How could the fire fatalities have been prevented? An analysis of 144 cases during 2011–2014 in Sweden: An analysis
Source abstract
Abstract
Approximately 80%–90% of all fire-related fatalities take place in residential occupancies. The risk groups are well known, but the effectiveness of different measures has been less investigated. In this article, fire investigations from 144 unintentional fatal residential fires have been systematically analyzed and technical measures that would have been effective in preventing each fatality have been identified. The result shows that, generally, a thermally activated suppression system (e.g. sprinkler) has the highest potential effectiveness (68%) followed by a detector-activated system in bedroom and living room (59%) or smoke alarm (37%). For smokers with home care, however, the potential effectiveness of a thermally activated suppression system and home smoke alarm was significantly lower (31% and 14%, respectively). This indicates that different measures are effective for different groups. In one-fifth of the cases, the victim could have evacuated but chose not to do so, primarily to attempt to extinguish the fire.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Injury Epidemiology and Prevention · Evacuation and Crowd Dynamics · Traffic and Road Safety
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Division of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
References (49)
Show source-provided references
1. The Geneva Association. World fire statistics, https://www.genevaassociation.org/media/874729/ga2014-wfs29.pdf (2014, accessed 1 November 2015).
2. 10.1007/s10694-015-0551-510.1007/s10694-015-0551-5 ↗
3. Winberg D · 2016
4. Duffey RB · 2003
5. MSB · 2010
6. SCB. The National Board of Health and Welfare, Database of Elderly Care Statistics, http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/statistik/statistikdatabas/aldreomsorg (2016, accessed 8 January 2016).
7. Van Hees P · 2010
8. 10.1136/ip.5.2.14510.1136/ip.5.2.145 ↗
9. MSB. Indicators, Data & Analysis (IDA), http://ida.msb.se (2015, accessed 1 November 2015).
10. 10.3210/fst.32.3510.3210/fst.32.35 ↗
11. Rollenhagen C · 1995
12. INPO · 1989
13. Fleming M · 2000
14. SCB. Living conditions survey. Stamford, Conneticut: Statistics Sweden, http://www.scb.se/le0101 (2015, accessed 14 December 2015).
15. Bieber P · 3
16. Tabachnic B · 2007
17. 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.8510.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 ↗
18. 10.1177/00131644700300010610.1177/001316447003000106 ↗
19. 10.1177/004912411036623110.1177/0049124110366231 ↗
20. Mattsson B · 2004
21. Nilsson A · 2011
22. DeHaan JD · 2011
23. Waters L · 2015
24. Widlund D · 2009
25. 10.1177/07349041950130050110.1177/073490419501300501 ↗
26. Sundström B · 1995
27. Krasny JF · 2000
28. Nordtest. NT Fire 037, 1988.
29. 10.1016/j.firesaf.2003.11.00510.1016/j.firesaf.2003.11.005 ↗
30. 10.1177/00405175730430100410.1177/004051757304301004 ↗
31. Kadolph SJ · Int J Consum Stud · 1987 · 11 · 165
32. Mock C · 2011
33. MSB · 2013
34. Babruskas V · 2003
35. Sasaki F · 2013 · 839
36. Larsson I · 2015
37. 10.6028/NIST.TN.143610.6028/NIST.TN.1436 ↗
38. 10.1177/07349041890070040310.1177/073490418900700403 ↗
39. 10.1007/s10694-015-0459-010.1007/s10694-015-0459-0 ↗
40. DCLG · 2007
41. Liu Z · J Fire Prot Eng · 2000 · 10 · 32
42. Q-Fog. Mobile fire control, http://qfog.se/wp/en/ (2016, accessed 27 April 2016).
43. Surefire. UltraGuard, http://www.surefire.co.uk/Fire-Suppression/PortableSprinklerMistSystem (2016, accessed 27 April 2016).
44. Kerber S · 2010
45. 10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.10-16110.3801/IAFSS.FSS.10-161 ↗
46. Bruck D, Ball M. Sleep and fire: who is at risk and can the risk be reduced? In: Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on fire safety science, Bejing, China, 18–23 September 2005, pp. 37–51. London UK: Interscience Communications Ltd, http://www.iafss.org/publications/fss/8/view10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.8-37 ↗
47. Huey RW
48. 10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.9-40310.3801/IAFSS.FSS.9-403 ↗
49. Hazebroek JC · 2015