TECHNOLOGY NEWS
5TH INTERNATIONAL REEBOK FIREFIGHTING FOAM SEMINAR
Aircraft fi re fi ghting using foam courtesy of Dafo Fomtec Ab
R
eturning to the Reebok stadium in Bolton, the
two-day International Reebok Firefi ghting Foam Seminar in March brought together a variety of international speakers and delegates to discuss issues relating to fi re - fi ghting foam, its chemistry and end uses. All highly regarded leaders in
their fi eld, the speakers ranged from the trade and regulators to end users, coming from the UK, USA, Australia, France, Germany and Sweden. The international delegates came from the trade, Fire and Rescue Authorities and regulators (CAA/EA). Subjects covered included: • Move to C6 carbon chains which seems to solve the environmental issues related to Perfl uoroctanoic acid (PFOA)
• Fluorine free(FF) with class B and Alcohol resistant (AR)
• Compliant testing • Environmental: what is meant by green
• Holistic approach 6 |
twitter.com/FireIndustry
• Full environmental chemistry testing evidence (aquatic toxicity BOD/COD)
• PBT profi le for degradation products
• Limitations of existing foams • Aviation & fi refi ghting foams • Compressed Air Foam systems (CAFS)
• Environmental profi ling • Solvent free foams • PPE Standards issues and what manufacturers are doing now
As to be expected at a foam conference, environmental impact was a high topic of discussion; papers from the Western Australian regulator, Dr Jimmy Seow, indicated that they would not be satisfi ed with standard MSDS data sheets and claims that the foam was fl uorine free (F3) but would require full environmental information, specifi cally Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)/Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). Speakers said that BOD/COD provided the regulators with
more relevant environmental information than whether the foam was fl uorine free or not. This strong environmental stance was backed up by the other Australian Regulator from Queensland who advised that they would be more tolerant to systems using F3 foam and were recommending a transition to F3 foam for all foam users in their jurisdiction. There were papers promoting the benefi ts of fl uorine free foams and showing how their performance in fi re conditions has improved. This was balanced with papers highlighting the benefi ts of fl uorotelomer foams. The main concerns raised were that fl uorine free foams still do not have the same fi re fi ghting performance or physical properties as fl uorinated foams. For example, the paper by Dr Chang Jho of Dynax showed that the removal of fl uorine meant the resulting foam was oleophilic rather than olephobic, hence fl uorine free foams (F3)
do not have the same fuel contamination resistance as fl uorinated foams. However, F3 foams are developing and getting better, but the base chemistry means this problem will be hard to solve. Mike Willson’s and Jow
Scheffey’s papers highlighted concerns that the move towards more environmentally friendly foams had an impact on the fi re fi ghting capability of the foam and asked whether this was the right approach. A tricky question but a necessary one; it does seem to be that if we want more environmentally benign foams we will have to sacrifi ce fi re fi ghting performance. Having said that, Kim Olsen’s
paper (Copenhagen Fire Brigade) on the CAA CAFS testing in France seemed to indicate that CAFS will work equally well with either type of foam, so it’s not all bad. Niall Ramsden gave a
heartfelt paper on testing of foams calling for tests to be just that, a test of the foams fi re
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16