Alberto J. Caban-Martinez, DO, PhD, MPH: Non-Destructive Wipe Test Detects PFAS on Firefighter Gear and SCBA Masks
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/01/24
Alberto J. Caban-Martinez, DO, PhD, MPH, is a physician-scientist at the University of Miami and a deputy director and investigator with Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center’s Firefighter Cancer Initiative. His work focuses on occupational exposures, cancer prevention, and practical risk-reduction strategies for firefighters and other responders. He co-authored research validating a simple, non-destructive wipe method that detects PFAS (“forever chemicals”) on turnout gear and SCBA masks, including inside facepieces. He emphasizes field-ready tools, decontamination decisions, and culture change to help departments reduce invisible chemical burdens over a career. He collaborates with chiefs, trains crews in sampling, and emphasizes contamination control during testing.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Caban-Martinez about a practical way to spot PFAS on firefighter equipment. Caban-Martinez explains that PFAS exposure can come from firefighting foams and from contaminated gear surfaces. His team used inexpensive polypropylene wipes to swab high-contact areas on turnout gear and SCBA masks, then confirmed PFAS types and concentrations via laboratory mass spectrometry—without cutting or damaging textiles. He notes key limitations: extraction efficiency and cross-contamination risks during sampling. Using PBTK modelling, he describes how surface residues may contribute to inhalation and dermal exposure over time, and urges chiefs to strengthen exposure-awareness and daily decontamination practices.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Alberto J. Caban-Martinez, DO, PhD, MPH. He is a physician-scientist and tenured associate professor of public health sciences at the University of Miami. He serves as deputy director and investigator at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center’s Firefighter Cancer Initiative, where his work focuses on cancer prevention, exposure, and risk reduction for first responders. His recent work helped validate a non-destructive wipe test that detects PFAS on firefighter protective gear and SCBA masks, giving departments actionable data to guide cleaning and decontamination. So, what problem did you most want this wipe method to solve?
Dr. Alberto J. Caban-Martinez: We know firefighters are exposed to PFAS at higher levels than the general population. One key exposure source is firefighting foams used in specific incidents. Another primary source is their safety gear, which can seem counterintuitive because people assume the gear is only protective. PFAS are used in foams and coatings, and residues can persist on equipment and gear long after an incident.
In this study, our goal was to determine whether we could detect PFAS on gear without destroying it. Traditional testing can involve cutting material from the garment and sending it to a lab. Instead, we used damp polypropylene wipes to swab high-contact areas of turnout gear and SCBA masks, then analyzed the extracts using mass spectrometry.
We examined jackets, pants, and SCBA masks. We sampled both the inside and the exterior of the SCBA facepiece—the area that contacts the face, as well as the exterior surfaces—and tested the samples to determine what could be detected and in what quantities. The study shows that a simple wipe test can detect PFAS effectively, without damaging gear.
Jacobsen: Which PFAS showed up most consistently?
Caban-Martinez: There are many PFAS compounds, and the health effects are better established for some than for others. In this study, the most commonly detected compound was 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS), which is often associated with firefighting foams. We also detected PFAS inside breathing masks, where firefighters expect clean air.
Jacobsen: How long does sampling take, and what does lab analysis cost per item?
Caban-Martinez: Sampling is straightforward. Departments can swab gear with the wipe, place the wipe into a container, and send it for analysis. The key operational issue is avoiding cross-contamination during sampling, particularly in environments where PFAS or other contaminants may already be present.
The polypropylene material itself is inexpensive. You can purchase a yard for roughly thirty dollars, so access to the fabric is not a barrier. The laboratory analysis is expensive. The wipes must be processed in the lab through a series of chemical extraction steps before being injected into a liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry system. That instrument then identifies the type and concentration of PFAS present on the swabs used on the gear.
Jacobsen: Please define “non-destructive” as you are using it here. How did you identify and validate that construct?
Caban-Martinez: When we say ‘non-destructive,’ we contrast this approach with traditional PFAS testing methods. One example comes from work by a colleague at the University of Notre Dame, where gear is released by a fire department to a university lab and analyzed using laser-based techniques. PFAS contain carbon–fluorine bonds, so detecting fluorine can indicate PFAS presence. That approach requires taking the gear out of service.
Another traditional method involves cutting textile samples out of the gear and running them through chemical washes. That damages the equipment and leaves it uncertifiable for protective use. In our study, we refer to this method as non-destructive because the gear remains intact. We do not cut, burn, or alter it in any way. Instead, we use an indirect surface-sampling approach.
A common question is how accurate this method is compared to destructive techniques. That comparison has not yet been completed and represents the next step in the research. This study demonstrates that polypropylene wipes can be used to assess the presence and type of PFAS on gear indirectly.
This opens practical applications. For example, if a department cleans its gear and wants to know whether PFAS levels have changed, this method allows repeated testing without damaging equipment. Firefighters already have robust PFAS testing methods for water, but there is a gap for surfaces, particularly protective gear.
PFAS are used across many industries, from cosmetics and cookware to rain gear and other textiles. For firefighters, this matters because their breathing apparatus and protective equipment are central to their safety. Our goal was to provide a tool they can realistically use to assess whether PFAS are present on that gear.
Jacobsen: What should fire chiefs change tomorrow?
Caban-Martinez: Awareness is the first step. I travel to fire departments across the United States and hear widely varying practices. While many safety standards exist, they are not always consistently implemented. Fire chiefs should be having regular conversations with firefighters about chemical exposures, including PFAS, and how to reduce risk.
Firefighters are exposed to many hazards as part of their job—chemical, physical, and psychosocial. They routinely enter environments that most people would never consider. If leadership is better informed about PFAS, how it persists on gear, and the emerging science on health impacts, they can make better decisions to limit exposure.
Staying current with the science, evaluating what is present on gear, and adopting evidence-based practices can make a real difference in protecting the men and women who do this work every day.
Jacobsen: What were the risks and limitations around false negatives or cross-contamination?
Caban-Martinez: One of the main goals of this study was to determine whether this approach is a viable, indirect, non-destructive method for detecting PFAS. Sampling conditions matter. In this study, we visited two fire departments in Florida and sampled gear in the apparatus bay, where equipment is typically stored.
In many stations, gear for off-duty firefighters is kept in designated storage areas, but when firefighters are on shift, gear is often placed on the floor next to the truck. When the engine is running, diesel exhaust and other airborne contaminants can settle directly onto that gear. That creates a potential source of contamination unrelated to the gear itself.
Two limitations require further study. First, we need to understand better how effective polypropylene fabric is at extracting PFAS from surfaces. Second, we need to quantify how much airborne PFAS in the environment may land on the swab during sampling.
The method we propose is intentionally quick and discrete. The polypropylene wipe is stored in a sealed glass vial. When sampling, the vial is opened, the rolled four-by-four fabric is removed, and circular swabs are taken from predefined areas—such as the right and left shoulders or the pants’ shins. The wipe is then immediately returned to the vial and sealed.
During that brief exposure window, care must be taken to avoid cross-contamination. This includes being mindful of gloves, as some may contain PFAS. Without proper handling, PFAS could be introduced during the sampling process rather than originating from the gear. These are details that must remain at the forefront of one’s mind when applying this technique.
Our goal with this research is to provide fire departments concerned about exposure and contamination with a simple, non-destructive tool to assess PFAS levels on their gear.
Jacobsen: Your modelling suggests surface contamination can translate into internal exposure over time. What assumptions drive that estimate the most?
Caban-Martinez: You are referring to the physiologically based toxicokinetic, or PBTK, model. This part of the work is more interpretive than purely observational. We wanted to understand how PFAS detected on gear could plausibly enter the human body, either through inhalation or through dermal absorption.
PFAS can be aerosolized, meaning they can be inhaled, particularly if they are present on or inside breathing equipment. PFAS can also be absorbed through the skin, which is why the duration of gear wear matters. We used the PBTK model to estimate how much PFAS detected on gear surfaces could be internalized and become biologically active over time.
We found that the concentrations and types of PFAS detected—especially those found inside the SCBA facepiece—could plausibly result in meaningful internal exposure through inhalation and dermal absorption. When we swabbed the interior of the mask, where firefighters expect clean air from their tank, PFAS was present. The model allowed us to estimate the internal concentrations that could result from those exposures.
Jacobsen: Alberto, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Caban-Martinez: Anytime. It is always a pleasure to be interviewed by you, Scott. Thank you for the work you are doing. If you ever need anything related to occupational health, let me know.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 