FE 241 fire suppression systems

[Tom Sutton]

Please can you tell me if FE 241 fire suppression systems are acceptable in Europe ?

[Psuedonym]

According to Sea Fire - the distributor (Manufactured by Du Pont) FE 241 is approved for US use only. Check out Sea-Fire.Com or the Du Pont website for confirmation.

[Tom Sutton]

The question seemed simple at first look and when I researched it, I found Sea-Fire and agree with you entirely.

But I was hoping for an official site that would give a long list of alternative for Halon 1301, Halon 1211 or Halon 2402 but no luck all the sites have disappeared or out of date.

[Davo]

TW

We mainly use FM200 as a Halon replacement, Can't tell you if it is any good as so far touch wood we have not had the need for it!
Its an Argon Nitrogen mix which reduces the oxygen percentage to 16% (I think) when discharged. combustion not possible at that level.
One of our site uses Argonite which I believe is similar.
Google for info/suppliers

davo

[Thebeardedyorkshireman]

Hi Guys
FE 241 looks like another chemical blend from the description and is not safe for occupied areas. I have a fair bit of experience with exporting gases to Europe and its a dog. Give me a call if you want to talk it through as it's a bit long winded for the forum.....in a nutshell Dont bother.
Davo
looking a the chemical formulae I dont think its an inert gas blend. And Argonite is designed to oxygen deplete to 12.6% for a standard installation. I would only comment on FM200 in a private phone call but I do know where there are  some test results from the ABI which are bricked up behind a wall as the yanks got a bit upset when they were draft published.
To all those very nice people who make and sell it, I think it's a very very very nice gas. My lawyer thinks so too!!
Dave

[Tom Sutton]

TBY - I agree with you, the halon alternatives are nowhere as effective as the original products and other alternatives are much more effective. But the question my enquirer asked was FE 241 acceptable in Europe and as far as I could establish was it is not. I couldn’t find a definitive answer as it appears the UN and US EPA accept it but Europe doesn’t that’s about the limit of my research.

[Davo]

TBY
Google reveals Argonite to be 50-50 Argon and Nitrogen. FM200 is Heptafluoropropane with a nitrogen propellant.
US Data sheet does not conform to COSHH. Interestingly, it says in the presence of flame or ignition source it may decompose to form toxic hydrogen fluoride or carbonyl fluoride. Also it may cause suffocation by inhalation.
We use it to protect filing such as evidence in serious cases, and from time to time staff work in these rooms getting evidence for trials etc.
I know our systems give you 30 secs to leg it............


davo
yorkshireman, no beard

[kurnal]

Does the data sheet for the FM200 give its inhibitory factor? Would be interested to compare that with the old 1211 1301 etc. Another issue may be the corrosive nature (or otherwise)  of the compounds produced when the substance breaks down, and the effect of this on delicate IT and electronic equipment.

Derbyshire man, no beard and very little on top, but still a dandruff problem!

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal - Its not the data sheet but it answer your question

http://www.universalfire.co.uk/fm200/fm200.html

[Tom Sutton]

I think I may have identified the confusion between Europe and America regarding halon substitute gasses. I believe it is because Europe is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and America isn’t.

Ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and (HCFCs) were phase-out under the Montreal Protocol. Certain substitutes for halon are fluorinated gases belonging to a class of chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), which are used in fire fighting.

Although F gases do not damage the ozone layer like (CFCs) and (HCFCs), they are powerful greenhouse gases, are generally long-lived and are included in the ‘basket of gases’ under the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol placed legally binding requirements on signatories to reduce their carbon (and equivalent) emissions to below 1990 levels. Reducing F gas emissions will contribute towards meeting this obligation.

Europe has a policy to deter the use of these F gasses and this makes things very difficult for organisations using these gases. They are revising legislation to take account of this problems and this will make thing even more problematic in the future.

I think TBY advice is well founded.

[kurnal]

Thanks TW

It would be interesting if anyone could give us a comparison of FM200 with oxygen depletion systems.

To quote from the link you posted :
"FM-200 ® is a colourless, odourless gas containing only carbon, hydrogen and fluorine, thereby lacking the ozone-depleting presence of bromine atoms. Highly penetrative and achieving an homogeneous dispersion in the hazard zone, it acts on fires largely by physical means, lowering the temperature of the flame and fuel to a point at which combustion reactions cannot be sustained. "

If my memory serves me correctly,  the Halons worked by chemically inhibiting the combustion process, the flourocarbon compunds mopping up the free radicals and preventing exothermic oxidation.  FM200 is claimed to work by physical means - or is this explanation just an over simplification?

I bet AnthonyB could educate us on this - please?

[AnthonyB]

Not much time to post as most of this last week and the next two are spent in hospital (fortunately as a job & not a patient!), but a quick off the top of my head summary-

Halons were originally thought to smother in the days of CTC, but it was soon realised they inhibited the combustion process. Different Halons had different 'inhibitory factors', the lower the factor the lower the concentration of halon required to interrupt combustion. Methyl Bromide is the most effective, being 3 (only 3% concentration required) but was far too toxic. Their inhibitory effect is by their affinity for 'free radicals' produced by combustion -by binding with the agent they cannot propagate the react further. Powder works in a similar way.

Inert gases are just that - they work by displacement of oxygen, their inert nature making them unable to contribute to the combustion process.

Chemical agents have the advantage of being more effective mass for mass due to their chemical interference, hence why a 2.5 kilo BCF extinguisher had the same fire rating as a 5 kilo CO2 extinguisher, but are resultantly more expensive, hence why you could fill a 2 kilo CO2 extinguisher for around £2, but a 2.5 kilo BCF cost £20+

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks for all your comments.