Cooling the blaze: Ziamatic tackles vehicle fires

by Breaking NewsFire Suppression

Ziamatic’s new vehicle cooling units tackle the growing challenge of vehicle fires

For fire departments worldwide, vehicle fires are an ever-evolving challenge.

According to a report by the National Fire Protection Association, an estimated 212,500 vehicle fires caused 560 civilian deaths, 1,500 civilian injuries, and $1.9 billion in direct property damage in the US alone in 2018.

In the US, vehicle fires accounted for nearly one in every eight reported fires.

Now, an increasing number of vehicle fires around the world involve electrical vehicles.

It is estimated that there are over 20 million electric vehicles on the road today, far more than the 1 million electric vehicles on the road in 2016.

According to a report from Bloomberg last year, China accounted for 46 percent of the total electric vehicle sales, followed by Europe at 34 percent, and North America at a distant third at 15 percent.

While fires in electric vehicles happen less often than those with internal combustion engines, they do present unique challenges to firefighters. Fires in electric vehicles often take crews longer to handle than those in vehicles with internal combustion engines. 

For fire crews, electrical vehicle batteries are hard to reach, difficult to cool down, and the energy created with thermal runaway can easily re-ignite or spread from cell to cell.

Ziamatic’s innovation in firefighting

Ziamatic’s new Vehicle Cooling Units could be the answer to the challenges created by fires in both electric and internal combustion vehicles, with 1-meter (VCU-36) and 2-meter (VCU-72) options available.

Ziamatic’s new Vehicle Cooling Units adapt to conventional fire hoses.

They can be slid underneath vehicles with a ground clearance of less than 14 centimeters and still be very effective.

Ziamatic’s VCU-36 unit uses as little as 151 liters of water per minute.

A lot of time and effort went into the creation of the Vehicle Cooling Units, according to Keith Creely, VP of Ziamatic Corp.

It all started with feedback from local fire departments.

“Local departments came to us with a concern,” Creely tells. “Their concern was that it is difficult to not only extinguish vehicle fires, but it is sometimes hard to access the areas heating up or burning.

“This requires someone to lift the vehicle to spray copious amounts of water on areas that are heating up or on fire.

“Ziamatic has designed vehicle cooling units that can be used on vehicles that have as little as 14 centimeters of ground clearance and still be effective helping control vehicle fires.

“Ziamatic chose to focus on designing something that made it safer for the firefighter and also addressed decreasing water flow from the typical 302-378 liters per minute to 151-302 liters per minute.”

According to Creely, the size of the different units (1 meter and 2 meters) is critical in cooling an adequate area of a vehicle: “The lengths offered were chosen when we evaluated the areas needing to be cooled and extinguished simultaneously.

“If you approach the vehicle from the side, our 1-meter Vehicle Cooling Unit will be effective saturating a 1.2 x 2.4-meter area.

“If you approach the vehicle from the front or back, our 2-meter Vehicle Cooling Unit would be effective saturating a 2.1 x 2.4-meter area.

“Another approach is using the 2-meter VCU from the side of a vehicle, with both ends protruding out from under the vehicle, so that some of the spray is free flowing and not confined under the vehicle.”

Other applications

The Vehicle Cooling Units have other uses. They may also be used as under-carriage cleaning sprayers.

“It has been said that our VCUs can be used under vehicles as an under-carriage cleaning sprayer due to the high velocity water flow at higher pressures similar to a drive through a car wash,” Creely explains.

“It has also been said that linking multiple units together can be used as a water curtain, helping to protect property and structure from fire or heat nearby.”

According to Creely, Ziamatic’s Vehicle Cooling Units may be the most effective, cost-efficient option on the market.

“We believe our design is superior when used on an electric vehicle in that the velocity allows the water to travel along the pan which constantly draws heat away,” says Creely.

“It is not just spraying and dropping off or misting the area.

“Our website shows this feature really well using Plexiglass so we could see what patterns we would get at different PSI.”   

Since their release in the spring, the feedback of Ziamatic’s VCUs has been positive.

“Most departments are giving us very good feedback,” Creely says.

“Departments are continuously training with them and are impressed at the water flow they can achieve and the effectiveness of how much the VCU can cover at very low ground clearances.”

Creely feels like the market for Ziamatic’s VCUs will continue to grow.

“We feel that it is a larger market for now, but only because the US had not embraced these vehicles as fast,” he adds.

“It seems there is a lot of incentive to buy electric vehicles now, and the skepticism behind the dependability and distance one can drive is subsiding.

“So yes, we feel the VCU product line can be an immediate game changer in a safer way to address the electric vehicle issue.”

This article was originally published in the November 2023 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

BAFSA releases comprehensive guide on water mist fire suppression systems

by Featured NewsFire Suppression

BAFSA, the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association, has released a detailed technical guide titled “Using Water Mist Systems in Buildings and Structures”.

This document, published in November 2023, serves as a comprehensive resource on the application, design, and standards of water mist-based fire suppression systems.

Understanding water mist technology

Water mist systems are unique in their approach to fire suppression. They utilise fine water droplets to control, suppress, or extinguish fires.

The guide explains that unlike traditional sprinkler or gas extinguishing systems, water mist systems are highly specific to the application and the manufacturer’s technology.

Each system must be tailored to the particular hazard or occupancy it is designed to protect, based on the manufacturer’s Design, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance (DIOM) manual.

These systems are performance-based and require specific testing for each potential fire scenario.

The evolution of water mist systems

The guide traces the development of water mist systems, from early maritime applications to their expanded use in various sectors, including residential, commercial, industrial, and heritage buildings.

It outlines the importance of understanding the unique characteristics of water mist technology, particularly in relation to its application and effectiveness in different fire scenarios.

Key components and system types

The BAFSA guide provides detailed insights into the components of water mist systems, including nozzles, pumps, and control systems.

It differentiates between various types of water mist systems like open nozzle, automatic, and electronically controlled systems, each suited to different applications and fire hazards.

The document also addresses the importance of standards and certifications, ensuring that water mist systems meet rigorous safety and performance criteria.

Choosing the right system

A critical aspect of the guide is the emphasis on selecting the right water mist system for specific applications.

It underscores the necessity of following established standards and protocols and considering factors such as the fire hazard, occupancy, and environmental conditions of the intended application area.

Where to access the guide

The full guide can be accessed on BAFSA’s website, providing an invaluable resource for professionals involved in fire safety, including designers, engineers, and building managers.

IFSJ Comment

The release of BAFSA’s comprehensive guide on water mist systems marks a significant milestone in fire suppression technology.

It not only offers detailed technical insights but also addresses the growing need for advanced fire suppression solutions in diverse environments.

The guide’s emphasis on performance-based technology, coupled with specific design considerations, underscores the evolution of fire safety measures. Its detailed analysis and guidelines reflect a proactive approach to fire safety, catering to the unique demands of modern buildings and structures.

This publication could play a crucial role in enhancing the effectiveness and reliability of fire suppression systems, ultimately contributing to greater safety and resilience in our built environment.

The critical role of fire protection systems in heavy-duty vehicles

by Featured NewsFire Suppression

Transporting goods over long distances or managing heavy-duty operations carries inherent risks, notably the potential threat of fires within vehicles.

A new blog from Dafo Vehicle, a leader in vehicle fire protection solutions, sheds light on this critical issue.

The post emphasises the vital role that robust fire protection systems play in safeguarding both fleet owners and the industry.

Key benefits of vehicle fire protection systems

  1. Life safety and protecting your investment The foremost benefit highlighted in the blog is life safety. A fire protection system can quickly detect and suppress fires, reducing the risk of injuries or fatalities. Additionally, these systems play a crucial role in preserving the value of heavy-duty vehicles, preventing extensive damage and saving on costly repairs or replacements.
  2. Engine longevity and reliability The engine is the powerhouse of any heavy-duty vehicle. Fires can cause significant damage to engines, necessitating expensive repairs or replacements. A fire protection system mitigates these risks, ensuring the engine’s longevity and consistent vehicle performance.
  3. Operational continuity and efficiency The blog also points out the importance of minimizing downtime in the transportation industry. Vehicle fires not only disrupt schedules but also impact profitability. A reliable fire protection system ensures operational continuity and enhances overall fleet efficiency.
  4. Regulatory adherence and industry standards Equipping fleets with fire protection systems is essential for complying with industry standards and safety regulations. This commitment to safety reassures stakeholders of responsible and ethical business practices.
  5. Tailored risk mitigation Considering the unique risks heavy-duty vehicles face, including varied cargo types and environmental conditions, a tailored fire protection system is crucial for comprehensive safety.

A strategic imperative

The blog concludes by asserting that investing in a vehicle fire protection system is a strategic imperative.

It’s a proactive step towards ensuring safety, protecting assets, maintaining operational efficiency, and complying with regulations.

This commitment to safety safeguards assets and upholds the reputation and reliability of fleet operations.

About Dafo Vehicle

Dafo Vehicle, founded in 1919, has evolved into a modern, high-tech company offering integrated firefighting solutions for vehicles.

Starting in 1976, Dafo was among the first to develop these solutions.

Today, Dafo Vehicle Fire Protection covers integration into OEM production lines, retrofitting at final customer sites, and service & maintenance.

With its head office in Tyresö, Sweden, the Dafo Vehicle group includes several subsidiaries and dealers worldwide.

IFSJ Comment

The blog from Dafo Vehicle underscores a critical aspect of the heavy-duty vehicle industry: fire safety.

The insights provided are valuable for fleet owners and operator. They signal a broader trend in the industry towards prioritising safety and regulatory compliance.

By emphasising the various advantages of fire protection systems, Dafo Vehicle is highlighting an often-overlooked aspect of vehicle safety.

This focus on safety is not just about protecting assets; it’s about ensuring the well-being of those on the road and maintaining the integrity of the heavy-duty vehicle industry.

Such initiatives demonstrate a commitment to innovation and safety that is essential for the future of transportation.

About the heavy-duty vehicle industry

The heavy-duty vehicle industry is integral to global trade and logistics.

It encompasses a range of vehicles used for transporting goods and materials over long distances. Fire safety in these vehicles is paramount due to the inherent risks associated with long-haul transportation.

The industry is continuously evolving, with a growing focus on safety, efficiency, and environmental sustainability.

Companies like Dafo Vehicle, with their emphasis on fire protection solutions, play a crucial role in shaping the future of this industry, ensuring it remains safe, reliable, and resilient.

Fike unveils Fike Blue to combat thermal runaway in lithium batteries

by Featured NewsFire SuppressionProducts

The new solution for lithium battery fire hazards

Fike Corporation has unveiled a groundbreaking development in fire safety technology with the launch of Fike Blue.

This solution represents a patented and third-party validated method aimed specifically at halting thermal runaway in lithium batteries within energy storage systems.

Thermal runaway, a significant fire hazard in lithium batteries, occurs when a malfunctioning battery cell at elevated temperatures triggers adjacent cells to also experience thermal runaway, leading to potentially catastrophic fire and explosion risks.

Traditional fire suppression methods, such as water and chemical agents, have been effective in suppressing fires but do not address the root cause – thermal runaway.

This often leads to the continuous production of dangerous off-gases, sustained burning, and even the risk of re-ignition.

Fike Blue: A significant advancement in fire safety technology

Fike’s extensive research and collaborative efforts have led to the creation of Blue, which has undergone stringent testing at Fike’s Remote Testing Facility in Blue Springs, Missouri, and by independent organisations, including CSA (Canadian Standards Association), in a UL-9540A test.

Omri Tayyara, Director of Mechanical Engineering at Jule, said: “We were astounded by its performance.

“Blue cooled our internal module temperatures from several hundred degrees Celsius to under one hundred degrees and prevented cascading thermal runaway–a true engineering breakthrough.

“It was extremely impressive to watch and the whole thing was done in less than 10 minutes.”

Key features of Blue

Blue showcases several remarkable characteristics that differentiate it from conventional fire suppression methods.

It fully submerses the cells and absorbs intense exothermic heat without breaking down, thanks to its boiling point of over 400°C.

The solution uses exponentially less liquid compared to traditional sprinkler systems, resulting in minimal environmental runoff.

Blue is not classified under the family of PFAS, many of which are under global investigation.

It is stored as a pressurised liquid and discharged in the same state, ensuring effective and immediate application.

Less conductive than water, Blue has never caused short-circuiting in the cells.

It can be stored for at least five years at 25°C without the formation of precipitates or sediment.

For more information, visit fikeblue.com.

IFSJ Comment

The introduction of Blue by Fike Corporation represents a significant step forward in fire safety technology, particularly concerning energy storage systems.

This innovative solution specifically addresses the critical and often overlooked aspect of fire safety – thermal runaway in lithium batteries.

This breakthrough not only enhances the safety of energy storage systems but also shows a commitment to environmental sustainability through its minimal use of liquid and absence of harmful PFAS.

Blue’s ability to effectively cool down and prevent cascading thermal runaway in a remarkably short time frame is a major advance in industrial fire safety.

Its development and successful third-party testing highlight the evolving landscape of fire safety solutions and the importance of addressing specific hazards with tailored, efficient, and environmentally conscious methods.

Passing the test with Fomtec

by Breaking NewsFire Suppression

Dr Jan-Erik Jönsson, Chief Chemist at Fomtec, discusses the research and development of firefighting foam

How have the major changes in firefighting foam at Fomtec affected you?

My tenure at Fomtec centred on transitions in foam chemistry.

In the early years my time was devoted to leading the reformulation of all our fluorinated foams to use C6 fluoro-surfactants.

Even then there were conversations about making high performance Class B foams totally free of fluoro-surfactants.

I still remember my very first day with Fomtec because we had a fire test session at the local fire department and we tested an AFFF and a fluorine free foam.

There was a huge difference in performance with the AFFF completely outperforming the fluorine free product.

As the project to reformulate and approve the new C6 based foams progressed Fomtec improved our laboratory and firefighting equipment, and carried out many lab tests and full scale approval tests en route to achieving full transition to C6 foams by the end of 2014.

We learned a great deal about relating lab scale tests to fire performance and determined that these lab scale tests were not reliable indicators of performance, and full scale tests were required for assessment of performance of new formulations.

The formulation and development of firefighting foams involve much trial and error.

Through our investment in R&D we learned from our mistakes as much as from our successes.

In reformulating with C6 chemistry we learnt that success was relatively straightforward as long as we achieved the right combination of fluoro-surfactants in the correct quantities.

With SFFFs, it’s a completely different ball game.

Our reformulation ideas require creative thinking “outside the box” ….sometimes well outside.

Why has Fomtec conducted so many fire tests as part of its “Enviro Programme”?

We have always required, and still do, a plethora of tests to develop the products in the R&D-stage.

When a prototype is ready to launch there are many different applications to assess, from top side to sprinkler as well as different foam qualities that needs to be tested.

t’s crucial for us to understand our products’ limits to effectively guide our customers in selecting the appropriate foam type, application density, and foam generation equipment.

These fire tests give us the confidence to advise our clients.

How relevant are the existing fire performance test standards for fluorine free foams?

It depends on which standard we look at.

Take UL and FM for example; with both it is necessary to do fire tests with different foam qualities that relate to the actual foam qualities obtained with full scale equipment.

Hence, you prove that the foam works with that foam quality.

If you look at sprinkler applications, you need to do fire test with sprinklers and you are just approved with the sprinklers you test.

Regarding EN 13565-2, it doesn’t refer back to fire test results using actual equipment.

It just relates to what fire rating you get in the EN 1568 test standard.

The latter standard you test with a standard UNI86-nozzle and perform the fire test with the foam quality achieved with that test nozzle only and you don’t have to adapt the foam quality to any full scale equipment, you test with the quality you get from the UNI86 as if this was universal.

We recognise the importance of understanding the foam qualities essential for achieving fire performance on a full-scale basis.

Moreover, it doesn’t say anything about sprinkler fire tests.

It just say that you should refer to the manufacturer and not more than that.

I find this concerning.

From all the fire tests we have done we know that a foam is not suitable for sprinkler tests just because it has passed an EN 1568 top side fire test.

A sprinkler application is so different from top side test that you can’t give any sprinkler recommendations from this test alone.

Can you elaborate on the standards for foam through sprinklers?

In Germany there is a VdS standard and we are currently in approval with this standard but for us the most relevant are FM 5130 and UL 162.

We have focused on FM 5130 since we believe it is more challenging and more relevant for real life installation.

In FM 5130 we must test with different sprinklers at different heights; a low height, and a high height, to obtain the approval.

With UL 162 the height is fixed about 4,2 m, which to me is a limitation and we don’t get to know how the foam act at low and high heights.

Are there other challenges you face with fluorine-free foams?

During the development of our Enviro range, we consistently observed varying performances across different fuels, particularly evident when assessing different Polar Solvents.

We found that some fuels actively destroyed the foam blanket even for our Enviro products that had achieved excellent ratings with acetone, ethanol and IPA.

The first polar solvent we discovered with this feature was MEK.

Oddly enough, MEK is very easy to deal with when using AFFF-ARs, but removing the fluoro-polymer from the foam made this a very difficult fuel to extinguish.

At normal application densities MEK destroys the blanket leaving an open fuel surface.

It can be overcome by increased application density and/or increased mixing ratio.

However, this was an eye opener and a concern for us.

It meant that we cannot just recommend application densities based on test results by IPA, acetone etc.

Hence, we realised that we needed to find a safe way to give our customers relevant information about densities and without doing fire tests on all possible polars.

This is not feasible for two main reasons.

First, the amount of polars on the market is enormous and secondly a lot of them are poisonous and not suitable for handling on a fire ground.

We initiated a project to test foam degradation in the lab across 50-60 different polar solvents.

 Based on the results form these tests and the physical and chemical nature of the polars, we could establish a model that predicts if the polar is a foam destroyer or not.

The model has been verified with several new polars to secure the prediction.

Today, the prediction of the model is 100% to identify foam killers like MEK.

Today we have a database with over 1200 polars possible to assess.

This article was originally published in the November 2023 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

Market Analysis: The future of firefighting foam

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionResearch

The firefighting foam market witnesses steady growth, driven by evolving industry needs and environmental concerns

The ever-growing emphasis on fire safety, combined with the mounting environmental concerns, has spurred the evolution of the firefighting foam market.

Being a pivotal part of the arsenal against fire-related hazards, especially in high-risk sectors, firefighting foam’s utility spans from aviation to oil & gas.

Custom Market Insights’ (CMI) recent report sheds light on the industry’s trajectories, offering a comprehensive market view.

Firefighting Foam market overview

In 2021, the firefighting foam market was valued at USD 5.5 billion, a testament to its established position in the fire safety landscape.

By 2022, this figure is expected to touch USD 5.8 billion and soar to an impressive USD 6.73 billion by 2030, with a steady CAGR of 3.8% between 2022 and 2030.

Firefighting foam, composed of water, air, and concentrates, isn’t just any fire suppressant; it’s a meticulously designed solution that offers a reliable barrier against fires.

This foam, characterised by a stable mass of air-filled bubbles, has a unique ability to suppress fires by isolating fuel from oxygen.

With a density lower than gasoline, water, and oil, it remains on the surface, providing an effective shield against re-ignition.

Moreover, it has been tailored to address fires involving flammable liquids, offering reliable protection against potential ignition and re-ignition.

In an increasingly industrialised world, the need for such sophisticated fire suppressants becomes more pressing, driving the market’s steady growth.

Growth factors

Rising Incidents of Fire-related Accidents: One of the most immediate factors propelling the demand for firefighting foams is the unsettling increase in fire-related incidents, particularly in high-stakes sectors like oil & gas.

As these sectors continue to expand, the associated fire risks also escalate, necessitating enhanced fire prevention and suppression solutions.

Shift to Environmentally Friendly Solutions: The past decade has seen a significant shift towards environmental consciousness in almost every industry.

In the firefighting foam market, this translates to an increased demand for environment-friendly products.

Traditional firefighting foams, such as AFFF and AR-AFFF, have been associated with environmental concerns.

The industry has responded by developing and promoting fluorine-free foams.

These new-age foams not only match the fire-suppression capabilities of their traditional counterparts but do so without the associated environmental footprint.

They are free from PFAS, PFOS, and PFOA, chemicals of concern in many environmental discussions.

Emerging Oil & Gas Sector: With a surge in global energy needs, the oil & gas sector is expanding at an unprecedented rate.

This expansion, however, brings with it an elevated risk of fires, especially in high-capacity storage and processing facilities.

As a direct result, the demand for firefighting foams, which offer protection against challenging Class A and B fires, has seen a substantial increase.

Consumer Awareness & Regulatory Landscape: Modern consumers are not just passive buyers.

They are informed, environmentally conscious, and demand products that reflect these values.

This consumer push, combined with a stringent regulatory landscape focusing on fire safety and environmental concerns, has spurred the industry towards innovation and the adoption of eco-friendly products.

Market segmentation

The firefighting foam market has diverse product offerings.

The Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) has been a favourite among many due to its rapid suppression of flammable liquid fires.

However, with rising environmental concerns tied to some of its components, there’s an increasing shift towards alternatives.

The Alcohol-Resistant Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AR-AFFF) has been specifically developed for fires that involve alcohol-based risks.

It’s closely followed by Protein Foam, which is derived from animal proteins and offers a more durable and heat-resistant shield, although with a slower spread rate.

The Synthetic Detergent Foam stands out for its adaptability, making it a preferred choice in scenarios that demand versatility.

Lastly, the Fluorine-Free Foam has been gaining traction rapidly.

It has emerged as a solution to the environmental challenges posed by traditional foams, providing an eco-friendly alternative without compromising on fire suppression efficacy.

“During the year, two major multinational players in the firefighting foam market announced their exit from the fluorinated foam market within the next 6 to 18 months,” comments John Olav Ottesen Founder and CEO of Fomtec.

“In the US, the military has introduced a new military specification for PFAS-free firefighting foam for land-based applications.

“In Europe, the European chemicals agency ECHA passed on restriction proposals, and the legislators are moving towards the introduction of new regulations during 2024, that will set timelines for the phase-out of PFAS in firefighting foam.

The foam market is performing strongly and there is a strong demand for foam products globally.

“We still see a high demand for fluorinated foam, but we also see a high demand for fluorine-free foam.

A shift can be seen in the larger multinational end users that all seem to have transition programs ongoing.

All in all, a very exciting time to be in the foam industry.”

Regional Insights

The firefighting foam market’s regional dynamics paint a picture of varied demand and preferences.

North America is characterised by its extensive oil & gas infrastructure and a dense network of airports.

This makes it a major consumer of firefighting foams.

Yet, the stringent environmental standards, particularly in the US, have fostered a rising demand for fluorine-free foam variants.

In Europe, the commitment to environmental sustainability is evident.

European countries have shown a penchant for adopting eco-friendly firefighting solutions, bolstered by regulatory frameworks and increased public awareness.

Asia-Pacific is witnessing a surge in demand due to its rapid industrial growth, with countries like China and India at the helm.

The burgeoning oil & gas sector, along with infrastructural advancements, cements Asia-Pacific’s position in the market.

The Middle East and Africa, housing some of the world’s largest oil repositories, naturally becomes an indispensable market segment.

The continuous investments in oil refineries and transportation channels amplify this demand.

Finally, Latin America, although historically slower in adoption, is displaying promising growth.

Emerging industries and expanding infrastructural projects in the region are driving the demand for firefighting foams.

This article was originally published in the November 2023 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

Euralarm addresses EU’s proposal to restrict PFAS in firefighting applications

by Fire Suppression

In response to the European Chemical Agency’s (ECHA) proposal for the restriction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) across the European Union, Euralarm has submitted a detailed position.

The proposal, initiated by Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, covers an extensive range of PFAS applications, spanning across 1780 pages and incorporating 14 different sectors, including firefighting gases.

Understanding the Proposal’s Scope

ECHA’s proposal includes a variety of fluorinated gases and their blends, which are used in firefighting and covered under EN 15004 or ISO 14520.

Among these are gases like HFC-227ea, HFC-125, FK-5-1-12, and HB-55, which have wide-ranging applications in firefighting.

The sector of ‘Applications of fluorinated gases,’ which incorporates these firefighting gases, constitutes only 3% of the total applications in this category, a relatively minor fraction compared to other uses such as refrigeration and foam blowing.

Firefighting Applications and Derogation

Annex E of the restriction proposal acknowledges the unique requirements of firefighting applications.

It recognises that while alternatives to F-Gases exist, there are specific scenarios where these alternatives might not be viable, citing potential risks to human life and cultural assets.

Consequently, the proposal suggests an 18-month transitional period after its entry into force (EiF), followed by a 12-year derogation from the ban for firefighting applications.

PFAS regulation: The timeline ahead

The public consultation for this proposal commenced on 22 March 2023 and concluded on 25 September 2023.

The process involves opinion development in ECHA’s committees, a draft opinion consultation, and a legislative process in the European Parliament and Council, leading up to the EiF.

It’s anticipated that the EiF for legislation won’t be implemented before the end of 2025, indicating that fluorinated gases, not restricted by the F-Gas regulation, would be available at least until mid-2039.

Euralarm’s stance and future outlook

Euralarm supports ECHA’s position that the current proposal does not intend to mandate the removal of installed systems.

The organisation closely monitors the development process and has committed to keeping interested parties regularly informed about changes.

With over 5600 comments received from more than 4400 organizations, companies, and individuals during the consultation period, the stakeholder feedback will significantly influence the final opinions of ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC).

IFSJ Comment

The proposed ECHA regulation on limiting PFAS use in firefighting contexts marks an important moment in the EU’s approach to environmental and public safety policy.

Acknowledging the environmental concerns associated with PFAS, the proposal also highlights the challenge of aligning environmental goals with the practical requirements of fire safety.

The 12-year exemption for firefighting uses suggests a balanced approach, acknowledging situations where alternatives are currently unavailable and the critical need for protecting human lives and property.

Euralarm’s reaction, which calls for a transition period and maintaining existing systems, reflects the industry’s effort to adapt to new regulations while maintaining a focus on safety and reliability.

This development is notable for its role in demonstrating how environmental policies can be integrated with specific industry needs, aiming to maintain both ecological health and public safety.

Live discharge testing for CO2 fire systems reveals critical safety insights

by Fire SuppressionPorts & MaritimeProjects

Global Survival Technology solutions provider Survitec has released the results of pioneering tests conducted on high-pressure CO2 fire extinguishing systems aboard three Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels.

The tests confirmed the efficacy of live discharge testing in verifying the performance of fire extinguishing systems, beyond theoretical simulations.

Survitec validates live testing forCO2 fire systems

Michal Sadzynski, Product Manager at Survitec, emphasized the findings’ implications: “The important take-home for the industry here is that some of the protected spaces did not pass the tests the first time. T

“his suggests there may be other vessels and offshore structures out there with potentially underperforming CO2 fire extinguishing systems in fire-critical areas such as switchboard rooms, engine rooms, and generator houses.”

Challenges uncovered in live discharge scenarios

Survitec designed a new set of test protocols to align with the latest NFPA12 standard amendments.

These initial tests on the FPSOs covered a range of scenarios, including both moored and docked vessels during conversion.

Sadzynski shared details of the testing process: “The devised live test comes as close as is practical to creating the demands of an actual fire aboard.

“On large vessels like FPSOs, it involves opening hundreds of cylinders – for example, in the engine room of one of these FPSOs, 315 cylinders were released.”

“We have found that the release of large amounts of highly pressurised gas into a partially closed space usually uncovers some engineering challenges within the protected space, rather than with the delivery system itself,” Sadzynski added, detailing the engineering issues that surfaced during testing.

A particular instance of these challenges was witnessed in the switchboard room aboard the first FPSO, where gas-tightness due to the air conditioning system’s specifications led to unforeseen complications during testing.

The pressure increase caused door damage, compromising the room’s integrity and allowing CO2 to escape, which resulted in test failure.

Implementing solutions and acknowledging costs

On another FPSO, leaks within a machinery space led to CO2 concentration drops, highlighting the issue that not all spaces are airtight.

Sadzynski explained the rectifications for such issues: “There are often relatively simple and inexpensive fixes in these scenarios.

“Overpressure in air-conditioned spaces can be resolved by implementing a time delay on one of the fire dampers.

“This allows over-pressurised gas to escape from the space and then closes when the pressure becomes stable, thereby keeping the CO2 concentration at the required level.”

However, he acknowledged the cost implications of live testing, as it exhausts CO2 cylinders which then require refilling, and the need to ensure personnel safety during tests on operational vessels.

Still, the potential cost of unverified systems in an emergency was presented as a much greater risk.

Sadzynski summarised the overarching goal and benefit of the study: “It is important to emphasise that designing a vessel is a highly complex process… This study shows very clearly the limitations of modelling… versus a real-world test.”

He further encouraged the adoption of live testing guidelines to improve the protection of lives and assets and to assist in designing more effective fire suppression systems.

IFSJ Comment

The findings from Survitec’s study highlight an often-overlooked aspect of maritime safety: the reliability of fire extinguishing systems in real-world scenarios.

The fact that not all spaces with CO2 systems passed live discharge testing underscores the necessity for regular and rigorous checks, which goes beyond standard compliance.

It provides a stark reminder that even with advanced modelling techniques, nothing can substitute for the robustness of a live test.

By drawing attention to the need for stringent testing protocols, the study serves as a catalyst for improved safety measures within the industry.

The consequential data derived from such studies are invaluable for both maritime safety experts and engineers in refining fire suppression technology and strategies.

The evolution of firefighting foam

by Breaking NewsFire Suppression

John Ottesen, CEO and Founder of Fomtec, navigates the complexities of the transition to fluorine free foam

In the rapidly evolving landscape of fire suppression, the transition to fluorine-free firefighting foam represents a pivotal shift.

At the intersection of environmental considerations and industry necessities, the transformation from C8 to C6 chemistry and the shift towards fluorine-free alternatives heralds a new era.

John Ottesen, the visionary CEO and Founder of Fomtec, provides an insider’s view of this intricate journey, emphasising the implications for the industry and the planet.

“The transition away from PFAS based firefighting foams is what everything is about these days,” Ottesen begins.

He highlights the urgency surrounding the decision to move away from PFAS, a topic at the forefront of discussions amongst legislators, consumers, and industry players.

“The current legislation is addressing the discontinuation of a PFAS substance called PFOA.

Fomtec completed the transition from PFOA based C8 chemistry to C6 chemistry in 2014 but now the EU has put in place legislation which brings to an end the legal use of C8 foams by July 4, 2025.

The legislation actually restricts the use of PFOA but no C8 foam will meet those restriction levels for PFOA..

Ottesen adds that the EU has now turned its attention to the shorter chain fluorochemicals and there are two pieces of legislation going through the legal process which will effectively provide a timeline for the use of PFAS containing foam agents.

Fomtec began its C8 to C6 transition in 2010.

The challenge lay in the misconception that C6 could replace C8 seamlessly as although they may appear similar, the process is not as simple as swapping percentages of C8 with C6.

“It wasn’t merely a matter of changing a chemical.

Re-qualifying products to meet the various fire performance standards including UL and FM required extensive fire testing,” Ottesen tells.

By the end of 2014, Fomtec completed its C6 transition, more than 12 months before the deadline required under the US EPA 2015 PFOA Stewardship Programme.

This transition was more than just a regulatory move for Fomtec as it came at the time where the company was looking to increase market penetration in the North American markets through the partnership with the Viking Group and the need for increased approvals with UL and FM.

Changing the game

Delving into the evolution of Fomtec’s fluorine-free foams, Ottesen looks back to 2010 at which point a large multinational launched a fluorine-free foam: “I said, ‘If they’re adopting that approach, we definitely need to get started’”.

 This saw the birth of what eventually became Fomtec’s Enviro programme.

Fomtec soon saw a chemical breakthrough which led to the introduction of the ‘Enviro Plus’ series of products, which are still part of Fomtec’s portfolio today: “The DNA of that product is still with us today in our most advanced products because it really was a game-changer.”

After their successful transition from C8 to C6, Fomtec redirected its focus entirely towards the development of fluorine-free foam.

The primary objective of the Enviro programme was to develop fluorine-free products that could equal the performance of their fluorinated counterparts, with a particulare focus for those used in fixed foam systems like sprinkler systems.

Achieving this goal led to a significant milestone: “It was a major breakthrough for us having a sprinkler-enabled fluorine-free foam passing UL 162 and FM 5130 sprinkler approvals.”

Fomtec launched the fluorine-free foam solution Enviro USP in 2016.

This was followed a few years later by the Enviro ARC, which was the first fluorine-free foam to be FM approved with a standard sprinkler for polar solvents.

Fomtec remained unchallenged in this domain for nearly two years before any competitor achieved the same FM 5130 approvals.

When asked about Fomtec’s approach to ensuring international safety standards, Ottesen underlines the exhaustive process of research and development.

“We have carried out 2,500 fire tests to date.

In our R&D process we create hundreds upon hundreds of formulations,” he explains.

Only a fraction of these undergo initial fire tests, and after identifying the most promising candidates, they are subjected to extensive full scale fire testing.

“We want to make sure the products not only to pass a test but can be genuinely versatile products that can be used in a real-world system.

Client needs

When asked about what clients typically seek in a firefighting foam, Ottesen explains that what most clients really want is a “drop-in replacement”: “They want to remove the current foam and replace with the new foam.”

But the reality, as Ottesen aptly put, isn’t so straightforward.

A one-size-fits-all solution is, in the majority cases, a fantasy.

Yet, Fomtec’s commitment to its clients remains unyielding.

Ottesen says that clients receive is honest consultation, tailored solutions, and well-documented product guidance: “What they get from us is an honest answer,” Ottesen emphasises.

This involves a holistic review of the client’s specific requirements – from application, fuels, and heights to approval needs.

Ottesen’s candid insight underscores a truth that’s often glossed over in the industry – the sheer complexity of transitioning from PFAS-containing foams to fluorine-free alternatives.

Such a transition isn’t as straightforward as it might seem.

even before considering the often-overlooked challenges of cleaning and decontamination.

Essential equipment

Ottesen makes the point that whilst the foam concentrate composition is important he says that it is important to remember that it is the finished foam that extinguishes the fires.

He highlights the critical bond between the foam concentrate and the system that disperses it.

“The marriage of the concentrate with the system requires that you test the concentrate with the system components,” he stresses, adding, “If you have not tested it how can we  know how it performs ?.”

The sensitivity of fluorine-free foams towards equipment, particularly the discharge devices, is delicate: “The nozzle dictates what finished foam qualities a suppression system will yield, and this is absolutely crucial to the performance of the system.”

To emphasise his point, he says that it can come down to minute differences in nozzle design, dismissing the oversimplified notion that ‘a sprinkler is a sprinkler’.

This holistic approach is supported by established guidelines and standards, such as UL162, FM 5130, FM data pages, and NFPA standards.

However, the distinction that must be understood is that UL and FM approve systems, not products.

This means the foam concentrate, proportioner, and discharge device need to be tested together.

Without comprehensive testing, says Ottesen, it is impossible to predict the fire performance.

Enviro USP and ARK

Shifting focus to Fomtec’s products, specifically the Enviro range, Ottesen says: “The Enviro USP is quite unique.”

With the influx of fluorine-free foams in the market in the last 5 years, all seemingly 3 x 3’s suitable for hydrocarbon and polar solvents, the Enviro USP carves its niche.

Launched in 2016 as an alternative to AFFF, its primary design intention was to suppress fires from hydrocarbon fuels.

“We wanted a really high-performance sprinkler-capable replacement of AFFF, and USP is exactly that,” he says, highlighting its efficacy and its commercial viability.

The Enviro ARK is Fomtec’s fluorine free alternative to a high performance sprinkler capable AR-AFFF and we regard this as one of the major stars in the Enviro range.

Ottesen stresses the adaptability and performance of their foams to suit the different applications and missions.

“What’s distinctive about the USP is its versatility across various applications.

“It consistently delivers exceptional performance no matter the challenge.

“We continue to add approvals and test this product in different applications.”

Fluorinated firefighting foam’s persistence

An emerging question within the industry pertains to the continued manufacturing of fluorinated foams, especially given the growing emphasis on fluorine-free alternatives.

As two large multinational companies pull out of fluorinated foams, where does Fomtec stand on this contentious issue?

When posed with this question, Ottesen says Fomtec has already adopted its position and is happy to state: “We are going to carry on supporting our clients who still have C6-fluorinated foams for their systems and have operational plans based on the use of equipment designed for use with C6 foams.

“To do this we plan to continue to manufacture C6 foams for as long as we are allowed to do so, and for as long as it is economically viable to do so.”

Ottesen references the impending legislation, highlighting the proactive stance of the foam industry: “Our industry has said we need derogations to allow foam users to effect the transition away from PFAs foams.

“The EPA and the European Union has proposed derogations for various industries, especially for the high-risk industries, of up to 10 years to enable them a safe transition away from PFAS foam.”

Acknowledging the challenges of swift transitions for high-risk industries, Ottesen stresses the need for continuity in the foam market.

“I believe there’s a crucial need to fill that gap.

“We’re committed to remaining in that market segment, offering fluorinated foam, playing our part for a safe transition for those clients who need the time to make the switch.”

His closing thoughts echo Fomtec’s commitment to the broader community of fire safety stakeholders: “We’ll carry on supporting our clients with C6 form for as long as we are allowed to do it and for as long as it’s economically viable to do so.”

Fluorine Free Foams – Are we there yet?

In this online-exclusive, Fomtec Owner and CEO John Ottesen reflects on how far Fomtec’s range of Enviro Fluorine Free Foams have progressed towards the target of being able to achieve similar performance to the last generation of PFAS containing C6 fluorinated foams manufactured by Fomtec, reinforcing Fomtec’s commitment to ‘data not opinion’: https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/fluorine-free-foams-are-we-there-yet/

This article was originally published in the November 2023 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

Fluorine Free Foams – Are we there yet?

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionIFSJ Exclusives

10 years into their Enviro Programme, Fomtec Owner and CEO John Ottesen reflects on how far Fomtec’s range of Enviro Fluorine Free Foams have progressed towards the target of being able to achieve similar performance to the last generation of PFAS containing C6 fluorinated foams manufactured by Fomtec.

2024 will see Fomtec entering the 11th year of what we call the Enviro Programme, which is our internal name for the project (and cost) centre for the research and development of fluorine free foams.

We were looking at Class B fluorine free foams earlier than 2014 and in fact in 2012 commercialised the Enviro PLUS range which were our gen’ 1 Class B fluorine free foams, which are still available today.

In 2014 as we were finishing up the transition from C8 to C6 chemistry the Enviro Programme kicked into a higher gear and the development of fluorine free foams now receives more than 80% of our R & D budget.

Development is a PROCESS and not necessarily an EVENT

When I look back at the transition from C8 to C6 chemistry the industry in hindsight played down the challenges in reformulating our fluorinated foams, and certainly in marketing terms the C6 foams were marketed as “drop-in replacements”.

In most cases although we were dealing with similar chemicals it really wasn’t a case of removing X% of the C8 fluorosurfactant and replacing it with X% of the C6 fluorosurfactant.

Achieving the same performance as the C8 versions of AFFF’s and AR-AFFF’s, particularly the higher performance products such as Mil Spec, AR-AFFF 1 X 3’s for the emergency response market sector, or AFFF & AR-AFFF for use with standard sprinklers all involved more reformulation work and more full-scale fire testing than I thought would be necessary.

It is true to say that the transition from C8 to C6 chemistry still involved working with similar chemicals and finding the correct blend of fluorochemicals and the right percentage of each to get a successful product.

My foam chemist he won’t argue with the fact that removing the fluorosurfactants, and fluoropolymers, from the mix meant almost starting with a blank piece of paper. 

We, like most manufacturers, had some Class A and Medium/High Expansion Synthetic foams so the paper wasn’t completely blank, but as we have mentioned in many articles development (to date) has involved more than 2000 full-scale fire tests and the well proven development process of “trial and error”.

The development of high performance fluorine free foams is still in it’s infancy but even in the last 3 to 5 years we have seen some impressive advancements in performance.

The Clients’ WISH LIST v current status of Fomtecs’ ENVIRO Foams?

I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that all clients would like a drop-in replacement i.e. has the same physio-chemical characteristics and can be deployed through the same equipment at exactly the same proportion rate, and flow rate and has the same firefighting performance (at least) as the foam it will replace. Ideally it should not  cost more than their existing foam!

I was involved in the industry when halon was phased out and we had to use different agents to protect spaces that had previously been protected by Halon 1301.

None of the proposed clean agents available then or now was or is a drop-in replacement and all transitions involved removing old equipment and replacing the complete system – storage tanks, discharge controls, discharge piping and the discharge nozzles.

Relatively the transition of gas systems is straightforward compared to foam systems as at the very least the number of different applications makes comparison impossible.

Add in variables such as different fuels, fresh or salt water, different discharge devices and respectfully achieving a drop-in replacement was always a WISH rather than an achievable goal.

So where do we start with the development of a fluorine free foam ? Firstly, we need to remember that it is the finished foam that comes out of the nozzle / discharge device that puts out the fire and NOT the foam concentrate.

I fully accept that the chemical composition of the foam concentrate is critical for the performance of the finished foam but it is NOT the only factor.

The function of foam is to suppress and extinguish the fire so firefighting performance must be the primary goal of the development project. As foam is used through a variety of discharge devices the secondary goal is to develop products that are suitable for use with these different discharge devices.

Operational compatibility extends to storage and proportioning devices as if we can’t generate the correct mix of water and foam concentrate then it is unlikely that the finished foam will have the necessary foam qualities to achieve suppression or extinguishment.

There are other considerations such as the physio-chemical characteristics, the ecotoxicological profile of the foam concentrate and not forgetting the cost!

Characteristics such as viscosity or freeze point can determine if the product can be used with existing equipment, or in the final deployment location, whereas in developing a product based on a new chemistry must not knowingly use chemical compounds that may themselves be restricted or have a greater negative impact on the environment than the PFAS foams they are to replace.

Verifying foam performance

It should also be remembered that a variety of test standards exist and whether these are geographic based such as EN 1568 or UL 162, application specific such as ICAO or IMO, industry preferred protocols such as LASTFIRE, Gesip or a purchasing specification such as MIL SPEC, foams need to be formulated and approved to meet the appropriate test standard.

Much like the fluorinated foams before them we have found that it is very difficult to formulate one foam that can achieve the best PASS in all of the different fire tests.

Here at Fomtec our Enviro Programme has produced a foam concentrate suitable for use on hydrocarbon fuel fires, with freshwater that does achieve good results on most of the tests and in some tests has even out performed some of our last generation of C6 AFFF’s.

If you have read any of our articles over the past 18 months you will seen that we always talk about the importance of DATA. In the following tables I will share some data for our Enviro USP that comes from the many tests performed with USP and compare with our C6 AFFF products.

EN 1568-3:2008

 RatingExtinguishing Time
AFFF 3% (EN)I B1’ 36” to 1’ 43”
Enviro USPI A1’ 25” to 1’ 45”

Notes:

  1. Testing carried out to 2008 standard as both products were approved before the 2018 standard was introduced.
  2. Enviro USP tested at 2% concentration

UL 162

 Test Application DensityExtinguishing Time
AFFF 3% S0.04 gpm/ft2 (1.64 lpm/m2)1’ 25” to 1’ 45”
Enviro USP0.06 gpm/ft2 (2.46 lpm/m2)1’ 25” to 1’ 45”
Enviro USP0.04 gpm/ft2 (1.64 lpm/m2)2’ 00” to 2’ 20”

Notes:

  1. As per the 8th edition of UL 162 the test protocol for fluorine free foams is the same as for other “non film forming AFFF’s or AR-AFFF’s”
  2. Test fuel as per UL is n-heptane
  3. Tests on Enviro USP according to the test protocol for an AFFF are not accepted by UL and are only for internal performance data comparison (i.e. this is Fomtec data only)

ICAO Level B

 99% control @ 60 secondsExtinguishing Time
AFFF 3% (EN)PASS1’ 19”
Enviro USPPASS1’ 30”

Notes:

  1. Data taken from test reports generated by MPA Dresden and RISE Sweden
  2. Test fuel is Jet A-1
  3. Enviro USP tested at 2% concentration.
  4. Fomtec has AFFF formulations specifically formulated for the ARFF market which are approved to ICAO Level C, and has already developed a low viscosity SFFF, called Enviro AIR which is approved to ICAO Level B with extinguishing time of 1’ 15” (faster than the AFFF 3% (EN))

FM 5130 Sprinkler:

FM APPROVALS: HYDROCARBONS

Foam Concentrate		Nominal K-factorSprinkler Identification Number (SIN)HeightListed2  Foam Design DensityWater Discharge DensityExtinguishing Time
MinimumMaximum
U.S.MetricUprightPendentFt.mFt.mgpm/ft2Lpm/m2gpm/ft2Lpm/m2Min . Secs
   VK100          
   VK108          
 5.680.6VK145    VK300—51.5206.10.28.10.312.21’10” – 1’30”
   VK301          
   VK345          
    VK102         
 5.680.6—VK110
VK302		51.5206.10.312.20.312.21’30” – 2′ 40″
    VK303        
AFFF 3%S C68.0115.2VK200   VK204   VK350—51.5309.10.312.20.312.21′ 05″ – 1′ 30″
   VK351          
    VK202         
 8.0115.2—VK206    VK35281.8309.10.312.20.312.21′ 25″ – 1′ 58″
    VK353         
 11.2161.3VK530—62.43310.10.312.20.312.21′ 15″ -2′ 07″
 VK531 
 11.2161.3—VK37781.83310.10.312.20.312.21’22” – 1’57”
 VK536 
 16.8241.9VK580—82.43310.10.520.40.520.41’53” -2’00”
FM APPROVALS: HEPTANE

Foam Concentrate		Nominal K-factorSprinkler Identification Number (SIN)HeightListed2  Foam Design DensityWater Discharge DensityExtinguishing Time
MinimumMaximum
U.S.Metric4UprightPendentFt.mFt.mgpm/ft2Lpm/m2gpm/ft2Lpm/m2Min . Secs
USP 3%5.680.6VK1001 VK3001—61.824.87.60.28.10.312.21’40” – 2′ 0″
5.680.6—VK1021 VK302161.84413.40.28.10.312.21′ 0″ – 1′ 30″
8.0115.2VK200   VK204   VK350   VK351—92.74513.70.312.20.312.20′ 30″ – 1′ 20″
8.0115.2—VK2021 VK2022 VK3521 VK352282.44413.40.312.20.312.20′ 40″ – 1′ 15″
11.2161.3—VK377    VK53661.825.280.312.20.312.21′ 40″ – 2′ 05″
FM APPROVALS: JET A1

Foam Concentrate		Nominal K-factorSprinkler Identification Number (SIN)HeightListed2  Foam Design DensityWater Discharge DensityExtinguishing Time
MinimumMaximum
U.S.MetricUprightPendentFt.mFt.mgpm/ft2Lpm/m2gpm/ft2Lpm/m2Min . Secs
USP 3%5.680.6—VK1021, VK30218.52.64413.40.28.10.312.21′ 20″ – 1′ 40″

Enviro USP has also been extensively tested and proven to meet industry standards such as the LASTFIRE batch quality assurance test protocol (with Good, Good, Good levels on Heptance with freshwater), the GESIP approval and is also suitable for shipboard fire fighting according to IMO 1312 / MED (as a 6% with saltwater).

In a recent large scale test programme in Texas USP was used at the minimum recommended NFPA 11 application rate through a non-aspirating monitor and extinguished the 130 m2 fire in less than 60 seconds using approximately 23 litres of foam concentrate.

Alternatives to AR-AFFF

The gen’ 1 Enviro PLUS products were alcohol resistant foam concentrates and since these were commercialised we have developed a number of new “ARC” type SFFF’s all backed by extensive full-scale testing and approvals to justify deployment in the field.

In 2021 we launched the first FM approved alcohol resistant SFFF for use with standard sprinklers on polar solvents and below are some of the data for Enviro ARK compared to the ARC 3 X 3 S product that we set out to match.

FM APPROVALS: ALCOHOL – IPA

Foam Concentrate		Nominal K-factorSprinkler Identification Number (SIN)HeightListed2  Foam Design DensityExtinguishing Time
MinimumMaximum
U.S.Metric4UprightPendentFt.mFt.mgpm/ft2Lpm/m2Mins: Secs
 5.680.6VK145    VK345—51.5206.10.312.21′ 17″ – 1′ 35″
5.680.6—VK102    VK110    VK302    VK30351.5206.10.312.24’15” – 4’30”
8.0115.2VK200    VK204    VK350    VK351—51.5309.10.312.21’37” – 2’18”
8.0115.2—VK202    VK206     VK352    VK35361.8309.10.312.22’10” – 4′ 32″
11.2161.3VK530    VK531—82.43310.10.312.23′ 25″ – 3′ 55″
11.2161.3—VK377    VK53661.83310.10.312.23′ 16 – 4′ 02″
ARK 3%5.680.6VK1001 VK3001—61.824.87.60.312.22′ 03″ – 2′ 55″
5.680.6—VK1021 VK302161.8247.30.312.22′ 40″ – 3′ 40″
8.0115.2VK200    VK204    VK350     VK351—6.524513.70.416.32′ 10″ – 2′ 40″
8.0115.2—VK202161.84413.40.312.22′ 30″ – 4′ 00″
11.2161.3—VK377    VK53661.84413.40.416.31′ 50″ – 2′ 40″
11.2161.3VK530    VK531—61.84513.70.416.33′ 20″ – 3′ 30″
FM APPROVALS: KETONE – ACETONE

Foam Concentrate		Nominal K-factorSprinkler Identification Number (SIN)HeightListed2  Foam Design DensityExtinguishing Time
MinimumMaximum
U.S.Metric4UprightPendentFt.mFt.mgpm/ft2Lpm/m2Mins: Secs
ARC 3X3S C65.680.6VK100    VK108    VK145    VK300    VK301    VK345—51.5206.10.312.21′ 16″ – 2′ 18″
5.680.6—VK102    VK110    VK302    VK30361.8206.10.312.21’50” – 3′ 05″
ARK 3%5.680.6VK1001 VK3001—61.824.87.60.312.21′ 15″ – 3′ 00″
5.680.6—VK1021 VK302161.8247.30.312.22′ 00″ – 3′ 00″
8.0115.2VK200    VK204    VK350    VK351—6.524513.70.312.21’20” – 3′ 40″
8.0115.2—VK2021 VK2022 VK3521 VK352261.84413.40.312.21′ 50″ – 3′ 00″
11.2161.3VK530    VK531—61.84513.70.312.23′ 45″
11.2161.3—VK377    VK53661.825.280.312.22’56 -3′”
FM APPROVALS: ETHANOL

Foam Concentrate		Nominal K-factorSprinkler Identification Number (SIN)HeightListed2  Foam Design DensityExtinguishing Time
MinimumMaximum
U.S.Metric4UprightPendentFt.mFt.mgpm/ft2Lpm/m2Mins: Secs
ARK 3%8.0115.2VK200    VK204    VK350    VK351—6.524513,70.312.21′ 00″ – 3′ 00″
8.0115.2—VK2021 VK3521 VK2022 VK35226.01.844.813.70.3012.21′ 30″ – 2′ 55″
11.2161.3VK530    VK531—7.72.320.66.30.3012.21′ 00″ – 3′ 30″
11.2161.3—VK377    VK536 1.844.813.70.3012.23′ 49″ – 3′ 52″

Fluorine Free Foams: Are we there yet?

Accepting that some of the testing and approvals are different between a film forming foam and the SFFF’s and focusing on the first goal of fire performance, and more importantly whether the SFFF’s can be deployed in the field then my answer is we are a lot closer than we were in 2014!

On the journey so far we have learnt many lessons and reaffirmed some things we always knew about using firefighting foam. Key things when deploying SFFF are no different to AFFF, namely:

  • Choosing the product that is the right product for the application and ensuring that the product is tested and approved as being suitable for that application.
  • Remembering that it is the finished foam that puts out the fire and this means using the foam concentrate with appropriate hardware that is tested and proven to work with the foam concentrate to generate and disperse the finished foam with the correct foam qualities.
  • Using the foam in accordance with proven design standards or operational procedures

And lastly, follow the DATA!