Skip to main content

Deterministic risk assessment of firefighting water additives to aquatic organisms

Ecotoxicology volume 29, pages 1377–1389 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Past firefighting water additives were found to contain perfluorinated compounds that could persist in the environment resulting in potential adverse effects to biota. Since this revelation, manufacturers have introduced alternative firefighting water additives that are fluorine free, but few studies have investigated the fate and effects in the environment of these new additives. Firefighting water additives could enter aquatic ecosystems through run-off, leaching or direct application. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the potential effect that firefighting water additives could have on aquatic biota. This study investigated the toxicity of six firefighting water additives: Eco-Gel™, Thermo-Gel™, FireAde™, Fire-Brake™, Novacool Foam™, and F-500™ to aquatic biota. The toxicities of firefighting water additives to Lemna minor (duckweed), Daphnia magna (water flea), Hexagenia spp. larvae (mayfly), Lampsilis fasciola (wavy-rayed lampmussel) and Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout) were investigated through acute and chronic static and semi-static tests to estimate LC50 values for survival and EC50 values for immobility and/or reproduction endpoints. A large variation in toxicities among the firefighting water additives and among the test species was observed. Based on a worst-case exposure scenario of direct application, several firefighting water additives were found to pose a hazard to aquatic organisms. An exposure rate representative of a direct overhead application by a water bomber during a forest fire was used in the hazard assessment. For example, the hazard quotients determined for the D. magna acute toxicity tests ranged from 0.20 for Eco-Gel to 317 for F-500 in the forest pool (15 cm) scenario. This study presents the first deterministic risk assessment of firefighting water additives in aquatic ecosystems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Adams R, Simmons D (1999) Ecological effects of fire fighting foams and retardants: a summary. Aust For 62:307–314

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM-E2455-06 (2013) Standard guide for conducting laboratory toxicity tests with freshwater mussels. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Belanger SE, Sanderson H, Fisk PR, Schäfers C, Mudge SM, Willing A, Kasai Y, Nielsen AM, Dyer SD, Toy R (2009) Assessment of the environmental risk of long-chain aliphatic alcohols. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72:1006–1015

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brain RA, Solomon KR (2007) A protocol for conducting 7-day daily renewal tests with Lemna gibba. Nat Protocols 2:979–987

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bridge, SRJ, Miyanishi, K, & Johnson, EA (2005) A critical evaluation of fire suppression effects in the Boreal forest of Ontario. 10. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~johnsone/pub/Bridge_etal_2005.pdf

  • Courtens ENP, Meerburg F, Mausen V, Vlaeminck SE (2014) When the smoke disappears: dealing with extinguishing chemicals in firefighting wastewater. Water Sci Technol 69:1720–1727

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy J (2012) Residential fire tactics. Fire Eng 165:16–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaikowski MP, Hamilton SJ, Buhl KJ, McDonald SF, Summers CH (1996a) Acute toxicity of three fire-retardant and two fire-suppressant foam formulations to the early life stages of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1365–1374

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gaikowski MP, Hamilton SJ, Buhl KJ, McDonald SF, Summers CH (1996b) Acute toxicity of firefighting chemical formulations to four life stages of fathead minnow. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 34:252–263

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Janie, Y (1995) FoamVSFire_Aerial. 29. https://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdf/hi_res/95511209hi.pdf

  • Jensen AA, Leffers H (2008) Emerging endocrine disrupters: Perfluoroalkylated substances. Int J Androl 31:161–169

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kannan K, Koistinen J, Beckmen K, Evans T, Gorzelany JF, Hansen KJ, Jones PD, Helle E, Nyman M, Giesy JP (2001) Accumulation of perfluorooctane sulfonate in marine mammals. Environ Sci Technol 35:1593–1598

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchmeier-Young MC, Zwiers FW, Gillett NP, Cannon AJ (2017) Attributing extreme fire risk in western Canada to human emissions. Clim Change 144:365–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Konishi T, Kikugawa H, Iwata Y, Koseki H, Sagae K, Ito A, Kato K (2008) Aerial firefighting against urban fire: mock-up house experiments of fire suppression by helicopters. Fire Saf J 43:363–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Z, Lu Y, Wang P, Wang T, Liu S, Johnson AC, Baninla Y (2017) Pollution pathways and release estimation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in central and eastern China. Sci Tot Environ 580:1247–1256

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Melzer D, Rice N, Depledge MH, Henley WE, Galloway TS (2010) Association between serum perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and thyroid disease in the U.S. national health and nutrition examination survey. Environ Health Perspect 118:686–692

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MOECP (Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks) (2013) Rainbow trout acute lethality testing of chemicals, Report E3442, Toronto, Ontario

  • MOECP (Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (2014) Hexagenia spp. test for survival and growth in sediment, Report E3444, Toronto, Ontario

  • Montagnolli RN, Matos Lopes PR, Matos Cruz J, Marina Turini Claro E, Quiterio GM, Bidoia ED (2017) The effects of fluoride based fire-fighting foams on soil microbiota activity and plant growth during natural attenuation of perfluorinated compounds. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 50:119–127

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2002) OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals: Lemna sp. growth inhibition test, No. 221, Paris, France

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2004) OECD Guidelines for the testing of chemicals: Daphnia sp., acute immobilization test, No. 202, Paris, France

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2012) OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals: Daphnia magna reproduction test, 211, Paris, France

  • Pane L, Mariottini GL, Giacco E (2015) Ecotoxicological assessment of the micelle encapsulator F-500. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 118:167–176

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ritz C, Baty F, Streibig JC, Gerhard D (2015) Dose-response analysis using R. PLoS ONE 10:e0146021

  • RStudio (2016) R Studio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Satoh K, Kuwahara K, Yang KT (2004) A numerical study of forest fire progression and fire suppression by aerial fire fighting. Energy Conversion and Resources: Fuels and Combustion Technologies Energy, Nuclear Engineering 2004, pp 79–86

  • Satoh K, Maeda I, Kuwahara K, Yang K (2005) A numerical study of water dump in aerial fire fighting. Fire Saf Sci 8:777–787

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaalgamaa S, Vähätalo AV, Perkola N, Huhtala S (2011) Photochemical reactivity of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in conditions representing surface water. Sci Tot Environ 409:3043–3048

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao F, Simcik MF, Halbach TR, Gulliver JS (2015) Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in soils and groundwater of a U.S. metropolitan area: migration and implications for human exposure. Water Res 72:64–74

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided through a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council’s Discovery Grant (RGPIN 401357) awarded to R.S. Prosser. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Guelph’s Animal Care Committee at which the studies were conducted (Animal Use Protocol #4028).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Guelph, School of Environmental Sciences, Guelph, ON, Canada

    S. Graetz, M. Ji, S. Hunter, P. K. Sibley & R. S. Prosser

Authors
  1. S. Graetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. K. Sibley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. S. Prosser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. S. Prosser.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict ofinterest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Graetz, S., Ji, M., Hunter, S. et al. Deterministic risk assessment of firefighting water additives to aquatic organisms. Ecotoxicology 29, 1377–1389 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-020-02274-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-020-02274-5

Keywords

  • Forest fires
  • Firefighting foams
  • Firefighting gels
  • Hazard assessment