Evolving formulations: How Fomtec navigated C8, C6 and SFFF development challenges
Iain Hoey
Share this content
Magnus Johnsson, R&D specialist at Fomtec, details the move from C8 to C6 and SFFF foams for regulatory and operational progress
The move from long-chain C8 foams through C6 formulations and now into synthetic fluorine free foams (SFFF) has reshaped the firefighting sector.
Meeting the performance requirements of UL, ICAO, military and other test regimes has required extensive development and live fire testing on varied fuels.
At Fomtec, this is a hands-on process, with Research & Development staff directly engaged in large-scale fire trials.
Working alongside Fomtec’s chemists on the formulation and evaluation of new foam concentrates, Magnus Johnsson has played a central role in bridging laboratory research with real-world fire testing.
He oversees the company’s large-scale fire testing programmes to international standards, including EN 1568, UL 162 and FM 5130, and acts as Fomtec’s lead firefighter during these trials.
In this interview, he discusses his experience in product development, the challenges of meeting diverse certification requirements and the key focus areas driving current foam research.
How would you describe the journey from C8 foams to C6 and now to SFFF, and what has it meant for your work in R&D?
C8 to C6 was billed a “small change” of a fluorosurfactant, but in reality it involved reformulation of all our PFAS-containing foam agents and recertification.
Reformulating the higher-performing foams such as the UL/FM sprinkler foams or the US DOD Mil Spec was more involved than we thought it would be.
Moving to SFFF was something we started back in 2011, some five years before the move from C8 to C6 needed to be completed.
This SFFF journey was, and continues to be, a rollercoaster ride, as we are pretty much starting with a clean piece of paper with the formulations.
What defines C8, C6 and SFFF formulations, and why has the sector evolved through these stages?
In very basic terms, the 8 and the 6 relate to the number of carbon atoms in the chains of the fluorochemicals that are used within the foam concentrate.
SFFF is the acronym for Synthetic Fluorine Free Foam and is the term adopted by NFPA, UL, FM and Fomtec to cover a foam concentrate with “no intentionally added PFAS.”
The driving force for the journey through these phases is environmental concerns from the family of chemicals called PFAS.
PFAS are a large group of man-made chemicals where ongoing research indicates that they are extremely persistent, and some are also toxic and bioaccumulative.
What insights do you gain from taking part in live fire testing as both developer and firefighter?
Everything we do in the laboratory has to be validated in the fire tests, and I can’t imagine how I could do my lab work effectively if I was not involved with the fire testing.
Some test standards such as UL topside or Mil Spec require active firefighting and have pass/fail criteria based on extinguishing times.
Being the lead firefighter for product development to these standards is essential.
This is even more important with the development of SFFFs, as they can extinguish as quickly as a PFAS-based foam, but different techniques are required.
How do UL and MIL-SPEC test standards differ, and why must performance be assessed under each?
It has to be accepted that the authorities setting the fire performance standards and the associated test protocols do so as they believe that they are the most appropriate for their application.
Comparison between a product’s performance to one standard against another is rarely possible, and as we move to SFFF formulations I would suggest that this comparison is even more difficult.
Variables include the size and shape of the test pan, the fuels, the nozzle, the flow rates and application times.
Then we have different preburn periods and foam application times, as well as the criteria for pass or fail.
For example, the UL test pan is rectangular and 50 ft², whereas the Mil Spec pan is circular and 28 ft², and the test fuels are heptane for UL and gasoline and Jet A for Mil Spec.
What additional benefits come from running wider fixed-head and sprinkler tests beyond standard requirements?
Early on in the development work of our SFFFs, we began to see greater variability of performance with fuels which the authorities such as UL and FM had for many years placed into groups.
While we did see variability with hydrocarbon fuels, it was the polar solvents where we experienced greater variations.
It was MEK that first highlighted this, as Enviro ARK is a very strong performer on acetone and was expected to show similar performance with MEK.
This was not the case, and we needed to almost double the application density to extinguish and achieve the burn-back performance required by FM.
We realised that there are likely many chemicals being stored that we just don’t have the fire data on, and so we spent about two years developing an estimation tool that looks at some of the physicochemical properties of a chemical and then predicts how we should approach it in terms of application density.
We obviously did need, and continue to test, different chemicals to validate the tool.
What are your main R&D priorities, and what current trends are influencing that development work?
For some time now, we have been looking to improve the Enviro range’s performance with saltwater, but without resorting to using partially unhydrated natural polymers in the concentrate.
Fomtec maintains that the use of partially unhydrated polymers just reduces an already small window for stability of the foam concentrate, and it has taken many formulations and tweaks to finally meet this challenge.
We have been in the fire lab and at test houses over the past few months validating our findings and adding approvals.
How do you see foam technology evolving, and where do you expect to see the most progress?
I have to believe that SFFFs will go the way of AR-AFFFs, and we will start to see better-performing low-viscosity products.
At Fomtec, we have already launched our IMO-approved Enviro SEA range, for the ARFF mission the Enviro AIR, and to meet the needs of the US DOD, our Enviro MIL.