Hidden risks in everyday buildings
For decades, aerosol fire suppression systems have been promoted as a “revolutionary” technology. They are installed in banks, data centers, ships, metro stations, and office buildings. But official investigations and court cases raise serious concerns about their safety when used in enclosed spaces.
Documented incidents
- Bangkok, 2016 — Eight people, including a child, died after a fire suppression discharge in a bank vault. Media reports state that a chemical cloud reduced oxygen and caused suffocation (Gulf Times).
- United Kingdom (Resurgam), 2019 — The UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) reported that an aerosol system inadvertently discharged, filling the engine room with dense particles. A young trainee inhaled these and died. MAIB later issued a formal safety warning about aerosol systems (Nautilus/MAIB).
- United States — In Federal Insurance Co. v. J. Gallant Elec. Servs., a U.S. court allowed claims to proceed against Fireaway Inc. after a fire suppression discharge allegedly caused major damage to IT equipment during renovation of a server room (Casemine).
Technical findings
Independent investigations and reports, including those by MAIB and ESAF, have documented that:
- Toxic gases such as CO and NOₓ can reach dangerous concentrations.
- Discharge temperatures may exceed 400 °C.
- Dense aerosol particles can remain suspended in the air for hours, obstructing visibility and creating respiratory hazards.
- Sensitive electronic systems can be damaged even in the absence of fire.
Standards and regulation
- EN 15276-1:2019 specifies that extinguishing agents must not contain substances classified as explosives under transport regulations. However, some aerosol agents have been reported as chemically similar to pyrotechnic mixtures classified under UN0432, Class 1.4S.
- In the United States, a DOT exemption allows transport of these products under Class 9, creating regulatory complexity.
- NFPA 2010 references the EPA SNAP program for toxicological evaluation, a process that largely relies on manufacturer-submitted data rather than independent government testing.
Ongoing scrutiny
In 2025, after multiple formal complaints and release of internal documents, EPA, ANSI, and NFPA initiated internal reviews of certification practices, testing methods, and toxicology assessments related to aerosol suppression.
The bigger picture
Publicly available evidence shows that aerosol suppression, while effective at interrupting combustion, carries unresolved safety concerns in occupied spaces. Independent testing, clearer regulatory definitions, and more transparent toxicology reviews are needed before such systems can be considered reliably safe.
Disclaimer
This text is based on publicly available sources, including media reports (Gulf Times), official investigations (MAIB), and court records (Federal Insurance Co. v. J. Gallant Elec. Servs.). The author is not a manufacturer or seller of fire suppression systems and has no commercial interest. The purpose of this publication is to inform and encourage further independent research and regulatory review.
