How AVD Fire is setting the global safety standard in lithium-ion battery fire suppression

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionFire SuppressionFirefighting EquipmentIFSJ ExclusivesProductsWarehouse

As lithium-ion battery adoption accelerates, AVD Fire explains how certified lithium-ion battery fire suppression technologies are redefining fire safety, containment and thermal runaway mitigation

From electric vehicles and airport ground operations to logistics hubs and energy storage systems, lithium-ion batteries now underpin critical infrastructure. Yet with this growth comes a well-documented and escalating challenge: thermal runaway events that are difficult to suppress, highly volatile and prone to re-ignition.

For fire safety professionals, insurers and regulators, the question is no longer if lithium-ion battery incidents will occur – but how effectively they can be controlled, contained and mitigated.

This is where Aqueous Vermiculite Dispersion (AVD) has emerged as a globally recognised, field-proven solution – redefining expectations for lithium-ion fire suppression.

AVD is not simply an incremental improvement on conventional extinguishing agents – it represents a fundamental shift in how lithium-ion fires are managed.Unlike traditional methods that focus solely on cooling or oxygen displacement, AVD introduces a dual-action mechanism:

  • Rapid cooling to reduce thermal escalation
  • Formation of a vermiculite barrier layer, preventing oxygen reintroduction and suppressing re-ignition

This unique approach directly addresses the core challenge of lithium-ion fires: sustained chemical reactions within the battery cells.The result is controlled suppression, reduced fire spread and significantly improved post-incident stability – a critical factor for emergency responders and site operators alike.

Certified lithium-ion fire suppression performance and proven credibility

As global scrutiny intensifies around lithium-ion fire risks, independent testing and certification are no longer optional – they are essential.AVD Fire’s product portfolio has been developed and validated to meet the highest international standards, assuring both regulatory bodies and commercial stakeholders.

AVD extinguishers are supported by a comprehensive framework of certifications and third-party validations, including:

  • UL witness testing conducted at AVD Fire’s UK test facility
  • Emirates Safety Laboratory testing, demonstrating performance under controlled conditions
  • NTA 8133 certification for lithium-ion fire extinguishing capability
  • British Kitemark accreditation, reinforcing product quality and manufacturing standards

These credentials are not merely technical milestones – they represent market trust, regulatory confidence and operational reliability.

DIN-certified EV fire blankets for lithium-ion battery fire containment

While fire extinguishers are critical for early-stage intervention, large-scale lithium-ion incidents – particularly involving electric vehicles – require a different strategy: containment.

AVD Fire’s EV Fire Blankets are engineered to meet the rigorous DIN SPEC 91489:2024-11 Standard for EV fire containment. Key performance attributes include:

  • Resistance to sustained temperatures exceeding 1000°C
  • Structural integrity in oxidising environments
  • Capability to contain flames, heat and hazardous off-gassing
  • Protection against debris and projectile risks during thermal runaway

For high-risk environments such as airports, tunnels, ports and logistics centres, these blankets provide a critical first-response containment solution, limiting damage and enabling safer incident management.

Fire Suppression Kits (FSKs) for lithium-ion battery incident response

Recognising that lithium-ion incidents often require multi-layered response strategies, AVD Fire has developed Fire Suppression Kits (FSKs) to complement its core product range.

These kits are designed to support assisted mitigation, equipping personnel with:

  • Specialist tools for safe handling and isolation
  • Personal protective equipment (PPE)
  • Integrated AVD extinguishing solutions

In environments such as distribution centres, manufacturing facilities and transport hubs, FSKs provide a structured and repeatable response framework, reducing reliance on improvised or inconsistent procedures.

Global lithium-ion fire safety distribution with local expertise

AVD Fire’s international growth has been driven not only by product innovation, but also through the development of a trusted global distribution network.Today, AVD Fire solutions are supported by established distribution and service partners across:

  • Europe
  • Middle East
  • North America
  • Asia-Pacific
  • Caribbean

This network ensures customers benefit from local technical expertise, regulatory understanding, product availability and rapid response capability within their respective regions.

As lithium-ion battery adoption continues to accelerate globally, AVD Fire remains committed to supporting its existing distribution partners, while selectively expanding representation in strategic regions where opportunities and market coverage gaps exist.

The company is currently open to discussions with qualified partners in selected territories worldwide, including parts of:

  • Latin America
  • Africa
  • Southeast Asia
  • Selected regions within North America
  • EMEA

For distributors and fire safety specialists, this represents an opportunity to align with a globally recognised lithium-ion battery fire suppression specialist in a rapidly growing market.

Full-scale lithium-ion battery fire testing and validation

While certifications and laboratory testing provide essential validation, real-world performance remains the ultimate benchmark.

To further demonstrate the effectiveness of its solutions, AVD Fire recently conducted two full-scale live fire tests in North America, involving electric vehicles undergoing thermal runaway.

In these controlled tests:

  • Two Tesla vehicles were intentionally ignited to simulate thermal runaway conditions
  • AVD Fire deployed both its DIN-certified EV blanket and Premium fire blanket
  • The fires were successfully contained and ultimately extinguished

The outcomes demonstrated:

  • Effective containment of flames and heat
  • Significant reduction in fire spread risk
  • Controlled suppression without escalation
  • Enhanced safety for operators and surrounding infrastructure

These tests provide compelling evidence that AVD solutions are not only compliant and certified but also operationally effective in the most demanding real-world scenarios.

Leading the future of lithium-ion battery fire safety

As lithium-ion battery technology continues to reshape industries, the fire safety sector must evolve in parallel.

The transition requires:

  • New suppression technologies designed specifically for lithium-ion risks
  • Certified, standards-driven solutions that meet global regulatory expectations
  • Integrated response systems that combine suppression, containment and operational safety

AVD Fire is at the forefront of this transition – delivering solutions that are scientifically advanced, independently validated, and globally deployed.

Why the fire safety industry must act on lithium-ion battery risks

The challenge of lithium-ion battery fires is not theoretical – it is immediate, growing and

increasingly complex. For fire safety professionals, infrastructure operators and distributors, the priority is clear: Adopt solutions that are proven, certified and designed specifically for the risks at hand.

AVD Fire invites industry stakeholders to:

  • Explore its full range of lithium-ion fire protection solutions
  • Engage in collaborative testing and validation programmes
  • Partner in expanding global distribution and implementation

The future of fire safety demands more than adaptation – it demands leadership. AVD is setting that standard.

Latest Fire Door Regulations: A Global Perspective for UK and US Safety Leaders

by Breaking NewsFire Doors

Ask a facilities manager what keeps them up at night, and fire doors probably won’t be the first thing out of their mouth. Budgets, staffing, and a leaking roof, maybe. But spend enough time around fire investigators and building safety lawyers, and you start to hear the same uncomfortable truth repeated: fire doors are where compliance quietly falls apart. Not because people don’t care. Usually because nobody’s been watching closely enough. That’s changing now, and it’s changing fast. 

Fire door regulations in both the UK and the US have been tightened significantly over the past few years, and the pressure isn’t letting up. What used to be a box-ticking exercise buried in a building’s safety file is now a named legal duty, with inspection records, deadlines, and real consequences for getting it wrong. This piece looks at where things currently stand across both countries, and with one eye on the wider global picture. If you’re responsible for occupied buildings in any capacity, there’s a lot here worth your attention.

Why Fire Door Regulations Are Becoming a Global Priority

The honest answer involves Grenfell. The 2017 fire in North Kensington killed 72 people and cracked open every assumption the UK building sector had about passive fire protection systems being “good enough.” Fire door failures, propped open, incorrectly fitted, and missing seals were part of a much larger systemic failure. But they were there. Other countries were already watching. Australia, Canada, and parts of the EU have all been tightening fire door compliance standards in the years since. 

It’s not exactly copycat legislation, but there’s a clear convergence around what good looks like. Testing regimes, inspection frequencies, and third-party certification requirements are all trending toward stricter requirements. Understanding how fire safety standards connect across jurisdictions matters more than many safety leaders realize, especially if you’re managing properties in multiple countries.

How UK Fire Door Rules Are Reshaping Building Safety

Two pieces of legislation changed everything for UK building owners. The Building Safety Act 2022 and the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, between them, created a compliance regime that’s noticeably harder to ignore than the one that came before. The headline requirement most people know is that responsible persons in multi-occupied residential buildings over 11 meters now have to check communal fire doors every three months. Individual flat entrance doors every year. That’s not guidance. That’s a legal obligation, with documentation expected.

The more important shift is about what “compliant” actually means now. The regulations don’t just ask whether there’s a fire door present. They ask whether the whole assembly is correct: frame, door leaf, intumescent seals, hardware, glazing, self-closing mechanism. All of it together.  The knock-on effects for procurement and construction are real too. As we’ve covered in our look at construction compliance risk, specifiers and contractors are having to think about certification from the start of a project, not as an afterthought at handover.

Understanding US Fire Door Standards for Commercial Facilities

In the US, the regulatory framework differs in structure but is similar in intent. NFPA 80, the Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives, is the central reference point for commercial fire door requirements. It mandates annual inspection and testing of fire door assemblies in commercial buildings, carried out by someone who actually knows what they’re looking at. 

Under NFPA 80, fire door regulations aren’t satisfied by a compliant door leaf installed in a non-compliant frame or fitted with hardware not part of the original listing. NFPA 101, the Life Safety Code, works alongside NFPA 80 to define where fire doors are actually required, based on occupancy type. Worth reading alongside this: the product safety rules in UK context, which shows how two English-speaking countries can approach the same safety problem in quite different ways and still reach broadly comparable outcomes.

Role of Certified Fire-Rated Doors in Risk Reduction

A fire-rated door system isn’t just a heavier door. It’s an assembly that’s been subjected to controlled fire conditions to prove it holds for a defined period: 20, 45, 60, or 90 minutes, depending on where it sits in a building and what it’s there to protect. Third-party certification is what makes that claim credible rather than just a marketing statement.

In the UK, schemes such as Certifire and BM TRADA assess whether door assemblies meet the required standards under test conditions. In the US, UL and Intertek do equivalent work. The certification applies to the whole assembly as tested, not to components selected individually and combined in the field. This is where many building owners get caught out. They buy certified doors. 

They think they’ve handled it. But certification only holds when the door is installed exactly as it was tested: the same frame specification, the same hardware, the same fixings. Deviate from that, and you’ve bought the appearance of compliance without the substance of it. The practical risk reduction delivered by properly specified certified fire door assemblies isn’t theoretical. Fire investigation reports reference the performance of fire doors. 

Doors that held. Doors that didn’t. The link between correct specification and actual performance in a real fire is well documented, and so is the inverse. There’s also the insurance and liability angle, which doesn’t get discussed as often as it should. An incorrectly installed or uncertified door isn’t just a safety risk. It’s a financial one. Policies can be invalidated. In cases involving fatalities, the legal exposure for building owners and responsible persons is significant and getting harder to avoid.

Why Fire Door Inspection and Maintenance Matter

Here’s the version of this that nobody puts in the press release: the most common fire door failures found during inspections aren’t exotic. They’re a door wedged open with a fire extinguisher. A self-closer that’s been disconnected because a resident found it annoying. A seal that’s been painted over during a refurbishment and no longer does anything. A gap at the bottom is three times wider than it should be. Fire door inspection protocols exist precisely because buildings change over time. 

Doors get used thousands of times a year. Seals degrade. Hinges wear. Frames shift slightly with seasonal movement in a building’s structure. The door that was correctly installed and performing well at handover may not be the same door five years later without active maintenance. Under current fire door regulations in both countries, inspection is mandatory. In the UK, frequencies are set out in legislation. In the US, NFPA 80 mandates annual commercial inspections. 

Both frameworks require records of who inspected, what was found, what was fixed, and when. That audit trail is what a regulator or insurer asks for after an incident. What inspectors actually check covers a lot of ground: gap tolerances around all four sides of the door; seal condition and continuity; whether the self-closer brings the door fully home; latch engagement; condition of glazing, signage, and the frame itself. Digital inspection tools have made this easier to evidence and harder to quietly overlook. 

Paper checklists in a folder are being replaced by time-stamped mobile records with photographs linked to specific door references. Maintenance matters equally. When a component fails, it needs to be replaced with like-for-like manufacturer-approved parts, matched to the original certified assembly. Fitting any available closet because it’s roughly the right size isn’t compliant. Field observations recorded in fire protection observations show propped doors and degraded seals consistently at the top of the deficiency list, year after year.

How Smart Technologies Are Changing Fire Door Safety

Sensor technology embedded in fire door assemblies is commercially available now and being deployed at scale in larger estates. These systems monitor door status continuously, whether it’s open or closed, how long it’s been open, whether the gap is within tolerance, and whether the closer is actually working. Alerts go straight to facilities management when something’s wrong, without waiting for the next scheduled inspection. 

The intersection with AI in emergency response is worth following. Predictive maintenance tools that learn from sensor data across a portfolio of doors can flag assemblies showing early signs of wear before they actually fail an inspection. That’s a move from reacting to problems to catching them before they become problems. In large high-rise fire protection contexts, that early warning has real operational value.

Integration matters too. Smart fire door systems can integrate with smoke detection and building evacuation management, releasing hold-open devices and automatically closing fire doors on a floor or across the entire building when an alarm is activated. That’s not a theoretical future capability; it’s working now in hospitals, airports, and large commercial sites.

For compliance recording, digital inspection apps have transformed day-to-day workflows. GPS-stamped records, photographs tied to specific door references in an asset register, automatic scheduling, centralized dashboards showing compliance status across an entire portfolio. For a safety manager responsible for multiple sites, that level of visibility isn’t just convenient; it’s the only realistic way to manage the load.

Challenges in Managing Multi-Site Fire Door Compliance

If you’re managing fire door compliance across a single well-documented building, it’s hard work but manageable. Scale that to 20 sites, or to sites across both the UK and the US, and the difficulty multiplies quickly. Fire door regulations aren’t uniform. NFPA 80 and the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 share the same underlying intent but differ on specifics: inspection frequencies, certification pathways, and what qualifies as a competent inspector. In the US, state and local AHJ interpretations add another layer. A compliance program that works well in one city may need adjustment for another. 

That inconsistency creates a real administrative burden for multi-site operators. Asset management is foundational. You need an accurate register of every fire door assembly across a portfolio, including ratings, original certification details, installation dates, inspection histories, and component replacements. Without that baseline, building safety compliance becomes guesswork. Many organizations don’t have it, which is a major reason multi-site fire door compliance remains a persistent gap. Parts sourcing creates its own headaches. 

Commercial fire door requirements specify that replacement components match the original certified assembly. When a manufacturer has ceased trading or a product line has been discontinued, finding a compliant replacement that preserves the assembly’s certification requires real effort. The temptation to use whatever’s available and roughly the right size is understandable and non-compliant. Training is the third element that gets squeezed when resources are tight. UK legislation leans heavily on the “competent person” concept, someone with actual demonstrated knowledge, not just a willing volunteer. 

NFPA 80 similarly expects inspectors to have a genuine understanding of the standards they’re applying. That doesn’t come from a one-hour induction. Organizations need proper, ongoing training programs and to update them as fire door regulations change. 

The direction of travel is clear enough, even if the path is messy: requirements are getting stricter, the documentation burden is increasing, and the consequences of getting it wrong are harder to absorb. Safety leaders who treat this as an administrative task rather than a genuine operational priority tend to find out the hard way why that distinction matters.

Conclusion

There’s a version of this topic that gets filed under regulatory housekeeping. It shouldn’t be. Fire door regulations exist because buildings have killed people when their passive fire protection systems failed, and fire doors were part of that failure. The rules that followed in the UK, especially, but in the US too, reflect hard lessons learned at real cost. 

The practical ask isn’t complicated, even if the execution takes sustained effort: buy certified products, install them correctly, maintain them properly, inspect them on schedule, and keep records you could defend in a coroner’s court. Smart technology is making parts of that easier. It doesn’t replace people who understand what they’re responsible for and take it seriously.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the latest fire door regulations in the UK and the US?

In the UK, the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and the Building Safety Act 2022 set out the current framework. Responsible persons in qualifying high-rise residential buildings must check communal fire doors every three months and flat entrance doors once a year. 

Why are fire door inspections important for commercial buildings?

Fire door inspection protocols catch what quietly goes wrong: seals that have worn or been painted over, closers that were removed, hinges that have shifted, gaps that have grown beyond the allowed tolerance.

How often should fire doors be inspected and maintained?

Under UK fire door regulations, responsible persons in qualifying high-rise residential buildings must inspect communal fire doors quarterly and flat entrance doors annually. 

How do certified fire-rated doors improve building safety?

A certified fire door assembly has been independently tested as a complete unit to confirm it contains fire and smoke for a specified period.

What are the risks of non-compliance with fire door regulations?

The most serious risk is the one that matters most: a door that fails during a fire, allowing smoke and flames to move through a building faster than they otherwise would.

New appointment for Siemens fire safety division

by Breaking NewsPeoplePeople

Siemens fire safety division appointment supports push toward connected, intelligent fire protection.

The Siemens fire safety division has been strengthened with the appointment of Nicholas Bryan as Innovation & Consultant Manager.

Bryan joins from Siemens’ Utilities Division, where he spent two years working on system integration for critical national infrastructure, with responsibility spanning fire, security and building management systems (BMS) integration.

Before that, he spent a decade in the facilities management sector, holding roles at major providers including Mitie and Sodexo. In those positions, he focused on business development and supporting blue-chip clients across complex service environments.

His move comes as Siemens fire safety advances its portfolio with the introduction of the Cerberus and Sinteso Nova range, which aims to shift fire detection toward more proactive, connected and cloud-enabled safety solutions.

Bryan said: “I am delighted to be joining the team to engage with specifiers and consultants in demonstrating the potential our fire offering provides in the journey towards autonomous buildings. Through my background I understand the importance of integration so will also be focusing on that message and how Siemens as a business can help with our extensive portfolio of products and systems.”

Fire safety behaviour change central to UK built environment reform, says Fire Aware

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementConstructionConstructionHealth and SafetySafety

Fire safety behaviour change is central to efforts to improve standards across the UK built environment supply chain, Fire Aware has said in comments made this week to industry members and stakeholders.

Fire safety behaviour change is being positioned as a key requirement for delivering lasting cultural reform across the UK built environment supply chain, according to membership organisation Fire Aware.

The organisation said this week that its expanding membership base reflects growing recognition across construction, asset management and building operations that responsibility for fire safety extends across all levels of the sector.

The emphasis on behavioural reform comes amid ongoing changes following the Grenfell Inquiry, which has driven sustained scrutiny of safety culture across the industry.

The inquiry, led by Dame Judith Hackitt, has previously called for a shift towards ethical responsibility and cultural change, rather than reliance on regulatory compliance alone.

Regulatory oversight has also been strengthened through the creation of the Building Safety Regulator, which is tasked with improving competence and raising standards across the built environment.

Fire Aware chief executive Gavin Skelly said behavioural change across contractors, subcontractors, asset owners and managers remains essential to achieving consistent safety outcomes.

He said the challenge is not limited to compliance, but extends to attitudes and day-to-day decision-making across different professional disciplines.

“Changing behaviour can be difficult especially across different disciplines whether you are a contractor, sub contractor, asset owner or manager. However, it is the difference between meeting the cultural change that is needed or not,” he said.

Skelly added that exceeding minimum compliance standards is increasingly seen as both a safety expectation and a commercial differentiator in the post-Grenfell environment.

“Actions do speak louder than words. Adopting best practice above the minimum requirements of compliance can feel like an unnecessary step – yet it is a valuable USP for any business with a duty of care in the post Grenfell era,” he said.

Fire Aware said its members are joining to adopt its code of conduct and sector-specific charters designed to standardise expected behaviours across the supply chain.

The organisation said this is intended to create a more unified approach to competence, accountability and professional responsibility across the industry.

It also highlighted that fire risk is particularly acute in hospitality settings such as bars, restaurants and hotels, as well as healthcare environments where vulnerable occupants may require additional support during emergencies.

Fire Aware said its wider aim is to embed behavioural standards across the built environment by linking moral responsibility with professional practice and regulatory expectations.

Navy Shore Enterprise announces 2025 Fire and Emergency Services Award winners

by Aerial FirefightingAmericasAmericas - Breaking NewsAssociations and OrganisationsAviationBreaking NewsPeoplePorts & Maritime

Commander, Navy Installations Command has announced the Calendar Year 2025 Navy Fire and Emergency Services (F&ES) Award winners, recognising fire and emergency personnel across the Navy Shore Enterprise for operational excellence and mission support.

The awards highlight teams and individuals responsible for emergency response across U.S. Navy installations worldwide, including structural fire suppression, aircraft rescue, hazardous materials containment and emergency medical response. According to the command, these capabilities are central to maintaining readiness across shore installations and supporting fleet operations.

By carrying out life-saving medical interventions and rapid emergency response operations, Navy F&ES teams help ensure that bases remain operational so that naval forces can train, deploy and conduct missions.

“Our personnel are the cornerstone of base resilience,” said CAPT Bill Lane, deputy director of CNIC operations. “Protecting our people and our tactical assets is essential for projecting power from the Shore Enterprise. These winners represent the best of the best in ensuring our mission remains uninterrupted.”

From this year’s recipients, three Navy representatives advanced to top honours in broader military competition at the Department of War (DoW) level: Naval Support Activity Annapolis; Katsuhiro Watanabe of Commander Fleet Activities Yokosuka; and Metro San Diego, a regional fire and emergency services organisation covering Naval Base San Diego, Naval Base Coronado, Naval Base Point Loma, and Naval Air Station North Island.

The awards span multiple categories recognising performance across different installation sizes and specialties.

Navy Shore Enterprise awards in full

In the Small Fire Department of the Year category, Naval Support Activity Annapolis received the DoW-level award, with Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay named runner-up. For Medium Fire Department of the Year, Naval Station Mayport was selected as winner, followed by Joint Region Marianas.

Metro San Diego FES earned the Large Fire Department of the Year award, with Navy Region Northwest as runner-up. Joint Region Marianas was also recognised for Fire Prevention Program of the Year, alongside Navy Region Mid-Atlantic District 3, Naval Air Station Oceana, and Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek–Fort Story as runners-up.

Individual awards highlighted firefighters, officers, instructors and emergency medical personnel across the fleet. ABH2(AW) Kiara Robin of Naval Station Rota was named Military Firefighter of the Year runner-up, while ABH2(AW/SW) Joshua Acuna of Metro San Diego was also recognised. Civilian Firefighter of the Year went to Katsuhiro Watanabe of Commander Fleet Activities Yokosuka (DoW winner), with Ahmed Dakail of Naval Support Activity Bahrain named runner-up.

Other honours included ABH1(AW/SW) Leaundre Johnson of Naval Support Activity Naples as Military Fire Officer of the Year winner, and Eric Boggess of Naval Station Mayport as Civilian Fire Officer of the Year winner. Additional categories recognised training, inspection, EMS provision, and fire prevention leadership across multiple installations.

The Navy also recognised legacy contributors to the Fire and Emergency Services community through Hall of Fame inductions. Inductees included retired fire chiefs and senior leaders such as Ruben Perez, Edward Stillwell, David Inman, William Casey, Kenneth Snyder, and Jack Woodard (deceased), reflecting long-term service across multiple regions.

Lifetime Achievement Awards were also presented to senior leaders including Rodolfo Gonzales, William Killen, Christopher Connelly, and Daniel Gaumont, acknowledging decades of service within Navy fire and emergency operations.

Commander, Navy Installations Command oversees global Navy shore installation management, including infrastructure development, sustainment and quality of life programmes. The organisation manages 10 Navy regions and more than 70 installations, employing over 48,600 personnel focused on readiness, training and support for fleet operations.

According to the command, Navy installations function as operational platforms essential to supporting global naval missions and maintaining overall fleet readiness.

Reacton Fire Suppression wins King’s Award for Enterprise 2026 for innovation

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionFire Suppression

Reacton Fire Suppression Ltd has been awarded a King’s Award for Enterprise in the Innovation category, placing the company among 52 organisations across the United Kingdom recognised in the 2026 honours list.

As part of the award, Chief Executive Officer Sam Malins is due to meet His Majesty King Charles III at a ceremony at St James’s Palace. The King’s Awards for Enterprise are regarded as the most prestigious business awards in the UK, with 2026 marking 60 years of recognising achievement in British industry and innovation.

The award recognises Reacton’s fire suppression systems, which are manufactured in the UK and are used to protect assets valued at billions of pounds globally. The company’s technology is designed to automatically detect and extinguish fires at their source, using integrated detection and suppression systems.

At the core of Reacton’s system is a proprietary pneumatic detection tube filled with nitrogen. When exposed to heat or flame, the tube ruptures and triggers the immediate release of an extinguishing agent, operating without the need for an external power source.

The company’s power-independent design has been highlighted as particularly significant in high-risk environments where electrical systems may fail. Reacton systems can also use electronic linear detection as an alternative option, allowing deployment across a wide range of sectors including heavy machinery, bus engines, electrical control panels and CNC equipment.

Award recognises dual-agent fire suppression approach

The King’s Awards for Enterprise also noted Reacton’s dual-agent suppression approach. This system combines dry powder, which rapidly suppresses flames, with wet chemical agents that cool surfaces and help prevent re-ignition. The company also offers clean agent options using fluorinated ketones, which are discharged as gas and leave no residue, making them suitable for environments containing sensitive equipment or where people may be present.

Another key feature of the technology is its modular design. Reacton uses what it describes as a “one valve fits all” system, allowing the same core valve to be used across a wide range of applications, from small electrical cabinets to large-scale industrial machinery weighing up to 400 tonnes. Only cylinder size and agent volume vary, which the company says reduces complexity and installation time while improving reliability.

Reacton Fire Suppression Ltd traces its origins to 2010, when Sam Malins acquired a small start-up focused on addressing gaps in fire protection for high-value mobile equipment. Following the acquisition of Reacton Fire Suppression Ltd in 2016, the business expanded into an Essex-based manufacturing, research and development, and international sales operation.

Today, the company supplies fire suppression systems across multiple sectors, including public transport, mining, information technology infrastructure, manufacturing and defence. Its international markets include the United States, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Africa and Central Asia. Clients include JCB and DP World.

Reacton says its systems are designed not only to protect equipment but also to reduce risk to human life by preventing fire escalation in industrial and operational environments.

Commenting on the award, Sam Malins said: “This recognition reflects the dedication and expertise of our entire team. We’ve always believed that even in the face of challenges, there is a solution—you just have to go and find it. This award is proof of that mindset in action.”

The King’s Award for Enterprise continues to highlight UK businesses demonstrating innovation, international growth and sustainable development, with this year’s recipients representing a broad range of industries across the country.

NFCC launches eLearning module to support fire and rescue staff

by Breaking NewsFeatured NewsPeoplePeopleProjectsSafety

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) has launched a new eLearning module aimed at supporting fire and rescue staff and volunteers across the UK who work with children and young people in prevention, education and community engagement roles.

Released to coincide with National Children’s Day on May 10, the Introduction to Working with Children and Young People module is designed to provide nationally consistent guidance for staff and volunteers engaging with young people in settings such as schools, youth groups, Fire Cadets and other youth-focused programmes.

Available through NFCC’s Organisational Learning Materials Library, the resource covers safeguarding responsibilities, professional boundaries and appropriate conduct when working with children and young people.

NFCC said the module is intended as both an introductory resource for those new to youth engagement roles and a refresher for experienced staff.

Fire and rescue staff to cover ‘wide range of settings’

Chair of NFCC’s Children & Young People Board, Mark Baxter, said: “Fire and rescue staff and volunteers engage with children and young people in a wide range of settings, from prevention and education to youth programmes such as Fire Cadets.

“It is vital that they are supported with consistent, high quality learning to help them carry out this work safely, confidently and professionally. This eLearning provides an important foundation, supporting good practice and helping services deliver positive outcomes for children and young people in their communities.

“Launching the eLearning to coincide with National Children’s Day on 10 May reinforces the importance of ensuring staff and volunteers understand their responsibilities, maintain clear professional boundaries, and know how to act on concerns to keep children and young people safe.”

The module introduces key principles intended to help learners understand the needs and experiences of children and young people, recognise appropriate professional behaviour and respond to safeguarding concerns.

NFCC said the eLearning forms part of its wider programme to support fire and rescue services working with young people, alongside the Level 2 Award in Fire & Rescue Service – Introduction to Working with Children and Young People, developed in collaboration with Skills for Justice Awards.

The organisation said the learning resource is available to NFCC members through its website and can be integrated into local learning management systems to support induction, refresher training and pre-course preparation.

NFCC is an independent membership association and charity representing the UK Fire and Rescue Service. The organisation supports fire and rescue services across the country in prevention, protection and operational activities aimed at improving community safety.

Competence becomes the fire safety dealbreaker

by Breaking NewsSafety

Fire safety buyers prioritise competence over cost, says NSI

NSI and BAFE’s The Fire Safety Buyers Report 2026 finds that UK organisations are placing greater weight on competence, assurance and third-party certification when selecting fire safety service providers, although many decision-makers remain uncertain about legal duties and how provider competence should be checked.

The report, based on independent research by Sapio Research, examines how UK buyers choose fire safety providers and how expectations have changed as fire safety responsibilities receive more attention from building owners, employers and duty holders.

Its central finding is that buyers increasingly want evidence that fire safety providers are competent, independently assessed and able to support defensible decisions if those decisions are later challenged.

Fire safety awareness has increased since Grenfell

The report places current buyer behaviour within the period following the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed 72 lives and led to greater attention on fire safety procurement, competence and accountability.

NSI and BAFE say decision-makers now take fire safety responsibility more seriously than they did a decade ago, with 93% of those surveyed reporting greater focus and action around fire safety in the past five years.

The research also found that 89% believe fire safety is now more of a strategic business priority, while 76% say they prioritise fire safety more than they did five years ago.

Despite this shift, fire safety does not yet sit at the top of the building management agenda.

When respondents were asked what matters most in building maintenance and management, fire safety ranked fifth overall, behind general health and safety and cost control.

The report describes this as a challenge for both buyers and providers, because fire safety is receiving more attention but still competes with other operational and financial pressures.

Spending expectations are rising

The research indicates that spending on fire safety is expected to increase during the next five years.

Almost six in ten buyers, 59%, describe their current investment in fire protection as high, with 16% describing it as very high.

Looking ahead, 77% expect fire safety investment to increase during the next five years, including 39% who anticipate a significant increase.

NSI and BAFE also link higher awareness to higher spending expectations.

Among respondents who said they were fully aware of their legal fire safety responsibilities, 85% expect spending to increase, compared with 68% among those who said they were only somewhat aware.

The report says this matters because informed buyers are more likely to invest in fire safety and to scrutinise the competence of those delivering fire safety services.

As organisations become more aware of legal and reputational exposure, they appear less willing to rely on suppliers whose competence has not been independently checked.

Organisations view fire safety in different ways

The report says organisations do not all view fire safety through the same lens.

Some treat it mainly as a compliance requirement, while others view it as part of duty of care, risk management or business continuity.

The research found that 45% of decision-makers see fire safety as a compliance necessity.

A further 34% view it as a moral or ethical duty, while 21% mainly see it as supporting and enabling business operations.

This split has practical implications for providers.

Where buyers see fire safety as a compliance necessity, procurement may focus on minimum obligations, low cost or administrative completion.

Where buyers see fire safety as a duty of care, procurement is more likely to focus on competence, reassurance and evidence that decisions can be justified.

The report also identifies continued complacency in some organisations.

More than a quarter of decision-makers, 26%, believe fire safety is not taken as seriously as it should be within their organisation.

Among those respondents, 51% cited complacency that a fire is unlikely to happen, while 44% cited other strategic priorities.

Budget constraints were cited by 38%, 36% said fire safety is seen as compliance rather than business strategy and 31% referred to a lack of organisational sponsorship.

The report also found that 26% cited the absence of fire safety from anyone’s official role, while 21% selected none of the listed reasons.

Responsible Persons want reassurance

The report uses the term Responsible Person as a collective shorthand for persons with legal fire safety responsibility across UK jurisdictions.

It notes that England and Wales use Responsible Person, Scotland uses Duty Holder and Northern Ireland uses Appropriate Person.

These terms are not identical, because each jurisdiction has its own legal wording and duties.

In workplaces, the Responsible Person is generally the employer of those working in the premises.

In premises that are not workplaces, the person with control of the premises is usually responsible.

Where no one has control of the premises, the owner is almost always the Responsible Person.

NSI and BAFE say those who identify as Responsible Persons experience fire safety more personally than wider decision-makers.

Among this group, 45% view fire safety primarily as a moral or ethical duty, compared with 40% who view it mainly as a compliance requirement.

Responsible Persons are also more likely to place importance on reassurance and peace of mind when choosing a fire safety provider.

The report says this reflects the nature of the role, because those with legal duties must put appropriate measures in place and be able to show that their decisions were sound.

Confusion remains over legal duties

The research identifies uncertainty around the Responsible Person role and its boundaries.

A third of decision-makers express some level of doubt about the legal duties of the Responsible Person.

The report also found that 38% changed their answer about who the Responsible Person was after legal definitions were explained.

A further 66% selected responsibilities that do not formally sit within the role.

Among respondents who identify themselves as Responsible Persons, 15% are not fully confident in their responsibilities.

NSI and BAFE say this uncertainty creates an important role for fire safety providers.

Technical delivery remains essential, but many Responsible Persons are also seeking clarity on duties, support in understanding risk and help in demonstrating due diligence.

The report makes clear that organisations do not expect providers to assume legal responsibility.

It identifies an emerging buyer expectation that providers should explain risk clearly, show how competence is assured and support stronger decision-making.

Proof of competence outranks cost

One of the strongest findings concerns how buyers choose fire safety providers.

When decision-makers were asked what matters most when selecting a provider, proof of competence ranked as the single most important factor.

The research found that 69% said proof of competence was essential.

This placed it ahead of cost, reviews, recommendations and industry-recognised certifications.

The report also found that 94% of organisations ranked proof of competence as more important than cost.

Less than a third, 31%, placed pricing among their top three considerations.

Cost still matters in procurement, but the research challenges the view that buyers are primarily price-led.

NSI and BAFE say buyers are looking for providers that give them the greatest confidence, because fire safety decisions are more likely to be questioned and reviewed.

This means provider selection now needs to be defensible as well as operationally suitable.

A buyer may need to explain why a provider was selected, what evidence of competence was available and how that decision would stand up if challenged after an incident or inspection.

Certification is becoming a trust signal

The report says trust remains a major factor when choosing a fire safety provider, but the basis for trust is changing.

Using the Trust Equation developed by David Maister, Charles H. Green and Robert M. Galford, NSI and BAFE frame trust as a combination of credibility, reliability and personal reassurance, divided by self-interest.

In practical terms, buyers trust providers more when they appear credible, dependable and independently checked.

The research found that 79% of buyers rank certification and independent auditing among the strongest signals of trust.

Brand reputation was selected by 66%, testimonials by 33% and recommendations by 23%.

NSI and BAFE say this indicates that trust is shifting away from informal relationships and towards evidence that can be reviewed.

Providers relying only on reputation, personal relationships or online comments may find those signals carry less weight as buyers face greater scrutiny.

The report gives particular weight to UKAS-accredited third-party certification because it reduces reliance on self-certification.

A provider that certifies its own compliance may be viewed as less trustworthy than one assessed by an independent third party.

Buyers support third-party certification

The research found strong support for certification as a way to demonstrate competence.

The report says 83% of respondents agree that third-party certification is the standard route to demonstrating fire assessor competence.

It also found that 81% say certified providers are worth paying extra for.

When asked about the benefits of choosing a certified provider, 83% said certification helps meet legal or regulatory requirements.

A further 49% said it improves the quality and reliability of the service provided.

The research found that 46% said certification provides peace of mind in a worst-case scenario.

Among respondents designated as Responsible Persons, 55% rated peace of mind as a key benefit.

NSI and BAFE argue that certification is not primarily about branding for these buyers.

It helps address specific concerns around personal accountability, legal exposure, reputational risk and the need to show that decisions were reasonable.

Checks are still inconsistent

The report identifies a gap between the value buyers place on certification and the checks they apply in practice.

Although 84% of respondents say they use a certified provider, closer analysis found that 73% either do not know who certifies their supplier, are unsure whether their supplier is certified or use a supplier that is not independently certified.

This means competence may be assumed rather than checked.

Open-text responses showed that some organisations assess competence through online reviews, informal trust-building, gradual increases in responsibility or internal checks by non-specialists.

NSI and BAFE say this creates risk for competent and certified providers, because they may be assessed alongside unverified competitors on the basis of familiarity or informal signals.

It also creates an opportunity.

As scrutiny increases, buyers are likely to need clearer evidence that they have carried out proper checks before appointing a supplier.

The report says UKAS-accredited third-party certification is moving beyond a differentiator and towards an expected baseline in parts of the market.

What certification provides for buyers

The report identifies four practical functions of third-party certification.

The first is independent checking of competence.

This gives buyers an objective assessment that the provider meets recognised technical and operational standards.

The second is a clear due diligence trail.

This supports the Responsible Person in showing that a competent and independently audited provider was selected.

The third is greater confidence for clients and occupants.

This means buyers can have increased confidence that fire safety measures are being delivered in line with recognised standards.

The fourth is professional credibility for providers.

Certification gives providers a recognised signal that distinguishes them from unverified competitors.

When decision-makers were asked what choosing a certified provider would achieve, 97% agreed that certified providers bring clear benefits.

The research found that 70% say certified providers offer a trusted solution for fire safety needs.

A further 69% say they provide confidence that risk to life is minimised, while 68% say they provide an evidence trail of due diligence.

Implications for service providers

The report presents certification as a strategic choice for fire safety providers.

For providers, the issue is no longer only whether they can deliver the work.

Buyers increasingly want providers to show competence, explain how it has been assessed and provide evidence that can support the buyer’s own duties.

This changes the provider-client relationship.

A provider that only completes the required technical task may meet the immediate service need, but a provider that also explains risk, documents competence and supports defensible decision-making is more closely aligned with current buyer expectations.

NSI and BAFE say providers who combine technical delivery with support on responsibilities, clear risk communication and independently verified certification are better placed to build long-term client relationships.

For providers seeking to lead the market, the report says independently verified competence is becoming a defining feature of professional fire safety services.

Implications for Responsible Persons

The report also sets out a clear message for Responsible Persons and duty holders.

Fire safety management now requires greater focus on how provider competence is assessed and evidenced.

Responsible Persons may face questions about how they knew a provider was competent, how the decision could be evidenced and what assurance was in place if something went wrong.

This means provider selection must be documented in a way that can be explained after the event.

The report says Responsible Persons should be able to show why a provider was selected and how that provider’s capability was independently verified.

This is linked to broader regulatory and industry attention on competence, accountability and assurance.

The report does not say certification transfers legal responsibility away from the Responsible Person.

It says certification helps create a structured evidence trail for decisions made by those who hold fire safety duties.

How the research defines certification

NSI and BAFE define third-party certification in the report as independent, UKAS-accredited certification of fire safety service providers or fire risk assessors against recognised schemes and scopes.

The report says this does not include trade association membership, directories or unaccredited listing services.

It cites BS 8674:2025, published in August 2025, as one example of a recognised framework.

The standard sets out competence, skills and knowledge for fire risk assessors in the UK.

The report also explains that UKAS is the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and the UK’s National Accreditation Body.

UKAS assesses and accredits organisations that provide certification, testing and inspection services.

Organisations behind the report

BAFE and NSI commissioned the research to examine how fire safety is understood, how supplier decisions are made, how competence is assessed and where gaps exist between awareness and assurance.

BAFE says it has set fire safety competence benchmarks in the UK for more than 40 years.

Its third-party certification schemes are delivered through UKAS-accredited and licensed certification bodies, including NSI.

NSI is described as an independent, UKAS-accredited and BAFE-licensed certification body specialising in certification for the fire safety and security sectors.

The report says NSI has assessed companies against recognised technical and management standards through auditing and inspection for more than 55 years.

Sapio Research conducted the independent survey of UK decision-makers with responsibility for, or influence over, fire safety procurement across different organisation sizes, building types and UK nations.

Fire safety market is moving towards demonstrable assurance

The report concludes that fire safety expectations are rising faster than confidence in some organisations.

Awareness and investment are increasing, but many buyers remain uncertain about responsibilities, competence checks and evidence of due diligence.

This creates a gap between expectation and confidence.

For buyers, the report points to a need for more consistent checking of provider competence.

For providers, it points to a market in which independent certification, documented competence and clear support for duty holders are becoming more important.

The strongest message is that buyers are no longer satisfied with claims of competence alone.

They increasingly expect competence to be shown, checked and documented through independent means.

NSI and BAFE report finds 94 per cent of buyers prioritise competence over cost in fire safety

by Featured NewsResearchSafety

Certified competence becomes primary driver in fire safety procurement

UK organisations are increasingly prioritising evidence of competence over service cost when appointing fire protection providers.

The National Security Inspectorate (NSI) and BAFE Fire Safety Register (BAFE) commissioned the Fire Safety Report 2026 to examine changing procurement trends.

Findings indicate that 94% of decision makers now value proof of competence more than the price of the service.

This data suggests a move away from price-led procurement as 81% of respondents stated that certified providers are worth the additional expense.

Independent auditing and certification were ranked among the strongest signals of trust by 79% of those surveyed.

Furthermore 83% of participants recognise third party certification as a verified method to demonstrate the competence of fire assessors.

Investment in the sector is also projected to grow with 77% of organisations expecting to increase their spending over the coming five years.

Among those who claim full awareness of their legal obligations this figure rises to 85%.

Growing scrutiny of fire safety compliance and legal duties

While awareness of fire protection has improved over the last decade many individuals responsible for risk management remain uncertain about their specific legal duties.

The research established that 89% of decision makers view fire protection as a strategic business priority.

Despite this increased status fire safety was ranked fifth in overall importance behind general health and safety and cost control.

Approximately 59% of buyers describe their current investment levels as high.

The report noted that 93% of respondents see more action on fire protection than was evident five years ago.

A total of 45% of organisations view these measures as a compliance necessity.

In contrast 34% see it as a moral duty and 21% believe it supports wider business operations.

One in four decision makers believes that fire protection is still not treated with sufficient seriousness within their organisation.

The report states: “Buyers are looking for reassurance.”

“As fire safety awareness grows, buyers become less willing to take reputational or legal risks with unverified suppliers.”

“In today’s market, it is no longer enough to say you are competent.”

“You need to show it, prove it, and have it verified independently.”

The full report is available via the NSI website from 1 May 2026.

Water Mist Conference 2026 to take place in Prague

by Breaking NewsEventsFire Suppression

Prague to host conference on water mist technology

The 25th International Water Mist Conference (IWMC) will take place in Prague, Czech Republic, on 7th and 8th October 2026.

The conference webpage www.iwma.net/iwmc is now online.

Meaning: The ticket shop is open! And: The International Water Mist Association (IWMA) still has exhibition space on offer!

New training workshop for water mist systems

In 2026, IWMA will introduce a fresh element to the event.

The regular 1.5-day conference programme will be enhanced by a dedicated half-day training workshop focusing on the design and effective utilisation of water mist systems.

With this initiative, the association continues to invest in educating the fire protection industry on how to apply water mist technology more efficiently and confidently in practice.

CPD certificates will be issued to workshop participants.

Water mist technology, developed into its current form over the past three decades, is today a mature, well-established and environmentally friendly fire protection solution.

While the fundamental principles remain unchanged, significant progress has been made in expanding applications, strengthening validation methods and increasing international approvals.

These developments will be reflected in Prague.

Speakers will present case studies, discuss standards and guidelines, and address both achievements and remaining challenges.

Topics will include emerging risks, broader application areas and continued technological evolution.

Just as importantly, the conference provides valuable networking opportunities in an open and collegial atmosphere.

“Prague is more than a conference,” says Max Lakkonen, President of IWMA.

“It is where the global water mist community comes together to share knowledge, challenge ideas, shape the future of fire protection – and enjoy doing it together.”