Designing for SFFF: The proportioning challenge with Firemiks

by Featured NewsFire SuppressionIndustrial

Per Aredal of Firemiks AB explores proportioning challenges in transitioning to fluorine-free firefighting foams

The phase-out of fluorinated foams and the move towards synthetic fluorine-free firefighting concentrates (SFFF) is one of the most significant material shifts the fire protection industry has navigated in decades.

For those specifying or operating fixed suppression systems, the change raises an important and often underestimated question – not just which concentrate to use, but whether the proportioning system in place can handle what comes next.

Per Aredal, International Sales Director at Firemiks AB, makes the case that getting the proportioning system right is where future-proofing the installation begins.

Water driven volumetric proportioning

At its core, a water driven volumetric pump proportioner is ingeniously self-regulating.

The system relies on positive displacement for both its water motor and concentrate pump.

The water motor – driven entirely by the flow of extinguishing water – powers the concentrate pump, which injects the correct amount of firefighting concentrate into the water stream.

The dosing ratio is determined by the volumetric relationship between the two components, requiring no electricity, engines or power take-off (PTO) units.

This autonomy has direct operational consequences.

Start-up and commissioning are straightforward, and the system is less susceptible to the failure modes that come with dependence on external power or fuel.

Installation can be decentralised (placed close to the hazard) which can meaningfully reduce response times in demanding environments.

Four decades of refinement

The FIREMIKS system is rooted in the volumetric water motor design first developed in the late 1970s by the grandfather of the company’s current management.

What began as an innovative mechanical concept has been continuously refined over more than four decades, yielding a wide operating range across both flow and pressure.

The self-regulating nature of the system is one of its defining characteristics.

It accurately tracks flow changes and oscillations in real time, remaining largely unaffected by pressure variations across its operating range.

A single unit can cover varying fire area sizes or service multiple simultaneous fires and does so without requiring recalibration when conditions or concentrates change.

The concentrate storage arrangement adds further flexibility.

An atmospheric tank configuration makes it easy to inspect concentrate levels, take samples, and replenish or swap tanks even during active firefighting operations.

Fixed and mobile tanks – including IBC containers or tank trailers – can be combined for uninterrupted operation.

For installations requiring periodic performance verification, the optional Dosing/Return Valve (DRV) with dual flow meters allows accurate testing without releasing any concentrate to the environment, reducing both cost and disposal concerns.

Certified for variable viscosity

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the FIREMIKS range is its FM approval classification as a “Variable Viscosity Pump Proportioner.” Under FM Standard 5130 (May 2021), eighteen 3% models across seven flow sizes – 450, 800, 1800, 2400, 4000, 6000 and 8000 lpm – have been certified to maintain accurate dosing across a very wide viscosity range: from 1 cP up to 7,288 cP at a shear rate of 5 1/s.

This is particularly relevant as the industry transitions to SFFF concentrates, many of which are non-Newtonian and exhibit higher viscosity than their AFFF predecessors.

Unlike bladder tank systems, which are typically designed around a narrow viscosity window and require recalibration if the concentrate or its properties change, a FIREMIKS unit does not need recalibration when a different concentrate is introduced, provided its viscosity falls within the certified envelope.

The shear rate curves approved for our different FM-approved models are as follows:

Shear rate 1/sViscosity (cP)
450 & 800 lpm1800, 2400 & 4000 lpm6000 & 8000 lpm
5393464227288
10214135453942
20115719452110
50529882959
100302497533
60080128132

If a concentrate’s shear rate curve falls at or below the figures for a given unit size, it will perform within approved dosing tolerances, including the latest generation of fluorine-free concentrates.

For installations requiring flows above 8,000 lpm, two units can be configured in parallel, either on a base skid or in a “double-decker” arrangement, to reach 12,000 or 16,000 lpm.

Why proportioning system choice matters

The shift to SFFF is not a simple one-for-one swap.

It involves regulatory compliance, environmental assessment, logistics and equipment compatibility – each link in a long chain.

Firemiks focuses specifically on one critical link: ensuring that the proportioner can deliver the correct dosing rate regardless of viscosity, within approved limits.

The practical implications are straightforward.

A variable viscosity system means no need to replace or recalibrate the proportioner when switching concentrate suppliers or brands.

It means minimal downtime if a change becomes necessary for operational, commercial or regulatory reasons.

And it means reliable performance even as concentrate viscosity shifts due to ageing, temperature fluctuations or batch variation – provided the concentrate remains within the approved viscosity envelope.

For specifiers and end users planning installations that may span several decades, this is not a trivial consideration.

The concentrate landscape is still evolving, and future-proofing an installation against that uncertainty is a sound engineering decision.

Matching the pump to the application

One further differentiator in the FIREMIKS range is the availability of two concentrate pump types – piston and gear – each suited to distinct application profiles and viscosity characteristics.

Piston pump models use a reciprocating mechanism in which the plunger draws in and then expels concentrate in each revolution, taking the fluid from zero to maximum shear rate twice per cycle.

For low-viscosity or mildly non-Newtonian concentrates this works well, and the piston configuration performs particularly effectively in applications with low start-up flows relative to maximum flow, such as sprinkler systems.

The wide operating range makes it a versatile choice across many installation types.

Gear pump models take a different approach.

Counter-rotating gears generate a smooth, consistent flow without agitation, which makes them well-suited to handling very high-viscosity fluids -particularly those that exceed the shear rate envelope verified by FM approval for the piston pump models.

This characteristic makes gear pumps the preferred option for deluge systems, large fire monitor installations, and any application operating at the higher end of the maximum flow range.

When advising clients, Firemiks prioritises understanding the concentrate type and viscosity alongside flow and pressure requirements before recommending a pump type – ensuring that the specified system performs reliably across its full operating life.

Per Aredal is International Sales Director at Firemiks AB, with more than 35 years of experience in the design, production and global delivery of water driven volumetric pump proportioners. He can be reached at per.aredal@firemiks.com, +46 76 139 70 34, or via www.firemiks.com.

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

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.

Cleaner concentrate choices: Inside the global SFFF market expansion

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionResearch

IFSJ’s market report tracks the global SFFF market, sizing demand, forecasts, policy drivers, adoption by region and procurement issues for airports and industrial sites

Synthetic fluorine-free foams (SFFF) are moving from limited use to standard specification for Class B suppression in many sectors.

This shift is being driven by tighter PFAS regulations, the financial burden of managing legacy AFFF inventories and greater scrutiny of foam chemistry by buyers, regulators and insurers.

Airports, petrochemical facilities, marine terminals and municipal fire departments are updating procurement frameworks and operational procedures as they assess performance criteria alongside environmental and legal considerations.

This report examines the global SFFF market, focusing on current valuation, projected growth, adoption drivers and regional demand patterns.

Market overview

SFFF forms part of the broader PFAS-free firefighting foam segment, which remains smaller than the legacy fluorinated foam market but is expanding rapidly.

According to Fact.MR, PFAS-free firefighting foams are projected to grow from $310.0 million in 2026 to $937.3 million by 2036, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 11.7%.

Within this category, synthetic detergent-based fluorine-free foams account for about 44% of the segment, placing the estimated SFFF market value at approximately $136 million in 2026 and projected to reach about $412 million by 2036.

Future Market Insights reports similar expansion trends, forecasting PFAS-free foam growth from $346.3 million in 2026 to more than $1 billion by 2036.

The wider firefighting foam market remains substantially larger.

According to Custom Market Insights, the total global firefighting foam market was valued at approximately $5.82 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $7.57 billion by 2034.

The PFAS-free segment is expected to account for an increasing share of this total as replacement cycles accelerate.

Strengths

SFFF provides an alternative to fluorinated concentrates while maintaining operational capability for Class B suppression.

This transition can simplify chemical management and reduce the long-term liabilities associated with PFAS detection in soil, groundwater and infrastructure.

Manufacturers are developing SFFF formulations designed for compatibility with fixed suppression systems, mobile monitors and portable equipment, subject to validation testing.

This compatibility allows agencies and industrial operators to transition while maintaining existing infrastructure where feasible.

Technical improvements in polymer hydration and concentrate formulation have improved viscosity stability and proportioning reliability, which supports consistent performance during storage and discharge.

This reliability is particularly relevant in environments where foam systems may remain inactive for extended periods.

Alcohol-resistant SFFF variants are expanding operational coverage for facilities handling polar solvents such as ethanol, methanol and acetone.

This allows sites to standardize inventory across multiple hazard classes, reducing storage and logistics complexity.

Challenges

System compatibility verification remains one of the primary barriers to adoption.

Many operators must conduct proportioning tests, discharge verification and documentation to confirm performance with their specific equipment.

This process can require technical support, downtime and capital planning.

Application techniques for fluorine-free foams may differ from legacy fluorinated foams, particularly in low expansion applications.

This requires updated training procedures to ensure effective use in emergency conditions.

Product approval and certification availability can also limit supplier selection.

Buyers often require listings from recognized testing bodies or approval from authorities having jurisdiction, which can extend procurement timelines.

In addition to concentrate replacement, organizations face costs associated with the removal, disposal and remediation of legacy AFFF systems.

Cleanup of contaminated infrastructure, wastewater and soil can represent a large share of transition expenditures.

Recent developments

Regulatory changes are accelerating the transition toward fluorine-free foams.

According to the European Commission, new restrictions on PFAS in firefighting foams took effect in October 2025, with phased transition timelines depending on application.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration has approved fluorine-free foam use at Part 139 airports, aligning with Department of Defense specifications published in January 2023.

According to the American Association of Airport Executives, airports are actively transitioning to fluorine-free concentrates and expanding procurement programs.

Legislative funding has also supported adoption.

According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, US legislation has allocated $350 million to support airport foam replacement and cleanup, along with $30 million for vehicle modifications and related infrastructure updates.

Product development continues across multiple manufacturers.

For example, Fomtec introduced Enviro NEO in January 2026, an SFFF concentrate designed for petrochemical, oil and gas and marine applications, reflecting ongoing investment in fluorine-free formulations.

Regional insights

North America is one of the largest SFFF adoption regions, driven by airport compliance requirements, military transition programs and litigation exposure related to PFAS contamination.

Municipal fire departments and industrial operators are also incorporating fluorine-free foam into procurement planning.

Europe is progressing rapidly due to regulatory enforcement and environmental compliance frameworks.

Industrial operators, airports and municipal services are aligning procurement with regional PFAS restrictions and national phase-out schedules.

Asia Pacific presents strong growth potential due to expanding aviation infrastructure, industrial development and regulatory activity.

According to Airservices Australia, fluorine-free foams have already been deployed across Australian civilian airports, demonstrating early transition within the region.

The Middle East is seeing adoption primarily within petrochemical, marine and energy sectors, where large-scale fixed suppression systems require fluorine-free concentrates compatible with seawater and high hazard fuels.

Latin America and Africa remain emerging markets for SFFF adoption.

Uptake is concentrated in oil and gas, mining, ports and aviation sectors, where compliance with international insurance and operational standards is driving procurement decisions.

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

Entering a new frontier: HT&K Anti-Fire takes aim at global fluorosurfactant shortages

by Breaking NewsFire Suppression

Dr. Thanos Karydas, Director of HT&K’s Anti-Fire Group deep dives into the fluorosurfactants industry and the importance of the search for pioneering fluorine-free formulations

Dr. Thanos Karydas, the Director of HT&K’s newly formed Anti-Fire Group, is a 40-year veteran of the fluorosurfactants business, starting with Ciba Geigy in 1983.

He is one of the three founders of Dynax in 1991 and invented more than 30 patents in the fluorocarbon field.

In this interview with International Fire and Safety Journal, Dr. Karydas shares the stories of HT&K’s origins and how they are a newcomer in supplying fluorinated surfactants to the firefighting industry.

After making a dynamic entrance, HT&K are rapidly gaining recognition and market share, now supplying to some of the largest companies in the AFFF business.

Dr. Karydas epitomises HT&K’s venture as being a “natural evolution”, one that has allowed the company to become anything but your typical fluorosurfactants producer.

Please tell us about HT&K and why they decided to enter the fluorosurfactants manufacturing business at a time when most major suppliers have exited it?

HT&K was founded in 2010 and has R&D and production facilities with 70 employees in Helon, Dongguan and Qingyuan, China.

We are one of the largest producers of fluorochemicals for textile applications.

In 2019 when the AFFF industry began experiencing fluorosurfactant supply problems, we were able to recognize this opportunity, making a venture and natural progression into fluorosurfactant production.

Can you give us an overview of the supply situation of AFFF components and why they are so important to the firefighting industry?

AFFFs are extremely effective in extinguishing all types of fuel fires and have for decades been the dominant formulations for military and industrial applications.

The key components that provide these properties to the AFFFs are fluorinated surfactants and polymers.

These were first developed by 3M in the late sixties and by 1983, when I joined Ciba Geigy’s fluorochemicals division as a young PhD, Ciba Geigy and DuPont deNemours had joined the firefighting frey, albeit with different fluorocarbon technology than 3M.

Ciba Geigy produced surfactants under the LODYNEÒ name and DuPont was participating with technology originally developed by the French company Ugine-Kuhlmann.

Up until 2000, the only significant suppliers were the above three chemical giants.

In 2001, 3M withdrew from the market because of toxicity concerns over their PFOA/PFOS-based technology and Ciba Geigy soon followed because of a change in their business direction.

In 2003, Chemguard, after purchasing the fluorosurfactant know-how from Ciba Geigy, started to produce and market the LODYNEÒ products.

At around the same time, Dynax started to produce the LODYNEÒ fluorosurfactants under the DX designation as the Ciba-Geigy patents had expired.

By 2010, we had a situation where the three major suppliers were Chemguard and Dynax with Ciba Geigy technology and Chemours with their own technology.

In round numbers, this was a $90MM/year business, with DuPont having about 45% and the other two roughly splitting the remainder.

DuPont later transferred the fluorocarbon technology to a spin-off named Chemours, which marketed the fluorosurfactants under the Capstone designation.

Between the three companies, the demand by AFFF manufacturers for fluorosurfactants was satisfied adequately and timely.

In 2017 the situation changed abruptly; the first wave of lawsuits was filed against fluorosurfactant and AFFF manufacturers and, by mid-2025, there were more than 11,000 lawsuits filed against over 25 separate companies including 3M, DuPont/Chemours, Tyco/Chemguard and Dynax.

These were based on claimed water contamination and health effects caused by PFAS, with PFOA and PFOS in center stage.

This created turmoil in the fluorosurfactant market.

Chemguard exited the business, Chemours was not taking new customers, and Dynax could not keep up with demand, as some toll manufacturers had stopped production due to litigation.

Dynax recently shifted manufacturing to a toll producer in Mexico.

Finally, in early 2025 Chemours exited the CapstoneÒ business.

Do you feel this is when HT&K recognized the opportunity?

Correct, this was a natural evolution for HT&K.

The LodyneÒ and CapstoneÒ products technology is more than 40 years old and patent-free.

HT&K has a strong and experienced R&D group with more than 100 years of combined fluorocarbon experience; integrating the fluorosurfactants available from Chemguard/Dynax and Chemours into the product line was not a daunting task.

The Anti-Fire division was formed and in 2023 sales of substitutes for the Dynax products commenced.

In 2025, as Chemours was exiting the fluorosurfactants business, HT&K Anti-Fire introduced substitutes for the two key CapstoneÒ products.

As the raw materials for fluorosurfactants production are made in Asia, HT&K has a major advantage in terms of delivery timing and cost, because they are not encumbered by tariffs and shipping duration and costs.

Why make chemically identical substitutes and not something new or proprietary?

It is important to realize that, once they develop and certify a formulation, AFFF manufacturers are essentially bound to using specific products.

Reformulation using different fluorosurfactants may be a long, expensive and often unsuccessful process.

Even if performance is acceptable, the new formulation will require recertification and as an indicator, UL certification can cost from $15,000 to more than $200,000 per product.

Multiply that by the number of products in the product line.

By offering fluorosurfactants chemically identical to those from Chemours and Dynax, HT&K Anti-Fire offers the formulators the opportunity to continue producing without the need for recertification.

There are a number of Chinese companies offering fluorosurfactants, what makes HT&K different?

HT&K is not your typical fluorosurfactants producer.

We are a company with an international and very experienced staff and access to international research institutions.

Our products are proven, direct substitutes for the Chemours and Dynax products.

Our production capacity is nearly 2,000 tons/year, enough to satisfy worldwide demand.

I understand the other Chinese manufacturers produce 30-100 tons/year.

We are unencumbered by lawsuits.

We produce in-house; we don’t use a toll manufacturer in a different country.

When the Anti-Fire division was first formed there was reluctance by AFFF manufacturers, even some based in China, to even test the products, as they had been burned before, almost literally, by testing fluorosurfactants from other Chinese manufacturers.

Two years later, we are the number one supplier in China and have made great inroads with the major companies in India and Russia, where we are rapidly gaining market share.

We are now making forays into Europe and North America.

I am convinced that within a few years we will be the leading fluorosurfactants supplier in the world.

We see that there is a large shift to fluorine-free foams in many countries –  what do you think is the medium- and long-term outlook for AFFFs?

There is no doubt that worldwide consumption of AFFFs is reduced compared to the previous decade, particularly in Europe and North America.

There has been great progress in fluorine-free foams by a number of companies, but the reality is that AFFFs offer far superior performance.

Unfortunately, there is no side-by-side comparison during catastrophic fires, so it is difficult to realize that many catastrophies could have been avoided if AFFFs had been used.

My belief is that AFFFs will be around for the foreseeable future, certainly a couple of decades; there is still unabated demand for them in Asia and significant demand in Europe and North America.

They just need to be used judiciously; the potential for environmental pollution must be weighed against the potential loss of life and property.

There are situations where rapid extinguishment is required, for example in aircraft carriers where munitions and fuel are stored.

Many governments have given ten-year exemptions when it comes to these applications so AFFFs can be used.

My analogy is that to medication- you don’t receive chemotherapy if you have a headache, but if you have cancer it is the drug of choice in spite of the side effects.

The same holds for some fires that can only be extinguished by AFFFs; the environmental damage is miniscule compare to the potential damage and pollution caused by the fire.

What do you see as the future endeavors of HT&K Anti-Fire?

There is no doubt that the fluorine-free foams are the new frontier.

The limitation currently imposed on formulators is that they have to work with commodity surfactants, typically used as shampoos and degreasers.

It is important to realize that it took years of R&D to purpose-develop the fluorosurfactants used in AFFFs and that a similar strategy must be implemented to develop the next generation of fluorine-free foams.

This is the approach we are taking at HT&K Anti-Fire, as part of our search for pioneering fluorine-free formulations.

We have already introduced performance-leading fluorine-free concentrates for lithium-ion battery fires and for gasoline and jet A fuel fires.

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

Evolving formulations: How Fomtec navigated C8, C6 and SFFF development challenges

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionIFSJ ExclusivesResearch

Magnus Johnsson, R&D specialist at Fomtec, details the move from C8 to C6 and SFFF foams for regulatory and operational progress

The move from long-chain C8 foams through C6 formulations and now into synthetic fluorine free foams (SFFF) has reshaped the firefighting sector.

Meeting the performance requirements of UL, ICAO, military and other test regimes has required extensive development and live fire testing on varied fuels.

At Fomtec, this is a hands-on process, with Research & Development staff directly engaged in large-scale fire trials.

Working alongside Fomtec’s chemists on the formulation and evaluation of new foam concentrates, Magnus Johnsson has played a central role in bridging laboratory research with real-world fire testing.

He oversees the company’s large-scale fire testing programmes to international standards, including EN 1568, UL 162 and FM 5130, and acts as Fomtec’s lead firefighter during these trials.

In this interview, he discusses his experience in product development, the challenges of meeting diverse certification requirements and the key focus areas driving current foam research.

How would you describe the journey from C8 foams to C6 and now to SFFF, and what has it meant for your work in R&D?

C8 to C6 was billed a “small change” of a fluorosurfactant, but in reality it involved reformulation of all our PFAS-containing foam agents and recertification.

Reformulating the higher-performing foams such as the UL/FM sprinkler foams or the US DOD Mil Spec was more involved than we thought it would be.

Moving to SFFF was something we started back in 2011, some five years before the move from C8 to C6 needed to be completed.

This SFFF journey was, and continues to be, a rollercoaster ride, as we are pretty much starting with a clean piece of paper with the formulations.

What defines C8, C6 and SFFF formulations, and why has the sector evolved through these stages?

In very basic terms, the 8 and the 6 relate to the number of carbon atoms in the chains of the fluorochemicals that are used within the foam concentrate.

SFFF is the acronym for Synthetic Fluorine Free Foam and is the term adopted by NFPA, UL, FM and Fomtec to cover a foam concentrate with “no intentionally added PFAS.”

The driving force for the journey through these phases is environmental concerns from the family of chemicals called PFAS.

PFAS are a large group of man-made chemicals where ongoing research indicates that they are extremely persistent, and some are also toxic and bioaccumulative.

What insights do you gain from taking part in live fire testing as both developer and firefighter?

Everything we do in the laboratory has to be validated in the fire tests, and I can’t imagine how I could do my lab work effectively if I was not involved with the fire testing.

Some test standards such as UL topside or Mil Spec require active firefighting and have pass/fail criteria based on extinguishing times.

Being the lead firefighter for product development to these standards is essential.

This is even more important with the development of SFFFs, as they can extinguish as quickly as a PFAS-based foam, but different techniques are required.

How do UL and MIL-SPEC test standards differ, and why must performance be assessed under each?

It has to be accepted that the authorities setting the fire performance standards and the associated test protocols do so as they believe that they are the most appropriate for their application.

Comparison between a product’s performance to one standard against another is rarely possible, and as we move to SFFF formulations I would suggest that this comparison is even more difficult.

Variables include the size and shape of the test pan, the fuels, the nozzle, the flow rates and application times.

Then we have different preburn periods and foam application times, as well as the criteria for pass or fail.

For example, the UL test pan is rectangular and 50 ft², whereas the Mil Spec pan is circular and 28 ft², and the test fuels are heptane for UL and gasoline and Jet A for Mil Spec.

What additional benefits come from running wider fixed-head and sprinkler tests beyond standard requirements?

Early on in the development work of our SFFFs, we began to see greater variability of performance with fuels which the authorities such as UL and FM had for many years placed into groups.

While we did see variability with hydrocarbon fuels, it was the polar solvents where we experienced greater variations.

It was MEK that first highlighted this, as Enviro ARK is a very strong performer on acetone and was expected to show similar performance with MEK.

This was not the case, and we needed to almost double the application density to extinguish and achieve the burn-back performance required by FM.

We realised that there are likely many chemicals being stored that we just don’t have the fire data on, and so we spent about two years developing an estimation tool that looks at some of the physicochemical properties of a chemical and then predicts how we should approach it in terms of application density.

We obviously did need, and continue to test, different chemicals to validate the tool.

What are your main R&D priorities, and what current trends are influencing that development work?

For some time now, we have been looking to improve the Enviro range’s performance with saltwater, but without resorting to using partially unhydrated natural polymers in the concentrate.

Fomtec maintains that the use of partially unhydrated polymers just reduces an already small window for stability of the foam concentrate, and it has taken many formulations and tweaks to finally meet this challenge.

We have been in the fire lab and at test houses over the past few months validating our findings and adding approvals.

How do you see foam technology evolving, and where do you expect to see the most progress?

I have to believe that SFFFs will go the way of AR-AFFFs, and we will start to see better-performing low-viscosity products.

At Fomtec, we have already launched our IMO-approved Enviro SEA range, for the ARFF mission the Enviro AIR, and to meet the needs of the US DOD, our Enviro MIL.

This was originally published in the November 2025 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.