Why Independent Testing Should Be a Part of Every Fire Departments Gear Evaluation Process

How Quincy Fire Department's search for answers demonstrates the value of testing, transparency, and verification when evaluating turnout gear.

Three Perspectives on Protection

Three firefighters are watching the evening news when a story comes on about turnout gear. The segment discusses growing concerns about PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances) and introduces a new generation of gear designed to provide the same level of protection firefighters have come to expect while answering calls without the use of PFAS.

One firefighter shrugs.

“I know my gear contains PFAS and other chemistries people are worried about, but it protects me from the hazards we face every day. That’s just part of the job.”

Another isn’t convinced.

“Maybe. But I’m not sure I believe this gear can protect me as well as what I’ve been wearing for the last 20 years.”

The third is optimistic.

“The manufacturer says its free of PFAS chemistries and performs the same. Why would they make that claim if it wasn’t true?”

One firefighter trusts the gear he’s always worn, one is skeptical of the new solution, and one trusts the manufacturer’s claim.

These viewpoints have one thing in common: they’re relying on assumptions. With independent testing, fire departments no longer need to choose between trust and skepticism. They can evaluate turnout gear beyond the product claim.

The Questions Fire Departments Should Ask

When you stop relying on assumptions, you start asking different questions.

Most firefighters know who manufactures their turnout gear. There are only a handful of major manufacturers, and their logos are hard to miss.

But that’s only the beginning of the story.

Who manufacturers the fabrics inside the gear?

What chemistries are used to make those materials?

What testing supports the claims being made about the materials?

Are the suppliers behind the materials willing to answer your questions openly and transparently?

Most importantly, have those claims been verified by a third party?

Performance alone doesn’t answer every question. Independent testing gives departments another way to evaluate the claims being made about their gear.

Whether you’re someone who trusts traditional gear, someone who is skeptical of new solutions, or someone who believes the claims being made, independent testing gives departments a way to move past belief and start looking at facts.

One Department’s Turning Point

For the Quincy Fire Department in Quincy, Massachusetts, independent testing changed the entire conversation.

They completed a large-scale gear replacement in 2019 but as concerns about PFAS continued to gain attention in the years that followed, and state legislation began putting timelines on a transition, Quincy began exploring alternatives. In March 2025, the department purchased 30 sets of turnout gear represented as non-PFAS. Like many departments, Quincy believed the gear was what it was described to be.

However, independent testing later revealed significant levels of PFAS in the new gear. To better understand the scope of the issue, the department also submitted turnout gear from its 2019 purchase for testing. Those results revealed even higher concentrations. At that point, their trust was broken.

Rebuilding Trust Through Transparency

For Quincy, independent testing didn’t just reveal PFAS in gear. It exposed how much of the department’s decision making had been based on assumptions rather than evidence.

The department realized it could no longer rely on product claims alone. If it was going to move forward, it needed transparency, data, and partners willing to prove what they were saying.

As Quincy evaluated potential solutions, trust wasn’t built through marketing materials or sales presentations. It was built through access and transparency.

Milliken entered the conversation through recommendations from IAFF scientific advisors and other industry experts with experience with the company. After meeting with Milliken, Quincy Fire Department leadership and union representatives took the opportunity to see the process for themselves.

Tom Bowes, President of Quincy Firefighters Local 792, and other union leaders traveled to Milliken’s facilities in South Carolina, toured manufacturing operations, visited testing laboratories, and met the people responsible for developing and evaluating the materials. Their goal was to see the process for themselves.

If they were going to recommend a new solution, they needed to understand how the materials were made, tested, and validated. They also needed to be able to stand behind what they learned.

This led to a Quincy city council meeting where a representative from Milliken answered questions in person about the materials, testing, and performance of the proposed solution. After reviewing the information and evidence presented, city council approved $2.65 million in funding for the department’s new turnout gear.

By that point, trust had largely been regained, but Quincy still wasn’t willing to rely on assumptions.

Trust But Verify: What Every Department Can Learn From Quincy

Quincy had every reason to trust the new solution. But this time, trust alone want enough.

When the new turnout gear arrived, the department randomly selected four sets of gear and sent them to Forever Analytical for independent testing. The results confirmed what Quincy hoped to be true—firefighter gear that tested for less than the level of PFAS detection, providing the department validation that the solution was what it claimed to be.

Quincy’s experience goes beyond a story about a department looking to remove PFAS from it’s turnout gear. It’s about how assumptions can influence decisions and how evidence can change them.

Independent testing revealed the problem. A team of firefighters, union leaders, city officials, testing experts, manufacturers and distributors helped find the solution. And when that solution was finally in place, Quincy tested it again.

Asking questions doesn’t create doubt, it creates confidence. For departments evaluating turnout gear, suppliers, or any new technologies, the goal isn’t to trust less, it’s to verify more.