Team:FCB-UANL/Proof Of Concept
Results
FLIGHT TESTS
REFERENCES
Once we accomplished the dry and wet-lab objectives we set at the beginning of the season, we decided to advance further with our project and make a proof of concept. Since we had already determined the concentrations required for our foam to have an optimal functioning (for more information go to our engineering success), we irradiated our sonicated Ranaspumin extracts and carried out the proper tests in order to be sure our foam did not contain any living material or DNA able to confer antibiotic resistance, which are further described in our safety section.
After concluding our formulation was safe to take outside of the lab based on the negative results obtained for the experiments previously mentioned, and after obtaining the consent of the iGEM Safety and Security Committee (further details in our safety section), we carried out the fire tests. All the protocols were made following the safety considerations explained in our safety section. In addition, we want to specially thank Rescueteam Mx for allowing us to use their facilities and guiding us through all the fire tests development, as well as the result analysis. The tests’ outcome is explained later in this section.
In addition to those tests, we also built and designed a prototype of the autonomous drone as an alternative and method for foam dispersal (information about the programming and design is provided in our proposed implementation section) with the help of the experts from the Center for Research and Innovation in Aeronautical Engineering (CIIIA). With these tests, we are demonstrating our project is likely to work on fire incidents and, complemented by a scaling-up plan (which is described in our entrepreneurship section), it could be possible to have our foam in the market.
FIRE TESTS
The composition of our 200 mL solution is: 51 mg (120 mL) of total Rsn-2, 20 mg (40 mL) of total Rsn-3, and 8 mg (40 mL) of total Rsn-3-5. Giving a total Ranaspumins content of 79 mg in a 200 mL concentrate, with a concentration of 0.39 mg/mL. Further information of how we determined the foam composition is provided in our engineering success section.
According to our project objectives, we tested our foam in type A and B fires. Type A fires are those involving ash-leaving material or with a burning ember, such as wood or paper; on this type, heat removing is the most efficient mechanism to extinguish the fire. On the other side, type B fires are those whose fuel are flammable liquids or gas, such as gasoline and solvents (1).
For the tests developed, we used water as the control since it is the most used method for type A fires (1), and the most accessible for type B fires, according to our stakeholders contributions. In addition, it was also used as control because it does not represent a toxic hazard as opposed to other combat methods such as current foams which contain any harmful chemicals.
During the tests, we took into consideration the fire tetrahedron, a model describing the factors needed for a fire to occur; those are fuel, heat, oxygen and the chain reaction. Generally, firefighting methods act by cooling, avoiding more oxygen to enter the area of the fire, or neutralizing fire (this means, interrupting the chain reaction), since the removal of the fuel is not usually possible (1).
Besides the ability of Synbiofoam to extinguish fire, we also sought to evaluate the fire rekindle, which describes the ability of a fire to re-ignite after being extinguished. A rekindle event is considered an indicator of a poor fire combat capacity. Since it is more frequent on forest fires, we decided to only test this factor on type A fires (2).
The results obtained are summarized in the following table.
According to our project objectives, we tested our foam in type A and B fires. Type A fires are those involving ash-leaving material or with a burning ember, such as wood or paper; on this type, heat removing is the most efficient mechanism to extinguish the fire. On the other side, type B fires are those whose fuel are flammable liquids or gas, such as gasoline and solvents (1).
For the tests developed, we used water as the control since it is the most used method for type A fires (1), and the most accessible for type B fires, according to our stakeholders contributions. In addition, it was also used as control because it does not represent a toxic hazard as opposed to other combat methods such as current foams which contain any harmful chemicals.
During the tests, we took into consideration the fire tetrahedron, a model describing the factors needed for a fire to occur; those are fuel, heat, oxygen and the chain reaction. Generally, firefighting methods act by cooling, avoiding more oxygen to enter the area of the fire, or neutralizing fire (this means, interrupting the chain reaction), since the removal of the fuel is not usually possible (1).
Besides the ability of Synbiofoam to extinguish fire, we also sought to evaluate the fire rekindle, which describes the ability of a fire to re-ignite after being extinguished. A rekindle event is considered an indicator of a poor fire combat capacity. Since it is more frequent on forest fires, we decided to only test this factor on type A fires (2).
The results obtained are summarized in the following table.
| Fire type and fuel | Test specifications | Synbiofoam’s behavior | Control test behavior |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test 1: Combat of type A fire (paper, coal, and wood) | The fuel was previously set on fire and the combat product was added using an atomizer. | It extinguished the fire faster than water, and did not show fast evaporation. It rapidly cooled and thus neutralized the fire. | Water: It extinguished the fire slower than synbio foam, and more mL were needed. Fire neutralization and cooling were poor. |
| Test 2: Type A fire rekindle (paper, coal, and wood) | The fuel previously turned off for test 1 was exposed to a strong airstream to see the effect of the remaining combat product on the fuel. | The fire needed additional oxygen addition (being exposed to a strong airstream) to rekindle. | Water: The fire quickly rekindled, even without additional oxygen addition. |
| Test 3: Combat of type A fire (textiles: polyester + cotton fibers) | A piece of oakum was set on fire and the combat product was added using an atomizer. | It moistened the material, but did not cool it. Apparently, it is not able to penetrate and interrupt the fire chain reaction. | Water: It did not moisten or cool the material. It has no effect turning off the fire. |
| Test 4: Combat of type B fire (gasoline) | 10 mL of gasoline were set on fire on a thermic resistant glass, and the combat product was added over the superficial flame using an atomizer. | It immediately extinguished the fire. The flame did not rekindle on the remaining fuel. | Water: it evaporated while being added, and did not extinguish the fire. The flame turned off until the fuel was completely consumed,even with the continuous water application. |
| Test 5: Combat of type B fire (thinner) | 10 mL of thinner were set on fire on a thermic resistant glass, and the combat product was added over the superficial flame using an atomizer. | It extinguished and cooled the fire, but not as fast as on test 4. Once the flames were turned off, the fire did not rekindle. | Water: it evaporated while being added, and did not extinguish the fire. The flame turned off until the fuel was completely consumed,even with the continuous water application. |
| Test 6: Combat of type B (70% ethanol) | 10 mL of ethanol (70%) were set on fire on a thermic resistant glass, and the combat product was added over the superficial flame using an atomizer. | It did not extinguish or cool the fire. The flame turned off until the fuel was completely consumed. | Water: It did not extinguish the fire. The flame turned off until the fuel was completely consumed. |
RESULTS ANALYSIS
From the six tests, Synbiofoam showed the most efficient extinguishing ability with type B fires, especially with gasoline, but it still showed more efficiency than water on type A fires. Nevertheless, the less efficient behaviour was with synthetic textiles as the fuel, as it cooled the fire but did not extinguish it. Regarding fires with alcohol as the fuel, it showed no efficiency, since it did not extinguish or cool the fire at all. Rekindle tests were carried out on type A fires, but only for paper, coal, and wood as fuels, since Synbiofoam was not able to completely extinguish fire on synthetic textiles, thus not accomplishing the requirements to evaluate fire rekindle.
Overall, it can be said that Synbiofoam is highly efficient for type B fires with non-polar liquids as fuels, but it is not the case with polar substances. In the case of type A fires, it is more efficient than water to extinguish fire, but it is not efficient with synthetic polymers. It is efficient at both cooling and interrupting the chain reaction, but its action of avoiding oxygen to enter can still be improved. Hence, our initial objective of creating an eco-friendly and more efficient alternative for forest and industrial fires was successfully accomplished.
Images taken during the fire tests:
Overall, it can be said that Synbiofoam is highly efficient for type B fires with non-polar liquids as fuels, but it is not the case with polar substances. In the case of type A fires, it is more efficient than water to extinguish fire, but it is not efficient with synthetic polymers. It is efficient at both cooling and interrupting the chain reaction, but its action of avoiding oxygen to enter can still be improved. Hence, our initial objective of creating an eco-friendly and more efficient alternative for forest and industrial fires was successfully accomplished.
Images taken during the fire tests:
FLIGHT TESTS
After building the prototype with the parts and considerations explained in our proposed implementation section, we used a drone Flame Wheel F450 series of the DJI company to carry out the flight tests for our proof of concept; it was generously provided to us by the Center for Research and Innovation in Aeronautical Engineering (CIIIA, for its acronym in Spanish) of our university, whose team work also helped us to develop both the design of the drone and the tests on its performance.
Images of the flight tests:
A flight test was carried out with the foam launcher device assembled and programmed, coupled to the drone. It took place at the facilities of the Gaspar Mass Stadium of our university, as suggested by the proper authorities of the Center for Research and Innovation in Aeronautical Engineering (CIIIA). Next, we show a video of the fire test. The total flight time was 4 minutes, the drone was able to both carry the foam (which in this case was not the ranaspumin concentrate we generated) and activate its dispersal without losing equilibrium, and landed successfully.
The next video shows the tests we made:
Images of the flight tests:
The next video shows the tests we made:
REFERENCES
- Voelkert, J.C. (2009). Fire and fire extinguishment, a brief guide to fire chemistry and extinguishment theory for fire equipment service technicians. AMEREX fire.
- Pacheco, A.P., Claro, J. & Oliveira, T. (2014). Rekindles or one-σ quality in forest fire fighting: validating the pressure on firefighters and implications for forest fire management in Portugal. On Advances in forest fire research, 370. doi:10.14195/978-989-26-0884-6_99
Our 2020-2021 iGEM project is generously supported by
