Advertisement

Fire Technology

, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp 1709–1735 | Cite as

A Multi-national Survey of Low-Energy and Smoking Materials Ignition Fires

  • Austin Anderson
  • Marc Janssens
Article

Abstract

The three-part study described in this paper involved a detailed evaluation of fire statistics from four countries to compare the number of deaths and injuries from structure fires started by a small open flame ignition source to casualty counts from fires started by smoking materials. First, a qualitative multi-national comparison of low-energy and smoking materials ignition fires is made based on fire statistics obtained from the U.S., the U.K., Japan, and Finland for the period between 2002 and 2012. From this comparison it can be concluded that, compared to the other nations, the U.K. appears to have more of a problem with smoking materials ignition fires resulting in fatalities; and that Japan appears to have appreciably more smoking materials ignition fires, but not fatalities from such fires, than the other nations. A more detailed quantitative analysis is then performed to examine the contribution of low-energy (match, lighter, space heater, etc.) versus smoking materials (cigar, pipe, cigarette, etc.) ignition to the U.S. fire problem. An attempt was made to address two issues with the U.S. NFIRS database, i.e., the fact that it is based on a voluntary sample of U.S. fire department incident reports and that many of the data categories relevant to the present study contain unknown fields. From this analysis it is apparent that smoking materials ignition fires tend to more commonly result in fatalities than low-energy ignition fires, while the overall volume of low-energy ignition fires and corresponding losses and injuries are greater. Finally, a logistic regression model is presented that can be used to predict the probability that a fire resulting in a fatality was started by low-energy ignition based on the age and race of the victim, the item first ignited, and the season in the year when the fire took place. The model indicates that older persons are generally more susceptible to perishing in a fire resulting from smoking materials ignition rather than low-energy ignition.

Keywords

Fire statistics Logistic regression model Low-energy ignition fires Open flame ignition fires Smoking materials ignition fires 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly acknowledge the financial support of the American Chemistry Council for the work described in this paper. The authors also want to express their gratitude to Mr. Nazneen Chowdhury, Dr. Tuula Hakkarainen, and Dr. Ai Sekizawa for providing the statistical data for this study from the U.K., Finland, and Japan, respectively. The authors also appreciate the critique provided on an earlier version of this manuscript by anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Fire Administration (2012) National fire incident reporting system (NFIRS). U.S. Fire Administration, Emmitsburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2006) Fire statistics, United Kingdom, 2004. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Department for Communities and Local Government (2008) Fire Statistics United Kingdom, 2006. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Department for Communities and Local Government (2009) Fire Statistics United Kingdom, 2007. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) Fire Statistics United Kingdom, 2008. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Department for Communities and Local Government (2011) Fire Statistics Great Britain, 2010–2011. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) Fire Statistics Great Britain, 2011–2012. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) Fire Statistics: Great Britain April 2012 to March 2013. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) Incident recording system—questions and lists. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Geneva Association (2014) World fire statistics bulletin no. 29. The Geneva Association, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hocken R (2012) Comparison of european fire statistics final report for the department for communities and local government. Department for Communities and Local Government, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sekizawa A (1994) International comparison analysis on fire risk among the United States, The United Kingdom, and Japan. In: Fire safety science—proceedings of the fourth international symposium. International Association of Fire Safety Science, London, pp 195–204Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hall J (2003) Fire in the U.S. and Japan. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall J (2005) Fire in the U.S. and the United Kingdom. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hall J (2004) Fire in the U.S. and Sweden. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Fire Administration (2011) Fire death rate trends: an international perspective. Topical fire report series, vol 12, no 8. U.S. Fire Administration, Emmitsburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hall J, Harwood B (1989) The national estimates approach to U.S. fire statistics. Fire Technol 25(2):99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller D (2013) 2009–2011 residential fire loss estimates. U.S. Consumer Product Safety CommissionGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Honaker J, King G (2010) What to do about missing values in time series cross-section data. Am J Polit Sci 54(2):561–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rubin DB (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sekizawa A (1991) Statistical analyses on fatalities characteristics of residential fires. In: Fire safety science—proceedings of the third international symposium. International Association of Fire Safety Science, London, pp 475–484.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sekizawa A (2013) Challenges in fire safety in a society facing a rapidly aging population. In: 2013 SFPE annual meeting. Society for Fire Protection Engineers, Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Hall J (2013) The smoking-material fire problem. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    (2011) National fire incident reporting system version 5.0 fire data analysis guidelines and issues. U.S. Fire Administration, Emmitsburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anderson A, Ezekoye O (2013) A comparative study assessing factors that influence home fire casualties and fatalities using state fire incident data. J Fire Prot Eng 23(1):51–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hasofer A, Thomas I (2006) Analysis of fatalities and injuries in building fire statistics. Fire Saf J 41(1):2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harrell F (2001) Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Buuren S (2012) Flexible imputation of missing data. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haynes H (2014) Fire loss in the United States during 2014. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory AnalysesSouthwest Research InstituteSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations