Fomtec addresses the future of foam formulations: “SFFFs are likely the most thoroughly tested foam agents ever brought to market”
Iain Hoey
Share this content
John Ottesen, CEO of Fomtec, reflects on advancements in fluorine-free foams, how they meet international standards and their growing role in fixed foam systems
The firefighting foam industry is undergoing significant changes as it transitions from fluorinated to fluorine-free formulations.
These developments are driven by stringent environmental regulations and the need for high-performance alternatives that comply with international standards.
IFSJ caught up with John Ottesen, CEO of Fomtec, to discuss the company’s innovations and the evolving landscape of firefighting foam solutions., examining the technical advancements in fluorine-free foam formulations, their performance in fixed foam systems and the implications for future fire suppression technologies.
As an early leader in fluorine-free firefighting foams, how have perceptions towards these products evolved?
Having worked with fluorinated foams throughout my career, I initially had concerns about whether we could develop fluorine-free foams with performance levels comparable to AFFF or AR-AFFF.
Now, over a decade later, we’ve successfully formulated and received approval for a range of SFFF products under our ‘Enviro’ brand, meeting various international standards.
Fluorine-free foams certainly do perform effectively, but just like their fluorinated counterparts, they must be applied according to international design standards, such as those outlined by NFPA or FM data pages.
This includes adhering to recommended application densities, durations and using equipment that has been specifically tested and approved for compatibility with the foam concentrate.
How does Fomtec’s fluorine-free foam stand out compared to traditional AFFFs?
When it comes to AFFF, we manufacture and offer a variety of C6 AFFF formulations, each designed and approved to meet different international standards depending on the market they serve.
Our AFFFs are tailored to meet the needs of municipal fire departments, the stringent specifications of US Military Standards, the quick suppression and control demands of Aviation Fire & Rescue teams (as per ICAO) and the requirements for use with standard (non-aspirating) sprinklers.
Introduced more than five years ago, Enviro USP was developed as an alternative to AFFF and has since been tested and approved to several key standards, including:
EN 1568-3 IA rating on fresh water
UL 162 Topside and Sprinkler (Test on heptane)
FM 5130 Topside and Sprinkler (Approved on heptane and Jet A-1 up to 14.5m
ICAO Level B
IMO 1312 @ 6%
Enviro USP is also approved by GESIP and during a quality control test conducted under the LASTFIRE protocol using freshwater on heptane, it achieved ‘GOOD, GOOD, GOOD’ performance.
Although it was ultimately disqualified by the US Department of Defense due to the requirement for a low viscosity foam concentrate in their extensive testing for the new MIL SPEC for Fluorine-Free Foams, Enviro USP successfully met all the fire performance standards that are now included in the specification.
As for Alcohol Resistant SFFFs, our current standout product is Enviro ARK, which I’m proud to say was the first SFFF approved by FM for use on polar solvent fuels with standard sprinklers.
Through our testing and approval work with both UL and FM, Enviro USP and Enviro ARK became the first SFFFs that could be deployed in line with NFPA standards across all types of fixed foam systems, regardless of the discharge device or fuel.
How does Fomtec’s fluorine-free foams comply with and, at times, push the boundaries of current industry standards?
It’s well known that Fomtec prefers UL and FM test standards, as we believe their ‘system’ approach more accurately reflects real-world foam usage, compared to relying on a single data point from a test nozzle designed to show good expansion and drain times.
With over 2,500 full-scale fire tests conducted as part of our Enviro Programme, we have extensive data that supports our belief that the foam qualities achieved with fluorine-free foams play a more significant role in fire performance than what we observed with fluorinated foams.
Even within the UL and FM standards, we’ve seen adjustments due to data gathered from testing SFFFs.
How does research and development contribute to the ongoing enhancement of fluorine-free foams and additives?
I believe it’s safe to say that SFFFs are likely the most thoroughly tested foam agents ever brought to market.
I understand the concerns—I’ve had them myself—about the removal of fluorochemicals, which represents a significant shift in the chemistry of firefighting foams.
It’s natural to be wary of change, especially when it comes to safety products.
We need assurance that the new solution works and there’s always the inevitable comparison between the old and the new.
The fire performance of SFFFs is more influenced by factors such as the type of fuel, application methods (direct, indirect and height variations) and foam characteristics (expansion ratio, drain times and bubble structure) than fluorinated foams.
Understanding how these variables affect performance and their limitations is precisely why we conduct so many full-scale fire tests.
Without data, then we only have opinions.
How does fluorine-free foams perform when used with various sprinkler standards, like UL 162 and FM 5130?
In collaboration with our hardware partner, the Viking Group, Fomtec has focused on developing high-performance SFFFs for use in fixed foam systems, including those that must work with standard non-aspirating sprinklers.
Since the 2018 edition of EN 13565-2 offers no specific guidance or test standard for foam-assisted sprinkler systems, we knew we needed to adhere to UL 162 and FM 5130 standards.
While there are some differences between the two testing protocols, they share the key principle that the foam agent is listed and approved together with the specific sprinkler used in testing.
When comparing our listings and approvals for Enviro USP and Enviro ARK with those for C6 AFFF 3% S and ARC 3×3 S, we find that in most cases, the required application densities are similar.
However, under the FM 5130 protocol, Enviro products offer an extended height range compared to the C6 products.
What has been consistently reinforced through the approval process of Enviro USP and Enviro ARK with sprinklers is the fact that UL and FM tie the foam to the specific discharge head.
Our testing has shown that assuming a different head with the same K-factor will work because a similar one has been tested is incorrect.
Even minor variations, such as the deflector plate design between two models with the same K-factor, can make the difference between a safe pass and a failure.
The current EN design standard, EN 13565-2, advises to ‘consult the manufacturer’ for application density and related details when using standard sprinklers.
With the data and approvals we’ve gathered, we are confident in our position as a trusted manufacturer that can be consulted with assurance.
Are we now at a stage where fluorine-free foams can be considered direct ‘drop-in’ replacements?
The transition must first be evaluated from a fire performance perspective—specifically, can the new SFFF be applied at the same density and for the same duration as the previous foam? Once this primary concern is addressed, the next step is to assess whether the existing equipment and system are compatible with the fluorine-free foam.
For existing systems, there is also the question of whether to clean and decontaminate the current setup or replace the equipment entirely, which might be more cost-effective.
This decision becomes even more complex when dealing with mobile equipment, where the evaluation is significantly more challenging.
Finally, what is Fomtec’s stance on exiting the fluorinated foam market?
We have repeatedly stated over the years that we will continue to manufacture and offer fluorinated foams to support clients who still wish to use them and are legally able to do so.
We remain fully committed to complying with all applicable regulations.
However, it’s important to note that the industry lobbied ECHA in the EU for exemptions regarding the timeline for phasing out C6 fluorinated foams and transitioning to fluorine-free alternatives.
For high-risk SEVESO companies, this period could extend up to 10 years from when the law takes effect.
During this time, our goal is to continue supporting these companies with high-performance C6 foams if they require them.
