Dr. Daniel T. Gottuk Joshua B. Dinabug SUPDET 2014
PROJECT OVERVIEW NFPA 72-2013 updated requirements for household smoke alarms: 29.8.3.4(5): Effective 1/1/16, smoke alarms and smoke detectors used in household fire alarm systems between 6 ft (1.8 m) and 20 ft (6.1 m) along a horizontal flow path from a stationary or a fixed cooking appliance shall be listed for resistance to common nuisance sources from cooking. 29.7.3: Effective 1/1/19, smoke alarms and smoke detectors used in household fire alarm systems shall be listed for resistance to common nuisance sources. No existing definition of what resistance to common nuisance sources means. 1
OBJECTIVE Provide a framework for defining nuisance resistant listing: Develop a technical basis to: Assess the impact of reducing nuisance alarms Identify the common nuisance sources Develop standardized test protocols Define criteria for evaluation of tested devices Phase 1 Effort: Review existing literature Identify gaps toward creating standard Develop test plan to address gaps 2
APPROACH Review existing literature Fire statistics Quantify fire deaths relation to nuisance alarms Residential Surveys / Studies Identify nuisance sources Correlate nuisances to disabling/removal of alarms Laboratory testing Indoor air quality analyses and smoke alarm nuisance activation tests Quantify and characterize nuisance particulate Evaluate response of smoke alarms to simulated nuisances Assess previous work to develop standardized tests Identify remaining gaps Develop test plan to address 3
LITERATURE REVIEW Studies evaluating smoke alarms in homes: Fire statistics relating missing alarms and deaths 2/3 of fire deaths occur in homes without functional alarms [1] Smoke alarms present but do not operate in 1 in 4 fire deaths Missing/disconnected batteries in 1 of every 8 fire deaths No alarm installed in 2 of every 5 fire deaths Residential installation studies and surveys Provide alarms / monitor alarms in real homes Determine causes and quantities of nuisance alarms Determine number of working alarms after specified duration Assess correlations to disabled alarms Alarm type (photo v. ion, battery type, hush feature, etc.) Installation location Number of nuisance alarms 4
LITERATURE REVIEW Experimental Testing: Smoke Alarm Evaluations Simulate nuisance sources in lab setting Record responses of installed alarms Characterize and categorize various particulate Number/mass concentration Particle size Indoor air quality evaluations Health considerations of cooking particulate in addition to potential for alarm Quantify and characterize the particulate/gas production by cooking methods 5
LITERATURE REVIEW Studies evaluating smoke alarms in homes: Nuisances occurring in 43-86% of homes [1, 2] Cooking responsible for 30-90% of nuisances [3, 4] Up to 70% of alarms installed in kitchens disabled [5] Frying 52-77% of cooking nuisances [6, 7] Baking (15-36%) Boiling (9-20%) Toasting (9-14%) Water mist (shower) cause 40% of nuisances in one study [8] Dust/cigarette smoke related more to long term contamination than direct exposure nuisances [7, 9] 6
LITERATURE REVIEW Up to ~1235 annual deaths could potentially be affected by eliminating nuisance alarms (deaths with missing/disconnected alarms) Related Statistical Observations: 14% of people would disable an alarm due to nuisances [1] 25% increase in non-functional alarms in kitchens compared to rest of home [5] 2.5% of people disable alarms because of nuisances, while 17% of all alarms not functional [8] Among non-functional alarms, 70% disconnected power, 16% physically removed alarm [7] Battery lifetime and hush features increase likelihood of alarms remaining operational [10,11] 15% of alarms have missing/disconnected batteries (4.8% removed due to nuisance, 4.5% forgot to replace battery) [12] 59% of failed alarms are disconnected and 28% of disconnected alarms had nuisance problems [3] 7
LITERATURE REVIEW Experimental Testing: Smoke Alarm Evaluations Response of alarms correlated to number and size of particles Ionization number x diameter Photoelectric mass concentration number x diameter 2 Both alarm types affected by residential nuisance sources Different cooking methods produce particles of differing sizes Toasting bread Small particles Frying meat Large particles 8
LITERATURE REVIEW Experimental Testing: Indoor air quality evaluations Number of particles affected by cooking methods Higher temperature More particulate Higher fat concentration More particulate 9
TEST PLAN DEVELOPMENT The steps to develop a standardized test: Selection and categorization of nuisance sources Challenging yet realistic Representative of a broad array of potential sources Methods for re-creation of common nuisance sources Demonstration of repeatability/reproducibility Configuration of the test space Size and ventilation Alarm installation Measurements and instrumentation Methodology for evaluation of a smoke alarm/detector Demonstration of valid test Define threshold between nuisance v. hazardous alarm response Criteria for obtaining nuisance resistant listing 10
GAP TEST PLAN TASK 1: Survey to Correlate Nuisance Alarms to Disablement and Removal Existing studies indicate relationship Lacking comprehensive data Cost-benefit analysis 11
GAP TEST PLAN TASK 2: Selection of the Test Space Test space affects particle concentrations Smaller space is more challenging to alarm NFPA 72 allows installation as close as 6 ft to appliance Select a standardized test space Identify typical kitchen sizes Representative of real kitchens Small to increase challenge to nuisance prevention Large enough to include 10 ft alarm spacing from source 12
GAP TEST PLAN TASK 3: Characterization of Cooking Nuisance Sources Select representative cooking methods Causing real nuisance alarms in homes Represent wide array of particle sizes affect array of detection technologies Toasting bread (small), broiling burgers (medium), frying burgers (large) [13] Verify particle sizes produced in previous work 13
GAP TEST PLAN TASK 3: Characterization of Cooking Nuisance Sources Parametric evaluation of factors on nuisance particulate production Most challenging realistic scenarios Repeatability and Reproducibility Food condition (stale, frozen, handmade) Fat content Cooking temperatures Food type/brand Pan sizes and material Heat sources (gas, electric, smooth top) 14
GAP TEST PLAN TASK 3: Characterization of Cooking Nuisance Sources Establish requirements for test repeatability Identify instrumentation needed for standard test to demonstrate reproducibility Establish criteria for threshold between alarm/nuisance 15
GAP TEST PLAN TASK 4: Characterization of Non-cooking Nuisances Evaluate potential water mist sources Characterize water aerosol Evaluate response of alarms Evaluate representative dust sources Characterize long fiber dust sources (vacuum, dryer lint, etc.) Methods for standardizing residential dust source Investigate the effects of long term dust/cigarette smoke on nuisance alarms 16
GAP TEST PLAN TASK 5: Consensus Development of Test Criteria Standardized sources Criteria for conduct of valid test Thresholds between nuisance and valid alarms Minimum requirements for listing as nuisance resistant 17
REFERENCES [1] Ahrens, M., Smoke Alarms in U.S. Home Fires, NFPA 2011, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, September 2011. [2] Fazzini, Perkins, R. and Grossman D., Ionization and Photoelectric Smoke Alarms in Rural Alaskan Homes, Western Journal of Medicine, 173 (2), August 2000, pp. 89 92. [3] Smith, L. Fire Incident Study: National Smoke Detector Project, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD, 1995 [4] Mueller, B. et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of Ionization and Photoelectric Smoke Alarm Functionality, Injury Prevention, 2008, 14, pp. 80 86. [5] Wilson, J. et al. Evaluation of the 10-Year Smoke Alarm Project, National Center for Healthy Housing, Prepared for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, October 2008. [6] Lee, A. and Pineda, D., Smoke Alarms Pilot Study of Nuisance Alarms Associated with Cooking, CPSC, Bethesda, Maryland, March 2010. [7] Kuklinski D., Berger L., and Weaver J., Smoke Detector Nuisance Alarms: A Field Study in a Native American Community, NFPA Journal, 90 (5), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 1996, pp. 65 72. [8] Mickalide, A. and Validzic, A, Smoke Alarm Maintenance in Low Income Families, American Journal of Public Health, 89 (10), October 1999, p. 1584. [9] Shapiro J., Smoke Detector Operability Survey, Engineering Laboratory Analysis, Appendix B. Engineering Analysis Report, revised, Shapiro J. US Consumer Product Safety Commission, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Division of Engineering Laboratory, Bethesda, MD, October 1994. [10] Rowland D. et al., Prevalence of Working Smoke Alarms In Local Authority Inner City Housing: Randomized Controlled Trial, British Medical Journal (BMJ), 325, 2002, pp. 998 1001. [11] Yang, J., Jones, M.P., Cheng, G., Ramirez, M., Taylor, C., and Peek-Asa, C., Do Nuisance Alarms Decrease Functionality of Smoke Alarms Near The Kitchen? Findings from a randomized control trial, Journal of Injury Prevention, 17 (3), June 2011, pp. 160-165. [12] Smith, C.L., Smoke Detector Operability Survey Report on Findings, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC, February 18, 1994 (Revised October 1994). [13] Chernovsky, A. and Cleary, T., Smoke Alarm Performance in Kitchen Fires and Nuisance Alarm Scenarios" NIST TN-1784 Report, January 2013, 80 p. 18
QUESTIONS CONTACT Dr. Daniel T. Gottuk, Ph.D, PE P 410.737.8677 dgottuk@haifire.com FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT www.haifire.com 19