Dragonfly Eye Series: When the genie won’t go back in the bottle: the need for post-fire reassurance testing.

October 24, 2024

Written by Olivia French, Director of Environmental Services

Ignorance is bliss; unawareness brings contentment; looking behind the magician’s cloth. We have so many turns of phrase for how contentment comes from not knowing. 

Is our industry still in this mindset when it comes to post-fire contamination testing?

Technology has progressed. Fire contamination risks that could have previously been overlooked can now be assessed, quantified and mitigated. The unknown is known, and the fact is that a plethora of harmful chemical and physical contaminants can manifest following a property fire, given the right conditions and combustion materials.

Establishing site safety for policyholders, tenants and contractors should be the norm post-fire, as it is with other similar contamination risks such as asbestos. I believe that with regards to our collective risk tolerance, we are where we were with asbestos 40 years ago.

Legislation regarding the production, use, and removal of asbestos was slow and incremental. At the outset, all asbestos was ok, then some weren’t, then some were still ok but needed more caution, then it wasn’t. I believe that we are still in those early phases with post-fire contamination in that the insurance and damage management industries positively don’t identify, differentiate or calculate risk commensurate with the realities of the dangers that can be present.

Post-fire exposure has not been the focus of academic study for professions such as damage management contractors, however, there have been several studies of firefighters across the world, which have stark results.

Professor Anna Stec of Lancaster University is one of the UK’s leading academics with regards to the study and understanding of post-fire contamination. A 2018 study of the risk of exposure to Polcyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s), a known carcinogen produced in some fires demonstrated that the occupational risk of cancer was far higher for firefighters than the general population.[1]

PAH’s, dioxins and furans are some of the most widely recognised contaminants of concern post-fire, each presenting significant risk to human health. With our move to lithium batteries in a wide range of products, lithium battery fires also present an increased risk, with the production of several chemical gases, plus heavy metals following a fire.

The risks are known, so why don’t we learn from the past mistakes of the asbestos industry, and cut straight to appropriate measures following fires to protect anyone entering or occupying a fire contaminated building?

Of course, the fire temperature, fuel source and longevity of the fire all have a bearing on the potential contamination risks, and not every single fire will necessarily lead to the production of chemicals of concern. However, we need to assess our risk, same as when we find a potentially asbestos containing material.

Appropriate PPE measures are the first line of defense of course. Having the right respiratory protection and coverage to prevent dermal exposure as a belt and braces measure do help. However, our best means of knowing and managing risk is to ascertain the extent and severity of contamination.

Respiratory exposure is typically of greatest concern, so naturally, testing the air is our best means of ascertaining the types, quantities and severity of contamination present. From basic particulate mass and distribution analysis to FTIR analysis to assess VOC’s and other gases present across the chemical spectra, or GCMS analysis to take it a step further and analyse for a greater range of potential contaminants in smaller quantities.

For the wider insurance and damage management industries, it is now time to manage risk, rather than simply tolerate it.

[1] Stec et al (2018) – Occupational exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and elevated cancer incidence in firefighters https://clok.uclan.ac.uk/21626/1/21626%20s41598-018-20616-6.pdf