| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

More environmentally friendly alternatives to PFOS-compounds and PFOA

Appendix B Methods used in search for alternatives

• Search on the Internet
• Participation in a conference in Prague
• Participation in a conference in Helsingør (Elsinore)
• Participation in a conference in Berlin
• Contact to producers for information about alternatives
• Use of personal international contacts
• Use of confidential information from the Danish Product Register

Several steps were taken in order to identify alternatives for PFOS-related compounds and PFOA. The method and sources used are listed and described in more details below.

• Search on the Internet for alternatives.
• Participation in a conference in Prague, where PFOS-related compounds and PFOA were discussed.
• Participation in a conference in Helsingør, where PFOS-related compounds and PFOA were discussed.
• Participation in a conference in Berlin, where PFOS-related compounds and PFOA were discussed.
• Contact to producers of PFOS and PFOA – asking for information about possible alternatives.
• Contact to producers of the found alternatives for more information.
• Use of personal international contacts.
• Use of confidential information about PFOA and telomer alcohols in products produced in Denmark. Information from the Danish Product Register.

Search on the Internet

First of all, a search on the Internet was carried out in order to identify alternatives for PFOS-compounds and PFOA. Search words like "PFOS", "PFOA" and "alternative(s)", "replacing", "replacement", etc. were used at ordinary search sites and more scientific search sites.

This preliminary search identified a few alternatives, and several links to companies stating that they use "PFOS-free" products. This angle was therefore persecuted in the process of contacting producers.

Participation in a conference in Prague

FORCE Technology participated in a conference held by SETAC ^[14] Europe in Prague, 18-22 April 2004. One session (five presentations) was entirely on polyfluorinated substances, and 17 posters were presented on the topic. Presentations were made from both universities and industry. The latest research indicates that the presence of PFOA in the environment is caused by the decomposition of telomer alcohols.

We made some personal contacts, which were used in the process of contacting producers for information about possible alternatives.

Participation in a conference in Helsingør (Elsinore)

FORCE Technology participated in a conference held by the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, in Helsingør (Elsinore), Denmark, 11-13 June 2004. The conference was the Fifth Informal Conference on Reaction Kinetics and Atmospheric Chemistry. The first two lectures held on June 11 were entirely on the subject of PFOS, PFOA and fluorinated telomers.

Scott A. Mabury from the University of Toronto in Canada held a lecture on "The fabulously fascinating environmental chemistry of fluorinated compounds – why atmospheric fate is so important?". Tim J. Wallington from Ford Motor Company in Michigan, USA held a lecture on "Atmospheric oxidation of fluorotelomer alcohols: A likely source of perfluorinated acids in the global environment?".

Scott Mabury is one of the world's leading experts on perfluorinated compounds. We received his latest work and have used this in the environmental assessment of PFOS and PFOA.

Participation in a conference in Berlin

FORCE Technology participated in the Dioxin04 conference held in Berlin, Germany, 6-10 September 2004. One session was entirely on perfluorinated substances, where among other things the Nordic report on levels of PFOS-related substance in the Nordic countries was presented.

Professor John P. Giesy from Michigan State University, USA, participated in the conference as well. He and his group of scientists discovered the PFOS-related substances in the nature, and Giesy was the one who convinced the 3M Company to stop the use of the substances. The latest information about the PFOS-related substances was achieved by personal contact to Giesy.

Furthermore, the company DuPont was present at the conference.

Contact to producers for information about alternatives

The preliminary search on the Internet identified some alternatives. The producers of these alternatives were contacted in order to learn more about the mentioned alternatives (price, physical/chemical properties, etc.) and perhaps learn more about other possible alternatives.

Furthermore, the companies at the moment producing PFOS-related compounds and PFOA were contacted in order to learn more about their knowledge about the possible alternative options. The lists produced by OECD for both PFOS and PFOA producing companies were used (U.S. EPA, 2003a), (OECD, 2002).

Table 9.1: List of producers of PFOS-compounds according to OECD (OECD, 2002).

Table 9.2: List of producers of PFOA according to OECD (US EPA, 2002).

Finally, the companies stating that they use "PFOS-free" products were contacted in order to learn more about the identity of the substances or formulations that they use instead of PFOS.

All the identified relevant producers received either an email with questions about alternatives to PFOS-related compounds and PFOA or the questions were send by use of a form on the company website, if any.

In order to reach as many producers of alternatives as possible, an alternative route was also used. The project group was in possession of a raw materials catalogue of the paint, ink and varnish industry (Karsten, 2000). In this catalogue the raw materials are divided after their function. Some of the fluorotensides from DuPont (the Zonyl products) were listed under different functions (levelling agent, water repelling agent, wetting agent and other coating additives) in this raw materials catalogue. An email was therefore sent to all the listed producers (if an email could be found) of products within the same function category. All these producers were asked the question if their product can be used as an alternative to PFOS compounds as they were listed with the same function as fluorotensides.

In all, about 60 emails were sent or forms filled in to different producers that hopefully would be able to supply the project with more information about possible alternatives to PFOS and PFOA. The number of emails sent was distributed as presented in Table 9.3.

The generated list of producers was longer (in all about 25 companies more), but some companies had been bought by other companies already on the list, or for some companies it was simply im possible to find either a website or an email address, and therefore no email was sent.

Some of the about 60 emails sent were returned because of an unknown user address. In these cases an effort was made to find a new email address or a website of the company in order to fill in a questionnaire form. This means that about 60 companies should have received an email with questions about possible alternatives to PFOS-compounds and PFOA.

Table 9.3: Number of emails sent to and received from producers.

However, not many replied, as shown in Table 9.3. In all, we received 12 replies, where eight of the replies contained information about possible alternatives to PFOS-compounds. The results are discussed in the chapter about alternatives to PFOS-compounds in the report.

Use of personal international contacts

The project group had some personal international contacts, which were used in order to collect all the latest possible information about PFOS-compounds.

These personal contacts were:

• Professor John P. Gisey, at the Zoology Department, Michigan State University, USA. John P. Gisey and his group of scientists were the ones to discover the PFOS-compounds in the environment.
• Professor Scott A. Mabury, at the Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto, Canada.

These personal contacts delivered the latest scientific research on the PFOS, PFOA and telomer alcohol subjects.

Use of confidential information from the Danish Product Register

The search in the Danish Product Register for use of PFOA-compounds and telomer alcohols gave primarily confidential information, as only very few companies use these compounds. However, these companies were contacted in order to learn more about the use of the PFOA-compounds and telomer alcohols and their possible alternatives.

The outcome of the search for these compounds in the Danish Product Register and the contact to the companies is described in more details in appendix D and E.

Footnotes

[14] Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |

Version 1.0 June 2005, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency