JEERESD

Volume 4 · Issue 4 · 2026 · Pages 13-36 · Published online 1 October 2026

Original Article · English

Assessment of Suppression Measures in Managing Technological Multi-hazards at International Airports in Kenya.

Nelson Kiplangat Mneria · Nicodemus O. Nyandiko · Stanley Omuterema Oluchiri

Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kenya

DOI10.68305/jeeresd.v4i4.003

01Abstract

This study assessed suppression measures for managing technological multi-hazards at international airports in Kenya. A descriptive research design was adopted, involving a sample of 285 airport workers selected through stratified random sampling, comprising 226 respondents from Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) and 59 from Moi International Airport (MIA). Primary data were collected using questionnaires, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), observation checklists, and structured interview protocols. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including means, frequencies, and percentages, and inferential statistics using the Chi-square test, while qualitative data were analyzed descriptively. The findings on structural suppression measures indicated no statistically significant association between variations in airport facilities and the presence of suppression measures. Specifically, the Chi-square results were χ²(2) = 2.81, p = .246 for critical airport facilities and fire suppression systems; χ²(2) = 0.49, p = .783 for terminal buildings and fire sprinkler systems; and χ²(2) = 0.83, p = .659 for ground refuelling operations and the use of portable foam extinguishers. Regarding non-structural suppression measures, more than 70% of respondents acknowledged the existence of policies governing fire suppression systems and fire suppression agents at the airports. The study recommends transitioning from portable fluorinated firefighting foams to environmentally sustainable alternatives, implementing effective measures for managing legacy fluorinated foam stocks, improving sprinkler coverage in critical areas, and strengthening environmental monitoring, auditing, and compliance mechanisms to enhance fire safety and environmental sustainability at international airports in Kenya.

KeywordsSuppression measures; Airport fire safety; PFAS/fluorinated foam; fluorine-free foam; technological multi-hazards

02Author contributions

Nelson Kiplangat Mneria

Nicodemus O. Nyandiko

Stanley Omuterema Oluchiri

03What this study adds

The study adds to existing knowledge by; 1. Demonstrating the interdependence between physical fire-suppression capacity, the environmental characteristics of suppression agents, and institutional policy controls in managing technological multi-hazards at airports. 2. It provides an understanding that airport fire-risk management should be viewed as an integrated socio-technical system rather than as a collection of independent fire suppression measures. 3. The findings also provide an empirical basis for strengthening airport fire-safety policies, harmonising suppression-agent practices, and promoting a transition towards environmentally sustainable fire-suppression technologies without compromising emergency response capability.

04Introduction

The airport plays a major role in driving a country’s economic and social development. However, technological multi-hazards have increasingly contributed to business disruptions, infrastructure damage, and loss of lives at airports around the world (Sumathi et al., 2018). These technological multi-hazards range from aircraft accidents to industrial failures, including fires, hazardous material spills, and leaks. In Kenya, fatal aircraft accidents that have occurred include; the Busia (2003) Marsabit (2006), Narok (2008) and Ngong plane (2012) accidents in which prominent Kenyan civil servants and political leaders lost their lives (Mutugi and Maingi, 2011). Airport terminal building fires have also been reported, including the 2013 fire at JKIA, which destroyed the airport’s arrivals terminal (Angira, 2013). Many technological-related hazards are projected to increase in frequency and intensity as airport development progresses, leading to a heightened likelihood of simultaneous disasters and compound events. In light of this, a growing body of literature calls for multi-hazards research (Phillips et al., 2020; Raymond et al., 2020; Zscheischler et al., 2018) recognizing that analysis and prediction of compound events are still emergent. However, to date, the wider risk management literature still focus primarily on one hazard at a time, rarely engaging with the reality of multiple hazards and risks that interact with each other and other societal forces (Raymond et al., 2020). Comprehending the adaptations that take place when a single hazard scenario becomes multi-hazard, and the structural and non-structural measures that address these, are important areas in disaster risk reduction (Tozier de la Poterie et al., 2022). The 2013 airport terminal building fire at JKIA, compounded and ended up causing cancelation of many domestic and international flights including losses of millions of shillings (Angira, 2013). Further, the use of suppression agents that are not environmentally friendly for firefighting, illustrate the reality of compounding hazards and the critical need for risk managers and other actors to plan for and respond to multiple-hazard. It also reveals a need to better understand how risk managers can quickly axis between multiple-hazard and the successes and challenges that lie therein. Suppression agents are substances used to put out or "suppress" fires by disrupting the chemical reaction, reducing heat, or removing oxygen. Suppression agents used in aviation are categorized into two main types namely; principal and complementary suppression agents. According to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), complementary suppression agents are classified as dry chemical powders (classes B and C powders); or other extinguishing agents with at least the same firefighting capability (ICAO, 2015). Some of these extinguishing agents can generate negative impacts on the environment and human health (Kreckie, 2020). It is because of the negative impact to the environment that in the year 1994, halon extinguishing agents, a complementary agent was banned by ICAO. This is the reason why there has been need to develop extinguishing agents that are effective against complex fires while remaining stable, environmentally friendly, and less polluting (Rabajczyk & Zielecka, 2022). The principal suppression agents on the other hand, are classified as either a foam meeting the minimum performance level A; or level B; or level C; or a combination of these agents (ICAO, 2015). According to ICAO (2015) these principal foaming agents produce a permanent control, i.e. for a period of several minutes or longer. Class A foams are used to fight structural fires and wildfires, while Class B foams are designed to fight fires involving flammable liquids (Korzeniowski et al., 2018). The effectiveness of Class B foams was improved significantly with the incorporation of surfactants in their composition (Hinnant et al., 2020; Kreckie, 2020; Korzeniowski et al., 2018) According to Kreckie (2020), the surfactants used in Class B foams are part of a group of chemicals known as Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Although there are a number of ways to classify extinguishing foams, from a PFAS standpoint, suppression foams can be classified into two categories: fluorinated foams containing PFAS and fluorine-free foams that do not contain PFAS (Kreckie, 2020). Fluorinated class B foams (i.e. foams containing PFAS) are the most commonly employed suppression agents for liquid hydrocarbon fires (Kreckie, 2020). These include aqueous film forming foams, fluoroprotein foams and film forming fluoroprotein foams. This release of PFAS contaminated material has resulted in the accumulation of ‘forever chemicals’ in local environments. PFASs colloquially known as ‘forever chemicals;’ are highly stable in the environment and resistant to biodegradation, photo-oxidation, direct photolysis, and hydrolysis. They have low volatility, are soluble in water and have limited sorption to particles (Paul et al., 2009). They therefore present a groundwater contamination risk when released in the environment. Environmental assessments of PFASs near airports and industrial estates in Australia, China, Europe and the US have consistently shown drinking water levels above concentrations thought to be safe for humans (Hu et al., 2016). Airports are among the largest users and emitters of these fluorinated chemicals in the world. PFAS containing extinguishing foams are still widely in use today (Glüge et al., 2020). Protecting public health means preventing exposure to all PFASs that are present in water supplies and other environmental media above risk thresholds (Boston et al., 2019). According to Boston et al. (2019), prevention may be accomplished only by controlling and decreasing exposures to PFASs that is already in the environment. In Africa, a relatively small number of peer-reviewed research has been published in the subject area of PFAS. Hanssen et al.(2010) found elevated PFAS levels in the serum and cord blood of South African women. Groffen et al. (2018) evaluated concentrations of 15 different PFASs in various aquatic biota and water also in South Africa, finding extensive low-level contamination of multiple PFASs with PFOS presenting the most elevated levels. Firefighting foams that do not contain fluorosurfactants or PFAS are commonly referred to as fluorine-free foams (FFF or F3) (Dahlbom et al., 2022). Fluorine free foams (F3 or 3F) were initially developed by the 3M Company. The foams operate under the same principle as fluorinated class B foams however they use proprietary hydrocarbon surfactants in place of fluorinated surfactants. There are currently more than a dozen F3 products offered by 8 different companies (Allcorn et al., 2018). F3 foams have not been shown to bioaccumulate and are not persistent in the environment (Dahlbom et al., 2022). Considering suppression agent alternatives that reduce environmental and human health impacts is the best strategy in managing technological multi-hazards (Kreckie, 2020). According to the ICAO (2018), people can be a solution in reducing these risks by taking appropriate actions to mitigate technological multi-hazardous situation. This can be done through the implementation of non-structural suppression measures such as knowledgeable leadership and provision of adequate structural suppression measures which can proactively contribute to the identification and minimization of these risks (Yazgan et al., 2022). As long as these technological multi-hazards are kept under an appropriate level of control, a system as open and dynamic as aviation can still be kept safe (ICAO, 2018). However, the assessment of suppression measures for managing technological multi-hazards at international airports in Kenya has not been well studied and this forms the research gap of this study.

05Materials and methods

2.1 Research Design This study utilized descriptive research design. A descriptive research design involves a systematic empirical investigation in which the researcher lacks direct control over independent variables because they have already occurred or are inherently unalterable (Kothari, 2004). According to Walingo and Ngaira (2008) descriptive research helps determine the frequency with which something happens or is related to something else. 2.2 Study Area The international airports that this study targeted were; Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) and Moi International Airport (MIA) in Kenya. The locations of these airports are as follows: JKIA is bounded by latitude 1° 20' 1.4'' South and longitude 36° 55' 37.6'' East (Figure 2) and MIA is at latitude 4° 02' 05'' South and longitude 39° 35' 44'' East (Figure 1) 2.3 Population The main unit of observation was the employees at JKIA and MIA in Kenya. Based on the population size of 1,115, the sample size of 285 was extracted from the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) Table. 2.4 Sample and sampling techniques Sampling involved choosing a representative subset of a larger population to investigate specific characteristics of the entire group. Based on the population size of 1,115, the sample size of 285 was extracted from the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) Table. From a sampling size, the proportionate sampling was used to determine the number of staff to be sampled from each section of the two airports (Barreiro and Albandoz, 2001). The formula for proportionate sampling is shown in Equation below: = sample size of stratum = Population size of the stratum = Total population size = Total sample size From a sampling size of 285, the proportionate sampling as shown in Table 1 was used to determine the number of staff sampled from each section of the two airports (Barreiro and Albandoz, 2001). Quota sampling was used to sample Focus Group Discussion participants, which comprised of 10 participants. The researcher conducted two groups of Focus Group Discussion (FGD) in each airport, one group comprising of 10 staff working at the landside and another group of 10 staff for those working at the airside. The airside staff comprised of two (2) participants each from Ground Flight Safety (GFS), Birds and Wildlife Control (BWC), Security Service, Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (ARFFS) and Airline ground operations. The landside staff comprised of two (2) participants each from Engineering, Safety, Security Service, Customer Service and Fire Prevention Section. The sampling methodology for the key informant interview protocol was purposive. In-depth interviews were conducted in person with the officials. Appointments for these key informants was scheduled for the qualitative follow up sample when collecting quantitative data on instruments. Table 2 shows the population size, sample size determination, sampling method and sample size. 2.5 Data Collection Data were collected using structured questionnaire administered to different airport employees. Field observation was accompanied by photographic registration to substantiate the information collected. Key Informant Interview Protocol tool and Focus Group Discussions guide were also used to collect data. Both quantitative and qualitative techniques were used to process, analyze and present the data. The qualitative data generated from interview and observation guide were reported in narrative form along with quantitative presentation and were used to reinforce the quantitative data. Thematic and narration analysis techniques was used to analyze data from Focus Group Discussions and key informants. 2.6 Statistical Analysis The quantitative data generated from questionnaire was analyzed using both descriptive, and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics enable users to present and see the data in a more meaningful way, allowing simpler interpretation of the data. Tools such as tables, and figures are examples of tools that were used for summarizing data. Descriptive statistics include measures of central tendency such as mean (average), median and mode, as well as measures of variability such as frequency distributions. According to Gay et al. (2012) the most commonly used method of reporting descriptive survey is by developing frequency distributions, calculating percentages and tabulating them appropriately. The inferential statistical procedure that was used in this study was Chi-square test. The Chi-square test was used to compare proportions of categorical values and any association or relationships. The results were considered significant when the 2-sided P-value was less than 0.05 at 95% confidence interval. 2.7 Validity and Reliability of Instruments The instruments used for data collection, namely the structured questionnaire and semi-structured interview schedule, were validated by experts in the field of Disaster Management and Sustainable Development at Masinde Muliro University of science and Technology. This feedback informed the question refinement of clarity, relevance and comprehensiveness for the data collection instruments. The instruments were pre-tested for reliability and validity by conducting the pilot study with 30 employees from Kisumu International Airport and 30 employees from Eldoret International Airports that is not part of the study. The feedback from the pilot study helped to make minor changes to the questions to enhance comprehension and accuracy. In determining statistical proof, Content Validity Index CVI was used to determine the validity of the instruments. All the scales had CVI above 0.9, which meant that the instruments were valid. According to Polit et al. (2007) The instruments are considered to be valid if the calculated CVI is above 0.7 Similarly, a split-half reliability approach was employed to ensure the reliability of the structured questionnaires. During the pilot test the researcher administered the instrument to a sample size of 30 staff at Kisumu international airport and a sample size of 30 staff at Eldoret international airport, which has the standards to weigh MIA and JKIA airports. Those selected for piloting and the two airports were not part of the main study sample. The questions were divided into odd and even-numbered, and the total mean scores calculated for each section of the Questionnaire. The data was used to conduct a correlation analysis, which gave a correlation coefficient (r) that determined whether it was reliable. A value of r = 0.9 was obtained, meaning the instrument was valid for research purpose.

06Results

3.1 Structural Suppression Measures for Managing Technological Multi-hazards 3.1.1 Fire Suppression System in Critical Facilities The observed results presented in Table 3 indicate that, at JKIA, 58% (131) of the respondents reported that fire suppression systems had been installed in critical facilities, while 25% (57) were uncertain about their installation status and 17% (38) indicated that no fire suppression systems had been installed. At MIA, 52% (31) of the respondents reported the presence of fire suppression systems in critical facilities, whereas 12% (7) indicated that such systems had not been installed, and 36% (21) were uncertain. Statistical analysis (Table 3) revealed a chi-square value of χ²(2) = 2.81, p = .246, indicating that there was no statistically significant relationship between airport critical facilities and fire suppression systems. Furthermore, Cramer's V coefficient of 0.10 suggested a weak association between the two variables. These findings imply that variations in airport critical facilities were not significantly related to the presence of fire suppression systems within the sampled airports. The key informant interviews and observation checklists at JKIA revealed that fire suppression systems had been installed in critical facilities, including the Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR) system. Further, the key informant protocol established that the electrical substation at JKIA was protected by an FM-200 clean-agent fire suppression system, which is designed for rapid fire suppression without leaving residue. According to the key informant, the generator room was equipped with a conventional carbon dioxide (CO₂) suppression system, which is suitable for total-flooding applications in enclosed risk areas such as generator rooms. At MIA, the key informant indicated that a fire suppression system had been installed in the ICT server room. However, the key informant noted a significant challenge concerning the system, namely that it was not routinely tested. Consequently, its operational effectiveness and reliability in the event of an actual fire emergency could not be readily confirmed. 3.1.2 Sprinkler System in Airport Terminal Buildings As illustrated in Figure 2, 85% (192) of the respondents at JKIA indicated that a sprinkler system had been installed, whereas 81% (48) of the respondents at MIA reported that no sprinkler system had been installed. Statistical analysis (Table 4) revealed a chi-square value of χ²(2) = 0.49, p = .783, indicating that there was no statistically significant relationship between airport terminal buildings and fire sprinkler systems. Furthermore, Cramer's V coefficient of 0.04 suggested a weak association between the two variables. These findings imply that variations in airport terminal buildings were not significantly related to the presence of fire sprinkler systems within the sampled airports. The key informant interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and observation checklist conducted at JKIA revealed that sprinkler systems have been installed in the airport terminal buildings T1A, T1B, and T1C. However, T1D and the JKIA Cargo terminal are not equipped with sprinkler systems. Similarly, findings from the key informant interviews, FGDs, and observation checklist at MIA revealed that a sprinkler system has been installed only in the VIP Lounge, while the main terminal building is not equipped with a sprinkler system. According to the key informant at MIA, external experts are periodically engaged to conduct occupational safety and health audits in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2007 (Kenya Law, 2007). The key informant further indicated that airport management considers and acts upon the professional recommendations provided in the fire safety audit reports. 3.1.3 Portable Foam Extinguisher for Ground Refueling of Aircraft The respondents were asked to indicate the type of portable foam extinguishing equipment used during the ground refuelling of aircraft. As presented in Figure 3, 62% (140) of respondents at JKIA and 68% (40) at MIA reported that fluorinated foam was used during aircraft ground refuelling operations at the respective airports. Statistical analysis presented in Table 5 yielded a chi-square value of χ²(2) = 0.83, p = .659, indicating that there was no statistically significant association between airport ground refuelling operations and the use of environmentally friendly portable foam extinguishing equipment. Furthermore, the Cramer's V coefficient of 0.05 indicated a very weak association between the two variables. These findings suggest that differences in aircraft ground refuelling practices between the sampled airports were not significantly associated with the availability or use of environmentally friendly portable foam extinguishing equipment. The key informant interviews conducted at JKIA and MIA, together with observations from the checklist, revealed that fluorinated foam is used in portable foam extinguishing equipment during the ground refuelling of aircraft. At JKIA, the key informant indicated that most oil companies currently use Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) in portable fire extinguishers during aircraft ground refuelling operations. However, the key informant further revealed that the airport terminal building currently uses an environmentally friendly portable Cold Fire extinguisher manufactured by Fire Freeze Worldwide Incl. (2026). 3.1.4 Principal Extinguishing Agents used in Fire Trucks at International Airports The study established the type of principal extinguishing agents used at international airports in Kenya. The results in Table 6 shows that 85% (192) of respondents at JKIA and 71% (42) of respondents at MIA indicated Jet Foam 6. The Focus Group Discussion (FGD) at JKIA indicated that sensitization of all airport stakeholders regarding the Kenya Airports Authority’s transition from fluorinated foam to fluorine-free foam has been conducted. However, although Kenyan airports have transitioned to fluorine-free foam, the disposal of the existing stock of fluorinated foam has not yet been undertaken. The FGD further established that available disposal options for fluorinated foams are limited and costly, presenting a challenge to the effective phase-out of these substances. It was also reported that discussions have been held with ICAO, which has committed to assisting Kenya in developing and implementing plans for the phase-out of fluorinated compounds. The existing stock of fluorinated foam is shown in Figure 4. The key respondents were further asked whether the existing firefighting foam was Fluorine Free Foam (FFF). The key informants at JKIA and MIA and observation checklist corroborate the findings that the firefighting foam that was currently in use in all fire trucks at both JKIA and MIA was JetFoam 6% and is a Fluorine Free Foam (F3). According to the key informant, the website of Angus Fire Ltd provides the JetFoam 6% - B, details relating to the datasheet, Safety Data Sheet (SDS), benefits, approvals and listings and application of this foam (Angus Fire Ltd, 2026). According to the Angus Fire Ltd. (2026) website, this foam-extinguishing agent is environmentally friendly and contains no fluorosurfactants, orga nohalogens, fluoropolymers, perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and no perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). In addition to this foam being eco-friendly it is also effective in the management of technological multi-hazards such as aircraft fire, fuel spills and leaks. According to the key informant protocol at JKIA, Kenya has outpaced other African countries in the adoption of Fluorine-Free Foam (F3), with all airports managed by the Kenya Airports Authority having transitioned to and currently using F3 foam. The key informant further indicated that Kenyan airports ceased using aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) in 2016. This transition subsequently attracted a delegation from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which visited JKIA to participate in a fire drill on 18 April 2026 and gain first-hand experience of the F3 solution. The claim is corroborated by the UNEP/GEF publication, “How Jomo Kenyatta International Airport is Leading Africa’s Transition to Safer Firefighting,” under the sub-title “From Africa to the World,” which notes that the 18 April 2026 fire drill at JKIA was not merely a test of emergency preparedness, but also demonstrated to Africa and the wider world that transitioning away from PFAS-based firefighting foams is achievable, safe, and replicable (UNEP, 2026). The key informants at JKIA, MIA and observation checklist corroborate the findings that the firefighting foam currently used in fire trucks at these airports is Fluorine Free Foam (FFF). 3.2 Non-Structural Suppression Measures for Technological Hazards 3.2.1 Fire Policy Governing Fire Suppression System The respondents were asked whether there was a fire policy governing fire suppression system at their respective airports. The findings revealed that 88% (199) of the respondents at JKIA agreed that such a policy existed, while 12% (27) were unsure. At MIA, 83% (49) of the respondents agreed, whereas 17% (10) were unsure. A key informant at MIA indicated that fire suppression systems are incorporated into the Rescue and Firefighting Policy under measures aimed at mitigating fire risks. The key informant further noted that the Factories and Other Places of Work (Fire Risk Reduction) Rules, Legal Notice No. 59, subsidiary legislation enacted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2007, require workplaces to undergo annual fire safety audits. According to the key informant, the findings and recommendations generated through these fire safety audits are used to assess and inform the need for installation or enhancement of fire suppression systems at the airport. 3.2.2 Fire Policy Governing Fire Suppression Agents The respondents were further asked whether there was a fire policy governing the use of fire-extinguishing agents at the airports. The findings revealed that 77% (174) of the respondents at JKIA agreed, while 23% (52) were not sure. At MIA, 71% (42) agreed and 29% (17) were not sure. The findings from the key informant interviews conducted at JKIA and MIA, together with observations from the checklist, corroborated the respondents’ views and confirmed that the Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) has formulated a Rescue and Firefighting Services (RFFS) policy governing the procurement and use of fire-extinguishing agents. In particular, the policy requires the procurement and use of fluorine-free firefighting foam across all airports operated by the Authority. This requirement demonstrates the adoption of a non-structural fire safety measure aimed at enhancing fire protection while minimizing environmental impacts associated with conventional fluorinated firefighting foams. Therefore, the findings contribute to knowledge on non-structural measures for managing technological fire hazards at airports and demonstrate how policy interventions can support both safety and environmental sustainability within the study region.

07Discussion

This study sought to assess suppression measures for managing technological multi-hazards at international airports in Kenya. The findings revealed that various structural and non-structural suppression measures were employed in the management of technological multi-hazards at both JKIA and MIA airports. Participants consistently linked management of technological multi-hazards to the use of fire trucks, portable fire extinguisher, fire suppression and sprinkler systems to the use of fire policies. These experiences reveal that these airports use both structural and non-structural suppression measures in the management of technological multi-hazards. 4. 1 Structural Suppression Measures for Managing Technological Multi-hazards 4.1.1 Fire Suppression System in Critical Facilities The findings demonstrate that critical facilities such as Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR) system, electrical station and generator rooms have been installed with fire suppression system with the sole aim of mitigating fires. These findings support previous research by Chris Lewis Group (2022) who indicated that a fire suppression system is designed to extinguish, control, or prevent the spread of fire a facility. A notable finding regarding the extinguishing agents used in these fire suppression systems revealed that they were varied, for instance electrical sub-station at JKIA was installed with an FM-200, a fast-acting, clean agent system. On the other hand, the generator room at the same JKIA was installed with a conventional carbon dioxide (CO2) fire suppression system. A study by Balanyuk et al. (2016) on fire extinguishing efficiency of environmentally friendly binary aerosol-nitrogen mixtures, revealed that it is essential to determine the methods of extinguishing a fire in a closed area and suggested the need to use aerosol-nitrogen mixture. This aerosol-nitrogen mixtures is ecologically clean, cheap, and can be used for the fire suppression in areas of temporary stay of people without an apparent damage to them (Balanyuk et al., 2016). This study underscores the positive impact of fire suppression systems in protecting critical facilities such as radar systems, electrical rooms, and server rooms in Kenyans airports. 4.1.2 Sprinkler System Installation at International Airport Terminal Building Although sprinkler systems remain one of the most effective means of fire suppression, the study revealed that sprinklers are lacking in significant parts of JKIA and MIA terminal buildings. A research paper by Abdulrahman et al. (2021) on review of fire suppression by fire sprinklers revealed that due to the thermal characteristics of water spray, it remains to be the most effective, environment-friendly and economical way of fighting fires. Further, besides the safety of the occupants that sprinkler system provides, it also extinguishes fires in isolated or less reachable areas of the airport terminal building (Chow, 2015). According to Chow (2015) rescue and firefighting may be impeded by inadequate provisions of sprinkler system. For example, in 1998 it took several hours for the firefighters to locate the burning source in the airport fire in Hong Kong (Chow, 2015). The increase in the demand for passenger and cargo transportation, the diversification in the range of occupant profiles and the growth in architecture, and the changes in building materials, building elements and building structures have made the airport terminals more dangerous in terms of fire (Yildirim & Demirel, 2019). While previous studies have linked the lack of sprinkler systems at airport terminal buildings to severe consequences to passengers and other economic losses (Szeto, 2022), the findings from JKIA and MIA therefore, underscore the need to assess the existing fire protection infrastructure at these airports including sprinkler systems in areas identified through risk assessment as having elevated fire hazards or requiring enhanced levels of passive and active fire protection. 4.1.3 Portable Foam Extinguisher for Ground Refueling of Aircraft The study revealed that the portable foam extinguishing equipment used during the ground refueling of aircraft at both JKIA and MIA was fluorinated foam. Concerns regarding fluorinated foam were common across interviews. These experiences support emerging evidence that some of the extinguishing media can generate negative impacts on the environment and human health (Kreckie, 2020). According to Kreckie, (2020) considering extinguishing agent alternatives that reduce environmental and human health impacts is the best sustainable strategy in managing hazards. Despite these concerns, the findings revealed that both JKIA and MIA complied with the recommendation of the ICAO (2022) Annex 14 Chapter 9.6.1 which require that a fire extinguishing equipment suitable for at least initial intervention in the event of a fuel fire is readily availed during the ground refueling of an aircraft. A study by Isiuwa, (2016) on the risk assessment of aircraft fueling operation: a case study of Margaret Ekpo International Airport Calabar indicated that the main consequence, which can result in a fuel spill on the ramp during refueling, maintenance or defueling would be a pool fire if the spill was ignited. Consequently, while portable fluorinated foam extinguishing equipment plays a critical role in controlling fires during their initial stages, the use of eco-friendly agent remains as the most effective fire safety measure. 4.1.4 Principal Extinguishing Agents used in Fire Trucks at International Airports The findings indicated that the principal extinguishing agent used at both JKIA and MIA is JetFoam 6%, a firefighting foam that meets the ICAO minimum performance level B requirements. The use of this foam at both airports demonstrates compliance with the applicable performance requirements for aircraft firefighting and rescue operations. However, the study also identified differences between the two airports in relation to stakeholder awareness and sensitization concerning the transition from fluorinated firefighting foams to fluorine-free foam. A comparative assessment revealed that JKIA had undertaken extensive sensitization and awareness initiatives targeting both its internal staff and other airport stakeholders on the transition from fluorinated foam to fluorine-free foam. The sensitization focused on increasing awareness of the environmental and operational benefits associated with the transition, including the reduction of environmental contamination and the potential risks associated with the continued use and disposal of fluorinated foams. The findings further suggest that the sensitization at JKIA has contributed to a broader understanding among airport stakeholders of the need to adopt environmentally sustainable firefighting agents and to support the implementation of the Authority’s policy on fluorine-free foam. In contrast, the level of sensitization at MIA was comparatively less extensive, indicating a need for continued and more structured awareness programmes across airport facilities to ensure that all relevant personnel and stakeholders have a consistent understanding of the transition and its environmental significance. While previous studies have linked other airports in the world that have converted to fluorine-free foams (F3) that include Oslo, Stockholm, Dubai, Paris, Copenhagen, London Heathrow, Stuttgart and all 27 major airports in Australia and major chemicals and oil companies such as 3M and ExxonMobil (Allcorn et al., 2018). The aerodromes managed by Kenya Airports Authority join the list of world airports that have successfully transitioned from fluorinated firefighting foams to F3 solutions. According to UNEP (2026) the Kenyan experience was a message to Africa and to the world that the transition away from PFAS-based firefighting foams is achievable, safe, and replicable. Although this significant achievement has strengthened aviation fire safety in Kenya while promoting environmental sustainability and reducing the risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly referred to as “forever chemicals,” the disposal of the previous stock of fluorinated foam has not been done. This suggests that airport management should incorporate effective measures for the safe management of legacy fluorinated foam stocks if they are to achieve environmental sustainability. These experiences support emerging evidence that environmental sustainability is crucial for the common benefits of the present and future generations. According to Ziaul and Shuwei (2023) practicing environmental sustainability helps create a healthy planet for the current generations and for future ones. 4.2 Non-Structural Suppression Measures for Technological Hazards 4.2.1 Fire Policy Governing Fire Suppression System The findings reinforce the relevance of a fire policy in governing fire suppression system at airports. However, the study also demonstrates that the policy needs to provide a clear matrix outlining the specific criteria or risk factors that should inform decisions on the installation of fire suppression systems. A structured matrix incorporating factors such as hazard classification, occupancy type, fire load, asset criticality, potential consequences of fire, applicable fire safety standards, environmental considerations, and the characteristics of the facility are equally important determinants for selecting appropriate fire suppression system. These findings support previous study conducted by Szeto (2022) in Hong Kong International Airport, which recommended a review to the non-structural fire code requirements in China so that the fire suppression system may be included for all other places of higher risk such in the airport and other than basements 4.2.2 Fire Policy Governing Fire Suppression Agents The finding indicated that the significance of a fire policy in governing fire suppression system at airports. The finding demonstrates the airport management’s commitment to adopting environmentally sustainable fire safety practices while maintaining effective technological multi-hazard response capabilities. Therefore, the study contributes to existing knowledge by highlighting the non-structural policy measures implemented within the study region to strengthen aviation safety and promote environmental sustainability.

08Conclusion

The study revealed that the airports employed various structural suppression measures such as the fire trucks and portable fire extinguishers. The findings also revealed that the foam used in fire vehicles were environmentally friendly while the foam in portable fire extinguishers were not eco-friendly. On non-structural measures, the findings showed that there was a fire policy requirement governing the use of fire suppression system and fire suppression agents.

09Acknowledgments / Remerciements

We wish to express our sincere thanks to Kenya Airports Authority and National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) for permitting us to carry out this research work in JKIA and MIA, Masinde Muliro university, Directorate of Postgraduate studies for providing the required facilities and working environment through School of Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance.

10Funding / Financement

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and publication of this article.

11Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate / Approbation éthique et consentement

This study was approved by National Commission of science, technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) under license number NACOSTI/P/25/4175847 and applicant identification number 891172.Before the data collection, the researcher obtained an approval letter from Masinde Muliro University of science and Technology Postgraduate Studies Directorate and permission from the Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) to collect field data for the study. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before enrolment.

12Competing Interests / Conflits d’intérêts

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

13Data Availability Statement / Disponibilité des données

Data generated or analyzed during this study are subject to an embargo of 12 months from the publication date of the article. Once the embargo expires the data will be available at Nelson Mneria; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22111381; upon reasonable request.

14Declaration of Generative AI Use / Déclaration d’utilisation de l’IA générative

During preparation of this manuscript, the authors used Mendeley Desktop a free reference management tool to collect, organize, and cite research sources. The authors reviewed and edited all outputs, verified their accuracy and take full responsibility for the final content.

03References

42 bibliographic references

  1. Abdulrahman, S. A., Chetehouna, K., Cablé, A., Skreiberg, Ø., & Kadoche, M. (2021). A review on fire suppression by fire sprinklers. Journal of Fire Sciences, 39(6), 512–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/07349041211013698

  2. Allcorn, M., Bluteau, T., Corfield, J., Day, G., Cornelsen, M., Klein, R. A., Holmes, N. J. C., McDowall, J. G., Olsen, K. T., Ramsden, N., Ross, I., Schaefer, T. H., Weber, R., & Whitehead, K. (2018). Fluorine-free firefighting foams (3F): Viable alternatives to fluorinated aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). Independent Expert Panel Convened by IPEN. https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/IPEN_F3_Position_Paper_POPRC-14_12September2018d.pdf

  3. Amboka, A. T. M. (2015). Factors affecting disaster preparedness at Moi International Airport, Mombasa County, Kenya [Master’s thesis, University of Nairobi]. University of Nairobi Research Archive. https://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/items/0a33f858-307e-483e-bc5f-6234b1ef7724

  4. Angira, Z. (2013, August 7). Fire destroys Jomo Kenyatta International Airport arrivals unit. Daily Nation. https://nation.africa/kenya/news/fire-destroys-jomo-kenyatta-international-airport-arrivals-unit--881246

  5. Angus Fire Ltd. (2026). JetFoam 6% (ICAO-B). https://www.angusfire.co.uk/products-catalogue/jetfoam-icao-b-6-percent

  6. Balanyuk, V., Kozyar, N., & Garasyumyk, O. (2016). Study of fire-extinguishing efficiency of environmentally friendly binary aerosol-nitrogen mixtures. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 3(10–81), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2016.72399

  7. Barreiro, P. L., & Albandoz, J. P. (2001). Population and sampling techniques. Management Mathematics for European Schools. https://www.humanities.mn/fileman/Uploads/MD_handbook/sampling_en.pdf

  8. Boston, C. M., Banacos, N., & Heiger-Bernays, W. (2019). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: A national priority for safe drinking water. Public Health Reports, 134(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354919826569

  9. Chow, W. K. (2015). A discussion on possible fire hazards of airport terminals. Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology, 4(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9717.1000136

  10. Chris Lewis Group. (2022). What is a fire suppression system and how does it work? https://www.chrislewis.co.uk/blog/what-is-a-fire-suppression-system-and-how-does-it-work

  11. Dahlbom, S., Mallin, T., & Bobert, M. (2022). Fire test performance of eleven PFAS-free Class B firefighting foams varying fuels, admixture, water types and foam generation techniques. Fire Technology, 58(3), 1639–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-021-01207-2

  12. Fire Freeze Worldwide, Inc. (2026). Cold Fire suppressant. https://firefreeze.com/cold-fire/

  13. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Pearson.

  14. Glüge, J., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I. T., DeWitt, J. C., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Ng, C. A., Trier, X., & Wang, Z. (2020). An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 22(12), 2345–2373. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00291G

  15. Groffen, T., Wepener, V., Malherbe, W., & Bervoets, L. (2018). Distribution of perfluorinated compounds (PFASs) in the aquatic environment of the industrially polluted Vaal River, South Africa. Science of the Total Environment, 627, 1334–1344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.219

  16. Hanssen, L., Röllin, H., Odland, J. Ø., Moe, M. K., & Sandanger, T. M. (2010). Perfluorinated compounds in maternal serum and cord blood from selected areas of South Africa: Results of a pilot study. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12(6), 1355–1361. https://doi.org/10.1039/B924420D

  17. Hinnant, K. M., Giles, S. L., Smith, E. P., Snow, A. W., & Ananth, R. (2020). Characterizing the role of fluorocarbon and hydrocarbon surfactants in firefighting-foam formulations for fire suppression. Fire Technology, 56(4), 1413–1441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00907-2

  18. Hu, X. C., Andrews, D. Q., Lindstrom, A. B., Bruton, T. A., Schaider, L. A., Grandjean, P., Lohmann, R., Carignan, C. C., Blum, A., Balan, S. A., Higgins, C. P., & Sunderland, E. M. (2016). Detection of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in U.S. drinking water linked to industrial sites, military fire training areas, and wastewater treatment plants. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 3(10), 344–350. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00260

  19. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2015). Airport services manual: Part 1—Rescue and firefighting (Doc. 9137-AN/898). http://ufuav.asn.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/operations-manual.pdf

  20. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2018). Safety management manual (4th ed., Doc. 9859).

  21. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2022). Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Aerodromes (9th ed.). https://elibrary.icao.int/product/274803

  22. Isiuwa, C. J. (2016). Risk assessment of aircraft fueling operation: A case study of Margaret Ekpo International Airport, Calabar. International Journal of African and Asian Studies, 24, 1–14.

  23. Kenya Law. (2007). Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2007 (Cap. 236A). Kenya Gazette. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2007/15/eng@2022-12-31

  24. Korzeniowski, S. H., Buck, R. C., Kempisty, D. M., & Pabon, M. (2018). Perfluoroalkyl substances in the environment: Theory, practice, and innovation. In D. M. Kempisty & Y. Xing (Eds.), Perfluoroalkyl substances in the environment: Theory, practice, and innovation. CRC Press.

  25. Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (2nd rev. ed.). New Age International. http://www.modares.ac.ir/uploads/Agr.Oth.Lib.17.pdf

  26. Kreckie, J. (2020). Aircraft rescue and firefighting strategies and tactical considerations for new large aircraft: Update. Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/DesktopModules/EasyDNNNews/DocumentDownload.ashx?portalid=0&moduleid=3682&articleid=2843&documentid=2986

  27. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

  28. Mutugi, M. W., & Maingi, S. G. (2011). Disasters in Kenya: A major public health concern. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, 3(1), 38–42.

  29. Paul, A. G., Jones, K. C., & Sweetman, A. J. (2009). A first global production, emission, and environmental inventory for perfluorooctane sulfonate. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(2), 386–392. https://doi.org/10.1021/es802216n

  30. Phillips, C. A., Caldas, A., Cleetus, R., Dahl, K. A., Declet-Barreto, J., Licker, R., Merner, L. D., Ortiz-Partida, J. P., Phelan, A. L., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Talati, S., Trisos, C. H., & Carlson, C. J. (2020). Compound climate risks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Climate Change, 10(7), 586–588. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0804-2

  31. Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199

  32. Rabajczyk, A., & Zielecka, M. (2022). Application of nanotechnology in extinguishing agents. Materials, 15(24), Article 8876. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15248876

  33. Raymond, C., Horton, R. M., Zscheischler, J., Martius, O., AghaKouchak, A., Balch, J., Bowen, S. G., Camargo, S. J., Hess, J., Kornhuber, K., Oppenheimer, M., Ruane, A. C., Wahl, T., & White, K. (2020). Understanding and managing connected extreme events. Nature Climate Change, 10(7), 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0790-4

  34. Sumathi, N., Kumar, K. V., & Subramanian, R. M. (2018). Analysis of fire accidents in airports and its mitigation measures. International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science, 7(4), 90–96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324154220_Accidents_in_Airports_and_Prevention

  35. Szeto, D. F. (2022). An advanced study on automatic water-based suppression systems in several building applications [Doctoral dissertation, Hong Kong Polytechnic University].

  36. Tozier de la Poterie, A., Clatworthy, Y., Easton-Calabria, E., Coughlan de Perez, E., Lux, S., & van Aalst, M. (2022). Managing multiple hazards: Lessons from anticipatory humanitarian action for climate disasters during COVID-19. Climate and Development, 14(4), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1927659

  37. United Nations Environment Programme. (2026). How Jomo Kenyatta International Airport is leading Africa’s transition to safer firefighting. Global Environment Facility. https://www.unep.org/gef/news-and-stories/technical-highlight/how-jomo-kenyatta-international-airport-leading-africas

  38. Walingo, M. K., & Ngaira, K. W. (2008). Research methods for social and behavioural sciences. Lake Publishers & Enterprises.

  39. Yazgan, E., Durmaz, V., Yılmaz, A. K., & Malagas, K. N. (2022). Integrated risk assessment in ramp handling operations: Risk mapping for Turkish airports. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 9(4), Article 4.

  40. Yildirim, R. N., & Demirel, F. (2019). Analysis of airport terminals in the context of fire hazards. Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art, Humanities, Design and Planning, 7(4), 479–487.

  41. Ziaul, I. M., & Shuwei, W. (2023). Environmental sustainability: A major component of sustainable development. International Journal of Environmental, Sustainability, and Social Science, 4(2), 620–627. https://doi.org/10.38142/ijesss.v4i2.296

  42. Zscheischler, J., Westra, S., van den Hurk, B. J. J. M., Seneviratne, S. I., Ward, P. J., Pitman, A., AghaKouchak, A., Bresch, D. N., Leonard, M., Wahl, T., & Zhang, X. (2018). Future climate risk from compound events. Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0156-3

20Views
97Downloads

© 2026 The Authors. Published by EcoClean Scientific Publishing on behalf of JEERESD. Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.