David Purser

HER
6
th
International Seminar on:
Fire and Explosion Hazards
University of Leeds
11-16th April 2010
Fire Toxicity and Toxic Hazard Analysis
Prof. David Purser
Hartford Environmental Research
David Purser
HER
Book
Fire toxicity
Edited by AA Stec and T R Hull,
University of Central Lancashire,
UK
March 2010
Woodhead Publishing/CRC
ISO TC 92/SC 3 "FIRE
THREAT TO PEOPLE AND
THE ENVIRONMENT"
David Purser
HER
U.K. Fire Deaths
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1
9
5
5
1
9
5
7
1
9
5
9
1
9
6
1
1
9
6
3
1
9
6
5
1
9
6
7
1
9
6
9
1
9
7
1
1
9
7
3
1
9
7
5
1
9
7
7
1
9
7
9
1
9
8
1
1
9
8
3
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
7
1
9
8
9
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
3
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
7
YEAR
N
U
M
B
E
R
Smoke Burns/smoke Burns Other Unspecified
David Purser
HER
U.K. Fire Injuries
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
1
9
5
5
1
9
5
7
1
9
5
9
1
9
6
1
1
9
6
3
1
9
6
5
1
9
6
7
1
9
6
9
1
9
7
1
1
9
7
3
1
9
7
5
1
9
7
7
1
9
7
9
1
9
8
1
1
9
8
3
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
7
1
9
8
9
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
3
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
7
YEAR
N
U
M
B
E
R
Smoke Burns/smoke Burns Physical Shock Check-up Other Unspecified
David Purser
HER
Room of fire origin damage - non-
fatal and fatal fires
Fire damage to room - dwellings
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% room damaged by fire
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
%
c
a
s
e
s
all non-fatal fires all fatal fires
David Purser
HER
Floor of fire origin damage -
without sprinklers
Fire damage to floor - dwelling
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% floor damaged by fire
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
%
c
a
s
e
s
all non-fatal fires all fatal fires
David Purser
HER
Performance-based fire safety
design principle
Performance-based design principle (which also applies to prescriptive design):
Available Safe Escape Time > Required Safe Escape Time by an appropriate safety margin
ASET = time from ignition to loss of tenability - toxic or heat effects preventing escape
RSET = time from ignition to escape toxic smoke affects behaviour and travel speed
So toxicity affects both terms
Bradford stadium
David Purser
HER
Fire physiology or toxicity?
Toxicity = physiology + pathology
Physiological effects:
Rapidly developing (seconds-minutes)
Affect immediate vital functions: vision, pain, respiration, circulation,
brain (movement ability, consciousness, death)
Pathological effects:
Slow to develop (hours-days-years)
Affect longer term functions of organ systems, leading
to adverse health effects and death due to failure of vital functions
Physiological incapacitating effects are the most important aspects of toxicity
(toxic hazard) in fires:
Determine whether occupants escape or not
Nearly all fires are fatal due to heat or asphyxia if you remain long
enough
Time of useful consciousness at high altitudes
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Exposure time (min)
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
(
f
e
e
t
)
O2% 20.9-O2%
3.9 17
4.5 16.4
6.2 14.7
7.8 13.1
9.6 11.3
Oxygen
sea level
equivalent
David Purser
HER
Physiological effects in fires
Fire toxicity involves a set of different physiological effects occurring over different time scales
Immediate loss
of vision
depending on
smoke
concentration
Further loss of vision
due to eye pain and
closure and respiratory
pain and distress
depending on
concentration of
irritants
Collapse and coma due to
asphyxia when a sufficient
dose of gases has been
inhaled
Or due to heat and burns
followed by death
Smoke OD/m 3
CO 5000 ppm
CO
2
3.5%
O
2
15%
HCN 550 ppm
Acrolein 2 ppm
Formaldehyde 5 ppm
Temp 250C
0
a few seconds
a few minutes
a few hours or days:
injury of death due to pathological effects on
lungs, heart or brain from irritants,
asphyxiants or heat
Scenario:
In bedroom with door shut
Fire in lounge downstairs
Fire burns a few kg of fuel
then self-extinguishes
after 10 minutes
House filled with mixed
toxic smoke
Occupant awakes and
opens bedroom door
What is effect on
occupant?
David Purser
HER
Fractional Toxic Effects
In order to assess effects of each toxic gas in a fire at any time:
For those where concentration is most important:
Fractional Effective Concentration (FEC):
FIC = concentration of gas present e.g 100 ppm HCl
concentration causing irritant effect 200 ppm HCl
For those where exposure dose is most important:
Fractional Effective Dose (FED)
= conc. gas present x time
conc x time for endpoint
Fractional Lethal dose (FLD)
= conc. gas present x time e.g. 1900 ppm HCl x 30 min
conc x time for lethal exposure 114,000 ppm x min
In both cases the exposure would be half that required for the given effect
David Purser
HER
Fractional Physiological Effects
The FICs for individual irritant gases are summed to obtain the
overall FIC for an irritant mixture as follows:
FIC
total
= FIC
HCl
+FIC
HBr
+FIC
HF
+FIC
SO2
+FIC
NO2
+FIC
CH2CHO
+ FIC
CH2O
+ EFICx
Where EFICx = FICs for any other irritants present.
David Purser
HER
Asphyxiant equations
FED for incapacitation for CO, HCN and low oxygen:
FED
Ico
= (8.2925 x 10
-4
x ppm CO
1.036
) x t/30
FED
Icn
= (exp([CN]/43))t/220
FED
Io
= t/exp [8.13 - 0.54(20.9 - %O
2
)]
Ventilatory stimulation by CO
2
:
VCO
2
= exp ([CO
2
]/5)
Fractional Effective Dose (FED) basic concept:
= conc. gas present x exposure time
conc x time for incapacitation
Asphyxiants:
FED
IN
= (FED
Ico
+ FED
Icn
) x VCO
2
+ FED
Io
David Purser
HER
Fractional Physiological Effects
FED analysis for the lounge/bedroom fire scenario:
Incapacitation is predicted when any of the terms FEC or FED > 1
Time to incapacitation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Time (seconds)
F
E
C
,
F
E
D
FED for asphyxia with HCN
FED for asphyxia without HCN
Irritant Smoke
Irritant Smoke immediate escape impairment
Asphyxiants: (CO + HCN) x VCO
2
incapacitation at 5 seconds
Asphyxiants: (CO x VCO
2
)
incapacitation at 150 seconds
FEC or FED = 1
= incapacitation
David Purser
HER
Toxic fire hazards
1. Time-concentration curves for major products which
depends on:
Fire growth curve (mass loss rate of fuel [kg/s] and dispersal
volume)
Yields of toxic products (e.g. kg CO/kg material burned)
Change with changing combustion conditions throughout the fire
2. Physiological effects of the products
exposure concentration [kg.m
-3
] or exposure dose [kg.m
-3
.min]
required to cause toxic effects in terms of :
concentrations or doses likely to impair escape efficiency
incapacitating exposure concentrations or doses
lethal exposure concentrations or doses
Timing and severity depends upon the changing
concentrations and doses of each different type
of toxicant and their physiological effects
Dynamic time-based process depending upon two major
parameters:
David Purser
HER
Main fires types and hazard scenarios
1. Non-flaming/smouldering fires
2. Early/well ventilated flaming fires
3. Ventilation controlled fires
pre-flashover vitiated flaming fires
post-flashover vitiated flaming fires
David Purser
HER
0.30 1.15 2.15
3.00 3.17 3.20
David Purser
HER
Toxicity tests and toxic hazard
Armchair: FR polyacrylonitrile covers, CM polyurethane foam
burning in lounge with open doorway in enclosed house
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (min)
C
O
2
%
,
O
2
%
,
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
s
m
o
k
e
O
D
/
m
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
C
O
,
H
C
N
a
n
d
H
C
l
.
CO2 % O2 % Smoke OD/m Temperature degC/10
CO ppm HCN ppmx10 HCl ppm x 10
Lounge
ionization
Landing
optical
Landing
ionization
Lounge
optical
Test CDT18
Lounge
David Purser
HER
Toxicity tests and toxic hazard
Is it realistic to represent toxicity or toxic hazard of a material or product in
terms of a single number generated using a small-scale combustion toxicity
test?
NO because:
Toxic hazard is a property of a full-scale system depending upon the time-
varying dynamics of fire growth and effluent spread in specific fire scenarios
Toxicity involves a time varying set of different physiological effects
Yields of toxic species and hence toxicity from any material or products are
variables which depend upon the combustion conditions.
(decomposition conditions in existing toxicity test methods give a poor
representation of those in any full-scale fire)
Is it realistic to classify reaction-to-fire properties of a material or product (such
as ignitability, heat release and flame spread) using small-scale tests?
Up to a point YES because these small-scale tests measure relatively
fundamental properties of materials and products operating at any scale that can
be used to predict full-scale fire behaviour
David Purser
HER
The Equivalence Ratio |
| =
Actual Fuel Air Ratio
Stoichiometric Fuel Air Ratio
/
/
For well-ventilated fires, | < 1,
For fuel-rich (vitiated) combustion, | > 1
Further factors affecting yields of CO and other products:
Oxygen concentration
Temperature
Fire retardants
David Purser
HER
Effect of | on CO yield (Tewarson, compartment fires ISO
TS 19700 tube furnace comparison)
PMMA
1
10
100
0.1 1 10
Equivalence ratio
C
O
y
i
e
l
d
v
c
/
C
O
y
i
e
l
d
w
v
Factory mutual
apparatus
BREtube
furnace
PMMA
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 1 2 3 4
Equivalence ratio
C
O
y
i
e
l
d
(
g
C
O
/
g
f
u
e
l
)
Large scale
(Gottuk)
BRETube
furnace
Large scale
(Beyler)
David Purser
HER
Bench-scale toxicity tests
None of these produce combustion
conditions relevant to actual defined
fire conditions
Cannot measure yields as a function
of equivalence ratio
Do not measure decomposition mode
(flaming or non-flaming)
Do not measure upper layer
temperature
All use simplistic toxicity index
Static boxes result in losses to walls
Richard Hull - UCLAN - is speaking
about the performance of these tests
this afternoon
NFX 70-100 tube furnace decomposes 1g and collect
gases
NES 713 ISO Smoke chamber
David Purser
HER
Simplistic toxicity test index
Table B.1 BS 6853-1 IDLH values
Gases IDLH values: Immediately dangerous to life or health after 30 minutes
p.p.m. mgm3
Carbon dioxide 40 000 73 000
Carbon monoxide 1 200 1 400
Hydrogen fluoride 30 25
Hydrogen chloride 50 76
Hydrogen bromide 30 101
Hydrogen cyanide 50 56
Nitrogen dioxide + Nitric oxide 20 38
Sulfur dioxide 100 270
Individual gases expressed as fractions of limit concentration then summed to find overall
index
Does relate to effects in humans
Does not take into account development time of effects not time-based
Does not take into account realistic interactions between gases
No relationship between test decomposition conditions and specific fire conditions
David Purser
HER
Factory Mutual ASTM E2058 fire propation apparatus
Bench-scale methods enabling toxic product yields to be
measured as a function of equivalence ratio
David Purser
HER
BS7990 IS0/IEC TS19700 Tube Furnace
David Purser
HER
Toxic fire hazards
1. Time-concentration curves for major products in full-scale scenario
which depends on:
Fire growth curve (mass loss rate of fuel [kg/s])
Cone calorimeter, SBI, large-scale test, heat of gasification, heat of
combustion
Yields of toxic products under a range of combustion conditions (e.g.
kg CO/kg material burned)
ISO TS19700 tube furnace, ASTM E2058 flammability apparatus
Input data into CFAST or FDS to calculate time concentration curves for
different specific fire scenarios with specified boundary conditions
2. Physiological effects of the products
exposure concentrations [kg.m
-3
] or exposure doses [kg.m
-3
.min] required
to cause toxic effects in terms of :
concentrations or doses likely to impair escape efficiency
incapacitating exposure concentrations or doses
lethal exposure concentrations or doses
Physiological FED methods in ISO 13571, Purser SFPE Handbook, BS7899-2
Combine 1 and 2 to calculate time to incapacitation.
Compare with specified acceptable tenability time for the end use scenario
Toxic hazard evaluation for buildings or products:
David Purser
HER
Quantification of physiological effects?
How can physiological effects be quantified for application in hazard
assessments?
Smoke and irritants
Asphyxiants
How can effects be validated?
By detailed investigation of actual fire incidents for which fire conditions have
been re-created experimentally or modelled and information is available for
effects on victims
Limited experimental exposures of humans to individual fire gases
Animal experiments
Consideration of range of sensitivity in human population
David Purser
HER
Hazards from smoke
Walking speed in smoke
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Smoke density (OD/m)
W
a
l
k
i
n
g
s
p
e
e
d
(
m
/
s
)
Non-irritant wood smoke Irritant wood smoke
Walking speed in darkness
After Jin 1976
Visibility (m): 5 4 2.8 2.3
30% of people turn back
rather than enter
Effects of acid gases and organic irritants on escape capability
Bonfire smoke or side-stream cigarette smoke: eye pain, blepharospasm,
breathing difficulties and chest pain
Incident reports of escape difficulties due to irritancy
Effects:
Impaired vision, eye pain,
eye closure and tears
Pain to nose, throat and
chest
Bronchoconstriction
At low-moderate
concentrations slow
movement and turning
back
At high concentrations
incapacitation
Lung oedema and
inflammation after
exposure
David Purser
HER
Why concentration?
Immediate painful stimulation of
trigeminal nerve endings in the eyes,
nose and throat a sensory effect
(like light or sound)
Effect proportional to the log of the
exposure concentration
Effect does not increase with time as
do dose-related effects
Similar in all mammals for all irritant
compounds
David Purser
HER
Effect of irritant wood smoke on breathing
pattern in a primate
David Purser
HER
Effect of exposure on mouse
breathing rate of thermal
decomposition products from
PVC-J (0.72 g.m
-3
)
% breathing rate depression
is proportional to log
concentration
RD
50
PVC-I 0.57 g.m
-3
Concentration - effect
relationships for irritants
David Purser
HER
Irritant potencies
Sensory and Pulmonary Irritancy of Combustion Products
Irritant RD
50
(ppm)
mouse
Severe sensory
irritancy in humans
(ppm)
30-minute LC
50
(ppm) mammal
LC
50
/RD
50
Toluene diisocyanate
o-chlorobenzylidene
malonitrile (CS)*
o-chloroacetophenone (CN)*
0.1-1.0
0.20
0.52
0.96
1.0
0.5
6-50
100
150-400
300-400
500
529
365
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
Chlorine
1.0-10
1.7
3.1
9.3
1-5.5
5-10
9-20
140-170
700-800
100
91
242
11
Crotonaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Penteneone
Phenol
10-100
4-45
>20
>50
200-1500
4,000-4,600
1,000
400-700
SO
2
NH
3
HF
HCl
HBr
NO
2
Styrene
100-1,000
117
303
309
349
980
50-100
700-1700
120
100
100
80
>700
300-500
1,400-8,000
900-3,600
1,600-6,000
1,600-6,000
60-250
10,000-80,000
3
16
12
0.4
46
Acetaldehyde 1,000-10,000
4946 >1,500 20,000-128,000 15
Ethanol
Acetone
10000-100000
27,314
77,516
>5,000
>12,000
400,000
128000-250000
15
3
The potential for causing sensory irritation spans six orders of magnitude, while that for causing death
spans approximately three orders of magnitude. For substances down to NO
2
death is likely to be
due to lung irritation, while for the remainder from styrene to acetone death is likely to be due to
asphyxiation
*Substances not detected in combustion atmospheres. RD
50
concentrations from Alarie
LC
50
concentrations have been normalised to a 30-minute exposure time according to Habers rule
Irritant potencies
In smoke:
acrolein,
formaldehyde
crotonaldehyde
phenol,
styrene
HF, HCl, HBr
SO
2
, NO, H
3
PO
4
David Purser
HER
Irritant concentrations of common
substances in mice and humans
-2.5
-1.5
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
-2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
Logarithm 0.03 RD50 (ppm)
L
o
g
a
r
i
t
h
m
h
u
m
a
n
1
9
8
0
T
L
V
-
T
W
A
(
p
p
m
)
2,4, - Toluene Diisocyanate
Agent CN
Acrolein
Agent CS
Chlorine
Formaldehyde
Sulphur dioxide
Hydrogen chloride
Ammonia
Styrene acetaldehyde
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-Propanol
Isopropanol
Ethanol
Acetone
Methanol
David Purser
HER
Hazards from smoke irritants
Frequency distribution of responses to irritants
10 100 1000 10000
Concentration (e.g. ppmHCl)
%
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Effects on escape efficiency and speed Incapacitation
David Purser
HER
Effects of irritant gases
Concentrations Exposure doses Gas
for escape
impairment
(ppm)
for
incapacitation
(ppm)
predicted lethal to half
the population
(ppm.min)
HCl
HBr
HF
SO
2
NO
2
NO
CH
2
CHO*
HCHO*
200
200
200
24
70
-
4
6
1000
1000
500
150
250
>1000
30
250
114,000
114,000
87,000
12,000
1,900
~30,000
4,500
22,500
* where the concentrations of acrolein and formaldehyde (or other
important irritants) are unknown, a term derived from smoke density
may be used with 0.5 OD/metre as an indication of irritancy likely to
impair escape efficiency. and 90 OD/metre.min as an indication of
lethal organic irritant exposure dose
David Purser
HER
Toxic smoke products
Asphyxiant gases:
CARBON MONOXIDE
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
CARBON DIOXIDE
LOW OXYGEN
cause confusion and loss of consciousness
followed by death from asphyxia when a sufficient
dose has been inhaled
David Purser
HER
Time to incapacitation for HCN and CO exposure
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time to loss of consciousness (min)
H
C
N
p
p
m
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
C
O
p
p
m
CO
HCN
CO
C t Ct
1000 26. 60 26600
2000 14. 05 28097
4000 6. 72 26868
8000 3. 26 26086
HCN
C t Ct
87 30.0 2610
98 19.1 1872
151 8.5 1284
200 1.9 380
300 0.9 270
For HCN a small increase in concentration causes a large decrease in time to incapacitation
HCN present at 1000 ppm in domestic fires causes rapid incapacitation but dynamics of
uptake and dispersal in blood result in low post-exposure blood CN, and CN unstable in
blood, whereas COHb very stable
CO is probably the main ultimate cause of death by asphxiants but HCN may be a major
cause of incapacitation
Upper layer oxygen concentration
can be as low as 1% O
2
- one
breath enough to cause collapse.
This effect has been reported in
some fire incidents
CO
2
important because it
increases the rate of uptake of
other gases by stimulating
respiration
Time of useful consciousness at high altitudes
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Exposure time (min)
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
(
f
e
e
t
)
O2% 20.9-O2%
3.9 17
4.5 16.4
6.2 14.7
7.8 13.1
9.6 11.3
Oxygen
sea level
equivalent
David Purser
HER
Respiration and metabolism
Ventilatory response to carbon dioxide and signs of
intoxication
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Inspired CO2%
V
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
R
M
V
)
l
/
m
i
n
Average curve
Individual data points
from different sources
exponential curve
Tolerable times (min) 30 20 10 2
Increasingly severe breathing
discomfort, dizziness
increasing
stupor, loss of
consciousness
David Purser
HER
Hazard equations
Smoke: FEC
smoke
= [OD/m]/0.2 for small enclosures or
[OD/m]/0.1 for large enclosures
Irritants sensory:
FIC = FIC
HCl
+FIC
HBr
+ FIC
HF
+FIC
SO2
+FIC
NO2
+
FIC
CH2CHO
+ FIC
CH2O
+ FIC
x
.
Irritants lethal:
FLD
irr
= FLD
HCl
+ FLD
HBr
+ FLD
HF
+ FLD
SO2
+ FLD
NO2
+
FLD
CH2CHO
+FLD
HCHO
+ FLD
x
Asphyxiants:
FED
IN
= (FED
Ico
+ FED
Icn
+ FLD
irr
) x VCO
2
+ FED
Io
Hazard equations -SFPE FSE Handbook
David Purser
HER
Asphyxiant equations
FEDs for incapacitation for CO, HCN and low oxygen:
FED
Ico
= (8.2925 x 10
-4
x ppm CO
1.036
) x t/30
FED
Icn
= (exp([CN]/43))t/220
FED
Io
= t/exp [8.13 - 0.54(20.9 - %O
2
)]
Ventilatory stimulation by CO
2
:
VCO
2
= exp ([CO
2
]/5)
David Purser
HER
COHb post-mortem fire and non-fire
0
10
20
30
40
%COHb
%
o
f
a
l
l
d
e
a
t
h
s
<30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
Fire deaths Non-fire deaths
HER
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
%carboxyhamoglobin
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
u
r
v
i
v
i
n
g
After
Nelson
and
Pach
David Purser
HER
Validation of additive model using rat lethality
Extensive rat lethality database from Levin experiments using NBS and NIST
toxicity test methods to measure rat 30-minute exposure + 14 days
observation LC
50
for a range of polymers
Data on individual gases and gas mixtures used to develop overall FED
models to predict LC
50
from measured concentrations of toxic gases
assuming:
Only small number of key toxic products are important
The effects are essentially additive
Two models: NIST N-gas model and Purser LC
50
model
David Purser
HER
Lethal toxic potency of mixtures in rats
Fractional Effective Dose (FED) =
( [CO] + [CN] [NOx] + [each acid gas] + [each organic irritant] ) x V
CO2
+ A + ___1__ [5]
LC
50
CO LC
50
HCN LC
50
each gas LC
50
each organic irritant hypoxia function
where:
VCO
2
multiplication factor for CO
2
driven hyperventilation = 1+ (exp (0.14 x [CO
2
])-1)/2
A is an acidosis factor = ([CO
2
] x 0.05) - 0.02
Hypoxia function = exp( 8.13-0.54 x [21-O
2
])
[CN] represents the concentration of cyanide
[NOx] represents the summed concentration of NO and NO
2
David Purser
HER
Purser LC
50
model against rat data
HER
Flaming y = 1.0428x - 2.3986
R
2
= 0.9707
non flaming y = 0.8849x - 0.4559
R
2
= 0.7004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Actual LC50 g/m
3
mass charge (30 minutes + 14 days observation)
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
L
C
5
0
g
/
m
3
m
a
s
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Purser LC50 flaming
Purser LC50 non flamingF
Actual LC50
Linear (Purser LC50 flaming)
Linear (Purser LC50 non
flamingF)
LC
50
concentrations calculated using the Purser LC
50
model compared with
measured rat LC
50
concentrations for different materials decomposed under non-
flaming and flaming combustion conditions.
Flaming fire effluent
mixtures contain
mainly asphyxiant
gases
Non-flaming fire
effluent mixtures also
contain high yields of
irritant organic
chemical species
Conclusion:
Additive model is a
good predictor of
experimental results
David Purser
HER
Toxicity of thermal decomposition and
combustion products of fluoropolymers
Polytetrafluroethylene (PTFE)
- (CF
2
- CF
2
)
n
-
Toxic potency: 0.015 - 14 g/m
3
(30- minute exposure)
Most fires: potency 10 x wood
Extreme toxicity conditions: 1000 x wood (e.g. 2 g in this
room lethal to all occupants). Decomposition at 450-650C
and recirculation through hot zone
Extreme toxicity due to ultrafine fluropolymer particles 0.01-
0.15 m
deposit in lung interstitium causing inflammation and
oedema
Alveolus
Inflamed lung interstitium
Oedema fluid
David Purser
HER
Extreme neurotoxicity from phosphate fire
retardant and foam
Toxicity of different bicyclophosphate
esters
R : CH
3
C
2
H
5
C
3
H
4
C
4
H
9
HOCH
2
LD
50
:
(mg/kg i.p.)
32 1.0 0.38 1.5
0.18 ISO
>500
(Bellett and Caseda, 1975)
Trimethylol Propane Phosphate
Rat LC
50
0.035(mg/l) - 1 hour exposure
(From Kimmerle et al., 1976)
O
CH
2
R C- CH
2
O P = O
O
CH
2
David Purser
HER
FED analysis table for a fire
Gas concentrations each minute 1 2 3 4 5 6
Smoke (OD/m)
HCl (ppm)
acrolein (ppm)
formaldehyde (ppm)
CO (ppm)
HCN (ppm)
CO
2
(%)
O
2
(%)
Temp (C)
Heat flux (kW/cm
2)
0.1
10
0.4
0.6
0
0
0
20.9
20
0
0.2
50
0.8
1.2
0
0
0
20.9
65
1.0
0.5
150
2.0
3.0
500
50
1.5
19.0
125
4.0
1.5
200
6.0
9.0
2000
150
3.5
17.5
220
10.0
3.0
250
12.0
18.0
3500
250
6.0
15.0
405
25.0
3.5
200
14.0
21.0
6000
300
8.0
12.0
405
25.0
Fractional smoke concentration
FECsmoke 0.50 1.00 2.50 7.50 15.00 17.50
Fractional irritant concentration
FICHCl
FICacrolein
FICform
FIC
0.06
0.10
0.10
0.26
0.28
0.20
0.20
0.68
0.83
0.50
0.50
1.83
1.11
1.50
1.50
4.11
1.39
3.00
3.00
7.39
1.11
3.50
3.50
8.11
Fractional lethal dose (irritants)
FLDHCl
FLD
acrolein
FLDform
FECIrr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fractional asphyxiant dose
FEDIco
FEDIcn
FLDirr
VCO
2
FED
Io2
FEDIN (asphyxiants)
FEDIN
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
1.35
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.15
0.00
2.01
0.00
0.45
0.50
0.13
1.52
0.01
3.32
0.01
5.50
6.00
0.23
4.87
0.04
4.95
0.04
25.29
31.29
Fractional heat doses
FEDrad
FEDconv
FEDheat
FEDheat
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.27
0.27
0.30
0.00
1.84
1.84
2.14
2.54
14.67
17.21
19.35
2.54
14.67
17.21
36.55
The endpoint, escape impairment (for smoke obscuration and irritancy) or incapacitation (for heat
and asphyxiant gases) is reached when the FIC or FED value reaches 1.
Limiting values are emboldened. Lethal values are approximately 2-3 times incapacitating levels
for dose related parameters, and incapacitation 5-10 times the FIC.
David Purser
HER
David Purser
HER
Hazards in fire room from an armchair fire in a
house lounge
David Purser
HER
David Purser
HER
Hazards in open bedroom from an
armchair fire in a house lounge
David Purser
HER
Modelling conditions in under ventilated fires
How to calculate time-concentration curves for toxic gases, smoke and heat in defined
full-scale fire scenarios?
Fire Engineering calculations use t
2
HRR curves in BS7974
CFAST uses calorimeter HRR curves from test fires obtained using well-ventilated
combustion conditions
Problem: in practice HRR depends on interactions between compartment and
ventilation and decreases under vitiated combustion conditions
Fuel mass loss rates are then calculated using chemical heats of complete
combustion
Problem: in practice heat of combustion is a variable depending upon the combustion
conditions. So calculate mass loss rate from heat feedback and heat of gasification
then HRR from oxygen consumed?
CO yields tended to be treated as constant often using low well-ventilated values
Problem: CO, HCN and organics yields vary considerably with combustion conditions,
although yields of acid gases are more constant.
David Purser
HER
Modelling conditions in under ventilated fires
Current work:
Exploring use of tube-furnace data on relationships between equivalence
ratio and toxic product yields and heats of combustion as inputs to computer
fire models for vitiated fires - Anna Stec UCLAN is currently working with
this method and speaking about its use for toxicity evaluation next.
Use CFAST and FDS to model full-scale vitiated compartment fires for which
we have a considerable database
To validate the modelling methods against full-scale compartment fires
Katrin Greewolls has started working in this area and is speaking about
some of the effects of input variables on calculated conditions in a scale
room-corridor rig using FDS
David Purser
HER
Yields versus equivalence ratios BRE tube furnace
Relationship between Phi and effective heat of combustion at
650oC
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Phi
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
h
e
a
t
o
f
c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n
m
J
/
k
g
PMMA LDPE Polystyrene
Blue foam polyamide PIR foam, 700oC
MDF wood plywood
Boucle fabric Boucle - FR Velour
PVC PAN
David Purser
HER
Yields versus equivalence ratios BRE tube furnace
Combustion efficiency vs. phi
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Phi
c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
wood plywood MDF
LDPE PMMA polyamide
CMHR PU foam PVC PIR foam 700 oC
Boucle (acrylic,wool,PE) Boucle-FR Velour
polystyrene PAN
Most materials had combustion
efficiencies of 0.90-1.0 (phi = 0.5),
some decreasing to 80-90% (phi = 1)
(aliphatics, cellulosics n-containing)
Aromatic (polystrene) max 0.8
FR-boucle fabric max 0.8
PVC max 0.6
Linear decreases above phi = 1
measured at 0.55 at phi = 2
David Purser
HER
CO yields versus equivalence ratios BRE tube furnace
For materials leaving no residue phi was
calculated from the stoichiometric oxygen
demand of the whole material
For char formers the char was considered as
100% carbon and unavailable as fuel for phi
calculation
Most materials have low CO yields (< 0.05 g/g
mass loss) for phi <1 (unless heavily FR)
Phi > 1 sigmoid with a plateau ~ phi = 1.75-2.0
Materials fell into groups:
High max yields up to 0.55 g/g : PMMA,
Polyamide
Low max yields up to 0.14 g/g : cellulosics
Heavily halide FR materials (PVC, Boucle-FR)
almost constant yield across range
Effects of oxygen: for a given phi lower CO
yields in air than in 10-12% O
2
/N
2
mixtures
Effects of temperature: at 850C somewhat
higher CO yields in some cases
Relationship between Phi and COyields
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Phi
Y
i
e
l
d
C
O
(
g
/
g
)
PMMA LDPE Polystyrene
CMHR PU foam polyamide 6 PIR foam, 700oC
PVC MDF wood
plywood Boucle(acrylic,wool,PE) Boucle - FR
Velour (acrylic,cotton,PE) PMMA, 10 or 12%O2 LDPE 10 or 12% O2
PIRfoam 10 or 12% O2 MDF10 or 12% O2 PMMA850oC
PMMA, 850oC 10 or 12% O2 LDPE 850oC LDPE 850oC 10 or 12% O2
plyamide, 850oC polyamide 850cC 10 or 12% O2 PAN
y
David Purser
HER
HCN yields versus equivalence ratios ISO tube furnace
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Equivalence ratio
Y
i
e
l
d
H
C
N
(
g
/
g
)
CMHR PU foam
CMHR PU foam 850oC
PIR foam, 700oC
polyamide 6
MDF
Boucle (acrylic,wool,polyester)
Boucle FR
Velour (acrylic,cotton,polyester)
Polyamide 6, 12 or 10%O2
MDF 12 or 10%O2
Polyamide 6 850oC
Polyamide 6 850oC 10 or 12%O2r
PAN
PAN 850oC
MDF 850oC
Plywood
MDF-FR
HCN yields show a sigmoid
relationship with phi as does CO, with
low yields at low phi values, increasing
steeply when phi >1.
Under vitiated combustion conditions
at 650C wide range from 0.00035 g/g
MDF to 0.78 g/g PAN
Yields of some sensitive to
temperature and/or oxygen
concentration (highest of all PA6
850C 10% Oxygen: 0.11 g/g)
Variation due to:
Differences in nitrogen content
Differences in conversion
efficiency of fuel N to HCN
For some materials increased
yields at higher temperatures or
in 10% or 12% oxygen
Yield curve flat for fire retarded
materials
David Purser
HER
Phi and NO yields versus equivalence ratios BRE tube furnace
Relationship between Phi and NOyields
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.015
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Phi
Y
i
e
l
d
N
O
(
g
/
g
)
CMHRPUfoam
PIR foam, 700oC
polyamide 6
MDF
Boucle (acrylic,wool,polyester)
Boucle FR
Velour (acryl ic,cotton,pol yester)
Polyamide 6, 12 and 10%O2
MDF 12 and 10%O2
PIR 700oC 12 and 10% O2
PIR 850oC
PIR 850oC, 12% o2
Polyamide 6 850oC
Polyamide 6 850oC10 or 12%O2r
Plywood
PAN
PAN 850oC
MDF 850oC
David Purser
HER
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO recovery (fraction)
C
N
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
CMHR PUfoam
Polyamide
PIR foam
MDF
Boucle (acrylic,wool,PE)
Boucle-FR
Velour (acrylic,cotton,PE)
PAN
MDF 10 or 12% O2
MDF-FR
In fire tests and fire
models, CO is measured
but HCN seldom.
If CO and HCN recoveries
are similar then HCN
recovery can be
estimated from CO
recovery
Conversion of fuel nitrogen to HCN compared to conversion
of fuel carbon to CO ISO 19700 tube furnace
David Purser
HER
Particulate yields versus equivalence ratios BRE tube furnace
Relationship between Phi and particulate yields at 650oC
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Phi
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
y
i
e
l
d
g
/
g
)
PMMA LDPE Polystyrene
CMHR PU foam polyamide PIR foam, 700oC
MDF wood plywood
Boucle fabric Boucle - FR Velour
PVC PAN MDF 10 or 12%O2
PMMA10 or 12%O2 LDPE 10 or 12%O2 PIR 10 or 12%O2
Polyamide 6 10 or 12%O2
David Purser
HER
Fire test rigs
Room corridor
Apartment
House
Target room
Fire
load
Sliding panel
Fire room
Corridor
Vent 1
Vent 2
Calorimeter
hood
Fire
load
Sliding panel
Fire room
Corridor
David Purser
HER
Apartment fires ventilation and peak
temperatures
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
w
o
o
d
w
o
o
d
w
o
o
d
+
P
M
M
A
w
o
o
d
+
P
V
C
w
o
o
d
w
o
o
d
w
o
o
d
c
h
a
i
r
N
F
R
c
h
a
i
r
N
F
R
c
h
a
i
r
N
F
R
c
h
a
i
r
N
F
R
c
h
a
i
r
F
R
c
h
a
i
r
F
R
c
h
a
i
r
F
R
c
h
a
i
r
F
R
c
h
a
i
r
F
R
c
h
a
i
r
N
F
R
c
h
a
i
r
F
R
f
u
l
l
y
f
u
r
n
N
F
R
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
o
C
a
n
d
d
o
o
r
m
m
doorway opening peak temperature in fire room
House
Target room
Fire
load
Sliding panel
Fire room
Corridor
Vent 1
Apartment
Room vents
Room-corridor
Vent 2
Calorimeter
hood
Fire
load
Sliding panel
Fire room
Corridor
David Purser
HER
Fully furnished house fire
David Purser
HER
Average yields for apartment and
house fire tests
Average product yields for different fire rigs and fuels
Room
corridor
(in plume)
wood
cribs
Room
corridor
room
wood
cribs
Room
corridor
room
chairs
House
Lounge/hall
bedroom
Chairs
House
Lounge
enclosed
Mass loss (kg) 100 17.8 7.0 4.3 3.5
Oxygen % 1.4 3.7 (12)* 4.3 (14.3) 6.9 (15.5) 6.0 (13.2)
CO
2
/CO 3.7 4.9 (5.8) 7.4 (10.8) 8.0 (8.6) 4.3 (3.9)
CO% 4.7 3.2 (1.4) 1.7 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 1.7 (1.4)
CO kg//kg 0.24 0.10 0.09 0.13 0.18
Fuel carbon %
as CO
23.4 10.0 5.8 10.5 15.7
HCN ppm 2191 (605) 1399 (489) 1499 (1200)
HCN kg/kg 0.011 0.012 0.043
Fuel nitrogen
% as HCN
4.4 7.7 13.9
* peak and (after extinction)
David Purser
HER
Plume CO versus plume oxygen for all
fires
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Plume oxygen %
P
l
u
m
e
C
O
%
Wood + PMMA
Wood
open room corridor
Wood
Wood + PVC
Wood
enclosed apartment
Wood
Wood
Chair non-FR covers
enclosed house
Chair FR covers
David Purser
HER
Half-scale ISO 9795 room-corridor rig
B
D
A
1.2 m
Smoke
meter
0.3 m
4.8 m
1.2 m
1.2 m
0.74 m
1.2 m
0.59 m
Gas sampling ports and
thermocouples
Crib
Inlet baffle plate with
various orifices and pitot
tube
Variable width
outlet baffle
panels
C
0.45 m
1.8 m
David Purser
HER
Large-scale validations against BRE tube furnace half
scale room corridor rig and ISO 9705 room
David Purser
HER
Room-corridor experiment MDF crib
Room corridor test 3, MDF crib, 5.0 cm ventilation, Sample period: 6.67 9.67 min
Phi: min = 1.59, max = 1.70
RC 3 MDF crib , 5cm ventilation, Room and corridor data
6.67 9.67
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time from ignition (min)
C
O
2
(
%
)
,
C
O
(
%
)
,
T
e
m
p
(
o
C
/
1
0
0
)
S
m
o
k
e
(
O
D
/
m
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
O
2
(
%
)
,
SMK OD/m CO2 Room COroom
CO2 corridor oC room /100 oCcorridor /100
oC smk meter /100 O2 room O2 corridor
David Purser
HER
Conclusions
Fire effluent toxicity involves a set of physiological effects occurring over
different time-scales, which are either primarily concentration-related (smoke
and irritants) or dose-related (asphyxiants and heat)
Toxic hazard is a property of a full-scale system depending upon the time-
varying dynamics of fire growth and effluent spread in specific fire scenarios
Toxic product yields vary considerably with combustion conditions
The representation of toxicity in terms of a single number obtained in a
small-scale toxicity test is therefore not realistic.
Rather, toxic hazards should be expressed in terms to tenability times in end-
use scenarios, measured or calculated using full-scale tests, or fire dynamics
modelling and test data, combined with physiological tenability algorithms
This approach, already in use for performance-based building design could
be developed to test products against standard end-use performance criteria
David Purser
HER
Irritant potencies of combustion products
Mass loss concentrations of thermal decomposition products predicted to be painfully
irritant (mouse RD
50
g/m
3
)
Material Temp.
(C)
NF/F* RD
50
g/m
3
mass loss
95%
confidence
limits
General materials:
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
as above
low density polyethylene
nylon-6
as above
polyvinylchloride (PVC) (rigid)
polyvinylchloride (plasticised)
as above
as above
Thermoplastic polyurethane
as above
Cable materials:
PVC insulation (plasticised)
PVC jacket (plasticised)
cross linked polyethylene (insul.)
as above XLPE (jacket)
Aircraft materials:
phenolic fibreglass
PVC decorative laminate
polycarbonate
phenolic oil fibreglass insulation
aluminised PVF/paper covering
Redux adhesive
silicone rubber
jointing compound JC5V
Viton sealant
Berger elastomer
500
600
500
480
600
400
380
600
650
425
600
550
550
550
550
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
NF
F
NF
NF
F
NF
NF
NF
F
NF
F
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
0.11
~1
0.05
0.47
~20
0.17
0.19
0.17
~2.6
0.20
~3
0.56
0.34
0.12
0.32
>9.1
0.10
0.25
0.05
0.37
0.10
0.06
0.18
0.21
1.38
0.07 - 0.17
0.03 - 0.07
0.29 - 1.10
0.12 - 0.25
0.09 - 0.28
0.12 - 0.22
0.14 - 0.96
0.39 - 1.00
0.27 - 0.47
0.09 - 0.17
0.20 - 0.32
0.06 - 0.16
0.01 - 0.29
0.07 - 0.32
0.15 - 0.27
1.12 - 1.80
BS7990
tube furnace
method (ISO
TS
19700:2006)
David Purser
HER
Effect of halogen content on CO yields under well-ventilated
flaming conditions BRE tube furnace
Relationship between halogen content and recoveries of hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide
from a five different materials (PMMA, MDF, PU foam, PIR foam and Boucle FR fabric) under well-
ventilated conditions (phi < 1)
Relationship between halogen content and COrecovery for
six different materials
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Chlorine or bromine content (%)
C
O
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Relationship between halogen content and hydrogen cyanide
recovery for different
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 2 4 6 8
chlorine or bromine content %
H
C
N
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
HCN recovery
CO recovery
David Purser
HER
Conversion of fuel nitrogen to HCN compared to conversion of fuel
carbon to CO BRE tube furnace and large-scale fires
Comparison of % recoveries of COand HCN
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
% conversion of fuel carbon to CO
%
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
f
u
e
l
n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
t
o
H
C
N
Chairs
NIST RPU
PIR BRE tube furnace.
PIR ISO9705
PIR room-corridor
PAN
CMHR foam
David Purser
HER
EXAMPLES OF IRRITANTS
Hydrogen chloride - No odour
ppm
<5 Minor nasal irritation can be detected below 5 ppm
(the OEL)
10 - 50 Perceived as irritant, but work is possible at up to
approximately 50 ppm.
50 - 100 Strongly irritant, and some people report exposure
to 100 ppm as being excruciatingly painful to the
eyes and respiratory tract.
309 Mouse RD
50
1000-2000 Brief exposure regarded as being dangerous to
lethal to humans,
3800 Lethal exposure dose to rats for a 30-minute
exposure, representing an exposure dose of
114,000 ppm.min
15,000 5 minute lethal exposure concentration in rats and
baboons is around 15,000 ppm.
David Purser
HER
What is a realistic method for evaluating toxic hazard?
Determine time-concentration curves for toxic gases, smoke and heat in defined
full-scale fire scenarios using:
Full-scale fire tests
Full-scale fire modelling using zone or CFD models with input data from
appropriate large and small-scale tests
Calculate toxic hazard in terms of times to different tenability endpoints using
appropriate physiological models (such as ISO 13571)
David Purser
HER
FED equations asphyxiants
For asphyxiants the effects of combinations are also approximately
additive, but a number of interactions needs to be considered:
The FED for CO and HCN are considered directly additive as has been
demonstrated experimentally
It is considered that the effects of irritants on lung function will also
cause some hypoxia and so an additive term is included consisting of
the FLD
irr
All these will be increased according to VCO
2
Low oxygen hypoxia will be additive with the overall effects, but is not
increased by VCO
2
(in fact it is improved)
The intoxicating effects of CO
2
are considered unlikely to occur before
other effects so are normally ignored, but can be considered an or
term in the equation
Asphyxiants:
FED
IN
= (FED
Ico
+ FED
Icn
+ FLD
irr
) x VCO
2
+ FED
Io
David Purser
HER
Toxic effects of gas mixtures
Fire gases are mixtures of irritants and asphyxiants
Asphyxiants cause death during exposure due to brain hypoxia
Irritants cause death after exposure due to lung inflammation
Toxicity models assume different asphyxiants are basically additive with
each other, and different irritants are also basically proportionally
additive with each other which more or less makes sense
But in terms of overall lethality it is also assumed that all toxic products
are basically proportionally additive. In practice it is to be expected
that asphyxiants and irritants would act independently
Rats have been exposed to a wide variety of toxic fire gas effluent
mixtures to measure lethal exposure doses.
By comparing the calculation models to the data it is possible to
determine if the different components act additively or not
David Purser
HER
N-gas model against rat data
HER
Non-flaming y = 2.3636x - 16.629
R
2
= 0.5455
Flaming y = 1.2461x - 3.2924
R
2
= 0.6913
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Actual LC50 g/m
3
mass charge (30 minutes exposure + 14 days observation)
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
L
C
5
0
g
/
m
3
m
a
s
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Levin Ngas LC50 flaming
Actual LC50
Levin Ngas LC50 non-flaming
Linear (Levin Ngas LC50 non-
flaming)
Linear (Levin Ngas LC50
flaming)
LC
50
concentrations calculated using the Levin N-gas model compared with measured rat
LC
50
concentrations for different materials decomposed under non-flaming and flaming
combustion conditions
David Purser
HER
Lethal toxic potency of mixtures in rats
The current version of the N-gas model for total deaths (during and after exposure) is as follows:
FED = m [CO] + 21-[O
2
] + ( [HCN] x 0.4[NO
2
] ) + 0.4[NO
2
] + [HCl] + [HBr]
[CO
2
] b 21-LC
50
O
2
LC
50
HCN LC
50
NO
2
LC
50
NO
2
LC
50
HCl LC
50
HBr
Fractional Effective Dose (FED) =
( [CO] + [CN] [NOx] + [each acid gas] + [each organic irritant] ) x V
CO2
+ A + ___1__ [5]
LC
50
CO LC
50
HCN LC
50
each gas LC
50
each organic irritant hypoxia function
where:
VCO
2
multiplication factor for CO
2
driven hyperventilation = 1+ (exp (0.14 x [CO
2
])-1)/2
A is an acidosis factor = ([CO
2
] x 0.05) - 0.02
Hypoxia function = exp( 8.13-0.54 x [21-O
2
])
[CN] represents the concentration of cyanide
[NOx] represents the summed concentration of NO and NO
2