Airfreshner
Airfreshner
Airfreshner
Ingredients
In addition to the adsorbents, oxidizers, surfactants,
and disinfectants listed above, ingredients in air fresheners can
include fragrances, aerosol propellants, preservatives,
and solvents such as mineral oilor 2-butoxyethanol and
other glycol ethers. As fragrances, air freshener preparations
often include terpenes such as limonene.
A report issued in 2005 by the Bureau Européen des Unions de
Consommateurs (BEUC) found that many air freshener products
emit allergens and toxic air
pollutants including benzene, formaldehyde, terpenes, styrene, ph
thalate esters, and toluene.[3][4]
In 2020 air fresheners (as well as cleaning solutions and products
used to clean cars) will need to list any of their ingredients which
are on California's list of 2,300 harmful chemicals, based on a
California law passed in 2017.[5] A California study in 2006 found
that the prominent products of the reaction of terpenes found in
air fresheners with ozone included formaldehyde, hydroxyl
radical, and secondary ultrafine particles.[6] It is not clear if
manufacturers will need to list such chemicals which are not
ingredients, but form when the air freshener is placed in the air.
Toxicity
Many air fresheners employ carcinogens, volatile organic
compounds and known toxins such as phthalate esters in their
formulas. A Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) study of
13 common household air fresheners found that most of the
surveyed products contain chemicals that can
aggravate asthma and affect reproductive development. The
NRDC called for more rigorous supervision of the manufacturers
and their products, which are widely assumed to be safe:
The study assessed scented sprays, gels, and plug-in air
fresheners. Independent lab testing confirmed the presence of
phthalates, or hormone-disrupting chemicals that may pose a
particular health risk to babies and young children, in 12 of the 14
products—including those marked 'all natural.' None of the
products had these chemicals listed on their labels.[7]
On September 19, 2007, along with the Sierra Club, Alliance for
Healthy Homes, and the National Center for Healthy Housing, the
NRDC filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to report
the findings.[8]
The University of Bristol's Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and
Children (ALSPAC) found that exposure to volatile organic
compounds through frequent use of air fresheners and other
aerosols in the home was found to correlate with
increased earaches and diarrhea in infants, and with
increased depression and headaches in their mothers.[9][10]
In 2008, Anne C. Steinemann of the University of
Washington published a study of top-selling air fresheners and
laundry products.[11][12] She found that all products tested gave off
chemicals regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws,
including carcinogens with no safe exposure level, but none of
these chemicals were listed on any of the product labels
or Material Safety Data Sheets. Chemicals included acetone, the
active ingredient in paint thinner and nail-polish
remover; chloromethane, a neurotoxicant and respiratory toxicant;
and acetaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, both carcinogens. A plug-in
air freshener contained more than 20 different volatile organic
compounds, with more than one-third classified as toxic or
hazardous under federal laws. Even air fresheners called
"organic," "green," or with "essential oils" emitted hazardous
chemicals, including carcinogens.
In 2009, Stanley M. Caress of the University of West Georgia and
Anne C. Steinemann of the University of Washington published
results from two national epidemiological studies of health effects
from exposure to air fresheners. They found that nearly 20
percent of the general population and 34 percent of asthmatics
report headaches, breathing difficulties, or other health problems
when exposed to air fresheners or deodorizers.[13]
Lysol: Harmful or Helpful?
Ironically, manufactured chemicals like BPA represent how hazardous our
contemporary lifestyles can be, but there is another, better known chemical compound,
Lysol, that helps keep much of America safe.
To sanitize:
To deodorize:
It seems that my approach of wipe, spray, scrub and let dry was
mostly correct; but in the areas where food is handled, a thorough
washing is necessary as well. This makes sense, since Lysol is,
after all, a poisonous chemical that kills various viruses (including
H1N1) and other bad stuff that can make people very ill. Oh, and
getting back to that pesky business with the BPA, it seems that
the best tactic is to avoid its consumption in the first place. In the
article, Kristoff suggests steering clear of plastic containers that
contain BPA, such as the ones we microwave or store our food in
or drink water out of. Avoid these items and you’ve already
dramatically reduced your exposure to BPA.
By Tyler Farmer
Some experts claim that it is toxic, and that people should make an effort to
avoid it.
But is BPA really that bad, and should you avoid it at all costs? This is a
detailed review of BPA and its health effects.
What is BPA?
BPA (bisphenol-A) is a chemical that is added to many commercial products,
including food containers and hygiene products.
It was first discovered in the 1890s, but chemists in the 1950s realized that it
could be mixed with other compounds to produce strong and resilient
polycarbonate plastics.
BPA is also used to make epoxy resins, which are put on the inner lining of
canned food containers to keep the metal from corroding and breaking.
It's worth noting that many manufacturers have now switched to BPA-free
products, in which BPA has been replaced by bisphenol-S (BPS) or bisphenol-F
(BPF).
However, recent research reports that even small concentrations of BPS and
BPF may disrupt the function of your cells in a way similar to BPA. Thus, BPA-
free bottles may not be the solution (1).
Plastic items labeled with the recycling numbers 3 and 7 or the letters "PC"
likely contain BPA, BPS or BPF.
BOTTOM LINE:BPA and its alternatives — BPS and BPF — may be found in
many commonly used products, which are often labeled with recycling codes
3, 7 or the letters "PC."
That's because when BPA containers are made, not all the BPA gets sealed into
the product. This allows part of it to break free and mix with the container's
contents once food or fluids are added (3, 4).
For instance, a recent study found that BPA levels in urine decreased by 66%
following 3 days of avoiding packaged foods (5).
Another study had participants eat one serving of either fresh or canned soup
daily for 5 days. Urine levels of BPA were 1,221% higher in those who
consumed the canned soup (6).
Additionally, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that BPA levels in
breastfed babies were up to 8 times lower than those measured in babies fed
liquid formula from BPA-containing bottles (7).
BOTTOM LINE:The diet is by far the biggest source of BPA for humans,
particularly packaged foods and canned foods. Babies fed formula from BPA-
containing bottles also have high levels in their bodies.
BPA is said to mimic the structure and function of the hormone estrogen (2).
Due to its estrogen-like shape, BPA can bind to estrogen receptors and
influence bodily processes, such as growth, cell repair, fetal development,
energy levels and reproduction.
In addition, BPA may also have the ability to interact with other hormone
receptors, such as thyroid hormone receptors, thus altering their function (8).
Your body is sensitive to changes in hormone levels, which is the reason why
BPA's ability to mimic estrogen is believed to affect your health.
Given the information above, many people wonder whether BPA should be
banned.
Its use has already been restricted in the EU, Canada, China and Malaysia,
particularly in products for babies and young children.
Some US states have followed suit, but no federal regulations have been
instituted.
In 2014, the FDA released its latest report, which confirmed the original 1980s
daily exposure limit of 50 mcg/kg (about 23 mcg/lb) daily and concluded that
BPA is probably safe at the levels currently allowed (9).
However, research in rodents shows negative effects of BPA at much lower
levels, as little as 10 mcg/kg daily. Also, research in monkeys shows that levels
equivalent to those currently measured in humans have negative effects on
reproduction (10, 11).
A review from 2006 may help explain the discrepancies. It revealed that all the
industry-funded studies found no effects of BPA exposure, while 92% of the
studies not funded by industry found significant negative effects (12).
One study observed that women with frequent miscarriages had about 3 times
as much BPA in their blood as women with successful pregnancies (13).
Among couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF), men with the highest
BPA levels were 30–46% more likely to produce lower-quality embryos (16).
A separate study found that men with higher BPA levels were 3-4 times more
likely to have a low sperm concentration and low sperm count (17).
Additionally, men working in BPA manufacturing companies in China reported
4.5 times more erectile difficulty and less overall sex-life satisfaction than other
men (18).
However, although the effects above are notable, several recent reviews agree
that more studies are needed to strengthen the body of evidence
(8, 19, 20, 21).
BOTTOM LINE:Several studies have shown that BPA can negatively affect
many aspects of both male and female fertility.
Finally, BPA exposure during early life is also thought to influence prostate and
breast tissue development in ways that increase the risk of cancer.
However, while there are ample animal studies to support this, human studies
are less conclusive (29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34).
BOTTOM LINE:BPA exposure during early life may influence birth weight,
hormonal development, behavior and cancer risk in later life.
They reported a 27–135% greater risk of high blood pressure in people with
high BPA levels (35, 36).
In a later study, higher BPA levels were linked to a 68-130% higher risk of
developing type 2 diabetes (38).
Finally, participants with the highest BPA levels were 37% more likely to
have insulin resistance, a key driver of the metabolic syndrome and type 2
diabetes (39).
However, some studies found no links between BPA and these diseases
(40, 41, 42).
Several studies also report participants with the highest BPA levels to be 50–
85% more likely to be obese and 59% more likely to have a large waist
circumference. Not all studies confirm these findings though
(37, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47).
Asthma: Higher prenatal exposure to BPA, especially at week 16, was linked
to a 130% higher risk of wheezing in infants under 6 months. Early
childhood exposure to BPA was also linked to wheezing in later childhood
(53, 54).
Liver function: Higher BPA levels were linked to a 29% higher risk of
abnormal liver enzyme levels (37).
Brain function: African green monkeys exposed to BPA levels judged safe
by the EPAshowed loss of connections between brain cells (59).
BOTTOM LINE:BPA exposure has also been linked to several other health
problems. More research is needed to confirm these findings.
Drink from glass bottles: Buy liquids that come in glass bottles instead of
plastic bottles or cans, and use glass baby bottles instead of plastic ones.
Stay away from BPA products: As much as possible, limit your contact
with receipts.
Be selective with toys: Make sure that plastic toys you buy for your child
are made from BPA-free material, especially for toys your little ones are
likely to chew or suck on.
Don't microwave plastic: Microwave and store food in glass rather than
plastic.
As for others, occasionally drinking from a "PC" plastic bottle or eating from a
can is probably not a reason to panic.
That being said, swapping plastic containers for BPA-free ones requires very
little effort for a potentially big impact.
Plus, when it comes to your diet, the fresh whole foods linked to optimal
health rarely come packaged in containers with BPA.