The “Hidden Gum” problem: Fomtec examines polymer instability risks in modern SFFF foams

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionIFSJ Exclusives

Fomtec explains why “hidden gum” and partially hydrated polymers threaten reliability in modern Synthetic Fluorine Free Foams

Natural polymers – large molecules made of repeating subunits (monomers) that occur in nature – have long been used to build structure and stability in formulated products.

Proteins such as silk or wool, carbohydrates such as starch and cellulose and natural rubber are familiar examples.

Many are biodegradable and in a post-PFAS landscape they are often viewed as a more environmentally responsible route to rebuilding foam blanket performance.

Their use in firefighting foam is also well established.

Natural polymers entered mainstream foam chemistry in the 1970s with the first alcohol-resistant (AR) foams.

Standard hydrocarbon foams such as FP, AFFF and FFFP, when applied to water-miscible fuels like acetone or IPA, struggle to retain a blanket: the fuel disrupts the foam structure and rapidly collapses the bubbles.

The breakthrough was the addition of natural polymers so that, on contact with polar solvents, a polymeric phase would “drop out” and form a barrier between the foam bubbles and the water-miscible fuel.

That polymer mechanism delivered more than alcohol resistance.

It also produced slower-draining foams with stronger bubble structures and improved heat resistance – performance traits that translated into more durable blankets and better burnback security.

As a result, AR-type foams became almost universally adopted from the 1990s onward as the foam agent of choice for large-scale emergency response in high-hazard industries, including scenarios involving hydrocarbon fuel fires where blanket integrity matters most.

The stability problem

From the early 1970s into the 2010s, manufacturers experimented with polymer type and dosage.

The most common natural polymers used were polysaccharides – often simply called “gums” – including Xanthan Gum and Guar Gum.

While specific chemistries differ, the operational trade-offs have remained consistent across the industry:

• Adding polymers increases concentrate viscosity.
• Keeping polymers stable in solution or suspension across the product’s service life is difficult.

Viscosity is often framed as an engineering consideration.

If you know the rheology of a product – and its viscosity response to shear – then pumps, proportioners and pipework can be specified accordingly.

Stability is a different class of challenge.

Every foam manufacturer has encountered stability failures at some point – sometimes driven by batch variation (raw materials out of specification, incorrect dosing), sometimes by storage and climatic conditions in the field.

When stability issues arise, the symptoms are operationally serious: concentrate separation, polymer settling, dehydration effects and in extreme cases near-solidification of the product.

These are operational performance problems that directly affect pumpability, induction accuracy and discharge performance.

Post-PFAS

In fluorine-free SFFF, extinguishing and burnback security now rely primarily on blanket integrity rather than fluorosurfactant film formation, echoing the fundamentals of early protein-based foams.

For many manufacturers, returning to natural polymers has therefore been inevitable.

Natural polymers can materially improve fluorine-free performance by creating slower draining foams, strengthening bubble structure and improving heat resistance.

In general, adding more natural polymer improves fire performance – particularly around sealing against hot surfaces and delivering burnback resistance in saltwater conditions, where polymers can help retain a moist, resilient blanket at the interface.

But the familiar trade-off remains: more polymer usually means more viscosity.

And in today’s installed base, viscosity now directly affects compatibility with existing proportioning and pumping equipment originally designed around different product families.

The market response

That pressure – to achieve strong fire performance without exceeding the viscosity envelope of installed systems – has driven a trend in fluorine-free concentrate design: using partially hydrated polymers to keep “in-can” viscosity attractive while still delivering polymer benefits at the point of application.

At Fomtec, this strategy is described as “hidden gum.”

On paper, this can look like the best of both worlds: good fire test performance paired with manageable viscosity in storage.

In practice, it can embed a latent instability that appears later – after installation, after time in tanks, after exposure to humidity, temperature cycling, shear, or small amounts of water ingress.

The core issue is hydration state. A polymer that remains partially hydrated in the manufactured concentrate can continue hydrating later.

That means the concentrate’s rheology remains capable of changing over time.

In high-consequence emergency response, a product that behaves differently over time becomes a reliability hazard.

The delayed hydration failure mode

Foam systems are inseparable from water.

They connect to water supplies, they live in humid environments and they are handled in ways that can introduce small but meaningful water ingress over years of service.

If a concentrate contains partially hydrated polymers, then water exposure can trigger further hydration, swelling and thickening – sometimes sharply.

Fomtec developed a test protocol to examine viscosity response to water addition, normalising viscosity and then measuring how it changes as water content increases.

When testing three of Fomtec’s own SFFF products, the normalised result behaved as many engineers would expect: viscosity decreased as water was added.

At 15% water addition, the viscosity dropped by roughly 20%.

However, when Fomtec obtained four competitive AR-SFFF products and ran the same protocol, the behaviour was starkly different.

All four competitor products exhibited a normalised increase in viscosity of more than three times with water addition in the range of 15% to 40%.

That difference matters because in the real world, a concentrate that thickens dramatically when contaminated with water can stress or degrade multiple points of a foam delivery chain:

• Reduced pumpability and increased pressure drop
• Proportioner performance drift and induction variability
• Filter/strainer loading and blockage risk
• Nozzle and discharge pattern changes
• System unreliability under emergency demand

Existing viscosity response data provides sufficient basis to identify the hazard: large, unpredictable viscosity increases translate into less predictable flow, proportioning and discharge at the moment systems are expected to work without hesitation.

A metastability problem

The most serious concern with partially hydrated polymers is the potential for unpredictable viscosity increases.

It is that viscosity might increase unpredictably and that the concentrate may be in a metastable state: appearing stable and compliant at manufacture, then transitioning as conditions change.

Metastability in foam concentrates is a reliability problem because it masks risk during early evaluation and acceptance.

A concentrate can meet viscosity specifications at release while still carrying latent thickening capacity that emerges later in storage tanks, pipework dead-legs, or proportioners.

Once that happens, the system can fail in ways that appear mechanical – blocked strainers, inaccurate proportioning, low flow – when the root cause is chemical and structural.

This is why transparent disclosure of polymer strategy is operationally important.

If polymer strategy is explicit, operators can make informed engineering choices about equipment compatibility, storage controls, inspection intervals, or acceptance tests designed to surface instability before an incident occurs.

Fomtec’s stated position is that all polymer-based Enviro SFFFs use 100% fully hydrated natural polymers because the instability linked to variable viscosity from partial hydration is considered too large a risk.

The company also acknowledges that it has not yet established a quantified statistical relationship with blocked pumps or discharge impairment associated with this phenomenon, but argues that a measured viscosity swing exceeding 300% is itself enough to justify caution in high-hazard environments.

On that basis, it calls for manufacturers to declare whether their formulations rely on partially hydrated polymers.

The rush to “1×3”

Alongside chemistry pressures, there is a commercial one: the drive toward simpler portfolios and broader “one product covers more scenarios” positioning – often summarised as a push toward “1×3” solutions.

The concept is attractive: fewer SKUs, less complexity, easier procurement.

But if blanket integrity is now doing the work that PFAS chemistry previously helped with, then a 1×3 ambition raises an awkward formulation question:

How much natural polymer is required to achieve hydrocarbon performance – especially on hot surfaces and for burnback security – and how do you put that quantity into a concentrate without destabilising it?

If higher polymer content is required, manufacturers may use partial hydration to control viscosity.

And that is where the 1×3 rush can inadvertently amplify “hidden gum” risk.

A formulation stretched across a broader operating envelope often sits on tighter balances: more demanding performance targets, more variable water qualities, wider storage conditions and a larger installed base of equipment with differing capability.

Those conditions are exactly where metastability is most likely to surface.

In that sense, a 1×3 approach built on hidden gum may be even more metastable than a 3×3 strategy, because broader coverage can force higher polymer dependency and narrower stability margins while still needing to present a low in-can viscosity for market acceptance.

Performance without the hidden compromise

Fomtec accepts that partially hydrated polymer strategies are attractive when trying to combine performance with manageable viscosity.

The company states it spent more than three years evaluating whether to adopt the approach, but claims that technological breakthroughs within its Enviro Programme enabled a different route: the launch in January 2026 of ENVIRO 3×3 NEO, based on 100% fully hydrated polymers while targeting high performance levels against standards including EN 1568:2018, UL 162, IMO and also LASTFIRE and ICAO Level B.

The implication is significant for the wider market: if top-tier performance can be achieved using fully hydrated polymer strategies, then reliance on partial hydration becomes a clearer formulation choice, particularly in high-hazard hydrocarbon risk where long-term reliability is the primary requirement.

What should change?

The reintroduction of natural polymers into fluorine-free SFFF formulations has delivered real performance benefits.

But the method of incorporation – fully hydrated versus partially hydrated – should now be treated as a safety-critical design choice, not a minor formulation detail.

Partially hydrated polymers may deliver impressive lab and test-house performance and an attractive in-can viscosity while also introducing latent instability that expresses under the most common real-world stressor of all: water.

When water exposure can trigger delayed polymer hydration and viscosity swings of several hundred percent, the concentrate’s behaviour becomes variable after installation – introducing uncertainty into pumpability, induction accuracy and discharge performance.

Foam concentrate evaluation must go beyond controlled extinguishment tests and include long-term reliability questions: how the product stores, how it tolerates water ingress and humidity, how its rheology evolves and how consistently it proportions and discharges across the full range of realistic operating conditions.

As fluorine-free foams become the global norm, transparency around polymer hydration strategy should be viewed as an operational requirement.

In firefighting foams, performance includes long-term behaviour in operational storage and real-world system activation.

It is what happens years later, in the field, when the system is activated and everything depends on the foam flowing exactly as intended.

This was originally published in the March 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

The polymer problem: Fomtec challenges industry dependence on unstable polymer systems

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionIFSJ Exclusives

John Ottesen, Founder and CEO at Dafo Fomtec AB, discusses developing a high performance SFFF without partially hydrated natural polymers

Across many sites the practical work of replacing PFAS-based foams has begun, with attention turning to whether alternatives can deliver recognised fire test performance while fitting into existing proportioning and storage arrangements.

That focus has brought polymer choice to the fore because it strongly influences drainage, heat resistance, viscosity and long-term behaviour in service.

Fluorine based foams such as FP, AFFF, FFFP and their alcohol resistant derivatives are being phased out due to the persistence of PFAS chemicals and the health and environmental impact of certain identified members of the PFAS group.

Attention has shifted toward synthetic fluorine-free foams (SFFF) as we look to replace the PFAS foams with alternatives offering similar firefighting performance.

These foams also promise environmental safety, but as we strive for equivalency in performance many of them introduce a different kind of risk: reliance on polymer chemistry and specifically partially hydrated natural polymers.

Polymers in firefighting foam

The use of natural polymers in firefighting foams is not a new technology, having first emerged in the 1970’s with the early alcohol resistant foams.

Standard hydrocarbon foams such as FP, AFFF and FFFP when applied to a water miscible fuel such as acetone or IPA are not able to retain a foam blanket.

Foam chemists found that the addition of natural polymers into the foam concentrate allowed a polymeric layer to drop out and form a barrier between the foam bubbles and the water miscible fuels.

These polymers had additional benefits to the performance of the firefighting foam as they produced slower draining foams and the stronger bubble structure often led to improved heat resistance.

These performance enhancing features led to Alcohol Resistant foams becoming almost universally adopted as the foam agent of choice for emergency response firefighting on large fires in the high hazard industries on hydrocarbon fuel fires since the 1990’s.

From the early 1970’s into the 2010’s manufacturers experimented with different polymers and quantities in their foam concentrates as they wrestled with fundamental issues:

  • The addition of polymers increased the viscosity of the foam concentrate
  • Maintaining these polymers in solution or suspension through the life of the foam concentrate, also talked about as the stability of the foam

The question of viscosity can be discussed as an engineering issue because if you know the viscosity then the equipment and system can be designed accordingly to handle the foam concentrate, with proportioning and pumping selected to suit the measured rheology.

Of course, the viscosity and the shear rates must be known and remain constant for those assumptions to hold.

Stability on the other hand is something that every foam manufacturer has faced at some point in time, whether due to a batch issue, raw materials out of specification or incorrect quantities in the batch, or due to storage and climatic conditions with their clients, and when stability issues occurred what was typically seen was separation of the foam concentrate with the polymers either sinking or floating separated from the surfactant mixture.

Over 30 plus years of manufacturing these products the manufacturers have been able to determine the best combination of polymers and quantities to achieve the optimal balance of viscosity, fire performance and achieve a safe window of stability for the concentrate.

For Fomtec this involves adding our polymer combination up to around 1% by volume in our top performing 3 x 3 products.

SFFF’s and polymers

With the demise of PFAS containing foams, Fomtec, along with the other foam manufacturers has had to develop new formulations accepting that like the early pure protein foams we are now entirely reliant on the blanket integrity for our extinguishing and burnback security.

Fomtec returned to natural polymers to improve performance by creating slow draining bubbles with good heat resistance.

The formulation approach remains in that increased polymers leads to a more viscous foam concentrate and potential stability issues with the concentrate.

With the transition to fluorine free foams more emphasis on viscosity was inevitable due to capabilities of existing equipment and this desire to have the combination of fire performance and a lower viscosity has seen a number of manufacturers formulating with partially hydrated polymers, or what we at Fomtec like to call hidden gum.

While effective in the lab and the fire test house, this approach introduces vulnerabilities that can compromise firefighting performance in the field.

The partially hydrated polymer challenge

Water sensitivity and storage instability

Polymers are also highly sensitive to moisture during storage.

In humid environments or when water ingress occurs in foam storage tanks, partly hydrated polymers will hydrate if they come into contact with water.

This causes them to swell and increase the viscosity of the concentrate.

This can occur as lumps or more generally an increase in viscosity that can lead to system malfunction.

The risks include:

  • Blocked pumps and nozzles, reducing delivery capacity
  • Unpredictable viscosity, disrupting proportioning accuracy
  • Batch-to-batch performance variability, leading to performance variability

System-level risks in fire protection

In applications such as aviation hangars, petrochemical terminals, offshore installations and chemical processing plants it is difficult to observe polymer behaviour inside fixed systems during transition projects.

Concentrate pipelines can be complex and impossible to inspect, so confirming that all cleaning water is removed before filling new concentrate can be very challenging, and even a small amount of retained moisture can influence the behaviour of a partly hydrated polymer once the system is back in service.

How competitors still depend on polymers

Most foam manufacturers continue to rely on partially hydrated polymers as the foundation of their SFFF performance.

This dependency creates a balancing act between the need for lower stable viscosity and the risk of hydration variability.

It is a matter of creating a finely balanced formulation where the partly hydrated polymers are restricted from developing viscosity, and this finely balanced formulation can be very sensitive to ambient conditions leading to instability.

Adjustments to polymer type and concentration have offered incremental improvements, but none have solved the fundamental hydration problem.

This means that across the industry many partially hydrated polymer-based foams still face the dual risks of instability and viscosity changes in real world use.

Dafo Fomtec AB continues to follow a fully hydrated path

Fomtec has always used formulations based on fully hydrated polymers and thus raising the bar making it more challenging to achieve the highest ratings in some fire performance standards, specifically with burnback performance with saltwater.

Now, through proprietary formulation technology, Fomtec has launched a new generation of Enviro high performance foam agents based on fully hydrated natural polymers.

This is an evolution through 15 years of research and development in the Enviro Program and more than 3500 fire tests.

No loss of performance

The most remarkable aspect of this innovation is that Fomtec’s fully hydrated polymer foams perform at the highest level without compromise.

Internationally certified: independent testing shows that Fomtec’s foams meet or exceed EN 1568, ICAO and UL162 requirements for extinguishment and burn-back resistance.

Stable storage life: with fully hydrated polymers, with no polymers to hydrate or degrade, concentrates remain consistent.

Reliable system delivery: no lumps, gels or clogging means foam systems work as designed in real emergencies.

Water-quality independence: performance is consistent across different types of water supplies.

This combination of established chemistry and proven fire performance sets Fomtec apart from every other foam manufacturer globally.

Regulatory and environmental context

The timing of this breakthrough is significant.

Across Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific, regulations are tightening on both PFAS chemicals and the performance standards for their replacements.

Users are under pressure to:

  • Phase out PFAS based foams
  • Ensure environmental compatibility of alternatives
  • Maintain or improve performance levels required by regulators and insurers

Fomtec’s fully hydrated polymer technology directly addresses these concerns, providing an environmentally sustainable solution with stable performance, which aligns with what regulators, insurers and fire brigades require.

Why it matters

Fire brigades, airports, oil and gas operators and industrial sites need confidence that their foam will perform as specified, proportion within tolerance and store without unwanted change.

By removing the dependency on partially hydrated polymers, Fomtec avoids the hydration-driven variability that can change viscosity and delivery in service, supporting a predictable transition from PFAS based agents to SFFF in existing equipment.

This was originally published in the November 2025 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Survitec launches marine foam system reducing installation and service costs

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionPorts & Maritime

Survitec introduces high-expansion foam system for marine fire safety

Survitec has launched its next-generation high-expansion foam fire suppression system, designed to deliver greater foam output at lower operating pressures.

According to the company, the new system reduces both installation and through-life costs for shipyards and shipowners.

The development centres on a redesigned generator that produces higher volumes of foam at significantly lower feed pressures.

Survitec said this advancement addresses one of the main constraints in foam system performance, where high pump and water pressure demands have traditionally increased both equipment and operational costs.

Lower pressure improves cost efficiency

Maciej Nieścioruk, Product Manager for Foam and Clean Agent Systems at Survitec, said: “Lowering pressure was our number one objective.”

“It also allows us to reduce the load on pumps and other supporting components, lowering the total cost of ownership.”

He explained that the team achieved the reduction by optimising nozzle alignment, adding new moving parts to create rotary momentum, and improving airflow through the system.

Nieścioruk said: “The performance of the new generator means fewer units are required to produce the same volume of foam.”

“That reduction translates into tangible benefits in terms of reducing capital and installation costs.

“When combined with the lower pressure demands, this gives shipowners a system that is lighter, more efficient, and easier to service, without compromising fire safety.”

Validation and system design features

Survitec confirmed that validation testing was completed in partnership with DNV.

Results showed stable expansion ratios and reliable discharge performance across system configurations.

The new generator includes several design improvements to increase efficiency and minimise overall size.

The optimised nozzle alignment eliminates blind spots within the generator net to maximise foam output.

A rotary element enhances discharge efficiency, while a re-engineered impeller draws in more air and distributes the foam solution more evenly.

According to Survitec, this combination enables higher and more consistent expansion at reduced pressure.

Flexible deployment across vessel types

The company said the system can be used as a total flooding solution for machinery spaces on gas carriers and tankers, as well as for RORO spaces on Pure Car Carriers (PCCs).

It supports both remote and manual deployment at the skid.

Survitec added that the system is fluorine-free by design, aligning with upcoming environmental regulations.

Replacement foam concentrates are available globally through the company’s service network.

Nieścioruk said: “We work alongside shipyards and owners to verify pump and pipework compatibility, and manage approvals with class to safeguard both compliance and operational integrity.”

Availability at Kormarine 2025

Survitec will present the high-expansion foam system at Kormarine, taking place in Busan, Korea, from 21–24 October 2025.

The company will exhibit at stand 1G45 in Center 1.

Relevance for fire and safety professionals

The introduction of Survitec’s high-expansion foam system holds relevance for shipyard engineers, marine fire officers and vessel operators responsible for onboard fire suppression infrastructure.

By operating at lower pressures, the system can reduce pump requirements and simplify installation, which may help engineers meet performance specifications with smaller and more efficient layouts.

For shipowners and operators, the DNV validation provides assurance of compliance and reliability for machinery and RORO spaces on tankers and carriers.

The fluorine-free formulation also supports future compliance with environmental regulations governing foam concentrates.

The system’s flexibility for both remote and manual activation makes it applicable to a range of vessel types where total flooding protection is required.

Could new firefighting foam replacements change the market?

by Featured NewsFire SuppressionProducts

Capstone withdrawal and HT&K’s response

HT&K’s Anti-Fire Group has announced the launch of HT1157, HT1157D, and HT1470 as replacements for Chemours’ discontinued Capstone fluorosurfactants, according to the company’s statement issued on 27 August 2025.

Chemours stopped supplying its Capstone fluorosurfactants to the firefighting market in early 2025, a move that disrupted foam concentrate formulation worldwide.

HT&K said its new fluorosurfactants are designed as drop-in replacements for Capstone 1157, 1157D, and 1470, allowing use without the need for recertification of existing foam concentrates.

The group confirmed that its products match the actives concentration and fluorine content of the Capstone range.

It added that opportunistic companies had marketed inferior substitutes under similar numbering, but the HT&K formulations are chemically and spectroscopically identical to the originals.

Technical specifications and comparisons

HT&K explained that comparative testing, including surface tension analysis, showed its new products behave in the same way as the discontinued Capstone materials.

It said the results demonstrate that HT1157, HT1157D, and HT1470 function as direct replacements.

Small observed differences were described as normal batch-to-batch variations typically seen within production runs from the same manufacturer.

The company noted that foam properties data are available on request and reinforce the similarity between its formulations and the Capstone products.

Market positioning and product line

According to HT&K, the new fluorosurfactants are part of a wider line of chemicals developed for firefighting foam formulators.

The company stated its aim is to provide equivalent alternatives to products from Chemguard, Chemours, and Dynax.

It said this allows formulators to continue production without requalification of concentrates.

HT&K added that its website contains further details on the replacement products and its wider portfolio.

Background on HT&K Anti-Fire Group

HT&K explained that it was established in 2010, with research and production facilities in Helon, Dongguan, and Qingyuan, China.

The company reported employing 70 staff, with its research and development team holding more than 40 international patents and over 100 years of combined experience in fluorochemicals and polymers.

It formed the Anti-Fire Group in 2019 with a dedicated focus on firefighting chemicals.

Since then, it said it has developed both fluorinated and fluorine-free foam concentrate technologies.

Future development and fluorine-free alternatives

HT&K noted that alongside fluorosurfactant replacements, it continues to develop fluorine-free firefighting foam technologies.

It said it has achieved what it described as “performance-leading” results in this field.

The company indicated that it remains active in research and development to meet changing regulatory and environmental expectations.

It stated that its goal is to establish itself as a technology leader in the firefighting chemical segment.

Relevance for fire and safety professionals

The discontinuation of Capstone fluorosurfactants has disrupted firefighting foam supply chains.

HT&K’s replacements offer formulators continuity by avoiding the need to recertify existing products.

The company’s development of fluorine-free alternatives aligns with wider industry moves towards reducing reliance on fluorochemicals.

This development is relevant to fire and safety professionals involved in foam specification, procurement, and compliance.

New HT&K firefighting chemicals replace discontinued Capstone products: Summary

HT&K’s Anti-Fire Group has launched HT1157, HT1157D, and HT1470 as replacements for Chemours’ discontinued Capstone fluorosurfactants.

Chemours ended supply of Capstone firefighting products in early 2025.

HT&K said its replacements match the concentration and fluorine content of the originals.

It confirmed they are drop-in substitutes that avoid the need for recertification of foam concentrates.

The company reported surface tension tests showing performance equivalence.

It stated that differences observed were consistent with normal manufacturing batch variations.

HT&K said foam property comparisons are available on request.

The replacements are part of a wider line of firefighting chemicals.

The group was formed in 2019 to focus on firefighting chemical development.

It operates from facilities in Dongguan, Helon, and Qingyuan, China.

The company said its staff hold more than 40 patents.

HT&K is also developing fluorine-free foam concentrate alternatives.

It reported that these have achieved leading performance in tests.

The replacements are available through the company’s website.

HT&K confirmed that product availability and pricing details can be requested directly.

Survitec completes testing of alcohol-resistant fluorine-free firefighting foam

by Featured NewsFire Suppression

Marine system testing shows foam compatibility

Survitec has reported the successful completion of performance testing for new alcohol-resistant, fluorine-free firefighting foam concentrates.

The company confirmed that the results demonstrate compatibility with marine foam proportioning and pump systems, supporting the global transition away from PFAS-based products ahead of incoming IMO regulations.

According to Survitec, testing was required to confirm that the denser, more viscous foam formulations can operate effectively within systems originally designed for lower-viscosity compounds.

The manufacturer stated that this process involved modifications to existing dosing and pumping components, rather than full equipment replacement.

Testing confirms performance with high-viscosity foams

Survitec explained that the latest round of trials builds on previous laboratory tests examining foam performance under various marine conditions.

Last year, Survitec conducted fire tests using different sprinkler nozzles and fuel types.

These earlier tests showed that the foam retained its stability and effectiveness, even with volatile substances like methanol.

However, as Survitec noted, the alcohol-resistant variant introduced new challenges due to its increased viscosity. Standard systems were not designed for such properties, creating dosing accuracy risks.

Maciej Niescioruk, Product Manager, Foam Systems at Survitec, said: “Standard proportioners are not typically designed to handle this kind of fluid.

“So it was essential that we rigorously test the system to ensure compatibility and dosing accuracy.”

Adjustments reduce dosing risk in existing systems

Niescioruk explained that proportioning accuracy is a key requirement under marine fire safety standards.

He said: “An incorrect dosing ratio can result in a foam that is ineffective in suppressing a fire.

“Foam proportioning systems must comply with a strict dosing accuracy range of -0% to +30% to ensure that underdosing does not occur.

“This is a critical requirement to avoid system failure.”

He added: “This is particularly important when using high-viscosity foam concentrates, which typically generate higher flow resistance.

“If a standard, unchanged, proportioner is used, the increased resistance can cause the actual mixing ratio to fall below the nominal value, violating regulatory requirements and compromising foam performance.

“By implementing our findings from these tests, we can ensure that our customers won’t face that risk.”

Survitec reported that the extent of system redesign varied depending on configuration and scale. In some cases, changes to internal components and orifices were enough to meet the required dosing precision.

Regulatory compliance drives fluorine-free transition

The tests were carried out ahead of new International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules coming into force in January 2026.

Survitec stated that under IMO MSC.532(107), the use and storage of foams containing PerFluoroOctane Sulfonate (PFOS) will be banned. PFOS is one of several PFAS compounds being phased out globally due to environmental and health concerns.

Niescioruk said: “Fluorine-free, alcohol-resistant foams are particularly suited for chemical tankers, Norwegian double-ended ferries, and methanol-fuelled vessels, where environmental performance and fire safety are paramount.

“The successful completion of these performance tests allows Survitec to offer a tested and validated solution that mitigates technical risk and supports a smooth, compliant transition to fluorine-free technology.

“The findings are already being implemented in current projects, including a system commissioning in Turkey.”

He added: “These are safety-critical systems.

“Any significant changes to these systems must be handled carefully, allowing time to assess the engineering requirements and obtain the proper approvals.

“Our message to the market is clear: plan now, test early, and work with an OEM partner who understands the technical and regulatory landscape.”

Survitec completes testing of alcohol-resistant fluorine-free firefighting foam: Summary

Survitec completed testing of new alcohol-resistant, fluorine-free firefighting foam concentrates.

The company reported the results confirm compatibility with marine foam proportioners and pumps.

Testing focused on managing the increased viscosity of fluorine-free formulations.

Modifications were made to dosing and mixing components to maintain regulatory accuracy.

Proportioning systems must deliver foam within a -0% to +30% mixing range.

Survitec stated that incorrect dosing can lead to ineffective foam during fire suppression.

IMO regulation MSC.532(107) will prohibit PFOS-based foams from January 2026.

Survitec highlighted the importance of early planning to support compliance and safety.

The company confirmed that the tested foam will be used in current marine projects.

Applications include chemical tankers and vessels using methanol as fuel.

Industrial Foam School firefighting training to begin in May 2025

by Featured NewsFire SuppressionTraining

Industrial Foam School programme opens for industrial and municipal firefighters

Perimeter Solutions has announced the launch of the Industrial Foam School, a new training programme designed for industrial firefighters, hazardous materials teams and municipal firefighters working in or alongside industrial facilities.

According to Perimeter Solutions, the first session will be held at the Delaware State Fire Academy in Dover, Delaware, on 28–29 May 2025.

The two-day course provides technical instruction and practical training focused on the use of fluorine-free firefighting foam products.

Participants will receive instruction on foam application methods, incident preplanning and the handling of foam in industrial fire settings.

Fluorine-free foam products to be used in practical exercises

Participants will use Perimeter Solutions’ fluorine-free foam solutions during hands-on training, where permitted.

These include SOLBERG VERSAGARD 1×3, SOLBERG VERSAGARD AS-100 and SOLBERG RE-HEALING 3×3 SP-100.

Mark Siem, Chemist and Manager of Business Development at Perimeter Solutions, said: “Firefighting foam plays a critical role in combating fires, helping to reduce the amount of time firefighters spend on scene, which ultimately improves both firefighter and community safety.”

He added: “The Perimeter Solutions Industrial Foam School will equip firefighters with the essential knowledge and skills needed to effectively use today’s advanced fluorine-free firefighting foams.”

Further sessions scheduled in Canada and the United States

Perimeter Solutions has confirmed two further training sessions in October 2025.

The first will take place at Lambton College in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada on 9–10 October.

The second will be held at The Fire Academy of the South in Jacksonville, Florida, on 28–29 October.

Each session will be limited to 30 participants.

Registration and contact details for interested participants

The cost to attend the Delaware State Fire Academy session is $599 per person.

Perimeter Solutions has stated that additional sessions will be scheduled across the United States and Canada in 2025 and 2026.

Interested participants or departments can contact Mark Siem at info@perimeter-solutions.com to register or request a tailored session at their own facility.

Further information is available at www.perimeter-solutions.com.

Industrial Foam School firefighting training to begin in May 2025: Summary

Perimeter Solutions has announced the launch of the Industrial Foam School, a two-day training course for industrial and municipal firefighters.

The first session will be held at the Delaware State Fire Academy in the United States on 28–29 May 2025.

The course includes both classroom instruction and, where permitted, hands-on experience using fluorine-free firefighting foams.

Products used during the training will include SOLBERG VERSAGARD 1×3, SOLBERG VERSAGARD AS-100 and SOLBERG RE-HEALING 3×3 SP-100.

Two further sessions are scheduled for October 2025 in Sarnia, Ontario and Jacksonville, Florida.

Each session will be limited to 30 participants.

The cost for the Delaware training is $599 per person.

Firefighters or departments interested in participating or organising a local session can contact Mark Siem at Perimeter Solutions.

Additional sessions are expected to be announced for 2025 and 2026.

Achieving balance in foam performance with Perimeter Solutions

by Breaking NewsFire Suppression

Mark Siem, Business Development Manager at Perimeter Solutions, explores the equipment updates and foam testing required for an effective fluorine-free foam transition

The fire safety industry is increasingly focused on sustainability, closely examining the environmental impact of firefighting methods and the tools that they use to protect lives and property.

This shift in mindset has driven forward-thinking fire departments, airports and other organizations that rely on firefighting foam to transition from traditional fluorinated foams, such as aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) alcohol-resistant AFFFs and FluoroProtein foams, to fluorine-free alternatives, which offer a more sustainable solution.

However, before making the switch to synthetic fluorine-free foam (SFFF), organizations must consider several important factors and gain a clear understanding of the technical and logistical factors associated with the conversion in order to effectively navigate the transition.

Performance considerations

The transition to SFFF technology requires a multi-disciplinary discussion and decision between safety, engineering, environmental and purchase departments.

Once the decision is made to move to SFFF, one of the first things to consider is the type of fire hazards present at your location.

Do you deal with spill fires or fuel-in-depth fires? You must also identify which fuels you have on hand—hydrocarbon or polar solvent.

This will determine the type of fluorine-free foam that you need.

Both manual firefighting operations and fixed or semi-fixed foam systems must achieve proper application densities to be effective.

For manual firefighting operations, in most circumstances fluorine-free foam should be appropriate; however, additional considerations may need to be made to account for changes in viscosity or changes within application rates due to UL listing and/or FM Approval.

In hydrocarbon fire protection, fixed or semi-fixed foam systems may not need additional adjustments or changes, whereas with water miscible fires, in some cases adjustments to increase application rates may be required as per historically UL and FM provide guidance on the approved application rates.

Adjustments to proportioning equipment may also need to be taken into consideration to account for changes in viscosity and flow rates.

This would also present a good opportunity to reevaluate end-of-line discharge devices to ensure they align with current hazard needs and any updated changes in application rates associated with the selected product.

SFFF solutions used on water-miscible and polar solvent fuels have always been set to manufacturer recommendations.

With the transition to SFFF for Perimeter Solutions, the listings have remained the same for ethanol and methanol; however, potential increases in other water-miscible fuels may need to be reviewed.

In addition to flow rates and densities, foam quality plays a critical role in performance.

Foam quality parameters, including expansion ratio and drainage rate are crucial for effective fire protection.

Perimeter Solutions with its fluorine-free range has demonstrated and proven through approved and listed fire testing, we can successfully extinguish Class B fuel fires with non-aspirated discharge devices; however, wherever there is the option for aspirated regardless of fluorinated, or fluorine-free, that is always the preferred option.

Proportioning and discharge devices

For fixed or semi-fixed foam suppression systems and end-of-line discharge devices, a full review should be taken to ensure the application rates are still within the requirements and risk hazards of the facility.

In several cases, minimal or no changes may be required, or in some cases with the changes of hazards on site, proportioning devices and foam concentrate storage tanks may also need to be adjusted to accommodate the increased flow.

One of the key factors to consider is the viscosity of the firefighting foam, especially the distance between the foam concentrate and the ratio controller as longer distances can lead to friction loss.

This friction loss reduces the amount of foam entering the water stream resulting in a lower proportioning percentage.

Perimeter Solutions has continued to develop and move in to low-viscosity firefighting foams, reducing the need to increase pipe diameter to mitigate friction loss and for easy proportioning accurately.

If the system is a wet-pipe system, it may need to be converted to a deluge system to accommodate for pre-mixed foam solution stability.

It is also important to verify that the sprinkler have been listed or approved for use with the specific SFFF foam and fuel type by a third-party agency or relevant authority.

The benefit of using an UL or FM-approved system is that all components are designed to work together, ensuring optimal performance when all parts are properly integrated.

Key components include:

  • The tank
  • Foam concentrate
  • Ratio controller/proportioner
  • Discharge device

If an organization chooses to retain its existing fire safety equipment, it’s important to remember that the piping, discharge devices, etc., will need to be thoroughly cleaned or replaced before the transition.

Cleaning the equipment can be costly and even after cleaning, it may still contain residue.

In some cases, replacing the solution pipes is a more cost-effective solution.

Collaborating with industry peers facing similar challenges can provide valuable support during the transition.

It is also essential to stay updated on innovations in firefighting foam concentrates and equipment by attending workshops, presentations and other industry events.

Perimeter Solutions offers a Know Your Foam training session that is available at no cost to fire departments and other fire management agencies across the US and Canada.

The three-hour session includes in-class training and outside hands-on application of Class A and Class B foam.

Attendees at these sessions learn the difference between these foams, fluorine-free Class B foams, as well as emulsifiers and water.

Instructors demonstrate application techniques, including Roll On, Horizontal Spray, Bounce Off, Application then Reposition, Stitching and Tend the Blanket.

The session also covers the different types of foam systems, how to use a foam injection system and in-house maintenance of foam application products.

In the hand-on portion, participants will use a manual inductor, nozzles, foam tubes and foam injection systems.

Additional considerations

When transitioning to SFFF, there are additional considerations involving equipment that may need to be addressed for smooth and effective implementation of the new technology:

Testing and commissioning equipment

After cleaning and disposing of fluorinated foam, the next step is to test and commission equipment with the new SFFF solution.

Internal testing is commonly conducted by flowing foam concentrate through the system, pulling a sample and comparing it against a calibration curve.

If the sample falls within the proper range of the curve, the system is confirmed to be working correctly.

This ensures that your equipment is properly integrated with the new foam and any issues are identified early.

Foam quality checks

Once the equipment is in place, it is vital to assess the foam quality coming out of discharge devices.

Key performance indicators such as expansion ratio and drainage rate should be evaluated to ensure they align with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Checking foam quality helps confirm that the equipment is delivering the correct performance to suppress fires effectively.

Budgeting for the transition

The costs associated with transitioning to SFFF outlined above can add up quickly.

Perimeter Solutions has been able to retrofit existing systems, in some cases with minimal changes; however, consideration needs to be made to foam proportioners, storage tanks and discharge devices to accommodate SFFF.

These additional expenses should be considered when planning the transition and budgeting for the necessary equipment and foam supplies.

Regarding storage of SFFF concentrate, there isn’t a noticeable difference compared to fluorinated firefighting foams.

When stored in original containers, or in tanks designed for foam storage with manufacturer-recommended equipment and within the specified temperature range, a shelf-life of at least 10 years is expected and is projected to be approximately 15-20 years.

(Shelf life studies are ongoing to ensure quality and further storage longevity).

Advanced SFFF options available now

Perimeter Solutions offers a comprehensive line of fluorine-free foam concentrates.

Our SOLBERG VERSAGARD 1×3 Multipurpose Fluorine-Free Foam Concentrate meets the most demanding emergency response applications and is UL 162 listed and GreenScreen Certified Silver® as well as multiple international certifications, including LASTFIRE.

It has been tested and designed for industrial emergency response and is ideal for facilities that store crude oil on site.

SOLBERG RE-HEALING 3×3 SP-100 was the industry’s first UL-listed fluorine-free 3×3 foam concentrate with the full complement of hardware and sprinkler listings, including non-aspirated, standard sprinkler heads.

FM-approved, it is used in sprinkler applications to extinguish and secure both Class B hydrocarbon and polar solvent fuels.

Our PHOS-CHEK® 1% Fluorine-Free Class A/B Foam Concentrate was the industry’s first certified fluorine-free Class A/B foam concentrate on the market.

A versatile solution, it can be used to help extinguish structural, residential, wildland, petroleum and other fires.

While the shift to SFFF technology offers significant benefits, such as reducing the impact on ecosystems and human health, it requires careful consideration of performance, equipment and budget.

By thoroughly testing equipment, ensuring foam quality and planning for necessary upgrades, organizations can successfully make the switch.

As the industry continues the transition to SFFF, staying informed and working closely with trusted companies like Perimeter Solutions can help streamline the process.

This article was originally published in the February 2025 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal – to read your FREE digital copy, click here.

Developing SFFF foams: Beyond the limits of standard testing

by Breaking NewsFire Suppression

Jan-Erik Jönsson, Chief Chemist at Dafo Fomtec, discusses the complexities of developing SFFF foams and the importance of real-world testing

The development of new, high-performance SFFF foam concentrates has challenged many long-standing assumptions in the industry.

In the past, fuels were categorised into different groups, and application densities were determined accordingly.

Simply passing a fire test and securing approval was often considered sufficient for most applications, regardless of how closely the test conditions mirrored real-world scenarios.

During the transition to SFFF products, the need for foam testing is growing.

For better results, testing should be performed with the traditional test standards as well as in the actual conditions where the SFFF products will be used.

At Fomtec, we developed testing methods to help us predict and assess what kind of foam to use and what application density is necessary.

This progress has been made possible thanks to our extensive fire testing program that we started several years ago.

During these tests, we have encountered issues that were not considered in the past but are now important to address for SFFF products.

In this article, we discuss some of the key challenges we have identified that require special consideration.

The challenges of fuel compatibility for SFFF foams

Thanks to simpler formulations and fluoro-surfactants, the versatility of foam types like AFFF and AFFF-AR made them less sensitive to different fuels and application equipment.

However, with the transition to SFFF foams, it’s a different scenario.

Developing formulations that can pass fire tests with common polar solvents, like acetone and IPA, has been a struggle.

Without fluoro-polymers, the gel formation in SFFF alone is insufficient to achieve high performance.

A particularly difficult issue arose when testing foam stability on other polar solvents that inhibit gel formation, such as MEK, 1-butanol, 2-butanol, and short-chain acetates.

Initially, we assumed these would be easier to manage than IPA and acetone, especially since MEK had been straightforward in AFFF-AR fire testing.

Surprisingly, the foam disintegrated rapidly when applied to MEK at room temperature, and even faster on warm MEK.

Adding more foam temporarily extended its stability, but not for long.

Analysing the data on polar solvents revealed that a significant number of chemicals resist the necessary gel formation.

The challenge was determining how many of these acted as “foam killers” versus those that were benign.

Given the vast number of solvents—many of which are toxic and impractical for extensive fire testing—we needed a predictive method for foam stability.

This led to a comprehensive test program, where over sixty different solvents, selected based on their chemical nature and water solubility, were evaluated in the lab for foam stability.

Some of these solvents were also tested in full-scale fire scenarios to ensure consistency between lab results and real-world performance.

Moreover, for hydrocarbon fuels, the test fuel is frequently heptane.

This fuel has quite a high flash point and low vapour pressure.

In real-life applications, volatile fuels with higher vapour pressures and much lower flash points, like gasoline (with a flash point below -40°C), are common.

Conversely, longer-chained hydrocarbons like diesel or Jet A1, while having higher flash points (well over 30°C), burn extremely hot in fully developed fires.

As we move forward with SFFF products, it is necessary to understand how they respond to different situations.

This is the reason why we do tests to give our clients recommendations based on test results and not opinions.

Foam stability and degradation in polar solvents

The challenges we faced with partially water-soluble polar solvents led to the initiation of a project aimed at developing a straightforward yet representative test method.

This method could be distributed to clients for testing at their own facilities, allowing their findings to be evaluated and compared against our extensive database.

Over the years, this dataset has expanded significantly, encompassing numerous lab tests across a wide variety of solvents, with the corresponding fire test data points continuously being added.

By analysing all the collected data, we have developed a predictive model that can detect foam destroying properties of a huge number of solvents.

This model, approved with statistical methods, turned out highly reliable.

It leverages existing literature on the chemical and physical properties of both the solvent and the foam solution to predict potential foam instability.

With this model, we can anticipate foam stability issues without additional lab tests.

We can then use these predictions to recommend appropriate application equipment and densities.

Full-scale testing

Full-scale fire testing following standard methods provides valuable cost-effective data.

These tests are typically performed on small ~4.5 m² (50 ft²) fires; these are not a good representation of most real-life fire scenarios.

The size of the fire influences its performance.

Small-scale fire tests, such as those described in EN 1568-3, do not always correlate with full-scale fire performance, as smaller fires are easier to control, even with lower test densities.

Recognising this, we felt compelled to conduct large-scale fire tests, up to 300 m², using various fuels, equipment, and application densities to gather more accurate data.

These tests included fuels like gasoline, diesel, Jet A1, ethanol, and ethyl acetate, with foam applied through fixed monitors, handheld nozzles, and different sprinkler heads.

Height-based testing

Another critical issue often overlooked in standard tests is the height at which foaming devices are installed, particularly in tall buildings.

For example, a hangar for big airliners is often higher than 40 meters with foam sprinklers attached to the ceiling.

Standard tests performed at around 4 meters do not truly reflect a scenario like this one.

To respond to this challenge, we conduct fire tests at heights of up to 15 meters (45 ft) and plan to go higher up to 35 meters with appropriate fuels and sprinkler heads.

Sprinkler heads present another challenge.

Some test standards allow a single sprinkler head with a specific K-factor to pass, thereby approving all sprinklers with the same K-factor.

However, this approach does not account for the nuances of different sprinkler designs.

Our tests have shown that even minor design changes, such as to the deflector, can significantly impact fire performance.

Height is also a factor in high-expansion foam applications, where foam generators are typically installed high in a building.

Standard tests often require the foam to build up to about one meter in height, using a fan-driven generator that produces foam with an expansion ratio far exceeding what is typically achieved with passive generators.

Many foams can pass these tests, but when tested with standard generators, they fail to build beyond one meter before collapsing.

Fortunately, some standards address this issue by requiring the foam to build height and extinguish fires within a compartment.

We have conducted tests demonstrating that HiEx foams can build over 40 meters without collapsing, giving us the confidence to recommend them for even the tallest hangars.

Hidden gum

There is a strong focus on developing SFFF formulations with high fire ratings as replacements for AFFF.

One method to achieve higher ratings is by incorporating polysaccharides or similar gums into the foam formulation.

These substances improve the foam’s quality by extending its drainage time, keeping the foam blanket moist and effective during fire tests.

However, a less obvious approach involves loading the foam concentrate with a significant amount of gum, which indeed boosts fire ratings.

The downside is that a high gum content increases viscosity, which is generally undesirable.

Fortunately, by carefully selecting and balancing the ingredients in the formulation, it’s possible to maintain a viscosity well below 3,000 mPas.

This works because the limited water content prevents the polysaccharide polymer from fully hydrating and expanding to its full viscosity potential.

Instead, the polysaccharide remains in a semi-dispersed, metastable state.

Ideally, this state remains stable for extended periods, but it can rapidly destabilise under certain conditions.

For instance, at higher temperatures, the solubility of the liquid changes, causing the polysaccharide to stretch out in an environment with insufficient water, leading to phase separation or stratification in the foam concentrate.

Once this two-phase liquid forms, it’s typically irreversible.

Even if the concentrate appears stable at higher temperatures, another issue may arise.

When small amounts of water are added, instead of decreasing, the viscosity can dramatically increase.

This happens because the additional water allows the polysaccharide polymer to further expand, raising the viscosity.

It may require over 20% water addition before any viscosity reduction occurs.

This phenomenon, which we refer to as “Hidden Gum,” can lead to significant problems.

If the concentrate encounters water in storage tanks or piping systems, it can form a gel plug, obstructing the system’s proper operation.

Rhe dangers of making assumptions

We’ve realized that when switching to SFFFs (Synthetic Fluorine-Free Foams), we need data that reflects real-world situations, not just what was once common knowledge.

SFFFs aren’t as versatile as AFFF and AFFF-AR, so it’s risky to make recommendations based on opinions rather than facts.

For example, in the past, getting approval for one fuel in a group often meant that other fuels in that group were also approved.

This worked for AFFF and AFFF-AR, but it doesn’t apply to SFFFs.

Take acetone, for instance—a type of ketone.

While it’s possible to get approval for acetone, this doesn’t mean that a similar chemical like methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) will automatically be approved under the same conditions.

Our tests show that putting out a MEK fire needs much more foam, depending on how it’s applied.

Another example involves sprinkler systems.

It used to be assumed that if one sprinkler with a certain K-factor was approved, others with the same K-factor would work just as well.

But for SFFFs to be effective in sprinkler systems, the sprinkler head needs to produce the right kind of foam to pass the test.

We’ve confirmed this through many tests over the past eight years.

We’ll keep running tests beyond the usual standards to gather more accurate data, so we can give our clients advice based on facts, not just opinions.

About the Author

Jan-Erik Jönsson has been the Chief Chemist at Dafo Fomtec since 2009.

He holds a Ph.D.

in Polymer Technology from the University of Lund, where his research focused on emulsion polymerisation.

This expertise served him well during his tenure at Hoechst Perstorp AB (now Celanese Emulsions), where he led the R&D department, specialising in the development of water-based binders for paints, paper coatings, and environmentally friendly adhesives, such as solvent-free paints.

Jan-Erik’s journey into foam technology began in the summer of 2009 after meeting John-Olav Ottesen, the founder of Dafo Fomtec AB.

Captivated by the potential of foam, he was appointed Chief Chemist later that year.

Since then, he has led the development of Fomtec’s products, with a strong emphasis on fluorine-free solutions from the very beginning.

This article was originally published in the September 2024 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

Once is enough for a foam transition

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionSustainability

David Pronk and Kees Kappetijn of Kappetijn Safety Specialists discuss the critical steps and guidelines in transitioning to fluorine-free firefighting foams

For decades, fluorinated extinguishing foam has been used in firefighting.

At high hazard industry, large logistics buildings and operators of special infrastructure, large quantities of extinguishing foam are stored in stationary extinguishing systems and fifi-vehicles.

In government and private fire brigades, the foam is mainly contained in foam fire-fighting vehicles and fire engines.

For several years, it has been clear that the poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in this extinguishing foam have harmful long-term effects on humans and the environment.

Its use is now finite.

It is therefore right that industrial companies, infra-authorities and firefighting organisations are carrying out a foam transition: replacing the current, fluorine-containing firefighting foams with new, fluorine-free variants.

Contamination of new fluorine -free foam with old residues must be prevented. Transition therefore also requires high-quality cleaning.

The quality of this can now be guaranteed through certification, based on an Assessment Guideline.

Problem statement

For several reasons, it is important that a foam transition is carried out carefully. First, because PFAS must be prevented from entering the environment and humans.

PFAS biodegrade little or not at all and are therefore difficult to remove. The substances spread quickly and easily and accumulate in plants, animals and humans.

PFAS are toxic, so accumulation can be harmful.

Second, a careful foam transition is important because there will be a European total ban on the sale and use of fluorinated fire-fighting foams.

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) sets a limit of 1,000 ppb1 of PFAS in fire-fighting foams (and for some specific PFAS the limit is stricter).

Thus, the use of fluorinated fire-fighting foams will soon be prohibited. Suppliers already communicated that they will stop providing old foams. The competent authority will oversee a careful foam transition

A careful foam transition has a number of challenges.

Fluorinated fire-fighting foam cannot be replaced by fluorine-free fire-fighting foam on any given day.

In many cases, the fluorinated fire-fighting foam has been stored in a foam tank for many years.

As a result, the foam tank, and perhaps other parts of the extinguishing system, is contaminated with PFAS.

And PFAS accumulate not only in plants, animals and humans, but also in extinguishing systems. And are difficult to remove.

When fluorine-free extinguishing foam is stored in the extinguishing system, “old” PFAS are released from the extinguishing system over time.

The PFAS mix with the new extinguishing foam.

The result is that the fluorine-free firefighting foam is no longer fluorine-free and should no longer be used. The foam transition would then have to be carried out again.

Proper cleaning by a professional service provider limits the chances of such re-contamination.

Cleaning

You only want to do the foam transition once. Besides selecting and buying a new foam concentrate, appropriate to the scenarios and substances, parts of the extinguishing system may need to be modified or replaced.

The old foam must be disposed of and changes must be incorporated into documentation such as company fire reports, operational plans and fire analyses.

And all this in coordination with the competent authority, the insurance company and the companies fire chief.

Therefore, the foam transition must be carried out carefully and prevent residual PFAS from contaminating new, fluorine-free extinguishing foam.

This is possible, by cleaning the extinguishing system. With an adequate cleaning process, residual PFAS can be removed.

The market has developed several cleaning processes, offered by different companies.

Some rinse with (heated) water, others with water and a cleaning agent.

As a customer, you want to know which cleaning process works. And whether the process is safe, and clean.

You don’t want to use a process that leads to PFAS lying around, resulting in environmental damage or health complaints.

That is why you need a guarantee of quality. In a quality system, quality is demonstrated with a certificate. So there is a need for a certificate that works in a free market.

Assessment guideline

A certificate for cleaning processes of PFAS-containing extinguishing systems did not yet exist. But this has been changed.

A project group consisting of cleaning organisations, the chemical industry, fire brigade, environmental department, laboratory and waste processor sat down together to develop a quality framework for cleaning processes.

In this quality framework, careful cleaning is completed with a certificate.

The quality framework is also known as an Assessment Guideline or Branche Guideline (In Dutch: BRL).

A BRL is developed by the market, accepted by the competent authority and assessed by an independent certification organisation.

For the present BRL, KIWA is the organisation that supervises the organisations that perform their work according to the BRL.

The BRL sets frameworks, but does not fill in the cleaning process itself.

The market itself can determine how rinsing and cleaning is done, how often rinsing takes place and what agents are used. So the cleaner determines the cleaning process.

The BRL provides frameworks for the cleaning process so that the objective can be achieved: a safe, risk-resistant, cost-effective and high-quality cleaning process.

Kappetijn Safety Specialists started this process, together with Kenbri Fire Fighting and Arcadis when they repeatedly were asked by stakeholders in the market how to guarantee the quality of a cleaning project.

Authorities were looking for an independent tool to trust, Kenbri and Arcadis were looking for an institute that could judge the quality standards they provide.

KSS brought them to the table, with other stakeholders and coordinated the process towards an independent Assessment Guideline.

High-quality cleaning

A solid cleaning process does not just include guidelines for cleaning.

The entire cleaning process as worked out in the BRL consists of four parts. Frameworks are imposed on each of the parts.

They are:

1. Scope and starting details (what must be cleaned);

2. Cleaning and execution (how is a cleaning-process professionally executed);

3. Sampling, monitoring and analysis (how can we monitor the cleaning to the required level);

4. Waste materials and disposal (how do we professionally dispose of the waste and residue).

First, frameworks are set for scope and start data. It is important to determine which parts of an extinguishing system will be cleaned.

This can be the whole extinguishing system, but it can also be chosen to clean only the tank, for example when the extinguishing system has (almost) never been used and the foam has not left the tank.

The objective must also be determined: what concentration values are used and which laws and regulations must be complied with?

Secondly, frameworks are set for the cleaning process.

This mainly concerns the quality systems of the cleaner and environmental and health regulations, such as the use of personal protective equipment.

The design of the cleaning process itself is not standardised; different processes are possible.

Provider must work with a quality management system, but which one is mandatory.

Customers can decide for themselves whether to use a high-quality, lengthy cleaning process, or a faster and perhaps more efficient process.

But in all cases, it must be safe and effective. Thirdly, frameworks are set for sampling and analysis.

To determine whether, and demonstrate that, the limit or concentration values of PFAS have been reached, samples must be taken.

Environmental and health regulations have also been drawn up for sampling, knowledge requirements for the operating operator and guidance for packaging, shipping and analysis of the samples.

Finally, frameworks are set for the storage, disposal, treatment and registration of waste.

The aim of this issue is for the cleaner to be able to demonstrate that waste materials do not re-enter the environment, but are stored, transported and processed by authorised companies.

To demonstrate this, records of waste should be kept. This is important because waste-processing capacity is very limited.

There are only a few processors, not one in the Netherlands. Waste materials, such as rinse water, will always need to be stored for some time before it can be transported and processed.

Cleaning companies should handle this carefully and ensure that these activities are covered in the company’s license.

Safety, quality and cost efficiency

If a cleaning company works within the set frameworks, the company can be certified by an independent certification organisation after an inspection. This is followed by a new inspection every year.

In this way, cleaners can demonstrate that they have set up a safe and effective cleaning process.

The competent authorities, such as the Environment & Transport Inspectorate and the regional Environmental authorities, can refer to certified cleaners when cleaning is included in permits or decisions.

The result is that companies have certainty that PFAS from extinguishing systems has been removed, disposed of and processed responsibly.

And that the new fluorine-free extinguishing foam is not contaminated with PFAS, and thus remains fluorine-free.

As a result, the foam transition is only needed once and the transition is carried out as (cost-)efficiently as possible.

Finally, the BRL guarantees that PFAS is removed from the environment in a clean way, protecting people and the environment.

About the authors

David Pronk and Kees Kappetijn are consultants at Kappetijn Safety Specialists.

The firm consults public and industrial fire organisations, Seveso companies, governments and authorities on business continuity, industrial safety, incident response and crisis management.

This article was originally published in the August 2024 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.