## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Research Methodology** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ISO 5660-12015**} \\ \hline
**Material Name** & **GFRP** & **HFRP** \\ \hline Maximum mass loss [g] & 30.53 & 135.04 \\ \hline Remaining reinforcement after the completion of & \multirow{2}{*}{57.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{2} \\ the flammability test [\%] & & \\ \hline Maximum rate of weight loss [g/s] & 10.9 & 15.3 \\ \hline Sample ignition time [s] & 18 & 30 \\ \hline Sample end-of-burning time [s] & 332 & 1200 \\ \hline Measurement time [s] & 1200 & 1200 \\ \hline CO\({}_{2}\) maximum concentration [\%] & 1.112 & 1.375 \\ \hline CO maximum concentration [ppm] & 1.542 & 469 \\ \hline Maximum O\({}_{2}\) depletion [\%] & 14 & 1.27 \\ \hline CO\({}_{2}\) initial concentration [\%] & 0 & 0 \\ \hline CO initial concentration [ppm] & 0 & 0 \\ \hline O\({}_{2}\) initial concentration [\%] & 20.95 & 20.95 \\ \hline Heat release rate HRR [kW] & 2.515 & 2.593 \\ \hline Maximum mean rate of heat release [\(\mathrm{kW/m^{2}}\)] & 173.83 & 198.7 \\ \hline Maximum light attenuation [\%] & 67.15 & 59.07 \\ \hline Maximum smoke emission rate [\(\mathrm{m^{2}/s}\)] & 0.1403 & 0.1096 \\ \hline Total amount of smoke produced [\(\mathrm{m^{2}}\)] & 20.4 & 53.7 \\ \hline Heat released [\(\mathrm{M/m^{2}}\)] & 48.8 & 183 \\ \hline CO specific emission [kg/kg] & 0.176 & 0.164 \\ \hline CO\({}_{2}\) specific emission [kg/kg] & 3.27 & 6.751 \\ \hline \end{tabular} where: specific emissions define the mass of gas (CO and CO\({}_{2}\)) emitted from a unit mass of the combusted material.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Reaction to fire results for the tested composites. fiber-reinforced composite was longer than that of the glass fiber-reinforced composite for several reasons. Hemp is an organic material, while glass is an inorganic material. Organic materials are typically less resistant to heat and combustion, which can lead to longer burn times. Second, hemp fibers tend to be more water-absorbent than glass fibers, which can affect their reactions to fire. Hemp fibers contain natural chemicals such as cellulose, lignin and hemicellulose [37] that absorb water and can cause a longer burning time. In addition, the diversity of the chemical composition of hemp fibers, depending on the type and origin of the plant, can also affect the burning time of the composite reinforced with hemp fiber. Based on the analysis of graphs showing the concentrations of CO, CO\({}_{2}\) and O\({}_{2}\) during the combustion tests of polymer composite samples, it was concluded that the gases generated during the combustion of a sample containing hemp fibers (HFRP) showed maximum O\({}_{2}\) loss [%], which was higher by 11.4%, CO [ppm] lower by 13.5% and the maximum CO\({}_{2}\) concentration [%] higher by 23.7% compared to the sample containing glass fibers (GFRP) (Figure 6). This is most likely because hemp [43] is a plant that naturally absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it grows. The hemp fibers used to reinforce the composite may, therefore, contain higher amounts of carbon, which can lead to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide during combustion. In addition, natural fibers are generally less processed than glass fibers, which means that they are more prone to burning. Additionally,  
Figure 5: Graph of heat release intensity during sample testing (**a**) GFRP (**b**) HFRP. hemp fibers contain higher amounts of nitrogen than glass fibers, which can lead to higher oxygen depletion and lower carbon monoxide concentrations during combustion. Nitrogen reacts with oxygen during combustion, leading to greater oxygen loss and lower carbon monoxide concentrations. Graphs comparing the CO and CO\({}_{2}\) emissions of the tested materials are presented below (Figure 7).