As fire risks diversify and fluorine-free foams dominate, Katie Tracy examines how selecting the right foam now depends on application, fuel behaviour and the delivery system
Firefighting foam used to be specified in broad categories, often driven by legacy approvals, familiarity, and what a site already held in stock. That approach is becoming harder to defend. Fuel blends are more diverse, fixed systems are more tightly regulated, and the industry is moving rapidly towards fluorine-free formulations.
At the same time, incident expectations have not relaxed. Foam still has to control vapours, knock down flames, resist burnback, and do it at realistic application rates, using the equipment that is actually installed.
In practice, foam performance is not a single property. It is the interaction between concentrate chemistry, water quality, proportioning accuracy, discharge device design, application technique, and the specific fuel behaviour. Standards reflect this complexity. In Europe, BS EN 1568 allocates performance classes for different foam types and fuels rather than operating as a simple pass or fail regime. For airports, ICAO levels A, B and C set different test conditions and application rates, with national regulators such as the UK CAA requiring specific test approaches.
In North America and many international projects, UL 162 links foam concentrate performance to the equipment intended to produce and discharge it, reinforcing that concentrate and hardware must be considered together.
Against this backdrop, application-led selection has become the most practical procurement discipline. The question is not which foam is best but which foam, at what concentration, through which hardware, for which fuel, at what application rate and with what operational objective is the solution.
Start With the Fuel, Not the Brand
The most common error in foam selection is treating fuel as a label rather than a behaviour. Hydrocarbons form one risk family, polar solvents another, and modern sites often hold both. Even within hydrocarbons, different boiling points and additives influence vapour generation and burnback. For polar solvents, miscibility with water changes everything.
This is where manufacturers increasingly focus on risk mapping and specification support rather than just product supply. Angus Fire, for example, has formalised transition and evaluation processes that consider hardware, operating parameters and stored fuels before recommending a fluorine-free replacement, because performance depends on the installed reality, not the brochure. Perimeter Solutions makes a similar point through its fluorine-free portfolio framing, emphasising variants for hydrocarbon and polar solvent fires, alongside training foam and specialty concentrates, acknowledging that one concentrate rarely covers every duty on complex sites.
For buyers, the practical starting point is a fuel inventory that includes worst-case scenarios: largest credible spill, highest volatility product, and any water-miscible liquids or blended fuels. Only then can you choose the concentrate type and concentration rate that fits the risk.
Hydrocarbon Pool Fires, Vapour Control and Burnback Resistance
Hydrocarbon storage, loading, and process areas remain core foam applications. Here the objective is often rapid knockdown and vapour suppression, followed by burnback resistance while operations stabilise. This is also where performance expectations are most tested by application technique. A foam that looks strong in gentle application may fail under forceful plunging or in high wind.
TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE READ THE LATEST ISSUE HERE.
