While chlorine and bromine are widely known, reported and restricted as halogens in lots of purposes, it’s noteworthy that fluorine, iodine, and astatine (different Group 17/VIIA halogens on the Periodic Table of the Elements) aren’t restricted within the accepted business definitions of “halogen-free”. Dependent on the business contemplating the “halogen-free” designator, chlorine and bromine are the one halogens restricted after which at ranges under 900-1,000 elements per million.
In the case of fluorine utilized in plastics, many anti-drip brokers employed in “halogen-free” plastic compounds together with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), higher referred to as Teflon®, include fluorine and the anti-drip brokers have been reported for use within the zero.1-1.four wt% vary. Some of these merchandise can include vital portions of fluorine exceeding the extent sometimes accepted beneath IEC 61249-2-21 as content material limits established for different halogens (zero.09% or 900 elements per million). In different instances, fluorinated salts could also be formulated into plastic merchandise at typical ranges of 800 elements per million, particularly plastic elements produced from polycarbonate, to impart flame retardant properties whereas the product is labeled “halogen-free.”
Additionally, it’s noteworthy to think about that fluorinated polymeric resins included or alloyed right into a plastic compound additionally don’t contribute to the “halogen-free” standing of a completed polymer as a result of of the omission of fluorine from the record of thought-about halogens. Such fluorinated resins that might be included or alloyed to impart improved electrical, flammability and processing properties embrace:
o polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF),
o ethylenetrifluoroethylene (ETFE)
o copolymers of ethylene and chlorotrifluoroethylene (ECTFE)
o polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
o fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP)
The obvious omission of fluorine, a halogen utilized in polymeric components and plastics which might be subsequently compounded into different plastics frequently to impart flame resistance and different properties, is due primarily to check methodology and limitations in detecting fluorine. The check strategies employed to detect bromine and chlorine should not have the potential to detect fluorine and as such fluorine is left undetected and unreported though it too is a halogen. Without vital tackle in check methodology, it’s unlikely that complete halogen content material might be thought-about by regulators within the close to future; nevertheless, environmentalists have turn out to be conscious of fluorine toxicology and the potential human results in current developments associated to groundwater contamination by fluorinated compounds and potential results of thermal decomposition of PTFE.
Recent considerations over the potential toxicological results of groundwater contamination by some fluorinated precursors and by-products together with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) within the United States in addition to potential human toxicological results prompted by means of contact with merchandise containing PTFE produced by DuPont, higher generally known as Teflon®, might trigger a assessment of this obvious twin standing for halogen supplies used all through business. According to the environmental investigative group Environmental Working Group:
“… in the past five years, the multi-billion dollar “perfluorochemical” (PFC) industry, which underpins such world-famous brands as Teflon®, Stainmaster®, Scotchgard® and Gore-Tex®, has emerged as a regulatory priority for scientists and officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The PFC family is characterized by chains of carbon atoms of varying lengths, to which fluorine atoms are strongly bonded, yielding essentially indestructible chemicals that until recently were thought to be biologically inert. No one thinks so now.”
Since 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has undertaken a big evaluation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). [US EPA PFOA Factsheet] In 2000, the US EPA peremptorily pressured the elimination of PFOS, the chemical used for many years because the lively ingredient within the widespread Scotchgard® stain and water repellant from 3M. At about the identical time, 3M ceased manufacture of the associated perfluorochemical PFOA.
Throughout 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has had PFOA underneath intense regulatory scrutiny because of reviews of groundwater contamination. PFOA is most generally used within the manufacture of PTFE. One vital model of PTFE underneath scrutiny is Dupont Teflon®. Due to findings from toxicity research and by the presence of PFOA within the blood of greater than 90 % of the United States inhabitants, the United States Environmental Protection Agency continues its evaluation of human toxicity research and potential well being results.
In December 2005, Dupont reached a US$16.5 million settlement settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in an enforcement motion associated to the chemical compound PFOA; this settlement follows a civil settlement of US$107 million in March 2005 on associated issues regarding alleged PFOA contamination of native consuming water by Dupont in West Virginia, USA.
In 2006, the difficulty of PFOA and PFOS content material in plastics and different supplies might be thought-about by many states. In California (USA), a coalition consisting of the United Steelworkers (USW), Sierra Club, Environmental Law Foundation, Environment California, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed a petition to have PFOA listed as “a chemical that is known to the state to cause cancer” underneath California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, generally known as Proposition 65. If adopted, the discovering would require info labels on merchandise based mostly on particular toxicological findings beneath California Right to Know necessities. Additionally, a preliminary report on perfluorochemical contamination in Minnesota was thought-about by the Senate Environmental Committee in February 2006.
In April 2006, sixteen lawsuits filed in a US$5 billion class-action go well with have been transferred to a Federal Court in Des Moines, Iowa, USA. Court papers allege Teflon® makers withheld details about chemical compounds used to make Teflon® chemical compounds which might be allegedly launched when the pans are heated. Dupont, the producer of Teflon® says the fabric is protected.
With the settlements in current instances, pending class actions in Iowa (USA) associated to potential human poisoning from fluorinated stick-free cooking surfaces and the knowledge that has now been developed and exchanged throughout peer evaluation, environmental watchdog teams and regulatory officers alike are persevering with their critiques and investigations into the widespread use of perfluorochemicals in lots of industries with no fast indication of potential end result. It ought to be famous that the use of perfluorochemicals as anti-drip brokers and flame retardants or the use of fluorinated polymers like PVDF or FEP has not been affected by any of the investigations thus far. However, as a result of the use of perfluorochemicals is allowed inside the tips of “halogen-free” supplies, the reformulation of polymeric supplies to remove the use of these scrutinized supplies supplies for vital alternative from a technological improvement standpoint in offering really “non-halogen” supplies for the marketplace.
JMME, Inc., Copyright 2006, All rights reserved
Source by John Moritz
The post Definition of "Halogen-free" Leaves Many Materials Incorrectly Classified: The Florine Loophole appeared first on Utah Business Lawyer.
from
http://www.utbusinesslawyer.com/definition-of-halogen-free-leaves-many-materials-incorrectly-classified-the-florine-loophole/
No comments:
Post a Comment