A Community-Based Assessment of Attitudes, Health Impacts and Protective Actions During the 24-Day Hangar Fire in Tustin, California

Our plain-English summary of A Community-Based Assessment of Attitudes, Health Impacts and Protective Actions During the 24-Day Hangar Fire in Tustin, California, by S. Masri, A.M.W. LeBrón, A. Zhang, et al (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2025).

The study

• Authors: S. Masri, A.M.W. LeBrón, A. Zhang, L.B. Jones, O.A. Ogunseitan, J. Wu
• Journal: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
• Published: 2025;22(7)
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Fire events can impact physical and mental health through smoke exposure, evacuation, property loss, and/or other environmental stressors. In this study, we developed community-driven, cross-sectional online surveys to assess public attitudes, health impacts, and protective actions of residents affected by the Tustin hangar fire that burned for 24 days in southern California. Results showed the most frequently reported fire-related exposure concerns (93%) to be asbestos and general air pollution and the most commonly reported mental health impacts to be anxiety (41%), physical fatigue (37%), headaches (33%), and stress (26%). Nose/sinus irritation was the most commonly reported (26.0%) respiratory symptom, while skin- and eye-related conditions were reported by 63.0% and 72.2% of the survey population, respectively. The most commonly reported health-protective actions taken by residents included staying indoors and/or closing doors and windows (67%), followed by wearing face masks (37%) and the indoor use of air purifiers (35%). A higher proportion of low-income residents had to spend money on remediation or other health-protective actions compared to high-income residents. Participants overwhelmingly reported disapproval of their city's and/or government's response to the fire disaster. Findings from this study underscore the potential impacts of major pollution events on neighboring communities and offer critical insights to better position government agencies to respond during future disasters while effectively communicating with the public and addressing community needs.

In plain English

This cross-sectional online survey studied residents near a large wooden hangar in Tustin, California, that burned for 24 days from 7 November 2023. As background, the authors cite regional air district reports of asbestos fibers (up to 37% by mass) in fire debris, while later air samples showed no detectable asbestos. The authors removed 1,368 responses (96.0%) judged to be automated "bots," leaving 54 verified responses collected in March 2024. Asbestos and general air pollution were the most common exposure concerns (93%). Respondents reported anxiety (41%), physical fatigue (37%), headaches (33%) and stress (26%). Nose/sinus irritation was the most common respiratory symptom (26.0%), and skin- and eye-related conditions were reported by 63.0% and 72.2%. Staying indoors or closing doors and windows (67%) was the most common protective step. In all, 53.7% said the city and/or county did not do a good job, against 20.4% who said they did. The authors noted that symptoms were self-reported, the sample was small, and the cross-sectional design could not attribute health effects to the fire.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Community-driven, cross-sectional online survey (a community survey and a separate teachers-only survey)
• Who was studied: Adults in California affected by the Tustin hangar fire, recruited through snowball sampling and social media and surveyed in March 2024. Of 1,385 community and 37 teachers-only questionnaires, 54 verified responses were analyzed. All respondents lived in Orange County, mostly in Santa Ana, Irvine and Tustin.
• Exposure: Smoke, ash and debris from the 24-day fire at the North Hangar in Tustin. Exposure was self-reported as proximity to the fire and whether respondents saw or smelled smoke or noticed ash. The asbestos information comes from South Coast Air Quality Management District reports cited by the authors, not from measurements in this study. Those reports found asbestos fibers (no fiber type named) in debris, but later air samples showed no detectable asbestos.
• Main results:
  • Asbestos and general air pollution were each the most common exposure concern among respondents (93%).
  • Forty-one participants (reported as 82%) said they saw or smelled smoke from the fire, and 54% noticed dust or ash around their property or neighborhood.
  • The most commonly reported mental health impacts among respondents were anxiety (41%), physical fatigue (37%), headaches (33%) and stress (26%).
  • Nose/sinus irritation was the most commonly reported respiratory symptom (26.0% of respondents) during or immediately after the fire.
  • Asthma attacks were reported by 7.4% of respondents.
  • Skin-related conditions were reported by 63.0% and eye-related conditions by 72.2% of respondents.
  • Five respondents (9%) reported a child or other family member who had to see a doctor or other health care professional because of sickness related to the fire.
  • The most common protective actions were staying indoors and/or closing doors and windows (67%), wearing face masks (37%) and using indoor air purifiers (35%).
  • Overall, 18.5% of respondents spent money on clean-up or other risk-reduction strategies. The share was 23.1% in the lower-income half of respondents and 14.3% in the higher-income half; no significance test was reported for this comparison.
  • 20.4% of respondents felt the city and/or county did a good job reaching out to affected communities, compared with 53.7% who felt they did not.
  • The authors removed 1,368 responses (96.0%) that they judged to be automated bots.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that mental and physical health impacts were widely reported and that lower-income residents were disproportionately represented among those with economic impacts. They found that residents overwhelmingly disapproved of government communication. In their view, the findings underscore the potential impacts of major pollution events on neighboring communities and offer insights for future government disaster response.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The small sample size and geographic focus limit how far the findings apply to the wider county.
  • Voluntary participation may have caused selection bias that overestimated health impacts.
  • Because the analysis was cross-sectional, health impacts could not be causally attributed to the fire.
  • All health outcomes were self-reported and cannot be confirmed to be clinically meaningful.
  • The survey was given more than two months after the fire ended, so recall may have been affected.
  • The teachers-only survey produced very limited results.

Related studies

• Community health risk assessment after a fire with asbestos containing fallout — S. Bridgman (2001)
• Relative congener scaling of Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans to estimate building fire contributions in air, surface wipes, and dust samples — J.D. Pleil, M.N. Lorber (2007)
• Asbestos exposure and fire fighting — S.B. Markowitz, K. Garibaldi, et al. (1991)
• Guadalupe corridor transportation project asbestos health risk assessment, San Jose, California — W.E. Steiner, J.L. Koehler, et al. (1990)
• The traveling Libby legacy: Minnesota community exhibits nonoccupational health impacts consistent with asbestos damage — T. Tillett (2012)
• Contamination of the air with mineral fibers following the explosive destruction of buildings and fire — J.A. Hoskins, R.C. Brown (1994)

Browse more research in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, or return to medical research.