China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Regulation of 1,4-Dioxane
Published in Thomas K.G. Mohr, William H. DiGuiseppi, Janet K. Anderson, James W. Hatton, Jeremy Bishop, Barrie Selcoe, William B. Kappleman, Environmental Investigation and Remediation, 2020
Thomas K.G. Mohr, William H. DiGuiseppi
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) lists chemicals under Proposition 65 if a panel of independent scientists and health professionals finds that the chemical causes cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Chemicals may also be listed if other organizations, including USEPA, FDA, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), National Toxicology Program (NTP), and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classifies a compound in any of these categories. If a chemical on the list is present in a product, businesses must post a warning unless exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer or is significantly below levels observed to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. The list of chemicals must be updated at least annually; it now includes approximately 900 chemicals (https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/).
Safety Data Sheets, Green Movement, and More
Published in Kathleen Hess-Kosa, Building Materials, 2017
Target CREL VOCs were excerpted from the following publications: Cal/EPA OEHHA List of reference exposure limits (RELs)—organic chemicals identified as chronic inhalation hazards and are likely to result in serious adverse systemic effects (exclusive of cancer).Cal/EPA OEHHA Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65)—organic chemicals that are known or probable human carcinogens and reproductive/developmental toxins.Cal/EPA Air Resources Board list of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)—organic chemicals that are on the Cal/EPA list of Hazardous Air Pollutants exclusive of, but are not limited to, dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (chlorinated in the 2, 4, 7, and 8 positions and containing 4 to 7 chlorine atoms), perchloroethylene, and environmental tobacco smoke.
Tasty and toxic – a culinary risk dilemma
Published in Charlotte Fabiansson, Stefan Fabiansson, Food and the Risk Society, 2016
Charlotte Fabiansson, Stefan Fabiansson
There are currently no maximum permissible limits in the US or Europe governing the amount of acrylamide in food and beverages. However, acrylamide has been on the watch list for government authorities for some time since the 2002 discovery of its presence in many foods. In February 2011, acrylamide was added to the State of California’s Proposition 65 list. Any products sold in California that contain a Proposition 65 listed compound must carry a label warning the purchaser that the substance is present in the product. Acrylamide warning signs have been posted at many coffee shops in that state. Acrylamide is also on the European Union’s Substances of Very High Concern list following a unanimous decision by an expert EU health panel and indicative values for testing of different food categories have been issued by the European Commission.
Occupational exposure to glass wool fibers: An update
Published in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2021
Gary Marchant, Robert Connelly, Angus Crane, William Fayerweather, Edward Puhala, Kelly Sandin
The second type of change affecting the glass wool manufacturing industry are regulatory changes. At the time the HSPP and the SVF exposure database were started, there were a number of regulatory pressures on the glass wool industry that incentivized the industry to reduce worker exposures. OSHA had placed glass wool on its priority list for regulatory action, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), California’s Proposition 65 (OEHHA 2011), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2002) had listed glass wool products as a possible carcinogen, which, pursuant to OSHA requirements, mandated a cancer warning label be placed on all glass wool products. Today, those regulatory determinations and labeling requirements have all been rescinded based on updated epidemiology and animal toxicity data showing that glass fibers used for insulation are not carcinogenic. In rescinding the labeling requirements for glass wool products, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) 2011, California (2011) and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2002) all noted the low occupational exposures to glass wool fibers as demonstrated by the HSPP SVF exposure database. Now that these regulatory and labeling pressures have been alleviated, it is important to verify that worker exposures to glass wool fibers have not increased.
Fate of four phthalate plasticizers under various wastewater treatment processes
Published in Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 2018
Dana L. Armstrong, Clifford P. Rice, Mark Ramirez, Alba Torrents
Phthalate plasticizers, also known as phthalic acid esters (PAEs), are typically used to improve upon the flexibility of plastics,[1] among other uses, and have been detected extensively in the environment, such as in air,[2–4] dust,[5] sea water,[4,6] fresh water,[3,4] sediments,[3,4,6,7] and soil samples.[3,4] These compounds are not chemically bound to the polymer they are associated with, allowing for leaching of these compounds to occur.[8–10] This leaching, in conjunction with their high production volumes – over 4 million tons worldwide,[8] has led to concerns regarding environmental and human exposure. PAEs have been demonstrated to induce various negative health effects, including reproductive toxicity,[10–12] changes in hormone levels,[13] birth defects,[13] tumor formation,[10] disturbance of thyroid function,[14] and metabolic disorders.[10] Several PAEs, including benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), diisodecyl phthalate (DiDP), and diisononyl phthalate (DiNP), have been listed in Proposition 65 by the State of California as chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.[15]
A pilot study to characterize hand-to-mouth transfer efficiency of organophosphate flame retardants identified in infant products
Published in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 2021
Lauren E. Gloekler, Christy A. Barlow, Brooke Tvermoes, Mark J. La Guardia, Jennifer Sahmel
Widespread use of OPFRs has led to increased concentrations of this chemical class in all environmental matrices, including indoor dust and air, human breast milk, urine, and serum (Stapleton et al. 2009; Sundkvist et al. 2010; Stapleton et al. 2011; Bradman et al. 2012; Cox 2013; CPSC 2015; USEPA 2015; Xu et al. 2016; Zhou et al. 2017; Larsson et al. 2018; Blum et al. 2019). Similar to PBDEs, OPFRs are used as additive chemicals by physical incorporation into a product, and therefore do not form a chemical bond with the PUF polymer. As a result, they are also easily released during consumer product use and handling (Yang et al. 2019). Manufacturers in the U.S, Europe, and Asia incorporate OPFRs into PUF of consumer products such as furniture, mattresses, and children’s products, likely in order to meet fire safety regulations (Cal/DCA 2013; ECHA 2018; Blum et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2019). Because of the potential toxicity of OPFRs, increased usage and their ubiquitous nature, concerns have been raised regarding their potential for adverse human health outcomes. International and national health regulatory agencies have evaluated the hazards and risks associated with exposure to certain OPFRs, and have made specific health determinations for TCEP and TDCIPP (EC 2008; OEHHA 2011; ATSDR 2012; OEHHA 2012; USEPA 2015). TCEP and TDCIPP, for example, are considered known animal carcinogens, and TDCIPP has been listed under California’s Proposition 65 as a chemical known to cause cancer (OEHHA 2011, 2012; USEPA 2015). A determination has not been made by the U.S. EPA for TCIPP because of limited information, although its risks have been assumed to be comparable to TCEP and TDCIPP, given their chemical structure similarities (USEPA 2015). TCIPP is also listed under the European Union’s REACH regulation as a reproductive toxicant and suspected carcinogen ((ECHA) EU 2021). Evidence exists that some OPFRs can disrupt thyroid and endocrine levels, depending on the OPFR (Zhang et al. 2016; Wiersielis et al. 2020), fetal growth (Luo et al. 2021), and behavioral development (Doherty et al. 2019). OPFRs may also be neurotoxicants, especially in children, as a result of prenatal exposure (Doherty et al. 2019; Li et al. 2019; Hogberg et al. 2021).