Alternative AdhesivesTechnologies:Foam Furniture and Bedding Industries

A Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment

Institute for Research andTechnical Assistance

Katy WolfMichael Morris

UT Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies

Mary B. SwansonJack R. GeibigKerry E. Kelly

i

Disclaimer

This project was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) underAssistance Agreements #GX826510-01-0 and #GX826510-01-1. The contents of this documentdo not necessarily reflect the views and policies of EPA. Mention of trade names, companies, orcommercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by either EPAor other firms, organizations, or individuals who have participated in the preparation of thispublication.

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1ES-1. Industry Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1ES-2. Adhesive Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2

ES-2.1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane-Based Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3ES-2.2. Methylene Chloride-Based Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3ES-2.3. Water-Based Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-4ES-2.4. Acetone-Based Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-4ES-2.5. n-Propyl Bromide-Based Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-4ES-2.6. Hot Melt Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-4

ES-3. Performance of Alternative Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-4ES-4. Cost of Alternative Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-5ES-5. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6ES-6. Risk Screening and Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6ES-7. Choosing among Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-11

Part I: Cost and Performance Evaluation

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Cost and Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2: Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1. Industry Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1.1. Foam Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.1.2. Upholstered Furniture Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.1.3. Mattress Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.2. Adhesive Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.3. Industry Use of Adhesive Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter 3: Cost and Performance Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.1. Performance and Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.1.1. Assumptions for Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.2. Foam Fabrication Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2.1. Foam Craft Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.2.2. Prestige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.2.3. Latex International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.2.4. Hickory Springs--Conover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.2.5. Hickory Springs--City of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263.2.6. Marsh-Armfield— Conover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.2.7. Marsh-Armfield--High Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.2.8. Plant A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293.2.9. Guilford Fabricators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

iii

3.2.10. Marx Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313.2.11. Ashdale Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323.2.12. Plant B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333.2.13. Blue Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.2.14. Dixie Regency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.3. Analysis of Upholstered Furniture Manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363.3.1. La-Z-Boy West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363.3.2. Sit-On-It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383.3.3. American Seating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393.3.4. Country Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403.3.5. Plant C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.4. Analysis of Mattress Manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.4.1. Jamison Bedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.4.2. McKinney Bedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433.4.3. Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443.4.4. Southerland Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Chapter 4: Discussion of Performance/Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474.1. Foam Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.1.1. Plant Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484.1.2. Technology Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.2. Upholstered Furniture Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504.3. Mattress Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Chapter 5: Conclusions of the Cost and Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Part II: Risk Screening and Comparison

Chapter 6: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Chapter 7: Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597.1. Regulatory Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597.2 Industry Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

7.2.1 Foam Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607.2.2 Upholstered Furniture Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607.2.3 Mattress Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

7.3 Development of “Typical” Adhesive Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607.4 Substances Selected for Further Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Chapter 8: Human Health Hazards Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698.1 Carcinogenic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

8.1.1 Weight of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698.1.2 Cancer Potency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

iv

8.2 Chronic, Systemic Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738.2.1 Reference Dose/reference Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738.2.2 Adverse Effect Levels for Systemic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758.2.3 Other Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

8.3 Developmental Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788.4 Occupational Exposure Standards and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

8.4.1 Occupational Safety and Health Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838.4.2 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838.4.3 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. . . . . . . . . 838.4.4 American Industrial Hygiene Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

8.5 Summary of Available Hazards Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848.6 Summary of Hazards Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868.7 Process Safety/acute Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

8.7.1 Chemical Safety Hazards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878.7.2 Storing and Handling Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898.7.3 Worker Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

8.8 Ozone Depletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 9: Exposure Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939.1 Exposure Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

9.1.1 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939.1.2 Potentially Exposed Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

9.2 Development and Selection of Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969.2.1 Adhesive Application Exposure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969.2.2 Other Worker Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969.2.3 Ambient Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979.2.4 Selection of Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

9.3 Exposure-point Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999.3.1 Estimating Workplace Air Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999.3.2 Monitoring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029.3.3 Ambient Air Concentrations for Nearby Resident Exposure. . . . . . . . . 105

9.4 Exposure Models and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089.4.1 Inhalation Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089.4.2 Workplace Dermal Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119.4.3 Nearby Resident Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

9.5 Uncertainty and Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1169.6 Summary of Exposure Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Chapter 10: Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11910.1 Cancer Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

10.1.1 Cancer Risk for Nearby Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12010.1.2 Cancer Risk for Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12110.1.3 Other Potential Cancer Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

10.2 Non-cancer Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

v

10.2.1 Risk Indicators Calculated for Nearby Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12410.2.2 Risk Indicators Calculated for Adhesive Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12610.2.3 Comparing Worker Inhalation Exposure with OELs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

10.3 Discussion of Results, Uncertainties, and Key Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13110.3.1 Nearby Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13110.3.2 Worker Inhalation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13110.3.3 Skin Contact for Adhesive Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13410.3.4 Potential Health Effects from Chemicals of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13510.3.5 Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13710.3.6 Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

10.4 Overall Risk Screening and Comparison Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Chapter 11: Other Adhesive Formulations and Ingredients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Chapter 12: Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14712.1 Representative Adhesive Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14712.2 Human Health Hazard Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14712.3 Process Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14712.4 Exposure Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14812.5 Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

12.5.1 Health Risks to Nearby Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14912.5.2 Worker Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

12.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Appendix A: Material Safety Data Sheets for Typical Adhesive Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B: Case Studies for Selected Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1B.1. Foam Fabricator Helps Push Water-based Adhesive Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2B.2. Prestige Evaluates Several Glue Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3B.3 Santa Fe Springs Foam Fabricator Converts to Water-Based Adhesives . . . . . . . B-5B.4. Hickory Springs Decides on Acetone Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7B.5. La-z-boy West a Pioneer in Water-based Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9B.6. Office Chair Manufacturer Starts up with Hot Melt Glues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-11B.7. Bus Seating Manufacturer Searches for Alternative Adhesive . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-12B.8. Public Seating Company Converts Away from Solvent Adhesive. . . . . . . . . . . B-13B.9. Mattress Manufacturer Converts to Hot Melt Adhesive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-14B.10. Bedding Company Uses Hot Melt and Solvent Based Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . B-16B.11. Bedding Manufacturer Converts Away from Glues Altogether . . . . . . . . . . . . B-17

Appendix C: Additional Process Safety Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D: Supplemental Exposure Assessment Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

vi

List of Tables and Figures

Table ES-1. Markets and Characteristics of Alternative Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3Table ES-2. Summary of Chemicals of Concern for Nearby Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-8Table ES-3. Worker Health Risks from Inhalation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-9Table ES-4. Summary of Chemicals of Concern from Worker Skin Contact . . . . . . . . . . ES-10Table 1-1. Adhesives CTSA Project Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Table 1-2. Project Site Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Table 1-3. Trade Associations That Assisted the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Figure 2-1. Flexible Slabstock Foam Manufacturing Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 2-2. Slabstock Buns Awaiting Shipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 2-3. Flow of Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 2-4. Fabrication Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 2-5. Workers Bonding Foam and Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 2-6. Worker Spraying Adhesive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 2-7. Upholstered Home Furniture Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Figure 2-8. Typical Upholstered Office Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Figure 2-9. Typical Arena Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Figure 2-10. Typical Bus Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 2-11. Pillow Top Mattress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Table 2-1. Characteristics of Alternative Adhesive Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Table 2-2. Alternatives to TCA and METH Adhesives by Industry Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 3-1. Annual Cost Comparison for Prestige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Table 3-2. Annual Cost Comparison for Latex International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Table 3-3. Annual Cost Comparison for Hickory Springs--Conover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Table 3-4. Annual Cost Comparison for Hickory Springs--City of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . 27Table 3-5. Annual Cost Comparison for Marsh-Armfield--Conover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Table 3-6. Annual Cost Comparison for Marsh-Armfield--High Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Table 3-7. Annual Cost Comparison for Plant A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Table 3-8. Annual Cost Comparison for Guilford Fabricators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Table 3-9. Annual Cost Comparison for Marx Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Table 3-10. Annual Cost Comparison for Ashdale Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Table 3-11. Annual Cost for Plant B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Table 3-12. Annual Cost Comparison for Blue Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Table 3-13. Annual Cost for Dixie Regency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Table 3-14. Annual Cost Comparison for La-Z-Boy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Table 3-15. Annual Cost for Sit-On-It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Table 3-16. Annual Cost for American Seating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Table 3-17. Annual Cost for Country Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Table 3-18. Annual Cost for Plant C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Table 3-19. Annual Cost Comparison for Jamison Bedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Table 3-20. Annual Cost Comparison for McKinney Bedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

vii

Table 3-21. Annual Cost for Southerland Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Table 4-1. Foam Fabrication Facility Adhesive Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Table 4-2. Upholstered Furniture Facility Adhesive Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Table 4-3. Mattress Facility Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Table 7-1. List of Selected Furniture Adhesive Chemicals (sorted by CAS Number) . . . . . 65Table 8-1. Available Cancer Weight-of-Evidence Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Table 8-2. Summary of RfC and RfD Information Used in the

Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Table 8-3. NOAEL/LOAEL Values Used in Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Table 8-4. Developmental Toxicity Values Used in the Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . 78Table 8-5 Occupational Exposure Standards and Guidance Levels for

Adhesive Ingredients (for workplace inhalation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Table 8-6. Overview of Available Toxicity Data and Occupational Exposure Levels . . . . . 85Table 8-7. Hazardous Properties of Adhesive Chemical Ingredients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Table 9-1. Average Number of Workers Potentially Exposed to Adhesives by

Type of Manufacturing Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Table 9-2. Workplace Activities and Associated Potential Exposure Pathways. . . . . . . . . . 98Table 9-3. Potential Population Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Table 9-4. Scenarios Evaluated for the Adhesives Application Line Operation. . . . . . . . . . 99Table 9-5. Estimated Indoor Air Concentrations of Volatile Adhesive Chemicals for

Industry Average and High-End Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Table 9-6. Adhesive Exposure Monitoring Data for METH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Table 9-7. Exposure Monitoring Data for nPB and 2-BP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Table 9-8. Results of Air Dispersion Modeling for Unit Chemical

Emissions (1 g/sec) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Table 9-9. Chemical Concentrations in Ambient Air, 25 Meters from the

Model Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Table 9-10. Parameter Values for Workplace Inhalation Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Table 9-11. Estimated ADDs for Workplace Inhalation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Table 9-12. Parameter Values for Workplace Dermal Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112Table 9-13. Workplace Dermal Exposure Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112Table 9-14. Estimated ADDs for Dermal Workplace Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Table 9-15. Parameter Values for Estimating Nearby Residential

Inhalation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115Table 9-16. Estimated ADDs for General Population Inhalation Exposure

at a Distance of 25 Meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115Table 10-1. Inhalation HQ Results for Nearby Residents 25 Meters from a

Model Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125Table 10-2. Inhalation MOE Results for Nearby Residents 25 Meters

from a Model Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125Table 10-3. Inhalation HQ Results for Adhesive Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126Table 10-4. Inhalation MOE Results for Adhesive Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127Table 10-5. Dermal HQ Results for Adhesive Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Table 10-6. Comparison of Estimated Workplace Air Concentrations with Available

viii

Occupational Exposure Standards and Guidance Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Table 10-7. Results of Concern for Worker Inhalation of Chemical Ingredients in the

Average Adhesive Use / Average Ventilation Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132Table 10-8. Results of Concern for Worker Inhalation of Chemical Ingredients

in the High-Adhesive Use / WTA-Ventilation Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133Table 10-9. Results of Concern for Worker Skin Contact with

Chemical Ingredients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135Table 10-10. Summary of Potential Human Health Effects for

Chemicals of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136Table 10-11 Data Gaps for Chronic Non-Cancer Health Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138Table 10-12. Overall Comparison of Potential Worker Health Risks for

Baseline and Alternative Adhesive Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Table 12-1. Summary of Chemicals of Concern for the Baseline Adhesive

(METH) and Adhesive Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150Table B-1 Annual Cost Comparison for Prestige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4Table B-2. Annual Cost Comparison for Latex International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-6Table B-3. Annual Cost Comparison for Hickory Springs--City of Commerce . . . . . . . . . B-8Table B-4. Annual Cost Comparison for Hickory Springs--Conover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-8Table B-5. Annual Cost Comparison for La-Z-Boy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-10Table B-6. Annual Cost of Hot Melt Adhesives for Sit-On-It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-11Table B-7. Annual Cost of Solvent Adhesive for American Seating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-12Table B-8. Annual Cost of METH Adhesives for Country Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-13Table B-9. Annual Cost Comparison for Jamison Bedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15Table B-10. Annual Cost Comparison for McKinney Bedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16Table D-1. Adhesive Use Rates for Average and High Use Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1Table D-2. Chemical Concentrations in Ambient Air, 100 Meters

from the Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1Table D-3. Estimated ADDs for General Population

Inhalation Exposure at a Distance of 100 Meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3Table D-4. Estimated ADDs for Workplace Inhalation by Ventilation

and Adhesive Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

ix

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

2-BP 2-bromopropaneACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial HygienistsADD Average daily dose AIHA American Industrial Hygiene AssociationATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryCAAAs Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990CAS Chemical Abstract Services (registry number)CFCs ChlorofluorocarbonsCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCPF Cancer potency factorCTSA Cleaner Technologies Substitutes AssessmentDfE Design for the EnvironmentED Exposure durationEF Exposure frequencyEPA Environmental Protection AgencyHAP Hazardous air pollutantHCl Hydrochloric acidHEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary TablesHQ Hazard quotient HSDB Hazardous Substances Data BankIARC International Agency for Research on CancerIDLH Immediately dangerous to life or healthIRIS Integrated Risk Information System IRTA Institute for Research and Technical AssistanceISC(2)LT Industrial Source Complex Long TermLOAEL Lowest-observed adverse effect levelMDF Medium density fiberboardMETH Methylene chlorideMOE Margin of exposureMRL Minimal risk level MSDS Material safety data sheetNASA National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNESHAP National emission standards for hazardous air pollutantsNFPA National Fire Protection AssociationNIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthNOAEL No-observed adverse effect levelNOEL No-observed effect levelnPB n-propyl bromideNTP National Toxicology ProgramODP Ozone depletion potentialOEL Occupational exposure levelOPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and ToxicsOSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationPBPK Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (model)PEL Permissible exposure levelPPE Personal protective equipment

x

q1* Slope factorREL Recommended exposure level RfC Reference concentrationRfCDT Reference concentration based on developmental effectsRfD Reference doseRfDDT Reference dose based on developmental effectsSBS Styrene-butadiene-styreneSNAP Significant New Alternatives PolicySTEL Short-term exposure limit TCA 1,1,1-TrichloroethaneTCE TrichloroethyleneTLV Threshold limit valueTWA Time-weighted averageUF Uncertainty factorVOC Volatile organic compoundWEEL Workplace environmental exposure levelWOE Weight of evidenceWMO World Meteorological OrganizationWTA Worse-than-average (ventilation)

ES-1

Executive Summary

The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program in the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s (EPA’s) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is a voluntary,cooperative program that works in partnership with industry to develop and distributepollution prevention and environmental and human health risk information on alternativechemicals, processes, and products. The DfE approach uses cleaner technologiessubstitutes assessments (CTSAs) to evaluate the performance, cost, and environmentaland human health impacts of competing technologies.

A CTSA is a compilation of considerations and reference materials related to availableand emerging technology in a given industrial sector. It serves as a guide for decision-makers and for industrial firms when they select technologies. The goal of the CTSA is tooffer a complete picture of the cost, performance, environmental and human healthexposure impacts associated with traditional and alternative chemicals, processes andproducts. The aim is to assist businesses in making more informed decisions that fit theirsituation.

The foam fabrication, upholstered furniture manufacturing, and mattress manufacturingindustries rely heavily on adhesives throughout their operations. Many of thesecompanies are small businesses. Historically, the adhesives used by these industries werebased on 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), an ozone-depleting substance. When productionof TCA was banned, these industries generally converted to adhesives based onmethylene chloride (METH), a suspect carcinogen. The Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) developed a very stringent regulation on METH which becameeffective for most METH users in April, 2000. Most companies could not meet the newworker exposure limits without a substantial investment in ventilation equipment. As aresult, nearly all companies plan to convert away from METH-based adhesives. Varioustypes of alternative adhesives are available and the businesses need guidance on theircost, performance and relative risks so they can select the alternative that is best for theiroperation. This project provides the comparative information on the adhesivealternatives.

This section contains an overall summary of the Furniture Adhesives CTSA project andresults. It is followed by Part I: Cost and Performance Evaluation, which describes costand performance of the adhesive technologies, and Part II: Risk Screening andComparison, which presents comparative risk information.

ES-1. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION

Flexible slabstock polyurethane foam currently is produced by 23 companies in about 75pouring plants in the United States. In 1998, approximately 1.6 billion pounds ofslabstock foam were produced. Flexible slabstock foam is fabricated (cut and shaped)into pieces to be used in carpet underlay, furniture, bedding, packaging, transportationseating, and other products where a durable resilient cushioning material is required. Flexible foam manufacturers fabricate about half of the foam produced in their ownfacilities. The other half is purchased by independent fabricators who cut and shape itinto various products. There are approximately 350 foam fabrication plants in the United

ES-2

States. All foam fabricators perform fabrication services for other companies thatmanufacture bedding, upholstered furniture, and other products.

Some of the foam is fabricated using adhesives and some is not. It is estimated that aboutone-third of the foam used in furniture manufacture and five percent of the foam used inbedding manufacture requires adhesive in the fabrication operation.

Upholstered furniture manufacturers purchase foam from foam manufacturers or foamfabricators and they use the foam to manufacture home furniture, office furnitureincluding office chairs, stadium seating, or transportation seating for use in conveyanceslike buses. In the United States, there are more than 2,600 upholstered home furnituremanufacturers, about 950 companies that manufacture wood and non-wood officefurniture, 14 stadium seating manufacturers, and 26 manufacturers that make seating forbuses and other public conveyances. In these operations, the furniture manufacturersbond foam, fabric, wood, metal, and plastic using adhesives.

Mattress manufacturers purchase foam from foam manufacturers or from foam fabricatorsand they use the foam to manufacture their bedding. There are an estimated 1,270mattress manufacturers in the United States. Perhaps 200 of these manufacturers makepillow top mattresses, which are generally considered a high-end bedding item. Thesemattresses are manufactured by using adhesive to bond the pillow top to the mattress.

ES-2. ADHESIVE ALTERNATIVES

Table ES-1 summarizes the different types of adhesives, the markets in which they areprimarily used, and some of their characteristics.

ES-3

Table ES-1. Markets and Characteristics of Alternative Adhesives

Adhesive MarketsaClassifiedas VOCb

OzoneDepleter

FlashPoint Issues

TCA FF, MM, UF No Yes No Productionbanned

METH FF, MM, UF No No No Heavilyregulated

n-PropylBromide(nPB)

FF Yes Low No ToxicityConcerns

Acetone FF, UF No No Yes Fireregulations

AcetoneBlends

FF, MM, UF Yes No Yes Fireregulations

Water-Based FF, UF No No No Formsaerosols

Hot Melt MM, UF No No No Hightemperatureapplication

a FF is foam fabrication, MM is mattress manufacturing, and UF is upholstered furniture manufacture.b Chemicals are considered to be volatile organic compounds (VOCs) unless they are specificallyexempted by EPA.

ES-2.1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane-Based Adhesives

In the 1980s and early 1990s, most of the adhesive used by foam fabricators, upholsteredfurniture manufacturers, and mattress manufacturers was based on TCA. TCA evaporatesreadily, is relatively low in toxicity, does not have a flash point and is not classified as aVolatile Organic Compound (VOC) that contributes to ground-level ozone. In the 1990s,TCA was designated as a Class I ozone depleting compound which destroys ozone in theupper atmosphere; production of the chemical was banned in 1996 for that reason. Although inventory was still available, the chemical had become very expensive becauseof a Federal tax on ozone-depleting substances. Virtually all adhesive formulatorsstopped making TCA adhesives and began offering adhesives based on METH.

ES-2.2. Methylene Chloride-Based Adhesives

Like TCA, METH evaporates readily, does not have a flash point and is not classified as aVOC. It is a suspect carcinogen, however. In 1997, OSHA issued a regulation on METHthat lowered the worker exposure level from 500 ppm to 25 ppm measured as an 8-hourtime weighted average. The regulation also established an action level at 12.5 ppm --companies with worker exposure above that level are required to institute monitoring andmedical surveillance.

ES-4

ES-2.3. Water-Based Adhesives

In the early 1990s, the formulators developed one-part and two-part water-basedadhesives. The early one-part water-based adhesives were based exclusively on naturallatex and they did not bond instantly like the solvent-borne adhesives. The two-partadhesives are based on synthetic materials and they were difficult to use in equipment butdid bond instantly. New one-part water-based adhesives composed of natural latex and asmall amount of synthetic material are now available. These adhesives bond more rapidlythan the adhesives based only on latex.

ES-2.4. Acetone-Based Adhesives

Acetone is low in toxicity; evaporates readily, and is not classified as a VOC. It doeshave a very low flash point, however, and companies using acetone-based adhesives musttake measures to minimize the chance of fire or explosion. Some formulations based onacetone also contain other chemicals like hexane, heptane, and mineral spirits. Theseother chemicals may be classified as VOCs and some may be relatively toxic.

ES-2.5. n-Propyl Bromide-Based Adhesives

Another alternative that has become available more recently is an adhesive based on nPB. This chemical evaporates readily, has no flash point, and is classified as a VOC. Recenttoxicity tests indicate that nPB is a reproductive toxin and liver toxin. nPB-basedadhesives contain some 2-bromopropane (2-BP) as a contaminant. 2-BP has causedreproductive toxicity problems in Korean workers.

ES-2.6. Hot Melt Adhesives

An additional alternative is the hot melt adhesive, which is 100 percent solids. This isapplied with a special spray gun that heats the resins in the adhesive to 300 degrees F orhigher so they can flow. The applied adhesive quickly cools and sets up.

ES-3. PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATIVE ADHESIVES

This project involved visits to 32 facilities in the United States to investigate howadhesives were used in the processes and what alternatives companies had adopted orwere planning to adopt. The performance of alternative adhesives was evaluated for 23verification facilities including 14 foam fabrication facilities, five upholstered furnituremanufacturing facilities, and four mattress manufacturing facilities. Performance wasjudged and compared based on qualitative input from facility personnel. In general, thefindings indicated that the alternatives performed as well as or better than the TCA orMETH adhesives used originally by the facility.

In foam fabrication, the location and size of the facility influenced the choice ofalternatives. Foam fabricators located in Southern California could not use METH-basedadhesives because of local air district toxics regulations and the stringent VOCregulations prevented them from using nPB-based adhesives. Generally, these companiesused TCA-based adhesives until suitable alternatives were found.

ES-5

Most Southern California fabricators now are using water-based adhesives. Very fewcompanies in the rest of the country adopted water-based adhesives because their userequires process changes. Companies in Southern California where the regulations aremore stringent were willing to take on the challenge of adopting a new technology thatrequires process changes. Once they resolved the issues and optimized their processes,they quickly adapted to the new application methods without loss of productivity.

Nationally, the four largest foam fabricators that participated in the study adopted water-based or acetone-based adhesives in their five plants. The larger facilities expressed aconcern for the potential toxicity of nPB. Of the remaining nine smaller fabricators, threeadopted acetone adhesives, five adopted nPB adhesives, and one is still using a METHadhesive.

In the upholstered furniture manufacturing sector, one manufacturer converted from TCAto a water-based adhesive. Two of the other companies relied on hot melts. Water-basedadhesives appear to be a good choice in the home upholstered furniture sector while hotmelts appear to be the best option for office chairs and public seating.

In the mattress manufacturing sector, two companies are using hot melt adhesives, one isusing an acetone-based aerosol adhesive, and one uses sewing as an alternative toadhesives.

ES-4. COST OF ALTERNATIVE ADHESIVES

Cost analysis was performed for 22 facilities. In seven cases, the costs of the adhesivesystem used currently by the company were determined. In 14 cases, the costs of the newand original adhesive system used by the company were determined and compared. Inone case, the costs were not quantified and qualitative costs of the new and originalsystem were compared. Cost information was collected in eight categories for some or allof the facilities. The cost categories included:

• Capital• Adhesive• Labor• Maintenance• Electricity• Training• Regulatory• Production Adjustment

Some of the facilities had not yet decided which alternative to adopt. Of 14 facilities thathad adopted an alternative, seven reduced their cost through the conversion. Seven of thefacilities increased their cost through the conversion. Three of these converted fromMETH to acetone adhesives; three converted from TCA or METH to nPB adhesives; andone converted from TCA to a hot melt adhesive.

In general, the costs of all the alternative adhesive systems are comparable. In somecases, the companies that had made the conversion worked hard to optimize the use of thealternative they selected and they reduced their costs through this process. nPB adhesivesare generally more costly than any of the alternative adhesives. In three cases where

ES-6

companies converted to nPB adhesives, the costs increased; in two other cases, thecompanies evaluated their adhesive use during the conversion and were able toimplement measures that reduced their overall cost.

ES-5. CASE STUDIES

Eleven stand-alone case studies were developed based on the cost and performanceanalysis. These case studies are presented in three documents entitled CleanerTechnologies Substitutes Assessment Case Studies: Foam Fabrication, CleanerTechnologies Substitutes Assessment Case Studies: Upholstered Furniture, and CleanerTechnologies Substitutes Assessment Case Studies: Mattress Manufacturing. Thedecisions made by the 11 companies featured in these documents should help similarcompanies make informed decisions on which alternative technology would be mostsuitable for their operation.

ES-6. RISK SCREENING AND COMPARISON

Seven adhesive technologies were evaluated for their risk to human health in order toidentify areas of concern among the adhesive types and compare the exposure and healthrisks of the evaluated adhesives. The types of risk that were evaluated include public(nearby resident) and worker health risks, and process safety concerns for workers. Inaddition, potential environmental impacts (specifically, ozone depletion) are discussed.

To collect the human health hazards information necessary for the risk evaluation,adhesive formulations were required that specified all ingredients and theirconcentrations. The adhesive types that were evaluated included:

• METH-based adhesives• nPB-based adhesives• Acetone-based adhesives• Adhesives based on an acetone/heptane blend• Water-based latex adhesives• Water-based latex/synthetic adhesives• Hot melt adhesives

A “typical” adhesive formulation was developed for each of these categories (as well asTCA adhesive). The information used to develop the typical formulations includedMaterial Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for various adhesive formulations, severalliterature sources, and guidance from adhesive formulators. TCA-based adhesive was notcarried through the risk calculations because of the TCA phaseout as an ozone-depletingsubstance. There are no TCA-based adhesives used today. For the risk comparison,METH is considered the baseline, against which the alternative adhesives are compared.

The ingredients selected for the typical formulations were meant to be representative,rather than an exhaustive list; other adhesive products may contain ingredients that arenot included in these “typical” formulations. Two additional solvent ingredients wereadded to the risk evaluation because they may be used in other formulations, and are ofconcern because of their toxicity -- hexane and trichloroethylene (TCE). Hexane isincluded as an alternative acetone-blend solvent and TCE is considered as an alternativeingredient that may be used in some n-PB formulations.

ES-7

Potential hazards posed by adhesives to workers and nearby residents were evaluated bycollecting available toxicity data for the chemical ingredients in the typical adhesiveformulations. Available testing data for the chemical ingredients were collected from theliterature, with a focus on EPA-published toxicity data. In addition, occupationalexposure standards and guidance levels were summarized.

Chemical exposures from day-to-day adhesives application operations were estimated fornearby residents and workers. Nearby residents can inhale airborne adhesive ingredientsthat leave the facility through the air. Worker exposure is possible by inhaling adhesiveingredients that become airborne from the application process and from skin contact withthe adhesives. Fate and transport modeling was performed to estimate air concentrationsfor workplace and nearby resident exposures. Chemical concentrations estimated for thetypical formulations were used to calculate dermal exposure to workers from adhesiveuse. These exposure results were then combined with chemical toxicity data to assessrelative risk.

The risk characterization focused on chronic (long-term, repeated) exposure to chemicalsthat may cause cancer or have other toxic effects. Acute toxicity from brief exposures tochemicals, such as those that could occur from chemical fires or spills, was not assessed. The exposure assessment and risk characterization use a “model facility” approach, withcharacteristics of the model facility aggregated from site visit data and other sources. Therefore, this approach does not result in an absolute estimate or measurement of riskfor any particular facility.

Potential public health risks were estimated for inhalation exposure for residents livingnear an adhesive-using facility. Nearby resident exposure estimates are based on threemajor assumptions. First, all volatile ingredients evaporate completely duringapplication. Second, emissions are vented to the outside without any air pollutioncontrols. Third, people may live as close as 25 meters from a facility. Table ES-2presents results of concern for nearby residents.

ES-8

Table ES-2. Summary of Chemicals of Concern for Nearby Residents

Adhesive TypeChemicals of

Concerna Data gapsb

METH adhesive (Baseline) METH None

Acetone adhesive None None

Acetone/heptane adhesive None None

nPB adhesive nPB 2-BPc

Water-based latex adhesive None Chlorinated alkyl phosphatesCyanox 2246Surfynol 440

Water-based latex/synthetic adhesive None Chlorinated alkyl phosphatesCyanox 2246Surfynol 440

Hot melt adhesive None

Alternative Ingredients HexaneTCE

None

a The chemicals for which the inhalation cancer risk is greater than one in one million, the hazard quotient (HQ) isgreater than one, margin of exposure (MOE) based on a no-effect level (MOEN) is less than 100, or MOE based ona lowest-effect level (MOEL) is less than 1,000. A chemical is shown in bold if its risk results indicate concern forboth the average use as well as high use scenario.b Exposure is possible, but toxicity data are lacking from the readily available literature. This applies to bothcancer and noncancer risk estimates. For cancer, chemicals are listed as data gaps if they are considered probableor possible human carcinogens, but have no established cancer potency factor (CPF) with which to estimate cancerrisk. For noncancer, chemicals are listed if an HQ or MOE could not be calculated.c Although available toxicity data are considered inadequate for risk assessment calculations, a comparison ofestimated air concentrations to laboratory test data indicate there may be a health concern for nearby residents from2-BP inhalation.

Health risks to adhesive application workers were estimated for inhalation exposures tovolatile adhesive ingredients and for dermal absorption from skin contact with adhesiveingredients. The exposure assessment evaluated average and high-end scenarios withrespect to adhesive use and ventilation using representative data for a model facility. Inhalation exposure estimates for workers are based on several assumptions, includingthat all of the volatile ingredients evaporate during the application process; the air in theprocess room is at steady state; and only general ventilation is used in the process area(without additional local ventilation, such as hoods). Table ES-3 presents a summary ofworker health risk results from inhalation exposure.

ES-9

Table ES-3. Worker Health Risks from Inhalation ExposureAdhesive Type Chemicals of Concerna Data Gapsb

METH adhesive (Baseline) METH None

Acetone adhesive Acetone None

Acetone/heptane adhesive AcetoneHeptane None

nPB adhesive 2-BPc

1,2-Butylene oxide1,3-DioxolanenPB

2-BPc

Water-based latex adhesive AmmoniaLatex

Chlorinated alkyl phosphatesCyanox 2246Surfynol 440

Water-based latex/synthetic adhesive AmmoniaLatex

Chlorinated alkyl phosphatesCyanox 2246Surfynol 440

Hot melt adhesive None None

Alternative Ingredients HexaneTCE

None

a The chemicals for which the inhalation cancer risk is greater than one in one million, the HQ is greater than 1,MOEN is less than 100, or MOEL is less than 1,000, or the estimated workplace air concentration exceeds anoccupational exposure standard and/or guidance level. A chemical is shown in bold if its risk results indicatedconcern for both the average use/average ventilation scenario as well as the high use/worse-than-average (WTA)scenario. Regular type indicates that risk results indicated concern only in the case of high adhesive use combinedwith WTA ventilation. b Exposure is possible, but toxicity data are lacking. This applies to both cancer and noncancer risk estimates. Forcancer, chemicals are listed as data gaps if they are considered probable or possible human carcinogens, but haveno established CPF with which to estimate cancer risk. For noncancer, chemicals are listed if an HQ could not becalculated.c Toxicity data were not sufficient to calculate an HQ or MOE, but air concentrations could be compared to anoccupational exposure standard and/or guidance level.

ES-10

Dermal exposure estimates are based on the assumption that workers do not routinelywear long sleeves or gloves, their hands and forearms are routinely in contact with sprayadhesive, and chemicals applied to the skin are completely absorbed. Table ES-4summarizes the risk results for worker skin contact.

Table ES-4. Summary of Chemicals of Concern from Worker Skin Contact

Adhesive TypeChemicals of

Concerna Data Gapsb

METH adhesive (Baseline) METH Tackifying resin

Acetone adhesive Acetone Tackifying resin

Acetone/heptane adhesive Acetone HeptaneTackifying resin

nPB adhesive None 2-BP1,2-Butylene oxide1,3-DioxolanenPBTackifying resin

Water-based latex adhesive Chlorinated alkylphosphatesCyanox 2246Latex

AmmoniaSurfynol 440Tackifying resin

Water-based latex/synthetic adhesive Chlorinated alkylphosphatesCyanox 2246Latex

Ammonia ChloropreneSurfynol 440Tackifying resin

Hot melt adhesive None None

Alternative Ingredients Hexane TCEa The chemicals for which the HQ is greater than 1, MOEN is less than 100, or MOEL is less than 1,000. b Exposure (skin absorption) is possible, but toxicity data are lacking. For noncancer, chemicals are listed if an HQor MOE could not be calculated.

Assumptions and uncertainties are a part of all risk assessments. Some of the majorsources of uncertainty in this study included insufficient toxicity data for some chemicalingredients, uncertainty in the air concentration models used to estimate worker andnearby resident exposure, and uncertainty in estimating the amount of dermal absorptionfrom worker skin contact with adhesive ingredients.

Conclusions that can be drawn from this interim risk evaluation include the following:

• Use of METH-based adhesive can pose a significant cancer risk to workers andnearby residents, depending on adhesive use amount and other factors. Based onthe available data, use of any of the evaluated adhesive alternatives would reduceor eliminate those cancer risks. If companies wish to continue using METH-basedadhesives, they would have to purchase and install elaborate ventilation systemsto protect workers. This measure, however, would not reduce the risk to the

ES-11

surrounding community and a control device to prevent community exposurewould be necessary. On balance, it is doubtful these adhesives could be usedsafely.

• Use of nPB-based adhesives can also pose important noncancer risks to workersand nearby residents. Again, similarly to METH, users of the nPB-basedadhesives should install ventilation systems and also control devices to protectworkers and nearby residents.

• All of the evaluated spray adhesives can result in exposures to at least oneingredient with noncancer risks above concern levels, although these risks aregenerally higher for solvent-based adhesives than for water-based.

• Among the solvent-based adhesives, risk results are generally higher for METH-and nPB-based adhesives, and lower for acetone- and acetone/heptane-basedadhesives. Ventilation systems must be used for acetone and acetone/heptaneadhesives because of their flammability. Companies using these adhesives arerequired to follow the directives of their local fire departments for storing andusing the products safely.

• A number of spray adhesive ingredients, even trace ingredients, result inworkplace air concentrations higher than occupational exposure standards and/orguidance levels.

• There are worker sensitization concerns from the use of latex and inhalation concerns from ammonia in the water-borne adhesives.

• Significant inhalation or dermal exposure is not expected from the routine use ofhot melt adhesives.

• Other adhesive ingredients are possible. Hexane and TCE were evaluated asalternative ingredients in acetone and nPB adhesives, respectively. Both may posesignificant risks to workers and nearby residents if adhesives containing theseingredients are used in a comparable manner to the typical adhesive formulationsevaluated here.

• There are several chemical ingredients without sufficient toxicity data or existingoccupational exposure standards or guidance levels to evaluate hazards, althoughexposure to these chemicals is possible, especially to adhesive workers.

Process safety issues for adhesive workers were evaluated based on information fromrepresentative adhesive MSDSs. Hazardous properties include eye and skin irritation (forall adhesive types) and flammability (for acetone- and acetone/heptane-based adhesives). In addition, most adhesive chemical formulations can decompose under specificconditions to form potentially hazardous chemicals (especially of concern are thechlorine- and bromine- containing formulations). Work-related injuries from equipment,improper use of equipment, bypassing equipment safety features, failure to use personalprotective equipment (PPE), and physical stress that may appear gradually as a result ofrepetitive motion are also potential process safety hazards to workers. Appropriatetraining can help reduce the number of work-related accidents and injuries for anyadhesive type.

ES-7. CHOOSING AMONG ALTERNATIVES

In the foam fabrication sector, some companies are still using METH-based adhesives. The alternatives for this sector include water-based adhesives, acetone adhesives, acetoneblend adhesives and nPB adhesives. The costs of the different adhesive systems areroughly comparable. From the health and environmental standpoint, water-based

ES-12

adhesives appear to pose less risk. Use of water-based latex and water-basedlatex/synthetic adhesives requires process changes. The adhesive must be applied to bothpieces of foam that are bonded and the adhesive supply must be elevated and gravity fed. Foam fabricators that have successfully adopted water-based adhesives have adapted tothese process changes and have, in most cases, reduced their costs through optimizationof the new system.

Acetone-based adhesives are comparable in cost and performance for foam fabricators. They appear to pose a lower risk than the other solvent-based adhesives. The conversionfrom METH adhesives to acetone adhesives is straightforward because the properties ofthe two chemicals are similar. Because of the flammability of the acetone, however,companies must install ventilation systems. Acetone blends are also available but theother ingredients in the blend are generally VOCs and some (such as hexane) may betoxic. Companies should take that into account when they consider acetone blends.

nPB-based adhesives have been adopted by several smaller foam fabricators; the largermanufacturers have generally not adopted nPB adhesives because of concern for toxicity. nPB is a VOC and a reproductive/liver toxin and companies should take this into accountwhen they are considering alternatives. If companies decide to use these adhesives, theyshould be used with extreme caution and users should make an effort to purchase nPBthat contains as low a concentration of 2-BP as possible. Ventilation systems are requiredto reduce the worker exposure. nPB adhesives are more expensive than the other types ofadhesives and system costs may increase if these adhesives are selected as an alternative.

In the upholstered furniture sector, the option that appears to pose the least risk from thehealth and environmental standpoint is hot melt adhesives. These adhesives have beenadopted by many companies in this sector, particularly office chair manufacturers. Selection of this option requires the company to implement process changes. Somecompanies may need to install automated application systems and others must purchasespecial hot melt spray guns. Water-based adhesives are comparable in terms of cost andperformance and some home furniture manufacturers are now using these adhesives. From the health and environmental standpoint, water-based adhesives appear to posemuch less risk than solvent-based adhesives although there are some concerns. Processchanges will also be necessary for companies using water-based adhesives. They must beapplied to both surfaces that are bonded and they may have to be gravity fed. Acetoneand acetone blend adhesives are another choice for this sector but companies mustimplement measures to deal with the flammability of the new adhesives. This generallymeans that ventilation systems will have to be installed. The risks from acetone-basedadhesives appear to be much lower than the risks from METH-based adhesives.

In the mattress manufacturing sector, the option that appears to pose the least risk from ahealth and environmental standpoint is hot melt adhesives. Companies using METH-based adhesives that decide to use these adhesives must change their processconsiderably. Special spray guns are required or, in some cases, automated systems willbe required to apply the adhesives. Another very good option that may be appropriate forsome of the companies in this sector is sewing; this method eliminates the need foradhesive altogether. A few companies in this sector may decide to adopt acetone oracetone blend adhesives. For this choice, companies must take care to minimize thethreat of flammability and this generally means they must install ventilation systems.

Part I

Cost and Performance Evaluation

Katy WolfMike Morris

Acknowledgments

This document benefited from the efforts of a number of individuals and organizations. TheInstitute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) is grateful to all the individuals andcompanies that participated in the project. IRTA gives special thanks to John Sparks of EPA whohelped guide the project and Pradeep Sharma of Southern California Edison for holding a meetingand conference at the Edison CTAC facility. IRTA would like to express appreciation to RichLoomis and Andy Menichino of L & D Adhesives, Steve Isenhour, Bobby Bush and Chuck Tradeof Hickory Springs and Shawn Conrad of the International Sleep Products Association for helpingto arrange site visits. IRTA gives special thanks to all of the companies that provided cost andperformance information for the analysis. Finally, IRTA would like to acknowledge the significantcontributions of several trade association representatives and adhesive suppliers.

This part of the document was produced by IRTA under a grant from EPA’s Design for theEnvironment Branch; Economics, Exposure and Technology Division; Office of PollutionPrevention and Toxics.

1

Chapter 1Introduction to the Cost and Performance Evaluation

The CTSA is a method of systematically evaluating and comparing human health andenvironmental risk, competitiveness (e.g., performance and cost), and resourcerequirements of traditional and alternative chemicals, manufacturing methods, andtechnologies that can be used to perform the same function. (The publication, CleanerTechnologies Substitutes Assessment: A Methodology & Resource Guide [Kincaid et al.,1996], presents the basic CTSA methodology in detail.) A CTSA compiles comparativeevaluations and reference materials related to available and emerging technologies in agiven industrial sector. By offering a more complete picture of the cost, performance, andpotential risks of traditional and alternative chemicals, processes, and products, the CTSAserves as a guide for decision makers and for industrial firms as they select technologies.

This Furniture Adhesives CTSA is intended to provide furniture and relatedmanufacturers with information that can assist them in making decisions that incorporateenvironmental concerns, along with performance and cost information, when choosing anadhesive technology. Three sectors that rely heavily on porous substrate bondingadhesives were targeted: foam fabrication, upholstered furniture manufacturing, andmattress manufacturing. Regulations became much more stringent on the traditionalsolvent carriers in the adhesives commonly used by these industries to bond foam tovarious other substrates. A range of new and emerging alternatives that have differentperformance, cost, health, and environmental characteristics is available. Many of thebusinesses in the targeted industries are small- to medium-sized; this project wasstructured to provide them with the information they would need to decide whichalternatives are most suitable for their operations. The primary audiences for this CTSAare environmental health and safety personnel, chemical and equipment manufacturersand suppliers in the furniture and mattress manufacturing industries, foam fabricators,community groups concerned about community health risks, and other technically-informed decision makers.

Part II of the Furniture Adhesives CTSA presents comparative risk information on sixalternatives to METH-based adhesive for foam fabrication, upholstered furnituremanufacturing, and mattress manufacturing. The six alternatives include acetone,acetone/heptane, nPB, water-based latex, water-based latex/synthetic, and hot meltadhesives. Part I describes both the cost and performance of the adhesive technologies(Morris and Wolf, 2000). EPA has conducted several CTSAs that are very detailed; thisproject was designed as a streamlined CTSA, which relies on a less rigorous methodologyfor evaluating the cost, performance, and the potential environmental and human healthimpacts. Particular methods used in this risk evaluation are described in Chapters 7, 8, 9,and 10 of this document, with an overview provided below.

The Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA), a nonprofit organizationlocated in Santa Monica, California, performed the research and conducted the analysisfor this part of the CTSA. IRTA was established in 1989 to assist companies in adoptinglow- and non-solvent technologies in general cleaning, precision cleaning, dry cleaning,paint stripping and in coating, adhesive and ink operations. IRTA works with individualcompanies and with whole industry groups to test and demonstrate alternatives.

2

A project initiation meeting was held on September 15, 1998 to solicit input from anumber of stakeholders on the project focus and design. The stakeholders includedrepresentatives from trade associations, adhesive formulation companies, companies thatuse adhesives, air, wastewater and hazardous waste regulatory agencies, theenvironmental community and a large electric utility. The list of attendees at the projectinitiation meeting is provided in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Adhesives CTSA Project StakeholdersName AffiliationShipra Bonsal Communities for a Better EnvironmentJack Broadbent South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictRoger Coffey Latex International West (representing Association of

Woodworking & Furnishings Suppliers)Larry Cozzo Graco Inc.Antonino Freitas La-Z-Boy WestBill Hanson EPABill Hazelgrove Imperial AdhesivesAnn Heil Los Angeles County Sanitation DistrictsSteven Isenhour Hickory SpringsJames Jones National Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthLori Kincaid University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products & Clean

TechnologiesMary Ann Lamascas Atlas Spring (representing International Sleep Products

Association)Robert Ludwig Cal/EPA's Department of Toxic Substances ControlMike Magee UpacoJohn McCormack California Bureau of Home FurnishingsTom McCreery 3M Adhesives DivisionTodd Mclntyre GulfstreamTed Meinke La-Z-Boy WestJeff Miller Atlas SpringMike Morris IRTABob Nylander Foam Craft Inc.David Pekelney A&N Technical ServicesRick Peters Covert Co., Inc.Arlan Roll Carpenter Co.Pradeep Sharma Southern California EdisonJohn Sparks EPAMichael Stenburg EPAKenneth Stevanus OSHADavid Svendsgaard EPAGary Yee California Air Resources BoardKaty Wolf IRTA

IRTA made site visits to 32 facilities in the United States to investigate how adhesiveswere used in the processes and what alternatives companies had converted to or wereplanning to convert to. The verification facilities that supplied information on cost and

3

performance included 18 foam fabricators, nine upholstered furniture manufacturers andfive mattress manufacturers. Table 1-2 shows the list of the companies and facilitiesIRTA visited for the data collection and verification. Four of the companies wish toremain anonymous and they are designated as Plant A, Plant B, Plant C and Plant D.

Table 1-2. Project Site VisitsCompany Plant Type Plant LocationAmerican Seating Upholstered Furniture Grand Rapids, MichiganAshdale Foam Fabrication Conover, North CarolinaBlue Ridge Foam Fabrication Long View, North CarolinaCountry Roads Upholstered Furniture Greenville, MichiganDixie Regency Foam Fabrication Conover, North CarolinaFoam Craft Foam Fabrication Cerritos, CaliforniaFour Seasons Upholstered Furniture El Monte, CaliforniaGuilford Foam Fabrication High Point, North CarolinaHickory Springs Foam Fabrication Los Angeles, California

Hickory, North CarolinaHighland Foam Fabrication Hickory, North CarolinaIndependent FurnitureSupply

Foam Fabrication Tupelo, Mississippi

Jamison Bedding Mattress Manufacture Gallatin, TennesseeJustice Mattress Manufacture Lebanon, MissouriLatex International Foam Fabrication Santa Fe Springs, CaliforniaLa-Z-Boy Upholstered Furniture Redlands, CaliforniaLeggett & Platt Foam Fabrication Lebanon, MissouriMarsh- Armfield Foam Fabrication High Point, North Carolina

Conover, North CarolinaMarx Foam Fabrication Hickory, North CarolinaMcKinney Mattress Manufacture Springfield, MissouriPlant A Foam Fabrication North CarolinaPlant B Foam Fabrication CaliforniaPlant C Aircraft Seat Manufacture (considered

part of Upholstered Furniture)California

Plant D Foam Fabrication MichiganPrestige Foam Fabrication Asheboro, North CarolinaSit-On-It Upholstered Furniture Brea, CaliforniaSteelcase Upholstered Furniture Tustin, California

Grand Rapids, MichiganSoutherland Mattress Manufacture Nashville, TennesseeTrendway Upholstered Furniture Holland, MichiganVintage Bedding Mattress Manufacture Industry, California

4

On November 9, 1999, IRTA held a conference that was designed to update thestakeholders and other attendees on the results of the analysis and verification at thattime. Panels of representatives from regulatory agencies and companies using adhesivesprovided information on the regulations that affect the alternative adhesives and on theissues involved in converting from one type of adhesive to another. IRTA prepared casestudies including cost analysis that describe conversions 10 companies made toalternatives and these were handed out at the conference.

Several trade associations assisted in the project goals. Some of them providedinformation on the industries for this report; some were represented as stakeholders in theproject; some assisted in identifying verification companies for site visits; and somehelped by advertising the November 9 conference. The trade associations that providedassistance during the project are listed in Table 1-3.

Table 1-3. Trade Associations That Assisted the ProjectAdhesives and Sealants Council Association of Woodworking & Furnishings Suppliers Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association International Sleep Products Association Polyurethane Foam Association

This report presents the results of the performance and cost analysis of the alternativeadhesives in the foam fabrication, upholstered furniture manufacturing and the mattressmanufacturing industries. Chapter 2 provides background information on the targetedindustries and on the characteristics of the alternative adhesive technologies. Chapter 3presents the cost and performance analysis for 23 verification plants including 14fabricators, five upholstered furniture manufacturers and four mattress manufacturers.Chapter 4, using the cost and performance analysis, discusses some of the findings.Chapter 5 draws some conclusions from this evaluation.

5

Chapter 2Background

This chapter focuses on the characteristics of the three industries that were targeted forthis project. It also summarizes and compares the characteristics of the baseline andalternative adhesive technologies that are available. Typical examples of the adhesives areprovided and discussed.

2.1. INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS

In 1997, about 830 million pounds of flexible polyurethane slabstock foam wereproduced. By 1998, slabstock foam production doubled to about 1.6 billion pounds.Slabstock foam is used in carpet underlay, furniture, bedding, packaging, transportationseating and other products where a durable and resilient cushioning material is required.There are 23 companies with about 75 pouring plants in the United States thatmanufacture the foam.

Slabstock foam is a low value, low density product, and foamers are generally locatednear their markets because of the high cost of transporting the foam. The major marketsare predominantly carpet underlay, furniture and bedding. There is a large concentrationof furniture manufacturers in the Southeastern United States and many foam plants arelocated in North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi. Flexible foam plants arealso located in Southern California, another major furniture manufacturing center.

Slabstock foam lines are all designed to produce a bun of similar cross section. The foamline is generally between 50 and 200 feet long. A typical pouring operation is shown inFigure 2-1. The height of the bun ranges from about 30 to 54 inches. The width of the bunranges from 65 to 88 inches. Foam plants cut and trim the buns into smaller pieces.Figure 2-2 shows a number of large buns finishing their cure and waiting to be shipped.

Figure 2-1. Flexible Slabstock Foam Manufacturing Operation

6

All of the foam that is manufactured is fabricated, a term that refers to cutting up thefoam into pieces that are an important component in products like furniture and bedding.About half of the foam is fabricated in foam manufacturing facilities owned by foammanufacturers. Most of the rest of the foam is fabricated by independent fabricators.Some of the foam is purchased directly by furniture and bedding manufacturers andfabricated at their sites.

Figure 2-2. Slabstock Buns Awaiting Shipment

Figure 2-3 shows the flow of the foam. Foam manufacturers produce the foam. Somefoam manufacturers fabricate the foam. Independent foam fabricators purchase foam fromthe foam producers and fabricate it. End use sector manufacturers like upholsteredfurniture manufacturers and mattress manufacturers purchase fabricated foam from foamproducers and from independent fabricators. Some of them fabricate the foam themselves.

Figure 2-3. Flow of Foam

FoamManufacturers

FoamFabricators

MattressManufacturers

UpholsteredFurniture

Manufacturers

OtherApplications

7

2.1.1. Foam Fabrication

Independent foam fabricators purchase foam from foam manufacturers. There may be asmany as 350 independent individual foam fabrication plants in the country. Many foammanufacturers with on- or off-site foam fabrication operations use the foam theymanufacture in fabrication. All of these fabricators perform fabrication services for othercompanies that manufacture bedding, upholstered furniture and other products.

Some of the foam is fabricated using adhesives and some is not. In many cases, the foamrequires a particular shape or a particular feel for an application. During fabrication,several different densities of foam or other materials like polyester fiber are bondedtogether to form a particular shape with specific characteristics. The foam used in sofaarms, for example, does not require adhesive. In contrast, different shaped pieces of foamare bonded together with adhesive to achieve a particular shape for sofa cushions. It isestimated that about one-third of the foam used in furniture manufacture and five percentof the foam used in bedding manufacture requires adhesive in the fabrication operation.

Fabricators use adhesive to bond foam-to-foam and foam-to-fiber. They generally spraythe adhesives on the foam and/or fiber and bond the pieces together. Several views of atypical fabrication operation that uses adhesive is shown in Figures 2-4 through 2-6.

In a four county area in Southern California including Los Angeles County, OrangeCounty, San Bernardino County and Riverside County, there are 121 foam fabricators.Eighty of these fabricators have fewer than 100 employees and only one of them has morethan 500 employees. The Southern California fabricators account for about one-third ofthe nation's fabricators.

8

Figure 2-4. Fabrication Operation

9

Figure 2-5. Workers Bonding Foam and Fiber

Figure 2-6. Worker Spraying Adhesive

10

2.1.2. Upholstered Furniture Manufacture

Upholstered furniture manufacturers purchase foam from foam manufacturers or foamfabricators and they use the foam to manufacture their products. Some upholsteredfurniture manufacturers make home furniture, some make office furniture and some makeboth types of furniture. Other manufacturers make seating for use in arenas and publictransportation vehicles like buses; some of these manufacturers also manufacture officechairs.

There are more than 2,600 upholstered home furniture manufacturers in the United States.Approximately 60 percent of these firms have fewer than 10 employees. Although allupholstered home furniture manufacturers use foam for their seat backs, arms, cushionsand pillows, only about 10 percent of them use adhesives in their operations. Theygenerally use adhesive to bond foam-to-fabric and foam-to-wood. Figure 2-7 shows anupholstered furniture manufacturing operation.

In a four county area in Southern California including Los Angeles County, OrangeCounty, San Bernardino County and Riverside County, there are 38 wood homeupholstered furniture manufacturers. Twenty-five of these manufacturers have fewer than100 employees and only three of them have more than 500 employees.

There are about 950 companies that manufacture wood and non-wood office furniture.Approximately 90 percent, or about 850, of these manufacture seating. Perhaps 90percent of these, or 765, use adhesives in their process. They use adhesives to bond foamto fabric, wood, metal and plastic and to bond fabric to wood, metal and plastic. Figure 2-8 shows an example of an upholstered office chair.

There are about 14 stadium seating manufacturers in the United States. Thirteen of thesemanufacturers have fewer than 25 employees. There are 26 manufacturers in the UnitedStates that make seating for buses and other public conveyances. Some of thesemanufacturers also make stadium seating. About three-quarters of the companies havefewer than 25 employees. Stadium and transportation seating requires adhesives to bondvarious substrates including wood, metal and plastic. Figure 2-9 shows an arena seat andFigure 2-10 shows a bus seat.

11

Figure 2-7. Upholstered Home Furniture Manufacturing

Figure 2-8. Typical Upholstered Office Chair

12

Figure 2-9. Typical Arena Seat

13

Figure 2-10. Typical Bus Seat

14

2.1.3. Mattress Manufacture

There are an estimated 1,270 mattress manufacturers in the United States. Ninety percentof the mattresses are manufactured by 260 plants. Most manufacturers have between oneand 50 employees. Perhaps 200 mattress manufacturers make pillow top mattresses whichare generally considered a medium to high end bedding item. These mattresses aremanufactured by using adhesive to bond the mattress itself to the pillow top. Figure 2-11shows a pillow top mattress.

In a four county area in Southern California that includes Los Angeles County, OrangeCounty, San Bernardino County and Riverside County, there are 84 mattressmanufacturers. The vast majority -- 70 percent -- of these companies have fewer than 100employees. As discussed above, about 16 percent of these companies or 13 of them,likely manufacture pillow top mattresses.

Figure 2-11. Pillow Top Mattress

2.2. ADHESIVE ALTERNATIVES

Porous substrate bonding adhesives are adhesives used to bond one or more poroussubstrates together. Porous substrates include foam, fiber, fabric and, to some extent,wood. The foam fabrication industry generally bonds foam-to-foam or foam-to-polyesterfiber. The upholstered furniture industry bonds foam to other substrates like fabric, plasticor metal or wood. The mattress industry generally bonds fabric-to-fabric when they makepillow top mattresses.

The desirable performance characteristic of adhesives used in the fabrication industry isthat the adhesive tack and bond fairly quickly. The bond should also be strong enoughthat the foam tears before the adhesive bond separates when the substrates are pulledapart. An important characteristic of adhesives in office furniture manufacture is that theadhesive bond fairly quickly but not so quickly that the workers cannot adjust thecomponents. There is a tradeoff between the tack or bond time and the so-called open

15

time, the time before the bond becomes permanent during which adjustments can bemade. This characteristic is also important in pillow top bonding in the mattressmanufacturing industry.

Most porous substrate bonding adhesives are liquid adhesives. They contain resins whichfunction as the solids that are deposited on the substrate. They generally have a carrierwhich is either a solvent or water. The carrier is emitted during the application of theadhesives and the resins are left behind to maintain the bond. Some adhesives are 100percent solids and they have no carrier.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, most of the adhesive used for porous substrate bonding inthe industries of focus was based on TCA. TCA was an effective carrier for the adhesivebecause it evaporates rapidly leaving an instant bond. The chemical has a workerexposure level (a permissible exposure level or PEL) of 350 ppm. This level is relativelyhigh, reflecting the fairly low toxicity of the chemical. TCA is not classified as a VOCthat contributes to photochemical smog. The chemical does not have a flash point.

Primarily because of the chemical's status as exempt from VOC regulations, its relativelylow toxicity and its lack of a flash point, it was used for many years by virtually allformulators of porous substrate bonding adhesives. A typical MSDS for a TCA adhesiveis shown in Appendix A; it is called "Kwikstik 2500." It contains about 77 percent TCAand small quantities of stabilizers. The balance of the adhesive, about 20 percent, is thesolids that are left on the substrate to form the bond.

In the early 1990s, TCA was designated as a Class I ozone depleting substance and, inJanuary, 1996, its production was banned worldwide under the Montreal Protocol. Asubstantial inventory of TCA remained and still remains today. A Federal tax was placedon ozone depleting substances in the U.S. to discourage use beginning in 1990. The taxwas designed to increase over time. The TCA that remained became very expensivebecause of the tax and the adhesive formulators sought other chemicals that couldfunction as carriers in their adhesives.

Adhesive vendors began offering formulations that were based on METH. Like TCA,METH evaporates very quickly leaving a strong bond, does not have a flash point and isnot classified as a VOC. Porous substrate bonding adhesives based on METH have beenused for the last several years. An MSDS for a typical METH based adhesive is shown inAppendix A. This adhesive, called "Whisper Spray," contains 62 percent METH and sixpercent mineral spirits; the balance is various resins.

In January, 1997, OSHA issued a worker exposure regulation on METH because thechemical is a suspect carcinogen. The regulation lowered the PEL from 500 ppm to 25ppm. It also established a so-called action level of 12.5 ppm. Companies that have workerexposure levels above 12.5 ppm, the action level, must monitor the exposure and mustdevelop and implement a medical surveillance program.

The medical surveillance provisions have already become effective for all sectors whereMETH is used. The engineering controls for meeting the exposure levels were effectivefor large foam fabricators (more than 150 employees) in April, 1999. Small fabricatorswith fewer than 150 employees and any employer with fewer than 20 employees had untilApril of 2000 to install the engineering controls. Most foam fabricators have fewer than

16

150 employees so they were subject to the April, 2000 date. Many mattress manufacturersand upholstered furniture manufacturers have fewer than 20 employees and the April,2000 date also applied to these companies.

In California, because of local air district regulations on toxics, companies could not useMETH based adhesives at all. Most Southern California companies used TCA basedadhesives for a much longer period than companies in other parts of the country. In about1992, the formulators began developing water-based adhesives, at that time primarily forthe Southern California market. More recently, they began offering acetone basedadhesives. The chemical was deemed exempt from VOC regulations and it could be usedin Southern California where the VOC regulations are very stringent. One hundredpercent solids or hot melt adhesives were also being investigated to replace TCA basedadhesives in California.

When the OSHA METH regulation was issued, the formulators began intensivelyinvestigating alternatives for the rest of the country as well. Acetone, water-based and hotmelt adhesives that performed well were developed. In addition, the formulators beganoffering a new adhesive based on a chemical, nPB, that was fairly new to the market.

NPB, like TCA and METH, readily evaporates and has no flash point. The chemical hasunknown but likely high toxicity based on its structural similarity to other toxicbrominated chemicals. The manufacturers have established a recommended workerexposure level of 100 ppm for NPB. The chemical is classified as a VOC and it has asmall stratospheric ozone depletion potential (ODP). EPA's Significant New AlternativesPolicy (SNAP) Program is evaluating whether to deem NPB an acceptable or anunacceptable alternative to other ozone depleting substances in the adhesives end use. Inthe meantime, NPB can be sold legally in the adhesives sector. Industrial grade NPBcontains a contaminant 2-BP, a structural isomer. 2-BP is very toxic and it has causedreproductive problems in Korean workers. Some formulations contain a very highpercentage of 2-BP.

OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) havenominated NPB and 2-BP for testing under the National Toxicology Program (NTP). Thetwo organizations have designated these two chemicals as their highest priority for testingbased on the high exposure in the adhesives sector.

Two MSDSs for NPB based adhesives are shown in Appendix A. The first, called "non-Flammable Whisper Spray," contains 70 percent NPB (also called 1-PB). The second,called "Whisper Spray," contains 38 percent NPB. It also contains 25 percent TCE. TCEis classified as a VOC and is a suspect carcinogen.

Many formulators are offering acetone based adhesives. The chemical is low in toxicityand has a worker exposure level of 750 ppm. Like TCA and METH, acetone readilyevaporates leaving a quick bond. The chemical has a very low flash point and measuresmust be taken to minimize the chance of fire or explosion. The National Fire ProtectionAssociation (NFPA) has rated acetone as an NFPA 704 level 3 flammability hazard. Statebuilding codes and fire codes are based on NFPA guidelines. The codes vary according tolocation and local fire departments have regulations that affect the amount of the adhesivethat can be stored and they require explosion proof motors and high air flow ventilationsystems. Acetone is exempt from VOC regulations.

17

In Southern California, where the VOC regulations are very stringent, acetone basedadhesives do not contain any other components. An MSDS of a typical acetoneformulation, called "Slabond 523," is shown in Appendix A. It contains 75 percentacetone. Another acetone formulation, called "3694-0," also shown in Appendix A,contains only about 30 percent acetone. It also contains about 30 percent heptane which isclassified as a VOC. This formulation and others with VOCs are used outside California.

In the early 1990s, formulators began developing one-part and two-part water-basedformulations. The early one-part water-based adhesives were based exclusively on latexand they did not bond instantly like the solvent-borne adhesives. The two-part water-based adhesives were made from synthetics like polychloroprene. They were difficult touse in equipment but did bond instantly. Recently, the formulators have developed one-part water-based adhesives that are composed of latex and a small amount of synthetics.These adhesives bond more rapidly than the one-part water-based adhesives composedonly of latex and they are also less costly than the two-part water-based adhesives.Because of these desirable characteristics, many adhesive users are likely to convert to thenew adhesives in the next few years.

An MSDS for a synthetic two-part water-based adhesive, called "Fastbond 2000-NF," isshown in Appendix A. It contains 40 percent water and 30 percent polychloroprene andresins. An MSDS for a latex one-part water-based adhesive, called "Gen-Grip l-S-4532,"is also shown in Appendix A. It contains latex and a small amount of ammonia.Ammonia is used to treat latex when it is harvested so it will remain liquid and flow.Some portion of the population has an allergy to latex and workers with this allergyshould not spray the latex adhesives. An MSDS for a one-part water-based latex with asmall amount of synthetic, called "Fabond 858," is also shown in Appendix A.

In the 1990s, hot melt adhesives which are 100 percent solids began to be used morewidely. They are heated to about 350 degrees F and are applied with specially designedspray guns. When the adhesive cools, it is cured. An MSDS for a typical thermoplastichot melt adhesive, called "07270," is shown in Appendix A.

Virtually all companies that sprayed TCA and METH adhesives did so in the openwithout ventilation systems. Companies that wish to continue using METH adhesiveswould have to purchase and install effective ventilation systems that could reduce theworker exposure level to the new legal OSHA exposure limit of 25 ppm. Somecompanies that have converted to NPB adhesives have installed ventilation systems toreduce the exposure to the manufacturer recommended level of 100 ppm. Additionalventilation may be required to protect workers from the potentially toxic adhesive,particularly if 2-PB is present in the formulations. Companies that wish to convert toacetone based adhesives must install ventilation systems as part of fire departmentregulations to keep the concentration below the lower explosion limit. Water-borneadhesives that are sprayed form aerosols that can be annoying to workers. Companies thatwish to convert to water-based adhesives should install ventilation to control the aerosolparticulates. The only alternative system that does not require a ventilation system is hotmelt adhesives.

Table 2-1 shows and compares the characteristics of the different adhesive types. Itindicates whether the chemical or blend is classified as a VOC. It provides a qualitativemeasure of the chemical's toxicity. It indicates whether the chemical contributes to

18

stratospheric ozone depletion. It designates those chemicals that have flash points.Finally, it summarizes one or more issues involved with using the alternative technology.

Table 2-1. Characteristics of Alternative Adhesive Systems

AdhesiveSystem

ClassifiedasVOC Toxicity

OzoneDepleter Flash Point Issues

TCA No Medium Yes No Production banned

METH No High No No Suspect carcinogen;heavily regulated

NPB Yes High Low No Reproductive andliver toxin; 2-BP has

high toxicity

Acetone No Low No Yes Fire regulations

AcetoneBlends

Yes Some high No Yes Fire regulations

One-PartWater-Based

No Low No No Forms aerosols;allergy to latex

Two-PartWater-Based

No Low No No Forms aerosols;equipment problems

Hot Melt No Low No No High temperatureapplication

2.3. INDUSTRY USE OF ADHESIVE ALTERNATIVES

Not all of the different adhesive types are appropriate for use in the three sectorsaddressed in this study. In foam fabrication, where large quantities of adhesive arepurchased, two-part water-based adhesives are not used. Hot melt adhesives are notappropriate for this sector either. Thus the alternatives to TCA and METH adhesives thatare being used or are appropriate for this sector are adhesives based on NPB, acetone andacetone blends and water-based one-part adhesives.

In the upholstered furniture manufacturing sector, much of the industry has converted tohot melt adhesives. The industry is also using water-based one-part and water-based two-part adhesives. Some of the industry is testing acetone based adhesives for nicheapplications. Some companies with low volume operations are using acetone blends inaerosol adhesive products.

In the mattress manufacturing sector, again, much of the industry has converted to hotmelt adhesives. Some companies with low production volume are using acetone blends inaerosol products. Another option being used by some pillow top mattress manufacturersis sewing. Instead of using an adhesive for bonding the pillow top to the mattress, thesecompanies use an automated sewing process to join the two pieces.

Table 2-2 summarizes the options for each of the industry sectors.

19

Table 2-2. Alternatives to TCA and METH Adhesives by Industry SectorAlternative Technology

Foam Fabrication

Upholstered FurnitureManufacture

Mattress Manufacture

NPB X - -

Acetone X X -

AcetoneBlends

X X X

Water-Based One-Part

X X -

Water-BasedTwo-Part

- X -

Hot Melt - X X

Sewing - - X

20

21

Chapter 3Cost and Performance Analysis

This chapter focuses on the performance and the cost of the alternative adhesivetechnologies. IRTA made site visits to all of the facilities included here. The cost analysiswas performed for 14 foam fabrication facilities represented by 12 companies, fiveupholstered furniture manufacturers, including one aircraft seat manufacturer and fourmattress manufacturers.

3.1. PERFORMANCE AND COST ANALYSIS

In some cases, the companies included here were still using METH based adhesives. Inmost cases, the companies had made a conversion to alternative adhesive technologies atsome stage in the last several years. IRTA collected information on the performance ofthe alternatives and compared the performance and cost of the traditional and newadhesive technologies. Performance and cost are intimately related. The companiesselected the alternative technology based on its cost and on whether it could perform aswell as the traditional solvent-borne technology. In many cases, the new technologyrequired a learning curve and installation of new equipment.

3.1.1. Assumptions for Cost Analysis

IRTA attempted to collect cost information on the traditional and new adhesivetechnologies adopted by each company. In some cases, the information on the traditionaltechnology was not available. In those instances, the cost data for the new technology ispresented without comparative data for the traditional technology.

The cost information for the traditional and new adhesive technologies were compared onan annual basis. Several categories of information were collected. Each of these isdiscussed below.

Capital Cost. This type of cost generally involved purchase of new equipment for usewith the alternative. Examples include ventilation systems and application equipment. Insome cases, the companies paid cash for the equipment and these cash purchases wereannualized over a ten-year equipment life. In other cases, the companies required a loanto make the purchase. In these instances, the cost was amortized over a ten-yearequipment life; it was assumed that the cost of capital is five percent.

Adhesive Cost. These costs were determined by obtaining information on the amount ofadhesive used in a year and the price each company paid for the adhesive.

Labor Cost. These costs were determined by obtaining information from each companyon the average labor rate and the number of labor hours devoted to adhesive applicationannually.

Maintenance Cost. This cost included the cost of the cleanup solvent used for cleaningthe application equipment. It also included the cost of the labor involved in the cleanup.

22

Electricity Cost. In a few cases, the companies knew their electrical costs. In most cases,however, they did not know the cost. If the cost involved installation of equipment, IRTAobtained information on the kilowatt (kW) rating of the motor or blower. IRTA alsocollected information on the usage rate of the equipment. In cases where the companiesdid not know their electrical rate, IRTA assumed an average rate of 12 cents per kilowatthour.

Training Cost. In some cases, the companies incurred a training cost when they convertedfrom the traditional to the new adhesive technology. IRTA obtained estimates from eachcompany for this cost.

Regulatory Cost. In some cases, particularly for companies in California, adhesiveoperations require a permit from the local air district. Fees are often charged by the airdistrict for the emission of certain types of chemicals, including TCA and METH. Thesecosts are the actual cost paid by the facility.

Production Adjustment Cost. In two cases, the companies converted from the traditionalto the new adhesive technology several years ago. Over that period, production increasedsubstantially. The adjustment factor was estimated by the plant personnel. The productionadjustment was made for the new adhesive technology to normalize it to the earlierproduction rate.

3.2. FOAM FABRICATION PLANTS

The cost analysis for 14 foam fabrication facilities operated by 12 companies is presentedbelow. Case studies for five of the facilities operated by four companies are presented asstand-alone documents in Appendix B. The case studies focus on the conversions at FoamCraft, Prestige, Latex International and Hickory Springs.

3.2.1. Foam Craft Inc.

Foam Craft is a large foam fabricator located in Cerritos, California. The companyhistorically used a TCA based adhesive for bonding foam-to-foam. Several years ago, thecompany began testing water-based adhesives and adopted a one-part water-basedadhesive. The company reduced their cost by converting to the water-based adhesive.Foam Craft did not want to share the detailed cost information.

3.2.2. Prestige

Prestige used TCA until 1991 when the company switched to a water-based adhesive.They used a water-based one-part adhesive for a time and switched to a water-based two-part adhesive. They were not satisfied with either of the water-based adhesives and theyhave been testing several different technologies including acetone and nPB. Currently oneline uses a water-based one-part adhesive and the other line uses an nPB based adhesive.The analysis below compares the cost of using the one-part water-based, the two-partwater-based, the acetone and the nPB adhesives.

Equipment purchases were necessary for the conversion to water-based adhesives.Prestige has two glue lines, each of which has 14 stations. They also have two additional

23

stations. The company purchased 30 spray booths at a cost of $1,400 each. The total costof the spray booths was $42,000. The company also purchased 30 HVLP spray guns at acost of $700 each, for a total cost of $21,000. Two pumps at $2,800 each were alsonecessary for a total cost of $5,600. The total capital cost amounted to $68,600. Thesepurchases would have been necessary for the acetone and the nPB as well. The acetonetechnology had an additional cost for spark arresters which carried a price of $6,000. Thetotal cost for the acetone amounted to $74,600. Assuming a cost of capital of five percentand a 10-year equipment life, the annualized capital cost for all the technologies exceptacetone is $11,182. For acetone, the annualized capital cost is $12,160.

The firm used 93,750 gallons each year of the one-part water-based adhesive at a price of$7 per gallon. The annual cost of using the one-part water-based adhesive is $656,250.The company used 67,800 gallons of the two-part water-based glue at a cost of $20 pergallon. The annual cost of this adhesive is $1,356,000. The company estimates that itwould use 36,450 gallons of acetone adhesive at a price of $6 per gallon. The annual costfor the acetone glue is $218,700. The company also indicates that it would use the sameamount, 36,450 gallons of nPB based adhesive, at a cost of $18 per gallon. The annualcost of this adhesive is $656,100.

In all four cases, the same amount of labor is required to apply the adhesive. Fortyworkers spray the glue full-time. Assuming a 40-hour work week and 50 weeks per year,each worker sprays for 2,000 hours per year. The total annual number of gluing hours is80,000. At a labor rate of $9 per hour, the labor cost amounts to $720,000 annually.

The maintenance cost for all of the technologies is the same with the exception of thetwo-part water-based adhesive. In the other cases, 420 maintenance hours are required peryear. At a labor rate of $9 per hour, the maintenance cost is $3,780 annually. For the two-part adhesive, 800 hours of maintenance per year are required. The maintenance cost forthe two-part is $7,200 annually.

The electricity cost is the same for all four technologies. The plant uses 1,500 kWh permonth. At a cost of 12 cents per kWh, the total annual electrical cost amounts to $2,160.

Training of the workers was necessary when the plant converted to water-based glues. Inthe case of the one-part and the two-part water-based adhesives, 30 employees had to betrained for about 40 hours each. Assuming a labor rate of $9 per hour, the training costamounted to $10,800. That training cost should be spread over the useful life of thetechnology. In this case, it was spread over 10 years. This leads to an annual training costof $1,080. The workers did not require training to use the acetone or nPB.

The plant has no regulatory cost for any of the technologies.

Table 3-1 shows the cost comparison for the four technologies. According to Prestige'sestimates, the lowest cost option is acetone. The company plans to convert to thistechnology over the next year.

24

Table 3-1. Annual Cost Comparison for PrestigeOne-Part

Water-BasedTwo-Part

Water-BasedAcetoneAdhesive nPB Adhesive

Capital cost $11,182 $11,182 $12,160 $11,182

Adhesive cost $656,250 $1,356,000 $218,700 $656,100

Labor cost $720,000 $720,000 $720,000 $720,000

Maintenance cost $3,780 $7,200 $3,780 $3,780

Electricity cost $2,160 $2,160 $2,160 $2,160

Training cost $1,080 $1,080 $1,080 $1,080

Total cost $1,394,452 $2,097,622 $957,880 $1,394,302

3.2.3. Latex International

Latex International fabricates foam and produces two types of foam bonded mattresses.The first type of mattress is a latex mattress for which the company bonds latex-to-latex.The second type of mattress is a polyurethane and latex mattress for which the companybonds latex-to-polyurethane foam. The company uses a one-part water-based adhesive forthe latex bonding and a different one-part water-based latex adhesive for the polyurethanefoam bonding.

Early on, the company used a METH-based adhesive. The firm converted to acetonebased adhesives and then, finally, to the water-based adhesives they use today. LatexInternational used 4,884 gallons of acetone adhesive annually. At a cost of $7 per gallon,total annual costs for the acetone adhesive amounted to $34,188. The firm now uses3,420 gallons per year of the one-part water-based latex adhesive. The cost of the water-based adhesive is $8 per gallon; the total cost of the water-based adhesives is $27,360annually.

Latex International has 10 employees that apply adhesives. When the acetone adhesiveswere used, each employee worked 50 weeks per year and 40 hours per week. At a laborrate of $9.80 per hour, the labor cost was $196,000. The number of workers and laborhours has not changed with the conversion to water-based adhesives.

When the company used the acetone adhesives, 50 hours of maintenance were requiredeach year. At a labor rate of $9.80 per hour, the total annual maintenance cost was $490.The water-based systems require less maintenance time, about 38 hours per year. Thetotal maintenance cost of the water-based systems is $372 per year.

When acetone based adhesives were used, the company had to purchase spark arresters ata cost of $800. Assuming the company paid cash for these purchases and that they wereused for two years, the annual cost amounted to $400.

The electricity cost remained the same when the company converted from acetone towater-based adhesives. The kWh usage is 1,000 per month or 12,000 per year. At a costof 12 cents per kWh, the total electrical cost is $1,440 annually.

25

Latex Internationa] had a training cost for the workers so they could learn to apply theone-part latex. The synthetic water-based was easier to apply and there was no trainingrequired. Four workers required 120 hours each for training. At a labor rate of $9.80 perhour, the training cost amounted to $4,704. Assuming this training cost is spread over 10years, the annual cost was $470.

Latex International has always had two large spray booths. There were permit fees for theacetone booth and for the water booths. Each booth permit costs $176 per year for a totalannual permit cost of $352.

Table 3-2 shows the cost comparison for Latex International for the acetone and thewater-based adhesives.

Table 3-2. Annual Cost Comparison for Latex InternationalAcetone Adhesive Water-Based Adhesive

Capital cost $400 -

Adhesive cost $34,188 $27,360

Labor cost $196,000 $196,000

Maintenance cost $490 $372

Electricity cost $1,440 $1,440

Training cost - $470

Regulatory cost $352 $352

Total cost $232,870 $225,994

The cost to Latex International for using the water-based adhesives is three percent lowerthan the cost of using the acetone adhesives. The labor cost, which is the same in bothcases, dominates the cost.

3.2.4. Hickory Springs--Conover

Hickory Springs has 16 stations where adhesive is applied. In the Conover, NorthCarolina plant, when the company used METH based adhesives, they had fans in theplant but no ventilation system as such. With the conversion to acetone based adhesives,Hickory Springs installed ventilation systems that collect from the floor at 11 of thestations and at five of the stations, a fan pulls the air outside.

The capital cost of the ventilation system equipment for use with the acetone adhesiveswas $11,000. Using a cost of capital of five percent and a 10 year life of the equipment,the annualized cost for the capital purchase is $1,793.

The Hickory Springs Conover plant used 11,000 gallons of METH based adhesives andstill uses the same amount of acetone based adhesive. The cost of the METH adhesivewas $5 per gallon for a total annual cost of $55,000. The cost of the acetone adhesive is$6 per gallon for a total annual cost of $66,000.

26

Sixteen employees apply the acetone adhesives, the same number that applied the METHadhesive. Assuming a 50 week year and 40 hours a week, the employees devote 32,000hours to applying adhesives. At an average labor rate of $9 per hour, the labor costamounts to $288,000 for both the METH and acetone based adhesives.

Hickory Springs indicates that 267 hours per year were devoted to maintenance for theMETH based adhesives; the same amount of maintenance is required for the acetoneadhesives. At a labor rate of $9 per hour, the maintenance labor in both cases is $2,403.

The electrical cost increased when the company converted from METH to acetone basedadhesives. The company now uses 875 kWh per month. At a kWh cost of 12 cents, theannual electrical cost is $1,260.

There was no training cost because applying the acetone and METH adhesives is similar.

The conversion to acetone based adhesives did not change Hickory Springs' insurancepremiums because of the flammability of acetone. There were no premium adjustments aslong as the company met the insurance company recommendations.

Table 3-3 shows the cost comparison for Hickory Springs for the METH and acetonebased adhesives.

Table 3-3. Annual Cost Comparison for Hickory Springs--ConoverMETH Adhesive Acetone Adhesive

Capital cost - $1,793

Adhesive cost $55,000 $66,000

Labor cost $288,000 $288,000

Maintenance cost $2,403 $2,403

Electricity cost - $1,260

Total cost $345,403 $359,456

The figures show that the cost of using the acetone adhesives is higher by about fourpercent. The cost is higher primarily because the acetone based adhesive is slightly morecostly than the METH based adhesive for the plant.

3.2.5. Hickory Springs--City of Commerce

The City of Commerce Hickory Springs plant in California exited the foam fabricationbusiness from 1991 to 1998. In 1998, when the company decided to reenter the market,the company examined and adopted a water-based one-part adhesive. This adhesive wasmore difficult to use. When an acetone adhesive, which was more forgiving, becameavailable, the company decided to convert to it. The cost analysis presented herecompares the water-based one-part and the acetone based adhesive.

27

Hickory Springs has always had a spray booth for applying the adhesives. Thus no newbooths were necessary for the conversion to water-based adhesives. The company had tomove some of the electrical outlets 50 feet away from the acetone storage area and thebooth. The cost of the improvements was about $1,000. Assuming the company paid cashfor this work and assuming a 10-year equipment life, the annual capital cost amounted to$100.

When Hickory Springs used water-based adhesive, they used 1,080 gallons per year. At acost of $7 per gallon, the annual adhesive cost was $7,560. After the conversion, thecompany used 1,200 gallons of acetone adhesive at a cost of $6.50 per gallon. The annualadhesive cost amounted to $7,800.

Ten employees have always applied the adhesives. The plant manager indicates that therewas much more maintenance time required for the water-based adhesives. He keptrecords of the workers' labor time and he estimates that 1,944 hours were devoted toapplying the water-based adhesives and maintenance activity annually. At the company'saverage labor rate of $12.26 per hour, the annual labor cost with the water-based adhesivewas $23,833. The number of labor and maintenance hours used for the acetone basedadhesives is less, at 1,296 hours per year. The annual labor and maintenance cost for theacetone based adhesives is $15,889.

When the company used water-based adhesives, the monthly electrical usage was 149kWh. At a cost of 12 cents per kWh, the annual cost of electricity was $215. Theelectrical usage declined to 99 kWh per month after the conversion to acetone adhesives.The annual cost of electricity with acetone adhesives is $143.

Similarly to the Conover plant, there were no acetone related insurance premiumadjustments at the City of Commerce plant. The plant met the insurance companyrecommendations.

The plant manager estimates that the company is more efficient after the conversion toacetone based adhesives. The company was only three-fourths as efficient when thewater-based adhesive was used. Thus the cost figures must be adjusted using a productionfactor. The costs for the acetone adhesive provided below were adjusted by multiplyingby 0.75.

Table 3-4 compares the costs for Hickory Springs for the acetone and the water-basedadhesives. The cost to Hickory Springs of using the water-based adhesive was 43 percenthigher than the cost of using the acetone based adhesive.

Table 3-4. Annual Cost Comparison for Hickory Springs--City of CommerceWater-Based Adhesive Acetone Adhesive

Capital cost - $100Adhesive cost $7,560 $7,800Labor/maintenance cost $23,833 $15,889Electricity cost $215 $143Total cost $31,608 $23,932Production adjusted total cost $31,608 $17,949

28

3.2.6. Marsh-Armfield—Conover

Marsh-Armfield is a foam fabricator located in Conover, North Carolina. The companyused a TCA based adhesive for several years. When the chemical became expensive, thecompany tried a one-part water-based adhesive but it didn't work well for them. Marsh-Armfield has converted to a NPB based adhesive and is using it exclusively today.

Prior to the conversion, Marsh-Armfield used 32 drums or 1,760 gallons of TCA basedadhesives. At a cost of $7.65 per gallon, the total adhesive cost was $13,464 annually. Atthis stage, the company uses 24 drums of NPB adhesive per year at a cost of $16 pergallon. The total cost of purchasing the NPB adhesives amounts to $21,120 annually.

The company has 12 glue stations, and 12 workers apply the adhesives. Assuming a 50week year and a 40 hour workweek, each worker devotes 2,000 hours per year to thespraying operation. The company's total labor hours amount to 24,000. Marsh-Armfield'slabor rate is $8.25 per hour. The total labor cost with both the TCA and NPB adhesives is$198,000.

There has been no change in the cost and frequency of maintenance with the conversionfrom TCA to NPB adhesives. No training was required to make the conversion from TCAto NPB adhesives.

Marsh-Armfield installed booths when they tested the water-based adhesives. Thecompany fabricated their own ventilation system which is now used together with thebooths with the NPB adhesive. Each of the booths has a one-third horsepower blower.The electric load is 375 kWh per month or 4,500 kWh per year. Assuming an electricitycost of 12 cents per kWh, the total electrical cost of using the NPB adhesive is $540annually.

Table 3-5 shows the cost comparison for the TCA and the NPB adhesives for Marsh-Armfield. The cost of using the NPB adhesive is four percent higher than the cost ofusing the TCA adhesive.

Table 3-5. Annual Cost Comparison for Marsh-Armfield--ConoverTCA Adhesive NPB Adhesive

Adhesive cost $13,464 $21,120Labor cost $198,000 $198,000Electricity cost - $540Total cost $211,464 $219,660

3.2.7. Marsh-Armfield--High Point

Marsh-Armfield, located in High Point, North Carolina, is an independent fabricator with35 employees. Much of their foam goes into seat backs for buses. The company usedMETH based adhesives for many years and about a year and a half ago converted to anNPB adhesive. The NPB adhesive also contains TCE.

The company has always had a ventilation system and no additional ventilation wasinstalled after the conversion.

29

Marsh-Armfield used about 5.5 drums per month of the METH adhesive. This amounts to3,630 gallons per year. At a cost of $8 per gallon, the annual adhesive cost was $29,040.After the conversion to the NPB/TCE adhesive, the company reduced their adhesive useto about 3.5 drums per month or 2,310 gallons per year. The cost of the NPB/TCEadhesive is $16 per gallon. The total annual adhesive cost for the company is now$36,960.

Marsh-Armfield has 13 adhesive application stations and seven of them are used everyday. Nine workers apply the adhesive during one shift per day and their labor rate is $8per hour. Assuming the workers work a 40 hour week 50 weeks per year, the total annuallabor cost is $144,000. The labor cost has not changed since the conversion to theNPB/TCE adhesive.

The workers spend about 25 hours a year maintaining the spray equipment. At a labor rateof $8 per hour, the labor maintenance cost is $200 annually. The workers used 100gallons of METH for cleanup. At $6 per gallon, the cleanup solvent cost was $600annually. The total maintenance cost is $800 per year and the plant manager indicates thatthis cost has not changed with the conversion.

The company uses about 500 kWh per month to run the ventilation system. At a cost of12 cents per kWh, the annual electricity cost amounts to $720. This cost has not changedsince the conversion to the NPB based adhesive.

Table 3-6 presents the cost comparison for the METH and NPB adhesive for Marsh-Armfield. The cost of using the NPB based adhesive is about five percent higher than thecost of using the METH adhesive.

Table 3-6. Annual Cost Comparison for Marsh-Armfield--High PointMETH Adhesive NPB Adhesive

Adhesive cost $29,040 $36,960Labor cost $144,000 $144,000Maintenance cost $800 $800Electricity cost $720 $720Total cost $174,560 $182,480

3.2.8. Plant A

Plant A, an independently owned foam fabricator, is located in North Carolina. Thecompany fabricates between 500 and 700 pieces per day and one-third of their volume isused by one chair manufacturer. In the past, the company used a METH based adhesive.Plant A has tested several different types of adhesives but recently converted to anacetone adhesive.

Plant A installed four spray booths in anticipation of the conversion to acetone. The costof the spray booths amounted to $25,000. Assuming a cost of capital of five percent andan equipment life of 10 years, the annual capital cost is $4,075.

30

The company used about one drum of METH adhesive every four days or 3,438 gallonsper year. The cost of the METH adhesive was $8 per gallon. The total cost of the METHadhesive was $27,504 per year. About seven percent less acetone adhesive or 3,197gallons are required annually. At an adhesive cost of $11 per gallon, the total annual costof the acetone adhesive is $35,167.

Four workers spray adhesives and the average labor rate is $13 per hour. Assuming eachworker works a 40-hour week for 50 weeks per year, the total labor cost is $104,000. Thelabor with the METH and the acetone adhesives is the same.

The workers spend 50 hours per year in maintaining the spray equipment. At the laborrate of $13 per hour, the labor maintenance cost is $650 per year. About 50 gallons ofpaint thinner at a cost of $4 per gallon are used for the cleanup. The total annualmaintenance cost amounts to $850. The maintenance practices did not change with theconversion from METH to acetone adhesives.

The ventilation system uses 625 kWh per month. At a cost of 12 cents per kWh, theelectricity cost amounts to $900 annually.

Table 3-7 shows the cost comparison for the METH and acetone adhesives for Plant A.The cost of using the acetone adhesive is about 10 percent higher than the cost of usingthe METH adhesive.

Table 3-7. Annual Cost Comparison for Plant AMETH Adhesive Acetone Adhesive

Capital cost - $4,075Adhesive cost $27,504 $35,167Labor cost $104,000 $104,000Maintenance cost $850 $850Electricity cost - $900Total cost $132,354 $144,992

3.2.9. Guilford Fabricators

Guilford, a small fabricator with about 25 employees, is located in High Point, NorthCarolina. The company historically used a METH-based adhesive but recently convertedto an NPB based adhesive.

Guilford installed five spray booths at the adhesive stations to provide ventilation to theworkers when they spray the adhesives. The booths each cost $1,000. Assuming a 10-yearlifetime for the equipment and a five percent cost of capital, the annualized cost of thecapital investment is $815.

Guilford used 1,375 gallons annually of the METH based adhesive. At a cost of $8.50 pergallon, the total annual cost of using the METH adhesive was $11,688. The companyreduced their adhesive use to 460 gallons after the conversion to the NPB adhesive. Thecost of the NPB adhesive is $16.50 per gallon and the total annual cost for purchasing theadhesive is $7,590.

31

Five workers spray the adhesives. Guilford pays the workers an average rate of $7.50 perhour. Assuming the workers spray eight hours per day for 50 weeks per year, the totalannual labor cost amounts to $75,000. The labor cost has not changed since theconversion from METH to NPB based adhesives.

The workers spent about 50 hours per year on maintenance of the spray equipment whenthe METH adhesives were used. At a labor rate of $7.50 per hour, the labor maintenancecost amounts to $375 annually. Guilford indicates that the cost of the chemical used inmaintenance is negligible. In the case of the NPB adhesive, about three hours per monthor 36 hours per year are required to change the filter material for the ventilation system inaddition to the cleanup labor. The total labor hours are now 86. At a labor coat of $7.50per hour, the labor cost with the NPB adhesive is $645.

The ventilation system uses 500 kWh of electricity per month. Assuming a cost of 12cents per kWh, the annual electricity cost is now $720.

Table 3-8 below shows the cost comparison for Guilford for the METH and the NPBadhesives. The cost of using the NPB adhesives is 2.6 percent less than the cost of usingthe METH adhesive.

Table 3-8. Annual Cost Comparison for Guilford FabricatorsMETH Adhesive NPB Adhesive

Capital cost - $815Adhesive cost $11,688 $7,590Labor cost $75,000 $75,000Maintenance cost $375 $645Electricity cost - $720Total cost $87,063 $84,770

3.2.10. Marx Industries

Marx, an independent foam fabricator, is located in Conover, North Carolina. Thecompany used a METH based adhesive in the past and converted to an NPB adhesiveabout a year and a half ago.

When Marx converted to the NPB adhesive, they installed four fans to provide ventilationfor the workers spraying the adhesive. Each of the fans cost $800 for a total cost of$3,200. Assuming a 10-year lifetime for the fans and a five percent cost of capital, theannualized capital cost amounts to $522.

Marx used about nine drums per week of the METH adhesive. Assuming the companyoperates 50 weeks per year, the total adhesive use is 24,750 gallons annually. The cost ofthe METH adhesive is $7.70 per gallon. The total annual cost of the METH adhesive was$190,575. Marx estimates that they now used half the amount of NPB adhesive or 12,375gallons per year. The cost of the NPB adhesive is $15 per gallon. The total cost of usingthe NPB adhesive is $185,625 annually.

32

Sixteen workers apply the adhesives. The average labor rate is $9.50 per hour. Assumingthe workers work a 40 hour week for 50 weeks a year, the total labor cost for applyingboth the METH and the NPB based adhesive is $304,000.

The workers spent 800 hours a year on maintenance of the spray equipment. Using theaverage labor rate, the maintenance labor cost with the METH and the NPB adhesives is$7,600. About 200 gallons of METH were used for cleaning the spray equipment and thesame amount of NPB is used today. The cost of the METH and the NPB is $6 and $12per gallon respectively. The total maintenance cost with the METH adhesive was $8,800annually. The total maintenance cost with the NPB adhesive is $10,000 annually.

The electricity use after installation of the ventilation system is 1,200 kWh per month. Ata cost of 12 cents per kWh, the electricity cost is $1,728.

Table 3-9 shows the cost comparison for Marx in using the METH and the NPB basedadhesives. The cost of using the two types of adhesives is comparable.

Table 3-9. Annual Cost Comparison for Marx IndustriesMETH Adhesive NPB Adhesive

Capital cost - $522Adhesive cost $190,575 $185,625Labor cost $304,000 $304,000Maintenance cost $8,800 $10,000Electricity cost - $1,728Total cost $503,375 $501,875

3.2.11. Ashdale Foam

Ashdale Foam has used a METH based adhesive for many years. For the last year or so,the company has been testing NPB based adhesives. Half of the production currently isMETH adhesives and half is NPB adhesives. When one drum of adhesive is empty, thecompany switches to the other kind of adhesive. The analysis below compares the costsof using METH adhesive exclusively and the cost of using all NPB adhesive exclusively.

When Ashdale began using NPB based adhesives, they installed a ventilation system at acost of $11,000. Assuming a 10-year equipment life and a five percent cost of capital, theannual cost of the ventilation system is $1,793.

Ashdale uses about one drum of adhesive every three weeks or 953 gallons per year. Thecost of the METH adhesive is $9.70 per gallon. The annual cost of using the METHadhesive is $9,244. The company uses the same amount of NPB adhesive which is muchmore costly, at $14 per gallon. The total annual cost of using the NPB based adhesive is$13,342.

Ashdale has six glue stations and five workers apply the adhesives. The company'saverage labor rate is $7.50 per hour. The company works one shift and, assuming eachworker spends 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year applying adhesive, the total annual laborcost is $75,000. The labor cost is the same with the METH and the NPB based adhesives.

33

About 200 labor hours a year are required for equipment maintenance. At the labor rate of$7.50 per hour, the labor cost is $1,500. About 200 gallons of METH is used for thecleanup activities. At a METH cost of $6 per gallon, the chemical cost is $1,200. Thetotal maintenance cost for the METH adhesive is $2,700. If the company convertedexclusively to NPB based adhesives, the labor cost of maintenance would be the same, at$1,500. About 200 gallons of NPB would be required for maintenance. At a cost of $14per gallon, this amounts to $2,800. The total maintenance cost assuming a completeconversion would be $4,300 annually.

The ventilation system installed to control exposure to NPB uses 500 kWh per month.Assuming an electricity cost of 12 cents per kWh, the electricity cost for the NPB basedadhesives is $720 annually.

Table 3-10 compares the cost of using METH and NPB based adhesives exclusively forthe company. The labor cost dominates the total costs. Even so, the cost of using the NPBadhesives is more than nine percent higher than the cost of using the METH adhesives.

Table 3-10. Annual Cost Comparison for Ashdale FoamMETH Adhesive NPB Adhesive

Capital cost - $1,793Adhesive cost $9,244 $13,342Labor cost $75,000 $75,000Maintenance cost $2,700 $4,300Electricity cost - $720Total cost $86,944 $95,155

3.2.12. Plant B

This company is located in the Southern California area. Plant B uses a METH basedadhesive to bond foam-to-foam which is used in seat cushions for furniture. The companyproduces as many as 250,000 pieces per year.

Plant B uses 400 gallons of METH adhesive per month or 4,800 gallons per year. Thecost of the adhesive is $9.80 per gallon. The total annual cost of adhesive is $47,040.

Plant B operates for one shift during which four employees spray adhesives. Assumingeach worker sprays for 8 hours a day 50 weeks a year, the total labor hours are 8,000. Theaverage labor rate ranges from $5 to $7 per hour. Assuming a labor rate of $6 per hour,the total annual labor cost is $48,000.

Each of the four workers spends about 25 hours a year for maintenance. Assuming a laborrate of $6 per hour, the annual maintenance cost is $600.

Table 3-11 shows Plant B's costs for using the METH based adhesive.

34

Table 3-11. Annual Cost for Plant BMETH Adhesive

Adhesive cost $47,040

Labor cost $48,000

Maintenance cost $600

Total cost $95,640

3.2.13. Blue Ridge

Blue Ridge is a foam fabricator located in Longview, North Carolina. The company hastwo operations. In the first operation, the company bonds foam to medium densityfiberboard (MDF); in the second operation, the company bonds foam-to-foam. In thefoam-to-MDF operation, Blue Ridge is currently using a two-part water-based adhesive.In the foam-to-foam operation, Blue Ridge is using a one-part water-based glue. Thecompany plans to convert to an acetone based adhesive in both operations. The analysispresented here compares the cost of using the two-part water-based and the acetone basedadhesives.

When Blue Ridge converted to the water-based adhesive, they installed ventilationequipment at a cost of $22,000 for controlling the aerosols. Assuming a cost of capital offive percent and a 10-year equipment life, the annual capital cost amounts to $3,586.Conversion to the acetone adhesive requires a capital expenditure of $36,000. Making thesame assumptions as before, the annual cost of the capital equipment for the acetoneadhesive is $5,868.

Blue Ridge uses 1,375 gallons of the two-part water-based adhesive each year. The costof the adhesive is $16 per gallon. The total cost of using the two-part adhesive is $22,000annually. Blue Ridge estimates the company will use the same amount of acetoneadhesive after the conversion. The cost of the acetone adhesive is lower, at $8 per gallon.The total annual cost of using the acetone adhesive is $11,000.

Four workers apply the adhesives today and the same number of workers would apply theacetone adhesives. The average labor rate is $8.25 per hour. Assuming the workers work50 weeks a year and five days a week, the annual labor cost amounts to $66,000.

About 50 hours per year are devoted to maintenance for the two-part water-based system.The same level of maintenance is expected after the conversion to acetone basedadhesives. There are no chemical costs for the water-based adhesive cleanup. It isestimated that about 20 gallons of acetone will be required for the cleanup each year. At acost of $4 per gallon for acetone, this amounts to $80 annually. Assuming a labor rate of$8.25 per hour, the total yearly maintenance cost for the water-based adhesive is $413.The total yearly maintenance cost for the acetone based adhesive is $493.

The ventilation system currently uses 900 kWh per month. At a cost of 12 cents per kWh,the annual electricity cost is $1,296. The company expects the electricity cost to remainthe same after the conversion to acetone adhesives.

35

Blue Ridge trained their workers when the company converted to the water-basedadhesives. Each of the four workers received three days of training. Assuming the laborrate of $8.25 per hour, the training cost was $792. Spreading this cost over 10 yearsindicates that the training cost amounts to $79 per year. Blue Ridge does not expect theworkers will require training when the company converts to acetone adhesives.

Table 3-12 shows the cost comparison for the two-part water-based and the acetoneadhesives. The cost for the two-part water-based adhesive is higher than the cost of theacetone adhesive, largely because of the adhesive price. It is worth noting that the one-part water-based adhesive used by Blue Ridge is $8 per gallon, the same price as theacetone adhesive. The cost comparison for the one-part water-based adhesive and theacetone adhesive would be comparable.

Table 3-12. Annual Cost Comparison for Blue RidgeWater-BasedTwo-Part

Adhesive Acetone AdhesiveCapital cost $3,586 $5,868Adhesive cost $22,000 $11,000Labor cost $66,000 $66,000Maintenance cost $413 $493Electricity cost $1,296 $1,296Training cost $79 -Total cost $93,374 $84,652

3.2.14. Dixie Regency

Dixie Regency is a foam fabricator located in Conover, North Carolina. The company ispart of Hickory Springs, a larger foam manufacturer and fabricator. The companyproduces about 540,000 pieces annually. The company has been using acetone adhesivesfor some time.

Dixie Regency has two operations. In one, a traditional spray operation, foam is bondedto fiber. In the other operation, an automated laminator is used to bond foam-to-foam.This analysis summarizes the cost to the company of using the acetone adhesive in thelaminator.

The cost of the automated laminator was $80,000. Assuming a 10-year equipmentlifetime and a five percent cost of capital, the annual cost of the equipment is $13,040.

Dixie Regency uses about 3,000 gallons of adhesive per year. The cost of the adhesive forthe automated laminator is $4.95 per gallon. The total annual adhesive cost amounts to$14,850.

Three workers are involved in the laminator operation. The labor rate is $9 per hour.Assuming a 40 hour work week and that the workers work 50 weeks per year, the laborcost is $54,000 annually.

The workers spend about 40 minutes each day on maintenance of the equipment.Assuming a labor rate of $9 per hour, the annual maintenance labor cost is $1,500. About

36

200 gallons of acetone are used to clean the equipment each year. At a cost of $5 pergallon, the total chemical cost is $1,000. The total maintenance cost is $2,500 annually.

The laminator uses 375 kWh per month. At a cost of 12 cents per kWh, the total annualelectricity cost is $540.

Table 3-13 shows the cost to Dixie Regency for using the acetone adhesive.

Table 3-13. Annual Cost for Dixie RegencyAcetone Adhesives

Capital cost $13,040Adhesive cost $14,850Labor cost $54,000Maintenance cost $2,500Electricity cost $540Total cost $84,930

3.3. ANALYSIS OF UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS

Cost analysis is presented for five companies. One of these companies--La-Z-Boy West--manufactures upholstered home and office furniture. Sit-On-It manufactures upholsteredoffice chairs. Country Roads manufactures and remanufactures public seating. AmericanSeating makes seating for office, auditorium and transportation applications. Plant Cmanufactures aircraft seating. Individual stand-alone case studies for La-Z-Boy West, Sit-On-It, American Seating and Country Roads are presented in Appendix B.

3.3.1. La-Z-Boy West

La-Z-Boy converted from TCA based adhesives to water-based adhesives on January 2,1992. For the last several years, the company has used both a one-part and a two-partwater-based adhesive for their bonding applications. The two-part adhesive was used forbatting-to-foam applications because the one-parts available at the time were too slow totack and they matted the batting against the polyurethane foam. The new one-part water-based adhesives are faster and now are used in all of La-Z-Boy's residential applications.A two-part water-based adhesive is still used in limited quantities in office seatingapplications. The cost analysis performed here compares the TCA adhesive with one-partwater-based adhesive used in residential applications.

La-Z-Boy installed ceiling fans and pressure pots when they converted to the water-basedsystems so they wouldn't have to use the pump. After the conversion to the one-partwater-based adhesives, the pumping system and pressure pots were no longer used sincethe adhesives are delivered with a gravity feed system. The cost of the fans which are stillin use was $600. Assuming an additional 5-year lifetime for the fans, the annual capitalcost is $120.

Prior to the conversion, the company used 2,880 gallons of TCA adhesives each year. Atan adhesive cost of $10 per gallon, the total cost of the TCA adhesives was $28,800annually.

37

The company converted to a combination of a one-part water-based and a two-part water-based adhesive. Through optimization, they reduced their adhesive use by more than half.With the conversion to the one-part water-based exclusively, La-Z-Boy is using two 110gallon totes each month. The total adhesive use is now 2,640 gallons annually. At a costof $6 per gallon, the total yearly cost of the adhesive is $15,840.

The company had three workers when the TCA adhesives were used. At this stage, thecompany still has three workers that apply adhesives. Assuming the three workers spend50 weeks per year at 40 hours each week at a labor rate of $18.90 per hour, the labor costamounts to $113,400 annually.

For the TCA adhesives, maintenance requirements were 80 hours per year for drainingthe lines and guns once a month. At a labor rate of $18.90 per hour, the maintenancelabor cost was $1,512 annually. The company also used 40 gallons of TCA annually forcleanup. At a cost of $7.20 per gallon, the TCA cost amounted to $288 per year. Totalannual costs for the solvent and the cleanup labor hours were $1,800 per year. With theconversion to the one-part adhesive, the labor requirement is about 260 hours per year.Assuming a labor cost of $18.90, this amounts to $4,914 annually. Plain water is nowused for the cleanup.

With the TCA adhesives, La-Z-Boy used 750 kWh per month of electricity. At a cost of12 cents per kWh, the total annual cost of electricity amounted to $1,080. The electricityuse from running the fans increased with the adoption of the water-based adhesive. Afterthe conversion to the one-part water-based system, the electricity costs amounted to$3,600 annually.

A training cost was incurred to make the transition to the water-based systems. It took La-Z-Boy's best employee about three weeks or 120 hours to optimize the system. At a laborrate of $18.90 per hour, the total training cost was $2,268. Over the 10-year system life,this amounts to $227 annually.

La-Z-Boy had three spray booths when they used the TCA adhesive and they still havethree spray booths. The permit fees on the booths amount to $176 each. La-Z-Boy paidabout three cents per pound for TCA emissions and pays nothing in emission fees today.The total regulatory cost with the water-based adhesives is $528 annually. It is assumedthat TCA accounted for 70 percent of the 2,880 gallons of TCA adhesive used by thecompany each year. On this basis, the emission fees for TCA were 2,016 gallons or22,176 pounds annually. At a cost of three cents per pound, the emission fees were $665per year. The total regulatory cost with the TCA adhesives was $1,193 annually.

Over the last eight years, La-Z-Boy has increased their production from 550 units per dayto 800 units per day. The production has increased by 45.5 percent. It is necessary toaccount for the production increase by the facility over the last several years.

Table 3-14 shows the cost comparison for La-Z-Boy for the TCA and the one-part water-based adhesive scenario. A production adjustment has been made on the total costs in theTCA adhesive scenario. The TCA costs have been multiplied by 1.455 to account for the45.5 percent production increase since TCA based adhesives were used.

38

Table 3-14. Annual Cost Comparison for La-Z-BoyTCA Adhesive Water-Based Adhesive

Capital cost - $120Adhesive cost $28,800 $15,840Labor cost $113,400 $113,400Maintenance cost $1,800 $4,914Electricity cost $1,080 $3,600Training cost - $227Regulatory cost $1,193 $528Total cost $146,273 $138,629Production adjusted cost $212,827 $138,629

The cost of using the water-based adhesives is lower by about 35 percent than the cost ofusing the TCA adhesive after the production adjustment is made.

3.3.2. Sit-On-It

Sit-On-It was started in 1996 and makes only office chairs at the Brea facility inCalifornia. The owner worked at other manufacturing facilities where TCA basedadhesives were used. When he started up the business, he considered using METH,water-based and hot melt adhesives. He decided on hot melt and has changed glues threetimes to optimize the adhesives for Sit-On-It's process.

About 70 percent of the 200,000 chairs that are produced each year are made on anautomated line and 30 percent on a manual line. The glue is used to bond foam-to-woodand foam-to-fabric. The capital cost of the conveyorized automated line the companypurchased to use the hot melt adhesives was $50,000. Assuming a 10-year life for theequipment and a cost of capital of five percent, the total annual equipment cost is $8,150.

Sit-On-It uses 50,000 pounds per year of two different types of hot melt adhesive. Theweighted cost of the adhesive is about $1.86 per pound. The total cost of the adhesive is$3,300 annually.

Four employees are involved in applying the adhesive and upholstering. Each employeedevotes 50 weeks per year and 40 hours per week to applying adhesive. At a labor rate of$11 per hour, the total labor cost is $88,000 annually.

The employees spend about 40 hours per year in maintaining the equipment. Thisinvolves cleaning the belt every day and changing the filter in the head every three weeks.At a labor rate of $11 per hour, this maintenance cost amounts to $440 per year.

The electricity use for the operation amounts to 2,150 kWh per month. At a cost per kWhof 10 cents, the rate paid by Sit-On-It, the total annual electrical cost is $2,580 per year.Gas is used for the hot melt application. Eight therms per month are used at a cost of 62cents per therm. The total annual cost for using gas is $60.

39

In this case, since the company used only hot melt adhesives since it began operation, thecost analysis shown in Table 3-15 includes only the cost of using only the one kind ofadhesive. The values of Table 3-15 show that the cost of production amounts to about$0.965 per chair.

Table 3-15. Annual Cost for Sit-On-ItCapital cost $8,150

Adhesive cost $93,700

Labor cost $88,000

Maintenance cost $440

Electricity cost $2,580

Gas cost $60

Total cost $192,930

3.3.3. American Seating

American Seating makes seating for transportation, office and auditorium applicationslike arena and bus seating. The company manufactures 500 seats per day. AmericanSeating uses adhesive to bond foam-to-metal, foam-to-vinyl and vinyl-to-metal.

The company uses an acetone/hexane adhesive but would like to identify and implementa water-based system. The company uses 5,270 gallons of the solventborne adhesive peryear. At a cost of $12.50 per gallon, the annual adhesive cost is $65,875.

Three employees apply adhesives. Assuming 50 weeks per year and 40 hours per week,6,000 labor hours are used in the application of adhesives. At an hourly labor rate of$19.50, the annual cost of labor is $117,000.

About 75 hours per year of maintenance time are required. Again assuming a labor rate of$19.50 per hour, the annual maintenance labor is $1,463. About 55 gallons of cleanupsolvent are used in the maintenance operation. At a cost of $8 per gallon, the solventcleanup cost is $440 per year. Total labor and solvent maintenance cost is $1,903annually.

Electrical usage for applying the adhesives is 8,000 kWh per month. At a cost of 12 centsper kWh, the total annual electrical cost is $11,520.

Table 3-16 shows the costs for American Seating's adhesive operation. The companymakes bus seats which are much larger than office chairs. Assuming the company makes500 seats per day, 250 days per year, the total number of seats manufactured annually is125,000. The values of Table 3-16 show the cost for producing each chair is about $1.57.

40

Table 3-16. Annual Cost for American SeatingCapital cost -Adhesive cost $65,875Labor cost $117,000Maintenance cost $1,903Electrical cost $11,520Total cost $196,298

3.3.4. Country Roads

Country Roads manufactures and remanufactures public seating for arenas, auditoriumsand theaters. The firm produces 200,000 chairs per year. Country Roads has two spraybooths for spraying adhesive used to bond foam-to-wood, foam-to-steel and foam-to-plastic fabric.

In the past, the company used METH based adhesives. Country Roads is in the process ofconverting to alternatives. At this stage, the company has identified a hot melt adhesivethat is suitable for 90 percent of their operation. Country Roads is still in the process oftesting alternatives for the foam-to-plastic fabric application. The costs for the hot meltalternative are not available because the company has not yet completed the conversion.The analysis here focuses on the costs of using METH adhesives.

About 2,200 gallons of METH adhesive were used annually. At a cost of $11.50 pergallon, the total cost for purchasing adhesive amounted to $25,300 per year.

Eight employees are involved in applying the adhesive. Assuming each employee works50 weeks per year and 40 hours per week, the labor hours amount to 16,000 annually. Ata labor rate of $11.20 per hour, the yearly labor cost is $179,200.

METH was used to clean the application equipment. About 50 gallons were used eachyear. At a cost of $5 per gallon for METH, the total annual cost for cleanup solvent is$250. Maintenance required about 13 hours per year. At a labor rate of $11.20 per hour,the annual labor cost is $146. The total maintenance cost considering the cleanup solventand the labor cost is $396.

The plant's electrical use with the METH adhesives was 250 kWh per month. At a costfor electricity of 12 cents per kWh, the annual electrical cost is $360.

Table 3-17 presents the costs of using the METH adhesive for Country Roads. The cost toCountry Roads for producing each chair is about $1.03.

41

Table 3-17. Annual Cost for Country RoadsCapital cost -Adhesive cost $25,300Labor cost $179,200Maintenance cost $396Electricity cost $360Total cost $205,256

3.3.5. Plant C

Plant C manufactures aircraft in Southern California. As part of that manufacturingoperation, the company makes aircraft seats. The company has two operations that useadhesives. These include the seat manufacturing shop and the trim shop.

In the seat manufacturing operation, Plant C uses a VOC aerosol adhesive in themanufacture of 360 aircraft seats annually. The company uses 3,240 cans of adhesive peryear. At a cost of $10 per can, the total cost of the aerosol adhesive is $32,400 per year.

Three workers apply the adhesives. Each worker spends about 125 hours per yearapplying adhesive. At an average labor rate of $19.60 per hour, the total annual labor costis $7,350.

In the trim shop, Plant C uses a VOC adhesive that is sprayed. The company currentlyuses 125 gallons of adhesive per year. At a cost of $7 per gallon, the total annual cost ofthe adhesive is $875.

Numerous different workers apply the adhesive over the course of a year. Total hoursspent in the spray operation amount to 1,500 per year. The average labor rate is $19.60per hour. The total labor cost is $29,400 annually.

The spray application equipment is cleaned once per day. The maintenance time amountsto 15 minutes. Annual maintenance labor costs assuming the $19.60 per hour labor rateare $1,225. The cost of the cleanup solvent is $6 per gallon and 31 gallons are used eachyear. The solvent maintenance cost is $186. The total annual maintenance cost is $1,411.

Plant C pays $176 per year for a permit from the air district to operate the sprayequipment. They also pay $120 per year to dispose of the waste generated in theoperation. The total regulatory costs are $296 annually.

Table 3-18 shows the costs for Plant C's two adhesive operations.

Table 3-18. Annual Cost for Plant CSeat Manufacturing Trim Shop

Adhesive cost $32,400 $875Labor cost $7,350 $29,400Maintenance cost - $1,411Regulatory cost - $296Total cost $39,750 $31,982

42

3.4. ANALYSIS OF MATTRESS MANUFACTURERS

Cost analysis for four companies is presented here. These include Jamison Bedding,Justice, McKinney Bedding and Southerland Inc. All of these companies manufacturepillow top mattresses. Stand-alone case studies for three of the companies--JamisonBedding, Justice and McKinney Bedding--are presented in Appendix B.

3.4.1. Jamison Bedding

Jamison makes mattresses and is the largest private label in the U.S. The company makescontract bedding for hotels and motels. In the past, the company used METH and TCAbased adhesives. They converted to hot melt adhesives but are not completely satisfiedwith the process. Jamison bonds the inner mattress to the non-woven fabric and the foamsurface to the non-woven quilted material. The company makes 300 to 400 mattresses perday and 150 of them involve gluing.

The company had to purchase new equipment when they made the conversion to hot meltadhesives. They purchased two hot melt spray guns at a cost of $2,500 each. They alsopurchased a more advanced piston spray gun at a cost of $7,000. Finally, they purchased a$4,500 benchmark spray gun. The total cost of the equipment was $16,500. Assuming acost of capital of five percent and a 10-year equipment life, the annualized capital cost is$2,690.

When the company used TCA based adhesives, they used about 10 55-gallon drums eachyear. At a cost of $8.69 per gallon, the annual cost of the TCA adhesive amounted to$4,780. The company now uses about 1,500 pounds of hot melt adhesive each year. At acost of $1.69 per pound, the total annual hot melt adhesive cost is now $2,535.

Over the last several years, before and after the conversion to hot melt adhesives, thecompany has had three employees that apply adhesives. Jamison indicates that the threeemployees spend 6,120 hours per year applying the adhesives. At a labor rate of $10 perhour, the total annual labor cost is $61,200.

There is essentially no maintenance involved in using the hot melt adhesive. About 77hours per year were spent in maintenance activities when the company used TCA basedadhesives. At the company's labor rate of $10 per hour, this amounts to $770 per year.About 100 gallons of TCA was used annually for the maintenance activities. At a cost of$5.50 per gallon, the annual cost of TCA for maintenance was $550. The totalmaintenance cost with the TCA adhesives was $1,320 per year.

The electricity cost has increased with the use of the hot melt adhesives. The electricitycost for the TCA adhesives was negligible. The company now uses 1,632 kWh permonth. At a cost of 12 cents per kWh, the total annual electrical cost with the hot meltadhesives is $2,350.

Table 3-19 shows the cost comparison of the TCA and the hot melt adhesives forJamison. The cost of using the TCA and hot melt adhesives is comparable. The costincreased by about two percent when the hot melt adhesive was adopted.

43

Table 3-19. Annual Cost Comparison for Jamison BeddingTCA Adhesive Hot Melt Adhesive

Capital cost - $2,690Adhesive cost $4,780 $2,535Labor cost $61,200 $61,200Maintenance cost $1,320 -Electricity cost - $2,350Total cost $67,300 $68,775

3.4.2. McKinney Bedding

The company has 45 employees. They make a line called Restonic and also make 100different styles of contract bedding. About five percent of their mattresses are pillow tops.They use adhesive on the non-pillow top beds to bond the foam to fabric, to the insulatorpad and to the quilted material. A METH based adhesive in pressurized containers is usedto bond the pillow tops. The company is investigating whether acetone aerosol canswould be less costly.

McKinney currently uses 1,328 pounds of METH based adhesive in pressurizedcontainers each year. The cost of the adhesive is $2.08 per pound. The total cost of usingthe pressurized METH cylinders is $2,762 annually.

The company indicates that it requires 20 percent less of the acetone/heptane adhesivethan the METH adhesive. For the conversion, it was assumed that 1,062 pounds ofacetone/heptane aerosol adhesive would be required annually. The aerosol cans are pricedat $4.14 per pound. The total cost of using the aerosol adhesive would be $4,397annually.

Three employees currently apply the adhesives. They work on the adhesive operation fora total of 120 hours per year. At a labor rate of $10 per hour, the total annual labor cost is$1,200. The labor cost would not change if the company converted to the aerosoladhesives.

To continue using the METH based adhesive, the company would likely have to install aventilation system to lower the exposure of the workers. If the exposure level werelowered to the action level of 12.5 ppm, then the company would not have to performmedical surveillance of the employees and conduct regular monitoring. It is estimated thata ventilation system that would reduce the worker exposure level to 12.5 ppm wouldcarry a capital cost of at least $3,000. Assuming a cost of capital of five percent and a 10-year equipment life, the annual cost of the ventilation system would amount to $489.

Table 3-20 shows the cost comparison for McKinney Bedding for the METH pressurizedcontainers and the acetone aerosol adhesive. The values show that the cost of using theacetone aerosol adhesive would be 24 percent higher than the cost of using the METHadhesive in pressurized containers. The cost of the ventilation system for the METHadhesive could be much higher than is estimated here. In that event, the transition toacetone aerosol adhesives would make more economic sense.

44

Table 3-20. Annual Cost Comparison for McKinney BeddingMETH Adhesive Acetone Adhesive

Capital cost $489 -Adhesive cost $2,762 $4,397Labor cost $1,200 $1,200Total cost $4,451 $5,597

3.4.3. Justice

Justice makes both furniture and bedding. In 1992, the company stopped all theiradhesive operations. At this stage, the company sews all of their pillow top mattresses.They changed their whole method of operation. The company sews the nonwovenmaterial to the ticking, polyester and polyurethane. The company manufactures anaverage of 325 mattresses each day or 81,250 mattresses each year.

The company uses no adhesive. They have two employees who are involved in thesewing. In order to convert to the sewing operation, the company made a capitalinvestment in equipment. The cost of this investment was $45,000. A companyrepresentative indicates that Justice reduced their cost by $15 per mattress by convertingfrom adhesive to sewing. No additional data on costs were available.

3.4.4. Southerland Inc.

Southerland is a mattress manufacturer located in Nashville, Tennessee. Until a few yearsago, the company used small quantities of a METH-based adhesive. When they beganmanufacturing significant numbers of pillow top mattresses, the company adopted a hotmelt adhesive process. In 1998, Southerland manufactured 39,000 mattresses. Pillow topsaccount for 22.5 percent of production.

The company uses 9,700 pounds of hot melt glue annually in their pillow top operation.At a cost of $1.48 per pound, the total annual adhesive cost is $14,356.

There are four glue stations at Southerland and eight glue guns. The hot melt guns werepurchased at a cost of $40,000. Assuming a 10-year equipment life and a five percent costof capital, the annual capital cost for the hot melt equipment is $6,520.

Eight workers apply the adhesives and are paid by the piece. Workers receive 35 cents forapplying adhesive to a mattress. Last year, 8,970 mattresses required adhesive so the totallabor cost involved in the adhesive application was $3,140.

The plant manager estimates that the cost of maintenance is about $1,500 per year.

The hot melt equipment uses 2,400 kWh of electricity per month or 28,800 kWh per year.At a cost of 12 cents per kWh, the annual electricity cost is $3,456.

Table 3-21 below shows the costs of Southerland's adhesive operation. The total costamounts to $27,572 annually.

45

Table 3-21. Annual Cost for Southerland Inc.Capital cost $6,520

Adhesive cost $14,356

Labor cost $3,140

Maintenance cost $1,500

Electricity cost $3,456

Total cost $28,972

46

47

Chapter 4Discussion of Performance/Cost Analysis

Different alternative technologies are appropriate for the three sectors considered here. Inthe course of the project, varied viewpoints about which of the technologies is viablewere encountered in different parts of the country. A discussion of these observations,based on the analysis presented in Chapter 3, is presented here.

4.1. FOAM FABRICATION

Table 4-1 lists the foam fabrication facilities that participated in the project. It also liststhe adhesive technology the company used in the past and the alternative technology thefacility has adopted or plans to adopt.

The conversion choices and the cost analysis for the foam fabricators raise someinteresting issues. The first issue is that the fabricator's location in the country and thesize of the fabricator appears to influence the selection of alternatives. The second issue isthe optimization of the alternative technology. The third issue is the costs of the differenttechnologies. Each of these issues is discussed below.

Table 4-1. Foam Fabrication Facility Adhesive Technologies

Facility Original Technology New TechnologyChange in

CostFoam Craft Inc. TCA Water-Based One-

PartReduction

Prestige Water-Based One-Part;Water-Based Two-Part;

NPB

Acetone Reduction

Latex International Acetone Water-Based One-Part

Reduction

Hickory Springs-- Conover METH Acetone IncreaseHickory Springs--City ofCommerce

Water-Based Acetone Reduction

Marsh-Armfield--Conover TCA NPB IncreaseMarsh-Armfield-- High Point METH NPB IncreasePlant A METH Acetone IncreaseGuilford Fabricators METH NPB ReductionMarx Industries METH NPB ReductionAshdale Foam METH NPB IncreasePlant B METH None -Blue Ridge Water-Based Two-Part Acetone ReductionDixie Regency Unknown Acetone -

48

4.1.1. Plant Location

As mentioned earlier, the fabricators located in Southern California could not use METHbased adhesives because of state and local regulations on toxics. These companies usedTCA based adhesives until they could identify, test and implement a suitable alternative.Foam Craft Inc. was a pioneer in testing some of the first one-part water-based adhesivesthat came on the market in the early 1990s. Companies like Foam Craft worked with theformulators to solve the problems that arise with the use of any new and innovativetechnology. It took the company several years to implement the change.

Latex International West, also located in Southern California, first adopted acetone butdid not want to continue using a solvent-borne technology. The company tested one-partwater-based adhesives extensively and adopted two of them for their processes.

California fabricators that are using the one-part water-based adhesives are very happywith their choice. They have learned how to optimize their use of the adhesive and bothFoam Craft and Latex International reduced their costs through the conversion. Water-Based adhesives have very different requirements than solvent-borne adhesives andcompanies must be committed to resolving issues and understanding these requirementsto successfully use the new adhesives.

With solvent based adhesives, if two pieces of foam are to be bonded together, only oneof the foam pieces needs to be sprayed and the pieces can be brought together and theywill bond. With water-based adhesives, both pieces of foam must be sprayed withadhesive, the worker must wait for a period for the adhesives to tack and then the twopieces of foam can be joined. Workers in plants where the management is committed toconverting to water-based adhesives quickly learn how to deal with the differences. Theygenerally spray up several pieces of foam. When they are finished, the foam pieces theysprayed first are beginning to tack and they can join them. The bonding requires the sameamount of labor but the procedure is different.

Other issues arise with the use of the one-part water-based adhesives. One of the keys tosuccessful use is that the adhesives should be gravity fed. Plants elevate totes of thewater-based adhesive and the adhesive is fed by gravity to the spray equipment. Anotherkey is to minimize the adhesive use. Because both of the foam pieces need to be sprayedwith the water-based adhesives, it would be expected that companies using theseadhesives would double their adhesive use. In fact, many companies try to use too muchadhesive and find that the foam does not bond well. Both Foam Craft and LatexInternational figured out how to apply minimal amounts of the water-based material foroptimal bonding. In both cases, the companies use less of the water-based adhesive thanthey did of the solvent-borne adhesive in spite of the fact that they must now spray bothpieces of foam.

Hickory Springs, the other fabricator in California, used a one-part water-based adhesivewhen they started up their fabrication operation but could not get it to work well for theirapplication. In the end, the company adopted an acetone based adhesive. Since acetone isexempt from VOC regulations, it can be used in Southern California where the VOCregulations are stringent. Hickory Springs in Conover also adopted acetone; the companyuses acetone as an auxiliary blowing agent in foam manufacture and was very familiarwith its characteristics.

49

Prestige, the other large fabricator that participated in the project, tested virtually all thedifferent adhesive technologies. The company did not like the water-based technologiesand could not get them to work for their operation. Prestige was somewhat concernedabout the regulatory future of NPB and decided not to use NPB based adhesives.Ultimately, the company decided to convert to an acetone based adhesive.

The four largest fabricators--Foam Craft, Latex International, Hickory Springs andPrestige--located in Southern California and North Carolina, adopted either water-basedor acetone based adhesives. Of the remaining nine smaller fabricators, three adoptedacetone adhesives, five adopted NPB adhesives and one is still using a METH adhesive.

None of the smaller manufacturers converted to a water-based adhesive. One fabricator,Blue Ridge, used a two-part water-based adhesive but converted to an acetone adhesive.Some of them had tried the water-based one-part adhesives and could not make themwork. These plants indicated that the water-based adhesives did not bond well or simplydid not work. In contrast to the Southern California plants that ended up using water-based adhesives, these companies had no need to make the water-based adhesives work.Because the VOC regulations are less stringent in North Carolina, these companies hadthe option of using NPB adhesives.

Some of the five companies that converted to NPB had problems with worker illness andthey installed ventilation systems designed to better control worker exposure. Thesecompanies all indicated they liked the NPB because it was easy to use and behaved likeMETH. Two of the five companies reduced their cost when they converted from METHto NPB adhesives. They indicated that they use less of the NPB adhesive than the METHadhesive. Because these adhesives contain roughly the same percent of solids, the onlyconclusion that can be drawn is that when the companies adopted the more expensiveNPB adhesive, they paid attention to the amount of adhesive they used and ended upusing less.

In summary, the California fabricators adopted water-based and acetone technologies inpart because of the stringent regulations there. None of the larger foam fabricatorsconverted to NPB based adhesives. They expressed a concern for the potential toxicity ofthe chemical. Several of the smaller fabricators, however, readily adopted the NPBadhesives. Thus, location and size appear to influence the choice of alternatives.

4.1.2. Technology Optimization

In may industries, including foam fabrication, when a solvent based product is moreheavily regulated, the easiest path is for the company to simply convert to another solventbased technology that is a "drop-in." The fact that most foam fabricators converted toMETH based adhesives when TCA production was banned is evidence of this. Theclosest drop-in to the METH based adhesives is NPB adhesives and many companies, tominimize the transition problems, converted to this option.

The next closest option is acetone. Acetone adhesives behave like other solvent basedadhesives and are forgiving. The workers do not have to change the way they apply theadhesives or the application equipment. The only process change that is required to adoptacetone adhesives is to implement measures to control flammability.

50

Very few companies adopted water-based adhesives because their use requires moreextensive process changes. The workers must learn different application techniques andthe adhesives must be gravity fed. A lot of experimentation is required to optimize theuse. Companies in Southern California where the regulations are more stringent werewilling to take on these challenges because they had little choice. Once they did resolvethe issues and optimized their processes, they reduced their costs. They no longer have toworry about worker exposure to chemicals, VOC emissions or flammability controls.They have converted to a permanent solution.

4.1.3. Technology Cost

For all of the companies included in this analysis, the labor cost dominates the total costof using the adhesive technologies. The cost of purchasing the adhesives is generally thenext largest cost. All of the adhesive technologies evaluated have roughly the sameamount of solids or resins. This means when a company converts from one technology toanother, they can achieve the same coverage. METH, acetone and water-based one-partadhesives are in the $6 to $10 per gallon range. NPB based adhesives are higher cost, atbetween $15 and $18 per gallon.

The companies that converted to NPB adhesives are generally smaller fabricators. Theybegan paying close attention to minimizing their use of the adhesives because of thehigher cost of the NPB adhesive. Many of them reduced their adhesive use in theconversion. This is not because the NPB adhesives have higher solids but rather is a resultof process optimization.

4.2. UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE MANUFACTURE

Table 4-2 lists the upholstered furniture manufacturers that were part of this project. Italso provides information on the original technology used by the companies and thetechnology they adopted. The table also indicates whether the company reduced orincreased their cost in the transition.

In the case of upholstered furniture manufacture, the case studies presented heredemonstrate that location, optimization and cost are less important factors than they are infoam fabrication. Only one company, La-Z-Boy West, made a conversion and providedcost data indicating they reduced their cost through the conversion. Three of thecompanies did not make a conversion and Country Roads has made a conversion but hasnot yet collected cost information.

Two of the companies, Sit-On-It and Country Roads, converted to hot melt technologiesand one, La-Z-Boy West, to a water-based technology. Like Foam Craft, La-Z-Boy was apioneer in testing and helping the vendors to develop and optimize the water-basedformulations. Again the company is located in California and had no options for using asolvent based technology in the early 1990s. At that time, acetone was not exempt fromVOC regulations and acetone based adhesives were not yet available. Sit-On-It, alsolocated in California, started up operations in 1996 and decided to use hot melts tominimize environmental problems. Again, the company is located in California. Plant C,also located in California, uses aerosol products which are not regulated by the local airdistrict.

51

Table 4-2. Upholstered Furniture Facility Adhesive TechnologyFacility Original Technology New Technology Change in Cost

La-Z-Boy West TCA Water-Based One-Part

Reduction

Sit-On-It None Hot Melt -

Country Roads METH Hot Melt Unknown

American Seating Acetone Blend None -

Plant C VOC Solvent Aerosol None -

Country Roads and American Seating are located in Michigan where the environmentalregulations are less stringent than in California. Country Roads was using METH basedadhesives but recently converted to a hot melt. American Seating is using a VOC solventbased adhesive but is actively investigating alternatives including hot melt and water-based adhesives.

As was true for foam fabrication, labor costs are a large component of total costs for theupholstered furniture industry. The adhesive cost also represents a significant fraction ofthe total cost. La-Z-Boy reduced their total adhesive cost substantially through theconversion from TCA to water-based adhesives.

In summary, the upholstered furniture industry has clearly decided that hot melt andwater-based adhesives are the alternatives of choice. Water-based adhesives appear to bea good alternative in the home upholstered furniture sector while hot melts appear to bethe best option for office chair and public seating.

4.3. MATTRESS MANUFACTURE

Table 4-3 lists the mattress manufacturers that participated in the project and shows theoriginal and current technology the company is using.

The labor cost is a less important factor in the total cost than the cost of the adhesive inthis sector. Two of the companies that participated in the project have adopted hot melttechnology and this technology is widely applicable for mattress manufacturers. One ofthe companies adopted an automated sewing method several years ago. It is not clearwhether this technology is as widely applicable as the hot melt technology for pillow topbonding. Some mattress manufacturers use only a small amount of adhesive in theirbonding; aerosol products based on acetone are an option for these companies.

Table 4-3. Mattress Facility TechnologyFacility Original Technology New Technology Change in CostJamison Bedding TCA Hot Melt IncreaseJustice Unknown Sewing ReductionMcKinney Bedding METH Acetone Aerosol IncreaseSoutherland None Hot Melt -

52

53

Chapter 5Conclusions of the Cost and Performance Evaluation

Foam fabricators, upholstered furniture manufacturers and mattress manufacturershistorically used porous substrate bonding adhesives based on TCA for bonding foam-to-foam, foam to other substrates and fabric-to-fabric. When TCA production was scheduledto be banned because the chemical contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion, adhesiveformulators began developing adhesives for these sectors based on METH. METH is asuspect carcinogen and is heavily regulated as a toxic. In 1997, OSHA issued a stringentregulation on METH which was widely used in porous substrate bonding adhesives bythat time.

This analysis was designed to investigate and compare the cost and performance ofMETH and TCA adhesives and their alternatives in the foam fabrication, upholsteredfurniture and mattress manufacturing industries. The aim was to provide assistance tosmall and medium sized companies in the three industrial sectors to help them selectalternatives to METH based adhesives. IRTA conducted site visits to more than 30verification facilities in Southern California, the Southeastern United States andMichigan. IRTA developed cost information on 14 foam fabrication facilities, fiveupholstered furniture manufacturers and four mattress manufacturers and compared thisinformation with the cost of the alternative technologies they adopted.

Eleven stand-alone case studies were developed based on this analysis. These case studiesare presented in Appendix B of this document. They are also included in three brochuresthat are intended for distribution to companies in the three industry sectors. The decisionsmade by the 11 companies should help similar companies make informed decisions onwhich alternative technology would be most suitable for their operations.

In the foam fabrication industry, most large foam fabricators have converted to water-based and acetone based adhesives. The cost of these technologies is comparable to thecost of METH and TCA based adhesives. Some of the smaller fabricators have convertedto NPB based adhesives. NPB has unknown but likely high toxicity and the adhesivesbased on the chemical are more costly than the other technologies. In the upholsteredfurniture manufacturing industry, the preferred technologies are water-based and hot meltadhesives. In the mattress manufacturing industry, alternatives include hot meltadhesives, acetone aerosol adhesives and sewing. In these two latter sectors, the costs ofthe new technologies are comparable to the traditional adhesive technologies.

54

Part II

Risk Screening and Comparison

Mary SwansonJack GeibigKerry Kelly

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the other members of the Furniture Adhesives CTSAwork group: EPA project officer John Sparks; Katy Wolf and Mike Morris of IRTA; LoriKincaid, of the University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies; JayJones of NIOSH; and Adam Finkel of OSHA. In addition, John Blouin and Tom Brennanprovided valuable comments; Bill Hanson, Dipti Singh, and Kathy Hart with the EPA DfEProgram provided guidance and assistance. We would also like to acknowledge the AdhesivesProject Core Group members, and the manufacturing facilities that allowed site visits andprovided valuable information.

This part of the document was produced by the University of Tennessee Center for CleanProducts and Clean Technologies under Grant # GX827294-01-0 from EPA’s Design for theEnvironment Branch, Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division, Office of PollutionPrevention and Toxics.

56

57

Chapter 6Introduction to the Risk Screening and Comparison

The goal of the Furniture Adhesives CTSA risk evaluation is to present information aboutrisks associated with chemicals used in furniture adhesives and the differences in riskbetween selected adhesive types. The risks evaluated include occupational health risks,process safety concerns, public health risks, and possible environmental impacts. Thisinformation is intended to assist industry in making informed decisions about adhesiveuse: decisions about (1) risk-reducing measures that could be undertaken and (2) choicesamong adhesive types.

This risk evaluation involved the following steps:

• Developing typical formulations for the selected adhesive types;• Collecting and summarizing available human health hazards and process

safety data for the adhesive formulations and their ingredients;• Assessing potential exposure of workers and the general public to adhesive

ingredients; and• Characterizing risks.

Determining the risks of the baseline and alternative adhesive types first requiredinformation on the chemical ingredients in each adhesive. Chapter 7 briefly describes theuse of adhesives for foam fabrication, upholstered furniture manufacturing, and mattressmanufacturing, and presents the typical adhesive formulations determined for this project.

Human health hazards assessment is the process of identifying the potential effects that achemical may have on humans who are exposed to it, and of determining the levels atwhich these effects may occur. Many of the ingredients have been studied to determinetheir health effects, and data from those studies are available in published scientificliterature. In order to collect available testing data for the adhesive chemical ingredients,literature searches were conducted using standard chemical references and on-linedatabases, including the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and theNational Library of Medicine’s Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). Chapter 8summarizes the available human health hazards information for the adhesive ingredients.

The process safety assessment includes a summary and discussion of process and safety-related hazards specific to each type of adhesive. Process operating characteristics andworkplace practices are combined with physical hazard data, precautions for safehandling and use, and other data to identify areas of concern and to determine if analternative might pose a safety hazard in the workplace. Safe operating procedures foralternative technologies (equipment) are also considered. Chapter 8 includes a summaryof chemical safety hazards from MSDSs for adhesive chemicals and discusses processsafety issues. The subsequent analysis points out what can be done throughadministrative or engineering controls or use of PPE to mitigate the identified hazards.

An exposure assessment is the quantitative or qualitative evaluation of the contact aperson may have with a chemical or physical agent, which describes the magnitude,frequency, duration, and route of contact. Exposure to a chemical may occur byinhalation, oral, or dermal routes through the production, use, or disposal of the chemical

58

or products containing the chemical. Chapter 9 describes the process used to assesspotential exposure of workers and the public living near a facility to adhesive chemicalingredients and presents those results. The exposure assessment uses a “model facility”approach; characteristics of the model facility were aggregated from site-visit data,observations, and other sources.

Risk characterization is the integration of hazard and exposure information toquantitatively or qualitatively assess risk. Risk characterization typically includes adescription of the assumptions, scientific judgments, and uncertainties that are part of thisprocess. Chapter 10 characterizes the potential risks and concerns associated with theexposures estimated in Chapter 9, based on the chemical hazard information presented inChapter 8. Risks are characterized for adhesive workers and residents living nearby anadhesive-using facility. The focus is on chronic (long-term, repeated) exposure toadhesive chemicals that may cause cancer or have other toxic effects, rather than short-term, acute exposures to high levels of hazardous chemicals as would occur with a fire,spill, or periodic release.

In all of these chapters, the methodologies or models used to estimate releases, exposures,or risks are described along with the associated assumptions and uncertainties. This riskevaluation identifies ingredients of concern in particular adhesives, compares the relativerisks of alternative adhesive types to the baseline adhesive (METH-based adhesive), and identifies general measures that could be taken to reduce risks.

Numerous blends of adhesives are marketed today and new blends are developedregularly. The ingredients selected for the typical formulations were meant to berepresentative, rather than an exhaustive list. Many of these adhesive products containingredients that were not considered in this risk evaluation. Some of these ingredients aretoxic or potentially toxic and users and formulators of adhesives should not conclude thatthey are safe if not addressed here. Chapter 11 lists some of the ingredients that may bepresent in other adhesive formulations and discusses some of their toxic properties andregulations that affect them. A summary of the CTSA risk evaluation and conclusions arepresented in Chapter 12.

This risk evaluation should be considered a screening-level risk evaluation, rather than acomprehensive risk assessment, both because of the predefined scope of the assessmentand because of exposure and hazard data limitations. It should be noted that riskindicators are only calculated where appropriate toxicity values were available. Inaddition, the model facility approach does not result in an absolute estimate ormeasurement of risk because the evaluation does not pertain to any specific facility.

It should also be noted that the estimates of exposure and risk reflect only a portion of thepotential exposure within a furniture manufacturing facility; the information presentedhere focuses entirely on the use of adhesives. Because other risk concerns for humanhealth and the environment may occur from other process steps, it does not, nor is itintended to, represent the full range of hazards or risks that could be associated with foamfabrication, upholstered furniture manufacturing, or mattress manufacturing. Incrementalreduction of exposures to chemicals of concern from adhesive application, however, willreduce cumulative exposures from all sources.

59

Chapter 7Background Information

7.1. REGULATORY BACKGROUND

In the 1980s and early 1990s, most of the adhesives used by the furniture industry werebased on 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), a chlorinated solvent. TCA was an effectivecarrier for the adhesive because it evaporates rapidly leaving an instant bond, it is fairlylow in toxicity, it does not have a flash point, and it is not classified as a VOC.

However, TCA is classified as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) under Title III of theClean Air Act Amendments (CAAAs) of 1990. Title III required EPA to developregulations on several industries that use HAPs to reduce their emissions. TCA's majoruse was in vapor degreasing and cold cleaning; in 1994, EPA finalized the HalogenatedSolvents Degreasing National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAP), which regulated those uses. Although there is no NESHAP for adhesives asan individual category, adhesives containing TCA were regulated by the Wood FurnitureNESHAP and the Aerospace NESHAP.

In 1974, the theory of stratospheric ozone depletion was first hypothesized, and over thenext several years the problem was studied intensively. In 1978, the U.S. banned the useof certain ozone-depleting substances, such as aerosol propellants. Over the next fewdecades, the major nations of the world ratified the Montreal Protocol, an internationalagreement that phases out ozone-depleting substances worldwide. In the 1990s, TCAwas designated as a class one ozone-depleting substance and its production was bannedfor that reason in 1996. Title VI of the CAAAs was the legislation that banned TCAproduction in the U.S. Although TCA inventory was still available, the chemical becamevery expensive because of a federal tax on ozone-depleting substances. At that stage,adhesive formulators began to offer adhesives based on METH.

Like TCA, METH evaporates quickly, does not have a flash point, and is not classified asa VOC. METH is a suspect carcinogen, however. METH is a listed HAP under Title IIIof the CAAAs. It is also listed on California's Proposition 65, which covers substancesthat are suspect carcinogens or cause reproductive and developmental problems. In 1997,OSHA further regulated METH to require a PEL of 25 ppm and an action level of 12.5ppm. These requirements are very difficult to meet in an adhesive spraying operation, soformulators began developing adhesives based on other materials.

One of the alternatives that formulators began using is n-propyl bromide. This chemical,like TCA and METH, evaporates readily and has no flash point. nPB is classified as aVOC and it has a small ODP. Its toxicity has not yet been completely characterized. However, both its structural similarity to other toxic chemicals and available limitedstudies indicate its toxicity is likely to be high. nPB formulations contain2-bromopropane as a contaminant, which is an established reproductive toxin. (Toxicityis addressed further in Chapter 8.)

60

7.2 INDUSTRY BACKGROUND

There are many adhesive formulations that are marketed today for foam fabrication,upholstered furniture manufacture and mattress manufacture. These adhesives are used tobond various types of substrates that are employed in the furniture and related industries. Each of the industries is discussed briefly below. More details on the industries and theadhesives used are available in Part 1.

7.2.1 Foam Fabrication

Independent foam fabricators and foam manufacturers perform fabrication services forother companies that manufacture bedding, upholstered furniture, and other products. Fabrication refers to the proper shaping of the foam so it can be used in certainapplications. In many cases, the foam is cut and pieces of foam are bonded together toachieve the appropriate form. Historically, adhesives based on TCA and METH wereused by this industry for bonding the foam. In the last several years, alternative adhesiveshave emerged. They include adhesives based on nPB, a new solvent to the market;acetone adhesives; adhesives based on acetone blends with other solvents; and water-based adhesives.

7.2.2 Upholstered Furniture Manufacture

Home, office, arena, and public transportation vehicle seat manufacturers purchase foamfrom foam manufacturers and fabricators. They use the foam for seat backs, arms,cushions and pillows. About 10 percent of these manufacturers use adhesives in theiroperations to bond foam to fabric and wood. Like the foam fabricators, this industryrelied on TCA and METH-based adhesives. The alternatives for this industry areadhesives based on acetone and acetone blends with other solvents for niche markets,water-based adhesives, and hot melt adhesives.

7.2.3 Mattress Manufacture

Some mattress manufacturers make so-called pillow top mattresses. These medium- tohigh-end mattresses consist of a mattress with a thinner mattress assembly bonded to thetop. Like foam fabricators and upholstered furniture manufacturers, this industry usedTCA and METH adhesives historically. Over the last few years, several mattressmanufacturers have converted to alternatives including adhesives based on acetone blendswith other chemicals and hot melt adhesives. Some companies have eliminated bondingaltogether and rely on sewing the pillow top to the mattress.

7.3 DEVELOPMENT OF “TYPICAL” ADHESIVE FORMULATIONS

To conduct the human health risk evaluation, formulations that specified all ingredientsand their concentration in the adhesive formulation were required. The project teamdecided to focus on the adhesive types used by the three industries described above so the

61

exposure and health hazards could be assessed for each of the components in theadhesives. The adhesive types that were evaluated include:

• METH-based adhesives• nPB-based adhesives• Acetone-based adhesives• Adhesives based on acetone blends with other chemicals• Water-based latex adhesives• Water-based latex/synthetic adhesives• Hot melt adhesives

There are numerous different adhesive formulators that sell a large range of differentproducts to the industries of focus. One MSDS for each adhesive type is presented in PartI. As a member of the project team, IRTA developed formulas for “typical” adhesiveformulations in each of the categories, using three sources of information. First, IRTAcollected and analyzed many different MSDSs from a variety of formulators. Not allingredients in the adhesives are listed on the MSDS, so this did not provide enoughinformation to develop the typical formulations.

Second, IRTA used the Vanderbilt Rubber Handbook (1990), the Handbook of Adhesives(1977) and several other literature sources for developing the formulations. TheVanderbilt Rubber Handbook is used by adhesive formulators as a guide whenformulating new and refining existing adhesive products. Using the MSDSs, literaturesources, and other knowledge from several years of working with chlorinated solvents,IRTA hypothesized the typical adhesive formulations.

Third, IRTA sent these adhesives formulations to several adhesive formulators and askedfor comments. IRTA incorporated the comments and finalized the typical formulations.

The typical adhesive formulations are shown below, with the chemical ingredient namesand their percent by weight in the formulation.

Formulation #1—Methylene Chloride Adhesive:

• Styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) block copolymer—16%• METH—68%• Tackifying resin, rosin-based—15%• Antioxidant—1%

Formulation #2—Acetone:

• Nitrile rubber—11%• Acetone—75%• Tackifying resin, rosin-based—13%• Antioxidant—1%

62

Formulation #3—Acetone/Heptane:

• SBS block copolymer—14%• Acetone—30%• Heptane—30%• Tackifying resin, rosin-based—25%• Antioxidant—1%

Formulation #4—n-Propyl Bromide Adhesive:

• SBS block copolymer—14%• nPB—68%• Tackifying resin, rosin based—12.7%• Antioxidant—1%• 1,3-Dioxolane—3%• 1,2-Butylene oxide—0.3%• 2-BP—1%

Formulation #5—Water-Based Latex:

• Latex—61%• Water—29%• Ammonium hydroxide—2%• Chlorinated alkyl phosphate—5%• Tackifying resin, rosin based—2%• Antioxidant—0.5%• Surfactant—0.5%

Formulation #6—Water-Based Latex/Synthetic:

• Latex—55%• Neoprene (polychloroprene)—6%• Water—29%• Ammonium hydroxide—2%• Chloroprene—0.001%• Chlorinated alkyl phosphate—5%• Tackifying resin, rosin based—2%• Antioxidant—0.5%• Surfactant—0.5%

Formulation #7—Hot Melt:

• Ethylene vinyl acetate—30%• Tackifying resin-rosin based—35%• Filler (microcrystalline wax)—14.9%• Paraffin wax—20%• Antioxidant—0.1%

Many other adhesive formulations are marketed today and new blends are developedregularly. The ingredients selected for the typical formulations were meant to be

63

representative, rather than an exhaustive list; other adhesive products may containingredients that are not included in these “typical” formulations. Two additional solventingredients were added to the risk evaluation because they may be used in otherformulations, and are of concern because of their toxicity: hexane and TCE. Hexane isincluded as an alternative acetone-blend solvent, based on the acetone/heptaneformulation, but containing 30 percent n-hexane instead of heptane. TCE is alsoconsidered as an alternative ingredient that may be used in some nPB formulations. Based on MSDS information from one formulator, TCE is evaluated as a solvent thatmay be included in an nPB formulation at 25 percent concentration. These chemicals arelisted throughout this report as “alternative ingredients.”

7.4 SUBSTANCES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

In the solvent and water-based adhesive formulations, a major ingredient is the solvent orwater carrier. The carrier is used as the vehicle to dissolve the solids, which are depositedon the substrates. In the case of the hot melt adhesive, the material is 100-percent solidsand needs no carrier. Instead it relies on heat to cure. The solvent content of the METH,nPB, acetone, and acetone-blend adhesives ranges from about 60 to 75 percent. In thewater-based adhesives, water is included at the 29-percent level. Two additionalsolvents, hexane and TCE, are included as alternative ingredients because of their toxicityconcerns.

The second major ingredient in adhesives is the solid component that remains on thesubstrate and makes the bond. In the case of several of the solvent-based adhesives listedabove, this polymer is an SBS block copolymer. This polymer is suitable for the METH,nPB and acetone-heptane formulations. The SBS block copolymer is not soluble inacetone alone, so a different polymer, nitrile rubber, is used for the acetone-basedadhesive. The water-based adhesives use latex as the solid and the hot melt uses ethylenevinyl acetate. The water-based latex/synthetic adhesive, in addition to naturally-occurringlatex, also relies on neoprene (a synthetic material) as a polymer. Depending on theformulation, the polymer ingredient represents between 11 and 61 percent of theformulation.

Another major ingredient is a tackifying resin, a material that helps the surfaces that arebeing bonded to “tack up” or to be sticky. In this case, the tackifying resin that wasselected is a rosin-based material. Depending on the formulation, the resin accounts for 2to 25 percent of the formulation.

All of the formulations contain between 0.1 and 1 percent of an antioxidant to prevent thematerials from oxidizing in their containers. IRTA contacted several adhesiveformulators to identify which specific products were commonly used in the differenttypes of adhesives and referred to several literature sources. For the solvent-borne andhot melt adhesives, Irganox 1010, a specific antioxidant, was selected. Irganox 1010 istetra-kis [methylene 3-(3,5-di-tertbutyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate] methane. For thewater-based adhesives, Cyanox 2246 was chosen. It is 2,2-methylene bis-(4-methyl-6-tertbutyl phenol).

The two water-based adhesives contain 0.5 percent of a surfactant. In this case, after adiscussion with a water-based adhesive formulator, a surfactant called Surfynol 440 wasselected. It is ethoxylated 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl 5 decyn-4,7-diol.

64

Some chlorinated solvents, nPB for instance, are unstable in various ways and requirestabilizers to function well. In the nPB formulation, 1,3-dioxolane is included toscavenge the acids formed during hydrolysis. This formulation also contains anotherstabilizer, 1,2-butylene oxide. The nPB adhesive contains 3 percent stabilizer.

Some chemicals, when they are manufactured, cannot be purified without extensiveadditional and costly processing. In the case of nPB manufacture, the chemical alwayscontains small amounts of 2-BP, an isomer. Thus the nPB formulation contains a tracequantity, about 1 percent of 2-BP. Some formulators apparently are selling nPB withmuch higher concentrations of 2-BP into the adhesives market.

Another example of a trace ingredient arises in the water-based adhesives. Theseadhesives are both based on latex. Latex is a naturally occurring material that isharvested from trees. Ammonia is added in the processing step so, ammonia is present, inthe form of ammonium hydroxide, in the water-based formulations at about a 2-percentlevel. Ammonium hydroxide converts back to ammonia during the adhesive sprayingprocess.

Still another example of a trace ingredient arises in the water-based latex/syntheticadhesive. Synthetic adhesives are based on a polymer, polychloroprene, which is referredto as neoprene. Polychloroprene is polymerized chloroprene. A trace quantity ofchloroprene, the raw material, may remain in the polymerized matrix. Thus thelatex/synthetic formulation contains a very small amount of chloroprene (0.001 percent).

Water-based adhesives sometimes contain chlorinated alkyl phosphates; in this case, ablend of 75 percent tri (2-chloro isopropyl) phosphate and 25 percent tri (1,3-dichloroisopropyl) phosphate was selected. Although identity of the document was obtained frompatent documents, other chemicals may be used. Each of the water-based adhesivescontains 5 percent of this blend.

The hot melt adhesive includes microcrystalline wax and a paraffin wax as fillers. Thewax fillers are high-molecular-weight substances used for strength. The ethylene vinylacetate in hot melt may contain a trace quantity of vinyl acetate, at very low amounts.

Table 7-1 lists the identified adhesive ingredients by chemical name, along withsynonyms, Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) registry number (a unique chemicalidentifier), use in the formulation, and which adhesive types contain that ingredient. Allof the materials specified in the “typical” formulations, plus the two alternativeingredients, are included in the table. Throughout the remainder of this report, theingredients are referred to by their commonly-used industry names. The reader can referto this table for other chemical names (synonyms) and CAS numbers. For purposes ofcollecting chemical toxicity data, a specific chemical compound and CAS number wererequired. Some ingredients may actually be mixtures of more than one specificcompound (e.g., hexane and natural latex). In those cases, a major component, or themost typical compound, was selected to be representative of that ingredient.

65

Table 7-1. List of Selected Furniture Adhesive Chemicals (sorted by CAS Number)

Chemical Name a

(Synonyms)CAS

NumberIngredient

Use

Adhesive Typesthat Include this

ChemicalIngredient

Acetone(2-Propanone)

67-64-1 Solvent • Acetone• Acetone/heptane

METH(Dichloromethane)

75-09-2 Solvent • METH

2-BP(Isopropyl bromide)

75-26-3 Impurity:isomer of

nPB

• nPB

TCE 79-01-6 Solvent • Alternative nPB formulation

1,2-Butylene oxide(Ethyloxirane; or 1,2-Epoxy butane)

106-88-7 Stabilizer • nPB

nPB(1-Bromopropane)

106-94-5 Solvent • nPB

Hexaneb

(n-Hexane)110-54-3 Solvent • Alternative

acetone blendformulation

Cyanox 2246(Phenol, 2'2'-methylene bis[6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methyl; or2,2’-Methylene bis-(4-methyl-6-tertbutylphenol))

119-47-1 Antioxidant • Water-based latex• Water-based latex/synthetic

Chloroprene(1,2-Butadiene, 2-chloro)

126-99-8 Unreactedmonomer left

fromneoprene

production

• Water-based latex/synthetic

Heptane(n-Heptane)

142-82-5 Solvent • Acetone/heptane

1,3-Dioxolane(1,3-Dioxacyclopentane)

646-06-0 Stabilizer • nPB

Ammonium hydroxide / ammonia c 1336-21-6 /7664-41-7

Left in latexfrom

processing

• Water-based latex• Water-based latex/synthetic

Water 7732-18-5 Carrier • Water-based latex• Water-based latex/synthetic

Paraffin wax(Paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon waxes)

8002-74-2 Filler • Hot melt

Table 7-1. List of Selected Furniture Adhesive Chemicals (sorted by CAS Number)

Chemical Name a

(Synonyms)CAS

NumberIngredient

Use

Adhesive Typesthat Include this

ChemicalIngredient

66

Nitrile rubber(2-Propenenitrile, polymer with 1,3-butadiene)

9003-18-3 Solid polymerbonding

component

• Acetone

Latexd

(1,3-Butadiene, 2-methyl-, homopolymer; orNatural latex; or Polyisoprene)

9003-31-0 Solid polymerbonding

component

• Water-based latex• Water-based latex/synthetic

SBS block copolymer(Benzene, ethenyl-, polymer with 1,3-butadiene; orStryene-butadiene copolymers)

9003-55-8 Solid polymerbonding

component

• METH• Acetone/heptane• nPB

Neoprene(1,3-Butadiene, 2-chloro-, homopolymer; orPolychloroprene)

9010-98-4 Solid polymerbonding

component

• Water-based latex/synthetic

Surfynol 440(Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),a,-[1,4-dimethyl-1,4-bis(2-methylpropyl)-2-butyne-1,4-diyl]bis[.omega.-hydroxy-; orEthoxylated 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyn-4,7-diol)

9014-85-1 Surfactant • Water-based latex• Water-based latex/synthetic

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates(2-Propanol, 1-chloro-, phosphate (3:1); orTri (2-chloro isopropyl)phosphate; or TCPP;or TCIP)

13674-84-5 High acidcontent resin

adhesive

• Water-based latex• Water-based latex/synthetic

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates(2-Propanol, 1,3-dichloro-, phosphate (3:1); orTri (1,3-dichloro isopropyl) phosphate)

13674-87-8

Microcrystalline wax(Hydrocarbon waxes (petroleum), clay-treatedmicro-crystalline)

64742-42-3 Filler • Hot melt

Ethylene vinyl acetate 24937-78-8 Solid polymerbonding

component

• Hot melt

Irganox 1010(Benzenepropanoic acid, 3,5- bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-2,2-bis[[3-[3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxyphenyl]1- ;orTetra-kis [methylene 3-(3,5-di-tertbutyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate]methane)

6683-19-8 Antioxidant • METH• Acetone• Acetone/heptane• nPB• Hot melt

Table 7-1. List of Selected Furniture Adhesive Chemicals (sorted by CAS Number)

Chemical Name a

(Synonyms)CAS

NumberIngredient

Use

Adhesive Typesthat Include this

ChemicalIngredient

67

Tackifying resin--rosin-based(Resin acids and rosin acids, esters withpentaerythritol)

8050-26-8 Tacks upsurface to be

bonded(makessurfacessticky)

• METH• Acetone• Acetone/heptane• nPB• Water-based latex• Water-based latex/synthetic• Hot melt

Tackifying resin--rosin-based(Resin acids and rosin acids, hydrogenatedesters with glycerol)

65997-13-9

a The chemical name used throughout this report is shown in bold.b Commercial hexane is actually a mixture of n-hexane and other 6-carbon hydrocarbon isomers. Toxicity datawere collected for a specific, representative compound (n-hexane, CAS No. 110-54-3). Hexane used as a solventmay actually include other related compounds such as methylcyclopentane; 2-methylpentane; 3-methylpentane;2,3-dimethylbutane; 2,2-dimethylbutane; diethylmethylmethane; 2,3-dimethylbutane; and isohexane.c Ammonia is used in process of extracting natural latex. It is present in the form of ammonium hydroxide in thewater-based adhesive solutions, but when applied with a spray gun, it converts back to the ammonia form.d Natural latex contains a mixture of compounds. A single, representative chemical compound was selected fortoxicity data searches (2-methyl-1,3-butadiene homoploymer, CAS No. 9003-31-0).

68

69

Chapter 8Human Health Hazards Summary

This section presents a summary of the human health hazards data used in the riskcharacterization. This information is summarized for chemical ingredients in the typicaladhesive formulations, plus two alternative ingredients. The chemical ingredientsselected for each typical adhesive formulation are listed in Section 7.3. See Chapter 11for further discussion of other possible adhesive formulations and ingredients.

In this CTSA risk evaluation, three types of potential human health effects are considered:

• Cancer,• Chronic, systemic toxicity, and• Developmental toxicity.

Each of these is discussed in the sections following.

Chemical ingredients were evaluated based on toxicity measures for the above healtheffects as well as occupational exposure standards and guidance levels. In addition,safety information from MSDSs is summarized and used to evaluate potential hazardsposed by adhesives.

8.1 CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS

The potential for a chemical to cause cancer in humans is evaluated by cancer weight ofevidence (WOE) classifications and by cancer potency factors (CPFs), typicallydetermined from laboratory or epidemiological studies. There are a large number ofchemicals in commerce, however, (approximately 15,000 non-polymeric chemicalsproduced in amounts greater than 10,000 lb/year), and many of these chemicals have notyet been tested or assigned carcinogenicity classifications.

8.1.1 Weight of Evidence

In assessing the carcinogenic potential of a chemical, EPA classifies the chemical intoone of the following groups, according to the WOE from epidemiologic, animal, andother supporting data, such as genotoxicity test results. EPA categories are listed below:

• Group A: Human Carcinogen (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity inhumans).

• Group B: Probable Human Carcinogen (B1—limited evidence ofcarcinogenicity in humans; B2—sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity inanimals with inadequate or lack of evidence in humans).

• Group C: Possible Human Carcinogen (limited evidence ofcarcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or lack of human data).

• Group D: Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity (inadequate or noevidence).

1 The “Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment” (EPA, 1996) proposes the use of WOEdescriptors, such as “Likely” or “Known,” “Cannot be determined,” and “Not likely,” in combination with ahazard narrative, to characterize a chemical’s human carcinogenic potential, rather than the classificationsystem described above.

70

• Group E: Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans (no evidence ofcarcinogenicity in adequate studies).

EPA has proposed a revision of its guidelines that would eliminate the above discretecategories while providing a more descriptive classification.1

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) uses a similar WOE method forevaluating potential human carcinogenicity based on human data, animal data, and othersupporting data. (IARC classifications predate those developed by EPA, who modeledtheir classifications in the 1986 cancer guidelines on the IARC scheme.) A summary ofthe IARC carcinogenicity classification system includes:

• Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans.• Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans.• Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans.• Group 3: Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.• Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans.

Both classification schemes represent judgments regarding the likelihood of humancarcinogenicity (i.e., the extent to which the available data support the hypothesis that asubstance causes cancer in humans). In this CTSA, both EPA and IARC classificationsare used wherever information is available. Table 8-1 lists all furniture adhesivechemicals classified by EPA or IARC.

The NTP was established in 1978 by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services tocoordinate toxicology research and testing activities within the department, to provideinformation about potentially toxic chemicals to regulatory and research agencies and thepublic, and to strengthen the science base in toxicology. NTP classifies agents,substances, mixtures, or exposure circumstances as either:

• Known To Be Human Carcinogens, or• Reasonably Anticipated to be Human Carcinogens.

The 9th Annual/Biennial Report on Carcinogens has recently been published (NTP,2001). Any available NTP evaluations for the adhesive ingredients are also included inTable 8-1.

71

Table 8-1. Available Cancer Weight-of-Evidence InformationChemical Name a Comments/Classification

Probable or Possible Human Carcinogens

1,2-Butylene oxide Possibly carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B: IARC, 2000).

Chloroprene Possibly carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B: IARC, 2000).Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on evidence ofbenign and malignant tumor formation at multiple tissue sites in multiplespecies of experimental animals (NTP 467, 1998, as cited in 9th Reporton Carcinogens [NTP, 2001]).

METH Probable Human Carcinogen: sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity inanimals with inadequate or lack of evidence in humans (EPA Class B2: EPA, 2000a).Possibly carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B: IARC, 2000).Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on sufficientevidence in experimental animals (NTP 306, 1986, as cited in 9th Reporton Carcinogens [NTP, 2001]).

TCEb Probably carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2A; IARC, 2000).Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on limitedevidence of carcinogenicity in humans, sufficient evidence inexperimental animals, and convincing relevant information that it actsthrough mechanisms indicating it would likely cause cancer in humans(NTP, 9th Report on Carcinogens [NTP, 2001]).

Other WOE Available

Acetone Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (EPA Class D: EPA,2000a).

Heptane Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (EPA Class D: EPA,2000a).

Neoprene Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (IARC Group 3: IARC, 2000).

SBS blockcopolymer

Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (IARC Group 3:

IARC, 2000).a Only those chemicals with available data or classifications are listed.b An alternative ingredient; not included as an ingredient in typical formulations, but TCE has been used insome nPB formulations.

The adhesive nPB was selected for carcinogenicity and other toxicity testing by the NTPInteragency Committee for Chemical Evaluation and Coordination in December 1999,following nomination for testing by OSHA and NIOSH (OSHA, 1999a).

8.1.2 Cancer Potency

For low-dose carcinogenic effects, there is presumably no level of exposure that does notpose a small, but finite, probability of causing a cancer response. This type of mechanismis called “non-threshold.” When the available data are adequate and sufficient forquantification, EPA develops an estimate of the chemical’s carcinogenic potencyexpressed as either a slope factor or unit risk value. The slope factor (q1*) is a measure of

2 Air concentrations for average use, average ventilation are estimated at 160 mg/m3 in workplace air,and for high use, WTA ventilation, at 6,700 mg/m3 in air (see Chapter 9, Exposure Assessment.)

3 Adhesive concentrations to which workers are exposed on their skin is 68 percent in the METHformulation. Although the oral CPF was developed for ingestion of METH in drinking water, the limit of50 mg/L in drinking water indicates that the exposure concentrations for workers greatly exceed those forwhich the CPFs were developed.

4 Estimated ambient air concentrations are from 0.23 mg/m3 to 2.3 mg/m3 at 25 meters from the facility(see Chapter 9, Exposure Assessment).

72

an individual’s excess lifetime risk or increased likelihood of developing cancer ifexposed to a chemical, expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)-1 over a lifetime. Morespecifically, q1* is an approximation of the upper bound of the slope of the dose-responsecurve using the linearized, multistage procedure at low doses. “Unit risk” is anequivalent measure of potency for air or drinking water concentrations. Unit risk isexpressed as the upper bound excess lifetime cancer risk per µg/m3 in air, or as risk perµg/L in water, based on default exposure conditions for a continuous lifetime exposure. Slope factors and unit risks can be viewed as quantitatively-derived judgements of themagnitude of carcinogenic effect.

EPA risk characterization methods require a cancer potency value (q1* or unit risk) toquantify the upper bound, excess lifetime cancer risk from exposure to a known orsuspected carcinogen. At the time of this report, only one chemical ingredient, METH,had an EPA-established potency factor. Therefore, this is the only chemical for whichcancer risk is quantitatively characterized (see Chapter 10, Risk Characterization).

METH has an inhalation unit risk factor of 4.7E-7 per :g/m3 and an oral cancer q1* of7.5E-03 per mg/kg-day (EPA, 2000a). These factors were developed, however, for muchlower exposure levels than are estimated for adhesive workers. According to IRIS, theinhalation unit risk factor should not be used if the air concentration exceeds 20 mg/m3

(69 ppm). Therefore, the IRIS inhalation unit risk factor is not used here for workplaceexposures, because the estimated air concentrations are much higher than the 20 mg/m3

limit.2 IRIS also states that the oral potency factor should not be used if the waterconcentration exceeds 50 mg/L. Similarly, worker cancer risks are not estimated for skincontact, since the concentration of METH, at 68 percent, greatly exceeds theconcentration limit in water stated in IRIS of 50 mg/L.3

OSHA recently conducted a quantitative assessment of METH cancer risks in theworkplace, “...based on the highest-quality animal tumor data, constructing a state-of-the-art physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model incorporating rodent andhuman metabolic information.” (OSHA, 1997a). For this evaluation of worker inhalationrisks, estimated workplace air concentrations are compared with the risks calculated byOSHA at specified workplace exposure levels. Cancer risks from METH are notestimated for worker dermal exposure.

For the neighboring population, estimated air concentrations are below 20 mg/m3 (69ppm), and the IRIS unit risk factor is used to estimate cancer risk from METH airreleases4 (see Chapter 10, Risk Characterization).

73

8.2 CHRONIC, SYSTEMIC TOXICITY

Systemic toxicity means an adverse effect on any organ system following absorption anddistribution of a chemical throughout the body. Adverse effects other than cancer andgene mutations are generally assumed to have a dose or exposure threshold. Therefore,the evaluation for systemic toxicity is based on comparing this threshold amount with theestimated amount of exposure.

8.2.1 Reference Dose/Reference Concentration

A reference dose (RfD) is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order ofmagnitude) of the daily exposure through ingestion (oral) and through skin uptake(dermal) to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to bewithout an appreciable risk of deleterious non-cancer effects during a lifetime. RfDs areexpressed in units of mg/kg-day. Similarly, a reference concentration (RfC) is anestimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of the dailyinhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likelyto be without an appreciable risk of deleterious non-cancer effects during a lifetime(Barnes and Dourson, 1988). RfCs are expressed in air concentration units (e.g., mg/m3). RfD and RfC values from IRIS are derived from EPA peer-reviewed study results,together with uncertainty factors (UFs) regarding their applicability to humanpopulations. Table 8-2 presents a summary of the available RfC and RfD information foradhesive ingredients. A minimal risk level (MRL) is a similar measure developed by theAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Because an RfC foracetone was not available, an MRL is used instead.

74

Table 8-2. Summary of RfC and RfD Information Used in the RiskCharacterization

ChemicalName a

InhalationRfC b

(mg/m3)Comments c

(Inhalation)

Oral/DermalRfD b

(mg/kg/day)Comments c

(Oral/Dermal)

Acetone 31 (MRL) ATSDR chronicMRL, UF = 100,neurological endpoint(ATSDR, 2000).

0.1 (IRIS) UF = 1,000; lowconfidence; oralsubchronic rat study,liver and kidney effects(EPA, 2000a). Quicklypenetrates skin.

Ammoniumhydroxide/ammonia

0.1 (IRIS) For ammonia, UF =30, mediumconfidence level,subchronic ratinhalation study,respiratory effects(EPA, 2000a).

ND

1,2-Butyleneoxide

0.02 (IRIS) UF = 300, mediumconfidence level, 2-year mouse inhalationstudy, nasal effects(EPA, 2000a).

ND

Hexaned,e 0.2 (IRIS) UF = 300, mediumconfidence level,epidemiologicalinhalation study,neurotoxicity andelectrophysicalalterations (EPA,2001).

0.06(HEAST)

UF = 10,000; oral, rat,90 day study,neuropathy andtesticular atrophy(EPA, 1997a).

METH 3.0 (HEAST) UF = 100, 2-year ratinhalation study, livereffects (EPA, 1997a).

0.06 (IRIS) UF = 100, mediumconfidence, rat,drinking water, livertoxicity (EPA, 2000a).Absorbed through skin.

Trichloro-ethylened

0.04 (Draft IRIS)

Based on criticaleffects in centralnervous system, liver,and endocrine system(Cogliano, 2001).

ND

75

Notes for Table 8-2a Only those chemicals with available data are listed.b The type of value is noted in parentheses:

IRIS: EPA-derived and peer-reviewed values listed in the Integrated Risk Information System. IRIS values are preferred and used whenever available.HEAST: EPA-derived RfD or RfC listed in the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. These values have not undergone the same level of review as IRIS values.MRL: Minimal risk level, developed by the ATSDR in a manner similar to EPA-derivedvalues.

c Comments may include exposure route, test animal, duration of test, adverse effects noted, and source ofdata. UF = uncertainty factor.d An alternative ingredient; not included in the typical formulations, but hexane may be used in someacetone-blend formulations, and TCE in some nPB formulations.e Toxicity data were collected for a specific, representative compound (n-hexane, CAS No. 110-54-3). Hexane used as a solvent may actually include other related compounds such as methylcyclopentane; 2-methylpentane; 3-methylpentane; 2,3-dimethylbutane; 2,2-dimethylbutane; diethylmethylmethane;2,3-dimethylbutane; and isohexane.ND: No data; RfC, RfD, or similar value not available.

8.2.2 Adverse Effect Levels for Systemic Effects

When an RfD, RfC, or appropriate MRL was not available for a chemical, other toxicityvalues were used, preferably in the form of a “no-observed-adverse-effect level”(NOAEL) or “lowest-observed-adverse-effect level” (LOAEL). These toxicity valueswere obtained from the published scientific literature, as well as unpublished datasubmitted to EPA on chemical toxicity in chronic or subchronic studies. Typically, thelowest NOAEL or LOAEL value from a well-conducted study was used. If study detailswere not presented or the study did not appear to be valid, the reported NOAEL/LOAELswere not used. Unlike RfDs and RfCs, NOAELs and LOAELs do not incorporateuncertainty or modifying factors.

The LOAEL is the lowest experimental dose level in a toxicity test at which there arestatistically or biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of adverse effectsin the exposed population over its appropriate control group (in mg/kg-day, or mg/m3 forinhalation). The NOAEL is the highest dose level in a toxicity test at which there is nostatistically or biologically significant increase in the frequency or severity of adverseeffects in the exposed population over its appropriate control (in mg/kg-day, or mg/m3 forinhalation). Available LOAEL values are used only when NOAELs were not available. Table 8-3 presents a summary of the available NOAEL and LOAEL values.

76

Table 8-3. NOAEL/LOAEL Values Used in Risk Characterization

ChemicalName a

InhalationNOAEL/LOAEL b

(mg/m3)Comments c

(Inhalation)

Oral/Dermal

NOAEL/LOAEL b

(mg/kg-day)

Comments c

(Oral/Dermal)2-BP ND d NDChlorinatedalkyl phosphates f

ND 5 (N)e Rat, diet, 24 months,chronic toxicity andbenign tumor induction(Freudenthal andHeinrich, 2000).

Chloroprene 116 (L) g Rats and mice,repeated doseinhalation, 16 days,effects on nasal liningin rats (NTP, 1998)

ND

Cyanox 2246 ND 12.7 (N) Rat, diet, 18 months,reduced body weightgain, liver effects, severetesticular effects (Takagiet al., 1994).

1,3-Dioxolane 379 (L)h One-generationreproductive study,rats, 24 weeks,reduced litter size(DioxolaneManufacturersConsortium, 2000).

ND

Heptane 1,630 (L) Rats, 26 weeks(Holdsworth, 1980).

ND

Irganox 1010 480,000 (N)e Two studies: Beagledogs, diet, 13 weeks,no adverse effectsrelated to treatment;rats, diet, 10 months,no reproductiveeffects seen (1981;1984: both studiesreported in Ciba,2001 HPVsubmission).

ND (See Table 8.4)

nPB 250 (L) g Rats, repeated doseinhalation, 8 weeks,liver effects (Kim etal., 1999).

ND

5 Natural latex is actually a mixture of chemical compounds. A single, representative chemical wasselected for toxicity data collection (2-methyl-1,3-butadiene homopolymer).

77

Notes for Table 8-3a Only those chemicals with available data or classifications are listed.b (N) = NOAEL; (L) = LOAEL. When more than one NOAEL and/or LOAEL was available, only thelowest available NOAEL or LOAEL was used and is listed here. If both NOAEL and LOAEL data areavailable, the NOAEL is used and is listed here. If a chronic NOAEL or LOAEL was not available, othervalues (e.g., from shorter-term studies) were used as noted.c Comments may include exposure route, test animal, duration of test, effects, and source of data.d Data inadequate, although effects seen at > 1510 mg/m3 (> 300 ppm).e No-observed adverse effect level (NOEL)—used as a NOAEL in this evaluation.f This ingredient could include two different chlorinated alkyl phosphate compounds. The value presentedhere is for CAS No. 13674-87-8.g Shorter term study.h 125 ppm was considered the NOAEL by the study authors, but it is possible that 125 ppm represents aLOAEL for reproduction. For this CTSA, the value is used as a LOAEL.ND: No Data. A NOAEL or LOAEL was not available for this chemical.

8.2.3 Other Concerns

Water-based latex and water-based latex/synthetic adhesives contain natural latex.5 Latexis a sensitizer; repeated exposure to latex can cause a substantial proportion of exposedpeople to develop an allergic reaction. Around 6 to 17 percent of the exposed health careworkforce is allergic to natural rubber latex, and approximately 1 to 6 percent of thegeneral population (OSHA, 1999b). The type and severity of allergic reaction can vary,including skin irritation, dermatitis, hives and other allergic reactions, asthma, and rarely,life-threatening anaphylaxis (swelling of lips and airways that may progress to shock anddeath) (OSHA, 1999b).

78

8.3 DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY

The risk of developmental effects is typically evaluated separately from other types ofchemical hazards. Developmental toxicity refers to adverse effects produced in offspringfrom chemical exposure prior to conception, during pregnancy, or during childhood. These effects may be observed as stillbirths, malformations, early postnatal mortality,reduced birth weight, mental retardation, sensory loss, and other adverse functional orphysical changes that appear in offspring. Developmental toxicity is different fromreproductive toxicity (e.g., effects on reproductive tissues or reproductive success), whichis addressed as a component of systemic toxicity, in the previous section.

Two chemicals having potential developmental toxicity were identified based on the dataprovided in the toxicity profiles. No RfCs or RfDs based on developmental effects(RfCDT or RfDDT) are available; the available data are in the form of NOAELs or no-observed effect levels (NOELs). These data are summarized in Table 8-4.

Table 8-4. Developmental Toxicity Values Used in the Risk Characterization

ChemicalName a

Inhalation(mg/m3)

Oral/DermalNOAEL or NOEL b

(mg/kg-day)Comments c

(Oral/Dermal)

Chlorinated alkylphosphates d

ND 100 (NOAEL)

Rat, gavage, GD 6-15,developmental toxicity(bone formation effects)(Akzo Nobel ChemicalsInc., 2001).

Irganox 1010 ND 1,000 (NOEL)

Two studies: rats, gavage,GD 6-15, no teratogenic ormaternal toxicity (CibaGeigy, 1975a); mice,gavage, GD 6-15, noteratogenic or maternaltoxicity (Ciba Geigy,1975b).

a Only those chemicals with available data are listed.b NOAEL: no-observed adverse effect level; NOEL: no-observed effect level. A NOEL is used in thesame way as a NOAEL in this evaluation.c Comments may include test effects, test animal, duration during time of gestation, exposure route, andsource of data. GD: Gestational day.d This ingredient could include two different chlorinated alkyl phosphate compounds. The valuepresented here is for CAS No. 13674-87-8.ND: No data available.

8.4 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE

Additional information about chemical hazards, especially as they pertain to theworkplace, is available in the form of occupational exposure standards and guidance. Various agencies and groups develop recommendations or standards for workplaceexposure levels in order to protect worker health. The U.S. agencies and otherorganizations, and the types of limits they develop are described in this section.

79

Available values for furniture adhesive ingredients are presented in Table 8-5.

The occupational exposure limits collected for furniture adhesive ingredients were limitedto agencies or independent groups within the United States. Occupational exposurestandards that have been developed in other countries have not been included, with theexception of 2-BP. The United States has not developed occupational standards orguidance levels, to date, but South Korea has developed an occupational exposure level(OEL) for this substance, which is considered in this evaluation and included in Table 8-5.

Also, no standards or guidance were available for nPB from any government agency orindependent organization concerned with worker health. However, industry hasrecommended exposure levels (RELs) for this chemical which are included here in lieu ofany other established value.

80

Table 8-5 Occupational Exposure Standards and Guidance Levels for Adhesive Ingredients (for workplace inhalation)

Chemical

Regulatory Limit or Guidance Level a

Time-Weighted Average (TWA)(8-hr unless otherwise noted) Short-Term Exposure Limit (usually 15 min.), Ceiling, etc.

Acetone • PEL: 2,400 mg/m3 (1,000 ppm)• Vacated PEL: 1,800 mg/m3 (750 ppm)b

• REL: 590 mg/m3 (250 ppm) (NIOSH, 1999)• TLV: 1,200 mg/m3 (500 ppm) (ACGIH, 2001)

• Vacated PEL: 2,400 mg/m3 (1,000 ppm)b

Ammoniumhydroxide /ammonia

• PEL (ammonia): 35 mg/m3 (50 ppm) • REL (ammonia): 18 mg/m3 (25 ppm)c • TLV (ammonia): 18 mg/m3 (25 ppm) (ACGIH,

2001)

• Vacated PEL (ammonia): 27 mg/m3 (35 ppm)b

• 15-Minute REL (ammonia): 27 mg/m3 (35 ppm) • TLV (ammonia): 27 mg/m3 (35 ppm) (ACGIH, 2001)• IDLH (ammonia): 230 mg/m3 (300 ppm)

2-BP • OEL: 5 mg/m3 (1 ppm), South Korea Ministry ofLabor (Yu et al., 1999)

Not available

1,2-Butyleneoxide

• WEEL: 6 mg/m3 (2 ppm) Not available

Chloroprene • PEL: 90 mg/m3 (25 ppm) [skin]• Vacated PEL: 35 mg/m3 (10 ppm)b

• NIOSH considers chloroprene to be a potentialoccupational carcinogen; NIOSH usuallyrecommends that occupational exposures tocarcinogens be limited to the lowest feasibleconcentration

• TLV: 36 mg/m3 (10 ppm) [skin] (ACGIH, 2001)

• 15-minute REL Ceiling: 3.6 mg/m3 (1 ppm) • ACGIH excursion limit recommendation: excursions in

worker exposure levels may exceed three times the TLV-TWA for no more than a total of 30 min. during a work day,and under no circumstances should they exceed five timesthe TLV-TWA (provided that the TLV-TWA is notexceeded).

Heptane • PEL: 2,000 mg/m3 (500 ppm)• Vacated PEL: 1,600 mg/m3 (400 ppm)b

• REL: 350 mg/m3 (85 ppm)c

• TLV: 1,600 mg/m3 (400 ppm) (ACGIH, 2001)

• Vacated PEL: 2,000 mg/m3 (500 ppm)b

• REL, 15-minute Ceiling: 1,800 mg/m3 (440 ppm)• TLV: 2,000 mg/m3 (500 ppm) (ACGIH, 2001)• IDLH: 3,000 mg/m3 (750 ppm)

Hexane d • PEL: 1,800 mg/m3 (500 ppm)• Vacated PEL: 180 mg/m3 (50 ppm)b

• REL: 180 mg/m3(50 ppm)c

• TLV: 180 mg/m3 (50 ppm)

• IDLH: 3,960 mg/m3 (1,100 ppm); based on 10% of thelower explosion limit.

Table 8-5 Occupational Exposure Standards and Guidance Levels for Adhesive Ingredients (for workplace inhalation)

Chemical

Regulatory Limit or Guidance Level a

Time-Weighted Average (TWA)(8-hr unless otherwise noted) Short-Term Exposure Limit (usually 15 min.), Ceiling, etc.

81

METH • PEL: 86 mg/m3 (25 ppm)• NIOSH recommends that METH be regulated as an

occupational carcinogen; NIOSH usuallyrecommends that occupational exposures tocarcinogens be limited to the lowest feasibleconcentration.

• TLV: 175 mg/m3 (50 ppm) (ACGIH, 2001)

• PEL: 438 mg/m3 (125 ppm) (15 minutes)• ACGIH excursion limit recommendation: excursions in

worker exposure levels may exceed three times the TLV-TWA for no more than a total of 30 min. during a work day,and under no circumstances should they exceed five timesthe TLV-TWA (provided that the TLV-TWA is notexceeded).

Paraffin waxfume

• REL: 2 mg/m3 (NIOSH, 1999)• TLV: 2 mg/m3 (ACGIH, 2001)

Not available

nPB • 126 mg/m3 (25 ppm); exposure guidelinerecommended by major supplier of nPB solvent(NIOSH, 2001).

Not available

Trichloro-ethylene (TCE)d

• PEL: 540 mg/m3 (100 ppm)• Vacated PEL: 270 mg/m3 (50 ppm)b

• REL: 135 mg/m3 (25 ppm)c

• NIOSH considers TCE to be a potential occupationalcarcinogen; NIOSH usually recommends thatoccupational exposures to carcinogens be limited tothe lowest feasible concentration.

• TLV: 270 mg/m3 (50 ppm)

• PEL: 1,080 mg/m3 (200 ppm) Acceptable CeilingConcentration

• PEL: 1,620 mg/m3 (300 ppm) Acceptable maximum peakabove acceptable ceiling concentration for an 8-hour shift;maximum duration 5 min. in any 2 hours.

• TLV: 540 mg/m3 (100 ppm)

82

Notes for Table 8-5a Source (except where noted): HSDB, 2001b Vacated 1989 PEL, still enforced in some statesc 10-hr TWAd Included as alternative ingredients; not included as ingredients in typical formulations, but n-hexane may be used in some acetone formulations, and TCE in some nPB formulations.OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationNIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthACGIH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial HygienistsAIHA: American Industrial Hygiene AssociationPEL: OSHA permissible exposure levelREL: NIOSH recommended exposure levelTLV: ACGIH threshold limit valueIDLH: Immediately Dangerous to Life or HealthOEL: Occupational Exposure LevelWEEL: AIHA workplace environmental exposure level[skin]: This indicates the potential for dermal absorption; skin exposure should be prevented as necessary through the use of good work practices and gloves, coveralls, goggles, and other appropriate equipment.

83

8.4.1 Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSHA was established in 1970 to assure safe and healthful working conditions byestablishing and enforcing health and safety standards, and by providing for research,information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health. Thismandate involves the application of a set of tools by OSHA (e.g., standards development,enforcement, compliance assistance), which enables employers to maintain safe andhealthful workplaces. OSHA standards for exposure to airborne chemicals or substancesin workplace air are in the form of PELs.

The PEL is an enforceable standard promulgated by OSHA to represent the 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of a substance above which workers may not be exposed. PELs are often derived from threshold limit values (TLVs) or may be revised based on aREL suggested by the NIOSH (see below). Some vacated PELs are also listed in thetable. A court decision in 1992 (AFL-CIO v. OSHA, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals)vacated more protective PELs set by OSHA in 1989 for 212 substances, moving themback to PELs established in 1971. The appeals court also vacated new PELs for 164substances that were not previously regulated. Vacated PELS are enforced in some statesand therefore included in the table.

8.4.2 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NIOSH is a Federal agency established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of1970 to protect the safety and health of American workers by conducting scientificresearch, recommending safety and health standards, and disseminating preventioninformation. NIOSH is responsible for making recommendations for standards to OSHA. NIOSH levels are in the form of RELs and levels that are immediately dangerous to lifeor health (IDLH).

A REL is defined as the 8-hour time weighted average concentration of a substance abovewhich it is recommended that a worker may not be exposed. A REL is the recommendedstandard by NIOSH for promulgation by OSHA as a PEL. (There are also some short-term RELs, e.g., for 15 minutes.)

IDLH is the concentration of a substance in air that is recognized to pose an exposure thatis likely to cause death or immediate or delayed permanent adverse health effects, orprevent an escape from such an environment. IDLHs were established as part of theNIOSH respirator decision logic to ensure that a worker can escape the contaminatedenvironment in the event of failure of the respiratory protection equipment.

8.4.3 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) is an organizationof industrial hygiene professionals founded to encourage the interchange of experienceamong industrial hygiene workers and to collect and make accessible information anddata that might assist industrial hygienists in their professional duties. They areresponsible for establishing TLVs, among other things. The TLV is the airborneconcentration of a substance representing a condition under which it is believed thatnearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect. TLVs are consensus values and not enforceable.

84

8.4.4 American Industrial Hygiene Association

American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) is an association of occupational andenvironmental health professionals dedicated to the protection of workers and membersof the community from workplace related hazards. They develop WorkplaceEnvironmental Exposure Levels (WEELs). A WEEL is the workplace exposure level towhich it is believed nearly all individuals could be repeatedly exposed withoutexperiencing adverse health effects. WEELs can be expressed as either time-weightedaverage (TWA) concentrations or ceiling values; however, different time periods arespecified depending on the properties of the agent.

8.5 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE HAZARDS DATA

A summary of the available hazards data for the adhesive ingredient chemicals ispresented in Table 8-6. These data are used in the risk characterization (Chapter 10). Risk indicators are calculated for chemicals with an applicable CPF (cancer risk) and forchemicals with an inhalation RfC, oral RfD, MRL, NOAEL, or LOAEL (hazard quotient[HQ] or MOE). These risk indicators are then compared to EPA concern levels. Forchemicals with occupational exposure standards or guidance levels, estimated workplaceair concentrations are compared to those standards or guidance levels. Quantitativecomparisons cannot be done for chemicals without hazards data.

85

Table 8-6. Overview of Available Toxicity Data and Occupational Exposure Levels

Chemical NameCPF, WOE

Classification

Available Chronic Toxicity Data (RfC, RfD, MRL, NOAEL, or

LOAEL)a

AvailableOccupational

Standard or GuidanceLevel b

Inhalation Oral/Dermal Inhalation

Acetone WOE MRL O-RfD PEL, vPEL, REL, TLV

Ammoniumhydroxide /ammonia

ND RfC ND PEL, REL, TLV

2-BP ND ND ND South Korean OELc

1,2-Butyleneoxide

WOE RfC ND WEEL

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

ND ND O-NOEL;NOAELDT

ND

Chloroprene WOE LOAEL (st) ND PEL, vPEL, TLV

Cyanox 2246 ND ND O-NOAEL ND

1,3-Dioxolane ND LOAEL ND ND

Ethylene vinylacetate

ND ND ND ND

Heptane WOE ND ND PEL, vPEL, REL, TLV

Hexane ND RfC ND PEL, vPEL, REL, TLV

Irganox 1010 ND NOEL NOELDT ND

Latex ND ND ND ND

METH WOE; I-CPF; O-CPF RfC O-RfD PEL, TLV

Microcrystallinewax

ND ND ND ND

Neoprene WOE ND ND ND

Nitrile rubber ND ND ND ND

Paraffin wax ND ND ND REL, TLV (fumes)

nPB ND LOAEL (st) ND Supplier-recommendedexposure guidelines.

SBS blockcopolymer

WOE ND ND ND

Table 8-6. Overview of Available Toxicity Data and Occupational Exposure Levels

Chemical NameCPF, WOE

Classification

Available Chronic Toxicity Data (RfC, RfD, MRL, NOAEL, or

LOAEL)a

AvailableOccupational

Standard or GuidanceLevel b

Inhalation Oral/Dermal Inhalation

86

Surfynol 440 ND ND ND ND

Tackifying resin,rosin-based

ND ND ND ND

TCEd WOE draft RfC ND PEL, vPEL, REL, TLVa RfC = EPA reference concentration, RfD = EPA reference dose, MRL = ATSDR minimal risk level, NOAEL =no-observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest-observed adverse effect level; st: value is from shorter termstudy; DT indicates a developmental toxicity value.b OEL = occupational exposure level, PEL = OSHA permissible exposure level, vPEL = vacated PEL, REL =NIOSH recommended exposure limit, TLV = ACGIH threshold limit value.c Chemicals may have exposure standards from other countries. Only U.S. levels are used in this evaluation, withthe exception of 2-BP, where the S. Korean value is the only one established at this time.d An alternative ingredient; not included in typical formulations, but hexane may be used in some acetone-blendformulations, and TCE in some nPB formulations.ND = no dataI = InhalationO = Oral

8.6 SUMMARY OF HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

For human health hazards, toxicity data in the form of RfDs, RfCs, MRLs, NOAELs,LOAELs, and CPFs were compiled for inhalation and dermal pathways. A total of 22chemicals are considered as part of the furniture adhesive use cluster, plus two alternativeingredients of special concern.

METH is the only chemical ingredient with EPA-established CPFs. Other adhesiveingredients are carcinogens or suspected carcinogens, but do not have EPA-establishedpotency factors. 1,2-Butylene oxide and chloroprene have been determined by IARC tobe possible human carcinogens (IARC Group 2B). 1,2-Butylene oxide is used in the nPBadhesive. Chloroprene is present in polychloroprene, used in water-based latex/syntheticadhesive. (Chloroprene is leftover as unreacted monomer from the polychloroprenemanufacturing process). TCE has been determined by IARC to be probably carcinogenicto humans (IARC Group 2A). TCE is an alternative ingredient that may be used in somenPB formulations.

For non-cancer health effects from inhalation, five adhesive chemicals have inhalationRfCs available from which to calculate HQs in the risk characterization and one chemicalhas an MRL, which is also used as an RfC to calculate an HQ. In addition, four adhesivechemicals have inhalation NOAELs or LOAELs available from which to calculate MOEs. Additionally, eleven chemical ingredients have occupation exposure standards orguidance levels for air; estimated workplace air concentrations are compared to these

87

levels in the risk characterization. For dermal exposure, two adhesive chemicals haveoral RfDs from which to calculate HQs. In addition, two adhesive chemicals have oralNOAELs, and two chemicals have oral developmental NOAELs from which to calculateMOEs.

In some cases, appreciable inhalation or skin exposure is expected for a chemicalingredient, but toxicity values are not available to calculate risk indicators, or OELs arenot available with which to compare workplace air concentrations. In these cases, theremay be a risk to workers, but it cannot be characterized. Uncertainties due to missinghazard data are addressed in the Risk Characterization.

8.7 PROCESS SAFETY/ACUTE EFFECTS

Process safety is a concern and responsibility of employers and employees alike. Eachcompany has the obligation to provide its employees with a safe and healthy workenvironment, while each employee is responsible for his/her own safe personal workhabits. Adhesives used during the adhesives application process may present potentialprocess safety hazards, requiring that they be handled and stored properly, usingappropriate PPE and safe operating practices.

The U.S. Department of Labor and OSHA have established safety standards andregulations to assist employers in creating safe working environments and protectingworkers from potential workplace hazards. In addition, individual states may also havesafety standards regulating chemical and physical workplace hazards for many industries. Federal safety standards and regulations affecting manufacturing industries can be foundin the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 29, Part 1910, and are available bycontacting your local OSHA field office. State and local regulations are available fromthe appropriate state office.

8.7.1 Chemical Safety Hazards

Chemical safety hazards associated with the use and application of adhesives undertypical operating conditions, as well as the concerns that may arise from unusualoperating conditions, are described below. Relevant concerns were identified during areview of MSDSs using definitions/criteria established by OSHA [29 CFR 1910], whichhave been summarized and included in Appendix C. OSHA health-based reportingcriteria have been omitted from this list. Refer to the risk characterization in Chapter 10for information on the risk to human health from adhesives.

Methylene Chloride Adhesive

The METH-based adhesive is both non-flammable and non-explosive under typical operatingconditions. However, vapors from the adhesive are heavier than air and can form highconcentrations in confined or poorly ventilated areas, which may then be ignited by a nearbyhigh intensity energy source, such as a pilot light or spark heater. METH will thermallydecompose under fire conditions to form toxic gases, including hydrochloric acid (HCl)fumes, chlorine gas, and phosgene. Exposure to adhesive fumes may cause minor eye or skinirritation.

88

METH adhesive is incompatible with both strong acids and strong alkalies, and can reactwith some metals including aluminum. Prolonged contact with aluminum or its alloys duringusage, and especially during storage, should be avoided.

Acetone and Acetone-Blend Adhesives

Adhesives containing acetone are both highly volatile and flammable (adhesive flashpointbelow 20°F) at room temperatures. Both acetone and acetone/heptane (or acetone/hexane)adhesives pose a fire hazard unless the proper precautions are taken during the adhesives useand storage. In areas where adhesives are used, sufficient ventilation should be provided toprevent the build-up of vapors, which are heavier than air and will collect to form explosiveconcentrations. Open flames, such as pilot lights, should be avoided along with otherignition sources such as motors, spark heaters, and areas of smoking. The solid portions ofthe adhesives are combustible, and will thermally decompose to form carbon monoxide,carbon dioxide, and various hydrocarbons.

Adhesives with acetone are incompatible with strong acids and oxidizing chemicals.Acetone-based adhesives will not undergo any hazardous polymerization. Exposure toadhesive fumes may cause minor eye or skin irritation. n-Propyl Bromide Adhesive

The nPB adhesive is not flammable or explosive under normal operating conditions, anddoes not present a fire hazard. Although fumes from the adhesive are heavier than air andwill tend to concentrate in confined spaces, under poor ventilation conditions, they are muchless likely to form explosive concentrations than the other solvent-based adhesives.However, good ventilation should be maintained as the fumes may pose a health threat toworkers at higher concentrations. Under high temperature conditions, the adhesive willthermally decompose to give hydrobromic acid fumes and carbon monoxide. Exposure toadhesive fumes may cause minor eye or skin irritation.

Incompatibilities for nPB adhesives include strong alkalies, oxidizers, and reactive metalssuch as aluminum. Prolonged contact with aluminum during usage or storage should beavoided. nPB adhesives will not undergo hazardous polymerization.

Water-Based Latex & Water-Based Latex/Synthetic Adhesive

Water-based adhesives are not flammable and pose no unusual fire or explosion hazards.After water evaporation, remaining solids may combust to form carbon monoxide, carbondioxide, and organic acids and aldehydes. The latex/synthetic adhesive may also thermallydecompose to form HCl. The adhesives will not undergo hazardous polymerization, but theyare incompatible with strong oxidizing agents and acids, and should be used and stored awayfrom these chemicals to prevent contact. Avoid contact with eyes, as both the liquid andadhesive vapors may cause eye or skin irritation.

Hot Melt Adhesive

Hot melt adhesives are solids at room temperature, and as such are not readily volatile. Hotmelts pose no unusual fire or explosion hazards under typical operating conditions, and will

89

not polymerize into hazardous substances. Once melted, care should be taken to avoidcontact with skin to prevent burns. Keep area well ventilated to prevent fumes from causingeye irritation.

Summary

Table 8-7 presents a summary of chemical safety hazards for each of the adhesive types.

Table 8-7. Hazardous Properties of Adhesive Chemical Ingredients

Adhesive Type Types of Hazardous Properties Reported on MSDS

METH Hazardous decomposition, skin or eye irritant

Acetone Flammable, explosive, fire hazard, sudden release of pressure, hazardousdecomposition, skin or eye irritant

Acetone/heptane Flammable, explosive, fire hazard, sudden release of pressure, hazardousdecomposition, skin or eye irritant

nPB Hazardous decomposition, skin or eye irritant

Water-based latex Skin or eye irritant

Water-basedlatex/synthetic

Hazardous decomposition, skin or eye irritant

Hot melt None noted

8.7.2 Storing and Handling Adhesives

It is important that workers know and follow the correct procedures for adhesive handlingand storage, especially for the solvent-based adhesives. Much of the use, disposal, andstorage information about adhesives may be obtained from the MSDSs provided by theadhesive manufacturer. Safe chemical storage and handling involves keeping chemicals intheir proper place, protected from adverse environmental conditions, separated fromchemicals with which they may react. Storage requirements and handling recommendationsfor adhesives include:

• Store adhesive containers in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight andother sources of heat. Containers of acetone-based adhesives may burst ifstored at temperatures higher than 130° F.

• Large containers (5 gallons or greater) including tank cars and trucks shouldbe bonded or grounded when transferring acetone-based adhesives.

• Adhesives should be stored separately from chemicals with which they reactsuch as strong oxidizers, acids, or alkalies. Prolonged contact with aluminumduring storage is also to be avoided for several of the adhesives.

• Solvent-based adhesives, especially those containing acetone, should bestored away from ignition sources or in a flammable liquid storage cabinet.

• Adhesives should only be stored in their properly sealed original containerswith appropriate labels. Refer to the CFR for OSHA chemical labelingrequirements [29 CFR 1910.1200 (f)].

90

Each chemical product should be stored in a manner consistent with the recommendation onthe MSDS. In addition, chemical storage facilities must be designed to meet any local, state,and federal requirements that may apply.

8.7.3 Worker Safety

An effective worker safety program identifies potential workplace hazards and, wherepossible, seeks to eliminate or at least reduce their potential for harm. An employee trainingprogram and PPE requirements are key elements of any worker safety program.

Employee Training

A critical element of workplace safety is a well-trained workforce. To help achieve this goal,the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard [29 CFR 1910.1200(h)] requires that allemployees at manufacturing facilities (regardless of the size of the facility) be trained in theuse of hazardous chemicals to which they are exposed. A training program should beinstituted for workers, especially those applying or working directly with adhesives, who maybecome exposed to the adhesives or adhesive fumes. Training may be conducted by eitherfacility staff or outside parties who are familiar with the adhesives application process andthe pertinent safety concerns. The training should be held for each new employee, as well as periodic retraining sessionswhen necessary (e.g., when a new adhesive or a new application method is used), or on aregular schedule. The training program should inform the workers about the types ofchemicals with which they work and the precautions to be used when handling or storingthem, when and how personal protection equipment should be worn, how to operate andmaintain equipment properly, and emergency response and chemical spill procedures.

Use of Personal Protective Equipment

OSHA has developed several PPE standards that are applicable to upholstered furniture andmattress manufacturing and foam fabrication industries. These standards address generalsafety and certification requirements (29 CFR Part 1910.132), the use of eye and faceprotection (Part 1910.133), head protection (Part 1910.135), foot protection (Part 1910.136),and hand protection (Part 1910.138). The standards for eye, face, and hand protection areparticularly important for the workers applying adhesives where there is close contact witha variety of chemicals, of which nearly all irritate or otherwise harm the skin and eyes. Inorder to prevent or minimize exposure to such chemicals, workers should be trained in theproper use of personal safety equipment.

The recommended PPE for a worker handling chemicals is also indicated on the MSDS. Forthe majority of adhesive chemicals, the appropriate protective equipment indicated by theMSDS includes the following:

• Goggles with side shields or a face shield to prevent the spraying of adhesivesinto the eyes;

• Chemical aprons or other impervious clothing to prevent the over-spray ofadhesives onto workers clothing; and

• Gloves to prevent dermal contact with adhesives.

91

Items less frequently suggested include chemically resistant boots and coveralls. In additionto the PPE listed above, some MSDSs recommend that other safety equipment be readilyavailable. This equipment includes an eye wash station, emergency showers, and fireextinguishers.

Other personal safety considerations are the responsibility of the worker. Workers shouldnot eat or keep food near the adhesives application area, and should not smoke near theadhesives application or storage areas.

8.8 OZONE DEPLETION

In 1974, the mechanism of ozone depletion was first proposed. It involved syntheticsubstances containing chlorine and bromine that have long atmospheric lifetimes. Theselong-lived substances do not decompose in the lower atmosphere and, over time, make theirway to the upper atmosphere or stratosphere. Once there, ultraviolet light causes the chlorineor bromine atoms to be liberated and they are then available to catalytically react with theozone, depleting the protective ozone layer. Depletion of stratospheric ozone allows moreUV-B radiation to reach the earth. Increased radiation has been linked to higher incidenceof various types of skin cancer and cataracts, suppression of the immune system, damage tocrops and aquatic organisms, and increased formation of ground level ozone. Themechanism of ozone depletion and potential consequences are described in detail by theWorld Meterological Organization (WMO, 1989).

In 1987, the United States and twenty-three other nations signed the Montreal Protocol onSubstances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in response to concerns about ozone depletion. Theagreement established a timetable for reducing the production and use of specific ozone-depleting substances including the chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115, and various bromine-containing halons. EPA developed regulations thatallocated production and consumption allowances equal to the total amount of productionand consumption granted to the United States under the Protocol.

In 1990, the Parties to the Protocol met in London to consider amendments to the Protocol.Scientific evidence at the time indicated that ozone depletion was more serious than had beenpreviously thought. The Parties agreed to accelerate the phaseout schedules for thesubstances already covered by the Protocol and agreed to add additional substances to thephaseout schedule. These included TCA, carbon tetrachloride, and other fully halogenatedCFCs. On November 15, 1990, then-President Bush signed the CAAAs. Title VI of theCAAAs requires a phaseout of the substances specified in the London Amendments to theProtocol. It defined Class I substances to include the CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, andTCA.

In October 1991, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announcednew findings documenting ozone depletion over the last decade that was more severe thanhad been earlier predicted. In response to these findings, then-President Bush announced anaccelerated schedule for phaseout of the Class I substances. It specified a productionphaseout of these substances in 1996.

The ODP is a measure of the ability of a substance to deplete ozone relative to the ability ofCFC-11 and CFC-12 to deplete ozone. CFC-11 and CFC-12 have defined ODPs of 1.0. TheODP for TCA is lower, at about 0.1. Production of TCA was banned on January 1, 1996,

92

but a significant amount of inventory remained. To discourage the use of ozone depletingsubstances further, Congress placed an accelerating tax on the Class I substances. The taxmade it much more expensive to use TCA and, in applications where there were alternatives,formulators and users adopted them. It has been predicted that the inventory of TCA wouldbe exhausted by about the end of 2000.

TCA-based adhesives were used widely by the upholstered furniture industry. TCA isexempt from VOC regulations and it is relatively low in toxicity. When the Congressionaltax on TCA became effective, adhesive formulators began offering adhesives based on otheralternatives. The alternatives included METH-based adhesives, water-based adhesives and,somewhat later, nPB-based adhesives.

Under Section 612 of the CAAAs, EPA was charged with developing a program forevaluating alternatives to ozone depleting substances. This program, called the SNAPprogram, requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any Class Isubstance with a substitute the Administrator determines may present adverse effects tohuman health or the environment in cases where the Administrator has identified analternative that reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment and is currentlyor potentially available. EPA periodically publishes lists of alternatives that have beendeemed to be acceptable, acceptable with certain limits, or unacceptable in a variety ofapplications.

EPA is in the process of reviewing nPB as a potential alternative to ozone-depletingsubstances in cleaning and adhesive applications under the SNAP program. On December18, 2000, EPA provided a review of the status of the chemical in the Federal Register. nPBcontains bromine, which is a more potent ozone depleter than chlorine. Even so, EPAestimates that the ODP of the chemical is relatively low. The ODP averaged for all globalemissions is estimated to range from 0.033 to 0.040, but the ODP for emissions from thetropics is estimated to be much larger, from 0.87 to 0.105. Assuming that emissions occuronly over the contiguous U.S., the ODP is estimated to range from 0.016 to 0.019. Noinformation on the ODP of 2-BP, a contaminant in nPB, was provided in the review. EPAis waiting to issue a final proposed rule on nPB until more information on the chemical’sreproductive and developmental toxicity is available.

93

Chapter 9Exposure Assessment

This exposure assessment uses a “model facility” approach, with the goal of comparingthe exposures and health risks associated with the use of one adhesive to the exposuresand risks associated with switching to another adhesive. A model facility is ahypothetical facility created from data for a number of actual facilities (e.g., room size,ventilation rate, hours per day process is operated, etc.). This enables chemical exposuresfrom the use of different adhesives to be compared under identical conditions. As muchas possible, reasonable and consistent assumptions are used across alternatives. Thus, themodel facility is not entirely representative of any one facility, and actual exposure (andrisk) could vary substantially, depending on site-specific operating conditions and otherfactors.

Data to characterize the model facility and exposure patterns were aggregated from anumber of sources, including facility site visits, publicly available chemical data, andinput from industry experts. Facility site visits were conducted by project personnel whocollected data through observation, interaction with facility personnel, and through thecompletion of a prepared set of questions. Collected data were aggregated and used toestablish typical, representative values for key exposure criteria, which together formedthe basis of the model facility. Industry experts were consulted to fill data gaps andreview results for accuracy.

Chemical exposures to workers and nearby residents from day-to-day adhesivesapplication operations were estimated by combining the information gathered fromindustry with standard EPA exposure assumptions for inhalation rate, surface area ofdermal contact and other parameters. EPA models were then used to calculate theresulting exposures. These exposure results are then combined with chemical toxicitydata (Chapter 8) to characterize risk (Chapter 10).

This assessment is focused on the long-term occupational and ambient exposuresresulting from routine adhesives application. Possible short-term exposures to high levelsof hazardous chemicals are not assessed, such as those that could occur from chemicalfires, spills, or other periodic releases that are not routine to the adhesive applicationprocess.

9.1 EXPOSURE SETTING

The exposure setting describes the conditions typically present at the time exposure tochemicals may occur. The exposure setting is defined by characterizing the physicalenvironment in which the potential exposures may occur, identifying the actions oractivities that may result in exposure to chemicals, and by identifying the workers andoutside populations (from releases into the environment) who may become exposed.

9.1.1 Physical Environment

The processes for bonding foam, furniture, and mattresses differ by adhesive type andsomewhat by industry. Types of adhesives considered in this assessment include solvent-based, water-based, and hot melt adhesives.

94

Exposure varies depending on the manner in which the adhesive is applied. Both solvent-based and water-based adhesives are applied with a spray gun, though the water-basedadhesives take longer to set. Adhesive spraying typically occurs in either an open topworkbench spray area with side panels that may have some local ventilation, or in anopen room with no mist containment and general room ventilation. The adhesives aresprayed on one or both surfaces before the pieces are pressed together and allowed tobond. Unlike the other adhesive types, hot melt adhesives are applied using a heated gluegun. The solid adhesive is melted by the glue gun before being applied directly to one orboth of the pieces to be joined. Once the pieces are affixed, the glue sets as it cools. Typically, hot melt adhesives are not used in foam fabrication because they produce hardseams, though they are used in some furniture manufacturing applications. Regardless ofthe adhesive, workers typically spend the entire eight-hour day applying adhesives.

Workers using solvent-based or water-based adhesives also periodically clean the sprayguns. Spray guns are typically cleaned with the same solvent that is present in theadhesive (e.g., METH is used to clean glue guns that apply methylene-chloride-basedadhesive) or with water in the case of a water-based adhesive. The overall averagecleaning time for all types of facilities is 3 hours per week. However, the time spentcleaning guns varies by the type of facility; mattress and furniture manufacturers spend1 hour/week on average, whereas foam fabricators spend 4 hours/week on average. Forsolvent-based adhesives, we assumed that workers are exposed to the solvent during theirworking hours, regardless of whether the worker is applying adhesive or cleaning the gluegun, so exposure is not evaluated separately for equipment cleaning.

A few facilities clean their glue guns with paint thinner. However, the choice of usingpaint thinner is independent of the type of adhesive, and evaluating paint thinner wouldnot aid in the risk comparison of adhesives. Therefore, the risk associated with the use ofpaint thinner is not evaluated.

The extent of both local and general ventilation can differ widely between facilities. Based on information collected from site visits, general ventilation of the entire adhesiveapplication area varies significantly, ranging from no active ventilation to relatively highventilation air flow rates. The ventilation air flow rate is an important factor in estimatinginhalation exposure. Low air flow rates allow the chemical concentrations in air to build,increasing the inhalation exposure of nearby workers. For this assessment, facilities werecategorized into two groups with regard to ventilation: average and worse-than-average(WTA) general ventilation. The air flow rates for average and WTA facilities were usedto calculate air concentrations and occupational exposures under each condition. The useof local ventilation for workers in a spray booth was inconsistent throughout the industryand was not considered in this exposure assessment, although good local ventilationcould significantly lower exposure.

The use of PPE can be an effective means of limiting some types of worker exposure tochemicals. During site visits to furniture manufacturing facilities, none of the adhesiveworkers were observed to be wearing gloves, which would limit dermal exposure toadhesives. In addition, workers at only nine of the 31 facilities were observed to bewearing safety glasses, with workers at three facilities wearing aprons, and workers at onefacility wearing caps. Although a few workers were observed to be wearing safetyglasses, aprons, and caps, they do not significantly reduce the amount of inhalation or

95

skin absorption. Therefore, the use of these other types of PPE was not a factor in thisexposure assessment.

9.1.2 Potentially Exposed Populations

Potentially exposed populations include workers within the furniture adhesives facilities,as well as human and ecological populations living nearby the facilities. Workers whomay be exposed to adhesive chemicals include adhesive application workers and anyother workers who may routinely spend a portion of their day in the adhesives applicationarea. During site-visits to furniture adhesives facilities, a number of workers wereobserved working in the adhesives application area, including supervisors andmaintenance personnel. The number of employees applying adhesive ranged widely fromone to 65 workers per shift, with most facilities having between 1 to 12 workers applyingglue. The number of additional workers in the area varied from zero to 250 workers. Theaverage for each type of facility is shown in Table 9-1. For this exposure assessment,workers were categorized into two groups: adhesives application workers, and otherworkers who might be present in the area.

Populations potentially exposed to adhesive chemicals released to the environmentoutside the facility include both human and ecological populations living nearby. Thisassessment estimates potential exposure to a hypothetical community living near a modelfurniture adhesives facility. While the general population is expected to contain sensitivemembers such as children, the elderly, and the infirm, this exposure assessment focuseson the exposure to a typical adult. Adhesive-using facilities are located in various areasof the United States, often in or around populated urban areas. Many are located in NorthCarolina, California, and Michigan. Exposure to ecological populations could also occuroutside a furniture adhesives facility, although this is not assessed separately. In thisassessment, the exposure to aquatic organisms is not calculated because adhesive releasesfrom the facility to surface water are not expected to occur.

Table 9-1. Average Number of Workers Potentially Exposed to Adhesives byType of Manufacturing Facility

Type of Facility

AdhesivesApplication

Workers

Other Workers inAdhesives Application

Area

Mattress Manufacturing 7 21

Foam Fabrication (greater than 50,000 sq.ft.)

13 31

Foam Fabrication (less than 50,000 sq. ft.) 9 12

Upholstered Furniture Manufacturing 10 16

Average Workers per Facilitya 11 24a The number of workers shown is simply an average of those reported for the individual types offacilities.

96

9.2 DEVELOPMENT AND SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The initial step in selecting exposure pathways is the development of exposure scenarios.An exposure scenario describes the exposure setting, potentially exposed populations orindividuals, and activities that could lead to exposure. For workplace exposures, thesetting involves the adhesives application process in a furniture adhesives facility. Anumber of facilities were visited to identify the types of workers who may be exposed andto characterize those worker’s activities. Identified worker activities that result inexposure include working in the process area, adhesives application, and equipmentcleaning.

9.2.1 Adhesive Application Exposure

The potential for chemical exposure during adhesive application is expected to varysignificantly among adhesive types due to methods in which they are applied. Solvent-based and water-based adhesives are applied using a spray gun to coat the desired areaswith adhesive before joining the pieces and allowing the adhesive to set. Sprayapplication of the adhesive may result in inhalation exposure occurring throughout thetime that an adhesive worker is in the adhesives application area because adhesive mistand solvent fumes can be present in the work area as the adhesive is applied and allowedto cure. Dermal exposure can occur through contact with the adhesive mist, over-spray ofadhesives onto the skin, or through direct contact while setting the pieces or cleaning thespray equipment.

Hot melt adhesive differs from the other adhesives in that it is heated to a meltingtemperature (above 200 oF) at the time of application, and then allowed to cool after thepieces have been pressed together. Inhalation exposure for workers may occur during theapplication of the hot melt adhesive. Dermal contact for line operators applying hot meltadhesive is expected to be minimal; due to the high temperature of the adhesive,chemicals are not expected to remain on a worker’s skin long enough for dermalabsorption to occur. (While the dermal exposure to hot melt adhesives is expected to benegligible, the adhesive does pose a serious burn hazard to line operators if not usedproperly.) Once cured, the hot melt adhesive reforms into a solid, after which inhalationor skin absorption is not expected to occur.

9.2.2 Other Worker Exposures

Other workers in the adhesives application process area may include maintenanceworkers, supervisory personnel, and other employees. They perform activities notdirectly related to adhesives application but typically spend some time in the adhesivesapplication area and may inhale airborne chemicals while in the area. However, becausethe adhesives worker typically spends the most time in the area each day (resulting in thegreatest inhalation exposure), exposure through inhalation is quantified for them. Forother types of workers, the inhalation exposure would be proportional to the time spent inthe process area. Other workers are not routinely involved in activities that requirecontact with the adhesives, thus the dermal exposure for them is not expected to besignificant and is not determined here.

97

9.2.3 Ambient Exposures

Ambient refers to the nearby area outside of a furniture adhesives facility. Chemicalsmay be released to the outside air from the venting of exhaust fumes generated during theapplication of adhesives or from fugitive plant emissions. Residents living near afurniture adhesives facility may be exposed to these airborne releases. The extent of theinhalation exposure depends on many factors including distance, whether the release is inan urban or rural area, and local weather patterns. Potential exposures to nearby residentswere determined in this assessment under urban conditions, at two distances, and in threerepresentative geographical locations.

Because adhesive chemicals are primarily released into the air, chemical releases to bothland and water resulting from adhesives application are not expected to be significant. Therefore, the exposure to either ecological populations or the general populationresulting from these releases is assumed to be negligible and is not quantified in thisassessment.

Two scenarios are quantified for nearby residents: average adhesive use and highadhesive use (unlike for workers, the type of ventilation used inside does not make adifference for the nearby residents). In either case, it is assumed that no pollutioncontrols are used for air vented to the outside.

9.2.4 Selection of Exposure Pathways

The definition of exposure scenarios leads to selection of the exposure pathways to beevaluated. An exposure scenario may include one or several pathways. A completeexposure pathway consists of the following elements:

• A source of chemical and mechanism of release.• A point at which the exposure occurs (location of the person being

exposed in relation to the source).• A transport medium (if the exposure point differs from the source).• An exposure route (the means by which a chemical may contact and enter

the body, e.g., inhalation, skin contact, etc.).

Tables 9-2 and 9-3 present an overview of the exposure pathway selection for workersand nearby residents, respectively. For workers, a potential pathway that is not quantifiedis oral exposure to vapors or aerosols. Inhalation and dermal exposure are expected toaccount for most of the worker exposure.

As stated previously, population exposures are primarily expected to occur throughreleases to air. The pathway for which exposure is estimated is the inhalation ofchemicals released from a facility to a nearby residential area. This is done by modelingair releases from the adhesives application process for the model facility under bothaverage and high adhesive use scenarios. Then, those modeled emission rates are used incombination with an air dispersion model to estimate air concentrations to nearbyresidents.

98

Table 9-2. Workplace Activities and Associated Potential Exposure PathwaysActivities Potential Pathways Evaluation Approach and Rationale

Adhesives Application WorkersAdhesives Application Dermal contact with

adhesive chemicals.Exposure quantified for dermal contact tohands and forearms; the highest potentialdermal exposure is expected from thisactivity. Exposure to hot melt adhesiveexpected to be negligible.

Inhalation of vapors oraerosols from adhesives.

Exposure quantified for volatileingredients of spray adhesives.

Adhesives Equipment Cleaning Dermal contact withadhesive and cleaningsolvent.

Not quantified separately. Included in“adhesives application line operation;”exposure is expected to be minimal whencompared to the dermal exposureresulting from adhesives application.

Inhalation of vapors oraerosols from adhesiveand cleaning solvent.

Not quantified separately. Included in“adhesives application;” exposure isexpected to be minimal when compared tothe dermal exposure resulting from theapplication of adhesives.

Other Workers in Process AreaWorking in Process Area Inhalation of vapors or

aerosols from adhesives.Exposure quantified for adhesivesworkers; exposure for other workers isproportional to their exposure durations(EDs).

Dermal contact withadhesive chemicals.

Exposure is expected to be negligible andnot quantified.a

a This assumes adhesives application workers are the most exposed individuals and perform all direct maintenance,including cleaning, on the application equipment.

Table 9-3. Potential Population Exposure PathwaysPopulation Potential Pathways Evaluation Approach and Rationale

Residents LivingNear a FurnitureAdhesives Facility

Inhalation of chemicals releasedto air.

Exposure quantified for volatileingredients of spray adhesives. Dispersion of releases at threegeographical locations was modeled, withthe highest air concentration used toquantify exposure.

Ecological Exposure to chemicals released to air.

Not evaluated separately.

Nearby Residents andEcological

Exposure to chemicals released tosurface water or land.

Not quantified; releases directly to land orsurface water are expected to benegligible.

99

9.3 EXPOSURE-POINT CONCENTRATIONS

An exposure-point concentration is the concentration of a chemical in its transportmedium (e.g. air) at the point of contact where exposure may occur. Sources of data forthis part of the exposure assessment include monitoring data, publicly-available adhesivechemical data, generic adhesive formulations generated by industry experts, and fate andtransport models to estimate air releases and air concentrations. Chemical concentrationsused to calculate dermal exposure from adhesive use were those estimated for the genericformulations (Section 7.3). Fate and transport modeling was performed to estimate airconcentrations to which workers and nearby residents may be exposed, as described inSection 9.3.1. Available monitoring data are presented in Section 9.3.2; these data arenot used in the risk calculations, but provide a basis for comparing the estimated(modeled) workplace air concentrations for a model facility.

9.3.1 Estimating Workplace Air Concentrations

The exposure-point concentration for occupational inhalation exposure is estimated bymodeling the workplace air chemical concentrations. The indoor air concentration foreach volatile chemical was calculated using the following equation (EPA, 1991a):where:Ca = Concentration of the chemical in air (mg/m3)Yv = Mass emission rate of volatile compound released (g/min)AT = Air flow rate (m3/min)k = Dimensionless room ventilation mixing coefficient—0.5 assumed

(EPA, 1991a)

This equation was used to determine the chemical concentration of volatile compounds inair for both average adhesive use and high adhesive use, as well as under both averageand WTA ventilation conditions. The four possible resulting combinations for eachadhesive are shown in Table 9-4. Scenario 1 was developed to represent an averagemodel facility. Scenario 4 yields the highest exposures. Although it is not representativeof most facilities, the results from scenario 4 are useful for comparing risks amongadhesive types. The difference between scenarios 4 and 3 indicates the effect adhesiveusage has on exposure; the difference between scenarios 4 and 2 the effect of generalventilation. Overall, the difference between scenarios 1 and 4 indicates the range ofinhalation exposures and risks associated with variations in adhesive use and facilityparameters; scenario 1 and 4 results are presented here. (All results are presented inAppendix D).

Table 9-4. Scenarios Evaluated for the Adhesives Application Line OperationVentilation Average Adhesive Use High Adhesive Use

Average Facility Scenario 1 Scenario 2

WTA Facility Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Of the eight facilities providing both general ventilation and room-size information, anaverage air flow rate of 807 m3/min was determined. However, a number of facilitiesvisited by project personnel had no active ventilation, and for these facilities a WTA airturnover rate of 0.5 hr-1 (ASHRAE, 1993) was selected. The air turnover rate is the

100

number of times one volume of air in the room is replaced over a period of time (typicallyper hour), and can be used to calculate an air flow rate if the size of the room is known. Using the turnover rate of 0.5 hr-1, an air flow rate for WTA ventilation conditions of 192m3/min was determined and used in the above equation. Although the effects of localventilation were not considered (the use of local ventilation is not prevalent in theindustry), the presence of local ventilation could significantly reduce worker inhalationexposure to workplace chemicals. The mixing factor accounts for slow and incompletemixing of ventilation air with room air; a value of 0.5 was used for this factor.

The mass emission rate of each chemical was calculated based on the yearly adhesive userates for all adhesives. Annual adhesive use rate data were obtained from facility sitevisits. The resulting log-normally distributed data were log-transformed and the averageand 90th percentile values taken as the average- and high-adhesive-use rates. For METH,this is approximately 2,500 gal/yr for average use, and 25,000 gal/yr for high use. UsingMETH as the baseline, the use rates were then normalized by the solids content of eachtype of adhesive. The use rates were then converted to mass emission rates using thespecific gravity of the adhesive, and assuming a two-thousand-hour work year. Thesolids content along with the adhesive-specific average and high adhesive use rates usedto calculate workplace air concentrations are shown in Appendix D.

Chemicals with a vapor pressure greater than 0.001 torr were considered to be volatileand their concentrations modeled. The model assumes that 100 percent of thosechemicals become airborne. The assumption is reasonable for many of the adhesivechemicals, especially the solvents, given their volatility and the method of application(with a spray gun). However, some marginally volatile chemicals may not completelyvolatilize under these conditions, and their concentrations in workplace air may beoverestimated. Other model assumptions presume that the incoming air is contaminantfree and, although air in the room is not completely mixed, mixing of air in the processroom maintains a constant pattern over time (i.e., remains at steady state).

Modeled indoor air concentrations of volatile adhesive compounds are presented in Table9-5 for the average adhesive use /average ventilation scenario (scenario 1) and the highadhesive use/WTA ventilation scenario (scenario 4). Indoor air concentration for theother combinations of ventilation and glue use are presented in Appendix D.

101

Table 9-5. Estimated Indoor Air Concentrations of Volatile Adhesive Chemicalsfor

Industry Average and High-End Scenarios

Adhesive Type /Volatile Chemical

Ingredient

Mass EmissionRate:

Average/High (g/min)

Indoor Air Concentration (mg/m3 )

Average Adhesive Useand AverageVentilation

High Adhesive Use andWTA Ventilation

METH Adhesive

METH 64 / 643 159 6,700

Irganox 1010 0.9 / 9.5 2.3 98.5

Acetone Adhesive

Acetone 64 / 643 160 6,710

Irganox 1010 0.9 / 8.6 2.1 89.4

Acetone/Heptane Adhesive

Acetone 16 / 156 38.7 1,630

Heptane 16 / 156 38.7 1,630

Irganox 1010 0.5 / 5.2 1.3 54.3

nPB Adhesive

nPB 74 / 739 183 7,700

Irganox 1010 1.1 / 11 2.7 113

1,3-Dioxolane 3.3 / 33 8.1 340

1,2-Butylene oxide 0.3 / 3.3 0.8 34.0

2-BP 1.1 / 11 2.7 113

Water-Based Latex Adhesive

Ammonia (fromammoniumhydroxide)a

0.36 / 3.6 0.89 37.4

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

1.8 / 18 4.6 192

Cyanox 2246 0.2 / 1.8 0.5 19.2

Surfynol 440 0.2 / 1.8 0.5 19.2

Water-Based Latex/Synthetic Adhesive

Ammonia (fromammoniumhydroxide)a

0.36 / 3.6 0.89 37.4

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

1.8 / 18 4.6 192

Table 9-5. Estimated Indoor Air Concentrations of Volatile Adhesive Chemicalsfor

Industry Average and High-End Scenarios

Adhesive Type /Volatile Chemical

Ingredient

Mass EmissionRate:

Average/High (g/min)

Indoor Air Concentration (mg/m3 )

Average Adhesive Useand AverageVentilation

High Adhesive Use andWTA Ventilation

102

Chloroprene 0.0004 / 0.004 0.001 0.038

Cyanox 2246 0.2 / 1.8 0.5 19.2

Surfynol 440 0.2 / 1.8 0.5 19.2

Hot Melt Adhesive

Irganox 1010 0.02 / 0.2 0.1 2.5

Alternative Ingredientsb

Hexane 16 /156 38.7 1,630

TCE 27 /272 67.3 2,830a Ammonia, formed from ammonium hydroxide during spray application, is the volatile form that isreleased to workplace and outdoor air. b Alternative adhesive ingredients not included in typical adhesive formulations; hexane may be used insome acetone-blend formulations and TCE in some nPB formulations.

9.3.2 Monitoring Data

Monitoring is sometimes performed by facilities or others to determine whether workersare being exposed to a chemical and the extent of that exposure. It can also be performedin response to an enforcement action. When available, monitoring data gives the bestindication of worker exposure at a specific facility. It is important, however, to note thatthe data reflect the workplace conditions in which the monitoring occurred. Modelingdata are used in the exposure calculations for two reasons: first, so that all adhesives canbe compared on an equal basis, using the model facility approach (since monitoring dataonly represent specific facilities) and second, because monitoring data were not availablefor all chemical ingredients in all of the evaluated adhesives. Though a search wasconducted to locate monitoring data for each of the adhesive types, data were onlyobtained for METH, nPB, and 2-BP. The available monitoring data are useful, however,to check the reasonableness of the modeling results.

The proposed fining of a furniture adhesives facility by OSHA for excessive workerexposure to METH was announced in February, 2001 (OSHA, 2001). Following up on aworker complaint, an OSHA investigation found that three employees, wearing norespiratory or eye protection, were exposed to as much as 14 times the PEL of 86 mg/m3

(25 ppm) during spray application of an adhesive containing 60 percent METH. Short-term exposure to METH by the workers also exceeded 5 times the short-term exposurelimit (STEL) of 440 mg/m3 (125 ppm). OSHA monitoring data collected during theinvestigation of the facility are presented in Table 9-6. Another foam fabrication plantmeasured 340 to 690 mg/m3 (100 to 200 ppm) METH in air, with the use of localventilation specific to the adhesive application line.

103

Table 9-6. Adhesive Exposure Monitoring Data for METH

ChemicalMonitoring

Type

Chemical Concentration(mg/m3)a

Monitoring DetailsRange Average

Facility A (OSHA Enforcement Action; OSHA, 2001)

METH Workersampling(8-hr time-weighted avg)

1,200 - 1,240 1,220 Exposure monitoring offabrication sprayers. Oneshift, 3 employee samples(from 382 to 390 minuteseach). Exceeded PEL of86 mg/m3 (25 ppm) by 14times.

METH Workersampling (shortterm)

1,440 - 2,520 1,980 Exposure monitoring offabrication sprayers. 3samples per employee (9samples total). Samplingperiod of 15 minuteseach. Exceeded theSTEL of 430 mg/m3 (125ppm).

a To convert mg/m3 METH to ppm, divide by 3.4 (this is approximate: the factor varies with temperatureand atmospheric pressure).PEL: OSHA permissible exposure levelSTEL: Short-term exposure limit

Monitoring data for nPB and 2-BP were obtained by NIOSH from three facilities usingthe nPB adhesive. The monitoring included both worker exposure monitoring and areamonitoring data. These data are summarized in Table 9-7.

104

Table 9-7. Exposure Monitoring Data for nPB and 2-BP

ChemicalMonitoring

Type

Chemical Concentration(mg/m3)a

Monitoring DetailsRange Average

Facility B (NIOSH, 2000a)

nPB Workermonitoring/sampling

210 - 720 330 Exposure monitoring offabrication sprayers; fullshift (9 samples).2-BP 1.7 - 6.8 3.3

nPB Area airsampling

36 — Area air sample taken infabrication room (1 sample).2-BP 0.55 —

Facility C (NIOSH, 2000b)

nPB Workermonitoring/sampling

27 - 290 160 Exposure monitoring ofcover sprayers; full shift(11 samples).2-BP 1.5 - 5.5 0.35

nPB Area airsampling

5.5 - 9.5 — Area air sample taken insewing area (5 samples).2-BP <0.05 —

Facility D (NIOSH, 2001)

nPB Workermonitoring/sampling

290 - 1270 580 Exposure monitoring ofall sprayers; full shift (12 samples).2-BP 1 - 3.4 1.7

nPB Area airsampling

27 - 44 — Area air samples (2 samples).

2-BP 0.3 — Area air sample (1 sample).

a To convert mg/m3 nPB or 2-BP to ppm, divide by 5 (this is approximate: the factor varies withtemperature and atmospheric pressure).

A comparison of modeled air concentrations to monitoring data suggest that the modeledresults are reasonable, although the high-use/WTA-ventilation scenario yielded higher airconcentrations than any monitoring data. For METH, air concentrations of 160 to 6,700mg/m3 were estimated from modeling for average-use/average-ventilation, and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios, respectively. Monitoring data range from 340 to 690mg/m3 for the facility using local ventilation and from 410 to 1,240 mg/m3 for the facilitysubject to OSHA enforcement action.

For nPB, air concentrations of 180 to 7,700 mg/m3 were estimated from modeling foraverage-use/average-ventilation, and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios, respectively. Monitoring data range from 27 to 1,270 mg/m3 for adhesive sprayer monitoring and from5.5 to 44 mg/m3 for area air samples. For 2-BP, air concentrations of 2.7 to 113 mg/m3

were estimated from modeling for average-use/average-ventilation, and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios, respectively.

Monitoring data range from 1 to 6.8 mg/m3 for adhesive sprayer monitoring and from lessthan 0.05 to 0.55 mg/m3 for area air samples. These results also suggest that the modeled

6 A polar grid is a coordinate system that describes the location of a point by means of direction anddistance in relation to a central point (e.g., two miles northeast of the center). In the model, a series ofregularly-spaced concentric distance rings are defined at chosen intervals along with a defined number ofdirection vectors (e.g., north, south, east, west, northeast, northwest, southeast, and southwest would beeight directions).

105

air concentrations are more representative of air concentrations near the adhesive sprayersthan air in the general process area.

9.3.3 Ambient Air Concentrations for Nearby Resident Exposure

Residents living near a furniture adhesives facility may be exposed to adhesives emittedfrom the facility into the ambient air. To estimate exposure to nearby residents, thereleases were modeled using an air dispersion model to determine the chemicalconcentration in air at the point at which exposure is likely to occur. The dispersionmodeling was performed for three locations: Grand Rapids, Michigan; High Pointe,North Carolina; and El Monte, California. These locations were chosen for theirconcentration of upholstered furniture manufacturing facilities and because of theirtopographical differences.

The following approach was used for dispersion modeling of air emissions from a singlemodel facility:

• Model: Industrial Source Complex—Long Term [ISC(2)LT] model fromthe Risk*Assistant™ software. The long term model was selected becauseof the project focus on chronic exposures.

• Release Rate: 1 gm/sec, selected as the standard release rate. Results wereadjusted for actual rates using a normalizing factor as described in Table9-8 below.

• Building (release) height: 7 meters, based on average height of facilitydata.

• Area source: 10 meters x 10 meters. An area source was used to representthe presence of a general ventilation system where emissions are typicallyreleased through roof vents, windows, and doors, not through a stack. Thesize was selected to reflect the portion of the facility involved in adhesivesapplication.

• Plume rise: Yes, regulatory default value.• Stack-tip downwash: No, not appropriate for an area source.• Buoyancy induced dispersion: Yes, regulatory default value.• Vertical temperature gradients: Yes, regulatory default value.• Release setting: Urban, selected due to urban location for most facilities.• Location for exposure point concentrations: a standard polar grid6 with 16

vector directions and two distance rings (at 25 m and 100 m) was used. Distances were selected to represent a range of the typical distance ofresidential areas from a furniture facility.

• Meteorological data: Meteorological data for the designated areas wereobtained from the EPA Support Center for Regulatory Air Modeling Website (http://www.epa.goc/ttn/scram) for the most recent year available (airdata from 1991 and surface data from 1992) for the following locations:— Grand Rapids, Michigan [Station # MI94860 (surface and air)]

106

— El Monte, California [Station # CA23174 (surface) and #NV03160 (air)]

— High Pointe, North Carolina [Station # NC13273 (surface and air)]

Because of the short time expected for chemical transport to nearby residents, chemicaldegradation is not taken into account. The emission rates calculated for workplaceinhalation exposures are used for the source emission rates to ambient air. The airconcentrations of chemicals resulting from a unit emission (1 g/sec), as determined by theair dispersion modeling are summarized in Table 9-8.

Table 9-8. Results of Air Dispersion Modeling for Unit Chemical Emissions (1 g/sec)

Location

Concentration in Air at 25 metersa

(mg/m3)Concentration in Air at 100 metersa

(mg/m3)

High Range High Range

El Monte, CA 0.22 0.027 - 0.22 0.11 0.011 - 0.11

Grand Rapids, MI 0.10 0.053 - 0.10 0.033 0.015 - 0.033

High Pointe, NC 0.11 0.039 - 0.11 0.052 0.007 - 0.052a Estimated emission rates for individual chemicals were multiplied by the air concentration resulting from a unitemission (shown in the above table) to estimate the corresponding air concentrations at the exposure point.

The concentrations at any one site can vary with the wind direction and speed, which arereflected by the range of concentrations obtained for different directions from the release.The highest air concentration among all of the three locations at each distance (25 and100 meters) was used to calculate exposure to surrounding populations. Theconcentrations from El Monte proved to be the highest at each of the distances. It isimportant to note that use of the highest air concentration will result in the calculation ofthe highest risks.

Chemical concentrations in the ambient air at an exposure point 25 meters from thefacility, for average and high adhesive use, are presented in Table 9-9. Chemicalconcentrations at a distance of 100 meters are presented in Appendix D.

107

Table 9-9. Chemical Concentrations in Ambient Air, 25 Meters from the Model Facility

Adhesive Type /Chemical Ingredient a

Average Adhesive Use High Adhesive UseEmission

Rate (g/sec)Concentration in

Air (mg/m3)Emission

Rate (g/sec)Concentration in Air

(mg/m3)METH AdhesiveMETH 1.1E+0 2.3E-1 1.1E+1 2.3E+0Irganox 1010 1.6E-2 3.4E-3 1.6E-1 3.4E-2Acetone AdhesiveAcetone 1.1E+0 2.3E-1 1.1E+1 2.3E+0Irganox 1010 1.4E-2 3.1E-3 1.4E-1 3.1E-2Acetone Heptane AdhesiveAcetone 2.6E-1 5.7E-2 2.6E+0 5.7E-1Heptane 2.6E-1 5.7E-2 2.6E+0 5.7E-1Irganox 1010 8.7E-3 1.9E-3 8.7E-2 1.9E-2nPB AdhesivenPB 1.2E+0 2.7E+1 1.2E+1 2.7E+0Irganox 1010 1.8E-2 4.0E-3 1.8E-1 4.0E-21,3-Dioxolane 5.4E-2 1.2E-2 5.4E-1 1.2E-11,2-Butylene oxide 5.4E-3 1.2E-3 5.4E-2 1.2E-22-BP 1.8E-2 4.0E-3 1.8E-1 4.0E-2Water-Based Latex AdhesiveAmmonia (fromammonium hydroxide)b

6.1E-3 1.3E-3 6.1E-2 1.3E-2

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

3.1E-2 6.7E-3 3.1E-1 6.7E-2

Cyanox 2246 3.1E-3 6.8E-4 3.1E-2 6.8E-3Surfynol 440 3.1E-3 6.8E-4 3.1E-2 6.8E-3Water-Based Latex/Synthetic AdhesiveAmmonia (fromammonium hydroxide)b

6.1E-3 1.3E-3 6.1E-2 1.3E-2

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

3.1E-2 6.7E-3 3.1E-1 6.7E-2

Chloroprene 6.1E-06 1.3E-06 6.1E-05 1.3E-05Cyanox 2246 3.1E-3 6.8E-4 3.1E-2 6.8E-3Surfynol 440 3.1E-3 6.8E-4 3.1E-2 6.8E-3Hot Melt AdhesiveIrganox 1010 4.0E-4 8.6E-05 4.0E-3 8.6E-4Alternative Ingredientsc

Hexane 2.6E-1 5.7E-2 2.6E+0 5.7E-1TCE 4.5E-1 9.9E-2 4.5E+0 9.9E-1

108

Notes for Table 9-9a Chemicals with vapor pressures over 0.001 torr included in the model.b Ammonia, formed from ammonium hydroxide during spray application, is the volatile form that is released toworkplace and outdoor air. c Alternative adhesive ingredients not included in typical adhesive formulations; hexane may be used in some acetone-blend formulations and TCE in some nPB formulations.Note: The numeric format used in these tables is a form of scientific notation, where the “E” replaces the“ x 10x” in scientific notation. Scientific notation is typically used to present very large or very small numbers. Forexample, 1.2E-04 is the same as 1.2 x 10-4, which is the same as 0.00012 in common decimal notation.

To check model sensitivity to the area source size, dispersion modeling was alsoperformed for a larger facility using an area source of 50 square meters, also assumingonly general ventilation is present. The results of the modeling indicate a reduction in theabove air concentrations by a factor of 2.6, with a similar reduction in the associatedgeneral population exposure.

9.4 EXPOSURE MODELS AND RESULTS

This section contains information on models and parameter values for worker and nearbyresident exposure estimates. Results of the modeling are presented in each section. Dataon frequency and duration of most activities were derived from the data collected onvisits to adhesive-using facilities and by consultation with industry experts. The generalmodels for calculating potential dose rates for inhalation and dermal absorption arediscussed below.

9.4.1 Inhalation Exposures

Workplace inhalation exposure to volatile ingredients depends on the rate of roomventilation and by the volume of adhesive used, both of which contribute to the airborneconcentration of chemicals in the workplace. The average daily dose (ADD) forinhalation by adhesive application workers was estimated as follows (EPA, 1991a):

ADD = (Ca)(b)(ET)(EF)(ED)/ [(BW)(ATnc)]where:ADD = Average daily dose (mg/kg-day) (for non-carcinogens)Ca = Airborne concentration of substance (mg/m3)b = Inhalation rate (m3/hr) ET = Exposure time (hr/day)EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)ED = Exposure duration (years)BW = Body weight (kg)ATnc = Averaging time for non-carcinogenic effect (days)

Parameter values for estimating inhalation exposure to workers and the source of the dataare shown in Table 9-10.

109

Table 9-10. Parameter Values for Workplace Inhalation Exposures

Parameter Value Source of Data/Comments

Ca Calculated foreach volatileingredient.

Concentration of chemical in air (see Table 9-7).

b 1.25 m3/hr EPA default value (EPA, 1991a); data from (NIOSH, 1976).

ET 8 hr/day Average hours per day adhesives application workers are exposedto adhesive fumes (obtained from facility site-visits).

EF 250 days/yr Average days per year adhesives application workers are exposed(obtained during facility site-visits).

ED 25 years 95th percentile for job tenure (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1990).

BW 71.8 kg Mean recommended value for adults (EPA, 1997b).

ATnc 9,125 days Calculated: 25 yrs (ED) * 365 days/yr (EPA, 1997b).

Estimated ADDs for workplace inhalation exposure are presented in Table 9-11 for theaverage-use /average-ventilation and the high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios. The firstscenario estimates exposures associated with typical facility conditions, while the latterrepresents a high-end scenario. Estimated ADDs for the other combinations ofventilation and glue use are presented in Appendix D. Only volatile chemicals areconsidered in the estimate of inhalation exposures.

110

Table 9-11. Estimated ADDs for Workplace Inhalation

Adhesive Type / Chemical Ingredient a

ADDd (mg/kg-day)Average-Use and

Average-Ventilation High-Use and WTA-VentilationMETH AdhesiveMETH 1.52E+01 6.38E+02Irganox 1010 2.19E-01 9.38E+00Acetone AdhesiveAcetone 1.53E+01 6.39E+02Irganox 1010 2.00E-01 8.53E+00Acetone/Heptane AdhesiveAcetone 3.69E+00 1.55E+02Heptane 3.69E+00 1.55E+02Irganox 1010 1.24E-01 5.17E+00nPB AdhesivenPB 1.75E+01 7.34E+02Irganox 1010 2.58E-01 1.08E+011,3-Dioxolane 7.73E-01 3.24E+011,2-Butylene oxide 7.63E-02 3.25E+002-BP 2.58E-01 1.08E+01Water-Based Latex AdhesiveAmmonia (from ammoniumhydroxide)b

8.59E-02 3.57E+00

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates 4.39E-01 1.83E+01Cyanox 2246 4.77E-02 1.84E+00Surfynol 440 4.77E-02 1.84E+00Water-Based Latex/Synthetic AdhesiveAmmonia (from ammoniumhydroxide)b

8.59E-02 3.57E+00

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates 4.39E-01 1.83E+01Chloroprene 9.54E-05 3.61E-03Cyanox 2246 4.77E-02 1.84E+00Surfynol 440 4.77E-02 1.84E+00Hot Melt AdhesiveIrganox 1010 9.54E-03 2.40E-01Additional Ingredientsc

Hexane 3.69E+00 1.55E+02TCE 6.42E+00 2.70E+02a Chemicals with vapor pressures over 0.001 torr included in the model.

b Ammonia, formed from ammonium hydroxide during spray application, is the volatile form that is released toworkplace and outdoor air. c Alternative adhesive ingredients not included in typical adhesive formulations; hexane may be used in someacetone-blend formulations and TCE in some nPB formulations.d ADD: Average daily doseNote: The numeric format used in these tables is a form of scientific notation, where the “E” replaces the“ x 10x” in scientific notation. Scientific notation is typically used to present very large or very small numbers. For example, 1.2E-04 is the same as 1.2 x 10-4, which is the same as 0.00012 in common decimal notation.

111

9.4.2 Workplace Dermal Exposures

Dermal exposures were also estimated for the adhesives application worker. Unlike theinhalation exposure scenarios, where exposure was dependent on the ventilation air flowrateand the volume of adhesive use, dermal exposure is independent of both factors. Theconcentration of the chemical at the point of exposure is the concentration of the chemicalin the adhesive. Because an adhesives worker is expected to have dermal contact with theadhesive chemicals repeatedly throughout the work day, the concentration of chemicalapplied to the total skin contact area defines the estimate of dermal exposure. Theexposure time is not explicitly taken into account—it is assumed that the amount ofchemical retained on skin is completely absorbed over the course of the workday.

The ADD for dermal exposure to adhesive chemicals was estimated as follows (U.S.EPA, 1991a):

ADD= (S)(C)(Q)(EF)(ED)/ [(BW)(ATnc)]

where:ADD = Average daily dose (mg/kg-day) (for non-carcinogens)S = Surface area of contact (cm2)C = Concentration of chemical (wt %) Q = Amount of chemical retained on skin (mg/cm2-day)EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)ED = Exposure duration (years)BW = Body weight (kg)ATnc = Averaging time for non-carcinogenic effect (days)

General parameter values for estimating worker’s potential dose rates from dermalexposure are presented in Table 9-12. Assumptions made while estimating the dermalexposure to adhesives workers are shown in Table 9-13. Estimated dermal ADDs arepresented in Table 9-14.

112

Table 9-12. Parameter Values for Workplace Dermal Exposures

Parameter Value Source of Data/Comments

S 1,980 cm2 Mean dermal surface area for adult men—hands and forearms (EPA, 1997b).

Q 10.3 mg/cm2-day

Amount of chemical retained on skin. Value reflects “routine”immersion with 2 hands as defined by CEB for activities such asspray painting (EPA, 2000b).

C Calculated foreach ingredient

Concentration of chemical in percent by weight (Section 7.3).

EF 250 days/yr Average days per year adhesives application workers are exposed(obtained during facility site-visits).

ED 25 years 95th percentile for job tenure (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1990).

BW 71.8 kg Mean recommended value for adults (EPA, 1997b).

ATnc 9,125 days Calculated: 25 yrs (ED) * 365 days/yr (EPA, 1997b).

Table 9-13. Workplace Dermal Exposure Assumptions

Assumption Comment

No gloves or other PPE is used The use of gloves and long sleeves would greatly reducedermal exposure, however, glove usage was not observedduring site-visits.

Exposed skin area includes forearms Assumption consistent with site-visit observations. Exposed skin area in contact with chemicals would be 840cm2 when only hands are considered (exposure would be roughly 2.4 times lower).

Dermal exposure not affected byannual volume of adhesive used

The calculated ADD represents the dermal exposureincurred by a single worker per day, which is then averagedover the ED (25 years). It is assumed that the number ofworkers exposed would vary according to the volume ofadhesive used while the ADD per worker would remainrelatively constant.

ADD = Average daily doseED = Exposure durationPPE = Personal protective equipment

113

Table 9-14. Estimated ADDs for Dermal Workplace ExposureAdhesive Type /

Chemical IngredientChemical Concentration

(wt %)aADD

(mg/kg-day)METH Adhesive

METH 68 1.32E+02

SBS block copolymer 16 Negligible b

Tackifying resin 15 2.92E+01

Irganox 1010 01 Negligible b

Acetone Adhesive

Acetone 75 1.46E+02

Nitrile rubber 11 Negligible b

Tackifying resin 13 2.53E+01

Irganox 1010 1 Negligible b

Acetone/Heptane Adhesive

Acetone 30 5.84E+01

Heptane 30 5.84E+01

SBS block copolymer 14 Negligible b

Tackifying resin 25 4.86E+01

Irganox 1010 1 Negligible b

nPB Adhesive

nPB 68 1.32E+02

SBS block copolymer 14 Negligible b

Tackifying resin 12.7 2.47E+01

Irganox 1010 1 Negligible b

1,3-Dioxolane 3 5.84E+00

1,2-Butylene oxide 0.3 5.84E-01

2-BP 1 1.95E+00

Water-Based Latex Adhesive

Latex 61 Negligible b

Ammonia (from ammoniumhydroxide)c

2 3.89E+00

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates 5 9.73E+00

Tackifying resin 2 3.89E+00

Cyanox 2246 0.5 9.73E-01

Surfynol 440 0.5 9.73E-01

Table 9-14. Estimated ADDs for Dermal Workplace ExposureAdhesive Type /

Chemical IngredientChemical Concentration

(wt %)aADD

(mg/kg-day)

114

Water-Based Latex/Synthetic Adhesive

Latex 55 Negligible b

Neoprene (polychloroprene) 6 Negligible b

Ammonia (from ammoniumhydroxide)c

2 3.89E+00

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates 5 9.73E+00

Tackifying resin 2 3.89E+00

Chloroprene 0.001 1.95E-03

Cyanox 2246 0.5 9.73E-01

Surfynol 440 0.5 9.73E-01

Hot Melt Adhesive: Not Applicable

Additional Ingredientsd

Hexane 30 5.84E+01

TCE 25 4.86E+01a Weight percentages may not reflect the entire composition of the adhesive (i.e. 100 %). In these cases, the remainderof the weight is water.b Dermal absorption assumed to be negligible because of high molecular weight and large molecular size.c Ammonia, formed from ammonium hydroxide during spray application, is the volatile form that is released toworkplace and outdoor air. d Alternative adhesive ingredients not included in typical adhesive formulations; hexane may be used in some acetone-blend formulations and TCE in some nPB formulations.Note: The numeric format used in these tables is a form of scientific notation, where the “E” replaces the “ x 10x” inscientific notation. Scientific notation is typically used to present very large or very small numbers. For example, 1.2E-04 is the same as 1.2 x 10-4, which is the same as 0.00012 in common decimal notation.

9.4.3 Nearby Resident Exposure

Potential inhalation exposures were also estimated for residents living near a modelfacility. Inhalation exposure varies by the amount of adhesive used by the facility (i.e.,emission rate) and by the distance from the emitting facility, both of which are reflectedin the chemical concentration in ambient air at the point of exposure. The equation forestimating ADD from inhalation for a person residing near a facility are (EPA, 1991a):

ADD = (Ca)(IR)(EF)(ED)/[(BW)(ATNC)]where:ADD = Average daily dose (mg/kg-day) (for non-carcinogens)Ca = Chemical concentration in air (mg/m3) (from air dispersion modeling,

Table 9-9)IR = Inhalation rate (m3/day)EF = Exposure frequency (day/yr)ED = Exposure duration (years)BW = Average body weight (kg)ATnc = Averaging time for non-carcinogenic chronic effects (days)

115

Parameter values for estimating the inhalation exposure to the general population arepresented in Table 9-15.

Table 9-15. Parameter Values for Estimating Nearby Residential Inhalation ExposureParameter Value Source of Data, Comments

Ca Calculated for eachvolatile ingredient.

Concentration of chemical in air (see Table 9-9).

IR 15 m3/day Total home exposures for adults based on activity patterns andinhalation rates (EPA, 1997b).

EF 350 days/year Assumes 2 weeks per year spent away from home (EPA, 1991b).ED 30 years National upper 90th percentile at one residence (EPA, 1990).BW 71.8 kg Average value for adults (EPA, 1997b).ATnc 10,950 days Calculated: ED * 365 days/year.

Estimated ADDs for the general population are presented in Table 9-16 for both averageand high adhesive use emission rates at a distance of 25 meters from the emitting facility. Estimated ADDs at a distance of 100 meters are presented in Appendix D.

Table 9-16. Estimated ADDs for General Population Inhalation Exposure at a Distance of 25 Meters

Adhesive Type /Chemical Ingredient a

ADD (mg/kg-day)

Average Adhesive Use High Adhesive Use

METH Adhesive

METH 4.67E-02 4.67E-01

Irganox 1010 6.90E-04 6.90E-03

Acetone Adhesive

Acetone 4.67E-02 4.67E-01

Irganox 1010 6.25E-04 6.25E-03

Acetone/Heptane Adhesive

Acetone 1.14E-02 1.14E-01

Heptane 1.14E-02 1.14E-01

Irganox 1010 3.80E-04 3.80E-03

nPB Adhesive

nPB 5.37E-02 5.37E-01

Irganox 1010 7.90E-04 7.90E-03

1,3-Dioxolane 2.37E-03 2.37E-02

1,2-Butylene oxide 2.36E-04 2.36E-03

2-BP 7.90E-04 7.90E-03

Table 9-16. Estimated ADDs for General Population Inhalation Exposure at a Distance of 25 Meters

Adhesive Type /Chemical Ingredient a

ADD (mg/kg-day)

Average Adhesive Use High Adhesive Use

116

Water-Based Latex Adhesive

Ammonia (from ammonium hydroxide) b 2.62E-04 2.62E-03

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates 1.34E-03 1.34E-02

Cyanox 2246 1.35E-04 1.35E-03

Surfynol 440 1.35E-04 1.35E-03

Water-Based Latex/Synthetic Adhesive

Ammonia (from ammonium hydroxide) b 2.62E-04 2.62E-03

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates 1.34E-03 1.34E-02

Chloroprene 2.68E-07 2.68E-06

Cyanox 2246 1.35E-04 1.35E-03

Surfynol 440 1.35E-04 1.35E-03

Hot Melt Adhesive

Irganox 1010 1.73E-05 1.73E-04

Alternative Ingredientsc

Hexane 1.14E-02 1.14E-01

TCE 1.98E-02 1.98E-01a Chemicals with vapor pressures over 0.001 torr included in the model.

b Ammonia, formed from ammonium hydroxide during spray application, is the volatile form that is released toworkplace and outdoor air. c Alternative adhesive ingredients not included in typical adhesive formulations; hexane may be used in some acetone-blend formulations and TCE in some nPB formulations.Note: The numeric format used in these tables is a form of scientific notation, where the “E” replaces the “ x 10x” inscientific notation. Scientific notation is typically used to present very large or very small numbers. For example,1.2E-04 is the same as 1.2 x 10-4, which is the same as 0.00012 in common decimal notation.ADD = Average daily dose

9.5 UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY

Because of both the uncertainty inherent in the data and assumptions used in estimatingexposure, and the variability that is possible within a population, there is no one numberthat can be used to describe exposure. In addition to the data and modeling limitationsdiscussed in Section 9.4, sources of uncertainty in assessing exposure include thefollowing:

• Accuracy of the description of exposure setting: how well the modelfacility used in the assessment characterizes an actual facility; thelikelihood of exposure pathways actually occurring (i.e., scenariouncertainty).

7 For exposure data obtained during industry site-visits, this means that 90 percent of the facilitiesreported a lower value, and ten percent reported a higher value.

117

• Missing data and limitations of workplace practices data: this includespossible effects of any chemicals that may not have been included (e.g.,minor ingredients and/or variations in the formulations).

• Estimating exposure levels from averaged data and modeling in theabsence of measured, site-specific data.

• Chemical fate and transport model applicability and assumptions: howwell the models and assumptions represent the situation being assessed(e.g., complete absorption of adhesive chemicals in contact with the skinwas assumed by the model) and the extent to which the models have beenvalidated or verified.

• Parameter value uncertainty, including measurement error, sampling error,parameter variability, and professional judgement.

• Uncertainty in combining pathways for an exposed individual.

A method typically used to provide information about the position an exposure estimatehas in the distribution of possible outcomes is the use of exposure (or risk) descriptors.EPA’s Guidelines for Exposure Assessment (EPA, 1992) provides guidance on the use ofrisk descriptors, which include the following:

• High-end: approximately the 90th percentile7 of the actual (measured orestimated) distribution. This is a plausible estimate of individual risk forthose persons at the upper end of the exposure distribution, and is nothigher than the individual in the population who has the highest exposure.

• Central tendency: either an average estimate (based on average values forthe exposure parameters) or a median estimate (based on 50th percentile orgeometric mean values).

• What-if: represents an exposure estimate based on postulated questions(e.g., what if the air ventilation rates were ... ), in this case, makingassumptions based on limited data so that the distribution is unknown. Ifany part of the exposure assessment qualifies as a “what-if” descriptor,then the entire exposure assessment is considered “what-if.”

The scenarios evaluated in this exposure assessment cover a range from central tendencyto high-end. High-end values are used for:

• Ventilation air flow rate for a WTA facility,• ED in years (90th percentile for residential and 95th percentile for worker

exposures), and• Adhesive use for the high-use scenario.

Average or mean values are used for:

• Ventilation air flow rate for an average facility,• Amount of hours per day workers are in the adhesives application area, • Adhesive use per year for the average-use scenario,• Number of days worked per year,

118

• Body weight for adults, and• Skin contact area for adult men--hands and forearms.

However, because this exposure assessment does not apply to a specific facility, the entireexposure assessment should be considered “what-if.”

9.6 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Chemical exposures to workers and nearby residents from day-to-day adhesivesapplication operations were estimated. The pathways identified for potential exposurefrom adhesives application were inhalation and dermal contact for workers, andinhalation for residents living near an adhesives-using facility. The assessment focusedon long-term exposures resulting from routine adhesives application. Short-termexposures to high levels of hazardous chemicals were not assessed, such as those arisingfrom chemical spills or other periodic releases not routine to the application process.

Inhalation exposures were estimated for workers under both average and WTA generalventilation air flow rates and both average and high glue use. Ventilation rates weredetermined from industry data (average air flow rate) and default assumptions (WTA airflow rate) and used to calculate workplace chemical concentrations. Local ventilationwas not observed to be standard practice and so was not considered. Inhalation exposuresto workers were estimated only for adhesives ingredients considered volatile (with avapor pressure above 0.001 torr); those ingredients were assumed to completely volatilizeduring application.

Dermal exposure was estimated for adhesives workers using a standard EPA method anddefault values. Adhesives workers were observed during site-visits to typically not weargloves while working on the adhesives application line, resulting in consistent dermalexposure to the adhesives.

Inhalation exposure to residents living near adhesives application facilities was estimatedusing the ISC(2)LT air dispersion model. The air concentrations of each contaminantwere determined at both 25 meters and 100 meters radially from a adhesives applicationfacility, with the highest estimated air concentration used to estimate exposure. Inhalation exposures estimated for the public living at least 25 meters away from anadhesives application facility were approximately 1,000 times lower than occupationalexposures.

119

Chapter 10Risk Characterization

Risk characterization integrates the hazard and exposure components of a risk evaluationand presents overall conclusions. Risk characterization typically includes a description ofthe assumptions, scientific judgments, and uncertainties that are part of this process. Thisrisk characterization focuses on chronic (long-term) exposure to chemicals that may causecancer or other toxic effects, rather than on acute toxicity from brief exposures tochemicals. The focus is also on health effects from chronic exposures that could be usedto measure risk.

The goals of the furniture adhesives risk characterization are to:

• Integrate chemical hazard and exposure information to assess potentialrisks from ambient environmental and occupational exposures resultingfrom use of the adhesives selected for evaluation;

• Use reasonable and consistent assumptions across alternatives, so potentialhealth risks associated with one alternative can be compared with thepotential health risks associated with other alternatives;

• Present conclusions and uncertainties associated with this risk screeningand comparison of chemicals used in the adhesive application process ofupholstered furniture manufacture; and

• Identify the areas of concern and differences in risk among the adhesivealternatives in a manner that facilitates decision making.

Numerical results (risk indicators) are presented whenever possible, as well as qualitativeassessment of risk for effects like sensitization (which cannot be quantified) and forchemicals with no available measured toxicity data. Detailed exposure and hazard dataare presented separately in the Human Health Hazards Summary (Chapter 8) andExposure Assessment (Chapter 9), respectively.

Estimates of potential human health risk from chemical exposure are characterized herein terms of excess lifetime cancer risk, and HQ or MOE for potential non-cancer healtheffects. Cancer risks to nearby residents and workers are discussed first. Next, thecalculation of HQs and MOEs is presented, both for nearby residents and for adhesiveworkers. In addition to risk indicators, estimated workplace air concentrations arecompared with available occupational exposure standards and guidance levels, to furtherevaluate areas of concern for workers. Next the results of concern are discussed, alongwith uncertainties and key assumptions. Finally, an overall summary of the risk screeningand comparison results is presented. When considering the results of these riskevaluations, it should be remembered that the results are intended for use in comparingrelative potential risk among processes, based on a model facility, and should not be usedas absolute indicators of actual health risks to adhesive workers or to the public from anyspecific facility.

8Upper bound refers to the method of determining a slope factor, where the upper bound value(generated from a certain probability statement) for the slope of the dose-response curve is used. Excessmeans the estimated cancer risk is in addition to the already-existing background risk of an individualcontracting cancer from all other causes.

9 A cancer classification of B2, probable human carcinogen, has been assigned by EPA; IARC hasclassified METH as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B); and NTP has judged METH asreasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen (see Section 8.1 and Table 8-1).

120

10.1 CANCER RISK

Cancer risks are expressed as the probability of an individual developing cancer over alifetime from exposure to a chemical in excess of the already-existing background cancerrisk. For chemicals classified as carcinogens, an upper-bound excess8 lifetime cancerrisk, expressed as a unitless probability, is estimated by the following equation:

Cancer Risk = CAIR × unit riskwhere,

Cancer Risk = The upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risks for an individual. CAIR = The concentration of the chemical in air to which a person is

continuously exposed. Ambient air concentrations near a modeladhesives facility were estimated in the Exposure Assessment (Section9.3).

Unit risk = A measure of cancer potency for air concentrations, expressed as theupper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk per µg/m3 in air, based ondefault exposure conditions for continuous lifetime exposure.

10.1.1 Cancer Risk for Nearby Residents

Potential risks to residents living near a hypothetical “model” facility were evaluated onthe basis of exposure to chemicals released in outdoor air by the facility. Inhalation is theonly exposure route quantified. METH-based adhesive is the only adhesive type forwhich cancer risk to nearby residents could be estimated; the major ingredient, METH, isa probable human carcinogen.9

The following cancer risk estimates are based on the air modeling described in Section9.4 (Exposure Models and Results), which is based on several key assumptions:

• All the METH solvent evaporates during the application process.• All air releases from adhesive application are vented to the outside,

without any air pollution control.• Facility site visits provide representative average and high annual adhesive

use amounts, adhesive use is evenly distributed throughout the year, andchemical ingredient formulations are constant over time.

• Chemicals released to air do not degrade in the environment prior toreaching the nearby population.

• People live as close as 25 meters from a facility (based on observationsmade on site visits).

10 According to IRIS, the inhalation unit risk factor should not be used if the air concentration exceeds20 mg/m3, and the oral potency factor should not be used if the water concentration exceeds 50 mg/L (EPA,2000b).

121

• Meteorological data from El Monte, California; Grand Rapids, Michigan;and High Point, North Carolina, are representative of facility locations.

Results are based on the highest modeled air concentrations for three locations (El Monte,California; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and High Point, North Carolina) and, at eachlocation, the position relative to the facility yielding the highest air concentration (of 16different wind speed/direction vectors).

Upper-bound excess individual lifetime cancer risks for nearby residents from inhalationexposure to METH, depending on location from the model facility, are estimated asfollows. For average adhesive use:

• At 100 meters from a model facility: from near zero to 6 × 10-5

• At 25 meters from a facility: from near zero to 1 × 10-4

For high adhesive use:

• At 100 meters from a facility: from near zero to 6 × 10-4

• At 25 meters from a facility: from near zero to 1 × 10-3

These estimates indicate concern for cancer risks and are interpreted to mean that, over alifetime, an individual resident may have up to one chance in 1,000 of developing cancerfrom exposure to METH from a nearby facility, depending on amount of adhesive used,the resident’s location, and the distance he or she lives from the facility.

10.1.2 Cancer Risk for Workers

Although EPA has established inhalation and oral CPFs for METH (used in METH-basedadhesive) these factors are not appropriate for use at the concentrations estimated forworker exposure.10 At those higher concentrations, pharmacokinetic modeling isrequired.

OSHA recently conducted a quantitative assessment of METH cancer risks in theworkplace, “...based on the highest-quality animal tumor data, constructing a state-of-the-art PBPK model incorporating rodent and human metabolic information.” (OSHA,1997b). Results of this risk assessment include the following:

• 3.62 cancer deaths estimated per 1,000 workers occupationally exposed to86 mg/m3 (25 ppm) METH for a working lifetime;

• 7.47 excess cancers per 1,000 workers estimated at 170 mg/m3 (50 ppm);and

• 126 excess cancers estimated per 1,000 workers at 1,700 mg/m3 (500ppm).

122

To evaluate worker inhalation risks, estimated workplace air concentrations are comparedwith these risk results calculated by OSHA at the specified workplace exposure levels. Cancer risk from dermal exposure cannot be characterized at this time.

The estimated air concentration for average METH adhesive use, with averageventilation, is 160 mg/m3. This is close to the 170 mg/m3 (50 ppm) air concentration thatcorresponds to 7.47 excess cancers per 1000 workers as estimated by OSHA. Therefore,under the average workplace scenario, there is up to approximately a 7x10-3 cancer riskfrom inhalation of METH. Cancer risks less than 1 x 10-6 (one in 1 million) are generallyconsidered to be of low concern. These results are significantly above this level,indicating a concern for cancer from the estimated exposure levels of METH.

The estimated air concentration for high METH adhesive use, WTA ventilation, is 6,700mg/m3—this is much higher than the 1,700 mg/m3 (500 ppm) air concentration thatcorresponds to 126 excess cancers per 1000 workers as estimated by OSHA. Therefore,under the high-use/WTA-ventilation workplace exposure scenario, cancer risk frominhalation of METH could be more than 0.1, indicating high concern.

These air concentrations and resulting risks were estimated based on the assumptions thatall the METH solvent evaporates during the application process, facility site visitsprovide representative average and high annual adhesive use amounts, adhesive use isevenly distributed throughout the year, the air in the process room is at steady state, andchemical ingredient formulations are constant over time. Also, ventilation rates are basedon general ventilation (air turnover for the entire room), and do not consider the use ofany additional local ventilation, such as hoods.

Available air monitoring data in one facility where METH-based adhesive was usedindicated that air concentrations of METH to which workers were being exposed rangedfrom 1,200 to 2,520 mg/m3 (340 to 715 ppm) (OSHA, 2001). These measured values fallbetween the air concentrations that were estimated by modeling for average-use/average-ventilation and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios. This suggests that the airconcentrations estimated by modeling are not unreasonable, although the high-use/WTA-ventilation scenario is a high-end assumption that may overestimate most actualexposures. However, measured concentrations from monitoring at one facility alsosuggest a high concern for worker’s cancer risk.

10.1.3 Other Potential Cancer Risks

Quantitative cancer potency measures, such as unit risk or q1*s, are needed to calculateestimates of cancer risk. Other adhesive ingredients are possible carcinogens, but do nothave EPA-established potency factors. In addition to METH, 1,2-butylene oxide andchloroprene have been determined by IARC to be possible human carcinogens (IARCGroup 2B). (1,2-butylene oxide is used in the nPB adhesive, and chloroprene is in water-based latex/synthetic adhesive, left over as unreacted monomer from the neoprenemanufacturing process.) TCE (an alternative ingredient that may be used in some nPBformulations) has been determined by IARC to be probably carcinogenic to humans(IARC Group 2A). There are potential cancer risks to nearby residents and workers fromthese chemicals, and exposures have been estimated, but cancer potency and thereforecancer risks are unknown.

123

10.2 NON-CANCER RISKS

Non-cancer risk estimates are expressed as an HQ or MOE. HQs are generally based onan RfD or RfC that has been established by EPA. If an RfD or RfC is available, the HQis calculated to characterize risk from chemicals that exhibit chronic, non-cancer toxicity. (In the case of acetone, a minimum risk level (MRL) was used in place of an RfC.) TheHQ is the unitless ratio of the RfD (or RfC) to the potential dose rate. For adhesiveingredient chemicals that exhibit chronic, non-cancer toxicity, the HQ was calculated by:

HQ = ADD/RfDor,

HQ = ADD/(RfC×CF)where,

ADD = Average daily dose rate; the amount of a chemical ingested, inhaled, orapplied to the skin per unit time, averaged over the ED (in mg/kg-day).

RfD = Reference dose; an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an orderof magnitude) of the daily exposure through ingestion (oral) and throughskin uptake (dermal) to the human population (including sensitivesubgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleteriousnon-cancer effects during a lifetime (mg/kg-day).

RfC = Reference Concentration; an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhapsan order of magnitude) of the daily inhalation exposure to the humanpopulation (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without anappreciable risk of deleterious non-cancer effects during a lifetime(mg/m3).

CF = Conversion factor based on underlying assumptions in the RfC (20 m3/daybreathing rate and 70 kg body weight), which converts the units frommg/m3 to mg/kg-day (EPA, 1989; EPA, 1994).

RfDs and RfCs are presented in the Human Health Hazards Summary, Section 8.2.1. ADDs were calculated as part of the Exposure Assessment (Chapter 9).

The HQ is based on the assumption that there is a level of exposure (i.e., the RfD or RfC)below which it is unlikely, even for sensitive subgroups, to experience adverse healtheffects. Unlike cancer risk, the HQ does not express probability and is not necessarilylinear; that is, an HQ of 10 does not mean that adverse health effects are 10 times morelikely to occur than for an HQ of 1. However, the ratio of estimated dose to RfD or RfCreflects the level of concern, and an HQ above 1 indicates potential concern.

For chemicals where an RfC or RfD was not available, a MOE was calculated by:

MOEN = (NOAEL)/ADDor

MOEL = (LOAEL)/ADD

124

where,

MOEN = NOAEL-based MOE (unitless).MOEL = LOAEL-based MOE (unitless).NOAEL = No-observed adverse effect level, the highest dose level in a toxicity

test at which there is no statistically or biologically significant increasein the frequency or severity of adverse effects in the exposed populationover its appropriate control (mg/kg-day, or mg/m3 for inhalation).

LOAEL = Lowest-observed adverse effect level, the lowest experimental doselevel in a toxicity test at which there are statistically or biologicallysignificant increases in frequency or severity of adverse effects in theexposed population over its appropriate control group (mg/kg-day, ormg/m3 for inhalation).

NOAELs and LOAELs are presented in the Human Health Hazards Summary, Chapter 8. In general, there is a higher level of confidence for HQs than for MOEs because thetoxicity data on which RfDs and RfCs are based have passed a more thorough level ofreview, and test-specific UFs have been included.

As with the HQ, the MOE is not a probabilistic statement of risk. The ratio forcalculating MOE is the inverse of the HQ. That is, as HQ increases, the level of concernincreases, and a high HQ (exceeding 1) indicates a potential concern. However, as MOEincreases, the level of concern decreases and a low MOE (less than 100 for a NOAEL-based MOE or 1,000 for a LOAEL-based MOE) indicates a potential concern.

Both the exposure estimates and toxicity data are specific to the route of exposure (i.e.,inhalation, oral, or dermal). Very few RfDs, NOAELs, or LOAELs are available fordermal exposure. For chemicals without dermal toxicity data, oral data were used, whenavailable.

Developmental Toxicity

For two chemicals, either a NOEL or a NOAEL value were available for developmentaltoxicity. For these, a developmental toxicity MOE was calculated by:

MOEN-DT = NOELDT/ADDor

NOAELDT/ADDwhere,

MOEN-DT = NOEL- or NOAEL-based MOE for developmental effects.NOELDT = No-observed effect level for developmental toxicity (mg/kg-day).

10.2.1 Risk Indicators Calculated for Nearby Residents

HQs were calculated for inhalation exposure of nearby residents to chemicals with anestablished RfC or minimum risk level (MRL). MOEs were calculated in cases where anRfC or MRL was not available, but a NOAEL or LOAEL was. HQs and MOEs werecalculated for nearby residents under both the average- and high-adhesive-use scenarios at

125

25 meters from a model facility. Table 10-1 presents inhalation HQ results and Table10-2 presents inhalation MOE results for nearby residents.

Table 10-1. Inhalation HQ Results for Nearby Residents 25 Meters from a ModelFacility

HQ, average-use scenarioa

HQ, high-usescenarioa Ingredient Adhesive type

1.7 17 TCE Alternative ingredient, nPB0.2 2.0 Hexane Alternative ingredient, acetone blend

0.054 0.54 METH METH0.041 0.41 1,2-Butylene oxide nPB

0.0092 0.092 Ammonia Water-based latex0.0092 0.092 Ammonia Water-based latex/synthetic0.0053 0.053 Acetone Acetone0.0013 0.013 Acetone Acetone/heptane

a Bold type indicates concern (HQ > 1).

Table 10-2. Inhalation MOE Results for Nearby Residents 25 Meters from a Model Facility

MOE, average-usea MOE, high-usea Ingredient Adhesive type1,300 (L) 130 (L) nPB nPB41,000 (L) 4,100 (L) Heptane Acetone/heptane

46,000 (L) 4,600 (L) 1,3-Dioxolane nPB120 million (L) 12 million (L) Chloroprene Water-based latex/synthetic170 million (N) 17 million (N) Irganox 1010 nPB200 million (N) 20 million (N) Irganox 1010 METH220 million (N) 22 million (N) Irganox 1010 Acetone360 million (N) 36 million (N) Irganox 1010 Acetone/heptane7.9 billion (N) 790 million (N) Irganox 1010 Hot melt

a Bold type indicates concern: LOAEL-based MOE < 1,000 (L) or NOAEL-based MOE < 100 (N).

Data limitations include the use of estimated air concentrations based on data developedfor a model facility, rather than site-specific, measured concentrations, and the lack oftoxicity data for many chemicals. Chemicals without sufficient data with which tocalculate inhalation HQs or MOEs for nearby residents include the following:

• 2-BP• Chlorinated alkyl phosphates• Cyanox 2246• Paraffin wax• Surfynol 440

Of these, all but 2-BP are only marginally volatile and not as likely to evaporatecompletely during routine use.

126

Although toxicity data are not considered adequate for calculating a risk indicator,laboratory studies of the effects of 2-BP cleary identified reproductive tissue effects toboth male and female rats. Effects were seen from repeated exposure to airconcentrations as low as 300 ppm (1,510 mg/m3). Compared with estimated airconcentrations for nearby residents of 0.03 to 2.3 mg/m3, this indicates some concernfrom inhalation exposure to 2-BP (when a safety factor of 1,000—for comparing lowest-observed effect levels in laboratory animals to human exposure—is taken into account).

10.2.2 Risk Indicators Calculated for Adhesive Workers

HQs and MOEs calculated for occupational exposure to adhesive chemicals are presentedbelow. (It should be noted that no epidemiological studies of health effects amongfurniture adhesive workers were located.) As stated earlier, an HQ exceeding 1 indicatesa potential concern. Unlike cancer risk, the HQ does not express probability, only theratio of the estimated dose to the RfD or RfC, and it is not necessarily linear (an HQ of 10does not mean that adverse health effects are 10 times more likely than an HQ of one).

Inhalation Exposure

Table 10-3 presents HQs calculated for inhalation exposure to workers for the average-use/ average-ventilation and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios.

Table 10-3. Inhalation HQ Results for Adhesive WorkersHQ, averageuse/averageventilationa

HQ, highuse/WTA

ventilationa Ingredient Adhesive type560 24,000 TCE Alternative ingredient, nPB65 2,700 Hexane Alternative ingredient, acetone blend18 740 METH METH13 570 1,2-Butylene oxide nPB3.0 120 Ammonia Water-based latex3.0 120 Ammonia Water-based latex/synthetic1.7 72 Acetone Acetone

0.42 18 Acetone Acetone/heptanea Bold type indicates concern (HQ > 1).

In cases where an RfC or MRL was not available, but a NOAEL or LOAEL was, MOEswere calculated for inhalation exposure to workers. Table 10-4 presents inhalation MOEresults for the average-use/average-ventilation and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios.

127

Table 10-4. Inhalation MOE Results for Adhesive Workers

MOE, averageuse/averageventilationa

MOE, highuse/WTA

ventilationa Ingredient Adhesive type

4.1 (L) 0.097 (L) nPB nPB

130 (L) 3.0 (L) Heptane Acetone/heptane

140 (L) 3.3 (L) 1,3-Dioxolane nPB

350,000 (L) 9,200 (L) Chloroprene Water-based latex/synthetic

530,000 (N) 13,000 (N) Irganox 1010 nPB

630,000 (N) 15,000 (N) Irganox 1010 METH

690,000 (N) 16,000 (N) Irganox 1010 Acetone

1.1 million (N) 27,000 (N) Irganox 1010 Acetone/heptane

14 million (N) 570,000 (N) Irganox 1010 Hot melta Bold type indicates concern: < 1,000 for LOAEL-based MOE (L); < 100 for NOAEL-based MOE (N).

Data limitations include the use of estimated air concentrations using data developed for amodel facility, rather than site-specific, measured concentrations, and the lack of toxicitydata for many chemicals. Chemicals without sufficient data with which to calculateinhalation HQs or MOEs for workers include the following:

• 2-BP• Chlorinated alkyl phosphates• Cyanox 2246• Paraffin wax• Surfynol 440

Of these, all but 2-BP are only marginally volatile and not as likely to evaporatecompletely during routine use.

As stated above, although toxicity data are not considered adequate for calculating a riskindicator, laboratory studies of the effects of 2-BP clearly identified reproductive tissueeffects to both male and female rats. Effects were seen from repeated exposure to airconcentrations as low as 300 ppm (1,510 mg/m3). A comparison with estimated airconcentrations for workers of 2.7 to 113 mg/m3 does indicate some concern to workersfrom inhalation exposure to 2-BP (when a safety factor of 1,000—for comparing lowest-observed effect levels in laboratory animals to human exposure—is taken into account).

128

Dermal Exposure

Table 10-5 presents dermal HQ results for worker’s skin contact.

Table 10-5. Dermal HQ Results for Adhesive WorkersDermal HQ or MOEa Ingredient Adhesive type

HQ2,200 METH METH1,500 Acetone Acetone970 Hexane Alternative ingredient, acetone blend580 Acetone Acetone/heptane

MOE0.51 (N) Chlorinated alkyl phosphates Water-based latex0.51 (N) Chlorinated alkyl phosphates Water-based latex/synthetic

10 (N-DT) Chlorinated alkyl phosphates Water-based latex10 (N-DT) Chlorinated alkyl phosphates Water-based latex/synthetic

13 (N) Cyanox 2246 Water-based latex 13 (N) Cyanox 2246 Water-based latex/synthetic

a Bold type indicates concern: HQ > 1, NOAEL-based MOE < 100 (N), or NOAEL-based MOE fordevelopmental effects < 100 (N-DT).

Limitations include lack of sufficient toxicity data specific to dermal absorption for allchemicals, and the lack of sufficient oral toxicity data (used to substitute for dermal data)for many chemicals. (All of the calculated dermal HQs and MOEs are based on oraltoxicity values.) Chemicals without sufficient dermal or oral toxicity data with which tocalculate dermal HQs or MOEs for workers include the following:

• Ammonium hydroxide/ammonia• 2-BP• 1,2-Butylene oxide• Chloroprene• 1,3-Dioxolane• Heptane• nPB• Surfynol 440• Tackifying resin-rosin based• TCE

There is also high uncertainty from the use of oral toxicity data to substitute for dermal-specific data and with the assumption that chemicals applied to the skin are completelyabsorbed. Dermal absorption was assumed to be negligible for high-molecular-weightingredients due to large molecular size (this includes ethylene vinyl acetate, Irganox1010, latex, neoprene, nitrile rubber, and SBS block copolymer) and for all hot meltingredients, because the high temperatures would preclude any prolonged skin contact.

129

10.2.3 Comparing Worker Inhalation Exposure with OELs

In addition to calculating risk indicators for workplace inhalation exposures, theestimated workplace air concentrations are compared directly with available occupationalexposure standards and/or guidance levels (presented in Section 8.4). Table 10-6 presentsthese comparisons.

Table 10-6. Comparison of Estimated Workplace Air Concentrations with AvailableOccupational Exposure Standards and Guidance Levels

Adhesive Type/ ChemicalIngredient a

Comparison with Estimated Workplace Air Concentrations (CAIR)

OccupationalExposure Standard or

Guidance Level (mg/m3) b

Average Use/AverageVentilation

High Use/WTAVentilation

CAIR(mg/m3) Comments

CAIR(mg/m3) Comments

METH Adhesive

METH • PEL: 86• TLV: 175• NIOSH: lowestfeasible concentration

160 Exceeds PEL 6,700 Exceeds PELand TLV

Acetone Adhesive

Acetone • REL: 590• TLV: 1,200• vacated PEL: 1,800c

• PEL: 2,400

160 6,700 Exceeds REL,TLV, vacatedPEL, and PEL

Acetone/Heptane Adhesive

Acetone • REL: 590• TLV: 1,200• vacated PEL: 1,800c

• PEL: 2,400

39 1,600 Exceeds RELand TLV

Heptane • REL: 350• vacated PEL: 1,600c

• TLV: 1,600• PEL: 2,000

39 1,600 Exceeds REL;equalsvacated PELand TLV

nPB Adhesive

nPB • Supplier-recommended: 126

180 Exceedssupplier-recommendedlevel

7,700 Exceedssupplier-recommendedlevel

1,2-Butyleneoxide

• WEEL: 6 0.8 34 ExceedsWEEL

2-BP • OEL: 5 2.7 113 Exceeds OEL

Table 10-6. Comparison of Estimated Workplace Air Concentrations with AvailableOccupational Exposure Standards and Guidance Levels

Adhesive Type/ ChemicalIngredient a

Comparison with Estimated Workplace Air Concentrations (CAIR)

OccupationalExposure Standard or

Guidance Level (mg/m3) b

Average Use/AverageVentilation

High Use/WTAVentilation

CAIR(mg/m3) Comments

CAIR(mg/m3) Comments

130

Water-Based Latex Adhesive

Ammoniad • REL: 18 • TLV: 18• PEL: 35

0.89 37 Exceeds REL,TLV, andPEL

Water-Based Latex/Synthetic Adhesive

Ammoniad • REL: 18• TLV: 18• PEL: 35

0.89 37 Exceeds REL,TLV, andPEL

Chloroprene • vacated PEL: 35c

• TLV: 36 mg/m3

• PEL: 90• NIOSH: lowestfeasible concentration

0.001 0.038

Hot Melt Adhesive

Paraffin wax • REL, TLV: 2 (fumes) Unknown Unknown

Alternative Ingredientse

Hexane • vacated PEL: 180c

• REL: 180• TLV: 180• PEL: 1,800

39 1,600 Exceeds REL,TLV, andvacated PEL

TCE • REL: 135• vacated PEL: 270c

• TLV: 270• PEL: 540• NIOSH: lowestfeasible concentration

67 2,800 Exceeds REL,PEL, TLV,and vacatedPEL

a This only includes those ingredients for which OELs are available.b TWA. See Table 8-3 in Human Health Hazards Summary chapter.c Vacated 1989 PEL, still enforced in some states.d Ammonium hydroxide is the chemical form in solution in water-based adhesives. This converts to ammoniaduring application. A 100-percent conversion of ammonium hydroxide to ammonia is assumed.e Alternative adhesive ingredients not included in typical adhesive formulations; hexane may be used in someacetone-blend formulations and TCE in some nPB formulations.PEL: Permissible exposure levelREL: Recommended exposure levelTLV: Threshold limit valueWEEL: Workplace environmental exposure levelNIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

131

10.3 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, UNCERTAINTIES, AND KEYASSUMPTIONS

10.3.1 Nearby Residents

Cancer risk results indicate potential concern for nearby residents exposed to METH,with cancer risks estimated at up to 1 in 1,000. HQ results do not indicate concern fornoncancer health effects. However, the MOE for nPB for high adhesive use does indicateconcern for that chemical.

Key assumptions related to nearby resident exposure include the following:

• 100 percent of all volatile ingredients evaporates during the adhesiveapplication process;

• All air releases from adhesive application are vented to the outside,without any air pollution control.

• Facility site visits provide representative average and high annual adhesiveuse amounts;

• Adhesive use is evenly distributed throughout the year.• Chemical ingredient formulations are constant over time.• Chemicals released to air do not degrade in the environment prior to

reaching the nearby population.• People live as close as 25 meters from a facility (based on site-visit

observations).• Meteorological data from El Monte, California; Grand Rapids, Michigan;

and High Point, North Carolina, are representative of facility locations. Results are based on the highest modeled air concentrations for those threelocations and of 16 different wind speed/direction vectors at each location.

Other assumptions used in the exposure modeling are discussed in Section 9.4.

10.3.2 Worker Inhalation

Adhesive ingredients that pose a concern from worker inhalation are presented in Tables 10-7 and 10-8. These include chemicals of potential concern based on cancerrisks, HQ, and MOE results and comparison with occupational exposure standards and/orguidance levels.

132

Table 10-7. Results of Concern for Worker Inhalation of Chemical Ingredients in theAverage Adhesive Use / Average Ventilation Scenario

ChemicalIngredient of

Concern

Results of Concern, by Adhesive Typea

METH-basedAcetone-

based

Acetone/Heptane-

based nPB-based

Water-basedLatex

Water-basedLatex/

SyntheticAcetone NA HQ = 1.7 NA NA NA NAAmmoniab NA NA NA NA HQ = 3.0 HQ = 3.01,2-Butyleneoxide

NA NA NA HQ = 13 NA NA

1,3-Dioxolane NA NA NA MOEL =140 NA NAHeptane NA NA MOEL = 130 NA NA NALatex NA NA NA NA Sensitizer SensitizerMETH Cancer risk =

7x10-3;HQ = 18;

PEL exceeded.

NA NA NA NA NA

nPB NA NA NA MOEL = 4.1;supplier-

recommendedlevel exceeded.

NA NA

Alternative Ingredientsc

Hexane NA HQ = 65 NA NA NA NATCE NA NA NA HQ = 560 NA NAa Results of concern include any of the following: cancer risk > 1x10-6; HQ > 1; MOEN < 100; MOEL < 1,000;and/or estimated workplace air concentration that exceeds 1 or more occupational standard or guidance level. There were no results on concern for acetone/heptane or hot melt adhesives.b Ammonium hydroxide is the chemical form in solution in water-based adhesives. This converts to ammoniaduring application. A 100-percent conversion of ammonium hydroxide to ammonia is assumed.c Alternative adhesive ingredients not included in typical adhesive formulations; hexane may be used in someacetone-blend formulations and TCE in some nPB formulations.NA = not applicable.

133

Table 10-8. Results of Concern for Worker Inhalation of Chemical Ingredients in the High-Adhesive Use / WTA-Ventilation Scenario

ChemicalIngredient of

Concern

Results of Concern, by Adhesive Typea

METH-basedAcetone-

based

Acetone/Heptane-

based nPB-based

Water-basedLatex

Water-basedLatex/

SyntheticAcetone NA HQ = 72;

REL, TLV,vac.PEL, PEL

exceeded

HQ = 18;REL, TLVexceeded

NA NA NA

Ammoniab NA NA NA NA HQ = 120;REL, TLV,

PELexceeded

HQ = 120; REL, TLV,

PELexceeded

2-Bromo-propane

NA NA NA OEL exceeded NA NA

1,2-Butyleneoxide

NA NA NA HQ = 570;WEEL

exceeded

NA NA

1,3-Dioxolane NA NA NA MOEL = 3.3. NA NAHeptane NA NA MOEL =

3.0;REL

exceeded

NA NA NA

Latex NA NA NA NA Sensitizer SensitizerMETH Cancer risk

> 0.1;HQ = 740;PEL, TLVexceeded

NA NA NA NA NA

nPB NA NA NA MOEL = 0.1;supplier-

recommendedlevel exceeded

NA NA

Alternative Ingredientsc

Hexane NA HQ = 2,700;REL, TLV,vac. PELexceeded

NA NA NA NA

TCE NA NA NA HQ = 24,000;PEL, REL,

TLV, vac. PELexceeded

NA NA

134

Notes for Table 10-8a Results of concern include any of the following: cancer risk >1x10-6; HQ > 1; MOEN < 100; MOEL<1,000; and/or estimated workplace air concentration that exceeds 1 or more occupational standard orguidance level. There were no results on concern for hot melt adhesive.b Ammonium hydroxide is the chemical form in solution in water-based adhesives. This converts toammonia during application. A 100-percent conversion of ammonium hydroxide to ammonia is assumed.c Alternative adhesive ingredients not included in typical adhesive formulations; hexane may be used insome acetone-blend formulations and TCE in some nPB formulations.NA = not applicable.

Key assumptions for worker inhalation include the following:

• 100 percent of all volatile ingredients evaporate during the adhesiveapplication process.

• Facility site visits provide representative average and high annual adhesiveuse amounts.

• Adhesive use is evenly distributed throughout the year.• Chemical ingredient formulations are constant over time.• Mixing of air in the process room is at steady state.• Ventilation rates are based on general ventilation (air turnover for the

entire room) and do not consider the use of any additional localventilation, such as hoods. (The use of local ventilation for adhesiveapplication areas could reduce worker exposure significantly.)

Other assumptions used in the exposure modeling are discussed in Section 9.4.

10.3.3 Skin Contact for Adhesive Workers

Dermal risk indicators of concern are presented in Table 10-9. This includes chemicals ofpotential concern based on HQ, MOE, and potential for cancer risk.

135

Table 10-9. Results of Concern for Worker Skin Contact with Chemical Ingredients

ChemicalIngredient of Concern

Results of Concern, by Adhesive Typea

METH-based

Acetone-based

Acetone/Heptane-based

Water-basedLatex

Water-basedLatex/

Synthetic

Acetone NA HQ = 1,500 HQ = 580 NA NA

Chlorinatedalkylphosphates

NA NA NA MOEN = 0.51;MOEN-DT = 10

MOEN = 0.51;MOEN-DT = 10

Cyanox 2246 NA NA NA MOEN = 13 MOEN = 13

Latex NA NA NA Sensitizer Sensitizer

METH HQ = 2,200;cancer risk b

NA NA NA NA

Alternative Ingredientsc

Hexane NA HQ = 970 NA NA NAa Results of concern include any HQ > 1, MOEN <100, or MOEL <1,000.b Although some cancer risk is expected from contact with METH, it could not be quantified.c Alternative adhesive ingredients not included in typical adhesive formulations; hexane may be used in someacetone-blend formulations and TCE in some nPB formulations.NA = not applicable.

Key assumptions for worker dermal include the following:

• Hands and forearms are routinely in contact with spray adhesive.• Workers do not wear long sleeves or gloves.• Chemicals applied to the skin are completely absorbed.• Oral toxicity values are used in lieu of any available dermal RfDs,

NOAELs, or LOAELs.

Other assumptions used in the exposure modeling are discussed in Section 9.4.

10.3.4 Potential Health Effects from Chemicals of Concern

Table 10-10 provides a summary of the potential health effects for the chemicals ofconcern. It should be noted that Tables 10-7, 10-8, and 10-9 do not include chemicals forwhich toxicity data were unavailable.

136

Table 10-10. Summary of Potential Human Health Effects for Chemicals of ConcernChemical of Concern Potential Health Effects a

Acetone Acetone is irritating to the skin, respiratory tract, and eyes. It can affectthe central nervous system,and repeated exposure may damage the liverand kidneys. High exposures can cause confusion, headaches, dizziness,drowsiness, and unconsciousness.

Ammoniumhydroxide/ammoniab

Ammonia fumes are extremely irritating to skin, eyes, and respiratorypassages. Inhaling ammonia can damages the respiratory tract and athigh concentrations can lead to blurred vision, unconsciousness, andbrain effects. Dermal exposures can also result in gastrointestinal andrespiratory effects. People with asthma are especially sensitive toammonia’s effects.

2-BP 2-BP can cause reproductive effects in both males and females and canaffect the hematopoietic (blood forming) system.

1,2-Butylene oxide 1,2-Butylene oxide is irritating to the skin, respiratory tract, and eyes. Inhaling 1,2-butylene oxide can cause confusion, dizziness, headache,nausea, and unconsciousness and can damage the mucous membranesand upper respiratory tract. Inhalation of high amounts can damage therespiratory system and is potentially fatal. Repeated exposures mayaffect the nervous system, spleen, thymus, and kidneys. Repeated dermalexposure can damage the skin.

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates are slightly irritating to the skin. Exposureis associated with effects to the liver, kidneys, testes, and adrenal gland.

Chloroprene Chloroprene may cause skin and lung cancer; it is a suspected, but notrecognized, carcinogen. Inhaling chloroprene can irritate the skin andmucous membranes. It can also affect the nervous system, liver, kidneys,and respiratory tract and possibly have reproductive effects Repeatedexposures can affect the liver, central nervous system, circulatorysystem, and immune system.

Cyanox 2246 Limited toxicity data. Long-term, repeated exposure of male rats causedsevere effects to the testes. One study “identifies testicular effects as acritical target.”

1,3-Dioxolane 1,3-Dioxolane is irritating to the skin and severely irritating to the eyes. Exposure is associated with blood and reproductive effects.

Heptane Heptane is irritating to the eyes, skin, and lungs. It can affect the centralnervous system, with the potential for brain damage from repeatedexposure. It may also damage the liver.

Hexane Exposure to hexane can damage the sensory and motor nerves (peripheral neuropathy). The most common symptoms include numbnessand loss of feeling, usually in the feet and hands.

Latex Latex is a sensitizer; repeated exposure to latex can cause a substantialproportion of exposed people to develop an allergic reaction. The typeand severity of allergic reaction can vary, including skin irritation,dermatitis, hives, and other allergic reactions; asthma; and rarely, life-threatening anaphylaxis (swelling of lips and airways that may progressto shock and death) (OSHA, 1999c).

Table 10-10. Summary of Potential Human Health Effects for Chemicals of ConcernChemical of Concern Potential Health Effects a

137

METH METH is irritating to the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Repeatedexposures can affect the central nervous system, heart, liver, kidneys, andbone marrow. In the body, it metabolizes to carbon monoxide, which cancause oxygen deprivation. Because of this, high exposure to METH canresult in unconsciousness and death. It is a probable human carcinogen.

nPB Although the toxic properties of nPB have not yet been extensivelystudied, there is concern that it may cause reproductive effects and nervedamage.

TCE Exposure to TCE can affect the nervous system, immune system, liver,kidneys, and endocrine system. It is also associated with developmentaleffects and several forms of cancer. TCE is considered “highly likely toproduce cancer in humans.”

a In general, the severity of effects depends on the amount and duration of exposure.b Ammonium hydroxide is the chemical form in solution in water-based adhesives. This converts to ammoniaduring application. A 100-percent conversion of ammonium hydroxide to ammonia is assumed.

10.3.5 Data Gaps

Data gaps for cancer risks include 1,2-butylene oxide, chloroprene, and TCE, which arepossible carcinogens, but no established CPFs are available with which to calculatecancer risks. For non-cancer effects, Table 10-11 presents an overview of dataavailability for characterizing non-cancer risk.

138

Table 10-11 Data Gaps for Chronic Non-Cancer Health Effects

Adhesive Type /ChemicalIngredient

Inhalation Exposurea Dermal Exposureb

PotentialExposurec

AvailableToxicity

Data/OELd Data GapePotentialExposuref

AvailableToxicity

DatagDataGape

METHIrganox 1010 Yesh Yes / No NA No Yes NAMETH Yes Yes / Yes NA Yes Yes NASBS blockcopolymer

No No / No NA No No NA

Tackifying resin-rosin based

No No / No NA Yes No X

AcetoneAcetone Yes Yes / Yes NA Yes Yes NAIrganox 1010 Yesh Yes / No NA No Yes NANitrile rubber No No / No NA No No NATackifying resin-rosin based

No No / No NA Yes No X

Acetone/HeptaneAcetone Yes Yes / Yes NA Yes Yes NAHeptane Yes Yes / Yes NA Yes No XIrganox 1010 Yesh Yes / No NA No Yes NASBS blockcopolymer

No No / No NA No No NA

Tackifying resin-rosin based

No No / No NA Yes No X

nPB2-BP Yes No / Yes No HQ or

MOEYes No X

1,2-Butylene oxide Yes Yes / Yes NA Yes No X1,3-Dioxolane Yes Yes / No NA Yes No XIrganox 1010 Yesh Yes / No NA No Yes NAnPB Yes Yes / Yes NA Yes No XSBS blockcopolymer

No No / No NA No No NA

Tackifying resin-rosin based

No No / No NA Yes No X

Water-Based LatexAmmoniumhydroxide/ammonia

Yes Yes / Yes NA Yes No X

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

Yesh No / No X Yes Yes NA

Cyanox 2246 Yesh No / No X Yes Yes NALatex No No / No NA No No NASurfynol 440 Yesh No / No X Yes No XTackifying resin-rosin based

No No / No NA Yes No X

Table 10-11 Data Gaps for Chronic Non-Cancer Health Effects

Adhesive Type /ChemicalIngredient

Inhalation Exposurea Dermal Exposureb

PotentialExposurec

AvailableToxicity

Data/OELd Data GapePotentialExposuref

AvailableToxicity

DatagDataGape

139

Water-Based Latex AdhesiveAmmoniumhydroxide/ammonia

Yes Yes / Yes NA Yes No X

Chloroprene Yes Yes / Yes NA Yes No XChlorinated alkylphosphates

Yesh No / No X Yes Yes NA

Cyanox 2246 Yesh No / No X Yes Yes NALatex No No / No NA No No NANeoprene No No / No NA No No NASurfynol 440 Yesh No / No X Yes No XTackifying resin-rosin based

No No / No NA Yes No X

Hot MeltEthylene vinylacetate

No No / No NA No No NA

Irganox 1010 Yesh Yes / No NA No Yes NAMicrocrystallinewax

No No / No NA No No NA

Paraffin wax No I No / Yes NA No No NATackifying resin-rosin based

No No / No NA No No NA

Alternative Ingredientsj

Hexane Yes Yes/Yes NA Yes Yes NATCE Yes Yes/Yes NA Yes No X a Inhalation data gaps apply to both nearby residents and to adhesive workers.b Dermal data gaps apply only to adhesive workers.c “Yes” indicates that exposure is expected to occur and was quantified in the exposure assessment; “No”indicates that exposure is expected to be negligible for inhalation due to the chemical’s low volatility andits use as an adhesive ingredient.d Indicates whether available toxicity data were sufficient to calculate an HQ or MOE, or whether anoccupational exposure standard or guidance level for workplace air was available for this chemical.e X indicates a data gap, where exposure is expected to occur but toxicity data were not available tocalculate an HQ or MOE. “NA” indicates that a data gap did not occur, either because data weresufficient to calculate an HQ or MOE or because exposure is expected to be negligible. “No HQ orMOE” indicates that an HQ or MOE could not be calculated, but estimated workplace air concentrationscould be compared with occupational exposure standards or guidance levels.f “Yes” indicates that exposure is expected to occur and was quantified in the exposure assessment; “No”indicates that exposure is expected to be negligible from skin absorption due to the chemical’s largemolecular size (e.g., the polymers) or due to the high operating temperatures (for all hot melt ingredients).g Indicates whether available data were sufficient to calculate an HQ or MOE. For dermal exposure, in allcases an oral toxicity value was used in lieu of dermal toxicity data.h Only marginally volatile and not as likely to evaporate completely during routine use.i Only marginally volatile, not quantified in exposure assessment.j Alternative adhesive ingredients not included in typical adhesive formulations; hexane may be used insome acetone-blend formulations and TCE in some nPB formulations.

140

10.3.6 Uncertainties

An important component of any risk characterization is the identification and discussionof uncertainties. There are uncertainties involved in the measurement and selection ofhazard data and in the data, models, and scenarios used in the exposure assessment. Anyuse of the risk characterization should include consideration of these uncertainties.

In addition to data and modeling limitations, discussed in Section 9.4, uncertainties in theexposure assessment include the following:

• Accuracy of the description of exposure setting: how well the modelfacility used in the assessment characterizes an actual facility; thelikelihood of exposure pathways actually occurring (i.e., scenariouncertainty).

• Missing data and limitations of data on workplace practices: this includespossible effects of any chemicals that may not have been included (e.g.,minor ingredients and/or variations in the formulations).

• Estimating exposure levels from averaged data and modeling in theabsence of measured, site-specific data.

• The applicability of the chemical fate and transport model and theassumptions on which it is based: how well the models and assumptionsrepresent the situation being assessed and the extent to which the modelshave been validated or verified (i.e, model uncertainty).

• The uncertainty of parameter values, including measurement error,sampling error, parameter variability, and professional judgement.

• Uncertainty in combining pathways for an exposed individual.

Key assumptions made in the exposure assessment are discussed in Sections 9.4 and 9.5.

Uncertainties in the hazard data (typically encountered in a hazard assessment) includethe following:

• Using dose-response data from high-dose studies to predict effects thatmay occur at low levels.

• Using data from short-term studies to predict the effects of long-termexposures.

• Using dose-response data from laboratory animals to predict effects inhumans.

• Using data from homogeneous populations of laboratory animals orhealthy human populations to predict the effects on the general humanpopulation, with a wide range of sensitivities (uncertainty due to naturalvariations in human populations).

• Using NOAELs and LOAELs in the absence of peer-reviewed RfCs andRfDs.

• Assuming a linear dose-response relationship for cancer risk (in this casefor METH).

• Possible increased or decreased toxicity resulting from chemicalinteractions.

• Possible effects of substances not evaluated because of a lack of sufficienttoxicity data.

141

Uncertainties in assessing risk from dermal exposure come from the use of oral RfDs, aroute of exposure different from the one under evaluation (dermal absorption from skincontact). This was done for five chemicals with dermal HQs (including acetone,ammonia, chloroprene, hexane, and METH); and two chemicals with dermal MOEs(chlorinated alkyl phosphates and Cyanox 2246). Uncertainties in dermal risk estimatesalso stem from the assumption that 100 percent of chemical applied to the skin isabsorbed into the body, which may overestimate exposure to some ingredients.

Finally, the risk characterization does not address the potential adverse health effectsassociated with acute exposure to peak levels of chemicals, as might occur from a spill. This type of exposure is especially important when evaluating developmental risksassociated with exposure.

10.4 OVERALL RISK SCREENING AND COMPARISON SUMMARY

Table 10-12 presents an overall comparison of human health concerns for the adhesiveformulations evaluated.

142

Table 10-12. Overall Comparison of Potential Worker Health Risks for Baseline and Alternative Adhesive Types

AdhesiveType

Chemicals of Concern

PotentialCarcinogen a

Inhalation Concern b

DermalConcern c

InhalationData

Gaps d

Dermal DataGaps e

AverageUse/AverageVentilation

HighUse/WTA

VentialtionMETH(Baseline)

METH METH METH METH (none) Tackifyingresin

Acetone (none) Acetone Acetone Acetone (none) Tackifyingresin

Acetone/Heptane

(none) Heptane AcetoneHeptane

Acetone (none) HeptaneTackifying

resinnPB 1,2-Butylene

oxide1,2-Butylene

oxide1,3-

DioxolanenPB

2-BP1,2-Butylene

oxide1,3-Dioxolane

nPB

(none) 2-BPf 2-BP1,2-Butylene

oxide1,3-Dioxolane

nPBTackifying

resinWater-based Latex

(none) Ammoniag

LatexAmmoniag

LatexLatex

Chlorinatedalkyl

phosphatesCyanox 2246

Chlorinatedalkyl

phosphatesCyanox 2246Surfynol 440

AmmoniaSurfynol 440Tackifying

resin

Water-basedLatex/Synthetic

Chloroprene AmmoniaLatex

AmmoniaLatex

LatexChlorinated

alkylphosphates

Cyanox 2246

Chlorinatedalkyl

phosphatesCyanox 2246Surfynol 440

AmmoniaChloropreneSurfynol 440Tackifying

resinHot Melt (none) (none) (none) (none) (none) (none)AlternativeIngredients

TCE HexaneTCE

HexaneTCE

Hexane (none) TCE

a The chemicals with an EPA cancer WOE of B2 and/or an IARC WOE of 2B (see Table 8-1).b The chemicals for which the inhalation cancer risk is greater than 1x10-6; HQ for worker inhalation exceeds 1;MOEN is less than 100; MOEL is less than 1,000; or estimated workplace air concentrations exceed one or moreoccupational exposure standards or guidance levels. See Tables 10-7 and 10-8 for more detailed results.c The chemicals for which the HQ for dermal contact by workers exceeds 1; MOEN is less than 100; or MOEL isless than 1,000. See Table 10-9 for detailed results.d The chemicals for which worker inhalation exposure is possible but for which appropriate toxicity data are notavailable for calculating an HQ and no occupational exposure standard or guidance level is available with which tocompare estimated air concentrations.e The chemicals for which worker dermal contact is possible but appropriate toxicity data are not available forcalculating a risk indicator.f No HQ or MOE could be calculated, although estimated air concentrations could be compared with occupationalexposure guidance levels.g Ammonium hydroxide is the chemical form in solution in water-based adhesives. This converts to ammoniaduring application. A 100-percent conversion of ammonium hydroxide to ammonia is assumed.

143

Chapter 11Other Adhesive Formulations and Ingredients

Chapter 7 (Section 7.3) describes the approach used in this project to develop “typical”adhesive formulations. Eight typical adhesive formulations were developed and theexposure and risk analysis was performed for seven of these formulations. (The TCA-based adhesive was excluded because TCA is no longer used due to regulations.) Thepurpose of using this approach was to limit the scope of the project. Numerous differentblends of adhesives are marketed today, and new blends are developed regularly. Itwould not be possible to characterize and analyze the exposure and risk of the hundredsof possible ingredients in these formulations. Thus, the ingredients selected for thetypical formulations were meant to be representative, rather than reflect an exhaustivelist.

There are literally hundreds of different adhesive formulations used by manufacturers thatproduce upholstered furniture and mattresses. Some of these products are purchased inbulk and sprayed and others are purchased in aerosol form. Many of these adhesiveproducts contain ingredients that were not considered in this risk evaluation. Some ofthese ingredients are toxic or potentially toxic, and users and formulators of adhesivesshould not conclude that they are safe if not addressed here. This section lists some of theingredients that may be present in other adhesive formulations and discusses some oftheir toxic properties and regulations that affect them.

Adhesive types and ingredients were selected to represent typical formulations currentlyin use. Adhesives selected as typical formulations represent prominent adhesive types,based on the solvent or carrier, including:

• METH solvent,• nPB solvent,• Acetone and acetone-blend solvents,• Water carrier with latex, and with latex/synthetic blend, and• Hot melt (in this case, 100 percent solids with no solvent or carrier).

The solvents present in the typical formulations include TCA, METH, acetone,acetone/heptane blend, and nPB. Because of specific toxicity concerns, two additionalsolvents were added to the evaluation as alternative ingredients. TCE is an ingredient inone of the formulations used in this sector in an nPB-based adhesive. TCE is a suspectedcarcinogen, it is a listed HAP, and it is classified as a VOC for purposes of regulatingground-level ozone precursors. Hexane is another solvent used in some of theformulations, particularly acetone-based adhesives. This chemical is a neurotoxin andhas caused peripheral neuropathy. It is a listed HAP and is classified as a VOC.

There are numerous other solvents used in adhesive formulations sold today. Mineralspirits, petroleum solvents, petroleum distillates, VM&P naphthas, and other naphthas are ingredients in some METH, nPB, and acetone-based adhesives. These petroleumfractions contain trace quantities of benzene, which is an established human carcinogen;toluene, which causes central nervous system damage; and xylene, which causes birth

144

defects. Although petroleum solvents do not appear on the HAP list, the tracecontaminants they contain are listed. The petroleum solvents are considered VOCs. Toluene is also an ingredient in certain solvent-based adhesive formulations. Thechemical causes central nervous system damage, is a listed HAP and is considered to be aVOC. Other solvents that may be present in various adhesive formulations includemethyl ethyl ketone, a listed HAP and a VOC; cyclohexane, a VOC; ethyl alcohol, aVOC; methyl cyclohexane, a VOC; methyl alcohol, a HAP and a VOC; and diacetonealcohol, a VOC.

The typical formulations that were analyzed in this project contained tackifying resins andpolymers that are solids in the adhesive. The tackifying resin selected here was a rosin-based resin. Other resins present in various adhesive formulations include phenol-alpha-pinene resin, terpene-phenolic resin, phenol-formaldehyde resin, two different types ofhydrocarbon resins, glycerol ester of hydrogenated rosin, magnesium resinate, and rosinacids. The polymers selected for analysis in the typical formulations were SBS blockcopolymer, nitrile rubber, latex, neoprene, and ethylene vinyl acetate. Another polymerthat may be present in adhesive formulations is nylon copolymer 6/6.6/11/12.

Other trace ingredients in various adhesive formulations include propylene oxide, whichis a carcinogen, a listed HAP and a VOC; zinc oxide; zinc sulfate; zincdibutyldithiocarbamate; caprolactam; and antimony trioxide.

Propellants used in aerosol adhesives were not analyzed here. Some of these, likepropane, butane, pentane, and dimethyl ether, are very flammable, and the aerosol cansmay explode if they are not handled properly.

The adhesives, if used in a high-temperature situation, can decompose, and many of thedecomposition products that are generated could be very toxic. Some of thesedecomposition products include HCl, which is a listed HAP; hydrobromic acid;formaldehyde, which is a suspect carcinogen and a listed HAP; acetaldehyde, which is alisted HAP; acetic acid; ethyl acetate; phosgene, a listed HAP, which was once used as achemical warfare agent; and, possibly, the bromine equivalent of phosgene (carbonylbromide). Degradation products for the adhesives included in this evaluation werediscussed in Chapter 8 (Section 8.7). However, the exposure and risks posed by theseproducts were not evaluated during this project.

The exposure assessment indicates that exposures to solvents from adhesives applied witha spray gun can be very high. Health effects from other solvents could also be of concerngiven these high exposures. Also given the high exposures, even some trace ingredientscould be a problem, depending on their toxicity. Because of these high exposures fromspray adhesive operations, a switch to another spray adhesive formulation (not evaluatedhere) cannot be assumed to be safer.

Further work is recommended in several areas. Future studies should focus on:

• Thoroughly reviewing the available toxicity data for all adhesiveingredients and their degradation products;

• Generating toxicity data that are not currently available for all adhesiveingredients and their degradation products;

• Evaluating the risk of the other adhesive ingredients not analyzed here;

145

• Evaluating the risk of the adhesive degradation products; and• Evaluating the cost, performance, and risk tradeoffs of adhesives used in

other applications, such as laminating.

146

147

Chapter 12Summary and Conclusions

12.1 REPRESENTATIVE ADHESIVE FORMULATIONS

There are many adhesive formulations on the market today that are used to bond varioustypes of substrates for foam fabrication, upholstered furniture manufacture, and mattressmanufacture. To evaluate the human health risk, representative, or typical, adhesiveformulations were required, with all ingredients and their concentrations specified. IRTAused three sources of information to develop formulas for “typical” formulations for eachtype of adhesive: MSDSs from a variety of adhesive formulators, literature sources, andother knowledge from several years of working with chlorinated solvents. Theseadhesive formulations were sent to several adhesive formulators for review, and theircomments were incorporated into establishing the final typical formulations.

The ingredients selected for the typical formulations were meant to be representative andwere not intended to reflect the entire adhesive market; other adhesive products maycontain ingredients that are not included in these “typical” formulations. Two additionalsolvent ingredients were added to the risk evaluation because they may be used in otherformulations and are of concern because of their toxicity—hexane and TCE. Hexane isincluded as an alternative acetone-blend solvent, and TCE is considered an alternativeingredient that may be used in some nPB formulations.

12.2 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Part of evaluating the risks associated with use of adhesives is determining the hazard ortoxicity of the chemical ingredients. Many of the chemicals used in adhesives have beenstudied to determine their health effects, and data from those studies are available inpublished scientific literature. In this evaluation, three types of potential human healtheffects were considered: cancer; chronic, systemic toxicity; and developmental toxicity. Literature searches were conducted to collect available testing data for the chemicalingredient, with a focus on toxicity data published by EPA. In addition to evaluatingchemical ingredients based on toxicity measures for the above health effects, occupationalexposure standards and guidance levels were summarized and also used in evaluating thepotential hazards posed by adhesive ingredients.

12.3 PROCESS SAFETY

An evaluation of process safety issues pertaining to adhesive workers is included as partof the human health hazards assessment. To evaluate the chemical safety hazards of thevarious adhesives, representative MSDSs for each adhesive type were reviewed andsummarized. Hazardous properties listed on the adhesive MSDSs include eye and skinirritation (for all adhesive types) and flammability (for acetone- and acetone/heptane-based adhesives). Other potential hazards can occur because of hazardous decompositionof chemical products or chemical incompatibilities with other chemicals or materials. Most adhesive chemical formulations can decompose under specific conditions to formpotentially hazardous chemicals (especially of concern are the chlorine- and bromine-

148

containing formulations). Work-related injuries from equipment, improper use ofequipment, bypassing equipment safety features, failure to use PPE, and physical stressthat may appear gradually as a result of repetitive motion are also potential process safetyhazards to workers. Appropriate training can help reduce the number of work-relatedaccidents and injuries, regardless of the type of adhesive used.

12.4 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Typically, adhesive is applied either at a workbench or in an open room. Solvent-basedand water-based spray adhesives are applied with a spray gun onto one or both surfacesbefore the pieces are pressed together and allowed to bond. Hot melt adhesive is appliedusing a heated glue gun; the solid adhesive is melted by the glue gun, applied directly toone or both of the pieces to be joined, and the glue sets as it cools. The type and amountof ventilation in the adhesives application area varies widely, but in general, air is ventedto the outside without pollution controls.

This exposure assessment uses a “model facility” approach, where a model facility is ahypothetical facility—based on data collected from a number of facilities—that enablescomparison of the different adhesives under identical conditions. Data used tocharacterize the model facility and exposure patterns for each adhesive technology wereaggregated from facility site visits, input from industry experts, and the exposureassessment literature.

Chemical exposures from day-to-day adhesives application operations were estimated fornearby residents and workers. Fate and transport modeling was performed to estimate airconcentrations for workplace and exposure of nearby resident. Chemical concentrationsestimated for the generic formulations were used to calculate dermal exposure fromadhesive use. These exposure results were then combined with chemical toxicity data toassess risk. This assessment is focused on long-term exposure of nearby residents andworkers resulting from routine adhesives application, rather than on short-term exposuresto high levels of chemicals, such as those that could occur from chemical fires or spills.

12.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

The risk characterization is a screening-level assessment of multiple chemicals used infurniture adhesives with the goals of identifying areas of concern among the adhesivetypes, and of comparing the exposure and health risks of the alternative adhesives to thoseof the baseline adhesive (METH). The risk characterization is intended to facilitatedecision making, and its focus is on chronic (long-term, repeated) exposure to chemicalsthat may cause cancer or have other toxic effects, rather than on acute toxicity from briefexposures to chemicals. As stated above, the exposure assessment and riskcharacterization use a “model facility” approach, with characteristics of the model facilityaggregated from site-visit data and other sources. Therefore, this approach does not resultin an absolute estimate or measurement of risk for any particular facility.

Table 12-1 summarizes the CTSA risk characterization results for all evaluated adhesives. A discussion follows of the results for nearby residents and for workers, for each adhesivetype.

149

12.5.1 Health Risks to Nearby Residents

Potential public health risks were estimated for inhalation exposure for residents livingnear an adhesive-using facility. The exposure assessment evaluated average and high-endadhesive-use scenarios for a model facility. Public exposure estimates are based onseveral assumptions, including that all volatile ingredients evaporate completely duringapplication, emissions are vented to the outside without any air pollution controls, andpeople may live as close as 25 meters from a facility.

Methylene Chloride Adhesive

The estimated cancer risks indicate concern for nearby residents from METH, which hasbeen classified as a probable human carcinogen. The upper-bound, excess individualcancer risk for nearby residents from METH used in METH-based adhesive wasestimated to be from approaching zero to 1 x 10-3 (1 in 1000), depending on annualadhesive-use amount, location, and distance from a facility.

For chronic non-cancer effects, none of the HQs or MOEs exceeds concern levels. Theseresults suggest there is low concern for nearby residents for non-cancer effects.

150

Table 12-1. Summary of Chemicals of Concern for the Baseline Adhesive(METH) and Adhesive Alternative

Adhesive Type

Chemicals of Concern

Potential Carcinogena

Worker Health Risksb

(Inhalation and DermalExposure)

Public HealthRisksc

(InhalationExposure)

METH Adhesive (Baseline) METH METH METHAcetone Adhesive (none) Acetone (none)Acetone/Heptane Adhesive (none) Acetone

Heptane(none)

nPB Adhesive 1,2-Butylene oxide nPB2-BP

1,2-Butylene oxide1,3-Dioxolane

nPB

Water-based Latex Adhesive (none) AmmoniaChlorinated alkyl phosphates

Cyanox 2246Latex

(none)

Water-based Latex/SyntheticAdhesive

Chloroprene AmmoniaChlorinated alkyl phosphates

Cyanox 2246Latex

(none)

Hot Melt Adhesive (none) (none) (none)Alternative Ingredients TCE Hexane

TCEHexane

TCEa The chemicals with an EPA cancer WOE classification of B2, and/or an IARC WOE of 2A or 2B.b The chemicals for which the inhalation cancer risk is greater than 1x10-6; HQ for worker inhalation or dermalcontact exceeds 1; MOEN is less than 100; MOEL is less than 1,000; and/or the or estimated workplace airconcentrations exceed one or more occupational exposure standards or guidance levels.c The chemicals for which the cancer risk to nearby residents from inhalation is greater than 1x10-6; HQ exceeds 1;MOEN is less than 100; and/or the MOEL is less than 1,000 (for residents at 25 meters from a model facility).

Alternative Adhesives

Some of the other adhesive chemicals are suspected or known carcinogens. 1,2-butyleneoxide (in nPB adhesive); chloroprene (in water-based latex/synthetic adhesive); and TCE(an alternative ingredient that may be used in some nPB formulations) are possiblecarcinogens, but no established CPFs were available with which to calculate cancer risks.

For the alternative adhesives, risk indicators calculated for nPB (in nPB adhesive),hexane (an alternative ingredient in acetone-blend adhesives), and TCE (an alternativeingredient in nPB adhesive) exceed concern levels. These results suggest there is someconcern for nearby residents for non-cancer effects from nPB, and for hexane and TCE ifused as ingredients. Chemical ingredients in the adhesive alternatives without sufficientdata with which to calculate inhalation HQs or MOEs for nearby residents include 2-BPin nPB adhesive; and chlorinated alkyl phosphates, Cyanox 2246, and Surfynol 440 in thewater-based adhesives. Limited toxicity data available for 2-BP suggest some concern,although the data were inadequate for quantitative risk characterization.

151

12.5.2 Worker Risks

Health risks to adhesive application workers were estimated for inhalation exposures tovolatile adhesive ingredients and for dermal absorption from skin contact with adhesiveingredients. The exposure assessment evaluated average and high-end scenarios withrespect to adhesive use and ventilation using representative data for a model facility. Inhalation exposure estimates are based on several assumptions, including that all of thevolatile ingredients evaporate during the application process, the air in the process roomis at steady state, and only general ventilation is used in the process area (withoutadditional local ventilation, such as hoods).

Dermal exposure estimates are based on the assumption that workers do not wear longsleeves or gloves, their hands and forearms are routinely in contact with spray adhesive,and chemicals applied to the skin are completely absorbed. Also, oral toxicity data areused in lieu of any available dermal data. Dermal absorption was assumed to benegligible for high-molecular-weight ingredients due to large molecular size (thisincludes ethylene vinyl acetate, Irganox 1010, latex, neoprene, nitrile rubber, and SBSblock copolymer) and for all hot melt ingredients, because the high temperatures wouldpreclude any prolonged skin contact.

Methylene Chloride Adhesive

The METH-based adhesive contains the only chemical for which cancer risks have beenestimated (METH). To evaluate worker inhalation risks, estimated workplace airconcentrations are compared with risks calculated by OSHA at specific workplace exposurelevels. Under the average-use/average-ventilation scenario, there is up to approximately a7x10-3 cancer risk from inhalation of METH, indicating a concern for cancer from theestimated exposure levels. Under the high-use/WTA -ventilation scenario, cancer risk frominhalation of METH could be more than 0.1, indicating high concern.

Under both the average-use/average-ventilation and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios,worker inhalation exposure to METH results in an HQ over 1, indicating concern. Acomparison of estimated workplace air concentrations with existing occupational exposurestandards and/or guidance levels also indicates concern for worker exposure to METH underboth the average-use/average-ventilation and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios.

For worker skin contact, METH also results in a dermal HQ of concern. Although skinabsorption of tackifying resin is also possible, this chemical does not have sufficient toxicitydata with which to calculate a dermal HQ.

Acetone Adhesive

Under both the average-use/average-ventilation and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios,worker inhalation exposure to acetone results in an HQ over 1, indicating concern. Acomparison of estimated workplace air concentrations with existing occupational exposurestandards and guidance levels also indicates concern for worker exposure to acetone underthe high-use/WTA-ventilation scenario.

152

For worker skin contact, acetone also results in a dermal HQ of concern. Although skinabsorption of tackifying resin is also possible, this chemical does not have sufficient toxicitydata with which to calculate a dermal HQ.

Acetone/Heptane Adhesive

Under the high-use/WTA-ventilation scenario, worker inhalation exposure to acetone resultsin an HQ over 1, indicating concern. The MOE for heptane indicates concern under bothscenarios. A comparison of estimated workplace air concentrations with existingoccupational exposure standards and guidance levels also indicate concern for workerexposure to acetone and heptane under the high-use/WTA-ventilation scenario.

For worker skin contact, acetone also results in a dermal HQ of concern. Although skinabsorption of heptane and tackifying resin is also possible, these chemicals do not havesufficient toxicity data with which to calculate dermal HQs.

If hexane is used (as an alternative ingredient in some acetone-blend adhesives), risk resultsindicate concern for workers from inhalation under both the average-use/average-ventilationand high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios. A comparison of estimated workplace airconcentrations with existing occupational exposure standards and guidance levels alsoindicate concern for worker exposure to hexane under the high-use/WTA-ventilationscenario. In addition, dermal risk results indicate concern from worker’s skin contact withhexane.

n-Propyl Bromide Adhesive

One of the typical formulation ingredients, 1,2-butylene oxide, is a possible humancarcinogen, and TCE, an alternative ingredient that may be used in some nPB formulations,is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans. Cancer risks from the use ofnPB adhesive could not be quantified, however, because no established CPFs are availablefor these chemicals with which to calculate cancer risks.

Under both the average-use/average-ventilation and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios,worker inhalation exposure to 1,2-butylene oxide results in an HQ over 1, indicating concern.Also, exposure to 1,3-dioxolane and nPB results in MOEs of concern under both scenarios.Although worker exposure to 2-BP is also possible, it does not have sufficient toxicity datawith which to calculate an inhalation HQ or MOE. Limited toxicity data available for 2-BPsuggest concern, although the data were inadequate for quantitative risk characterization. Acomparison of estimated workplace air concentrations with existing occupational exposurestandards and/or guidance levels also indicates concern for worker exposure to nPB underthe average-use/average-ventilation scenario and to nPB, 1,2-butylene oxide, and 2-BP underthe high-use/WTA-ventilation scenario.

If TCE is used (as an alternative ingredient in some nPB adhesive formulations), risk resultsindicate concern for workers from inhalation under both the average-use/average-ventilationand high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios. A comparison of estimated workplace airconcentrations with existing occupational exposure standards and guidance levels alsoindicates concern for worker exposure to TCE under the high-use/WTA-ventilation scenario.

153

For worker skin contact, no dermal HQs of concern were calculated. Although skinabsorption of 2-BP; 1,2-butylene oxide; 1,3-dioxolane; nPB; tackifying resin; and TCE arepossible, these chemicals do not have sufficient toxicity data with which to calculate dermalHQs or MOEs.

Water-based Latex Adhesive

Under both the average-use/average-ventilation and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios,worker inhalation exposure to ammonia results in an HQ over 1, indicating concern.Although worker exposure to chlorinated alkyl phosphates, Cyanox 2246, and Surfynol 440is possible, these chemicals do not have sufficient toxicity data with which to calculateinhalation HQs. A comparison of estimated workplace air concentrations with existingoccupational exposure standards and guidance levels also indicates concern for workerexposure to ammonia under the high-use/WTA-ventilation scenario.

For worker skin contact, the dermal MOEs for chlorinated alkyl phosphates and Cyanox2246 indicate concern. Although skin absorption of ammonia, Surfynol 440, and tackifyingresin is also possible, these chemicals do not have sufficient toxicity data with which tocalculate dermal HQs or MOEs.

Latex is of concern for inhalation and dermal exposure because is a sensitizer, and workersmay develop an allergic reaction to it.

Water-based Latex/Synthetic Adhesive

One ingredient, chloroprene, is a possible human carcinogen, but no established CPFs areavailable with which to calculate cancer risks.

Under both the average-use/average-ventilation and high-use/WTA-ventilation scenarios,worker inhalation exposure to ammonia results in an HQ over 1, indicating concern.Although worker exposure to chlorinated alkyl phosphates, Cyanox 2246, and Surfynol 440is possible, these chemicals do not have sufficient toxicity data with which to calculateinhalation HQs or MOEs. A comparison of estimated workplace air concentrations withexisting occupational exposure standards and/or guidance levels also indicates concern forworker exposure to ammonia under the high-use/WTA-ventilation scenario.

For worker skin contact, the dermal MOEs for chlorinated alkyl phosphates and Cyanox2246 indicate concern. Although skin absorption of ammonia, chloroprene, Surfynol 440,and tackifying resin is also possible, these chemicals do not have sufficient toxicity data withwhich to calculate dermal HQs or MOEs.

Latex is of concern for inhalation and dermal exposure because is a sensitizer, and workersmay develop an allergic reaction to it.

Hot Melt Adhesive

Worker risk from inhalation exposure to Irganox 1010 does not appear to be of concern.Inhalation and dermal exposures from other hot melt ingredients are expected to benegligible and not of concern.

154

12.6 CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions that can be drawn from this risk evaluation include the following:

• Use of METH-based adhesive can pose a significant cancer risk to workersand the general public, depending on the amount used and other factors.Based on the available data, use of any of the evaluated adhesive alternativeswould reduce or eliminate those cancer risks.

• All of the evaluated spray adhesives can result in exposures to at least oneingredient with chronic, noncancer risk indicators above concern levels,although these results are higher for solvent-based adhesives than for water-based adhesives.

• Among the solvent-based adhesives, risk results are generally higher forMETH- and nPB-based adhesives and lower for acetone- andacetone/heptane-based adhesives.

• A number of spray adhesive ingredients also result in workplace airconcentrations higher than occupational exposure standards and/or guidancelevels.

• There are sensitization concerns from the use of latex in the water-basedadhesives.

• Significant inhalation or dermal exposure is not expected from the routine useof hot melt adhesives.

• Other adhesive ingredients are possible. Hexane and TCE were evaluated asalternative ingredients in acetone and nPB adhesives, respectively. Both maypose significant risks to workers and nearby residents if adhesives containingthese ingredients are used in a comparable manner to the typical adhesiveformulations evaluated here.

It should be emphasized that these conclusions are based on screening-level estimates, witha number of toxicity data gaps. These numbers are used here for screening risks to identifychemicals of concern and to compare relative risks between alternatives. These resultsshould not be used as absolute indicators for actual health risks to the public or adhesiveworkers for any particular facility. In addition, these results apply only to the specificformulations evaluated here—other ingredients may change these conclusions.

155

REFERENCES

ACGIH (American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists). 2001. 2001 TLVsand BEIs. ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH.

Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. 2001. HPV Challenge Program submission for Fyrol FR-2(CAS # 13674-87-8). Dobbs Ferry, NY.

ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers). 1993. ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals. ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2000. Minimal RiskLevels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html, February,2000.

Barnes, D.G. and M. Dourson. 1988. “Reference Dose (RfD): Descriptions and Uses inHealth Risk Assessments.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Vol. 8, p. 471-486.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1990. Statistical Summary: Tenure with Current Employer asof January 1987. As cited in EPA, 1991b, Human Health Evaluation Manual,Supplemental Guidance: “Standard Default Exposure Factors.” EPA Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response, Washington D.C.

Ciba Geigy Limited. 1975a. Reproductive Study—TK 10042, Rat, Segment II (Test forTeratogenic or Embryotoxic Effects). Ciba Geigy Limited, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. H.Fritz. As reported in: Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation HPV Submission forIrganox 1010, Tetrakis-(methylene-(3,5-di(tert)-butyl-4-hydrocinnamate))methane, CASNo. 6683-19-8. Submitted May, 2000, revised February, 2001.

Ciba Geigy Limited. 1975b. Reproductive Study—TK 10042, Mouse, Segment II (Testfor Teratogenic or Embryotoxic Effects). Ciba Geigy Limited, Basel, Switzerland. Dr.H. Fritz. As reported in: Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation HPV Submission forIrganox 1010, Tetrakis-(methylene-(3,5-di(tert)-butyl-4-hydrocinnamate))methane, CASNo. 6683-19-8. Submitted May, 2000, revised February, 2001.

Ciba Geigy Limited. 2001. Robust summary on tetrakis-(methylene-(3,5-di-tertbutyl-4-hydrocinnamate)methane CAS 6683-19-8. Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation.Online. EPA High Production Volume Challenge Program Web page(http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/cibaspec/12667b1t.htm).

Cogliano, J. , C. S. Scott and J. C. Caldwell. 2001. Trichloroethylene Health RiskAssessment: Synthesis and Characterization (External Review Draft). EPA, NationalCenter for Environmental Assessment. August, 2001.

Dioxolane Manufacturers Consortium. 2000. 1,3-Dioxolane, CAS Number 646-06-0,USEPA HPV Challenge Program Submission, 20 November, 2000. Prepared by:Toxicology and Regulatory Affairs, Flemington, NJ.

156

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance forSuperfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). EPA Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1 -89/002.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Supplement to the 1986 EPA AirQuality Criteria Document for Lead - Volume 1 Addendum. Office of Research andDevelopment, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. EPA-600/8-89/049A.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1991a. Chemical Engineering Branch Manualfor the Preparation of Engineering Assessments. EPA Office of Toxic Substances,Washington, D.C.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1991b. Human Health Evaluation Manual,Supplemental Guidance: “Standard Default Exposure Factors.” EPA Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response, Washington D.C.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. Washington D.C. EPA 600-2-92-001.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Methods for Derivation InhalationReference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry (Final). EPA/600/8-90/066F.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. “Proposed Guidelines for CarcinogenRisk Assessment.” EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/P-92/1003C.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. Health Effects Assessment SummaryTables. FY_1997. Office of Research and Development, Office of Energy and RemedialResponse. EPA 540/R-97-036.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPAOffice of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/p-95/1002Fa.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000a, 2001. Integrated Risk InformationSystem (IRIS) Online. EPA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati,OH.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000b. Options for Revising CEB’s Methodfor Screening-Level Estimates of Dermal Exposure. EPA Chemical Engineering Branch,Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division, Washington D.C.

Freudenthal, R.I. and R.T. Heinrich. 2000. “Chronic toxicity and carcinogenic potentialof tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate in Sprague-Dawley rat.” International Journalof Toxicology. Vol.19, pages 119-125.

Holdsworth, C. 1980. A 26 week inhalation toxicity study of heptane in the rate.Albemarle Corporation. Microfiche #OTS 0503685.

157

HSDB (Hazardous Substance Data Bank). 2001. MEDLARS Online InformationRetrieval System, National Library of Medicine, National Toxicology Program (viaTOXNET), Bethesda, MD.

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 2000. Overall Evaluations ofCarcinogenicity to Humans, as evaluated in IARC Monographs, Volumes 1-77, lastupdated August 9, 2000. http://193.51.164.11/monoeval/crthall.html.

Kim, H-Y, Y-H Chung, J-H Jeong, et al. 1999. “Acute and repeated dose inhalationtoxicity of 1-bromopropane.” J. Occup. Health. Vol. 41, pages 121-128.

Kincaid, L.E., J. Meline, and G. Davis. 1996. Cleaner Technologies SubstitutesAssessment: A Methodology & Resource Guide. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention andToxics. Washington, D.C. EPA 744-R-95-002.

Morris, M. and K. Wolf. 2000. Alternative Adhesive Technologies in the FoamFurniture and Bedding Industries: A Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment. Volume 1: Cost and Performance Evaluation. Prepared for EPA DfE Program by IRTA.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1976. A Guide toIndustrial Respiratory Protection. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. NEW Pub. 76-189.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1999. Pocket Guide toChemical Hazards and Other Databases. NIOSH, U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, CD-ROM, April, 1999. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 99-115.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 2000a. Letter ofDecember 21, 2000 from Chris Reh, NIOSH Industrial Hygienist, to Custom Products,Inc.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 2000b. Letter ofFebruary 1, 2000 from Chris Reh, NIOSH Industrial Hygienist, to Marx Industries, Inc.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 2001. Letter of March7, 2001 from Chris Reh, NIOSH Industrial Hygienist, to STN Cushion Company.

NTP (National Toxicology Program). 1986. Technical Report Series No. 306. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) CASNo. 75-09-2) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies). NIH PublicationNo. 86-2562. 208 pp. NTP, Research Triangle Park, NC and Bethesda, MD. As cited inNTP, 2001.

NTP (National Toxicology Program). 1998. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies ofchloroprene (CAS No. 126-99-8) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (inhalation studies). NTP TR 467. (NIH Publication No. 98-3957).

NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2001. 9th Report on Carcinogens. NTP, U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Revised January2001. http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/.

158

Ohm, R., Editor. 1990. Vanderbilt Rubber Handbook, Thirteenth Edition. R.T.Vanderbilt Company, Inc., Norwalk, CT.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1997a. Preambles to 29 CFRParts 1910, 1915, and 1926, Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride. RIN 1218-AA98, Final Rule. OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor. [62 FR 1494, January 10, 1997].

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1997b. “OccupationalExposure to Methylene Chloride.” OSHA Preambles, VI. Quantitative Risk Assessment. Department of Labor. 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926, Final Rule.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1999a. Nomination of 1-Bromopropane (1-BP) and 2-Bromopropane (2-BP) for Testing by the NationalToxicology Program. Submitted by: Directorate of Health Standards Programs, U.S.Occupational Safety and Health Administration, December, 1999.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1999b. Potential for Allergy toNatural Rubber Latex Gloves and Other Natural Rubber Products. TechnicalInformation Bulletin. April 12, 1999.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1999c. Technical InformationBulletin: Potential for Allergy to Natural Rubber Latex Gloves and Other NaturalRubber Products. April 12, 1999.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 2001. Citation and Notificationof Penalty [Inspection Number: 303426266]. OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.

Skeist, I., Editor. 1977. Handbook of Adhesives, 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, Inc.

Takagi, A., K. Takada, K. Sai, T. Ochiai, K. Matsumoto, K. Sekita, J. Momma, Y. Aida,M. Saitoh, K. Naitoh, et al. 1994. “Acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity studies of asynthetic antioxidant, 2,2'-methylenebis (4-methyl-6-tert-butylphenol) in rats.” J.Toxicol. Sci. Vol. 19, pages 77-88.

WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 1989. “Scientific Assessment ofStratospheric Ozone: 1989.” Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—ReportNo. 20, Vol. I and Vol. II.

Yu, I.J., H.Y. Kim, C.H. Lim, et al. 1999. “The Occupational Exposure Level (OEL) for2-Bromopropane: the First OEL Established by Korea.” Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. Vol.14, pages 356-358.

A-1

Appendix AMaterial Safety Data Sheets for Typical Adhesive

Formulations

k" JAN-15-2003 16:50

MATERIAL 4

DS Name: KWIKSTIK 250DMMSDS Number: KS 2500

TACC INTERNRTIONAL 8002318222 P.01/04

SAFETY DATA SHEET

MSDS Last Updated: OCT-06-2000Page Number: 1 of 5

… -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -

SECTION I - PRODUCT AND COMPANY INFORMATION

Product Name: KWIKSTIK 250DMCAS Number: MIXTUREHazard Rating: Health: 2 Fire: 1 Reactivity: 0 PPI: B

Company Identification:

Telephone/Fax:Chemtrec (24 Hour):

Trade Name:Product Code:DOT Hazard ClassUN Number:Shipping Name;Packing Group:

Contains:

TACCAIR STATION INDUSTRIAL PARKROCKLAND MA 02370

(781) 878-7015 (781) 871-6727(800) 424-9300

KWIKSTIK 2500MKS 2500M6.1.2810TOXIC LIQUIDS, ORGANIC, NOSIII

(DICHLOROMETHANE)

SECTION II - HAZARDOUS INFORMATION…_-_===========-======_

Ingredient Name CAS Number

METHYLENE CHLORIDE

VM&P NAPHTHA 8032-32-4 y

SECTION M - PHYSICAL DATA

Appearance/Color: CLEARBoiling Range: 104.F - 285.OFEvaporation Rate: Faster than n-Butyl Acetate% Volatile Weight: 78.02%% Volatile Volume: Not AvailableSpecific Gravity: 1.209Weight/Volume Measure: 10.06737

7 5-0 9-2

Percent

65-80

TSCA

1-5

Y

JAN-15-2003 16:50 TRCC INTERNRTIONRL 8002318222 P.02/04MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

MSDS Name: KWIKSTIK 2500MMSDS Number: KS 2500.

MSDS Last Updated: OCT-06-2000Page Number: 2 of 5

…__________________________._______________________________________________.-____

Max. VOC: 89.7 g/L

SECTION IV-EIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZ DDANGER

Flammability Class: TIIBFlash Range: Not ApplicableExplosive Range: Not Applicable

EXTINGUISHING MEDIA;Foam, dry chemical, carbon dioxide, water spray or fog.SPECIAL FIREFIGHTING PROCEDURES:Avoid breathing smoke. Use air supplied rescue equipment forenclosed area. Water tends to spread burning liquid if largeamounts used.UNUSUAL FIRE & EXPLOSION HAZARDS:Container may vent and/or rupture due to fire. Although thismaterial does not have a flash point, it can burn at roomtemperature.

SECTION V- HEALTH HAZARD DATA

PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LEVEL:SEE SECTION VIII.EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE:INHALATION: May cause dizziness, nausea, upper respiratoryirritation, drowsiness, mental depression or narcosis,difficulty in breathing, irregular heartbeats. Chronic effectsof overexposure to solvent vapors could lead to permanenteffects to the nervous system, body organs and slight liverdamage on excessive exposure. Use with adequate ventilation.Can cause cardiac arrest and irregular heartbeats when inhaledin massive amounts as for euphoria.EYES: Irritation.SKIN: Removal of skin oils, irritation, dermatitis,sensitization.INGESTION: May be harmful if swallowed; can cause gastro-intestinal tract effects.

Methylene Chloride has been shown to cause cancer in certainlaboratory animals. Repeated and/or prolonged exposure to high

UJAN-15-2003 16:51 TACC INTERNATIONAL 8002318222 P.03/04

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETMSDS Name: KWIKSTIK 2500MMSDS Number: KS 2500

MSDS Last Updated: OCT-06-2000Page Number: 3 of 5

…_______________________________________________________________________________

concentrations has induced liver and kidney and possible cardiactoxicity in experimental animals.

FIRST AID:INHALATION: Get fresh air, if necessary, call Physician.SKIN: Wash with mild soap and water, apply a mild cream.Eyes: Flush with water for at least 15 minutes.Ingestion: Call Poison Center immediately.NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: Adrenalin should never be given toperson overexposed to methylene chloride!!!

== _ _ = = _ = = _ ==== - -==c = _ ==-___…SECTION VI- REACTIVITY DATAStability: This product is stableHazardous Polymerization: Hazardous polymerization will not occurINCOMPATIBILITY:AluminumCONDITIONS TO AVOID:Highly alkaline materials, i.e.; sodium hydroxide, aluminum.HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS:CO, C02, hydrogen chloride and phosgene

SECTION VII- SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES

STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED:Ventilate area. Avoid breathing vapors. Contain spillif possible. Wipe up or absorb with suitable material andshovel up. Prevent entry into sewers and waterways.WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD:Material is designated as hazardous waste until all solventsand vapors have evaporated. Dispose of in accordance withlocal, state, and federal regulations. Dried adhesive may bedisposed of as ordinary waste.

SECTION VIII- EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTIONOccupational Exposure Limits:

ACGIH TLV ACGIH TLV-C ACGIH STEL OSIIA STEL OSHA PELT.,METHYLENE CHLORIDE

50.00 PPM N/est N/est 125.00 PPM 25.00 PLUM------------------------------------------------------------------

-------- ---------

JAN-15-2003 16:51 TRCC INTERNATIONRL 8002318222 P.04/04

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETMSDS Name: KWIKSTIK 2500MMSDS Number: KS 2500

MSDS Last Updated: OCT-06-2000Page Number: 4 of 5________________________________________________________________________________

VM&P NAPHTHA300.00 PPM N/est N/est N/est N/est

RESPIRATORY PROTECTION:If vapors exceed PEL use self-contained mask (organic mask)NIOSH approved.VENTILATION:Sufficient to keep workroom concentration below PEL.PROTECTIVE GLOVES:Chemical resistant gloves.EYE PROTECTION:Safety glasses. Face shield as necessary if spraying.OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT:Use chemical resistant apron or other clothing if needed toavoid repeated or prolonged skin contact.

SECTION IX - SPEC PRECAUONS

PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE:Keep container closed when not in use. Store at 60-95 degrees F outof sun. Use adequate ventilation to avoid breathing vapors when coveris removed. Do not smoke when vapors are present.OTHER PRECAUTIONS:Vapors of this product are heavier than air and will collect inlow areas. Do not weld or cut where vapors are present.

SECTION X ADDITIONAL REGULATORY INFORMATION-SARA TITLE III SECTION 313:This product contains the following toxic chemicals subject to thereporting requirements of Section 313 of the.Emergency Planning andCommunity Right to Know Act of 1986 and of 40 CFR 372:

Ingredient Name CAS Number Percent

METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75-09-2 65-80

-PROP 65 (CARCINOGEN)WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the state ofCalifornia tocause cancer.Ingredient Name CAS Number Percent

…-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --

TOTAL P.04

01/16/03 11:29:09am

Imperial Adhesives Inc.

6315 Wiehe Road

Cincinnati, OH 45237

TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY (800)255-3924

INFORMATION PHONE 513-351-1300(M-F 8am-5pm ET)

H.M.I.S.

HEALTH 3 *FLAMMABILITY 0REACTIVITY 0

These ratings should be used as part ofa fully implemented H.M.I.S. program.

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA S H E E T

SECTION 1 - PRODUCT INFORMATION

TRADE NAME WHISPER SPRAY

MANUFACTURER CODE I.D. 1043

DATE OF PREPARATION 1/16/03

SECTION 2 - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS/COMPOSITION INFORMATION

INGREDIENT

METHYLENE CHLORIDE

1,2 PROPYLENE OXIDE

PETROLEUM HYDRO-

CARBON MIXTURE

N-HEPTANE

STODDARD SOLVENT

% BY

WGT

PPM MG/CU.M

50 174

25 87

125 437

UFL 66.0

20

20UFL

100

100

400

500

400

500

UFL

100100

ALLOWABLE

EXPOSURE LEVELCAS NO.

60 75-09-2 TLV-TWA

OSHA-PEL

OSHA-STEL

LFL 16.01 75-56-9 TLV-TWA

OSHA-PEL

LFL 3.08032-32-4 TLV-TWA

OSHA-PEL

142-82-S TLV-TWA

TLV-STEL

OSHA-PEL

OSHA-STEL

LFL 1.0

8052-41-3 TLV-TWA

OSHA-PEL

LFL .8

LFL = LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT PERCENTUFL = UPPER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT PERCENTSKIN = SKIN ABSORPTION MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A ROUTE OF EXPOSUREC-CEILING= ALLOW. EXPOSURE LEVEL SHOULD NOT BE EXCEEDED FOR ANY TIME PERIODMFR = MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE LIMIT

STEL SHORT TERM EXPOSURE LIMITX-SARA 313 = CHEMICAL IS SUBJECT TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 313 OF TITLE III OF S.A.RA. 40 CFR PART 372

SECTION 3 - HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

EFFECTS OF SHORT TERM OVEREXPOSURE

SWALLOWING

Can cause gastrointestinal irritation, nausea, and vomiting. Aspiration ofmaterial into lung may cause chemical pneumonitis which can be fatal.

INHALATION

MAY BE FATAL IF TOO MUCH IS BREATHED!

PAGE: 002

SARA

313 mm

20

VP

Hg @

DEG. CSKIN

X 350

15 MIN

50

5037.0

525

5251600

2000

1600

20007.0

525525

X

40

01/16/03 11:29:3ZamP

Prexisting heart conditions may be aggravated by exposure to Methylenechloride.Exposure to chlorinated solvents may result in liver and kidney, and heartsensi ti zati on.overexposure may cause unconsciousness and possible death.May cause nose or throat irritation. High concentrations may cause acutecentral nervous system depression characterized by headaches, dizziness,nausea and confusion.Reduces the blood's oxygen-carrying capacity by the formation of carboxy-hemoglobin. Reduced blood oxygen levels may be harmful to users, especiallythose with existing heart disease.

EYEMay cause eye irritation.

SKINPrimary skin irritant.May be absorbed through the skin in harmful amounts.May cause severe skin irritation.

EFFECTS OF REPEATED OVEREXPOSUREReports have associated prolonged and repeated occupational overexposureto solvents with permanent brain and nervous system damage. Intentionalmisuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the contents may beharmful or fatal.

SIGNIFICANT LABORATORY DATA WITH POSSIBLE RELEVANCE TO HUMAN HEALTH.Methylene chloride has been identified as a potential carcinogen by theInternational Agency For Reseacrh on cancer (IARC Group 2B - Probable HumanCarcinogen) and as a substance "Reasonably Anticipated To Be A Carcinogen"by the National Toxicology program (NTP Group 2). These classifications arebased on animal studies (mice & rats) which indicated a dose relatedincidences in lung, liver and mammary tumors. Human epidemolgical studiesindicate that the potential carcinogenic effect of methylene chloride isdose dependent. This is supported by the observation of an increasedincidence of liver cancer subsequent to high exposure (140 -470 ppm) in afilm production plant. workers in another facility who were exposed to amuch lower concentration (26 ppm) showed no increase in cause specificdeath.The International Agency for Research on cancer has classified Propyleneoxide as a probable carcinogen (Group 2B) based upon sufficient evidencefrom laboratory animal test data.

SECTION 4 - FIRST-AID MEASURES

SWALLOWING

If swallowed do not induce vomiting. call poison control center, hospitalemergency room or physician immediately.

INHALATIONRemove to fresh air immediately. If breathing has stopped, give artifi-cial respiration. Keep warm and quiet. Get medical attention immediately.

EYEFlush with large amounts of water, lifting upper and lower lids occasional-ly. Continue for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention.

SKINImmediately flush the contaminated area with large amounts of water. Removecontaminated clothing as water is applied. consult a physician.

NOTES TO PHYSICIANDo not give stimulants. Epinephrine or ephedrine may adverselyaffect the heart with fatal results.

SECTION 5 - FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES

NFPA FLAMMABILITY CLASSIFICATION Not Applicable

PAGE: 003

01/16/03 11:30:04aM

FLASHPOINT Not applicableEXTINGUISHING MEDIA

Use NFPA Class B Fire extinguishers (carbon dioxide, all purpose dry chemi-cal or alcohol foam) designed to extinguish flammable liquid fires. Poly-mer foam is preferred for large fires.

UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDSDuring emergency conditions, overexposure to decompostion products maycause a health hazard. Symptoms may not be immediately apparent. obtainmedical attention.This product contains halogenated hydrocarbons; contact with aluminummay cause violent reaction and or explosion.Manufacturer's of Methylene chloride report no flash point using the TOC,TCC, and COC methods. However, it is known that methylene chloride doeshave a flammable range 14% (LFL) and 22% (UFL) at 25 deg C. These representvery high concentrations that would present very serious employee exposuresrelative to OSHA and ACGIH standards. Due to the lack of a typicalflashpoint some confusion exists regarding the assignment of HMISflammability ratings. Some suppliers have suggested that a flammabilityrating of 1 should be assigned to methylene chloride. others suggest thatthe lack of a true flashpoint requires that a zero flammbility rating beassigned. Prevent circumstances which would result in methylene chlorideconcentrations within the flammable range as well as exposure of liquid orvapor to sources of ignition. Please keep in mind that the presence ofother flammable substances in this or other product mixtures may alter theflashpoint and increase the flash fire risk and the HMIS flammabilityrating.

SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURESFirefighters should wear self-contained breathing apparatus.Water may be ineffective, but may be used to cool exposed containers toprevent pressure build-up and possible auto-ignition or explosion whenexposed to extreme heat. If water is used, fog nozzles are preferable.

SECTION 6 - ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES

STEPS TO BE TAKEN IF MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLEDThe use of a NIOSH/MSHA approved, TC19C, air-supplied breathing apparatusmay be required. consult with a qualified occupational health and /orsafety professional.Wear respirators, eye, hand, and body protection appropriate for thesize of the spill and the exposures encountered.

WASTE DISPOSALDispose in accordance with federal, state and local regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDSNone known

SECTION 7 - HANDLING AND STORAGE

PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGEDo not store above 115 deg.F (46 deg.c) store large quantities incompliance with OSHA 29CFR1910.106.

OTHER PRECAUTIONSDo not take internally. close container after each use.THIS PRODUCT IS INTENDED TO BE USED ONLY BY THE PROFESSIONAL (INDUSTRIAL)APPLICATOR UNDER PROPERLY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. A QUALIFIED OCCUPATIONALHEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHOULD EVALUATE EXPOSURES TO THIS PRODUCT.THE USE OF THIS PRODUCT IN CONFINED AREAS MAY RESULT IN DANGEROUS AIRBORNECONCENTRATIONS. THIS MAY CAUSE THE SERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS DESCRIBED INSECTION III OF THIS MSDS.Empty containers must not be washed and re-used for any purpose.Containers should be grounded and bonded to the receiving container.

PAGE: 004

01/16/03 11:30:3daM

Do not weld, braze or cut on empty container.Never use pressure to empty. Drum is not a pressure vessel.

SECTION 8 - EXPOSURE CONTROLS

RESPIRATORY PROTECTIONProper selection of respiratory protection depends upon many factorsincluding duration/level of exposure and conditions of use. In generalexposure to organic chemicals such as those contained in this product maynot require the use of respiratory protection if used in well ventilatedareas. In restricted ventilation areas a NIOSH approved chemical cartridgerespirator may be required. under certain conditions, such as spraying, amechanical prefilter may also be required. In confined areas use a NIOSH/MSHA approved air supplied respirator. If the TLV's listed in Section IIare exceeded use a properly fitted NIOSH/MSHA approved respirator with anappropriate protection factor. Refer to OSHA 29 CFR 1910.134 "RespiratoryProtection", and "Respiratory Protection A Manual And Guideline, AmericanIndustrial Hygiene Assoc.'

VENTILATIONProvide general dilution and local exhaust ventilation in sufficient volumeand pattern to keep concentrations of hazardous ingredients listed inSection II below the lowest exposure limit stated. Remove decompositionproducts that are generated when welding, cutting, or brazing objectscoated with this product. Refer to "Industrial ventilation - A Manual ofRecommended Practice ' ACGIH

HAND PROTECTIONWear appropriate impermeable gloves (North- Silver Shield).

EYE PROTECTIONWear safety glasses meeting the specifications of ANSI Z87.1 where nocontact with the eye is anticipated. Chemical safety goggles meeting thespecifications of ANSI Z87.1 should be worn whenever there is a possibilityof splashing or other contact with the eyes.

OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENTEyewash facility, safety shower.

SECTION 9 - PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

BOILING RANGE 93 DEG.F. ( 34 DEG.C.) TO 320 DEG.F. ( 160 DEG.C.)VAPOR DENSITY % VOLATILE BY VOLUME 66

Heavier than air.EVAPORATION RATE

Slower than diethyl ether.VOC 2.08 LB/GAL LESS WATER & NPRS* 250 G/L LESS WATER CALCULATEDWGT LB/GAL 9.3 VOC 3.12 LB/GAL SOLIDS 374 G/L SOLIDS CALCULATEDSPECIFIC GRAVITY 1.1All Physical data determined at 68 DEG. F. (20 DEG. C.) 760 mm Hg

* Negligibly Photochemically Reactive Materials

SECTION 10 - STABILITY AND REACTIVITY

STABILITYAvoid open flames, welding arcs or other high temperature sources whichinduce thermal decomposition.

CONDITIONS TO AVOIDAvoid excessive heat (>115 F (46 C) and sources of ignition.

INCOMPATABILITY (MATERIALS TO AVOID)AluminumStrong acids or alkaline materials.oxidizing materials.This product contains halogenated hydrocarbons which may react with

4

PAGE: 005 -i

PACE: 006

aluminum. Avoid contact with aluminum in situations in which pressuresmay be elevated or in which reactions may be enclosed. Do not use sprayequipment systems containing aluminum parts.

HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTSBurning, including when heated by welding or cutting, will produce smoke,carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.In addition, phosgene,formaldehyde,hydrogen chloride,chlorine,may be generated.

HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATIONwill not occur

CONDITIONS TO AVOIDThis product contains halogenated hydrocarbons which may decompose toform hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and phosgene when in contact with hotsurfaces, open flames, and U.V. radiation. Do not use this material nearwelding operations.

SECTION 11 - TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

No information available.

SECTION 12 - ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION

No information available.

SECTION 13 - DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS

See Section 6.

SECTION 14 - TRANSPORT INFORMATION

MODE PROPER SHIPPING NAME CLASS I.D.# PKG GRPITEM: 1043 DESC/SIZE:IATA(AIR) DICHLOROMETHANE,SOLUTION 6.1 UN1593 III

PASS:605-60L;CARGO:612-220LLABEL: POISON

DOT (HM-181)(DOMESTIC SURFACE) DICHLOROMETHANE, SOLUTION 6.1 UN1593 III

NOTE! The assignment of Proper shipping Names is in part a function of thesize of the product container and the transport mode. For example, theProper shipping Name for a bulk container can differ significantly from theProper Shipping Name for the same product packaged in a non-bulk container.This can also be true for products shipped via different modes oftransportation (i.e. ground, air, ocean). The descriptions provided aboveare intended to provide some guidance. However, these descriptions may notapply to your package size or mode of shipment.The U.S. code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR - Transportation, regulations,and the policies established by some transporters, require that the shipperproperly classify and assign a Proper shipping Name, and label, mark andpackage the material properly. Therefore, the user of this information iscautioned to consult with applicable regulations, and with qualifiedadvisors prior to the repackaging and or reshipment of this or other anyproduct which contain this product.

SECTION 15 - REGULATORY INFORMATION

All ingredients in this product are listed on the US TSCA Inventory.All ingredients in this product are listed on the Canadian Domesticsubstance List.

WARNING: This product contains

01/16/03 11:31:00am

01/16/03 11:31:37ad PAIGE: 007

4

METHYLENE CHLORIDE; 1,2 PROPYLENE OXIDE;chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer.INGREDIENT CAS NO. DETAIL INVENTORY LIST INFORMATION

METHYLENE CHLORIDE

1,2 PROPYLENE OXIDE

PETROLEUM HYDRO-CARBON MIXTURE

N-HEPTANE

STODDARD SOLVENTDETAIL INVENTORY LIST

TSCAToxic substances Cont12bNotices of Export4Test Rules4 termTSCA 4 term8a CAIR

75-09-2 TSCA(8a CAIR)TSCA(8a PAIR)TSCA(8d)DSL

75-56-9 TSCA(12b)TSCA(4)TSCA(4 term)TSCA(8a CAIR)TSCA(8a PAIR)TSCA(8d)DSL

8032- 32-4 DSL

142-82-5 TSCA(8a PAIR)TSCA(8d)DSL

8052-41-3rDESCRIPTION

DSL

:rol Act

comprehensive Assessment Information Rules8a PAIRPreliminary Assesment Information Rules8dHealth and Safety Reporting RulesDSLCanadian Domestic substance List

SECTION 16 - OTHER INFORMATION

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS BASED ON DATA CONSIDERED TO BEACCURATE. WHILE THE INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, NO WARRANTY ISEXPRESSED OR IMPLIED REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATA OR THE RESULTS TOBE OBTAINED FROM THE USE THEREOF. SINCE THE USE OF THIS INFORMATION AND THECONDITIONS AND USE OF THIS PRODUCT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE USER, IT IS THEUSER'S OBLIGATION TO DETERMINE THE CONDITIONS OF SAFE USE OF THE PRODUCT.

The Corporate safety and Environmental Affairs Department isresponsible for the preparation of this Material safety Data Sheet.

ABT ASSOCANNA LEOS URBEL

01/16/03 11:32 :4amP

Imperial Adhesives Inc.6315 Wiehe RoadCincinnati, OH 45237TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY (800)255-3924INFORMATION PHONE 513-351-1300(M-F 8am-Spm ET)

H.M.I.S.HEALTH 2

FLAMMABILITY 0REACTIVITY 0

These ratings should be used as part ofa fully implemented H.M.I.S. program.

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA S H E E T

SECTION 1 - PRODUCT INFORMATION

TRADE NAME WHISPER SPRAYMANUFACTURER CODE I.D. 1591

DATE OF PREPARATION 1/16/03

SECTION 2 - hmZARDoUS INGREDIENTS/CoMPOSITION INFORMATION

INGREDIENT

N-PROPYL BROMIDE

TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL <

1,2 BUTYLENE OXIDE <

ACETONITRILE <

% BYWGT

ALLOWABLE

EXPOSURE LEVELCAS NO.

PPM MG/CU.M

106-94-5 MFR

5 75-65-0 TLV-TWA

TLV-STEL

OSHA-PEL

OSHA-STEL

LFL 2.0

5 106-88-7 MFR

LFL 1.5

S 75-05-8 OSHA-PEL

10

100150

100150UFL

40

UFL

20

LFL = LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT PERCENT

UFL = UPPER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT PERCENT

SKIN = SKIN ABSORPTION MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A ROUTE OF EXPOSURE

C-CEILING= ALLOW. EXPOSURE LEVEL SHOULD NOT BE EXCEEDED FOR ANY TIME PERIOD

MFR = MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE LIMIT

STEL = SHORT TERM EXPOSURE LIMIT

X-SARA 313 = CHEMICAL IS SUBJECT TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 313 OF TITLE III OF S.A.RA. 40 CFR PART 372

SECTION 3 - iiZARDS IDENTIFICATION

EFFECTS OF SHORT TERM OVEREXPOSURESWALLOWING

Can cause gastrointestinal irritation, nausea, and vomiting. Aspiration ofmaterial into lung may cause chemical pneumonitis which can be fatal.symptoms and signs of acute acetonitrile intoxication include chest pain,tightness in the chest, nausea, emesis, tachycardia, hypotension, short andshallow respiration, headache, restlessness, semiconsciousness, andseizures.

INHALATIONMay cause nose or throat irritation. High concentrations may cause acutecentral nervous system depression characterized by headaches, dizziness,nausea and confusion.coughing, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting,diarrhea, muscle weakness, giddines.

SARA

313 mm20

VP

Hg @

DEG. CSKIN

X 313004503004508.0

18.334

X

X

PAGE: 08Z

01/16/03 11:33: 10am

EYEMay cause severe eye irritation.

SKINLiquid material may be absorbed through the skin in harmful amounts.May cause defatting and irritation of the skin.

EFFECTS OF REPEATED OVEREXPOSUREPreexisting medical conditions may be aggravated by exposure. These includedermatitis, liver,kideny, respiratory and central nervous system disorders.Reports have associated prolonged and repeated occupational overexposureto solvents with permanent brain and nervous system damage. Intentionalmisuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the contents may beharmful or fatal.

SIGNIFICANT LABORATORY DATA WITH POSSIBLE RELEVANCE TO HUMAN HEALTH.The supplier reports that n-Propyl Bromide may cause lung, liver, kidneyand central nervous system effects. Experimetal reproductibe effects havebeen reported. In a 28 day whole body inhalation study using rats withexposure to vapors for 6 hours each day 5 days per week, signifcantmortality was seen at chamber concentrations of 8.0 mg/l. chamberconcentrations of 5.0 to 8.0 mg/l produced deteriorating condition,decreased body weights, and decrease in brain weight. Histopathologicallesions were found in the central nervous system, urinary system, nasalcavities, sternal bone marrow, lymphoid tissues, and male reproductivesystem.In a 13 week whole-body inhalation study using rats with exposure to vaporsfor 6 hours each day for 5 days per week at cahmber concentrations between0.5 and 3.0 mg/l, no clinical observations were produced. At concentrationsof 2.0 and 3.0 mg/l, histopathological lesions were found in the liver. TheNo Effect Level was established at 1.0 mg/l. other acute and chronic healthhazards are not known.Manufacturers' recommended exposure limits range from 10 ppm 8-hour TWA to100 ppm 8-hour TWA.

SECTION 4 - FIRST-AID MEASURES

SWALLOWINGIf swallowed call Poison Control Center, Hospital Emergency Room, orPhysician immediately.

INHALATIONRemove to fresh air immediately. If breathing has stopped, give artifi-cial respiration. Keep warm and quiet. Get medical attention immediately.

EYEFlush with large amounts of water, lifting upper and lower lids occasional-ly. Continue for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention.

SKINRemove contaminated clothing. wash affected area with soap and water.obtain medical attention if irritation persists.

NOTES TO PHYSICIANAny treatment that might be required for overexposure should bedirected at the control of symptoms and the clinical conditions.

SECTION 5 - FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES

NFPA FLAMMABILITY CLASSIFICATION Not ApplicableFLASHPOINT Not applicableEXTINGUISHING MEDIA

n-propylbromide forms flammable mixtures with air in a narrow range.However, n-propyl bromide is not a flammable liquid.Use NFPA Class B Fire extinguishers (carbon dioxide, all purpose dry chemi-cal or alcohol foam) designed to extinguish flammable liquid fires. Poly-mer foam is preferred for large fires.

PRGE: 003

01/16/03 11:33:44am

UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDSNone known.

SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURESWater may be ineffective, but may be used to cool exposed containers toprevent pressure build-up and possible auto-ignition or explosion whenexposed to extreme heat. If water is used, fog nozzles are preferable.

SECTION 6 - ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES

STEPS TO BE TAKEN IF MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLEDconfine in small area; use absorbent to clean up. Place in container fordisposal.

WASTE DISPOSALDispose in accordance with federal, state and local regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDSNone known

SECTION 7 - HANDLING AND STORAGE

PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGEDo not store above 115 deg.F (46 deg.C) store large quantities incompliance with OSHA 29CFR1910.106.

OTHER PRECAUTIONSDo not take internally. close container after each use.wash hands and face thoroughly before eating or drinking.Empty containers must not be washed and re-used for any purpose.Never use pressure to empty. Drum is not a pressure vessel.

SECTION 8 - EXPOSURE CONTROLS

RESPIRATORY PROTECTIONProper selection of respiratory protection depends upon many factorsincluding duration and level of exposure and conditions of use. In generalexposure to organic chemicals such as those contained in this product maynot require the use of respiratory protection if used in well ventilatedareas. In areas of restricted ventilation a NIOSH approved organic vaporrespirator may be required. under certain conditions, such as spraying, amechanical prefilter may also be required. In confined areas or in highexposure situations a NIOSH/MSHA approved air supplied respirator may berequired. If the TLV's or PEL's listed in Section II are exceeded use aproperly fitted NIOSH/MSHA approved respirator with an appropriateprotection factor. Refer to OSHA 29 CFR 1910.134 "Respiratory Protection",and "Respiratory Protection a Manual and Guideline, American IndustrialHygiene Association".

VENTILATIONProvide general dilution and local exhaust ventilation in sufficient volumeand pattern to keep concentrations of hazardous ingredients listed inSection II below the lowest exposure limit stated. Remove decompositionproducts that are generated when welding, cutting, or brazing objectscoated with this product. Refer to "Industrial Ventilation - A Manual ofRecommended Practice ACGIH

HAND PROTECTIONViton or Norfoil.Solvent impermeable gloves are required for repeated or prolonged contact.

EYE PROTECTIONWear safety spectacles , chemical splash goggles (ANsIZ87.1 or equivalent)and face shield.Wear safety glasses meeting the specifications of ANSI Z87.1 where nocontact with the eye is anticipated. chemical safety goggles meeting thespecifications of ANSI Z87.1 should be worn whenever there is a possibility

PAGE 'A 004

01/16/03 11:34:15aPAm

of splashing or other contact with the eyes.OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

Eyewash facility, safety shower.

SECTION 9 - PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

BOILING RANGE 145 DEG.F. ( 63 DEG.C.) TO 180 DEG.F. ( 8VAPOR DENSITY % VOLATILE BY VOLUME 63

Heavier than air.EVAPORATION RATE

Slower than diethyl ether.VOC 7.01 LB/GAL LESS WATER & NPRS* 841 G/L LESS WATER CALCULA7WGT LB/GAL 10.2 VOC 19.06 LB/GAL SOLIDS 2287 G/L SOLIDSSPECIFIC GRAVITY 1.2All Physical data determined at 68 DEG. F. (20 DEG. C.) 760 mm Hg

* Negligibly Photochemically Reactive Materials

2 DEG.C.)

rEECALCULATED

SECTION 10 - STABILITY AND REACTIVITY

STABILITYAvoid open flames, welding arcs or other high temperature sources whichinduce thermal decomposition.

CONDITIONS TO AVOIDNone known

INCOMPATABILITY (MATERIALS TO AVOID)Acids & AnhydridesAlkalis & AminesStrong acids or alkaline materials.oxidizing materials.

HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTSBurning, including when heated by welding or cutting, will produce smoke,carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.In additionhydrogen bromide,may be generated.

HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATIONwill not occur

CONDITIONS TO AVOIDKeep away from heat sparks and flame.

SECTION 11 - TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

No information available.

SECTION 12 - ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION

No information available.

SECTION 13 - DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS

See Section 6.

SECTION 14 - TRANSPORT INFORMATION

MODE PROPER SHIPPING NAME CLASS I.D.F PKG GRIITEM: 1591 DESC/SIZE:IATA(AIR) NON-REGULATED MATERIALDOT (HM-181)(DOMESTIC SURFACE) NON-REGULATED MATERIAL

NOTE! The assignment of Proper shipping Names is in part a function of thesize of the product container and the transport mode. For example, the

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..................... _ _ _ _ .......... _ _

Upj

PR9GE: 005

01/16/03 11:34:38amP

Proper shipping Name for a bulk container can differ significantly from theProper shipping Name for the same product packaged in a non-bulk container.This can also be true for products shipped via different modes oftransportation (i.e. ground, air, ocean). The descriptions provided aboveare intended to provide some guidance. However, these descriptions may notapply to your package size or mode of shipment.The U.S. code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR - Transportation, regulations,and the policies established by some transporters, require that the shipperproperly classify and assign a Proper shipping Name, and label, mark andpackage the material properly. Therefore, the user of this information iscautioned to consult with applicable regulations, and with qualifiedadvisors prior to the repackaging and or reshipment of this or other anyproduct which contain this product.

SECTION 15 - REGULATORY INFORMATION

All ingredients in this product are listed on the US TSCA Inventory.All ingredients in this product are listed on the Canadian Domestic

substance List.

INGREDIENT CAS NO. DETAIL INVENTORY LIST INFORMATION

N-PROPYL BROMIDE 106-94-5 DSL

TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL 75-65-0 TSCA(8a PAIR)TSCA(8d)DSL

1,2 BUTYLENE OXIDE 106-88-7 TSCA(8a PAIR)TSCA(8d)DSL

ACETONITRILE 75-05-8 TSCA(8a PAIR)TSCA(8d)DSL

DETAIL INVENTORY LIST DESCRIPTION

TSCAToxic substances Control Act8a PAIRPreliminary Assesment Information Rules8dHealth and Safety Reporting RulesDSLCanadian Domestic substance List

SECTION 16 - OTHER INFORMATION

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS BASED ON DATA CONSIDERED TO BEACCURATE. WHILE THE INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, NO WARRANTY ISEXPRESSED OR IMPLIED REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATA OR THE RESULTS TOBE OBTAINED FROM THE USE THEREOF. SINCE THE USE OF THIS INFORMATION AND THECONDITIONS AND USE OF THIS PRODUCT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE USER, IT IS THEUSER'S OBLIGATION TO DETERMINE THE CONDITIONS OF SAFE USE OF THE PRODUCT.

The Corporate safety and Environmental Affairs Department isresponsible for the preparation of this Material Safety Data sheet.

ABT ASSOCANNA LEOS URBEL

PAGE: 006

01/16/03 11:35:50daM

Imperial Adhesives Inc.

6315 Wiehe Road

Cincinnati, OH 45237

TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY (800)255-3924

INFORMATION PHONE 513-351-1300(M-F 8am-5pm ET)

H.M.I.S.

HEALTH 2 *FLAMMABILITY 0

REACTIVITY 0

These ratings should be used as part ofa fully implemented H.M.I.S. program.

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA S H E E T

SECTION 1 - PRODUCT INFORMATION

DATE OF PREPARATION

TRADE NAME WHISPER SPRAY

MANUFACTURER CODE I.D. 1570

SECTION 2 - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS/COMPOSITION INFORMATION

INGREDIENT

N-PROPYL BROMIDE

TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL

ACETONITRILE

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

PETROLEUM HYDRO-

CARBON MIXTURE

% BY

WGT

ALLOWABLE

EXPOSURE LEVELCAS NO.

PPM MG/CU.M

106-94-S MFR

< 1 75-65-0 TLV-TWATLV-STEL

OSHA-PEL

OSHA-STEL

LFL 2.0

< 1 75-05-8 OSHA-PEL

25 79-01-6 TLV-TWA

TLV-STEL

OSHA-PEL

OSHA-STEL

OSHA-CEIL

LFL 8.0

8032-32-4 TLV-TWA

OSHA-PEL

10100150

100150UFL

2050

100

100

300200

UFL

100100

300

450300450

8.0

34269537537

16111074

10. 5

525525

SARA

313 mm

20

VP

Hg @DEG.C

LFL = LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT PERCENT

UFL = UPPER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT PERCENT

SKIN = SKIN ABSORPTION MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A ROUTE OF EXPOSURE

C-CEILING= ALLOW. EXPOSURE LEVEL SHOULD NOT BE EXCEEDED FOR ANY TIME PERIOD

MFR = MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE LIMIT

STEL = SHORT TERM EXPOSURE LIMIT

X-SARA 313 = CHEMICAL IS SUBJECT TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 313 OF TITLE III OF S.A.R

A. 40 CFR PART 372

SECTION 3 - hAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

EFFECTS OF SHORT TERM OVEREXPOSURE

SWALLOWING

Single dose oral toxicity is considered to be low. small amounts swallowed

incidental to normal handling are not likely to cause injury. However,

swallowing ingestion of larger amounts can cause serious injury or death.If aspirated (liquid enters lung) can damage the lungs and be rapindly

absorbed into the bloodstream causing damage to other organ systems.Can cause gastrointestinal irritation, nausea, and vomiting. Aspiration of

PAGE: OOZ

1/16/03

SKIN

X 31

XX

S MIN

01/16/03 11:36: 14am PAGE: 003

material into lung may cause chemical pneumonitis which can be fatal.

Symptoms and signs of acute acetonitrile intoxication include chest pain,

tightness in the chest, nausea, emesis, tachycardia, hypotension, short and

shallow respiration, headache, restlessness, semiconsciousness, and

seizures.INHALATION

Exposure to chlorinated solvents may result in liver and kidney, and heart

sensitization.If confined in poorly ventilated areas, vapors can readily accumulate and

cause unconsciousness and death.

Trichloroethylene may cause alchol intolerance often manifested by

temporary reddening of the skin. Minimal anesthetic or irritant effects may

be seen around 200-400 ppm trichloroethylene. Levels in the range of 1000-

2000 ppm may rapidly cause dizziness or drunkenness. Progressively higher

levels or longer exposure may cause unconsciousness and death. Alcohol

consumed before or after exposure may increase adverse effects.

Trichloroethylene is reported to have caused hearing loss in laboratory

animals upon repeated exposure to 2500 ppm or higher.

May cause nose or throat irritation. High concentrations may cause acute

central nervous system depression characterized by headaches, dizziness,

nausea and confusion.Coughing, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting,

diarrhea, muscle weakness, giddines.

EYE

May cause severe eye irritation.SKIN

Liquid material may be absorbed through the skin in harmful amounts.

May cause defatting and irritation of the skin.

EFFECTS OF REPEATED OVEREXPOSURE

Preexisting medical conditions may be aggravated by exposure. These include

dermatitis, liver,kideny, respiratory and central nervous system disorders.

Reports have associated prolonged and repeated occupational overexposure

to solvents with permanent brain and nervous system damage. Intentional

misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the contents may be

harmful or fatal.SIGNIFICANT LABORATORY DATA WITH POSSIBLE

RELEVANCE TO HUMAN HEALTH.

The American conference of Governmental industrial Hygienists has rated

trichloroethylene as "A5- Not suspected as a Human carcinogen. The agent is

not suspected to be a human carcinogen on the basis of properly conducted

epidemiologic studies in humans." The suppiler reports that a positive

carcinogenic response has occurred only in mice given large doses.

The supplier reports that n-Propyl Bromide may cause lung, liver, kidney

and central nervous system effects. Experimetal reproductibe effects have

been reported. In a 28 day whole body inhalation study using rats with

exposure to vapors for 6 hours each day 5 days per week, signifcant

mortality was seen at chamber concentrations of 8.0 mg/l. chamber

concentrations of 5.0 to 8.0 mg/1 produced deteriorating condition,

decreased body weights, and decrease in brain weight. Histopathological

lesions were found in the central nervous system, urinary system, nasal

cavities, sternal bone marrow, lymphoid tissues, and male reproductive

system.In a 13 week whole-body inhalation study using rats

with exposure to vapors

for 6 hours each day for 5 days per week at cahmber concentrations between

0.5 and 3.0 mg/l, no clinical observations were produced. At concentrations

of 2.0 and 3.0 mg/l, histopathological lesions were found in the liver. The

No Effect Level was established at 1.0 mg/l. other acute and chronic health

hazards are not known.Manufacturers' recommended exposure limits range from 10 ppm 8-hour

TWA to

100 ppm 8-hour TWA.

01/16/03 11:36:5Zan PAGE: 004

SECTION 4 - FIRST-AID MEASURES

SWALLOWINGIf swallowed do not induce vomiting. call poison control center, hospital

emergency room or physician immediately.

INHALATIONRemove to fresh air immediately. If breathing has stopped, give artifi-

cial respiration. Keep warm and quiet. Get medical attention immediately.

EYEFlush with large amounts of water, lifting upper and lower lids occasional-

ly. Continue for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention.

SKINRemove contaminated clothing. wash affected area

with soap and water.

obtain medical attention if irritation persists.

NOTES TO PHYSICIANDo not give stimulants. Epinephrine or ephedrine may adversely

affect the heart with fatal results.

SECTION 5 - FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES

NFPA FLAMMABILITY CLASSIFICATION Not Applicable

FLASHPOINT Not applicable

EXTINGUISHING MEDIA

n-propylbromide forms flammable mixtures with air in a narrow range.

However, n-propyl bromide is not a flammable liquid.

Use NFPA Class B Fire extinguishers (carbon dioxide, all purpose dry chemi-

cal or alcohol foam) designed to extinguish flammable liquid fires. Poly-

mer foam is preferred for large fires.

UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS

None known.

SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES

Water may be ineffective, but may be used to cool exposed containers to

prevent pressure build-up and possible auto-ignition or explosion when

exposed to extreme heat. If water is used, fog nozzles are preferable.

SECTION 6 - ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES

STEPS TO BE TAKEN IF MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED

Confine in small area; use absorbent to clean up. Place in container for

disposal.WASTE DISPOSAL

Dispose in accordance with federal, state and local regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDSNone known

SECTION 7 - HANDLING AND STORAGE

PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE

Do not store above 115 deg.F (46 deg.c) store large quantities in

compliance with OSHA 29CFR1910.106 .

OTHER PRECAUTIONSDo not take internally. close container after each use.

Wash hands and face thoroughly before eating or drinking.

THIS PRODUCT IS INTENDED TO BE USED ONLY BY THE PROFESSIONAL (INDUSTRIAL)

APPLICATOR UNDER PROPERLY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. A QUALIFIED OCCUPATIONAL

HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHOULD EVALUATE EXPOSURES TO THIS PRODUCT.

Empty containers must not be washed and re-used for any purpose.

Containers should be grounded and bonded to the receiving container.

Do not weld, braze or cut on empty container.

Never use pressure to empty. Drum is not a pressure vessel.

PAGE: 00501/16/03 11:37:20an

SECTION 8 - EXPOSURE CONTROLS

RESPIRATORY PROTECTIONProper selection of respiratory protection depends upon many factors

including duration and level of exposure and conditions of use. In general

exposure to organic chemicals such as those contained in this product may

not require the use of respiratory protection if used in well ventilated

areas. In areas of restricted ventilation a NIOSH approved organic vapor

respirator may be required. under certain conditions, such as spraying, a

mechanical prefilter may also be required. In confined areas or in high

exposure situations a NIOSH/MSHA approved air supplied respirator may be

required. If the TLV's or PEL's listed in Section II are exceeded use a

properly fitted NIOSH/MSHA approved respirator with an appropriate

protection factor. Refer to OSHA 29 CFR 1910.134 "Respiratory Protection",

and "Respiratory Protection a Manual and Guideline, American Industrial

Hygiene Association".VENTILATION

Provide general dilution and local exhaust ventilation in sufficient volume

and pattern to keep concentrations of hazardous ingredients listed in

Section II below the lowest exposure limit stated. Remove decomposition

products that are generated when welding, cutting, or brazing objects

coated with this product. Refer to "Industrial ventilation - A Manual of

Recommended Practice " ACGIH

HAND PROTECTIONViton or Norfoil.

Wear appropriate impermeable gloves (North- Silver shield).

Polyvinyl alcohol.EYE PROTECTION

Wear safety spectacles , chemical splash goggles (ANSIZ87.1 or equivalent)

and face shield.Wear safety glasses meeting the specifications of ANSI Z87.1

where no

contact with the eye is anticipated. chemical safety goggles meeting the

specifications of ANSI Z87.1 should be worn whenever there is a possibility

of splashing or other contact with the eyes.

OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

Eyewash facility, safety shower.

SECTION 9 - PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

BOILING RANGE 145 DEG.F. ( 63 DEG.C.) TO 289 DEG.F. ( 143 DEG.C.)

VAPOR DENSITY % VOLATILE BY VOLUME 58

Heavier than air.

EVAPORATION RATEslower than diethyl ether.

voC 6.35 LB/GAL LESS WATER & NPRS* 762 G/L LESS WATER CALCULATED

WGT LB/GAL 9.7 VOC 15.24 LB/GAL SOLIDS 1829 G/L SOLIDS CALCULATED

SPECIFIC GRAVITY 1.2

All Physical data determined at 68 DEG. F. (20 DEG. C.) 760 mm Hg

* Negligibly Photochemically Reactive Materials

SECTION 10 - STABILITY AND REACTIVITY

STAB ILITYAvoid open flames, welding arcs or other high temperature

sources which

induce thermal decomposition.CONDITIONS TO AVOID

None known

INCOMPATABILITY (MATERIALS TO AVOID)

Acids & Anhydrides

01/16/03 11:37:50dMa PAGE: 006

Alkalis & AminesStrong acids or alkaline materials.

oxidizing materials.

HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS

Burning, including when heated by welding or cutting, will produce smoke,

carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.In addition, phosgene,hydrogen chloride

,chlorinehydrogen bromide,may be generated.

HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATIONwill not occur

CONDITIONS TO AVOID

This product contains halogenated hydrocarbons which may decompose to

form hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and phosgene when in contact with hot

surfaces, open flames, and U.V. radiation. Do not use this material near

welding operations.

Keep away from heat sparks and flame.

SECTION 11 - TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

No information available.

SECTION 12 - ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION

No information available.

SECTION 13 - DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS

See Section 6.

SECTION 14 - TRANSPORT INFORMATION

MODE PROPER SHIPPING NAME CLASS I.D.# PKG GRP

ITEM: 1570 DESC/SIZE:

DOT (HM-181)

(DOMESTIC SURFACE) TRICHLOROETHYLENE,SOLUTION 6.1 UN1710 III

NOTE! The assignment of Proper shipping Names is in part a function of the

size of the product container and the transport mode. For example, the

Proper shipping Name for a bulk container can differ significantly from the

Proper shipping Name for the same product packaged in a non-bulk container.

This can also be true for products shipped via different modes of

transportation (i.e. ground, air, ocean). The descriptions provided above

are intended to provide some guidance. However, these descriptions may not

apply to your package size or mode of shipment.

The U.S. code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR - Transportation, regulations,

and the policies established by some transporters, require that the shipper

properly classify and assign a Proper Shipping Name, and label, mark and

package the material properly. Therefore, the user of this information is

cautioned to consult with applicable regulations, and with qualified

advisors prior to the repackaging and or reshipment of this or other any

product which contain this product.

SECTION 15 - REGULATORY INFORMATION

All ingredients in this product are listed on the US TSCA Inventory.

All ingredients in this product are listed on the Canadian Domestic

substance List.

WARNING: This product contains

TRICHLOROETHYLENE;a chemical known to the State of California

to cause cancer.

INGREDIENT CAS NO. DETAIL INVENTORY LIST INFORMATION

01/16/03 11:38: 18an PAGE: 007

N-PROPYL BROMIDE

TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL

ACETONITRILE

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

PETROLEUM HYDRO-

CARBON MIXTURE

DETAIL INVENTORY LIST

106-94-5 DSL

75-65-0 TSCA(8a PAIR)

TSCA(8d)DSL

75-05-8 TSCA(8a PAIR)

TSCA(8d)DSL

79-01-6 TSCA(8a CAIR)

DSL

8032-32-4 DSL

DESCRIPTION

TSCAToxic substances Control Act

8a CAIR

comprehensive Assessment Information Rules

8a PAIR

preliminary Assesment Information Rules

8dHealth and Safety Reporting Rules

DSLCanadian Domestic substance List

SECTION 16 - OTHER INFORMATION

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS BASED ON DATA CONSIDERED TO BE

ACCURATE. WHILE THE INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, NO WARRANTY IS

EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATA OR THE RESULTS TO

BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE THEREOF. SINCE THE USE OF THIS INFORMATION AND THE

CONDITIONS AND USE OF THIS PRODUCT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE USER, IT IS THE

USER'S OBLIGATION TO DETERMINE THE CONDITIONS OF SAFE USE OF THE PRODUCT.

The Corporate safety and Environmental Affairs Department is

responsible for the preparation of this Material safety Data Sheet.

ABT ASSOCANNA LEOS URBEL

WORTHEN I NDUSTR I ES

UPACO Adhesives

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA

UPACO AdhesivesWORTHEN INDUSTRIES, INC.4105 Castlewood RoadRichmond, VA 23234PHONE (804) 275-9231

(800) 446-9984FAX (804) 743-8366

I SHEET

PRODUCT NAME:

PRODUCT CODE:PRODUCT USE:

SOLVENT BASEDADHESIVESLABOND 523SPRAYABLE CONTACT CE

HMIS CODES: HEALTH : 2FLAMMABILITY : 3REACTIVITY : 0

'MENT PROTECTION : H

SCALE:

4-EXTRENE

3-HIGH

2-M4D0ZATE1=SLIGNT0=INSIGNIFICANT

-===-==========-=SECTION I - MANUFACTURER IDENTIFICATION

MANUFACTURER'S NAME:ADDRESS:

EMERGENCY PHONE:INFORMATION PHONE:

NAME OF PREPARER:DATE REVISED:

REASON REVISED:

WORTHEN INDUSTRIES4105 CASTLEWOOD ROAD, RICHMOND, VA 23234804-275-9231804-275-9231IAN CHURCHER3-14-00UPDATE

= SECTION II - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS

THIS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET IS PREPARED TO COMPLY WITH THE UNITED STATES OCCUPATIONALSAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (O,3HA) HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD (29 CFR 1910. 1200).UNLISTED INGREDIENTS ARE NOT HAZARDOUS PER THE OSHA STANDARD.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS

WRIGHIT/vECRNT OSBA PIL-- - -- - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - -7 - - ---.0- -- -

* ACGIH TLV #

750PPm 500PM 750PvK sm 67-64-1

HAZARDOU8 COMPONNT (S)

01/IS/02 t10:14011 P. 0066028914159

ACECTONED 75.0

WORTHEN INDUSTRIES 6088914159 01415/08 10il4am P. 007

- . ..I .- - .- . -. -. I.-....... -- . ~ .

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET PAGE 2 OF 4

SLABOND 523

========= SECTION III - PHYSICAL / CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS-=

BOILING RANGE: 1330F SPECIFIC GRAVITY: NOT DETERMINED

VAPOR DENSITY: HEAVIER THAN AIREVAPORATION RATE: FASTER THAN n-BUTYL ACETATE

SOLUBILITY IN WATER: NONE

APPEARANCE AND ODOR: OPAQUE AMBER LIQUID WITH A SOLVENT ODOR.

FREEZING POINT: N/A

pH: N/A

COEFFICIENT OF WATER/OIL DIST.: N/A

ODOR THRESHOLD: N/ASOLIDS: 25%VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CONTENT (VOC):NONE

-=========SECTION IV - FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA

METHOD USED: TCC

FLAMMABLE LIMITS IN AIR BY VOLUME - LOWER: 2.5% UPPER: 13.0%

EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: C02, DRY CHEMICAL

SPECIAL FIREFIGHTING PROCEDURES:WATER SHOULD NOT BE USED EXCEPT TO COOL CONTAINERS EXPOSED TO FLAMES OR HIGH HEAT.

EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE WORN TO AVOID INHALATION OF CONCENTRATED FUMES.

UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS:HANDLE AS A FLAMMABLE LIQUID. VAPORS FORM AN EXPLOSIVE MIXTURE IN AIR BETWEEN

LOWER EXPLOSIVE LIMIT WHICH CAN BE IGNITED BY MANY SOURCES, SUCH AS PILOT LIGHTS,

ELECTRICAL MOTORS AND SWITCHES. STORE IN COOL, WELL VENTILATED AREAS.

RESPIRATORY

THE UPPER AND

OPEN FLAMES,

-=== -============- SECTION V -- REACTIVITY DATA-

STABILITY: STABLECONDITIONS TO AVOID: EXCESSIVE HEAT, POOR VENTILATION, CORROSIVE ATMOSPHERES, EXCESSIVE

AGING.

INCOMPATIBILITY (MATERIALS TO AVOID): ALKALINE MATERIALS, STRONG ACIDS, AND OXIDIZING

MATERIALS.

HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION OR BYPRODUCTS: CARBON MONOXIDE, CARBON DIOXIDE, ACETIC ACID,

FLAMMABLE HYDROCARBON FRAGMENTS, OXIDES OF NITROGEN AND HCN.HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: WILL NOT OCCUR

FLASH POINT: -40F

==================

I WORTHEN INDUSTRIES 6088914159 01/15/03 10:14am P. 008

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET PAGE 3 OF 4SLABOND 523-======================== SECTION VI - HEALTH HAZARD DATA

INHALATION HEALTH RISKS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: INHALATION: PROLONGED INHALATION

OF HIGH VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS MAY RESULT IN A NARCOTIC EFFECT RANGING FROM DIZZINESS, NAUSEA AND

HEADACHES, TO UNCONSCIOUSNESS.

SKIN AND EYE CONTACT HEALTH RISKS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: EYES: SEVERE

IRRITATION, TEARING, REDNESS, BURNING SENSATION AND BLURRED VISION.

SKIN ABSORPTION HEALTH RISKS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: SKIN: CAN DRY AND DEFATSKIN, CAUSING CRACKING, IRRITATION AND DERMATITIS.

INGESTION HEALTH RISKS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: INGESTION: CAN CAUSE

GASTROINTESTINAL IRRITATION, VOMITING, NAUSEA AND DIARRHEA.

HEALTH HAZARDS (ACUTE AND CHRONIC):INHALATION: DIZZINESS, BREATHING DIFFICULTY, HEADACHES AND LOSS OF COORDINATION. EYE CONTACT:

SEVERE IRRITATION, REDNESS, TEARING AND BLURRED VISION. SKIN CONTACT: CAN DRY AND DEFAT SKIN

CAUSING CRACKS, IRRITATION AND DERMATITIS. INGESTION: CAN CAUSE GASTROINTESTINAL IRRTTATTON,

VOMITING, NAUSEA AND DIARRHEA. No CHRONIC HEALTH EFFECTS.

CARCINOGENICITY: NTP? NO IARC MONOGRAPHS? NO OSHA REGULATED? NO

MEDICAL CONDITIONS GENERALLY AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE: ANESTHESIA, RESPIRATORYTRACT IRRITATION, DERMATITIS, NAUSEA AND VOMITING.

EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES: INHALATION OVEREXPOSURE: MOVE PERSON TO FRESH AIR.

IF BREATHING STOPS, APPLY ARTIFICIAL RESPIRATION AND SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY. EYE

CONTACT: FLUSH WITH LARGE QUANTITIES OF WATER FOR 15 MINUTES, GET MEDICAL ATTENTION IF PROBLEM

PERSISTS. SKIN CONTACT: WASH THOROUGHLY WITH WATER AND CONSULT A DOCTOR. INGESTION: DONOT INDUCE VOMITING, THIS CAN CAUSE PNEUMONITIS AND PULMONARY EDEMA.... CONTACT A PHYSICIAN

IMMEDIATELY.

-============- SECTION VII - PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFE HANDLING AND USE - -

STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE MA.TERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED: ELIMINATE IGNITION

SOURCES, PROVIDE VENTILATION, DIKE THE SPILL AREA, AND ADD ABSORBENT EARTH OR SAWDUST TO SPILLED

MATERIAL. CLEAN-UP PERSONNEL SHOULD WEAR RUBBER GLOVES AND RESPIRATORY PROTECTION.

WASTE DISPOSAL: COLLECT ABSORBENT MATERIAL INTO METAL WASTE CONTATNERS AND DISPOSE OF IN

ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEL)ERAL HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE LISTED

HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS.

PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORING: STORE IN A WELL VENTILATED AREA,

AWAY FROM HEAT, SPARKS, OPEN FLAME. USE NON-SPARKING UTENSILS WHEN HANDLING LIQUID MIXTURES.

OTHER PRECAUTIONS: SMOKING IN AREA THIS MATERIAL IS STORED SHOULD BE STRICTLY PROHIBITED.TooLs USED WITH THIS MATERIAL SHOULD BE MADE FROM BRASS, ALUMINUM OR COPPER. PLASTIC UTENSILS

SHOULD NOT BE USED BECAUSE THEY MAY GENERATE SPARKS. NOTE: THIS INFORMATION IS ACCURATE TO THEBEST KNOWLEDGE OF WORTHEN INDUSTRIES, BUT IS FURNISHED WITHOUT ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED

WARRANTIES.

WORTHEN INDUSTRIES 8038914159 0l115/03 10:14am P. 009

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET PAGE 4 OF 4SLABOND 523

SECTION VIII - CONTROL MEASURES-

RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: IF SPRAYING THIS MATERIAL, USE A NIOSH APPROVED CARTRIDGERESPIRATOR OR GAS MASK SUITABLE TO KEEP AIRBORNE MISTS AND VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS BELOW THE TIMEWEIGHED THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES. WHEN USING IN POORLY VENTILATED AND CONFINED SPACE USE A FRESHAIR SUPPLYING RESPIRATOR OR A SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS.

VENTILATION: GENERAL MECHANICAL VENTILATION OR LOCAL EXHAUST SHOULD BE SUITABLE TO KEEPVAPOR CONCENTRATIONS BELOW THE TLV. VENTILATION EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE EXPLOSION PROOF.

PROTECTIVE GLOVES: IMPERMEABLE CHEMICAL HANDLING GLOVES FOR SKIN PROTECTION.

EYE PROTECTION: USE CHEMICAL SAFETY GLASSES, GOGGLES, OR FACE SHIELDS FOR PROTECTION. EYEWASH STATIONS SHOULD BE IN WORKING AREAS.

OTHER PROTECTIVE CLOTHING OR EQUIPMENT: USE IMPERMEABLE CLOTHING WHENEVER POSSIBLE TOPREVENT SKIN CONTACT. SAFETY SHOWERS AND EYE BATHS SHOULD BE IN WORKING AREA.

WORK/HYGIENIC PRACTICES: HANDLE ALL CHEMICALS WITH CAUTION AND CARE.

=====-=========== SECTION IX - REGULATORY INFORMATION

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA): ALL COMPONENTS OF THIS PRODUCT ARE ON THE PUBLICINVENTORY AND THEREFORE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS LEGISLATION.

SARA TITLE III: SECTION 313: THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY TOXIC CHEMICALS SUBJECTTO THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 313 OF TITLE III OF THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS ANDREAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986 (SARA) AND 40 CFR PART 372.

CERCLA (COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980)40 CFR PART 302, TABLE 302.4

REPORTABLE QUANTITY = 5000 LBS. (ACETONE).

SECTION X - DISCLAIMER -

DISCLAIMER: THE DATA SET FORTH IN THESE SHEETS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THESUPPLIERS OF THE RAW MATERIALS AND CHEMICALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THE AFOREMENTIONEDPRODUCT. WORTHEN INDUSTRIES MAKES NO WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATIONPROVIDED BY THEIR SUPPLIERS, AND DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY OF RELIANCE THEREON.

01/15/03 10:14am P. 002

UPACO Adhesives

UPACO AdhesiesWORTHEN INDUSTRIES, INC.4105 Castfewood RoadRichmond, VA 23234PHONE (804) 275-9231

(800) 446-9984FAX (804) 743-8366

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

PRODUCT NAME:

PRODUCT CODE:PRODUCT USE:

FLAMMABLE PRESSURE HMIS CODES: HEALTH : 2SENSITIVE FLAMM4ABILITY : 33694-0 REACTIVITY : 0SPRAY CONTACT CEMENT PROTECTION : G

=== SECTION I - MANUFACTURER IDENTIFICATION

SCALE:

4=EXTRfldE

3-HIGH

2-MODmRAT1-SLIGHT0-INSIGNIFICANTG-SAFXTY GLASSES,

GLOVES RESPIRATOR

MANUFACTURER'S NAME:ADDRESS:

EMERGENCY PHONE:INFORMATION PHONE:

NAME OF PREPARER:DATE REVISED:

REASON REVISED:

WORTHEN INDUSTRIES4105 CASTLEWOOD ROAD, RICHMOND, VA804-275-9231804-275-9231STEVEN E. ADAMS3-13-00UPDATED

- = = SECTION II - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS

THIS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET IS PREPARED TO COMPLY WITH THE UNITED STATES OCCUPATIONALSAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA.) HAZARD COmwNICATION STANDARD (29 CFR 1910.1200).UNLISTED INGREDIENTS ARE NOT HAZARDOUS PERP THE OSHA STANDARD.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS

RDOUAZAS COMPOUNT (S) WNIZG/PZRCzEN

23234

OSEA PIL

ANYONE 30.27 750Pp1 S00p 75091 So 67-64-1

NRPTARE 30.27 400pvA 40011mi 500ppa 142-82-5

-- ==-== -------------- ===--_======_----- =-= --- ===-=-= ----- - --====-=_=====--====___==-====~==-===== ---

ACG3 TLV CAB #

WORTHEN INDUSTRIES 60S8914IS9

01/15/08 10:14am P. 003

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET PAGE 2 OF 4

========= SECTION III - PHYSICAL / CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS

BOILING RANGE: 133 - 205'F SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 0.840VAPOR DENSITY: HEAVIER THAN AIREVAPORATION RATE: FASTER THAN n-BUTYL ACETATESOLUBILITY IN WATER: NONEAPPEARANCE AND ODOR: TRANSPARENT AMBER COLORED LIQUID WITHFREEZING POINT: N/ApH: N/ACOEFFICIENT OF WATER/OIL DIST.: N/AODOR THRESHOLD: N/A

A SOLVENT ODOR.

-=========SECTION IV - FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA

FLASH POINT: 4OF METHOD USED: TCC

FLAMvJMABLE LIMITS IN AIR BY VOLUME - LOWER: 1.0% UPPER: 13.0%

EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: C02, DRY CHEMICAL

SPECIAL FIREFIGHTING PROCEDURES:WATER SHOULD NOT BE USED EXCEPT TO COOL CONTAINERS EXPOSED TO FLAMES OR HIGH HEAT.EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE WORN TO AVOID INHALATION OF CONCENTRATED FUMES.

UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS:HANDLE AS A FLAMMABLE LIQUID. VAPORS FORM AN EXPLOSIVE MIXTURE IN AIR BETWEENLOWER EXPLOSIVE LIMIT WHICH CAN BE IGNITED BY MANY SOURCES, SUCH AS PILOT LIGHTS,ELECTRICAL MOTORS AND SWITCHES. STORE IN COOL, WELL VENTILATED AREAS.

RESPIRATORY

THE UPPER AND

OPEN FLAMES,

-=================SECTION V - REACTIVITY DATA - --

STABILITY: STABLECONDITIONS TO AVOID: EXCESSIVE HEAT, POOR VENTILATION, CORROSIVE ATMOSPHERES, EXCESSIVEAGING.

INCOMPATIBILITY (MATERIALS TO AVOID): ALKALINE MATERIALS, STRONG ACIDS, AND OXIDIZING

MATERIALS.

HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION OR BYPRODUCTS: CARBON MONOXIDE, CARBON DIOXIDE, OXIDES OFNITROGEN AND POSSIBLY ACROLEIN.HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: WILL NOT OCCUR

3694-0

WORTHEN I NDUSTR IES 6038914159

01/1S/03 10:14am P. 004

MATERIAL SAFETY IDATA SHEET PAGE 3 OF 43694-0

-~=======================SECTION VI - HEALTH HAZARD DATA,INHALATION HEALTH RISKS ALND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: INHALATION: PROLONGED INHALATIONOF HIGH VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS MAY RESULT IN A NARCOTIC EFFECT RANGING FROM DIZZINESS, NAUSEA ANDHEADACHES, TO UNCONSCIOUSNESS.

SKIN AND EYE CONTACT HEALTH RISKS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: EYES: SEVEREIRRITATION, TEARING, REDNESS, BURNING SENSATION AND BLURRED VISION.SKIN ABSORPTION HEALTH RISKS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: SKIN: CAN DRY AND DEFATSKIN, CAUSING CRACKING, IRRITATION AND DERMATITIS.

INGESTION HEALTH RISKS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: INGESTION: CAN CAUSEGASTROINTESTINAL IRRITATION, VOMITING, NAUSEA AND DIARRHEA.

HEALTH HAZARDS (ACUTE AND CHRONIC):INHALATION: DIZZINESS, BREATHING DIFFICULTY, HEADACHES AND LOSS OF COORDINATION. EYE CONTACT:SEVERE IRRITATION, REDNESS, TEARING AND BLURRED VISION. SKIN CONTACT: CAN DRY AND DEFAT SKINCAUSING CRACKS, IRRITATION AND DERMATITIS. INGESTION: CAN CAUSE GASTROINTESTINAL IRRITATION,VOMITING, NAUSEA AND DIARRHEA. No CHRONIC HEALTH EFFECTS.

CARCINOGENICITY: NTP? NO IARC MONOGRAPHS? NO OSHA REGULATED? YES,MEDICAL CONDITIONS GENERALLY AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE: ANESTHESIA, RESPIRATORYTRACT IRRITATION, DERMATITIS, NAUSEA AND VOMITING.

EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES: INHALATION OVEREXPOSURE: MOVE PERSON TO FRESH AIR.IF BREATHING STOPS, APPLY ARTIFICIAL RESPIRATION AND SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY. EYE

CONTACT: FLUSH WITH LARGE QUANTITIES OF WATER FOR 15 MINUTES, GET MEDICAL ATTENTION IF PROBLEMPERSISTS. SKIN CONTACT: WASH THOROUGHLY WITH WATER AND CONSULT A DOCTOR. INGESTION: DO NOTINDUCE VOMITING, THIS CAN CAUSE PNEUMONITIS AND PULMONARY EDEM... CONTACT A PHYSICIANIMMEDIATELY.

- ============= SECTION VII - PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFE HANDLING AND USESTEPS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE MATFRIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED: ELIMINATE IGNITIONSOURCES, PROVIDE VENTILATION, DIKE THE SPILL AREA, AND ADD ABSORBENT EARTH OR SAWDUST TO SPILLEDMATERIAL. CLEAN-UP PERSONNEL SHOULD WEAR RUBBER GLOVES AND RESPIRATORY PROTECTION.WASTE DISPOSAL: COLLECT ABSORBENT MATERIAL INTO METAL WASTE CONTAINERS AND DISPOSE OF INACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE LISTEDHAZARDOUS CHEMICALS.PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORING: STORE IN A WELL VENTILATED AREA,AWAY FROM HEAT, SPARKS, OPEN FLAME. USE NON-SPARKING UTENSILS WHEN HANDLING LIQUID MIXTURES.OTHER PRECAUTIONS: SMOKING IN AREA THIS MATERIAL IS STORED SHOULD BE STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

TOOLS USED WITH THIS MATERIAL SHOULD BE MADE FROM BRASS, ALUMINUM OR COPPER. PLASTIC UTENSILSSHOULD BE NOT USED BECAUSE THEY MAY GENERATE SPARKS. NOTE: THIS INFORMATION IS ACCURATE TOTHE BEST KNOWLEDGE OF WORTHEN INDUSTRIES, BUT IS FURNISHED WITHOUT ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIEDWARRANTIES.

WO RTHEN I NDUSTR IES 6038914159

WORTHEN I NDUSTR I ES

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET PAGE 4 OF 43694-0

-=================== SECTION VIII - CONTROL MEASURES-

RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: IF SPRAYING THIS MATERIAL, USE A NIOSH APPROVED CARTRIDGERESPIRATOR OR GAS MASK SUITABLE TO KEEP AIRBORNE MISTS AND VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS BELOW THE TIME

WEIGHED THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES. WHEN USING IN POORLY VENTILATED AND CONFINED SPACE USE A FRESH

AIR SUPPLYING RESPIRATOR OR A SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS.

VENTILATION: GENERAL MECHANICAL VENTILATION OR LOCAL EXHAUST SHOULD BE SUITABLE TO KEEPVAPOR CONCENTRATIONS BELOW THE TLV. VENTILATION EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE EXPLOSION PROOF.

PROTECTIVE GLOVES: IMPERMEABLE CHEMICAL HANDLING GLOVES FOR SKIN PROTECTION.

EYE PROTECTION: USE CHEMICAL SAFETY GLASSES, GOGGLES, OR FACE SHIELDS FOR PROTECTION. EYEWASH STATIONS SHOULD BE IN WORKING AREAS.

OTHER PROTECTIVE CLOTHING OR EQUIPMENT: USE IMPERMEABLE CLOTHING WHENEVER POSSIBLE TO

PREVENT SKIN CONTACT. SAFETY SHOWERS AND EYE BATHS SHOULD BE IN WORKING AREA.

WORK/HYGIENIC PRACTICES: HANDLE ALL CHEMICALS WITH CAUTION AND CARE.

-=================== SECTION IX - REGULATORY INFORMATION -

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA): ALL COMPONENTS OF THIS PRODUCT ARE ON THE PUBLIC

INVENTORY AND THEREFORE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS LEGISLATION.

SARA TITLE III: SECTION 313: THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY TOXIC CHEMICALS SUBJECT

TO THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 313 OF TITLE III OF THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS ANDREAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986 (SARA) AND 40 CFR PART 372.

CERCIA (COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980)40 CFR PART 302, TABLE 302.4

REPORTABLE QUANTITY = 5000 LBS. (ACETONE).

…=======-…=============== SECTION X - DISCLAIMER --

DISCLAIMER: THE DATA SET FORTH IN THESE SHEETS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THESUPPLIERS OF THE RAW MATERIALS AND CHEMICALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED

PRODUCT. WORTHEN INDUSTRIES MAKES NO WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATIONPROVIDED BY THEIR SUPPLIERS, AND DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY OF RELIANCE THEREON.

i01/is/09 10:14am P. OOS603S91415S

MATERIAL SAFETY 3MDATA SHEET 3M Center St. Paul, Minnesota 55144-1000 1-800-364-3577 or (651) 737-6501 (24 hours)

Copyright, 2001, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company. All rights reserved. Copying and/or downloading of this information for the purpose of properly utilizing 3M products is allowed provided that: 1) the information is copied in full with no changes unless prior agreement is obtained from 3M, and 2) neither the copy nor the original is resold or otherwise distributed with the intention of earning a profit thereon.

DIVISION: ENGINEERED ADHESIVESTRADE NAME: 3M(TM) Fastbond(TM) Contact Adhesive 2000-NF Light OrangeID NUMBER/U.P.C.: 62-4346-7536-9 00-21200-25437-6 62-4346-8230-8 00-21200-30015-8 62-4346-8430-4 00-21200-87953-1 62-4346-8436-1 00-21200-31336-3 62-4346-8535-0 00-21200-87953-1 62-4346-9430-3 00-21200-87955-5 62-4346-9535-9 00-21200-87955-5 62-4346-9930-2 00-21200-87958-6 62-4346-9932-8 00-21200-87959-3 62-4346-9935-1 00-21200-87957-9 62-4346-9939-3 00-21200-49138-2ISSUED: November 08, 2001SUPERSEDES: May 16, 2001DOCUMENT: 06-1223-4

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INGREDIENT C.A.S. NO. PERCENT-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

WATER................................... 7732-18-5 40.0 - 50.0POLYCHLOROPRENE......................... 9010-98-4 30.0 - 40.0GLYCEROL ESTER OF HYDROGENATED ROSIN.... 65997-13-9 5 - 10.0PHENOL-ALPHA-PINENE RESIN............... 25359-84-6 5 - 10.0TOLUENE................................. 108-88-3 < 3.0METHYL ALCOHOL.......................... 67-56-1 < 2.5ZINC OXIDE.............................. 1314-13-2 < 2

IN CASE OF EMERGENCY: THE NUMBERS AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE PROVIDE 24 HOUR RESPONSE FROM ANY PHONE FOR ALL EMERGENCIES WITH THIS PRODUCT. The components of this product are in compliance with the chemical notification requirements of TSCA. All applicable chemical ingredients in this material are listed on the European Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances (EINECS), or are exempt polymers whose monomers are listed on EINECS.

This product contains the following toxic chemical or chemicals subject tothe reporting requirements of Section 313 of Title III of the EmergencyPlanning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 and 40 CFR Part 372: TOLUENE METHYL ALCOHOL ZINC OXIDE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Abbreviations: N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable CA - Approximately

MSDS: 3M(TM) Fastbond(TM) Contact Adhesive 2000-NF Light OrangeNovember 08, 2001 PAGE 2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PHYSICAL DATA-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOILING POINT:................. 147 F (methanol)VAPOR PRESSURE:................ N/AVAPOR DENSITY:................. 1.1 Air=1EVAPORATION RATE:.............. 1 Ether=1SOLUBILITY IN WATER:........... moderateSPECIFIC GRAVITY:.............. 1.1 Water=1PERCENT VOLATILE:.............. ca. 50 % by wtpH:............................ ca. 10VISCOSITY:..................... 200 - 600 centipoiseMELTING POINT:................. N/D

APPEARANCE AND ODOR: liquid, light orange, slight odor of ammonia

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLASH POINT:................... NONEFLAMMABLE LIMITS - LEL:........ N/AFLAMMABLE LIMITS - UEL:........ N/AAUTOIGNITION TEMPERATURE:...... N/D

EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Water spray, Carbon dioxide, Dry chemical, Foam

SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Wear full protective clothing, including helmet, self-contained, positive pressure or pressure demand breathing apparatus, bunker coat and pants, bands around arms, waist and legs, face mask, and protective covering for exposed areas of the head.

UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: Not applicable.

NFPA HAZARD CODES: HEALTH: 1 FIRE: 0 REACTIVITY: 0 UNUSUAL REACTION HAZARD: none

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. REACTIVITY DATA-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

STABILITY: Stable

INCOMPATIBILITY - MATERIALS/CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Not applicable.

HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Hazardous polymerization will not occur.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Abbreviations: N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable CA - Approximately

MSDS: 3M(TM) Fastbond(TM) Contact Adhesive 2000-NF Light OrangeNovember 08, 2001 PAGE 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. REACTIVITY DATA (continued)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide, Hydrogen Chloride, Aldehydes, Ketones.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPILL RESPONSE: Refer to other sections of this MSDS for information regarding physical and health hazards, respiratory protection, ventilation, and personal protective equipment. Cover with absorbent material. Collect spilled material. Place in a U.S. DOT-approved container.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSAL: Incinerate in an industrial or commercial facility in the presence of a combustible material. Dispose of completely cured (or polymerized) material in a sanitary landfill.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA: U.S. EPA Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure,(TCLP),Method 1311, 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix 2 was run on properly mixed Fastbond 2000 and Spray Activator #1 with the following results: Arsenic <0.2 mg/L, Barium 0.10 mg/L, Cadmium <0.01 mg/L, Chromium <0.05 mg/L, Lead <0.5 mg/L, Mercury <0.2 ug/L, Selenium<0.3 mg/L, Silver<0.05 mg/L, Zinc 53 mg/L.

REGULATORY INFORMATION: Volatile Organic Compounds: 37 gms/liter tested per EPA method 24. VOC Less H2O & Exempt Solvents: 77 gms/liter tested per EPA method 24. Hazardous Air Pollutants: .09 #/# solids calculated. Hazardous Air Pollutants: 4.6 % by wt calculated.

Since regulations vary, consult applicable regulations or authorities before disposal. U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Number = None (Not U.S. EPA Hazardous).

EPCRA HAZARD CLASS: FIRE HAZARD: No PRESSURE: No REACTIVITY: No ACUTE: Yes CHRONIC: No

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. SUGGESTED FIRST AID-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EYE CONTACT: Immediately flush eyes with large amounts of water. Get immediate medical attention.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Abbreviations: N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable CA - Approximately

MSDS: 3M(TM) Fastbond(TM) Contact Adhesive 2000-NF Light OrangeNovember 08, 2001 PAGE 4

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. SUGGESTED FIRST AID (continued)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

SKIN CONTACT: Flush skin with large amounts of water. If irritation persists, get medical attention.

INHALATION: If signs/symptoms occur, remove person to fresh air. If signs/symptoms continue, call a physician.

IF SWALLOWED: Do not induce vomiting. Drink two glasses of water. Call a physician.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. PRECAUTIONARY INFORMATION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EYE PROTECTION: Avoid eye contact with vapor, spray, or mist. Wear vented goggles. Wear safety glasses with side shields.

SKIN PROTECTION: Avoid prolonged or repeated skin contact. Wear appropriate gloves when handling this material. A pair of gloves made from the following material(s) are recommended: nitrile rubber, polyethylene/ethylene vinyl alcohol, polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon), fluoroelastomer (Viton).

RECOMMENDED VENTILATION: Do not use in a confined area or areas with little or no air movement. Conduct air monitoring to determine adequacy of ventilation. Provide sufficient ventilation to maintain emissions below recommended exposure limits. If exhaust ventilation is not adequate, use appropriate respiratory protection. Provide ventilation adequate to control vapor concentrations below recommended exposure limits and/or control spray or mist.

RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: Avoid prolonged breathing of vapors. Avoid prolonged breathing of spray or mists.

PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTAL INGESTION: Do not ingest.

RECOMMENDED STORAGE: Keep container closed when not in use. Keep out of the reach of children.

FIRE AND EXPLOSION AVOIDANCE: Keep container tightly closed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Abbreviations: N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable CA - Approximately

MSDS: 3M(TM) Fastbond(TM) Contact Adhesive 2000-NF Light OrangeNovember 08, 2001 PAGE 5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. PRECAUTIONARY INFORMATION (continued)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTHER PRECAUTIONARY INFORMATION: Not intended for consumer sale or use.

The Threshold Limit Value for total airborne particulate is 10 mg/m3. The Threshold Limit Value for respirable airborne particulates is 3mg/m3. The results of air monitoring conducted by 3M indicate that spraying two and one half gallons of adhesive over a 30 minute period in an area with limited ventilation results in an exposure to toluene of 1.5 ppm.

EXPOSURE LIMITS

INGREDIENT VALUE UNIT TYPE AUTH SKIN*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------WATER................................ NONE NONE NONE NONEPOLYCHLOROPRENE...................... NONE NONE NONE NONEGLYCEROL ESTER OF HYDROGENATED ROSIN.............................. NONE NONE NONE NONEPHENOL-ALPHA-PINENE RESIN............ NONE NONE NONE NONETOLUENE.............................. 50 PPM TWA ACGIH YTOLUENE.............................. 100 PPM TWA OSHAV OSHA VACATED PELTOLUENE.............................. 150 PPM STEL OSHAV OSHA VACATED PELTOLUENE.............................. 200 PPM TWA OSHATOLUENE.............................. 300 PPM CEIL OSHATOLUENE.............................. 75 PPM STEL CMRG YMETHYL ALCOHOL....................... 200 PPM TWA ACGIH YMETHYL ALCOHOL....................... 250 PPM STEL ACGIH YMETHYL ALCOHOL....................... 200 PPM TWA OSHA YMETHYL ALCOHOL....................... 250 PPM STEL OSHA YZINC OXIDE........................... 10 MG/M3 TWA ACGIH AS DUSTZINC OXIDE........................... 10 MG/M3 TWA OSHAV AS DUST OSHA VACATED PELZINC OXIDE........................... 5 MG/M3 TWA ACGIH as fumeZINC OXIDE........................... 10 MG/M3 STEL ACGIH as fumeZINC OXIDE........................... 5 MG/M3 TWA OSHA as fumeZINC OXIDE........................... 10 MG/M3 STEL OSHAV as fume OSHA VACATED PELZINC OXIDE........................... 15 MG/M3 TWA OSHA AS TOTAL DUSTZINC OXIDE........................... 5 MG/M3 TWA OSHA RESPIRABLE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Abbreviations: N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable CA - Approximately

MSDS: 3M(TM) Fastbond(TM) Contact Adhesive 2000-NF Light OrangeNovember 08, 2001 PAGE 6

EXPOSURE LIMITS (continued)

INGREDIENT VALUE UNIT TYPE AUTH SKIN*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* SKIN NOTATION: Listed substances indicated with 'Y' under SKIN refer tothe potential contribution to the overall exposure by the cutaneous routeincluding mucous membrane and eye, either by airborne or, more particularly,by direct contact with the substance. Vehicles can alter skin absorption.

SOURCE OF EXPOSURE LIMIT DATA:- ACGIH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists- CMRG: Chemical Manufacturer Recommended Exposure Guidelines- OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration- OSHAV: Occupational Safety and Health Administration Vacated PEL. Vacated Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) are enforced as the OSHA PEL in some states. Check with your local regulatory authority.

- NONE: None Established

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. HEALTH HAZARD DATA-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EYE CONTACT: Mild Eye Irritation: signs/symptoms can include redness, swelling, pain, and tearing.

SKIN CONTACT: Contact with the skin during product use is not expected to result in significant irritation.

Mild Skin Irritation (after prolonged or repeated contact): signs/symptoms can include redness, swelling, and itching.

INHALATION: Irritation (upper respiratory): signs/symptoms can include soreness of the nose and throat, coughing and sneezing.

IF SWALLOWED: Ingestion may cause:

Irritation of Gastrointestinal Tissues: signs/symptoms can include pain, vomiting, abdominal tenderness, nausea, blood in vomitus, and blood in feces.

WHILE THE FOLLOWING EFFECTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE INDIVIDUAL INGREDIENTS IN THIS PRODUCT AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED ON THE MSDS BY THE U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD, THEY ARE NOT EXPECTED EFFECTS DURING FORESEEABLE USE OF THIS PRODUCT.

Ingestion may cause:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Abbreviations: N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable CA - Approximately

MSDS: 3M(TM) Fastbond(TM) Contact Adhesive 2000-NF Light OrangeNovember 08, 2001 PAGE 7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (continued)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blindness.

REPRODUCTIVE/DEVELOPMENTAL TOXINS: WARNING: Contains a chemical which can cause birth defects. (108-88- 3)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------SECTION CHANGE DATES-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRECAUTIONARY INFO. SECTION CHANGED SINCE May 16, 2001 ISSUE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Abbreviations: N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable CA - Approximately

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The information in this Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is believed tobe correct as of the date issued. 3M MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED ORIMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OFMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR COURSE OFPERFORMANCE OR USAGE OF TRADE. User is responsible for determiningwhether the 3M product is fit for a particular purpose and suitable foruser's method of use or application. Given the variety of factors thatcan affect the use and application of a 3M product, some of which areuniquely within the user's knowledge and control, it is essential thatthe user evaluate the 3M product to determine whether it is fit for aparticular purpose and suitable for user's method of use or application.

3M provides information in electronic form as a service to its customers.Due to the remote possibility that electronic transfer may have resultedin errors, omissions or alterations in this information, 3M makes norepresentations as to its completeness or accuracy. In addition,information obtained from a database may not be as current as theinformation in the MSDS available directly from 3M.

1VA~`7A

-V"SU"E DATE: C,'.

REVISION DATE:

General Latex and Chemical Corporation

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET1. CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND CONM1ANY IDENTIFICATION

GENERAL LATEX & CHEMICAL CORPORATION11266 JERSEY BLVD., RANCHO CUCAM!ONGA, CA 91730-5114P.O. BOX 748, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729-0748TELEPHONE: (909) 987-6261 (WEEKDAYS 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.I.)

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE: TRADENAMiE/FOR1UL, 2NO GEN-GRIpR 1-S-4532CIIEMTREC 1-800/424-9300

COMPOUND rTE: Natural Latex Compound

2. COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTSHAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS

OSHA HAZARDS 29CFR1910.1200EXPOSURE LIMITS (ppm or mg/M3)

i OSHA gACGIH TLV- MFG iTWA TSTS TWA STE. EC TWA I

Ammonia CAS No. 7664-41-7 i N/E 15* 25 i5 N/i

*Cal OSHA PEL 25 ppm (s)skin (d)dust e Registered Trademark of ACG!;H

3. HAZARDS IDENTTFICATION**.*****7$$*ssasst s*-s*s*EA E R G E N C YO V E R V I E N**W**gg**a*a** t**s*a*-

Water bas6u liquid with ammonia odor. Although not combustible, this liquid* will burn if involved in a fire, releasing hydrocarbon products of combustion.* Inhalation oi ammonia may cause respiratory tract irritation, coughing, sore* throat, and labored breathing. Skin contact may cause irritation and re: ness.*

*

.

POTENTIAL HEAL-H EFFECTSAcute: The main hazard arises from inhalation of ammonia which can be released on

standing in an open container or on agitation. The ammonia arises fromnormal breakdown of ammonium hydroxide which is used to stabilize naturallatex. Inhalation of ammonia may cause irritation to the respiratory tract.Symptoms may include coughing, sore throat, and labored breathing. Highconcentrations may cause laryngitis, tracheitis, pulmonary edema, chestpains, or pneumonitis. Symptoms are generally reversible.

Pase I of 4

MAT ERIAL SAFET Y DATA SHEET 1DATE:., . 9117L/7,

DATIE: 9/1 7 9

3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION (cont.)

Due to the caustic content of the mixture eye contact may cause irrigationr

with discomfort, tearing, or blurred vision.

Skin contact may cause temporary irritation and redness. 3No information on effects of ingestion could be found, however some

gastrointestinal distress would be expected.

This mixture contains materials which in their pure state constitute a dust

hazard. In the form present they will not dust.

I

Chronic None of the components in this mS PA ure is listed by IARC, NTP, OSBA or

ACGIE as a carcinogen.

4. FIRST AID MEASURESINHALATION - Remove from area, obtain medical attention immediately.

SKIN CONTACT - Rinse with plenty of soa -and water' obtain medical attention.

EyE CONT - Flush eyes with plenty of water, obtain medical attention immediately.

INGESTION - Contact physician immediately for treatment instructions.

Pate 2 of 4

I

l

MATI ERIAL SAFT D DAE: C/ /9

. FTRE FIG-iT tG ME N SURES

I FLASHPOINTAND METHOD: Not Determined

FLA&MMABLE LIMITSIN AIR None

ALUTOIGNIT1ON TEMPERATUuRE_ Not Known

EXIINGUISHING MEDIA Water, CO. or drv chemical for dried film.

SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES:Wear self-contained breathing apparatus approved by NIOS-?.. Use water spray to keeD

| containers cool, to keep spillage away from fire and heat, and to knock down vaDors.

UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS:5 Burning dry latex produces dense, black smoke with the potential for toxic vapors.

HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS:

| Combustion may produce toxic gases such as oxides of carbon.

U 6.ACCrDENTTL RELEASE MN LSUTRES

Confine szi 11 to Drevent contamination of sewer svstem or ground water. Absorb

-licuid onto an appropriate absorbent. Spillage will cause slippery ccnditicns.

This material contains hazardous ingredients (see Section 2). Local, State, and

Federal regulations must be consulted to determine correct disposal method.

7.HA.NDLING 1iND STORAGE

Avoid temperature extremes. Keep from freezing.

Mixing -without introduction of air may be necessary before use.

8.EXPOSITE CONTROLS!PERSONkL PROTECTION

When permissible exposure limits are exceeded, use mask supplied with external air

or other NIOSH-approved respiratory protection.

Vinyl or Rubber Gloves

Chemical'Safety Goggles

Safety Shower and Eye Wash stations in work area.

3: Pet 3 of 4

MATERIAL S1AFETY DiATA SHEET D ,A : - /9 - I D i '

DAILM: ! I"7/ 0,7

9. pHySTCAL AD CHEMICAL PROP.R.IES

APPEARANC- AND ODOk Creamy liquid w.ith slight aimmonia odor.

BOILINGPO1NT: 2120F (water)

VAPORDENSITY(AIR=1): Same as water

VAPOR pRESSURE: Same as water

SOLUBILUYM WATERP Miscible

FREEZINGPOINT: 320 F (water)

SPECIFIC GRAVIrAT7Y7'F (WATER=i) APPROXIMATELY: 0.98

10. SrAILf AND RFACrIVFYThis product is stable and hazardous po vmerization will not. occur.

INCOMPAIBLE MATERIALS AND CONDITIONS TO AVOID:

Solvents, acids, metal salts and other compounds which may coagulate latex.

Avoid temperature extremes. Keep from _reezing.

HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS:

Thrermal decomposition may produce toxic cases.

li. REGULATORY INFORMATIONTSCA All' comnonents of th is zroduct are listed on the TSCA Inventory.

SAR. 'Title M

311/3I2HAZARD CATEGORIES: immediate health hazard.

313:THEFOlLOWINGARETOXIC CHEnICALS S2BJECT TO SARA SEClON 313(40 CFR372)

REPORTNNG REQUIREMDENTS:

AnmoniaZinc Dibutyldi-

thiocarbamate

CAS No. 7664-41-7CA: No. 136-23-2

Below De Minimis concentration1.20%

12. OTER INFORMATION

REISION SUMMARY: NEW .

II

II

III

II

IIIL

I

IPa2e 4 of 4 I

WORTHEN I NDUSTRI ES

/ I UPACO AdheivesWORTHEN INDUSTRIES, INC.4105 Castlewood Road

UPACO Adhesives Richmond, VA 23234PHONE (804) 275-9231

(800) 446-9984FAX (804M 743 8366

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

PRODUCT NAME:

PRODUCT CODE:

PRODUCT USE:

WATER BASE ADHESIVE HMIS CODES: HEALTH : 1

FABOND 858 YELLOW FLAMMABILITY : 0

SPRAYABLE CONTACT CEMENT REACTIVITY : 0PROTECTION : B

SCALE:

4=EXTR4E

3=HIGH

2-MODZRATE1SLIGHT0-INSIGNIFICANTB=SAFZTY GLASSES,

GLOVES

SECTION I - MANUFACTURER IDENTIFICATION

MANUFACTURER'S NAME:ADDRESS:

EMERGENCY PHONE:INFORMATION PHONE:

NAME OF PREPARER:DATE REVISED:

REASON REVISED:

WORTHEN INDUSTRIES4105 CASTLEWOOD ROAD, RICHMOND, VA

804-275-9:231804-275-9231STEVEN E. ADAMSJUNE 19, 2000UPDATED

…-=============== SECTION II - HAZARDOUS INGUEDIETS-

THIS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET IS PREPARED TO COMPLY WITH THE UNITED STATES OCCUPATIONAL

-SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHAL) HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD (29 CFR 1910.1200)

UNLISTED INGREDIENTS ARE NOT HAZARDOUS PER THE OSHA STANDARD.OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS

RAZAPDOUS COMPONTW (9) WRI/RT/pIRCRNT OSHA PIL ACGIN T7V Cs #…~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------

Anmonium Elydroxide 1 - 2 TWA TLV 25 ppm

STEL 35 pPIR STL 35 ppm(as NU3) (as N83)

Less than 3000 pfm of anuarda is present an supplied

23234

1336-21-6

=================

G03S914IS9 01?16?09 10:14am P. 010

01/iS/03 10:14am P. 011

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET PAGE 2 OF 4FABOND 858 YELLOW

…======== SECTION III - PHYSICAL / CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS…

BOILING RANGE: NO DATAWEIGHT PER GALLON (LB.): 8.0VAPOR DENSITY: NOT DETERMINEDEVAPORATION RATE: NOT DETERMINEDSOLUBILITY IN WATER: NOT SOLUBLEAPPEARANCE AND ODOR: YELLOWISH COLORED LIQUID WITH SLIGHT AMMONIA ODOR.

FREEZING POINT: 320FpH: 9.0 - 10.5

COEFFICIENT OF WATER/OIL DIST.: NOT TESTEDODOR THRESHOLD: NOT TESTEDVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONTENT (VOC): NONE

-=========SECTION IV - FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA-

FLASH POINT: NOT APPLICABLE (WATERBASED).

FLAMMABLE LIMITS IN AIR BY VOLUME - LOWER: NO DATA UPPER: NO DATA

EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: FOAM, C02, DRY CHEMICAL

SPECIAL FIREFIGHTING PROCEDURES:AFTER WATER HAS EVAPORATED, DRY POLYMER AND ADDITIVES COULD BURN. FULL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND

BREATHING APPARATUS SHOULD BE WORN.

UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS:No UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS ARE KNOWN.

HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS: NOT DETERMINED. ATEDR WATER HAS EVAPORATED,DECOMPOSITION MAY GENERATE IRRITATING VAPORS, CO, CO2 HYDROCARBONS.

-=================SECTION V - REACTIVITY DATA-

STABILITY: STABLECONDITIONS TO AVOID: EXTREME HEAT OR COLDINCOMPATIBILITY (MATERIALS TO AVOID): AVOID STRONG OXIDIZING AGENTS AND ACIDS,LOWERING PH WHICH MAY CAUSE PRECIPITATION OR COAGULATION.

HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION OR BYPRODUCTS: NOT DETERMINED, AT HIGH TEMPERATURES WATERWILL EVAPORATE AND DECOMPOSITION MAY GENERATE IRRITATING VAPORS, CO, CO 2 HYDROCARBONS.

HAZARDOUS-POLYMERIZATION: WILL NOT OCCUR.

WORTHEN INDUSTRIES 60SS914ISS

01/15/08 10:14am P. 012

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETFABOND 858 YELLOW

PAGE 3 OF 4

-=======================SECTION VI - HEALTH HAZARD DATA

INHALATION HEALTH RISKS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: INHALATION: AVOID BREATHING

VAPORS FOR PROLONGED PERIODS, VAPORS MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO INDIVIDUALS WITH SENSITIVE AIRWAYS.

SKIN AND EYE CONTACT HEALTH RISKS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: EYES: AVOID CONTACT

WITH EYES, VAPORS MAY CAUSE EYE IRRITATION.

SKIN ABSORPTION HEALTH RISKS AND SYMIPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: SKIN: PROLONGED OR

REPEATED SKIN CONTACT MAY CAUSE IRRITATION. PRE-EXISTING SKIN PROBLEMS MAY BE AGGRAVATED BY

PROLONGED CONTACT.

INGESTION HEALTH RISKS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: INGESTION: NO INFORMATION KNOWN.

HEALTH HAZARDS (ACUTE AND CHRONIC): NIOSH ALERTWORKERS EXPOSED TO LATEX GLOVES AND OTHER PRODUCTS CONTAINING

ALLERGIC REACTIONS SUCH AS SKIN RASHES; HIVES; NASAL, EYE,

(RARELY) SHOCK. THIS PRODUCT DOES CONTAIN NATURAL RUBBER LATEX.

(NO. 97-135, JUNE 1997):NATURAL RUBBER LATEX MAY DEVELOPOR SINUS SYMPTOMS; ASTHMA; AND

CARCINOGENICITY: NTP? NO IARC MONOGRAPHS? NO OSHA REGULATED? NO

MEDICAL CONDITIONS GENERALLY AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE: PRE-EXISTING SKIN

ASTHMATICS MAY REACT TO AIRBORNE VAPORS. THIS PRODUCT IS BASED ON NATURAL LATEX,

CAUSE AN ALLERGIC REACTION IN SOME INDIVIDUALS. WATCH FOR INDICATIONS OF A REACTION.

MAY INCLUDE SKIN OR EYE IRRITATION. I

PROBLEMS,WHICH MAY

SYMPTOMS

EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES: INHALATION: REWOVE TO FRESH AIR. IF NOT

BREATHING, GIVE ARTIFICIAL RESPIRATION. CALL A PHYSICIAN/HOSPITAL. EYES: FLUSH WITH PLENTY

OF CLEAN, COLD WATER FOR AT LEAST FIFTEEN MINUTES. SKIN: WASH THE AFFECTED AREA WITH PLENTYOF SOAP AND WATER. INGESTION: PRODUCT IS ALKALINE, DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING. REFER TO

HOSPITAL OR PHYSICIAN IMMEDIATELY.

-============= SECTION VII - PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFE HANDLING AND USE

STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED: CONTAIN SPILL. IF

SPILL IS IN AN ENCLOSED AREA, VENTILATE. DO NOT FLUSH INTO PUBLIC SEWER OR WATER SYSTEM.

ABSORB WITH INERT MATERIAL. PLACE IN CLOSED, LABELED CONTAINER FOR DISPOSAL.

WASTE DISPOSAL: DISPOSE OF AS LIQUID OR SOLID WASTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE AND

FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORING: REVIEW EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID

PROCEDURES BEFORE HANDLING.

OTHER PRECAUTIONS: USE IN WELL VENTILATED AREA. AVOID SKIN AND EYE CONTACT. STORE

PRODUCT BETWEEN 50 - 900F (10 - 320C) . WASH THOROUGHLY AFTER HANDLING PRODUCT. ALWAYS

WASH UP BEFORE, EATING, DRINKING OR SMOKING.

WORTHEN INDUSTRIES 63S2914159

01/1l/0S 10il4am P. 013

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETFABOND 858 YELLOW

PAGE 4 OF 4

=====-===========--= SECTION VIII - CONTROL MEASURES ---

RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: WEAR AN NIOH/MSHA APPROVED RESPIRATOR OR SCBA, WHENEVER MDST

OR VAPOR EXPOSURE EXCEEDS THE LIMITS LISTED IN SECTION II. RESPIRATOR USE MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE

WITH MANUFACTURER'S LIMITATIONS AND OSHA STANDARD 29 CFR 1910.134.

VENTILATION: LOCAL EXHAUST IF USED IN A CONFINED AREA. MECHANICAL VENTILATION REQUIRED FOR

LARGE VOLUME USE.

PROTECTIVE GLOVES: WATER RESISTANT PROTECTIVE GLOVES.

EYE PROTECTION: ALWAYs USE SPLASH GOGGLES WHERE SPILLING OR SPLASHING MAY OCCUR.

OTHER PROTECTIVE CLOTHING OR EQUIPMENT:SPLASHING IS LIKELY.

FULL BODY COVERING CLOTHES IF SPILLING OR

WORK/HYGIENIC PRACTICES: ALWAYS HANDLE CHEMICALS WITH CARE.

VENTILATED AREA. AVOID EYE CONTACT AND PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO SKIN.

SWALLOW OR INGEST. WASH THOROUGHLY AFTER HANDLING THIS PRODUCT.

OPEN AND HANDLE IN WELL

Do NOT DRINK, TASTE,

= - SECTION IX - REGULATORY INFORMATION

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA): ALL COMPONENTS OF THIS PRODUCT ARE ON THE PUBLIC

INVENTORY AND THEREFORE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS LEGISLATION.

SARA TITLE III: SECTION 313:

SUBJECT TO THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF

AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986 (SARA)

THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING TOXIC CHEMICALS

SECTION 313 OF TITLE III OF THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS

AND 40 CFR PART 372 AT OR ABOVE DE MINIMUS AMOUNTS.

NONE

SECTION X - DISCLAIMER =

DISCILAIMER: TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS ACCURATE AS PROVIDED BY

OUR REFERENCES AND SUPPLIERS.

…== = = = = = = = = = = = = = . = _ = = =…=_ _ = = = = =

I ---WORTHEN INDUSTRIES 60289145SS

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

(Complies with OSHA 1910.1200)

COVERT COMPANY, INC. 707 East Ordnance Road, Suite 401

Baltimore, Maryland 21226

IDENTITY (As Used on Label) Chemical Name/Family C07270 Amorphous Poly-Alpha-Olefin Copolymer SECTION I Manufactured for Emergency Telephone Number Covert Company, Inc. (410)761-2727 Telephone Number for Information 707 East Ordnance Road, Suite 401 (410)761-2727

Date Prepared (Revised) Baltimore, Maryland 21226 April 13, 1998 SECTION II - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS/IDENTITY INFORMATION Hazardous Components OSHA ACGIH % Special Chemical Identity: Common Name(s) PEL TLV (Optional) C07270 is a thermaplastic mixture whose ingredients are not considered hazardous as defined by the OSHA Hazard Communications Standard. PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS Boiling Point Specific Gravity (Water = 1) Not Applicable 0.98 Vapor Pressure (mm Hg) Percent Volatile by volume (%) Not Determined Negligible Vapor Density (AIR = 1) Evaporation Rate Not Determined (Butyl Acetate = 1) Less than one Solubility in Water pH Negligible Not applicable Appearance and Odor Light Grey waxy block; mild odor SECTION IV – FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA Flash Point (Method Used) Flammable Limits LEL UEL Greater than 450ºF COC Not Applicable Extinguishing Media Water, carbon dioxide or dry chemical Special Fire Fighting Procedures Polymer melts in a fire. Masks to remove smoke and organic vapor from respirable air are recommended. Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazards None known

-1-

SECTION V - Stability: Stable___X___ Unstable__________ Conditions to Avoid: Not applicable Incompatability (Materials to Avoid) Stong oxidants Hazardous Decomposition or Byproducts Carbon monoxide upon incomplete combustion Hazardous Polymerization: May Occur__________ Will Not Occur____X____ Conditions to Avoid: Not applicable SECTION VI – HEALTH HAZARD DATA Route(s) of Entry: Inhalation?__________ Skin?__________ Ingestion?__________ Not applicable Health Hazards (Acute and Chronic) Threshold limit values have not been established; however, hazards are believed to be minimal. Carcinogenicity: NTP? No IARC MONOGRAPHS? No OSHA REGULATED ? No Signs and Symptoms of Exposure Not applicable Emergency and First Aid Procedures If skin or eyes come in contact with molten adhesives, severe burns can result. Cool quickly, run under cold water. Seek medical aid at once. Do not attempt to remove solidified adhesive. SECTION VII – PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFE HANDLING AND USE Steps to be taken in case Material is Released or Spilled Recover any uncontaminated material for reuse. Sweep up spilled material and place in suitable containers for disposal to landfill or incineration according to Federal, State, and Local Regulations. Other Precautions Keep containers closed to prevent contamination. Store in cool, dry place. SECTION VIII – CONTROL MEASURES Respiratory Protection (Specify Types) None required Ventilation Local Exhaust Special Not applicable Not applicable Mechanical (General) Other Provide adequate ventilation for proper Not applicable air circulation. Protective Gloves Recommended when working around molten adhesive. Other Protective Clothing or Equipment Safety glasses should be worn when working around molten adhesive. Work/Hygienic Practices Normal cleanliness should be observed. C07270

-2-

B-1

Appendix BCase Studies for Selected Facilities

B-2

B.1. FOAM FABRICATOR HELPS PUSH WATER-BASED ADHESIVETECHNOLOGY

Foam Craft Inc., located in Cerritos, California, employs 160 people. The firm startedoperation in 1965 and was bought by Future Foam, a flexible slabstock foammanufacturer, in 1994. Foam Craft fabricates foam for use in packaging, furniture andbedding. Products like futons, recreation vehicles, trucks, tractors and dog beds use thefoam fabricated by Foam Craft.

Several years ago, like most of the industry, Foam Craft used METH-based adhesives forbonding foam-to-foam in their fabrication operations. Because of air regulations put inplace by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Foam Craft converted theirprocesses from METH to TCA-based adhesives. Like other companies in SouthernCalifornia, Foam Craft used TCA based adhesives until the cost of the chemical becameprohibitive. TCA contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion and production was bannedin 1996. A congressional tax placed on the chemical made it extremely expensive to use.

"We have completely converted to water at this stage," says Bob Nylander, Foam Craft'splant manager. The company began investigating water-based adhesive alternatives aboutsix years ago when it became clear that TCA would be phased out. At that time, thewater-based products were new to the market and Foam Craft went through a longlearning curve to optimize their use. Foam Craft and the vendors, in a partnership, wereable to solve all the problems that arose during a long testing phase.

Foam Craft emerged as one of the industry pioneers for water-based foam bondingadhesives. The company spent two years of intensive testing to determine the bestmethods of using the new adhesives. They began work with a one-part adhesive made byUpaco. Foam Craft found that the adhesive did not dry as fast as the solventborneadhesives so they tested different application techniques. Instead of spraying two piecesof foam and putting them together for an instant bond, the workers now spray a stack offoam pieces and then join them. Worker application time is virtually identical now towhat it was before the conversion.

Foam Craft had to work out several other problems over the two-year period. They haddifficulty developing an adhesive feed system for their eight stations that had a total of 32spray booths and guns. Going to a gravity feed system eliminated shearing issues.

They also found that at first they used about 1.6 times as much of the water-basedadhesive than the solventborne adhesive. With experience, they were able to optimize theapplication process and now they use about three-fourths as much water-based adhesives.This reduction in materials use means that the cost of doing business for Foam Craft wasreduced by the switch to water-based adhesives.

Foam Craft is now testing new water-based products to see if they can reduce their costsfurther. The company is also investigating new cutting processes that could help eliminatesome of the requirements for adhesive use altogether.

"The ban on TCA was a good thing. It forced us to examine our process and find a betteralternative for workers and the environment," says Bob Nylander. "We've providedinformation to the other Future Foam plants in the country. They are planning to use ourexample to convert now that METH can't be used. We're investigating other methods toreduce our costs further."

B-3

B.2. PRESTIGE EVALUATES SEVERAL GLUE TECHNOLOGIES

Prestige is one of the largest foam fabricators in North Carolina. The company alsomanufactures polyurethane slabstock foam in Asheboro. About 80 percent of the foam thecompany manufactures is used in the fabrication operation and 20 percent is sold to otherfirms.

The foam pouring and fabrication operations were located in the same building untilrecently; the foam fabrication now takes place in a separate 200,000 square foot facility.Prestige does fabrication for a variety of furniture manufacturers. Adhesive is used tobond the foam-to-foam in the fabrication operation. The company also manufacturessleeper mattresses for sofa beds but, in this case, has found that lifetime testing results arebetter with sewing for those products.

Prestige has a very large fabrication operation with 30 gluing stations. The company has250 employees and about 40 of them apply adhesive. In 1991, the company used a TCA-based adhesive. Prestige started evaluating alternative technologies when it became clearthat TCA production would be banned because of the chemical's contribution to ozonedepletion.

The company converted to a one-part water-based adhesive and has been using it forseveral years. They also used a two-part water-based adhesive for critical bondingapplications on furniture arms, ears, seams and other complex parts. "We never liked theperformance of the water-based glue," says Danny Sykes, General Manager at Prestige."It took four to six weeks for the workers to learn to spray the water-based glues and sixto eight weeks to get their speed up," he says. The company purchased and installed 30spray booths when they converted from TCA to the water-based adhesives.

Recently, the company began using an nPB adhesive on the line where they used the two-part water-based glue. The two-part adhesives are very costly to maintain. "We like theperformance of the nPB glue but are concerned about possible regulation," says JoeWingfield, President of Prestige.

The company has also evaluated the costs of acetone based adhesives and are consideringusing them. "I think we'll go with acetone glues," says Joe Wingfield. "Acetone isflammable but it has low toxicity and the glues perform well. The cost of using acetoneglues is also lower than the cost of using the nPB products."

B-4

Table B-1 Annual Cost Comparison for Prestige

One-PartWater-Based

Two-PartWater-Based

AcetoneAdhesive

Adhesive nPB Adhesive

Capital cost $11,182 $11,182 $12,160 $11,182

Adhesive cost $656,250 $1,356,000 $218,700 $656,100

Labor cost $720,000 $720,000 $720,000 $720,000

Maintenance cost $3,780 $7,200 $3,780 $3,780

Electricity cost $2,160 $2,160 $2,160 $2,160

Training cost $1,080 $1,080 $1,080 $1,080

Total cost $1,394,452 $2,097,622 $957,880 $1,394,302

B-5

B.3 SANTA FE SPRINGS FOAM FABRICATOR CONVERTS TO WATER-BASED ADHESIVES

Latex International, a large manufacturer of latex foam, has two manufacturing plantsworldwide. The company has a fabrication plant in Santa Fe Springs, California with 50employees where they fabricate foam used primarily in the bedding industry.

In the 1980s, like other companies in the country, Latex International used METH-basedadhesives in their fabrication operation. More recently, as METH was more heavilyregulated by the local air district, the company converted to an acetone based adhesive.Latex International did not want to continue to use solventborne adhesives and initiatedwork on water-based products. Today, the company is exclusively using water-basedadhesives.

The latex foam cores that are used in mattresses are manufactured in Latex International'splant in Conneticut. The ingredients are poured into molds of various types. Two twinmolded cores are glued together to form a king sized core. The plant in Santa Fe Springsreceives latex foam cores from the Conneticut plant and bonds two types of foamproducts. In one operation, latex is bonded to latex to form the foam core of a high endmattress. The latex foam takes the place of springs that are commonly used in lower endmattresses. The company also uses glue to attach aluminized "cigarette tape" to the edgesof the mattress to prevent cigarette fires. In the second operation, Latex International usesadhesives to bond "racetracks" which are smaller cores of latex foam with an outerperimeter of polyurethane. These cores are used in less expensive bedding.

In the polyurethane foam-to-latex operation, Latex International uses a one-part latexwater-based adhesive which does not have an immediate tack. In the latex-to-latexoperation, a different one-part water-based adhesive which has a shorter tack tune is used.The latex is less porous than polyurethane foam so a faster tack adhesive is required.

Says Ron Bruneau, Plant Manager at Latex International West, "our adhesive use hasbeen reduced by about 30 percent since we converted from acetone to water-basedadhesives." The cost of using the water-based adhesives is roughly the same as the cost ofthe acetone adhesives. "We are testing other water-based adhesives to see if we can lowerour costs," says Ron Bruneau.

Roger Coffey, President of Latex International West, is pleased with the conversion andcontinued work to find lower cost adhesives. "We're an environmentally consciouscompany. "We did a lot of testing and converted away from solvent based adhesivesentirely," he says. "The water-based adhesives work effectively and they are better for theworkers and the community."

B-6

Table B-2. Annual Cost Comparison for Latex InternationalAcetone Adhesives Water-based Adhesive

Capital cost $400 -

Adhesive cost $34,188 $27,360

Labor cost $196,000 $196,000

Maintenance cost $490 $372

Electrical cost $1,440 $1,440

Training cost - $470

Regulatory cost $352 $352

Total cost $232,870 $225,994

B-7

B.4. HICKORY SPRINGS DECIDES ON ACETONE ALTERNATIVE

Hickory Springs is a major manufacturer of flexible slabstock polyurethane foam. Thecompany has six pouring plants in the country, including Conover, North Carolina andCity of Commerce in California. The foam is used in diverse applications like packaging,bedding, furniture and recreational vehicles.

In addition to manufacturing the polyurethane foam, Hickory Springs also has a numberof fabrication operations. The company has fabrication operations in all of their foampouring plants; in addition, Hickory Springs owns about 30 separate fabricatingcompanies. About half the foam the company produces is used in their own fabricationoperations. In all, the company has about 2,000 employees who manufacture and fabricatefoam.

Hickory Springs historically used METH as an auxiliary blowing agent in their slabstockfoam production operations. Because of more stringent toxic regulations on METH, thecompany began investigating alternatives in the early 1990s. In 1993, Hickory Springspatented a new blowing agent process that used acetone as the auxiliary blowing agent infoam manufacture in place of METH. A few years, later, when acetone was deemedexempt from VOC regulations, the company converted all of their pouring plants fromMETH to acetone.

Like other companies, Hickory Springs used TCA based adhesives in the early 1990s.When the production ban on TCA was announced and the price of TCA increased, thecompany converted to METH based adhesives for their fabrication operations.

In 1990, the pouring plant in City of Commerce used TCA based adhesives. From 1991 to1998, the company decided not to continue fabrication at that site. In 1998, the companydecided to reenter the fabrication market. At that stage, METH was heavily regulated bythe local air district and Hickory Springs investigated and adopted water-based adhesives."We tried for about a year to make the water-based adhesives work for us but we wereunsuccessful," says Steve Isenhour, Plant Manager at the City of Commerce plant. "We'reusing acetone adhesives now and we've had no problems," he says.

When OSHA regulated METH more stringently, Hickory Springs decided to convertaway from METH in their fabrication operations throughout the country. In the Conoverplant, the company converted to water based adhesives for a short time. In 1998, thecompany began testing acetone based adhesives in their fabrication operation at thepouring plant. "The company was very familiar with acetone because it was used as ablowing agent in our pouring plants," says Bobby Bush, Vice President of the FoamProducts Division at Hickory Springs. "People are nervous about acetone because of itscombustibility," he remarks. "Our insurance rates did not go up; we had to install aventilation system but we would have had to do that with water or METH adhesives too."

The Conover plant has 16 stations where adhesive is applied. With the conversion toacetone, the company installed ventilation systems that collect from the floor at 11 of thestations; at the remaining five stations, a fan pulls the air outside. At the City ofCommerce plant, which has a much smaller fabrication operation, the company hasalways had one spray booth and no additional ventilation was necessary for theconversion to acetone adhesives.

B-8

In the Conover plant, the company uses an adhesive formulation that is a blend of acetoneand heptane. In the City of Commerce plant, the company uses a straight acetone basedadhesive because of the more stringent local air district regulations on VOCs. "Acetonelow in toxicity and it's as effective as METH as a blowing agent and in the glues," saysBobby Bush. "We think it's the best overall solution."

At the City of Commerce plant, the company reduced their costs in converting fromwater-based to acetone adhesives. The company's production efficiency is much greaterwith the acetone based adhesive. Table B-3 shows that the production adjusted cost ofusing acetone adhesives is about 43 percent less expensive than the cost of using thewater-based adhesives.

Table B-3. Annual Cost Comparison for Hickory Springs--City of CommerceWater-Based Adhesive Acetone Adhesive

Capital cost - $100

Adhesive cost $7,560 $7,800

Labor/maintenance cost $23,833 $15,889

Electrical cost $215 $143

Total cost $31,608 $23,932

Production adjusted total cost $31,608 $17,949

At the Hickory plant, the company's costs increased slightly through the conversion fromMETH to acetone based adhesives. Table B-4 shows a cost increase of four percent.

Table B-4. Annual Cost Comparison for Hickory Springs--ConoverMETH Adhesive Acetone Adhesive

Capital cost - $1,793

Adhesive cost $55,000 $66,000

Labor cost $288,000 $288,000

Maintenance cost $2,403 $2,403

Electrical cost - $1,260

Total cost $345,403 $359,456

B-9

B.5. LA-Z-BOY WEST A PIONEER IN WATER-BASED ADHESIVES

La-Z-Boy West, part of the La-Z-Boy chain with 14 U.S. plants, established operations inRedlands, California in 1966. Today the Redlands facility has about 400 employees in a190,000 square foot building that manufactures 800 pieces of furniture each day. Inaddition to the recliner chairs for which La-Z-Boy is famous, the firm also manufacturessofas, tables and office furniture. The Redlands plant manufactures 53 different styles in30 different variants. A few years ago, the plant began making contract office furniture, apart of the business that is expected to grow substantially.

La-Z-Boy brings in the fabric, wood, metal and foam used to assemble the furniture. TheRedlands operation includes three paint booths where a stain and a one or two topcoatsare applied. They also have three adhesives spray booths where adhesive is applied tobond foam-to-foam and foam-to-fabric. The primary fabric used is muslin but somedacron and duon is employed as well. The foam is used to make chair seats, backs, armsand legrests.

In 1988, La-Z-Boy decided they wanted to convert from the solventborne coatings andadhesives they used at the time to water-based systems. They elicited the cooperation oftheir suppliers and also approached other suppliers. They spent the next three yearstesting water-based coatings and adhesives.

In January, 1992, the experimental work was completed and La-Z-Boy converted, in oneshot, to a full water-based coating system and a one-part and two-part water-basedadhesive system. More recently, La-Z-Boy has reassessed their adhesive system and hasnow converted away from the two-part adhesive. All of the adhesives used in the planttoday are water-based one-parts. According to Ted Meinke, Plant Supervisor, "Weworked very hard on the conversions much earlier than other companies. We're pleasedthat we eliminated solvents from our plant."

In terms of the new adhesive system, Ted Meinke does not believe the company lostanything in the conversion. "Although there were problems with the two-part system, nowthat we're in the one-part system throughout, we've really minimized our costs."

At first, the workers did not like the water-based adhesives. They were used to solventswhich have a very short tack time. Workers are paid by piecework and they did not wantto wait between spray operations because it would reduce their pay. The employeecharged with optimizing the conversion quickly figured it out. She could spray up twostacks of foam and by the time she was finished, she could begin bonding the first stack.On balance, the throughput remained about the same even though the tack time of thewater-based adhesives is longer. At this stage, all three of the adhesive sprayers, Mary,Rosalina and Sylvia, much prefer the water-based adhesives because of their reducedexposure to solvents.

The early efforts of the La-Z-Boy Redlands plant helped the company convert to water-based systems in their other plants nationwide. "The new water-based process is betterfrom an environmental and worker exposure standpoint. The most important thing is thatthe process is technically effective," says Ted Meinke.

B-10

The cost comparison for L-Z-Boy for the TCA based adhesives and the water-based one-part adhesives is shown below. The figures account for the fact that La-Z-Boy'sproduction has increased since 1992 when the plant converted away from the TCA basedadhesives. The values show that use of the water-based adhesives is 35 percent less costlythan use of the TCA based adhesive.

Says Tony Freitas, a Production Supervisor involved heavily in the conversion, "Iwouldn't want to convert back to the solvent based glue even if we could. The water-based system we have today is great."

Table B-5. Annual Cost Comparison for La-Z-BoyTCA Adhesive Water-Based Adhesive

Capital cost - $120

Adhesive cost $28,800 $15,840

Labor cost $113,400 $113,400

Maintenance cost $1,800 $4,914

Electrical cost $1,080 $3,600

Training cost - $227

Regulatory cost $1,193 $528

Production adjustment 1455 -

Total Cost $212,827 $138,629

B-11

B.6. OFFICE CHAIR MANUFACTURER STARTS UP WITH HOT MELTGLUES

Mike Mekjian started a new business in February 1996. The company, called Sit-On-It,manufactures office chairs and is located in Brea, California. Between 100,000 and200,000 chairs are manufactured each year and the company is one of the top 25 officechair manufacturers in the country. Today, Sit-On-It has a 31,000 square foot facility with60 employees.

"I worked at another larger office furniture manufacturer for several years," says MikeMejian. While he was there he analyzed a variety of different gluing processes that usedTCA, METH, water-based and hot melt adhesives. "When I started up Sit-On-It, I wantedit to be completely clean from the beginning so I decided to go with hot melt adhesives,"says Mike Mekjian. "I didn't want environmental problems down the line."

In the office chair production process, Sit-On-It bonds foam-to-wood and foam-to-fabric.Particularly for bonding foam-to-wood, an aggressive adhesive is needed. In bonding thefoam-to-fabric, the adhesive must have a two to three minute "open time." This allows aperiod for the workers to adjust the foam and fabric properly. This is especially importantwhen the fabric has patterns or a geometric design. Another requirement for the adhesiveis that it have a high heat release rate. This is to ensure that high temperatures would notreactivate the adhesive. The company has changed glues three times to get the hot meltwith the best properties for their application.

Originally the company applied all the adhesive in a batch operation. Last year Sit-On-Itpurchased a conveyorized system. At this stage, about 30 percent of the bonding is doneon a manual line and 70 percent on an automated line. All of the foam-to-wood bondingis done on the conveyor line. Pressure is applied and the glue dries instantly. Then theconveyor applies glue to the foam and to the fabric. Four workers staff the threeupholstery assembly stations where the foam and fabric are adjusted properly.

"We grew 600 percent in 1997 and 300 percent in 1998," says Mike Mekjian. "Theinvestment in the conveyor line was worthwhile. It's very efficient. Hot melt adhesiveswere the right choice for us. We've been able to expand and do the right thing for theworkers and the environment," he says.

Table B-6. Annual Cost of Hot Melt Adhesives for Sit-On-ItCapital cost $8,150

Adhesive cost $93,700

Labor cost $88,000

Maintenance cost $440

Electrical cost $2,580

Gas cost $60

Total cost $192,930

B-12

B.7. BUS SEATING MANUFACTURER SEARCHES FOR ALTERNATIVEADHESIVE

American Seating manufactures transportation, office and auditorium seating at theirproduction plant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The company has 700 employees today andhas operated at the same location since 1888. American Seating has a 95 percent marketshare in the manufacture of seats for tour and inner city buses; about 200 employees workin the transportation seating division. They also manufacture auditorium and sportsseating, seats for colleges and major league teams. The company production amounts tobetween 500 and 1,000 seats per day.

American seating uses slabstock polyurethane and molded foam in their bus seating.Their operations involve bonding foam-to-metal, foam-to-vinyl, foam-to-fabric, vinyl-to-metal and vinyl-to-fabric. The product used by the company currently is a solventborneadhesive containing acetone and various other organic solvents. Two or three peopleapply adhesive during the two 12-hour shifts the company operates.

American Seating has been testing alternatives to their solvent based adhesives for years.They would like to identify a suitable water-based alternative. The water-based productsthey have tested give good results in bonding foam-to-metal and foam-to-vinyl but not forvinyl-to-metal. The "green strength" or bond strength of the water-based adhesives theyhave tested so far do not meet the company's standards. The company has also tried hotmelt adhesives that did not bond well to the metal.

"We would convert to a water-based adhesive tomorrow if we could find one that met ourrequirements," says Warren Zimmerman, Manager of the Production Operations Group."We're not happy with a solvent glue. If we could use a water-based glue, it would bebetter for the workers, the community and the environment," he says.

Table B-7. Annual Cost of Solvent Adhesive for American SeatingCapital cost -

Adhesive cost $65,875

Labor cost $117,000

Maintenance cost $1,903

Electrical cost $11,520

Total cost $196,298

B-13

B.8. PUBLIC SEATING COMPANY CONVERTS AWAY FROM SOLVENTADHESIVE

Hot Melts Appropriate for Most of Production

Country Roads is located in Greenville, Michigan. During the winter, the company has 80employees that work one shift. During the summer, Country Roads hires 40 additionalworkers and the company operates two shifts.

Country Roads manufactures and remanufactures public seating for arenas, auditoriumsand theaters. During the refurbishing process, the seats are pulled apart. All of the metaland most of the wood they contain is reused in the process. New foam and fabric are usedon the refurbished seats which are put back in use. The company remanufactures about200,000 chairs a year.

As part of the refurbishing process, the company used a METH based glue to bond foam-to-wood, foam-to-steel, foam-to-fabric, steel-to-fabric and foam-to-vinyl. Three workersapplied the adhesive in two spray booths. The company started aggressively investigatingalternatives in the last year. After a significant amount of testing, the company found thathot melt glues best satisfied their requirements for about 90 percent of their production.The company is in the process of converting from the METH-based adhesives to the hotmelt glues.

"The hot melt glues look very good for most of our production," says Dave MacMillen,Plant Superintendent at Country Roads. "We still need a good adhesive for bondingplastic to metal," he says. "We plan to test an acetone glue for those applications. We'regoing to make a full conversion away from methylene chloride."

Table B-8. Annual Cost of METH Adhesivesfor Country Roads

Capital cost -

Adhesive cost $25,300

Labor cost $179,200

Maintenance cost $396

Electrical cost $360

Total cost $205,256

B-14

B.9. MATTRESS MANUFACTURER CONVERTS TO HOT MELT ADHESIVE

Jamison Bedding has four plants in the United States. The company makes a mid to highend product and is the largest private label mattresses manufacturer in the country. Theysell their retail bedding primarily east of the Mississippi. Jamison is the fourth largestcontract bedding manufacturer and sells to hotels like the Marriott chain and motels. Inthe past, the company had their own spring machinery but today they purchase the springsthat are used in the production process.

Jamison operates a plant near Nashville, Tennessee which employs 75 people. About 50of the employees work in the factory. Approximately 95 percent of the workforce hasbeen with Jamison for many years. The plant makes 300 to 400 mattresses each day butonly a few are of the same type. An average of 75 pillow top mattresses require gluing perday. The pillow top market has blossomed and likely will continue to grow.In the manufacture of the bedding, the company uses adhesive for two types of bonding.First, glue is used to bond the inner mattress to a non-woven material which functions asan inner cover. Second, the glue is used to bond the foam surface of the mattresses to thenon-woven quilted material.

Historically Jamison used METH and TCA based adhesives. A few years ago, when TCAadhesives were used, Jamison decided to make a conversion to hot melt adhesives. Todaythe company uses a pressure sensitive hot melt glue but is not entirely satisfied with theresults. "The problem we face in the manufacturing is to get a long enough open timewith the glue so the workers can reposition the mattress components," says Clay Finney,the Manager of the Nashville plant. "Another problem is that the adhesive sometimesremains tacky and the people that sleep on the mattresses will hear a velcro sound whenthey lie down on them," he says.

The company purchased several spray guns to apply the hot melt adhesives. Two of theinexpensive guns have proved inadequate for the process but the more expensive sprayequipment has worked well. The company does not have to clean the applicationequipment since they converted to hot melt glues. When the company used solvent basedadhesives, the maintenance time was substantial.

Jamison is investigating non-pressure sensitive hot melt glues as well as water-basedadhesives to try to improve their process further. "We are not interested in using solventbased adhesives again," says Clay Finney. "The workers did not like the solvent products.They complained about the smell. Even though the hot melts are not ideal, the workerslike them better. The hot melts are also better for the environment."

Jamison's costs for using the hot melt glues and the TCA based adhesives are comparable.Table B-9 shows the costs of both processes.

B-15

Table B-9. Annual Cost Comparison for Jamison BeddingTCA Adhesive Hot Melt Adhesive

Capital cost - $2,690

Adhesive cost $4,780 $2,535

Labor cost $61,200 $61,200

Maintenance cost $1,320 -

Electrical cost - $2,350

Total cost $67,300 $68,775

B-16

B.10. BEDDING COMPANY USES HOT MELT AND SOLVENT BASEDADHESIVES

McKinney Bedding Company is located in Springfield, Missouri. The company makeshigh, medium and low end bedding. About 80 percent of the mattresses are sold under thetrade name Restonic and 20 percent under the trade name Futurama.

McKinney makes 100 different styles of contract bedding and produces between 250 and500 pieces per day. Pillow top mattresses represent about five percent of their totalproduction.

McKinney uses hot melt adhesives on their lower end line. The hot melts are used tobond foam-to-fabric, foam-to-insulator pads and foam-to-quilted material.

McKinney is currently using a METH based adhesive for bonding the pillow topmattresses and for bonding the soft side water beds. The solvent adhesives used by thecompany come in a 26 pound pressurized container. Spray guns are attached to thepressurized container and the adhesive is sprayed on the bedding.

The company has compared the cost of continuing to use the METH based adhesive inpressurized containers with the cost of using acetone aerosol adhesives. Because of theOSHA regulation on METH, the company would have to make an investment in a spraybooth to reduce the worker exposure to the chemical. Even with this capital investment,the cost of using acetone aerosol adhesives is higher because aerosol packaging is anexpensive product.

"We're looking at the costs of all the options right now," says Lloyd McKinney, owner ofMcKinney Bedding. "We know the aerosol cans work for our applications and we areconsidering converting to them even with the higher cost," he says.

Table B-10. Annual Cost Comparison for McKinney BeddingMETH Adhesive Acetone Aerosol Adhesive

Capital cost $489 -

Adhesive cost $2,762 $4,397

Labor cost $1,200 $1,200

Total cost $4,451 $5,597

B-17

B.11. BEDDING MANUFACTURER CONVERTS AWAY FROM GLUESALTOGETHER

Justice is an upholstered furniture and bedding manufacturer located in Lebanon,Missouri. About 15 employees are involved in the bedding operation and 45 to 50 infurniture manufacturing. The company makes recliners, sofas, loveseats, chairs andmattresses.

Justice makes mid and high end bedding. The company manufactures between 250 and400 pieces of bedding each day. They purchase the foam and fabricated foam for theirmanufacturing process from Leggett & Platt, located across the street from Justice.

Until 1992, Justice used adhesive in their mattress manufacturing line for bonding pillowtops to their mattresses. At that stage, the company decided to make an investment in analternative technology for making mattresses. The company now uses sewing to join thenonwoven material to the ticking, the polyester and the polyurethane in their mattresses.

"We decided we didn't want to use the glues any longer," says Dan Wampler, PlantManager at Justice. "The solvents in the adhesives have all kinds of problems and we justdidn't want to deal with that any longer."

In spite of the capital investment the company made for the sewing equipment, Justicehas saved money through the conversion. "I estimate we have cut our costs by about $15per mattress by adopting the sewing process," says Dan Wampler.

B-18

C-1

Appendix CAdditional Process Safety Information

As part of its mission, OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200)requires that a MSDS be created and made available to employees for every chemical orchemical formulation used in the workplace [.1200(g)]. Each MSDS must be in Englishand include information regarding the specific chemical identity and common name of thehazardous chemical ingredients. In addition, information must be provided on thephysical and chemical characteristics of the hazardous chemical(s), known acute andchronic health effects and related health information, exposure limits, whether thechemical is a carcinogen, emergency and first-aid procedures, and the identification of theorganization preparing the data sheet. Copies of MSDSs for all of thechemicals/chemical formulations used must be kept and made available to workers whomay come into contact with the process chemicals during their regular work shift.

The following are definitions and criteria for workplace chemical hazards, as defined byOSHA in the CFR [29CFR 1910]. These criteria were used to assess the chemical safetyhazards for adhesives, which are reported in Section 3.7.1 of this report. OSHA health-based reporting criteria (acute health risk, chronic health risk, etc.) are omitted from thislist. Refer to the risk characterization in Chapter 10 for information on the risk to humanhealth from adhesives.

Flammable - A flammable chemical is defined by OSHA [29 CFR 1910.1200(c)] as oneof the following:

• An aerosol that, when tested by the method described in 16 CFR 1500.45,yields a flame projection exceeding 18 inches at full valve opening, or aflashback at any degree of valve opening.

• A gas that: 1) at ambient temperature and pressure, forms a flammablemixture with air at a concentration of 13 percent by volume or less; or 2)when it, at ambient temperature and pressure, forms a range of flammablemixtures with air wider than 12 percent by volume, regardless of the lowerlimit.

• A liquid that has a flashpoint below 100 /F (37.8 /C), except any mixturehaving components with flashpoints of 100 /F (37.8 /C) or higher, the totalof which make up 99 percent or more of the total volume of the mixture.

• A solid, other than a blasting agent or explosive as defined in 29 CFR1910.109(a), that is liable to cause fire through friction, absorption ofmoisture, spontaneous chemical change, or retained heat frommanufacturing or processing, or which can be ignited readily and whenignited burns so vigorously and persistently as to create a serious hazard.

Combustible Liquid - As defined by OSHA [29 CFR 1910.1200(c)], a liquid that isconsidered combustible has a flashpoint at or above 100 /F (37.8 /C), but below 200 /F(93.3 /C), except any mixture having components with flashpoints of 200 /F (93.3 /C), orhigher, the total volume of which make up 99 percent or more of the total volume of themixture.

C-2

Corrosive - As defined by OSHA (29 CFR 1910.1200 [Appendix A]), a chemical isconsidered corrosive if it causes visible destruction of, or irreversible alterations in, livingtissue by chemical action at the site of contact following an exposure period of fourhours, as determined by the test method described by the U.S. Department ofTransportation, 49 CFR Part 173, Appendix A. This term does not apply to chemicalaction on inanimate surfaces.

Dermal or Eye Irritant - An irritant is defined by OSHA [29 CFR 1910.1200 AppendixA (mandatory)] as a chemical, that is not corrosive, but which causes a reversibleinflammatory effect on living tissue by chemical action at the site of contact. A chemicalis considered a dermal or eye irritant if it is so determined under the testing proceduresdetailed in 16 CFR 1500.41- 42 for four hours exposure. Table 3 does not include thisterm, because all of the surface finishing chemical products are reported as either dermalor eye irritants.

Explosive - As defined by OSHA [29 CFR 1910.1200(c)], a chemical is consideredexplosive if it causes a sudden, almost instantaneous release of pressure, gas, and heatwhen subjected to sudden shock, pressure, or high temperature.

Fire Hazard - A chemical product that is a potential fire hazard is required by OSHA to bereported on the product’s MSDS.

Hazardous Decomposition - A chemical product, under specific conditions, maydecompose to form chemicals that are considered hazardous to workers. OSHA requiresthe reporting of any hazardous decomposition products.

Incompatibilities - incompatible chemicals or substances are those which when contactedwith the chemical product will react to present a hazard to workers. Possible hazardsmight include fire, explosion, the generation of harmful gases, or the production ofchemical that is hazardous itself. Many adhesive compounds are incompatible withstrong acids and alkalis, which are described below:

1. Strong Acids: Acids are strong proton-donating chemicals with very low pHvalues (values of 5 or less). They tend to react violently with chemicals orcompounds with medium to high pH values, such as strong alkalis or bases. Examples of strong acids include hydrochloric, hydrobromic, and sulfuric acids.

2. Strong Alkalis: Alkalis, otherwise known as bases, are strong proton-acceptingchemical compounds with high pH values (value of 10 or more). Examples ofstrong alkali compounds include metallic hydroxides that disassociate in water(e.g. sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide), and to a lesser extent ammonia.

Oxidizer - As defined by OSHA (29 CFR 1910.1200[c]), an oxidizer is a chemical otherthan a blasting agent or explosive as defined by OSHA [29 CFR 1910.109(a)], thatinitiates or promotes combustion in other materials, thereby causing fire either of itself orthrough the release of oxygen or other gases.

Reactive - A chemical is considered reactive if it is readily susceptible to change and thepossible release of energy. EPA gives a more precise definition of reactivity for solidwastes. As defined by EPA (40 CFR 261.23), a solid waste is considered reactive if a

C-3

representative sample of the waste exhibits any of the following properties: 1) isnormally unstable and readily undergoes violent change without detonating; 2) reactsviolently or forms potentially explosive mixtures with water; 3) when mixed with water,generates toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger tohuman health or the environment (for a cyanide or sulfide bearing waste, this includesexposure to a pH between 2 and 12.5); 4) is capable of detonation or explosive reaction ifsubjected to a strong initiated source or if heated under confinement; or 5) is readilycapable of detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction at standard temperature andpressure.

Sensitizer - A sensitizer is defined by OSHA [29 CFR 1910.1200 Appendix A(mandatory)] as a chemical that causes a substantial proportion of exposed people oranimals to develop an allergic reaction in normal tissue after repeated exposure to thechemical. Sixteen chemical products are reported as sensitizers by MSDS data.

Sudden Release of Pressure - OSHA requires the reporting of chemical products that,while stored in a container subjected to sudden shock or high temperature, causes apressure increase within the container that is released upon opening.

Unstable - As defined by OSHA (29 CFR 1910.1200[c]), a chemical is unstable if in thepure state, or as produced or transported, it will vigorously polymerize, decompose,condense, or will become self-reactive under conditions of shock, pressure, ortemperature.

C-4

D-1

Appendix DSupplemental Exposure Assessment Information

Table D-1. Adhesive Use Rates for Average and High Use Scenarios

Adhesive TypeSolids

ContentAverage Adhesive Use

(gal/year)High Adhesive Use

(gal/year)

METH 31% 2,475 24,750

Acetone 24% 3,197 31,969

Acetone/heptane 39% 1,967 19,673

nPB 26.7% 2,874 28,736

Water-based latex 63% 1,218 12,179

Water-based latex/synthetic 63% 1,218 12,179

Hot melt 99.9 % 768 7,680

Table D-2. Chemical Concentrations in Ambient Air, 100 Meters from the Facility

Adhesive Type /Chemical Ingredient a

Average Adhesive Use High Adhesive Use

Emission Rate (g/sec)

Concentration inAir

(mg/m3)

Emission Rate

(g/sec)

Concentration in Air

(mg/m3)

METH Adhesive

METH 1.07 1.20E-01 10.7 1.20E+00

Irganox 1010 0.0158 1.77E-03 0.158 1.77E-02

Acetone Adhesive

Acetone 1.07 1.20E-01 10.7 1.20E+00

Irganox 1010 0.0143 1.60E-03 0.143 1.60E-02

Acetone/Heptane Adhesive

Acetone 0.261 2.92E-02 2.61 2.92E-01

Heptane 0.261 2.92E-02 2.61 2.92E-01

Irganox 1010 0.0087 9.74E-04 0.087 9.74E-03

nPB Adhesive

nPB 1.23 1.38E-01 12.3 1.38E+00

Irganox 1010 0.0181 2.03E-03 0.181 2.03E-02

1,3-Dioxolane 0.0543 6.08E-03 0.543 6.08E-02

Table D-2. Chemical Concentrations in Ambient Air, 100 Meters from the Facility

Adhesive Type /Chemical Ingredient a

Average Adhesive Use High Adhesive Use

Emission Rate (g/sec)

Concentration inAir

(mg/m3)

Emission Rate

(g/sec)

Concentration in Air

(mg/m3)

D-2

1,2-Butylene oxide 0.0054 6.05E-04 0.054 6.05E-03

2-BP 0.0181 2.03E-03 0.181 2.03E-02

Water-Based Latex Adhesive

Ammonia (fromammonium hydroxide)b

0.006 6.72E-04 0.06 6.72E-03

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

0.031 3.47E-03 0.307 3.47E-02

Cyanox 2246 0.0031 3.47E-04 0.031 3.47E-03

Surfynol 440 0.0031 3.47E-04 0.031 3.47E-03

Water-Based Latex/Synthetic Adhesive

Ammonia (fromammonium hydroxide)b

0.006 6.72E-04 0.06 6.72E-03

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

0.031 3.47E-03 0.307 3.47E-02

Chloroprene 6.14E-06 6.89E-07 6.14E-05 6.89E-06

Cyanox 2246 0.0031 3.47E-04 0.031 3.47E-03

Surfynol 440 0.0031 3.47E-04 0.031 3.47E-03

Hot Melt Adhesive

Irganox 1010 0.000397 4.44E-05 0.00397 4.44E-04

Alternative Ingredientsc

Hexane 0.261 2.92E-02 2.61 2.92E-01

TCE 0.453 5.07E-02 4.53 5.07E-01a Chemicals with vapor pressures over 0.001 torr included in the model.

b Ammonia, formed from ammonium hydroxide during spray application, is the volatile form that is released toworkplace and outdoor air. c Alternative adhesive ingredients that may appear in some adhesive formulations in place of other constituents: hexane(acetone/heptane) and TCE (nPB).

D-3

Table D-3. Estimated ADDs for General Population Inhalation Exposure at a Distance of 100 Meters

Adhesive Type /Chemical Ingredient a

ADD (mg/kg-day)

Average Adhesive Use High Adhesive Use

METH Adhesive

METH 4.67E-02 4.67E-01

Irganox 1010 6.90E-04 6.90E-03

Acetone Adhesive

Acetone 4.67E-02 4.67E-01

Irganox 1010 6.25E-04 6.25E-03

Acetone/Heptane Adhesive

Acetone 1.14E-02 1.14E-01

Heptane 1.14E-02 1.14E-01

Irganox 1010 3.80E-04 3.80E-03

nPB Adhesive

nPB 5.37E-02 5.37E-01

Irganox 1010 7.90E-04 7.90E-03

1,3-Dioxolane 2.37E-03 2.37E-02

1,2-Butylene oxide 2.36E-04 2.36E-03

2-BP 7.90E-04 7.90E-03

Water-Based Latex Adhesive

Ammonia (from ammoniumhydroxide)b

2.62E-04 2.62E-03

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates 1.34E-03 1.34E-02

Cyanox 2246 1.35E-04 1.35E-03

Surfynol 440 1.35E-04 1.35E-03

Water-Based Latex/Synthetic Adhesive

Ammonia (from ammoniumhydroxide)b

2.62E-04 2.62E-03

Chlorinated alkyl phosphates 1.34E-03 1.34E-02

Chloroprene 2.68E-07 2.68E-06

Cyanox 2246 1.35E-04 1.35E-03

Surfynol 440 1.35E-04 1.35E-03

Hot Melt Adhesive

Irganox 1010 1.73E-05 1.73E-04

Table D-3. Estimated ADDs for General Population Inhalation Exposure at a Distance of 100 Meters

Adhesive Type /Chemical Ingredient a

ADD (mg/kg-day)

Average Adhesive Use High Adhesive Use

D-4

Additional Ingredientsc

Hexane 5.84E-03 5.84E-02

TCE 1.02E-02 1.02E-01a Chemicals with vapor pressures over 0.001 torr included in the model.

b Ammonia, formed from ammonium hydroxide during spray application, is the volatile form that is released toworkplace and outdoor air. c Alternative adhesive ingredients that may appear in some adhesive formulations in place of other constituents: hexane(acetone/heptane) and TCE (nPB).

Table D-4. Estimated ADDs for Workplace Inhalation by Ventilationand Adhesive Use Scenario

Adhesive Type /Chemical Ingredient a

ADD (mg/kg-day)

Average AdhesiveUse and Average

Ventilation

Average AdhesiveUse and WTA

Ventilation

High AdhesiveUse and Average

Ventilation

High AdhesiveUse and WTAVentilation

METH Adhesive

METH 1.52E+01 6.37E+01 1.52E+02 6.38E+02

Irganox 1010 2.19E-01 9.22E-01 2.23E+00 9.38E+00

Acetone Adhesive

Acetone 1.53E+01 6.41E+01 1.52E+02 6.39E+02

Irganox 1010 2.00E-01 8.41E-01 2.03E+00 8.53E+00

Acetone/Heptane Adhesive

Acetone 3.69E+00 1.55E+01 3.69E+01 1.55E+02

Heptane 3.69E+00 1.55E+01 3.69E+01 1.55E+02

Irganox 1010 1.24E-01 5.21E-01 1.23E+00 5.17E+00

nPB Adhesive

nPB 1.75E+01 7.33E+01 1.75E+02 7.34E+02

Irganox 1010 2.58E-01 1.08E+00 2.57E+00 1.08E+01

1,3-Dioxolane 7.73E-01 3.25E+00 7.71E+00 3.24E+01

1,2-Butylene oxide 7.63E-02 3.21E-01 7.73E-01 3.25E+00

2-BP 2.58E-01 1.08E+00 2.57E+00 1.08E+01

Water-Based Latex Adhesive

Ammonia (fromammonium hydroxide)b

8.59E-02 3.61E-01 8.49E-01 3.57E+00

Table D-4. Estimated ADDs for Workplace Inhalation by Ventilationand Adhesive Use Scenario

Adhesive Type /Chemical Ingredient a

ADD (mg/kg-day)

Average AdhesiveUse and Average

Ventilation

Average AdhesiveUse and WTA

Ventilation

High AdhesiveUse and Average

Ventilation

High AdhesiveUse and WTAVentilation

D-5

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

4.39E-01 1.84E+00 4.35E+00 1.83E+01

Cyanox 2246 4.77E-02 2.00E-01 4.39E-01 1.84E+00

Surfynol 440 4.77E-02 2.00E-01 4.39E-01 1.84E+00

Water-Based Latex/Synthetic Adhesive

Ammonia (fromammonium hydroxide)b

8.59E-02 3.61E-01 8.49E-01 3.57E+00

Chlorinated alkylphosphates

4.39E-01 1.84E+00 4.35E+00 1.83E+01

Chloroprene 9.54E-05 4.01E-04 8.59E-04 3.61E-03

Cyanox 2246 4.77E-02 2.00E-01 4.39E-01 1.84E+00

Surfynol 440 4.77E-02 2.00E-01 4.39E-01 1.84E+00

Hot Melt Adhesive

Irganox 1010 9.54E-03 4.01E-02 5.72E-02 2.40E-01

Additional Ingredientsc

Hexane 3.69E+00 1.55E+01 3.69E+01 1.55E+02

TCE 6.42E+00 2.70E+01 6.42E+01 2.70E+02a Chemicals with vapor pressures over 0.001 torr included in the model..b Ammonia, formed from ammonium hydroxide during spray application, is the volatile form that is released toworkplace and outdoor air. c Alternative adhesive ingredients that may appear in some adhesive formulations in place of other constituents: hexane may be used in some acetone-blend formulations and TCE may be used in some nPB formulations.Notes: The numeric format used in these tables is a form of scientific notation, where the “E” replaces the “ x 10x”in scientific notation. Scientific notation is typically used to present very large or very small numbers. Forexample, 1.2E-04 is the same as 1.2 x 10-4, which is the same as 0.00012 in common decimal notation.