|Fire Retardants and Fire Test Standards|
Fire Retardants and Fire Test Standards
By Barry Badders, P.E . | Fire Protection Engineering
is a powerful phenomenon that is useful and necessary for life, yet
destructive. Fire was used by early man to provide warmth from the cold,
to bring light into the dark, prepare food for consumption, and in
other ways that not only made life possible, but improved the quality of
life. In contrast, fire is destructive and can quickly take life. When
we can control it, we can use it. The problems occur when we do not have
control. Our ways to control unwanted fire have been to prevent it from
happening, to contain it, and/or extinguish it. To accomplish this, we
have discovered and developed materials and assemblies, fire test
standards and methods, and regulations. Fire retardants have played a
role in our history of attempting to control unwanted fire.
are no fire test standards or methods specifically for fire retardants.
Fire retardants are added to materials to improve fire performance.
They are a means to an end, allowing materials to meet fire performance
The first known use of
fire retardants dates back to early China and Egypt. The early Chinese
used vinegar and alum to treat wood prior to encasing it in clay to
prevent the spread of fire. The Egyptians soaked reeds used for roofing
materials in sea-water, which resulted in mineral salts crystalizing
during the drying. The crystalized mineral salts acted as a fire
retardant. Later in history, as described by Aulus Gellius, the ancient
Romans fire protected wood by soaking it in alum. Through the course of
history, alum continued to be used and by the 16th century, English
theater owners were using alum to protect stage curtain fabrics. In
Britain, Obadiah Wilde had the first flame retarded canvas patent in
development of fire test methods for protection of life and property as
we know them today appear to only go back several centuries; however,
the first fire tests have dated as far back as the known use of fire.
The fire retardants discovered by the Chinese and Egyptians would have
been tested in fire and determined to be beneficial before their regular
use. Fire as a weapon surely necessitated performance trials prior to
deployment in battle to assess its effectiveness. Fire testing as we
know it today was not able to advance until mathematics was developed,
followed by greater understanding of physics and chemistry. Much of our
understanding of the fundamental sciences came from the 16th century
through the 18th century. Then, as measuring techniques were developed
and refined, researchers were able to combine the knowledge and put it
to task to produce fire test methods. Almost all of the methods
available today have been fine-tuned over the last 50 years with the
discovery of solid-state electronics followed by the rapid development
and advancement of computers and software capabilities. Computers became
small and affordable, and were thus readily available. This led to the
improvement of measurement techniques with more accurate and repeatable
results. Major changes in fire safety have historically come on the
heels of large fires. Some fires destroyed significant portions of
cities such as the fire in New York City on December 16, 1835, Chicago
on October 8 and 9, 1871, Boston on November 9, 1872, Baltimore on
Februar y 7, 1904, and San Francisco on April 18, 1906. The National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) was established in 1896 and American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) in 1898. As a result of the
Baltimore fire, ASTM formed Committee P, which later became E05 on fire
standards. In 1896, the state of New York required the first fire test
by law for floor arches and in 1899, the New York City made it a part of
its building code.
finishes and furnishings have been known to have an important role in
causes of fire for quite some time. As mentioned earlier, flame
retardants were used in curtains as early as the 16th century. As
plastics were developed, their use in interior finishes and furniture
was an immediate application. The fire hazards were evident by the large
fires occurring in the 1920s. A.J. Steiner developed an apparatus to
measure the effectiveness of fire retardant paint in 1922. Then in 1942,
the Coconut Grove night club fire in Boston lead to the introduction of
ASMT E84 into the model building code to eliminate the use of materials
with high flame spread potential in public buildings. The ASTM E84
method was based on Steiner’s apparatus, which is why the apparatus is
known today as the Steiner Tunnel.
World War II, carpet became popular and by the mid-1960s, the need to
address the flame spread hazard of carpet was evident. By 1970, the
first fire test for carpet, known as the "Pill Test,” was established.
Flammable Fabrics Act was created to address clothing, but in 1967 was
amended to include residential textiles. In 1968, the National Bureau of
Standards (NBS) began research on the development of a test method for
residential textiles. The Act became the responsibility of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) when it was created in 1973, but the
work continued with NBS for development of a test method. NBS submitted a
cigarette-ignition resistance draft method to CPSC in 1976. CPSC
modified the draft and recommended it for publication in 1978. The NFPA
Fire Test Committee took the NSB’s work and published NFPA 260, Standard Methods of Tests and Classification Systems for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture, and NFPA 261, Standard
Method of Test for Determining Resistance of Mock-up Upholstered
Furniture Materials Assemblies to Ignition by Smoldering Cigarettes in 1983. ASTM, later in 1990, published its own versions as ASTM E1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Assemblies, and ASTM E1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture.
retardants were used in furniture polyurethane foam filling materials
to meet the requirements of TB 117. CPSC concluded in 1997 that TB 117
would not ensure a substantial reduction in open flame ignitions because
the tests of components did not accurately predict performance of
mock-ups or actual size furniture.
has now removed the small open flame ignition test from TB 117, not
because of CPSC’s conclusions, but to eliminate the need for fire
retardants in furniture due to concerns of their toxic hazards, although
a definitive link to any potential hazard has not been established. TB
117 was the only test that demanded the use of fire retardants for
To provide a
consensus open flame test standard in absence of one previously provided
for in TB117, NFPA has initiated a project to write such a standard.
The NFPA Fire Test Standards Committee initiated the project and formed a
task group. At the time this article was written, the committee had not
yet put forth a draft.
last 100 years, increased use of fire retardants has been closely linked
to the evolution of fire test standards and fire safety code
requirements. The development of fire test standards and fire safety
standards drove the increase in development and use of fire retardants.
Now the desire to eliminate the use of fire retardants is driving a
reduction in fire test standards and requirements.
Barry Badders is with Intertek Building Products.