Request by: Anonymous Consumer

Key Findings

• Some current dental guard products contain phthalates, BPA or other chemicals of concern.
• Dentists often do not have information on the chemicals used in products they purchase for patients.
• Data provided by a dental laboratory listed dialkyl phthalate in the materials used to make the guard.
• Suppliers may offer technical data, such as Material Safety Data Sheets, but these won’t necessarily contain the full list of ingredients used in a product.

Background

PPRC occasionally receives inquiries on the safety of specific products. A recent inquiry on the safety of chemicals in night guard materials was prompted by our 2009 Rapid Response “Safety of Plastics in Dental Appliances.” This consumer was concerned about bisphenol-a (BPA) and wanted help understanding chemical information provided by his dentist.

In common practice, a dentist only makes a mold of the patient’s teeth. Using the mold, a separate dental laboratory prepares the custom appliance for the dentist. In this case, the dentist requested information from the appliance maker (the offsite laboratory), who complied by forwarding a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) from the material/ chemical supplier, Henry Schein, Inc. MSDSs for various products are available at the Henry Schein, Inc. website.

As required, the Schein MSDS for “Easy Flow Acrylic Powder” listed three hazardous ingredients: Dialkyl Phthalate (CAS# 84-66-2), Titanium Dioxide (CAS# 13453-67-7), and Mineral Pigments (CAS# 57453-37-5), but made no mention of BPA, the chemical of concern to the consumer.

Limitations of Material Data Safety Sheets

Unfortunately, MSDSs are not designed to convey chemical safety information to consumers, but rather to inform workers in occupational settings. Chemicals or mixtures are typically identified by CAS numbers (CAS#), which are often used as an identifying index in chemical information databases. MSDS sheets are only required to list hazardous ingredients, so they won’t necessarily include chemicals of concern which are not yet regulated by OSHA. Furthermore, there is no requirement to list hazardous ingredients present at less than 1% (less than 0.1% for carcinogens), so ingredients could be missing from an MSDS, but still present in the product.

While many dental polymers may use BPA as an ingredient, most polymers are not considered hazardous. New polymer materials are also mostly exempt from the Toxic Substances Control Act, due to a presumption of safety. Roughly speaking, because the size of the polymer molecule prevents their absorption by the bodies systems, they are assumed to be essentially inert. Health concerns are sometimes associated with the monomers (the small molecules that are put together to make the polymer and which remain at some level in all polymers) and additives or contaminants.

In this case, the MSDS product name suggests use of acrylic plastics (acrylates), but they are otherwise not specifically listed as ingredients. There are many types of acrylates, some of which incorporate bisphenol A (BPA) and similar chemicals. While bisphenol A is currently under scrutiny by federal agencies, it is not currently listed as hazardous under US regulation, and would not generally be listed on an MSDS. Information on BPA content may be listed on some manufacturer material brochures or websites, but most likely consumers will need to contact supplier technical staff directly. In this case, Henry Schein, Inc., a very large company, likely has staff available to respond to consumer inquiries.

Easy Flow Hazardous Chemicals

As mentioned above, the Easy Flow Acrylic Powder MSDS lists three hazardous ingredients, Dialkyl Phthalate (CAS# 84-66-2), Titanium Dioxide (CAS# 13453-67-7), and Mineral Pigments (CAS# 57453-37-5). Dialkyl phthalate, also called diethyl phthalate, has been listed as a potential endocrine disruptor by TEDX (The Endocrine Disruptor Exchange). Chemicals of concern are listed on the TEDX website via a downloadable Excel spreadsheet indexed by CAS number. Washington State has also identified diethyl phthalate on its list of “Chemicals of High Concern to Children,” due to the potential for endocrine effects. There are varying opinions about whether diethyl phthalate is a risk for adults in this or other applications, but those most concerned about safety might choose to avoid these products if there are BPA- and phthalate-free alternatives available.

Two standard databases of chemical information that we typically use, eChemPortal and the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) had no information for the CAS numbers provided by Henry Schein, Inc. for either titanium dioxide or the mineral pigments. Searching the database for materials similar to titanium dioxide might reveal some relevant safety information, but given the potentially significant risk from phthalates, no further analysis was pursued.

Conclusions

Without further information from the supplier, it is not possible to determine whether the products in question contain BPA. As described in the 2009 Rapid Response, there is reason for concern about BPA in dental products, but no black and white answer regarding health effects of chemicals in dental applications.

The MSDS lists hazardous chemicals, but no information could be identified using the CAS numbers provided for two of the specific chemicals. On the other hand, dialkyl phthalate has been identified as a potential endocrine disruptor. Those concerned about phthalate exposure should inquire about the availability of phthalate-free alternative dental materials.

Resources

• Original 2009 PPRC Rapid Response “Safety of Plastics in Dental Appliances.”
• Resources Environmental Working Group article on BPA in plastics: http://www.ewg.org/key-issues/toxics/bpa
• Industry article on BPA in dental composites: http://iaomt.org/bisphenol-a-dental-composites/
• American Dental Association statement on BPA (this site originally contained a full statement, but is now listed as “Under review as of Jan. 30, 2013”: http://www.ada.org/1766.aspx
• New York Times article on dental sealants and BPA: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/health/21well.html?_r=3&

Can plastic chemicals used in a sous vide (SV) wrap product migrate into food during cooking? Are there any associated toxicity concerns?

Request by: a culinary school

Background

There are many uses of plastics in cooking, including using plastics in the microwave, baking turkeys and hams in plastic bags, using plastic liners in crock pots, and pre-prepared foods in boil-in bags intended for one-time use (e.g., rice and other items). One company, Lekeu, even offers a reusable silicone “boil-in” bag.

Sous-vide (SV) is a lesser known method of cooking wherein a product is vacuum-sealed in a food wrap bag or pouch. In French, Sous-vide means “under vacuum.” Compared to typical cooking methods like boiling or baking, the vacuum-sealed food is cooked in lower temperature water baths and for longer periods of time. Little data exists indicating whether any of the resins or additives used in these SV plastics, or their degradation products, migrate from the plastic into the food during cooking.

All end-use plastics include base polymer(s) along with different types of additives used to enhance the product and/or performance. Additives serve as antioxidants, stabilizers, plasticizers, lubricants, antimicrobials, anti-static and anti-blocking agents, “slips,” or heat resistance agents. While unconfirmed by SV packaging manufacturers, it is highly probable that SV packaging contains additives to allow it to withstand heated water and food contact, for extended time periods.

Two plastic additives in recent media coverage are bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates. BPA is used in rigid plastic such as polycarbonate. While many plastic manufacturers have gone “BPA free”, there is always a question of how safe the replacement additive for BPA truly is. For more information on BPA and possible alternatives, see PPRC’s Rapid Response report on BPA in Receipt Papers or the EPA’s Design for the Environment report on BPA Alternatives in Thermal Paper. Phthalates are often used as plasticizers to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more pliable. Like BPA, some of the substitutes for phthalates may not significantly reduce the toxicity threat over the original phthalate(s).

Plastics and Food Contact Regulation

The FDA does not “approve products” containing any of the regulated polymers; it only regulates use of individual polymers and additives in food contact materials per the Inventory (above) and/or appropriate CFRs. The two resins likely to be used in SV packaging are low density polyethylene (LDPE) and nylon, with corresponding CFR references below.

• Sec. 177.1500 Nylon resins
• Sec. 177.1520 Olefin polymers

To be used in food contact articles or products in commerce in the U.S., any polymer and each individual additive must be authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with limitations or specifications for its intended use. These stipulations often include concentration of the additive in the final product, end uses, and which FDA-defined “conditions of use” (e.g., temperatures during use) are acceptable, per Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 176.170(c), Table 2. Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants, Production Aids, And Sanitizers (21 CFR Part 178) includes regulatory information about certain plastic additives.

While it may seem comforting to know that FDA regulates what can be added in plastic food-contact products, the actual Inventory of Effective Food Contact Substances (FCS) Notifications currently lists 963 different chemicals that can be used in food contact packaging. This inventory includes questionable compounds such as BPA, certain phthalates, and urea-melamine-formaldehyde resins. (The latter is only acceptable in small concentration for use in food washing pallets).

The FDA’s Guidance for Industry: Preparation of Premarket Submissions for Food Contact Substances: Chemistry Recommendations [6], Section 10, provides migration testing methods for individual food contact material per various use conditions (Uses A through G). This protocol also refers to “boil-in bags” but does not specifically refer to materials used in SV cooking. Within this non-mandatory protocol, and the FDA regulations, it appears that “Use D” (defined below, including the testing method) may be most applicable to SV cooking, although “Use C” could also be applicable when SV bath temperatures are above 150 dF. The definitions for the Conditions of Use are below. Recommended testing protocols for these conditions are found in the guidance.

Use C.  Hot filled or pasteurized above 66°C (150°F).   

Use D.  Hot filled or pasteurized below 66°C (150°F).     

What plastics and additives are used in SV pouches and wraps?

SV packaging suppliers have not been transparent about the additives found in their products. Also, no specifications or MSDS’ have been provided by manufacturers, or found online. Two manufacturers did disclose that their base resin materials are LDPE or LDPE/nylon layers.

One supplier, when asked, defensively stated, “Our material is FDA-approved, BPA and phthalate free.” First,  BPA should not be found in film products, as the compound is used in rigid (#7) plastics. Second, calling a product “FDA-approved,”is a misnomer because, as explained above, the FDA does not approve products. Finally, listing a chemical on the FCS inventory does not guarantee its safety, and many of the FCS Notifications are chemicals of concern from a toxicity standpoint. It is unknown whether the limitations on use, as stipulated in each FCS, are tight enough to protect consumers from these chemicals of concern.

Another supplier claimed that their material is “100% LDPE.” However, LDPE requires additives to provide necessary functional attributes.

Do chemicals migrate from the plastic during SV cooking?  

This answer to this question is unable to be confirmed due to lack of data and studies on migration of chemicals from plastics in simulated SV cooking conditions (e.g., 120 to 180 dF for an hour or more).

It has not been confirmed by the literature, but acidic or oily foods would conceivably increase the amount or concentration of any migration.

With suppliers unable to provide any information on these additives, and no existing studies on migration of contaminants specifically from SV packaging, uncertainty remains about any health impacts. Impacts of these chemicals depend on the amount of chemical migration from the plastic into the food during SV cooking, as well as their toxicity, and the susceptibility of anyone consuming the food cooked via SV.

A few studies may provide insight into the potential for migration from plastic during various cooking methods, and some of the health impacts. These are briefly described in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Conclusions

-          It is difficult to find the true composition of SV products. Manufacturers have mentioned two resins (nylon and polyethylene) that are used in their SV plastics, but have been unwilling to disclose the full formulations and additives.

-          No studies were found in the literature evaluating migration of chemical additives from plastics in simulated SV conditions.

-          For heated plastics in contact with food, several studies have shown migrated contaminants or additives that would be present in or on the contacted food. The amount or potency is unknown and dependent on many variables.

-          Testing (Yang et al, Barkby et al, Soto-Valdez et al) has shown migration of plastic additives from various ‘’food wrap” plastics, including additives that have estrogenic or hormonal affects.

-          Available study results provide information on the chemicals that migrate from the plastic, but have not provided any toxicity or health impacts.

References

[1] Begley , Gay , Hollifield.  1995. Determination of migrants in and migration from nylon food packaging.

[2] Crompton, 2007. Additive Migration from Plastics Into Foods: A Guide for Analytical Chemists

[3]  National Academies Press, 1999. Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment. (Reproduced from a naturopathic approach to health).

[4] Sheftel. 2000. Indirect Food Additives and Polymers: Migration and Toxicology.

[5] Yang, et al 2011. Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved.

[6] FDA’s Guidance for Industry: Preparation of Premarket Submissions for Food Contact Substances: Chemistry Recommendations

Additional Information: 

[a] Canada Domestic Substance List (DSL): 

Toxicity Findings for nylon 6, polyethylene, and caprolactum (a chemical known to migrates from nylon).

CAS Number      Material                               Findings in DSL

25038-54-4          Nylon 6                                 Persistent in environment

9002-88-4          Polyethylene                 Persistent in environment

105-60-2               Caprolactam                       Categorized for human and environment health toxi

[b] U.S.  FDA Packaging & Food Contact Substances (FCS)   Webpage

[c]  From:  Schellers, 1993, FLAIR (FOOD-LINKED AGRO-INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH)

** Excerpt  from:  SOUS VIDE” COOKING

Testing of PVC film (“cling film”) plasticized with di-(2-ethylhexyl)a dipate (DEHA) was carried out in the UK (Startin et al., 1987) for a variety of foods which were either cooked or reheated in microwave ovens. They found that migration of the compound did occur, that it increased with the length of contact time and temperature of exposure, and that levels of migration were highest where there was direct contact between the film and foods with a high fat content at the surface. Highest levels of migration were observed for cheese, cooked meats, cakes and for microwave-cooked foods. An assessment of the DEHA migration from these films in such situations led to the recommendation that this type of film should not in future be used under any circumstances in conventional ovens, nor should it be used for lining of dishes or wrapping of foods in a microwave oven (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1987).

• VIEW THE SLIDES
• VIEW THE SLIDES AND RECORDING (coming soon, email Ken Grimm for more information)

Request by: City of Portland, Oregon

Introduction

The city of Portland, Oregon wanted to understand more about oxo-degradable bags with respect to using them as receptacle liners.  Specifically:

• Do they cause problems for plastics recyclers
• Under what conditions do the material biodegrades?
• Can they be included in the city’s commercial composting program?
• If used oxo-degradable bags that end up in the landfill, do they offer an environmental benefit over traditional plastic bags?

Background

Degradable bags and plastic films are readily available and marketed by producers for environmental benefits, such as biodegradation.  There are at least four different types of “degradable bags”.

Starch-based films and bags (heretofore referred to as “biobags”) are made of a starch or fiber, typically corn, soy or potatoes.  These decompose in a controlled composting environment in 10-45 days.   Bio-based plastics meet standards set by the American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM) for compostability, breaking down 60 percent or more within 180 days or less.   In order to do this, bio-based plastics need water, heat, and aeration.  Biobags are used in many food waste collection programs; oxo-degradable bags are not compostable.

Oxo-degredable bags, the subject of this document, are different than biobags.  They are additive based biodegradable films/bags (including oxo-degradable) rely on additives to the resin to hasten degradation upon exposure to different conditions. Oxo-degradable films degrade by oxidation; hastened by the chemical additives.  Degradation of oxo-degradable plastic begins with a chemical process followed by a biological process.   Examples of product that may use oxo-degradable plastic include: agricultural sheeting, blister packaging, bottles, caps/closures, carryout bags, clamshells, labels, landfill covers, lids, milk pouches, pallet and shrink wrap, and trays.

Two other types of degradable plastics, also additive-based, include, hydro-biodegradable plastics which degrade by hydrolysis, and thermal-based biodegradable plastic which degrade with exposure to heat.

At the time of the initial request for information on the oxo-degradable bags, the City of Portland had compiled some information about oxo-degradable bags and plastics.   They had worked with hydro-biodegradable plastics but not yet with oxo-degradable suppliers. The oxo-degradable plastic manufacturers claim the material is recyclable and compostable, and degradable in the landfill.  However, studies show these bags are not compatible with recycling or composting.  Thus, the City was looking for answers regarding use of these bags

Findings

Do the oxo materials cause problems for plastics recyclers?

A 2007 study [1] which evaluated two brands of oxo-degradable and hydro-degradable bags, indicates that neither type of bag are perfectly compatible with the traditional plastic grocery bag recycling stream, which is typically low-density polyethylene (LDPE).

Another study by the Loughborough University in 2010, concluded the following:  “Oxo-degradable plastics are not suitable for recycling with main-stream plastics. The recyclate will contain oxo-degradable additives that will render the product more susceptible to degradation. Although the additive producers suggest that stabilisers can be added to protect against the oxo-degradable additives, it would be problematic for recyclers to determine how much stabiliser needs to be added and to what extent the oxo-degradable plastic has already degraded. On this basis it seems unreasonable to claim recyclability of oxo-degradable plastics in existing recycling streams” [2].

A study commissioned by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Performance Evaluation of Environmentally Degradable Plastic Packaging and Disposable Food Service Ware [3] states, “Degradable plastics can negatively affect the quality and mechanical properties of recycled plastics if they are mixed with the recycled plastics. The contamination of degradable, biodegradable, and oxo-degradable plastics can be treated as other contamination to plastics. The effects of the degradable contamination can be evaluated by measuring physical properties and mechanical properties of the plastics.” One specific test conducted was on the effects of mixing oxo-degradable material with post-consumer low-density polyethylene (LDPE) at a ratio of 1:5. Researchers found that the introduction of the additive containing oxo-material increased specific gravity of the LDPE and altered the melt index of the LDPE.

A rebuttal, on the CIWMB study results, comes from the Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Oxo-biodegradable Plastics Association, and claims that “The studies referred to above [in the CIWMB 2007 report) show that oxo-biodegradable polyethylene(PE)  can be collected with regular PE waste for recycling without any adverse effects on the quality of the recycled products. [4]

The industry group’s (Oxo-Biodegradable Plastic Association) Scientific Advisory Board argues that combining post consumer oxo-materials with other plastics is feasible, with rationale that recycling post-consumer oxo-degradables with virgin or recycled resins effectively dilutes any additives, rendering them ineffective [5].  This position paper suggests they are recyclable “without significant detriment the newly formed plastic product.”

These differing claims and study results, that the material is recyclable with PE streams, or is not compatible and may affect the properties of the final product, are not fully resolved in the literature.  Further, the Biodegradable Plastics Institute (BPI) says that the formulation of additives in oxo films varies greatly [6], which introduces even more variability in the recycling process.

Since processing conditions and quality or property requirements of reprocessed PE varies at every processor, the most real and local answer will be identified by the recycled plastic processor that may be taking that material.  They can test samples in their process to see impacts on the final product.

Here is one company’s story, that started using oxo-bags, and returned to non-oxo-degradable plastic:

Dave’s Killer Bread researched oxo-degradable bags for their bread products, and knew that many oxo-degradable plastics are not recyclable.  However, they did find one film that had been verified by a third party to be recyclable.  After also verifying that this plastic would have no effect on the food product it was enclosing, and that the FDA had approved it for packaging, they switched to oxo-biodegradable bags in early 2009.   After finding out that plastic recyclers had concerns about their bags, because of concerns over their unknown effects on the long term viability of products containing recycled oxo-biodegradable plastic, along with other new information about oxo-degradable plastics, they discontinued use of oxo-degradable bags in 2012 [7].

Here is another company’s statement on using oxo-bags in their recycled-content wood:

TREX plastic lumber company, a large volume user of recycled PE films, stated in 2008, “Unless and until the long term durability testing concludes that the oxo-biodegradable polyethylene plastic (OBPE) will not have an adverse effect on our product, Trex cannot support the introduction of OBPE materials into traditional recyclable polyethylene streams.” [8]

More recently, Trex told us that it is still their position that biodegradables are, by definition, non-recyclable.  They offer a 25 year Residential Warranty on their composite lumber.  If the raw materials used to manufacture this product are designed to disintegrate, they are uncertain whether their boards will bare that impact.

Should oxo plastics be included in our commercial composting program?

The literature, again, has differing study results on whether oxo-degradable bags are compostable.  As an example, see the citations in this Intertek (May 2012) report, (pages 10 – 11) [9].

Currently, oxo plastics are not approved by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) because they do not meet the ASTM specs for compostability (ASTM D6400 – “Specifications for Compostable Plastics”). This standard requires that a product degrade within 180 days.  The oxidation process for oxo-degradable bags tends to take longer in most conditions.  While the bag may fragment within this time period, full degradation is not likely to occur.

Cedar Grove (a large commercial composter in the Pacific Northwest) does not accept, nor even typically test materials for suitability in their process if they are not BPI Approved for compostability to ASTM D6400.   For those composting with companies other than Cedar Grove, the question of the suitability for composting of a particular product will be dictated by the compost operation in the area.  If Cedar Grove is considering accepting an incoming material for composting, (in this case, oxo-degradable bags), they will test the material in their exact process before approving the material for compost collection.

An additional challenge that composters face is determining plastic type as plastic shoots down the conveyor belt at 50 tons per hour.  If an oxo-degradable bag looks like LDPE (e.g., grocery bag), the operator is hard pressed to be able to tell the difference in the time given, and may just pull the material off the line for other disposal whether it is LDPE or oxo-degradable.

If the bags just end up in the landfill (as in trashcan liners) is there an environmental benefit to it degrading in the landfill?

Based on the literature, there seems to be no significant benefits to degradation in the landfill.  Oxo-degradable products require oxygen to degrade, so decomposition deep in a landfill, with anaerobic conditions, is not likely to occur due to the absence of oxygen and UV light, where these bags are completely inert .

Conceivably, most commercially available oxo-biodegradable plastics will begin to disintegrate in the surface layers of a landfill if oxygen is present.  Oxygen levels will vary according to factors such as how loose or compressed the waste was when it was buried, how much ultraviolet light is available, and how quickly additional waste materials or daily cover is added on top of the bag.   One potential advantage of landfilling these, over traditional bags, is that the oxo-degradable bag will fragment sooner when conditions allow (such as loose upper layer conditions).  It would then settle more easily than an ordinary plastic bag with trapped contents or air, and occupy less space.

A landfill study carried out by the University of California [10] reported that oxo-biodegradable plastic did not undergo anaerobic biodegradation during the study period of 43 days, while a control sample of paper did biodegrade under the same anaerobic conditions, and produced methane. Thomas at al (2010) concluded that these findings supported the claims from the producers of oxo-biodegradables that these products will not emit methane in anaerobic conditions in landfill sites.

Under what conditions does it decompose, and how long does it take?

Oxo bag degradation depends heavily on the surrounding conditions.  According to Powell & Leineweber’s article [11], many manufacturers promote oxo-degradable products based on the assumption that full decomposition occurs between 18 and 24 months, but other studies indicate it may take five years to decompose. Critics of oxo-bags say that the oxo-degradable bonds require a hot arid environment to break, and the polymeric fractions require a warm, wet, microbe-rich environment to decompose.

Although the exact brand or resins studied are unknown, the CIWMB study [4] tested degradation rates of biodegradable plastic samples in lab, landfill, and compost settings and found that the biodegradable samples decomposed within 180 days, but no measurable degradation occurred for the selected oxo samples, using ASTM D6400 standard specifications.

One company, EcoSafe Oxo-Biodegradable Trash Bag products are said to be engineered to degrade and totally fragment in 90 to 120 days and 60% mineralize / biodegrade in a further 12 to 24 months after disposal [12].  Another company, EcoBio® products are engineered for disposal in a landfill and under these conditions will degrade and fragment at a slower rate (12 to 18 months) [13].

References

[1] Grenier, D., and Cote, L. 2007. Evaluation of the Impact of Biodegradable Bags on the Recycling of Traditional Plastic Bags.

[2]  Loughborough University.  2010.   Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Oxo-degradable Plastics Across Their Life Cycle.

[3] California State University, Chico Research Foundation. June 2007. Performance Evaluation of Environmentally Degradable Plastic Packaging and Disposable Food Service Ware – Final Report. June 2007.

[4] Scott, G.  2008.  Comments on “Performance Evaluation of Environmentally Degradable Plastic Packaging and Disposable food Service Ware – Final Report”.  California State University for CIWMB

[5] Oxo-Biodegradable Plastic Association .  2012.  “Recycling of Plastics”

[6]  BPI.  2003.  BPI Assessment of Oxo-Degradable Films

[7] Dave’s Killer Bread.  2012.  Press release.

[8] Greener Package.  2009.  Feedback on Oxo-Biodegradables

[9] Edwards & Parker.  Intertek.   May 2012.   A Life Cycle Assessment of Oxo-biodegradable, Compostable and Conventional Bags

[10] California State University, Chico Research Foundation. 2007. Evaluation of the Performance of Rigid Plastic Packaging Containers, Bags, and Food Service Packaging in Full-Scale Commercial Composting

[11] Powell & Leineweber, 2009. Breaking Down Oxo-Degradables. Resource Recycling. April. Iv

[12] Eco-Safe Bags (website)  http://www.dirtworks.net/Biodegradeable-Plastic-Bags/EcoSafe-Information-Dirt-Works.html

[12] EcoBio® (website)  http://www.all-greenjanitorialproducts.com/EcoDegradable-Garbage-Bags-33-Gallon-p/1075.htm

Additional Resources

OxoBiodegradable Plastics Association FAQs:       http://www.biodeg.org/faq.htm#1

The Biodegradable Products Institute:                     http://www.BPIworld.org

The tools were reviewed by a panel from the P2 community and were showcased in national webinars and conferences reaching over 600 participants.  Based on feedback the U.S. EPA reworked the tools to be more robust, user friendly, with better training elements.  All of the P2 tools are in an Excel format and finalized as of November 2012.  U.S. EPA will periodically update the tools as new information and data sources become available.

Who should use the tools?

Anyone can use the tools.  The U.S. EPA designed them with state and local governments, business facilities, grantees, and project managers in mind.

What is the purpose and benefits of the tools?

They are designed to help calculate GHG emissions and cost savings from P2 activities, and to help convert gallons of hazardous materials into pounds.  The tools help to convert standard business units into environmental measurement units, increase transparency of reported data, and make reference sources clear.

P2 GHG Calculator: 

The P2 GHG Calculator calculates GHG emission reductions from electricity conservation, green energy, fuel and chemical substitutions with lower GHG-intensities, water conservation, and improved materials and process management in the chemical manufacturing sector.  This tool will assist program participants submit higher-quality data for the program measure, and demonstrates the unique multi-media perspective that P2 brings to reduce (MTCO2e) metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

P2 Cost Calculator:

The P2 Cost Calculator calculates cost savings associated with reduced costs for hazardous inputs in a facility process, reduced costs for handling hazardous waste, reductions in annual air permitting fees that are based on actual emissions, reduced water discharge treatment costs based on gallons of discharged, reduced charges for water usage, reduced fuel costs, and reduced costs for electricity.  Understanding potential cost savings presents a big incentive for action and collaboration to program beneficiaries.

Gallons to Pounds Converter:

This is designed to provide conversions from units commonly encountered in business to units for P2 Program measures.  It is not uncommon for hazardous materials to be measured in gallons for business purposes – gallons of paint and gallons of waste water, for example.  For program purposes, all these gallon measures need to be converted to pounds of hazardous materials for the program measure “pounds of hazardous materials reduced.”

If you have any comments or questions regarding these tools please contact Natalie Hummel (hummel.natalie@epa.gov) at 202-564-1424 or Kathy Davey (davey.kathy@epa.gov) at 202-564-8834.

Can you Provide an Introductory Toolkit for Conducting Community E-Waste Collection Events?

Requested by: Anonymous

Introduction

Electronic wastes (e-wastes) include spent electronics, computers, cell phones, printers, and so o,n and is a problem waste stream if not managed properly.

E-waste collection events around the country are a useful service to communities, that help prevent hazardous materials from being improperly disposed of. The variety and types of materials collected at an event vary depending on the hauler and recycler.

Why should community or business groups host e-waste collection events?

• Good public relations and outreach about the host organization as well as proper disposal of e-wastes
• E-wastes contain hazardous constituents and need to be disposed of properly (to a certified electronics recycler)
• Benefits to community to be able to drive through and drop items off in one place and not have to search for a local location that accepts e-waste
• Ultimately, recovery of the metals and materials (as compared to illegal dumping or landfilling) reduces the potential for constituents to release to water, air, or soil, and it reduces the need for mining and extraction of virgin materials

Steps

Typically, a minimum of two to three month(s) are needed to plan an event and conduct effective outreach to attract donors.

Here is a list of recommended steps for holding an e-waste collection event.  Details for each step follow this list.

• Set goals for collection
• Find a reputable electronics recycler in your community to help with collection and conduct the disassembly/recycling of the collected items
• Secure sponsors (if desired)
• Set a date
• Check with and notify government entities
• Plan the day/event
• Plan/conduct outreach
• Conduct the event
• Measure and promote success

1.       Set an estimate and/or goals for collection

Goals are dependent on the host organization, but should include (but is not limited to):

• Amount of waste (pounds/truckloads)
• Number of households to reach with outreach messaging
• Number of households dropping off material

The local e-waste recycler may have an estimating tool or past experience to help estimate the collection volume expected. 

2.    Find a certified recycler in your area  

It is recommended to partner with an e-Steward® certified.  Determine if the recycler is physically present to collects materials in trailers onsite at the collection event.  If not, find out who they use for collection events  to load and haul collected items to their recycling facility.

If there is no e-steward certified  in their area, another search page for e-waste recyclers is at Earth911. 

3.    Secure sponsors.

Since these events are typically a community service, the host organization may want to have other local businesses help with outreach, covering costs, providing volunteer help on the day of the event, or be included on the outreach materials if the organization will draw more e-waste donors.   Local businesses, sports teams, scouts, churches, community centers, and environmental non-profits are potential candidates for partnering on such events.

4.    Set a date. 

Work with recycler and facility manager at the collection site to determine a date AND hours of operation.

5.   Check with and notify government entities

While it may not be required in every city, local government should be notified of collection events dealing with e-waste, to determine if there are any restrictions or special requirements, including stormwater control if it is raining that day.  For instance, see California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Guidance for hosting a collection event.

If you are uncertain who you need to contact with respect to government agencies, contact PPRC (info@pprc.org) to determine which agency needs to be contacted.

6.    Plan the event. 

a.   Devise a brand or logo, and advertising mantra

b.  Work with the recycler/collector to:

• Put together lists of the allowable and unacceptable materials.    Emphasize that household hazardous wastes will not be accepted.

Note:  Neither the host organization nor the e-waste recycler wants the liability of collecting, handling, and taking responsibility for proper transport of  any fluorescent bulbs (mercury release if breakage occurs), fluids such as pesticides or solvents, PCB transformers, etc.. 

• Determine if there is a limit of e-waste (by volume or number) per car?
• Determine if electronics will be accepted from small businesses, large businesses, or only from citizens/residential donors?

c.  Determine how much support the collector/hauler will provide on the day of the event, along with other requirements.

• Will they do 100% of the sorting and truck loading?
• Do they direct traffic ? And provide traffic signage/cones, etc? Or is that
• Do they need a donor form filled out by any donors?

d.  Based on goals and selected hours of operation and the level of participation from the onsite collection vendor, determine who and how volunteers or other outside hired staff are needed to run the event.   

e.  Determine a schedule for the day, including set up crew arrival through clean up crew.

f.  Plan a short training/safety meeting before the actual start of collection. Safety issues include but are not limited to:

• What materials are accepted and where they will be placed
• Flow of traffic and crossing traffic paths
• Wearing gloves if handling any materials
• What materials are of concern in case of drop/breakage (old monitor glass contains lead, toner ink, highly flammable lithium batteries,  etc.)
• How to clean up any drops/breakage
• Hand out any fliers or other event info or trinkets

g. Plan a designated place where volunteers and event staff will park.

h. Establish a drive-through procedure including number of lanes, exit driving path, etc.  including posters, driving arrows, other signage.  Important considerations are number of drop-off lanes, ensuring that handlers and donors do not cross traffic paths, how to remove full trucks during the day if needed, and trying to ensure that there is enough room and lanes on the lot so that cars are not lined up onto streets/blocking traffic.   See an example plan.

h.   Develop plan for signs and arrows directing people toward the event.    Make or purchase the signs.

i.    If you want to media or local community blog coverage of the event, let them know via press release, phone call, or other means.

j.   Will you provide handouts or gimmicks/info to customers?   In the interest of less waste, maybe handouts are not preferred.   If you see value in additional messaging to the e-waste donors, things that might be of interest to include are:  how/where to recycle e-waste and different commodities in the future, interesting tips about recycling and pollution prevention relating to electronics, thanking them for stopping by, and/or something to this affect:

NOTE: Any and all Electronic Waste collected at these events is sent to an e-Steward® certified facility within the State of xx that certifies that it is 100% demanufactured and recycled in a stringent and environmentally acceptable manner to the commodity level in the United States. No Electronic Waste collected at these events is sent overseas.

k.  Plan for other onsite needs on event day

• Cones
• Caution tape
• Protective gloves for all staff
• Scissors, large markers, tape, string,
• Garbage bags or receptacles (Inevitably, some things will be dropped off that will not be accepted by the recycler)
• Brooms and dustpans (for clean up of small items or any breaks)
• First aid kits
• Canopies in case of rain
• Hand flags (for traffic directors)
• If it is raining, are there any special stormwater collection or diversion devices?
• Other?

Summary of Potential Staffing /Volunteer Needs (Unless provided by collection company)

• Event managers
• Traffic directors (unless professionals/security staff/police to direct traffic?)
• Set up crew
• Two staff or volunteers per drop-off lane (or more depending on expected size of event?)
• “Greeter” at entrance
• Any sports celebs attending /helping?
• Collection/hauling company
• Final grounds clean up crew
• Optional:  photographer
• Media?
• Security if event is expected to be large

7.    Plan and conduct the outreach

Who is the target audience?  How will you reach them?

• Website posting
• Radio advertising (especially local sports stations)
• TV
• Advertising at games
• Local community blogs
• Facebook, Twitter
• City/County (possibly a bill stuffer)
• Ask sponsors to send out messages to their local customers
• Other?

Example ideas for presentation or handout materials

• Ecology Center’s E-Waste FAQ

• Announcement of event with message that it is illegal to dispose of electronics in landfills.  http://ojaivalleygreencoalition.com/Ewaste_flyer.pdf

8.    Conduct the event

9.     Measure and promote success

Work with the event hauler and/or recycler to be able to document the number of truckloads and pounds of waste collected.   Compare to estimates and goals established above.

Share your event successes with a local blog, or newspaper and learnings with GSA members.

Electronic wastes (e-wastes) include spent electronics, computers, cell  phones, printers, etc…and is a problem waste stream if not managed properly. 

E-waste collection events around the country are a useful service to communities, that help prevent hazardous materials from being improperly disposed of.   The variety and types of materials collected at an event vary depending on the hauler and recycler.

Do you have an easy yet specific method to calculate transfer efficiency for spray paint operations?

Requested by: Washington Department of Ecology (on behalf of cabinet maker)

Introduction

Very simply, transfer efficiency (TE) of a spray operation or finishing process is the amount of material that adheres to the substrate compared to the amount of material that was sprayed through the applicator toward the substrate.  Transfer efficiency is expressed as a percentage.

Ken Grimm, PPRC, who trains facilities and operators in spray efficiency, and is certified in Spray Painting Efficiency Training (STAR®), says that initial reaction from operators is that 37% is a low rate of transfer efficiency. In fact, he rarely sees rates above 50% in automotive painters and almost never sees rates above 37% in industrial facilities.

Transfer efficiency is important with respect to productivity, and cost and environmental savings. A facility had a vendor consultant come in and measure their TE to a specific standard, and the result came in at about 17% TE. This translates to the following:

• For every $100 the company spends on paint as a raw material, they are, in a sense, throwing $83 of that paint away as overspray.
• They are paying to dispose of the overspray (as solid waste or hazardous waste), to take that $83 away from them.
• The lower the TE, the more airborne paint  particles are captured in the air filters, requiring more frequent change of air filters (than a higher TE operation).
• The lower the TE, the more frequently new paint will be needed, increasing labor.
• Lower TE can help achieve compliance with air permits.

There are many variables to transfer efficiency, listed below. Painter technique is believed by many experts in spray efficiency to have more of an affect than any of the other variables.

• Painter technique
• Part size
• Part geometry
• Gun-target distance
• Coating viscosity
• Ease with which coating can be atomized
• Spray gun design and method of atomization
• Fluid pressure
• Atomizing air pressure
• Fan size
• Overlapping of successive spray gun strokes
• Orifice diameter of spray gun cap
• Air velocity in the spray booth
• Air balance in the spray booth
• Lead and lag triggering times
• Conveyor line speed
• Speed of spray gun travel
• Painter fatigue
• Lighting in the spray booth
• Space constraints on the spray booth
• Attitude of management
• Attitude of the painter

For electrostatic guns additional parameters include:

• Coating conductivity (or resistivity)
• Grounding of the parts
• Voltage potential between electrode and ground

Source:  Transfer Efficiency, by Ron Joseph

When training painters, STAR® also addresses build efficiency (BE), related to finished build thickness of the paint on the substrate. This is important because, like TE, it is a measure of wasted paint (or efficient application).  For example, if a customer specification calls for a finish thickness of 3 dry mils, and a part ends up with 6 dry mils of finish thickness, an operator who (theoretically) achieves 100 percent TE, would still have wasted 50% of the paint due to the extra 3 mils of paint coated on the part. All painters will likely exceed the 3 dry mils to be sure the coating thickness is not under spec. However, keeping the coating under, say, 4 dry mils (for a 3 mil spec) can be almost as important as ensuring a good TE rate.

Calculating Transfer Efficiency (TE)

In spray painting operations, a clear and specific description of how to calculate TE depends on desired accuracy of the result. Accuracy may range from a “back of the napkin” calculation to expensive laboratory tests when required to qualify an operator to a specific TE performance, and/or ratings for particular spray apparatus to ensure they meet NESHAP requirements (including methods by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)[1].

The method below is a simple way to determine an adequately accurate TE for “in-house” use.

Do you have suggestions & tips for making schools healthier environments?

Requested by: school staff and parents

This 98-page report highlights the variety of approaches organizations are using to incorporate environmental and social factors into procurement activities. Based on interviews with representatives from 18 public and private sector organizations, the report describes:

• how the organizations choose product categories and attributes for EPP initiative
• show they integrate EPP into their everyday purchasing decisions
• what common challenges they face
• the positive outcomes produced by the organizations’ EPP efforts

Synopses of the participating organizations’ EPP strategies or programs are included in an appendix to the report.

An Oregon client has a high-boiling point substance contaminated with organic solvents. What resources are available to help select the appropriate technology to recover solvents (acetone and toluene) from the mixture?

Requested by: David Kunz, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Background

An Oregon manufacturer recovers a high-boiling point product material from an industrial process. The material contains residual acetone and toluene which the manufacturer wants to remove and potentially recover for re-use. Information was requested on methods to recover solvent from the product mixture.

Solvent Recovery by Distillation

Both acetone and toluene are fairly volatile solvents. Their boiling points are substantially different (acetone boils at 56 C and toluene at 110.6 C), which would likely lead to an easy separation and recovery by a simple batch “kettle” still. If the initial product mixture contains other volatile components, fractional distillation may be required to achieve desired individual solvent purity.

Distillation for solvent recovery and reuse is widely practiced. Guidance documents on factors to consider in solvent recovery are provided in the Resource section below. Case studies of commercial implementations and vendor links are also listed. Equipment vendors can provide guidance on the scale and type of equipment appropriate for individual applications. Vendors will typically perform test distillations to verify performance.

Resources

Questions to ask when considering in-house solvent recover:)

• On-Site Solvent Recovery Stills: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/cea/publications/pubs/section3/sw150.pdf
• A Guide For Choosing and Operating an On-Site Distillation Unit: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/pollutionprevention/guiddstl.pdf
• Solvent Recovery Systems (includes a simple economic calculation example): http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/12/11493.pdf

Case studies on solvent recovery:

• Solvent recovery case study at Bayer Corporation, North Carolina: http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/07/06123.pdf
• Solvent recovery case study at Crumrine Company, Nevada: http://unrbep.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Crumrine.pdf

Commercial vendors of systems or distillation services:

• An Oregon vendor with experience in solvent recovery by distillation (includes considerations of Oregon hazardous waste disposal regulations): http://www.orenviro.com/solvent-recovery-systems-lower-your-EPA-classification.htm
• A California provider of distillation systems: http://www.cal-water.com/pdf/products/Lit%20Distillation.pdf
• Vacuum distillation equipment may be required where the mixture to be separated includes large, complex molecules that would be affected by high temperatures. Oregon Environmental mentioned above makes equipment for this purpose: http://www.orenviro.com/products/vacuum-generator-VAC200.htm
• CBG, a large commercial system provider: https://www.cbgtechnologies.com/case-study-new-jersey-manufacturer.aspx
• NexGenEnviro Systems, Inc., a large commercial system provider: http://www.nexgenenviro.com/category/481/solvent_distillation.html
• Commercial services are also available to purify solvents for recycle, even complicated mixtures: http://www.veoliaes.com/en/services/enterprise/recycling/solvents.html

Disclaimer:  PPRC does not endorse any particular vendor and provides these commercial links as examples only. Be sure to ask vendors for references and consider looking into competitors in the same market before proceeding with any purchase or commercial contract.