US wildfire suppressants rife with toxic heavy metals, study finds
Media article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/13/us-wildfire-suppressants-toxic-study
Scientific article:https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00727?ref=article_openPDF
 |
Fig.1:Application of long-term fire retardants to the western United States between 2000 and 2011(A) and 2012 and 2019(B). |
A recent study has revealed that wildfire suppressants commonly used in the U.S. contain high levels of toxic heavy metals, including cadmium, arsenic, and chromium. These substances, often dropped from aircraft to combat wildfires, have been found to contain metal concentrations up to 3,000 times higher than the limits set for drinking water. It also highlights the tension between protecting human health and property from wildfires by spraying highly toxic substances – about 440m gallons were sprayed between 2009 and 2021, the study noted.
The research, conducted by the University of Southern California, analyzed 14 fire suppression products and discovered that all contained at least one metal exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Maximum Contaminant Level for drinking water. Notably, long-term fire retardants were found to have the highest concentrations of these toxic metals. The suppressants are a mix of water, fertilizer, and undisclosed ingredients, while the pink color comes from added dye to show firefighters where it has been sprayed.
Between 2009 and 2021, it's estimated that approximately 380,000 kilograms of these metals were introduced into the environment through aerial fire suppression efforts. This includes about 850 kilograms from retardants accidentally dropped into surface waters, despite existing guidelines to prevent such occurrences.
The study raises concerns about the environmental and health implications of using such suppressants, especially as wildfires become more frequent and intense due to climate change. While these suppressants play a crucial role in protecting lives and property, the potential for long-term contamination of soil and water sources necessitates a reevaluation of their use and composition.
I would rate this article 8.5 out of 10 for its timely, evidence-based coverage of a critical environmental issue—the toxicity of wildfire suppressants in the U.S. It effectively communicates complex scientific findings in an accessible way and highlights the serious ecological and health risks tied to widespread aerial application of these chemicals. The piece is grounded in a credible study and frames the issue within the broader context of climate change and increasing wildfire frequency. However, it would benefit from more balanced reporting, such as perspectives from regulatory agencies or firefighting officials, and a deeper exploration of potential alternatives or policy responses. Including diverse expert voices and actionable insights would have made the article even more comprehensive and impactful.
Great post! It is particularly troubling to consider that the very strategies designed to prevent and control wildfires may also carry serious health implications for humans. This paradox underscores the importance of developing more sustainable and health-conscious approaches to wildfire management and environmental protection.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that these sprays have continued to be used, even knowing that there were heavy metal contaminants that would get into the water system once sprayed. I feel as though sprays like that, which will affect the entire area sprayed, should not have undisclosed ingredients, considering the impact it can have on people's health. It is a difficult battle since fire suppressants are a needed resource, and I'm sure it's hard to find a safer replacement. Are these heavy metal-contaminated sprays still being used in 2025, or has there been a switch to something safer? And if they are still being used, have there been any studies seeing how areas around the sprayed area have been affected?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement, the compounds present in the fire suppressant must be disclosed, and their health impacts must be made clear to the people before using it. That's what the article claims. Sometimes governments tend to rely on efficiency rather than the safety of the people. As for your question, that's where the article falls short. It doesn't say anything about any affected cases or mention anything about alternatives.
DeleteIs there EPA regulation for fire suppressant? Also, do you think the heavy metals are contaminants or active ingredients in the fire suppressants?
ReplyDeleteThere are regulations for fire suppressants placed by the EPA, but they fall in a grey area as the the companies which make them, claim they are partially proprietary and can't disclose the ingredients. Most fire suppressants don't use heavy metals as an active ingredient, but they can be used too. Mostly they are present as contaminants.
DeleteWow this is really surprising to know that those toxic elements were used to control the wild fire. I think the paper should show some data, which proves that these elements remain in the soil and water after the wild fire. Only telling us there are toxic elements in the suppressants and it is harmful to the environment, this is not really convincing
ReplyDeleteI agree. The paper doesn't talk about any particular details. It needs more details regarding their claims.
DeleteI think EPA does do research and cleanup efforts from wildfires, I'd assume this includes studying the suppressant. I suppose though that at the moment the wildfire concerns is primarily people's health and getting them to safety over assessing the long term impacts of the use of these heavy metals. I'm sure EPA is minimum checking in on it, but not enough time has passed yet before they can obtain results from long term exposure to the environment. It's almost like fighting fire with fire haha
ReplyDeleteIt's shocking that suppressants containing heavy metals are allowed to be used massively in an area. It should be expected that this would lead to terrestrial and aquatic accumulation of heavy metals and break the limit. Are these suppressants set up with a maximum volume of use by any department? And is there any substitute for the heavy metal containing suppressants that has been reported?
ReplyDelete