4.5 Article

Thermal Hazard and Smoke Toxicity Assessment of Building Polymers Incorporating TGA and FTIR-Integrated Cone Calorimeter Arrangement

期刊

FIRE-SWITZERLAND
卷 5, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/fire5050139

关键词

smoke toxicity; FED; fire behaviour; FTIR; cone calorimeter

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC Industrial Training Transformation Centre) [IC170100032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The smoke toxicity and fire risk of seven commonly used building polymers were analyzed using a systematic fire performance evaluation system. The results showed variations in smoke toxicity and fire risk among different polymers under different fire conditions.
Building polymers are highly flammable and produce a vast amount of toxic chemical compounds in the event of a fire which can lead to potential incapacitation and death. To gain an in-depth understanding of this issue, smoke toxicity and thermal characteristics of seven commonly used building polymers were analysed through a systematic fire performance evaluation system using a Thermogravimetric Analyzer and a Cone Calorimeter coupled with an FTIR arrangement. Four Fractional Effective Dose (FED) expressions were compared to assess the smoke toxicity of the fire effluents based on different assumptions. It was found that FEDN2, calculated using Purser's equation, reported the highest values of FED with the following order of potential smoke toxicity at 50 kW/m(2) radiative heat flux: LDPU > HDPU > PE > HDEPS > XPS > EVA > LDEPS. Furthermore, fire performance evaluation of the polymers was carried out by considering three key fire risk parameters, i.e., flashover propensity, total heat released, and toxic hazard. At 50 kW/m(2) radiative heat flux, HDPU exhibited 11.7 times flashover propensity compared to the least flammable polymer (HDEPS), EVA exhibited 5 times total heat release compared to the polymer with the lowest total heat release (LDEPS) and, LDPU exhibited 6.7 potential times toxic hazard compared to the least toxic polymer (EVA).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据