 |
Last Updated: Friday 5 September 2008 15:38 GMT | [Write for us] | [Subscribe to RSS] | [Advertise with us] | |
|
|
||
‘Fresh-Smelling’ Detergents and Air Fresheners Emit Toxic Chemicals: Studyby Jyoti Pal
Published on July 25, 2008 - 1 comments 
Your favorite laundry products and air fresheners are actually not as pleasant as they smell! The most publicized ‘fresh-smelling’ products are containing chemicals cataloged as toxic or hazardous under federal laws, the study conducted at the University of Washington highlights. As manufacturers of consumer products are not required to disclose the ingredients, to take a deeper look inside, the researchers included six top-selling brands and tested their 25 different products including detergents, fabric softeners, personal care products, air fresheners and other laundry products for the ingredients. Each product was then placed in an isolated space at room temperature in the laboratory. Researchers then analyzed surrounding air for traces of volatile organic compounds. 58 different volatile organic compounds above a concentration of 300 micrograms per cubic meter were traced of which many were present in more than one of the six products, researchers reveal. Interestingly, six of them are regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws, Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs noted. While commenting upon the results, Steinemann said, "I was surprised by both the number and the potential toxicity of the chemicals that were found." "Chemicals included acetone, the active ingredient in paint thinner and nail-polish remover; limonene, a molecule with a citrus scent; and acetaldehyde, chloromethane and 1,4-dioxane," she highlighted. While the current study does not take up health issues linked to exposure to chemicals, two national surveys held in 2004 and 2005 concluded that about 20 percent of the population reported adverse health effects from such ‘fresh-smelling products’. Such complaints were twice as common among asthmatics or those highly sensitive to chemicals. Though the environmental groups have called for more useful labeling requirements, study author in her report published online by the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review for the meanwhile recommends buying the ‘fragrance-free versions’, "Be careful if you buy products with fragrance, because you really don't know what's in them," Steinemann stated. "I'd like to see better labeling. In the meantime, I'd recommend that instead of air fresheners people use ventilationdefine, and with laundry products, choose fragrance-free versions," she added.
Write to author: Jyoti Pal
 Post new comment |
|
|||||
delicious
digg
google
yahoo
|
||||||
©2006-2008 themedguru.com. All Rights Reserved. |
||||||
How about some facts?
The study you write about presents no new data or breakthrough analysis. It is, at best, filled with misinformation and, at worst, a deliberate effort to mislead consumers about fragrance and product safety. I found these facts on a couple of other websites which put this study in context:
“The study found 58 different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at levels above a concentration of 300 parts per billion but did not list the concentration of each chemical. To put this in context, 300 parts per billion is just above the level of analytical detection for these materials. Ingredients which sound scary when listed by their chemical names are materials that occur naturally in everyday items, often in much larger quantities than may be used in fragranced products. Some examples include: alpha-Pinene (pine forests); Acetone (cheddar cheese, apple juice, strawberries); 2-Butanone (coffee, citrus fruit, grapes); Benzaldehyde (white bread – at >40,000,000 ppb, roasted coffee – at 2,000,000 ppb, apple juice – at around 300,000 ppb); Ethanol (blackberries, cauliflower, cherries, cucumbers); Ethyl acetate( honey, tomatoes, vinegar).
It would be folly to declare the numerous pine forests lining the west and east coasts toxic or hazardous just because they give off the VOC, alpha-pinene. Even more folly to put a hazard warning on a tomato which naturally contains 8,501,000 parts per billion of benzaldehye. Or even to require forests and tomatoes to be labeled with their constituent chemicals. So why does Steinemann want the fragrance industry to label the very low levels of these same chemicals when contained in our products, and why does she impute that these chemicals are hazardous when clearly that is not the case?”
It’s no wonder she didn’t list the levels of these chemicals in her study. If she did you’d see just how wrong – and unscientific - her conclusions are. So, unless you want all the pine forests to be chopped down I suggest you forget about this sham study and go back to enjoying the outdoors and the indoors (fragranced if you like).