首页> 外文期刊>Fire and materials >Fire Safety Improvements in the Combustion Toxicity Area: Is There a Role for LC_(50) Tests?
【24h】

Fire Safety Improvements in the Combustion Toxicity Area: Is There a Role for LC_(50) Tests?

机译:燃烧毒性区域的消防安全改进:LC_(50)测试是否起作用?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

It is a well-known fact that the bulk of fire fatalities can be attributed to the inhalation of toxic combustion gases. This single fact has led regulators in Europe, the US, and other industrialized countries to consider (and in some cases to adopt) requirements for testing of products with various tests for toxic potency, commonly expressed as LC_(50). The regulators have more recently been joined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which has been developing standards for LC_(50) and related variables. All of the standards considered so far have been limited to using only bench-scale test results. Engineers, however, have known for quite some time that the actual toxic effect from combustion gases must be viewed as a product of two factors: (a) the product's real-scale mass loss rate; and (b) its real-scale LC_(50). Thus, two issues can be seen to arise: (1) are real-scale values of LC_(50) adequately similar to the bench-scale ones; and (2) is the range of mass loss rates exhibited by various products small enough so that differences could be ignored and products ranked/rated solely by their LC_(50) values? This paper examines these questions by the use of a database of experimental results covering a wide range of building products. The analysis shows that far from being the dominant factor in the fire toxicity picture, LC_(50) is a minor constituent. For real products, LC_(50) values simply do not vary much. Mass loss rates, however, vary tremendously. Thus, it is demonstrated that the proper strategy for controlling fire toxicity hazard is by reducing the burning rate, not by attempting to make the effluent less toxic. These findings directly indicate that regulations based on controlling the LC_(50) cannot hope to address the proper concern of reducing fire fatalities.
机译:众所周知的事实是,大量火灾死亡可归因于有毒燃烧气体的吸入。这一事实促使欧洲,美国和其他工业化国家的监管机构考虑(并在某些情况下采用)对产品进行各种毒性毒性测试的测试要求(通常表示为LC_(50))。国际标准化组织(ISO)最近加入了监管机构,该组织一直在制定LC_(50)和相关变量的标准。迄今为止,所有考虑的标准都仅限于使用台式测试结果。然而,工程师们已经有相当长的时间知道燃烧气体产生的实际毒性作用必须视为两个因素的产物:(a)产品的实际质量损失率; (b)其实际比例LC_(50)。因此,可以看到出现了两个问题:(1)LC_(50)的实际比例值与基准比例值足够相似; (2)各种产品所表现出的质量损失率范围是否足够小,以至于差异可以忽略不计,并且仅通过其LC_(50)值对产品进行排名/定级?本文通过使用涵盖多种建筑产品的实验结果数据库来研究这些问题。分析表明,LC_(50)远不是火灾毒性图中的主要因素,而是次要成分。对于实际产品,LC_(50)值变化不大。但是,质量损失率差异很大。因此,证明了控制火灾毒性危害的适当策略是通过降低燃烧速率,而不是通过尝试使废水的毒性降低。这些发现直接表明,基于控制LC_(50)的法规不能希望解决减少火灾死亡的适当问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号