| Literature DB >> 30370169 |
Alberto J Caban-Martinez1,2, Bob Kropa3, Neal Niemczyk3, Kevin J Moore1, Jeramy Baum4, Natasha Schaefer Solle2,5, David A Sterling6, Erin N Kobetz2,5.
Abstract
Hazardous work zones (i.e., hot, warm, and cold) are typically established by emergency response teams during hazardous materials (HAZMAT) calls but less consistently for fire responses to segment personnel and response activities in the immediate geographic area around the fire. Despite national guidelines, studies have documented the inconsistent use of respiratory protective equipment by firefighters at the fire scene. In this case-series report, we describe warm zone gas levels using multigas detectors across five independent fire incident responses all occurring in a large South Florida fire department. Multigas detector data collected at each fire response indicate the presence of sustained levels of volatile organic compounds in the "warm zone" of each fire event. These cases suggest that firefighters should not only implement strategies for multigas detector use within the warm zone but also include respiratory protection to provide adequate safety from toxic exposures in the warm zone.Entities:
Keywords: Firefighters; Multigas detectors; Respiratory protection; Warm zone
Year: 2017 PMID: 30370169 PMCID: PMC6130006 DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2017.12.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saf Health Work ISSN: 2093-7911
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) measured at the warm zone using multigas devices during HAZMAT team real-life and training fire scenarios from August 2016 to February 2017
| Case ID | Call type | Description | Reading (VOC) at w | Readings of other gasses detected within w | Distance from fire |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Structure fire | 25% involved, couch on porch caught fire extending to the eaves/attic area | 2 ppm | CO = 0 ppm O2 = 20.9% | 15′ from the door of home |
| 2 | Training burn | Vehicle set on fire with accelerants and allowed to burn out for Cause and Origin Class | 10 ppm | CO = 4 ppm O2 = 20.9% | 25′ from vehicle |
| 3 | Vehicle fire | Recreational vehicle fire with flames through roof | 1.5 ppm | CO = 0 ppm O2 = 20.9% | 10′ from vehicle |
| 4 | Structure fire | Small electrical fire contained to living room of an apartment | 3.5 ppm | CO = 10 ppm O2 = 20.9% | 10′ from the door |
| 5 | Structure fire | Garage of single-family home and 3 vehicles fully involved through attic. Fire was contained to the garage and stopped at the laundry room just inside the home from the garage. | 10 ppm | CO = 3 ppm O2 = 20.9% | 15′ from front of home |
CO, carbon monoxide; H2S, hydrogen sulphide; LEL, lower explosive limit