BRITISH STANDARD |

| BS 7899-2:1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code of practice for |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assessment of hazard to |
|
|
|
|
|
life and health from |
|
|
|
|
|
fire Ð |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 2: Guidance on methods for the |
|
|
|
quantification of hazards to life and |
|
|
health and estimation of time to |
|
|
incapacitation and death in fires |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 13.220.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW
|
|
|
|
BS 7899-2:1999

Committees responsible for this

British Standard
The preparation of this British Standard was entrusted to Technical Committee
FSH/16, Hazards to life from fire, upon which the following bodies were
represented:

British Cable Makers Confederation

British Electrical Systems Association (BEAMA Ltd.)
British Nuclear Fuels plc
British Plastics Federation
British Railways Board
British Rigid Urethane Foam Manufacturers' Association
British Rubber Manufacturers Association Ltd.
British Telecommunications plc
British Textile Technology Group
Chemical Industries Association
Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association
Consumer Policy Committee of BSI
Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
Department of Health (NHS Estates)
Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (represented by the
Building Research Establishment Ltd.)
Department of Trade and Industry (Consumer Safety Unit, CA Division)
Home Office
International Wool Secretariat
Loss Prevention Council
Queen Mary and Westfield College
RAPRA Technology Ltd.
Warrington Fire Research Centre

This British Standard, having

been prepared under the
direction of the Health and
Environment Sector Committee,
was published under the
authority of the Standards
Committee and comes into effect
on 15 November 1999

 BSI 11-1999
Amendments issued since publication
Amd. No. Date Comments

The following BSI references

relate to the work on this
standard:
Committee reference FSH/16
Draft for comment 98/540496 DC

ISBN 0 580 28289 9

 BS 7899-2:1999

Contents

Page
Committees responsible Inside front cover
Foreword ii
Introduction 1
1 Scope 1
2 Terms and definitions 1
3 Methods available and hazards to be assessed 3
4 Options and reliability of methods for determining hazard to life 4
5 Toxic hazard assessment method using time-concentration curves for full
scale fires: designed to estimate time to incapacitation for exposed
humans 7
6 The use of small-scale test data for estimating toxic potency and toxic
hazard 16
7 Application of toxic potency and toxic hazard calculation methods 23
Annex A (informative) Sensory irritancy 24
Bibliography 25
Figure 1 Ð Percentage frequency distribution of non-fire CO deaths 8
Figure 2 Ð Hazard analysis for a furniture fire 14
Table 1 Ð Comparison of the characteristics of hazard to life assessment
method options 6
Table 2 Ð Reported effects of smoke on visibility and behaviour 9
Table 3 Ð Irritant concentrations of common fire gases 10
Table 4 Ð Lethal exposure doses of irritants contributing to asphyxia and
lung damage 11
Table 5 Ð Simplified look up table for solutions to individual toxic gas FED
equations for incapacitating exposure doses over a 1 min exposure time 12
Table 6 Ð Limiting conditions for tenability caused by heat 13
Table 7 Ð Lift threat analysis for the first six minutes of a furniture fire 15
Table 8 Ð Revised classification of fire types 18
Table 9 Ð Currently accepted 30 min LC50 concentrations for common fire
gases 20
Table 10 Ð Toxic potency analysis of materials decomposed under
non-flaming oxidative conditions in the NBS cup furnace 20
Table 11 Ð Toxic potency analysis of materials decomposed under early, well
ventilated flaming conditions in the NBS cup furnace 21
Table 12 Ð Toxic potency analysis of materials decomposed less efficiently
under early, well ventilated flaming conditions in the NBS cup furnace 21
23
Table 13 Ð Approximate lethal exposure doses (LCt50 g´m ´min), and lethal
concentrations (LC50 g´m23) for common materials under different fire
conditions 23
Table A.1 Ð Mass loss concentrations of thermal decomposition products
predicted to be painfully irritant (mouse RD50 g´m23) 24

 BSI 11-1999 i
BS 7899-2:1999

Foreword

This part of BS 7899 has been prepared by Technical Committee FSH/16.

It has been developed from DD 180:1989 Guide for the assessment of toxic hazards in
fire in buildings and transport.
This part of BS 7899, together with parts 1 and 3, supersedes DD 180, which will be
withdrawn when BS 7899-3 is published.
The major hazards to life and health from fires are exposure to toxic fire effluents and
heat. Exposure to these hazards, together with visual obscuration by smoke, also affect
the ability of people to escape from fires.
Existing prescriptive safety regulations and codes contribute to the control of life
threat in fires, but despite their influence there was an increasing incidence of death
and injury from fires during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, particularly in relation to death
and injury resulting from exposure to toxic smoke.
In addition to the current unacceptable incidence of death and injury from fire, a
further problem is that the existing prescriptive control methods such as those given in
the Building Regulations are inadequate for control of modern systems, as well as
providing a potential restriction on useful novel developments. There is therefore a
great need for the development of effective methods for the assessement of life threat
in fire and its regulation, based upon sound fire safety engineering principles.
Major advances have been made in recent years in the development of fire engineering
tests and calculation methods for the prediction of fire behaviour, and for the
prediction of hazards to life and health from exposure to fire effluents. A basis now
exists for making evaluations of the hazards to life in fires, and BSI is currently
participating in work on the development of test and evaluation methods being
developed in the UK, in the EU generally and in the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO).
This methodology is not yet completely available, but questions of hazards to life and
health from fires still have to be faced. BS 7899 provides the best advice currently
available for the assessment of hazard to life and health from fires, although further
developments are expected in the future.
In order to provide guidance on how these processes can be assessed, BS 7899 is
written in a number of parts.

ii  BSI 11-1999
 BS 7899-2:1999

Part 1 Ð General guidance.

Part 1 provides an outline guide to the factors which should be considered when
assessing the hazards to life and health presented by fires in structures (e.g buildings
and transport).
.At appropriate points it calls up documents in the series, which provide specific
practical guidance on how the various elements of the hazard assessment can be
performed.
Part 2 Ð Guidance on methods for the quantification of hazards to life and health
and estimation of time to incapacitation and death in fires.
This part of BS 7899 provides detailed guidance on methods for the quantification of
hazards to life and health and for the estimation of time to incapacitation and death in
fires. It also includes methods for the estimation of lethal toxic potency from a
chemical analysis of small-scale thermal decomposition test atmospheres.
Part 3 Ð Worked examples illustrating hazard assessments of various types.
This part is in preparation.
Other documents may be added in future to cover different aspects of the subject.
It has been assumed in the preparation of this standard that the execution of its
provisions will be entrusted to appropriately experienced or informed people for
whose guidance it has been prepared.
Annex A is informative.
As a code of practice, this British Standard takes the form of guidance and
recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and particular
care should be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not misleading.
A British Standard does not purport to include all the necessary provisions of a
contract. Users of British Standards are responsible for their correct application.
Compliance with a British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from
legal obligations.

Summary of pages
This document comprises a front cover, an inside front cover, pages i to iv,
pages 1 to 26, an inside back cover and a back cover.
The BSI copyright notice displayed throughout this document indicates when the
document was last issued.

 BSI 11-1999 iii

iv blank

Introduction
BS 7899 has been designed to provide a code of
practice to be followed when assessing hazards to
life and health for potential fire scenarios.
Part 1 of this code of practice (BS 7899-1) describes
the many factors that can influence the threat to life
and health from fires. It recommends a stepwise
approach to a hazard assessment, by means of which
the various factors can be considered. A key step in
this process (step 4) is the quantification of
hazardous effects from a fire and the estimation of
time to incapacitation and death. This step takes as
input the time-concentration or time-intensity curves
of the life threatening components of fire effluent at
the breathing zone of an exposed person and
performs calculations to enable estimates to be made
of the hazardous effects at different times during an
exposure.
This part of BS 7899 contains calculation methods
which can be used for estimating the effects of
exposure to the major hazardous components of fire
effluent:
a) asphyxiant and irritant gases;
b) smoke (obscuration);
c) convected and radiant heat.
The methods described in this part of BS 7899 are
designed to be applied to a variety of fire scenarios
using a variety of types of input data. A relatively
simple scenario might involve an assessment of the
developing hazard arising from the slow thermal
decomposition of a small object made of a single
material in a closed room, using input data obtained
from a full scale test. A more complex scenario
might involve an assessment of potential hazards to
life from a range of possible fires at the design stage
of a large multi-compartment building. In order to
complete this assessment, a wide range of factors
would need to be considered and a variety of fire
engineering calculations would be necessary, all of
which are beyond the scope of this part of BS 7899.
However, at some point in such an analysis,
consideration would have to be given to the effects
on people of exposure to estimated fire effluents.
The methods presented in this part of BS 7899 are
intended to be directly applicable to such an
estimation.
A number of different methods can be used for the
estimation of toxic hazards from fires and several
different approaches are described in this part of
BS 7899. The methods described include:
Ð the application of time-concentration curves for
individual toxic gases, obtained from large-scale
fire tests or from fire modelling, for estimation of
time to incapacitation or death using physiological
calculation methods for humans;
Ð the application of toxic potency data derived
from small-scale combustion toxicity tests to toxic
hazard assessment for full scale fires;
Ð the estimation of lethal toxic potency from a
chemical analysis of small-scale combustion
toxicity test atmospheres (for use in method 2).
 BSI 11-1999
BS 7899-2:1999
1 Scope
This part of BS 7899 provides guidance for fire safety
practitioners on methods for the quantification of
hazards to life and health. It includes methods for
the calculation of fire effluent toxicity, smoke
obscuration and thermal components of fire hazard
analysis for estimation of time to incapacitation and
death in fire. Also included are methods for the
estimation of lethal toxic potency from a chemical
analysis of small-scale combustion toxicity test
atmospheres and for the application of such data to
toxic hazard assessments for fires.
2 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this part of BS 7899 the
following terms and definitions apply.
2.1
approximate lethal dose (ALD)
estimate of the LCt50
2.2
asphyxiant
substance which may cause loss of consciousness or
death by depriving the brain tissues of oxygen
2.3
combustion toxicity
capacity of a substance within an effluent to cause
injury to a living organism
NOTE This definition is based on an ISO Guide 52 definition and
PD 6503-1.
2.4
escape impairment
effect of exposure to fire effluent and/or heat
whereby escape capability is significantly reduced
NOTE This may be due to fire effluent or heat inhibiting
occupants from entering affected areas or by reducing the
efficiency or speed of escape in affected areas.
2.5
exposure dose
potential dose of a toxicant available by inhalation
expressed as the exposure concentration multiplied
by the exposure time
2.6
fire effluent
total gaseous, volatile and particulate (liquid or
solid) products from combustion or pyrolysis
2.7
fire hazard
physical situation with a potential for harm to life or
limb, or damage to property, or both, from the effect
of fire (see BS 6336)
2.8
fire scenario
generalized description of an actual or hypothetical
fire incident
1
BS 7899-2:1999
2.9
fractional effective concentration (of smoke)
(FEC)
concentration of smoke present in a fire at any time
divided by the concentration considered to
significantly affect escape efficiency
2.10
fractional effective dose (FED)
average exposure dose of one or more toxic
effluents present in a fire over a defined period of
time divided by the exposure dose required to obtain
a defined toxic endpoint (escape impairment,
incapacitation or death)
2.11
fractional irritant concentration (FIC)
concentration of one or more irritant effluents
present in a fire at any time divided by the exposure
concentration required to obtain a defined toxic
endpoint (escape impairment, incapacitation or
death)
2.12
fractional lethal dose (FLD)
average exposure dose of one or more toxic
effluents present in a fire over a defined period of
time divided by the lethal exposure dose
2.13
irritant
substance which can cause discomfort, pain or tissue
damage to the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose,
throat and lungs, which can lead to a degree of
incapacitation or death
2.14
LC50 (lethal concentration, 50 %)
concentration of a toxic gas or fire effluent
statistically calculated to cause the deaths of 50 % of
test animals exposed for a specified time
NOTE 1 The LC50 is expressed as ppm for a toxic gas and in
g´m23 for a fire effluent.
NOTE 2 When comparing LC50 data, both the exposure duration
and the post-exposure period over which the deaths were scored
need to be taken into account.
2.15
LCt50 (lethal exposure dose)
product of LC50 and the exposure duration over
which it was determined
NOTE The LCt50 is expressed as ppm´min for a toxic gas and in
g´m23´min for a fire effluent.
2.16
hazard to life and health
consequences (injury or loss of life) to be expected
from the effects of exposure to toxic effluent and
heat in fires, with respect to their nature, quantity
and rate of production and concentration
(see PD 6503-1)
2  BSI 11-1999
2.17
risk to life and health
expected extent of injury or loss of life from a fire,
defined in terms of probability as the product of:
Ð frequency of occurrence of an undesired event
to be expected in a given technical operation or
state; and
Ð hazard to life and health
2.18
mass charge
mass of material exposed to burning conditions
2.19
mass charge concentration
concentration of fire effluents from a material
defined in terms of the mass of material exposed to
burning conditions (mass charge) and the volume
into which the effluent is dispersed (g´m23)
2.20
mass loss
mass of material consumed by or otherwise lost
during burning
2.21
mass loss concentration
concentration of fire effluents from a material
defined in terms of the mass of material decomposed
(mass loss) and the volume into which the effluent is
dispersed, expressed in g´m23
2.22
mass loss exposure dose
mass loss concentration multiplied by the exposure
time expressed in g´m23´min
2.23
pyrolysis
thermal decomposition of materials in the absence of
flaming
NOTE In the context of this standard the term pyrolysis is
restricted to thermal decomposition in the absence of oxygen.
2.24
respiratory depression 50 % (RD50)
statistically calculated concentration of a sensory
irritant required to reduce the breathing rate of
laboratory rodents (usually mice) by 50 %
2.25
toxic hazard
consequences (injury or loss of life) to be expected
from the effects of exposure to toxic effluent in fires,
with respect to their nature, quantity and rate of
production and concentration (see PD 6503-1)

2.26
toxic potency
amount (exposure dose) of a toxic fire effluent
required to elicit a specific toxic effect
NOTE 1 Toxic potency may be expressed in terms of individual
products [for example the lethal exposure dose of carbon
monoxide (ppm´min or g´m23´min) or the mixed effluents from a
material decomposed in a small-scale test (LCt 50), defined in
terms of mass loss exposure dose (g´m23´min)].
NOTE 2 Toxic potency should not be confused with toxic hazard.
The latter takes into account other fire parameters such as the
rate of mass loss of the burning material and the volume into
which toxic effluent is dispersed.
2.27
smoke
visible suspension in atmosphere of solid and/or
liquid particles in gases resulting from combustion,
pyrolysis or oxidative non-flaming decomposition
(see BS 4422-1)
3 Methods available and hazards to be
assessed
3.1 Main factors determining hazards to life
and health from fire effluent
The development of hazards to life and heath from
exposure to fire effluent depends upon the rate of
fire growth, the amount of effluent evolved, the
degree to which the effluent is diluted before a
person is exposed and the effects of the effluents on
exposed persons. For toxic fire effluent these can be
expressed in terms of two major parameters, the first
of which relates to the fire itself and the second to
the toxic effects, as follows.
a) The time concentration curves for the major
toxic products, which in turn depends upon:
1) the fire growth curve in terms of the
mass-loss rate of the fuel (kg´s21) and the
volume into which it is dispersed (kg´m23);
2) the yield of toxic products and smoke in the
fire (for example kilograms of CO per kilogram
of material burned).
NOTE These two parameters determine the concentrations of
toxic gases in the fire effluent.
b) The toxic potency of the products [the
exposure concentration (kg´m23 or ppm) or
exposure dose (kg´m23´min or ppm´min) needed to
cause toxic effects].
This term requires consideration of three aspects:
1) exposure concentrations or doses likely to
impair or reduce the efficiency of egress due to
psychological or physiological effects;
2) exposure concentrations or doses likely to
produce incapacitation or prevent egress due to
psychological and/or physiological effects; and
3) lethal exposure concentrations or doses.
 BSI 11-1999
BS 7899-2:1999
The hazard from smoke obscuration also depends
upon the mass loss rate of the fuel, the smoke yield
and the degree of obscuration required to affect
escape capability [expressed in terms of optical
density per metre (OD/m) or similar units]. The
hazard from heat depends upon the heat release rate
of the fire and the subsequent energy balance of the
effluent. The hazard from convected heat is
expressed in terms of the air temperature at the
exposed skin of the occupant and that from radiant
heat in terms of the radiant flux to the exposed skin
(kW´m22).
Data on these parameters can be obtained in a
number of ways, either directly or derived from a
particular test and modelling strategy, with varying
degrees of confidence depending upon the types of
test used.
The most comprehensive method for obtaining the
fire parameters is to carry out full scale tests of the
situation under investigation or large-scale tests
providing a partial simulation. For this method the
fire parameters (mass loss rate of the fuel, the
volume of dispersal of the effluent, the
concentrations of toxic gases, the smoke
obscuration, effluent temperature and radiant flux)
can all be measured directly. Otherwise, fire data
may be obtained indirectly from a variety of sources,
usually involving the use of mathematical models of
fire growth with small-scale test results as input
data.
The third set of data (the toxic potency) has
historically been obtained by exposing animals to the
mixed test effluents from burning materials, or by
studying the toxic effects of individual fire gases in
animals and humans. Research in this area has
shown that in many cases the major toxic effects are
caused by a small number of well known toxic
gases, so that toxic potency can now be predicted to
a considerable extent based upon existing
knowledge, if the concentrations of CO, CO2, HCN,
O2 and some relevant irritant gases are measured [1]
(see also BS ISO TR 9122-5). If these data are
available it should be possible to predict the major
toxic effects such as time to incapacitation or death
for humans (where data relate to full scale tests or
fire simulations), or rodents (where analytical data
are obtained from small-scale toxicity tests) [2] (see
also ISO 13344) without the need for animal tests.
However, without animal exposures it is not possible
to make a full assessment of irritancy, or to detect
unusual acute toxic effects and more subtle
long-term effects such as those from halogenated
dioxins and dibenzofurans [1] (see also
BS ISO TR 9122-6).
NOTE Smoke particulates may also contribute to toxicity by
causing breathing difficulties during exposure and contributing to
lung inflammation after exposure.
3
BS 7899-2:1999
3.2 Practical methods for toxic hazard
assessment
Toxic and other hazards to life in fire can be
assessed in the following two ways:
a) from large-scale fire data including the
concentration/time profiles of the major toxic
gases, smoke obscuration, temperature and radiant
heat flux and existing knowledge of the toxic and
physiological effects in humans of exposure to
these effluent components;
NOTE These data may be obtained directly from large-scale
fire tests, from design fire data or from fire data estimated
using mathematical models.
b) from a battery of small-scale tests and
mathematical models, or simple large-scale tests,
the essential components for a toxic hazard
analysis being:
1) the toxic potency data for materials [lethal
mass loss exposure dose (g´m23´min)] obtained
from small-scale tests using animal exposures or
analytical methods;
2) the mass loss/concentration curve for the fire.
In principle it is possible to treat smoke obscuration
in the same way, by measuring smoke yield from a
material in a small-scale test and relating it to the
mass loss/concentration curve for the fire. It is also
possible to predict effluent temperature and radiant
flux in a fire from small-scale test data.
The methods described in this part of BS 7899 are
intended to be used primarily with the method in a)
and to be directly applicable to comprehensive
large-scale fire data obtained from large-scale fire
tests, design fire data or similar data obtained by a
combination of small-scale tests and mathematical
models. The second method [see b)] consists of a
more simplistic approach, suitable for a preliminary
hazard analysis for estimating the performance of
materials for which the available data may be more
limited.
4 Options and reliability of methods
for determining hazard to life
The key to a reliable hazard to life determination is a
good model of an appropriate fire scenario. This
should include relevant ignition conditions, fire
growth and effluent movement within an appropriate
enclosure (or set of enclosures within a building).
The model should be run beyond the time when the
design escape time scenario is complete, or the point
where incapacitation is expected to occur. This
should therefore encompass several stages of fire
growth, possibly including post-flashover conditions.
It is particularly important that the ventilation (and
therefore oxygen availability) at the various fire
stages represents realistic conditions as this has a
direct impact on the yields of the major fire gases
(including the CO2/CO ratio) as well as the fire
growth rate and the dispersal of the fire effluent. The
overall time-concentration curves of the major toxic
gases, especially carbon monoxide (and hydrogen
cyanide if the fire includes materials containing
nitrogen) are particularly important.
4  BSI 11-1999
A full scale realistic fire test using an appropriate
ignition regime, with measurement of all the main
fire parameters and with the toxic gases determined
by analysis, is the preferred and most reliable
procedure. A test of this kind will automatically
model a fire through ignition and growth, ensuring
that the fire conditions including fuel/air ratios and
the CO2/CO ratios are appropriate throughout.
NOTE It may be appropriate to repeat the test a number of times
with different configurations, since quite minor differences in
parameters such as the point of ignition or size of ignition source
can sometimes cause considerable variations in subsequent hazard
development.
Although an adequate assessment of hazard to
humans can be made from analytical data on the fire
conditions, in some cases animal exposures have
been used in addition to gas measurements to test
for the presence of unusual toxicants. Current
methods of toxic hazard modelling make animal use
unnecessary except in exceptional circumstances.
Full scale tests are expensive and for some
situations would be very difficult to carry out. In
such cases it is usual to rely on simpler tests,
sometimes accompanied by hazard calculation
modelling. The advantages, disadvantages, reliability
and ease of interpreting results with the various test
options are summarized in Table 1.
A simpler and less expensive method for making a
hazard assessment involves carrying out a full scale
test with a restricted set of measurements. A toxic
hazard assessment can be made by measuring the
mass loss rate (or by measuring the heat release rate
and calculating the mass loss rate), and the volume
into which the mass is dispersed, in order to obtain
a mass loss concentration term (g´m23). The mass
loss concentration can then be integrated with time
to give an estimate of exposure dose with time
(g´m23´min). This can then be compared with the
lethal or incapacitating exposure dose for the
material(s) under investigation obtained from a
suitable small-scale toxic potency test using a fire
model appropriate to the type of full scale fire
obtained. Alternatively, the measurements of the
yields of toxic products obtained in the small-scale
test can be used to estimate the time-concentration
curves for the toxic gases in the full scale fire, so
that a full analysis of toxic hazard can be made.
When small-scale tests are used to provide the toxic
potency component of the hazard assessment, it is
important that the small-scale fire model used for the
toxic potency test provides decomposition
conditions in terms of fuel/air ratio, flaming
behaviour and temperature that are relevant to the
fire type used for the full scale test. If the full scale
test passes through several fire stages during
development, toxic potency data appropriate to each
stage should be used (for example potency data
obtained from well ventilated flaming during the
early stage of a fire and from vitiated or
post-flashover flaming during a later stage).

All the above methods should be reasonably reliable
as they all involve direct measurement of the fire
dynamics (rate of burning and effluent spread).
Further methods rely on indirect approaches and are
therefore less reliable, although they may be more
standardized.
The next stage of simplification or abstraction
obtains the mass loss curve and effluent spread by
means or empirical generic data and/or mathematical
fire modelling. Examples would be the use of slow,
medium, fast and ultra fast fire growth curves
applied to various fuels, combined with zone or
computational fluid dynamics modelling of fire
conditions and effluent spread [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
(see also DD 240-1). These can then be combined
with toxic potency data for the appropriate fire type
[1], [8].
The next stages of simplification rely solely on
intermediate or small-scale test data for both the fire
dynamics and the toxic potency estimations.
Intermediate scale tests can be used to examine the
reaction to fire performance of products, particularly
during the early stages of fires, but it is essential that
care is taken when extrapolating from the
intermediate scale to the full scale. If such methods
include both ignition and growth stages that are
relevant to the full scale, they should overcome
some of the problems associated with small-scale
tests whilst reducing the costs associated with full
scale fire testing. Fire dynamics data obtained from
intermediate scale tests can be used with toxic
potency data and appropriate mathematical
modelling to estimate full scale hazard development
to a limited degree.
 BSI 11-1999
BS 7899-2:1999
Small-scale tests of reaction to fire properties are
sometimes used in combination with toxic potency
data to make simplistic hazard assessments, either
using the data as input to mathematical models or in
combined indices of product performance. Although
such methods may be useful for product
development and quality control purposes,
considerable difficulties and uncertainties may exist
in attempting to relate them to full scale fire hazard
[see ISO TR 9122-1 (PD 6503-1) and
BS ISO TR 9122-6].
The simplest test methods are those which purport
to provide an indication of toxic hazard from a
single small-scale test. Such tests often rely on very
unrealistic fire models and inaccurate measurement
methods combined with inappropriate methods for
toxic potency assessments to produce indices of
toxicity or toxic hazard. The results of such tests are
likely to provide a misleading indication of full scale
hazard to life (see BS ISO TR 9122-4 and -6).
It should therefore be apparent that a good
understanding of fire processes is important in
carrying out fire hazard assessments. A full scale test
involving a realistic fire scenario can be used to
provide a direct measurement of hazard to life.
However, the number of variables involved in full
scale fires is large so that small changes in any full
scale scenario can result in a range of hazard
development rates. Assessments based upon
small-scale tests involve much greater uncertainties
and require much more expert interpretation that full
scale tests to avoid misunderstanding and misleading
conclusions. Some small-scale tests used quite
widely in industry for product specification are likely
to produce misleading indications of likely full scale
hazards.
5
6
Table 1 Ð Comparison of the characteristics of hazard to life assessment method options
Fire development Toxic product or toxic potency Advantages Disadvantages Reliability and Costb
model determination ease of
interpretationa
1) Full scale fire test From full scale test using full gas Most accurate Uses animals 5 5
replicating exact analysis and animal exposures Capable of identifying unusual toxic Expensive
scenario effects Variablility of scenarios
Suitable for products in end use Should be used only when animal data is
configurations essential
2) Full scale fire test From full scale test using full gas Very accurate Expensive 5 5
replicating exact analysis Does not require animals Variablility of scenarios
scenario Suitable for products in end use
configurations
3) Full scale fire test Full scale time/mass Accurate representation of fire dynamics Some assumptions and careful modelling 4 3
replicating exact loss/concentration or heat release Reasonable representation of toxicity required to assess toxic potency and toxic
scenario rate with small-scale toxic potency Lower testing cost than 1) and 2) gas yields
test using appropriate fire Animals can be used if necessary Toxic potency test needs to model relevant
model(s) fire scenario
4) Design fire growth Calculated time/mass loss Lower cost than carrying out full scale Some assumptions and careful modelling 3 2
curves and/or fire concentrations with small-scale tests required for fire dynamics
modelling toxic potency test using Lower cost if generic toxicity data used Some assumptions and careful modelling
appropriate fire model(s), or using Reasonable representation of toxicity required to assess toxic potency and toxic
generic data gas yields
5) Intermediate scale Measured, time/mass loss rate, Lower testing cost than full scale Very limited representation of full scale 3 2
test of limited fire calculated mass loss concentration Direct representation of some aspects of scenarios
scenario with either full gas analysis or scenarios Some assumptions and careful
small-scale toxic potency test modelling/interpretation required for fire
using appropriate fire model(s) dynamics and toxic potency or gas yields
Toxic potency test needs to model relevant
fire scenario
6) Small-scale tests Small-scale toxic potency test Lower cost, laboratory scale Considerable assumptions and careful 2 1
of reaction to fire using appropriate fire model(s), or Data can be used with modelling modelling/interpretation required for fire
properties using generic data Useful for product development dynamics, toxic gas yields and toxicity
Toxic potency test needs to model relevant
fire scenario
7) Simplistic Small-scale test for toxic potency Very low cost Information of very little value in relation to 1 1
small-scale test and/or toxic hazard ranking, either fire dynamics or toxic potency or
indicator tubes for gas analysis toxic gas yields
Does not provide useful indication of either
reaction to fire properties or relevant fire
scenario
Likely to be misleading
a Reliability: 1 (misleading, difficult to interpret) → 5 (most reliable, easy to interpret).
b Cost: 1 (low cost) → 5 (expensive).

 BSI 11-1999
BS 7899-2:1999

5 Toxic hazard assessment method
using time-concentration curves for
full scale fires: designed to estimate
time to incapacitation for exposed
humans
5.1 Toxic and physiological hazards in fires
and concentration/time Ð dose relationships
The physiological effects of exposure to toxic smoke
and heat in fires result in varying degrees of
incapacitation which may also lead to death or
permanent injury [1]. Incapacitating effects include:
a) impaired vision resulting from the optical
opacity of smoke;
b) impaired vision from the painful effects of
irritant smoke products on the eyes and
respiratory tract pain and breathing difficulties or
even respiratory tract injury resulting from the
inhalation of irritant smoke (gases and
particulates);
NOTE In extreme cases this can lead to collapse within a few
minutes from asphyxia due to laryngeal spasm and/or
bronchoconstriction. Lung inflammation may also occur, usually
after some hours, which can also lead to varying degrees of
respiratory distress (persons with asthma or other lung
diseases are particularly vulnerable).
c) asphyxiation from the inhalation to toxic gases
resulting in confusion and loss of consciousness
(children, the elderly and persons with heart or
respiratory diseases are particularly vulnerable);
d) pain to exposed skin and the upper respiratory
tract followed by burns, or hyperthermia, due to
the effects of heat preventing escape and leading
to collapse.
All of these effects can lead to permanent injury, and
all except a) can be fatal if the degree of exposure is
sufficient.
With regard to hazard assessment the major
considerations are:
Ð the time when physiological effects are likely to
occur which might affect occupant behaviour and
delay escape;
Ð the time when incapacitating effects are likely
to occur which might prevent escape, compared
with the time required for escape;
whether exposure is likely to result in permanent
injury or death.
Up to a certain level of severity, the hazards listed in
a) to d) cause an impairment of escape capability or
tenability, by inhibiting occupants from entering
smoke filled areas or reducing the efficiency and
speed of escape. Where occupants are encouraged to
remain in a place of relative safety, the hazards may
affect this strategy by reducing the tenability of the
refuge.
NOTE These effects lie on a continuum from little or no effect at
low levels to relatively severe incapacitation at high levels, with a
variable response from different individuals.
It is important to make some estimate of effects that
are likely to delay escape, which may result in fewer
occupants being able to escape during the short time
before conditions become so bad that escape is no
 BSI 11-1999
BS 7899-2:1999
longer possible. Often most important in this context
is exposure to optically dense and irritant smoke,
which tends to be the first hazard confronting fire
victims.
For more severe exposures a point may be reached
where incapacitation is predicted to occur which will
prevent escape. For some forms of incapacitation,
such as the point where asphyxiation leads to a
rapid change from near normality to loss of
consciousness, this point is relatively easy to define.
For other effects an endpoint is less easily defined;
for example the point where smoke becomes so
irritant that pain and breathing difficulties lead to the
cessation of effective escape attempts, or the point
where pain and burns prevent movement.
Nevertheless it is considered important to attempt
some estimate of the point where conditions become
so severe in terms of these hazards that effective
escape attempts are likely to cease, and where
occupants are likely to suffer severe incapacitation
or injuries [1] (see also BS ISO TR 9122-5 and -6).
In a design context for buildings and other
enclosures the important consideration is to set
reasonable tenability limits for occupants to remain
in a place of relative safety or to use a particular
escape route, and to determine the likely effects of
any exposure sustained on escape capability and
subsequent health (see DD 240-1)
5.2 Variations in susceptibility
The methods for assessing the effects of toxic gases
are based partly upon experimental data and
reported effects in humans and partly upon animal
studies. These methods involve either the exposure
dose or concentration predicted to produce a given
effect on humans exposed to fire effluent. However,
this exposure dose or concentration actually
represents the maximum in a statistical distribution
of subjects' responses surrounding that exposure
dose or concentration, i.e. the mode, or most
frequently expected exposure dose for an exposed
population. Individual exposure doses or
concentrations for the response would in practice be
statistically distributed around the mode in a
probability curve. The concept is illustrated in
Figure 1, which shows the frequency distribution of
carboxyhaemoglobin concentrations obtained post
mortem, in 331 cases of fatal carbon monoxide
poisoning in adults of all ages. The chart shows a
skewed distribution with the mode in the 70 %
to 80 % COHb range. However, a large proportion of
the population were more sensitive and a significant
proportion less sensitive to CO poisoning [9].
With the possible exception of the lethal effects of
carbon monoxide, the features of the frequency
distribution curves for exposure of humans to other
fire toxicants are largely unknown. It is also likely
that these will differ to some extent for the
occupants of different building occupancy types (for
example the occupants of hospitals are likely to be
more sensitive to toxic hazards than the normal
population).
7
BS 7899-2:1999
Figure 1 Ð Percentage frequency distribution of non-fire CO deaths
Essentially all toxicological data relative to gaseous
fire effluents have been derived from laboratory
experiments using young healthy animals or young
healthy humans. A limited number of experiments
have been carried out at very low concentrations of
asphyxiant gases and irritants found in fires on
humans with pre-existing disease conditions. The
overall human population contains a number of
subpopulations which exhibit greater sensitivity to
various fire effluent toxicants, principally due to
compromised cardiovascular and pulmonary systems.
Two of the largest subpopulations are the elderly
and the approximately 15 % of children and 5 % of
adults who are asthmatic [10]. The elderly and
particularly those with impaired cardiac perfusion,
are particularly susceptible to asphyxiant gases. Thus
the average lethal carboxyhaemoglobin
concentration in adults dying in fires or from
accidental CO exposure is lower in the elderly [9].
8  BSI 11-1999
Experimental studies have also shown that time to
the onset of pain in an exercise test is significantly
reduced by as little as 2 % carboxyhaemoglobin in
angina sufferers [11]. This could be very important
when attempting to escape from a fire. Asthmatics
(and sufferers of other lung conditions such as
chronic bronchitis and reactive airways dysfunction
syndrome) are particularly susceptible to
bronchoconstriction upon even brief exposure to
very low concentrations of irritants, with distress,
severely reduced aerobic work capacity, collapse and
death resulting depending upon the sensitivity of the
individual and the severity of the exposure. It is the
objective of fire safety engineering to ensure that
essentially all occupants, including the sensitive
subpopulations, should be able to escape safely
without their experiencing or developing serious
health effects. Thus, safe levels for exposure of the
human population to fire effluent toxicants need to
be significantly lower than those determined from
experiments with uniformly healthy animal or even
human surrogates.

5.3 Evaluation of the effects of optically
dense, irritant, smoke on visibility
Optically dense smoke affects exit choice and escape
decisions, as well as way-finding ability and the
speed of movement of occupants. These effects
depend upon the concentration (optical density) of
the smoke and its irritancy to the eyes and upper
respiratory tract. In experiments where people were
asked to walk down a smoke-logged corridor, Jin [12]
found that for non-irritant smoke, walking speed
decreased with smoke density, and that at an optical
density of 0.5 OD/m (extinction coefficient 1.15)
walking speed decreased from approximately 1.2 m/s
(no smoke) to 0.3 m/s. Under these conditions people
behaved as if they were in total darkness, feeling
their way along the walls. When people were
exposed to irritant smoke, made by heating wood
chippings, movement speed was reduced to that in
darkness at a much lower optical density (optical
density 0.2 OD/m, extinction coefficient 0.5) and the
experience was found to be more distressing.
In addition to these effects upon speed of movement,
the problem also arises of deciding whether people
will move at all. In a number of studies of fires in
buildings, a proportion of people
(approximately 30 %) were found to turn back rather
than continue through smoke logged areas [13], [14].
The average density at which people turned back
was at a ªvisibilityº distance of 3 m (0.33 OD/m,
extinction coefficient 0.76), and women were more
likely to turn back than men.
NOTE 1 These effects are summarized in Table 2.
One of the difficulties with this kind of statistic is
that in many fires in buildings there is a choice
between passing through smoke to an exit or turning
back to take refuge in a place of relative safety such
as a closed room. In some situations people have
moved through very dense smoke when the fire was
behind them, while in other cases people have failed
to move at all. Behaviour may also depend on
whether layering permits occupants to crouch down
to levels where the smoke density is lower, and if
low level lighting is used to improve visibility.
However, it is likely that some people will not move
through dense smoke.
Table 2 Ð Reported effects of smoke on visibility and behaviour
Smoke density and irritancy Approximate visibility
OD/m (extinction coefficient)
None Unaffected
0.5 (1.15) non-irritant 2m
0.2 (0.5) irritant Reduced
0.33 (0.76) mixed 3 m approx
NOTE Suggested tenability limits for buildings with:
Ð small enclosures and travel distances: OD/m 0.2 (visibility 5 m);
Ð large enclosures and travel distances: OD/m 0.08 (visibility 10 m).
 BSI 11-1999
BS 7899-2:1999
Based upon considerations such as those described
above for the optical density and irritancy of the
smoke it is possible to set tenability limits for smoke
density appropriate to particular fire scenarios, in
relation to the physiological effects on the ability of
occupants to see sufficiently well to escape
efficiently, and possible psychological effects on
their escape behaviour.
Appropriate limits will depend upon the building and
occupant characteristics. For example, for small
spaces with short travel distances to exits, it may be
possible to set less stringent tenability criteria if
occupants are familiar with the building. For large
spaces it may be necessary to set more stringent
tenability limits, particularly if occupants are likely
to be unfamiliar with the building and need to be
able to see much further in order to orient
themselves to find exits.
With regard to the effects of irritancy on the ability
to see, it may be necessary to use more stringent
smoke density tenability criteria for scenarios where
the smoke evolved is likely to be highly irritant to
the eyes.
NOTE 2 A method for the assessment of eye and upper
respiratory tract irritancy is described in 5.4.
Other factors to be taken into consideration would
be the complexity of the space, the lighting and the
visibility of the signage.
NOTE 3 Suggested tenability limits are presented in Table 2.
In order to assess the visual obscuration effects of
smoke, a concept of fractional effective
concentration (FEC) has been developed, whereby
the smoke concentration is expressed as a fraction
of the concentration considered to significantly
affect escape efficiency. If the total FECsmoke
reaches unity, it is predicted that the level of visual
obscuration would be sufficient to seriously affect
escape attempts. The fractional effective
concentration of smoke, FECsmoke is given by the
following equation:
(OD/m)
FECsmoke = for small enclosures or
0.2
(OD/m)
FECsmoke = for large enclosures (1)
0.1
Reported effects
(diffuse illumination)
Walking speed 1.2 m´s21
Walking speed 0.3 m´s21
Walking speed 0.3 m´s21
30 % people turn back rather than
enter
9
BS 7899-2:1999
5.4 Setting tenability criteria for
sensory/upper respiratory tract and lung
irritancy
Smoke irritants consist of inorganic acid gases (such
as hydrogen chloride) and organic compounds,
particularly low molecular weight aldehydes
(formaldehyde and acrolein). More than 20 irritant
substances have been detected in smoke and it is
considered that others remain to be identified [1].
The first effect of exposure to smoke irritants is
sensory irritation, which consists of painful
stimulation of the eyes, nose, throat and lungs.
Sensory irritation depends upon the immediate
concentration of irritants to which the subject is
exposed rather than a dose acquired over a period of
time, the effects lying on a continuum from mild eye
irritation to severe eye and respiratory tract pain. In
evaluating this aspect of irritancy the aim is to
predict what concentration of mixed irritant
products is likely to cause such pain and difficulty in
breathing that escape attempts would be slowed or
rendered less efficient, and what concentration is
likely to seriously disrupt or prevent escape (a
degree of incapacitation approximately equivalent to
that at the point of collapse resulting from exposure
to asphyxiant). For example, with regard to
hydrogen chloride it is considered that
concentrations from approximately 100 ppm
to 500 ppm would be painfully irritant, and that the
effects may slow escape but probably would not
prevent it. However, at approximately 1 000 ppm and
above, it is suggested that the effects might be so
severe as to prevent escape [1], [15].
In the absence of detailed information on irritant
mixtures it is assumed that all irritants would be
additive in their effects, since they are all capable of
causing damage to lung tissue. In large-scale fire
tests it is possible to measure inorganic irritants
directly, but it is difficult to assess the degree of
irritancy from organic products, which form a very
important component. In general the effects of
organic irritants depend on the concentration of
partially oxidized organic species in the smoke. For
example smokes from smouldering wood or
polyolefines have a high organic content and are
highly irritant, and they are characterized by low
CO2/CO ratios and high smoke yields. Whereas under
well ventilated flaming conditions, the organic
content of the effluents is low, and irritancy is low.
In general it is predicted that smoke from a mixed
fuel source with an optical density/metre
of 0.5 would be strongly irritant to the eyes and
respiratory tract [1]. However, for a given smoke
density there are differences between different types
of fires, since some people report that smoke from
some fires, while dense optically, is relatively low in
irritancy, while that from other fires is extremely
irritant.
It is difficult to quantify these irritant effects because
the database on the effects of individual irritants or
irritant mixtures on escape behaviour in humans is
poor and because the effects lie on a continuum of
severity there are no precise endpoints.
10
Assessment has to be based upon a small number of
human experimental exposures, usually at relatively
low concentrations, accidental exposures and the
results of bioassay studies. The most useful bioassay
method for sensory irritation has been the mouse
RD50 test, in which the concentration causing a 50 %
decrease in respiration rate following a short
exposure is measured. A reasonably good
relationship has been found between the mouse
RD50 concentrations for a range of irritant vapours
and the concentrations reported as being painfully
irritant to humans [16]. The test has been applied to
a wide range of irritant substances, many of which
occur in fire atmospheres, and also to mixed
combustion product atmospheres.
NOTE Mouse RD50 irritancy data for a thermal decomposition
and combustion atmospheres from a range of materials are
presented in annex A.
In order to assess the combined effects of irritants, a
concept of fractional irritant concentration (FIC) has
been developed, whereby the concentration of each
irritant present is expressed as a fraction of the
concentration considered to be severely irritant. The
FICs for each irritant are then summed to give a
total FIC. If the total FIC reaches unity, it is
predicted that the smoke atmosphere would be
highly irritant, sufficient to slow escape attempts. If
the total exceeds unity by a factor of approximately
four or more then it is likely that escape would be
prevented, and possible that collapse might occur
due to static hypoxia from bronchoconstriction or
laryngeal spasm. On the basis of available data,
current estimates of the concentrations of each gas
likely to be highly irritant are as shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Ð Irritant concentrations of common
fire gases
Gas Concentration Concentration
predicted to predicted
impair escape to cause
in half the incapacitation
population in half the
population
ppm ppm
HCl 200 900
HBr 200 900
HF 200 900
SO2 24 120
NO2 70 350
CH2CHO (acrolein)a 4 20
HCHO 6 30
(formaldehyde)a
a Where the concentrations of acrolein and formaldehyde (or
other important irritants) are unknown, a term derived from
smoke density 0.5 OD/m may be used as an indication of
irritancy likely to impair escape efficiency.
 BSI 11-1999

It is predicted that each gas at the concentrations
given in Table 3 is likely to be sufficiently irritant to
affect escape efficiency in the majority of subjects
and may cause incapacitation in susceptible
individuals. In order to allow for safe escape of
nearly all individuals a target value of FEC 0.5 is
recommended for design purposes.
On the basis of the assumption that all irritants
capable of damaging lung tissue are additive in their
effects the overall irritant concentration FIC is then
given by equation (2):
FIC = FICHCl + FICHBr + FICHF + FICSO2 + FICNO2 +
+ FICCH2CHO + FICCH2O + ∑FICX (2)
where
∑FICX = FICs for any other irritants present.
An alternative method for estimating FIC is to use
sensory irritancy data for burning materials obtained
directly from small-scale combustion RD50 tests (see
annex A). For this method it is assumed that a
human would suffer from sensory irritation
equivalent to an FIC of 1 at the mouse RD50
concentration for a particular fire effluent
atmosphere. The FIC for any burning material in a
full scale fire can then be obtained by expressing the
mass loss concentration at any time during the fire
as a fraction of the RD50 mass loss concentration
obtained in a small-scale test conducted under
equivalent decomposition conditions.
The other important effect of irritants is that a
proportion of those inhaled penetrate into the deep
lung. If a sufficient dose is inhaled over a period of
time a lung inflammatory response can occur,
usually some hours after exposure. The deep lung
effects of irritants may be increased by the presence
of smoke particulates. This may cause respiratory
failure and death, or permanent lung damage in
survivors. The 30 min exposure doses (30 min
exposure LC50 concentrations multiplied by 30) likely
to be lethal used for each irritant gas are as shown
in Table 4.
Table 4 Ð Lethal exposure doses of irritants
contributing to asphyxia and lung damage
Gas Exposure doses predicted to
be lethal to half the
population
ppm´min
HCl 114 000
HBr 114 000
HF 87 000
SO2 12 000
NO2 1 900
CH2CHO (acrolein)a 4 500
HCHO (formaldehyde)a 22 500
a Where the concentrations of acrolein and formaldehyde (or
other important irritants) are unknown, a term derived from
smoke density and time of 90 OD/m´min may be used as an
indication of lethal organic irritant exposure dose.
 BSI 11-1999
BS 7899-2:1999
The effects depend upon the exposure dose, which
can be quantified approximately in terms of the
product of concentration (C) and exposure time (t)
to give the Ct product exposure dose (ppm´min).
During a fire, when the concentrations of the toxic
products vary with time, it is possible to predict
when an incapacitating or lethal dose has been
received by using the fractional effective dose (FED)
method. For this method the Ct product exposure
doses for small periods of time during the fire are
expressed as a fraction of the dose causing a toxic
effect, and these FEDs are summed until the fraction
reaches unity, when the toxic effect is predicted. The
fraction of a lethal dose (FLD) for each irritant is
calculated as the Ct product exposure dose during a
period in the fire (for example in ppm´min)
expressed as a fraction of the lethal exposure dose.
The lethal effects of the different irritants are
assumed to be additive on the same basis as the
irritant effects, so that the total FLDirr for each time
period is given by equation (3):
FLDirr = FLDHCl + FLDHBr + FLDHF + FLDSO2 +
FLDNO2 + FLDCH2CHO + FLDHCHO + ∑FLDX (3)
where
∑ FLDX = FLDs for any other irritants present.
The FLDirr for short periods of time during the fire
are summed until the FLDirr reaches unity, when it is
predicted that a lethal dose has been inhaled.
5.5 Calculation of time to incapacitation due
to effects of asphyxiant gases
Asphyxiant gases (carbon monoxide, hydrogen
cyanide, carbon dioxide and reduced oxygen) affect
the nervous and cardiovascular systems, causing
confusion followed by loss of consciousness,
followed ultimately by death from asphyxiation [1].
As asphyxiant gases are inhaled during a fire, an
increasing dose builds up in the body. There is little
effect initially, but when a critical threshold dose
level is reached severe effects occur suddenly. These
consist of a brief period of intoxication (similar to
severe alcohol intoxication), followed by a collapse
into unconsciousness [1].
Where several asphyxiant gases are present the
effects have been found to be additive, with carbon
dioxide mainly causing an increase in the rate of
uptake of the other asphyxiant gases. The toxicity of
hydrogen cyanide is enhanced by the presence of
other nitriles, but decreased by the presence of NO2.
Nitrogen dioxide has a protective effect because it
converts haemoglobin to methaemoglobin and
methaemoglobin sequesters cyanide.
Where the concentrations of other nitriles have not
been measured it is reasonable to assume that the
additional toxicity due to other nitriles is
approximately counteracted by the presence of NO2.
It has also been shown that the effects of irritant
gases such as HCl are additive with those of carbon
monoxide [17].
11
BS 7899-2:1999

Based upon these findings, an FED equation to
predict time to incapacitation, FEDIN (loss of
consciousness from the effects of asphyxiant gases)
for humans has been developed as follows:
FEDIN = (FEDIco + FEDIcn + FLDirr) 3 VCO2 +
FEDIo (4)
where
FEDIN is the fraction of an incapacitating dose of
all asphyxiant gases;
FEDIco is the fraction of an incapacitating dose of
CO;
FEDIcn is the fraction of an incapacitating dose of
HCN (and nitriles, corrected for NO2);
FLDirr is the fraction of an irritant dose
contributing to hypoxia;
VCO2 is the multiplication factor for CO2 induced
hyperventilation;
FEDIo is the fraction of an incapacitating dose of
low oxygen hypoxia.
Each individual term in the FED equation is itself the
result of equations (5) to (8), which give the FED for
incapacitation for each gas and the multiplication
factor for CO2, where t is the exposure time at a
particular concentration in minutes. The FED
acquired over each period of time during the fire are
summed until the total FEDIN reaches unity, at
which point incapacitation (loss of consciousness) is
predicted.
In order to allow for differences in sensitivity and to
protect especially susceptible human subpopulations
such as might be in a hospital or residential home
for the elderly, a target factor of 0.1 FED is
suggested for design purposes to allow for the safe
escape of nearly all exposed individuals. For other
occupied buildings a higher target factor of 0.5 FED
is suggested. Death is predicted at approximately
two to three times the incapacitating dose.
FEDIco = (8.2925 3 1024 3 ppm CO1.036)t/30 (5)
FEDIcn = (exp([CN]/43))t/220 (6)
where
[CN] represents the concentration of cyanide
corrected for the presence of other nitriles besides
HCN and for the protective effect of NO2.
[CN] can be calculated as:
[CN] = [HCN] + [total organic nitriles] 2 [NO2];
FLDirr is calculated in equation (3).
VCO2 = exp ([CO2]/5) (7)
FEDIo = t/exp [8.13 2 0.54(20.9 2 % O2)] (8)
Table 5 shows a simplified look up table of FEDs for
incapacitation for each gas, illustrating the
relationship between concentration and FED for
asphyxiant gases. For CO the FED is simply related
to the concentration and exposure dose, for HCN
and decreased oxygen the FED acquired each minute
increases considerably with exposure concentration,
as does the multiplication factor VCO2.

Table 5 Ð Simplified look up table for solutions to individual toxic gas FED equations for
incapacitating exposure doses over a 1 min exposure time
ppm HCN FEDIcn % CO2 VCO2 % O2 FEDIo
0 to 50 0 0 to 2 1.0 21 to 13 0
50 to 100 0.05 2 to 3 1.5 13 to 12 0.02
100 to 125 0.10 3 to 4 2.0 12 to 11 0.05
125 to 150 0.15 4 to 5 2.5 11 to 10 0.08
150 to 200 0.50 5 to 6 3.0 10 to 9 0.15
200+ 1.00 6 to 7 3.5 9 to 8 0.20
7 to 8 4.5 8 to 7 0.40
8 to 10 4.8 7 to 6 0.70
FEDIco = CO ppm/25 000.

12  BSI 11-1999
 BS 7899-2:1999

5.6 Calculation of time to incapacitation due As with toxic gases, the body of a fire victim may be
to the effects of convected and radiant heat regarded as acquiring a ªdoseº of heat over a period
Exposure to heat may lead to incapacitation through of time during exposure, with short exposure to a
three basic mechanisms: high radiant flux or temperature being more
incapacitating than a longer exposure to a lower
a) heat stroke (hyperthermia); temperature or flux. The same fractional
b) skin pain and burns; incapacitating dose model as with the toxic gases
c) respiratory tract burns. may be applied and, providing that the temperature
Thermal burns to the respiratory tract from air in the fire is stable or increasing, the fractional dose
containing less than 10 % by volume water vapour do of heat acquired during exposure can be calculated
not occur in the absence of burns to facial skin. by summing the radiant and convected fractions
Therefore tenability limits with regard to skin pain using equation (11):
and burns are normally lower than for thermal burns t2
1 1
to the respiratory tract. Thermal burns to the FED = ∑
t
( +
tIrad tIconv
) Dt (11)
respiratory tract may occur upon inhalation or air 1
above only 60 8C when saturated with water vapour, NOTE tIrad will tend to zero as q tends to <2.5 kW´m2.
as may occur when water is used for fire Thermal tolerance data for unprotected skin of
extinguishment. humans suggest a limit of about 120 8C for convected
The tenability limit for exposure of skin to radiant heat, above which considerable pain is quickly
heat is approximately 2.5 kW´m22 below which incurred along with the production of burns within a
exposure can be tolerated for at least several few minutes [1]. Depending upon the length of
minutes. Radiant heat at this level and above causes exposure, convective heat below this temperature
skin pain followed by burns within a few seconds, may still result in incapacitation due to
but lower fluxes can be tolerated for more hyperthermia.
than 5 min. For situations where occupants are NOTE Examples of tolerance times to different radiant fluxes and
required to pass under a hot smoke layer in order to air temperatures are shown in Table 6.
escape, this radiant flux corresponds approximately Conducted heat is physiologically important only
to a hot layer temperature of 200 8C. Above this when skin is in contact with hot surfaces, such as
threshold, time (minutes) to incapacitation due to door handles. A 1 s contact with metal at 60 8C can
radiant heat tIrad, at a radiant flux of q kW´m22, is cause burns.
given by equation (9) [1], [18], [19]:
1.333 Table 6 ± Limiting conditions for tenability
tIrad = 1.33 (9) caused by heat [1]
q
Mode of heat Intensity Tolerance
Radiant heat tends to be directional in fires, so that
the main problem tends to be local heating of transfer
particular areas of skin. The air temperature, and Radiation <2.5 kW´m22 >5 min
hence that of the air breathed and that in contact
with other parts of the body, may be relatively low 2.5 kW´m2 30 s
even when the radiant flux is high. For this reason 10 kW´m22 4s
the main hazard is pain and burns to the skin, rather Convection <60 8C 100 % saturated >30 min
than hyperthermia. Skin temperature depends upon
the relationship between the rate of heat supply to 100 8C < 10 % H2Oa 8 min
the skin surface and the removal of heat from inner 120 8C < 10 % H2O 4 min
layers by the blood. There is therefore a threshold
140 8C < 10 % H2O 3 min
radiant flux below which significant heating of the
skin is prevented, but above which rapid heating of 160 8C < 10 % H2O 2 min
the skin occurs. 180 8C < 10 % H2O 1 min
For exposures of up to 2 h to convected heat from a A volume fraction (v/v) of 10 % H2O.
air containing less than 10 % by volume of water
vapour, the time (in minutes) to incapacitation, tIconv,
at a temperature T (8C) is calculated from equation
(10) [1]:
tIconv = 5 3 107 T23,4 (10)

 BSI 11-1999 13
BS 7899-2:1999
5.7 Worked example of a simplified hazard to
life analysis
Table 7 shows an example of a hazard to life analysis
calculation using the methods described in 5.3 to 5.6.
The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 2.
This shows plots of the FIC and FED values for each
hazard parameter as they increase with time. The
endpoints of escape impairment or loss of
tolerability (for smoke obscuration and irritants) and
incapacitation (for heat and asphyxiant gases) are
reached when the line for each parameter
crosses 1 on the Y axis. Higher FECs and FEDs
indicate more severe effects. For irritancy
incapacitation is predicted at FECirr values of
approximately 5 to 10 and for asphyxiation death is
predicted at FEDIN values of approximately 2 to 3.
The analysis is designed to predict the severity of
each hazard and the time during the fire at which it
becomes significant. The toxic gas concentrations,
smoke optical density, temperature and radiant heat
flux have been averaged over each of the first 6 min
of a theoretical furniture fire, but are generally
similar to conditions obtained in the smoke layer at
head height in some experiments performed in
ISO room tests.
Figure 2 Ð Hazard analysis for a furniture fire
14
The analysis shows that the smoke obscuration is
the first hazard confronting a room occupant. The
level of obscuration exceeds the tenability limit for
irritant smoke in a small enclosure after the second
minute, with an FECsmoke of 1.
The second hazard to confront the occupant is
irritancy. This becomes significant during the third
minute, reaching an FIC of 1.83 by 3 min. The
tenability limit designed to protect vulnerable
individuals (FIC 0.5) is exceeded at just before 2 min.
This means that from 2 min the level of obscuration
and the irritancy of the effluent would be sufficient
to impair and possibly prevent escape from the room
due to difficulty in seeing and increasing pain in the
eyes and respiratory tract. The effects of radiant and
convected heat then become significant, crossing the
tenability limit during the fourth minute and reaching
an FEDheat value of 2.14, so that it is predicted that a
room occupant would suffer severe skin pain and
burns due to the effects of convected heat, which
would be lethal during the fourth or fifth minutes.
 BSI 11-1999
 BS 7899-2:1999

Table 7 Ð Life threat analysis for the first six minutes of a furniture fire
Gas concentrations each minute 1 2 3 4 5 6
Smoke (OD/m) 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.5 3.0 3.5
HCl (ppm) 10 50 150 200 250 200
Acrolein (ppm) 0.4 0.8 2.0 6.0 12.0 14.0
Formaldehyde (ppm) 0.6 1.2 3.0 9.0 18.0 21.0
CO (ppm) 0 0 500 2 000 3 500 6 000
HCN (ppm) 0 0 50 150 250 300
CO2 (%) 0 0 1.5 3.5 6.0 8.0
O2 (%) 20.9 20.9 19.0 17.5 15.0 12.0
Temp (8C) 20 65 125 220 405 405
Heat flux (kW/cm2) 0 1.0 4.0 10.0 25.0 25.0
Fractional smoke concentration 0.50 1.00 2.50 7.50 15.00 17.50
FECsmoke
Fractional irritant concentration:
FICHCl 0.06 0.28 0.83 1.11 1.39 1.11
FICacrolein 0.10 0.20 0.50 1.50 3.00 3.50
FICform 0.10 0.20 0.50 1.50 3.00 3.50
∑FIC 0.26 0.68 1.83 4.11 7.39 8.11
Fractional lethal dose (irritants)
FLDHCl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FLDacrolein 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FLDform 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
∑FLDirr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fractional asphyxiant dose
FEDIco 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.23
FEDIcn 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.15 1.52 4.87
FLDirr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04
VCO2 1.00 1.00 1.35 2.01 3.32 4.95
FEDIo2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04
FEDIN (asphyxiants) 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.45 5.50 25.29
∑FEDIN 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.50 6.00 31.29
Fractional heat doses
FEDrad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.54 2.54
FEDconv 0.00 0.03 0.27 1.84 14.67 14.67
FEDheat 0.00 0.03 0.27 1.84 17.21 17.21
∑FEDheat 0.00 0.03 0.30 2.14 19.35 36.55
NOTE 1 The endpoint, escape impairment (for smoke obscuration and irritancy) or incapacitation (for heat and asphyxiant gases) is
reached when the FIC or FED value reaches 1.
NOTE 2 Limiting values appear in bold.
NOTE 3 Lethal values are approximately two to three times incapacitating levels for dose related parameters, and incapacitation five
to 10 times the FIC.

 BSI 11-1999 15
BS 7899-2:1999
During the fifth minute the radiant flux reaches the
tenability limit of 2.5 kW´cm22, so that skin pain
would be predicted within seconds due to radiation
alone, were it not that the temperature has already
exceeded the limiting exposure dose. Also during the
fifth minute the FEDIN reaches 5.5, predicting that
anyone breathing the smoke would lose
consciousness due to asphyxia, and might die
after 6 min. The recommended tenability limit for
exposure to asphyxiants, designed to protect
especially vulnerable subpopulations (FEDIN of 0.1)
is crossed at approximately 3.5 min. This is half a
minute before the FEDIN reaches 0.5, the
recommended tenability limit for other occupied
buildings. Within a few seconds after this, the FEDIN
reaches 1, the exposure dose predicted to cause
incapacitation in the average person.
It is important to note that for all these parameters
the FED, FEC and FIC curves are rising steeply
around the times that the various tenability
thresholds are crossed. This means that even if the
true exposure concentrations or exposure doses
required to cause incapacitation were higher than
the tenability limits chosen there would be little
effect on predicted time to incapacitation.
The overall prediction is that for this fire, escape
would become difficult during the third minute and
incapacitation could occur due to the effects of
irritant smoke. A person remaining in the room after
this time would suffer severe pain and burns
after 4 min which would probably be lethal.
In this analysis it is assumed that the head of a room
occupant would be in the smoke at all times. In
practice, if the room doorway was open, the hot,
effluent rich, layer would descend from the ceiling to
a level probably of between 1 m and 1.2 m above the
floor as the chair reached its peak burning rate. A
more sophisticated analysis could allow for the
possibility that a room occupant might be at, or
move to, a lower level in the room. If the height of
the smoke layer with time is measured it is possible
to allow for this in the calculation.
6 The use of small-scale test data for
estimating toxic potency and toxic
hazard
6.1 General
The methods for estimating toxic hazard described in
clause 5 all require as input data the time-
concentration curves for the various hazardous
agents at the breathing zone of an exposed person.
These data may be obtained directly from full scale
experiments of the fire scenario of interest, but in
many cases it may be necessary to make estimates of
toxic hazard without such detailed information. In
such cases it will be necessary to base the hazard
estimation primarily upon data obtained from
small-scale tests or other sources of information.
16
A number of methods can be used to make such
hazard to life assessments, of varying degrees of
complexity, depending upon the scenarios of interest
and the available information. These methods
inevitably all rely, to some extent, on the application
of modelling.
NOTE 1 The options available and their reliability are reviewed in
clause 4.
One approach makes use of toxic potency data
obtained from small-scale combustion toxicity tests.
The essential components are:
a) the mass loss and dispersal volume of the fire
effluent with time expressed as the exposure dose
in g´m23´min;
b) the toxic potency data in for materials (lethal
mass loss exposure dose in g´m23´min) obtained
from small-scale tests carried out under the
decomposition conditions of the scenario of
interest, using animal exposures or analytical
methods.
These data are then used to perform a fractional
effective dose (FED) analysis. The exposure dose
presented to the breathing zone of an exposed
person for short periods of time during the fire
[see a)] is obtained by dividing the cumulative mass
loss during the fire by the volume into which the
effluent is dispersed, which is then summed during
the course of the exposure. This is then expressed as
a fraction of the lethal exposure dose (toxic
potency) obtained from b). When the FEDs summed
over a period of time reach unity, it is predicted that
a lethal dose of combustion products will have been
inhaled. The data for a) can be obtained from simple
large-scale experiments or by the use of fire
engineering techniques such as zone modelling,
which are beyond the scope of this standard.
NOTE 2 Guidance on the use of such techniques can be obtained
from the fire engineering code of practice (DD 240).
This part of BS 7899 contains guidance on how the
toxic potency data [see b)] may be obtained and
applied in a toxic hazard assessment. The lethal
toxic potency of combustion products from materials
can be measured in small-scale tests in terms of the
LCt50, the lethal exposure dose to rodents. This is
expressed in terms of the mass loss concentration of
products [the mass of material decomposed in the
test divided by the volume of air into which they are
dispersed (g´m23)] and multiplied by the time for
which the animals were exposed, to give the
exposure dose (g´m23´min). It is possible to quote
the toxic potencies of materials in these terms for
most small-scale test protocols, so that the results
from different tests can be compared directly and so
that the data can be used in conjunction with mass
loss data from full scale fire tests or model
calculations to make toxic hazard assessments.
 BSI 11-1999

There are two major limitations to the derivation of
toxic potency data from small-scale tests and their
application to toxic hazard analysis. One limitation is
the extent to which the decomposition conditions in
a small-scale test relate to those in a full scale fire,
the other is the extent to which the 30 min lethal
exposure dose to rats of a thermal decomposition
product atmosphere in a small-scale test relates to
the incapacitating and lethal effects of human
exposures for varying periods in full scale fires.
6.2 Relationship between toxic potencies of
materials in small-scale tests and full scale
fires
When the toxic potency of the combustion products
from a material are expressed in mass loss terms,
the data relate to the toxic effects of the total mixed
combustion products evolved. This depends upon the
type of toxic products evolved and their yields. The
most difficult problem in estimating the toxic
potency of a material in a fire is that the yields of
toxic products depend very much upon the
decomposition conditions, which vary considerably
at different stages and between different types of
fires. If small-scale test data are to be used as
estimates of the likely toxic potency of products
evolved in full scale fires it is therefore essential that
the decomposition conditions in the test can be
shown to be the same as those in the type or stage
of full scale fire being modelled, otherwise the
small-scale test data are not valid. Even if this can be
achieved the problem remains that the thermal
decomposition conditions in full scale fires change
with time, so that data from a small-scale test can at
best represent only an average approximation of the
conditions obtaining during a particular stage of a
fire.
The decomposition conditions existing in full scale
fires depend mainly upon temperature and oxygen
concentration in the fire environment and whether
or not the material is flaming. In BS ISO TR 9122-4 an
attempt has been made to define the major
categories of fire in these terms, the type of
decomposition for flaming fires being expressed in
terms of the CO2/CO ratio, oxygen concentration and
compartment temperature or heat flux. This
classification system provides an approximate
description of full scale fire conditions, but has
recently been revised. The six fire types (shown in
Table 8) are contained in three major categories:
Ð non-flaming fires;
Ð well ventilated flaming fires; and
Ð less well ventilated flaming fires.
 BSI 11-1999
BS 7899-2:1999
In BS ISO TR 9122-4 small-scale toxicity test
protocols are judged by the extent to which the test
conditions are relatable to one of these categories in
terms of temperature or radiant heat flux, oxygen
concentration and CO2/CO ratio. If they are to be
considered useful to measure the toxic potency of
the combustion products from materials, the
decomposition conditions need to relate to one of
these fire stages or types, and the results of any
small-scale test are then only valid for the particular
category being modelled. Based upon the results of
full scale fire tests, and fire death statistics, it is
suggested here that the most important toxic hazard
situations that should be assessed for all materials
are:
a) non-flaming oxidative/smouldering
decomposition at low/mid-range temperatures
where the potential hazard relates mainly to
occupants in the enclosure of fire origin;
b) early/well ventilated flaming conditions at mid
range temperatures, where the potential hazard
relates mainly to occupants in the enclosure of fire
origin;
c) less well ventilated flaming fires including small
vitiated fires in small, closed, enclosures or fully
developed/post-flashover, vitiated decomposition at
high temperatures in large or ventilated
enclosures, where the potential hazard relates to
occupants both inside the fire enclosure and
remote from the fire.
In the UK just over half of all fire deaths in buildings
occur in the room of fire origin and most result from
exposure to toxic smoke evolved from small fires
(which may involve periods of non-flaming and both
early and later flaming decomposition) [20]. The
other major category, particularly related to deaths
from smoke exposure, consists of victims in remote
locations following fully developed fires. It is this
second category that has been identified as the
major problem in the United States, particularly in
relation to fires in multi-occupation buildings
[see ISO TR 9122-1(PD 6503-1)].
17
BS 7899-2:1999

Table 8 Ð Revised classification of fire types

Fire stage or type Temperature (8C) Oxygen to Fire effluents
fire
Fire Hot layer (%) Oxygen CO2/CO
from fire %
1 Non-flaming
a) Self-sustaining 450-600 RTa 21 >20 1 to 5
b) Oxidative pyrolysis from externally 300-600 <50 21 >20 1 to 5
applied radiation
c) Non-oxidative pyrolysis from 300-600 <50 0 0 <5
externally applied radiation
2 Well ventilated flaming
Where the fire size is small in relation to >700 RT to 500 >15 5 to 21 >20b
the size of the compartment, the flames are
below the base of the hot layer and fire size
is fuel controlled
3 Less well ventilated flaming
Where the fire size may be large in relation
to the size of the compartment, the flames
are partly above the base of the hot layer
and fire size is ventilation controlled
a) Small vitiated fires in closed >700 RT to 500 <15 0 to 12 2 to 20
compartments
b) Post-flashover fires in large or open >700 500 to 1 000 <15 0 to 12 2 to 20
compartments
aRT = room temperature.
bMay be lower if the burning materials contain fire retardants. In order to determine whether flaming decomposition conditions in a
particular apparatus fall into category 2 or category 3 it is necessary to use a non-fire retarded reference material capable of efficient
combustion.

6.3 Relationships between lethal toxic potency
data obtained from 30 min exposures of rats
and incapacitation and lethal exposure doses
for humans
Small-scale combustion toxicity text methods have
been used to measure the exposure dose of thermal
decomposition products causing the death of 50 % of
exposed animals resulting from a 30 min exposure.
Currently such methods are rarely used, but a
considerable historical database exists (see [21] to
[26]). Deaths are scored during exposure and over
the following 14 days post-exposure period. It is
assumed that this provides a reasonable approximate
estimation of likely lethal exposure doses to humans
with the use of appropriate safety margins.
A further problem to that of species differences is
that the lethal exposure dose, both to rats and
humans, is not a constant (i.e. does not fully obey
Haber's rule). Thus in general for the same exposure
dose, short exposures to high concentrations of toxic
products results in a higher toxic potency than
longer exposures to lower concentrations. This effect
is generally assumed to be small and ignored in toxic
hazard analyses based upon lethal rat exposure
doses. A more serious limitation of the lethal
exposure dose method is that it does not enable a
direct assessment of the time or exposure dose
required to cause incapacitation in humans. A simple
assumption is made that incapacitation is likely to
occur at approximately one third of the lethal
exposure dose.

18  BSI 11-1999

6.4 The estimation of lethal toxic potency to
rats from a chemical analysis of small-scale
test atmospheres
6.4.1 General
Since it is considered that the major toxic effects of
fire effluents can be explained in terms of a small
number of well known fire gases, it is now possible
to a large extent to predict the exposure dose of
combustion products generated in small-scale tests
that would be lethal to rats, if the concentrations of
the major toxic gases are measured. If necessary it is
then possible to verify the prediction by carrying out
the animal exposures. Experiments of this kind,
carried out by Hartzell [21] and Levin [22] have
shown that toxic gases are basically additive in their
effects, so that for example an exposure to an
atmosphere containing half a lethal dose of carbon
monoxide mixed with half a lethal dose of hydrogen
cyanide constitutes a lethal mixed atmosphere.
The toxic effects of combustion products result
mainly from irritancy and asphyxiation. Asphyxiation
is caused by carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide,
low oxygen hypoxia and carbon dioxide, and so can
be quite well predicted if the concentrations of these
gases are known.
Irritancy is somewhat harder to predict because
many irritant organic products and inorganic acid
gases occur in fire atmospheres. Where acid gases
are present the concentrations can be measured and
their effects added to those of the asphyxiant gases.
In small-scale tests where both chemical analysis and
animal exposures are used it is possible to calculate
the contribution to the overall toxicity made by the
measured asphyxiant gases and acid gas irritants.
Any residual lethal toxicity can then be reasonably
considered to be due to the effects of organic
irritants, except in very rare cases where unusual
toxic effects occur. The contribution of organic
irritants to the lethal exposure dose is likely to be
most important for non-flaming oxidative
decomposition, and to some extent for vitiated
combustion, but relatively small for well ventilated
flaming.
For small-scale tests, or even large-scale fires, where
analytical data only are available it is thus possible
to calculate a theoretical LCt50 in terms of the main
asphyxiant fire gases and acid gases. This then
represents the highest estimate of what constitutes a
lethal dose for that atmosphere (i.e. the smoke
atmosphere must be at least as toxic as this, and
could be somewhat more toxic if substantial
amounts of organic irritants are present, or if
unusual toxic effects are present. In small-scale tests
there is little oxygen vitiation, so this effect can be
ignored.
6.4.2 Method for estimating the LCt50 and LC50
for rats using toxic gas yield data from
small-scale toxic potency tests
NOTE 1 Further information on this method and other methods is
presented in ISO 13344.
 BSI 11-1999
BS 7899-2:1999
The estimated LC50 concentration is calculated by an
iterative process. The first stage of the process is to
calculate an estimated FED for lethality from a set of
toxic gas concentrations measured in a small-scale
toxic potency test at a known mass loss (or mass
charge) concentration for the material or product
under test. If the calculated FED is less than one the
calculation is repeated for increasingly higher mass
loss (or mass charge) concentrations (providing sets
of toxic gases with increasingly higher
concentrations) until a set providing an FED of 1 is
found. If the initial FED is greater than 1 the
calculation is repeated at lower mass loss (or mass
charge) concentrations. When the FED equals unity,
death is predicted and the mass loss (or mass
charge) exposure concentration for the material
producing these gas concentrations is equal to the
LC50 for a 30 min exposure period for that material
decomposed under the conditions of the test. The
LCt50 is then given by:
LCt50 = LC50 3 30 (12)
The estimated FED for lethality in rats for a 30 min
exposure to a defined set of toxic gas concentrations
is calculated as follows:
FED = [(COppm/LC50 CO + HCNppm/LC50 HCN +
ppm each acid gas/LC50 each acid gas + ppm each
organic irritant/LC50 each organic irritant) 3
VCO2] + A (13)
where
VCO2 is a multiplication factor for CO2 driven
hyperventilation and is equal to:
exp(0.14 3 [CO2])21
1+ ;
2
A is an acidosis factor equal to (CO2) 3 0.05.
Where data on organic irritant concentrations are
absent it is recommended that a contribution to the
overall FED should be derived from an estimate of
the total yield of organic products. The FED
component for organic irritants (FEDorg) is then
estimated as:
FEDorg = mass loss concentration of organic
material 3 % carbon present as organic carbon,
divided by 25 (14)
FEDorg is then substituted for the organic irritant
term in equation (13).
If these data are unavailable, an FEDorg of 0.5 should
be used for non-flaming decomposition and 0.15 for
vitiated or inefficient combustion, with 0.05 well
ventilated combustion at the LC50 mass loss
concentration for the material or product under test.
If the concentrations of the irritants present and
their lethal exposure doses are known, the equation
can be solved fully. Where unknown irritants are
present the equation enables the maximum LCt50 to
be predicted based upon the asphyxiant gases and
any known irritants.
NOTE 2 Current generally accepted 30 min LC50 concentrations
for exposure of rats to common fire effluent gases are given in
Table 9.
19
BS 7899-2:1999

Table 9 Ð Currently accepted 30 min LC50 Although it is assumed that half the lethal dose is
concentrations for common fire gases contributed by organic irritants the lower observed
Gas Concentration
LCt50 suggests that the true contribution was
ppm somewhat greater (N.B. the higher the LCt50 the
lower the toxic potency).
CO 5 700 Table 11 shows data for a well ventilated flaming
HCN 165 case. In this instance it is possible to account for all
HCl 3 800 the observed toxic potency in terms of asphyxiant
gases. The calculation formula slightly overestimates
HBr 3 800 the toxic potency, particularly if a term is added for
HF 2 900 a notional small contribution from organic irritants.
SO2 400 to 1 400a When two materials which decompose less
NO2 170 efficiently under flaming conditions were tested (a
PVC and a flame retardant treated flexible
Acrolein 150 polyurethane foam), organic irritants made a larger
Formaldehyde 750 contribution to the toxic potency (see Table 12). As
a the HCl concentration was not measured for the
Range or results from a number of studies.
PVC, an approximate concentration has been
Tables 10, 11 and 12 show examples of toxic potency calculated based upon the mass of PVC decomposed
calculations based upon gas effluent concentrations assuming a plasticized material with a 50 % PVC
for experiments conducting using the NBS cup content and assuming a 100 % HCl yield. In practice
furnace method, for which the LCt50 was measured it is likely that the HCl concentration in the static
using rats [23]. The tables show the toxic gas NBS box atmosphere would have been subject to a
concentrations at the LC50 concentrations for each rapid decay, so that the actual HCl concentration
material. From these the actual LCt50 exposure doses may have been somewhat lower than that used for
have been calculated according to equation (12) and the FED calculation. This may account for the
these can be compared with the estimated LCt50 calculated FED and LCt50 being somewhat lower
exposure doses calculated according to the FED (worse) than the observed value.
equation [equation (13)]. For the non-flaming cases
(see Table 10) the contribution to overall lethality
made by asphyxiant gases is small, the main
contribution to lethality almost certainly being made
by organic irritants.

Table 10 Ð Toxic potency analysis of materials decomposed under non-flaming oxidative

conditions in the NBS cup furnace
Toxicity parameters Material
Douglas fir (440 8C) Flexible polyurethane foam
(400 8C)
Mass loss exposure dose (g´m23´min)
684 1 050
Concentration FED Concentration FED

Carbon monoxide 2 700 ppm 0.47 1 261 ppm 0.22

Hydrogen cyanide 0 ppm 0.00 11 ppm 0.07
FED presumed due to organic irritants 0.5 0.5
Total FED uncorrected 0.97 0.79
Carbon dioxide 0.69 % 0.4 %
3 VCO2: 1.05 1.03
+ A: 0.03 0.02
Total FED corrected 1.05 0.83
LCt50 calculated 651 g´m23´min 1 265 g´m23´min
LCt50 observed 684 g´m23´min 1 050 g´m23´min

20  BSI 11-1999
 BS 7899-2:1999

Table 11 Ð Toxic potency analysis of materials decomposed under early, well ventilated
flaming conditions in the NBS cup furnace
Toxicity parameters Material
Douglas fir (485 8C) Flexible polyurethane foam and
polyester (52 8C)
Mass loss exposure dose (g´m23´min)
1 194 1 170
Concentration FED Concentration FED

Carbon monoxide 3 400 ppm 0.60 2 270 ppm 0.40

Hydrogen cyanide 0 ppm 0.00 63 ppm 0.38
FED presumed due to irritants 0.05 0.05
Total FED uncorrected 0.65 0.83
Carbon dioxide 3.71 % 3.36
3 VCO2: 1.34 1.30
+ A: 0.19 0.17
Total FED corrected 1.06 1.25
LCt50 calculated 23
1 126 g´m ´min 23
936 g´m ´min
LCt50 observed 1 194 g´m23´min 1 170 g´m23´min

Table 12 Ð Toxic potency analysis of materials decomposed less efficiently under early, well
ventilated flaming conditions in the NBS cup furnace
Toxicity parameters Material
PVC. (625 8C) FR flexible polyurethane foam
(425 8C)
Mass loss exposure dose (g´m 23´min)
519 810
Concentration FED Concentration FED

Carbon monoxide 1 100 ppm 0.19 1 040 ppm 0.18

Hydrogen chloride 2 932 ppma 0.77
Hydrogen cyanide 86 ppm 0.52
FED presumed due to organic irritants 0.15 0.15
Total FED uncorrected 1.11 0.85
Carbon dioxide 0.55 % 2.1 %
3 VCO2: 1.04 1.17
+A: 0.03 0.11
Total FED corrected 1.18 1.10
LCt50 calculated 440 g´m23´min 736 g´m23´min
LCt50 observed 519 g´m23´min 810 g´m23´min
a Estimated maximum assuming a plasticized PVC.

 BSI 11-1999 21
BS 7899-2:1999
6.5 Toxic potency data for common materials
under three fire conditions
Lethal toxic potency data for materials may be
obtained from small-scale combustion toxicity
experiments either using rats or calculations based
upon analytical data, providing that the small-scale
test method enables toxic potency to be determined
in terms of the mass loss exposure dose and
providing that the decomposition conditions of the
test are reasonably similar to those during the
relevant stage of the fire scenario under
consideration.
Unfortunately most small-scale combustion toxicity
test methods currently in use, both those using
animal exposures and those using analytical
methods, provide poor models for the decomposition
conditions during full scale fires.
The NBS cup furnace method and the
DIN 53436 method have provided reasonable data for
non-flaming oxidative decomposition, and the
NBS cup furnace method for well ventilated flaming
conditions see (PD 6503-2 and [25] and [26]). The
DIN 53436 method has also provided a small amount
of data for high temperature vitiated flaming
conditions. Based upon this rather inadequate data
base a review of published toxic potency data was
conducted for BSI [8]. The majority of the data was
obtained from these two test methods, mainly for rat
exposures but in some cases based upon calculations
from analytical data.
NOTE The results of this review are summarized in Table 13.
A concept developed for the previous BSI document
on this subject (DD 180) was that of a material with
a ªnormalº toxic potency, for which a figure
of 500 g´m23´min was estimated. In Table 13 the toxic
potencies are expressed in terms of two units: the
LCt50 and the 30 min LC50.
The results obtained for individual materials were
found to range over approximately two orders of
magnitude from 20 g´m23´min to 3 750 g´m23´min, but
when the data are reduced to basic types of material
under each decomposition condition a relatively
simple pattern emerges as shown in Table 13. The
findings were that under non-flaming oxidative
decomposition conditions at >400 8C most materials
have a similar toxic potency close to 500 g´m23´min,
due mainly to the effects of carbon monoxide and
irritants. The main exceptions are
nitrogen-containing materials releasing significant
HCN at low temperatures (polyacrylonitrile,
modacrylic) which have LCt50 values of around 160.
22
Under early flaming conditions most (non-fire
retarded) materials are substantially less toxic than
under non-flaming conditions. Cellulosic materials
(wood and cotton) are the least toxic with LCt50
values of >3 000 g´m23´min. Plastics containing
carbon, hydrogen and or oxygen are somewhat more
toxic with LCt50 values of ~ 1 200, and those
containing low percentages of nitrogen (flexible
polyurethane foams, wool, nylon) also fall into this
area. Some fire retarded materials and PVC have a
similar toxic potency to that under non-flaming
conditions with LCt50 values of ~ 300. Rigid
polyurethanes and nitrogen-containing acrylics have
high potencies similar to those under non-flaming
conditions.
Under vitiated and post-flashover conditions the
potency of all materials increases due to the
increased yields of HCN and/or CO. More smoke and
irritants are also present than under early flaming
conditions, which may add to the potency,
particularly of the non-nitrogen containing materials.
For cellulosic materials and aliphatic-based plastics
the potency is similar to that under non-flaming
conditions. For all nitrogen-containing materials the
toxic potency is high, the LCt50 ranging from
approximately 200 for flexible polyurethane foam to
approximately 1.5 for polyacrylonitrile and
modacrylic, although very limited data are available
for the toxic product yields of rigid PU foams and
acrylonitriles under post-flashover conditions. PVC
has an LCt50 of approximately 200 under these
conditions.
Table 13 provides a set of toxic potency data which
can be used as approximate values for common
materials for toxic hazard calculations relating to
these three fire stages. Since formulations of
materials vary it is possible to obtain specific toxic
potency data for individual materials, composites or
products by performing appropriate tests, using
either analytical measurements or animal exposures.
The main provisos are that it should be possible to
calculate the lethal mass loss exposure dose from
the test data and that the thermal decompositions in
the test should be similar to those in the fire
scenario of interest.
 BSI 11-1999
 BS 7899-2:1999

Table 13 Ð Approximate lethal exposure doses (LCt50 g´m23´min), and lethal concentrations
(LC50 g´m23) for common materials under different fire conditionsa
Material Non-flaming Early flaming Post-flashover
LCt50 LC50 LCt50 LC50 LCt50 LC50
Cellulosics 730 24 3 120 104 750 25
CHO polymers 500 17 1 200 40 530 18
PVC 500 17 300 10 200 7
Wool/nylon(low N2) 500 17 920 31 70 2
Flexible polyurethane 680 23 1 390 46 200 7
Rigid polyurethane 420 14b 399 13c d

Modacrylic/PAN 160 5 140 5 45 1.5

a LC50 toxic potencies are for a 30 min exposure time with 14 days observation period.
b Under non-flaming conditions LC50 range from 2 g/m3 to 29 g/m3 using Purser and DIN tube furnace methods depending upon material
and temperature [8], [25].
c Under flaming conditions using NBS cup furnace method [23].
d Limited data available under post-flashover conditions (for guidance see [8]). Large-scale test data, however, have shown that the use
of rigid polyurethane insulation products using protective steel facings in building envelopes presented no additional hazards compared
to those which are characteristic of alternative insulated constructions using inorganic insulants [26].

7 Application of toxic potency and
toxic hazard calculation methods
7.1 General
A number of different ways exist in which the
methods described in clauses 5 and 6 can be used in
toxic hazard or hazards to life calculation
assessments. The main ways are as follows.
a) Calculations of time to incapacitation or death
for humans using data on toxic effluent
time-concentration profiles measured directly in
full scale tests and toxic hazard calculation
methods for humans.
b) As in a) but using a combination of
mathematical modelling and/or analytical data
from small-scale combustion toxicity tests to
provide the time-concentration effluent profile
data. The main elements of such a method would
be as follows.
1) Obtain the mass loss-concentration curve for
the fire, either by conducting a simple
large-scale test (using mass loss or heat release
data) or by modelling.
2) Measure or estimate the yields of toxic
products and smoke from the materials involved
using small-scale toxic potency test data from
tests performed under appropriate
decomposition conditions.
3) Calculate the toxic gas concentration profiles,
smoke optical density and temperature profiles
in the full scale fire.
4) Apply the toxic hazard calculation methods
for humans to the data to estimate time to
incapacitation and time to death.
NOTE An example of how toxic hazard is calculated from
time-concentration curves for toxic effluents and heat is
shown in Table 7.
c) Calculations of time to death for humans based
upon rat LCt50 data for materials. The main
elements of such a method would be the
following.
1) Obtain the mass loss-concentration curve for
the fire as in b)1).
2) Obtain the LCt50 data (lethal exposure dose)
for the material or materials involved.
3) Express the integrated exposure dose for
each material as a fraction of the lethal
exposure dose and calculate the time when the
FED reaches unity and lethality is predicted.
Incapacitation is predicted at approximately one
third of this exposure dose.
7.2 Simple example of a toxic hazard
calculation based upon LCt50 data
A malfunction occurs in an electrically heated
appliance resulting in the non-flaming decomposition
over a period of 30 min of 30 g of nylon and 15 g of
PVC. The products are evolved into a closed
bedroom of volume 20 m3. What would the toxic
hazard be for an occupant sleeping in the room
overnight for 8 h?
From Table 8, the LCt50 of both nylon and PVC
are 500 g´m23´min under non-flaming decomposition
conditions.
The exposure concentration after 30 min is
(30 + 15)/20 = 2.25 g´m23.
The exposure dose after 8 h is 2.25 3 60
3 8 = 1,080 g´m23´min.
FED = 1,080/500 = 2.16
It is therefore predicted that a person sleeping
overnight in such an atmosphere could be exposed
to approximately twice a lethal dose of thermal
decomposition products. The predicted toxic effects
would be asphyxiation due to CO exposure and lung
inflammation due to acid gases and organic irritants.

 BSI 11-1999 23
BS 7899-2:1999

Annex A (informative)
Sensory irritancy
Another way of expressing the sensory irritancy of fire
effluent is in terms of the RD50 of the material
decomposed (expressed as the mass loss
concentration), rather than in terms of individual
irritant products.
NOTE Table A.1 shows the mouse RD50 for a number of
materials, some of which occur in aircraft, when decomposed
under the thermal decomposition conditions indicated, using the
FRS tube furnace method [24].
The majority of experiments were conducted under
non-flaming oxidative decomposition conditions, but a
small number of experiments were conducted under
flaming decomposition conditions.
The results show that the majority of materials have
RD50 values lying between 0.05 g´m23 and 0.5 g´m23
under non-flaming oxidative decomposition conditions.
This means that if the products of decomposition of
between 0.05 g and 0.5 g of material are dispersed into
each cubic metre of air, then the resultant atmosphere
is predicted to be painfully irritant to the eyes and
respiratory tract. However, under flaming
decomposition conditions the smoke irritancy
decreases by a factor of ten or more. For use in a
hazard analysis for humans the RD50 mass loss
concentration should be regarded as producing a total
FICirr of 0.5 for the effluents from the material in
question

Table A.1 Ð Mass loss concentrations of thermal decomposition products predicted to be painfully
irritant (mouse RD50 g´m23)
Material Temperature 8C NF/Fa RD50 g´m 23 mass 95 % confidence
loss limits
General materials
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene 500 NF 0.11 0.07 to 0.17
600 F ∼1
Low density polyethylene 500 NF 0.05 0.03 to 0.07
Nylon-6 480 NF 0.47 0.29 to 1.10
600 F ∼20
Polyvinylchloride (PVC)(rigid) 400 NF 0.17 0.12 to 0.25
Polyvinylchloride (plasticized) 380 NF 0.19 0.09 to 0.28
600 NF 0.17 0.12 to 0.22
650 F ∼2.6
Thermoplastic polyurethane 425 NF 0.20 0.14 to 0.96
600 F ∼3
Cable materials
PVC insulation (plasticized) 550 NF 0.56 0.39 to 1.00
PVC jacket (plasticized) 550 NF 0.34 0.27 to 0.47
Cross linked polyethylene (XLPE) (insul.) 550 NF 0.12 0.09 to 0.17
XLPE (jacket) 550 NF 0.32 0.20 to 0.32
Aircraft materials
Phenolic fibreglass 600 NF >9.1
PVC decorative laminate 600 NF 0.10
Polycarbonate 600 NF 0.25
Phenolic oil fibreglass insulation 600 NF 0.05
Aluminized PVF/paper covering 600 NF 0.37
Redux adhesive 600 NF 0.10 0.06 to 0.16
Silicone rubber 600 NF 0.06 0.01 to 0.29
Jointing compound JC5V 600 NF 0.18 0.07 to 0.32
Viton sealant 600 NF 0.21 0.15 to 0.27
Berger elastomer 600 NF 1.38 1.12 to 1.80
a NF = non-flaming, F = flaming.

24  BSI 11-1999
 BS 7899-2:1999

Bibliography

BS 4422-1:1987, Glossary of terms associated with fire Ð Part 1: General terms and phenomena of fire.
BS 6336:1998, Guide to the development of fire tests, the presentation of test data and the role of tests in
hazard assessment.
BS 7899-1:1997, Code of practice for assessment of hazard to life and health from fire Ð Part 1: General
guidance.
PD 6503-1:1990, Toxicity of combustion products Ð Part 1: General.
PD 6503-2:1988, Toxicity of combustion products Ð Part 2: Guide to the relevance of small-scale tests for
measuring the toxicity of combustion products of materials and composites.
DD 180:1989, Guide for the assessment of toxic hazards in fire in buildings and transport.
DD 240 (all parts), Fire safety engineering in buildings.
BS ISO TR 9122-4:1993, Toxicity testing of fire effluents Ð Part 4: The fire model (furnaces and combustion
apparatus used in small-scale testing).
BS ISO TR 9122-5:1993, Toxicity testing of fire effluents Ð Part 5: Prediction of toxic effects of fire effluents.
BS ISO TR 9122-6:1994, Toxicity testing of fire effluents Ð Part 6: Guidance for regulators and specifiers on
the assessment of toxic hazard in fires in buildings and transport.
DIN 53436 (all parts), Generation of thermal decomposition products from materials in air and their
toxicological evaluation.
ISO 13344:1996, Determination of the lethal toxic potency of fire effluents.
ISO TR 9122-1:1989, Toxicity testing of fire effluents Ð Part 1: General.
ISO/IEC Guide 52:1990, Glossary of fire terms and definitions.

Other publications

[1] PURSER, D.A. Toxicity assessment of combustion products. In: P.J. DINENNO, ed. SFPE Handbook of Fire
Protection Engineering. Quincy, MA. USA: National Fire Protection Association, 1995, Section 2 pp. 85-146.
[2] PURSER, D.A., FARDELL, P.J., ROWLEY, J., VOLLAM, S. and B. BRIDGEMAN. An improved tube furnace
method for the generation and measurement of toxic combustion products under a wide Rengo of fire
conditions. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference Flame Retardants 94, London: Interscience
Communications, 26-27 Jan 1994.
[3] CHITTY, R., and G. COX. ASKFRS: an interactive computer program for conducting fire engineering
estimations. BRE AP46, 1988.
[4] MITLER, H.E., and J.A. ROCKETT. Users' guide to FIRST, a comprehensive single-room fire model.
Gaithersburg, MD: National Bureau of Standards, 1987, NBS IR 87-3595.
[5] BUKOWSKI, R.W., JONES, W.W., LEVIN, B.N., FORNEY, C.L., STIEFEL, S.W., BABRAUSKAS, V., BROWN, E.
and A.J. FOWELL . Hazard I fire assessment method. Washington: National Bureau of
Standards, 1987 NBS IR 87-3602.
[6] COX, G., and S. KUMAR. Field modelling of fire in forced ventilated enclosures. Combustion Science and
Technology, 1987, 52, 7-23.
[7] NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. Guide for smoke management systems in malls, atria and
large areas. 1991 Edition. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association.
[8] PURSER, D.A. The harmonization of toxic potency data for materials obtained from small and large-scale
fire tests and their use in calculations for the prediction of toxic hazard in fire. In: Proceedings of
International Fire and Materials Conference, September 24-25 1992. Washington DC USA. London:
Interscience Communications, 1992 pp. 179-200.
[9] NELSON, G.L. Carbon monoxide and fire toxicity: A review and analysis of recent work.
Fire Technology, 1998, 34, 38-58.
[10] BRODIE, L. National Asthma Audit 1996 (Press Release). London: National Asthma Campaign, 1996.

 BSI 11-1999 25
BS 7899-2:1999

[11] HINDERLITER, A.L., ADAMS, K.F., PRICE, C.J., HEBST, M.C., KOCH, G and D.S SHEPS. Effects of
low-level carbon monmoxide exposure on resting and exercise-induced ventricular arrhythmias in patients with
coronary artery disease and no baseline ectopy. Arch. Environ. Health, 1989, 44, 89-93.
[12] JIN, T. Visibility through fire smoke. Part 5. Allowable smoke density for escape from fire. Report of Fire
Research Institute of Japan. 1976, No.42, 12.
[13] WOOD, P.G. The behaviour of people in fires. Fire Research Station, Garston, Watford, UK. Fire Research
Note 953. 1972.
[14] BRYAN, J.L. Smoke as a determinant of human behaviour in fire situations (project people). U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards (NBS), Washington, DC. Report NBS-GCR-77-94, 1977.
[15] PURSER, D.A. Modelling time to incapacitation and death from toxic and physical hazards in aircraft fires.
In: Conference Proceedings No.467. Aircraft Fire Safety. NATO-AGARD Sintra, Portugal 22-26 May, 1989.
pp 41-1 to 41-13.
[16] ALARIE, Y. Bioassay for evaluating the potency of airborne sensory irritants and predicting acceptable
levels of exposure in man. Food Cosmet. Toxicol, 1981, 19, 623-626.
[17] HARTZELL, G.E., GRAND, A.F., and W.G. SWITZER. Modelling of toxicological effects of fire gases VI.
Further studies of the toxicity of smoke containing hydrogen chloride. In: G.E. HARTZELL, ed. Advances in
Combustion Toxicology, Volume two. Lancaster PA: Technomic,. 1989, pp. 285-308.
[18] HOCKEY, S.M., and P.J. REW. Human response to thermal radiation. Sudbury Suffolk, PO Box 1999,
CO10 6FS UK: HSE Books. 1996 Contract Research Report No. 97/1996 49pp.
[19] PURSER, D.A. Review of Human response to thermal radiation. (Contract Research Report No. 97/1996).
Fire Safety Journal, 1997, 28, 290-291.
[20] HOME OFFICE/THE SCOTTISH OFFICE. Fire Statistics, United Kingdom. Government Statistical
Service, 1993 (summarized annually). London: The Stationery Office.
[21] HARTZELL, G.E., SWITZER, W.G., and D.N. PRIEST. Modelling of toxicological effects of fire gases. J. Fire
Sci., 1985, 3, 330-342.
[22] LEVIN, B.C., PAABO, M., GURMAN, J.L., and S.C. HARRIS. Effects of exposure to single or multiple
combinations of the predominant toxic gases and low oxygen atmospheres produced in fires. Fundamental
and Applied Toxicology, 1987, 9, 236-250.
[23] LEVIN, B.C., FOWELL, A.J., BIRKY, M.M., PAABO, M., STOLTE, A. and D. MALEK. Further development of
a test method for the assessment of the acute inhalation toxicity of combustion products. US Department of
Commerce, National Bureau of Standards (NBS), Washington D.C. Report NBS-IR 82-2532, 1982.
[24] PURSER, D.A. (1996) Behavioural impairment in smoke environments. Toxicology, 115, 25-40.
[25] KIMMERLE, G., and F.K. PRAGER. The relative toxicity of pyrolysis products. Part II. Polyisocyanurate
based foam materials. J. Combust. Toxicol. 1980, 7, 54-68.
[26] BALL, G.W., BALL, L.S., WALKER, M.G., and W.J. WILSON. Fire performance data for urethane cellular
plastics. Journal of Cellular Polymers, 1971, 241-263.

26
blank
BS 7899-2:1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BSI Ð British Standards Institution
|
|
|
|
|
|
| BSI is the independent national body responsible for preparing British Standards. It
|
| presents the UK view on standards in Europe and at the international level. It is
| incorporated by Royal Charter.
|
|
| Revisions
|
|
| British Standards are updated by amendment or revision. Users of British Standards
|
| should make sure that they possess the latest amendments or editions.
|
|
| It is the constant aim of BSI to improve the quality of our products and services. We
|
| would be grateful if anyone finding an inaccuracy or ambiguity while using this
| British Standard would inform the Secretary of the technical committee responsible,
|
| the identity of which can be found on the inside front cover. Tel: 020 8996 9000.
|
| Fax: 020 8996 7400.
|
|
| BSI offers members an individual updating service called PLUS which ensures that
|
| subscribers automatically receive the latest editions of standards.
|
|
| Buying standards
|
| Orders for all BSI, international and foreign standards publications should be
|
| addressed to Customer Services. Tel: 020 8996 9001. Fax: 020 8996 7001.
|
|
| In response to orders for international standards, it is BSI policy to supply the BSI
|
| implementation of those that have been published as British Standards, unless
|
| otherwise requested.
|
|
| Information on standards
|
| BSI provides a wide range of information on national, European and international
|
| standards through its Library and its Technical Help to Exporters Service. Various
|
| BSI electronic information services are also available which give details on all its
|
| products and services. Contact the Information Centre. Tel: 020 8996 7111.
|
| Fax: 020 8996 7048.
|
|
| Subscribing members of BSI are kept up to date with standards developments and
| receive substantial discounts on the purchase price of standards. For details of
|
| these and other benefits contact Membership Administration. Tel: 020 8996 7002.
|
| Fax: 020 8996 7001.
|
|
| Copyright
|
|
| Copyright subsists in all BSI publications. BSI also holds the copyright, in the UK, of
|
| the publications of the international standardization bodies. Except as permitted
| under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 no extract may be reproduced,
|
| stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means ± electronic,
|
| photocopying, recording or otherwise ± without prior written permission from BSI.
|
|
| This does not preclude the free use, in the course of implementing the standard, of
|
| necessary details such as symbols, and size, type or grade designations. If these
|
| details are to be used for any other purpose than implementation then the prior
| written permission of BSI must be obtained.
|
|
| If permission is granted, the terms may include royalty payments or a licensing
|
| agreement. Details and advice can be obtained from the Copyright Manager.
|
| Tel: 020 8996 7070.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BSI |
|
389 Chiswick High Road |
|
London |
|
W4 4AL |
|
|
|
|
|
|