MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1489870890 · doi:10.4271/2004-01-3551

Potential Driver Exposure to Halons and Alternative Agents from On Board Fire Suppression Systems in Stock Cars

2004· article· en· W1489870890 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeremy Scharfenberg, Colm Kenny

Notice bibliographique

RevueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueFire Detection and Safety Systems
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésStock (firearms)On boardComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineeringMechanical engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

<div class="htmlview paragraph">This paper presents a review of the regulatory, environmental, and health issues surrounding the use of halons as a fire suppressant and a summary of the recently completed <i>Racecar Fire Suppressant Exposure Study</i> by ICF Consulting, Inc., under contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (<span class="xref">U.S. EPA, 2004a</span>). In 2003 the EPA learned that the SFI Foundation Inc., the organization responsible for developing safety regulations and testing requirements for numerous Performance Racing Industry (PRI) sanctioning bodies, was revising its Quality Assurance Specification for On Board Fire Suppression Systems (SFI Specification 17.1). The previous Specification 17.1 required either halon 1211 or halon 1301 to be used in these systems. Halons are ozone-depleting substances (ODS) widely used in fire protection applications and whose production and use are controlled under the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act (CAA). Emissions of halons lead to destruction of the earth's protective stratospheric ozone layer. Because halons are the most potent ozone depletors of the controlled ODS, the production and import of virgin halons<span class="xref"><sup>1</sup></span> was banned in the U.S. beginning in 1994. Since then, EPA has worked with industry and other affected organizations to develop, evaluate, and support adoption of alternatives to halons through EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. Alternatives to halons are now available and used in many new applications that formerly depended on halons. With the availability of approved alternatives, EPA was concerned that the draft of the new SFI specification still allowed for the use of halons 1211 and 1301 and that the potential risk to the driver from exposure during a discharge directly into the driver's compartment had not been fully considered. To address these concerns, EPA prepared a scoping analysis of possible fire suppressant agent concentrations that could be reached in a typical stock car due to the release under various scenarios. The study was not meant to determine acceptable quantities of an agent to be used, but to serve as an example of the type of analysis EPA believes should be considered to minimize driver exposure to potentially high concentrations of the agent.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The stock car scenario was modeled after what EPA understood to be reasonable race car metrics for the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) circuits and the agents included halons 1211 and 1301 as well as SNAP approved alternatives. This application was chosen because of the similarity in the dimensions of the driver's compartments of the stock car and truck body models to those of many other sanctioning bodies. From our model, the results of the study indicated that an “as designed” release of 5 lbs. of halon 1211 or 1301 into the driver's compartment could potentially create concentrations that would kill the driver. For the alternatives, at least one agent could reach the necessary concentration for fire extinguishment within the driver compartment while not posing a risk to the driver in both the car and truck body types. In the event of a catastrophic release of all agent from the system into the driver compartment, every agent reviewed would produce a potentially lethal concentration for the driver under the conditions modeled.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The finished analysis was reviewed by experts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Delphi Corporation, DuPont, 3M, and American Pacific, and their comments and the authors' responses are summarized in <span class="xref">Appendix A</span>. The results of this research have been presented to SFI as well as sanctioning bodies that use SFI's safety specifications. The goal is to promote the safe application of fire suppression agents, and the use of effective alternatives to halons 1211 and 1301.</div>

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,981
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,223
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesMême sujetFire Detection and Safety SystemsTravaux en français237 207