterile glass
glass to create
create smears which which were further
further fixedin in pureethanol.
ethanol.

Figure 2. An example of sample collection from special NOMEX clothing (on the left) and type 1a
Figure 2.
Figure 2. An example of
An example sample collection
of sample collection from special NOMEX
from special NOMEX clothing
clothing (on
(on the left) and
the left) and type
type 1a
1a
heavy gas-tight clothing (on the right side).
heavy gas-tight clothing (on the right side).
heavy gas-tight clothing (on the right side).
Next, swabbed places were sterilized mechanically by rubbing using tap water for 20 s with 20%
mechanically by rubbing using tap water for 20 s with 20%
Next, swabbed places were sterilized mechanically
soap or 98% alcohol (Figure 3). When the fabric was dry, (which took around 10 min for detergent
soap oror 98%
98%alcohol
alcohol(Figure
(Figure3).3).When
Whenthe
thefabric
fabric was
was dry,
dry, (which
(which took
took around
around 10 min
10 min for detergent
for detergent and
and 1 min for alcohol) swabs from the same areas were collected, transferred onto sterile glass and
1and
min1 for
minalcohol)
for alcohol)
swabsswabs
from from the same
the same areas areas
were were collected,
collected, transferred
transferred onto sterile
onto sterile glassfixed
glass and and
fixed with ethanol. Each time, the samples were collected in triplicate and subjected to Gram staining.
fixedethanol.
with with ethanol.
Each Each
time, time, the samples
the samples were were collected
collected in triplicate
in triplicate and subjected
and subjected to Gram
to Gram staining.
staining.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2815 4 of 10
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 4 of 10

Figure 3.
Figure 3. An
An example
example of
of the
the decontamination of the
decontamination of the type
type 1a
1a heavy
heavy gas-tight
gas-tight clothing.
clothing.

2.2. Gram Staining

To
To visualize
visualizethe
thebacteria
bacteriaand
anddistinguish
distinguishGram-positive
Gram-positive andandGram-negative
Gram-negative bacterial species,
bacterial the
species,
previously
the previouslydescribed Gram
described Gramstaining method
staining method was used
was [22].
used [22].InInthis
thismethod,
method,thethesamples
samples are
are briefly
stained with crystal violet, which joins peptidoglycans in the bacterial wall, before adding iodine,
which
which creates
createscomplexes
complexeswith
withcrystal violet,
crystal thenthen
violet, de-staining withwith
de-staining alcohol, whichwhich
alcohol, washes out theout
washes crystal
the
violet–iodine complex from Gram-negative bacteria. Finally, the samples are stained
crystal violet–iodine complex from Gram-negative bacteria. Finally, the samples are stained with with fuchsin,
which
fuchsin,visualizes Gram-negative
which visualizes bacteria. After
Gram-negative staining,
bacteria. samples
After staining,weresamples
air driedwere
and photographed
air dried and
under a light microscope
photographed at magnification
under a light microscope 1000×. After staining,
at magnification 1000×.Gram-positive bacteria
After staining, should be
Gram-positive
observable as purple-blue and Gram-negative bacteria should be pink-red.
bacteria should be observable as purple-blue and Gram-negative bacteria should be pink-red.
Quantification
Quantification of the bacteria was performed using ImageJ software software with
with the
the “analyze
“analyze particles”
particles”
tool after brightness/contrast
brightness/contrast adjustment,
adjustment, described
described inin detail
detail in
in [22].
[22].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

2.3. Statistical Analysis
Data
Data are
are presented
presented as mean ±
as mean ± standard
standard error
error (SEM).
(SEM). Comparisons
Comparisons between
between twotwo types
types of
of suits
suits
and decontamination methods was calculated using one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s
and decontamination methods was calculated using one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post-test. post-test.
Comparison between two
Comparison between two groups
groups was
was performed
performed using
using the
the unpaired Student’s t-test
unpaired Student’s t-test for
for normally
normally
distributed variables or non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test for non-normally
distributed variables or non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test for non-normally distributed distributed variables
after verification of normality. Outliers were calculated with Grubbs’ test (Statistica 12.0
variables after verification of normality. Outliers were calculated with Grubbs’ test (Statistica 12.0 software).
Data were Data
software). considered statisticallystatistically
were considered different when p < 0.05.
different when p < 0.05.

3. Results
3. Results
The results indicated that the decontamination process effectively decreased the number of
The results indicated that the decontamination process effectively decreased the number of
pathogens on each analyzed area. Figure 1 presents changes in pathogens number from “easy to
pathogens on each analyzed area. Figure 1 presents changes in pathogens number from “easy to
reach” places such as the chest and front of the thigh on NOMEX suits and type 1a gas-tight clothing.
reach” places such as the chest and front of the thigh on NOMEX suits and type 1a gas-tight clothing.
The detergent significantly decreased the number of pathogens in the chest area on the NOMEX suit
The detergent significantly decreased the number of pathogens in the chest area on the NOMEX suit
(p < 0.001) and the type 1a gas-tight clothing (p < 0.01) and was more effective than alcohol, especially
(p < 0.001) and the type 1a gas-tight clothing (p < 0.01) and was more effective than alcohol, especially
in case of the NOMEX suit (p < 0.01) (Figure 4A). Similar results were gathered for the NOMEX suit on
in case of the NOMEX suit (p < 0.01) (Figure 4A). Similar results were gathered for the NOMEX suit
the front of the thigh, but not for the type 1a gas-tight clothing, where both reagents were similarly
on the front of the thigh, but not for the type 1a gas-tight clothing, where both reagents were similarly
effective. (Figure 4B).
effective. (Figure 4B).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2815 5 of 10
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 5 of 10

Figure 4.
Figure The effectiveness
4. The effectiveness of
ofdecontamination
decontaminationofofNOMEX
NOMEXand andtype
type1a1a
gas-tight
gas-tightclothing, measured
clothing, measuredas
thethe
as number
number of of
pathogens
pathogensononthe chest
the chest(A)
(A)and
andfront
frontofofthe
thethigh
thigh(B). Mean ±± standard
(B).Mean error (SEM).
standard error (SEM).
N = four suits per group and three swabs from each place. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 calculated
N = four suits per group and three swabs from each place. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 calculated
with Students t-test.
with Students t-test.

The effectiveness of the decontamination with the detergent for the chest was equal to 92.9% and
The effectiveness of the decontamination with the detergent for the chest was equal to 92.9% and
86.3% for the NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively. For alcohol, it was equal to
86.3% for the NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively. For alcohol, it was equal
63.9% and 74.8% for the NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively. In the case of the
to 63.9% and 74.8% for the NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively. In the case
front of the thigh, the detergent disposed of 91.6% and 67.9% of pathogens from the NOMEX suit and
of the front of the thigh, the detergent disposed of 91.6% and 67.9% of pathogens from the NOMEX
the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively. Alcohol removed 65.6% and 82.2% for the NOMEX suit
suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively. Alcohol removed 65.6% and 82.2% for the
and the type 1a gas-tight clothing.
NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing.
Analysis of effectiveness of the decontamination of the hard-accessible areas such as the armpit,
Analysis of effectiveness of the decontamination of the hard-accessible areas such as the armpit,
knee, crotch, and elbow fixation showed that, in most cases, the detergent was more effective in
knee, crotch, and elbow fixation showed that, in most cases, the detergent was more effective in
decreasing the number of pathogens from the NOMEX suit compared to the type 1a gas-tight outfit
decreasing the number of pathogens from the NOMEX suit compared to the type 1a gas-tight outfit
(Figures 5 and 6).
(Figures 5 and 6).
The decontamination effectiveness on the armpit (Figure 5A) and knee (Figure 5B) area showed
The decontamination effectiveness on the armpit (Figure 5A) and knee (Figure 5B) area showed
that both decontamination fluids significantly reduced the number of pathogens on the NOMEX
that both decontamination fluids significantly reduced the number of pathogens on the NOMEX and
and type 1a gas-tight clothing. On the armpit, we also noticed that alcohol was more efficient than
type 1a gas-tight clothing. On the armpit, we also noticed that alcohol was more efficient than
detergent in decreasing the number of pathogens on the type 1a gas-tight clothing (p < 0.01), and
detergent in decreasing the number of pathogens on the type 1a gas-tight clothing (p < 0.01), and
similarly effective in other analyzed cases.
similarly effective in other analyzed cases.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2815 6 of 10
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 6 of 10

Figure 5. The effectiveness of decontamination of NOMEX and type 1a gas-tight clothing, measured as
Figure of
number 5. pathogens
The effectiveness of decontamination
on the hard of NOMEX
to reach areas such and type
as the armpit 1a gas-tight
(A) and knee (B). clothing,
N = four measured
suits per
as number of pathogens on the hard to reach areas such as the armpit (A) and
group and three swabs from each place. Mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 calculatedknee (B). N =Students
with four suits
per group and three swabs from each place. Mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 calculated with Students
t-test.
t-test.
The effectiveness of the decontamination with the detergent for the armpit was equal to 80.8% and
59.2% The effectiveness
for the NOMEX suit of the
anddecontamination
the type 1a gas-tightwithclothing,
the detergent for theFor
respectively. armpit wasitequal
alcohol, to 80.8%
was equal to
and 59.2% for the NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively.
87.4% and 80.5% for the NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively. Additionally, For alcohol, it was
equal
the to 87.4%
detergent and 80.5%
removed 71.9% forandthe NOMEX
70.8% from thesuitknee
andfor
the
thetype
NOMEX1a gas-tight
suit andclothing, respectively.
the type 1a gas-tight
Additionally, the detergent removed 71.9% and 70.8% from the knee for the NOMEX
clothing, respectively. Alcohol discarded 89.3% and 62.9% for the NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight suit and the
type 1a gas-tight
clothing, clothing, respectively. Alcohol discarded 89.3% and 62.9% for the NOMEX suit and
respectively.
the Atype 1a gas-tight
significant decreaseclothing, respectively.
in the number of pathogens was observed for the crotch (Figure 5A,
A significant decrease
p < 0.001) and elbow fixation (Figure in the number of pathogens
6B, p < 0.01 for alcohol was
and pobserved fordetergent)
< 0.001 for the crotchfor
(Figure
the NOMEX5A, p <
0.001)
suit. Onandthe elbow fixation
other hand, (Figure 6B, not
alcohol—but p < 0.01 for alcohol and
detergent—was p < 0.001
efficient for detergent)
in cleaning for the
the crotch NOMEX
(Figure 5B,
suit. On the other hand, alcohol—but not detergent—was efficient in cleaning the
p < 0.001) on the type 1a gas-tight clothing. Both detergents were ineffective in the decontamination ofcrotch (Figure 5B,
p < 0.001) on the type 1a gas-tight clothing. Both
the elbow fixation on the type 1a gas-tight suit (Figure 6B). detergents were ineffective in the decontamination
of the elbow fixation
Furthermore, on the type 1a
the effectiveness gas-tight
of the suit (Figurewith
decontamination 6B).the detergent for the crotch was similar
and equal to 77.6% and 73.5% for the NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively.
Alcohol was slightly more effective on the NOMEX suit (81.6% vs. 73.5% for the NOMEX suit and
the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively). Additionally, the detergent removed 91.6% of pathogens
from the elbow fixation on the NOMEX suit, but only 67.9% of pathogens from the type 1a gas-tight
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2815 7 of 10

clothing. The opposite observation was made for alcohol, which discarded 65.6% of pathogens from
Int. NOMEX
the J. Environ. Res.
suitPublic
and Health
82.2%2020, 17, x
of pathogens from the type 1a gas-tight clothing. 7 of 10

Figure 6. The effectiveness of decontamination of NOMEX and type 1a gas-tight clothing, measured as
Figure 6.
number of The effectiveness
pathogens on the of
harddecontamination of NOMEX
to reach areas such and
as crotch (A)type
and1a gas-tight
elbow clothing,
fixation (B). Nmeasured
= 4 suits
as number of pathogens on the hard to reach areas such as crotch (A) and elbow fixation
per group and 3 swabs from each place. Mean ± SEM. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 calculated with Students (B). N=4
suits per group and 3 swabs from each place. Mean ± SEM. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 calculated
t-test for normally distributed data and U-Mann Whitney test for non-normally distributed variables. with
Students t-test for normally distributed data and U-Mann Whitney test for non-normally distributed
4. Discussion
variables.
Firefighters, police, and/or military officers are often required to wear personal protective suits
Furthermore, the effectiveness of the decontamination with the detergent for the crotch was
during emergency actions [19,22]. The characteristics of firefighting work involves exhibition on the
similar and equal to 77.6% and 73.5% for the NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing,
chemical or biological factors [10,12] which is limited by personal protective equipment, e.g., turnout
respectively. Alcohol was slightly more effective on the NOMEX suit (81.6% vs. 73.5% for the
jackets, trousers, hoods, and gloves [16]. Additionally, Costello et al. showed that explosive ordinance
NOMEX suit and the type 1a gas-tight clothing, respectively). Additionally, the detergent removed
disposal is often required to wear additional clothing that repels the contact of chemical or biological
91.6% of pathogens from the elbow fixation on the NOMEX suit, but only 67.9% of pathogens from
agents from the skin [10]. Due to numerous clothing types used by firefighters, different methods of
the type 1a gas-tight clothing. The opposite observation was made for alcohol, which discarded 65.6%
cleaning, including laundering, should be regularly applied. According to some papers, this should be
of pathogens from the NOMEX suit and 82.2% of pathogens from the type 1a gas-tight clothing.
conducted more often than once or twice per year [20], or before being reused [23]. Interestingly, a
study conducted by Stull et al. determined that the laundering procedure affects the ability of the gear
4. Discussion
to resist water penetration for a non-breathable moisture barrier material [21]. In our work, we proved
Firefighters,
that high police, and/or
risk occupations militarywith
are associated officers are often required
the appearance to wear
of bacteria on thepersonal protective
surface of suits
combat suits,
during emergency actions [19,22]. The characteristics
which can be further cleaned with selected detergents. of firefighting work involves exhibition on the
chemical or biological factors [10,12] which is limited by personal protective equipment, e.g., turnout
jackets, trousers, hoods, and gloves [16]. Additionally, Costello et al. showed that explosive ordinance
disposal is often required to wear additional clothing that repels the contact of chemical or biological
agents from the skin [10]. Due to numerous clothing types used by firefighters, different methods of
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2815 8 of 10

Different disinfection substances are applied for the cleaning process of protective suits, for
instance, Kenneth et al. successfully decontaminated firefighters’ suits with isopropanol [20]. In our
work, we used ethanol and detergent and showed that both disinfectant factors were effective in
removing biological contamination, however, to different extents. The studies of others indicated
that the effectiveness of the mixture of water and dish soap on turnout jackets and pants depends
on the detergent and surface type, and the application of 70% isopropanol removes less than 40% of
contamination form non-porous surfaces, while the application of benzalkonium chloride, a surfactant,
is more effective on non-porous surfaces [20].
Moreover, we showed that image processing methods may be applied for the recognition of
microorganisms on different type of materials. In this work, image analysis was applied for the
quantitative analysis of protective suits before and after decontamination. A similar approach was
used by Czernicka et al., who previously described the bioactivity assessment of crude extracts with
the help of a freeware ImageJ software [24]. Similarly, Bera et al. estimated the bacterial concentration
in fibrous substrates through a combination of scanning electron microscopy and ImageJ software [25].

Limitation to the Study

In this work, two types of firefighters’ suits, which are the most commonly used during actions,
were analyzed and treated with two easily accessible decontamination fluids, e.g., detergent and
alcohol. Instead of the recognition of particular bacteria, the number of bacteria before and after the
decontamination process was analyzed. In the future work, we plan to extend the analyzed group of
protective suits and detergents.

5. Conclusions
The aim of the study was to analyze the effectiveness of decontamination fluids on the biological
contamination of firefighter suits. The results indicated that none of the two tested decontamination
fluids completely removed pathogens from the selected areas. In the case of NOMEX clothing, detergent
proved to be more effective than alcohol. The detergent, due to the substances contained in it as well as
used friction, produced active foam which effectively reduced the number of pathogens on the analyzed
areas. The foam allowed us to interfere in the deeper layers of the material, bringing the bacteria to the
surface and removing them. For the type 1a heavy gas-tight clothing, alcohol was effective, because it
has antibacterial properties that enabled the removal of microbes from the PVC surface.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: A.P., A.P.-P., methodology: A.P., A.D., M.M.-L., Z.S. formal analysis:
A.P., A.P.-P., A.D., M.M.-L., Z.S., investigation: A.P., A.P.-P., A.D., M.M.-L., Z.S., writing: A.P., A.P.-P., A.D.,
M.M.-L., Z.S., project administration: A.P., A.P.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: In this section you can acknowledge any support given which is not covered by the author
contribution or funding sections. This may include administrative and technical support, or donations in kind
(e.g., materials used for experiments).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Stewart, I.B.; Stewart, K.L.; Worringham, C.J.; Costello, J.T. Physiological tolerance times while wearing
explosive ordnance disposal protective clothing in simulated environmental extremes. PLoS ONE 2014,
9, e83740. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Dreger, R.W.; Jones, R.L.; Petersen, S.R. Effects of the self-contained breathing apparatus and fire protective
clothing on maximal oxygen uptake. Ergonomics 2006, 49, 911–920. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. McLellan, T.M.; Boscarino, C.; Duncan, E.J. Physiological strain of next generation combat uniforms with
chemical and biological protection: Importance of clothing vents. Ergonomics 2013, 56, 327–337. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2815 9 of 10

4. Polanczyk, A.; Majder-Lopatka, M.; Salamonowicz, Z.; Dmochowska, A.; Jarosz, W.; Matuszkiewicz, R.;
Makowski, R. Environmental Aspects of Sorption Process. Annu. Set Environ. Prot. 2018, 20, 13.
5. Polanczyk, A.; Salamonowicz, Z. Computational modeling of gas mixture dispersion in a dynamic setup–2d
and 3d numerical approach. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 44, 8. [CrossRef]
6. Havenith, G.; den Hartog, E.; Martini, S. Heat stress in chemical protective clothing: Porosity and vapour
resistance. Ergonomics 2011, 54, 497–507. [CrossRef]
7. Gonzalez, N.W.; Bernard, T.E.; Carroll, N.L.; Bryner, M.A.; Zeigler, J.P. Maximum sustainable work rate for
five protective clothing ensembles with respect to moisture vapor transmission rate and air permeability.
J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2006, 3, 80–86. [CrossRef]
8. Horn, G.P.; Kesler, R.M.; Kerber, S.; Fent, K.W.; Schroeder, T.J.; Scott, W.S.; Fehling, P.C.; Fernhall, B.;
Smith, D.L. Thermal response to firefighting activities in residential structure fires: Impact of job assignment
and suppression tactic. Ergonomics 2018, 61, 404–419. [CrossRef]
9. Harrison, T.R.; Muhamad, J.W.; Yang, F.; Morgan, S.E.; Talavera, E.; Caban-Martinez, A.; Kobetz, E. Firefighter
attitudes, norms, beliefs, barriers, and behaviors toward post-fire decontamination processes in an era of
increased cancer risk. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2018, 15, 279–284. [CrossRef]
10. Costello, J.T.; Stewart, K.L.; Stewart, I.B. Inside the ‘Hurt Locker’: The Combined Effects of Explosive Ordnance
Disposal and Chemical Protective Clothing on Physiological Tolerance Time in Extreme Environments.
Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2015, 59, 922–931. [CrossRef]
11. Alexander, B.M.; Baxter, C.S. Flame-retardant contamination of firefighter personal protective clothing—A
potential health risk for firefighters. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2016, 13, D148–D155. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Mayer, A.C.; Fent, K.W.; Bertke, S.; Horn, G.P.; Smith, D.L.; Kerber, S.; La Guardia, M.J. Firefighter hood
contamination: Efficiency of laundering to remove PAHs and FRs. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2019, 16, 129–140.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Polanczyk, A.; Salamonowicz, Z.; Majder-Lopatka, M.; Dmochowska, A.; Jarosz, W.; Matuszkiewicz, R.;
Makowski, R. 3D Simulation of Chlorine Dispersion in Rrural Area. Annu. Set Environ. Prot. 2018, 20, 14.
14. Polanczyk, A.; Ciuka-Witrylak, M.; Synelnikov, O.; Loik, V. Analysis of sorption of vehicle liquids with sand
that appear after car accidents reproduced in laboratory scale. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 247, 8. [CrossRef]
15. Caldwell, J.N.; Patterson, M.J.; Taylor, N.A. Exertional thermal strain, protective clothing and auxiliary
cooling in dry heat: Evidence for physiological but not cognitive impairment. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2012, 112,
3597–3606. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Fernando, S.; Shaw, L.; Gallea, D.; VandenEnden, L.; House, R.; Verma, D.K.; Britz-McKibbin, P.; McCarry, B.E.
Evaluation of firefighter exposure to wood smoke 3 during training exercises at burn houses. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2016, 50, 1536–1543. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Ribeiro, M.; de Paula Santos, U.; Bussacos, M.A.; Terra-Filho, M. Prevalence and risk of asthma symptoms
among firefighters in Sao Paulo, Brazil: A population-based study. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2009, 52, 261–269.
[CrossRef]
18. Fent, K.W.; Eisenberg, J.; Snawder, J.; Sammons, D.; Pieil, J.D.; Stiegel, M.A.; Mueller, C.; Horn, G.P.;
Dalton, J. Systemic Exposure to PAHs and Benzene in Firefighters Suppressing Controlled Structure Fires.
Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2014, 58, 16.
19. Baxter, C.S.; Hoffman, J.D.; Knipp, M.J.; Reponen, T.; Haynes, E.N. Exposure of firefighters to particulates
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2014, 11, D85–D91. [CrossRef]
20. Fent, K.W.; Alexander, B.; Roberts, J.; Robertson, S.; Toennis, C.; Sammons, D.; Bertke, S.; Kerber, S.; Smith, D.;
Horn, G. Contamination of firefighter personal protective equipment and skin and the effectiveness of
decontamination procedures. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2017, 14, 801–814. [CrossRef]
21. Calvillo, A.; Haynes, E.; Burkle, J.; Schroeder, K.; Calvillo, A.; Reese, J.; Reponen, T. Pilot study on the
efficiency of water-only decontamination for firefighters’ turnout gear. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2019, 16,
199–205. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Polanczyk, A. The usefulness of Gram staining method for analysis of the effectiveness of decontamination
of firefighter’s protective outfit. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 247. [CrossRef]
23. Dorman, L.E.; Havenith, G. The effects of protective clothing on energy consumption during different
activities. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2009, 105, 463–470. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2815 10 of 10

24. Czernicka, L.; Grzegorczyk, A.; Marzec, Z.; Antosiewicz, B.; Malm, A.; Kukula-Koch, W. Antimicrobial
Potential of Single Metabolites of Curcuma longa Assessed in the Total Extract by Thin-Layer
Chromatography-Based Bioautography and Image Analysis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 898. [CrossRef]
25. Bera, T.; Xu, J.; Alusta, P.; Fong, A.; Linder, S.W.; Torosian, S.D. Estimating Bacterial Concentrations in Fibrous
Substrates Through a Combination of Scanning Electron Microscopy and ImageJ. Anal. Chem. 2019, 91,
4405–4412. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).