SmartMat (Jun 2024)

Thermo‐responsive fluorine‐free foam stabilized by PEO–PPO–PEO triblock copolymer (EO)100(PO)65(EO)100 for pool fire suppression

  • Ke Qiu,
  • Xiaoyang Yu,
  • Qian Li,
  • Huan Li,
  • Ning Kang,
  • Shouxiang Lu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/smm2.1232
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 5, no. 3
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Research and development of novel fluorine‐free materials to replace fluorinated aqueous film‐forming foam (AFFF) are crucial for improving pool fire suppression performance and protecting the environment. In this study, we report the thermo‐responsive fluorine‐free foam stabilized by triblock PEO–PPO–PEO copolymers (EO)100(PO)65(EO)100 for pool fire suppression. Small‐angle X‐ray scattering (SAXS) and reflected light interferometric techniques are conducted to study the molecular self‐assembly in bulk and film thinning behavior, and the foaming kinetics of copolymer solution and thermophysical properties of the liquid foam are studied by dynamic surface tension and oscillatory rheology analysis. At room temperature, the amphipathic structure of PEO–PPO–PEO makes it possible to absorb at the air–liquid interface forming large‐scale liquid foams containing the mobile films with a detergent state. Upon heating to the surface cooling temperature of burning oil, the mobile films can be actively switched into mechanically strong films with rigid surfaces. The in situ switching of the two interfacial states leads to the significant enhancement of the foam stability, especially under the dual defoaming effects of heat and oil. What's more, it is observed that the confinement of organized copolymer micelles in the Plateau borders and micellar self‐layering in film confinement induce drainage delay of foam and film's stepwise thinning phenomenon, further increasing film thickness and enhancing the thermal stability of the foam. In standard fire‐fighting tests, it is proved that the burnback performance exhibited by thermo‐responsive copolymer foams is three times better than that for classical fluorine‐free foams and almost 1.5 times higher than that for commercial AFFF.

Keywords