Final Report: Effective Non-Toxic 

Metallic Fire Suppressants 

Gregory Linteris 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Administration 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

and Tecnnology 

National Institute of Standards 

and Technology 

Technology Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 
Final Report: Effective Non-Toxic 

Metallic Fire Suppressants 

Gregory Linteris 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Administration 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

and Technology 

May 2002 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Donald L. Evans, Secretary 

TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION 

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS 

AND TECHNOLOGY 

Arden L. Bernent. Jr.. Director 
Final Technical Report 

Effective Non-Toxic Metallic Fire Suppressants 

4D/13/1 

Date: 2/14/2002 

1 Gregory Linteris', Marc Rumminger , Valeri Babushok' , 

Harsha Chelliah', Tony Lazzarini', and Pasan Wanigarathne' 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

Fire Research Division 

100 Bureau Dr. Stop 8652 

Gaithersburg MD 20899-8652 

I 

'Mechanical and Aerospace Eng. 

University of Virginia 

122 Engineer's Way 

P.O.Box 400746 

Charlottesville, VA 22904-4746 

February, 2002 

Final Technical Report, Jan . 200 1 ~ Dec. 200 1 

The viewu and conclirsions contained in tliis dociinient are those ofthe authors and slioiild not he 

interpi-eted us representing the official policies, either expressed OP inzplied, of the Sti-ategic 

En vironm en tal Research arid De velopni en t Prograni, Nut ional Ins tit Lite of Staridurc1.s mi LI 

Teclznologl., or- anj other part of the US. Governrnent. 

Sponsored by: 

The Department of Defense 

Strategic Environniental Reseui-ch and Development Progmrn 
Table of Contents 

1. Summa ry... .......................................................................... 1 

3. Detailed Description of the Project .................. ....................... 7 

2. Bibliography .............................................................. 

3.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 

3.2 Inhibition by Other Organometallics: Tin and Manganese ...... .................................. 8 

3.2.1. Introduction ..................................................... 

3.2.2. Experimental Apparatus .......................................................................................... 10 

3.2.3. Kinetic Mechanisms and Numerical Modeling ... .................................. 12 

.................................................................................................. 17 

................................ 17 

3.2.4.2. Inhibition by Tetramet 

3.2.4.3. Inhibition by MMT ...................................................................... 

3.2.4.4. Comparative Performance of Metals .. 

3.2.5. Discussion ............................................... ................................... 25 

3.2.5.1. Inhibition Mechanisms of Tin and Manganese ........................................ 

3.2.5.2. Comparison of i 

3.2.6. Conclusions ............................................................................. 

3.3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 

3.3.2. Experiment ...................................................... ...................... 33 

3.3.2.2. Premixed Burner .......................................................................... 

3.3.3. Results ..................... ...................................................... 35 

3.3.3.1. Extinction of Non-premixed Flames with Water/Solutions ................................ 35 

3.3.3.2. Inhibition of Premixed Flames with Water-NaOH Droplets ............................. .41 

3.3.3.3. Comparison of Non-premixed and Premixed Flames with Pure-Water Droplets 42 

3.3.4. Conclusions .... .......................................................................... .44 

3.4.1. Introduction .......................................................................... .45 

3.4.2. Background ........................................................................................ 

3.4.3. Experiment ... ................................. .47 

3.4.4. Results and Discussion .................................. 48 

3.4.5. Conclusions .. ... ..................... 5 1 

3.5. Laser Scattering Experiments of Particles in Fe(C0)s-Inhibited Flames .......................... 53 

3.5.1. I~itroduction .................................. ... ................................ .53 

3.5.3. Experiment ............. 

3.4. Cup Burner Flame Extinction Tests with Metal Compounds ........... 

3.5.2. Background ................................................................................................... ... 53 

3.5.3.2. Optical System. ........................................................................... 55 

3.5.3.3. Thermophoretic ............................... 57 

3.5.3.1 . Burners ................................................................................................... 

3.5.3.4. Uncertainty An 

3.5.4. Results and Discuss 
3.5.4.1. Premixed Flames(@=l .O) 

3.5.4.1.1. Scattering Measurements ......................... 

3.5.4.1.2. Particle Size an 

3.5.4.1.3. Estimate of Upper Limit of Heterogeneous Inhibition 

3.5.4.2. Counterflow Diffusion Flames 

3.5.4.3. Cup-Burner Flames ............................................... 

......................................................... 64 

3.5.5. Conclusions ............................................ 

4. Technical Problems ................................................................. 

5. Recommendations ......................... 

6. Conclusions ................... 76 

7. References .............................. 

............................................................. 

11 
1. Summary 

1.1. Task Objectives 

The purpose of the project was to: a,) identify which metal species would be effective 

flame inhibitors, and then b.) attempt to find non-toxic forms of the metal which could 

be used. Very early in the project, however, we determined that metal species-in any 

form-might not be effective in practical flames. This in itself was a major finding, and 

hence an additional, most important objective of the project became: c.) determining the 

reasons for the unexpected low effectiveness of Fe(C0)j in cup-burner flames. 

1.2. Technical Problems 

The main unexpected difficulty in the project relative to the original plans was that the 

performance of the super-effective agent Fe(C0)q was found to be highly dependent 

upon the type of flame used to assess its performance. For example, Fe(C0)5, which is 

about 80 times as effective as CF3Br in reducing the overall reaction rate of premixed 

flames, appeared to be nearly ineffective in subsequent tests in cup burner flames [I]. 

The problem then became to determine if Fe(C0)j was indeed ineffective, or perhaps if 

it was losing its effectiveness-as in premixed and counterflow diffusion flames-but 

just earlier. To do this it was necessary to develop a new protocol for cup burner 

extinction to assess the effectiveness of powerful metallic radical scavenging agents 

over a range of mole fractions, and then examine the performance of Fe(C0)j (as well as 

other potentially effective new metals) in the cup burner using this new method. 

1.3. General Methodologv 

Screening tests to find new metallic inhibitors which had strong effects on the overall 

reaction rate were first conducted in premixed systems. The most promising candidates, 

Mn and Sn containing compounds, were thus tested for their ability to reduce the flame 

speed of premixed methane-air flames. These tests also provided a clear delineation of 

possible loss of effectiveness due to condensation for these low-residence time flames. 

Since these flames are amenable to numerical modeling of the gas-phase chemistry, such 

calculations, together with thermodynamic equilibrium calculations, were then used to 

understand the reasons for the differences in effectiveness between Fe, Sn, and Mn. It 

was also desired to determine if blends of metals would help to overcome the loss of 

effectiveness due to condensation. For these investigations, we preformed premixed 

flame speed determinations with blends of Fe(C0)j and MMT. 

An additional goal of this project was to search for non-toxic forms of metals that might 

be effective fire suppressants. One approach, both for testing the metal compounds as 

well as well as for using them in practical applications, is to add metallic compounds to 

water droplets. Hence, we conducted tests to validate a reliable system for evaluating 

metal additives to water droplets, and used them to assess the potential of several metal 

compounds. Both premixed and counterflow diffusion flames of methane and air were 
used, with droplets of water and solutions. The additives included NaOH, KOH, NaC1. 

and FeC12. 

Finally, we sought to further understand the effectiveness of metal-based inhibitors in 

flames resembling fires, and explain why they were surprisingly ineffective for those 

conditions. For this purpose, we employed cup-burner flames with the organometallic 

compounds added to the air stream. An approach was developed in which COZ was used 

as the primary suppressant, and the metal compound was added in order to reduce the 

quantity of CO? required for extinction. Since particle formation was believed to be the 

cause of loss of effectiveness, we conducted laser scattering measurements in the 3-D 

flow field above cup-burner flames with Fe(C0)S added to the air stream 

1.4. Technical Results 

New data and results obtained as a result of this work are: 

a.) the flame speed of premixed methane-air flames in the presence of tetramethyltin 

(Sn(CH3)J1 TMT) at T,,,=21 O C; @=0.9, 1.0, and 1.1; andXo,.ox r0.2, 0.21, and 0.24. 

b.) the flame speed of premixed methane-air flames in the presence of 

methylcyclopentadienylmanganese tricarbonyl (CHjCSH4Mn(CO)3, MMT) at T,,,=XO 

O C; @=0.9, 1.0, and 1.1; andXcl,.o, =0.19, 0.2, 0.21, and 0.24. 

c.) the flame speed of premixed methane-air flames in the presence of MMT and 

Fe(C0)j at T,,,=80 O C, 4~1.0, and Xo,,,, =0.24. 

d.) the extinction condition of counterflow diffusion flames with pure water droplets and 

water with NaOH, KOH, NaCI, and FeC17 at variable droplet mass fraction. 

e.) the decrease in flame speed of premixed methane-air flames (@=1.0) with added 

water droplets and water-NaOH solutions. 

f.) cup-burner extinction conditions of methane-air flames in the presence of CO., Br,, 

and CF3Br. 

g.) cup-burner extinction conditions of methane-air flames in the presence of CO2 

combined with a range of mole fractions of CF3Br, TMT, MMT, or Fe(C0)S. Also 

performed were tests of the extinction volume fraction of COz with a range of mole 

fraction of TMT/ MMT/Fe(C0)5 (in a fixed proportion) in the air stream. 

h.) the laser light scattering cross section for particles in cup-burner flames of methane 

and air inhibited by CO? and a blended with Fe(CO), at a volume fraction of (100, 

200, 325, and 450 ) yL/L in the air stream. 

1.5. Important Findings and Conclusions 

a.) MMT and TMT are forty and three as effective as Fe(C0)5 in reducing the overall 

reaction rate of CHJ-air flames. 

b.) TMT and MMT lose their effectiveness for inhibiting premixed CH3-air flames at 

3000 and 300 pLIL, respectively, and the loss is stronger than that which would occur 

due to radical depletion. 

2 
c.) Fe(C0)j added to MMT-inhibited flames showed additional inhibition, indicating that 

radical depletion is not the reason for the loss of effectiveness observed for MMTinhibited flames. 

d.) The difference in efficiency between TMT, MMT, and Fe(C0)j is caused by the 

stability of the metal di-hydroxide intermediates. 

e.) The alkali metal hydroxides NaOH and KOH were shown to be effective additives to 

water droplets, reducing the droplet mass fraction for extinction of counterflow 

diffusion flames by a factor of three and four, respectively. 

f.) For the first time, alkali metals have been shown to have an upper limit of additive 

mole fraction for their efficient use as flame inhibitors. The cause is believed to be 

the limiting vapor pressure of intermediate species. 

g.) The effectiveness of water droplets in counterflow diffusion flames was shown to be 

strongly affected by droplet diameter. This highlights the importance of the 

relationship between droplet size and flow residence time, which is even more 

important for the case of water with additives. 

h.) The performance of water droplets (with or without additives) is highly dependent 

upon the flame type. This highlights the importance of understanding the 

temperature and flow field existing in actual fires in order to select the proper droplet 

size for efficient use of the suppressant. 

i.) TMT, MMT, and Fe(CO)j, even when added at low mole fraction, are much less 

effective at inhibiting cup-burner flames than they are at inhibiting premixed and 

counterflow diffusion flames. 

j.) The effectiveness of TMT, MMT, and Fe(C0)j in cup-burner flames drops off 

precipitously above (4000, 400, and 400) pLIL. 

k.) The performance of a super-effective inhibitor can vary drastically depending upon 

the type of flame in which it is tested. 

I.) Large scattering signals were measured in cup-burner flames inhibited by Fe(CO)j, 

indicating the presence of particles, that are believed to be the cause of the poor 

performance of metals in cup-burner flames. 

m.) The following physical effects are believed to be important in chemical inhibition by 

metal compounds: 

1.) gas-phase transport of the active iron-containing species to the region of high H2.) Particle formation near the location of peak [HI can act as a sink for the iron3.) The mole fraction of inhibitor influences condensation since at low values, it may 

4.) The available residence time affects particle growth. 

5.) Therniophoretic forces can be large in the flame and re-distribute particles away 

6.) Convection and drag forces can prevent particles from reaching the region of peak 

atom is necessary for efficient inhibition. 

containing intermediate species and reduce the catalytic effect. 

be below its saturation value. 

from peak [HI. 

[HI. 

3 
1.6. Sipnificant Hardware Developments 

We designed, built, tested, and optimized the following: 

a,) A system for introducing multiple organometallic agents to the fuel or air stream of a 

b.) A system for accurately introducing Br, to the air stream of a cup burner. 

c.) A laser scattering system for measuring nanoparticles in cup-burner flames. 

cup burner. 

1.7. Special Comments 

There are two major findings of this work: 

a.) In cup-burner flames, condensation of active metal-containing intermediate species, 

combined with the flow field and thermophoretic effects, sequester the active species 

and prevent them from reaching the region of the flame where they are required to 

extinguish the flame, and 

b.) For any inhibitor-flame system containing particles, the effectiveness of the agent will 

be highly dependent upon the type of flame used to assess the performance. (Note 

that particles may be present either from the form of the added suppressant itself, or 

from intermediate species which condense after the suppressant is added to the fire). 

1.8. Implications for Further Research 

More work needs to be done to understand if other super effective agents, for example. 

those containing phosphorus, form particles during inhibition of flames resembling fires. 

If so, they too may be plagued by the demonstrated loss of effectiveness for metal species 

in cup-burner flames. It is difficult to interpret what is actually happening in the cup 

burner to make the metals ineffective. We have proposed plausible (if unproven) 

mechanisms by which the metals may become ineffective. Nonetheless, stronger, more 

accurate statements could be made if we understood the fundamental mechanisms by 

which chemically active suppressants (e.g., CF3Br, Brz, etc., which are effective in the 

cup burner) work to cause flame extinction. Specifically, it is required to determine: a,) 

the actual flow field in the cup-burner; b.) the regions of the flame most susceptible to 

catalytic radical recombination; and c.) the transport rates of the inhibitor to these 

regions. Detailed flame structure calculations and measurements, of the type previously 

performed for premixed and counterflow diffusion flames, would yield this information. 

These data and calculations would provide a much sounder basis for understanding the 

fate and role of chemically active species in practical suppressed fires, and are in 

important first step towards understanding the action of chemical inhibitors in actual 

suppressed fires. 

4 
2. Bibliography 

1. **Babushok, V., Tsang, W., Linteris, G. T. and Reinelt, D., “Chemical Limits to Flame 

Inhibition,“ Conzhiistion und Flanze, 115, pp. 55 1-560, 1998. 

2. **Rumniinger, M., Reinelt, D., Babushok, V., and Linteris, G. T., ”Numerical Study of the 

Inhibition of Premixed and Diffusion Flames by Iron Pentacarbonyl,” Coriihcistiori and 

Flume, 116(1-2), pp. 207-219, 1999. 

3. Rumminger, M. D.; Reinelt, D.; Babushok, V. I.; Linteris. G. T., “Inhibition of Flames by 

Iron Pentacarbonyl,” Hulon Optioris Technical Working Confkrerzce. HOTWC-98. 

Proceedings. May 12- 14, 1998, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1-12 pp, 1998. 

4. Rumminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T., “Particle Measurements in Fe(C0)j-Inhibited Flames,“ 

NIST Anniiul ConflYi-ence on Fire Research, Rockville MD, Nov. 2-5, 1998. 

5. Rumminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T., “The Role of Particles in Flame Inhibition by Iron 

Pentacarbonyl,” Halon Options Technical Working Cor?ference, Albuquerque, NM, April 27- 

6. Runiminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T., “Particle Measurements in Flames Inhibited by Iron 

Pentacarbonyl”, .Joint Meeting of’ the United Stutes Sections of the Coinbustion Institute, 

Washington, D.C., March 1999. 

7. Linteris, G.T. and Rumminger, M.D., “Flame Inhibition by Ferrocene, Carbon Dioxide, and 

Trifluorornethane Blends: Synergistic and Anti-synergistic Effects,” 19 99 Full Techniczil 

Meeting, Eustern States Sectiori ofthe Conihiistiori Institute, July, 1999. 

8. ““Ruinminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T., “Numerical Modeling of Inhibition of Counterflow 

Diffusion Flames by Iron Pentacarbonyl”, in Fire Safep Science Proceedings qf the Sixth 

Intenzutionnl Synzposiiin?, International Association for Fire Safety Science (Michel Curtat, 

Ed.). Marne-La-Vallee, France, 2000. pp. 289-300. 

Hydrogen-Oxygen-Nitrogen Flames by Iron Pentacarbonyl,” Conibiistion and Flume, 

29, 1999, pp. 51 1-521. 

9. **Rumminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T., “Inhibition of Premixed Carbon Monoxide120(4):45 1-464, 2000. 

10. ““Linteris, G.T. and Rumminger, M.D., “Premixed Carbon Monoxide/Nitrous 

OxideiHydrogen Flames: Measured and Calculated Burning Velocities with and without 

Fe(CO)j,” Comhirstioii uizd Flame, 122( 1/2):58-75, 2000. 

11. **Rumminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T. “The Role of Particles in Flame Inhibition by Iron 

Pentacarbonyl,” Coinhiistion and Flame, 123( 1 /2):82-94, 2000. 

12. Linteris, G.T. and Rumminger, M.D., “Flame Inhibition by Ferrocene, Carbon Dioxide, and 

Trifluoromethane Blends: Synergistic and Anti-synergistic Effects,” 1 Y99 Full Techniccil 

Meefing. Eusteni Stutes Section of’the Conihiistiotz Institute, July, 1999. 

13. Linteris, G.T. and Rumminger, M.D., “Flame Inhibition by Ferrocene, Alone and with CO? 

and CFjH,” Halon Options Techriicul Working Conjiv-etice, Albuquerque, NM, May 2-4, 

14. Lazzarini, A. K., Krauss, R. H., Chelliah, H. K., and Linteris, G. T., “Extinction of 

Counterflow Diffusion Flames with Fine-Water Droplets,” Hdon Options Tecliiiicul 

Working Confknce, Albuquerque, NM, May 2-4, 2000, pp. 195-203. 

2000, pp. 129-140. 

5 
15. ““Linteris, G.T., Rumminger, M.D., Babushok, V.I., and Tsang, W., “Flame Inhibition by 

Ferrocene, and by Blends of Inert and Catalytic Agents,” Proceedings oj the Conibustion 

Institute, 28:2965-2972, 2000. 

16. **Lazzarini, A.M., Krauss, R.H., Chelliah, H.K., and Linteris, G.T, “Extinction Conditions 

of Non-premixed Flames with Fine Droplets of Water and Water-NaOH Solutions, 

Proceedings of the Coni hiistion Institute, 2 8 : 2 93 9-2945, 2000. 

17. Wanigarathne, P.C., Krauss, R. H., Chelliah, H. K., and Davis, R.J., “Fire Suppression by 

Particulates Containing Metallic Compounds,” Halon Options Technical Working 

Cogfkreiice, Albuquerque, NM, May 2-4. 2000, pp. 393-402. 

18. Linteris, G.T. “Suppression of Cup-Burner Diffusion Flames by Super-Effective Chemical 

Inhibitors and Inert Compounds,” Hulo~ Optiorzs Technical Working Conj&encc., 

Albuquerque, NM, April 24-26, 200 1, pp. 187- 196. 

19. Linteris, G. T., Knyazev, V., and Babushok, V., “Premixed Flame Inhibition by Manganese 

and Tin Compounds,” Halon Options Technical Working Confkrence, Albuquerque, NM, 

April 24-26, 200 1, pp. 72-82. 

20. Chelliah, H.K., Lazzarini, A.K., Wanigarathne, P.A., and Linteris, G. T., “A Comparison of 

Fire Suppression Effectiveness of Sodium Bicarbonate Particles and Fine-Water Droplets in 

Non-Premixed and Premixed Flames,” Halon Options Technical Working Couzfi.r-enct., 

Albuquerque, NM, April 24-26, 200 1, pp. 389-394. 

21. **Rumminger, M.D. and Linteris, G. T., “Particle Fortnation in Counterflow Diffusion 

Flames Inhibited by Iron Pentacarbonyl,” Corizhiistiovi and Flume, 128( 1/2): 145- 164, 2002. 

22. Babushok, V. I., Knyazev, V. D., and Linteris, G. T., “Mechanisms of Flame Inhibition by 

Tin and Manganese Containing Additives,” Ffth Internutiom1 Conference 011 Cheriiicul 

Kinetics; Jul 16 - Jul 20, 200 1, Gaithersburg, MD, 200 1. p. 1 16. 

23. **Linteris, G. T., Knyazev, V., and Babushok, V., “Inhibition of Premixed Methane Flames 

by Manganese and Tin Compounds,” accepted for publication in Conihiistion und Flanie, 

Dec. 200 1. 

24. **Linteris, G. T., “Extinction of Cup-Burner Diffusion Flames by Catalytic and Inert 

Inhibitors,” submitted to Proc. Conihirst. Imt. Vol. 2Y, Dec. 200 1. 

25. **Rumminger, M.D., Babushok, V.I., and Linteris, G. T., “Spatial Effects in Chemical 

Inhibition of Premixed Flames,” submitted to Proc. Cotiibiist. Inst. Vol. 29 Dec. 200 1. 

26. **Chelliah, H.K., Lazzarini, A.K., Wanigarathne, P.C., Linteris, G. T., “Inhibition of 

Premixed and Non-Premixed Flames with Fine Droplets of Water and Solutions,” submitted 

to Proc. Conhtst. hist. Vol. 29, Dec. 200 1. 

27. Linteris, G.T. and Rumminger, M.D., “Particle Formation in Laminar Flames Inhibited by 

Metals,” Western States Section Meeting, The Combustion Institute, March 25-26, 2002, La 

Jolla, CA. 

28. Linteris, G. T., “Loss of Effectiveness of Organometallic Agents in Cup-Burner Flames,” 

Hulon Options Technical Working Corzfer-ence; Apr 30 - May 2, 2002, Albuquerque, NM., 

s ii bm i t t ed . 

** denotes a peer-reviewed, archival publication. 

6 
3. Detailed Description of the Project 

3.1 Background 

Production of the effective and widely used brominated fire suppressant CF3Br (Halon 1301) and 

similar compounds has been halted because of their deleterious effects on stratospheric ozone 

[2]. While short term replacements have been suggested [3-51, they are much less effective than 

CFjBr, and a better agent is desired. Recent attention has focused on phosphorus [6-9]and metal 

species [ 10- 121. The reasons these agents have attracted interest is because they are up to one 

hundred times more effective than CF3Br at reducing the flame speed of hydrocarbon flames 

when added at low mole fraction. Nonetheless, recent work has shown that while the metal 

compounds are very effective in both premixed and counterflow diffusion flames at low mole 

fraction, their marginal effectiveness decreases rapidly above a volume fraction of a few hundred 

pL/Ll. The compounds used for the initial tests of the effectiveness of metal compounds are also 

highly toxic. If some means could be developed to use non-toxic forms of the active element, 

very effective fire suppressants may be possible. For example, metal species could be effective 

additives to fire suppressant blends for uninhabited spaces [ 131. 

The goal of the present project, as originally conceived, was to: I.) determine if other metals 

experience the same super-effectiveness that Fe(CO)j and ferrocene showed; 2.) determine if the 

loss of effectiveness was specific to iron or common to other super-effective agents; 3.) explore 

ways of overcoming the loss of effectiveness, and 4.) determine if non-toxic fonns of the active 

species could be identified. As the project unfolded, however, we discovered that effectiveness 

of these super agents in flames resembling fires (e.g., cup-burner type co-flow diffusion flames) 

was found to be much less than expected based on the results in the premixed and counterflow 

diffusion flames [ 141. An additional-actually a crucial-goal of the project then became to 

understand the reasons for the poor performance of these agents in the cup burner. Essentially, 

this last goal was to investigate the flame parameters that lead to the loss of effectiveness of 

these otherwise powerful inhibitors when used in more practical flames (such as the cup burner). 

The approaches taken to accomplish these goals include experimental measurements of the 

efficiency of metallic agents added to premixed, counterflow diffusion, and cup-burner flames, 

as well as numerical modeling of the flame structure in all three flame types. Premixed flame 

speed measurements were used as initial screening tests for new metallic species (which were 

added as organometallic agents) [ 121. These tests determined the potential of the agents for 

reducing the overall reaction rate in a flame at low mole fraction, and also provided insight into 

the condensation behavior of the metal's intermediate species as the mole fraction was increased. 

The premixed flame tests provided comparison of the new metals with iron, both at high and low 

mole fraction, and allowed an improved understanding of the parameters important in the loss of 

effectiveness due to condensation. Analyses of the results of numerical calculations of the flame 

structure of the inhibited flames (using a gas-phase only model), together with calculations of the 

equilibrium thermodynamics of the reactant mixtures, were then used to understand the reasons 

for the difference in effectiveness of tin, iron, and manganese in these flames. Further, we 

' Note that pL;L is cqiiivalent to ppni by volumc 

7 
sought to determine if blends of metals (each kept below their condensation point) could help to 

overcome the loss of effectiveness experienced by iron when added alone. The premixed flames 

served as an initial test bed for those experiments. 

In addition to identifying possible new metals with superior performance as compared to iron, it 

was desired to identify non-toxic forms of the metals. One approach for accomplishing that goal 

is to add the metals (in a non-toxic form) as additives dissolved in water droplets, which are then 

applied to the flame. These tests were conducted primarily to provide a test procedure for 

assessing the performance of the metals. They have the additional benefit in that water with 

additives might be used directly in some application other than aircraft, where freezing is not a 

concern. In the test procedure, the additives were dissolved in water, which was then fed to an 

ultrasonic droplet generator that produced a nearly mono-dispersed droplet spray, which was 

added to the flame [ 151. Both premixed and counterflow diffusion flames were used, providing 

large differences in both flame structure and droplet residence time. To understand system 

performance and compare the results with similar tests from those in the literature, initial tests 

were performed with alkali metal compounds (NaOH, KOH, and NaC1) added to water. Of 

course, tests with the latter of these are useful in their own right, since these simple alkali metal 

salts are potential practical additives to water. After the tests with water and waterlagent 

solutions of alkali metals, tests were also performed for ferric chloride. 

The final task of the project was to understand the reasons for the poor performance of Fe(C0)j 

in the cup burner. First, we conducted cup-burner extinction tests in which CO? was added to the 

air stream of cup-burner flames of methane. The organometallic agent was then added, and the 

reduction in the amount of CO? required for extinction was measured [ 11. To clearly illustrate 

any similarities in behavior of the agents in cup-burner flames to that in premixed or counterflow 

diffusion flames, these experiments were conducted over a range of mole fraction of the metallic 

inhibitor. Also, the experiments were conducted for several organometallic agents with different 

efficiencies and condensation behaviors. The reason for the loss of effectiveness of the cupburner flames was believed to be condensation of oxides and hydroxides. In previous work, we 

showed that loss of effectiveness in both premixed and counterflow diffusion flames was due to 

condensation of metal-containing species, and the subsequent isolation of the active moieties 

away from the regions of high H-atom mole fraction (where the metal intermediates need to be 

for efficient chemical inhibition). Hence, we also made laser-scattering measurements of the 

particles in the 3-D flow field above cup-burner flames with Fe(C0)5 added to the air stream 

[ 14.161. Finally, numerical modeling of the particle trajectories in cup-burner flames with small 

particles seed with the inlet gases helped to illustrate the effects of the flow field drag, and 

thermophoretic forces. The results of the particle measurements in the cup-burner flames arc 

then interpreted. Since much of that discussion relies heavily on the insight gained from 

previous measurements and calculations for premixed and counterflow diffusion flames, 

background on those findings and new analyses are presented to support our subsequent 

discussion for the present cup-burner flames measurements and calculations. 

3.2 Inhibition by Other Organometallics: Tin and Manganese 

Premixed flames are an excellent test method for determining the effect of a chemical inhibitor 

on flame chemistry. The premixed burning velocity is a fundamental parameter describing the 

overall reaction rate, heat release, and heat and mass transport in the flame. Of particular 

8 
convenience, compared to other flames, is the fact that the inhibitor reaches the reaction zone by 

convection, so that the amount which enters is unambiguous. The experiments are rapid and 

relatively straightforward, allowing tests over a wide range of conditions. The flames are easily 

modeled with existing numerical codes, so that detailed information on the mechanism of 

chemical inhibition can be determined. There is also a very large data base on the effectiveness 

of other chemical and inert inhibitors in premixed flames for comparison. Consequently, we 

used premixed flames for the first tests of new metallic inhibitors as described below. 

3.2.1. Introductioiz 

Iron pentacarbonyl has been shown to be up to two orders of magnitude more effective than 

CFiBr as a flame inhibitor; however, it loses its effectiveness due to condensation of the active 

species to particles. Consequently, it is of interest to determine if other metals cause similar 

strong flame inhibition while not suffering from the loss of effectiveness. Since manganese- and 

tin-containing species have higher vapor pressures than those of iron species, they are potential 

additives for fire suppression. The present work seeks to determine the gas-phase flame 

inhibition properties of tin and manganese through experiments and modeling of their influence 

on the premixed burning velocity of methaneeair flames. 

Metals have great potential as flame inhibitors since it is well known that they catalyze the 

recombination of radicals in the post combustion region of hydrogen - air flames [ 17-20]. For 

example, Bulewicz and Padley [ 171 demonstrated that metallic compounds of Cr, Mn, Sn, U, Mg 

and Ba accelerate hydrogen atom recombination at ppm levels. Nonetheless, carefiil studies of 

flame inhibition, with the goal of assessing the metals’ effects on the overall reaction rate, are 

limited. Tin compounds are used as fire retardant additives for polymers, and to reduce smoke 

and CO formation [2 1,221. The mechanism of flame inhibition has been attributed to both the 

promotion of condensed phase char and gas-phase flame inhibition [22,23]. Lask and Wagner 

[24] found SnC4 to be about 1/34 as effective as Fe(C0)5 at reducing the burning velocity of 

premixed ti-hexane-air flames by 30 941, and Miller et al. [25] found it to be about 2/3 as 

effective as Fe(C0)s at reducing the flame speed of hydrogen-air flames by 80 (YO. Miller [26] 

measured the amount of inhibitor required to lift-off a premixed CHJ/O,/N? flat flame at low 

pressure, and found that tetramethyltin (Sn(CH3)d , TMT) and SnC14 required a mole fraction of 

1.7 YO and 1.1 YO, respectively; whereas Fe(CO)5 and Br2 required 0.23 YO and 2.3 (YO. Morrison 

and Scheller [27] investigated the effect of twenty flame inhibitors on the ignition of 

hydrocarbon mixtures by hot wires, and found that SnClJ was the most effective inhibitor tested 

for increasing the ignition temperature; whereas the powerful flame inhibitors Cr02C12 and 

Fe(C0)S had no effect on the ignition temperature. As a result of these studies, tin tetrachloride 

SnCl4 was recommended as compound deserving further study [28]. 

The effects of manganese compounds on flames has also been studied. Vanpee and Shirodkar 

[29] investigated the influence of many metal chlorides and metal acetates and acetylacetonates 

on the limiting oxygen index at extinction in a partially premixed counterflow pool burner of 

ethanol and air. In their experiment, the inhibitor was dissolved in ethanol, which was aspirated 

into the air stream. They found manganese acetylacctonate to be more effectivc than 

acetylacetonates of iron or chromium. Westblom et al. [30] analyzed the consequence of trace 

amounts of methylcyclopentadienylnianganese tricarbonyl (CH3CjHqMn(CO)3, MMT) on the 

9 
flame structure of a premixed propane - air flame at 5.33 kPa, but found no measurable effect. 

They suggested a kinetic model for the influence of MMT on those flames [30]. In a review 

article, Howard and Kausch [2 11 reported that manganese-containing compounds are among the 

most effective soot-reducing fuel additives. Finally, MMT is a known antiknock agent for 

gasoline [31], and Tapscott et al. [32] recently suggested manganese compounds as agents for 

further consideration in studies of fire suppression performance. 

In this section of the report we present data on flame inhition by manganese- and tin-containing 

compounds. The additive influence was analyzed through the effects on the laminar burning 

velocity of methane-air mixtures for different equivalence ratios and oxygen mole fractions. The 

kinetic mechanisms of flame inhibition were analyzed by comparing simulation results with 

experimental data. The relative inhibition efficiencies of TMT, MMT, Fe(C0)5, and CF'Br were 

deduced and analyzed. While the manganese and tin compounds tested are too toxic to be used 

directly as fire suppressants, they provide convenient means for introducing Mn and Sn to a 

flame, so that the inhibition mechanisms of these elements can be studied. 

3.2.2. Experini en tal Apparatus 

The laminar flame speed SL provides a measure of an agent's reduction of the global reaction 

rate. While good techniques exist which allow measurement of burning velocity under 

conditions of controlled stretch rates [33], they require seeding with particles for determination 

of the local gas velocity. Since the presence of particles would influence the condensation rates 

of our metallic species, we instead employed the total area method with a Bunsen-type flame 

[34]. The experimental arrangement, described in detail previously [ 11,35381, has been 

modified to accommodate new evaporators for TMT and MMT. A Mache-Hebra nozzle burner 

(1 .O cm ? 0.05 cm diameter) produces a premixed Bunsen-type flame about 1.3 cm tall with a 

straight-sided schlieren image that is captured by a video frame-grabber board in a PC. Digital 

mass flow controllers hold the oxygen mole fraction in the oxidizer stream XO:,,,.~ , the 

equivalence ratio 4, and the flame height constant while maintaining the inlet mole fraction of 

the inhibitor (Xj,l) at the desired value. The average burning velocity is determined from the 

reactant flows and the schlieren image using the total area method. The fuel gas is methane 

(Matheson' UHP, 99.9 YO), and the oxidizer stream consists of nitrogen (boil-off from liquid N2) 

and oxygen (MG Industries, HzO less than 50 pL/L, and total hydrocarbons less than 5 yL/L). 

The inhibitors used are Fe(C0)j (Aldrich), TMT (Alfa Aesar), MMT (Alfa Aesar), CF3Br (Great 

Lakes), Nz (boil-off). and COZ (Airgas). The catalytic agents are liquids at laboratory conditions. 

Since they are required in low mole fraction, they are added to the flame in gaseous form rather 

than as droplets. The Fe(CO)s is added to the carrier gas using a two-stage saturator in an ice 

bath, described previously [36]. Nitrogen is the carrier gas for all agents. The TMT was added 

using an identical two-stage saturator, with a volume of liquid TMT in each stage greater than 50 

cm' for all tests. The ice bath was maintained at (0 +_ 0.2) "C with a maximum carricr gas flow 

0.40 L/min. Because of the toxicity of the agents, the Fe(C0)j and TMT saturators. as well as 

the premixed flame burner, were located in fume hoods. For the MMT, the saturator had three 

Certain cotnrnercial equipment, instruments, or materials arc identified in this paper to adequately specify the 

procedurc. Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment are neccssariy the best available for the 

intendcd use. 

10 
stages, each 20 cm long, 2.36 cm I.D. stainless steel tube, and the entire apparatus was 

submerged in a controlled temperature bath (Neslab), and vented. The bath temperature was 

typically (79.2 IL 0.1) "C, and the carrier gas flow for this saturator was always <OS L/min. The 

mole fraction of the organometallic inhibitors in the air stream was calculated based on the 

measured air flow, measured carrier gas flow, and vapor pressure of the agent at the bath 

temperature, assuming saturated carrier gas. The parameters in the Antoine equation, 

log,,,(P)=A-B/(T-C) (T in "C, P in bar), are (A,B,C): (6.77273, 4.0932, 7.2283), (1258.22, 

1286.16, 1882)- and (21 1.587, 235.846, 200) for Fe(CO)j [39], TMT [40], and MMT [41], 

respectively. Since the vapor pressure of MMT is much lower than that of the other agents, 

experiments with MMT were conducted at a slightly elevated temperature, with the transfer lines 

and inlet gases maintained at (80 k 3) "C and the burner tube maintained at (SO k 1) "C. For the 

experiments with TMT and Fe(CO)5, the inlet gas temperature Ti, was (294.2 k 1) K. Although 

the absolute value of the burning velocity is quite sensitive to the inlet temperature, comparisons 

of agent performance across this range of differing gas inlet temperatures is valid, since the 

reduction in the nor-ninlized burning velocity with agent addition is relatively insensitive in T,,,. 

For example, calculations for inhibition by TMT (discussed below), and calculations and 

experiments with CO2 (unpublished data of ref. [I 11) show that changing the inlet gas 

temperature from 294 K to 353 K provides nearly identical curves of normalized burning 

velocity versus inhibitor mole fraction, differing from each other by less than 2 % for the two 

inlet temperatures. 

Tests were performed for a range of equivalence ratio and oxygen mole fraction in the oxidizer 

stream XO,,,,. The agent mole fraction is calculated relative to the total reactant flow. The test 

conditions are listed in Table I. Note that while the inlet temperature for the Fe(C0)j and TMT 

experiments was 294 K, the experimental and numerically calculated burning velocities in the 

table have been converted to equivalent values at 298 K to facilitate comparison with other 

values available in the literature. 

The burning velocity in Bunsen-type flames is known to vary at the tip and base of the flame; 

however, these effects are most important over a small portion of the flame. We have taken 

several steps to minimize the influence of curvature and stretch on interpretation of the action of 

the chemical inhibitor. The nozzle burner produces visible and schlieren images which are very 

closely parallel. For the flame area, we use the schlieren image, which is maintained at a 

constant size (1.3 cni tall) for all tests. In order to reduce the error caused by flame curvature 

and stretch, we present the burning velocity of inhibited flames as a normalized parameter: the 

burning velocity of the inhibited flame divided by the burning velocity of the uninhibited flame. 

Also, we limit our interpretation of the data to inhibitor loading which produce less than 40 '% 

reduction in flame speed. 

11 
Table 1 - Uninhibited laminar burning velocities SL and adiabatic flame temperature T,,b I from 1-D planar 

numerical calculations, together with the average burning velocity measured in the Bunsen-type flames, for 

the initial conditions of the experiments. 

TMT 

0.9 0.21 

1.0 " 

1.1 " 

1.0 0.20 " 0.244 

MMT 

0.9 0.21 

1.0 " 

1.1 " 

1.0 0.19 " 0.2 " 0.244 

298 

'< 

'i 

'1 

'L 

353 

'i 

'i 

" 

MMT and Fe(C0)5 

1.0 0.244 353 

2159 

2235 

2193 

2185 

2377 

2177 

2264 

225 1 

2167 

2220 

2396 

2396 

35.3 

39.6 

39.8 

34.7 

57.0 

48.0 

53.2 

53.6 

41.3 

47.4 

74.3 

74.3 

33.9 f 1.3 

38.0 f 2.3 

38.0 k 1.5 

33.6 * 1.4 

58.0 ? 3.4 

47.2 ? 1.5 

52.9 ? 2.9 

52.8 k 2.0 

39.9 k 1.6 

45.5 2 1.7 

74.7 ? 4.1 

75.9 f 4.9 

Determination of the uncertainties in the experimental data using the present apparatus has been 

described in detail previously [36]. For the present data, the uncertainty (expanded uncertainties 

with a coverage factor of 2) in the normalized burning velocity are less than f 5 (% for all cases. 

The uncertainty in the equivalence ratio is 1.4 YO. Neglecting the uncertainties (unspecified) in 

the vapor pressure correlation for Fe(CO)5, TMT, and MMT. uncertainties in the bath 

temperature, ambient pressure and carrier gas flow rate yield an inhibitor mole fraction 

uncertainty of 6.5 'YO. 

3.2.3. Kinetic Meclzuriisiiis and Nimevicul Modeling 

There are few data on the chemical kinetics of tin compounds at flame temperatures, although 

kinetics studies of tin have been conducted for chemical vapor deposition. Studies with 

hydrogen-oxygen-nitrogen flames by Bulewicz and Padley [42] indicate that tin is present as Sn, 

12 
SnO, and SnOH, with SnO overwhelmingly predominant. Recent spectroscopic data also 

indicate that tin is presents in flames as Sn, SnO, and SnOH [43], with SnO accounting for 

approximately 97 % by volume of all tin species. 

The present kinetic model for flame inhibition by tin compounds contains reactions of the 

species Sn, SnO., SnO, SnH and SnOH. The reaction set is based on the consideration of 

possible reactions of tin-containing species with the radical pool and with the main species of 

methane combustion. The mechanism, listed in Table 2, consists of 37 reactions of tin-containing 

species. Rate constants were obtained from the literature when available, or otherwise estimated 

using empirical procedures and analogies with similar reactions. The reverse rates of the 

reactions in Table 2 are calculated from the forward rate and the equilibrium constant. It was 

assumed that tin (and manganese) species are non-reactive with hydrocarbon molecules. In the 

model development, estimates of rate constants were first made, and then the rates of the most 

important reactions were adjusted (based on sensitivity analysis) to provide agreement with the 

experimental results. The decomposition of TMT was described by the overall step listed in 

Table 2, but using the rate constant for the reaction Sn(CI-13)4 4 Sn(CH3)I + CH3 [44]. 

Enthalpies of formation for the tin-containing (and manganese-containing) species are presented 

in Table 3. Enthalpies of formation for SnOH and SnH were estimated based on bond energies 

from refs. [42,45]. 

The kinetic mechanism for studying the influence of manganese additives in premixed methaneair flames is presented in Table 4. The list of possible Mn-containing species participating in 

inhibition reactions includes Mn, MnH, MnO, MnOOH, MnHOH, MnOH, MnO, MnOz and 

Mn(0H)Z. All species except MnH and MnHOH were considered in the mechanism of Smith 

[46]. The role of MnOH and MnO in radical recombination was discussed by Bulewitz and 

Padley [17], and the species MnO and Mn were recently measured in a low pressure propane 

flame doped by MMT [30]. Hildenbrand and Lau [47] used mass spectrometry to identify the 

species MnO,, MnOH, and Mn(OH)?. We included the species MnH in the model since 

equilibrium calculations showed it to be present in significant quantities in MMT-inhibited 

flames. Transport parameters of tin- and manganese-containing species were estimated through 

analogy with similar metallic species, or based on molecular weight correlations for similar 

species. 

For the manganese inhibition reaction set, we generated a list of approximately 160 reactions of 

Mn-containing species with the radical pool and with the main species of methane combustion. 

This list was reduced to 61 reactions based on thermochemical considerations and preliminary 

calculations. For the decomposition of MMT, we adopt the overall description suggested in ref. 

[30] and ref. [46], and use their rate constants for the Mn-species reactions whenever possible. 

Rate constants for the remaining reactions were estimated by analogy and based on 

thermochemical estimates. The main assumptions are the formation of MnO? through the 

reaction of Mn atom with oxygen molecule and the formation of Mn(OH)2 via reaction of MnO 

with water (both by analogy to reactions of iron-containing species [48]). 

13 
Table 2 - Kinetic mechanism for tin inhibition of premised methane-air flames. 

(k = A Tb exp(-E/RT), mole,s,cm,kJ) 

No. REACTION A b 

- - 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

SnCJHI? => Sn+C2H6+C2H6 

Sn+HfM = SnH+M 

Sn+OHrM = SnOl-I+M 

Sn+OH = SnO+H 

Sn+O+M = SnOlM 

Snl02 = SnO+O 

Sn+O? (TM) = SnO? (+M) 

Low pressure limit: 

Sn+HCO = SnH+CO 

SnlCH30 = SnO+CHI 

Sn+CO? = SnO+CO 

SniHO? = SnO+OH 

SnO+H+M = SnOH+M 

SnO+O+M = Sn02+M 

SnO+HCO = SnOH+CO 

SnO+lIO? = SnOHtO? 

SnO?+H = SnOtOH 

SnOrOH = SnOH+O? 

SnO?+OH = SnO+HO? 

SnO,+O = SnO+02 

SnO?+CH3 = SnO+CHIO 

SnO?+CO = SnO+CO? 

SnOHfH = SnTH20 

SnOH+H = SnOtH: 

SnOH+OH = SnO-tH.0 

SnOH+O = SnO+OH 

SnOH+O = SnO?+H 

SnOH+CHI = SnO+CH4 

SnHfFI = Sn+H: 

SnH-OH = Sn+H20 

SnH+OH = SnOH+H 

SnH+O+M = SnOHtM 

SnH+O = Sn+OH 

SnH+O = SnO+H 

SnHtCH3 = CHJ+Sn 

SnH-HCO = Sn+CM?O 

SnH+O? = SnO+OH 

e Estimates. 

* By analogy with reactions of K species in ref. [SO] 

14 

7.94E:-3 3 

1.00E-15 

5.36E+18 

1 .OOE+ 1 3 

1 .OOE+ 17 

3.07E1 1 

2.00E-t 13 

1.5E-18 

3 .OOE+ 1 3 

2.00E+ I3 

1.39E+14 

1 .OOE+ 13 

5.S0E+17 

1.00E+20 

9.30E+13 

3 .OOE+ 13 

1.00E+1 4 

3 .OOE+ 12 

3.00E71 2 

3.00E+13 

3 .OOE- 12 

2.00E+ 12 

1.20E+12 

7.10E+I 3 

6.30E+l3 

3.00Etl3 

5.00E+ 12 

2.00E+13 

5.00E+13 

3.00E+13 

5.00E+12 

1.00E~15 

5.00E+13 

8.00E7 12 

5.00E+13 

2.00E+ 12 

3.00Et-12 

E Reference 

0.0 230. [44] 

0.0 0.0 e 

-0.45 0.0 * 

0.0 

0.0 

0.79 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0 .0 

-1.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0 .0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

27.2 e 

0.0 e 

3.63 [49] 

0.0 e 

16.7 

0.0 e 

0.0 E 

75.6 [49] 

0.0 e 

0.0 e 

0.0 e 

0.0 e 

29.3 e 

8.37 e 

31.4 e 

46.0 e 

8.37 e 

18.8 e 

20.9 e 

12.6 e 

4.18 e 

0.0 e 

0.0 e 

37.7 e 

4.18 e 

4.18 e 

0.0 e 

20.9 c. 

0.0 e 

4.18 e 

4.18 e 

4.18 e 

18.8 e 

29.3 e 
rable 3 - Thermodynamic properties for tin- and manganese-containing species (298.15 K). 

e Estimation. 

15 
Table 4 - Kinetic mechanism for manganese inhibition of premixed methane-air flames. 

(k = A Th exp(-E/RT), mole,cm,s,kJ) 

No. REACTION A 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

IO. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

Mn+H+M = MnH+M 

Mn+OH+M = MnOH+M 

Mn+O+M = MnO+M 

Mn+Oz = MnO+O 

Mn+O? (+M) = MnOl (-M) 

MntHCO = MnH+CO 

MnO+H+M = MnOH+M 

MnO-O+M = MnO2+M 

MnO+H = Mn+OI-T 

MnO-OH+M = MnOOH+M 

MnO+CHI = Mn+CH?O 

MnO+H2 = MntHzO 

MnO+HlO = Mn02H2 

MnOlCO = Mn+CO2 

MnO+HCO = MnOH+CO 

MnOlCHZOH = MnOH+CH?O 

MnO?+H+M = MnOOH+M 

MnOl+H = MnO+OH 

MnOz+OH = MnOHtO2 

MnO.+O = MnO+O? 

Mn02+CO = MnOt-CO? 

MnOH+H = MnTHlO 

MnOH+H = MnO+€& 

MnOH+OH+M = Mn02HZI-M 

MnOH+OH = MnO+H20 

MnOH+O+M = MnOOHiM 

MnOH-0 = Mn+HOz 

MnOH+O = MnO+OH 

MnOHfO = Mn02+H 

MnOHtCHi = MnO+CH4 

MnOOHTH+M = Mn02H7+M 

MnOOH+H = MnO+HzO 

MnOOH+H = MnOH-COH 

MnOOH+H = MnO?+H? 

MnOOH-OH = hlnOZ+H?O 

MnOOH+O = MnOH+O2 

MnOOH’O = MnO-HOz 

MnOOH+O = MnO2+OH 

Low pressure limit: 

b E Reference 

- - 

1.00E-15 0.0 0.0 e 

1.00E+15 0.0 0.0 e 

2.50E+14 0.0 125.5 [46] 

2.00E+13 0.0 0.0 e 

1.5000E~18 0.0 12.6 

8.00E+22 -2.2 0.0 [46] 

3.00E+13 

7.00E+ 15 

2.00E+ 19 

1 .OOE+ 14 

3.OOE-tI7 

1 .OOE+ 14 

3.00E+ 12 

5.40E+ 12 

3 .OOE+ 1 1 

2.40E+ I3 

2.40E- 13 

2.00E+22 

1 .OOE+ 14 

3.00E+12 

5 .OOE+ 13 

2.00E+12 

1.20E+I 2 

3.00E+l3 

1.00E-23 

1 .OOE+ 1 3 

1 .OOE+ 1 8 

3 .OOE+ 13 

3.00Et13 

5.00E+ 12 

2.00E+13 

1 .OOE+ 16 

2.00E+ 13 

3 .OOET 13 

1 .OOE+ 13 

6.00Etl2 

2.00E+13 

3 .OOE+ 1 2 

3.00E+13 

16 

0.0 0.0 e 

0.0 0.0 [46] 

-1.0 0.0 [46] 

0.0 16.7 e 

0.0 0.0 e 

0.0 29.3 e 

0.0 20.9 [54] 

0.0 0.0 [46] 

0.0 0.0 [46] 

0.0 0.0 [46] 

-1.5 0.0 [46] 

0.0 29.3 e 

0.0 29.3 e 

0.0 8.37 e 

0.0 20.9 e 

0.0 2.09 [46] 

0.0 4.18 e 

-2.0 0.0 [46] 

0.0 6.28 [46] 

0.0 0.0 e 

0.0 71.1 e 

0.0 0.0 [46] 

0.0 37.7 e 

0.0 12.6 e 

0.0 0.0 e 

0.0 0.0 e 

0.0 20.9 e 

0.0 16.7 e 

0.0 6.28 [46] 

0.0 10.5 e 

0.0 66.9 e 

0.0 18.8 e 

0.0 0.0 
39. 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

44. 

45. 

46. 

47. 

48. 

49. 

50. 

51. 

52. 

MnOOHtCHl= MnO+CHiOH 

MnOOH+CHj = MnOH+CH30 

MnOOH+CO = MnOH+CO? 

MnO?H?+H = MnOH+H20 

Mn02H,LH = MnOOHLH2 

MnO?H2+OH = MnOOH+H20 

Mn02H2+0 = MnOOH+OH 

Mn02H?+CHj = MnOOH+CHJ 

MnHiH = Mn+H2 

MnH+OH Mn+H20 

MnH+O+M = MnOHtM 

MnH+O = Mn+OH 

MnHICH3 = CHq+Mn 

MnH+O?+M = MnOOH+M 

3.00Ei-12 

1 .OOE+ 13 

2.00E+ 12 

6.60E+ 13 

5 .OOE- 13 

1 .OOE+ 13 

2.00E+ 

1 .OOE+ 

5 .OOE+ 

1.00E1 .OOE+ 

1 .00E1 .OOE+ 14 

1.00E+16 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

31.4 e 

46.0 e 

20.9 e 

4.18 e 

79.5 e 

37.7 e 

83.7 e 

87.9 e 

12.6 e 

0.0 e 

0.0 e 

8.37 e 

8.37 e 

0.0 e 

e Estimates. 

Kinetic models for highly effective flame inhibitors can be considered to consist of two submodels. The first sub-model includes reactions for the agent decomposition and formation of the 

active inhibiting species, and the second includes the inhibition reactions. In previous work, it 

has been shown that for the phosphorus-containing compound DMMP and for ferrocene, the 

decomposition reactions have a small influence on the predicted inhibitor efficiency as long as 

the overall activation energy of decomposition is less than 250-335 kJimol [ 11,551. In the 

present work, this was also found to be true for TMT and MMT decomposition. 

The laboratory flames inhibited by TMT and MMT were numerically modeled as onedimensional freely-propagating flames. Solutions were obtained using the Sandia flame code 

Premix [56], and the Chenikin [57] and transport property [58] subroutines (solutions were 

obtained for values of GRAD and CURV of 0.17 and 0.25 in PREMIX). The kinetic 

mechanism for methane combustion was GRIMech 3.0 [59], with the nitrogen chemistry 

removed. The methane sub-mechanism contains 36 species and 219 reactions. It should be 

emphasized that the reaction mechanisms used for the present calculations for flames with 

manganese or tin compounds should be considered only as a starting point. Numerous changes 

to both the rates and the reactions incorporated may be made once a variety of experimental and 

theoretical data are available for testing the mechanism. Note also that the calculations are for 1 - 

D planar flames, while the experiments determine the average flame speed of Bunsen-type 

flames which can be influenced by curvature and stretch. To minimize these effects, both the 

experimental and calculated data are presented as normalized flame speed reduction. 

3.2.4. Results 

3.2.4.1. Observations 

The appearance of the flames with added organometallic inhibitors is shown in Figure I. 

Flames with iron pentacarbonyl are bright orange, with tetramethyltin they are bright pale blue, 

17 
and with MMT, yellow-green. The intensity of the visible emission increases with inhibitor 

mole fraction. As the loading of metallic inhibitor increases, there becomes visible a luminous 

outer shroud as seen clearly in the last two images on the right in Figure 1. We believe these are 

regions of high particle concentration from inhibitor condensation, leading to broad-band black 

body radiation, visible here in the orange part of the spectrum. For the TMT-inhibited flames, a 

white-colored powder (presumably tin oxide) formed on the rim of the quartz burner tube during 

the tests, especially at high TMT loading. This deposit was removed between collection of each 

data point. For MMT and Fe(CO)5, a dark red or an orange deposit was formed, respectively. 

The rate of deposition for these inhibitors, however, was much lower than for the TMT, which 

was added to the flames at mole fractions about ten times higher. 

Figure 1 - Visible image of methane-air premixed flame (from left to right: no inhibitor, 50 pL/L of Fe(CO)S, 

4000 pL/L of TMT, and 400 pL/L of hlhlT). 

3.2.4.2. Inhibition by Tetramethyltin 

Figure 2 shows the relative burning velocity reduction with addition of TMT to methane-air 

flames (Xo,,o., =0.21) for values of equivalence ratio of 0.9, 1.0, and 1.1. The dotted lines are 

curve fits to the experimental data, and the solid lines are the results of the numerical 

calculations described above (and discussed below). Data are plotted as normalized burning 

velocity, which is the burning velocity of the inhibited flame divided by the value for the same 

flame in the absence of inhibitor. The calculated and experimental burning velocities, along with 

the calculated adiabatic flame temperatures of the uninhibited flames used for the normalization 

are listed in Table 1. For the uninhibited flames, the experimentally determined average burning 

velocities for the Bunsen-type flames are within about 4 % of the calculated values for l-D 

planar flames. In Figure 2 (as well as 3,4,5, and 7 described below), the last data point shown 

represents the highest volume fraction of inhibitor for which flames could be stabilized on the 

present burner (Le., they extinguished at higher volume fractions). The experimental results in 

Figure 2 demonstrate that for stoichiometric flames, 3000 pL/L of TMT reduces the flame speed 

by about 41 'YO, which is about a factor of two better than CFIBr. The data also show that, unlike 

Fe(C0)5, the richer flames are inhibited more strongly by TMT than the leaner flames. 

(Additional numerical tests with SnO as the inhibitor showed that the poorer inhibition of lean 

18 
flames was due to the fuel effect from the hydrocarbon portion of the relatively large amounts of' 

Sn(CH3)J added to the flames.) 

-1 ~~ 

XOdOX = 0.21 

T,, = 298 K 

1.0 

14 -~ 

4000 5000 

7 

Figure 2 - Normalized burning velocity of premixed CH4/02/N2 flames inhibited by TMT 

and @=0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 (dotted lines: curve tits to data; solid lines: numerical predictions). 

with XO,,,,=O.2I 

19 
1 04' ~ ~ 

1- - 11.- i 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 

Sn(CH3)4 ppm 

Figure 3 - Normalized burning velocity of premixed CH4/02/N2 flames inhibited by TILIT, with $=l.O and 

XO2,,,,=0.20. 0.21, and 0.244 (dotted lines: curve fits to the data; solid lines: numerical predictions). 

20 
As described below, the burning velocity reduction caused by tin species is most sensitive to the 

rates of the reactions: SnO + H + M t-) SnOH + M, and SnOH +H t) SnO + HZ . Consequently, 

we adjusted the pre-exponential factor in those rates to provide agreement with the experimental 

results for stoichiometric mixtures of methane with air. Note, however, the relatively high level 

of the rate constant for the reaction H + SnO + M SnOH + M. Bulewicz and Padley [ 171 also 

found that a high rate was required for this process to provide agreement with their experimental 

data on hydrogen atom recombination in the products of a hydrogen flames. As Figure 2 shows, 

the numerical model predicts the amount of inhibition well for stoichiometric flames. For rich 

and lean flames, however, the model over- and under-predicts the burning velocity, respectively. 

We attempted to adjust the rates of reactions with tin species to improve the model performance 

for rich and lean flames. For the reaction set considered, we were not able to find reasonable 

adjustments to the rate constants to provide better agreement. 

Figure 3 shows the measured and calculated flame speeds for TMT in stoichiometric flames 

,YO,,,,, equal to 0.20, 0.2 1, and 0.244. The experimental data and calculations (with adjusted rate 

constants) show good agreement for the three values of XO,,,,,~; however, for the hottest flames 

(Xc~,,,lv = 0.244) the mechanism slightly overpredicts the inhibition at low mole fraction, and 

underpredicts it for higher mole fraction. The experimental data show that for the slower and 

cooler flames (e.g., equivalence ratio is 0.9 or 1.0 and ,Yo,,,,, = 0.20 or 0.21), the TMT starts to 

lose its effectiveness above a certain value. For Fe(CO)j inhibited flames, such behavior was 

shown to be due to condensation of the iron-containing intermediates [37]). 

3.2.4.3. Inhibition by MMT 

The premixed flames inhibited by manganese-containing compound MMT were slightly 

preheated (T,,, = 80 "C). The values of the calculated and experimental uninhibited burning 

velocities, and the adiabatic flame temperatures are shown in Table 1. The normalized burning 

velocities of MMT-inhibited flames with variation in equivalence ratio and X~I,,,,., are shown in 

Figure 4 and Figure 5. MMT is seen to be about thirteen times more efficient at flame inhibition 

than TMT; however, it too starts to lose its effectiveness for tlame speed reductions near 50'%1. 

Based on the sensitivity of the burning velocity to the reaction rates, we adjusted the preexponential factors of the reactions Mn(OH), + H tj MnOH + HzO , and MnO + HzO H 

Mn(OH)Z to provide agreement with our experimental data for these methane-air flames at 

@=1 .O. Using the rates shown in Table 4 the model predicts the burning velocity reduction quite 

well. Nonetheless, for the hottest flames (,YO,,(,., = 0.244) this mechanism also overpredicts the 

inhibition slightly at low inhibitor mole fraction, and underpredicts the inhibition somewhat at 

intermediate mole fractions. Also, this gas phase mechanism does not capture the decrease in 

inhibitor effectiveness which occurs with increasing inhibitor initial mole fraction, likely a result 

of condensation of Mn-containing species. 

21 
Figure 4 - Normalimd burning velocity of premixed CH4/02/N2 flames inhibited by bIMT 

and $=0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 (dotted lines: curve tits to data; solid lines: numerical predictions). 

nith Xo2,,,,=0.21 

CI .- 

0 

- 0 

s 

w 

K .- 

E 

m 

S 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

T,, = 353 K 

I$= 1.0 

Xo ox ~0.244 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 

MMT (PPm) 

Figure 5 - Normalized burning velocity of premixed CHJ/O2/N2 flames inhibited by blMT, with phi=l.O and 

Xor.,),=0.19, 0.20. 0.21, and 0.244 (dotted lines: curve tits to the data; solid lines: numerical Predictions). 

22 
3.2.4.4. Comparative Performance of Metals 

Figure 6 compares the inhibition effectiveness of Fe(C0I5, MMT, TMT, SnCIq, CF3Br, and CO,. 

The data for SnC14 inhibition from ref. [24] show tin tetrachloride to be as effective in nhexane/air flames as TMT is in methane/air flames. Although the experimental data shown for 

TMT and SnCI4 are not for an elevated inlet temperature of 80 "C, numerical calculations show 

that the reduction in the ~zornialized flame speed caused by TMT addition with T,,,=298 K differs 

from that with Ti,,=353 K by less than 1 %I. Fe(C0)5 is significantly more effective than any of 

the other agents, and all of the metal-based inhibitors appear to have greatly reduced 

effectiveness for burning velocity reductions greater than 50%. If the inhibitor mole fractions 

are re-scaled in Figure 6 to provide overlap at 30 % reduction in burning velocity, the normalized 

burning velocity curves of all inhibitors are nearly coincident for flame speed reductions less 

than 40 % (Le., the curves are roughly linear up to this amount of normalized flame speed 

reduction). Such re-scaling of the experimental data shows that at low mole fraction, Fe(CO)5 is 

about eighty times, MMT forty times, and TMT three times as effective as CF3Br at reducing the 

overall reaction rate of stoichiometric, premixed methane-air flames. For flame speed reductions 

greater than 40 Oh, the curves for these five agents diverge. As discussed previously [60,61], 

most inhibitors lose their marginal effectiveness at higher mole fractions, but the decrease in 

inhibition effectiveness is much more dramatic for the organometallic compounds as was found 

previously for Fe(C0)5 . 

MMT 

SIlCI' 

@=lo ~ 

XOzOX =021 

T,, = 353 K ' 

(except Sn) 

I 

I 

3 

CF3Br 

Ll 

Fe(C0h 

-~ 

I 

0 4 - 7 ~ 77 ~ 

- 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 

Inhibitor (ppm) 

Figure 6 - Normalized burning velocit) of' premixed CH4/02/N2 flames inhibited by C02, CF3Br, Sn(CH7)4, 

SnCh 1241, MMT, and Fe(CO), (T," = 353 K for all data except Sn(CH3)., and SnCIJ which are at 298 K). 

Lines are curve tits to data. 

23 
3.2.4.5. Blends of Metals 

One approach for overcoming the loss of effectiveness is to add non-condensing amounts of 

several inhibitors. To test this approach in premixed flames, we performed tests with a blend of 

MMT and Fe(C0)5, added at a molar ratio of 2:1, respectively. Data for pure MMT, pure 

Fe(C0)5, and their combination are shown in Figure 7 (T,n = 353 K, phizl.0, and X0,,,,.,=0.244). 

The experimental data are represented by the points with a curve fit (dotted line), while the 

results of the numerical calculations are shown by the solid lines. (The data for the combination 

of MMT and Fe(CO), are plotted as a function of the mole fraction of the abundant agent, 

MMT). The numerical model, which includes both the reactions of manganese-containing 

species and the iron-containing species from ref. [48] predicts well the normalized flame speed 

reduction. As the figure shows, adding 0.5 moles of Fe(C0)j for each mole of MMT added does 

provide additional flame speed reduction over that from MMT alone. This is significant since, as 

discussed previously [37], the loss of effectiveness of the metals at higher concentration could be 

caused either by condensation of active species, or by the loss of radical population by catalytic 

recombination. Since the addition of iron to the manganese-inhibited flame causes significant 

additional inhibition, the strong loss of effectiveness in the MMT-inhibited flames is likely due 

to condensation rather than radical depletion. If the cause was radical depletion, addition of 

Fe(CO)5 to the flames already inhibited by high amounts of MMT would yield no additional 

inhibition, since few radicals would be left to recombine. The gas-phase kinetic model captures 

the nzild reduction of effectiveness of either agent or their blend acceptably well (for flame speed 

reductions of less than 40 %1. 

1 

61 I 

v0 100 200 300 400 500 600 

Inhibitor (ppm) 

Figure 7 - Normalized burning velocity of premixed CM4/02/N2 flames inhibited by pure MhIT and Fe(CO)S , 

and by a blend of the two (dotted lines are curve fits to the data; solid lines are numerical model calculations). 

24 
3.2.5. Discitssion 

One of the benefits of numerical modeling of the 

flame structure of inhibited flames is that the 

results of the calculations provide detailed insight 

into the actual reasons for the strong inhibition. 

Further, the results for different inhibitors can be 

+OH (46) used to understand why they each demonstrate a 

CH, (5) different effectiveness. In the sections below, we 

discuss the inhibition mechanisms of tin and 

manganese, and compare them to that for iron. 

HCO (9) The difference in efficiency for these systems are 

shown to be related to the formation reaction and 

eauilibrium relationships for the intermediate 

SnO + co (4) 

+ H + M (86) 

MnOe 

+ H (43) 

0 (37) 

CO (15) 

OH (5) H +M (3) + H (66) 

0 ('4) 

OH (13) 

CHI (3) 

\ 

MnO I+ H

Mn(OH)* + H (100) 

metal di-hydroxide species Fe( OH)z and 

Mn(OH)?. 

3.2.5.1. Inhibition Mechanisms of Tin and 

Manganese 

Examination of species profiles, reaction fluxes, 

and sensitivity coefficients from the numerically 

predicted flame structure allows investigation of 

the mechanisms of inhibition of these metallic 

compounds. The calculations show that TMT 

decomposes quickly in the flame, with 90 '%I 

consumption at 1000 K. A diagram showing the 

important reactions for tin inhibition is shown in 

Figure 8 (which also shows in parallel format the 

reaction paths for MMT, and Fe(C0)s inhibition). 

In the calculations used to prepare Figure 8, 

TMT, MMT, or Fe(C0)S were present at (1963, 

128, or 105) pL/L, respectively, in the premixed 

methane-air flames (@=I .0, T,,=353 K, and Xu,,,, 

=0.21); these volume fractions produced a 30 %I 

reduction in flame speed. 

FeoH The determination of the important reactions was 

based on consideration of both the reaction flux 

and sensitivities. The reaction flux represents the 

production or consumption of a species by 

chemical reaction. For a particular reaction, it is 

Figure 8 - Reaction Pathnay for Sn, alld Fe in 

=O.21, Tin=353 K). TMT, ICIMT, and Fe(C0)S reaction flux for a species is defined as the sum of present at (1963, 128. or 105) pL/L, respectively. 

The ,,umbers in parentheses are the fractional the reaction fluxes for the individual reactions 

defined as the integral that reaction rate per unit a premixed methane-air flame (($=l.O, xo2,ox volume Over the entire flame domain. The total 

consumption (percent) of the reactant molecule 

25 
which produce or consume it. In Figure 8, the pathway for consumption of each species is 

shown, with arrows connecting the relevant reactant and product species. The number next to 

each arrow represents the fraction of the total consumption flux for that species which proceeds 

through that particular reaction. 

The tin atom formed as a result of TMT decomposition quickly reacts with 07- through the 

reactions Sn + 0, (-M) e SnO,, and Sn t 02 e SnO t 0. The former reaction leads to SnO 

from the reaction of SnOz with CO, H, or other radicals. Conversely, the latter reaction forms 

SnO directly, and is fast at room temperature as compared to the analogous reaction of iron atom. 

Formation of SnO leads to the following reactions with H and HCO radicals: 

SnO + HI MH SNOH + M 

SnO + HCO e SnOH + CO 

which, together with the radical scavenging reactions of SnOH, complete the catalytic radical 

recombination cycle of tin: 

SnOH + H ts SnO t Hz 

SnOH i OH e SnO + 1320 

SnOH + CH3 tj SnO + CH4 

SnOH + 0 ts SnO f OH 

The net effect of the dominant inhibition reactions can be shown as: 

SnO + H + M t) Sn0H-t M 

SnOH + H ts SnO + H7 

net: H+ H tjH2 

Equilibrium calculations show that SnO is the major tin species in the products of a 

stoichiometric methane-air flame with added TMT. 

Figure 9 presents the sensitivity coefficients of the burning velocity to the rate constants (after 

adjustment) of tin-containing species for methanelair mixtures with equivalence ratios of 0.9, 

1.0, and 1.1. In general, the burning velocity is sensitive to the rates of the catalytic cycle 

reactions with high fluxes: SnO reaction with H or HCO, and SnOH reaction with H, OH, CH3, 

or 0. The burning velocity is most sensitive to the rate of the reaction SnO + H + M tj SnOH + 

M. which has a sensitivity about four times less than the chain-branching reaction H - 02 t) OH 

+ 0. As was found for DMMP and ferrocene additives [11,55], the burning velocity of flames 

inhibited by TMT is not particularly sensitive to the rate of the decomposition reaction. 

Numerical tests showed that changes in the overall activation energy of TMT decomposition in 

26 
the range 170 kJ/mol to 335 kJ/niol have little effect on the burning velocity with up to 2000 

pL/L of TMT. Hence, the inhibition effectiveness of tin compounds is likely to be independent 

on the parent molecule, as long as rapid decomposition occurs 

0 

I 

0 

z 

v) 

0 

0 

I 

'1 

I1 

+ 

0 

z 

v) 

0 

z 

v) 

II 

I + 

0 

Z 

0 

d 

r 

0 

0 

z 

v) 

I 

0 

I 

m 

+ 

I 

0 

z 

v) 

I 

0 

z 

v) 

II 

'I 

'I 

I 

0 

Z 

v) 

0 

c? 

Figure 9 - First-order sensitivity coefficient of the burning velocity to the specific reaction rate constant for 

reactions with tin-containing species (1963 pL/L of TMT). 

The reaction SnO + CO e Sn + CO? (which is followed by Sn+Oz=SnO+O) is an additional 

route for CO consumption, and is chain-branching (net: CO+02=C02+O), which reduces the 

inhibiting effect of SnO in these flames. Similar behavior was found for CO ~ NzO flames 

inhibited by Fe(CO)S [62]. Changes in these rates affect the calculated inhibition efficiency of 

TMT; nevertheless, the mechanism is dominated by the rate of reaction SnO + H 7 M ts SnOH 

+ M. 

Analysis of the numerical results for inhibition by MMT shows that the behavior of manganese 

in premixed methane-air flames is similar in many details to that of iron pentacarbonyl. The 

reaction pathway for manganese species is also shown in Figure 8, and the pathway for iron 

species from Fe(C0)S is shown for comparison. As with iron pentacarbonyl, Mn reacts with 07 

to form MnO? , which reacts primarily with radicals to form MnO. The catalytic radical 

recombination cycle consists of: 

27 
MnO + HzO ts Mn(OH)? 

Mn(0H). + H ++ MnOH + HzO 

MnOH T H (or OH, 0) ts MnO + Hz (or HzO, OH) 

Although flame equilibrium calculations show that the species MnH is present at relatively large 

concentrations, the contribution of reactions of this species to the inhibition effect is relatively 

small. Figure 10 shows the highest absolute values of the sensitivity coefficients of burning 

velocity to the rate constants (after adjustment) for reactions of manganese-containing species. 

The burning velocity is sensitive to the rates of the three reactions in the catalytic cycle above, 

with the rate of the reaction Mn(OH)? + H ts MnOH + NzO having the greatest absolute value. 

The burning velocity is also somewhat sensitive to the rates of the reactions forming MnOz and 

MnO. The reaction MnO + H ts Mn + OH has a positive sensitivity; i.e. increasing its rate 

increases the burning velocity. This chain propagating reaction temporarily removes MnO from 

the catalytic cycle above, thus weakening the inhibition. 

0.02 1 

I? 

I 

I 

$ I 

+ 

I 

2. 

o_ 

5 

N 

I + 

9 

5 

9 

r + 

I 

2 

Figure 10 - First-order sensitivity coefficient of the burning velocity to the specific reaction rate constant for 

reactions with manganese-containing species (150 pL/L of MMT). 

28 
3.2.5.2. Coinparison of inhibition by Fe(CO)S, MMT, and TMT 

In order to evaluate the inhibition mechanisms under comparable conditions, the numerical 

calculations (for @=I .0, &I, =0.2 1, and T,,,=353 K) were performed, as above, for initial values 

of TMT, MMT, and Fe(C0)5 which provide an equivalent reduction (30 YO) in the normalized 

burning velocity. These volume fractions were found to be 1963 pL/L, 128 pL/L, and 105 pL/L, 

respectively. While suppression of a fire would probably require higher agent concentration than 

that which provides a 30 (YO flame speed decrease, this degree of flame speed reduction was 

selected for two reasons. It provides a significant reduction in overall reaction rate (a factor of 

two), while keeping the agent concentration far enough above the values at which the model and 

experiments start to diverge (possibly due to condensation). For these flames, the structures are 

quite similar and the flame speed is the same (37.3 cm/s), allowing straightforward comparison 

of the inhibition mechanisms. 

Based on the calculated results, TMT is required at a mole fraction which is about 17 times 

greater than iron or manganese compounds for a similar reduction in overall reaction rate. This 

occurs because the reactions to form SnOH from SnO are rate limiting and slow. Further, the 

reverse of the reaction SnO + H - M ts SnOH t M is relatively fast at the location of peak 

catalytic cycle activity because SnO is a dominant equilibrium product in the high temperature 

region. 

In order to further compare the performance of TMT, MMT, and Fe(C0)5, it is useful to plot the 

relevant species mole fractions as a function of temperature through the flame. Figure I1 shows 

the mole fractions of the metal species in the inhibition cycles, and the radical species H, OH, 

and 0. The vertical line shows the location of the maximum rate of the H+O? branching 

reaction. Note that the locations of the peak fluxes of the inhibition reactions (not shown) are 

very close to the peak flux of the H+O. reaction and to the maximum concentrations H, 01 I, and 

0. The bottom figure for TMT inhibition clearly shows the preponderance of Sn0 as the sink for 

tin atoms (note the rescaling) ~ hence requiring a large initial TMT mole fraction to achieve both 

fast reaction of SnO with H atom, and appreciable mole fraction of SnOH for radical scavenging. 

In Figure 11, consider the manganese containing species at the location of peak H-atom flux. 

MnO is present in higher mole fraction than FeO. This occurs from the significant backward 

reaction of MnO + H.0 H Mn(0H). , which provides a lower Mn(0H)l concentration for the 

rate-limiting step Mn(OH), + H ts MnOH H20. 

29 
150 

150 I 

I i 

100 - H 150 - 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 

Figure 11 - Volume fraction of metal species intermediates and H, 0, and OH radicals, as a function of 

temperature in flame for Fe(CO)S, MMT, and TNIT added at 106 pL/L, 128 pL/L, and 1963 pL/L 

(corresponding to a 30 'h reduction in flame speed). Ti,,=353 K, Ql.0, Xo,,,,.,. =0.21. 

30 
1000 , 

v) 

al I .; 0 100 ' a 

v! 

v) 

1c 

C 

.o 0 010 

E 

* 

0 

U 

0.001 

1.000 

UI 

.; 0.100 al 

a 

"? 

/ 

c 

I 

1c 

0 

C 

m I .o 0.010 * 

L I 

U 

I 

0 001 c - 

1000 

VI 

al ! .; 0 100 

2 

a 

U 

L 

0 I 

0 001 L ~ 

1500 

hl t I 0 H 

TMnO, j 

I 

Fe 

2000 

Tern perature (K) 

The importance of constraints on 

equilibrium concentrations as they 

relate to inhibitor efficiency is 

illustrated in Figure 12 which shows 

the fraction of all metal species in the 

flame. For these equilibrium 

calculations, the metallic element (Sn, 

Mn, or Fe) is present at a mole fraction 

or 1.0 x lo', and methane and air are 

present at stoichiometric proportions. 

For TMT inhibition, the Sn appears 

overwhelmingly as SnO (note the scale 

change on Sn and SnOH), thus higher 

levels of TMT are required to yield the 

required levels of SnOH reaction with 

H atom, and for the required rates of 

the slow reaction SnO + H + M t) 

SnOH + M. Note that since the flames 

of Figure 11 all have equivalent levels 

of inhibition, the flux of each radical 

recombining catalytic cycle is about the 

same; e.g., SnOH, MnOH, and FeOH 

must be present at about the same mole 

fraction since their rates of reaction 

with H-atom are close, and the rates of 

reactions forming the hydroxide are 

approximately the same. Comparing 

Mn(OH)? and Fe(OH)l in Figure 12, 

we see that in the MMT-inhibited 

flames, the concentration of Mn(OI-I)Z 

for temperatures above 1800 K drops 

off rapidly, whereas in the Fe(C0)jinhibited flames, Fe(OH)? does not. 

Since the reaction of Mn(0H)l with H 

atom is rate-limiting (Figure IO), 

decreases in the Mn(OH)? mole fraction 

make MMT less effective as an 

inhibitor than Fe(CO)5. 

Figure 12 - Fraction of Sn-, hln-, and Fe-species at 

equilibrium in methane-air flames as a function of 

temperature. 

31 
3.2.6. Corzclusions 

In this section we presented the first experimental measurements of the influence of manganeseand tin-containing compounds (MMT, TMT) on the burning velocity of methaneiair flames. 

Comparisons with the agents Fe(C0)5 and CF3Br demonstrate that manganese and tin-containing 

compounds are effective inhibitors. The inhibition efficiency of MMT is about a factor of two 

less than that of iron pentacarbonyl, and that of TMT is about twenty-six times less effective, 

although TMT is about twice as effective as CF3Br. There exist conditions for which both MMT 

and TMT show a loss of effectiveness beyond that expected due to radical depletion, and the 

cause is believed to be particle formation. Kinetic models describing the inhibition mechanisms 

of MMT and TMT additives were suggested. Simulations of MMT- and TMT-inhibited flames 

show reasonable agreement with experimental burning velocity data. The decomposition of the 

parent molecule for the tin and manganese species is found to have a small effect on the 

inhibition properties for the range of concentrations used in this work. Calculations confirmed 

that the main tin-containing species in the flame zone is SnO, while the concentrations of Silo?, 

SnOH and Sn are relatively small. The inhibition effect of TMT is determined mostly by the rate 

of the association reaction H+SnO + M ts SnOH + M, and the catalytic recombination cycle is 

completed by the reactions SnOH HzO. The 

inhibition mechanism of manganese-containing compounds is similar, in many details, to the 

inhibition mechanism for iron pentacarbonyl: MnO + HzO e Mn(0H)Z; Mn(0H)Z + II ts 

MnOH T Hz0, and MnOH + OH (or 13) ts MnO HzO (or Hz). The burning velocity is most 

sensitive to the rate of Mn(0H)z + H t) MnOH + H20 reaction. Comparison of the mechanisms 

of inhibition of TMT and MMT to Fe(C0)j shows that the manganese is not as efficient an 

inhibitor as iron: due to equilibrium constraints, the mole fraction of the intermediate species 

Mn(0H): drops off at higher temperature (in comparison to Fe(OH)?), slowing its rate-limiting 

reaction with H atom in the catalytic cycle. This result illuminates the role of equilibrium 

constraints on species concentrations in the efficiency of catalytic cycles. 

H H SnO + HZ and SnOH + OH e SnO 

32 
3.3 Water with Metal Additives 

Water droplets with metal additives are both a useful way to test non-toxic forms of metals, and 

also one possible way in which they might be used in some applications. This section of the 

report describes development of an experimental and analytical approach for understanding the 

benefit of metallic additives to water droplets. It also provides experimental results for solutions 

of water with NaOH, KOH, NaC1, and FeC12. The results delineate the parameters important for 

the efficient use of additives to water, and describe how the characteristics of the flame system 

itself influences the conclusions about the effectiveness of a particular agent. 

3.3.1 Inti-oductiorz 

Since the international ban on production of halon 1301 (because of its adverse effect on 

stratospheric ozone), application of fine-water droplets as an effective fire suppressant has 

received considerable attention. Fire suppression by fine-water droplets is attributed to its 

thermal effects associated with latent heat of vaporization [63], and recent laboratory studies [64] 

and parallel modeling efforts have established quantitative estimates of these thermal 

contributions [65,66]. Further enhancement of the fire suppression ability of fine-water droplets 

through the use of chemical agents has recently received considerable attention [67] and is the 

main focus of the present investigation. Alkali metals (for brevity Am) have a strong chemical 

effect in flames, about an order of magnitude more than CF3Br, and consequently, are good 

candidates for addition to water sprays. Due to the low vapor pressure of these metals, for 

example partial pressure of NaOH at 298 K, they require application as a condensed 

phase, either as a fine-powder or as a solution in fine water spray to obtain any significant flame 

suppression. 

In order to understand the suppression mechanisms and optimize the performance of chemical 

agents added to water droplets, it is desired to conduct experiments which can be used as a 

database for detailed numerical modeling. Extensive tests of metal salts added to a hybrid 

diffiision-premixed flame were conducted by Vanpee and Shirodkar [29], providing 

unprecedented data on the effectiveness of metals as flame inhibitors. It is somewhat difficult to 

model those experiments or interpret the results in detail, however, since some important 

experimental parameters were not provided (such as the equivalence ratio of these partially 

premixed flames, and the droplet sizes). Further, their experiments were not conducted over a 

range of additive mole fractions, which, as described in this paper, is an important parameter. 

Experiments by Mitani and Niioka [68] considered inhibition of premixed flames with ultra-fine 

water droplets (less than 2.4 urn mean diameter) containing NaOH and NaHC03, indicating a 

flame inhibitiodextinctiou with addition of chemical agents. In particular, their slower 

C~H~O~/NZ premixed flame experiments (as opposed to faster H?/O?iN2 flames) showed distinct 

chemical inhibition effects, but the saturation effects due to condensation of metal vapors were 

not explored. Recent work by Zheng et al. [67] on counterflow premixed flames inhibited with 

water/NaCl fine-droplets in fact show signs of saturation with increasing NaCl mass fraction in 

water. But the reported data on equivalence ratio vs. flame extinction strain rate, at constant 

water mass addition, is the clearest approach for demonstrating that effect. 

33 
Motivated by the need to gain detailed understanding of the parameters important for water 

additives to be effective inhibitors in flames, and to provide a database suitable for numerical 

modeling in codes currently being developed, we conduct the experiments described below. 

Ultimately, the goal is to use droplets with additives for testing the effect of non-toxic forms of 

metals . Some preliminary data is presented below for FeC12 in water droplets, but first, we 

develop the experimental technique. As will be demonstrated, droplet size, droplet residence 

time in the flame, and the saturation of active species produced by the chemical additive are key 

features which must be controlled to obtain peak performance for the given time-temperature 

characteristics of an actual fire. 

3.3.2. Experiment 

Two laboratory flame configurations were used, producing non-premixed and premixed 

methane-air flames. The burners were designed to be modular, so that the same water generation 

and gas supply systems could be used with either. The air was supplied by an oil-free shop 

compressor followed by a series of desiccant beds, and the fuel gas was methane (BOC grade 

4.0, 99.99% purity). For the non-premixed flames, gas flows were measured by Teledyne 

Hastings-Raydist flow meters (factory calibrated with a reported accuracy of +/- 1% of full scale 

reading), and for the premixed flames, by Sierra model 860 mass flow controllers (calibrated 

with a Bios model 20K piston flow meter so that their expanded relative uncertainty is 2%)). For 

experiments involving water droplets, the metered dry air was saturated with water vapor before 

feeding to the burner [69]. The relative humidity was verified with a hygrometer (Testo 605-H I). 

The droplet generation system used (Sono-Tek Model 8700- 120) consisted of the ultra-sonic 

nozzle and a broadband ultrasonic frequency generator. A syringe pump (Instech Model 2000) 

with a plastic 10 cm3 syringe fed water to the atomizer. The water mass flow rate at the nozzle 

exit was measured gravimetrically. by carefully collecting the droplets on a collection surface. 

While the fraction of water fed to the atomizer which actually reached the nozzle exit was only 

about 70%, the operation of the droplet injection system was very repeatable over the entire 

range of water and air flows of the tests. Near the atomizer tip, the droplet size distribution has 

been characterized by the manufacturer as a log-normal 

3.3.2.1. Counterflow Burner 

In the counterflow burner, a steady, planar, non-premixed flame was established in the mixing 

layer of the opposed methane and air streams. The fine-water droplets were introduced with the 

air stream, which was first saturated with water vapor to eliminate evaporation of the droplets 

prior to their reaching the hot thermal mixing layer. The fuel and air nozzles (Pyrex glass) each 

have an area contraction ratio of 6.5 and an exit diameter of 1.5 cm, and at their exits, have 

nearly plug ilow velocity profiles (verified previously through laser-Doppler velocimetry 

measurements [70]). Co-flowing nitrogen streams on both the fuel and air sides helped to 

maintain a very stable planar flame disk. The nozzles were enclosed in a cylindrical burner 

chamber, in which water cooling coils and air dilution of the post-combustion gases eliminate 

secondary flames. The nozzle tubes enter the chamber through vacuum fittings which permit 

easy adjustment of the nozzle separation distance (L), which is typically set to 12 nim. A 

schematic and a detailed description of this burner can be found in Ref. [69]. 

34 
In the non-premixed flame experiments, the water mass flow rate was fixed, and the air and 

methane flows were increased together until the flame was extinguished. The fuel and air flows 

were adjusted so as to balance their momentum; i.e., (1/2p~~)~,~ = (%pv*)c~,, where p is the density 

and v is the axial velocity. Knowing the nozzle separation distance, the global flow strain rate at 

extinction is defined by aext = 4lv,;,.//L, providing a suitable parameter that describes the nonpremixed flame extinction condition [71]. The total water (or solution) droplet mass fraction in 

the air+saturated water vapor stream is defined here as YO, while the mass fraction of the 

additive (i.e., NaOH, KOH, NaCl or FeCI?), is defined as ,ai/i/. In experiments, variation of u,.,., 

with Yo as well as y,,,/,/ were measured. 

3.3.2.2. Premixed Burner 

The premixed burner used for the present two-phase investigations consisted of a straight sided 

conical flame established at the exit of a Mache-Hebra type nozzle [70]. A schlieren imaging 

system provided the flame cone angle, which was used to determine the burning velocity [34]. 

The nozzle exit flow profile was characterized by laser Doppler velocimeter measurements 

described previously [34]. The typical half-cone angle of the flame was about 20" . With addition 

of the solution droplets, the flame height was maintained constant at about 2 cm by adjusting the 

total flow rate of reactants, while maintaining the equivalence ratio at the desired value. For the 

present data, the uncertainty (expanded uncertainties with a coverage factor of 2) in the burning 

velocity is k 6 YO. 

The inhibition of a laminar premixed flame can be characterized by the relative decrease in the 

burning velocity (denoted here by SL) with respect to that of an uninhibited flame (5"''). The 

simple conical premixed flame stabilized above the Mache-Hebra nozzle, and the associated 

flame cone angle measurement technique adopted here is one of many traditional methods of 

obtaining the laminar flame speed [34]. While curvature and stretch effects do exist in the flame, 

they are considered minor, particularly since all results in the present section are reported as 

normalized flame speed, SL/S/,'' . The uninhibited methane and air flame speed obtained from the 

present burner is (35 k 1.2) cm/s. Because the ultrasonic atomizer and the length of the Pyrex 

tube delivering the reactant gas-mixture are the same as in counterflow burner, the median 

droplet diameter is not expected to be different from that of counterflow flames reported above. 

3.3.3. Results 

3.3.3.1. Extinction of Non-premixed Flames with Water/Solutions 

Water-NaOH Fine-Droplets: 

Figure 13 shows a comparison of droplet mass fraction in air (YO) as a function of the global 

extinction strain rate (a,,.,), with varying NaOH mass fraction in water (i,v;u~~~). Similar results 

were reported earlier for NaOH mass fractions in water ofy,v,,oll = 0.055, 0.1 12 and 0.175 [69]. 

In the earlier data, at the lowest flow strain rate of 125 s-', the case of 0.175 NaOH in water 

showed a significantly higher effectiveness over 0.055 and 0.1 12 NaOH cases (Le., Yo=0.005 for 

J~,V~~~I,~=O. 175 vs. Yo=O.O 10 for y,v.~~,,=0.055 and 0.1 12). However, for higher extinction strain 

rates (> 125 s-l), the previous experimental data indicated negligible differences in extinction 

35 
condition with varying NaOH mass fraction. These somewhat inconsistent results with varying 

NaOH mass fractions clearly required further investigation, including investigation about the 

effectiveness of NaOH at lower mass fractions (Le., ,y~ooH< 0.055). The new data reported here 

indicate that the differences in YO for j'Cr,O/l of 0.055, 0.1 12 and 0.175 are within experimental 

uncertainty. Distinct effects of NaOH mass fraction are obtained only for ylirOll 4.055. 

8 

+ Pure wager 

U 01 NaOH 

0 03 NaOH 

c OU55NaOH 

0 080 NaOH 

0112NrOH 

0 175 NaOH 

rn O02kaOH 

-+ . 

I .:' 

io 

Figure 13 - Droplet mass fraction (Y,J as a function of extinction strain rate of a methane-air non-premixed 

flame, for several NaOII mass fractions in Mater f~,.~~,, ). 

The difference between the new ?;"i.ci~~~=O. 175 data and previous results was found to be caused 

by a temperature dependence of the ultrasonic nozzle performance. When the nozzle tip was 

allowed to reach a steady operating temperature, typically about 40 "C after about 15 min of 

continuous operation, the resulting flame extinction data were consistent and reproducible. While 

the revision ofy,v(:,,o,<=O. 175 data can be attributed to ultrasonic atomizer nozzle performance, the 

observation that the mass fraction of NaOH above 0.055 yields no apparent increase in flame 

suppression is rather interesting and requires further analysis. 

The flame extinction results shown in Figure 13 at the strain rate of 125 s-' are re-plotted in, 

Figure 14 according to the variation of droplet mass fraction (YO) vs. NaOH mass fraction in 

water (y~~u~~ll). As y~'~~~~l is increased above 0.08, the total droplet mass fraction (Yo) needed for 

flame extinguishment is seen to become invariant with the NaOH mass fraction in the droplet. 

Similar saturation behavior has been reported in premixed flames with iron, manganese, and tin 

organometallic compounds [10,12], and metal salts added as particles [72]. Also shown in Figure 

14 is the mole fraction of NaOH in air (X~,~cp,) assuming that NaOH in droplets is completely 

released to the gas-phase. Under such an assumption (reasonable if the droplets are completely 

vaporized at or before the flame). it is not surprising that X'V~~~I~~ increases almost linearly with 

36 
increasing NaOH mass fraction in water-NaOH solution. In reality, however, the maximum 

Xycr~// (in equilibrium) is directly related to the partial pressure of NaOH (or any other low vapor 

pressure sodium compound), and is a function of temperature only. Figure 14 indicates that this 

limiting value of X,V(,O// is about 0.0006 (or 600 pL/L of NaOH in air). Therefore, as seen in 

Figure 14, any increase in NaOH vapor above this partial pressure, for example ~,v(~o/~O.O~, may 

not yield any improvement in the fire suppression ability of water-NaOH solution. 

Droplet Mass fradmon 

P 

I 

1 

I 

* 

I, 1 1 

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 014 01 

Mass Fraction of NaOH in Water 

Figure 14 - Yo and mole fraction of NaOH in air as a function ofy,,,,, , for the extinction strain of 125 s-' in 

Figure 13. 

The thermochemical data of NaOH can be used to estimate the gas-phase conditions that yield 

the limiting value of Yl;0//=0.0006. Assuming that NaOH exists as a monomer in the gas-phase, 

an equilibrium liquid-vapor calculation based on the Clausius-Clapeyron equation yields an 

NaOH saturation temperature of 1125 K. This vapor-liquid equilibrium temperature is about 

400-500 K below the characteristic temperature within the rate-limiting oxygen-consumption, 

radical-production region of the flame [73]. Because of the thermal boundary layer surrounding 

each evaporating droplet, it is conceivable that an effective temperature below the flame 

temperature may control the saturation of excess NaOH vapor. Alternatively, loss of active 

inhibiting species to condensation may be controlled by a compound with a lower vapor pressure 

than NaOH. In experiments, resolving the appropriate effective temperature that controls 

saturation of condensation of the relevant species is perhaps impossible, and therefore, only 

detailed numerical simulations can provide better understanding of the saturation phenomenon 

occurring. Although numerical simulations that include detailed interactions between the 

37 
condensed-phase and the gas-phase have recently been developed to describe water-droplet 

interactions [74], analytical models for droplet evaporation of binary mixtures in flames have 

not. In this case, modeling of the evaporation of binary liquid droplets with highly disparate 

boiling temperatures (373 K for water vs. 1663 K for NaOH) may require further simplifications. 

Hence, in this paper, only experimental results are presented with binary evaporating droplets. 

Water-KOH Fine-Droplets: 

Besides NaOH, other alkali metal compounds are known to be chemically effective fire 

suppressants. In particular, potassium containing compounds are believed to be more effective 

than sodium [72,75]. Figure 15 shows experimentally obtained extinction strain rates of a 

methane-air non-premixed flame, with similar sized water-KOH droplets, containing varying 

mass fractions of KOH. For the lowest extinction strain rate considered (i.e., 125 s-'), the data 

show increasing flame suppression up to about J?KO,,=O. 1 12. Further increase in KOH mass 

fraction in water up to 0.175, however, yields no further increase in the flame suppression ability 

of the water-KOH solution. Following the analysis of water-NaOH saturation vapor conditions, 

current water-KOH results indicate that the KOH saturates at a gas-phase mole fraction of about 

X~0,,=0.0003, for y~0,{=0.112. Liquid-vapor equilibrium data for KOH indicate that this mole 

fraction corresponds to a gas temperature of about 1025 K, which is about 100 K lower than that 

obtained for the NaOH case. This lower effective saturation temperature for KOH is consistent 

with the lower boiling temperature of KOH (1 597 K) compared to that of NaOH ( 1663 K). 

t 

700 

Extinction Strain Rate (IIs) 

Figure 15 - Droplet mass fraction (Yo) as a function of extinction strain rate of a methane-air non-premixed 

flame, for several KOH mass fractions in water (vKO,, ). 

38 
Water-NaC1 and Water-FeC11 Fine-Droplets: 

Non-premixed methane-air flame extinction experiments were also conducted with NaCI. WaterNaCl droplets have been considered previously by Zheng et al. [67], but only in the context of 

extinction of counterflow premixed flames as a function of fuel-air equivalence ratio. The flame 

suppression trends shown in Figure 16, with increasing NaCl mass fraction in water are 

consistent with previous data with NaOH and KOH. The metal Fe (in Fe+ or Fez- form) has 

previously been shown to be very effective [29]. Here, exploratory experiments were conducted 

to test the efficacy of an Fe” compound, such as FeCl. dissolved in water. A mass fraction of 

FeCll in water (y~<,(-/, = 0: 15) was tested and this water-FeC1, solutions clearly showed chemical 

inhibition effects. Nonetheless, experiments with lower mass fractions of FeC12 must be 

performed to evaluate the occurrence of saturation phenomenon, as observed in water-NaOH 

solutions. 

+ Pureuratcr 

0 029 HaCl 

0080 NaCl 

0 164 HaCl 

v 8 156FeCI, 

900 150 200 250 300 350 400 4 

Extinction Strain Rate (11s) 

10 

Figure 16 - Droplet mass fraction (Yo) as a function of extinction strain rate of a methane-air non-premised 

tlame. for several NaCl and FeClz mass fractions in water (yodd). 

Molar Comparisons of NaOH, KOH, and NaCl 

In order to relate the chemical inhibition of the agents considered here to previous studies, the 

non-premixed flame extinction results are analyzed here on a molar basis for the additive. To 

avoid uncertainties related to saturation effects, only additive mass fractions below the saturation 

condition are considered here. Since water-NaOH extinction results show that saturation of 

NaOH vapor is approached for additive mass fractions above 0.055, the molar comparisons 

between NaOH and KOH are performed at ~;,~,~,=0.055. For the extinction data points considered, 

39 
the mole fraction of alkali metal hydroxide (AmOH) was evaluated and is plotted as a function of 

flame extinction strain rate, as shown in Figure 17a. These molar comparisons clearly indicate 

roughly two times performance benefit of KOH over NaOH as an additive to water droplets, 

similar to what has been reported based on flames inhibited with particulates [72,75]. More 

recent kinetic studies have indicated that recombination of K with OH is about 30 '% faster than 

Na with OH and that recombination of K with 02 is in fact two to three times faster than Na than 

with 02 [76] and this perhaps is the primary reason for the effective flame suppression by KOH. 

Comparison of molar plots of NaCl vs. NaOH, shown in Figure 17b, indicates surprisingly 

superior flame suppression ability of NaCl. This is, however, consistent with the saturation of 

NaCl or NaOH since the vapor pressure of NaCl at 1125 K is 1.8 times that of NaOH. For a 

droplet mass loading of Yo=0.014 and an extinction strain rate of 125 s-', a comparison of the 

mole fraction of chemical agent needed in air (X,) yields the following order: XKOH = 0.00021 < 

X,IL~,CI =0.00023 < YVc,OH = 0.00034 < X,,,, = 0.00056 (assuming linear interpolation betwecri 

available data). These values indicate that on a molar basis KOH is the most effective chemical 

agent, followed by NaCl and NaOH. For water-FeCL, the interpolation was performed assuming 

that JJF~,cI,=~. 15 is unsaturated at this rather high molar loading, which is certainly questionable. 

If FeCIz is found to condense at a lower additive mass fraction (eg. ~,L-~,c/,< 0.05), then on a molar 

basis water-FeClz could become the most effective solution as X,C,~.,, will approach 0.000 18 

(instead of 0.00056 above). 

0 OD05 

a) 

Figure 17 - a.) Mole fraction of alkali metal (Am) in air as a function of non-premixed methane-air flame 

extinction strain rate, for NaOIl and KOH mass fractions of 0.055 from data of Figure 13 and Figure 15; b.) 

Rlole fraction of alkali metal (Am) in air as a function of non-premixed methane-air flame extinction strain 

rate, for NaOH and NaCl mass fractions of 0.03from data of Figure 13 and Figure 16. 

40 
3.3.3.2. Inhibition of Premixed Flames with Water-NaOH Droplets 

The inhibition of premixed flame propagation with various chemical fire suppressing agents is 

well documented [10,24,77]. Here, we consider the inhibition of a conical premixed flame with 

fine water-NaOH droplets. Based on phenomenological reasoning [78], it is well known that the 

burning velocity is proportional to the square-root of the chemical reaction rate. Consequently, 

we plot in Figure 18 the square of normalized burning velocity [S=(SL/SoL)'~'] vs. droplet mass 

fraction (YO), for varying NaOH mass fraction in water (y.~~,oll). With increasing JI.L'~,()~~, these 

results do not show any significant increase in flame inhibition compared to the inhibition with 

pure water droplets. This is a rather unexpected finding because of the close similarities 

(described below) between the two laboratory flames considered. This insensitivity of ,V,\;'~,O,, in 

water droplets, for the premixed flame configuration, can be explained by considering the droplet 

residence times in the flame. Because of the vast difference in the boiling temperature between 

water and NaOH (373 K vs. 1663 K), water is expected to evaporate first. If the flow residence 

time of droplets through the premixed flame is less than that through counterflow flames, a 

partially vaporized droplet (smaller than the initial 13 pm at the inflow boundary) with much 

higher concentration of NaOH will emerge. Therefore, the lack of chemical inhibition observed 

in the premixed experiments with water/NaOH solutions may be caused by partially vaporized 

droplets. To test this hypothesis, the flow residence times of droplets through premixed and nonpremixed flames, inhibited with pure-water droplets, are investigated below. 

U g 0.4 

go2 

.e - 

E 

I 

e 

B 

I Pun: water 

0 01 HaOH 

- D 02 NsOH 

0 055 NaOH 

4 

D 175 NsOH 

0.01 0.02 0 

Droplet Mass Fraction (Yo} 

Figure 18 -Square of the normalized burning velocity of a premixed flame inhibited with fine-droplets of 

water/solution, for several NaOH mass fractions in water. 

41 
3.3.3.3. Comparison of Non-premixed and Premixed Flames with Pure-Water Droplets 

As described above, the premixed flame burning velocity is proportional to the square-root of the 

overall chemical reaction rate. The non-premixed flame extinction strain rate, however. is 

directly proportional to the chemical reaction rate. A formal asymptotic analysis [79], assuming 

that the overall reaction of the form Fuel + Oxidizer -+ Products is applicable to both premixed 

and non-premixed flames, yields the following relationship between the burning velocity and 

extinction strain rate, 

@osL"2 OC @Mq,Z,t? Ll'W 

where Z,, is the stoichiometric mixture fraction (assumed to be a small parameter), A the thermal 

conductivity, and c,, the specific heat. Based on this relationship and assuming that the mixture 

fraction, transport and thermodynamic properties are not affected by the small fraction of 

condensed-phase agent added [go], a direct comparison of the extinctionhnhibition of nonpremixed and premixed flames can be accomplished by defining normalized flame strength as 

Its applicability for droplets of pure water is examined in Figure 19, which shows the normalized 

flame strength for the premixed and non-premixed flames as a function of the mass fraction of 

water. The comparison clearly shows that the 13 ym median diameter droplets are not equally 

effective in inhibiting the premixed flame. (Note that for proper normalizations, SL(' corresponds 

to a case where the premixed methane-air stream is saturated with water vapor, and LI~,,{~,~~;/,/;,~ to a 

case where the non-premixed air stream is saturated with water vapor.) 

Premixed 

+ Alan-premixed 

I I 

0.01 0.02 0 

Dropfet Mass Fraction {Yo) 

I3 

Figure 19 - Normalized flame strength of non-premised and premised methane-air tlames, inhibited with 

fine-droplets of water with a median diameter of 20 pni. 

42 
Effect of Flow Residence Time: 

The above mentioned differences between the inhibition of non-premixed and premixed flames 

by pure water droplets, as well as the disparate results for droplets of water/NaOH in premixed 

flames, can be explained based on the flow residence time associated with each flame structure 

and its effect on the evaporation of fine-water droplets. Figure 20 shows the numerically 

obtained flame structure of a premixed and a non-premixed flame, corresponding to conditions 

where the flame is inhibited by 13 pm droplets with droplet mass fraction of YO-0.01. The 

estimated flow residence time of these droplets through the thermal layer, from the cold 

boundary up to the peak flame temperature differs substantially, 4 ms for the premixed vs. 14 ms 

for the non-premixed. This implies that the time available for the droplets to vaporize in 

premixed flames is considerably less than in the non-premixed flames, and that the 13 pni 

droplets are not necessarily the ideal size for inhibiting the premixed flame considered. 

Consequently, the maximum thermal cooling is not achieved compared to the counterflow flame, 

resulting in the lower flame inhibition observed in Figure 19 for premixed flames. 

-0.25 0 0,25 Distance (cm) 

Figure 20 - Non-premixed and a premised flame structure, corresponding to inhibited conditions of water 

droplet mass fraction of Y,,=O.Ol. 

Interestingly, this finding also explains the much poorer relative effectiveness of either NaOH or 

KOH at a=240 s-‘ vs. a=125 s-’ , as shown in Figure 13 and Figure 15. The higher strain flames 

have lower residence time, possibly preventing the release of the additive to the gas phase. 

43 
3.3.4. Conclusions 

The low vapor pressure of alkali metals at normal room temperature requires delivery of alkali 

metals as a powder or as a fine-droplet spray for their efficient delivery to a flame. However, 

efforts to combine the thermal fire suppression ability of fine-water droplets with the chemical 

inhibition of alkali metals have indicated the existence of an upper agent limit because of the 

associated limiting vapor pressure of the additive. When the mass fraction of alkali hydroxide in 

water is below this condensation limit, comparison of the chemical effectiveness clearly 

indicates that KOH is about two times more effective than NaOH on a molar basis, for a wide 

range of flow strain rates. Comparison of the effectiveness of water-NaOH with water-NaC1 on a 

molar basis indicates a superior effectiveness of NaCl over NaOH, which can be explained based 

on their vapor pressures. 

The relationship between droplet size and flow residence time is found to be important both for 

comparing the behavior of condensed phase agents between flame types, as well as for 

evaluating the efficacy of chemically active additives. Comparison of the effects of water-NaOH 

droplets on the extinction of non-premixed and inhibition of premixed flames implies that if the 

droplets are not conzpletely evaporated before the chemical reaction layer because of non-optimal 

droplet size or too short droplet residence time, then the full chemical effectiveness of the agent 

is not realized. Similarly, when equally sized fine-water droplets are introduced to non-premixed 

and premixed flames, with no velocity lag between the droplets and the gas-phase (at the inlet), 

the characteristic flame extinctiodinhibition conditions of the two flames differ. Flame structure 

analysis has revealed that the distinct flow residence time of droplets (with a median diameter of 

13 pm ) through each flame structure, i.e., 14 ms for the non-premixed flame vs. 4 ms for the 

premixed flame, is the cause for the observed differences. These results illustrate the importance 

of understanding the particular reacting flow field and temperature conditions in order to assess 

the intricate coupling between droplet size and its residence time through the flame structure. 

These effect must be considered in designing optimal fire suppression systems based on finedroplets of water/solutions. 

44 
3.4. Cup Burner Flame Extinction Tests with Metal Compounds 

3.4.1. Introduction 

Early in this project it was discovered that Fe(CO)s did not work well in the cup burner. In this 

section of the report, we discuss the experimental approach used for assessing the performance 

of these compounds in the cup burner, and present the early work with Fe(C0)S added to the fuel 

or air stream at fixed mole fractions. We then discuss experiments with TMT, MMT, Fe(C0)5, 

Br2, and CF3Br added to cup-burner flames at varying mole fractions. While CFjBr and Br? 

were both found to be very effective at all mole fractions for reducing the amount of COz 

required to extinguish the cup-burner flames, all of the organometallic agents were found to be 

relatively ineffective, overall, at reducing the amount of CO. required. While they are several 

times more effective than CF3Br at low mole fractions, they lose their effectiveness before an 

appreciable reduction of the CO. required for extinction occurs. Moreover, the performance 

benefit of these agents over CFiBr at the low mole fraction is much less than that in premixed or 

counterflow diffusion flames. These results highlight the importance of flame type for assessing 

the performance of chemically active suppressants. Details of this investigation are presented 

below. 

3.4.2. Background 

As discussed above, metal compounds have attracted attention because it has been found that 

some metals recombine radicals in the post-combustion region of premixed H2/02 flames [ 171 

and that several metallic compounds are one to two orders of magnitude more effective than 

CFjBr at reducing the burning velocity of premixed flames [lo-12,24,81]. If means could be 

found to incorporate such super-effective moieties in a practical fire suppressant (particularly for 

unoccupied spaces), very effective agents may be possible. 

Premixed and counterflow diffusion flames have been used extensively for testing supereffective agents since they provide easily measurable parameters which can be directly related to 

the effect of the agent on the overall reaction rate. For these super-effective agents, however, 

few detailed studies have been conducted in flames resembling fires. The present work remedies 

this deficiency by presenting results for addition of these highly effective agents to cup-burner 

flames. Not only do cup burners have flame structures that are a reasonable approximation to 

those in fires, but they are also widely used by the fire protection industry as a metric to assess 

fire suppressant performance [ 821. Hence, measurements of agent performance in cup burners 

have clear relevance to their eventual use. In the results described below, the catalytic agents 

are found to be surprisingly poor flame inhibitors in cup burners, relative to CFiBr. 

Experimental results are presented which delineate the performance of these agents, and provide 

an initial explanation of their lack of effectiveness. 

As described above in other sections of the report, the agents TMT, MMT, ferrocene, and iron 

pentacarbonyl (Fe(C0)s) have recently been studied in some detail [ 1 1,12,48]. Experiments and 

modeling of Fe(CO)5 have quantified its performance and explained its mechanism of inhibition 

for a variety of conditions [36,48,83]. For iron, the strong inhibition is believed to occur from a 

45 
catalytic radical recombination cycle involving iron oxides and hydroxides: FeOH + H t) FeO 

t H? ; FeO + H20 t) Fe(OH)> ; and Fe(0H)z + €-I ts FeOH + H20, which yields the net 

reaction: H + H t) H?. For manganese-containing inhibitors, the mechanism is believed to be 

similar (with Mn replacing Fe in the reaction sequence). At low volume fractions, Fe(C0)j is 

about eighty times more effective than CFjBr at reducing the burning velocity of premixed 

flames; however, at volume fractions above about 100 pL/L, the marginal effectiveness of 

Fe(C0)5 is greatly reduced. This is believed to occur from condensation of the active ironcontaining intermediates to particles [37]. In a similar fashion, MMT loses its effectiveness at 

about 300 pL/L, and TMT, which is about three times as effective as CF3Br in premixed flames, 

loses its marginal effectiveness at about 3000 pL/L. Indeed, if added directly to a cup-burner 

flame alone, Fe(C0)5 is not expected to be a particularly effective suppressant because 

condensation of active iron-containing intermediates to particles limits their gas-phase volume 

fraction, restricting the potential of the gas-phase catalytic cycle. Any practical fire suppressant 

using these super-effective agents would require some method to overcome the loss of 

effectiveness. 

One approach for overcoming the loss of effectiveness is to combine catalytic agents with inert 

compounds. In this case, the overall reaction rate is lowered in part through radical 

recombination by the catalytic agent, and in part through the lower temperature caused by the 

added diluent. This approach has been discussed in work since the 1950's [36,53,61,72,84,85] 

which suggested that combinations of thermally acting and catalytic agents might prove 

beneficial. These predictions have been confirmed in various studies with premixed and 

counterflow diffusion flames inhibited by Fe(CO)5 [lo], ferrocene [ 1 I], CFjBr [86], phosphorus 

compounds ["I, and alkali metals [87]. Tests and calculations show that addition of an incrt 

compound lowers the temperature and in some cases, enhances the performance of the catalytic 

agent [ 1 11. The goal is to harness the very high efficiency of the metal species at low volume 

fraction while keeping its concentration below that which causes condensation. Nonetheless, it 

is generally not known a priori if the combination of an inert agent with the catalytic agents will 

be effective in a particular flame configuration. For example, the lower temperature (because of 

the inert additive) can cause higher radical superequilibrium [48], increasing the catalytic effect, 

but may also modify the flame structure, providing larger residence times for particle formation 

[37]. 

Based on these encouraging results, extinction experiments of ferrocene together with an inert 

compound generated by a solid propellant gas generator (SPGG) have recently been conducted 

in an enclosure containing a spray flame [88]. Unfortunately, the combination did not have the 

intended high efficiency. Not withstanding, few carefully controlled tests have been performed 

in cup-burner flames for agents more effective than CF3Br. In order to gain insight into reasons 

for the lack of effectiveness of the ferrocene/SPGG combination in suppressing the spray flame 

and to provide data in a low-strain diffusion flame similar to a fire, we performed experiments 

with catalytic metal-based inhibitors and COz added to the air stream in a cup burner. 

The approach adopted for assessing the effectiveness of the catalytic agents in extinguishing cupburner flames is to determine how the COz volume fraction at extinction changes in the presence 

of the catalytic inhibitor. This approach is conceptually the same as the classic oxygen index test 

used for assessing material flammability [SC)]. In that test, the oxygen volume fraction in the air 

46 
stream at extinction (i.e., the oxygen index) is determined for solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels with 

chemical additives in either the fuel or oxidizer. In the present tests, CO? (rather than N2) is 

added as the diluent to facilitate comparisons with existing experimental data for other 

configurations. Although previous studies have been performed with heptane, methanol, and 

mathane as the fuel [l], the present experiments use methane. A gaseous fuel allows an 

approximately constant flame size and heat release rate, preserving many properties of the flow 

field (unlike a liquid pool fuel, for which fuel supply rate varies with inhibitor addition). These 

methane-air flames with COZ are also essentially non-sooting, which is desirable since the metal 

additives would change the production rates of soot (and thus the radiant heat transfer) which 

would complicate interpretation of the results. The iron, tin, and manganese compounds were 

selected because there exists recent experimental data on their performance in premixed 

methane-air flames for comparison, as described in section 3.2 above. 

3.4.3. Experinient 

The cup burner, described previously [90,91] , consists of a cylindrical glass cup (28 mm 

diameter) positioned inside a glass chimney (53.3 cm tall, 9.5 cm diameter). To provide uniform 

flow, 6 mm glass beads fill the base of the chimney, and 3 mm glass beads (with two 

15.8 mesh/cm screens on top) fill the fuel cup. Gas flows were measured by mass flow 

controllers (Sierra 860) which were calibrated so that their uncertainty is 2 % of indicated flow. 

To determine the extinction condition, the desired amount of catalytic agent was added to the coflowing air (held constant at 41.6 L/min), and CO? was added to the flow (in increments of 

< 1 '% near extinction) until lift-off was observed. The test was repeated at least three times. 

The organometallic inhibitors were added to the air stream using multi-stage saturators in 

controlled temperature baths. As described above, the Fe(C0)S and TMT used two-stage 

saturators, [36]while the MMT used a three-stage saturator, with 50 % larger stages, to insure 

saturation. A measured portion of the added COZ flowed as a carrier through each saturator. The 

volume fraction of the organometallic inhibitors in the air stream was calculated based on the 

measured air flow, measured carrier gas flow, and calculated vapor pressure of the agent at the 

bath temperature. The experimental vapor pressure data was obtained from refs. [39,40]. Since 

the vapor pressure of MMT is much lower than that of the other agents, the burner and lines were 

maintained at >(35.0 k 0.5) "C before and during the tests to reduce the likelihood of MMT 

condensation. [36]For bromine as the inhibitor, all flow tubes downstream of agent addition as 

well as the burner base were made of Teflon to avoid reaction. A computer-controlled syringe 

punip added the liquid Br? to a 2.1 m long tubing carrying the air and CO?, and complete Br2 

evaporation was observed to occur within a tubing length of less than 1 m. 

The fuel gas is methane (Matheson UHP, 99.9 %), and the air is house compressed air (filtered 

and dried) which is additionally cleaned by passing it through an 0.01 pm filter, a carbon filter, 

and a desiccant bed to remove small aerosols, organic vapors, and water vapor. The chemicals 

used were Fe(C0)j (Aldrich), TMT (Alfa Aesar), MMT (Alfa Aesar), CH30H (Aldrich, 99.8 %I), 

Br2 (Aldrich, 99.5 %), CF3Br (Great Lakes), N? (boil-off), and COz (Airgas). 

An uncertainty analysis was performed, consisting of calculation of individual uncertainty 

components and root mean square summation of components. All uncertainties are reported as 

47 
e.xpanded uncertainties: X i kuC, from a combined standard uncertainty (estimated standard 

deviation) u~, and a coverage factor k = 2. Likewise, when reported, the relative uncertainty is 

kifc /X. The expanded relative uncertainties for the experimentally determined quantities in this 

study are: CO? volume fraction, 4 (%; inhibitor volume fraction for organometallics, CF3Br, and 

Br2: 5 %, 2.7 96, and 2.0 %, respectively. 

3.4.4. Results und Discussion 

We first review seom test results presented in a prior NGP final report [ 11. In those early tests, 

the amount of CO, required for extinction of the cup-burner flame was determined with Fe(C0)j 

added to either the air or methane stream. Table 5 summarizes the results. The top line shows 

that for COZ alone, the volume fraction for extinction XCO..e.ct is (1 5.7 k 0.6). The next two lines 

show that addition of Fe(C0)s to the air stream at relatively high volume fractions (450 yL/L or 

924 yL/L) causes only a (9.6 k 0.5) %, or (13.5 k 0.8) '% reduction in XCO,.,-~~. If we add 1 '% CH4 

to the air stream to change the flame location and hence the scalar dissipation rate, the reduction 

in XCO,+.~ with addition of 450 yL/L of Fe(C0)S is slightly greater, but still only about (10.7 k 

0.6) YO. Likewise, addition of Fe(C0)s to the fuel stream at either 450 yL/L or 4500 yL/L causes 

only a (1.3 k 0.1) YO or (2.6 k 0.2) % reduction in the amount of CO2 required for extinction. 

These results were completely unexpected since only 100 pL/L of Fe(C0)j in a premixed flame 

halves the burning velocity [ 111. Hence, the higher volume fractions of Fe(C0)s added here 

were expected to strongly influence XCO,.~,~. 

Table 5 - Extinction volume fraction of C02 XC02.rr, in methane-air cup burner with and without various 

amounts of Fe(CO), or CF3Br added to the fuel or air stream (air flow =41.6 L/min) (from ref. [I]). 

'/o Reduction 

Catalytic Xinh Inhibitor X~02,cxt from 

Inhibitor (pL/L) Location ("/.I Pure COz 

None 

Fe(C0)5 " 

" 

' 

CF3Br " 

450 pL/L 

924 yL/L 

450 yL/L 

450 yL/L 

4500 pL/L 

1.3 % 

11. %) 

15.7 k 0.6 

in Air 14.1 k0.6 9.6 k 0.5 

13.5 k0.5 13.5 k0.8 

in Air w/ l(%CHJ 14.0 k0.6 10.7 k0.6 

in Fuel 15.4 f 0.6 1.3 kO.l 

15.2 k0.6 2.6 k 0.2 

in Air 4.4 k 0.2 72.0 k 4.1 

in Fuel 8.7 f0.3 44.2 k2.5 

" " 

" 'L 

CF3Br is also believed to be a strong catalytic radical scavenging agent. As a test of the validity 

of the present approach, XCO,.~~~ was determined with CF3Br added, to either the fuel or air 

stream, at a volume fraction which would halve the burning velocity of a premixed flame. These 

48 
results are shown at the bottom of Table 5. In contrast to the results with Fe(CO)S, addition of 

CF3Br to either stream has a large effect on XCO,.~~~ , a reduction by factor of two to three. 

Clearly, CF3Br and Fe(CO), behave differently in the cup burner with respect to their ability to 

reduce the CO? requirement for extinction. 

The results in Table 5 [ 11 may lead one to conclude that although Fe(CO), is highly effective in 

premixed flames, it has little effect in cup-burner flames. Conducting cup-burner extinction tests 

with added CO? for a contirziiocis range of concentrations of Fe(CO), in the air stream, however, 

shows that Fe(CO)5 does, in fact, inhibit the flame. Figure 21 shows the volume fraction of CO? 

required for extinction as function of the initial volume fraction of the catalytic inhibitor in the 

air stream (prior to COz addition). Data are presented for Fe(C0)5, as well as for the 

organometallic agents TMT and MMT. For comparison, tests were also performed for Br? and 

CFjBr. For extinction of these methane-air flames, pure CO? is required in the air stream at 

volume fraction of (15.7 i 0.6) %I, whereas CF3Br. a catalytic agent, is required at (2.4 ? 0.1) '%. 

Moreover, as Figure 21 shows, adding CF3Br at volume fractions below the extinction value 

greatly reduces the amount of COz required for extinction. For example, adding half of the 

extinction value of CF3Br reduces the amount of CO? required by 70 %. The curvature in the 

line for CF3Br in Figure 21 indicates that, as described previously [85], the combination of 

CF3Br and COz is synergistic that is, when combined, less of each is required for extinction than 

one would expect based on a inear interpolation of the individual results. 

1.. . 

L 

*- 0 

m 

3 

CT 

.! 0.10 

2 

CF3Br 

Catalytic Inhibitor Volume Fraction in Air (YO) 

Figure 21 - Volume fraction of C02 required for methane-air cup-burner flame extinction as a function of 

catalytic inhibitor volume fraction, CF3Br, Br2, Fe(CO)5, TIC'IT, MhlT, or a blend of the last three. The boxed 

region in the upper left is expanded in Figure 22. 

49 
Figure 22 shows the data for the organometallic agents in more detail, and indicates that at low 

volume fraction, the organometallic agents are actually rizore effective than CF3Br. For the 

sequence CF3Br, TMT, Fe(CO)5, and MMT, the relative magnitude of the slopes of the curves 

(at low volume fraction) are 1, 2, 4, and 8, so that Fe(C0)5 is about four times as effective as 

CF3Br. While this performance is noteworthy, it is far less than was observed in premixed 

flames or counterflow diffusion flames, for which the benefit was one to two orders of 

magnitude for FC(CO)~ as compared to CF3Br. Also, the relative performance of Fe(C0)j and 

MMT is switched, with Fe(CO)5 about twice as effective as MMT in premixed flames, while the 

opposite is true for the present cup-burner flames. Especially apparent in Figure 22 is that the 

curve for each of the three agents, TMT, Fe(CO)5, and MMT, all have a decreasing slope as their 

volume fraction increases. This behavior is similar to that in premixed and diffusion flames in 

which the loss of effectiveness was believed to be due to condensation of active species. 

CF3Br 

c I 0 

5 013' 

L 

.- 

E 

-h -- 011 c --' 

0 0 05 01 

Catalytic Inhibitor Volume Fraction in Air (Yo) 

Figure 22 - Data of Fig. 1 with expanded x- and y-axis to show influence of metallic inhibitors in more detail. 

In previous work it has been argued that to obtain good performance by the super-effective 

agents, it might be possible to add small, non-condensing amounts of several catalytic agents 

together with an inert agent [36]. We tested this claim by adding a blend of the three catalytic 

metals MMT, Fe(CO)5, and TMT to the air stream and then finding XCO,,ext. The bottom curve in 

Figure 22 shows XCO,.eut for such a blend. MMT, Fe(C0)5, and TMT are present in the molar 

ratio 1:2.1: 15.5, and the curve is plotted as a function of the MMT volume fraction. Note that at 

the test point of the highest volume fraction, the three agents are added at 200 pL/L, 420 pLIL, 

and 3100 pL/L, respectively. (These values were selected since the individual curve for each 

agent is roughly linear up to these volume fractions; i.e., they have not yet lost their marginal 

effectiveness). As shown, the agents do work together to reduce the amount of CO2 required for 

extinction, and, up to the maximum volume fractions added, the blend does not drastically lose 

50 
its effectiveness. Amazingly, with addition of three catalytic inhibitors, euclz at a volume 

fraction which would easily reduce the overall reaction rate in a premixed flame by a factor of 

four, and each at a volume fraction at which the agent alone is not believed to lcad to 

condensation, the combination still reduces the amount of COz required for extinction by only 

25 %,. 

Although the organometallic compounds ~1pe effective at reducing the amount of CO? required 

for cup burner extinction as compared to CFjBr, their relative performance is drastically poorer 

than one would expect based on their behavior in premixed flames, and it is of interest to try to 

understand why. Two possible causes of the loss of effectiveness are the same as were discussed 

previously for premixed and counterflow diffusion flames, namely: 1 .) saturation of the catalytic 

cycles and 2.) condensation of active gas-phase species. The saturation of the catalytic cycles is 

defined as a state in which the chain-carrying flame radicals have already been reduced to near 

equilibrium levels, so that additional catalytic inhibitor has no further benefit. This explanation 

of the lack of effectiveness is deemed to be unlikely, based on two results shown in Figure 2 1 : 

those for Br2, and those for the blend of MMT, Fe(CO)5, and TMT. The experiments with BrZ 

were designed to test the action of a catalytic agent without the confounding effects of 

condensation of inhibiting species. Further, it is an improvement over tests with CF3Br for this 

purpose, since CFjBr, because of its carbon content and use at relatively high volume fraction 

(>2 '%), can have fuel-like behavior, moving the flame location, changing the scalar dissipation 

rate, and affecting the extinction condition. Bromine, added at half the volume fraction, and 

having no reducing species, does not have a fuel effect. As Figure 21 shows, the curve for Br? is 

linearly decreasing in the region where the other curves are starting to flatten out-that is, it 

keeps working, implying radical depletion is not the cause of the loss of effectiveness of the 

metals (otherwise, BrZ would stop working at about the same value of XCO,.ext). The data for tic 

blend of metallic inhibitors shows a similar result. If each of the agents added alone was losing 

its effectiveness due to radical depletion, adding a second (or third) catalytic agent to the mix 

would not provide additional inhibition (since radicals are already reduced to their equilibrium 

levels). In the bottom curve of Figure 22, however, the blend of all three agents clearly shows 

additional inhibition over MMT alone, providing evidence against saturation of the radical 

scavenging by the metals. 

Particle formation is more likely the cause of the degraded performance of the metal agents. 

Evidence to support this is that the approximate agent volume fraction for the loss of 

effectiveness is an order of magnitude higher for TMT (4000 pL/L) than for the iron or 

manganese (400 yL/L) (as occurs in premixed flames) [ 121, which is consistent with the higher 

vapor pressure for the tin compounds. Also, the manner in which Fe-, Sn- and Mn-containing 

compounds lose their effectiveness in premixed flames [ 121 is comparable to that indicated in 

Figure 22. Finally a visible outer annulus, apparently particles, was observed in all flames with 

added metals, and the blackbody radiation from that region increased with higher agent volume 

fraction. 

3.4.5. Coizclusioizs 

The first data on the extinction characteristics of highly effective catalytic agents at varying 

volume fraction added with COZ to a cup burner flame of methane and air have been measured. 

Although such catalytic agents have previously been found to be very effective in premixed and 

counterflow diffusion flames, they are surprisingly ineffective in cup-burner flames. At low 

mole fraction, the metallic agents are still more effective than CFjBr at reducing the amount of 

CO, required for extinction, but their relative performance benefit is much less than in premixed 

flames. The experiments have shown that for reducing the amount of COz required for 

51 
extinction, the order of increasing performance is: CF3Br, TMT, Fe(C0)j , and MMT. Hence, 

the relative performance of Fe(C0)j and MMT are switched relative to premixed flames. 

Further, a combination of three organometallic catalytic agents, each at a volume fraction which 

should reduce the overall reaction rate by a factor of four, reduced the amount of C02 required 

for extinction by only 25 YO, a result which was strikingly unexpected. At higher volume 

fractions, each of the metal-based agents experienced a loss of effectiveness which is reminiscent 

of their behavior in preniixed flames. In contrast, the agent Brz was effective alone or in 

combination with COz, with a performance improvement over CF3Br of about a factor of two. 

The relative performance of these very powerful flame inhibitors has been found to be highly 

dependent upon the type of flame configurations used for the tests. 

The loss of effectiveness of the organometallic agents is believed to be caused by particle 

formation. To more accurately detect the particles, we conducted laser-scattering experiments in 

the cup-burner flames with and without added Fe(C0)j. These experiments are described below, 

after first reviewing the insight gleaned from previous nieasurements of particles in premixed 

and counterflow experiments. 

52 
3.5. Laser Scattering Experiments of Particles in Fe(CO)s-Inhibited Flames 

3.5.1. Introduction 

Particle formation is believed to be responsible for the loss of effectiveness of organometallic 

agents in cup-burner flames. A significant amount of previous research has been conducted to 

understand the loss of effectiveness of Fe(C0)S in both premixed and counterflow diffusion 

flames. In that work, the particle formation was measured and correlated with the loss of 

effectiveness, and the parameters which most affected the particle formation were discussed. In 

this section of the report, we present work in which those techniques used in premixed and 

counterflow diffusion flames were extended to cup-burner flames inhibited by Fe( C0)j. 

This section of the report describes laser scattering experiments used to measure the particles in 

cup-burner flames. The presentation of these new data is relatively straightforward; however, in 

order to interpret the new results, it is useful to first review the important findings of the 

measurements and analyses from premixed and counterflow diffusion flames. 

3.5.2. Background 

At low volume fractions, Fe(CO), is about eighty times more effective than CF3Br at reducing 

the burning velocity of premixed flames, MMT forty times, and TMT three times. Kinetic 

modeling of the flame inhibition has lead to an understanding of the reasons why these metallic 

agents differ in their effectiveness. Both manganese monoxide and iron monoxide can react with 

I-120 to form the stable di-hydroxide intermediate (e.g., Fe(OH)? and Mn(OH)2), which can then 

react with H atom directly. Conversely, the di-hydroxide of tin has not been observed for the 

present conditions. The intermediate species SnO relies upon a three-body reaction with H atom 

to form the hydroxide, and the reaction is rate-limiting and slow. Further, iron is superior to 

manganese in premixed flames because the equilibrium for the reaction FeO + H20 e 

Fe(OH)?, unlike the equivalent relation for manganese species, favors the di-hydroxide, so it can 

exist in high concentrations to react with H atoms. 

For premixed flames, all of these organometallic agents lose their effectiveness at relatively low 

volume fractions. For Fe(CO)S , there is a veiy large change in its effectiveness at about 100 

pLIL. This is believed to occur from condensation of the active iron-containing intermediates to 

particles [37]. In a similar fashion, MMT loses it’s effectiveness at about 300 yL/L, and TMT 

loses its marginal effectiveness at about 3000 pL/L. Indeed, if added directly to a cup-burner 

flame alone, Fe(C0)S is not expected to be a particularly effective suppressant because 

condensation of active iron-containing intermediates to particles limits their gas-phase volume 

fraction, restricting the potential of the gas-phase catalytic cycle. Any practical fire suppressant 

using these super-effective agents would require some method to overcome the loss of 

effectiveness. 

The primary motivation of the present work is to describe the effect of particle formation on 

flame inhibition. Laser-light scattering experiments are used to determine the particle formation 

region and to estimate the particle size. The premixed flame experiments use Bunsen-type flames 

of CH4-02-N? and CO-H2-02-N2, and in those flames, thermophoretic sampling with 

transmission electron microscopy provide the particle size and morphology. By making proper 

choices of concentrations and gas flows, the effects of both flame temperatures and residence 

time on particle formation are The unresolved issue of whether the inhibition is 

53 

studied. 
heterogeneous or homogeneous is addressed, and results are presented for inhibition by an ideal 

heterogeneous inhibitor. We also present data on particle formation in counterflow diffusion 

flames of methane and air (with agent addition to either the fuel or air stream), and cup-burner 

type co-flow diffusion flames of methane and air with TMT, MMT, and Fe(C0)5 added to the air 

stream together with CO?. The longer residence time diffusion flame burners demonstrate the 

roles of particle formation and flow field effects in the loss of active species from the gas-phase 

inhibiting region of the flame. 

3.5.3. Experintent 

Three flame types were tested with the organometallic inhibitors: premixed, counterflow 

diffusion, and co-flow diffusion flames. The burners used to produce these flames are described 

below, along with the common gas-handling system and the optical system used for particle 

detection. The thermophoretic sampling system for collection of the nanoparticles 

(subsequently analyzed by transmission electron microscopy) is also described. These are 

followed by discussion of measurement uncertainty. 

3.5.3.1. Burners 

The premixed burner system, described previously [ 101 and in section 3.2.2. above[35,36], has 

been used for flame speed measurements using the total area method [34]. Premixed flames 

(1$=1.0) were stabilized on a Mache-Hebra nozzle burner (inner diameter 1.02 cm i 0.005 cm) 

[92] with an air co-flow. The burner produces a steady, straight-sided, conical, non-sooting 

flame with a height of 13 mm. The burner and annulus for the co-flowing air were housed in an 

acrylic chimney with three optical access holes. Rubber bellows connect the chimney with the 

adjacent optical elements to provide a flexible and airtight seal. The premixed flame conditions 

correspond to those of the Fe(CO)j inhibition measurements described in Refs. [ 101 and [36]. 

The counterflow burner system has been described previously [10,93]. The fuel and oxidizer 

tubes (22.2 mm diameter) are separated by 11 mm, and there is a nitrogen shroud flow from a 

concentric annulus (51 mm diameter) around the bottom (oxidizer) jet. The burner produces a 

non-sooting flame with a flat region in the center. The strain rate a (the derivative of the velocity 

with respect to the axial position) is approximated from the outer flow jet exit velocities as 

a = (21Vol/L) (I +~VI~~&/~Vc,~&), where L is the jet separation distance, V; is the velocity of 

gas i (F=fuel, @oxidizer), and pi is the density of gas i [7 11. The jet exit velocities were chosen 

so that the momentum of the two streams were balanced at all values of the strain rate; that is, 

p v' xp v' FF 00' 

The cup burner, described previously [90] and in section 3.4.3. above[91], consists of a 

cylindrical glass cup (28 mm diameter) positioned inside a glass chimney (53.3 cm tall, 9.5 cm 

inner diameter). To provide uniform flow, 6 mm glass beads fill the base of the chimney, and 3 

mm glass beads (with two 15.8 mesh/cm screens on top) fill the fuel cup. The traditional cupburner was modified slightly for optical access. To prevent laser light from scattering off of the 

cup-burner chimney walls, the round cup-burner chimney was cut off to a height 2 mm below 

the fuel cup rim and a second. square chimney (as in the premixed flame experiments described 

above), with an additional co-flow of air, enclosed the round chimney and burner. 

The organometallic inhibitors were added to the flames using multi-stage saturators in controlled 

temperature baths. The Fe(C0)s and TMT used two-stage saturators of a design described 

previously [36] and in section 3.4.3. above, while the MMT used a three-stage saturator, with 

54 
50 YO larger stages, to insure saturation. A measured portion of the added carrier gas (Nz, COZ, 

or CHJ) flowed in series through the saturators, and was then added to the bulk flow of that gas. 

The volume fraction of the organometallic inhibitors in the air stream was calculated based on 

the measured bulk flow, measured carrier gas flow, and calculated vapor pressure of the agent at 

the bath temperature. The experimental vapor pressure data was obtained from refs. [39-411. 

Tests to validate the assumption of agent saturation in the carrier gas have been described 

previously [ 361. 

Gas flows were measured with digital mass flow controllers (Sierra Model 860) with a claimed 

repeatability of 0.2 ?4 and accuracy of 1 (% of full-scale flow, which have been calibrated with 

piston, bubble, and dry flow meters so that their accuracy is 1 YO to 2 96 of the indicated flow. 

The fuel gases were methane (Matheson UHP), carbon monoxide (Matheson UHP) and 

hydrogen (Matheson UHP). The oxidizer consisted of nitrogen (boil-off from liquid N:) and 

oxygen (MG Industries), or air, from house compressed air (filtered and dried) which was 

additionally cleaned by passing it through an 0.01 pm filter, a carbon filter, and a desiccant bed 

to remove small aerosols, organic vapors, and water vapor. All experiments were performed at 

ambient pressure. The chemicals used were Fe(CO)s (Aldrich), TMT (Alfa Aesar), MMT (Alfa 

Aesar), and COz (Airgas). 

3.5.3.2. Optical System 

Light-scattering and extinction techniques with phase-sensitive detection were used to determine 

particle location and properties. The apparatus, shown in Figure 23, is similar to those used by 

other researchers [94,95]. The light source is a 4-W argon-ion laser (Spectra Physics BeamLok 

2060), with a vertically-polarized 2.2-W beam at 488 nm. A mechanical chopper (Stanford 

Research 640) modulates the beam at 1500 Hz and provides a reference signal for the lock-in 

amplifiers. A polarization-preserving single-mode optical fiber (3 pm diameter) carries the light 

into a chemical fume hood (90 cm x 150 cm x 150 cm) which contains the burner. At the fiber 

output, collimating optics, a polarization rotator, mirrors and a focusing lens (f = 250 mm) 

deliver the laser light to the test region. A glass wedge between the polarization rotator and the 

focusing lens diverts a small fraction of the beam to a reference detector which monitors the laser 

power during the experiments. The transmission efficiency for the laser-to-fiber coupling system 

is only about 15 (XI, but this provides sufficient power for the experiments. The steep 

temperature gradients in the present flames cause significant beam steering and distortion. These 

effects, if unmitigated, would produce fluctuations of a few percent in the measured 

transmissivity, which is approximately the same magnitude as the peak absorptivity (< 2 (XI). To 

reduce the beam steering effect in the premixed and counterflow diffusion flame burners, wc 

follow an approach used by Dibble [96] and Nguyen [97], which involves reflecting the beam 

back through the flame along the same path, thus “unsteering” it. The approach has the 

additional benefit of doubling the path length and nearly doubling the laser light intensity at the 

focus. A concave spherical mirror (f= 250 mm) reflects the beam back through the optical path 

and a glass wedge sends it to an integrating sphere. To spatially probe the flames, a three-axis 

translation stage (minimum step size of 0.0016 mm) positions the burner and chimney in the 

stationary optical path. 

55 
Laser W 

I C 

Pre-amp LF 

Burner 

-Chimney 

I Po 

Ij Pre-amp 

L 

Bellows 

M 

Lock-in Amp 

P re-am p 

I I 

. .- PM I 

1 

Lock-in Amp - 

Figure 23: Schematic of laser scattering/extinction system: C, chopper; M, mirror; G, beam pick-off; L, lens; 

S, spatial filter (circular aperture); Po, polarizer; F, laser-line and neutral density filters; PhlT, 

photomultiplier; P, pinhole; IS, integrating sphere (from ref. 1371). 

The light detection system consists of three photomultiplier tubes (PMT, all type 1P28) with 

appropriate filtering. The reference PMT has neutral density filters and a laser-line filter (AL = 

10 k 2 nm). The detection system for light scattered normal to the laser beam consists of a 

circular aperture (5 mm diameter), collection lens (f= 100 mm), pinhole aperture (diameter 1 

nim), laser-line filter, polarizer and PMT. For the 90'-scattered light, the circular aperture (5 

mm diameter) located 10 cm from the laser beam focus provides a solid angle of 0.002 sr. The 

pinhole aperture (1 mm diameter) defines the length of the sample to be 1 mm based on unity 

magnification. 

The signal from each of the detectors is pre-amplified (Stanford Research 552) before entering a 

lock-in amplifier (Stanford Research 530). A personal computer controls the amplifiers and 

records the measurements during the experiments using a data acquisition card (Strawberry Tree 

DynaRes Ultra 8). In the data acquisition software, each scattering or transmission data point is 

normalized by the reference signal. Typically, 100 readings are averaged over a time of about 1 

second; post-processing software reduces the data and calculates uncertainty as described below. 

The measured quantities in the experiment are the voltage outputs of the reference, transmission, 

and scattered light detectors, and these depend on the system geometry, optical efficiencies, 

56 
detector responsivity, gas density and particle number density, and the scattering cross section of 

the gases or particles. To obtain the scattering cross section (Ql,l,) of the gases or particles in the 

flame, a calibration of the optical system efficiency is performed using a gas with known 

scattering cross section [98,99] (ethylene is used because of its relatively large cross section). 

The scattering and transmission signals are measured for the calibration gas to give a calibration 

factor, C = Q~v,i.a, ~ '"" , where Q,2,,,c.ll/ is the known scattering cross section of the calibration gas, 

T,,,, is the transmissivity of the calibration gas, and is the scattering signal caused by the 

calibration gas. Given the calibration constant and scattering measurements, the scattering cross 

section at each location can be found as Qii, = C- , where is the measured scattering signal 

and T~. is the transmissivity of the flame gases and particles. 

s, I ,'d 

si,\, 

'A. 

3.5.3.3. Thermop horetic Sampling 

Thermophoretic sampling with transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is used as a 

supplemental technique to determine particle size and morphology. The procedure and apparatus 

are similar to those used by Dobbins and Megaridis [loo] and Koylu et al. [loll. A computercontrolled, double-acting piston with travel of 5.08 cm quickly inserts and removes the electron 

microscope grid from the flame. Transit times and the dwell time in the flame were measured 

using a laser, mirror, photodiode, and oscilloscope [lOI]. Each grid is attached to a stainless 

steel substrate with thickness of 0.4 mm, and height between 3 mm to 5.7 mm. The EM grids are 

copper with a carbon film deposited on one side (Electron Microscopy Sciences p/n CFH4- 

SPEC-CU), and are fastened onto the metal substrates using adhesive or double-sided tape. 

3.5.3.4. Uncertainty Analysis 

The uncertainty analysis consists of calculation of individual uncertainty components and their 

root mean square sums [ 1021. All uncertainties are reported as expanded uncertainties: A'% U, 

where U is k~i', and is determined from a combined standard uncertainty (estimated standard 

deviation) LL~, and a coverage factor k = 2 (level of confidence approximately 95 %I). Likewise, 

when reported, the relative uncertainty is U / X. 100 %, or kii, /X . 100 YO. 

The expanded relative uncertainties for the experimentally determined quantities in this study are 

as follows: 6.5 % to 1 1.5 %, for Fe(CO)5 volume fraction, 1.4 YO for equivalence ratio, 1.1 (!AI for 

oxygen mole fraction, 1.2 YO for hydrogen mole fraction in the reactants, and between 1 YO and 

5 % for normalized burning velocity and 2 %I to 5 YO for the normalized extinction strain rate (the 

normalized burning velocity is defined as the burning velocity of the inhibited flame divided by 

the burning velocity of the uninhibited flame, and like wise for the extinction strain rate). For 

the scattering measurements, the combination of slight fluctuations in the flame position, small 

particle scattering cross section, steep spatial gradients in the flame, and system noise cause the 

scattering signal to vary about a local mean value at any given location. The expanded relative 

57 
uncertainty of the Q, , for the premixed and counterflow diffusion flames is no more than 10% of 

the mean in the particle zone and no more than 20% of the mean in the unburned reactants. The 

expanded relative uncertainty in the extinction volume fraction for CO2 added to the cup burner 

is 4 %I, and for the added organometallic agents, CF3Br, and Brz, 5 YO, 2.7 (%I, and 2 '%, 

respectively. 

3.5.4. Results atid Discussioii 

3.5.4.1. Premixed Flanies(@=l .O) 

3.5.4. I. I. Scuttering Mcusul-enients 

The premixed methane-air Bunsen-type flame with Fe(C0)S added to the reactant stream showed 

a scattering signal which varied greatly with the position in the flame [37]. Figure 24 shows the 

scattering signal as a function of distance from the burner centerline along a horizontal profile 7 

mm above the burner base. At this measurement height, the Bunsen cone has a radius of about 

2.3 mm (the diameter of the burner exit nozzle is shown at the base of the figure). As the figure 

shows, there are two scattering peaks within the flame region (one for each side of the Bunsen 

cone). Far outside the flame region (i.e., downstream of the flame in the product gases), the 

scattering signal is two orders of magnitude larger than the in-flame signal, indicating very large 

or numerous particles. These downstream particles have little consequence for the flame 

inhibition by iron species; instead, it is the in-flame particles which affect the performance of 

Fe(CO)S in this flame, and we concentrate our discussion on the in-flame particles. 

1 E-04 1 

l 

d 1E-07 t 

1E08 4 

15 10 5 0 5 10 15 

r (mm) 

Figure 24: Scattering cross section Q,.. as a function 

of the radical distance r from the burner centerline 

at 7 mm height in stoichiometric CH4-air flame with 

200 pL/L of Fe(CO)s (from ref. 1371). 

5 

Figure 25: Measured scattering cross section 

through a stoichiometric CH4-air flame 7 mm above 

the burner rim at various inhibitor mole fractions 

(from ref. 1371). 

58 
The in-flame particles are present near the region of peak reaction rate of H-atom, which is also 

near the region where the inhibiting species (FeO, FeOH, and Fe(0H)Z) are most active [ 1031. 

Hence, the particles can act as sinks for the inhibiting iron-containing intermediate species. As 

the particles are carried further into the flame, the temperature rises, and they disappear. Only 

very far downstream (06 mm) do the particles reappear, but this location is too far removed 

from the radical chain-branching region to have much effect on the burning velocity. For those 

large values of Y, the velocity is decreasing, leading to a larger residence time, and the 

temperature is decreasing (due to heat losses and co-flow air entrainment); both of these effects 

can lead to the very large scattering signal at that location. 

Figure 25 shows the in-flame particle region in more detail. Scattering data are shown for 

Fe(CO)j volume fractions in the reactant stream of (0, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 300) pL/L. The 

curve for 0 pL/L of inhibitor (the bottom curve in the figure) clearly shows the difference in 

scattering by the reactant and products species (which have a different density and composition). 

The scattering signal increases with increasing amounts of Fe(C0)j. 

Since the loss of effectiveness in premixed flames inhibited by Fe(C0)s was postulated to be 

caused by condensation of iron-containing intermediate species to particles, it is of interest to 

compare how the loss of effectiveness correlates with the particle scattering signal. The presence 

of particles is characterized by the height of the scattering peak above the background scattering 

caused by the gas-phase species at the same physical location in the flame (approximately the 

height of the peaks in Figure 25). Figure 26 shows data for the normalized burning velocity (left 

axis), and the maximum value of the in-flame scattering (right axis), as a function of the volume 

fraction of added Fe(C0)j. To provide variation in the manner in which the inhibitor loses its 

effectiveness, curves are provided for two values of the oxygen mole fraction in the oxidizer 

&I,,,, , 0.21 and 0.244. Referring to the two curves for Xo,,,, = 0.21 in Figure 26, the value of 

the mole fraction of added inhibitor Xil1ll at which the great loss of effectiveness occurs (i.e., the 

slope changes dramatically) is about 100 pL/L, and this volume fraction also corresponds to the 

point at which the scattering signal starts to rapidly increase in magnitude. The curves for XO,,~,.,. 

= 0.244 indicate that loss of effectiveness of Fe(C0)j occurs at a higher value of X,,,I, than for 

X,,,,,, =0.21, and that the increase in particle scattering is also retarded until a larger quantity of 

Fe(C0)5 is added. The curves in Figure 26 indicate that the formation of particles is correlated 

with a loss of effectiveness of Fe(CO)5, rather than being associated with the strong inhibition 

itself. 

Two features of the higher oxygen mole fraction flames may be causing the loss of effectiveness 

to occur at a higher value of X,,,I,. The larger value of XO,,,,, leads to a higher final temperature 

of the flame, which would hinder condensation, requiring a larger value of Xi,,,, for an equivalent 

amount of scattering. Alternatively, the higher temperature flames have a higher flame speed, 

which provides a shorter residence time in the flame for particIe inception and growth. In order 

to examine which of these effects is important for particle formation and loss of effectiveness of 

Fe(C0)5, experiments with varying XO?,~,.,. and fuel type were conducted. 

59 
Presented at thc Halon Options Technical Working Conference, April 200 1, Albuquerque, KM 

202 

* -* n nn5 

n ni 

8, 

. 0015 

i1 

m. 

ooJ=- ,. 0 100 200 300 400 

O"f -1 -- oE+no 

0 100 200 100 400 

Fe(C0)S (pUL) WW5 (ppm) 

Figure 26: hormaliLed burning kelocity (from Ref. Figure 27: Maximum scattering signal and 

1101) and maximum Q,, for 91.0 CH, flame normalized burning velocity (from ref. 1361) for COXO~,,, = 0.21 and 0.24 (from ref. 1371). Hz flames as Fe(CO)< concentration varies (from ref. 

1371). 

In order to obtain flames with nearly identical adiabatic flame temperatures but varying 

residence times (i.e., flame speeds) we conducted experiments with C0/02/Nz/H* mixtures, with 

varying hydrogen volume fraction. The normalized burning velocity and peak in-flame 

scattering signal for flames with H2 volume fractions XH, of 0.005, 0.010, and 0.015 are shown 

in Figure 27. As the figure shows, the flames with less H? (slower flames, longer residence 

times) lose their effectiveness at lower values of X,,,I,, and these flames also have particle 

scattering signals which rise faster at lower values of Xlnll. 

The data for a collection of experiments having a range of burning velocity and peak adiabatic 

flame temperature show the importance of residence time for particle formation. Figure 28 

shows the peak in-flame scattering signal for methane and CO flames with varying peak 

temperature, burning velocity, and Fe(CO), loading. Each solid line is a linear least-squared fit 

to all of the data at a certain value of X,,,I,, namely (100, 200, and 300) pL/L of Fe(C0)5., which 

are noted by circles, diamonds, and squares, respectively. Within each data set for an inhibitor 

loading, the points correspond to: (h)igh, (m)edium, and (1)ow temperature, and CH4 flames 

(open symbols) and CO flames (closed symbols). As Figure 28 shows, the scattering signal is 

clearly related to the burning velocity, which is inversely related to the residence time. Similar 

plots investigating the importance of peak flame temperature did not show its correlation with 

the scattering signal. 

60 
6E-07 ~ 

5E-07 - 

300 pLIL I 

3 E 

f - 2E-07 

~ 2oo 

X 

I 

1E-07 1 

1 1000 

OE+OO __ 

10 

\ 

\ 

20 30 40 50 60 

Burning Velocity (cmls) 

Figure 28: Maximum e,,,, for tlames of CH, (open s?mbols) and CO (closed symbols) as a function of the 

burning velocity. The letters correspond to the adiabatic flame temperature (low, medium, and high, 2220, 

2350, and 2370 K), while the symbol shape (square, diamond, and circle) corresponds to the loading of 

Fe(CO)5: (100, 200, and 300) FL/L (from ref. [37]). 

3.3.4.1.2. Particle Size utzd Moi-phology in Pretnixed Flames 

Further insight into the particle properties can be extracted from the scattering signals 

(e.g.,Figure 25) by using other information available [37]. For example, we may assume that 

50 % to 100 YO of the iron in the feed stream condenses to particles. Previous calculations using 

a gas-phase only mechanism for the flame inhibition by Fe(C0)i were in good agreement for 

low mole fraction, but deviated once the inhibitor reached the mole fraction at which it lost its 

marginal effectiveness [4X]. The amount of deviation corresponds to condensation of about 

50 '% of the available Fe(C0)j (Xi,,l,=200 pL/L), and an upper limit of particle mass is obtained 

assuming 100 '3'0 condensation. Other reasonable assumptions (for estimation purposes) are that 

the particles are monodisperse Rayleigh scatterers composed of FeO. Using the scattering 

signals collected for 200 pL/L of added Fe(CO)5, we estimate that for 50 YO and 100 o/o 

condensation, the particles have, respectively, a volume fraction of 1.2xIO-' and 2.2~ lo-', 

diameter of 16 nm and 13 nm, and number density of 5.3~10' cnY3 and 2.1~10"' ~m-~. Using the 

optical and bulk properties of Fe instead of FeO increases the inferred diameter by l5(% and the 

number density by 9%). 

61 
For the counterflow diffusion flames, both laser scattering and laser extinction measurements 

were possible for some conditions. It was found [104], that for low strain rate flames, the 

particles have diameters between 10 nm and 30 nm, number densities of 10' cm-3 to IO"' crf3, 

and volume fractions of IO-' to The mean diameter and volume fraction of the particles 

generally increased with increasing Fe(C0)j loading. 

Additional information on the particle properties is obtained from thermophoretic sampling of 

the flames. For the premixed flames, the 3 mm-diameter TEM grid was inserted at a height of 

7 mm above the burner rim, and at a location corresponding to the main reaction zone of the 

flame (r = (2.7 k 0.3) mm). The image shown in Figure 29 corresponds to a dwell time of 375 ms 

in a flame with Xi,i= 200 yL/L. The particles show a moderate degree of agglomeration, with 

about 1 to 10 primary particles per agglomerate and primary particle sizes of under 20 nm. The 

primary particle diameters from the TEM images are in reasonable agreement with those 

estimated above from the scattering signal (assuming 50 (3) to 100 '% of the iron species 

condense). These small diameters, 10 to 20 nm, support the possibility of particles evaporating as 

they convect to regions of higher temperature. Note that the larger agglomerates in the figure 

may have been collected as the TEM grid was insert into the flame, unavoidably passing into the 

region of very large or very nuinerous particles, as shown in Figure 24. 

For the counterflow flames, the appearance of the particles is similar. To extract the sample, the 

TEM grid was inserted perpendicular to the plane of the flame, at the centerline of the burner, 

into the center visible flame [104]. Figure 30 shows the electron micrograph of part of the 

sample grid which was inserted into a counterflow diffusion flame of methane and air with 300 

mlll or Fe(C0)5 added to the air stream. In general, the degree of agglomeration is much smaller 

than that in the premixed flame. Primary particle sizes range from 5 nm to 25 nm in diameter. 

a 

Figure 29 : Electron micrograph of particles 

sampled from a CH4/air premixed flame with Xjmh 

= 200 pL/L. 

Figure 30 - Electron micrograph of particles 

sampled from counterflow dif-fusion flame at a = 

1 SO s-' and XjjJt = 300 pL/L (from ref. [ 1041). 

62 
3.5.4. I. 3. Estimate of' Upper Limit of'Heterogeneoirs Inhibition 

Although the evidence presented above supports a gas-phase inhibition mechanism of Fe(C0)5, 

it is possible that heterogeneous chemistry also makes a contribution. The effects of walls on 

radical chain branching with regard to explosion limits are well documented [105], and 

heterogeneous iron and iron oxide catalysts are widely used in industrial processes. Further, iron 

oxide particles have recently been proposed as catalysts for NO, reduction in stationary 

combustors [106]. With some assumptions, we can estimate the upper limit of radical 

recombination by collisions with particles, and determine the maximum effect of the particles on 

the burning velocity. To provide this upper limit, we assume: 1.) a two-step heterogeneous 

inhibition mechanism (Langmuir-Rideal type) in which a radical is absorbed onto a particle 

surface R+P+ RP, followed by the reaction of the activated particle RP with another radical and 

the release of the stable species RP+R+ Rl+R; 2.) all of the iron present condenses to particles; 

3.) the particles are spherical with a specified mean diameter d,,, and log-normal size distribution; 

4.) all collisions of radicals with particles lead to their recombination; 5.) only I-I-atom 

recombination is considered (the additional benefit of adding OH and 0 recombination is minor). 

The calculation is implemented using the PREMIX code and with the particles represented as 

fictitious species with the required rate parameters [37]. The results of the calculation are shown 

in Figure 3 1 for particles of diameter 10 nni to 80 nm. Also shown for comparison are 

1 

08 

06 

0.4 

0.2 

~- ~~ ~~ 

Perfect heterogeneous inhibitor 

dm = 80 nm 

40 

20 

10 

8 . Fe(C0)s 

I 

I Perfect gas-phase inhibitor 

Wl , 

o-- -~ ~ 

y- 7- -~ 7- - 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 

Gas-Phase Precursor Volume Fraction (pL/L) 

Figure 31 : Calculated normalized burning velocity for several diameters d, of ideal heterogeneous inhibitor. 

Also shown are Fe(CO)S data [ 101, and calculated normalized burning velocity using the perfect gas-phase 

inhibitor mechanism [ 1071 (source 1371). 

63 
experimental data (points) for Fe(CO)5 inhibition of the premixed methane-air flames [lo], and 

the results of a calculation for a proposed perfect gas-phase inhibitor [107] (bottom curve). In 

the perfect gas-phase mechanism, collisions of a chain-carrying radical with any gas-phase 

intermediate species of the inhibitor result in trapping of the radical. As the figure shows, the 

heterogeneous mechanism does show significant flame inhibition, which increases as the 

assumed particle diameter decreases. Nonetheless, the inhibition from the heterogeneous 

mechanism is not as strong as that shown by the experiment or by the perfect gas-phase 

inhibition mechanism. 

The results of the calculations presented in Figure 3 1 support the importance of a homogeneous 

inhibition mechanism of iron rather a heterogeneous one. The formation of particles essentially 

increases the number of inhibitor molecules per particle, and increases the particle mean 

diameter d,,, . Since of the number of particles scales as l/dijll , but the collision cross section of 

particles with radical scales as l/diI, the net effect of particle formation is to decrease the 

collision rate of radicals with inhibiting species. These idealized calculations support the 

proposals [10,107] that only gas-phase chemistry is fast enough to account for the extraordinary 

inhibition effect of Fe(C0)5, since a more realistic model of heterogeneous radical recombination 

would probably result in less inhibition. It is interesting to note that the residual inhibition of 

Fe(C0)j at X,,, > 300 yL/L in Figure 3 1, while small compared to values at X,,, < 100 pLIL, is not 

zero. It is, in fact, comparable to agents such as CF3Br and may be due to heterogeneous 

inhibition. 

3.5.4.2. Counterflow Diffusion Flames 

Laser scattering experiments to detect the presence of particles were also conducted in 

counterflow diffusion flames [104]. For these flames, the measurements were made along a 

vertical profile at the centerline of the fuel and oxidizer tubes. Figure 32 shows the scattering 

signal as a function of the distance from the center of the methane and air jets. The data points 

(connected by lines) correspond to values of Fe(C0)j volume fraction of (0, 50, 100, and 300) 

pL/L. The calculated gas temperature [83] as a function of distance from the center of the jets is 

shown by the top scale, and the calculated gas-flow stagnation plane is indicated by the vertical 

line. As the figure illustrates, the particles form in the low-temperature region on the air side of 

the flame, at temperatures below 500 K. Interestingly, as in the premixed flames, the particles 

are nearly completely consumed by the time they reach the location of the peak flame 

temperature (1961 K), and then re-form as they approach the stagnation plane. For this flow 

field, however, the residence time gets much longer as the particles approach the stagnation 

plane, allowing much time for particle growth. Further, as discussed below, thermophoretic 

forces cause the particles to cross the stagnation plane and reach an area of particle stagnation, 

which corresponds roughly to the location of the peak particle scattering signal, and occurs on 

the fuel side of the gas stagnation plane. 

64 
T (K): 5001000 1500 1961 1500 1000 500 

2 OE-07 I 1 

I 

S 

0 

.- 

.I1.5E-07 

L 

L 

1.OE-07 L 

'? 

f 

' 5 OE-08 a' 

O.OE+OO 

-3 -2 -1 0 1 

Distance from Center (mm) 

Figure 32 - Methane-air counterflow diffusion flame with inhibitor in the oxidizer. Shown are the calculated 

temperature (upper scale), stagnation plane location (vertical line), and H-atom mole fraction (dashed line) 

for the uninhibited flame, and the measured scattering profiles (connected points) for Fe(CO)5 mole fractions 

of (0, SO, 100 and 200) pL/L in the air stream (a = 330 s-' , which is SO of ne,, for the uninhibited flame and 

77 u/o of a,,, for X,,, = 200 pL/L). The estimated residence time for S nm particles is shown as 10 ms intervals 

in the hatched line near the top (from ref. [ 1041). 

10 

m 08 2 

IT .- 

E 

5 

c 06 

.- 

c 

IT 

w 

.- 

c 

u 04 

00 

0 100 200 300 400 500 

Fe(CO)5 (pLIL) 

Figure 33: Correlation between inhibition effect and maximum Qv,, . Filled points are experimental 

normalized a,, , solid line is calculated ar,, (1831). Open symbols connected by dotted lines are maximum 

measured Q ,,,.. Particle data collected at 75 U/u of a,,, (from ref. [ 1041). 

65 
Thermophoresis is important for the movement of small particles in these counterflow flames. 

Based on the gas-phase flame structure obtained from numerical calculations of uninhibited 

flames, we calculated the thermophoretic velocity of particles 5 nm in diameter [104]. 

Combining these with the gas-phase velocity, we determined the residence time of 5 nm particles 

injected from either the fuel or air jet. The hatched line near the top of Figure 32 shows the 

particle residence time (as 10 ms intervals between the hatch marks). Near the particle 

stagnation region, the near-zero particle velocities create large uncertainties in the estimated 

residence time (caused in part by the limited spatial resolution of the numerical flame structure 

calculation); this region is indicated by the shaded bar on the line showing the residence time. 

The inclusion of the thermophoretic velocity of the particles shows that 5 nm particles are 

expected to cross the stagnation plane about at the location of the fuel-side scattering peak, 

explaining its existence. 

The formation of the particles on the air side of the gas stagnation plane is the likely cause of the 

loss of inhibition. With addition of Fe(CO)5 to the air stream, the air-side scattering signal 

increases, even for values of X,,,I, as low as 50 pL/L. The dotted line in Figure 32 illustrates the 

calculated H-atom mole fraction in the uninhibited flame. The location of the peak particle 

scattering (about -1.75 mm) overlaps with the region of high H-atom mole fraction. Catalytic 

radical recombination cycles are most important in the regions where radical mole fractions are 

the highest (and iron species most strongly catalyze H-atom recombination). Hence, particles 

forming near the peak [HI can sequester the active gas-phase iron-containing intermediate 

species and thereby reduce the strength of the catalytic cycles. 

The loss of effectiveness of Fe(C0)5 in counterflow diffusion flames can be directly correlated 

with the formation of the air-side scattering peak from particles. Following the approach 

described above for premixed flames with Fe(C0)5, the presence of particles is quantified by the 

height of the air side scattering peak (minus the scattering signal from the gas-phase species). 

Figure 33 shows the normalized extinction strain rate (left axis) as a function of the Fe(C0)5 

volume fraction in the air stream. As in the premixed flames, the inhibitor is very effective at 

low values of X,,,I,, but loses its effectiveness sharply as X,,,I, reaches a certain value (about 150 

pL/L for these conditions). Similarly, the normalized extinction strain rate calculated using a 

gas-phase only kinetic mechanism [48] (solid line in Figure 33) follows the experimental data 

reasonably closely for X,,~,<100 pL/L, but starts to deviate as X,,,I, increases. The measured 

scattering cross section (right axis; open squares connected by dotted lines) shows that the 

scattering signal increases noticeably when the Fe(C0)5 reaches the point of lower marginal 

effectiveness (- 150 pL/L). As in the premixed flames, the loss of effectiveness of the Fe(C0)5 is 

correlated with particle formation, rather than the converse. 

Particle formation followed by flow-field effects can also prevent metallic inhibitors from 

entering into gas-phase catalytic radical scavenging reactions. To illustrate this, Figure 34 shows 

the scattering cross section from a counterflow methane-air diffusion flame with Fe( C0)s added 

to the,fciel side of the stagnation plane at various values of X,,,I,. The calculated temperature 

field, residence time estimate, and location of peak [HI are the same as in Figure 33 for air-aide 

agent addition. In the case of fuel-side Fe(CO), addition shown in Figure 34, the iron-containing 

66 
species also start to condense at local gas temperatures less then 500 K. In this case, however, 

1 .E-09 

T (K): 500 1500 1961 1500 1000 500 I 1 E-04 I I I I 

zre*: + + + + + + ++i +t+++ + 

- AIR . 

Fe(C% 

I 

1 .E-05 

- 

l.E-06 

- 5 

7 

> 

v 

a' l.E-07 

1 .E-08 

Figure 34: Measured scattering profiles in CH4-air counterflow diffusion flame with inhibitor in the fuel. The 

calculated temperature and point of peak 11-atom mole fraction are marked on the upper x-axis, and the 

vertical line denotes the calculated location of the stagnation plane. Strain rate = 330 s-' (from ref. [1041). 

10. B . 15 

I 

I 4 

.t 

I 

* 

00 00 

Fe(C0)s (&/I-) 

0 100 200 300 400 

Figure 35 - Effect of Fe(CO)s added to the fuel stream of a methane-air counterflow diffusion flame. The 

experimentally measured and numerically calculated normalized extinction strain rate 1831 are shown (left 

axis) as a function of Fe(CO)5 volume fraction in the fuel stream. The maximum scattering cross section 

(right axis). obtained from the results in Figure 34 is also shown for increasing Xi",,. 

67 
the thermophoretic forces prevent the iron from crossing the stagnation plane, and the scattering 

signal reaches its peak value near the calculated particle stagnation region for 5 nm particles. 

The scattering signal at the particle stagnation plane is two orders of magnitude larger for fuelside agent addition than for air-side addition. Thus, fuel-side agent addition leads to particle 

formation, which together with thermophoretic and flow-field effects, effectively prevents the 

active species from reaching the location of peak [HI. For the methane-air flames of Figure 34, 

however, the Fe(C0)j added to the fuel stream would not be expected to inhibit the flame, even 

if the particles did not form. This is illustrated in Figure 35, which shows the reduction in the 

normalized extinction strain rate (left axis) with added Fe(CO)s to the fuel stream. For both the 

experimental data and the numerical predictions (based on a gas-phase only model), the 

inhibition of the flame is minimal. The increase in the scattering signal (right axis) with added 

Fe(CO)Z, however, is very large. As discussed previously [83], the Fe(C0)5 added to the fiiel 

stream is ineffective even if it remains in the gas phase; to be effective, the inhibiting species (or 

their precursors) must diffuse upstream into the oxidizer stream and reach the location of 

significant H-atom mole fraction. For these flames, however, the convective flow is larger than 

the diffusive flow, so the inhibitor (or its fragments) can't get to where it is required for radical 

recombination. 

The importance of particle convection can be more clearly illustrated by considering a 

counterflow diffusion flame with the peak temperature and [HI closer to the stagnation plane, 

where gas-phase inhibiting species could diffuse. Such a flame is obtained from an oxidizer with 

volume fractions of 30 % O2 / 70 '% N7 , and a fuel of 80 '% CH4 / 20 96 N,. The results of 

particle measurements for Fe(C0)j added to the air stream of such a flame is shown in Figure 36. 

For this flame, both the peak temperature and [HI are slightly on the fuel side of the gas 

stagnation plane (vertical line), while the particle stagnation plane (shaded box on the residence 

time bar at the top) is slightly on the oxidizer side. Clearly, very large particle scattering signals 

are present, and as in Figure 34 above, the particles do not appear to have significantly crossed 

the gas stagnation plane, and hence cannot deliver the active species to the region of high [HI. 

Unlike in Figure 34, however, the gas-phase inhibiting species can diffuse to the region of high 

[HI. This is illustrated in Figure 37, which shows the experimental measured and numerically 

calculated reduction in the normalized extinction strain and the particle scattering cross section 

for increasing amounts of Fe(C0)s in the air stream. Based on the experiments, adding Fe(CO)> 

has little effect on this flame. The calculations, however, which are based on a gas-phase model, 

predict that the added Fe(C0)s should have a significant effect (implying that the gas-phase 

species can diffuse to the location of the peak [HI (shown in Figure 36). Nonetheless, the 

scattering measurements show prominent particle formation. Since, in Figure 36, both the gas 

stagnation plane (vertical line) and the particle stagnation region (shaded box on residence time 

bar at top) separate the particles from the region of peak [HI, the particles can effectively isolate 

the active intermediate species from the location of H-atom where they are required to inhibit the 

flame. Consequently, we see in Figure 37 that while the gas-phase model (solid line) implies 

that inhibition should occur with addition of Fe(CO)j, the experiments (points) do not show 

inhibition, and this is consistent with the large scattering signal (dotted line) observed with 

addition of the Fe(C0)5. 

68 
1 E-06 

1 E-08 

1 E-09 33 

.I 0 1 2 

Distance from Center (mm) 

Figure 36 - Scattering profiles through a countertlow diffusion flame of 30 '%I 02/70 'In N2 and 80 u/u CIIJ/S~. 

The calculated temperature and point of peak H-atom mole fraction are marked on the upper x-axis, and the 

vertical line denotes the calculated location of the stagnation plane. Fe(COI5 is added to the oxidizer stream 

at the indicate volume fraction. The estimated residence time for 5 nm particles is shown as 10 ms intervals in 

the hatched line near the top (from ref. 11041). 

I l5 

Figure 37 - Effect of Fe(CO)S added to the air stream of a diluted methane-air counterflow diffusion tlame. 

The experimentally measured (points) and numerically calculated (solid line) normalized extinction strain 

rate 1831 are shown (left axis) as a function of Fe(CO)5 volume fraction in the air stream. The maximum 

scattering cross section (right axis), obtained from the results in Figure 34 is also shown for increasing XI,,,,. 

69 
The results presented for the counterflow diffusion flames with added Fe(C0)j illustrate the 

following physical phenomena which can influence the efficiency of the inhibitor. 1 .) The rate of 

gas-phase transport of the active inhibiting species to the location of peak [HI, either by 

diffusion or convection; 2.) Particle formation, which can reduce the availability of active gasphase species either by: a.) reducing the gas-phase mole fraction of the active iron-containing 

intermediate species in the vicinity of the peak [HI, or b). physically separating the particles from 

the region of peak [HI by flow field and thermophoretic effects. This background information is 

essential for understanding the relevant phenomena affecting the action of metallic inhibitors 

when added to the more complex flow field of the cup-burner flames, as described below. 

3.5.4.3. Cup-Burner Flames 

As described above, for inhibiting cup-burner flames, the organometallic agents TMT, MMT, 

and Fe(C0)S were found to be far less efficient than they were in either premixed or diffusion 

flames. Figure 38 shows the volume fraction of COz required to blow off a cup-burner flame as 

a function of the mole fraction of added catalytic inhibitor in the air stream [14]. Data are 

presented for CF3Br, Brz, TMT, Fe(C@)j, and MMT, as well as for a blend of TMT, MMT, and 

Fe(C0)j. The inset of Figure 38 shows the region of interest (low inhibitor volume fraction) 

with expanded scales. The agents CF3Br and BrZ are shown to effectively reduce the amount of 

- 0 0051 0 

5 

0 

u 

N 

0 00 -+- - -4 

0 05 1 15 2 25 

Catalytic Inhibitor Volume Fraction in Air (Yo) 

Figure 38 - Volume fraction of C02 required for extinction of methane-air cup burner tlames as a function of 

the volume fraction of catalytic inhibitor added to the air stream. lnset shows region in dotted box with 

punanrid rrilpr 

70 
CO? required to extinguish the flame. The metallic agents reduce the amount of required CO? 

somewhat more effectively than does CF3Br, but they lose their effectiveness in a manner that is 

similar to that described above for premixed and diffusion flames. In the cup-burner flames, 

TMT, MMT, and Fe(CO)5 were approximately 3, 8, and 4 times as effective as CF3Br, in 

contrast to premixed flames, in which they were 3, 40, and 80 times as effective. The net result 

is that the metallic agents were not particularly effective in cup-burner flames. This result was 

surprising, and further work was conducted to understand the loss of effectiveness. 

Particle formation is likely the cause of the degraded performance of the metal agents in cupburner flames. Evidence to support this is that the approximate agent volume fraction for the 

loss of effectiveness is an order of magnitude higher for TMT (4000 pL/L) than for the iron or 

manganese (400 pL/L) (as occurs in premixed flames) [ 121, which is consistent with the higher 

vapor pressure for the tin compounds. Also, the manner in which Fe-, Sn- and Mn-containing 

compounds lose their effectiveness in premixed flames [ 121 is comparable to that indicated in 

Figure 38 (inset). Finally a visible outer annulus, apparently particles, was observed in all flames 

with added metals, and the blackbody radiation from that region increased with higher agent 

volume fraction. 

To more accurately detect the particles, we conducted laser-scattering experiments in the cupburner flames with and without added Fe(CO)5. The scattering measurements were made on 

several horizontal paths across the flame at fixed heights above the fuel-cup rim. Although 

methane-air cup burner flames are unsteady, flickering at about 10 Hz with a large amplitude, 

steady, nearly non-flickering flames are achieved with addition of CO? to the air stream. 

Hence, scattering measurements in cup-burner flames with Fe(CO)5 added to the air stream were 

performed with a CO? volume fraction of 8 YO in the air stream. This approach was reasonable 

since the extinction tests were also conducted with appreciable volume fractions of CO?. The 

agent Fe(CO)5 was added to the air stream at (0, 100, 200, 325, and 450) pL/L. Figure 39 to 

Figure 42 present radial profiles of the scattering cross section (arbitrary but consistent units) at 

heights above the burner rim of (3, 6, 10, 15, and 20) mm. Also shown in each figure is the 

location of the peak visible emission, obtained from a digitized video image of the flame with 0 

pL/L of Fe(C0)j. Since the oxygen demand of the Fe(C0)5 in the oxidizer stream at 450 pLiL is 

about 0.6 % that of the methane, the flame location should not be significantly modified by 

presence of this fuel-like agent in the co-flow [log]. In Figure 39 to Figure 42, the peak 

scattering signal detected is (1.1, 4.7, 12.7, and 25.5) x I/(cm-sr), respectively, which are 50, 

209, 559, and 1166 times the scattering signal for air at laboratory conditions. In all cases, the 

presence of particles is clearly indicated, and the magnitude of the scattering signal increases 

with Fe(CO)5 volume fraction in the air. For each value of Xin[, , the relative distribution of the 

particles for each height and radial position is approximately conserved. Particles are present 

both inside and outside, but not coincident with, the visible flame location. Flames without 

Fe(C0)S (not shown) had scattering cross sections attributable to only the hot and cold product 

and reactant gases. 

71 
20 

0 

10 5 

m 

20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 

Radial Position (cm) 

20 1'1 10 5 0 5 10 15 

Radial Position (cm) 

20 

10 E 

5; 

U 

OI 

23 -15 70 -5 0 5 to IS 

Radial Position (cm) 

Figure 41 - Fe(C0)5 in air at 325 pL/L. 

20 

L 

I 

20 1s ~10 - 5 0 5 10 15 

Radial Position (cm) 

Figure 39 to Figure 42 - Scattering cross 

section for laser light at 488 nm as a 

function of radial position and height 

above burner in methane-air cup-burner 

flame with 8 '/n COZ and Fe(CO)s in air at 

specified volume fraction . Dotted lines 

show flame location from a digitized video 

image of the uninhibited flame. 

Figure 39 - Fe(CO)s in air at IO0 pL/L. 

Figure 40 - Fe(C0)5 in air at 200 pL/L. 

Figure 42 - Fe(CO)5 in air at 450 pL/L. 

72 
In order to interpret the scattering results shown in Figure 3, it is useful to consider the particle 

measurements in the premixed [37] and counterflow diffusion flames [104] seeded with 

Fe(C0)s. From the above results, it appears that: 1 .) the iron-containing species start to condense 

as the temperature increases to about 500 K , which is hot enough to breakdown the iron 

precursor [48], but not too hot to vaporize the iron compound; 2.) the particles are small, -10 nm 

to 20 nm; 3.) thermophoresis moves the particles away from the peak temperature; 4.) drag 

forces tend to entrain the particles along the gas flow streamlines; 5). particles can re-vaporize as 

they enter regions of high temperature; 6.) longer residence times lead to a greater scattering 

signal (and presumably, a greater fraction of condensed species); and 7.) more Fe(C0)5 leads to a 

larger scattering signal. In order for the iron species to have a chemical effect on the flame, they 

must: 1.) reach the region of peak [HI as gas-phase species; 2.) be active in a region which 

affects the flame stability (and hence, the blow-off condition). 

Since the present cup-burner flames have quite different flow fields than either premixed or 

counterflow diffusion flames, it is likely that the particle formation and behavior in them is 

different. For example, iron added to the air stream of either the premixed or counterflow 

diffusion flame eventually must pass through the flame by convection. In contrast, convection is 

comparatively less important in co-flow diffusion flames. Further, thermophoretic forces can 

have a strong influence on particle trajectories in flames [109]. Recent attempts to seed co-flow 

diffusion flames with TiCIJ to provide very small Ti02 for laser imaging of the velocity field 

proved ineffective due to strong thermophoresis of the particles [ 1 101. For the present co-flow 

diffusion flames, the thermophoretic forces are nearly tangent to the flow streamlines, so their 

relative importance will be greater. Also, as discussed by Faeth et al. [ 1 1 11, the flow streamlines 

tend to enter the flame near the burner jet exit, and then remain approximately parallel to the 

temperature contours before again crossing the flame near the tip. Hence, iron could enter the 

center region from convection into the flame near the base (providing the iron inside the flame 

sheet for particle formation). Thermophoresis could then push the particles away from the flame 

sheet, resulting in the particle distribution shown in Figure 39 to Figure 42. Alternatively, the 

particles may still be present in the region of peak [HI, but may be too small to be detected at the 

lock-in sensitivity used to resolve the larger scattering signals. 

It is possible to plot the flame inhibition strength as a function of added Fe(C0)S for comparison 

with the particle scattering signal. Figure 43 shows such a plot, which can be compared to 

Figure 26, Figure 33, and Figure 37 for premixed and counterflow diffusion flames (with pure 

and diluted gases). The added iron has little effect on the amount of COz required for extinction, 

yet the peak particle scattering signal clearly increases with added iron. What is missing from 

Figure 43 is a model prediction to show that for gas-phase inhibiting species, a reduction in COZ 

for flame extinction is expected. While such calculations are desired (but as yet unavailable for 

the cup burner), we can still infer the active role of gas-phase species from the data available. 

For example, both CFiBr and Br2 added to the air stream were very effective at reducing the CO, 

for extinction. Hence, catalytically acting gas-phase agents which don’t condense do reduce the 

amount of CO2 required for extinction. 

73 
Methane-Air Cup Burner 

4 

W 

5 

0" 

0.05 

> 

0 

0 -* ~__ -~ 000 If - - 

0 500 

Fe(CO)5 Volume Fraction (FLIL) 

Figure 43 - Extinction volume fraction of C02 (left axis) [ 141 and peak measured scattering cross section 

(right axis), as a function of the volume fraction of Fe(CO)s in the air stream. 

From the ineffectiveness of iron when added to the cup burner (as shown in Figure 38), it seems 

that the iron species of the catalytic cycle are not reaching the regions of the flame in which they 

are need to cause flame destabilization and blow-off. Examination of Figure 39 to Figure 42 

shows that the iron particles are not coincident with the visible flame location. One might infer 

that this means that 1 .) the iron is sequestered in the particles, and 2.) the particles are kept away 

from the high-temperature regions near the peak [HI by thermophoresis, and 3.) these lead to a 

low value of the gas-phase mole fraction of the iron-containing intermediate species near the 

peak [HI. While these features are probably true in the flame, it is not possible to extract this 

understanding from the data available. 

At the present time, the location of the stabilization region of the cup burner flame most sensitive 

to chemical inhibition is not known, nor are the H-atom concentration profiles or the flow 

streamlines. These data would provide a much clearer explanation of the effects of particles on 

iron inhibition of cup-burner flames. 

74 
3.5.5. Conclusions 

Large scattering signals from cup-burner flames with Fe(C0)j added to the air stream indicated 

that particles are present both inside and outside of the flame, but not co-incident with the visible 

flame location. 

A review of the results from previous work with particle formation in premixed and countertlow 

diffusion flames inhibited by Fe(CO)j outlined the importance of the following physical effects 

with respect to effective chemical inhibition: 

gas-phase transport of the active iron-containing species to the region of high H-atom 

concentration is necessary for efficient inhibition. 

Particle formation near the location of peak [HI can act as a sink for the iron-containing 

intermediate species and reduce the catalytic effect. 

The mole fraction of inhibitor influences condensation since at low values, it may be below 

its saturation value. 

The available residence time affects particle growth. 

Thermophoretic forces can be large in the flame and re-distribute particles away from peak 

Convection and drag forces combined with the existing flow field in the flame can prevent 

particles from reaching the region of peak [HI. 

[HI. 

Using this information we can infer that particles start to form in the cup-burner flames in 

regions where Fe(C0)5 is transported and when the temperature has risen slightly (to allow 

decomposition of the precursor molecule Fe(C0)j). These particles act as sinks for the active 

species, reducing their overall catalytic ability. Therinophoretic forces (which are tangent to the 

flow streamlines) move the particles away from the region of peak temperature and [HI. 

Nonetheless, the actual regions in a cup-burner flame which are most sensitive to chemical 

inhibition are not known for mzy catalytic agent. The work illuminates the need for detailed 

measurements and numerical modeling (with full chemistry) of cup-burner flames so that the 

actions of chemical inhibitors in such flames can be more clearly discerned. 

75 
4. Technical Problems 

This project uncovered three major technical problems. The first is that the relative effectiveness 

of any suppressant agent which involves particles (either formed during the suppression process, 

or as the form of the added agent) depends upon the type of flame used to assess its performance. 

The second is that it is not known which type of tractable laboratory flame most clearly 

represents the conditions of an actual fire. Indeed, most likely, different burners will be 

necessary to understand different fire threats. This raised the important point (not addressed in 

the present work) that the flame structure in actual fires to be suppressed have not been measured 

or modeled. Finally, even for the simple cup burner, the detailed flame structure is not known, so 

it is not currently possible to understand in detail why metallic agents, at non-condensing mole 

fractions were less effective than expected. That is, for any agent, including CF3Br, it is not 

known where the agent must act in order to effectively extinguish or blow off the flame. Hence, 

until this deficiency is remedied, it is unlikely that such information will be available for more 

complicated flames as occur in fires. 

5. Recommendations 

While good progress has been made in understanding chemical inhibition and suppression of 

laboratory flames, the technical problems described above should be addressed in order to 

understand the potential and limitations of chemical inhibitors for suppressing actual fires. We 

recommend that the conditions which exist in fire to be suppressed be measured and modeled. 

This is useful both for understanding the mechanism of chemical inhibitors in large fires, but also 

for determining the optimum size of condensed-phase suppressants (such as water mist or 

sodium bicarbonate). Next, the laboratory flame types should be identified which most closely 

describe the conditions in the actual suppressed fires. Finally, experiments and modeling should 

be conducted to understand the flame structure of inhibited and suppressed flames in the burner 

type which is most closely related to the actual fire threats. This burner type may well be a lowstrain diffusion flame such as the cup burner. Since this is a standard device used to assess 

suppressant effectiveness, we recommend experiments and numerical modeling to more fully 

understand the regions of the cup burner flame most susceptible chemical inhibition, and how the 

properties of various chemical and inert agents act to cause blow-off or extinction. Cup burners 

represent flames which may be more representative of some fires, but still of a scale and 

simplicity for which detailed numerical modeling is now possible. Those tests and calculations 

should precede those for larger scale fires-which are still beyond current experimental and 

numerical capabilities. 

6. Conclusions 

Manganese and tin are more effective flame inhibitors than bromine, but less effective than iron. 

However, all of the organometallic agents are essentially ineffective in cup-burner flames. and it 

is likely that they will also be ineffective in suppressing actual fires. The loss of effectiveness is 

likely caused by condensation to particles, followed by flow field and thermophoretic effects 

76 
which sequester the particles from the regions of high radical mole fraction in the flame, where 

they are likely needed to cause flame extinction. Metal salts added to droplets can reduce the 

quantity of water needed to extinguish laboratory flames. The efficiency of droplets, however 

also depends upon their size. It is likely that any metal containing agent will experience the 

same loss of effectiveness in the cup burner since it is the active intermediate species (not the 

agent itself) which are believed to be condensing. 

An additional conclusion of this work is that the performance of any inhibitor which involves a 

condensed phase (either as the form of the added agent, or from condensation of intermediate or 

product species of the inhibitor) will depend upon the interaction of the flow and temperature 

field of the fire with the particles. Hence, the performance of the such agents can vary widely 

with the type of laboratory flame or fire in which it is used. 

Acknowledgements: Helpfill conversatoins with Wing Tsung, Kei-niit Sin-vth, 

Fcinii Takuhuslzi, Dick Gum, George Miilholland, and Bill Grosshundler are 

gratefullji ucknovvledged. This research is part of the Depurtnient of' Dejense's 

Nat Generution Fire Siippression Technology Progruni. jiinded by the DoD 

Strategic Enviroizinentul Reseurch and Development Progruni under contract 

miniher W74RDV83528667. Internal NIST .funding is also gi*atefirlly 

a c kii o w ledged. TI1 e a ci th o P tli an ks Tu 11 iu R itch ie io I- cor iduc ting the e.Ytirz ctioii 

experinients. This research wus supported by DOD SERDP 's Next Generation 

Fire Siippression Technologj) Program, und by NASA 's 0ff;ce of Biological and 

Physical Research. 

77 
7. References 

Linteris, G. T. and Chelliah, H. K., Powder-Matrix Systems for Safer Handling arid Storage of 

Suppression Agents, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 6766, 2001. 

Andersen , S , 0 ., Fire Journal 8 1 : 5 6 ~ & ( 1 987) . 

Grosshandler, W. L., Gann, R. G., and Pitts, W. M., Evaluation of Alternative In-Flight Fire 

Suppressants for Full-scale Testing in Simulated Aircraft Engine Nacelles and Dry Bays, NIST 

SP 861, 1994. 

Gann, R. G., Fire Suppression System Performance of Alternative Agents in Aircraft Engines 

and Dry Bay Laboratory Simulations, NIST SP 890, vols. I and 11. 1995. 

Miziolek, A. W. and Tsang, W., Halon Replacements, Acs Symposium Series 611, 

American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1995. 

MacDonald, M.A., Jayaweera, T.M., Fisher, E.M., and Gouldin, F.C., Proceedings of the 

Combustion Institute, Vol. 27, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1998, pp. 

Babushok, V. and Tsang, W. I International Conference on Fire Research and Engineering, 

Third, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Boston, MA, 1999, pp. 257-267. 

Macdonald, M.A., Jayaweera, T.M., Fisher, E.M., and Gouldin, F.C., Combust. Flame 

116:166 (1999). 

Macdonald, M.A., Gouldin, F.C., and Fisher, EM., Combust. Flame 124:668 (2001). 

Reinelt, D. and Linteris, G.T., Proc Combust. Inst 26:1421 (1996). 

Linteris, G.T., Rumminger, M.D., Babushok, V., and Tsang, W., Pi-oc. Combust. Inst. 

28:2965 (2000). 

Linteris, G.T., Knyazev, K., and Babushok, V., Combust. Flame accepted (2001). 

Fallis, S., Holland, G.F., McCormick, J.L., Reed, R., and Wilson, K.A., Halon Options 

Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 2001, pp. pp. 364-372. 

Linteris, G.T.. Proc. Combust. Inst. 29:submitted (2002). 

Chelliah, H.K., Lazzarini, A.K., Wanigarathne, P.C., and Linteris, G.T., Proc. Combust. 

Inst. 29:submitted (2002). 

Linteris, G.T. and Rumminger, M.D., Western States Section Meering, The Combustion 

Institute, La Jolla, CA, 

Bulewicz, E.M. and Padley, P.J., Proc. Combust. Inst. 13:73 (1971). 

Bulewicz, E.M. and Padley, P.J., Chem. Phys. Lett. 9:467 (1971). 

Hastie, J. W., High Temperature Vapors, Academic Press, New York, 1975. 

Jensen, D.E. and Webb, B.C., AIAAJ. 14:947 (1976). 

Howard, J.B. and Kausch, W.J., Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 6:263 (1980). 

Cusack. P.A. and Killmeyer, A.J., ACS Symp. Ser. 425:189 (1990). 

Hornsby, P.R., Mitchell, P.A., and Cusack, P.A., Polym. Degrad. Stab. 32:299 (1991). 

Lask, G. and Wagner, H.G., Proc. Combust. Inst 8:432 (1962). 

Miller, D.R., Evers, R.L., and Skinner, G.B., Combust. Flame 7:137 (1963). 

Miller, D.R., Combust. Flame 13:210 (1969). 

Morrison, M.E. and Scheller, K., Combust. Flame 18:3 (1972). 

Pitts, W. M., Nyden, M. R., Gann, R. G., Mallard. W. G., and Tsang, W., Construction ofan 

Exploratory List of Chemicals to Initiate the Search for Halon Alternatives, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, NIST Technical Note 1279, 1990. 

Vanpee, M. and Shirodkar, P., Proc. Combust. Inst. 17:787 (1979). 

78 
[30]. Westblom, U., Fernandezalonso, F., Mahon, C.R., Smith, G.P., Jeffries, J.B., and Crosley, 

D.R., Combust. Flame 99:261 (1994). 

1311. Manganese Containing Antinock Conipounds (Nesnieyanov, A.N., Ed.), Nauka, MoskoLv, 

1971. 

[32]. Tapscott, R. E., Heinonen, E. W., and Brabson, G. D., Advanced Agent Identification and 

preliminary Assessment, NMERI, University of New Mexico, NMERI 95/38/32350, 1996. 

[33]. Chao, B.H., Egolfopoulos, F.N., and Law, C.K., Combust. Flame 109:620 (1997). 

[34]. Andrews, G.E. and Bradley, D., Combust. Flame 18:133 (1972). 

1351. Linteris, G.T. and Truett, L., Conibust. Flame 105:15 (1996). 

1361. Rumminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T.. Combust. Flame 120:451 (2000). 

[37]. Rumminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T., Combust. Flame 123:82 (2000). 

[38]. Rumminger, M.D., Reinelt, D., Babushok, V., and Linteris, G.T., Halon Options Technical 

Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 1998, pp. 145-156. 

1391. Gilbert, A.G. and Sulzniann, K.G.P., J. Electrochem. Sac. 121:832 (1974). 

[40]. Stull, D.R., Ind. Eng. Chem. 39517 (1947). 

1411. Hollrah, D., "Ethyl Corp., Personal Communication, Jan. 2001. 

[42]. Bulewicz, E.M. and Padley, P.J., Trans. Faraday Sac. 67:2337 (1971). 

[43]. Goodings, J.M. and Chen. Q.-F., Can.]. Chem. 76:1437 (1998). 

1441. Taylor, J.E. and Milazzo, T.S., J. Phys. Chem. 82:847 (1978). 

[45]. Gurvich, L. V., Karachevtsev, G. V., Kondratiev, V. N., Lebedev, Yu. A,, Medvedev, V. 

A,, Potapov, V. K., and Hodeev, Ya. S., Bond Energies. Ionization Potentials and Electron 

Affinities , Nauka, Moskow, 1974. 

1461. Smith, G.P., "Personal Communication, 1999. 

1471. Hildenbrand. D.L. and Lau, K.H., J. Cheni. Phys. 10053377 (1994). 

1481. Rumminger, M.D., Reinelt, D., Babushok, V., and Linteris, G.T., Combust. Flame 116207 

[49]. Fontijn, A. and Bajaj, P.N.,J. Phys. Cheni. 100:7085 (1996). 

[50]. Husain, D., Plane, J.M., and Xiang, C.C., J. Chern. Sac., Faraday Trans. 280:1465 (1984). 

[51]. Gurvich, L. V., Iorish, V. S., Chekhovskoi, D. V., Ivanisov, A. D., Proskurnev, A. Yu., 

Yungman, V. S., Medvedev, V. A,, Veits, I. V., and Bergman, G. A,, IVTHANTHERMO - 

Database on Thermodynamic Properties of Individual Substances, Institute of High 

Temperatures, Moscow, 1993. 

1521. ].A. Martinho Sim6es , in NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database 

Number G9 (Mallard, W. G. and Linstrom, P. J., Ed.), National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 (http://webbook.nist.gov), 2000. 

[53]. Lippincott, E.S. and Tobin, M.C.J.,J. Am. Cheni. Sac. 75:4141 (1953). 

1541. Jensen, D.E., J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 76:1494 (1980). 

1551. Babushok, V. and Tsang, W., Joint Meeting of the United States Sections of the Conibustion 

Institute. The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1999, pp. 587-590. 

[56]. Kee, R. J., Grcar, J. F., Smooke, M. D., and Miller, J. A,, A Fortran Coniputer Program for 

Modeling Steady Laminar One-dimensional Premixed Flames, Sandia National Laboratories 

Report. SAND85-8240, 1991. 

1571. Kee, R. J., Rupley, F. M., and Miller, J. A,, CHEMKIN-II: A Fortran Chemical Kinetics 

Package for the Analysis of Gas Phase Chemical Kinetics, Sandia National Laboratory, 

SAND89-8009B, 1989. 

[58]. Kee, R. J.. Dixon-Lewis, G., Warnatz, J., Coltrin, R. E., and Miller, J. A., A Fortran 

Coniputer Package for the Evaluation of Gas-Phase, Multicomponent Transport Properties, 

(1999). 

79 
1841 

1881. 

Sandia National Laboratory, SAND86-8246, 1986. 

Smith, G. P., Golden, D. M., Frenklach, M., Moriarty, N. W., Eiteneer, B., Goldenberg, 

M., Bowman, C. T., Hanson, R. K., Song, S., Gardiner, Jr. W. C., Lissianski, V. V., and 

Qin. Z., http://www.nie.berkeley.edu/gri_mech, 2000. 

Linteris, G.T., in Halon Replacements (Miziolek, A. W. and Tsang, w., Ed.), Acs 

Symposium Series 61 1, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.. 1995. 

Noto, T., Babushok, V., Hamins, A,, and Tsang, W., Combust. Flame 112:147 (1998). 

Linteris, G.T., Rumniinger, M.D., and Babushok, V.I., Combust. Flame 122:58 (2000). 

Grant, G., Brenton, J., and Drysdale, D., Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 26:79 (2000). 

Zegers, E.J.P., Williams, B.A., Sheinson, R.S., and Fleming. J.W., Proc. Combusr. Inst. 

28:2931 (2000). 

Lentati, A.M. and Chelliah, H.K., Proc. Combust. Inst. 27:2839 (1998). 

Prasad, K., Li, C., Kailasanath, K., Ndubizu, C., Ananth, R., and Tatem, P.A., Combust. 

Sci. Technol. 132:325 (1998). 

Zheng, R.. Bray, K.N.C., and Rogg, B., Combust. Sci. Technol. 126:389 (1997). 

Mitani, T. and Niioka, T., Combust. Flame 55:13 (1984). 

Lazzarini, A.K., Krauss, R.H., Chelliah. H.K., and Linteris, G.T., Proc. Conibust. Inst. 

28:2939 (2000). 

Wanigarathne, P. C., MS Thesis, 2001. 

Seshadri, K. and Williams, F.A., Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer21:137 (1978). 

Rosser, W.A., Inami, S.H., and Wise, H., Combust. Flame 7:107 (1963). 

Chelliah, H.K. and Williams, F.A., Combust. Flame 80:17 (1990). 

Lentati, A.M. and Chelliah, H.K., Combust. Flame 115:158 (1998). 

Friedman, R. and Levy, J.B., Combust. Flame 7:195 (1963). 

Patrick, R. and Golden, D.M., Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 16:1567 (1984). 

Dacruz, F.N., Vandooren, J., and Vantiggelen, P., Bull. Soc. Chim. Belg. 97:1011 (1988). 

Williams, F. A,, Combustion Theory, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Menlo 

Park, California, 1985. 

Peters, N., Combust. Sci. Technol. 30:l (1983). 

Chelliah, H.K., Yu, G.. Hahn, T.O., and Law, C.K., Proceeding of the Combustion Instirule 

24:1083 (1993). 

Bonne. U., Jost, W., and Wagner, H.G., Fire Res. Abstracts Rev. 4:6 (1962). 

NFPA, Clean Agents Fire Extinguishing Systems, NFPA 2001, 1999. 

Rumminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T., Fire Safety Science: Proc. of the Sixth Int. Synip., Int. 

Assoc. for Fire Safety Science, Marne-La-Vallee, France, 2000, pp. 289-300. 

Rosser, W. A, Inami, S. H., and Wise, H., Study of the Mechanisms ofFire Extinguishment of 

Liquid Rocket Propellants, WADC Technical Report 59-206, 1959. 

Lott, J.L., Christian, S.D., Sliepcevich. C.M., and Tucker, E.E., Fire Technol. 32260 (1996). 

Saso, Y., Ogawa, Y., Saito, N., and Wang, H., Combust. Flame 118:489 (1999). 

Williams, B.A. and Fleming, J.W., Halon Options Tech. Working Cod, Albuquerque, NM, 

2001, pp. 144-154. 

Fallis, S., Reed, R., Lu, Y.-C., Wierenga, P.H., and Holland. G.F., Halon Options Technical 

Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 2000, pp. 361-370. 

Fenimore, C.P. and Jones, G.W., Combust. Flame 10:295 (1966). 

Hirst. B. and Booth, K., Fire Technol. 13:296 (1977). 

Linteris, G.T. and Gmurczyk, GW., in Fire Suppression System Performance of Alternative 

Agents in Aircraft Engine and Dry Bay Laboratory Simulations (R.G. Gann, Ed.), National 

80 
IlOO]. 

[loll. 

[102j. 

11031. 

[ 1041. 

[105]. 

11061. 

[107]. 

[lOS]. 

Ll09]. 

[llO]. 

[lll]. 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1995. 

Mache, H. and Hebra, A., Sitzungsber. Ost-erreich. Akad. Wiss. IIa, 150:157 (1941). 

Puri, I.K. and Seshadri, K., Combust. Flame 65137 (1986). 

Santoro, R.J., Semerjian, H.G.. and Dobbins, R.A., Combust. Flame 51:203 (1983). 

Charalampopoulos, T.T., Hahn, D.W., and Chang, H., Appl. Opt. 31:6519 (1992). 

Dibble, R. W., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1975. 

Nguyen, Q.-V., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1995. 

Rudder, R.R. and Bach, D.R.,]. Opt. Soc. Am. 58:1260 (1968). 

D'Alessio, A,, in Particulate Carbon: Formation during Combustion (Siegla, D. C. and Smith, 

G. W., Ed.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 207-256, 1981. 

Dobbins, R.A. and Megaridis, C.M., Langninir 3:254 (1987). 

Koylu, U.O., Mcenally, C.S., Rosner, D.E., and Pfefferle, L.D., Combust. Flame 110:494 

(1 99 7). 

Taylor, B. IV. and Kuyatt, C. E., Guiddines far Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of 

NIST Measurement Results, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST 

Technical Note 1297, 1994. 

Rumminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T., Proc. Combust. Inst. 29:submitted (2002). 

Rumminger, M.D. and Linteris, G.T., Combust. Flame 128:145 (2002). 

Glassman, I., Combustion, Acedeniic Press, New York, NY, 1977. 

Lissianski, V.V., Maly, P.M., Zamansky, V.M., and Gardiner, W.C.. Industrial & 

Engineering Chemistry Research 40:3287 (2001). 

Babushok, V., Tsang, W., Linteris, G.T., and Reinelt, D., Combust. Flame 115:551 (1998). 

Roper, F.G., Combust. Flame 29:219 (1977). 

Gomez, A. and Rosner, D.E., Combust. Sci. Techno]. 89:335 (1993). 

Takahashi, F., "NASA-Glenn, Personal Communication, Sept. 2001. 

Urban, D.L., Yuan, Z.G., Sunderland, P.B., Linteris, G.T., Voss, J.E., Lin, K.C., Dai, Z., 

Sun, K., and Faeth, G.M., AIAAJ. 36:1346 (1998). 

81