Entering a new frontier: HT&K Anti-Fire takes aim at global fluorosurfactant shortages
Iain Hoey
Share this content
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.