2024 journal article
Exploring the Prospects and Challenges of Fluorine-Free Firefighting Foams (F3) as Alternatives to Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF): A Review
ACS Omega.
open access via doi.org (publisher)
Source: ORCID
Added: September 1, 2024
This review provides a comparative analysis of the performance, toxicity, environmental impact, and health risks associated with fluorotelomer-based/short-chain AFFF and F3. Despite notable progress in F3 development, achieving comparable performance remains challenging in some cases. F3 formulations, while promising, are yet to be considered a direct replacement for AFFF in all Class B fire suppression scenarios due to variations in their performance across different fuel types and test conditions. Available studies indicate that commercially available F3 exhibit greater biodegradability and reduced environmental persistence compared to AFFF. However, some alternatives may still pose similar environmental impacts. Limited ecotoxicity studies suggest that some F3 may exhibit equal or even higher toxicity to aquatic species than short-chain (C6) AFFF. Toxicological assessments and risk evaluations of F3 should consider factors beyond environmental persistence, including acute and chronic ecotoxicity, potential endocrine disruption, and the full toxicological profile of foam formulations and their individual components. Further research is necessary to understand the fate, transport, bioaccumulation, and toxicity of F3 degradation products. Addressing these knowledge gaps is crucial to ensure the safe and sustainable implementation of F3 as an alternative fire suppression solution.