Is Decontamination of PFAS From Fire Suppression Systems Required?
Ian Ross Ph.D. - PFAS Practice Lead, CDM Smith using F3 foams, it’s clear that the performance of several F3 foams is now comparable to those containing PFAS [1] [2]. With the release of a military testing specification (MILSPEC) for a F3 foam (MIL-PRF-32725) on 6th January 2023[3], many end users may want to transition to foams that meet this specification. However, foams accredited to this specification may not be appropriate for use in sprinkler systems, for large tanks fires and for use on polar solvent fires. There are, however, several ‘multi-purpose F3 foams’ available from foam vendors, such as Angus/National Foam, Perimeter Solutions, 3F and Bioex, with Fomtec specialising in F3 foam for use in sprinkler systems.
When transitioning between firefighting foams, effective decontamination of fire suppression systems may be required so that the replacement foam does not become contaminated with perand polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) above regulatory thresholds.
system could be the first logical step before spending significant amount on decontamination. However, as regulations progress in different parts of the world, this may be a driver for attempts at more aggressive and expensive decontamination approaches.
But how do owners of fire suppression systems, when considering foam transition, evaluate whether they need to decontaminate? What PFAS removal approaches appear credible, based on PFAS chemistry, and how is the process decontamination of validated? With disparate PFAS regulations in differing geographies and multiple technologies proposed for PFAS decontamination, this article aims to identify how to test for PFAS within fire suppression systems, review decontamination approaches and the data used to support the successful clean out of PFAS from fire suppression systems.
Introduction
Identifying whether there’s a need to decontaminate a specific fire suppression
48 The Catalyst
Many end users of firefighting foam are transitioning away from Class B foams such as aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) and fluoroprotein foams (FFFP and FP) containing fluorosurfactants termed PFAS. Transitions generally involve moving away from C8 and C6 PFAS-foams to fluorine free firefighting (F3) foams. F3 foams are widely available and used across multiple sectors, their accelerating adoption, as a result of providing effective fire protection in most situations, means that transitioning to F3 foams is now commonplace. With LASTFIRE having carried out a series fire tests at 40-50 m scales demonstrating successful extinguishment of a series fires
From the 12,000 members of the PFAS family of synthetic chemicals there are potentially hundreds extremely persistent fluorosurfactants which have been used in firefighting foams since the 1962 [4], with the extreme environmental persistence of fluorocarbon compounds being well known since at least 1950 [5]. Differing PFAS are being discovered in drinking water above safe levels in many countries, it’s clear that the use of all PFAS (C6 and C8) in firefighting foams will soon be curtailed by advancing regulations. For example, in Europe there is currently a proposal to restrict PFAS under REACH [6] with supporting documents being made available on 7 February 2023 and a media event in Brussels from 11:00 to 12:30 (CET). This has been described as representing the largest substance ban ever in Europe and somewhat complex because there are more than 10,000 types of PFAS, applied in a multitude of products [7]. Why are Fluorosurfactants Accumulating on Surfaces? Fluorosurfactants, like all surfactants, when