Environmental Project, 901 – Evaluation of alternatives for compounds under risk assessment in the EU, Bisphenol A

Evaluation of Alternatives for Compounds under Risk Assessment in the EU, Bisphenol A

Summary and conclusions

This report reviews the use of bisphenol A and its possible alternatives in coated food and beverage containers, polycarbonates, thermografic printing, toners and printing inks. Bisphenol A has shown estrogenic properties (in vitro) and has endocrine modulating activity in both in vitro and in vivo screening assays but the levels causing endocrine disrupting effects in fetuses of animals and humans are widely debated.

Bisphenol A is classified with Xi; R36/37/38 R43 (List of dangerous substances, Danish EPA, 2002), which is suggested to be changed to Repr. Cat. 3; R62 (possible risk of impaired fertility); Xi; R37-41, R43 (irritating to respiratory system and risk of serious damage to eyes, may cause sensitisation by skin contact) (EU, 2003).

The objective was to identify and evaluate possible alternatives to bisphenol A in certain application areas identified by the Danish EPA on the basis of the draft EU risk assessment for bisphenol A (EU, 2002), i.e. can coatings and lids for glass containers etc., polycarbonate bottles, thermal paper and toners supplemented with printing inks. As bisphenol A may be contained in these products imported to and used in Denmark, the project includes both bisphenol A used as an intended chemical ingredient and bisphenol A occurring as a residual monomer in polymeric materials.

Possible alternatives to bisphenol A in can coatings, polycarbonates and printing inks were identified on the basis of the information given by the industry, Danish Product Registry (DPR) and additional information from the internet. The available information on alternatives pointed out by the industry and on the possible alternatives verified on the internet consisted mainly of groups of chemicals. For some applications, e.g. polycarbonates, health and environmental assessments of alternatives should include an overall assessment of the polycarbonate product as a whole and thus not be limited to one or a few substances substituting bisphenol A in a plastic product.

The screening of environmental and health properties of the polyester and polyamide alternatives indicates that these groups are possibly less harmful to health and the environment than bisphenol A. On the other hand, the polyacrylate and polymerised rosin alternatives may cause the same effects or more hazardous effects on both environment and health as bisphenol A (Table 8.1).

The economical consequences of substituting alternatives for bisphenol A will depend on the specific case. This is exemplified by the use of polyester-based coatings in cans. However, polyester-based coatings cannot always replace the epoxy-based coatings because of failing security (limited chemical resistance and adherence). In some cases, polyester-based coatings are more expensive compared to the epoxy-based coatings, limiting their use to applications in which their particular properties, e.g. higher flexibility in drawn cans, are needed whereas the use of drawn cans is limited to certain can sizes. The economical consequences of substituting an alternative substance for bisphenol A will thus depend on many factors and can be investigated case by case on the basis of detailed information on the specific use of a chemical.

Considering the relatively short project period of approx. one year, the coating industry has not been able to commit itself to a co-operation regarding an assessment of specific alternatives. As the development of such alternatives typically takes several years, the industry has estimated the possibilities of achieving usable results within such a short project period to be limited. The industry is, however, open to consider co-operation if the project period is prolonged (CEPE, 2003).

The two European associations, APME (the plastic manufacturers) and CEFIC (the European Chemical Industry Council) indicate, however, that the industry does not want to co-operate with the individual national projects but prefers joint European initiatives (Plastindustrien i Danmark, 2003).

As a result of this investigation it seems that compared to the focus on the bisphenol A diglycidylether (BADGE)-related can coatings and polycarbonates there is generally less focus on the bisphenol A content and substitution hereof in thermographic printing, toners and printing inks.

In order to reduce the hazardous effects on both health and the environment, it is recommended to make careful assessments of the specific environmental and health properties of the alternatives to bisphenol A.