ASSESSING NON BFR CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES-ARE THEY SAFER

The Bromine Industry in particular, points out that non-brominated chemical flame retardants may be very hazardous and that the phase-out of BFRs may not be safe. The non-brominated alternatives listed in the above case studies are likely to be safer if they exhibit less persistence and bioaccumulation in living systems, but some do possess significant toxicity. In the last few years, some agencies have therefore investigated the relative merits of alternatives to BFRs. 

The German Environmental Protection Agency (UBA) surveyed 13 flame retardants for toxicity to humans and the environment and their suitability for closed-loop substance management. 

The aim was to assess the feasibility of substitution with less hazardous flame retardants. They selected red phosphorus, ammonium polyphosphate and aluminium trihydroxide as the least environmentally problematic alternatives. Red phosphorus can technically be used in a variety of polymers to meet even the toughest fire safety standards, although it may network forall applications.  

UBA remarked that It is encouraging that there is a general trend to refrain from the use of halogenated flame retardants in products and to replace them with less problematic flame retardants or to redesign flame retardant systems, e.g. by creating greater distances to potential heat sources.  

The Danish Environmental Protection Agency also investigated the profiles of 12 non-brominated flame retardants for environmental and health effects. From a survey of published literature, they found that the amount of data available is often very limited, particularly for important criteria such as degradation. Furthermore, the screening study showed that the majority of the alternatives also had undesirable environmental and health characteristics, but an assessment was needed to determine the amount and the manner in which they are released before a conclusion could be drawn.  

---