AFFF Alternatives: Art Of The Possible - Serdp-estcp
AFFF Alternatives: Art of thePossible15 November 2019
CLEAREDFor Open PublicationJan 07, 2020Department of DefenseOFFICE OF PREPUBLICATION AND SECURITY REVIEW
AFFF Alternatives: Art of the PossibleNovember 15, 2019The Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Alternatives summit was held at the Residence InnPentagon City. The goal for this summit was to provide the Strategic Environmental Researchand Development Program (SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology CertificationProgram (ESTCP) with an initial set of short-term objectives and long-term goals to addressAFFF alternatives from the research and development, and the demonstration validation andimplementation perspectives.There were approximately 100 attendees representing DoD, other federal agencies, academia,and the firefighting manufacturing industry. HON Robert McMahon, Assistant Secretary ofDefense for Sustainment, provided initial comments to the group describing the great need forout of the box thinking to provide solutions to the DoD and our nation regarding AFFFalternatives.A group of military fire chiefs and the Ohio State Fire Marshal provided the group with arationale for providing a solution that would not add additional risk to our first responders, butthey also described the constraints they all face regarding training in relevant environments.A Naval Sea Systems Command engineer provided a review of the current military specificationfor AFFF and the historical background regarding Naval firefighting.A series of lightning round presentations provided perspective from the Federal AviationAdministration, National Fire Protection Association, Naval Air Warfare Center, Air Force CivilEngineering Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Instituteof Environmental Health Sciences.All of the above presentations set the stage for several hours of intensive discussions onmaterials and engineering solutions to address AFFF alternatives. Those discussions aresummarized in the following documents and presentations.
AFFF SummitDr. Herb NelsonDirector – SERDP & ESTCP2
AFFF SummitHonorable Robert McMahonAssistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment3
DOD-wide Research Towards a FluorineFree Alternative to Aqueous Film FormingFoams (AFFF)Robin NissanProgram Manager Weapons Systems and PlatformsOctober 2019
DoD’s Environmental Technology ProgramsScience and Technology Statutory Program Established1991DoD, DOE, EPA Partnership Advanced technologydevelopment to addressnear-term needsFundamental research toimpact real worldenvironmental managementDemonstration and Validation Demonstrate InnovativeCost-Effective Environmentaland Energy Technologies Transition technology out of thelabEstablish Cost and PerformancePartner with End User andRegulatorTechnology Transfer SERDP & ESTCP Accelerate Commercialization orBroader AdoptionDirect Technology Insertion5
Program Area Management StructureWeapons Systems& PlatformsEnvironmentalRestorationEnergy & Water(ESTCP only)Resource Conservation& ResiliencySERDP & ESTCPMunitionsResponse6
ThenUSS Forrestal Fire, 1967 (134 Sailors Killed/161 Injured)7
NowFully fueled C-5 Galaxy, Dover AFB 2006 (17 crew and passengers, 0 fatalities)8
AFFF Replacement Challenges Unique chemical nature of the carbon-fluorine bondThe call for a “drop-in replacement”While the MilSpec no longer requires fluorine, many ofthe performance requirements still favor its uniquecharacteristicsThe need to decide at what point engineering andfirefighting methodology can bridge remaining materialperformance gapsA lack of analytical tools to determine with confidencethat a product is truly fluorine freeUnknown toxicity of alternativesBottom line is that the MilSpec may need to change9
Important Knowledge GapsFluorine Free AFFF CharacteristicsRelated Research Questions Tend to be quite viscous Can we drive viscosity down? Foam stability may not be equivalent Can we make more stable foams?Are there other measures of foam quality thatwe need to understand? Do not work as well with salt water vs. fresh Why is that?Is there an additive that can improve salt waterperformance? They do flow across the fuel / fire interface The alternatives do not flow as wellWhat can be done to improve flow? The assumption, without data, that they aremore sustainable Environmental persistence?Fate and Transport?Toxicity to plants or animals or humans?10
Environmental TechnologyDevelopment ProcessSERDPESTCPOffice of the Assistant Secretary of Defense – SustainmentSERDP & ESTCP11
Environmental TechnologyDevelopment ProcessSERDP Nano particlesIonic LiquidsSiloxanesBiopolymersFoam formationand stabilityESTCPPersistenceToxicityFate andEffects Performanceat scaleShelf-lifeCorrosivityFirefightingpractices EngineeringSolutions Platformrequirements RiskassessmentOffice of the Assistant Secretary of Defense – Sustainment12
Preliminary Results on Fluorine-Free Formulation fromNational Foam90% control in 23 secondsExtinguishment in 43 seconds99% control in 36 secondsBurnback 360 seconds28 square foot fire test with heptane fuel and fresh waterMIL F 24385 F requires 30 second extinguishment and 360 seconds burnback13
International Efforts Towards AFFFAlternatives Fluorine-free AFFF alternatives have been developedbut none has so far demonstrated the required level ofperformance for DoD deploymentOne formulation was patented in 2003 by 3M This formulation came close to passing the Navy’s standard fire test(35 seconds extinguishment time versus a 30 second requirement)Non-military users, such as the Copenhagen Airport in 2009 andHeathrow Airport in 2012 made the switch to that fluorine-free AFFFThe formulation was commercialized by SolbergEnhanced performance is achieved with compressed airOther fluorine-free (or near free) formulations are nowavailable on the marketplace Orchidee, Dafo Fomtec, and Angus Fire have commercial productsThese products have not met the MilSpec14
December 3 – 5, 2019 at the Marriott Wardman Park Plenary session the first morning then two days oftechnical sessions and one day of short courses. Attendance 1,000http://www.symposium.serdp-estcp.org/15
For More Informationhttps://www.serdp-estcp.org/16
AFFF SummitMilitary & State Fire Chief’s Assessment17
MIL-PRF-24385Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)U.S. NavyAFFF Alternatives: Art of the Possible15 November 2019DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited18
Why AFFF? 1940-1970: U.S. Navy used ProteinFoam as the primary Class B(flammable/combustible liquid)firefighting agent.Protein Foam had good burnbackresistance but had slow fire knockdown due to reduced flow andspreading capabilities.Rapid extinguishment time isconsidered critical for crew safetyand mission restoration, especiallywhen considering the additionalhazards posed by the presence ofordnance at the fire scene.Aqueous film forming Foam (AFFF)was developed in the 1960’s tomake up for this recognized fireprotection shortfall.USS Forrestal Fire, 1967(134 Sailors Killed/161 Injured)DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited19
History and Usage Initial specification issued 1969, with first product on the qualified productslist (QPL) in 1970. Synthetic foam made from chemical surfactants thatproduces a thin film of water with low surface tension between the fuelsource and the foam blanket.Extinguishing Mechanism:– Aqueous film creates fuel vapor seal– Film reseals quickly if ruptured(prevents reflash)– Foam blanket limits oxygen access tothe fuel and vapor transport to the fire– Foam blanket adds cooling effectUsed shipboard in areas subject to fuel spills and fires for rapid control andextinguishment.Required for US Navy ships, USCG operated ships, DoD aviation facilities, andmost major commercial airports.Used at many foreign airfields and by some foreign navies.Non-MILSPEC (i.e. UL, ICAO, EN) AFFF also marketed and used worldwide.DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited20
Key MILSPEC RequirementsAFFF MILSPECQualificationtesting.21
Recent MILSPEC Changes MIL-PRF-24385F w/ Amendment 2 – Dated 7 September 2017– Instituted 800ppb maximum limit on PFOS and PFOA in concentrate– Identified DoD’s goal “ to acquire and use a non-fluorinated AFFF formulation orequivalent firefighting agent to meet the performance requirements for DoD criticalfirefighting needs. The DoD is funding research to this end, but a viable solution may notbe found for several years. In the short term, the DoD intends to acquire and use AFFFwith the lowest demonstrable concentrations of two particular per- and PFAS; specificallyPFOS and PFOA. The DoD intends to be open and transparent with Congress, theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), state regulators, and the public at largeregarding DoD efforts to address these matters. AFFF manufacturers and vendors areencouraged to determine the levels of PFOS, PFOA, and other PFAS in their products andwork to drive these levels toward zero while still meeting all other military specificationrequirements.” MIL-PRF-24385F w/ Int. Amendment 3 – Dated 7 May 2019– Deleted requirement for a “fluorocarbon” surfactant. Permits nonfluorinated *film-formingfoamsAFFFto qualifyfor theMILSPEC.*Fluorosurfactantis key to makingeffective.No non-fluorinatedfilm-forming surfactant alternative is currently known to exist,although research is ongoing22
Future MILSPEC Changes MIL-PRF-24385G – ETA 2020– Will define new analytical procedure for PFOS/PFOA analysis.– Continue to drive PFOS and PFOA lower via new, lower maximumpermissible limits made possible by new analytical procedure. Fluorine-Free Foam (FFF) MILSPEC – ETA ?– Lack of film-forming alternative may drive the need for a new MILSPECwhich may have different physical and chemical properties than legacyAFFF.– A MILSPEC for FFF is advantageous to DoD as it permits: Definition of minimum fire performance goalsDefinition of allowable agent physical/chemical characteristics (ensures equipmentand material compatibility)Implementation of inter-compatibility requirements among manufacturersA Qualified Products List (QPL) – DoD tracking of product conformance– Initial effort may be focused on shore-side applications to allow quickerimplementation.23
Current AFFF-Usage Mitigations Non-emergency shoreside use (training/testing) of AFFF is now prohibitedby Military Department policy.Only fire emergency use of AFFF is permitted, and releases are then treatedas a HAZMAT incident to minimize impact to groundwater.Existing Military Department shoreside systems and fire apparatus have, orare currently undergoing (or are soon to undergo), an AFFF change outprocess, with the intent of replacing older legacy AFFF formulations withnewer formulations with significantly lower content of PFOS and PFOA.More recent facility designs have included effluent retention capabilities toprevent AFFF release to the environment. Older designs are being surveyedand upgrades are being assessed.Firefighter and Service Member Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) forPFAS exposure preventions are in-place.DoD is fully aware that these measures limit, but donot eliminate the PFAS concern. Transition to afluorine-free AFFF alternative is the goal.24
Assessment of AFFF Alternatives25
Types of AgentMany different foams, with different uses:– Class A foams (ordinary combustibles, i.e. wood/paper) - typically medium and highexpansion foam– Class B foams (flammable liquids) – typically low expansion foam ProteinFluoroproteinFilm Forming Fluoroprotein (FFFP)Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)Alcohol ResistantSynthetic (Fluorine-Free)– Non-foams (wetting agents; water additives)US Navy ships require a low-expansionfoam for use on Class B fires26
Main Class B Foam UsesSomewhat Different WorldsCommercial / Petrochemical Industry (UL 162 – EN 1568)TankFuel storageFuel handling systemsDoD/ARFF (MIL-PRF-24385F) and *FAA/ARFF (MIL-PRF-24385F and ICAO)Vehicle StowageHangarsFlight Decks*Aviation / CrashDoD munitionsMachinery SpacesPump rooms27
Key Transition Considerations Rapid fire knockdown and extinguishment essential forAircraft Rescue Firefighting (ARFF) scenarios.– Very extensive research and usage (50 years) history with MILSPECAFFF with large/medium/small demonstrations in many differentscenarios. Demonstrated correlations between large and smallscale fires.– Large gap in applicable FFF research to date. Many unknowns. Effectiveness when proportioning out-of-specification.– MILSPEC tests include ½ and 5x design concentration strength, allowingeffectiveness during misapplication or equipment failure/damage. Essential forshipboard. Agent compatibility between manufacturers– Essential to intermix, for logistical support and supply availability Effectiveness with aspirated and non-aspirated nozzles Compatibility with existing equipment is highly desirable.Current FFFs can not meet MILSPEC performance requirements28
Standards ComparisonTestPanSizeMIL-PRF-24385 AFFFUL 162 AFFFUL 162 Synthetic(Fluorine-Free)Fuel228 ft250 ft250 ft250 ft2ApplicationRateMax. Ext.TimeExt. App.DensityMax 3Gallons1.81.65615ICAO Level B 50 ftKerosene0.06600.0613.05ICAO Level C 80 ftKerosene0.0460*0.0383.042 9X* Flickering flame permittedExtinguishment Application Density Application Rate x Max Extinguishment Time (min)Max Solution Flowed Extinguishment Application Density x Pan SizeMany Different Variables!-FuelFire SizeApplication RateApplication MethodAllowable Extinguishment TimeNeed to Evaluate/Compare Consistently29
Standards Comparison (cont.)DoD Takeaways: To compare foams, we first need to understand and correct forthe deltas in test standards. Current fluorine-free foams are not film formers. UL 162 holds them todifferent test requirements than an AFFF. Need to test with the appropriate fuels for the expected hazard. Commercial standard test results are not public record. FFF performance can vary widely by manufacturer. Commercial standards demonstrate only basic fire extinguishingcapabilities. MILSPEC - 23 different fire tests Commercial standards - often only a single full-strength fire test Commercial standards not focused on agent’s chemical andphysical property testing. MILSPEC is a performance standard – many tests to demonstratecompliance with performance requirements.30
Current Navy Research Paths- NRL SERDP Grant WP 2739; Synthesizing and developing novelsiloxane surfactants through combination of bench and large scaletesting- NRL Core 6.2 fluorosurfactant replacement program; developing newmeasurement methods and computational models to guide thedevelopment of novel surfactants- NRL/Jensen Hughes NFPA Research Foundation Fluorine Free Foamfire test evaluations; to access capabilities of currently listed(AFFF/Synthetic & Alcohol Resistant) foam products using the UL 162test standard employing a modified ICAO nozzle at various applicationrates, expansion ratios, and hydrocarbon fuel sources (Gasoline(ethanol-free), Gasoline (E-10), Heptane, and Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA))- DoD ESTCP Fluorine Free Foam (F3) fire test evaluations; to assess theextinguishing capabilities of commercially available Fluorine Free Foamand Wetting Agents when exposed to military specific fire threatscenarios31
Navy Testing of Commercial Fluorine-Free Foams (FFF)1. Commercial FFF products have improved over theyears, but there are still a number physicalproperty and engineering issues that need furtherinvestigation.2. FFFs are not film-forming but “mimic” filmformation through slow liquid drainage from theestablished foam blanket.3. Many commercial FFF products use fluorine-freehydrocarbon or sulfonated surfactants, but also usea number of solvents, stabilizers and thickeners.Fig 1 – Preliminary 28 ft2 Gasoline Pool FireExtinction Results4. The presence of thickening agents dramaticallyincreases viscosity of the FFF concentrate.5. FFF products tend to have better firefightingperformance with Heptane versus Gasoline fueledfires.6. There is an absence of data, notably large-scale firetesting including those simulating large Flight Deckfire scenarios, that still needs to be investigated/conducted to demonstrate the efficacy of theseAFFF alternatives for DoD applications.Fig 2 – Viscosity of AFFF, Fluorine-Free-1 andFluorine-Free-2 Foam Concentrates asa Function of Applied Shear Rate in a Plate rheometer.Y-axis is on a Log-Scale32
Current FFF Knowledge Gaps for US DoD Limited performance data– Mostly small scale approval tests– No application specific testing (i.e., realistic with ordnance) Flow of an aspirated foam blanket through obstructions(foam transport)NFPA FPRF photo Varying effectiveness based on fuel type. Aging and shelf life is an unknown. Effectiveness at elevated ambient temps. Equipment compatibility (i.e., viscosity). Need to verify environmentalFFFs much thickersuitability to avoid replacement regret./ non-Newtonian33
US DoD Shipboard Current shipboard AFFF systems are designed to minimumrequirements due to ship impact (space and weight). Shipboard systems use many non-aspirated nozzles.– Aspirated: Better foam quality but shorter throw distance.– Non-aspirated: Lesser foam quality but greater throw distance.(AFFF works with both nozzle types, current FFF prefer aspirated) Compatibility concerns with existing proportioning systems.(viscosity is a huge concern) Increased discharge rates with FFF result in shorter durationsfor firefighting operations with existing tank sizes. Increased discharge rates and viscosity may drive substantialmodifications to existing pumps, pipe networks, and nozzlelocations. Huge undertaking to retrofit existing systems.34
US DoD Shore-BasedShore-based firefighting operations face similar operational concerns asshipboard usage (ordnance, fuel, personnel, vital assets), however differin the application environment (not as constrained as shipboard).AFFF alternatives are currently being researched by DoD for shorebased applications. Lesser extinguishing capabilities can potentially be compensated forwith higher application rates/more equipment. Alternative application methods being studied. (CAF, UHP) Shore based implementation easier than shipboard (not restricted asmuch by weight/space/manpower). Not all current MILSPEC requirements are expected to be deemedessential for shore-based applications (i.e. seawater effectiveness).35
ClosingDoD is committed to researching andidentifying a fluorine-free AFFF alternativethat is capable of providing the requiredfirefighting capabilities needed to ensurethe safety of our service members, civilianworkforce, and mission critical assets.In the interim, DoD is committed to: Minimizing AFFF use (emergenciesonly) Procuring and using AFFF with thelowest demonstrable levels ofPFOS and PFOARapid Suppression of Large Scale Aviation Fires remains a Navy Priority36
Lightning Round37
National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationChris Scheer, P.E.NASA Institutional Safety Management DivisionOFFICE OF SAFETY and MISSION ASSURANCEwww.nasa.gov
National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA USES AFFF IN THREE OPERATIONAL AREAS Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) Apparatus Structural Fire Apparatus Fixed Systems 7 NASA Centers with NASA fire departments 3 with ARFF apparatus 19 NASA owned/operated hangars 9 with AFFF systemsOFFICE OF SAFETY and MISSION ASSURANCEwww.nasa.gov
National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA CONCERNS WITH AFFF REPLACEMENTS Effectiveness as a suppression agent Drop-in replacement Suppression system alternatives Cost/feasibility to retrofit fire apparatus &fixed systems Phase-in/sunset time frame NASA RESTRICTIONS ON AFFF AS OF 10/24/2018 For active fire suppression only May be installed in Class 3 Hangars only All training use is prohibitedOFFICE OF SAFETY and MISSION ASSURANCEwww.nasa.gov
Relative Characterization of Bioaccumulation & Biological Responsesto AFFF ExposuresStephen S. Ferguson, Ph.D.Division of the National Toxicology ProgramNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesSAFETY and MISSION ASSURANCE DIRECTORATE Code 300
DoD & stakeholders seek to better understand AFFF productsthat: meet fire suppression MilSpec requirements minimize the potential for downstream human health effects (e.g.,contaminated ground water) AFFF products have used fluorosurfactants such as PFOS,PFOA, and fluorotelomers with low density flammable liquid fires Concerns with PFAS: known to be environmentally persistent potential to bioaccumulate in humans (e.g., PFOS/PFOA) with verylong half-lives (i.e., years) associated with various human toxicities: reproductive,developmental, hepatic, and renal effects Ongoing PFAS Research Activities at the DNTP include: REACT Program: new approach methods & ADME in vivo mammalian targeted testing AFFF exploratory terials/aqueous-film-foam
Assumptions Project not intended to evaluate acute toxicity/hazard to workershandling/applying AFFFs Focus on PFAS constituents, given their potential forbioaccumulation in humans through non-occupationalenvironmental exposures (e.g., ground water) Bioaccumulation & biological responses to PFAS constituentsfrom current AFFF products not well characterized Bioavailability of PFAS in AFFF formulations is similar to that inenvironmental media
Objectives Identify and compare constituent PFAS profiles for AFFF products on the QualifiedProducts List, and where possible estimate individual and/or total PFAS concentrations Estimate the relative potential for bioaccumulation of constituent PFAS within AFFFproducts Characterize biological responses to AFFF products and provide interpretive contextregarding their potential translation to human health effects
Bioaccumulation & biological response relative characterizationscomprised of 3 approach models to address stated objectives:o In vivo AFFF exposureso In vitro primary human and rat hepatocyte bioaccumulation modelso In vitro HepaRG models to survey a broad range of biological responsepathways for relative characterization
AFFF SummitCharge to Break Out GroupsDr. Robin Nissan46
Backup47
Current Funded EffortsSERDP WP-2737: Novel Fluorine-Free Replacement For Aqueous Film Forming FoamNAWC WD China Lake WP-2738: Fluorine-Free Aqueous Film Forming Foam-National Foam WP-2739: Fluorine-free Foams with Oleophobic Surfactants and Additivesfor Effective Pool Fire Suppression-Naval Research Laboratory WP18-1519: Surfactants with Organosilicate Nanostructures for Use as Fire-Fighting Foams (F3)NAWC WD China Lake WP18-1559: Designing Next Generation Polymer-Based Surfactants for Fire SuppressionVirginia Polytechnic University WP18-1592: Stability of Fluorine-free Foams with Siloxane Surfactants for Improved Pool Fire SuppressionNaval Research Laboratory WP18-1597: Innovative Nano-Encapsulated Ionic Liquid Based Surfactants for Fluorine-Free FireExtinguishing Foams- Molekule, Inc WP18-1630: Fluorine-free Ionic Liquids for Aqueous Film Forming Foam-Materials Modification, Inc WP18-1638: Fluorine-Free Aqueous Film Forming Foams Based on Functional SiloxanesMaterials Modification, IncESTCP WP19-5299: Validation of Fluorine-free AFFF against Military Specification Performance CriteriaBatelle Memorial Institute WP19-5324: Capabilities Assessment of Commercially Available Fluorine-Free Foams –Jensen Hughes, Inc WP19-5332: Screening Tests for Fluorine-Free Firefighting Foams- Jensen Hughes, Inc WP19-5348: Fluorine-free, 100% Bio-based Fire-fighting Materials – Nu Element, Inc48
NRL Key FindingsFuel DiffusionWaterLamella(bubble wall)Fuel MoleculesFoam Bubbles oleophobic, less fueltransportFoam is the major barrier to fuel transport from pool to the fire (because of myriad of bubble walls)oForming an “aqueous film” to minimize surface tension – Typical commercial target for non fluorine surfactantsoReducing fuel transport in the foam – NRL’s target for a new approach49oleophilic, more fueltransport
Unique Concept: Oleophobicity Think of your non-stick pan: both oil and water bead up Oleophobic surfactants form a barrier layer of insulatingbubbles between the fuel pool, the vapor above (and thewater below, if ship based) This is a unique property of PFAS containing AFFF Some other chemicals have similar characteristics thatcan be exploited, but are unlikely to work as well50
AFFF MIL-PRF-24385F Amendment 3Basic Requirements Extinguishes a 28 sqft fire in under 30 seconds, 50 sqft in under 50 seconds, at 2 gpm flowrate. (UL listed AFFF, 50 sqft fire, allowed up to 180 seconds at 2 gpm) (UL listed Fluorine Free, 50 sqft fire, allowed 300 seconds at 3 gpm – almost 9x theamount of MILSpec) Burnback resistance of 360 seconds. (Measures ability to prevent re-ignition) Compatible with seawater and freshwater. (Useable by ship and shore facilities) Tested at half strength and quintuple strength. (Allows for mis-proportioning by the system) Compatible with other qualified AFFF so they can be mixed without concern for adversereactions while maintaining extinguishing performance. (Permits any qualifiedmanufacturer’s product in any system.) Compatible with dry chemical, another agent used in fire fighting. Tests for viscosity, corrosion, etc to ensure compatibility with systems. Tests for film formation, sealability, no precipitation, to help ensure performance. Tested with gasoline as a reasonable comparison to JP or DFM. (UL uses heptane, shown byNRL to cause some fluorine free product to pass, but then fail when tested with gasoline.) PFOS and PFOA 800 ppb.51
AFFF Alternatives: Art of the PossibleNovember 15, 2019Materials Solutions Working Group NarrativeThe Materials Solutions Working Group consisted of primarily Department of Defenserepresentatives, as well as one fire chief, at least four foam manufacturers, multiple toxicologistsor environment, safety, occupational health experts and academia. Discussion focused onshore-side applications, but each of these issues would apply to shipboard applications as well.Initial DiscussionMaterial developers do not believe that a straight drop-in fluorine-free foam (F3) will beavailable. This problem will likely need to be addressed through an integrated approach. Thiswould include coupling engineering design to available foam performance, while also reducingexposure and release of any foams whenever possible through revised training and facilities.Training with foams is currently restricted; which means that our firefighters are potentially atrisk of not being fully prepared to fight live fires. This is in part due to environmental issuesrelated to open burning of petroleum products in large scale pool fires, as well as the impacts ofthe foams. The working group recommended investment in virtual, hyper realistic training thatcould alleviate this issue. Training would need to mimic the feeling of true fires (e.g., tactilesensation, heat, noise, smells), while also providing accurate performance of firefighting foam.Formulation/Mechanism and Viscosity/Flow:To date, most if not all viable F3 do not produce a film. Performance is primarily due to bubblequality. Film formation is dominated by surface tension, but in a very dynamic fire system withchanging temperatures, it is not clear if film formation is the primary mechanism forextinguishment. Future foam development would be aided by a more fundamentalunderstanding of the fire suppression mechanism for F3.Formulators need a variety of chemical parameters to predict foam performance. This includessurface tension, interfacial tension, oleophobicity, viscosity, pH, and temperature dependence.The industry needs more effective computational models to inform material selection. Modelsfor surface tension, interfacial tension exist; however, there is not a complete foam productionmodel.Foam developers need a set of hard requirements to evaluate against. This should include fueltypes, concentrations, viscosities (concentrate, mixed foam and as-delivered foam) andoperational temperature. F3 have proven to be more viscous or even non-Newtonian fluids.The working group recommended that foams should be tested across a range of temperatures,including the most extreme temperatures that would be seen in airports. There is someevidence to suggest that F3 are not effective at temperatures over 100oF. Future solutions willlikely be limited to less than 10% use concentration for procurement, storage and application offoam. Higher concentrations mean shorter firefighting duration with current equipment.1
It was recommended that DoD promote more interaction with industry and provide a usableforum/repository for this sharing data.Does it have to be a foam?The working group argued that the product is dependent on the final mission/goal. Forapplications that need to put out a fire quickly, it’s possible that a non-foam option could work.However, foams are one of the only options that have proved useful at blanketing a fuel toprevent burnback, which is a concern for realistic firefighting methods. Powders could be usedin potentially smaller areas, but this would be difficult to dissipate over large surfaces. Gelshave been used on some Class B fires, but if they don’t float on the surface of a liquid pool theywould be ineffective. Other ideas include free radical chemistry that uses a chemical reaction toextinguish the fire. It’s possible that a two-stage system could be proposed where the first stepfocuses on fire extinguishment and a second would stabilize/blanket the fuel to pr
AFFF Alternatives: Art of the Possible . November 15, 2019 . The Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Alternatives summit was held at the Residence Inn Pentagon City. The goal for this summit was to provide the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
Aqueous film -forming foam (AFFF): legacy PFOS AFFF, legacy flurotelomer AFFF, modern flurotelomer AFFF Protein foam Alcohol-resistant AFFF (AR- AFFF) Alcohol-resistant protein foam (AR -P) Film-forming fluoroprotein (FFFP) Synthetic fluorine -free foam (FFF) Alcohol-resistant film -form fluoroprotein foam (AR -FFFP)
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Report 173: Use and Potential Impacts of AFFF Contain PFASs at Airports 2017 72% of airports performed firefighting training using AFFF Of those, 79% discharged AFFF onto the ground . film forming foam (AFFF). Publication date: 2019? Fluorine Free Foams Cost Current AR-AFFF 200/5-gal Fluorine Free 200- 400 .
Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) and Alcohol Resistant Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AR-AFFF): AFFF and AR-AFFF are the most commonly used foams available today, with the AR version making it the most versatile foam as well. AFFF is synthetic foam with the basic elements being fluorochemical surfactants, hydrocarbon surfactants, and solvents.
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
