Firefighters' Blood Holds Chemicals Related to Potentially Toxic Compound

A new technique helps to identify unreported fluorinated compounds in fire-suppressing foams

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Perfluorinated compounds, such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), help firefighting foams rapidly flow over flaming liquids such as gasoline and jet fuel, cooling and quenching fires. But despite environmental scientists’ concerns about these possibly toxic compounds accumulating in wildlife and lurking in firefighters’ blood, researchers don’t know the identity of many of the chemicals in the mixtures on the market. For the first time, a new study borrows a medical research tool to pinpoint fluorochemicals in the blood of firefighters, identifying novel compounds that have never before been publicly reported (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, DOI: 10.1021/es503653n).

PFOS and other perfluorinated compounds are extremely persistent in the environment, and toxicological studies have linked the chemicals to kidney and bladder cancer and thyroid disease. Airports and military bases use large amounts of firefighting foams for training purposes, and in some cases, the perfluorinated surfactants have slipped into groundwater and surface water supplies, triggering drinking water shutdowns. The complex mix of largely unknown fluorinated compounds in foams included PFOS until 3M, the largest manufacturer of PFOS, voluntarily phased out the compound in 2002 because of toxicity concerns. Firefighting foam manufacturers have since replaced PFOS with shorter chain fluorinated compounds, many of which are not named by manufacturers.

To identify these mystery compounds, earlier studies have taken advantage of improved analytical techniques, such as quadrupole time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry (QTOF-MS/MS). “But since QTOF-MS/MS generates thousands of organic compounds from an environmental sample, identifying the unknowns is like trying to find a needle in a haystack,” says María José Gómez Ramos, an analytical chemist at the University of Queensland, in Australia, and an author of the study.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


She and her team realized they could isolate the unknowns using a similar strategy to ones that medical researchers use to identify unique biomarkers of diseases. In those studies, researchers might compare compounds found in the blood of cancer patients with those in a healthy control group. For the new study, the scientists compared the fluorinated surfactants in the blood of 20 firefighters with compounds in the blood of 20 students and office workers who had not been exposed to firefighting foams. Gómez Ramos figured that the compounds unique to firefighters would contain unknown fluorinated surfactants.

The scientists ran the blood samples through QTOF-MS/MS, identifying more than 3,000 organic and fluorinated chemicals. But when the research team applied a statistical analysis to the data, a clear separation between the firefighters and controls emerged. The team found nine fluorinated compounds, either exclusively or at significantly higher levels, in the firefighters’ blood. Only five of those compounds appeared in online chemical databases or in the literature. Interpreting the MS data, Gómez Ramos tentatively identified the four unknown compounds as sulfonic acids analogous to PFOS. “It is likely that the unknowns have similar properties to PFOS, such as toxicity and persistence in humans and environment,” Gómez Ramos says. But further studies on the compounds are warranted, she says.

Ian T. Cousins, an environmental chemist at Stockholm University, points out that these new sulfonic acids haven’t been found in commercial foams, so they might be metabolites. But if they are in the foams, “then we should be concerned for highly exposed groups like firefighters,” Cousins says. “We know nothing about their risks.”

This article is reproduced with permission from Chemical & Engineering News (© American Chemical Society). The article was first published on February 3, 2015.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe