Firefighting has long relied on using aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to extinguish fires involving flammable liquids. However, the environmental and health hazards associated with PFAS have sparked a global movement towards adopting fluorine-free firefighting alternatives.
In this article, we delve into the significance of transitioning to fluorine-free alternatives, exploring their benefits, challenges, etc.
The PFAS Dilemma
Using per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams has presented a significant dilemma. PFAS is a class of man-made chemicals that has been widely used in various industrial and consumer products for decades.
In firefighting, PFAS-containing foams have been essential for combating flammable liquid fires, particularly those involving jet fuel and petroleum. Their effectiveness in extinguishing such fires quickly has made them a staple, especially at airports, military bases, and industrial facilities.
However, concerns have arisen regarding the environmental and health impacts of PFAS. These chemicals are highly persistent in the environment and can accumulate in human bodies and ecosystems over time.
Two PFAS chemicals used in AFFF firefighting foam are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). As stated by Cancer Research UK, the former has been classified as carcinogenic, and the latter has been classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
Moreover, using and disposing of AFFF can also pose a threat to the environment. PFAS released during firefighting operations can contaminate water, soil, and other environmental resources.
Due to these growing health and environmental concerns, many individuals and communities have filed AFFF firefighter foam lawsuits. According to TorHoerman Law, the plaintiffs allege that the manufacturer failed to warn them of the potential health problems. They say that if they had known the higher cancer risks of AFFF, they would not have used the product.
Therefore, they seek compensation through these lawsuits. If you were exposed to AFFF and developed cancer, you can also file a firefighter foam lawsuit. These lawsuits have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL). You can hire an attorney and ask him or her to file a lawsuit within this MDL.
What Are Fluorine-Free Alternatives for AFFF?
Fluorine-free foams (F3) are firefighting foam types that do not contain fluorine-based compounds. They are designed to provide adequate fire suppression while addressing concerns about the environmental and health impacts of AFFF.
F3 foams utilize alternative surfactants and additives to achieve fire suppression capabilities without relying on fluorine. These surfactants lower the surface tension of water, allowing it to spread more evenly across the fuel surface and form a foam blanket. This blanket helps to smother the fire, preventing the release of flammable vapors and reducing the risk of re-ignition.
One advantage of F3 foams is their reduced environmental impact compared to fluorinated foams. Fluorine-containing compounds can persist in the environment and accumulate over time, potentially harming aquatic ecosystems and human health. Using fluorine-free alternatives, such as F3 foams, minimizes the risk of environmental contamination.
F3 foams are also effective on various fuel types, including hydrocarbons, polar solvents, and alcohol-based fuels. This versatility makes them suitable for multiple firefighting applications, including industrial fires, aircraft emergencies, and fuel storage facilities.
In recent years, agencies and industries seeking to reduce their environmental footprint have been increasing their adoption of F3 foams. The Department of Defense (DoD) recently announced the first qualified F3.
The DoD has revised its military specification (MILSPEC) for producing these firefighting foams. The new MILSPEC requires F3 products to be laboratory tested for PFAS content. Moreover, the manufacturers must give written confirmation that no PFAS chemicals have been intentionally added to the F3s.
F3 foams may have different performance characteristics than fluorinated ones. Ongoing research and development efforts aim to optimize their effectiveness and expand their use as a viable alternative in firefighting operations.
Other Fluorine-Free Alternatives
Several alternatives to Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) do not contain fluorine. One option is protein-based foam concentrates. These foams are typically made from natural protein sources such as animal or plant proteins. Protein foams form a cohesive blanket over the fuel surface, preventing the release of flammable vapors and suppressing the fire.
Another alternative is alcohol-resistant fluorine-free foam (AR-FFF). AR-FFF concentrates are formulated with special additives that make them resistant to the effects of alcohol-based fuels. These foams are effective on polar and non-polar fuels and are particularly useful when alcohol-based fuels are present.
The good news is that AR-FFF’s performance is increasing. A Springer Journal study shows that AR-FFF performance has increased significantly in the past compared to alcohol-resistant AFFF (AR-AFFF). In fact, AR-FFF can also be seen as an ideal alternative to AR-AFFF if the correct application is guaranteed.
Synthetic-based foam concentrates are also available as an alternative to AFFF. These foams use synthetic surfactants and polymers to create a stable foam blanket over the fuel surface. They are effective on hydrocarbon fires and often used when AFFF is unsuitable or environmental concerns about fluorine-containing agents exist.
In addition to foam concentrates, other non-fluorinated firefighting agents are available, such as dry chemical powders and gels. Dry chemical powders interrupt the fire’s chemical reaction, while gels create a barrier separating the fuel from the oxygen.
Read Also: Blogstorms
Challenges and Considerations
Fluorine-free alternatives may have different firefighting efficacy compared to PFAS-based foams. Comprehensive testing and evaluation are essential to ensure that fluorine-free options meet industry standards for fire suppression. Continued research and development are necessary to enhance the performance of fluorine-free alternatives and address any limitations.
The initial cost of fluorine-free foams and firefighting equipment may be higher than PFAS-based alternatives. However, long-term savings can be achieved through reduced environmental remediation costs and health-related expenses. Government incentives and subsidies can help offset the transition costs and promote the adoption of fluorine-free alternatives.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are Fluorine-Free Alternatives as Effective as PFAS-Based Foams in Extinguishing Fires?
Fluorine-free alternatives undergo rigorous testing to ensure their firefighting efficacy. While they may have slightly different properties, they can effectively suppress fires involving flammable liquids.
How Do Fluorine-Free Foams Contribute to Environmental Sustainability?
Fluorine-free foams are biodegradable and do not contain persistent chemicals like PFAS, which can accumulate in the environment. By reducing the risk of pollution and contamination, fluorine-free alternatives promote environmental preservation and conservation.
Are Fluorine-Free Alternatives Safe for Firefighters and Emergency Responders?
Yes, fluorine-free alternatives are non-toxic and pose minimal health risks compared to PFAS-based foams. By eliminating exposure to harmful chemicals, fluorine-free options prioritize the health and safety of firefighting personnel and communities.
What Steps Can Firefighting Agencies Take to Transition to Fluorine-Free Alternatives?
Firefighting agencies can start by comprehensively assessing their current foam inventory and equipment. They can then explore fluorine-free options available in the market and invest in training and education programs to facilitate the transition process.
To conclude, the shift towards fluorine-free alternatives in firefighting represents a crucial step toward environmental sustainability and public health protection. By embracing these alternatives, firefighting agencies can minimize their ecological footprint, reduce health risks, and promote safer working environments for firefighters. While challenges exist, proactive measures and collaborative efforts can facilitate the transition to fluorine-free firefighting practices.