Skip to main content
. 2019 Sep 30;116(42):20820–20827. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1907855116

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Laboratory-scale grass burn experiments. (A) Normalized performance of each treatment (mean ± SD; n = 4; 1-way analysis of variance **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001). In these experiments, 100% performance was defined as the total area under the temperature–time curve of PC-treated grass without weathering. Performance for each formulation is calculated as Area under the curve of test formulationArea under the curve of PC without weathering. (B) The mass after each burn demonstrates a significant decrease in the total mass burned for each PP treatment. Markedly, formulations 2 and 3 exhibited a decrease in mass consumed after being rained on, possibly due to spreading of the formulation due to rain. (C–H) Plots of normalized area under the temperature vs. time curves for each formulation compared to the untreated grass (data shown are the mean of n = 4). (I) Normalized performance of each treatment (mean ± SD; n = 4; 1-way analysis of variance **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001), where 100% performance was defined as the total area under the temperature–time curve of PC-treated chamise chips without weathering. Performance for each formulation is calculated as Area under the curve of test formulationArea under the curve of PC without weathering. (J–L) Plots of normalized area under the temperature vs. time curves for each formulation compared to the untreated chamise chips (data shown is the mean of n = 4).