Health Risks Associated With Volatile Organic Compounds - Literature review Example

Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds are a of compounds that contain carbon and other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, sulfer or nitrogen; their characteristic feature is that these compounds are easily converted into vapors or gases.(www.toxtown.nlm.nih.gov). The primary sources of VOC’s in building materials are paints and glues, thinners, air fresheners, wood preservatives and dry cleaning products and these may be found on wall board, flooring, cabinetry, carpeting, foam and upholstery. Some examples of volatile organic compounds are gasoline, formaldehyde, benzene, and solvents such as toluene, xylene and tetra-chloroethylene, which is the main solvent used in drycleaning.(www.toxtown.nlm.nih.gov). Volatile Organic Compounds used in building materials are frequent indoor air pollutants. According to Meininghaus et al (2000), certain materials that are present indoors can function as buffers which may reduce the peak concentrations but prolong the presence of the compounds in the air. A two flow system was used in this study to allow direct observation of mass flow across materials. The results in this study showed that diffusion through materials can reduce the room air concentrations, which can affect ventilation requirements. However, VOC levels in indoor air is an important issue of indoor air pollution because most humans spend an average amount of 90% of their time indoors.(Klepeis et al, 2001). Studies show that concentrations of VOCs are typically higher indoors than outdoors and building characteristics can influence the relevant levels.(Wallace, 2001). VOCs are an important category of indoor and outdoor pollutant, although they do not last as long outside because they are easily broken down by microorganisms and sunlight. However, die to their ubiquitous nature, VOCs from indoor sources such as chloroform, p-dichlorobenzene, d-limonene, α- and β-pinene are associated with long term health risks.(Pratt et al 2000; Woodruf et al 1998). While the cumulative risks that accrue from long term exposure to multiple VOCs remains indeterminate, the Eleventh Report on Carcinogens which is published by the National Toxicology program identifies damages to the liver, kidneys and the central system in the long term (www.toxtown.nlm.nih.gov). Studies have also shown that several types of cancers as well as cardiovascular and neurological diseases have been reported as adverse health effects of exposure to VOC, either through inhalation or through the presence of VOC’s in drinking water. (Calderon, 2000). These products are hazardous as air pollutants and combine with nitrogen oxides at ground level to form ozone or smog. (www.toxtown.nlm.nih.gov). In the short term, VOC’s have been known to cause irritation of the eye and respiratory tracts, headaches, dizziness and visual disorders, fatigue, nausea, allergies and memory impairment. (www.toxtown.nlm.nih.gov). A recent study has shown that exposure to VOCs may cause respiratory problems and reduced pulmonary function, which may have adverse long term efforts on respiratory health. (Ekkiot et al, 2006; Adgate et al, 2004). On an overall basis therefore, VOC’s pose a significant health risk, both in the long and short term. Safer building materials using non VOC compounds: Some alternatives to conventional foundation waterproofing sealants which use VOC’s are dynoseal, safe coat seals and penetrating water stops and water shields, which are elastomeric, water based compounds with very low VOC content (www.afmssafecoat.com). Their composition may be primarily resin and glycerine, without using any hazardous air pollutants. For example, Lawrence et al (2001) have outlined the use of water based no clean liquid fluxes in wave soldering as opposed to the traditional alcohol based fluxes that contain VOCs. They point out the advantages of reduced environmental pollution through the absence of VOCs. Additionally, water based sealants offer advantages such as handling advantages, zero flammability and low odour and low evaporation rates at room temperatures. In the case of the Heli Coil division of the Black and Decker Corporation, the Company was informed that it was violating the standards of the Clean Air Act by using a process that applies red ink to a Heli coil stainless steel screw lock insert which resulted in an emission of VOCs. After a year of investigation the Company was able to find the solution in a vapor incinerator which extracts and burns the VOC fumes from the coloring operation. (Mason, 1991). As opposed to VOC based building materials which cause the Sick Building syndrome, alternative compounds that may be used are those with minimal chemical emissions, such as low VOC paints and sealants and adhesives, non toxic cleaners, ceramic tile and linoleum and formaldehyde free particle boards.(Froeschle, 1996). In a recent study, emissions of volatile organic compounds were assessed from both coated and uncoated oriented strandboard samples, where the uncoated Oriented Strandboard was isocyanate bonded and demonstrated a very low rate of VOIC emissions, as opposed to coated materials which had emission levels of 30 to 36% of VOCs.(Bartelova et al, 2006). The Leadership in Energy and Environmental design is a green buildings rating and certification system of the US and Canada Green Building System. According to this system architects are required to bear six primary considerations in mind while designing green buildings: (a) sustainable sites (b) water efficiency (c) energy and atmosphere (d) non VOC materials and resources (e) indoor environmental quality and (f) innovation in design.(Dauncy, 2004). For ordinary consumers, this means that the construction of new green homes may well entail additional architect fees as well, since the use of green technology and non VOC products requires more creativity and innovation on the part of architects in designing air circulation, ventilation and spatial arrangements among other building aspects. However, the use of green alternatives may be an expensive process. For example, recycled glass costs $6 more per square foot as opposed to ordinary glass. Holiday Rambler, a manufacturer of motor homes and recreational vehicles found that when it set out to replace the 1,1,1 trichloro-ethane based red glue with new urethane and water based adhesives, these products were 20 to 30% more expensive on a per gallon basis and the Company had to make purchases in excess of $900,000 in order to convert to the new adhesive.(www.ecn.purdue.edu). However, in the case of UTA (United Technologies Automotive), fibrils technology painting was used to replace traditional paints that had a high percentage of VOC based compounds and paintings mirror housing with electrostasis resulted in a three fold improvement in application rate. Despite the heavy increased costs in using new environmentally friendly techniques, the VOC emissions were projected to reduce by 80% per year and long term savings of $500,000 per year were expected to be achieved.(www.ecn.purdue.edu). Conclusions: On the basis of the above, it may be concluded that VOC’s pose a significant short term as well as long term health risk. Since the concentration of VOCs is higher indoors, it results in building sickness and has a detrimental effect since people spend most of their time indoors. Therefore, the use of non-VOC building materials offers an attractive and beneficial option, especially from the health point of view. But on the other hand, the use of non-VOC adhesives, sealants and glues, as well as other green building materials are on an average about 20-30% higher in terms of costs. In addition, architect fees are also likely to be higher, which makes the building of green homes an expensive proposition. But when viewed against the benefits that can be obtained in terms of individual health improvement, as well as the reduction of indoor and outdoor air pollution, the extra investments requirement seem to be well worth the risk. It is in the interest of the planet as a whole and the health of numerous individuals to use non VOC compounds so that in the long term, there are environmental and health benefits, which will be invaluable. References: * Adgate, John L, Church, Timothy R, Ryan, Andrew D, Ramachandran, Gurumurthy et al, 2004. “Outdoor, Indoor and Personal Exposure to VOC’s in children.” Environmental health Perspectives, 112(14): 1386-1393. * Bartekova, A, Lungu, C, Shmulsky, R, Huelman, P and Park, J,Y, 2006. “Laboratory evaluation of volatile organic compounds emissions from coated and uncoated oriented strandboard.” Forest Products Journal, 56(2): 85-91 * Calderon, R.L., 2000. “Epidemiology of Chemical Contaminants of Drinking Water”, Food and Chemical Toxicology, 38:S13. * Dauncy, Guy, 2004. “LEEDing the way: The leadership in energy and environmental design rating system will inevitably foster greener buildings and more sustainable communities.” Alternatives Journal, 30(5):10 * Elliot, Leslie, Longnecker, Matthew P, Kissling, Grace E, London, Stephanie, J, 2006. “Volatile organic compounds and pulmonary function in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1988-1994.” Environmental health perspectives, 114(8):1210-5 * Froeschle, Lynn M, 1996. “Creating an environmentally friendly home or office.” Retrieved October 20, 2007 from: http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0197/et0197s1.html * “Holiday Rambler.” Retrieved October 20, 2007 from: http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/CMTI/Technology_Transfer/holiday-rambler * Klepeis NE, Nelson WC, On WR, Robinson JP, Tsang AM, Switzer P, et al, 2001. “The national human activity pattern survey (NHAPSI: a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants”, Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 11:231-252. * Lawrence, Tim, Wilding, Ian and Chowdhary, Balwinder, 2001. “The solvent of choice.” Soldering and Surface Mount Technology, 13(1). * Mason, Julie, 1991. “Where environmental responsibility makes good sense.” Management Review, 80(12): 22-26 * Meininghaus, R, Gunnarsen, L and Knudsen, H.L., 2000. “Diffusion and sorption of volatile organic compounds in building materials – impact on indoor air quality.” Environmental Science and technology, 34(15): 3101-8 * Pratt GC, Palmer K, Wu CY, Oliaei F, Hollerbach C, Fenske MJ, 2000. “An assessment of air toxics in Minnesota”, Environmental Health Perspective, 108:815-825. * “Safecoat Dynoseal” Retrieved October 20, 2007 from: http://www.afmsafecoat.com/downloads/fnnwwnDynoSeal7-05.pdf * “United Technologies Automotive” Retrieved October 20, 2007 from: http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/CMTI/Technology_Transfer/UTAP3.html * “Volatile organic Compounds”. Retrieved October 19, 2007 from: http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=31 * Wallace LA. 2001. “Human exposure to volatile organic pollutants: implications for indoor air studies”. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 26:269-301. * Woodruff TJ, Axelrad DA, Caldwell J, Morello-Frosch R, Rosenbaum A, 1998. “Public health implications of 1990 air toxics concentrations across the United States”. Environmental Health Perspective, 106:245-251. Read More