10/12/2012

1

Heather M. Stapleton, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Environmental Chemistry

Nicholas School of the Environment

Environmental Science & Policy Division

Email: heather.stapleton@duke.edu

Chemical Hazards in Children’s Products:

Flame Retardants as an Example

www.environmentcalifornia.org

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

• Over 80,000 chemicals require screening and

assessment for PBT qualities and hundreds are

added each year;

• Since it’s implementation in 1976, only 5

chemicals have been banned or restricted

• Chemical manufacturers are not required to

provide any health/toxicity testing information

and can claim anything as Confidential

Business Information (CBI).

10/12/2012

2

Flame Retardants Make

National News

Deceptive tactics used by chemical

manufacturers to promote sales of their Products; Close ties between flame retardant manufacturers and tobacco companies; Highlights lack of proven fire safety benefits; Discusses issues with new flame retardants on the market

Senate Hearing July 24, 2012

Environment and Public Works Committee Chair: Senator Barbara Boxer

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_

ID=9a373e89-802a-23ad-41a6-35180a5a6bb1

10/12/2012

3

Flame Retardants (FRs) In Consumer Products

• Chemical additives used in consumer products to reduce flammability

• Many FRs are proprietary chemicals, no labels indicating if or what chemical is applied to product

• Additive FRs leach out over time and accumulate in indoor environments

Nursing Pillow

Sleep Positioners

What is TB 117?

• Promulgated by California Bureau of Home Furnishing and Thermal Insulation, within the Department of Consumer Affairs

• Requires 12-second open flame testing for polyurethane inside furniture

• Has required the use of large quantities of halogenated flame retardants (FR)

• CA standard affected furniture composition

throughout the U.S.

10/12/2012

4

History of PBDEs and their Phase Out

Polybrominated diphneyl ethers (PBDEs) have chemical structures which are very similar to known cancer causing and toxic compounds: PCBs, dioxins, furans, etc.

Laboratory studies now demonstrate that PBDEs have very similar toxic effects as these legacy contaminants (Birnbaum and Staskal, 2003) Human health studies have found significant

associations between PBDEs in blood at birth and deficits in cognitive function and behavior (Herbstman et al 2010)

Phased out in European Union (2002); voluntary phase

out in the US (Penta- and OctaBDE- 2005; Deca-2013)

The Case of the Chemical Conveyor Belt…..

O

O

O

O

Br

Br

Br

Br

O

O

Br

Br

Br

Br

When one flame retardant is banned, another chemical moves in to take it’s place, and less is known about the replacement chemical…

10/12/2012

5

(Furniture Flame Retardancy Partnership V 1, EPA 2005)

Flame Retardant Use in Children’s Products

• 101 Baby products screened for

flame retardant (FR) chemicals

• 80% contained a FR

• TDCPP most common FR

detected (up to 10% by weight of

the foam)

• No information available on

exposure to the chemicals

during use of product

• Risk/exposure assessments do

not even consider exposure from

use of these products

• Now 3 products exempted from

TB 117!

10/12/2012

6

The Tale of TDCPP

TDCPP was used as a FR in children’s pajamas in the 1970s

Studies conducted at UC Berkeley discovered that TDCPP and its

brominated analogue were both mutagens (likely to cause cancer).

(Gold et al 1978, Blum et al 1977)

Studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program also found Increased

Incidence of tumors in rats exposed to TDCPP over 2 years (NTP, 2000);

Studies conducted in my laboratory suggest TDCPP may also be a neurotoxicant

with similar toxic effects observed in chlorinated organophosphate pesticides

(Dishaw et al. 2011).

Exposure Threshold for TDCPP

• Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) evaluated risk to TDCPP in a 2006 report. They estimated children’s exposure from use in residential furniture was higher than Acceptable Daily Dose (ADD – 5.0 micrograms/kg/day).

• State of California recently added TDCPP to Prop 65 (ADD -5.4 micrograms/day ).

• Levels in Indoor Dust in North Carolina Homes with Children (n=83; collected 2010-2012): Range: 0.4 to 96.8 micrograms/gram of dust (or ppm)

10/12/2012

7

Children’s Exposure to TDCPP

Play tents and tunnels are sometimes treated with FRs to meet a voluntary fabric flammability standard; We tested 10 tunnels and tents purchased in 2011-2012; 4 had TDCPP We measured levels of TDCPP in the air inside the tunnels and residues of TDCPP on hand surface area after setting up the tent or tunnel Levels on hands from setting up tunnels averaged 21.8 ± 10.5 micrograms

10/12/2012

8

Firemaster 550: It is Persistent!!

A review of chemicals in the TSCA inventory identified one component in FM 550 as a priority persistent chemical based on it’s chemical properties (Howard and Muir, 2010) In house dust samples collected in MA (2006), we detected FM 550 in 94% of samples, with average levels about 30% of PBDEs; In house dust samples collected in 2010-2012 (in North Carolina), we found FM 550 in 100% of homes and levels that were HIGHER than PBDEs; Children are chronically exposed to FM 550 on a daily basis in North Carolina

Exposure to FM 550 in pregnant rats resulted in effects on offspring (early puberty, insulin resistance and obesity) at a level that was an order of magnitude LOWER than NOEL cited by manufacturer (Patisaul et al 2012)

Do Fire Retardants Provide a Benefit?

No Flame Retardant

Treated with PentaBDE

Treated with TDCPP

Time to Sustained Ignition (sec)

16 19 18

Peak Heat Release Rate (kW/m2)

412 259 326

Total Heat Release (MJ/kg)

57 40 48

Smoke Generation (m2/kg)

413 833 745

Ave. CO (kg/kg) 0.018 0.130 0.081

Ave. Soot (kg/kg) 0.013 0.880 0.104

(Data from Jayakody et al., 2000)

10/12/2012

9

www.environmentcalifornia.org

Discussion Points • Flame retardant manufacturers often claim that more people will die in fires if

specific flame retardants are phased out ……this is not true and there are no data to support this statement.

• Flame retardant chemicals are in every home and children are chronically exposed to these chemicals every day.

• An average consumer has no way of determining what products contain flame retardants.

• Many of these chemicals have properties suggestive of toxic effects, yet no studies have been conducted to evaluate potential toxicity and impacts on human health.

• Billions of dollars are spent each year on research and legislation to understand the health and environmental risks from flame retardant chemicals.

Acknowledgments • Research funding provided by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

and private donation to NSOE by Fred and Alice Stanback

• Dr. Heather Patisaul (NC State), Drs Thomas F. Webster and Deborah Watkins (Boston University); Dr. Andreas Sjödin, (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

• Laboratory Group: Sarah Eagle, Katie Douglas, Smriti Sharma, Dr. Craig Butt, Dr. Ellen Cooper, Dr. Wu Dong, Pamela Noyes (PhD student), Elizabeth Davis (PhD student), Simon Roberts (PhD student), Laura Dishaw (PhD student), Laura Macaulay (PhD student), Thomas Fang (PhD student), Alex Keller (undergraduate),

• Ms. Beth Patterson, recruiters, and the study participants