I" AlllDE b31DE7

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSI _ ^ All 102631027

OCi“<vi scaling QC100 .U56 NO.87-3510 1987 V19 C.1 NBS-P Fire Toxicity Scaling

Emil Braun, Barbara C. Levin,

Maya Paabo, Joshua Gurman,

Trudi Holt, J. Samuel Steel

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Rre Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

February 1987

-QC

100

.U56

87-3510

1987

.id in part by:

Dnsumer Product

da, Maryland

Safety Commission

NBSIR 87-3510

FIRE TOXICITY SCALING

Emil Braun, Barbara C. Levin,

Maya Paabo, Joshua Gurman,

Trudi Holt, J. Samuel Steel

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

February 1987

Supported in part by:

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Bethesda, Maryland

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
H51VU0

I >.-

otae-^9 m^aH

oMUAoa moixoT aRi’i

j

> A

.*5 ,niv#J .D jrtn0T«S .rvjirfciS m3

,fyMrriM0 WHtot ,Oc?*^' '* .t 4itiH Mt

V) tVt3MT»U‘?3a 3 U

' 4tiiibfw.'^8 >0 tmioDiirt

voottnod^i vm*tni®n3

(MOS OM ,(?»^ d8i^*l0

T8«r

i

:yd toi bmoq^

no*»<mmoD yis^«3 locbcn<^ i#mti«iK)b 8.U

'•%>

*/ 'iV ' ' \•

f 'V^

in* .•sHWi-a «^aM .93R3MM00 >«) TWaWTRAago .S.U

,*»3lM,n .•*«.».A »«T.S ,*0BACM4AT8 ^O UAS?*0» MMtirT^

,"j ^'>''1 I
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF FIGURES vii

Abstract 1

1. INTRODUCTION 2

2 . MATERIALS 5

3 . TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 6

3.1 Small-scale Tests 8 3.1.1 NBS Toxicity Protocol 8

3.1.2 Cone Calorimeter 12

3.2 Mock-up Chair Tests- -Furniture Calorimeter 15

3.2.1 Flaming Furniture Calorimeter Tests 17

3.2.2 Cigarette Ignition Furniture Calorimeter Tests 18

3.3 Large-scale Three Compartment Experiments 22

3.3.1 Room-Corridor-Room Configuration 23

3.3.2 Instrumentation 23

3.3.3 Analytical Experiments 25

3. 3. 3.1 Flaming Analytical Experiments 25

3. 3. 3.Smoldering to Flaming Transition,

Analytical Experiments 29

3.3.4 Three Compartment Animal Exposure Experiments 33

3. 3. 4.1 Smoldering Conditions 35

3. 3. 4.

Flaming Conditions 38

4. DISCUSSION 41

4.1 Polyurethane Foam, Non- fire Retarded 41

4.2 Polyurethane Foam, Fire Retarded 44

4.3 Three Gas Model 46

5 . CONCLUSIONS . 50

6 . RECOMMENDATIONS 56

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 57

8. REFERENCES 58

iii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Chemical and Toxicological Results from Flexible Polyurethane

Foam #32 (non- fire retarded) Decomposed Via the NBS Toxicity

Test Method. 61

Table 2. Chemical and Toxicological Results from Fire-Retarded Flexible

Polyurethane Foam #32X Decomposed Via the NBS Toxicity Test

Method 62

Table 3. Chemical and Toxicological Results from Haitian Cotton Fabric

Decomposed Via the NBS Toxicity Test Method 63

Table 4. Concentration of CO, CO2

, and HCN at the Calculated LC^q for

Treated, 32X, and Non- treated, 32, Polyurethane Foam and Cotton

Fabric 64

Table 5 . Average Values at the Maximum Rate of Heat Release from Cone

Calorimeter Tests Conducted at 25 kW/m^ for a Horizontally

Mounted Specimen. 65

Table 6. Average Yields of CO and CO2 for Treated and Non- treated Foams

Tested in the Cone Calorimeter 66

Table 7. Flaming Ignition Furniture Calorimeter Tests 67

Table 8. HCN Yields for Flaming Ignition of Treated, 32X, and NonTreated, 32, Polyurethane Foam and Cotton Fabric Mock-up

Upholstery Chairs Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter 68

Table 9. Cigarette Initiated Transition Furniture Calorimeter Tests 69

Table 10. HCN Yields for the Smoldering- to -Flaming Tests of Treated, 32X,

and Non- treated, 32, Polyurethane Foam and Cotton Fabric Mockup Upholstery Chairs in the Furniture Calorimeter 70

Table 11. Summary of Furniture Calorimeter Tests on Treated, 32X, and

Non-Treated, 32, Polyurethane Foam and Cotton Fabric Mock-up

Upholstery Chairs 71

Table 12. Dimensions of Corridor and Adjoining Rooms for the Large-Scale

Tests 72

Table 13. Construction Materials of Large-Scale Fire Facility 73

Table 14. Location of Instrumentation 74
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page

Table 15. Summary of Results from the Flaming Ignition of Foams 32 and

32X - Gas and Temperature Data in the Burn Room and the Target

Room of the Test Facility. 78

Table 16 . Comparison of Gas and Temperature Data Between Animal Exposure

Chambers and Respective Sampling Rooms for Flaming Ignition

Experiments of Foams 32 and 32X - Large-Scale Results. 79

Table 17 . Tabulation of Gas and Temperature Data for Smoldering

Combustion Prior to Initiation of Flaming Combustion - Analytical Tests 80

Table 18. Tabulation of Gas and Temperature Data for Flaming Combustion

Conditions at Time of Maximum CO Concentration - Analytical

Tests 81

Table 19. Summary of Gas, Temperature, and Mass Loss Data for Smoldering

Phase of Animal Exposure Experiments Prior to Flaming of Each

Chair Assembly. 82

Table 20. Exposure Chamber Atmosphere During Animal Exposures for

Smoldering Decomposition of Foams 32 and 32X 83

Table 21. Summary of Gas, Temperature, and Mass Loss Data for PostIgnition Phase of Animal Exposure Experiments Using Foams 32

and 32X at the time of Maximum CO Concentration 84

Table 22. Exposure Chamber Atmosphere During Animal Exposures Occurring

Post-Flaming for Foams 32 and 32X. 85

Table 23. Comparison of CO and CO2 Yields for Small-Scale Tests,

Furniture Calorimeter and Large-Scale Compartment Tests of

Non-Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32 86

Table 24. Comparison of Peak Measured HCN Concentrations and Estimated

Yields for NBS Toxicity Protocol Tests, Furniture Calorimeter,

and Large-Scale Compartment Mock-up Upholstery Chair Tests of

Non-Treated Polyurethane Foam 32 87

Table 25. Comparison of Yield Ratios of CO2 /CO for the Small-Scale

Tests, Furniture Calorimeter, and Large-Scale Compartment

Tests of Non-Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32 88

Table 26. Comparison of Yield Ratios of HCN/CO for the NBS Toxicity

Test, Furniture Calorimeter, and Large-Scale Compartment

Tests for Non-Treated Polyurethane Foam 32 89

V
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page

Table 27. Comparison of CO and CO2 Yields for Small-Scale Tests,

Furniture Calorimeter, and Large-Scale Compartment Tests of

Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32X 90

Table 28, Comparison of Peak Measured HCN Concentrations and Estimated

Yields for NBS Toxicity Protocol Tests, Furniture Calorimeter,

and Large-Scale Mock-up Upholstery Chair Tests of Fire Retarded

Polynrethane Foam 32X 91

Table 29. Comparison of Yield Ratios of CO2 /CO for Small-Scale Tests,

Furniture Calorimeter, and Large-Scale Compartment Tests of

Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32X 92

Table 30. Comparison Yield Ratios of HCN/CO for the NBS Toxicity Test,

Furniture Calorimeter, and Large-Scale Compartment Tests of

Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32X 93

Table 31. Comparison of Animal Deaths in the NBS Toxicity Test Method to

3 -Gas Model Calculations for Non- Fire Retarded Polyurethane

Foam 32 94

Table 32. Comparison of Animal Deaths in the NBS Toxicity Test Method to

3 -Gas Model Calculations for Fire Retarded Polyurethane

Foam 32X 95

Table 33. Comparison of Animal Deaths in the Large-Scale Post-Flaming

Exposures to 3 -Gas Model Calculations 96

Table 34. Comparison of 3 -Gas Model Results to Measured Animal Response

from Non- Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam and Cotton Upholstery

Fabric 97

Table 35. Comparison of 3-Gas Model Results to Measured Animal Response

from Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam and Cotton Upholstery

Fabric 98

VI
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. HCN Generation During Ramped Heating (375° C to 800° C) of

Foams 32 and 32X After Preheating at 375 °C for 30 Minutes

in the NBS Toxicity Apparatus. 99

Figure 2. Schematic of the Cone Calorimeter 100

Figure 3. Comparison of Heat Release Rate for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric 101

Figure 4. Comparison of Mass Loss Rate for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposures

With a Cover Fabric 102

Figure 5. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Yield for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric . 103

Figure 6. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Yield for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric 104

Figure 7. Comparison of Water Yield for Foam 32 Flaming and Non- flaming

Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure With a Cover Fabric 105

Figure 8. Comparison of Unburned Hydrocarbons for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric 106

Figure 9. Comparison of Smoke Extinction Area for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric 107

Figure 10. Comparison of Heat Release Rate for Foam 32X Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric 108

Figure 11. Comparison of Mass Loss Rate for Foam 32X Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric 109

Figure 12. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Yield for Foam 32X Flaming and

Non- flaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming

Exposures With a Cover Fabric 110

vii
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Page

Figure 13. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Yield for Foam 32X Flaming and

Non- flaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming

Exposure With a Cover Fabric Ill

Figure 14. Comparison of Water Yield for Foam 32X Flaming and Non- flaming

Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure With a Cover Fabric 112

Figure 15. Comparison of Unburned Hydrocarbon Yield for Foam 32X Flaming

and Non- flaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming

Exposure With a Cover Fabric. . 113

Figure 16. Comparison of Smoke Extinction Area for Foam 32X Flaming and

Non- flaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming

Exposure with a Cover Fabric 114

Figure 17. Schematic of Furniture Calorimeter 115

Figure 18. Four Cushion Mock-up Chair Assembly and Steel Frame 116

Figure 19 . Furniture Calorimeter Data for the Concentration of Carbon

Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, HCN, and Oxygen for the Flaming

Ignition of Mock-up Chairs made with Foam 32 117

Figure 20. Furniture Calorimeter Data for the Concentration of Carbon

Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, HCN, and Oxygen for Flaming Ignition

of Mock-up Chairs made with Foam 32X 118

Figure 21. Furniture Calorimeter Data Comparing the Rate of Heat Release

from the Flaming Ignition of Mock-up Chairs Made from Either

Foam 32 and Foam 32X. 119

Figure 22. Furniture Calorimeter Data Comparing the Heat Flux Received

by a Target Material from the Flaming Ignition of Mock-up

Upholstery Chairs made from Foam 32 and Foam 32X 120

Figure 23. Comparison of Sample Weight Loss During Flaming Ignition of

Foams 32 and 32X in the Furniture Calorimeter 121

Figure 24. Comparison of the Effective Heat of Combustion from the

Flaming Ignition of Foams 32 and 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chairs

Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter 122

Figure 25. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Yield for the Flaming Ignition of

Foams 32 and 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chairs Tested in the

Furniture Calorimeter. 123

viii
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Page

Figure 26.

Figure 27

Figure 28.

Figure 29

Figure 30.

Figure 31.

Figure 32.

Figure 33.

Figure 34.

Figure 35.

Figure 36.

Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Yield for the Flaming Ignition of

Foams 32 and 32X Mock-up Chairs Tested in the Furniture

Calorimeter 124

Comparison of the Yield of Water from the Flaming Ignition of

Foams 32 and 32X During the Burning of Mock-up Upholstery

Chairs in the Furniture Calorimeter 125

Comparison of the Smoke Extinction Coefficient for the Flaming

Ignition of Mock-up Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery Chairs Tested

in the Furniture Calorimeter 126

Upholstery Chair Mock-up with Two Smoldering Cigarettes as Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter 127

Comparison of Sample Weight Loss During Smoldering- to -Flaming

Ignition of Mock-up Upholstery Chairs Made from Foams 32 and

32X Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter 128

Concentration of CO2

, CO, HCN, and Oxygen during the

Smoldering- to -Flaming Ignition of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery

Chairs Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter 129

Concentration of CO2 , CO, HCN, and Oxygen During the

Smoldering- to -Flaming Ignition of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery

Chairs Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter 130

Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Yields for Smoldering- to -Flaming

Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chairs Tested

in the Furniture Calorimeter 131

Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Yields for Smoldering- to -Flaming

Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery Chair Mock-ups Tested

in the Furniture Calorimeter (excluding early smoldering

because of erratic response) 132

Comparison of the Yield of Water from Smoldering- to-Flaming

Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery Chair Mock-ups Tested

in the Furniture Calorimeter (excluding early smoldering

because of erratic response) 133

Comparison of The Heat of Combustion from the Smoldering- toFlaming Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery Chair

Mock-ups Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter (excluding early

smoldering because of erratic response) . 134

ix
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Page

Figure 37. Comparison of the Smoke Extinction Coefficient for the

Smoldering- to -Flaming Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery

Chair Mock-ups Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter (excluding

early smoldering because of erratic response) 135

Figure 38. Comparison of the Rate of Heat Release for the Smoldering- to

Flaming Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery Chair

Mock-ups Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter (excluding early

smoldering because of erratic response) 136

Figure 39. Comparison of the Heat Flux Received by a Target Material from

the Smoldering- to -Flaming Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X

Upholstery Chair Mock-ups Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter. . 137

Figure 40. Schematic Floor Plan of The Large-Scale Three Compartment Test

Facility 138

Figure 41. Comparison of Sample Weight loss for Flaming Ignition of

Mock-up Upholstery Chairs made from foams 32 and 32X in the

Large-Scale Three Compartment Tests 139

Figure 42. Carbon Monoxide Concentration in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 140

Figure 43 . Carbon Monoxide Concentration in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32X

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 141

Figure 44. Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Each Compartment of The

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly. 142

Figure 45 . Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32X

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 143

Figure 46. Upper Layer Gas Temperatures in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 144

Figure 47. Upper Layer Gas Temperatures in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 145

X
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Page

Figure 48

Figure 49

Figure 50,

Figure 51,

Figure 52,

Figure 53,

Figure 54,

Figure 55,

Figure 56,

Figure 57,

Figure 58,

Figure 59,

Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentration in the Burn Room

and the Animal Exposure Chamber for Flaming Ignition of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 146

Upper Layer Gas Temperatures in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly, , , 147

Upper Layer Gas Temperatures in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32X

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly, , , , , , , 148

Comparison of Weight Loss for Preliminary Smoldering- to -Flaming

Experiments of Foams 32 and 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair

Assemblies 149

Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the One

Cigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly, , . , 150

Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the One Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly ,,,,,., 151

Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Test Facility for the One-Cigarette Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 152

Comparison of Upper Compartment Gas Temperature in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the OneCigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly, , , , 153

Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 154

Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 155

Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 156

Comparison of Upper Compartment Gas Temperatures in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly. . . . 157

xi
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Page

Figure 60.

Figure 61.

Figure 62

Figure 63.

Figure 64.

Figure 65.

Figure 66

Figure 67.

Figure 68.

Figure 69

Figure 70.

Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly. . . 158

Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly. . . 159

Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment of

the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly 160

Comparison of the Upper Compartment Gas Temperatures in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly. . . 161

Large-Scale Three Compartment Animal Exposure System - Three

Animal Exposure Chambers 162

Mass Loss of Upholstery Chair Assembly Made from Foam 32 and

Exposed to Two-Cigarettes in the Large-Scale Test Facility With

the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room 163

Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room 164

Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room 165

Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room 166

Comparison of the Upper Compartment Gas Temperature in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two

Cigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With

the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room 167

Mass Loss of Upholstery Chair Assembly Made from Foam 32 and

Exposed to Two-Cigarettes in the Large-Scale Test Facility

With the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target Room.. 168

xii
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Page

Figure 71. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the

Two-Cigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair

Assembly With the Animal Exposure Chamber Connected to the

Target Room 169

Figure 72. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chamber Connected to the Target Room 170

Figure 73. Comparison of Oxygen Concentration in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chamber Connected to the Target Room 171

Figure 74. Comparison of the Upper Compartment Gas Temperatures in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly

With the Animal Exposure Chamber Connected to the Target

Room 172

Figure 75, Mass Loss of Upholstery Chair Assembly Made from Foam 32X and

Exposed to Two -Cigarettes in the Large-Scale Test Facility With

the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room 173

Figure 76. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room 174

Figure 77. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room 175

Figure 78. Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room 176

Figure 79. Comparison of Upper Compartment Gas Temperatures in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two

Cigarette Test of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly

With the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn

Room 177

xiii
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Page

Figure 80, Mass Loss of Upholstery Chair Assembly Made from Foam 32X and

Exposed to Two “Cigarettes in the Large-Scale Test Facility With

the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target Room 178

Figure 81, Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target Room 179

Figure 82, Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target Room 180

Figure 83, Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of Foam

32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target Room 181

Figure 84. Comparison of Upper Compartment Gas Temperatures in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly

With the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target

Room. 182

xiv
FIRE TOXICITY SCALING

Emil Braun, Barbara C. Levin, Maya Paabo

,

Joshua Gurman, Trudi Holt, J. Samuel Steel

Abstract

The toxicity of the thermal decomposition products from two flexible

polyurethane foams (with and without a fire retardant) and a cotton upholstery

fabric was evaluated by a series of small-scale (using the NBS Toxicity Test

Method) and large-scale tests (in which sets of Fischer 344 rats were exposed

sequentially to either the smoldering or flaming decomposition products from

single mock-up upholstery chairs in a multiroom facility) . Small-scale and

large-scale experiments were also conducted in the NBS Cone Calorimeter and

the NBS Furniture Calorimeter, respectively, to provide other fire property

data such as rates of heat release, effective heats of combustion, specific

gas species yields, and smoke obscuration. The results of these tests were

compared on the bases of: the predictability of the N-Gas Model; the nature of

the animal deaths; and the relative contributions of CO, CO2

, and HCN to

animal lethality. The degree of toxicity observed during and following the

flaming tests (both large-scale room burns and the NBS Toxicity Test) could be

explained by an N-Gas Model which presently includes the combined

toxicological effects of CO, CO2

, and HCN. Essentially no animal deaths were

noted during the thirty minute exposures to the non- flaming or smoldering

combustion products produced in the NBS Toxicity Test Method or the largescale room test. In both sets of experiments, the respective concentrations

of CO, CO2

, and HCN were comparable. Post-exposure deaths, however, occurred

1
following the small-scale non-flaming foam or cotton tests, but not following

exposures to the smoldering phase of the large-scale tests. The ratio of

yields of CO2 to CO were mostly comparable in all four sets of experiments

In the large-scale room tests, little toxicological difference was noted

between decomposition products from the burn room and a second room 12 meters

away.

Keywords: Cotton; fire tests; large scale fire tests; polyurethane; small

scale fire tests; toxicity; upholstery.

1.0 Introduction

Upholstered furniture and mattresses play a major part in residential fire

losses [1,2]. It has been estimated that in 1984 cigarette/soft furnishings

fire incidents accounted for 49,000 residential structural fires. These fires

resulted in 1,530 deaths, 3950 injuries, and $320,000,000 in damages. While

cigarette- initiated fires accounted for only 7.9 percent of all residential

fires, about 65 percent of upholstered furniture fires were caused by

cigarettes; 36 percent of all residential fire deaths and 19 percent of the

injuries were attributed to cigarette- initiated fires. In a more general

study, Lingenfelter [3] reported that, during the period 1980 to 1983,

upholstered furniture accounted for 25 percent of the first items ignited in

fatal residential fires. During this same period, 63 percent of the

upholstered furniture ignitions were caused by smoldering ignition sources

such as cigarettes and heating equipment. Smoldering upholstered furniture

2
accounted for 81 percent of the deaths and 69 percent of the injuries

attributed to upholstered furniture fires. A third study reports that 80

percent of the fire victims die from smoke inhalation rather than burns [4]

Because of the large number of possible combinations of upholstery fabric and

padding material coupled with variations in furniture design, large-scale

flammability testing of each combination is prohibitively expensive and time

consximing. Efforts have been underway for several years to develop relatively

inexpensive small-scale tests for both fire growth and smoke toxicity. For

these to be useful, however, methods need to be developed to translate the

small-scale test results into meaningful predictions of real scale fire

hazards. Recently, using a very limited set of materials, a correlation

between small-scale rate of heat release data on composite assemblies and free

air burning measurements of full-scale assemblies of upholstered furniture has

been developed [5]

Similar research is needed to correlate other fire

properties data such as smoke yield and toxic potency.

Few large-scale fire evaluations in which animals have been exposed to the

products of combustion have been reported in the literature. Even fewer

studies have directly compared toxicity data from small-scale and large-scale

tests. Fitzgerald [6] reports on fire tests of an upholstered chair conducted

in a multicompartment facility. Animal exposure stations were located in

several rooms other than the room of fire origin. The upholstered chair was

exposed to a flaming ignition source and the mean time to death of each group

of animals was reported. These results were compared to analytical results

obtained from the Monsanto Cube, an 8 ft.x 8 ft. x 8 ft. calorimeter. Grand

3
et al. [7] exposed animals located in a target room to gaseous decomposition

products from a fully furnished burn room connected to the target room by a corridor which was open at one end. Alarie et al.[8] compared toxicity

results obtained with the University of Pittsburgh combustion product toxicity

apparatus to room corner tests of fiberglass reinforced polyester exposed to a flaming ignition source. A similar approach was followed by Alarie et al.[9]

and Braun et al.[10] in evaluating the toxicity of combustion products

produced by smoldering upholstery chairs in a closed room. A covered

cigarette was used as the ignition source.

The objective of this work was to investigate the correlation between the

burning behavior of furniture components in small-scale laboratory test

methods and in large-scale experiments. The collected fire property data

would also be used to guide the development of and/or establish the validity

of computer fire models. Therefore, not all of the data shown in tables and

graphs in this report are fully discussed in the text. Combustion

characterization of the individual components was performed with the Cone

Calorimeter, and the toxicological evaluation was performed using the National

Bureau of Standards (NBS) toxicity protocol. Mock-up upholstered chairs of

the same materials were evaluated using the NBS furniture calorimeter and in

large-scale tests performed in a three compartment configuration consisting of

a burn room, a corridor, and a second room (i.e., a target room).

Because cigarette- initiated fires are much more frequent than fires caused by

small flame ignition sources, the large-scale tests were designed to simulate

cigarette ignition and long term smoldering of an upholstered chair followed

4
by flaming of the remaining combustible materials. This smoldering- flaming

transitional scenario is a real and frequent occurrence in residential fires.

Fire growth and smoke toxicity were measured during both stages of fire

development. Since the transition from smoldering- to- flaming combustion is

not well understood and appears as a random uncontrolled process, flaming

combustion was forced by applying a burner to the surface of the mock-up

upholstered chair. Animals were exposed to the decomposition products

generated during each type of combustion. Small-scale tests were performed on

the individual components as well as cone calorimeter tests on the fabric and

foam combination. Animal lethality and yields of gaseous combustion products

were used to compare results between the non- flaming decomposition in the

small-scale tests and the smoldering decomposition in the large-scale

experiments. Similar comparisons were made between the atmospheres developed

during flaming combustion in small- and large-scale tests.

Since the properties of the resilient material dominate the flammability of a chair assembly, two polyurethane foams with different burning behavior were

used. These and the other materials are described next. Section 3 of this

report describes each individual test method and procedure along with a presentation of the test results. Section 4 is a comparison of test results

among the different test methods or procedures.

2.0 Materials

The materials used in these experiments are commonly found in upholstered

furniture, namely, flexible polyurethane foam and cotton upholstery fabric.

5
In a real furniture product, foams of varying density and different fabric

construction and type are used in the seat, sides, and back assemblies. In

order to simplify the experimental design, each chair mock-up consisted

exclusively of one of two foams covered with a fabric on a steel frame.

The two foams were based on similar formulations. However, one contained a chlorinated phosphate compound that allowed it to meet the State of

California's requirements for cigarette ignition resistance and flame

resistance of resilient cellular material used in upholstered furniture [11].

Both the treated (32X) and non-treated (32) foam had a density of 22.3 kg/m^

The cotton upholstery fabric was selected to ensure that the entire assembly

would smolder when exposed to a burning cigarette. It was a Haitian cotton

weighing 0.7 kg/m^

The chairs were ignited using the standard cigarette prescribed by the State

of California [11] and the Upholstered Furniture Action Council [12]. They

were 85 mm long and had a circumference of 25 mm. The cigarettes were without

filters and were made from natural tobacco with a density of 0.27 ± 0.02 g/cc

and a total weight of 1.1 ± 0.1 g.

3.0 Test Procedures and Results

The test procedures were divided into three categories; small-scale tests,

full-size free burn, and large-scale compartment tests. The small-scale tests

were used to measure the fire properties of the experimental materials under

6
well-defined exposure conditions. Toxic potencies of the individual

components were determined following the NBS toxicity protocol, while energy

release and mass loss rates were measured for the individual foams and the

foam/fabric assemblies using the Cone Calorimeter. These provide the basic

data necessary for comparison to the large-scale tests. The furniture

calorimeter tests were conducted to determine the maximum realizable free -burn

mass loss rates and gas concentrations and yields. An assessment of the

effect of the closed compartment on fire behavior could be determined from the

large-scale compartment fire tests. Each material or material combination was

tested according to the plan summarized below. The numbers in the table

indicate the number of tests performed under each combustion condition for

either foam 32 or foam 32X. Since the fabric was tested alone only in the NBS

Toxicity Test, the numbers in the table, with the exception of the fabric only

tests, need to be doubled when considering the total number of tests

performed.

Test Procedure

Summary of Fire

Foam

Tests

Fabric Assemblv

F® NF^ F NF F S/F=

Cone Calorimeter 3 3 _ 3

NBS Toxicity Test 5-6 6-7 3 9

- - Furniture Calorimeter - - 1 1

Large-scale Room Burns - - 1 3

a) Flaming

b) Nonflaming

c) Smoldering/Flaming - cigarette induced smoldering

In the remainder of this section, the procedures and results for each

individual test are described. Section 4.0 presents a comparison of results

between the various test procedures.

7
3.1 Small-scale Tests

3.1.1 NBS Toxicity Protocol

The NBS toxicity protocol has been described in detail by Levin et al. [13].

This test method uses lethality as a characteristic endpoint to measure the

toxicological potency of smoke generated from the thermal decomposition of

combustible materials. This toxic potency is reported as an LC^q

,

that is,

the amount of material which when thermally decomposed, either in flaming or

in non-flaming modes, in a small furnace produces enough combustion products

to kill 50 percent of the exposed animals either during a pre-defined exposure

period or a 14 day post-exposure observation period. In this report, combined

within- and post -exposure LCgg values are reported. The average animal

exposure chamber concentrations of CO, CO2 , and O2

, as well as HCN where

appropriate, are reported.

Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide were measured continuously by nondispersive

infrared spectroscopy. Oxygen concentrations were measured continuously by a paramagnetic analyzer. The HCN generated from the polyurethane foams was

sampled with a gas-tight syringe and analyzed using a gas chromatograph

equipped with a thermionic detector [14]

Test samples were evaluated at 25 °C above and below their autoignition

temperatures. The autoignition temperatures for the two polyurethane foams

and the cotton cover fabric were determined to be:

8
Material Autoignition Temperature r°C)

Foam 32

Foam 32X (fire -retarded)

Haitian Cotton

400-425

400

525

Foam 32 exhibited inconsistent autoignition during animal exposure

experiments. In order to ensure that the animals were only exposed to either

flaming or non-flaming decomposition conditions, non-flaming experiments were

performed at 375 ®C and 400° C, while flaming animal experiments were conducted

at 400 °C and 450° C (one flaming analytical experiment was conducted at 400° C)

Six animals, Fischer 344 male rats weighing 200 to 300 g, were exposed in the

head-only mode in each experiment designated by an "R" in tables 1, 2, and 3.

Exposures were for 30 minutes , at which time the animals were withdrawn and

the survivors held for observation for a minimum of 14 days . The number of

animals that died at each mass loading of material was plotted to produce a concentration- response curve from which an LC^g value was statistically

calculated [15]

Animals that were still losing weight on day 14 were kept

until they died or recovered as indicated by three days of successive weight

gain. All deaths, even those occurring after the normal 14 day observation

period, were included in the LC^g calculation.

During some of the experiments , one or two animals were surgically prepared

with a femoral arterial cannula 24 hours before experiments [16] so that blood

carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) could be measured. Surviving cannulated animals were

sacrificed following the 30 minute exposure and only counted in the

9
determination of the LC^q if they died during the exposure. If no deaths

occurred at the highest smoke concentration tested, the LC^q is listed as greater than that concentration.

The chemical and toxicological data obtained from the non- treated polyurethane

foam, 32, thermally decomposed under non-flaming and flaming conditions, are

presented in table 1. Similar to other non- treated polyurethane foams tested

in this laboratory, no animal deaths occurred during the 30 minute exposures

to smoke concentrations up to 40 mg/i regardless of the mode of decomposition

[13,17,18]. Post-exposure deaths only occurred following the non-flaming

experiments. The LCjq value for the non- flaming mode was estimated to be 39 ±

2 mg/i . The LC^q value for the flaming mode was greater than 40 mg/i , i.e.,

no animal deaths were noted from any of the concentrations tested up to 40

mg/i

The chemical and toxicological data obtained from the treated polyurethane

foam, 32X, thermally decomposed under non- flaming and flaming conditions are presented in table 2. Within- exposure animal deaths were observed in these

experiments in addition to post-exposure deaths. The LC^q value for the non- flaming mode was 28 mg/i with 95% confidence limits of 24 to 32 mg/i , while

the flaming mode had an LC^q value of 27 mg/Jl with 95% confidence limits of 22

to 34 mg/i

All the chemical and toxicological data collected from the thermal degradation

of the Haitian cotton upholstery fabric are shown in table 3. In the non- flaming mode at 500° C, the LC^ q value of the cotton was 28 mg/Ji with 95%

10
confidence limits of 25 to 31 mg/i. No animal deaths occurred within the

exposure period and all post-exposure deaths occurred within four days. In

the flaming mode at 525° C, it was determined that the LC^q value for cotton

was greater than 50 mg/i. No deaths were observed in any flaming tests.

Table 4 is a tabulation of the concentrations of CO, CO2 , and HCN at the

calculated LC^g values for the two polyurethane foams, 32 and 32X, and the

Haitian cotton upholstery fabric. These values were used as target values for

the introduction of animals into the combustion products from the large-scale

experiments

Previous work [19] has shown that the amount of HCN generated by the thermal

decomposition of flexible polyurethane foam depends on the amount of char

residue present prior to the initiation of flaming combustion. When a flexible polyurethane foam was heated under non- flaming oxidative conditions

in the NBS toxicity test method, a char was produced. Subsequent heating of

this char to temperatures normally inducing flaming combustion increased the

amount of HCN produced, compared to direct flaming of the virgin flexible

polyurethane foam. (These ramped heating experiments did not result in

flaming combustion.) Similar experiments were conducted with foams 32 and

32X. Figure 1 shows the results of exposing approximately 3.9 gm of foam,

which is an equivalent material loading of 20 mg/i, to a temperature of 375°C

for 30 minutes. Ramping the temperature up to 800°C increased the HCN

concentration in the exposure chamber from < 5ppm to a maximum of 170 ppm for

the non- treated foam and 220 ppm for the fire retarded treated foam. This was nearly 3 times the average HCN concentration for the non- treated foam and

11
nearly 2 times the average HCN concentration for the treated foam measured

under flaming conditions

3.1.2 Cone Calorimeter

A bench- scale rate of heat release calorimeter has been developed based on the

oxygen consumption principle (figure 2) [20] . Huggett [21] showed that a constant value of energy is released per unit mass of oxygen consumed for a wide range of organic fuels. Thus the energy release rate is computed from

the measurements of mass flow rate and oxygen concentration through the

exhaust stack. The effective heat of combustion can readily be determined

from the heat release rate and the corresponding measured mass loss rate of

the sample. Specific gas species yields can be computed in the same manner.

In these experiments, the gas species measured were CO2 , CO, H2 O, and total

organic vapors. Smoke obscuration was characterized by the attenuation of a laser beam and reported as the extinction area per unit mass of material

consumed. The soot yield was determined by passing a fraction of the effluent

gas stream through a filter throughout the test exposure. The weight increase

of the filter per total weight loss of the sample was reported.

The two polyurethane foam samples were tested individually and with the cotton

fabric in rhe horizontal, face-up orientation in both a piloted and nonpiloted exposure with an external incident flux of 25 kW/m^ . To simulate preflashover conditions in a compartment, it has been customary to conduct Cone

Calorimeter tests at this irradiance . The sample size was 100 x 100 mm with a

12
thickness of 50 mm. Piloted tests employed a spark ignitor near the sample

surface to induce flaming. The non-piloted tests did not flame. when the

foam was covered with the cotton upholstery fabric, the tests were conducted

using the spark ignitor. Three replicates of each type of test were conducted

on each polyurethane foam piloted and non-piloted tests of the foam

materials alone and piloted tests of the fabric/foam assemblies.

Figures 3-9 show the data for the non- treated foam exposed with and without

the cover fabric to an external incident energy of 25 kW/m^ . Figures 10-16

show the data for the treated foam for the same exposure conditions. In order

to better resolve the data from these tests, the time axis for the non-treated

foam was 0 to 900 seconds , while the time axis for the treated foam was 0 to

600 seconds. Table 5 summarizes the average values of three replicates at

each test condition at the time of the maximum heat release rate. In

addition, the average ignition delay times and overall soot yields are

tabulated. For each foam, at the maximum rate of heat release, non- flaming

exposures produced more CO, total unburned hydrocarbons and a greater

concentration of particulates, with a higher total soot yield, than flaming

exposures. The non-treated foam also produced more CO2 and H2 O in the non- flaming exposure than in the flaming exposure.

Comparing the flaming foam tests with and without a cover fabric, both the

treated and the non-treated foams had similar peaks for the maximum rate of

heat release occurring at about the same time. The soot yields without a cover fabric are larger for the treated foam (0.06 kg of soot per kg of

13
material burned) than for the non-treated foam (0.04 kg of soot per kg of

material burned) . The presence of the cover fabric reduced the yield of soot

of both foams to 0.02 kg/kg. During the non- flaming experiments, the treated

foam had a lower mass burning rate and produced a greater quantity of CO,

unburned hydrocarbons and particulates. The non-treated foam produced more

CO2 and H2 O per mass of material burned.

Table 6 is a summary of the average overall yield values for CO and CO2 . for

the two foams with and without the cotton fabric cover. Under flaming

conditions, the flame retardant treated foam without a cover fabric produced

1,13 kg of CO2 per kg of material burned. This was less than that produced by

the non-treated foam, 2.34 kg of CO2 per kg of material burned, under flaming

conditions. The non-treated foam produced significantly less CO, 0.013 kg/kg,

than the treated foam, 0.045 kg/kg, whereas under non- flaming conditions the

CO yields were similar.

Referring to figure 3, the fabric-covered foam samples showed two burning

peaks. The initial peak can be attributed to the burning of the fabric cover,

while the second peak represents the burning foam. The second peak is smaller

and broader than the flaming (bare) foam results because of the presence of

charred fabric, which probably shields and inhibits active involvement of the

foam. The second peak rate of heat release, mass loss rate, CO production,

CO2 production and H2 O production for the assembly appear to be between the

piloted and non-piloted results of the foam-only tests but generally closer to

the flaming foam data.

14
The presence of the cotton cover fabric during flaming tests decreased the

production of CO from 0.045 kg/kg to 0.026 kg/kg for the treated foam but

increased the production of CO from 0.013 kg/kg to 0.033 kg/kg for the non- treated foam. The cotton cover fabric also reduced the average yield of CO2 for both foams. However, the cotton fabric in conjunction with the treated

foam had an average CO2 yield of 0.74 kg/kg, which was less than that measured

in the non- flaming treated foam tests of 1.62 kg/kg.

3.2 Mock-up Chair Tests - -Furniture Calorimeter

The furniture calorimeter [22] was designed to measure the heat release and

mass loss rates of a piece of furniture burning in the open air. Figure 17 is

a schematic representation of the apparatus. The basic principle of the

apparatus, oxygen consumption calorimetry, is the same as that of the cone

calorimeter previously described. The similarity to the cone calorimeter

suggests direct comparability of the data from the two devices. Such

correlations have been pursued for peak rate of heat release [5] and are now

underway for gaseous combustion product yields.

In this study, during the burning of mock-up upholstered chairs, continuous

measurements were made of gas velocity through the duct, oxygen concentration,

gas temperature and mass loss so that the rate of heat release and mass loss

rate could be computed. The concentrations of carbon monoxide and carbon

dioxide were also continuously monitored. Evacuated bulbs were used to sample

the effluent gases for HCN at critical times. Grab samples were taken from two

locations in the exhaust stack of the calorimeter. The first sampling port

15
was located in the vertical riser directly above the burning sample

approximately 2 m from the exhaust intake. The second sampling port was at

the same location as the other sampling instruments, about 10 m from the

exhaust intake. These samples were analyzed for HCN on a gas chromatograph

[14].

The mock-up chair assembly consisted of a steel framework with sides, back,

and bottom designed to hold square cushions measuring 0.61 m on a side by 0 .

m thick (figure 18). Four cushions were used per chair. Each cushion was

made by wrapping the Haitian cotton upholstery fabric around a correctly sized

foam slab. The fabric was stapled closed along each seam. The cushions were

installed into the steel frame and the entire assembly, resting on a load

platform, was placed under the calorimeter hood. (A similar chair assembly

and load platform was used in the large-scale tests.)

Two types of tests were conducted with each foam. The first type involved the

flaming ignition of the mock-up assembly initiated with a small hand held

butane torch set to produce a diffusion flame approximately 25 cm long. The

torch was applied to the center of the back cushion. This flame produced

sufficient energy to ignite the back cushion, while not being significantly

detectable by the calorimeter instrumentation. In the second type, smoldering

was initiated with a pair of burning cigarettes placed on the bottom cushion

near each side crevice. The same torch was used to cause a transition from

smoldering to flaming combustion. One chair mock-up of each foam type was

burned.

16
3.2.1 Flaming Furniture Calorimeter Tests

Table 7 summarizes the observations made during the testing of the two chair

assemblies in the flaming ignition mode. For the mock-up chair containing the

non- treated foam, the butane flame was applied for 30 seconds to the center of

the back cushion. The initial flames appeared to extinguish themselves in

about two minutes. The torch was reapplied to the charred cavity for about

two seconds. This produced a stable flame within the cavity that continued to

grow. The treated foam chair was exposed to the butane torch for two minutes.

In this case, the flames also decreased but did not self - extinguish

Approximately two minutes and 50 seconds into the test, the flames began to

increase in intensity.

Figures 19 and 20 show the gas concentrations for the measured gases (CO2

, CO,

HCN, and O2 ) produced by foams 32 and 32X, respectively. The peak HCN data

presented in these figures are samples analyzed from both sampling ports. The

time lag between the two sampling points was less than the ten second sampling

interval of the other gas analyzers and the data are shown with no compensation for this difference between sampling points. The HCN

concentration was 22 ppm for the treated foam and 7 ppm for the non- treated

foam. While it is not clear from the non- treated foam data, the treated foam

data appear to indicate that the production of HCN follows a similar form to

the production of CO2

.

The rates of heat release for these two assemblies are shown in figure 21.

The non- treated foam, 32, reached its maximum heat release rate of 0.52 MW in

17
7.5 minutes. This was more rapid than the treated foam, 32X, which had a maximum heat release rate of 0.50 MW 9 minutes from the start of the test.

The rate of heat release of the treated foam appears to have two peaks.

However, this is an artifact of the test caused by the collapse of one of the

side cushions onto the bottom cushion partially quenching the flames.

As a measure of the impact a burning furniture item would have on other items

in close proximity, a heat flux sensor was mounted 0.5 m from the leading edge

of the assembly, level with the top of the seat cushion. Figure 22 shows the

response of this sensor. During the maximum heat release rate the target

sensor indicated that another material would have been exposed to a heat flux

of 11 and 10 kW/m^ for foams 32 and 32X, respectively. These would be

sufficient to ignite an "especially easily igni table" target fuel [23].

Figure 23 shows the weight loss from chair assemblies made with foams 32 and

32X. During the short period of steady- state burning the average weight loss

rate was found to be 16 g/s and 14 g/s for foams 32 and 32X, respectively.

Figures 24 to 27 show the effective heats of combustion and the gas yield data

for CO2

, CO, and H2 O. The HCN yields are tabulated in table 8. Figure 28

shows the generation of smoke particulates in terms of the extinction

coefficient during the growth and decay of the fire.

3.2.2 Cigarette Ignition Furniture Calorimeter Tests

In each of the smoldering to flaming transition tests, two cigarettes, one

along each side crevice, were placed approximately 15 cm from the front edge

of the chair assembly, with the non- smoldering end of each cigarette in

18
contact with the vertical side wall (figure 29) . The rationale for using two

cigarettes is the same as that in the large-scale tests (see section 4) . The

instrumentation and geometry were identical to the flaming furniture

calorimeter tests described in section 3.2.1.

Table 9 summarizes the observations made during these two tests. The test

involving the non- treated foam chair flamed spontaneously 59 minutes and 54

seconds into the test. With the foam 32X chair, one hour into the test, the

butane torch was applied to the mid-point of the back cushion for 2 minutes

and 50 seconds

Figure 30 shows the sample weight loss for the chairs with foams 32 and 32X.

For the foam 32X chair, no appreciable weight loss occurs for the first 30

minutes of the test; while, for the non- treated foam chair, 32, the first sign

of steady weight loss occurs 24 minutes into the test. The foam 32 chair had

a measurable average weight loss rate during smoldering of 0.66 g/s , while the

comparable value for the foam 32X chair was 0.20 g/s. During the flaming

phase of these tests, the weight loss rates were 37 g/s and 25 g/s for foams

32 and 32X, respectively. The flaming weight loss rate values following a period of smoldering are much greater than those previously measured in the

flaming initiated tests.

The corresponding data for CO2

, CO, O2

, and HCN are shown in figure 31 for

foam 32 chair and figure 32 for foam 32X chair. While the data show that both

foams produce small amounts of HCN (1 to 2 ppm) during the smoldering portion

of the burn, the transition to flaming resulted in a marked increase in the

19
concentration of HCN. Table 10 shows the HCN yield values for these two

tests. The peak HCN concentration was 88 ppm for the treated foam chair and

16 ppm for the non- treated foam chair. For both types of foam, smoldering of

the chair assembly prior to flaming generated more HCN than direct flaming of

the chair assembly (7 ppm and 16 ppm for the non- treated foam chair and 22 ppm

and 88 ppm for the treated foam chair). Similar to the flaming- initiated

tests, the peak in HCN production seems to coincide with the peak in

generation of CO2

. Carbon monoxide production seems to be higher for the foam

32X chair than for the foam 32 chair.

The gaseous yield data for CO2 , CO, H2 O, and the effective heat of combustion,

figures 33 to 36, display large fluctuations due to the fluctuations in weight

loss during the early part of the smoldering phase. (These erratic

fluctuations have been removed from the graphs for the sake of clarity.)

However, once a detectable and steady weight loss is achieved, the data, with

the exception of CO2 , tend to approach a quasi-steady state value. The values

for these parameters can be separated into smoldering and flaming regions.

The CO2 (figure 33) and CO (figure 34) data show, at best, modest differences

between the treated and non-treated foam assemblies. The water yields and

effective heats of combustion during smoldering and flaming combustion, from

the two chair assemblies shown in figures 35 and 36, respectively, are also

similar

Figure 37 shows the smoke extinction coefficient for both foams. The data

show that two maximum values for each material assembly exist and that

significant smoke development is caused by small amounts of decomposed

20
material. The first maximum for both chair assemblies is coincident with a weight loss of approximately 0.21 kg of material. This is only a weight loss

of 3 to 4% of the total combustible mass of the chair assemblies. The second

occurs just after the transition to flaming combustion.

The rates of heat release are shown in figure 38. There is no significant

heat released prior to the transition to flaming combustion. Following the

initiation of flaming, the peak rate of heat released by the foam 32 chair was

1.12 MW and 0.63 MW for the foam 32X chair. Both of these tests had higher

maximum heat release rates than the previous flaming- initiated tests (0.52 MW

for foam 32 and 0.50 MW for foam 32X)

The heat flux received by a target

material is also negligible (<0.5 kW/m^ ) prior to the transition to flaming

combustion (figure 39)The time of maximum target irradiance corresponds to

the time of the maximum heat release rate for each material. The maximum

target irradiance for the foam 32 chair was 21 kW/m^ . Based on previous work

[23], this means that a second item, having a "normal" ignitability level,

located adjacent to this mock-up upholstery chair might have been expected to

ignite. With a target irradiance of 15 kW/m^ , chairs made from foam 32X and

Haitian cotton would not have been expected to ignite the same type of

secondary items under comparable exposure times

Table 11 is a summary of the burning characteristics of the polyurethane foam

mock-up chair assemblies tested in the furniture calorimeter. In general,

smoldering the upholstery assembly prior to inducing flaming, resulted in a higher peak rate of mass loss which, in turn, caused an increase in the heat

release rate, target irradiance, and extinction coefficient. The maximum

21
effective heat of combustion was not affected by the increased weight loss

rate nor were the yield values for CO2 , CO, and H2 O greatly altered. The HCN

yield, during flaming, increased as a result of the initial smoldering

decomposition of the chair assemblies. It was approximately 75% greater for

the foam 32 chair and 4 times greater for the foam 32X chair. Since HCN is

not sampled continuously, the maximum HCN values reported for all tests may

not be true maximums . Comparing work on commercially- constructed upholstery

items [22] with results from these assemblies shows that measured target

irradiances and maximum heat release rates were about 30% lower for the

current tests, while the effective heats of combustion were about the same.

3.3 Large-scale Three Compartment Tests

A total of nine building- scale tests were conducted to evaluate the toxic

potency of the atmosphere in the test facility during various phases of fire

development. Mock-up upholstery chairs, with an initial mass of approximately

5.7 kg, identical to those used in the furniture calorimeter experiments were

placed on a load platform in a burn room and ignited with a burner flame or allowed to smolder for about 60 minutes and then forced into flaming with a burner flame. Four of these tests involved the use of animals. In all of the

tests analytical data on gas temperatures, smoke obscuration, mass loss, flow

between compartments, and concentrations of oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon

dioxide, and HCN were recorded.

22
3.3.1 Room-Corridor-Room Configuration

The experimental arrangement is shown in figure 40 and consisted of two rooms,

a burn room and a second room (i.e. target room), connected to a long

corridor. The dimensions of the corridor and adjoining rooms and door sizes

are described in table 12 and the construction materials are described in

table 13 . With the exception of an undercut of approximately 10 mm at the

door at the end of the corridor and leaks through construction cracks, these

tests were all conducted with the burn facility closed to the rest of the

building.

3.3.2 Instrumentation

The locations of all instrumentation (the thermocouples, smoke meters, gas

analyzers , pressure transducers , and a load platform) that were used in the

double -room/corridor configuration are summarized in table 14 and most are shown in figure 40. Data were recorded with an automatic data logging system

at a rate of 24 channels per second with a repeat cycle time of 10 seconds.

(For a discussion of the mathematical calculations used to derive engineering

values from instrumental measurements, see Peacock et al. [24].)

Two NBS toxicity protocol animal exposure chambers (without animals and with

the animal ports sealed) were used during the analytical experiments . One was connected to the burn room via a 55 mm diameter pyrex sampling line, with the

exhaust gases returned to the bottom of the burn room. The other animal

exposure chamber was similarly connected to the target room. Each animal

23
exposure chamber had its own CO, CO2

, and O2 analyzers, as well as a thermocouple and a port connection to take bulb samples for HCN analysis. A

continuous flow of gas was maintained through each chamber for the duration of

the analytical tests.

For the animal exposure experiments, three such animal exposure chambers (each

equipped with gas analyzers for CO, CO2

, and O2 as well as a thermocouple and

an individual sampling port for HCN) were connected either to the burn room

animal sampling line or to the target room animal sampling line. These

experiments were designed to expose sets of six rats for 30 minutes to

different time segments of the decomposition products from the burning mock-up

upholstered chairs from either the burn room or the target room. During the

smoldering phase of burning, gases from either the burn room or the target

room were circulated through all three exposure chambers with no animals

present. A continuous flow of gas was maintained through the animal exposure

chambers from their respective rooms from the beginning of the test until the

time the atmosphere in the exposure chamber reached pre-selected conditions.

At the desired time of exposure, the sampling and return lines to an

individual chamber, now filled with smoke, were closed and the animals

introduced such that their heads were exposed to the static chamber

atmosphere. With the exception of the effect the animals and the analyzers

had on the atmosphere in each chamber, chamber gases were not altered during

each 30 minute exposure. Three sets of rats were exposed to different time

fractions of gases generated from the smoldering decomposition. Similarly,

two sets of animals were exposed to the smoke from the flaming phase of the

fire

24
3.3.3 Analytical Experiments

A total of five exploratory analytical experiments were performed to provide

baseline data prior to the animal exposure experiments and for ultimate

comparison to computer-calculated hazard assessment results. Two experiments

were strictly flaming tests initiated by a small burner impinging on the

inside surface of the back cushion. The other three experiments were

smoldering to flaming transition tests initiated by lit cigarettes placed on

the side crevices of the mock-up assembly and later forced into a flaming fire

as previously described with the furniture calorimeter tests in section 3.2.2.

3 . 3 . 3 .

Flaming Analytical Experiments

The first two tests were initiated by a natural gas burner located such that

the burner flame impinged on the back cushion approximately 20 cm from the

left side cushion and 15 cm above the bottom cushion. The burner was equipped

with a remotely controlled automatic igniter and thermocouple sensor. With

the gas flow set to produce approximately a 12 cm flame , the electric ignitor

was used to start each flaming test. The data acquisition system was started

with the visible appearance of the burner flame.

In both flaming experiments, surface charring was visible almost immediately

after the ignition of the burner. However, a stable flame on the back cushion

was not established for four minutes on the chair containing foam 32, and 5.5

minutes on the chair with treated foam 32X. Steady- state burning, as measured

25
by sample weight loss, did not develop for the first six minutes of the

experiment for the foam 32 chair and eight minutes for the foam 32X chair.

Figure 41 shows the weight loss as a function of time for these two

experiments. During steady- state burning, the average rate of weight loss for

the foam 32X chair was 16 g/s , while the foam 32 chair burned at the rate of

25 g/s. At the conclusion of each test, less than 10 % of the original mass

of combustible material remained in the burn room; no material was observed to

have fallen off of the load platform.

Figures 42 and 43 show the CO data for foam 32 chair and foam 32X chair,

respectively, during flaming combustion. Figures 44 and 45 show the CO2 data

and figures 46 and 47 show the upper layer gas temperatures for each foam

chair test.

By the end of each of the tests, the various compartments were completely

filled with smoke. It was no longer possible to assume that there existed an

upper layer filled with smoke and a lower layer clear of combustion products.

Ignoring losses from minor openings in the test facility, the lower limit for

the mass concentration of decomposition products was approximately 56 mg/i

This was determined by dividing the total mass of material consumed by the

volume of the three compartment test facility. The peak CO, CO2

, and HCN

values produced in the burn room and target room of the test facility are

tabulated in table 15. Also listed in this table are the maximum average

upper layer and average lower layer temperatures and minimum oxygen

concentrations in the burn room and target room. These data indicate that the

atmospheric conditions in the burn room were much more severe than in the

26
T

3

target room. Table 16 compares the gas and temperature results from the test

facility with the exposure chambers. No gas samples for HCN analysis were

taken from the exposure chamber connected to the target room. During these

experiments the flow rate through the animal exposure chambers were maintained

at

Flow Rate from

Chair with Burn Room Target Room

('i/min) (i/min)

Foam 32 200 210

Foam 32X 155 150

Figure 48 shows a comparison of CO2 concentrations between the burn room and

the animal exposure chamber connected to the burn room during a flaming

ignition test for the foam 32 chair. At the above flow rates, the animal

exposure chambers require approximately three to four minutes for a 90% change

in the chamber atmosphere. This means that changes in the exposure chamber

atmosphere lag behind the changes in the burn room atmosphere. In this test,

the burn room atmosphere and the animal exposure chamber achieved near

equilibrium after the end of active burning. Furthermore, since the later

tests never achieved steady- state gas concentrations during the filling of the

first four animal exposure chambers in either the burn room or the target

room, the maximum in the animal exposure chamber was always less than the

maximum in the burn facility. This smoothing effect is also evident in figure

48. Because of a failure in the sampling line for the gas analyzers in the

burn room, similar burn room data for the chair containing the treated foam

was not obtained. However, similar results were observed in the gas data

associated with the burn room in other tests of the treated foam.

27
The times to achieve maximum CO concentration in the burn room and its animal

exposure chamber, the target room and its animal exposure chamber are listed

below.

Time of Maximum CO (s)

Chair with Burn Room Exd. Chamber Tareet Room Ext) . Chamber

Foam 32 480 740 700 1010

Foam 32X 720 1500 910 1220

Comparison of the target room data with the burn room data showed that the

time difference of the peak CO concentration between the burn room and the

target room were about the same for foam 32 (220 seconds) and foam 32X (190

seconds) . Differences of time to maximum CO concentration between either the

burn room or the target room and its associated exposure chamber were within

50 seconds of each other. For foam 32, the time between peaks was marginally

less for the burn room (260 seconds) than for the target room (310 seconds)

The time to peak CO for the burn room exposure chamber, foam 32X, is unusually

high because the intake gate valve had been inadvertently left closed prior to

the start of the test. This was corrected about 600 seconds from the start of

the test and the observed delay was due, in part, to the initial filling of

the exposure chamber

Figures 49 and 50 show the upper compartment temperatures for these flaming

experiments for foam assemblies 32 and 32X, respectively. Based on a criterion of 600® C [25,26] in the upper half of the burn room compartment, the

non- treated foam chair test would have resulted in flashover, while the

treated foam chair test would not have caused flashover. If 500° C [27] were

28
used as the criterion for flashover, both tests would have resulted in

flashover conditions in the burn room. In either case, in the burn room,

upper compartment temperatures decayed rapidly following peak values. Maximum

upper compartment temperatures in the target room were well below either

flashover criterion. Heat losses in the sampling lines to the animal exposure

chambers resulted in chamber temperatures between 25°C and 30°C, as indicated

in table 16 . These are well within the maximum average temperatures

recommended for the animal toxicity exposures [28].

3. 3. 3.Smoldering to Flaming Transition, Analytical Experiments

Three exploratory experiments were conducted using cigarettes as the ignition

source. These experiments were designed to provide an extended period of

smoldering combustion followed by a forced transition to flaming combustion.

The first preliminary smoldering experiment used one cigarette placed on the

center front edge of the bottom cushion, while all other smoldering to flaming

experiments used two cigarettes placed in opposite side crevices. (As shall

be shown, the addition of a second cigarette merely accelerated the

development of what would be considered to be a toxic atmosphere in the burn

facility without appreciably affecting the smoldering process.) The animal

exposure chambers were connected to the burn room and target room as described

for the flaming experiments . The flow rates through the chambers varied

because of differences in blower motors

29
Flow Rate from

Chair with Ignition Source Burn Room Target Room

('i/min) ('i/min)

Foam 32 one cigarette 250 625

Foam 32 two cigarettes 250 625

Foam 32X two cigarettes 190 185

The one-cigarette experiment took the longest time to develop. Approximately

21 minutes elapsed before smoke could be seen in the corridor for the one- cigarette experiment as compared to 12 minutes for the two -cigarette foam 32

chair experiment. The foam 32X chair experiment took 18.5 minutes to begin

filling the corridor with visible smoke. (After approximately 60 minutes from

the start of each experiment, flaming combustion was initiated by igniting the

back cushion with the same gas burner used in the strictly flaming large-scale

experiments.) For the one-cigarette experiment, the burner impinged on the

left side cushion. All other experiments had the burner impinging on the back

cushion.

The mass loss for each mock-up upholstery chair in the smoldering to flaming

transition experiments is shown in figure 51. (Because of an instrumental

failure of the load cell in the two -cigarette foam 32 chair experiment, the

data presented for this experiment in figure 51 are composites of the two

subsequent animal exposure experiments normalized to the turn-on time of the

ignition burner.) Two mass loss rates can be distinguished in these

experiments. The first is associated with the smoldering of the mock-up

assembly, while the second represents flaming combustion. For the foam 32

chair experiment, the average smoldering mass loss was 0.10 g/s for the

single-cigarette experiment and 0.26 g/s for the two-cigarette case. For the

treated foam chair, the mass loss rate was 0.33 g/s for the two-cigarette

30
case

A brief induction period followed the ignition of the gas burner. The

average mass loss rate did not change appreciably during the transition to

full flame involvement. During the flaming portion of the experiment, these

mass loss rates increased to 21 g/s for the one-cigarette and 18 g/s for the

two-cigarette foam 32 chair experiments, while for the two-cigarette foam 32X

chair experiment the mass loss rate increased to 30 g/s.

Table 17 summarizes the gas and temperature data for these experiments just

prior to the ignition of the burner. It can be seen that for the foam 32 twocigarette experiment produced approximately three times as much CO in the

animal chamber in sixty minutes as the one -cigarette experiment produced in

seventy minutes . The other parameters were only marginally different from

ambient conditions, with the exception of the CO2 concentration in the burn

room. The CO2 concentration for this experiment seems to have built up more

rapidly than in any other experiment. Virtually all of the data for the foam

32 and foam 32X two -cigarette chair experiments appear to be comparable just

prior to the ignition of the burner flame. Differences in the animal exposure

chamber gas concentrations were probably due to differences in sampling flow

rates. Marginal amounts of HCN (1-6 ppm) were detected in the burn room

atmosphere for all pre-flaming test conditions. Animal exposure chamber

temperatures never exceeded 31° C.

Table 18 summarizes the gas and temperature data for the burn room, target

room, and animal exposure chambers at the time of maximum CO concentration.

In all cases this occurred after the transition to flaming combustion. The

time of the ignition of the burner as well as the time of maximum CO

31
concentration are also tabulated. The difference between these times varies

from 12.7 minutes for the one-cigarette foam 32 chair experiment to four

minutes for the two -cigarette foam 32 chair experiment. The two -cigarette

foam 32X chair experiment had a delay time of 7.3 minutes from ignition of the

burner to maximum CO concentration. Since HCN analysis was performed on grab

samples that were not necessarily taken at the time of maximum CO

concentration, the time of the measured maximum HCN concentration is also

listed.

All three experiments exceeded the upper gas temperature criterion used to

define flashover. The HCN concentration in the burn room during the foam 32X

chair experiment was three times larger than for any location of the two foam

32 chair experiments. This, however, was more a result of the sampling

technique for HCN than any differences between the two foams. Apparently, in

spite of the fact that the stainless steel sampling line from the burn room

was heated, its long length allowed for the removal of HCN from the gas stream

filling the evacuated glass bulbs. During the flaming portion of these

experiments, the HCN concentration in the animal exposure chamber connected to

the burn room exceeded the LC^q for this gas. Also, the chamber temperature

was above the recommended limits but may not have been at lethal limits, which

have not been determined. The presence of higher concentrations of HCN in the

animal exposure chamber than in the burn room were also due to losses in the

heated stainless steel HCN sampling line. This was corrected in later

experiments by sampling from the animal exposure chamber intake manifold close

to the burn room wall rather than using a separate heated stainless sampling

line. The larger diameter glass pipe had a lower loss coefficient for HCN

32
than the stainless steel tubing. In the two -cigarette foam 32X experiment the

target room animal exposure chamber contained a combined lethal concentration

of CO and HCN, but the one cigarette foam 32 experiment appears to have had

sublethal concentrations of CO and HCN even in combination with CO2

.

Figures 52 to 55 show the burn facility data for CO, CO2

, and temperature for

the foam 32 one-cigarette chair experiment, while figures 56 to 59 show the

foam 32 two-cigarette chair data for these same parameters. Figures 60 to 63

show the results for the foam 32X chair.

3.3.4 Three Compartment Animal Exposure Experiments

Four large-scale experiments were conducted wherein animals were exposed to

the combustion products generated during the smoldering and flaming phases of

decomposition. Two experiments were conducted using chairs of each

polyurethane foam. All four experiments employed the two -cigarette ignition

method used in the preliminary experiments to initiate smoldering in the mockup assembly. Each of these experiments involved the exposure of five sets of

animals (six animals per set) in a head- only mode in an exposure chamber

similar to that used in the NBS toxicity protocol. The animals used were of

the same type as those described in section 3.1.1. In each of these

experiments , three animal exposure chambers were connected in parallel to

either the burn room or the target room and animals were exposed to the

combustion products from only one of the rooms. Figure 64 shows the three

animal exposure chambers as they were used in these experiments. Initially,

33
gases from the selected room were pumped through all three exposure chambers.

At predetermined times, each chamber was individually isolated from the burn

facility by closing the connecting intake and exhaust valves to the rooms.

Six rats were simultaneously exposed to the combustion atmospheres in the

closed exposure chambers. After 30 minutes, the animals were withdrawn, the

animal ports re -plugged and the valves to the burn room or target room opened,

thereby reconnecting the animal exposure chamber to its source of smoke. This

procedure allowed for three sets of animals to be exposed sequentially to preflaming combustion conditions and two sets of animals to be exposed to the

gases from the flaming period of the experiment.

In the non- flaming small-scale toxicity tests (table 4) 50 percent of the

animals died post-exposure following exposures to combustion atmospheres in

which the CO concentration of the non- flaming gases in the animal exposure

chamber reached approximately 1000 ppm for foam 32 and 700 ppm for foam 32X.

Pure CO gas experiments at NBS have shown that 1000 ppm of CO is not lethal

and that CO does not cause post- exposure deaths [29]

The toxic contribution

of the cotton fabric was discounted, because it was felt that the bulk of the

pre-flaming smoke in the large-scale tests was a result of the decomposition

of the polyurethane foam and not the cotton fabric. The earlier two -cigarette

experiments, section 3. 3. 3. 2, indicated that smoldering would have to be

maintained for at least 60 minutes before the CO concentration in the burn

room would reach 1000 ppm. Earlier large-scale NBS unpublished room fire

tests of polyurethane foam slabs indicated that there were no post-exposure

deaths when the animals were only exposed to smoke generated later in the

experiments and containing higher concentrations of CO. Therefore, in order

34
to investigate the presence of additional toxicants causing post- exposure

deaths, animals were exposed to smoke generated earlier in the experiment to

suppress the effects of high CO concentrations. The subsequent two sets of

pre- flaming animal exposures followed 10 to 20 minutes apart. The procedure

was adjusted during each experiment to prevent the possibility of having to

remove one set of animals at the same time that another set was being

inserted.

Throughout these experiments there was a concern that the mock-up assembly

might self- ignite before all three groups of pre -flaming animals were exposed

and at least one chamber flushed with the smoke from the flaming atmospheres

for post-flaming exposures. This did occur during the first animal exposure

experiment using a foam 32 chair. However, all three pre- flaming exposures

were initiated prior to flaming. The gases in both post- flaming chambers

represented smoke from the burn room after the fire had self -extinguished.

3. 3. 4.1 Smoldering Conditions

The mass loss, CO, CO2

, O2, and upper compartment gas temperature for the twocigarette smoldering initiated foam 32 upholstery chair assembly tests are shown in figures 65 to 69 (for test with animal exposure chambers connected to

the burn room) and figures 70 to 74 (for test with animal exposure chambers

connected to the target room) . Figures 75 to 79 and 80 to 84 are the

comparable data for the two -cigarette smoldering initiated foam 32X upholstery

assemblies. Table 19 summarizes the data from tHe burn room and the target

room for these four experiments (2 mock-up chairs with foam 32 and 2 mock-up

35
chairs with foam 32X) during smoldering combustion, while table 20 summarizes

the animal exposure chamber data for each set of animals . From an analytical

point of view, these experiments represent two replicates for each material

combination and the data within each pair are indicative of the degree of

reproducibility of this kind of test.

In the first experiment on the foam 32 chair (table 19)

,

the mock-up assembly

self- ignited in 57.8 minutes. While in the second experiment with this foam,

the mock-up assembly was forced into ignition at 70.6 minutes. The

decomposition rate of the first experiment was a little higher than in the

second experiment. The reason for this is unclear and may be due to

tensioning of the fabric around the foam during construction of the cushions

or fit of the cushions in the chair frame.

During smoldering combustion of the foam 32 chair, CO2 and HCN production were

very small and the oxygen concentration did not differ substantially from

ambient conditions. However, the CO concentration increased to approximately

1500 ppm in 34.8 minutes and the smoke level dropped to the floor of the

corridor reducing visibility across the corridor to zero in 45 minutes.

Because of the lower decomposition rate of the foam 32X chair, it took longer

to exceed the 1000 ppm CO level. Again, the CO2 and HCN concentrations were

low and the oxygen concentrations were near the initial values. However, the

CO concentration ultimately reached 1200 ppm in the first foam 32X chair

experiment and is estimated, based on the CO burn room to CO target room ratio

from previous tests, to have been over 2200 ppm in the second experiment.

36
Zero visibility across the corridor was achieved in 45.8 minutes and 49.0

minutes for the two experiments

The total flow of combustion products from the burn facility to the animal

exposure chambers was maintained at an average of

Flow Rate from

Chair with Burn Room Target Room

('i/min) ('i/min)

Foam 32 320 330

Foam 32X 190 320

Approximately a third of this flow was diverted to each exposure chamber.

Three air changes in the exposure chamber required about six minutes for all

the experiments except for the foam 32X chair burn room sampling which,

because of the low flow rate, required ten minutes for three air changes.

An estimate of the total smoke mass loading for each animal exposure chamber

was determined by first distributing the amount of material consumed among the

three compartments according to the fractional concentration of CO in each

compartment. The pyrolysate concentration in each compartment was calculated

by dividing the material distribution in each compartment by the smoke layer

volume in that compartment. The concentration of pyrolysate in the animal

exposure chamber was calculated as the average ratio of CO concentration in

the room to the CO concentration in the animal exposure chamber times the

average pyrolysate concentration in the room. During the latter part of the

filling process for the third animal exposure chamber, the total compartment

volume was used because the smoke layer had reached the floor of the largescale facility. Since the smoke in each compartment was not uniformly

37
distributed throughout the compartment volume, this calculation represents a lower limit on the concentration of the pyrolysate.

The pyrolysate concentration values (i.e. material loading) are tabulated in

table 20 for either the burn room or the target room and the third animal

exposure chamber. While initial animal exposures were conducted under low CO

concentrations, those just prior to the transition to flaming combustion were

near or above the CO conditions previously determined from the LC^q data of

the NBS toxicity protocol. Out of 72 animals exposed to the decomposition

products from smoldering foams 32 and 32X chair assemblies, only one animal

was observed to have died. This animal died during the 30 minute exposure to

the target room combustion products resulting from the decomposition of the

foam 32 chair.

3. 3. 4.

Flaming Conditions

With the exception of the first animal exposure test of the foam 32 chair

which spontaneously burst into flames, the remaining three experiments were

forced into flaming combustion as noted in table 21. This table also

summarizes the burn facility data at the time of maximum CO concentration.

The first foam 32 chair experiment self- ignited at 57.8 minutes into the

experiment. The time delay from when the burner was turned on (or the selfignition time) to the maximum CO concentration in the burn room varied from

2.3 minutes for the first foam 32 chair experiment to 17 minutes for the

second foam 32X chair experiment. The other two experiments had about five

minute delays. The reason for this variation is unclear, since this does not

38
correlate with variations in mass loss rate. There was an additional delay of

up to one minute for the maximum CO concentration to be detected in the target

room. The mass loss rates for these experiments were all about 26 g/s . They

resulted in upper compartment temperatures in excess of 600° C. (For the

second foam 32 chair experiment, this is estimated from lower compartment

temperatures in the other experiments .

)

All flaming combustion gas data (table 21) were dramatically different from

those of smoldering combustion (table 19) . Oxygen concentrations in the burn

room dropped below 3 percent, while CO concentrations exceeded 10,000 ppm (the

instrument limit) and CO2 values were varied from 14 % to 16.7 %. These

values persisted for less than five minutes. The gas and temperature data

appear to indicate that, once flaming combustion has been initiated, the

resulting atmospheres that develop from the two foams do not greatly differ.

The exception, at first glance, is that HCN production, as measured in the

burn room, is greater for the non- treated foam. This could be misleading

because the HCN concentration is a function of when the sample is taken. The

maximum HCN concentration (1320 ppm) was detected in the second foam 32 chair

experiment. This sample was taken almost at the same time that the CO

concentration was reaching its peak value. Because the first foam 32 mock-up

assembly self - ignited, the gas sample with the maximum HCN value was taken

almost 15 minutes after flaming was initiated. Similarly, the foam 32X chair

samples, which were taken before the maximum CO concentration was achieved,

may have been taken too early to detect the true maximum HCN concentration.

The importance of sample timing can be seen by comparing the maximum HCN

concentration for the analytical tests (table 18) of the foam 32 chair (1360

39
ppm) to the animal exposure tests (table 21) of the foam 32X chair (460 ppm).

This suggests that the foam 32 chair produced more HCN than the foam 32X

chair. More experiments with more frequent sampling for HCN are needed to

determine if these two foams produced different yields of HCN. A continuous

or integrating technique for HCN measurement needs to be developed to be

absolutely sure that peak concentrations are not missed.

The target room data (table 21), damped by gas transport between compartments,

appear to be stable for a longer period of time. Therefore, they should

provide a more sound basis for comparison of HCN concentration. The target

room data indicate that there is little difference between gas data for the

two types of foam. The minimum oxygen concentrations were about the same for

all four experiments - 12 % . Higher peak concentrations of CO were measured

in the foam 32X chair experiments, but the CO2 values were lower in these

experiments compared to the foam 32 chair experiments.

Conditions in the animal exposure chambers for the flaming phase of the

experiments are compiled in table 22. While extremely high temperatures were

always recorded in the burn room (680°C), the animal exposure chambers

connected to the burn room had temperatures in the range of 23 to 41° C. In

general, the CO concentration varied from 750 to 2900 ppm and the HCN

concentration range was 20 to 145 ppm. Only one flaming exposure resulted in

no deaths the foam 32 chair experiment, sampling from the target room. During this exposure, the CO (750 ppm) and HCN (38 ppm) concentrations were

very low. This may have been due to insufficient sampling time (nine minutes)

for the first post-flaming exposure. While, in all cases, the first animal

40
exposure chamber following flaming contained a mixture of smoldering smoke and

post- flaming smoke, this particular chamber probably contained more smoldering

smoke because of the short refilling time which was further aggravated by the

propagation delay of the smoke from the burn room to the target room. Most

animals exposed to flaming decomposition products died within- exposure

However, two experiments, both foam 32 experiments, had post-exposure deaths

and, in one case, two animals survived the 14 day post -exposure period. In

these experiments, the CO concentrations were 2050 and 2200 ppm, with HCN

concentrations of about 20 ppm both and CO2 concentrations of about 5 percent.

4.0 Discussion

4,1 Polyurethane Foam, Non- Fire Retarded

In comparing test results from the various experimental conditions used in

this program, much thought was directed towards the effect of different

thermal exposures on the overall yields of CO, CO2 , and HCN. Table 23

presents a comparison of the yield values for CO and CO2 from all four sets of

conditions under which the non- treated polyurethane foam was tested. Table 24

presents the overall HCN yields for those test conditions where HCN was

measured for the same polyurethane foam.

Since the absolute yields for these three gases may well be a function of a number of external parameters (i.e,, sample size, sample heating rate, sample

configuration, sample assembly, etc.), relative gaseous yields are more

41
meaningful. The CO2 to CO ratio for the four tests under flaming and nonflaming or smoldering conditions are listed in table 25. Under flaminginitiated conditions, the CO2 /CO ratio was relatively constant (50 to 80) for

all tests, with or without a cover fabric, except for the Cone Calorimeter

foam- only test which had a CO2 /CO ratio of approximately 200. This indicates

that while all of the flaming tests are well ventilated, the Cone Calorimeter

was more efficient in burning the foam alone than with a cover fabric. The

non- flaming Cone Calorimeter tests of the foam alone resulted in a combustion

efficiency comparable to the flaming tests under other test conditions.

Smoldering yield ratios were not consistent among the four test procedures.

Pre- smoldering of the foam chair assemblies in the furniture calorimeter and

the three compartment experiments, resulted in a smoldering yield ratio of 40

for the furniture calorimeter and 7 for the large-scale tests. After the

transition to flaming, the yield ratio of CO2 /CO was 30 for both chair

assembly tests. These differences cannot be explained at present.

Table 26 lists the HCN to CO yield ratios for those tests where both HCN and

CO were measured. In general, the data shows that fewer than 10 parts of HCN

are produced for 100 parts of CO. The NBS toxicity test under flaming

conditions is a more efficient HCN generator (HCN/CO is 0.09) than any of the

other three tests (The HCN/CO range is <0.01 to 0.04.) The yield ratio of HCN

to CO allows one to estimate the concentration of HCN in a specified volume

can be determined, for this foam under similar combustion conditions from CO

measurements. The lethality of CO, CO2 , and HCN in combination is discussed

in section 4.3.

42
The small-scale toxicity results indicate that during the non- flaming

decomposition of foam 32 essentially no within- exposure deaths were observed.

This was also the case during smoldering exposures in the large-scale tests

(table 20) . Post-exposure deaths were seen in the small-scale toxicity tests

as a result of non- flaming exposures from the polyurethane foam 32 (table 1)

and the cotton upholstery fabric (table 3). The LC^q values were 39 mg/i and

28 mg/i, respectively, based on mass loading. In the large-scale tests, no post-exposure deaths were observed following any smoldering exposure. Based

on mass consumed, the comparable small-scale data were approximately 35 mg/i

for the polyurethane foam 32 and 26 mg/i for the Haitian cotton. The minimum

concentration for which deaths were observed was 32.9 mg/i and 23.6 mg/i (on a

mass consumed basis) for the polyurethane foam 32 and cotton, respectively.

Assuming a well mixed atmosphere in the large-scale burn facility, the lower

limit loading for the smoldering phase of the large-scale experiments was

calculated to be 33 mg/i in the animal exposure chamber. If less than the

total burn facility volume was filled with smoke then the concentration of

smoke at the sampling point would be higher. Therefore, the concentrations of

smoke based on mass consumed in the small-scale and large-scale tests were

comparable and do not explain the differences in post-exposure deaths.

In the small-scale toxicity tests, no within- or post-exposure deaths resulted

from 30 minute exposures to the flaming decomposition products produced

either by the polyurethane foam 32 or by the cotton upholstery fabric. The

LCjq values for these two materials were in excess of 40 mg/i for the

polyurethane foam 32 and 50 mg/i for the cotton fabric. On the other hand, in

43
the large-scale flaming tests 10 of the 12 animals exposed to the burn room

atmosphere died. Six died within exposure to the gases produced during postflaming of the mock-up upholstery assembly. Three died within- exposure and

one died post- exposure from the second set of animals exposed to the postflaming atmosphere. The material loading in the atmosphere based on mass

consumed for the first set and second set of animals was 51 mg/i and 52 mg/i

,

respectively. These values were thus significantly higher than the exposures

in the NBS small-scale toxicity test method and probably account for the

deaths seen in the large-scale tests and not observed in the small-scale

toxicity tests. Target room exposures showed that lethal conditions were also

developed in a compartment at some distances from the room of fire origin.

The lower limit material loading in the animal exposure chamber based on mass

consumed was 21 mg/i for animal set one (no deaths occurred) and 40 mg/i for

animal set two (5 animals died within exposure and one died post-exposure.

Again, if the mixing of the combustion products was not complete throughout

the large-scale burn facility, these concentrations may be lower than the

actual concentrations and may explain the deaths observed.

4.2 Polyurethane Foam, Fire Retarded

Table 27 lists the CO and CO2 yields for the fire retarded polyurethane foam

tested by the four procedures described in this report under flaming and nonflaming or smoldering decomposition. Table 28 presents the HCN yield data for

the three tests (NBS toxicity test, furniture calorimeter, and large-scale

compartment tests) where HCN was measured.

44
A comparison of the CO2 to CO ratio (table 29) shows that all of the tests

resulted in a narrow ratio range of 15 to 40 under flaming conditions and

inconsistent results, ranging from 5 to 60, during non- flaming or smoldering

combustion.

Table 30 compares the HCN to CO yield ratio for the fire retarded polyurethane

foam. As was noted previously (section 4.1), 10 parts or less of HCN are produced for every 100 parts of CO. The NBS toxicity test is twice as efficient in generating HCN (HCN/CO is 0.1) as any of the other three test

procedures (HCN/CO is <0.001 to 0.05). Lethality of the combination of CO,

CO2 , and HCN is discussed in the next section.

The small-scale toxicity results for the fire retarded polyurethane foam

(table 2) indicated that the smoke generated during non- flaming decomposition

had an LC^q of 28 mg/i compared to a flaming decomposition LC^q of 27 mg/i

,

based on mass loading. Based on mass consumed, the LC^q for the non- flaming

condition was approximately 23 mg/i and 26 mg/i for the flaming condition.

The minimum concentrations at which deaths were observed with this material

were 19.4 mg/i and 23.9 mg/i (based on mass consumed) for the non- flaming and

flaming conditions, respectively. The lower limit material concentration

based on mass consumed (which includes both the polyurethane foam 32X and

cotton upholstery fabric) calculated in the animal exposure chambers for the

smoldering phase of the large-scale experiments was 38 mg/i (table 20)

No

animals were observed to die from this material concentration. For the largescale flaming chair experiments, the concentration of consumed material (table

45
22) was approximately 68 mg/i and 64 mg/J^ for the first and second sets of

post- flaming animals exposed to the combustion products from the burn room. Under these conditions, all animals were observed to die when exposed for 30

minutes. Target room exposures showed similar lethal conditions. In all

cases, deaths occurred at mass consumed concentrations in excess of those used

in the small-scale toxicity test method. Therefore, it is necessary, in

future experiments, to include dilution of the smoke from the flaming largescale tests in order to be better able to compare with the small-scale . experimental results. The presence of excessive amounts of CO, CO2 , and HCN

may have masked the effects of other toxicants.

A comparison of non- flaming small-scale toxicity results with smoldering

large-scale results showed that animal deaths were generally observed to occur

post-exposure in the small-scale toxicity tests and no animals died in the

large-scale tests within- or post-exposure . Even in the small-scale toxicity

tests, under flaming conditions, some of the deaths from the fire retarded

foam occurred post-exposure. Since all the animals in the large-scale fire

retarded foam experiments died during the 30 minute exposure period of the

flaming tests, it is not clear as to whether post-exposure deaths would have

occurred at lower smoke concentrations

4.3 Three Gas Model

Recent results [30] on the toxicity of CO, CO2 and HCN alone and in various

combinations using rats have shown that the 30 minute LC^g values for these

individual gases in air are

46
Gas LC 30 (ppm)

CO 4600

CO2 >180000

HCN 160

In general, no animals were observed to die from a 30 minute CO exposure below

4100 ppm and no post -exposure deaths occurred at any concentration. However,

when CO and CO2 were combined, the presence of 5% CO2 increased the toxicity

of CO such that animals died from 30 minute exposures of 2500 ppm of CO. Some

of these deaths occurred within 24 hours of the experiment. The combination

of CO and HCN showed an additive interaction. It was empirically determined

that this effect could be modelled by:

[CO]

LC^oCCO)

[HCN]

LC^oCHCN)

> 1 . [A]

Values below 1 are indicative of no expected animal deaths , while a value

equal to or more than 1 indicates that animals would be expected to die from

the exposure. This model has recently been modified by Levin et al. [29] to

include the effect of CO2 on the likelihood of observing deaths from a combination of CO, CO2 , and HCN. The modified model is:

m[C0] [HCN] ^

[CO2 ] " b LCgoCHCN) “ ’ ^ ^

where [CO], [CO2 ], and [HCN] are the average atmospheric test concentrations

during a 30 minute exposure period and LC^qCHCN) is the (lethal) concentration

of HCN that will kill 50% of the exposed animals. The terms m and b are equal

to -28 and 117000, respectively, if the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is

<5%, and equal to 150 and -313000, respectively, for CO2 concentrations >5%.

47
An empirical estimate of the error in distinguishing between agreement and

disagreement in equation B can be made based on a review of previous results

[30], The data indicates that variations in the left hand side of equation B

of the order of ± 20% is a reasonable estimate. This estimate takes into

account the uncertainties inherent in deriving equation B as well as measurement uncertainties associated with CO, CO2

, and HCN in a fire

environment

,

Using the gas concentrations generated from the NBS toxicity test method for

the current polyurethane foams (tables 1 and 2), the pure gas model, equation

B, showed that lethal amounts of these gases were not produced in any of the

non-treated foam tests (table 31) or the non-flaming treated foam tests (table

32)

The treated foam, in the flaming mode had all but one test exceed the

model criterion and one test that was within 95% of the criterion. For these

experiments, post-exposure deaths occurred within 24 hours after exposure.

For the remaining tests that did not approach or exceed the model criterion,

post-exposure deaths were observed from the second day onward. This is

indicative of the presence of additional toxicants or other factors not

included in the 3-gas model which impact on the model.

For the Haitian cotton upholstery fabric, the CO concentration was less than

70% of the LCjq of pure CO. Since no HCN was produced and the CO2 concentration never approached 5%, the synergistic interaction between CO and

CO2 can not be assumed. Therefore, in these experiments, other toxic

combustion products or factors contributed to the deaths. The deaths which

occurred from all experiments not meeting the model criterion were probably

48
due to the presence of other toxic combustion products or to undetermined

factors

The data from table 22 were used in the 3= gas model to calculate whether the

test animals would die from the CO, CO2 , and HCN concentrations measured in

the animal exposure chambers after the initiation of flaming. The results are listed in table 33 for the treated and non- treated polyurethane foam chair

assemblies. Based on this model, there was sufficient CO, CO2

, and HCN to

account for the observed deaths. The calculations and animal mortality in

table 33 indicate that in those tests where the values calculated according to

equation (B) are equal to or greater than 1, all of the animals died withinexposure. In one case the calculated value from the model was 0.4 and the

experimental results indicated no animal deaths . This shows that a calculated

value between 0.9 and 1 coincides with less than the maximum number of animal

deaths

Table 34 shows that the deaths in the small-scale experiments for non- treated

polyurethane foam and cotton fabric at or near the LC 5 Q concentration could

not be attributed solely to the presence of CO, CO2 , and HCN. This implies

that additional toxicants were present in the decomposition products

generated. These products need to be identified and incorporated into an

expanded toxicity gas model. The application of this 3 -gas model to the

large-scale chair experiments indicates that the responses of animals exposed

to the smoldering atmosphere and the post- flaming atmosphere were consistent

with the measured concentrations of the three gases. It also correctly

predicts the lack of deaths from animals exposed to the flaming conditions in

49
the small-scale test method. Although other gaseous toxicants may have been

present, no additional toxicants are necessary to account for animal

responses

Again, applying the 3 -gas model, as was done previously, table 35 shows that

for the polyurethane foam 32X tested in the small-scale toxicity test at or

near the LCjq concentration under flaming conditions, CO, CO2

, and HCN can

reasonably account for the within- exposure deaths. For the post-flaming

period of the large-scale tests, there was more than enough of these gases to

kill the animals, so the presence of other possible toxicants cannot be

assessed. For the large-scale smoldering tests and for the remaining smallscale tests, the model predicts no animal deaths. However, some animals died

during the post-exposure observation period in the small-scale toxicity tests

under non- flaming conditions for both the foam and the fabric. This indicates

the presence of other toxic species. As stated previously, the unknown gases

need to be identified and the 3 -gas model expanded to incorporate additional

toxicants

5 . 0 Conclusions

The bases for a detailed comparison between the toxicity of smoke from small

and large-scale burns of these materials are best made by determining:

® The predictability of test animal deaths using the N-gas model

with N=3 (CO2

, CO, and HCN);

50
• The nature of those deaths, whether within- exposure or postexposure; and

• The relative contributions to lethality (relative yields) of CO2

,

CO, and HCN.

The toxicity of the thermal decomposition products from two flexible

polyurethane foams (with and without a fire retardant) and a cotton upholstery

fabric was evaluated by using the NBS Toxicity Test Method. These results

were compared to the toxicological results obtained from large-scale three

compartment fire tests of mock-up chair assemblies composed of the same

flexible polyurethane foam and cotton upholstery fabric held in a steel frame.

The NBS Cone Calorimeter and the NBS Furniture Calorimeter were used to

measure other fire property data such as heat release, effective heat of

combustion, specific gas species yields, and smoke obscuration. These latter

two tests provided baseline fire property data under well-ventilated

conditions which were used to determine the effect of combustion differences

between the NBS Toxicity Test and the large-scale room burns. In addition,

the data is necessary for subsequent evaluation of the predictive capabilities

of computer fire models

In general, the Cone Calorimeter and the Furniture Calorimeter showed that the

NBS Toxicity Test and the large-scale burns were performed under comparable

ventilation conditions, as defined by the CO2/CO ratio. While the large-scale

burns and the Furniture Calorimeter tests resulted in comparable HCN/CO ratios

during flaming combustion, the NBS Toxicity Test had an HCN/CO ratio that was approximately twice as large

51
With regard to the degree of toxicity observed in the NBS Toxicity Test and

the large-scale burns, two types of combustion conditions were investigated.

• During non- flaming or smoldering combustion, essentially no

animal deaths were noted during the thirty minute exposures . In

both sets of experiments, the respective concentrations of CO,

CO2 , and HCN were comparable. Post-exposure deaths were observed

following the NBS Toxicity Test of both foams and cotton fabric,

but not following exposures to the smoldering phase of the largescale burns

• During flaming combustion, neither foam 32 nor cotton fabric

produced with- in or post -exposure deaths up to the maximum

material concentration obtainable in the NBS Toxicity Test. Within and post-exposure deaths were observed for foam 32X. At

somewhat higher material concentrations, with- in and post-exposure

deaths were observed in the large-scale room burns for both foam

chair assemblies.

N-gas model calculations were preformed on the gas data from both test

procedures. The calculations showed that the N-gas model which presently

includes the combined toxicological effects of CO, CO2

, and HCN can explain

the toxicity of the flaming tests. However, for the non- flaming tests, it is

necessary to include additional terms into the N-gas model in order to explain

the observed animal responses

The following paragraphs present a more detailed set of conclusions according

to the three points of comparison between small- and large-scale toxicity

52
tests previously enumerated. It is implicit that all of the conclusions are limited to the few materials involved in this study.

1. Prediction of Mortality

Under flaming conditions in the small-scale test, these materials (except foam

32X) did not generate a toxic atmosphere at the highest concentration tested.

For the one flaming case (foam 32X) in which an LC^q could be determined using

the NBS toxicity test method, the 3 -gas model correctly predicted that some

animals should die. To explain the primarily post-exposure deaths from the

non- flaming combustion products from all three materials, additional toxic

species need to be added.

In all of the large-scale room fires, the 3 -gas model correctly predicted the

within- exposure survival or death of the animals. In most of these cases, the

concentrations of the three gases were so high or so low that the importance

of other possible (unknown) toxic species could not be assessed. However, in

the two cases where the model predicted that some but not all of the animals

would die, that was indeed observed. All of these were for exposures to

atmospheres after the transition to flaming combustion.

The post- exposure deaths observed in the small-scale, non- flaming experiments

were not observed following the smoldering large-scale experiments, although

in some cases comparable concentrations of CO, CO2

, and HCN were generated and

the material mass consumed was similar. Since the 3 -gas model does not

explain post-exposure deaths beyond 24 hours, there are probably additional

53
toxic species that need to be measured in the small-scale tests. The

possibility exists that some of these condensible toxic components of the

smoke may have been lost in the sampling lines that transport the smoke from

the large-scale rooms to the animals exposure chambers.

Therefore, for flaming combustion, we feel guarded optimism about the use of

the NBS toxicity test method to replicate full-scale performance and the

predictive sufficiency of the 3-gas model. For non-flaming combustion,, the

relationship between the two experimental scales awaits the extension of the

model, the analytical measurements, and the smoke sampling technology.

2. Comparison of Time of Mortality

In the one flaming combustion case (foam 32X) where test animals died in the

NBS test method, many died post-exposure. In most of the sets of animals

exposed to smoke from the flaming part of the large-scale experiments the

smoke concentration was well beyond that needed to cause within- exposure

deaths. However, in the two cases where the atmosphere was near the threshold

of lethality, post- exposure deaths were observed. Again, there are grounds

for guarded optimism that the NBS toxicity test is predictive.

The non- flaming, small-scale experiments and smoldering large-scale

experiments agreed in that there were no within- exposure deaths. However, in

the non-flaming, small-scale experiments, many animals died (post-exposure),

whereas, in the smoldering, large-scale tests, no animals died. Thus, there

is no basis for assessing the predictivity of the NBS toxicity test method.

54
3. Relative Contributions to Lethality

The CO2 /CO yield ratio is a good indicator of the degree of ventilation in the

combustion. For flaming combustion, there is a remarkable level of agreement

between the values of this ratio for all four types of tests in this study.

In the various non-flaming modes, the furniture calorimeter, large-scale

compartment tests and the NBS toxicity test method show remarkable agreement.

In spite of the fact that the Cone Calorimeter is distinctly more ventilated

than the other three test procedures, only the flaming non-treated

polyurethane foam test exhibited an unusually high ventilation factor. With

the exception, then, of this last case, one would expect some degree of

predictivity of the relative contributions of CO and CO2 to the animal

mortality from the small-scale data.

In the three methods (NBS toxicity test method, furniture calorimeter, and

large-scale compartment experiments) where HCN was measured, the non- flaming

or smoldering phases produced low concentrations of HCN; flaming combustion

produced higher concentrations . Under the ramped temperature conditions of

the small-scale test, HCN concentrations were above the 30 minute LC^q value

determined for pure HCN. HCN was an important toxicological factor in the

chair burns once flaming had occurred. Its importance during the smoldering

phase cannot be assessed since no animals died. Under conditions of the NBS

toxicity test method, HCN was a factor in the toxicity of smoke only from

flaming foams 32 and foam 32X. While there was a near total lack of

correlation between the various combustion methods for HCN yields, the HCN/CO

55
ratio was, with one exception (NBS toxicity test - flaming mode), in

reasonable agreement. More research is needed to determine the proper way to

mirror the importance of HCN (and perhaps other trace toxicants) in smallscale combustion devices.

6.0 Recommendations

Further research is necessary to resolve the uncertainties revealed by this

series of experiments. The following recommendations focus on the tests

needed to clarify the reasons for the current lack of correlation.

1. Large-scale smoldering or non- flaming combustion tests should be

conducted in a compartment of reduced volume in order to increase the

gas concentrations

2. Some smoldering combustion tests should involve in-place, 30 minute

animal exposures rather than transferring the smoke to the animal

exposure chambers or should otherwise try to minimize species losses

that may have occurred in the sampling lines between the burn facility

and the animal exposure chamber.

3. The varying relative importance of HCN and the unknown toxicant (s)

raises the issue of comparability between oxidative pyrolysis and

smoldering decomposition. True smoldering combustion should be studied

56
in the NBS toxicity protocol. This can be accomplished with the cotton

fabric and foam assemblies studied in this report.

4. Large-scale, flaming tests should be run in which the test animals are exposed to the combustion products at various dilutions . This will

enable a more accurate determination of a full-scale LC^q and thus an

assessment of whether other important toxicants may be present.

7 . 0 Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Richard Zile, Tom Maher,

Mel Womble, and Roy McLane in conducting the medium- and large-scale tests.

The work of Gerald King and William Twilley on the cone calorimeter is greatly

appreciated. Dr. Richard Gann provided important assistance in the

interpretation of the results. Because of the limited amount of information

available on large-scale animal testing procedures, we would especially like

to thank the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Dr. Rita Orzel, project

officer under contract no. 753-2388 (CPSC Task Order No. 85-4), for supporting

in part a unique and much needed experimental program of this type.

57
8.0 References

1. Karter, M. J., Fire Loss in the United States During 1984, Fire Journal,

49 (Sept. 1985).

2. Harwood, B. , Consumer Product Safety Commission Internal Memorandum,

(July 1986).

3. Lingenfelter , G. E. , Progress in Fire Safety Technology: Furnishings and

Contents - NFPA Activity, Presented at Joint Conference of the Fire

Retardant Chemicals Association and the Society of the Plastic Industry

(March 1986)

4. Loftus , J. J., Back-Up Report for the Proposed Standard for the

Flammability (Cigarette Ignition) of Upholstered Furniture, U. S. Nat.

Bur. Stand. NBSIR 78-1438 (1978).

5. Babrauskas , V, and Krasny, J. F. , Prediction of Upholstered Chair Heat

Release Rates from Bench-Scale Measurements, Fire Safety: Science and

Engineering, ASTM STP 882, T. Z. Harmathy, Ed., American Society for

Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1985).

6. Fitzgerald, W. E. , Combustion Product Generation for Toxicity Testing,

Fire Retardant Chemicals Association, Fourth Annual Meeting, Washington,

D. C. (March 1977)

7. Grand, A. F. , Kaplan, H.L., Beitel, J. J. Ill, Switzer, W. G., and

Hartzell, G. E. , An Evaluation of Toxic Hazards from Full-Scale

Furnished Room Fire Studies, Special Technical Publication 882, American

Society for Testing and Materials (1986)

8. Alarie , Y. , Anderson, R. C., Stock, M. F. , Dombroske, R. L. , Keller, L.

W. , Hayduk, L. W. , and Park, R. E. , Toxicity of Thermal Decomposition

Products: An Attempt to Correlate Results Obtained in Small Scale with

Large Scale Tests, J. Comb. Tox. 8:58-68 (1981).

9. Alarie, Y. , Stock, M. F. , Matij ak-Schaper , M. , and Birky, M. M.

,

Toxicity of Smoke During Chair Smoldering Tests and Small Scale Tests

Using the Same Materials, Fund. Appl. Tox. 3:619-626 (1983).

10. Braun, E., Krasny, J.F., Peacock, R.D., Paabo, M. , Smith, G. F. , and

Stolte, A., Cigarette Ignition of Upholstered Chairs, J. Consumer

Product Flamm. , 9:167-183 (1982).

11. Flammability Information Package, State of California, Department of

Consumer Affairs , Bureau of Home Furnishings , North Highlands , CA

(1983)

58
12. Important Consumer Information from UFAC , Upholstered Furniture Action

Council, High Point, NC (1984).

13. Levin, B. C., Fowell, A. J., Birky, M. M. , Paabo , M. , Stolte, A., and

Malek, D., Further Development of a Test Method for the Assessment of

the Acute Inhalation Toxicity of Combustion Products, U. S. Nat. Bur.

Stand. NBSIR 82-2532, Gaithersburg, MD (1982).

14. Paabo, M. , Birky, M. M. , and Womble, S. E. , Analysis of Hydrogen Cyanide

in Fire Environments, J. Comb. Tox. 6:99-108 (1979).

15. Litchfield, J. T. , Jr., and Wilcoxon, F. , A Simplified Method of

Evaluating Dose -effect Experiments, J. Pharmacol, and Exp. Therapeut.

96:99-113 (1949).

16. Packham, S. C., Frens , D. B., McCandless, J. B., Patajan, J. H. , and

Birky, M. M. , A Chronic Intra-arterial Cannula and Rapid Technique for

Carboxyhemoglobin Determination, J. Comb. Tox. 3:471-478 (1976).

17. Levin, B. C., Paabo. M. , Bailey, C. S., and Harris, S.E., Toxicity of

the Combustion Products from a flexible polyurethane foam and a Polyester Fabric Evaluated Separately and together by the NBS Toxicity

Test Method, Fire Safety Science-Proceeding Of the First International

Symposium, Gaithersburg, MD, Hemisphere Publishing Corp . , Washington,

DC, pp 1111-1122 (1986)

18. Levin, B. C., Paabo, M. , Fultz, M. L. , Bailey, C., Yin, W. , and Harris,

S. E., An Acute Inhalation Toxicological Evaluation of Combustion

Products from Fire Retarded And Non- Fire Retarded Flexible Polyurethane

Foam and Polyester, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Gaithersburg, MD, NBSIR 83-

2791 (1983) .

19. Levin, B. C., Paabo, M. , Fultz, M. L. , and Bailey, C. S., Generation of

Hydrogen Cyanide from Flexible Polyurethane Foam Decomposed under

Different Combustion Conditions, Fire and Materials, 3, 125-133 (1985).

20. Babrauskas , V., Development of the Cone Calorimeter -- A Bench- Scale

Heat Release Rate Apparatus Based on Oxygen Consumption, U. S. Nat. Bur.

Stand. NBSIR 82-2611 (1982).

21. Huggett, C., Estimation of the Rate of Heat Release by Means of Oxygen

Consumption Measurements, Fire and Materials, 4:61-5 (1980).

22. Babrauskas, V., Lawson, J. R. , Walton, W. D., Twilley, W. H.

,

Upholstered Furniture Heat Release Rates Measured with a Furniture

Calorimeter, U. S. Nat. Bur. Stand. NBSIR 82-2604 (1982).

23. Babrauskas, V., Will the Second Item Ignite?, Fire Safety J. 4:287-292

(1982) .

24. Peacock, R. D., Davis, S., and Lee, B. T., Experimental Data for Model

Validation, U. S. Nat. Bur. Stand. NBSIR (in preparation).

59
25. McCaffrey, B. J., Quintiere, J. Q. , and Harkleroad, M, F. , Estimating

Room Temperatures and the Likelihood of Flashover Using Fire Test Data

Correlations, Fire Technology, 17:2, 98-119 (1981).

26. Babrauskas , V., Combustion of Mattresses Exposed to Flaming Ignition

Sources Part I. Full-Scale Tests and Hazard Analysis, U. S. Nat. Bur.

Stand. NBSIR 77-1290 (1977).

27. Lawson, J. R. and Quintiere, J, G. , Slide-Rule Estimates of Fire Growth,

U. S. Nat. Bur. Stand. NBSIR 85-3196 (1985).

28. Birky, M. M. , Paabo , M. , Levin, B. C., Womble, S. E. , and Malek, D.,

Development of Recommended Test Method for Toxicological Assessment of

Inhaled Combustion Products, U. S. Nat. Bur. Stand. NBSIR 80-2077.

(1980)

29. Levin, B. C. , Paabo, M. , Gurman, J. L. , and Harris, S. E. , Effects of

Exposure to Single or Multiple Combinations of the Predominant Toxic

Gases and Low Oxygen Atmospheres Produced in Fires, (submitted to

Fundamental & Applied Toxicology)

30. Levin, B. C., Paabo, M. , Gurman, J. L. , and Harris, S. E. , Exposure to

Single or Multiple Combinations of the Predominant Toxic Gases and Low

Oxygen Atmospheres Produced in Fires, Fund. Appl Toxicology (accepted

for publication, 1986)

60
Chemical

and

Toxicological

Results

from

Flexible

Polyurethane

Foam

#32

(non-fire

retarded)

Decomposed

Via

the

NBS

Toxicity

Test

Method

J

4^ <0 <a <a a

-3 -o < < CO N <

Z S CN] s <<<<<<

Z S Z 3 2

A

+ XM

c

•H^ M

o

•H CLi 3

C5 &

w

<D ^ to -S- UD <3 ^ <

o 2 «-i N 2 CO 2

(O ;0 (O (O ^ ^

^— <: 0 2 0 0 2 0 2

CO (O CO ^ '— <! < •< 0 0 2 0 2 2

CO CO CO ^ < 0 0 2 0 2 2

o

M 43 2 S ^

43 O

60 ^

Q < Q

2 2 2

<3 Q <

2 2 2

Q Q < Q < <3 2 2 2 2 2 2

8 H*

o<

mco-T-a-coN-a- o o o o o o o cva cs] CN) CNj CNj eg CNj o o o o o o o

CO <H ^ CO

o o o o o o o

<r CO <-t CO CO o CO

CD O r>. tH -sT 'J*

rs. CNJ O)

CO r*v h*. rv CO o o o o o o

o o o o o o

00 CO o CO CO

CO CD iH csj CO

CN3 M CNJ CO CO CO

o o o o o o

CM rv c?> o>

CO ^ CO r*^

^ <Ji a> CO O CM 'd* '3- CO CO CO CO

fH CO o m CO eg

g- HOW

43 U U 43 U 43 U m o <H <3) o CO o

<• -T -a2 < 2 2 < 2 <

O) (» o 1-1 o 1-1

2 p:3 < 03 < <

P< H Sow

U U CO O O Jj o m C C or-.®®

a" CO E S

•H *H

4J -P M M 4JCC<VCU®Ch •H ® ® O ® E CEBo0 60*HEro

>1 M W -H T3

Oi -P a fl

<0 E

-p a

< w

® a c

g X o < w 2 a o o in W 2 2 W

® 43 CJ "O ® < 2 ^ W

61

those

previously

observed

for

similar

materials.
Chemical

and

Toxicological

Results

from

Fire-Retarded

Flexible

Polyurethane

Foam

#32X

Decomposed

Via

the

NBS

Toxicity

Test

Method

u M ^ V) o -u

(D <0 4J >. 0)

(0 <0 a

iJ T3

<3 rH <NJ o m

a

CO fH iH

Ck + XM

C

•Hji in P o

•H CU

-a- in -a- CD CD (D o cvi oa CO m -ain m CD CD CO

CM -a- -T m CD

CD (jO CD (D (D CO (jO (D (D CO CD OOOrHOO fHrHcOC'afH

43

0) E ^

^ O

00 u ^

•H

CNJ^ O I

1

rH rS iH iO

in 'J- m -4- ^

O O O O O O

CN3 CVJ CsJ CSJ CSJ o o o o o o

CO CO ^ 00 CD »-H (D CO Pv CD OO OJ

CVJ (N C>a CO CO CO

o o o o o o

m eg CNJ CD cn

00 00 CO Pv Pv

rH iH iH rH O O O O O

CO ^ 00 O tH CO P>. 00

eg cvj CNj cvj csj

o o o o o

O 0> 00 00 o

o o »H eg -«T

rH^cocNjcoo) o)cor^cgui

^ V) & E-i O W

m o m o o o o o o o o

P!3P:3P:3P:3P:3Pc3 0303030303

<0 C

S 3M

<DM in P

3 ^C

<a 0) M 6

0) -H

P< M

S ®

0) ft P X

<U C

O 00 eo •H C C

<0 +3 S

xi e

CD P

ft <U X T3

00 rp C -H 3 O

•H <M Oo -H M -H O P C C

3 0 0 < a a

S ft s ^e

r-i x ,-1 in

ft w ft O)

ft 03 u «

62
Chemical

and

Toxicological

Results

from

Haitian

Cotton

Fabric

Decomposed

Via

the

NBS

Toxicity

Test

Method

O.S J o

CO

(0 •o

csj CO 1-t CO -a- <Z CO eg O') < < < z z z

a

+ .X C ”

4J ^ 03 +J o

•HO.

5 S-

•H W

CD to CD CD *4“ CD (D CD

CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD OOOOOZOOO

CD CD CD 000

CD CD CD ^000

ui M

2 S ^

X O

00 u

< a a a

z 2 z z

o s U OiA

0> 0> f*v o> o> o>

rH O) CD CD 0000000

CO 00 CO to CD CM iHrHCMOi-*iH^<5

fH iH ^ 0000000 CD CO r«* CO CO r>0)vooo»oco<

»-4fHCMCMCMCMCMZ

0> lo

00 00

CDCDO)O)CO00'5*-4’CO

CM 6

& E-f O W

r»o)'Tininooo-3'cg

,Q

Cuz

M £

C H w J2

<0 O VI (0 £ -b E

H -H C M 0) .-I 0) £

C O • S <U ® C

0 DO ,C "V 00 A (U HC-U<UC 4Jr-l>4T3

.H -H -fH -iH c <0 ® -H •h£S+j£ - 0)0 <t-i CS (3oo£-hooC

aOr-i o 0 .-I C-H4J C O

•H VI -H -H fn -H M -H y 01 i-i M I £ y ^ £

+3 c ja ,Q c Z tL4

(0 <0 (tj o .H X g r-i lo Z [V W < Cn O)

<043 y’azCvZ< (Vi:

63
TABLE 4

Concentration of CO, CO2 , and HCN at the Calculated LCj.^ for Treated , 32X,

and Non-Treated, 32, Polyurethane Foam and Cotton Fabric

Material Decomposition

Mode

CO

(ppm)

CO2 (ppm)

HCN

(ppm)

Foam 32 NF 1150 4070 7

F > 680 >33300 >40

Foam 32X NF 680 2850 3

F 1010 20800 85

Cotton NF 2090 10900 —

F >1420 >33100 — • • •

NF = Non- flaming

F = Flaming

64
25

kW/m^

for

a

Horizontally

Mounted

Specimen

J

^ CO cvj O CNJ o

o o o

(D (O eg o eg o

o o o

c

o

43O

P

(9 OO O O O O

CO O CO

rH (O 1-1 w

o o o eg CO o CO tn CO eg t-i w

I 43

(0 •o

(P 43

(3

in 43

(00) H

O iH iH o ea o o

^ iH 0^0

egoo o o o o o o o o

m CO CO

CO CO ^ CO o eg cj) O) CO O) o o o o o

u

<D 43

(D O iH iH O «-» O O

^ CO iH iH O iH O O

O O O O O O

o'^ in o o CO O iH O) eg CO 1—i iH

00 eg CO o <* O)

(0 C/l M

c« w ^ (0 o ofi S

CO o CO -g* CO iH eg CO

iH o iH o

o o o o

o CO uo es

»H o tH »n

iH o 1H o

o o o o

E (D £

g

w

<a s

ns 0) s: M

O CO o o o m o t-H

°-S w i o. ^ o o m o in o o m

cocNj-a-o) r^tomp^

-u E w

3 M

ja

ft <0 X X «

(N (M CV] CO CO CO

65
TABLE 6

Average Yields of CO and CO2 for Treated and Non-Treated Foam Tested in the

Cone Calorimeter

Material Cotton Mode

cover

CO

(kg/kg)

CO2

(kg/kg)

32 = Flaming

32 - Non- Flaming

32 + Flaming

32X Flaming

32X - Non- Flaming

32X + Flaming

0.,013 + 0.,001 2.,34 + 0.,13

0.,040 + 0,,002 1.,71 + 0.,31

0.,033 + 0,.004 1.,94 + o'.,05

0,,045 + 0,.003 1.,13 + 0,,91

0,,039 + 0,.002 0,.74 + 0,.17

0,.026 + 0,.003 1,.62 + 0,.26

66
TABLE 7

Flaming Ignition Furniture Calorimeter Tests

Observation Foam 32 Foam 32X

Time CMin:Sec) Time (Min: Sec)

Start test 00:00 00:00

Ignition flame exposure 00:30 02:00

Ignition flame reapplied 02:00^

Ignition flame removed 02:02

Charring of bottom cushion 03:10 04:11

Ignition of bottom cushion 03:20 04:50

Ignition of left cushion 04:34 07:18

Ignition of right cushion 04:45 08:04

Total involvement of interior 05:30 09:10

surfaces

Collapse of back cushion 06:32 09:23

Collapse of left cushion 08:15 11:39

Collapse of right cushion 07:08 12:25

Flaming material fell below 07:49 18:00

chair assembly

a) burner reapplied 2 minutes into test

67
TABLE 8

HCN Yields for the Flaming Ignition of Treated, 32X, and Non-Treated, 32,

Polyurethane Foam and Cotton Fabric Mockup Upholstery Chairs Tested in the

Furniture Calorimeter

HCN Yield

Time 32 32X

(s) (kg/kg X 10 ) (kg/kg X 10 )

330 0.4

360 0.6® 8.7®'^

390 0.4

420 0.3®

540 1.3®

540 1.0

570 1.5®

600 1.8

630 2.0®

660 3.7

750 0.4®

780 1.5

900 1.2

a) Designates sample taken from sampling port nearer the test sample

b) Based on HCN concentration at lower resolution of detection technique

(1-5 ppm)

68
TABLE 9

Cigarette Initiated Transition Furniture Calorimeter Tests

Observation Foam 32

Time Cmin:sec)

Foam 32X

Time ('min:sec)

Two cigarettes on mockup 00:00 00:00

Charring on bottom cushion 04:50 06:15

Charring on right side cushion 15:30 16:10

Charring on left side cushion

Discoloration of outer vertical

16:15 17:45

surfaces

Charring on front surface of

32:50 51:00

right side panel

Charring on front surface of

33:11 51:30

left side panel

Charring on left front surface of

43:00 46:00

bottom cushion

Charring on right front surface of

35:00 35:00

bottom cushion 35:00

Burner application 59:54® 60:02^

Flames contact bottom cushion 60:04 65:58

Flaming on right side cushion 60:05 66:25

Flaming on left side cushion

Total flame involvement of

59:54 66:38

interior surfaces 60:15 66:59

Flames dropping to platform 60:20 67:00

Right side cushion collapsing 60:37 67:22

Left side cushion collapsing 61:06 67:40

a) assembly self- flamed on left side cushion

b) butane flame removed at 62:50
TABLE 10

HCN Yields for the Smoldering to Flaming Tests of Treated, 32X, and NonTreated, 32, Polyurethane Foam and Cotton Fabric Mockup Upholstery Chairs in

the Furniture Calorimeter

HCN Yield

Time 32 ^ 32X

^ (s) (kg/kg X 10 ) (kg/kg X 10 )

1800 0.5^ 0

2400 0®

2405 0

3000 1.4^'^ 0

3600 0.5^

3615 0.2®

3660 1.1

3705 0.1®'^

3720 0.2*^

3840 0

3900 0.3^

3960 1.8®

3960 1.5

4020 7.1

4050 6.3®

4080 1.3

4140 <0.1

a) Designates sample taken from sampling point nearer the test sample

b) Based on HCN concentration at lower resolution of detection technique

(1-5 ppm)

70
Summary

of

Furniture

Calorimeter

Tests

on

Treated,

32X,

and

Non-Treated,

32,

Polyurethane

Foam

and

Cotton

Fabric

Mockup

Upholstery

Chairs

CO CO 1 CO 1 CO CO CO

bi: O 1 O 1 1 1 2 1—

o 1—

O O o u X t—

I—

c-H I—

2 w CM X C3^ X X X

V£> CO O m VO o • • r'. o O . t—

. . r—

c—

o o bfl <0 O LO O o VO o o w CM O CM r—

o CM

T) 2 W • I—

r-( CM CM r-l 1^ 1—1

o;

•rH in CM C5V

m CO

w o CM c—

O ro I—

<u • • •H bC o o o O - o o O

0) O \ o b£ cn

43

CO 43 b£ o O o O o o

<N .id o O >sO OV o CT\ o « • « • u bC CM en en f-4 00 f—

t—

'w' do 6 •H 2 O 4J b£ CO O OV o o S W .id CM CM i-H CM U d X td

0) 6 2 S pd o ' ^ o

4.) d d e o <u

:3 •H •H e 4J o tH

m c-H ro o 00

•H O •l-l 1 • . . X d tw e c—l CM CM CM CM

4-1 2 4J (U X O

0) O

cuo s p d eg o OO d cu cd 1 o e bO S

•rH

U 2 \ 1—

o 1—1 O o in X cd cd 1—

CM 1—1 1—1 cd p u 2 }-) M

cu

cn

cd CM CM o CO

.id 4J (U <u

m o 1—

in o VO d cd i—

p s . t . • • d) 0) (U cd s o o 1—1 o o o

04 2 u u

VO o

VO CM

(D -P /—

b02 CO (U CO VO o 1^ CTv O in

cd bO CO p \ 1—CO I—CM

V-l o cd b£

ve we f—

u <

CU T) o O O p ClH Pl4 P Pm 2

00 CO

5-1 •rH 2 6 p cd X 2 •H o CVJ CM o Pm ro CO I I I

cti ^ O

71

Never

achieves

steady-state

values -

represents

mean

value

over

an

interval.

Values

greater

than

about

4.0

are

unreasonable -

values

probably

due

to

low

weight

loss

rate

during

smoldering.

Calculation-based

on

.015x[C02]

concentration.
TABLE 12.

Dimensions of Corridor and Adjoining Rooms for

Large-Scale Tests

Location Dimensions (^m

Burn room

Burn room stub corridor

Burn room doorway

2.34 Wx 2.34 Lx 2

1.02 W X 1.03 L X 2

0.81 W X 1.60 H

Target room

Target room stub corridor

Target room doorway

2.24WX 2.22 Lx 2

0.79 W X 0.94 L X 2

0.79 W X 2.04 H

Corridor

Corridor exit doorway

2.44 W X 12.19 L x

1.02 W X 2.03 H

16 H

00 H

.43 H

04 H

.44 H

72
Construction

Materials

of

Large-Scale

Fire

Facility

CO

COo oCOo

O)o ^ • (0 4^ S B-S

^•g£ H OU

OJ CO to

43 4-3 CO (0 (0 o u o o o o O O O

CJ CO CD u o o o o o o o o

CO (D 0>

CO o o

CD COm

CO CO ^ o o o

CD oa

CO cn in O r-4 CS o o o

fH CO o rH u u u o o o o o o

CO CD

43 43 43

<0 CO CO 43

COD

33

UiUOT3 O

43

<0U

43DU3 OC3 O

CO

O) o o o

CO CO

eg o)

cvq

cn Vi

CO (0 om

CO 2g rH

<0 CO(0 CO o o

CO CO o) egeg

(0V)

03

JZH

eg

eg eg CO O tH om

rv

ego

CO •HM

0) 43£

TJM

COO

OD D

43

<0u ®

•H T3 43 M CO •H A P

CO O 0

03 CO £ 43 D <D CO U O C3 O U)

r-g c p<

CO o o

CJ o o 04

(D 43

COC3 M

0) •HU

•HE

COM

0) CJ

XI

T3

COO

PQ D

43DMO

QO CO P U

•H 43

I—I (/) •H X 0) D

CJ Vi

0) 43

COM

43

V) XD

(0

CO

pL4 CX4 MOOO I I I ICO X

73

Interior

finish

Gypsum

board

over

studs
TABLE 14

Location of Instrumentation

I . Room -- Corridor

A. Thermocouple Trees

Tree 1 in burn room, Northwest quadrant - 10 thermocouples at 0.15,

0.66, 0.97, 1.12, 1.27, 1.42, 1.57, 1.88, 2.03, and 2.15 m from

floor

Tree 2 in burn room doorway - 7 thermocouples at 0.15, 0.61, 0.91,

1.07, 1.22, 1.37 and 1.52 m from floor.

Tree 3 in corridor, 1.37 m from East end - 10 thermocouples at

0.15, 0.61, 0.91, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, 2.13, 2.29, and 2.44 m'

(ceiling) from floor and unexposed ceiling surface.

Tree 4 in corridor, 5.49 m from East end - 10 thermocouples at

0.15, 0.61, 0.91, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, 2.13, 2.29, and 2.44 m

(ceiling) from floor and 1 thermocouple embedded in ceiling at 6.4

mm above exposed surface and unexposed ceiling surface.

Tree 5 in corridor, 11.73 m from East end -10 thermocouples at

0.15, 0.61, 0.91, 1.07, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, 2.13, 2.29, and 2.44 m

(ceiling) from floor and unexposed ceiling surface.

Tree 6 in corridor exit doorway - 8 thermocouples at 0.15, 0.61,

0.91, 1.07, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, 2.13 m from floor.

Tree 7 in target room doorway - 8 thermocouples at 0.15, 0.61,

0.91, 1.07, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83 and 1.93 m from floor.

Tree 8 in target room. Northeast quadrant - 10 thermocouples at

0.15, 0.61, 0.91, 1.07, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, 2.13, 2.29 and 2.43 m

(ceiling) from floor.

74
(TABLE 14 Continued)

B. Burn room ceiling and wall thermocounles

South wall, 1.64 m high - 4 thermocouples at surface, 6.4, and 12.7

mm below surface of ceramic fiber insulation and at interface

between insulation and brick substrate.

South wall, 0.55 m high - 3 thermocouples at surface, 6.4, and 12.7

mm below surface of ceramic fiber insulation.

Ceiling, Southeast quadrant - 3 thermocouples on surface, 6.4, and

12.7 mm below surface of ceramic fiber insulation.

Floor, Southeast quadrant - 3 thermocouples on surface, 6.4 and

12.7 mm below surface of fire brick.

C. Corridor wall thermocouples

North wall, 1.37 m from East end = 6 thermocouples at 0.61 and

1.83 m heights on surface, 6.4 mm below surface, unexposed surface.

North wall, 5.79 m from East end = 6 thermocouples at 0.61 and 1.83

m heights on surface, 6.4 mm below surface, unexposed surface.

North wall, 10.67 m from East end - 6 thermocouples at 0.61 and

1.83 m heights on surface, 6.4 mm below surface, unexposed surface.

D. Target room wall and ceiling thermocouples

None

E. Static pressure probes

Burn room. North wall = 5 probes at 25 mm, 0.30 m, 0.61 m, 1.22 m,

and 1.52 m from the floor.

Corridor, West wall - 5 probes at 76 mm, 0.61 m, 1.22 m, 1.52 m,

and 1.83 m from the floor.

Target room. North wall - 1 probe at 0.08 m from the floor.

75
(TABLE 14 Continued)

F. Flux meters

Corridor ceiling, center - 1 flux meter on surface.

G. Smoke indicators

Corridor, 5.49 m from East end - 6 horizontal smoke meters at 0.61,

0.91, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, and 2.29 m from floor.

Corridor, 5.03 m from East end - 1 vertical smoke meter.

Corridor, 10.36 m from East end - 2 horizontal smoke meters at 1.98

and 2.29 m from floor.

Corridor, 11.13 m from East end - 1 vertical smoke meter on

corridor centerline.

Corridor exit = side of doorway marked every 0.30 m from floor.

Target room, 0.65 m from South wall - 3 horizontal smoke meters at

0,61, 1,22, and 1,83 m from floor.

H. Gas Probes

Burn room Probe for carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide at

100 mm below ceiling. Oxygen probe at 100 mm

above floor. HCN taken from animal sampling

line

Corridor, midway Probe for carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide at

100 mm below ceiling. Oxygen probe at 100 mm

above floor

Target room Probe for carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide at

100 mm below ceiling. Oxygen probe at 100 mm

above floor. HCN port adjacent to animal

sampling line.

Animal Exposure Probe for CO, CO2

, and O2 , port for HCN.

Chamber

76
(TABLE 14 Continued)

II Miscellaneous

Burn room, over burner 1 thermocouple 0.91 m above burner, 0.15 m from

back wall. 1 thermocouple 0.20 m above burner,

0.15 m from back wall

Burn room ceiling 1.17 m from East wall - 2 thermocouples on

surface at 1.17 m and 0.61 m from North wall.

Burn room Load platform - cables for platform suspension

system through ceiling.

Burn room Animal sampling - 80 mm diameter glass sampling

line " centered in room 1.88 m from floor - return 0.1 m from floor - west wall on east wall

1 m from SE corner.

Burn room 1.17 m from East wall - 3 thermocouples on North

wall surface at 0 , 0.71, and 1.45 m below

ceiling.

Corridor 0.38 m from East wall - 2 thermocouples on

ceiling surface at 0.61 and 1.22 m from North

wall. 3 thermocouples on North wall surface at

0, 0.81, and 1.63 m below ceiling.

Target room Animal sampling - 80 mm diameter glass sampling

line - 0.1 m from wall - 2 . 24 m from floor - return 0.1 m from floor.

77
TABLE 15

Summary of Results from the Flaming Ignition of Foams 32 and 32X - Gas and Temperature Data in the Burn Room and the Target Room of the

Large-Scale Test Facility

Foam 32 Foam 32x

Burn room Tarset Room Burn Room Tareet Room

Time Max CO ( s

)

480 700 720® 910

MaxCO (ppm) 4000 1600 _b 2200

MaxCO2 (%) 12 8.6 "b 6

Max. HCN (ppm) 78 24 114 64

Min. O2 (%) 6.5 11 "b 13

Maxupper compartment (°C) 680 110 500 100

Max. lower compartment

(

“C) 320 60 145 60

a - Time of maximum temperature because of sampling line failure

b - Failure in sampling line
Comparison

of

Gas

and

Temperature

Data

Between

Animal

Exposure

Chambers

and

Respective

Sampling

Rooms

for

Flaming

Ignition

Experiments

of

Foams

32

and

32XLarge-scale

Results II

CM

cnS

cCO

5-1 0) rO e cd oo u

PCj 4J

0)w

5-1 £

cd o H o

oi A

5-1 0)B 6 cd oo u C

5-1 3

PQ eoo

CM• (0 o o m

CM o

CM ov

1—(

(—1

VO o O VO <! 1 VO CM

CM O o CO in o CO

LO CM

f—1 (—

o o o I I CM

VO

CMO

un

r-l CMoo

LO

CMme

ct3 ob

54 to 0) O o VO 1 CM S rO o CM o e O o cd tH

Cii o 4-5 0)W VO CM

54 • cd e o O 00 O H o o O CM 1-4 o VO 1-4 r4

CO

54 o

Cl) o o ID LO CO CO

<! o e e o cd I—

o

54 o m C

54 V£) P

PQ £ o o CM 00 o o oo o \—

00 o <!• o VO

cti

CO /'-N £ u £ a o a. dP a U a ^ 

^ 

a

CSJ 2 £

cd o o U (N CU 2 o u 2 o 4->

0)£ X X X c X

rH cd cd cd cd H 2 2 2 s 2 cd o

79

No

samples

taken

Sampling

was

delayed

600

seconds

Failure

in

sampling

line
Tabulation

of

Gas

and

Temperature

Data

for

Smoldering

Combustion

Prior

to

Initiation

of

Flaming

Combustion

-

Analytical

Tests

OJ M

X u

CM CU CO u

cd S w

Cti •H O o

o

15 H

VO

VO o o o oLO O CM ov

ov in

CO ro ro CN o o o o

o o o o

o o o o

CM CM CM CM CM CM i—l t—

CO m CM CO

CO CM CO CM

w

CD

4J O in CO o <!• CM

CM <u <D CO o O o o • CM o o o o O O 1—1 VO 1 rH O C3V

cd vo o o CM CM CM CM m CM CM CM S w oo o CdV

cd rH o o

O

[5

CM

COS

O

Ei-i

0) 4J

4J

Q)U

cti Wio

0) C

o

o o o o o

o r-i m ov CO CO CM r-l

\ i

«^CMCOCM O'^com

oooo o^ooo t—I CM CM CM

73 r—I 1—I Q Q

V z is m I—I vo vo

CO CO CM CM

s a a a

oa

(0 o ^ o o o o o c s I—

O CM S o CM e 1—1 o CM a 1—) o CM a 1^ o CM o o o C!d o cd o cd o cd

•iH o 5-1 u o P o p P o P p o P P

4J ex: <U •u cu dS CU P CU cel <u p <U cd (U p (U cd cu p CU

Cd d) j:i (U 43 (U 43 43 cu rO 43 cu 43 o s bJO 6 c 6 bO 6 es 6 bO a cs a bO a i3 a bO a o cd 5-1 cd }-l cd 5-1 cd p cd P cd p cd p cd P cd P cd

h-1 13 cd is rC cd 43 3 43 cd 43 35 43 cd 43 3 43 cd 43

CJQ o H cj) PQ u H O qq U E-h O CQ O H O CQ O H O

cJP S

a.

ex, u

cua

•Hp (UP

P C3 35

(U O P

p cd <u P P

a (U (U

cd C3 cx, P P (N 2: a

cd :3 O O (N o <u CP OQ O o o 33 H

I 1 I

cti ^ O

80

Animal

exposure

chamber

connected

to

burn

room

d

-

Not

detected'

Animal

exposure

chamber

connected

to

target

room

e

-

Not

measured

Upper

compartment

temperatures

f

-

Instrument

failure
Tabulation

of

Gas

and

Temperature

Data

for

Flaming

Combustion

Conditions

at

Time

of

Maximum

CO

Concentration

-

Analytical

Tests

i

1

I CO y—N y^

cu CO bO o O O o m

4J • • • 4J ro CM 00 CM CO

CN 0) CO 5-1 Vw' m VO VO CM tH o Nw'' Cd s bj o o o o rH CO VO m m in CO o o VO in o Ov O OO

cd •H o o o o tH iH tH tH vO VO CO m o CM O CM o o <! 00 CO CM tH tH VO tH CM CO CM tH oH

CO •0 !>0 cu y-N

4-> CO o CO CM 00 o 00 m

4J • • • • • CM CU CO in VO m CO m m

CO U VO VO 00 VO VO VO VO

cd 'w' o in O CO o o O'. o Vw*' Mw' 6 w o

cd o o o O 1 C3V VO m CM CM CM o tH CO CO o VO O in o o VO o o o tH A tH tH tH o tH CO CM VO m I—

CO

Uh o C3V iH CO tH VO iH o ov m CM H

<u u •H U y^

(U in 'd' 00 o o o O

CM J-l « • • • * • a cd CM CM m CM CM

bi bO OO 00 00 00 OO 00 00 S •rH Nw' 'w' o in CO VO in 00 VO S-y' cd o 0) H

o o O O o o VO VO CTv VO o 00 o tH in in <f m o i-l o

Mm (U O O o o tH A tH tH tH CM CM CM lO tH CO c VO rH in <1- tH o r>- <}• t-H

e s e e

uE

<0 O ja o o o o

C 6 i-H O CM e tH o CM s 1—o CM s tH o CM E tH o CM O o Pi o Pi o Pi o Pi o Pi •H o U u o 5-1 5-4 o 5-1 5-1 o 5-1 5-1 o 5-4 U

Pi (U 4-) (U Pi <U 4J 0) Pi (U 4J <U Pi (U 4J (U Pi cu 4J CU cd <u XI JP (U X5 X5 <U rO rO <U X3 r£ CU X3

CJ c s bJO s c S bO e C e bO s C 6 bO e C E bO E

o 5-1 cd 5-1 Cd 5-1 cd 5-1 cd 5-1 cd 5-1 cd 5-1 cd 5-1 cd 5-1 cd 5m cd 3 cd X! D3 cd x: D3 x: cd x: D3 -iD cd x: D3 x: cd CQ H U CQ u H u CQ u H o CQ u EH o CQ o H o

o

o

OJ OU

CS] o

o

DC

<U

S-i D3

cdu

(Ua

E

<u H Cd O

81

Animal

exposure

chamber

connected

to

burn

room

e

-

Peak

value

was

55

°C

Animal

exposure

chamber

connected

to

target

room

f

-

Peak

value

was

117

°C

Upper

compartment

temperatures

g

-

Time

based

on

minimum

0^

Values

in()

represent

time

(min)

of

maximum

CO

h

-

Instrument

failure

concentration

i

-

Time

of

maximum

HCN

concentration
Summary

of

Gas

Temperature,

and

Mass

Loss

Data

for

Smoldering

Phase

of

Animal

Exposure

Experiments

Prior

to

Flaming

of

Each

Chair

Assembly X

ot

roedo

VO CM

CM • (U 0) 0) • Csl 1 CO 1 O 1 o m

m in o I—

CO CM CM

1—

00

1—

fO in

m VO VO CM

r—

• • • • o o o o o o o CO Q o m o o 00 CM CM P CM CM CTN »—

o

VsD

m CO VO in CM . • . • (D • o o O o o O o CM I—

1 in o

VO CM CM

V CM

r~l

«]00

mm <!• OO XI

m

1—

• • . • • Q • O O o o O o p (—1 m o m 00 CM CM CM VO CM m CT»6 s 6 B B o o o o o c 6 o e o 6 o S o B O o o Pi o Pi o Pi o Pd o Pi o o o o o

4J pti u Pi X Pi Pi 4J Pi P

cd d) <u 0) 0) CD o c to c W) c OjO c 00 C 00 o >-l u u u 5-1 S-i 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 p cd 13 cd 35 cd 3i cd d cd CQ H OQ H pq H DO H CO H

COCP c• 1^6 e)P Baa

CObO

<U

CD P B cd

•iH T3 u p 05

5-4

M

5-1 c 35 CO

(U o P o P cd O I—

0) 5-1 5-1 to B <0 0) cd CO

cd C o P 5-1 CO

5-1 5-1 CM p B 0) cd

cd 35 O o <N

U (V > 6

Pm CO O o O P H < I I I I I

cfl XI O P 0)

82

Sample

selfignited

at

this

time

Not

detected

Maximum

value

prior

to

flaming

Upper

compartment

temperature

Instrument

failure
Material

Loading

Sampling

Time

Burn

Animal

Exposure

Start

Stop

Facility

Chamber

CO

CO2

HCN

O

2

Temp.

Lethality

Chamber

(min)

(min)

(mg/i)

(mg/i)

(ppm)

(%)

(ppm)

(%)

(“Q

30

min.

14

days

J

000 000 000 000

000 000

mmtD cococo

cgc^cg Ncgcg eg csj Neg eg eg

CD CO eg CO CO (D CO 'T CO CO '4- 000 eg eg eg 000 eg eg eg 000 eg eg eg 000 eg eg eg

COQcgQ QrHQ tHcgQ cgcgco z z z V z V z

CO >n 00 000m m CD 000

CO -4- rx 000^ m CO 000

000 in o «n

r*N o

O O 00

eg o o

'T ^ 000 CO o oeg

CO rH 00 eg CO CO

CO eg

^3* eg ^

o n n

eg CO -4* »n o CD

CO n CD o in in

in CD 000 CD CO O)

000 000 000 0) 0) 0) eg eg eg

B

O

(DO

M

DO

CO

c

M

D

PQ

I eg

CO

E

O

4J

0)00M

(0 H

I eg

CO

E

o

0

psiC

M

3

CQ

1 X

eg

CO

EO

0z

4J

<D00M

(0 H

1 X

egCO

T3

<0 4Jo

<u

0) 73

-POz

<0 83
Summary

of

Gas,

Temperature,

and

Mass

Loss

Data

for

Postignition

Phase

of

Animal

Exposure

Experiments

Using

Foams

32

and

32X

at

the

time

of

Maximum

CO

Concentration X

CNro6

cdo

COo

CT\

(U

m• o O

ON • <N CM VO OO

I—

rH 1—

' 1—1 T—

OO 'w' 'w' O o o 1 o 1 O 1 CM o Csl o o o r-l CM o 1—

CM o 1—1 vr> 1—

v£)

—\

VO X—CO CO <}

ON

m

Ov O m VO 00

CO LD Ov 0^ V ^ oooo o

CO

rH CM 1—1 O 00

VO

m

<1- 680 100 27

CsJ roe

cdo

Eih

CM

m 00 O m m p'- VO O CO m ^ 

• • • • O o o o in CJv CM CM o m 1 o m o o 1—1 rH CM CM CM o r>- CO I—

T—

o CM r-M t—i A

<»-i "O / V 1—1 o o o o <t CO

<0 VO VO VO 00 Vw' CM m 'w' 'w' o o VO O 1—

CM OO CM O o CJv

m o o I—

f—CM VO 00 r-H CM o o O CO

VO f-H

A s £ 6 £ £ o o o O o 05 s o S o 6 o S O £ o 5-1 o ai o o pj o Pi o Pi :3 c o o o o o 4J c O oi u 4J Pi 4J p3 Pi 4J 05 C cd o

•iH 0) 0) (U 0) d) £ o 5^ •H u C 00 C bO c bO C bO c bO ®1^ •H 0)

td 5-1 j-i !-i }-( 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 Q> 4J a Cd o 3 cd :3 cd ;3 cd 13 cd 3 cd 5-1 Cd £ 5-1 o CQ H PQ H OQ H CQ H oQ H CO 35 5-1 05 u

4-> 4-> c ^ cd C <u 5^ <U £ O p o p P u P- C £ 0

cd £ o •r^ o

CO /—

d) o

4J C £ £ CO T)

M CO cd s

•tH P- Pu CJ p p o £ u c £ P- c?P oV p- 0 bO 4J M 5-1 u 33 p Nw' Vw'' ' C P CM C P 1—1 £ o £

bO £ p P

•iH

M cd £ p £ 1 5-1 CM •rH £ •rH P CM P X ><: 05 4J a M cd M p e Cd p £ C £ £

•1—1 X! 5-1 CO o p P o o £ <M O CM

5-1 CO P P O o

5-1 C P CO 1—1

M 5-1 T3

05 O 4-1 o a P M P P p

4J Cd C15 I—

£ CL. CO £ CO £

05 5-1 5-! bO cd CL, P P •rH £ 05 p cd CO 00 33 M H DQ H

cd c a 5-J CO u 5-) CSJ p £ 05 cfl 1 1 1 1 1 cd 35 O o Csj O d) p^ OQ o CJ O P H < cd -P O T3 P CM

84
Exposure

Chamber

Atmosphere

During

Animal

Exposures

Occurring

PostFlaming

for

Foams

32

and

32X. fJ , w

4J •H P

i-H

cd p I—

p

hJ

1—

P pe e p o < cn p£ o P 0 H

(N OP OS £ u P X P

V-.- O OP u ^e o O- O P < I—I O r—

VP CO o m VO VO VO VO

oo 1—

in CO VO 00 CO in CO CM CM CM CM CM CM o v£> in ON O CM VO QO

CO in ON <} VO in

m

i-H t—

1—1 1—

1—) 1—1 r—

ON o in CO

I—

CM 00 I—CM CO VO

1—

CO CM r-1 I—

in

in

m CO O in 00

<1- f—

m I—

Ml"

f—

o o o o o o o 1—1 m tn o o o o o

00 o CM ON VO T—

VO

t—CM CM CM CM CM CM

bO

U ^ C r-l 0) =><

•iH cu ^ \

Tj e 6 1=4

cti ’H cti E O C X

t-J cC O

r~i CN

LO in

n-l o

CM

00 <t

V£)

in ro cn

0)e

•HH a c O 'He W

1—1 cn

m vD

vo 00

r>- o

CT^ o o m

CM CM

WiC

4J Pt U

•H P P

bO P C £ *H

•i-i E

00 VO VO t~H VO o

Ln VO VO 00 00 ON rH

00 VO CO '0" O O CM m C3N 1—1 pu u p p w X o £

p. p X X u o

I—( CM T—I CM t—I CM .—I CM

cd Dd £ £ p 4J cd U o P 1 1 p p > p 1 bO P bO p u U X U X u o CM P CM P CM P CM P

CO CO cQ CO H CO CQ CO H

85

a)

Burner

on

time

or

selfignition

time.
crp

TABLE 23

Comparison of CO and CO2 Yields for Small-Scale Tests, Furniture Calorimeter

and Large-Scale Compartment Tests of Non- Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32

Cotton

cover

CO

F®

(kg/kg)

NF^

CO2F

(kg/kg)

NF

NBS Toxicity Test - 0,02 0,03 1.6 0.2

Cone Calorimeter - 0,01 0.03 2.3 1.7

Cone Calorimeter + 0.03 2.0

Furniture Calorimeter + 0.04 0.24*= (0.12)*^ 1.9 9.0*

Large-Scale Test + 0.04 0.15*= (0.09)*^ 2.9 1.0*

- Flaming

- Nonflaming

c - Smoldering

d - After smoldering- to- flaming transition

86
TABLE 24

Comparison of Peak Measured HCN Concentrations and Estimated Yields for NBS

Toxicity Protocol Tests, Furniture Calorimeter and Large-Scale Mock-Up

Upholstery Chair Tests of Non- treated Polyurethane Foam 32

HCN Peak HCN Yield

(ppm) (kg/kg X 10~^ )

NBS Toxicity Protocol

Non- flaming

Flaming

Ramped

11 0..4

53 1,,7

173 10,,5

Furniture Calorimeter

Smoldering- to

Flaming

Flaming

<1

® 16

7

<1 . 4

^ 1.1

0.6

Large-Scale Tests

Smoldering- to

Flaming

Flaming

2

1315

78

<0.1

3.5

0.2

a - Lower detection limit of GC calibration

87
TABLE 25

Comparison of Yield Ratios of CO2 /CO for the Small-Scale Tests,

Furniture Calorimeter and Large-Scale Compartment Tests of

Non- Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32

Cotton Yield ratio of C0„/C0

cover Flamins Non- flaming

NBS Toxicity Test - 80 6 . Cone Calorimeter - 200 55

Cone Calorimeter + 65

Furniture Calorimeter + 50

Furniture Calorimeter 4" 30^ 40^

Large-Scale Tests + 70

Large-Scale Tests + 30® 7^

a After smoldering to flaming transition

b Smoldering

88
TABLE 26

Comparison of Yield Ratios of HCN/CO for the NBS Toxicity Test,

Furniture Calorimeter, and Large-Scale Compartment Tests for

Non- treated Polyurethane Foam 32

HCN/CO

NBS Toxicity Test

Non- flaming .01

Flaming .09

Ramped ND^

Furniture Calorimeter

Smoldering- to- <.01

Flaming .01

Flaming .02

Large-Scale Tests

Smoldering- to- <.01

Flaming .04

Flaming .01

Not determined
TABLE 27

Comparison of CO and CO2 Yields for Small-Scale Tests,

Furniture Calorimeter, and Large-Scale Compartment Tests

of Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32X

Cotton

cover

CO

F

(kg/kg)

NF

CO2F

(kg/kg)

NF

NBS Toxicity Test 0.05 0.04 1.5 0.3

Cone Calorimeter - 0.05 0.03 1.9 1.7

Cone Calorimeter + 0.04 1.7

Furniture Calorimeter 0.05 0.35^ (0.13)^ 1.8 8.0® (1.9)

Large-Scale Tests + 0.06 0.17® (0.12)^ 2.2 0.7® (2.7)

F = Flaming

NF = Non- flaming

a = Smoldering

b = After smoldering- to -flaming transition

90
I

TABLE 28

Comparison of Peak Measured HCN Concentrations and Estimated Yields for

NBS Toxicity Protocol Tests, Furniture Calorimeter, and Large-Scale Mock-up

Upholstered Chair Tests of Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32X

HCN Peak HCN Yield

(ppm) (kg/kg X 10^ ) NBS Toxicity Protocol

Non- flaming 7 0.3

Flaming 140 5.7

Ramped 218 13.0

Furniture Calorimeter

Smoldering- to- 1^ 0.5^

Flaming 88 7.0

Flaming 22 1.8

Large-Scale Tests

Smoldering- to- 5 <0.1

Flaming 1360 3.5

Flaming 115 0.4

a - Within lower detection limit of GC calibration

91
TABLE 29

Comparison of Yield Ratios of CO2 /CO for Small-Scale Tests,

Furniture Calorimeter and Large-Scale Compartment Tests of

Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32X

Cotton

cover Flamine Non-flamins;

NBS Toxicity Test - 30 8

Cone Calorimeter - 40 60 . Cone Calorimeter + 40

Furniture Calorimeter + 40

Furniture Calorimeter + 15^ 20^

Large-Scale Tests + 40

Large-Scale Tests + 20^ 5^

a = After smoldering- to -flaming transition

b = Smoldering

92
TABLE 30

Comparison of Yield Ratios of HCN/CO for the NBS Toxicity Test,

Furniture Calorimeter, and Large-Scale Compartment Tests

for Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32X

HCN/CO

NBS Toxicity Test

Non- flaming .01

Flaming . 10

Ramped ND

Furniture Calorimeter

Smoldering- to- .001

Flaming .05

Flaming . 04

Large-Scale Tests

Smoldering- to- <.001

Flaming .03

Flaming .01

a - Not determined
TABLE 31

Comparison of Animal Deaths in the NBS Toxicity Test Method

for 3 -Gas Model Calculations for Non- fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32

Mass Loaded No. Died/No. Tested

Chamber Vol. Within Within -i- 3 -Gas

Mode (mE/£) Exposure Post-exposure Model

NF^ 30.5 0/6 0/6 0.24

38.1 0/6 1/6 ' 0.27

38.9 0/6 2/4 0.39

40.3 0/6 3/6 0.44

Fb 19.9 0/6 0/6 0.26

29.8 0/6 0/6 0.29

40.1 0/6 0/6 0.62

a - Non- flaming

b - Flaming

94
TABLE 32

Comparison of Animal Deaths in the NBS Toxicity Test Method

to 3 -Gas Model Calculations for Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam 32X

Mass Loaded No. Died/No. Tested

Chamber Vol. Within Within + 3 - Gas

Mode (’mg/i) Exnosure Post-exnosure Model

NF^ 22.5 0/6 0/4 0.13

25.0 0/6 2/5 0.18

27.5 0/6 2/4 o oo 30.0 1/6 6/6 0.26

35.0 0/6 5/6 0.28

40.0 0/6 4/6 0.23

25.0 1/6 2/5 1.02

30.0 1/6 4/5 0.95

30.0 3/6 4/6 1.35

35.0 2/6 5/6 1.67

40.0 1/6 3/6 1.44

a - Non- flaming

b - Flaming

95
TABLE 33

Comparison of Animal Deaths in the Large-Scale Post- Flaming

Exposures with 3 -Gas Model Calculations

Exposure Animal lethality 3 -Gas

Source chamber 30 min 14 days Model

32 " Burn 1 6 1.5

2 3 1 0.9

32 - Target 1 0 0 0.4

2 5 1 1.0

32X - Burn 1 6 0 2.1

2 6 1.8

32X - Target 1 6

.. 1.3

2 6 - 1.4
TABLE 34

Comparison of Three Gas Model Results with Measured Animal Response from

Non- Fire Retarded Polyurethane Foam and Cotton Upholstery Fabric

No . Animal deaths

3 -Gas Model

No . animals

Within- Exp

tested

Post- Exp

,

Polyurethane NBS Tox NF 0.4 0/6 3/6

Cotton NBS Tox NF 0.6 0/6 3/6

Chair LS S 0.3 0/6 0/6

Polyurethane NBS Tox F 0.8 0/6 0/6

Cotton (max) NBS Tox F 0.5 0/6 0/6

Chair LS F 1.5 6/6 - - -

NBS Tox = NBS toxicity protocol at or near the LC^^

LS = Large-scale test values for concentrations in animal exposure

chamber, most extreme conditions

NF = Non- flaming

S = Smoldering; cigarette initiated

F = Flaming

97
TABLE 35

Comparison of Three Gas Model Results with Measured Animal Response for Fire

Retarded Polyurethane foam and Cotton Upholstery Fabric.

3-Gas Model

No . animal

No . animals

Within Exo

deaths

tested

Post-Exo

Polyurethane NBS Tox NF 0.2 0/6 2/4

Cotton NBS Tox NF 0.6 0/6 3/6

Chair LS S 0.3 0/6 0/6

Polyurethane NBS Tox F 1.0 1/6 3/5

Cotton (max) NBS Tox F 0.5 0/6 0/6

Chair LS F 1.5 6/6 —

NBS Tox = NBS toxicity protocol at or near the LC^^

LS = Large-scale test values for concentrations in animal exposure

chamber, most extreme conditions

NF = Non- flaming

S = Smoldering; cigarette initiated

F = Flaming

98
J

I

I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 400 500 600 700 800

TIME (min) TEMPERATURE (°C)

Figure 1. HCN Generation During Ramped Heating (375‘’C to SOO^C) of

Foams 32 and 32X After Preheating at 375*C for 30 Minutes

in the NBS Toxicity Apparatus.

99
Figure 2. Schematic of the Cone Calorimeter.

100
RATE

OF

HEAT

RELEASE

(kW/m2)

TIME (s)

Figure 3. Comparison of Heat Release Rate for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric.

101
MASS

LOSS

RATE

(g/s)

Figure 4. Comparison of Mass Loss Rate for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposures

With a Cover Fabric.

102
O)

D)

Q

_J

UJ>

LU9

X

o

Q

O

00

cc<

o

Figure 5. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Yield for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric.

103
CARBON

MONOXIDE

YIELD

(kg/kg)

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810 900

TIME (s)

Figure 6. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Yield for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric.

104
O)

JXLO)

CC

LU

<Co

Q

m

>-

Figure 7. Comparison of Water Yield for Foam 32 Flaming and Non- flaming

Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure With a Cover Fabric.

105
D)

O)

CO

z

o

CD

LL cr O <

y g >- >

LUZ

DC3

CDZ3

6

5

-

4

2 -

0

- Non-flaming: foam only — Flaming: foam/fabric

/

* / \

/

' /

' :_L

/ '

/ \

1. 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810 900

TIME (s)

Figure 8. Comparison of Unburned Hydrocarbons for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric.

106
2700

2400

2100

1800

1500

1200

900

600

300

0

e 9

Comparison of Smoke Extinction Area for Foam 32 Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric..

107
RATE

OF

HEAT

RELEASE

(kW/m^)

Figure 10. Comparison of Heat Release Rate for Foam 32X Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric.

108
MASS

LOSS

RATE

(g/s)

Figure 11. Comparison of Mass Loss Rate for Foam 32X Flaming and Nonflaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure

With a Cover Fabric.-
O)

O)

Q

_j

m

>”LU9

X

o

Q

O

m

Du<

o

Figure 12. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Yield for Foam 32X Flaming and

Non- flaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming

Exposures With a Cover Fabric.

110
CARBON

MONOXIDE

YIELD

(kg/kg)

Figure 13. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Yield for Foam 32X Flaming and

Non- flaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming

Exposure With a Cover Fabric.

Ill
YIELD

OF

WATER

(kg/kg)

Figure 14. Comparison of Water Yield for Foam 32X Flaming and Non- flaming

Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming Exposure With a Cover Fabric

112
YIELD

OF

UNBURNED

HYDROCARBONS

(kg/kg)

J

TIME (s)

Figure 15. Comparison of Unburned Hydrocarbon Yield for Foam 32X Flaming

and Non- flaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming

Exposure With a Cover Fabric.

113
V3UV

NOliONIlXa

Figure 16. Comparison of Smoke Extinction Area for Foam 32X Flaming and

Non- flaming Exposures Without a Cover Fabric and Flaming

Exposure with a Cover Fabric.

114
Figure 17. Schematic of Furniture Calorimeter.

115
Left hand arm and cushion supports not shown

4 cushions

Figure 18. Four Cushion Mock-up Chair Assembly and Steel Frame.

116
o

o

d

o

LLO

<

oc

LUo

o

o

25

15

Q.

Figure 19. Furniture

Dioxide

,

Ignition

Calorimeter Data for the Concentration of Carbon

Carbon Monoxide, HCN, and Oxygen for the Flaming

of Mock-up Chairs made with Foam 32.

117

CONCENTRATION

OF

OXYGEN

(%)
CM o

o

d

o

LLO

o

<

£ELU

LUO

25

LLI O

>

X

O

H—<

oc

LUO

z

o

o

15

20 E

Q.

Q.

o

X

TIME (s)

Figure 20. Furniture Calorimeter Data for the Concentration of Carbon

Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, HCN, and Oxygen for Flaming Ignition

of Mock-up Chairs made with Foam 32X,

118
HEAT

RELEASE

RATE

(MW)

21. FurniturB CaloriinetBr Data Comparing the Rate of Heat Release

from the Flaming Ignition of Mock-up Chairs Made from Either

Foam 32 and Foam 32X.

119
E

5

X

D

_J

LLh“

<

LU

X

h"

UJ

O

X

<

TIME (s)

Figure 22. Furniture Calorimeter Data Comparing the Heat Fl-ux Received

by a Target Material from the Flaming Ignition of Mock-up

Upholstery Chairs made from Foam 32 and Foam 32X.

120
O)

CO

CO

o

h“

X

o

LU

5

LU

_J

QL

<

CO

0 1500

TIME (s)

Figure 23. Comparison of Sample Weight Loss During Flaming Ignition of

Foams 32 and 32X in the Furniture Calorimeter.

121
EFFECTIVE

HEAT

OF

COMBUSTION

TIME (s)

Figure 24. Comparison of the Effective Heat of Combustion from the

Flaming Ignition of Foams 32 and 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chairs

Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter.

122
O)

D)

Q

-J

m

>-Hi

9

X

g

Q

o

m

cc<

o

TIME (s)

Figure 25. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Yield for the Flaming Ignition of

Foams 32 and 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chairs Tested in the

Furniture Calorimeter, '

123
D)

O)

Q

LU

9

X

o

z

o

o

CD

DC

<

o

TIME (s)

Figure 26. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Yield for the Flaming Ignition of

Foams 32 'and 32X Mock-up Chairs Tested in the Furniture

Calorimeter.

124
O)

O)

OC

UJ

LLO

Q

_l

m

>”

TIME (s)

Figure 27. Comparison of the Yield of Water from the Flaming Ignition of

Foams 32 and 32X During the Burning of Mock-up Upholstery

Chairs in the Furniture Calorimeter.

125
E

h“

Z

m

o

LL. U.

m

O

O

z

g

H=O

z

I

X

UJ

Figure 28. Comparison of the Smoke Extinction Coefficient for the Flaming

Ignition of Mock-up Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery Chairs Tested

in the Furniture Calorimeter.

126
Figure 29. Upholstery Chair Mock-up with Two Smoldering Cigarettes as Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter.

127
O)

CO

CO

o

X

o

LLI 5

LU

—I0. <

CO

Figure 30. Comparison of Sample Weight Loss During Smoldering- to -Flaming

of Mock-up Upholstery Chairs Made from Foams 32 and

32X Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter.'

128
o

o

d

o

Li. o

<

DC

f-LUo

z

o

o

TIME (s)

100

E

Q.

CL 0

1

llO

z

o

h-<

DC

LUO

z

o

o

Figure 31. Concentration of CO2 , CO, HCN, and Oxygen during the

Smoldering- to -Flaming Ignition of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery

Chairs Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter.

129
2 “1 100

o

o

d

o

o

<

QC

I-Z

111 o

z

o

o

0 J 0

Concentration of CO2 , CO, HCN, and Oxygen During the

Smoldering" to -Flaming Ignition of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery

Chairs Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter.

Figure 32.

CONCENTRATION

OF

OXYGEN

(%)
TIME (s)

Figure 33. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Yields for Smoldering- to-Flaming

Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chairs Tested

in the Furniture Calorimeter,

131
O)

O)

Q

—I

>

LU

9

X

o

z

o

o

CD

GC

<

o

Figure 34. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Yields for Smoldering- to -Flaming

Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery Chair Mock-ups Tested

in the Furniture Calorimeter (excluding early smoldering

because of erratic response)

132
O)

O)

DC

111 !<5

LLO

Q

—I

>-

TIME (s)

Figure 35. Comparison of the Yield of Water from Smoldering- to-Flaming

Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery Chair Mock-ups Tested

in the Furniture Calorimeter (excluding early smoldering

because of erratic response)

,

133
O)

g

H-CO3

CQ

o

o

LLO

<

IDX

Figure 36. Comparison of The Heat of Combustion from the Smoldering- toFlaming Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery Chair

Mock-ups Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter (excluding early

smoldering because of erratic response) .

134
LUO

LLLL

LUO

O

O

1—o

X

LU

TIME (s)

Figure 37. Comparison of the Smoke Extinction Coefficient for the

Smoldering -to -Flaming Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery

Chair Mock-ups Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter (excluding

early smoldering because of erratic response)

135
LU

h-

<

DC

LUiO

<

LU

_J

LU

DC

<

LUI

TIME (s)

Figure 38. Comparison of the Rate of Heat Release for the Smoldering- to

Flaming Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X Upholstery Chair

Mock-ups Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter (excluding early

smoldering because of erratic response)

136
CME

§

X

ZD

_J

LL

f-

<

LUX

ILUo

CE<

H

1 n \ 1 1 \ 1 r

Foam 32 chair .

1

“ Foam 32X chair

|ii

1

If:

V

^ V V \

1 1 1

'

'

1 1 -'i 0 4500

TIME (s)

Figure 39. Comparison of the Heat Flux Received by a Target Material from

the Smoldering- to -Flaming Ignitions of Foams 32 and 32X

Upholstery Chair Mock-ups Tested in the Furniture Calorimeter..

137
Corridor

0 Thermocouple trees

|g]] C0.C02 probe

© Pressure probes

HSM Horizontal smoke meters

VSM Vertical smoke meters

^ Oxygen probe Scale

I 1 1m

Animal & HCN sampling line & load platform

A2 Animal & HCN sampling line

Figure 40. Schematic Floor Plan of The Large-Scale Three Compartment Test

Facility,

138
O)

C/D

C/D O

hI

g

LU§

LU

-J

CL<

CO

TIME (s)

Figure 41. Comparison of Sample Weight loss for Flaming Ignition of

Mock-up Upholstery Chairs made from foams 32 and 32X in the

Large-Scale Three Compartment Tests.

139
<

QC

IUJo

z

o

o

C/D <

o

TIME (s)

Figure 42. Carbon Monoxide Concentration in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

140
T — Corridor

Target room

0

TIME (s)

2000

Figure 43. Carbon Monoxide Concentration in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32X

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.--
GAS

CONCENTRATION

(%)

TIME (s)

Figure 44. Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Each Compartment of The

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

142
10

Corridor

Target room

<

crK

Z

UJo

z

o

o

CO<

o

A'-

i

/

h

7/

I!

\\

TIME (s)

'\V

\ \

\ \

2000

Figure 45. Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

143
TIME (s)

Figure 46. Upper Layer Gas Temperatures in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flam.ing Ignition test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

144
GAS

TEMPERATURE

(°C)

Figure 47. Upper Layer Gas Temperatures in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

145
<

DC

LU

O

z

o

o

CO

<

o

^3^ Conip 3.insori of Csirbon Dioxid© Coriccxitrstxon in tli© Suim R.oom

and the Animal Exposure Chamber for Flaming Ignition of Foam ! Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

146
1000 T T I

O

LU

CC

Z)

H-<

DCLU

QLU

C/D <

o

Figure 49. Upper Layer Gas Temperatures in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

147
GAS

TEMPERATURE

(°C)

TIME is)

Figure 50. Upper Layer Gas Temperatures in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Facility During Flaming Ignition Test of Foam 32X

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

148
O)

C/D O

H

X

g

LU

LU

_J

CL<

C/D

0 7000

TIME (s)

Figure 51. Comparison of Weight Loss for Preliminary Smoldering- to -Flaming Experiments of Foams 32 and 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair

Assemblies.

149
g

h-

<

cchLU

O

z

o

o

05

<

o

TIME (s)

Figure 52. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the One

Cigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

150
<

oc

H—z

LU

o

o

o

CO

<

o

0 7000

TIME (s)

Figure 53. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Each Compartmen

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the One Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

151
<

CL\-

Z

m

O

O

o

CO

<

o

TIME (s)

Figure 54. Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Test Facility for the One-Cigarette Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

152
GAS

TEMPERATURE

(°C)

TIME (s)

Figure 55. Comparison of Upper Compartment Gas Temperature in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the OneCigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

153
o

h-

<

tr

LU

o

z

O

o

CO

<

(5

Figure 56. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

154
20

h-

<

QC

LU

O

O

O

CO

<

(0

1 1 r 1 1

Burn room

1 \ \ 1

Corridor

Target room —

—

t \

j J\ '\

. , ^ ^ 0 7000

TIME (s)

Figure 57 . Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

155
J—

<

cc

H-Z

LU

O

z

o

o

CO

<

o

TIME (s)

Figure 58. Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly,

156
GAS

TEMPERATURE

(°C)

TIME (s)

Figure 59. Coirparison of Upper Compartment Gas Temperatures in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

157
z

o

I-<

cc

LU

o

z

o

o

CO

<

o

TIME (s)

Figure 60. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

158
20

Figure 61. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

159
<

cc

LU

o

z

o

o

C/D <

o

Figure 62. Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment of

the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

160
1000 T

O

LUD

h“

<

CC

UJ

CL

LU

C/D <

O

— Burn room — Corridor — Target room

0

0 7000

TIME (s:

Figure 63. Comparison of the Upper Compartment Gas Temperatures in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly.

161
kMlHH

Figure 64. Large-Scale Three Compartment Animal Exposure System - Three

Animal Exposure Chambers.

162
SAMPLE

WEIGHT

LOSS

(kg)

Figure 65. Mass Loss of Upholstery Chair Assembly Made from Foam 32 and

Exposed to Two -Cigarettes in the Large-Scale Test Facility With

the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room.

'

163
<

a:

I

z

LLl O

o

o

CO

<

o

Figure 66. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Bum Room.

164
GAS

CONCENTRATION

(%)

Figure 67 . Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room..

165
GAS

CONCENTRATION

(%)

Figure 68. Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room.

166
GAS

TEMPERATURE

(°C)

Figure 69. Comparison of the Upper Compartment Gas Temperature in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two

Cigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With

the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn

Room.

167
SAMPLE

WEIGHT

LOSS

(kg)

10

0

1 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 \

—

_i 1 1 1 0

TIME (s)

8000

Figure 70. Mass Loss of Upholstery Chair Assembly Made from Foam 32 and

Exposed to Two-Cigarettes in the Large-Scale Test Facility

With the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target Room.

168
z

g

h-

<

tr

Z

LU

O

z

o

o

CO

<

o

0 8000

TIME (s)

Figure 71. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the

Two-Cigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair

Assembly With the Animal Exposure Chamber Connected to the

Target Room.

169
GAS

CONCENTRATION

(%)

Figure 72. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chamber Connected to the Target Room.

170
GAS

CONCENTRATION

(%)

Figure 73. Comparison of Oxygen Concentration in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two -Cigarette Test of Foam 32

Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chamber Connected to the Target Room.

171
GAS

TEMPERATURE

(®C)

Figure 74. Comparison of the Upper Compartment Gas Temperatures in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32 Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly

With the Animal Exposure Chamber Connected to the Target

Room.

172
SAMPLE

WEIGHT

LOSS

(kg)

0 8000

TIME (s)

Figure 75. Mass Loss of Upholstery Chair Assembly Made from Foam 32X and

Exposed to Two-Cigarettes in the Large-Scale Test Facility With

the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room.

173
z

g

H

<

CC

hZ

LU

O

Z

o

o

CO

<

o

0 8000

TIME (s)

Figure 76. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room.

174
GAS

CONCENTRATION

(%)

Figure 77. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room.

175
GAS

CONCENTRATION

(%)

Figure 78. Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn Room.

176
GAS

TEMPERATURE

(<>C)

Figure 79. Comparison of Upper Compartment Gas Temperatures in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two

Cigarette Test of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly

With the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Burn

Room.

177
SAMPLE

WEIGHT

LOSS

(kg)

Figure 80. Mass Loss of Upholstery Chair Assembly Made from Foam 32X and

Exposed to Two-Cigarettes in the Large-Scale Test Facility With

the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target Room.

178
2

ocz

LU

o

z

o

o

CO

<

o

0

Figure 81. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target Room.

179
10

<

cr

h"

Z

UJ

o

z

o

o

CO

<

CD

— Corridor

-—Target room

\

0 t

0

h 1 n

TIME (s)

9000

Figure 82. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Each Compartment

of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of

Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target Room.

180
GAS

CONCENTRATION

(%)

Figure 83. Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in Each Compartment of the

Large-Scale Test Facility for the Two-Cigarette Test of Foam

32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly With the Animal

Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target Room.

181
GAS

TEMPERATURE

(®C)

Figure 84. Comparison of Upper Compartment Gas Temperatures in Each

Compartment of the Large-Scale Test Facility for the TwoCigarette Test of Foam 32X Mock-up Upholstery Chair Assembly

With the Animal Exposure Chambers Connected to the Target

Room.

182
FORM NBS-1 14A (REV.1 1-84) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO.

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 87-3510 FEBRUARY 1987

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

FIRE TOXICITY SCALING

5. AUTHOR(S)

Emil Braun, Barbara C. Levin, Maya Paabo, Joshua Gurman, Trudi Holt,

J. Samuel Steel

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DffARTM9IT OF COMMBICE

GAITHBtSBURG, MD 20899

7. Contract/Grant No.

8 . Type of Report & Period Covered

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Bethesda, Maryland 20207

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

The toxicity of the thermal decomposition products from two flexible polyurethane

foams (with and without a fire retardant) and a cotton upholstery fabric was

evaluated by a series of small-scale and large-scale tests single mock-up upholstery

chair tests during smoldering or flaming decomposition. In addition other fire

property data such as rates of heat release, effective heats of combustion, specific

gas species yields, and smoke obscuration were measured. The degree of toxicity

observed during and following the flaming tests (both large-scale room burns and the

NBS Toxicity Tests) could be explained by a 3 -Gas Model which includes the combined

toxicological effects of CO, CO2

, and HCN. Essentially no animal deaths were noted

during the thirty minute exposures to the non- flaming or smoldering combustion

products produced in the NBS Toxicity Test Method or the large-scale room test. In

these experiments, the concentrations of CO, CO2 , and HCN were comparable. Postexposure deaths, however, occurred following the small-scale non- flaming foam or cotton tests, but not following exposures to the smoldering phase of the large-scale

tests. The ratio of yields of CO2 to CO were mostly comparable in all four sets of

experiments. In the large-scale room tests, little toxicological difference was

noted between decomposition products from the burn room and a second room 12 meters

away.

12.

KEY WORDS (S/x to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) Cotton; fire tests; large scale fire tests; polyurethane; small scale fire tests;

toxicity; upholstery.

13. AVAILABILITY

i Uni imited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I I Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402.

Sc"l Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

196

15. Price

$18.95

USCOAAM-OC 35-4006
«t* 0 |vi>tiMki'l4dU«^ 4 tvjoirJ^' .AftY^o

vjiei muHHH i

iif

.cm TH<W3^

AJtSW

•"

jbMion %o ,rn »9

kr\Q 0IIKW13OI

3jmfiU?QMA 9j

wsioASe maixcT Mn ^J

• tJ ,3ZoH ibw*3X .njsjttrxiii) aud^Ow ,odiiA-% *0 a!i6id3%fi

vZMIO

oM i«*fDN»DCB*<<0 .t *« ,t®!rt ft ^<*1 »,u \M MCMt AS»VlA,Df*0

"

0«»VI*4CO yo TMMtlkMBO XJU J

i-,—.

w itiMriri rri^t

,x^r~^ rT5T51?®E’

Burn room

•^' vine; or

i3i>boii ’*icuano3jj

. bntivi^R

1 ^ eardw vjiath3*^

ti ,fwmmu2 j

SjMJtafew^ioo «Wi*oi3 *W3 iw>rt »Hat/Wiq i5BiSiM<JA-03 W> Xtffj»13^3 c^|irB3 *

^ aitfdAl ri».i»Jod^v ;ro5ro. bua e^n ft 3//o(fep bcim iw^

A 3<iito0 rr«t:jtt>b4 lii „^*^a3lso(i«or^»ft"x a>JiU&n lo I^nitub

iil^bsc^q .Crol3i4;dror» tnABd 3*«f *o3 b^ M 4iM»a

V Y3i?*‘Jfb^ io l**f >»63r. ai-w# fT0i3nii/i**dw te^^rt bfrfc..^isIX

ad - Sj^ WO03 f>Xfcpi-#8JL*I riaod;. a5KA? yirjaI1> **^3 yfivoj I ^^-*^*i!i» (TOO! *i»P»-*ai*J 0300, ^ w j- -r ^V

*,.:k -jrfj «*b loriX -io-rtv .boM C > Vt b»ni»i<p* ' 'V*

b.jCiO #'•"* 1» «Ji» <Ni» y.Uei ?'! '»|JI 'W ta* , jOO .00 *'* ' ,-^:-u»UKr. floH*bl<Mw',- »-ti 03 .

'»• vf»l

«<

.«,» '»t -- ITJ T ^at^TT'-^ «Mlir'-w> tUtHUHtyon*- 3I» «e!ft-'i- b»W't-o-i<l ft

' b,,i‘ ,*500- ;«^ aaW-«-.'>-.r^«r->»**---o»ra<»]-**ip

<0 j»«3 arxnt. y-ft.->i! sXtit-JSm* •.<• .soi ooai.'Soo ,i» *vod .»-3WliJ««'

vl<!.-)».»,i%f.i •r't lo iO.- •ibXom* ->r<' W ^olvoJiol iofl 9u«

ii ?o ;.»* 3-JioX i.'t. Ji 3 vX**--*.-. »;;v 00 VI 00 5o «X./»^ 5o oljvi

.»v ~.i>a»-i»0i.M- I*a'S'lcsU(?3 Ulyili ,»3 *ai ivooi eX*o«-vai»X •<fc> nl .ranwt*^

f. IVt)-- .;i

' l^M__^,;..i ^Su aHlr-* " I> I '> • t ^ TW^. .

~ jL'IrXgt^^ i ».•• <' »Vi*.»»' ''>•''* ;Vu4rr-<» :34Hf3 ;«3 I!o3

AL .oy. ?eOAS ('Sfwif «

, MB-

(1

fl- ^,-j >a

iM# •

/S4*^
Jitf