Note on the source: This text is my analytical summary based on the independent review article by engineer-researcher Robert Śliwiński (Scientific and Research Centre for Fire Protection – National Research Institute, CNBOP-PIB, Poland), published in Safety & Fire Technology, Vol. 66, No. 2 (2025), pp. 146–167: “Condensed Aerosol Generators in Fire Safety of Buildings. Part 2 – Selected Issues Related to Design, Installation and Maintenance”. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12845/sft.66.2.2025.9
Short and to the point: why manufacturers’ marketing claims often diverge from real risks and consequences.
- Risk to people: this is not a “safe agent” — it is a cloud of hot particles and toxic by-products Discharge creates a dense cloud with near-zero visibility. A person can lose orientation and fail to find an exit in seconds. Toxic by-products (CO, NOx, ammonia) are released; particles deposit in the respiratory tract causing acute and chronic effects. Thermal hazards (up to 400 °C at outlet) increase danger. Claims of “safe to stay in the room” without independent proof are a direct threat to life.
- Fire and thermal hazard risk + real fatal incidents The generator produces a localized high-temperature flow. Near the nozzle — high-temperature zone, risk of igniting nearby combustibles, cables, insulation. Critical in confined spaces (ships, technical compartments). Real cases:
- RESURGAM (MAIB report): accidental FirePro discharge during installation in the engine room of a trawler. A young engineer died from inhalation of hot aerosol and high CO concentrations (post-mortem: 31.7% carboxyhemoglobin, pulmonary inhalation injury). MAIB conclusion: aerosol is hazardous when inhaled in significant quantities; manufacturer did not indicate risks in documentation.
- Siam Commercial Bank, Bangkok: accidental Pyrogen (aerosol type) discharge during system upgrade in the bank basement. 8 people died (7 contractors + 1 security guard), 7 injured — gas displaced oxygen causing asphyxiation in the confined space.
- Electronics and data centers: after “extinguishing” infrastructure destruction often begins Aerosol is not a clean agent. It leaves alkaline residue (pH 8–10) that causes corrosion. Copper (main metal in PCBs and contacts) is especially vulnerable (XXX on corrosion scale). Damage grows over time (24–48 h+). Independent standards (NFPA 76, FM Global, Allianz, Euralarm, VdS) prohibit or severely restrict use in data centers and telecom due to equipment damage risk and difficult cleanup.
- “Greenness” is a substitution of meaning Yes, no ozone depletion and no O₂ consumption. But toxic by-products, residue requiring disposal, and health risks make “green” a marketing label that hides real costs and threats.
- “No maintenance for 10–15 years” — dangerous exaggeration Any system capable of creating a lethal trap on accidental activation requires regular inspection, interlocks, alarms, and competent maintenance. Ignoring this risks failure or tragedy.
- Main problem — market model: lack of mandatory independent safety verification Products are approved based on manufacturer’s paper certificates without real scenario safety testing. Manufacturer sells marketing, installer bears liability, consequences fall on the client — and sometimes on people’s lives.
Conclusion Aerosol systems are a technology with serious limitations and real risks to people and property. Not a universal replacement for clean agents. Fire safety is physics, toxicology, evacuation, and post-discharge consequences. The market must demand verifiable independent data, not trust brochures.
#FireSafety #AerosolSystems #FireProtection #DataCenters #SafetyFirst
