![\"\"](\"https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/India-1.png\")
Graph 1: Loss of Lives in Accidental Fires, Nos., 2021
India\u2019s high annual number of residential fires results in numerous deaths and property damage, posing a major threat to people\u2019s lives and property.
\nEnsuring both the strict implementation of strong fire safety measures and the use of Flame Retardants (FRs), substances which play an essential role in preventing and slowing down ignition, represent thus crucial steps in tackling and solving the painful consequences of fire accidents within the country.
\nIndia reported a total1 of 8,491 cases of fire accidents during 2021 which rendered 8,348 deaths and injuries to 485 persons. This averages to ~23 fire incidents and ~21 deaths due to fire accidents every day.
\nResidential buildings1 contributed to close to ~50% of total deaths from accidental fires. Most of these fire incidents are caused due to lack of Safety equipment and lack of knowledge about the solutions available to prevent fire hazards in homes. Both commercial and residential buildings, especially ones built without fire safety norms, are at the risk of having a fire incident without warning.
\nGraph 1: Loss of Lives in Accidental Fires, Nos., 2021
\n
![\"\"](\"https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/India-2.jpg\")
Figure 1: Fire at Kamala Building, Mumbai
A massive fire broke out on the 19th floor of Sachinam Heights, locally called Kamala Building, which gutted one apartment on the 19th floor, the common corridor and the electric duct running along the length of the building.\u00a06 people were killed while 23 were injured in the incident. The investigation report has not been able to conclude on the cause of the fire. However, is was observed that, the duct doors wherein TV and internet wires were connected, were left open on many floors of the 20-storey building which led to the quick spread of fire.
\n![\"\"](\"https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/India-3-300x183.png\")
Figure 2: Fire at Mundka, New Delhi
The blaze engulfed a four-storied structure, housing the Cofe Impex Pvt Ltd unit which assembled electronic and surveillance equipment in the building. 27 persons were killed while 12 were injured in the incident. The building did not have a NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the fire department. It also violated the Factories Act, 1948 which requires the following to prevent outbreak of fire and its spread:
\n\n
![\"\"](\"https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/India-4-300x214.png\")
Figure 3: Fire at Takshashila Arcade, Surat
A fire broke out in the ground floor of Takshashila Arcade located in the Sarthana area of the city. Students between the age of 15 and 19 were taking their coaching classes on the makeshift fourth floor. The alleged cause of the fire was reported to be an electrical short circuit in air-conditioner. The fire began at the ground floor, quickly engulfed the building including the staircases forcing the students to take shelter on the terrace. They eventually were trapped in the terrace. As the fire raged, as many as 22 died from the fire and the injuries they had sustained after jumping from the top floor as a means of saving themselves from the heat and fire.
\n\n\n
The post Fire Accidents in India \u2013 Need for Safety Measures appeared first on Let's talk bromine.
\n", "content_text": "India\u2019s high annual number of residential fires results in numerous deaths and property damage, posing a major threat to people\u2019s lives and property.\nEnsuring both the strict implementation of strong fire safety measures and the use of Flame Retardants (FRs), substances which play an essential role in preventing and slowing down ignition, represent thus crucial steps in tackling and solving the painful consequences of fire accidents within the country.\nAccidental Fires \u2013 Places of Occurrence\u00a0\nIndia reported a total1 of 8,491 cases of fire accidents during 2021 which rendered 8,348 deaths and injuries to 485 persons. This averages to ~23 fire incidents and ~21 deaths due to fire accidents every day.\nResidential buildings1 contributed to close to ~50% of total deaths from accidental fires. Most of these fire incidents are caused due to lack of Safety equipment and lack of knowledge about the solutions available to prevent fire hazards in homes. Both commercial and residential buildings, especially ones built without fire safety norms, are at the risk of having a fire incident without warning.\nGraph 1: Loss of Lives in Accidental Fires, Nos., 2021\nMajor Causes for Fire Accidents\n\nFaulty Electrics:\u00a0These are among the biggest cause of fires resulting due to lose wires, overloaded plugs, old equipment etc. The Chief Fire Officer of the Mumbai Fire Brigade, Hemant Parab, has highlighted that about 70 per cent of all fires that have broken out in Mumbai between 2019 and 2022 have electrical origins2.\nNon-adherence to National Building Code: The National Building Code (NBC), 2016 has set out elaborate guidelines including those for fire safety. However, there is very less compliance. Eg. NBC requires all buildings over 15 metres to carry out a fire safety audit once in two years by an independent entity which is not at all adhered to.\nHuman Error: These include errors like storing flammable and combustible materials near ignition sources like in kitchen.\nLack of Awareness among people: In many accidents, it has been observed that firefighting equipment had been installed, but the persons available there, were unaware on how to handle the equipment.\n\n\n \nRecent Large Fires in India\nMumbai3\u00a0\u2013 Fire at Kamala building, Tardeo, 22nd Jan, 7:30 AM\u00a0\nFigure 1: Fire at Kamala Building, Mumbai\nA massive fire broke out on the 19th floor of Sachinam Heights, locally called Kamala Building, which gutted one apartment on the 19th floor, the common corridor and the electric duct running along the length of the building.\u00a06 people were killed while 23 were injured in the incident. The investigation report has not been able to conclude on the cause of the fire. However, is was observed that, the duct doors wherein TV and internet wires were connected, were left open on many floors of the 20-storey building which led to the quick spread of fire.\nNew Delhi4\u00a0\u2013 Fire at a commercial building, 13th May 2022\nFigure 2: Fire at Mundka, New Delhi\nThe blaze engulfed a four-storied structure, housing the Cofe Impex Pvt Ltd unit which assembled electronic and surveillance equipment in the building. 27 persons were killed while 12 were injured in the incident. The building did not have a NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the fire department. It also violated the Factories Act, 1948 which requires the following to prevent outbreak of fire and its spread:\n\nMeans of escape for all persons in the event of fire;\nNecessary equipment and facilities for extinguishing fire\n\n\n \nSurat5 \u2013 Fire at Takshashila Arcade, 24th May 2019, 3:30 PM\nFigure 3: Fire at Takshashila Arcade, Surat\nA fire broke out in the ground floor of Takshashila Arcade located in the Sarthana area of the city. Students between the age of 15 and 19 were taking their coaching classes on the makeshift fourth floor. The alleged cause of the fire was reported to be an electrical short circuit in air-conditioner. The fire began at the ground floor, quickly engulfed the building including the staircases forcing the students to take shelter on the terrace. They eventually were trapped in the terrace. As the fire raged, as many as 22 died from the fire and the injuries they had sustained after jumping from the top floor as a means of saving themselves from the heat and fire.\n\nSafety Measures to control Fire Accidents\n\nFollowing the National Building Code of India (NBC)6, 2016: The NBC is a comprehensive building code, published by the Bureau of India Standards. Part 4 of the NBC is titled ‘Fire and Life Safety’ and it provides guidelines for regulating the building construction activities across the country. States have been asked to incorporate it into their local building bylaws, making the recommendations a mandatory requirement. Part 8 of the NBC deals with \u201cBuilding Services\u201d. It is recommended that advice of a competent electrical engineer be sought at the initial stage itself with a view to providing an installation that will prove adequate for its intended purpose, be reliable, safe, and efficient. The code also mentions that it is desirable to use flame retardant cables and wires in electrical distribution systems.\nFollowing the Model Building Bye Laws7, 2019: These Bye Laws have been devised by the Ministry of Urban Development which states the regulatory mechanism and engineering parameters to keep in mind before starting any\u00a0construction project\u00a0in India. These laws also recommend that all wires and other accessories used in Staircase and Corridor Emergency lighting should have fire retardant property. Sub-station buildings should also use fire retardant cables to avoid chances of spread of fire.\nRegular Audits: There should be time-bound fire and electric audits of all high-rise buildings, hospitals, schools and commercial places.\nMock Drills: The fire services should\u00a0conduct regular fire safety drills\u00a0so that people are aware of what to do in the event of a fire incident\nRevamp of Fire Safety Department:Fire\u00a0safety operations in urban India fall under municipalities, a tier of governance that is particularly weak. A consequence of it is that firefighting operations are starved of resources. As of Dec\u201918, India had only 3,377 fire stations7 which is ~39% of the total requirement of 8,559. The government should provide financial support and assistance in augmenting and modernising the fire departments.\n\n \nSources:\n\nAccidental Deaths & Suicides in India 2021, National Crime Records Bureau Ministry of Home Affairs\nhttps://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/mumbai-70-of-fires-in-city-due-to-electrical-issues-says-official-8203316/\nhttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/mumbai-fire-breaks-out-in-20-storey-kamala-building-in-tardeo/articleshow/89051980.cms\nhttps://vajiramandravi.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/media/2022/5/14/13/9/20/Fire_Safety.pdf\nhttps://nidm.gov.in/PDF/pubs/Fires_in_India_2020.pdf\nNational Building Code, 2016\nThe Model Building Bye Laws, 2016\nhttps://www.mha.gov.in/MHA1/Par2017/pdfs/par2019-pdfs/rs-26062019/516.pdf\n\nThe post Fire Accidents in India \u2013 Need for Safety Measures appeared first on Let's talk bromine.", "date_published": "2023-01-31T15:15:26+00:00", "date_modified": "2023-02-02T07:02:58+00:00", "author": { "name": "admin", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/author/admin/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0428b8e4964fa7634cc8733194ee5bbe?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/India-3.png", "tags": [ "Fire retardancy" ] }, { "id": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2023/01/31/china-improving-flame-retardancy-furniture/", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2023/01/31/china-improving-flame-retardancy-furniture/", "title": "China is improving the flame retardancy of furniture", "content_html": "One of China\u2019s current key priorities is the improvement of furniture\u2019s flame retardancy. This is because modern home and public spaces contain highly flammable materials and while the increased use of plastics, composites, foams, and synthetic fiber-based fillings make practical, comfortable and more energy efficient living, it has brought with it an increased risk of fire as many of these polymers can be highly flammable. Upholstered furniture is thus an important application field for flame retardants, which play an essential role in preventing furniture, carpets, wall coverings and drapery from easily igniting and burning rapidly.
\nDuring the recent annual conference of the national technical committee for furniture (TC480) in China, the initial draft national standard of Safety technical specification of fire retardant for furniture was completed and it will be issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) for public consultation shortly.
\nThe TC480 committee has also prioritized the so-called \u201cintelligent furniture\u201d, meaning furniture connected to a network or device (smart home hub, computer or phone), and the \u201cfurniture for the elderly\u201d, which is specifically conceived for seniors to provide them with better standards both in terms of physical comfort (especially in case of mobility issues) and well-being. In this sense, while the draft national standard of the General technology requirements for intelligent furniture is currently on public consultation, it has been specified that its standard on flame retardancy requirements will have to meet the requirements of the Safety technical specification of fire retardant for furniture national standard.
\nThe post China is improving the flame retardancy of furniture appeared first on Let's talk bromine.
\n", "content_text": "One of China\u2019s current key priorities is the improvement of furniture\u2019s flame retardancy. This is because modern home and public spaces contain highly flammable materials and while the increased use of plastics, composites, foams, and synthetic fiber-based fillings make practical, comfortable and more energy efficient living, it has brought with it an increased risk of fire as many of these polymers can be highly flammable. Upholstered furniture is thus an important application field for flame retardants, which play an essential role in preventing furniture, carpets, wall coverings and drapery from easily igniting and burning rapidly.\nDuring the recent annual conference of the national technical committee for furniture (TC480) in China, the initial draft national standard of Safety technical specification of fire retardant for furniture was completed and it will be issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) for public consultation shortly.\nThe TC480 committee has also prioritized the so-called \u201cintelligent furniture\u201d, meaning furniture connected to a network or device (smart home hub, computer or phone), and the \u201cfurniture for the elderly\u201d, which is specifically conceived for seniors to provide them with better standards both in terms of physical comfort (especially in case of mobility issues) and well-being. In this sense, while the draft national standard of the General technology requirements for intelligent furniture is currently on public consultation, it has been specified that its standard on flame retardancy requirements will have to meet the requirements of the Safety technical specification of fire retardant for furniture national standard.\nThe post China is improving the flame retardancy of furniture appeared first on Let's talk bromine.", "date_published": "2023-01-31T15:15:16+00:00", "date_modified": "2023-01-31T15:15:16+00:00", "author": { "name": "admin", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/author/admin/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0428b8e4964fa7634cc8733194ee5bbe?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/toa-heftiba-FV3GConVSss-unsplash.jpg", "tags": [ "Fire retardancy" ] }, { "id": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2022/10/27/factsheetthe-importance-brominated-flame-retardants/", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2022/10/27/factsheetthe-importance-brominated-flame-retardants/", "title": "Factsheet:The importance of Brominated Flame Retardants", "content_html": "Check out our latest factsheet on BFRs and how they protect what matters.
\n\nThe post Factsheet:The importance of Brominated Flame Retardants appeared first on Let's talk bromine.
\n", "content_text": "Check out our latest factsheet on BFRs and how they protect what matters.\nRead the factsheet here\nThe post Factsheet:The importance of Brominated Flame Retardants appeared first on Let's talk bromine.", "date_published": "2022-10-27T09:04:02+00:00", "date_modified": "2022-10-27T09:04:48+00:00", "author": { "name": "admin", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/author/admin/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0428b8e4964fa7634cc8733194ee5bbe?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Factsheet.png", "tags": [ "Fire retardancy" ] }, { "id": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2022/10/27/brominated-flame-retardants-essential/", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2022/10/27/brominated-flame-retardants-essential/", "title": "Brominated Flame Retardants protect what is essential", "content_html": "Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) is a nearly 16-year-old EU law. At this moment, the EU is discussing new prohibitions on the \u2018essential use\u2019 of beneficial chemical substances. Brominated Flame Retardants play an essential role in ensuring fire safety and contributing to the UN decade of fire safety. BSEF and other stakeholders have published position papers regarding this issue.
\nWith a substantial revision of REACH on the horizon, the European Commission is taking more action on banning or authorising \u201charmful chemicals\u201d. Unfortunately, the current proposal on how to decide which substances can and can\u2019t be used could potentially cause more harm than good.
\nFlame retardants (FRs) are highly beneficial to society \u2014 preventing fires and increasing time for escape or fire brigade intervention, among others. However, under the draft proposed Essential Use definition inspired by the decades-old Montreal Protocol, FRs are now at risk of being labelled \u2018non-essential\u2019 and thus banned, placing society in great danger of fires.
\nUnder any Essential Use definition, FRs must be considered essential for the sake of both fire safety and sustainability:
\nAs REACH covers nearly all chemicals, the criteria for \u2018essential use\u2019 must be flexible enough to consider the wide range of important uses of these chemicals by taking into account such things as social benefit and safe usage:
\nSuch criteria are simply based on sound science. Open and transparent assessments should consider the whole picture and make case-by-case analyses of potential risks, especially when it comes to life-saving products. Failing to recognise the essential uses of FRs would leave society open to numerous deaths, injuries, and property damage from fires.
\n\n
For further information please contact, Beatrice Pepe, Public Affairs and Communications Officer (bpepe@bsef.org)
\n\n
[1] BSEF Position Paper Essential Use of Flame Retardants
\nThe post Brominated Flame Retardants protect what is essential appeared first on Let's talk bromine.
\n", "content_text": "Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) is a nearly 16-year-old EU law. At this moment, the EU is discussing new prohibitions on the \u2018essential use\u2019 of beneficial chemical substances. Brominated Flame Retardants play an essential role in ensuring fire safety and contributing to the UN decade of fire safety. BSEF and other stakeholders have published position papers regarding this issue.\nWith a substantial revision of REACH on the horizon, the European Commission is taking more action on banning or authorising \u201charmful chemicals\u201d. Unfortunately, the current proposal on how to decide which substances can and can\u2019t be used could potentially cause more harm than good.\nFlame retardants (FRs) are highly beneficial to society \u2014 preventing fires and increasing time for escape or fire brigade intervention, among others. However, under the draft proposed Essential Use definition inspired by the decades-old Montreal Protocol, FRs are now at risk of being labelled \u2018non-essential\u2019 and thus banned, placing society in great danger of fires.\nUnder any Essential Use definition, FRs must be considered essential for the sake of both fire safety and sustainability:\n\nEmbedded in small amounts, FRs reduce flammability and delay fire ignition, thereby saving thousands of lives. For instance, the UK and Ireland both have strong Furniture Fire standards, resulting in half the number of casualties per capita compared to the US and the EU, both of which have generally poorer fire standards.[1] Without fire safety standards and the corresponding use of FRs, many Europeans\u2019 lives will be at risk\nInsulation foam, which is flammable, is a major contributor to energy efficiency. FRs are added to combustible insulation materials to make them safer, thus helping to lower CO2 emissions. As another example, there are ever more electric vehicles (EVs) on the road, each one equipped with a sophisticated battery carrying an increased risk of an electrical fire. Without FRs to guard against such disasters, the EV transition would be impossible and less sustainable.\n\nAs REACH covers nearly all chemicals, the criteria for \u2018essential use\u2019 must be flexible enough to consider the wide range of important uses of these chemicals by taking into account such things as social benefit and safe usage:\n\nIf a chemical benefits society, REACH should not ban it outright\nIf such a chemical can be used safely with proper handling, its uses mustn\u2019t be curtailed\n\nSuch criteria are simply based on sound science. Open and transparent assessments should consider the whole picture and make case-by-case analyses of potential risks, especially when it comes to life-saving products. Failing to recognise the essential uses of FRs would leave society open to numerous deaths, injuries, and property damage from fires.\n \n\nFor further information please contact, Beatrice Pepe, Public Affairs and Communications Officer (bpepe@bsef.org)\n \n[1] BSEF Position Paper Essential Use of Flame Retardants\nThe post Brominated Flame Retardants protect what is essential appeared first on Let's talk bromine.", "date_published": "2022-10-27T06:42:18+00:00", "date_modified": "2022-11-04T12:32:15+00:00", "author": { "name": "admin", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/author/admin/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0428b8e4964fa7634cc8733194ee5bbe?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BSEF-Banners-1.png", "tags": [ "Fire retardancy" ] }, { "id": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2022/07/13/canada-restrictions-on-dbdpe-will-cause-harm/", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2022/07/13/canada-restrictions-on-dbdpe-will-cause-harm/", "title": "Canada\u2019s restrictions on DBDPE will only cause more harm", "content_html": "![\"\"](\"https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/jason-hafso-C2keINMOhIE-unsplash-1024x601.jpg\")
DBDPE is also known as decabromodiphenyl ethane. It is a flame retardant used in many applications of our daily lives such as plastic and rubber materials. It protects even electrical and electronic equipment or lamps. Its role is to inhibit and/or suppress the combustion process by reducing the heat release and slowing the spread of flames.
\nOn the 14th of May, Canada\u2019s federal department for environment, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) introduced the first draft of the Prohibition of Certain Toxic substances Regulations 2022. The draft proposal contains unprecedented restrictions on the manufacture, use, sale and import of both DBDPE and products containing DBDPE.
\nConsequences for the markets
\nRemoving DBDPE from the Canadian market is unwarranted based on the data from manufacturers and others. Currently, no other suitable flame retardant exists to replace DBDPE. Thus, no substitute would keep our appliances, electronics, wires and cables safe.
\nNAFRA, The North American Flame Retardants Alliance, insisted that \u201cCanada\u2019s regulatory proposal for DBDPE is not supported by the state of the science, does not align with global regulations, and has the potential to create inconsistencies and disruptions for the North American supply chain. Fire safety is a critical public health issue, and flame retardants such as DBDPE are an important tool to help protect the public from the dangers posed by fire.\u201d
\nThese proposed restrictions are not supported by the best available science as new data reinforces the view that DBDPE remains safe in its various applications. New information has also been shared with ECCC refuting assumptions that have been made regarding the degradation of DBDPE in the environment. These latest findings demonstrate that the latest science and information do not support the regulatory actions proposed by ECCC.
\nGlobal regulations
\nThese restrictions on DBDPE also do not align with the overall global regulations and will create discrepancies and disturbances in the supply chain. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is not currently conducting a risk evaluation for DBDPE and is not contemplating risk management measures.
\n\u201cThe proposed regulation is an outlier globally and would be the first to place such broad restrictions on the use of DBDPE,\u201d says NAFRA. \u201cIt is also inconsistent with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which requires a risk-based approach to chemical regulations. Limiting the use of a fire safety tool that is not restricted in other jurisdictions has the potential to cause unnecessary supply chain disruptions that could affect businesses and consumers.\u201d
\nConclusions
\nFlame retardants are essential in product design as they can prevent fires, and small ignitions from becoming larger fires. Based on the data available, DBDPE meets performance and safety standards for our everyday appliances and is at the moment unreplaceable for fire protection.
\nBSEF encourages product manufacturers, suppliers, and designers to\u00a0submit their objection to\u00a0the ECCC regarding the proposed restrictions on the use of DBDPE, which is critical to meet safety standards as part of an overall effort to protect consumers. Until 28th July, there is a public consultation on the proposed regulations (Canada Gazette, Part I, May 14, 2022) for which we urge interested parties to flag their concerns with this worrying development.
\nSources:
\n\u2022 BSEF Press Release
\n\u2022 NAFRA\u00a0Comments on the Canadian Regulatory Proposal for DBDPE
For more information please contact Patrick Fox, Head of Public Affairs and Advocacy, BSEF, at pfox@bsef.org.
\nThe post Canada\u2019s restrictions on DBDPE will only cause more harm appeared first on Let's talk bromine.
\n", "content_text": "DBDPE is also known as decabromodiphenyl ethane. It is a flame retardant used in many applications of our daily lives such as plastic and rubber materials. It protects even electrical and electronic equipment or lamps. Its role is to inhibit and/or suppress the combustion process by reducing the heat release and slowing the spread of flames.\nOn the 14th of May, Canada\u2019s federal department for environment, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) introduced the first draft of the Prohibition of Certain Toxic substances Regulations 2022. The draft proposal contains unprecedented restrictions on the manufacture, use, sale and import of both DBDPE and products containing DBDPE.\nConsequences for the markets\nRemoving DBDPE from the Canadian market is unwarranted based on the data from manufacturers and others. Currently, no other suitable flame retardant exists to replace DBDPE. Thus, no substitute would keep our appliances, electronics, wires and cables safe.\nNAFRA, The North American Flame Retardants Alliance, insisted that \u201cCanada\u2019s regulatory proposal for DBDPE is not supported by the state of the science, does not align with global regulations, and has the potential to create inconsistencies and disruptions for the North American supply chain. Fire safety is a critical public health issue, and flame retardants such as DBDPE are an important tool to help protect the public from the dangers posed by fire.\u201d\nThese proposed restrictions are not supported by the best available science as new data reinforces the view that DBDPE remains safe in its various applications. New information has also been shared with ECCC refuting assumptions that have been made regarding the degradation of DBDPE in the environment. These latest findings demonstrate that the latest science and information do not support the regulatory actions proposed by ECCC.\nGlobal regulations\nThese restrictions on DBDPE also do not align with the overall global regulations and will create discrepancies and disturbances in the supply chain. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is not currently conducting a risk evaluation for DBDPE and is not contemplating risk management measures.\n\u201cThe proposed regulation is an outlier globally and would be the first to place such broad restrictions on the use of DBDPE,\u201d says NAFRA. \u201cIt is also inconsistent with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which requires a risk-based approach to chemical regulations. Limiting the use of a fire safety tool that is not restricted in other jurisdictions has the potential to cause unnecessary supply chain disruptions that could affect businesses and consumers.\u201d\nConclusions\nFlame retardants are essential in product design as they can prevent fires, and small ignitions from becoming larger fires. Based on the data available, DBDPE meets performance and safety standards for our everyday appliances and is at the moment unreplaceable for fire protection.\nBSEF encourages product manufacturers, suppliers, and designers to\u00a0submit their objection to\u00a0the ECCC regarding the proposed restrictions on the use of DBDPE, which is critical to meet safety standards as part of an overall effort to protect consumers. Until 28th July, there is a public consultation on the proposed regulations (Canada Gazette, Part I, May 14, 2022) for which we urge interested parties to flag their concerns with this worrying development.\nSources:\n\u2022 BSEF Press Release\n\u2022 NAFRA\u00a0Comments on the Canadian Regulatory Proposal for DBDPE\nFor more information please contact Patrick Fox, Head of Public Affairs and Advocacy, BSEF, at pfox@bsef.org.\nThe post Canada\u2019s restrictions on DBDPE will only cause more harm appeared first on Let's talk bromine.", "date_published": "2022-07-13T12:29:34+00:00", "date_modified": "2022-07-13T14:53:33+00:00", "author": { "name": "admin", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/author/admin/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0428b8e4964fa7634cc8733194ee5bbe?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/jason-hafso-C2keINMOhIE-unsplash.jpg", "tags": [ "Fire retardancy" ] }, { "id": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2021/12/15/meet-experts-professor-kunihiko-takeda-japan-talks-importance-brominated-flame-retardants-bfrs/", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2021/12/15/meet-experts-professor-kunihiko-takeda-japan-talks-importance-brominated-flame-retardants-bfrs/", "title": "Meet the Experts: Professor Kunihiko Takeda from Japan talks about importance of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)", "content_html": "In this edition of Meet the Experts, BSEF Japan\u2019s representative Tommy Kinoshita interviews renowned Japanese scientist Professor Kunihiko Takeda about his passion for fire safety research, what makes a superior flame retardant and the importance of brominated flame retardants (BFRs).
\n\nProfessor Takeda believes that \u201cto this day nobody has found anything more effective than BFRs with antimony trioxide in terms of flame retardancy.\u201d\u00a0 In fact, he believes that by optimizing the use of BFRs and antimony trioxide combination could reduce fire-related deaths in Japan from the current level of 2,000 a year to less than 10.
\nAs this interview was conducted simultaneously with the JPCA Show, the largest forum in Japan for E&E products, Professor Takeda left viewers with the following message:\u00a0
\n\u201cThere\u2019s no doubt that E&E devices have contributed greatly to humankind.\u00a0 The problem is that these devices can cause fires and pose a danger. Although BFRs have been used effectively for more than 70 years and are suitable from both a scientific and rational perspective, concerns about chemical substances are becoming more widespread.\u00a0 Consequently, still to this day we have not unlocked bromine\u2019s full potential, which is a major issue\u201d. Professor Kunihiko Takeda concludes by saying that \u201cit\u00b4s critical for society to understand the useful applications of bromine\u201d.
\nThe post Meet the Experts: Professor Kunihiko Takeda from Japan talks about importance of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) appeared first on Let's talk bromine.
\n", "content_text": "In this edition of Meet the Experts, BSEF Japan\u2019s representative Tommy Kinoshita interviews renowned Japanese scientist Professor Kunihiko Takeda about his passion for fire safety research, what makes a superior flame retardant and the importance of brominated flame retardants (BFRs).\n\nProfessor Takeda believes that \u201cto this day nobody has found anything more effective than BFRs with antimony trioxide in terms of flame retardancy.\u201d\u00a0 In fact, he believes that by optimizing the use of BFRs and antimony trioxide combination could reduce fire-related deaths in Japan from the current level of 2,000 a year to less than 10.\nAs this interview was conducted simultaneously with the JPCA Show, the largest forum in Japan for E&E products, Professor Takeda left viewers with the following message:\u00a0\n\u201cThere\u2019s no doubt that E&E devices have contributed greatly to humankind.\u00a0 The problem is that these devices can cause fires and pose a danger. Although BFRs have been used effectively for more than 70 years and are suitable from both a scientific and rational perspective, concerns about chemical substances are becoming more widespread.\u00a0 Consequently, still to this day we have not unlocked bromine\u2019s full potential, which is a major issue\u201d. Professor Kunihiko Takeda concludes by saying that \u201cit\u00b4s critical for society to understand the useful applications of bromine\u201d.\nThe post Meet the Experts: Professor Kunihiko Takeda from Japan talks about importance of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) appeared first on Let's talk bromine.", "date_published": "2021-12-15T18:01:49+00:00", "date_modified": "2021-12-15T18:01:49+00:00", "author": { "name": "admin", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/author/admin/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0428b8e4964fa7634cc8733194ee5bbe?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Professor-Kunihiko-Takeda_1280x720.jpg", "tags": [ "Fire retardancy", "Meet the Experts" ] }, { "id": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2021/12/15/lets-save-lives-addressing-fire-safety-eus-general-product-safety-regulation/", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2021/12/15/lets-save-lives-addressing-fire-safety-eus-general-product-safety-regulation/", "title": "Let\u2019s save lives \u2013 addressing fire safety in the EU\u2019s General Product Safety Regulation", "content_html": "![\"\"](\"https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/images-cut_Long-article.jpg\")
Finally! The EU is revising the General Product Safety Directive offering a crucial opportunity to reduce the\u00a0 5000 plus deaths caused by dwelling fires in Europe and minimise the estimated 77 billion euro cost associated with injuries and premature deaths every year. Speaking at the 2021 European Fire Safety Week, BSEF\u2019s Board Director, K. Kannah, and Head of Public Affairs and Advocacy, Patrick Fox used the opportunity to address the issue.
\nA crucial time to protect EU citizens from dwelling fires
\nSince 2001, the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) has been the safety net which ensures non-food consumer products placed in the EU are safe. 20 years later the Directive is facing an overhaul that includes turning it into a Regulation.\u00a0 This provides a unique opportunity to include the flammability hazard, ensuring that the new regulation will mitigate existing shortcomings and is future proof by responding to anticipated consumer demands.
\nFire safety is a priority issue that needs to be addressed due to the increasing number of fire hazards in European houses caused by the growing use of flammable materials. At the Fire Safety Week, K. Kannah, emphasised that particularly upholstered furniture is \u201cthe major fire hazard in homes\u201d, contributing \u201cto a large share of the fatalities in house fires\u201d.\u00a0
\nLet\u2019s take the first European step to prevent fire from consumer products
\nIreland currently has higher fire safety standards than the rest of the EU, resulting in half the number of causalities, showing that there are effective solutions that save lives. The current proposal for the GPSR is an opportunity to improve the level of fire safety on many consumer products.
\nThis was underlined by, Patrick Fox, emphasizing that \u201cproliferation of consumer goods in our homes has made the issue of fire safety of everyday products more important than ever\u201d. Nevertheless, fire safety has become less visible on the policy agenda and amongst consumers, causing an increase in the risk of major incidents with citizens being poorly prepared, increasing the likelihood of injuries and in worst case casualties. He also noted that \u2018\u2019including fire safety in the GPSR would be an important reminder to manufacturers and market surveillance authorities for the need to ensure compliance with this aspect of product safety\u201d.
\nFlame retardants is an important layer of fire safety for furniture, stopping ignition and slowing down the progress of fires. BFRs remain superior when it comes to protecting citizens from fire. The flame retardants prove their worth every day by ensuring a high degree of product performance, reasonable costs, and ability to be used on all commercial fabrics.
\nIncreased fire safety supports a circular economy
\nOn a fundamental level, flame retardants assist in preventing the destruction of property by fire, thereby enabling material value retention. In prolonging the life span of products flame retardants are a key tool in contributing to a circular economy.
\nProfessor Horrocks from the University of Bolton, has previously provided important insights into the discussion on how brominated flame retardants are part of an environmentally\u00a0sustainable and safe future. In particular, he said that \u201cBrominated flame retardants have been accused of being particularly environmental unsustainable, which is unfair. As Dr Gribble mentioned in his interview bromine is an element essential for life and this is illustrated by more than 2000 naturally occurring brominated species have been identified with biodegradable properties showing that materials revert back to non-toxic and simple compounds\u201d.
\nDiscover and learn more about how brominated flame retardants improve consumer safety by preventing fire here
\nThe post Let\u2019s save lives \u2013 addressing fire safety in the EU\u2019s General Product Safety Regulation appeared first on Let's talk bromine.
\n", "content_text": "Finally! The EU is revising the General Product Safety Directive offering a crucial opportunity to reduce the\u00a0 5000 plus deaths caused by dwelling fires in Europe and minimise the estimated 77 billion euro cost associated with injuries and premature deaths every year. Speaking at the 2021 European Fire Safety Week, BSEF\u2019s Board Director, K. Kannah, and Head of Public Affairs and Advocacy, Patrick Fox used the opportunity to address the issue.\nA crucial time to protect EU citizens from dwelling fires\nSince 2001, the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) has been the safety net which ensures non-food consumer products placed in the EU are safe. 20 years later the Directive is facing an overhaul that includes turning it into a Regulation.\u00a0 This provides a unique opportunity to include the flammability hazard, ensuring that the new regulation will mitigate existing shortcomings and is future proof by responding to anticipated consumer demands.\nFire safety is a priority issue that needs to be addressed due to the increasing number of fire hazards in European houses caused by the growing use of flammable materials. At the Fire Safety Week, K. Kannah, emphasised that particularly upholstered furniture is \u201cthe major fire hazard in homes\u201d, contributing \u201cto a large share of the fatalities in house fires\u201d.\u00a0\nLet\u2019s take the first European step to prevent fire from consumer products\nIreland currently has higher fire safety standards than the rest of the EU, resulting in half the number of causalities, showing that there are effective solutions that save lives. The current proposal for the GPSR is an opportunity to improve the level of fire safety on many consumer products.\nThis was underlined by, Patrick Fox, emphasizing that \u201cproliferation of consumer goods in our homes has made the issue of fire safety of everyday products more important than ever\u201d. Nevertheless, fire safety has become less visible on the policy agenda and amongst consumers, causing an increase in the risk of major incidents with citizens being poorly prepared, increasing the likelihood of injuries and in worst case casualties. He also noted that \u2018\u2019including fire safety in the GPSR would be an important reminder to manufacturers and market surveillance authorities for the need to ensure compliance with this aspect of product safety\u201d.\nFlame retardants is an important layer of fire safety for furniture, stopping ignition and slowing down the progress of fires. BFRs remain superior when it comes to protecting citizens from fire. The flame retardants prove their worth every day by ensuring a high degree of product performance, reasonable costs, and ability to be used on all commercial fabrics.\nIncreased fire safety supports a circular economy\nOn a fundamental level, flame retardants assist in preventing the destruction of property by fire, thereby enabling material value retention. In prolonging the life span of products flame retardants are a key tool in contributing to a circular economy.\nProfessor Horrocks from the University of Bolton, has previously provided important insights into the discussion on how brominated flame retardants are part of an environmentally\u00a0sustainable and safe future. In particular, he said that \u201cBrominated flame retardants have been accused of being particularly environmental unsustainable, which is unfair. As Dr Gribble mentioned in his interview bromine is an element essential for life and this is illustrated by more than 2000 naturally occurring brominated species have been identified with biodegradable properties showing that materials revert back to non-toxic and simple compounds\u201d.\nDiscover and learn more about how brominated flame retardants improve consumer safety by preventing fire here\nThe post Let\u2019s save lives \u2013 addressing fire safety in the EU\u2019s General Product Safety Regulation appeared first on Let's talk bromine.", "date_published": "2021-12-15T18:00:43+00:00", "date_modified": "2021-12-15T18:00:43+00:00", "author": { "name": "admin", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/author/admin/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0428b8e4964fa7634cc8733194ee5bbe?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/images-cut_Long-article.jpg", "tags": [ "Fire retardancy", "General news" ] }, { "id": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2021/12/15/fire-safety-go/", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2021/12/15/fire-safety-go/", "title": "Fire safety: where do we go from here?", "content_html": "![\"\"](\"https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/images-cut_short-article.jpg\")
There is data for almost everything at EU-level except for residential fires, as such policymakers and consumers have limited information about the hazards, effectively slowing down decision-making on promoting consumer safety. As a consequence, consumers often forget that they are surrounded by fire hazards, meaning they are ill prepared to tackle fires, causing damaged properties, injuries and, in worst case, fatalities.
\nTo limit the threat of fire, innovation is key. We have come a long way since the first flame retardancy techniques were developed in the early 19th century. For example, we understand better how to control the increased flammability of buildings, products and transport vehicles. This allows us to live in better protected housing. Manufactures also play an important role by avoiding product failures and by using flame retardants to comply with fire safety standards. To this end, brominated flame retardants have been shown to outperform any alternatives in terms of product performance, applicability and costs.
\nHowever, actions by manufacturers need to be complemented by considerations to the need of the users of because the most vulnerable people (young, elderly or people with disabilities) have different needs such as longer evacuation times. In other words, a tailored approach to design and material use is crucial to saving lives. To complicate matters further, we also need to consider \u201cfire engineering\u201d which examine a wide range of aspects such as building design, placement of emergency exists and material use.
\nWhile we can never eliminate the threat from fire completely, we can continue to reduce the risk through all available approaches. It is remains important to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and authorities to establish a set of clear regulations that protect humans from fires. As noted by professor L\u00f6fstedt, this should be supported by targeted risk communication management enhancing the public understanding of actual risks.
\nFor more information on the issue visit BSEF\u2019s website here.
\nThe post Fire safety: where do we go from here? appeared first on Let's talk bromine.
\n", "content_text": "There is data for almost everything at EU-level except for residential fires, as such policymakers and consumers have limited information about the hazards, effectively slowing down decision-making on promoting consumer safety. As a consequence, consumers often forget that they are surrounded by fire hazards, meaning they are ill prepared to tackle fires, causing damaged properties, injuries and, in worst case, fatalities.\nTo limit the threat of fire, innovation is key. We have come a long way since the first flame retardancy techniques were developed in the early 19th century. For example, we understand better how to control the increased flammability of buildings, products and transport vehicles. This allows us to live in better protected housing. Manufactures also play an important role by avoiding product failures and by using flame retardants to comply with fire safety standards. To this end, brominated flame retardants have been shown to outperform any alternatives in terms of product performance, applicability and costs.\nHowever, actions by manufacturers need to be complemented by considerations to the need of the users of because the most vulnerable people (young, elderly or people with disabilities) have different needs such as longer evacuation times. In other words, a tailored approach to design and material use is crucial to saving lives. To complicate matters further, we also need to consider \u201cfire engineering\u201d which examine a wide range of aspects such as building design, placement of emergency exists and material use.\nWhile we can never eliminate the threat from fire completely, we can continue to reduce the risk through all available approaches. It is remains important to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and authorities to establish a set of clear regulations that protect humans from fires. As noted by professor L\u00f6fstedt, this should be supported by targeted risk communication management enhancing the public understanding of actual risks.\nFor more information on the issue visit BSEF\u2019s website here.\nThe post Fire safety: where do we go from here? appeared first on Let's talk bromine.", "date_published": "2021-12-15T17:34:41+00:00", "date_modified": "2021-12-15T18:00:14+00:00", "author": { "name": "admin", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/author/admin/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0428b8e4964fa7634cc8733194ee5bbe?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/images-cut_short-article.jpg", "tags": [ "Fire retardancy", "General news" ] }, { "id": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2021/12/15/abichama-ipt-verifies-fire-safety-polymeric-materials-tests-tvs/", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2021/12/15/abichama-ipt-verifies-fire-safety-polymeric-materials-tests-tvs/", "title": "ABICHAMA \u2013 IPT verifies fire safety of polymeric materials through tests on TVs", "content_html": "![\"\"](\"https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/images-cut_ABICHAMA.jpg\")
The Technological Research Institute of the State of S\u00e3o Paulo (IPT) developed a new report with impressive results on the reaction to fire of polymeric materials, with tests on Brazilian and US televisions. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe study, requested by the Brazilian Association of the Industry of Flame Retardants (ABICHAMA) and by the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF), is to identify the fire resistance capacity of these materials, through the use of flame retardants in their composition.
\nThe research starts from the poor results presented by Brazilian televisions evaluated by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), reported in a work called \u201cCombustion Characteristics of Flat Panel Televisions With and Without Fire Retardants in the Casing\u201d. After analyzing this study and regulatory requirements, a survey of fire data in Brazil was carried out, seeking to identify situations involving televisions. To hold the test, IPT acquired two sets comprising three televisions of the same manufacture and model, one of which is sold in the United States and the other in Brazil.
\nBefore the beginning of the exercises, the constructive similarities of Brazilian and American televisions were verified, to understand technical and electrical details that influence the test. One of them is the identification of the polymer used in the casing of American and Brazilian TV sets, in addition to the identification of flame retardant in their compositions, one of the primary objectives of the study.
\nA little material was found as a result of the general research by the Fire Department carried to obtain data on fires originated in televisions in Brazil. In a query made on the websites of the Fire Departments of all Brazilian states, no information was found regarding the causes of the fires attended, but only general statistical information. The document MPCI (Manual for research into causes of fire), from 2006 and created by the Fire Department of the S\u00e3o Paulo Military Police, reports that many fires can be attributed to lightning. The condition of electrical circuits within the structure can also indicate whether a lightning storm has occurred.
\nSome reports of fire occurrences that identify the television as the cause of the accident were found on the internet. According to ABRACOPEL (Brazilian Association for Awareness of the Dangers of Electricity), fires generated by electrical overload are a result of the lack of concern with electrical installations and the indiscriminate use of electrical equipment in the same circuit, the use of bad quality products, along with the low technical quality of development. The main victims are people with limited mobility (elderly people) and people with little judgment in understanding the danger (small children).
\nTelevisions in Brazil are subject to the ABNT NBR IEC 60065:2009 standard, safety requirements that are intended to prevent injuries and damage to users due to the following risks: electric shock, excessive temperatures, radiation, implosion, mechanical hazards, and fire. Fire in the TV, per standard, can also result from overloading, component failure, insulation breakage, poor connection, and arcing. The main goals of this standard are:
\nDespite being from different models, but from the same manufacturer, both Brazilian and American television have the same constructive characteristics (internal and external) and internal circuit boards. The differences are in the supply voltage, power, dimensions, the number of HDMI and USB inputs, and the number of LED strips inside. This benefited the exercise analysis ability. In preliminary tests, it was verified that the Brazilian and American televisions presented values \u200b\u200bvery close to the maximum temperatures in the monitored components and that the enclosures are subjected to practically the same temperatures during normal operation.
\nTwo samples of the casing, one from the Brazilian television and other from the American, were sent to the Chemical and Manufactured Laboratory (LQM) to identify the polymer and the presence of retarding products. In the American TV sample, the presence of a flame retardant additive was noted, but the same was not true for the Brazilian TV sample. The next step was to test and characterize the ignitability of the two products, using the method IEC 60695-11-10: 2013 – \u201cFire Hazard Testing \u2013 Part 11-10: Test flames \u2013 50 W horizontal and vertical flame test methods \u2013 Test method B \u2013 vertical burning test\u201d.
\nThe first test consisted of applying a 50 W flame for 10 seconds on the sample taken from the televisions and immediately moving the flame away, checking the time interval for which the sample continues to show flame after removing this source. A second application was then performed, when the sample flame went out after the first 10-second application. In the second test, the finished casings of the Brazilian television and the American television were subjected to heated wire that simulates, for a short period, the effects caused by heat sources resulting from incandescent elements or resistors with overvoltage. The third test compared the burning behavior of different polymeric materials used in electrical and electronic products, such as the casings of American and Brazilian television sets, by determining the flammability index.
\nThe last method used consisted of evaluating the casings, defining the flame and ignition time criteria for the tissue or carbonization of the wooden board, so that the tested material obtains a satisfactory performance. The results presented in the report showed that the Brazilian television casing did not meet the criteria specified in the standard, while the American television casing easily met the criteria.
\nAfter further tests of ignitability, such as in the internal deflector film, the research turned to real fire situations. These tests were carried out using the equipment to determine the fire reaction performance of building materials when exposed to a single standard flame. The use of this equipment allowed the measurement of the values \u200b\u200bof the heat release rate (HRR) and the total material heat release (THR) from the burning of the televisions.
\nFor the simulation with an American TV, three burning attempts were necessary, the third with a flame of 500 W for 3 minutes.
\nAfter removing the flame, it was found that the polymeric material of the casing of the American television set ignited in the region where the flame was applied, which extinguished after 15 seconds, in addition to dripping in flame of the polymeric material of the casing.
\nIn the simulation with the Brazilian television, only two tests were needed, the last one with a 50 W flame with a duration of 10 seconds of application. After removing the flame from the second application, it was noted that the polymeric material from Brazilian TV was ignited and spread to the entire TV. The loss of mass of the polymeric material consumed in the Brazilian television test corresponded to approximately 57% of the total combustible material incorporated into the television.
\nAs in the study carried out by SwRI, the study allowed the IPT, ABICHAMA and BSEF (together with the consulted partners), to conclude that the main risk of the television giving rise to a fire is associated with its casing, which, in addition to incorporating a large amount of polymeric material, is close to the input components of the appliance’s electrical supply, the AC circuit. The casing of the Brazilian television proved to be, in terms of ignitability characteristics, much lower than the casing of the American television and in the burning test it was extremely susceptible to having the fire stimulated from a small flame, capable of allowing the TV to eventually become a major source of fire.
\n![\"\"](\"https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abichama-Steps.png\")
Conclusions
\nThe marked difference between the two televisions corresponds to the fact that, in the case of the Brazilian television, the flame retardant product was not added, which is essential to prevent the advance of flames in all the simulations carried out. The need for adaptation of Brazilian televisions is evident, considering the risk of fire. The present work highlights the importance of the wrapper for this situation.
\nThe post ABICHAMA – IPT verifies fire safety of polymeric materials through tests on TVs appeared first on Let's talk bromine.
\n", "content_text": "The Technological Research Institute of the State of S\u00e3o Paulo (IPT) developed a new report with impressive results on the reaction to fire of polymeric materials, with tests on Brazilian and US televisions. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe study, requested by the Brazilian Association of the Industry of Flame Retardants (ABICHAMA) and by the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF), is to identify the fire resistance capacity of these materials, through the use of flame retardants in their composition.\nThe research starts from the poor results presented by Brazilian televisions evaluated by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), reported in a work called \u201cCombustion Characteristics of Flat Panel Televisions With and Without Fire Retardants in the Casing\u201d. After analyzing this study and regulatory requirements, a survey of fire data in Brazil was carried out, seeking to identify situations involving televisions. To hold the test, IPT acquired two sets comprising three televisions of the same manufacture and model, one of which is sold in the United States and the other in Brazil.\nBefore the beginning of the exercises, the constructive similarities of Brazilian and American televisions were verified, to understand technical and electrical details that influence the test. One of them is the identification of the polymer used in the casing of American and Brazilian TV sets, in addition to the identification of flame retardant in their compositions, one of the primary objectives of the study.\nA little material was found as a result of the general research by the Fire Department carried to obtain data on fires originated in televisions in Brazil. In a query made on the websites of the Fire Departments of all Brazilian states, no information was found regarding the causes of the fires attended, but only general statistical information. The document MPCI (Manual for research into causes of fire), from 2006 and created by the Fire Department of the S\u00e3o Paulo Military Police, reports that many fires can be attributed to lightning. The condition of electrical circuits within the structure can also indicate whether a lightning storm has occurred.\nSome reports of fire occurrences that identify the television as the cause of the accident were found on the internet. According to ABRACOPEL (Brazilian Association for Awareness of the Dangers of Electricity), fires generated by electrical overload are a result of the lack of concern with electrical installations and the indiscriminate use of electrical equipment in the same circuit, the use of bad quality products, along with the low technical quality of development. The main victims are people with limited mobility (elderly people) and people with little judgment in understanding the danger (small children).\nTelevisions in Brazil are subject to the ABNT NBR IEC 60065:2009 standard, safety requirements that are intended to prevent injuries and damage to users due to the following risks: electric shock, excessive temperatures, radiation, implosion, mechanical hazards, and fire. Fire in the TV, per standard, can also result from overloading, component failure, insulation breakage, poor connection, and arcing. The main goals of this standard are:\n\nto provide guidance on how to prevent ignition caused by an electrically energized component;\nhow to confine any fire principle inside the product;\nminimize the spread of flames beyond the product casing; and minimize the harmful effects of fire such as heat, smoke, toxicity and corrosivity.\n\nDespite being from different models, but from the same manufacturer, both Brazilian and American television have the same constructive characteristics (internal and external) and internal circuit boards. The differences are in the supply voltage, power, dimensions, the number of HDMI and USB inputs, and the number of LED strips inside. This benefited the exercise analysis ability. In preliminary tests, it was verified that the Brazilian and American televisions presented values \u200b\u200bvery close to the maximum temperatures in the monitored components and that the enclosures are subjected to practically the same temperatures during normal operation.\nTwo samples of the casing, one from the Brazilian television and other from the American, were sent to the Chemical and Manufactured Laboratory (LQM) to identify the polymer and the presence of retarding products. In the American TV sample, the presence of a flame retardant additive was noted, but the same was not true for the Brazilian TV sample. The next step was to test and characterize the ignitability of the two products, using the method IEC 60695-11-10: 2013 – \u201cFire Hazard Testing \u2013 Part 11-10: Test flames \u2013 50 W horizontal and vertical flame test methods \u2013 Test method B \u2013 vertical burning test\u201d.\nThe first test consisted of applying a 50 W flame for 10 seconds on the sample taken from the televisions and immediately moving the flame away, checking the time interval for which the sample continues to show flame after removing this source. A second application was then performed, when the sample flame went out after the first 10-second application. In the second test, the finished casings of the Brazilian television and the American television were subjected to heated wire that simulates, for a short period, the effects caused by heat sources resulting from incandescent elements or resistors with overvoltage. The third test compared the burning behavior of different polymeric materials used in electrical and electronic products, such as the casings of American and Brazilian television sets, by determining the flammability index.\nThe last method used consisted of evaluating the casings, defining the flame and ignition time criteria for the tissue or carbonization of the wooden board, so that the tested material obtains a satisfactory performance. The results presented in the report showed that the Brazilian television casing did not meet the criteria specified in the standard, while the American television casing easily met the criteria.\nAfter further tests of ignitability, such as in the internal deflector film, the research turned to real fire situations. These tests were carried out using the equipment to determine the fire reaction performance of building materials when exposed to a single standard flame. The use of this equipment allowed the measurement of the values \u200b\u200bof the heat release rate (HRR) and the total material heat release (THR) from the burning of the televisions.\nFor the simulation with an American TV, three burning attempts were necessary, the third with a flame of 500 W for 3 minutes.\nAfter removing the flame, it was found that the polymeric material of the casing of the American television set ignited in the region where the flame was applied, which extinguished after 15 seconds, in addition to dripping in flame of the polymeric material of the casing.\nIn the simulation with the Brazilian television, only two tests were needed, the last one with a 50 W flame with a duration of 10 seconds of application. After removing the flame from the second application, it was noted that the polymeric material from Brazilian TV was ignited and spread to the entire TV. The loss of mass of the polymeric material consumed in the Brazilian television test corresponded to approximately 57% of the total combustible material incorporated into the television.\nAs in the study carried out by SwRI, the study allowed the IPT, ABICHAMA and BSEF (together with the consulted partners), to conclude that the main risk of the television giving rise to a fire is associated with its casing, which, in addition to incorporating a large amount of polymeric material, is close to the input components of the appliance’s electrical supply, the AC circuit. The casing of the Brazilian television proved to be, in terms of ignitability characteristics, much lower than the casing of the American television and in the burning test it was extremely susceptible to having the fire stimulated from a small flame, capable of allowing the TV to eventually become a major source of fire.\n\nConclusions \nThe marked difference between the two televisions corresponds to the fact that, in the case of the Brazilian television, the flame retardant product was not added, which is essential to prevent the advance of flames in all the simulations carried out. The need for adaptation of Brazilian televisions is evident, considering the risk of fire. The present work highlights the importance of the wrapper for this situation.\nThe post ABICHAMA – IPT verifies fire safety of polymeric materials through tests on TVs appeared first on Let's talk bromine.", "date_published": "2021-12-15T17:32:53+00:00", "date_modified": "2021-12-15T17:58:37+00:00", "author": { "name": "admin", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/author/admin/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0428b8e4964fa7634cc8733194ee5bbe?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/images-cut_ABICHAMA.jpg", "tags": [ "Fire retardancy", "General news" ] }, { "id": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2021/12/15/nafra-updates-washington-state-new-york-canada/", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/2021/12/15/nafra-updates-washington-state-new-york-canada/", "title": "NAFRA Updates on Washington State, New York and Canada", "content_html": "![\"\"](\"https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/images-cut_NAFRA.jpg\")
Like Europe, there are restrictions on flame retardants being contemplated at the state and federal in the United States, with a particular focus on organohalogen flame retardants (OFRs) used in plastic device casings for electronic and electrical equipment. One of the most important benefits of flame retardants in product design is they can stop small ignition events from turning into larger fire scenarios. Electronic products are unique because they have a potential ignition source generated by the essential components of the product \u2014 circuit boards, transformers, batteries, connectors, and many other components.
\nThe American Chemistry Council\u2019s (ACC) North American Flame Retardant Alliance (NAFRA) opposes a one-size-fits-all chemical regulatory approach that restricts a class of chemicals without a sufficient analysis for hazard and exposure.
\nNAFRA is engaging with regulatory authorities and policymakers in Washington state and New York to try to halt OFR restrictions. In addition, the Canadian government is considering banning decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) \u2014 a flame retardant used in everything from home appliances to consumer electronics to cars and planes. Canada would be the only country in the world to have such a widespread ban on this chemistry, which is used to help keep consumer products safe.
\nThe following is a brief synopsis highlighting the status of NAFRA\u2019s efforts to help prevent flame retardant restrictions in these locales.
\nWashington State\u00a0
\nThe Washington Legislature enacted the Pollution Prevention for Healthy People and Puget Sound Act (Chapter 70A.350 RCW) in 2019. The Act directs the Washington Department of Ecology (the Department) to implement a program to reduce priority chemicals in consumer products, including all OFRs and several other flame retardants, as classified in Washington\u2019s Children\u2019s Safe Products Act.
\nThe Department\u2019s regulatory program to implement the 2019 law is called \u201cSafer Products for Washington.\u201d As part of this program, the Department is evaluating whether to restrict the use of OFRs in electronic and electrical equipment. In its report sent to the Legislature in July 2020, the Department identified the use of OFRs in \u201cplastic device casings\u201d for electronic and electrical equipment as one of 11 priority product categories. Ecology published its Draft Regulatory Determinations Report to the Legislature on November 17, 2021, and is seeking comments until January 14, 2022.
\nThe Department is proposing restrictions on OFRs in device casings for electrical and electronic equipment. Proposed restrictions would apply to numerous electronic and household items, including but not limited to televisions, laptops, mobile phones, kitchen appliances, washing machines, irons, and hair dryers.
\nAny regulation of flame retardants in electrical and electronic equipment should consider that manufacturers need options to meet safety requirements. Flame retardants are used by electronics manufacturers based on the product\u2019s attributes, properties, usage, and potential ignition threats. Although in some instances there might be alternatives to OFRs for use in electronic device casings, substitutes are not always available and there is a need for choice in materials.
\nAdditionally, OFRs should not be assessed as a single class. The Department\u2019s current approach to regulating OFRs goes against the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which has specified that this diverse group of chemicals cannot be treated as a single class for purposes of assessment. Instead, the NAS has recommended that OFRs be sorted into 14 subgroups based on chemical structure, physicochemical properties, and predicted biologic activity. Despite this, the Department has stated that \u201cfurther sub-classification was not required to conduct our hazard analysis of the OFRs class.\u201d
\nRegulations should align with state, federal, and international authorities. To date, no US state, federal, or international regulatory authority has imposed a ban on flame retardants in electronics as broad as the one being considered in Washington. This would make Washington state an outlier, potentially both decreasing electronic products available for purchase in the state and making the products that are available more likely to pose fire risks.
\nIndustry stakeholders can participate in upcoming virtual public meetings scheduled for January 5 and 6. Below are links to register for either public meeting.
\nNAFRA is asking stakeholders to submit comments in opposition to proposed restrictions for OFRs in plastic device casings for electronic and electrical equipment. The comment deadline for the draft report ends on January 14, 2022. Stakeholders can send comments to the Department at SaferProductsWA@ecy.wa.gov.
\nNew York
\nIn June 2021, the New York State Assembly passed S.4630-B, a bill prohibiting the use of flame retardants in furniture, mattresses, and electronic displays. NAFRA opposes the bill in its present form, most notably because it would ban the use of OFRs in electronics displays \u2014 making New York the first state to place such restrictions on OFRs in electronics.
\nGiven that there is no scientific basis for the restriction on OFRs in electronic displays, NAFRA has requested striking the electronic displays section in its entirety. If a complete removal of the electronic displays provision is not possible, NAFRA suggests aligning any restrictions with the European Union (EU) restriction on hazardous substances (RoHS).
\nThe legislation has not yet been forwarded to the Governor\u2019s office for further consideration. Such action must take place before the end of the year. If the bill is sent no later than Dec. 20, Gov. Kathy Hochul has 10 days (excluding the day the bill is delivered and Sundays) to sign or veto it, otherwise inaction results in the bill becoming law. However, if the bill is sent after Dec. 20, then Gov Hochul has 30 days (excluding Sundays) to take further action. One of several actions can result, including signature, veto, or chapter amendments. If no action is taken by Gov. Hochul after 30 days, then the legislation is pocket vetoed.
\nCanada
\nEnvironment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) announced in late November that it would not publish proposed restrictions for DBDPE until Winter 2022. Although publication of a risk management proposal has been delayed several times, publication of a risk management proposal had been anticipated this fall; however, the federal election held in late September may have further delayed the expected timing of an announcement.
\nCanada\u2019s risk assessment of DBDPE is an outlier that has potential to create inconsistencies and disruption for the North American supply chain. The Risk Assessment appropriately concluded that DBDPE is not harmful to human health and does not present an environmental danger; however, ECCC used another chemical (decaBDE) as a structural analogue to conclude DBDPE meets criteria to be considered harmful to organisms in the environment. The determination is based on the incorrect assumption that DBDPE may contribute to the formation of persistent, bio accumulative and inherently toxic substances when it degrades in the environment.
\nACC\u2019s NAFRA has been engaged throughout the process and continues to push for reconsideration from the Department. Emphasizing how restrictions on DBDPE could affect the marketplace, ACC implemented a grassroots campaign called \u201cHelp Keep Consumers Safe,\u201d which has generated over 6,000 letters to Canadian policymakers from concerned consumers and business establishments.
\nThe post NAFRA Updates on Washington State, New York and Canada appeared first on Let's talk bromine.
\n", "content_text": "Like Europe, there are restrictions on flame retardants being contemplated at the state and federal in the United States, with a particular focus on organohalogen flame retardants (OFRs) used in plastic device casings for electronic and electrical equipment. One of the most important benefits of flame retardants in product design is they can stop small ignition events from turning into larger fire scenarios. Electronic products are unique because they have a potential ignition source generated by the essential components of the product \u2014 circuit boards, transformers, batteries, connectors, and many other components.\nThe American Chemistry Council\u2019s (ACC) North American Flame Retardant Alliance (NAFRA) opposes a one-size-fits-all chemical regulatory approach that restricts a class of chemicals without a sufficient analysis for hazard and exposure.\nNAFRA is engaging with regulatory authorities and policymakers in Washington state and New York to try to halt OFR restrictions. In addition, the Canadian government is considering banning decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) \u2014 a flame retardant used in everything from home appliances to consumer electronics to cars and planes. Canada would be the only country in the world to have such a widespread ban on this chemistry, which is used to help keep consumer products safe.\nThe following is a brief synopsis highlighting the status of NAFRA\u2019s efforts to help prevent flame retardant restrictions in these locales.\nWashington State\u00a0\nThe Washington Legislature enacted the Pollution Prevention for Healthy People and Puget Sound Act (Chapter 70A.350 RCW) in 2019. The Act directs the Washington Department of Ecology (the Department) to implement a program to reduce priority chemicals in consumer products, including all OFRs and several other flame retardants, as classified in Washington\u2019s Children\u2019s Safe Products Act.\nThe Department\u2019s regulatory program to implement the 2019 law is called \u201cSafer Products for Washington.\u201d As part of this program, the Department is evaluating whether to restrict the use of OFRs in electronic and electrical equipment. In its report sent to the Legislature in July 2020, the Department identified the use of OFRs in \u201cplastic device casings\u201d for electronic and electrical equipment as one of 11 priority product categories. Ecology published its Draft Regulatory Determinations Report to the Legislature on November 17, 2021, and is seeking comments until January 14, 2022.\nThe Department is proposing restrictions on OFRs in device casings for electrical and electronic equipment. Proposed restrictions would apply to numerous electronic and household items, including but not limited to televisions, laptops, mobile phones, kitchen appliances, washing machines, irons, and hair dryers.\nAny regulation of flame retardants in electrical and electronic equipment should consider that manufacturers need options to meet safety requirements. Flame retardants are used by electronics manufacturers based on the product\u2019s attributes, properties, usage, and potential ignition threats. Although in some instances there might be alternatives to OFRs for use in electronic device casings, substitutes are not always available and there is a need for choice in materials.\nAdditionally, OFRs should not be assessed as a single class. The Department\u2019s current approach to regulating OFRs goes against the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which has specified that this diverse group of chemicals cannot be treated as a single class for purposes of assessment. Instead, the NAS has recommended that OFRs be sorted into 14 subgroups based on chemical structure, physicochemical properties, and predicted biologic activity. Despite this, the Department has stated that \u201cfurther sub-classification was not required to conduct our hazard analysis of the OFRs class.\u201d\nRegulations should align with state, federal, and international authorities. To date, no US state, federal, or international regulatory authority has imposed a ban on flame retardants in electronics as broad as the one being considered in Washington. This would make Washington state an outlier, potentially both decreasing electronic products available for purchase in the state and making the products that are available more likely to pose fire risks.\nIndustry stakeholders can participate in upcoming virtual public meetings scheduled for January 5 and 6. Below are links to register for either public meeting.\n\nRegister for January 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time\nRegister for January 6, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time\n\nNAFRA is asking stakeholders to submit comments in opposition to proposed restrictions for OFRs in plastic device casings for electronic and electrical equipment. The comment deadline for the draft report ends on January 14, 2022. Stakeholders can send comments to the Department at SaferProductsWA@ecy.wa.gov.\nNew York\nIn June 2021, the New York State Assembly passed S.4630-B, a bill prohibiting the use of flame retardants in furniture, mattresses, and electronic displays. NAFRA opposes the bill in its present form, most notably because it would ban the use of OFRs in electronics displays \u2014 making New York the first state to place such restrictions on OFRs in electronics. \nGiven that there is no scientific basis for the restriction on OFRs in electronic displays, NAFRA has requested striking the electronic displays section in its entirety. If a complete removal of the electronic displays provision is not possible, NAFRA suggests aligning any restrictions with the European Union (EU) restriction on hazardous substances (RoHS).\nThe legislation has not yet been forwarded to the Governor\u2019s office for further consideration. Such action must take place before the end of the year. If the bill is sent no later than Dec. 20, Gov. Kathy Hochul has 10 days (excluding the day the bill is delivered and Sundays) to sign or veto it, otherwise inaction results in the bill becoming law. However, if the bill is sent after Dec. 20, then Gov Hochul has 30 days (excluding Sundays) to take further action. One of several actions can result, including signature, veto, or chapter amendments. If no action is taken by Gov. Hochul after 30 days, then the legislation is pocket vetoed.\nCanada\nEnvironment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) announced in late November that it would not publish proposed restrictions for DBDPE until Winter 2022. Although publication of a risk management proposal has been delayed several times, publication of a risk management proposal had been anticipated this fall; however, the federal election held in late September may have further delayed the expected timing of an announcement.\nCanada\u2019s risk assessment of DBDPE is an outlier that has potential to create inconsistencies and disruption for the North American supply chain. The Risk Assessment appropriately concluded that DBDPE is not harmful to human health and does not present an environmental danger; however, ECCC used another chemical (decaBDE) as a structural analogue to conclude DBDPE meets criteria to be considered harmful to organisms in the environment. The determination is based on the incorrect assumption that DBDPE may contribute to the formation of persistent, bio accumulative and inherently toxic substances when it degrades in the environment.\nACC\u2019s NAFRA has been engaged throughout the process and continues to push for reconsideration from the Department. Emphasizing how restrictions on DBDPE could affect the marketplace, ACC implemented a grassroots campaign called \u201cHelp Keep Consumers Safe,\u201d which has generated over 6,000 letters to Canadian policymakers from concerned consumers and business establishments.\nThe post NAFRA Updates on Washington State, New York and Canada appeared first on Let's talk bromine.", "date_published": "2021-12-15T17:32:27+00:00", "date_modified": "2021-12-15T17:57:33+00:00", "author": { "name": "admin", "url": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/author/admin/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0428b8e4964fa7634cc8733194ee5bbe?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "https://lets-talk-bromine.bsef.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/images-cut_NAFRA.jpg", "tags": [ "Fire retardancy" ] } ] }