Table 9.— Summary of test data for treated ponderosa pine needle fuel beds 



Treatment solutiom Anhydrous Rate of 



chemical flame Rate of 



Chemical 

 treatment 



Chemical 

 by weight 



Solution 

 density 



Solution 

 quantity 



MAP 







spread' 

 R/S 



weight loss' 

 R/W 





Percent 



g/cm^ 



g 



ml 



g/fr 







Ft/mi n 



g/min 



T-MAP 



5.0 



1.029 



1041 



1012 



4.34 



2.68 



1 



C A 

 .04 



1 .37 



188 



160 





5.0 



1.029 



1033 



1004 



4.40 



2.66 



1 



.25 



1.12 



172 



147 





5.0 



1.029 



1034 



1005 



4.31 



2.66 



1 



.33 



1.19 



204 



174 





10.0 



1.059 



1005 



949 



8.38 



5.17 





.82 



.73 



140 



119 





10.0 



1.059 



1032 



975 



8.60 



5.31 



1 



.09 



.97 



158 



135 





1 n n 



1 u.u 





1026 



967 



ft 



O.sjQ 







.98 



.87 



126 



107 



D-MAP 



5.0 



1.029 



1008 



980 



4.20 



2.59 



1 



.65 



1.47 



190 



162 





5.0 



1.029 



1050 



1021 



4.38 



2.70 



1 



.46 



1.30 



199 



170 





5.0 



1.029 



1028 



1000 



4.28 



2.64 



1 



.51 



1.35 



233 



190 





10.0 



1.059 



1033 



976 



8.61 



5.31 



1 



.13 



1.01 









10.0 



1.059 



1053 



995 



8.78 



5.42 



1 



.07 



.95 



160 



136 





10.0 



1.059 



1024 



967 



8.53 



5.27 





.84 



.75 



190 



162 



A-MAP 



5.0 



1.029 



1037 



1008 



4.32 



2.67 



1 



.67 



1.49 



169 



144 





5.0 



1.029 



1003 



975 



4.18 



2.58 



1 



.77 



1.58 



190 



162 





5.0 



1.029 



1040 



1011 



4.33 



2.67 



1 



.41 



1.26 



202 



172 





10.0 



1.059 



1044 



986 



8.70 



5.37 



1 



.01 



.90 



181 



154 





10.0 



1.059 



1024 



967 



8,53 



5.27 



1 



.00 



.89 



168 



143 





10.0 



1.059 



1026 



969 



8.55 



5.28 





.93 



.83 



203 



173 



'Adjusted for differences in untreated fuel burning rates. 



In the George and Blakely (1972) study, DAP was tested at 

 several treatment levels, and regression equations were deter- 

 mined for flame spread and weight loss rates on pine needles 

 and aspen excelsior fuels. The same type regression analysis was 

 used with M-MAP and S-MAP, and regressions for all three 

 chemicals have been compared. The analysis was performed to 

 determine if differences exist between the fire-retarding effec- 

 tiveness of the three source-samples of PiOs. To perform statis- 

 tical tests, it was assumed that there was no significant differ- 

 ence in overall effectiveness when equal levels of P2O5 were ap- 

 plied. The hypothesis was tested by co variance analysis and an 

 "F"test. 



Rates of flame spread and fuel weight loss (energy release) 

 were fitted by a least-squares method to determine what equa- 

 tion form (quadratic, exponential, logarithmic, reciprocal, and 

 so forth) would fit best and give high correlation coefficients. 



Some of the best-fit equations shown in tables 10 and 1 1 do 

 not have the highest R- values possible because data groups 

 that were tested against each other required that their regression 

 equations be of the same form (for example, all ponderosa pine 

 rate-of-spread data are in a second-degree polynomial form so 

 that "F"- tests can be performed). (Equation use is limited to 

 the range included in the data sets and extrapolations beyond 

 the real data cannot be expected to predict accurately.) Three 

 individual and three paired equations were formed with data 

 for each chemical for each test parameter. Then data for all 

 three chemicals (triplet) for each parameter were pooled, and 

 another best-fit equation was formed. Each paired equation 

 was tested against the triplet equations and each individual 

 against each other individual equation by an "F" test method 

 described in figure 1 . 



