|
| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |
Emission and evaluation of chemical substances from selected electrical and electronic products - part 2
3 Assessment of potential health impacts
An assessment of potential health risks has been prepared based on the substances that have been determined in the test of the electronic products.
The assessment was prepared according to the same guidelines as was applied in survey no 32, 2003 (Emission and evaluation of chemical substances from selected electrical and electronic products). The
measured concentrations have been assessed in a model room.
There has been a minor change in the reporting of potential health hazardous impacts in the identified substances compared to survey no 32, as the present report is focused on official lists published by the
Danish Environmental Protection Agency. The following lists have been applied:
- List of hazardous substances; Order no 439 of June 2002
- The Danish Environmental Protection Agency's guiding list to self classification of hazardous substances, 2001
- List of unwanted substances, 2004
3.1 Identified substances
Emission of 73 different substances and compounds from the tested electric products in this survey has been determined. All the tested products emit substances in major or minor amount at use.
The total amount of determined substances is spread over a wide amount of compounds (aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones, acrylates, acetates, organic acids, phthalates,
siloxanes etc.). The major emission of single component was identified for siloxanes and 2-butanon with 1100 µg/hour and 990 µg/hour respectively
Emission from one or more aldehydes from practically all the tested products was determined. E.g. formaldehyde was emitting in amounts from 0.02 to 210 µg/hour.
One product emits aliphatic isocyanates (methylisocyanate and isocyanic acid). Source strength is 0.75 µg/hour for methylisocyanate as the dominant component.
One product emits brominated flame retardants in the form of nona- and decaBDE. The source strength is less than 0.05 µg/unit per hour for both substances.
Organic tin compounds were not identified from any of the tested products.
When the emitted substances from the products are compared with the Danish Environmental Protection Agency's list of hazardous substances, the guiding list to self-classification of hazardous substances,
and the list of unwanted substances it may be assertained that:
- 15 of 73 substances have documented long-time effects
- 5 of 73 substances are included on the list of unwanted substances.
The identified emissions are calculated to potential indoor climate concentrations and any potential health effects are assessed in the following sections.
3.2 Calculation of indoor climate concentrations and risk factors
The performed test has not only carried out an identification of the determined compounds. A determination of the source strength was also carried out for the single relevant substances. The source strength
is given in tables in section 2.
The measured source strengths are calculated to potential indoor climate concentrations. When calculating it is assumed that the tested electronic products are used in a room with cubic content of 17.4 m³
and an air change of 0.5 times per hour. This corresponds to a typical child's room in a well-insulated single-family house.
The calculated indoor climate concentrations (cR) are given in the table in appendix 3.
In survey no 32 the risk attached to the calculated indoor climate concentration risk is assessed by calculation of a risk factor (fs). This factor appears by dividing the calculated indoor climate concentration
with he Danish Working Environment Service's limit value (LV) for the substance in question multiplied with a safety factor. The safety factor is set with the aim to consider particular vulnerable groups (e.g.
children and expectant mothers), durability of exposure, and potential synergies. Please see survey no 32 for more detailed description. Survey no 32 uses a safety factor of 100. This corresponds to
multiplying the limit value with 0.01 when the risk factor is calculated as stated in survey no 32.
The expression for calculation of the risk factor fs is as follows:
fs = CR / (GV x s), as s is set to 0.01
A risk factor of 1 or more represents a situation that may supposedly include a health risk if the electric instrument in question is used under the described conditions (volume and air change).
A number of the determined substances have no defined limit value or a tentative limit value from the Danish Working Environment Service. Suggestions for limit values have been search for in survey no 32
and for any limit values for the substance in question in other countries (Norway, Sweden, and United Kingdom).
Based in the Danish Working Environment Service's list, survey no 32, and other countries' official limit values is has been possible to outline limit values to this survey for a total of 46 of the determined 73
substances (65%). The used limit values and their source are given in appendix 4.
It is beyond the limits of this project to set limit values for substances without limit values. Instead a separate assessment of substances that occur in the calculated indoor climate concentrations of 0.01
mg/m³ or more has been performed. 0.01 mg/m³ is used as a lower threshold limit as the concentrations below this limit are not assessed to pose a risk for the actual substances.
3.3 Substances with limit value
The calculated risk factors are given in the following tables (table 3.1 – 3.12) for the test instruments. The results are briefly commented for each instrument.
3.3.1 Printer
Table 3.1: Emissions from printer
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
fs |
fs |
|
| Acetic acid |
25 |
0.02 |
<0.01 |
R10 C;R35 |
| Limonen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xi;R38 R43 N;R50/53 |
| 3-Caren |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
N;R51/53 |
| 2-Ethylhexylacrylate |
38 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xi;R37/38 R43 |
| Formaldehyde |
0.4 |
0.10 |
0.22 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
| Hexanal |
300 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
Risk factor above 1 has not been identified for either of the determined substances. In accordance with the applied assessment criteria the risks seem to be limited when applying this type of printer under the
described conditions.
The cause of the difference between the two test rounds is attributed to change of toner from black to colour between round 1 and 2.
3.3.2 Household oven
Table 3.2: Emissions from household oven
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| 2-butanon |
145 |
0,08 |
0,03 |
F;R11 Xi;R36 R66 R67 |
| Formaldehyde |
0.4 |
4.6 |
6.0 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
| Hydrocarbons C10-C18 |
180 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| 3-Caren |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
N;R51/53 |
| Limonen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xi;R38 R43 N;R50/53 |
| Benzene |
1.6 |
0.13 |
<0.01 |
T;R48/23/24/25 |
| Ethylhexanol |
500 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Phenol |
4 |
0.04 |
<0.01 |
T;R24/25; C;R 34Listen over uønskede stoffer |
| alfa-Pinen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
N;R50/53 |
| C10-aromates |
137 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Decanal |
300 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Diethylphthalate |
3 |
0.03 |
<0.01 |
|
| Styrene |
105 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20 Xi;R36/38 |
| 2-Ethyl hexanic acid |
100 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Rep3;R63 |
| C9-aromates |
50 |
0.00 |
<0.01 |
|
| Xylene |
109 |
0.00 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20/21 Xi;R38 |
| Methylisocyanate |
0.02 |
0.43 |
<0.01 |
Fx ;R12 T;R23/24/25 Xi;R36/37/38 |
| Isocyanic acid |
0.02 |
0.39 |
<0.01 |
|
| Acetaldehyde |
45 |
<0.01 |
0.03 |
Fx;R12 Xi;R36/37 Carc3;R40 |
| Pentanal |
175 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Propionaldehyde |
100 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xi;R36/37/38 |
The emission of formaldehyde from the oven results in a risk factor of more than 1 or both test runs. It is thus assessed that there is a potential health problem caused by emission of formaldehyde from a
household oven when put into use. As indicated by the measurement the emission seems to continue for some time, as there is actually an increase in the emission after 9 days. The performed test does not
provide possibility for assessment of the continued progress after 9 days.
There is also considerable emission of methylisocyanate, isocyanic acid, and benzene without these emissions causing risk factors above 1.
3.3.3 Hair drier
Table 3.3: Emissions from hair drier
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| Hydrocarbons C12-C16 |
180 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
|
| Xylene |
109 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20/21 Xi;R38 |
| Butylacetate |
710 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 R66 R67 |
| Dibutylphthalate |
3 |
0.03 |
<0.01 |
Rep2;R61 Rep3;R62 N;R50 |
| Ethylbenzene |
217 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xn;R20 mistænkt kræftfr. |
| Butanol |
150 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xi; R38 Xn; R65 R67 N; 50/53 |
| Limonen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xi;R38 R43 N;R50/53 |
| Tetrahydrofuran |
148 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F; R11 R19 Xi;R36/37 |
| Formaldehyde |
0.4 |
0.12 |
0.17 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
| Ethylglycolacetate |
27 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Rep2;R60-61 Xn;R20/21/22 |
| Ethylhexanol |
500 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| 3-Caren |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
N;R51/53 |
| Styrene |
105 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20 Xi;R36/38 |
| C10 aromates |
137 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
There is no identified emission from the hair drier that involves risk factors above 1. Thus the instrument hardly comprises a health risk at use. There is a slight increase in the emission of formaldehyde from 7
hours to 9 days, however, without attaching significant importance.
3.3.4 Iron
Table 3.4: Emissions from iron
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| Hydrocarbons C6-C18 |
180 |
0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Formaldehyde |
0.4 |
0.83 |
<0.01 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
| Toluene |
94 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xn;R20 |
| Acetaldehyde |
45 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Fx;R12 Xi;R36/37 Carc3;R40 |
| Butanol |
150 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xi; R38 Xn; R65 R67 N; 50/53 |
| Phenol |
4 |
0.03 |
<0.01 |
T;R24/25; C;R 34List of unwanted substances |
| Tetrahydrofuran |
148 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F; R11 R19 Xi;R36/37 |
| Hexanal |
300 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| N-methylpyrrolidon |
20 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xi; R36/38 |
| C9-aromates |
50 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Butyrolacton |
176 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Acetophenon |
49 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xn;R22 Xi;R36 |
Immediately after utilization emission of formaldehyde was detected, however, without exceeding the risk factor of 1. The total emission from iron is very limited after 9 days.
Emission of nonaBDE and decaBDE (brominated flame retardants) was detected from the product. The source strength is less than 0.05 µg/unit per hour for both substances and hardly comprise any health
problem. However, it should be noted that sale of irons with content of polybrominated diphenylethers per 01.06.2006 will be forbidden according to EU’s RoHS-directive.
3.3.5 Decorative lamp
Table 3.5: Emissions from decorative lamp
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| Xylene |
109 |
0.02 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20/21 Xi;R38 |
| Ethylbenzene |
217 |
0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xn;R20 suspected carcinogenic. |
| Formaldehyde |
0.4 |
4.89 |
1.2 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
| Butanol |
150 |
0.02 |
0.01 |
F;R11 Xi; R38 Xn; R65 R67 N; 50/53 |
| Hexanal |
300 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Toluene |
94 |
0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xn;R20 |
| C9-aromates |
50 |
0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Pentanal |
175 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| C10-aromates |
137 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Acetophenon |
49 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xn;R22 Xi;R36 |
| Acetaldehyde |
45 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Fx;R12 Xi;R36/37 Carc3;R40 |
| Propionaldehyde |
100 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xi;R36/37/38 |
| Styrene |
105 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20 Xi;R36/38 |
| Ethylhexanol |
500 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
The lamp shows considerable emission of formaldehyde as based on the applied assessment criteria must be considered health hazardous.
The emission is reduced during 8 days with approximately 75%, however, this do not bring the risk factor below 1. A period of one to more weeks after installation of this lamp negative health effects must
be expected.
3.3.6 Mobile phone 1 (without charger)
Table 3.6: Emissions from mobile phone excl. charger
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| Toluene |
94 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xn;R20 |
3.3.7 Mobile phone 2 (with charger)
Table 3.7: Emissions from mobile phone incl. charger
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| Toluene |
94 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xn;R20 |
| Butylated Hydroxytoluene |
10 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xn,R22 N;R50/53List of unwated substances |
| Xylene |
109 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20/21 Xi;R38 |
| Hexanal |
300 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Acetaldehyde |
45 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Fx;R12 Xi;R36/37 Carc3;R40 |
| Formaldehyde |
0.4 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
Neither with nor without charger a mobile phone of the tested types seems to pose any risk of negative health impacts when used in the indoor climate.
3.3.8 Computer (PC)
Table 3.8: Emissions from computer (PC)
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| Hydrocarbons C8-C15 |
180 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
|
| Phenol |
4 |
0.40 |
0.40 |
T;R24/25; C;R 34List of unwated substances |
| C10-aromates |
137 |
0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Xylene |
109 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20/21 Xi;R38 |
| Butanol |
150 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
F;R11 Xi; R38 Xn; R65 R67 N; 50/53 |
| Ethylbenzene |
217 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xn;R20 suspected carcinogenic |
| C9-aromates |
50 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
|
| Ethylhexanol |
500 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Formaldehyde |
0.4 |
0.83 |
0.92 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
| Acetophenon |
49 |
0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xn;R22 Xi;R36 |
| Ethylhexylacrylate |
38 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
Xi;R37/38 R43 |
| Styrene |
105 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20 Xi;R36/38 |
| Butyldiglycol |
100 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xi;R36 |
| Tetrahydrofuran |
148 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F; R11 R19 Xi;R36/37 |
| 2-Butoxyethanol |
98 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xn; R20/21/22 Xi; R36/38 |
| Naphtalene |
50 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xn;R22 N;R50/53List of unwated substances |
| alfa-Pinen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
N;R50/53 |
| p-Cresol |
175 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
T;R24/25 C;R34 |
| Acetaldehyde |
45 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Fx;R12 Xi;R36/37 Carc3;R40 |
| Butylated hydroxytoluene |
10 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
Xn,R22 N;R50/53List of unwated substances |
| Longifolen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xi;R37/38 R43 |
| Hexanal |
300 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Hydroxyethylmethacrylate |
147 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xi;R36/38 R43 |
| Propionaldehyde |
100 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xi;R36/37/38 |
| Decahydronaphtalene |
134 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Ethylacetate |
540 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xi;R36 R66 R67 |
| Butylglycol |
98 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xn;R20/21/22 Xi;R36/38 |
| 3-Caren |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
N;R51/53 |
The test of the PC indicates emission of a wide range of different compounds of which most are of limited concentrations.
Formaldehyde and phenol seem to pose the most health significant emissions. After 7 hours as well as after 9 days the emission is close to exceeding the risk factor of 1. Although this factor is not exceeded
it cannot be dismissed that there may be a health problem for some particularly sensitive persons.
If more PCs are places together in e.g. one computer room this will obviously enhanced the total emission and thus the potential negative health effects.
3.3.9 TV
Table 3.9: Emissions from TV
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| Phenol |
4 |
0,09 |
<0,01 |
T;R24/25; C;R 34List of unwanted substances |
| 2-Butoxyethanol |
98 |
<0,01 |
<0,01 |
Xn; R20/21/22 Xi; R36/38 |
| Hydrocarbons C9-C16 |
180 |
<0,01 |
<0,01 |
|
| Styrene |
105 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20 Xi;R36/38 |
| Formaldehyde |
0.4 |
0.37 |
<0.01 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
| Xylene |
109 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20/21 Xi;R38 |
| Limonen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xi;R38 R43 N;R50/53 |
| Methylmethacrylate |
102 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xi;R37/38 R43 List of unwanted substances |
| alfa-Pinen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
N;R50/53 |
| C9-aromates |
50 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Acetaldehyde |
45 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Fx;R12 Xi;R36/37 Carc3;R40 |
| 2-Ethyl-1-hexanol |
500 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| 3-Caren |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
N;R51/53 |
| Ethylbenzene |
217 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xn;R20 suspected carcinogenic. |
| Phthalic acid anhydride |
1 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xn;R22 Xi;R37/38-41R42/43List of unwanted substances |
| Naphtalene |
50 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xn;R22 N;R50/53List of unwanted substances |
| Diethylphthalate |
3 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| 2-methyl-1-propyl benzene |
135 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
N;R50/53 |
The TV shows emission of a wide range of compounds as appears from the table above. For most compounds the emission is expressed with low risk factor.
The largest risk factor is due to formaldehyde after 7 days where the emission corresponds to a risk factor of 0.37.
Thus there seems not to be significant risk of negative health effects caused by emission of chemical compounds from the TV.
3.3.10 Electric panel (multi plug box)
Table 3.10: Emissions from electric panel (multi plug box)
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| 2-Ethylhexanol |
89 |
<0.01 |
0.01 |
|
| Hydrocarbons C11-C14 |
180 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| alfa-Pinen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
N;R50/53 |
| Longifolen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xi;R37/38 R43 |
| Formaldehyd |
0.4 |
<0.01 |
0.10 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
| Acetaldehyde |
45 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Fx;R12 Xi;R36/37 Carc3;R40 |
The emission of chemical compounds from the multi plug boxes is generally very limited in number of substances as well as amounts.
For certain there is no risk of health effects when using the multi plug boxes of the tested type.
3.3.11 Power heating unit
Table 3.11: Emission from power heating unit
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| Hydrocarbons C6-C11 |
180 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Acetophenon |
49 |
<0.01 |
0.01 |
Xn;R22 Xi;R36 |
| Propionaldehyde |
100 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xi;R36/37/38 |
| Acetic acid |
25 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 C;R35 |
| Hexane |
700 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xi;R38 Xn;R48/20-65Rep3R62 R67 N,R51/53 |
| Butylacetate |
710 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 R66 R67 |
| Formaldehyde |
0,4 |
0.11 |
0.01 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
| Acetaldehyde |
45 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Fx;R12 Xi;R36/37 Carc3;R40 |
As is the case with a number of the other instruments the power heating unit also shows emission of a number of compounds in relatively low concentrations with formaldehyde with the highest emission
measured compared to the substances' limit value.
The power heating unit is not give cause to any negative health impacts resulting from chemical compounds.
3.3.12 Rechargeable batteries
Table 3.12: Emissions from rechargeable batteries
| |
GV |
After 7 hours |
After 9 days |
Labelling |
| Substance |
mg/m³ |
Fs |
Fs |
|
| Xylene |
109 |
0.02 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20/21 Xi;R38 |
| Ethylbenzene |
217 |
0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xn;R20 suspected carcinogenic. |
| C9-aromates |
50 |
0.02 |
<0.01 |
|
| Toluene |
94 |
0.01 |
<0.01 |
F;R11 Xn;R20 |
| C10-aromates |
137 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Hydrocarbons C8-C14 |
180 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Styrene |
105 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xn;R20 Xi;R36/38 |
| Acetophenon |
49 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Xn;R22 Xi;R36 |
| Hexanal |
300 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
| Limonen |
140 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
R10 Xi;R38 R43 N;R50/53 |
| Propionaldehyde |
100 |
<0.01 |
0.07 |
F;R11 Xi;R36/37/38 |
| Formaldehyde |
0.4 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
T; R23/24/25 C;R34 Carc3;R40 R43 |
| Acetaldehyde |
45 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Fx;R12 Xi;R36/37 Carc3;R40 |
The batteries indicate emission from a number of compounds of which some must likely originate from the applied lacquers.
The emitted amounts are generally low and the batteries including charges will not cause any health hazardous problematic concentrations of chemical substances in the indoor climate if used under conditions
similar to those in this report.
3.4 Substances without limit value
The iron and the household oven emit substances in concentrations above the selected lower threshold limit of 0.01 mg/m³ and without limit valued.
The detected substances and related indoor climate concentrations are given in table 3.13.
Table 3.13. Substances without limit value in concentrations above 0.01 mg/m³.
| Instrument |
Substance |
Calculated indoor climate
concentration CR |
| |
|
|
| Iron |
Siloxan-compound |
0.012 |
| Household oven |
Siloxan-compound |
0.13 |
| Household oven |
Unidentified fluorine compound |
0.052 |
The analysis of the siloxan compound from both household oven and iron shows that it is a mixture with a number of components that is dominated of hexamethylcyclotrisiloxan (CAS no 541-05-9),
octamethylcyclotetrasiloxan (CAS no 556-67-2), and decamethylcyclopentasiloxan (CAS no 541-02-6).
These are substances with low acute toxicity. There is only scanty information available of the substances in question. There is, however, reason to believe that the calculated indoor climate concentrations
hardly pose a health risk.
Still it should be noted that octamethylcyclotetrasiloxan is included in the Danish Environmental Protection Agency's list of unwanted substances (2004) and is classified as Rep3;R62 R53.
The household oven demonstrated emission of a fluorine-containing compound. This is probable due to emission from the coating on the oven's inside. It has not been possible to identify the compound within
the frames of this project and a health assessment can thus not be carried out.
3.5 The emission's process in terms of time
The tables in appendix 3 show the emission of substances after 7 hours and after 9 days' use of the electric products.
There is practically everywhere notable decrease in emission of substances over a short period of use of 9 days. However, the household oven and the decorative lamp still display risk factors larger than 1
for formaldehyde after 9 days' use.
3.6 Final comments
The measurements have shown that a number of substances with well-documented long-time effects can be found among the substances that emit from the electronical products.
This corresponds to survey no 32 where partly the literature study partly the completed test of a limited amount of products indicated a number of the same substances that have been determined in this
survey.
When the emitted amount are recalculated to potential indoor climate concentrations and the substances' toxicity is included by way of limit values for the substances in question, there seem to be a risk of
health hazardous impacts especially from the tested decorative lamp and the household oven. In both cases the reason is emission of formaldehyde.
Based on the model that has been applied in a similar survey of electric products (Survey no 32, 2003), none of the other products seem to emit substances that comprise a health risk.
A single product emits brominated flame retardants typed polybrominated diphenylethers. The emitted amounts are small and do not comprise an acute health risk. It should be noted that the identified
substances as per 01.06.2006 will be prohibited according to EU’s RoHS-directive.
| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |
Version 1.0 March 2006, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency
|