MEIKO UK Managing Director Paul Anderson explains automated BA mask decontamination, focusing on repeatability, operator exposure and workshop workflows for respiratory kit teams
Firefighters rely on breathing apparatus masks and personal protective equipment that must perform consistently in hostile environments.
During incidents and training, this equipment is exposed to soot, fine particulates and biological contaminants that can remain embedded if cleaning is poorly controlled.
For BA masks and regulators, residue can affect the seal, compromise performance or expose the next wearer to harmful substances.
Amid growing awareness of occupational health risks and cancer exposure, many fire and rescue services have moved away from manual, sink-based cleaning towards automated, repeatable processes in dedicated workshops.
MEIKO UK Managing Director Paul Anderson sat down with IFSJ Editor Iain Hoey to explain how the company’s TopClean washer-disinfector systems work, the problems they are designed to solve and how controlled cleaning processes are reshaping BA mask and PPE hygiene in the fire service.
What risks do fire services face when BA masks and PPE are not cleaned using a controlled and repeatable process?
Over recent years, fire services have placed much greater emphasis on firefighter health.
It is now widely recognised that fires expose equipment to carcinogens that can adhere to clothing and breathing apparatus masks and then be inhaled by the next wearer.
In some cases, the person cleaning the equipment may also be exposed.
Protecting firefighters therefore has to be central to how PPE is managed.
Traditionally, many services relied on a three-sink method, where equipment is dipped sequentially through separate sinks.
That approach leaves significant room for variation, relies heavily on individual practice and typically involves large volumes of chemicals, leading to inconsistent results.
With an automated process, cleaning is built around defined parameters such as time, temperature, mechanical action and chemistry.
When those elements are balanced correctly, the result is a controlled and repeatable method of cleaning every time, reducing water and chemical use while providing a consistent outcome for BA masks and other PPE.
From a technical perspective, what makes BA masks and regulators more challenging to clean than general PPE?
Cleaning PPE is very different from cleaning items like glassware or plates.
PPE goes straight back onto the human body and sits in close contact with the skin, so there has to be confidence that contaminants are fully removed.
With BA masks, cleaning the outside alone is not enough.
The inside of the mask also has to be cleaned thoroughly.
After a fire, particulates drawn into the mask can remain detectable by smell and those residues can carry bacteria and other contaminants that should not be inhaled.
The process therefore has to address both internal and external surfaces using appropriate temperatures and, where required, specific levels of disinfection.
This approach is well established in healthcare settings, where defined contact times during the final rinse are used alongside temperature and chemistry to remove viruses.
The aim is to clean a mask to a standard where it can be safely worn by one firefighter and then issued to another immediately afterwards.
Other items such as helmets, gloves and boots present fewer challenges because they are not part of the breathing system.
Masks are more demanding, and regulators and breathing components must also be protected during cleaning.
This is achieved using controlled air connections that prevent water from entering sensitive areas, allowing a fully automated process that protects the equipment while delivering a high standard of hygiene.
How do washer-disinfectors improve consistency and limit exposure compared with manual cleaning?
The cleaning process is built around what is commonly referred to as Sinner’s circle, which brings together time, temperature, mechanical action and chemistry.
In manual cleaning, those elements are applied inconsistently and are heavily influenced by the individual carrying out the task.
With an automated system, all parameters are controlled.
In a manual sink-based process, half a litre to a litre of detergent per sink is common.
In an automated washer-disinfector, chemical use is typically around seven millilitres per litre of water, and even less during the final rinse.
That level of control directly affects exposure, energy use and resource consumption.
The system uses less chemical, less water and less energy overall, which means less contaminated water entering the drainage system and a more contained process for the operator.
Throughput is also significantly higher.
Up to 40 BA masks can be cleaned per hour, with larger systems such as the TopClean D increasing capacity further, while cleaning performance remains consistent internally and externally and is supported by validated process data.
Why pressurise regulators during cleaning and what practical benefits does it deliver?
The TopClean M is designed to clean both the inside and outside of the BA mask while allowing regulators to be cleaned as part of the same process.
A regulator controls the flow of air from the cylinder to the wearer and certain internal areas cannot be exposed directly to water.
To address this, the system uses a low-pressure compressed air connection during the wash cycle.
This maintains internal air pressure within the regulator, preventing water from entering sensitive components.
The regulator is cleaned externally while its internal parts remain protected, delivering effective cleaning alongside protection of critical breathing components within a single controlled process.
How do clamping and racking features reduce cross-contamination inside larger systems?
The TopClean D is a larger system that many fire services now use as a single solution where space is limited.
It can clean masks, cylinders, backpacks, complete apparatus, gloves, boots and helmets within one controlled cycle.
It operates quickly while using less water and fewer chemicals and can incorporate heat recovery so energy from the process is reused to preheat incoming water.
Cross-contamination is prevented through controlled separation within the machine, with contaminants removed through filtration and discharged safely so items are not re-exposed during the cycle.
How are cycles and detergents set to remove contaminants without damaging seals, visors or valves?
Cleaning programmes are developed within the temperature ranges and parameters approved by mask and equipment manufacturers, supported by the relevant certifications.
Materials such as silicone and rubber need careful handling, as prolonged exposure to excessive heat can lead to gradual degradation and shorten service life.
To avoid that, temperatures, detergents and cycle times are matched to the materials being cleaned and checked in partnership with manufacturers.
This ensures contaminants are removed effectively while the integrity of seals, visors and valves is maintained.
What changes when services adopt automated cleaning and how might hygiene expectations evolve?
Moving from a manual process such as a three-sink system to an automated one is a significant change.
Initial reactions are often positive, as teams no longer need to clean equipment by hand, but structured training remains essential.
Teams are taken through the process from start to finish, supported by clear visual guidance displayed in the workshop.
The operation itself is kept simple, with most machines running on three main cycles: short, medium and long.
Heavily contaminated equipment requires a longer cycle, while routine post-training cleaning can be completed more quickly.
Training covers how to run the machine and how to maintain it, with elements such as colour-coding used to identify parts handled and cleaned daily.
Looking ahead, how do you see expectations around PPE and BA hygiene evolving?
Over the last two to three years, expectations around PPE hygiene have shifted quickly, influenced in part by developments in the United States, where contamination and cancer exposure among firefighters have been more openly discussed.
Cost will always shape decision-making.
Services still have to balance capital investment with ongoing spend on water, power and chemicals.
Systems that reduce resource use while delivering reliable decontamination allow services to improve protection for crews while making realistic choices about where money is spent over the life of the equipment.