October 1984
A Preliminary Assessment
of the Benefits of Reducing
Formaldehyde Exposures
Draft Report
POST OFFICE BOX 12194
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27709
-------
October 1984
A Preliminary Assessment
of the Benefits of Reducing
Formaldehyde Exposures
Draft Report
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Economic Analysis Division
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Ai McGartland. Project Officer
Prepared by
Tayler H. Bingham
and
Luatine Lohr
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
EPA Contract Mo. 68 01-6595
RTI Project No. 2505-16
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Summary 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Benefit-Cost Assessment 1-2
1.3 Objectives 1-4
1.4 Formaldehyde Exposure: The Extent of the
Problem 1-5
1.5 Formaldehyde Exposure; A Review of the
Health Effects 1-6
1.6 Formaldehyde Exposure: The Population at
Risk 1-7
1.7 Formaldehyde Exposure Reductions: Pre 1iminary
Benefits Estimates 1-8
1.8 formaldehyde Exposure: Public and Private
Sector Responses 1-9
Irritation and Sensitization Effects of
Formaldehyde Exposures 2~1
2.1 The Pathology of Irritation and
Sensitization . 2-2
2.1.1 irritation 2-2
2.1.2 Sensitization . 2-3
2.2 Methodologies Used to Study the Health Effects
of Formaldehyde 2-4
2.2.1 Case Reports 2-4
2.2.2 Controlled Experimental Studies 2-4
2.2.3 Epidemiological Studies 2-5
2.2.4 Evaluating the Evidence 2-7
2.3 Health Effects of Formaldehyde 2-9
2.3.1 Eye Effects 2-9
2.3.2 Nose, Throat, and Upper Airway Effects .... 2-19
2.3.3 Pulmonary Effects 2-27
2.3.4 Skin Effects 2-35
2.3.5 Gastrointestinal System Effects 2-45
2.3.6 Central Nervous System Effects 2-49
2.3.7 Circulatory System Effects 2-52
2.3.8 Reproductive System Effects 2-52
2.4 Special Population Groups 2-56
2.4.1 Newborns and Young Children 2-57
2.4.2 The Elderly 2-58
2.4.3 Persons with Preexisting Respiratory
Diseases ....... 2-58
2.4.4 Atopic Persons . . ........ 2-59
2.5 References 2-59
i i
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
3 Population at Risk from Formaldehyde Exposure 3*1
3.1 Formaldehyde Concentrations 3-1
3.1.1 Ambient Concentrations 3-2
3.1.2 Indoor Concentrations . 3-4
3.2 Allocation of Time . 3-18
3.2.1 Population Subgroups 3*21
3.2.2 Time Profiles . 3-22
3.3 Exposure Profiles for Selected Population
Subgroups 3-31
3.3.1 Hourly Exposure Profiles . 3-32
3.3.2 Average Daily Exposures . 3-42
3.4 Estimates of the Population Exposed to
Formaldehyde. 3-46
3.5 References 3-63
4 Valuation of Reductions in Exposure Risks . 4-1
4.1 The Property Value Method 4-1
4.2 Formaldehyde and Housing Prices: An Overview .... 4-4
4.3 Survey Methodology . » 4-5
4.4 Results . . 4-6
4.5 Estimates of Aggregate Benefits . 4-13
4.6 Implication . 4-16
4.7 References . 4-16
5 Public and Private Sector Responses to the
Formaldehyde Problem , 5-1
5.1 Public Sector Responses . 5-1
5.1.1 Exposure Standards 5-2
5.1.2 Evaluation Programs . 5-6
5.1.3 Product and Use Standards 5-12
5.1.4 Product Bans 5-16
5.1.5 Information Disclosure Requirements 5-18
5.1.6 Compensation Schemes 5-20
5.2 Private Sector Responses 5-22
5.2.1 Tort Litigation 5-24
5.2.2 Public Awareness Programs . 5-25
5.2.3 Disclosure and Appraisal of UFFI
in Homes . 5-26
5.2.4 Testing Programs . 5-28
5.2.5 Treatments to Reduce UFFI Exposure ...... 5-29
5.2.5 Changes in Production Processes Using
Formaldehyde 5-31
5.3 References . 5-37
Appendix A—Sample Questionnaire A-l
i i i
-------
FIGURES
Number page
1-1 Effects of environmental policies 1~3
3-1 Spatial allocation of time: employed males—
work day 3-23
3-2 Spatial allocation of time: employed males-
day off 3-24
3-3 Spatial allocation of time: employed females-
work day 3-25
3-4 Spatial allocation of time: employed females-
day off ... . 3-26
3-5 Spatial allocation of time: employed housewives-
weekday . 3~27
3-6 Spatial al1ocation of time: employed housewives-
Sunday . • 3-28
3-7 Spatial allocation of time: school age children—
school day 3-29
3-8 Spatial allocation of time: school age children-
weekend 3-30
3-9 Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed
males—weekday 3-33
3-10 Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed
males—Saturday 3-34
3-11 Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed
males—Sunday 3-35
3~12 Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed
females—week day 3-35
3-13 Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed
females—Saturday 3-37
3-14 Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed
females—Sunday 3-38
3-15 Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: housewives-
week day 3-39
3-16 Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: housewives-
Saturday 3-40
3-1/ Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: housewives-
Sunday . 3-41
4-1 Benefits of environmental changes 4-3
iv
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Exposure of the U.S. Population to Formaldehyde ..... 1-9
2~ 1 Reported Eye Effects of Formaldehyde Exposure 2~1G
2-2 Reported Nose, Throat, and Upper Airway Effects
of Formaldehyde Exposure 2-20
2-3 Reported Pulmonary Effects of Formaldehyde Exposure . . , 2~28
2-4 Reported Skin Effects of Formaldehyde Exposure 2-36
2-5 Reported Gastrointestinal System Effects of
Formaldehyde Exposure 2-46
2-6 Reported Central Nervous System Effects of
Formaldehyde Exposure 2-50
2-7 Reported Circulatory System Effects of
Formaldehyde Exposure . 2-53
2-8 Reported Reproductive System Effects of
Formaldehyde Exposure .... ......... 2-55
3-1 Users of Formaldehyde, formaldehyde
Derivatives and Formaldehyde-Releasing Products 3-5
3-2 Workplace Concentrations of Formaldehyde 3-9
3-3 Occupations Involving Exposure to formaldehyde 3-13
3-4 Consumer Products Containing Formaldehyde . 3-15
3~5 Formaldehyde Emission from Various Consumer
Products 3-18
3-6 Average Daily Exposures for four Cases 3-47
3-7 Estimated Number of Persons Exposed to Formaldehyde
by Aye, Health, Labor Force Participation, and Type
of Home (Assuming no Self Selection) 3-48
3-8 Occupational Exposures to Formaldehyde 3-52
3-9 Iwenty-four Hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Exposure
to Formaldehyde, Persons not in Labor Force . 3-55
3-10 Iwenty-four Hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Exposure
to Formaldehyde, Persons in Labor Force 3~56
3-11 Individual Annual Cumulative Exposure to
Formaldehyde, Persons not in Labor Force 3-58
3-12 Individual Annual Cumulative Exposure to
Formaldehyde, Persons in Labor Force 3~59
4-1 Characteristics of UFFI-Containing Houses . 4-7
4-2 Actual and Estimated Sales Prices for UFFI-Containing
Houses 4-8
4-3 Average Sale Price Differences for UFFI-Containing
Houses 4-10
V
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
¦1-4 Respondent Perceptions of the Effects of UfFI on
Sa 1 e Prices and Time on Market 4-12
4-5 Results of Regression Analysis 4-14
5-1 United States Occupational Standards for Formaldehyde . . 5-3
5-2 Foreign Occupational Standards for formaldehyde 5-5
5-3 United States Nonoccupational Standards for
Formaldehyde 5-7
5-4 Foreign Nonoccupational Standards for
Formaldehyde 5-8
5-5 State Practices for Sampling and Analyzing
Nonoccupational Exposures to Formaldehyde Gas
in 29 States 5-9
5-6 State Practices for Evaluating Air-Sampling
Results and Advising Requestors Exposed to
Formaldehyde Gas 5~1Q
5-7 Product and Use Standards 5-13
5~8 Product Bans 5-17
5-9 Information Disclosure Requirements 5-19
b- 10 Compensation Schemes 5-21
5-11 Nongovernment Responses to Formaldehyde Exposure 5-23
5-12 Industry Control Options to Reduce Worker and
Consumer Formaldehyde Exposure 5-35
vi
-------
PREFACE
This draft report is a preliminary assessment of the benefits of
reducing formaldehyde exposures. While its objectives were to review
the existing information and to provide qualitative evidence of ben-
efits in a relatively short period of time, its overall purpose was to
provide preliminary information to help the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) plan future research and policy.
We would like to acknowledge the support of both our initial
project officer, Debbie Dobkowski, and our current project officer,
Or, Al McGartland, from the Benefits staff of the Office of Policy
Analysis. In addition, Dr. Gwen Waldman of the University of North
Carolina and Dr. Thomas Stan of the Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology provided valuable assistance for the health effects sum-
mary. Dr. Raymond Palmquist of North Carolina State University cri-
tiqued our efforts on the property value and benefits estimation
tasks. Dr. WilUam H. Desvousges of Research Triangle institute
participated in discussions throughout the study. Any errors or
omissions, however, are the responsibility solely of the authors.
vi i
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This draft report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
describes a preliminary assessment of the benefits of reducing human exposures
to formaldehyde. This chapter provides background information, outlines
the basic components of benefit-cost assessment, lists the primary study
objectives, and offers a summary of the study and its methodology. It
concludes with a short guide to the remainder of the report.
1.1 BACKGROUND
EPA is faced with the critical task of developing the appropriate
regulatory response(s) to limit human exposures to formaldehyde. In particu-
lar, under the Toxic Substance ControI Act, EPA has the responsibility and
the authority to regulate toxic substances, such as formaldehyde, that may
pose a substantia! risk to health. In addition, when a regulatory action
imposes costs in excess of $100 million a year, it also falls under the
purview of Executive Order 12291, which requires a regulatory impact analysis
{RIA). For a formaldehyde regulation, an RIA would evaluate both the
benefits and the costs of reduced exposures and consider their distributional
implications.
With this regulatory background, this report reviews the evidence on
the extent of the risks posed by human exposure to formaldehyde and provides
a preliminary appraisal of the benefits of reducing these risks. In addition,
it also reviews a variety of regulatory responses that EPA might consider
in developing its regulatory strategies for controlling human formaldehyde
exposures and previews some of the speci f ic issues that may arise in a
formaldehyde RIA. f or example, the nature of formaldehyde* itself can
^Formaldehyde is a colorless, pungent gas that is generally sold in an
aqueous solution. It has a wide range of commercial applications, including
industrial chemicals, agricultural products, fumigants and drugs. Its
resins also are widely used in building products, textiles, and insulating
niateri al s.
1-1
-------
dictate the number and type of analyses necessary to complete a formal Rift.
On the costs side of the ledger, for example, an RIA would have to assess
very carefully the many uses of formaldehyde in commercial products—e.g.,
industrial chemicals, drugs, and textile products—to properly estimate the
costs of complying with the regulation. For the benefits side, on the
other hand, the RIA would have to assess these same applications to determine
where, and for whom, the regulation would reduce exposures—a potentially
complex process for substances, such as formaldehyde, that are found both
in the home and in the workplace.
1.2 BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT
As shown in Figure 1-1, benefit-cost assessment is a method of identify-
ing, quantifying, valuing, and comparing alternative allocations of society's
scarce resources. It attempts to bring to public policy decisions the
discipline imposed on private decisionmakers by market pressures.
For a formaldehyde regulation, the first box in Figure 1-1, the regula-
tory initiative, is designed to directly or indirectly affect the rate,
timing, concentration, or location of formaldehyde residuals released to
the environment. Although both natural and human activities may result in
the presence of formaldehyde in the ambient (outdoor) and indoor environ-
ments , concentrations are 1ikely to be especially significant indoors
because formaldehyde is typically released indoors and because the enclosing
structure retains the contaminant fumes.
Formaldehyde is released in two basic indoor environments—in the
workplace, where workers may be exposed, -and in the home, where consumers
may be exposed. In the workplace setting, formaldehyde is released both in
industrial processes where it is manufactured or used and in the off-gassing
of formaldehyde-containing products. Formaldehyde is also released in
photochemical reactions in the presence of hydrocarbons such as those
emitted in the combustion of fossi1 fuels, and from cigarette smoking.
In the home, the primary source of elevated concentrations is off-
gassing from formaldehyde-containing products. Products accounting for
most concentrations include chipboard, particle board, plywood, textiles,
and urea formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI). The amount of offgassing
1-2
-------
Figure 1-1. Effects of environmental policies.
1-3
-------
depends on a number of product and environmental characteristics and declines
with the age of the product. Concentrations in mobile homes may be especially
significant due to the extensive use of chipboard, particle board, and
plywood.
As shown in the second box of Figure 1~1, changes in formaldehyde
residuals from production processes or products cause changes in environmental
quality. The relationship between formaldehyde residuals and environmental
quality reflects a variety of physical and biological processes affecting
the transport, dispersion, and transformation of formaldehyde. Changes in
environmental quality may in turn lead to changes in the activities of
people in their roles as consumers and resource suppliers. These changes
in activities are linked to the environment directly or indirectly with
dose-response type relationships for humans, animals, plant life, and
materials.
As shown in the final box in Figure 1-1, changes in resource allocation
cause changes in economic welfare. Evaluating the merit of these changes
to society requires the identification, quantification, and valuation of
the changes in resource allocation. The best objective measure of the
value of a change in the allocation of resources for an individual is his
maximum willingness to pay for a reallocation that improves welfare or the
minimum he would accept to voluntarily accept a reduction in welfare. This
estimated value is, however, conditional on the distribution of income and
the information available to the individual on the benefits and costs of
alternative allocations of his scarce resources.
1.3 OBJECTIVES
As noted above, the overall goal of this study was to provide a prelimi-
nary assessment of the benefits of reducing human formaldehyde exposures.
In particular, however, this study has four specific objectives:
To summarize the extensive literature on the irritation and
sensitization effects of formaldehyde exposures.
To identify and estimate the population-at-risk from formal-
dehyde exposures.
1 4
-------
To provide preliminary evidence on the value of reductions
in exposure.
To identify the public and private responses to information
on the health risks of formaldehyde exposure.
The following sections summarize the research conducted in support of these
objectives.
1.4 FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE: THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
One critical dimension to any regulatory evaluation is the extent to
which the human population is exposed to the substance of concern. Since,
as noted earlier, the most significant formaldehyde concentrations occur
indoors~~i.e., in the workplace or in the home--the extent of human formalde-
hyde exposure can be estimated based on the likely exposure of the workers
and consumers who work and live, respectively, in environments that have
significant formaldehyde concentrations. While this study focuses on
consumers exposed in their homes, its results are extended to also infer
the exposures of workers. Of particular concern, therefore, are the two
primary sources of home formaldehyde exposure--UFFI and certain formaldehyde-
containing wood products.
The first source of significant human formaldehyde exposure are the
approximately 500,000 houses—most of which are older houses .in the
colder regions of the country—that contain UFFI. These houses were primarily
retrofitted with UFFI in response to the rapid increase of energy prices
after the oi1 embargo of 1973. UFFI was attractive because of its excellent
insulating properties and because it can be installed with minimal structural
disturbance. This use of UFFI peaked in the late 1970s. However as
people learned of the pungent odor of UFFI and of the potential health
effects of exposure to formaldehyde, the demand for UFFI fell. Today it no
longer represents a significant share of the insulation exposure in the
market. One dimension to the formaldehyde problem that public policy could
address, therefore, is these existing sources of formaldehyde. -
The second source of formaldehyde exposure in the home is the abundance
of new formaldehyde-containing wood products. The major area of concern
for these new sources are mobile homes, since large amounts of plywood,
1-5
-------
chipboard, and particleboard are used in their manufacture. Because they
are relatively new (compared to UFFI), these products will likely require a
regulation separate from a UFFI regulation to address their formaldehyde
off-gassing problems.
1.5 FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE: A REVIEW OF THE HEALTH EFFECTS
A large number of studies have examined both the irritation and sensi-
tization effects of formaldehyde exposure. Irritation describes the body's
protective inflammation response to an unpleasant stimuli; sensitization is
an acquired response to an unpleasant stimuli. With repeated exposure the
body may become more or, in some cases, less sensitive to a given stimuli.
Conclusions of a causal relationship between formaldehyde exposure and
adverse health effects must be based on the body of evidence evaluated by
the following guidelines established by Sir Bradford Hi 11 (Federal Panel on
Formaldehyde, 1982):
Biological plausibility
Positive correlations between exposure and symptoms
Strength of correlations between exposure and symptoms
Reliability of results across cross-sections of population groups
and conditions of exposure
Temporal relationship between exposure and consequence
Specificity of association between exposure and symptoms
Identification of dose-response gradient.
Clinical and epidemiologic studies suggest that irritation effects
from formaldehyde exposure may occur in humans, but many of the studies
lack rigor and power in their investigation. This is especially true in
the area of* formaldehyde sensitization, where there is little evidence to
support the presence of an immunologic mechanism in dermatitis or respira-
tory effects of the chemical. In evaluating the scientific evidence as a
whole according to Hill's criteria, however, it does seem reasonable to
conclude that formaldehyde can be considered a cause of various irritation
effects.
1-6
-------
The strength of the formaldehyde symptoms association is varied depending
on organ involvement. The link is very strong for eye irritation, moderately
strong for nasal irritation, and moderate for lung irritation. The causes
of these irritation are multifactorial, with formaldehyde playing a role in
the pathogenesis. Other chemical vapors, particulate materials such as
dust and pollen, cigarette smoke, eye fatigue, and other factors also play
an important role in discomfort due to eye irritation. Similarly, influenza
virus infections, as well as the other factors mentioned contribute to
upper and lower respiratory distress. The temporality of the formaldehyde-
disease association is not well established, because it is usually not know
if the consequence came before or after the purported cause. A dose-response
gradient has been alluded to in many studies. Additional irritation and
more severe consequences do result at higher concentrations of formaldehyde
exposure.
This is also true in patch testing for hypersensitivity responses, A
high dose of formalin will produce more positive reactions among the study
subjects as well as more severe reactions individually. The biologic
plausibility of the irritant effects of formaldehyde are well established
from animal and controlled human studies. Immunologic mechanisms for
formaldehyde sensitization are not as well defined.
The one criterion whose absence is most conspicuous is the lack of
consistent results over varying populations employing varying methodologies.
Additional study is desirable in potential high risk population groups such
as newborns and very young children, the elderly, persons with preexisting
respiratory diseases, and persons with certain allergies. Attention
should be paid to low dose exposures and their effect in the highly suscept-
ible individual. Other epidemiologic techniques such as the prospective
study may be considered useful to examine these groups.
1.6 FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE: THE POPULATION AT RISK
For the purpose of identifying and estimating the population at risk,
we have divided all houses and jobs into two formaldehyde concentration
classes-~high and low. As shown in Table 1-1, we estimate about 1.9 million
workers are exposed to high concentrations of formaldehyde on the job.
Ihis represents about 1 percent of the population and 1 percent of the
1-7
-------
workforce. About 5.3 million people live in homes where they are subject
to high exposures. This is less than 2 percent of the population. About
43,000 people may have high exposure's to formaldehyde both on the job and
in the home.
Profiles of exposure by time-of-day and day-of-week (weekday, weekend)
in this study indicate the likely existence of rather large variations in
exposure by population groups. No data are available to definitively
identify exposure levels for population subgroups that may be especially
sensitive to formaldehyde concentration. We suspect that there is some
self-selection and that they are not proportionally distributed across
exposure levels but not data an available to support this contention.
.1.7 FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE REDUCTIONS: PRELIMINARY BENEFITS ESTIMATES
As discussed above, formaldehyde exposure may result in a number of
acute health effects. A number of people are exposed to formaldehyde on
the job or in the home. While reductions in exposure would obviously be
welcomed by such individuals, for public policy purposes a measure of the
value of such reductions would be useful. An objective measure of
the value a change in the allocation of resources for an individual is
his/her maximum willingness to pay for a reallocation that improves welfare
or the minimum he/she would require to voluntarily accept a reduction in
welfare. The estimated value is, however, conditional on the distribution
of income and the information available to the individual on the benefits
and costs of the reallocations.
A number of methods are available for identifying how individuals
value the disutility of formaldehyde exposure or, alternatively, the benefits
of reduced exposures. For this study we use a variant of the hedonic
property value approach to develop some very preliminary estimates of these
values. This approach assumes that the value of the quality of the indoor
air for a house is reflected in the market price of the house. We developed
a survey instrument and asked nine real tors in Connecticut, Wisconsin, and
Washington to estimate the effect of UFFI on the price of recently exchanged
houses with UFFI. A small sample size was used because of the time and
resource constraints of the study.
1-8
-------
Some realtors reported that houses with UFF1 took longer to sell and
sold for less than conventionally insulated horns. Specifically, the average
reported difference in value was $5,044 or 6.5 percent for the 12 homes for
which useful data were provided. This method is obviously not rigorous;
the results are only suggestive. However, it is corroborated by anecdotal
evidence from other realtors and appraisers. In addition, this number is
in the lower range of the typical cost of removing UFF I. No similar study
has been conducted for workers exposed on the job nor is any information
available on the existence of wage premia, if any, for high exposure jobs.
To develop a crude aggregate estimate of the benefits of reducing all
exposure to UFF!, we first calculated the annual value per household member.
This value--which is based on assumptions regarding income and property
taxes, the discount rate, and the average household size--is about $181
annually. Based on the estimated number of indviduals exposed as reported
in Table 1-1 (5.250 million) consumers are willing to pay about $950 million
annually to eliminate ail formaldehyde in the home. To value reductions in
occupational exposure we first scale the $181 value to reflect the average
ratio of time spent on the job and in the home (0.41) to develop an estimate
of the value per worker of $74 annually. Based on the number of workers
occupationally exposed (1.863 million from Table 1-1), the estimated value
to workers of a complete elimination of exposure to formaldehyde is $138 mil-
lion annually. Together, the consumer and worker benefits total $1.1 billion
annually. Obv iously this is a very crude estimate of the value that would
be obtained from a more comprehensive study. It is suggestive, however,
that the benefits of reductions i n exposure to formaldehyde may be signi ficant.
Finally, it suggests that a more rigorous analysis of benefits may prove
useful. Sufficient data of a reasonable quality are available, and the
anecdotal evidence suggests that the size of the effect is large enough to
justify using the more rigorous analysis.
1.8 FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR RESPONSES
Both the government and private sectors have responded as information
has become available on the health effects of formaldehyde exposures. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration has promulgated an 8-hour
1-9
-------
TABLE 1-1. EXPOSURE OF U.S. POPULATION TO FORMA I Of: HYDE (103>
Home ..
Low High
Job exposure exposure Totals
No job 115,783 2,712 118,49b
Low exposure 106,454 2,495 108,949
High exposure 1,820 43 1,863
Totals 224,057 5,250 229,307
1-10
-------
time-weighted average exposure standard of 3 ppm with a ceiling of 5 ppm
for the workplace. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
has proposed formaldehyde emission limits for plywood and particle board
used is manufactured housing. In 1982 the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) banned the sale of UFFI. The ban was overturned in the courts.
However, it raised the awareness of individuals in the public and private
sectors of the potential effect of foam exposure. Other governmental
responses at the national and state levels and in foreign countries have
included product use standards, information disclosure requirements, and
compensation schemes.
In the private sectors a number of responses have been identified.
Specifically, suits have been filed against manufacturers and installers of
formaldehyde-—containing products—primarily UFFI. Public citizens and
industry groups have sought to inform the public of the exposure risks and
lobbied for legislation. Realtors, appraisers, and lenders have required
homeowners to identify the presence of UFFI in houses they offer for sale.
Buyers and sellers have tested for formaldehyde concentration in homes.
Removal of UFFI or contaminant of the off-gases has been pursued in some
places. Finally, producers have shifted away from formaldehyde in production
processes.
1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION
Chapter 2 summarizes the health effects 1iterature on formaldehdye,
concentration only on the possible irritation and sensitization effects.
Chapter 3 develops estimates of exposure levels and the number of people
exposed to formaldehyde and uses estimates of formaldehyde concentrations
by place and time-place allocation studies for individuals in several
population groups to identify and estimate the population at risk. Chapter 4
provides some very preliminary estimates of the compensation people require
to risk exposure to formaldehyde in the home based on a small, nonrandom,
opinion survey of realtors. The realtors were asked to provide estimates
of the effect of the presence of UFFI on house prices. This i nformation is
used to develop aggregate estimates of the value of eliminating all exposures
to formaldehyde. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the public and private
sector responses to the formaldehyde problem are discussed.
1-21
-------
CHAPTER 2
IRRITATION AND SENSITIZATION EFFECTS
OF FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURES
Although exposure to formaldehyde may cause a variety of physical
problems, this chapter summarizes only the acute and chronic minor health
effects--irritation and systemic sensitization--reported in the literature.
In particular, it summarizes the evidence on formaldehyde-exposure-induced
irritation of the eyes, nose, and skin; of the respiratory and gastrointes-
tinal tracts; and of the circulatory, central nervous, and reproductive
systems. In addition, it also addresses the evidence on possible sensiti-
zation or allergic reactions to formaldehyde. It does not address the
carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic effects, however. They are beyond
the scope of this study.
The following sections define the specific acute and chronic minor
health effects of formaldehyde exposure, describe the methodologies avail-
able for studying these health effects, and identify the population sub-
groups who may be at higher risk than others of suffering from formaldehyde
exposure. Specifically, Section 2.1 provides working definitions of irri-
tation and sensitization effects, and Section 2.2 describes the types of
studies conducted to evaluate the association between these effects and
formaldehyde, including guidelines to evaluate the scientific evidence
about formaldehyde. Section 2.3 summarizes the reported evidence on irri-
tation and sensitization effects of formaldehyde exposure, and Section 2.4
identifies portions of the population that may be especi ally sensi ti ve to
formaldehyde, including those who may experience more severe health conse-
quences at a given concentration level and those who may exhibit health
effects at concentration levels lower than those at which the general
population may experience them.
2-1
-------
2.1 THE PATHOLOGY OF IRRITATION AND SENSITIZATION
The two major health effects of formaldehyde to be discussed in this
chapter are irritation and sensitization. A general definition and a
description of these consequences are offered to set the stage for a more
detailed description in later sections.
2.1.1 Irritation
Irritation is a generic term used to describe the body's reaction to
an unpleasant stimuli. Excessive responsiveness to an adverse stimuli wi1 1
produce discomfort and eel 1ular changes. Overexcitation resulting in
greater cellular and functional activity may be thought of as an irritation
response (Doriand, 1974).
The irritation effects are dose- and time-related (Loomis, 1979). The
response is a reaction to some threshold level of stimulus usually appearing
contemporaneously with the administration of the stimulus. Symptoms often
disappear upon removal of the stimulus. Additionally, most subjects,
rather than a few exposed individuals, will experience the expected reaction
when exposed at the toxic threshold levels (Consensus Workshop on Formalde-
hyde, 1983).
Loomis (1979) indicates that the average person exposed to concentra-
tions of formaldehyde that are not subjectively discomforting would not be
expected to experience irritant effects.' The odor threshold for the detec-
tion of formaldehyde generally approximates the concentration of the chem-
ical that is minimally active in producing irritant effects (Ioomis, 1979;
Ihun et al., 1982). As the concentration of formaldehyde in the air in-
creases, so does the degree of irritation (Loomis, 1979).
Two types of irritation may be caused by formaldehyde: sensor and
inflammation (Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983). Nucleophi1ic
addition is suspected as the most important mechanism in sensory irrita-
tion, where formaldehyde reacts with SH and NH2 groups in a reversible way
(Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983). Cellular damage and inflamma-
tion require several hours of exposure to occur and are characterized as is
inflammation in other parts of the body (Consensus Workshop on formaldehyde,
1983).
2-2
-------
Irritation may be expressed differently in different parts of the
body. Common types of irritation responses are lacrimal ion or tearing of
the eyes, coughing, sneezing, and burning of the eyes, nose or throat.
(Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983). All of these responses notify
the brain of the presence of a noxious agent and serve to neutralize or rid
the body of the chemical.
2.1.2 Sensitization
Sensitization is an "acquired, specific, altered capacity to react"
(Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983). Initial exposure, perhaps with
little or no adverse outcomes, introduces a foreign substance or antigen to
the body. The body reacts by forming antibodies to neutralize the activity
of the antigen. On subsequent exposures to the antigen, a hypersensitivity
response is mounted against the foreign substance. Antibodies previously
created are called upon by the immune system to multiply and attack the
antigen. This is known as an allergic reaction to an adverse stimuli,
because the body calls into action circulating immune cells to detoxify the
harmful agent. These immune cells recognize the foreign substance due to
previous exposure to it {Borland, 1974; Solomon, 1972).
Four different types of allergy can be induced (Consensus Workshop on
Formaldehyde, 1983). The types vary by the reaction time, whether delayed
or immediate, and by the mediator antibodies. The various sensitization
responses may be composed of one or more types of allergic reaction.
Testing for sensitization is done through induction and challenge.
Initial exposure is experienced in the i nduction phase. Subsequent expo-
sures , usually at lower concentrations, represent the challenge. Reaction
to the challenge after known induction is indication that sensitization to
the substance being tested has occurred.
The intensity and nature of an immunogenic-mediated, or allergic,
response may be so similar to a primary irritant response that a distinc-
tion from symptoms alone may not be possible (Loomis, .19/9). The principal
distinction between irritation and sensitization is the dose required to
achieve the response. Reactions elicited at levels below those capable of
inducing irritation responses are more likely to have been generated by an
2-3
-------
immune mechanism than any other type (Consensus Workshop on formaldehyde,
1983; Loomis, 1979).
Other factors may distinguish sensitization responses. In many
instances, subsequent exposure to formaldehyde at much lower concentrations
than the initial exposure may elicit reactions (Small, 1982). Often, the
reaction has a delayed onset relative to exposure, rather than a contempor-
aneous appearance. Only a subset of an exposed population is likely to
experience sensitization (Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983; Loomis,
1379),
2.2 METHODOLOGIES USED TO STUDY fHE HEALTH EFitCIS OF FORMALDEHYDE
The three types of human studies commonly found in the health effects
literature are all also found in the formaldehyde literature. These are:
(1) case reports of persons with symptoms of formaldehyde exposure attended
by a medical professional, (2) controlled experimental studies of subjects
exposed to formaldehyde and, (3) epidemiological studies assessing the
causal relationship between formaldehyde exposure and various health out-
comes. Each type of study is summarized below, including descriptions of
methods and the benefits and limitations of each design.
2.2.1 Case Reports
Isolated reports of disease occurrence are frequently published in the
medical literature. These descriptive reports usually discuss interesting
symptomology, difficult diagnoses, or new treatments of diseases.
Case reports provide clues of a possible exposure-disease relationship.
However, they do not characterize the prevalence of the reactions in the
general population, nor do they adequately summarize the range of observed
reactions. Also, they do not represent a random selection of persons
exposed to a substance such as formaldehyde who display symptoms.
2.2.2 Controlled Experimental Studies
Experimental human studies involve placing volunteers into environ-
mentally controlled rooms and exposing participants to varying levels of a
substance such as formaldehyde. These experiments are done usually on
young male adults (aged 18 to 25 years), who are paid for their services.
2-4
-------
The participants are typically required to be healthy, usually meaning free
of respiratory disease and allergies. Investigator-control led amounts of
formaldehyde are pumped into the chambers for a period of time and outcomes
are recorded. The disease endpoints, usually odor, eye, skin, and nasal
irritation, may be reported by the subject or objectively measured by the
investigator. An example of an objective measurement of eye irritation is
the number of blinks per minute or redness of eyes. Sometimes a control
group is studied in a chamber pumped with ambient air, for comparison (NRC,
1981; Federal Panel on Formaldehyde, 1982).
A dose-response gradient may be developed from this type of study.
The prevalence of each health effect can be plotted at various concen-
trations of the substance. Threshold levels where consequences of exposure
are first noticed can be detected using this experimental design. The
investigator is at liberty to vary concentration, duration, and agents
under these controlled procedures.
The limitations of these studies primarily lie in their small, restricted
sample. It is impossible to generalize beyond the demographics of the
chosen participants. For example, since white males aged 18 to 25 make up
the study population for most of these studies, one cannot predict with any
degree of certainty the response to formaldehyde in women, blacks, or
persons aged less than 18 or greater than 25 years from such controlled
experimental studies. Also totally unknown are the adverse effects of
formaldehyde in persons who have chronic diseases, allergies, or hyperreac-
tive airways. Also, the small number of participants in each controlled
study may result in imprecise estimates of the magnitude of the associations
between symptoms and exposure.
2.2.3 Epidemiological Studies
The majority of studies of formaldehyde found in the health literature
attempt to measure the association between a series of common symptoms and
formaldehyde exposure using an epidemiological study design. Ascertainment
of disease outcomes, usually by survey, and measurement of chemical exposure,
usually determined by presence or absence of the chemical, or by measuring
dose concentration, are done at the same point in time. For example, in an
2-5
-------
occupational study employees fill out questionnaires about contact with
formaldehyde on the job and a check list of symptoms. Comparisons of the
prevalence of symptoms are made. Symptoms in persons working with formalde-
hyde are tabulated. Another example is a study of residents known to have
had formaldehyde exposure from urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI).
Questionnaires about, illnesses during that exposure are answered by the
participants.
Among the many types of epidemiological study designs, two stand out
as the most appropriate for the study of formaldehyde health effects.
These are the cross-sectional and prospective cohort types of studies.
These studies are discussed in their simplest forms, to address the basic
methods utilized for scientific research.
The cross-sectional design captures the moment when an exposure to
formaldehyde can be identified in a group studied. Collection of disease
and exposure information is done simultaneously. This method is quite
useful when the disease endpoint is common to many group members and easily
reported. This study design lacks temporal information about the disease,
since it includes persons diseased and disease-free at the moment of expo-
sure, It is only those people who are disease-free who can report true
formaldehyde-related illness. Both internal or external control groups can
be used. For example, exposed workers in a plant can be compared to other-
plant employees with no exposure (internal controls). Cohorts of exposed
persons can be compared to geographically distinct unexposed groups (externa
controls).
Host cross-sectional symptom reports are elicited from a self-selected
group of persons. These people may be different than the general population
in that they may be more likely to report forma 1dehyde-re 1ated symptoms to
a doctor or state health department, more likely to have installed UFFI i n
their homes, more sensitive to formaIdehyde exposure, or more educated
about the relationship between formaldehyde and these symptoms. These
studies may report an exaggerated relationship between the chemical and the
symptoms.
The prospective cohort design is used to study disease-free cohorts of
exposed and nonexposed persons. These subjects are followed over a predeter
2-6
-------
mined period of time to record their health status. The incidence of a
number of endpoints in the exposed and unexposed groups is then compared.
For example, if formaldehyde causes asthma in a prospective cohort study,
one would expect a higher rate of asthma in the group exposed to formalde-
hyde. In the simplest analysis, we would know that there were no other
predisposing conditions because the participants were disease-free at the
point of entry to the study (reporting no history of asthma). One would
screen out individuals having allergies, respiratory difficulties, etc., or
control for these effects, for a clean test of the hypothesis that formalde-
hyde caused the condition in the subject.
2.2.4 Evaluating the Evidence
A large body of scientific evidence on the irritation and sensitization
effects of formaldehyde exposure is summarized in Section 2.3. These studies
are of the types described above. They use clinical and epidemiologic
methods to investigate the causal association between formaldehyde and a
variety of irritation and allergic effects.
As with most toxicological investigations, studies of formaldehyde do
not provide enough information to answer all questions with complete confi-
dence. Since formaldehyde may generate reactions through both irritation
and sensitization, and since the pathways for these reactions are not
completely understood, no completely safe level of exposure exists for the
entire population (Loomis, 1979).
Loomis (1979) recommended that establishment of thresholds be based on
the best information available, keeping in mind the probability that the
1 aws of biological variation will apply. This means that some individuals
will display hypersensitivity and some hypertolerance at each end of any
range of "safe" concentrations established, no matter what the ranges.
Properly complete and extensive studies provide necessary information to
establish ranges for which an acceptable number of individuals will be
protected from adverse effects.
No one study has established the suspected relationship between formal-
dehyde and the various reactions reported. More and better studies for
detection of thresholds for irritation effects and for identification of
2-7
-------
mechanisms for sensitization have been recommended (Consensus Workshop on
Formaldehyde, 1983; Loomis, 1979). The best studies available should be
identified, and an evaluation of that body of studies should be made from
which conclusions may be derived.
Conclusions of a causal relationship between formaldehyde and adverse
health effects must be based on the body of evidence evaluated by the
following guidelines established by Sir Bradford Hill (Federal Panel on
Formaldehyde, 198?):
Biological plausibility
Positive correlations between exposure and symptoms
Strength of correlations between exposure and symptoms
Reliability of results across cross-sections of population
groups and conditions of exposure
Temporal relationship between exposure and consequence
Specificity of association between exposure and symptoms
Identification of dose-response gradient.
Biological plausibility means that experimental evidence obtained from
animal or human studies suggests that a chemical, such as formaldehyde, is
capable of producing cellular damage resulting in exhibited symptoms.
Establishing biological plausibility only implies that a relationship
between a suspected stimulus and adverse effects are possible, not neces-
sarily that they are probable.
Positive correlations between forma idehyde exposure and a variety of
symptoms provide a more definite indication of their relationship. The
strength of these correlations is important in that the stronger the observed
relationship, the more confidence an experimenter has in the conclusions.
If the results are reliable, they may be replicated by other experimenters
using the same methodology. Consistent results obtained using various
study designs and in many population groups (across races, countries,
sexes) provide strong support for concluding that a relationship exists
between a chemical and a health effect.
ft temporal relationship should be established between exposure to
formaldehyde and suspected consequences in order to rule out preexisting
conditions. A complicating factor nay be the duration of this temporal
2-8
-------
relationship. Causality becomes more difficult to establish when a long
period of time passes between exposure and symptomatic reactions.
Specificity of association is evidence of a causal relationship. It
may be indicated if formaldehyde is linked to a single specified adverse
effect. The association is strengthened if the chemical may he identified
as the only known cause for the symptoms.
The determination of a dose-response gradient provides more specific
evidence of the relationship between formaldehyde exposure and adverse
health responses. The response should be more pronounced at higher doses
of the chemical. A threshold may be established below which no effects are
observed. Identi fication of this gradient establishes that a concrete
relationship does exist.
2.3 HEALTH EFFECTS OF FORMALDEHYDE
Exposure pathways for formaldehyde include inhalation, ingestion, and
dermal or sensory contact. Various senses and organs of the body may be
affected upon exposure. The responses and the associated formaldehyde
concentrations reported are described in this section.
This section outlines the effects of formaldehyde exposure. 1t is
important to note that the summary data presented are not inclusive of
every study and all literature available on formaldehyde. An effort has
been made to include most of the major studies, surveys, and case reports
conducted.
Interpretation of the data is subject to the limitations of the studies
and reviews contained therein. Conclusions supported by the majority of
studies are discussed, rather than each individual report. Some counter-
studies are mentioned, where available.
2.3.1 Eye Effects
Table 2~1 describes eye effects which have been reported for formalde-
hyde exposure. Eye effects are due to irritation, rather than to sensiti-
zation. They include general irritation, tearing (lacrimal ion), stinging,
redness, prickling, conjunctivitis, changes in eye sensitivity, reversible
tissue damage, retinal edema, and blindness (when splashed directly into
eyes)..
2-9
-------
TABLE
2-1. REPORTED
EYE EFFECTS OF FORMALDEHYDE
EXPOSURE
Formaldehyde
concentration
(pp»)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0,01
5 minutes
Human
Irritation
Sehuek et al. (1966)a
0.02 - 4.15
Residential
Human
Irritation
Woodbury (1979};a Breysse (1977);
Sardinas et al. (1979); Garry
et al. (1980); Harris et al.
(1981); Wisconsin Division of
Health (1978)"
0,03 - 2.5
Residential
Human
Irritation
Breysse (1978)b
0,03 - 3.2
20-30 minutes,
gradual Increase
in concentration
Hunan
Increase in blink rate;
Irr1tit1on
Wayne et al. (1976)b
0,04 - 1. 25
Occupational -
chipboard Bakers
Human
Irritation In 74 percent
of 4? subjects
Alexandersson et al. {1882)
0.05
Minutes
Kouse
Irritation
Kane and AlarU (1977)c
0,05 - 0.50
5 minutes
Hum^n
Irritation in unacclirnated
Schuck st al. (1966)d
0.067 -1.82
Residential
Human
Tearing
Wisconsin Division of Health
(1978)
0.08
1.5 months
Rabbit
Changes in evoked potential
of optic nerve
Bekina et al. (1976)a
0.08 - 5.26
Occupational -
entailers
Human
Burning
See footnotes at end of table. (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(PP»)
length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0.12 - 0.48
Occupational
Human
Burning; Stinging
Bourns and SefaHar, (1959)d
0.12 - 1.60
Occupati onal/Res Iden-
tial - office in
mobile hoses
Human
Irritation
Hogan and Main {1983}
0,13 - 0.45
Occupational - wood
processing workers
Human
Stinging; Burning
Wayne et al, (1976)b
0.13 - 0.45
?
Human
Temporary irritation
Walker (1966)d
0.13 - 0.45
Occupational -
textile workers
Human
Intolerable irritation
Bourne and Sefarian (1959)®
0.20
1 hour
Human
Irritation
Rader (1974)a
0.25
5 hours/day,
4 days
Human
Slight discomfort In
19 percent of sample
Andersen (1979)b
0.30 - 0.50
5 minutes
Human
Increased blink rates
proportional to concentration
ScftucK (1966)d
0.30 - 2.7
Occupational -
texti1e workers
Human
Prickling; Heavy tearing
Shipkoviti (l%8)b,d
0.35 - 1.0
6 minutes
Hunan
Irritation
Bender et al. (1383)
See footnotes at end of table, ' {continued)
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0.40 - 0.80
Occupational -
phenol-formaldehyde
resin workers
Human
Irritation
Schoenberg and Mitchell (1975)®
0.42
5 hours/day,
4 days
Human
Slight discomfort in
31 percent of sample;
Conjunctival irritation
Andersen (1978)°
0.8
Daily
Human
Irritation in most sensitive
Individuals
Zaeva et al. (1968)°
0.83
10 minutes
Human
Irritation
Sgibnev (1968)4
0.83 - 1.6
5 hours/day,
4 days
Hunan
Slight discomfort in
94 percent of sample;
Conjunctival irritation
Andersan (1978)b
0.9 - 1.6
Occupational -
physician
Human
Intense irritation and
itching in on« subject
Porter (1975)b,d
0.9 - 2,7
Occupational -
textile g«ra*nt
workers
Human
Tearing
Blejer and Miller (1966)b-a
O
%£>
i
4*#
Occupational -
clothing store
workers
Hunan
Hi Id irritation
Miller and Blejer <1966)d
See footnotes
at end of table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(ppm)
Length/type
of exposure
Speci es
Effect
Reference
0.92 - 1.58
Occupational -
psper-condi ti oni ng
workers
Human
Itchi ng
Morrill (1961)a'd
1.0 - 11.0
Occupational - nylon
fabric workers
Human
Irritationi
c!
Ettinger and Jeremias (1955)
1.1 - Z. 3
Occupational
Human
Slight discomfort
Snell (1979)
1.42
1 minute
Human
Eye sensitivity to light
lowered in unacclimated group
Melekhina (1954)a,d
2.0 - 3.0
Occupational
Human
Mild irritation
Zenz, ed. (1980)h
2.4 - 5.2
Occupational
Human
Definite discomfort
Snell (1979)
4.0
?
Human
Increased incidence of
catarrhal conjunctivitis
Commercial Solvents Corporation
(unpublished)
4,0 - 5.0
Occupati onal
Human
Irritation; Lacrimation;
Discomfort in 30 minutes
Fassett (1963)b
5.3 - 9.0
Occupational
Human
Pain at tolerable level
Snell (1979)
Above 9.0
Occupational
Human
Pain interferes with work
Snell (1S79)
See footnotes at end of table, (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-1 {continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(PP»)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
10.0
10.0 - 30.0
13.8
16.0 - 30,0
20,0
25.0 - 50.0
40.0 - 70.0
Occupational
1 minute
30 minutes
Occupational -
resin production
workers
Less than 1 minute
10 days
0.074%, 0.032% Contact with cojaetic
fomadehydc products
In aqueous
.solution
Human Pronounced 1acriration;
Pain intolerable without
protection
Human Tingling in hypersensitive
worker
Human Irritation; Development of
tolerance after 10 minutes
Human Irritation
Human Discomfort; Lacrlmatto'n
Human Revtrslble tissue damage
Ginea Marked irritation; Mo
pig, corneal damage
rabbit
Rabbit Minimal irritation
M
Zenz. ed. (1980)"
Harris (1953)d
Sim and Pattle (1957)
Glass (1961)d
Barnes and Speicher (1942)
Clayton and Clayton, ed. (1981)r
fielder (1981)
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and
Fragrance Association (1981)
See footnotes at end of table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continuid)
formaldehyde
concentration
(pprr)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
15.0% for-
maldehyde in
aqueous
solution
Vapor
Rabbit
Severe irritation;
Corneal and conjunctival
edeaa
Carpenter and Smyth (1946)"
40% for-
maldehyde In
aqueous
solution
Accidentia! splash
contact
Human
Worker blinded upon
failure to rinse eyes
Kelecom (1952)b
0.9 g/kg
Intravenous
injection
Human
Retinal edema
Potts (1955)b
?
Residential
Human
Burning In 18 of 1396
subjects (nonsignificant)
Thun et al, (1982)
?
Residential
Human
Irritation in 172 of 256
subjects; Burning in
152 of 256 subjects
Dally et al, (1981)
?
Occupational -
entailers
Human
Irritation
Plunkett and Barbel la (1977)c
?
Occupational -
polyethylene
thermocutters
Human
Burning; Irritation
Hovding (1969)d
See footnotes at
end of table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(ppm)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
7
Occupational -
permanent press
textile workers
Human
Catarrhal conjunctivitis
in 72% of sample
Kratochvil (1971)d
aCited in Gupta, K. C., A. G. Ulsamer, and P. W. Preuss, 1982. "Formaldehyde in Indoor Air: Sources and Toxicity."
Environment International 8:349-358,
''cited in National Research Council, 1981. Formaldehyde and Other Aldehydes, Washington, D. C.
cCited in Loomis, T. A., 1979, "Formaldehyde Toxicity," Archives of Pathological Laboratory Medicine 103:321-324.
^Cited in National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 1976. Criteria for a Recommended Standard . . .
Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-T2fT Washington, D. C.: Department cf
Health, Education, and Welfare,
eCited in Federal Panel on Formaldehyde, 1982. "Report of the Federal Panel on Formaldehyde," Environmental Health
Perspectives 43:139-160.
Cited in Bardana, Emil J,, 1980. "Formaldehyde; Hypersensitivity and Irritant Reactions at Work and in the Home."
Immunology and Allergy Practice 11(3):11-23.
®Cited in Main, David M, , and Theodore J. Hogan, 1983. "Health Effects of Lew-Level Exposure to Formaldehyde."
Journal of Occupational Medicine 25(2):896-900.
hCited in Wartew, G, A., 1983. "The Health Hazards of Formaldehyde." Journal of Applied Toxicology 3(3):121-126.
1Cited in Cosmetic Ingredient Review, 1984, "Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Formaldehyde." Journal of the
American College of Toxicology 3(3):157-184.
-------
A minimum threshold to eye effects has been shown to be 0.01 ppm
gaseous exposure in the presence of other pollutants (Schuck et al. , 1966).
Bender et al. (1983) found that eye irritation occurs at formaldehyde
concentrations between 0.4 ppm and 1.0 ppm, agreeing with several other
studies.
The dose-response relationship between concentration of formaldehyde
and time to response has been established at levels above the threshold of
response. Bender et al. (1983) noted a significant relationship at 1.0 ppm
and suggested that such a relationship exists for levels as low as 0.7 ppm.
Andersen (1978) observed a correlation between concentration and response
above 0.8 ppm. Schuck et al. (1966) found linear dose-response relation-
ships for formaldehyde over a range of 0.3 ppm to 1.0 ppm in combination
with ethylene oxidation products and with propylene oxidation products.
An increase in severity was observed as concentrations of formaldehyde
increased, though the response was not consistent for all levels of exposure
tested (Bender et al., 1983; Andersen, 1978). In combination with other
pollutants, the same level of irritation was observed at formaldehyde
concentrations from 0.05 ppm to 0.50 ppm (Schuck et al., 1966).
Subjects usually report irritation in residential settings at lower
concentrations of formaldehyde than do subjects exposed occupationally.
This may be due to a greater amount of time spent in the home than in an
occupational environment (see Section 3.2), so that more opportunity for
observation of the formaldehyde effect exists.
Alternatively, there is evidence that individuals develop tolerances
in eye sensitivity based on the duration of exposure to formaldehyde (Sim
and Rattle, 1957; Bender et al., 1983). Workers are more likely to experi-
ence exposure concentrations and durations at higher levels than persons in
residences, so they will more likely have a higher tolerance level than
will homeowners.
Formaldehyde concentrations in the occupational and residential envi-
ronments are usually measured after complaints have been registered with
employers or State Health Departments. Comparisons are made with nonexposed
persons, or with persons exposed at much lower concentrations, rather than
at controlled dosages. Though less precise, the results of these studies
2-17
-------
are indicative of effects experienced in environments where exposures may
fluctuate throughout duration of exposure.
Workers in textile manufacturing, garment manufacturing, clothing
sales, wood processing (chipboard, plywood, and particleboard). formaldehyde
resin manufacturing and use, polyethylene thermocutting, embalming, and
other industries using formaldehyde and formaldehyde products have reported
eye irritation symptoms due to formaldehyde exposure (Alexandersson et al.,
1982; Kerfoot and Mooney, 1975; Wayne et al., 19/6; Shipkovitz, 1968;
Schoenberg and Mitchell, 1975; Blejer and Miller, 1966; Mil 1er and Blejer,
1966; Morrill, 1961; Lttinger and Jeremias, 1955; Glass, 1961; Hovding,
1969; Kratochvi1, 1971; Plunkett and Barbel la, 1977; Zenz, 1980; Fassett,
1963; SneVi , 1979; Bourne and Sefarian, 1959).
Blindness resulted in an occupational accident in which formaldehyde
solution was splashed into a worker's eyes. A coworker who received the
same injury had his sight saved by immediate flushing with water (Kelecom,
1962).
Visual function tests including tests of visual acuity, depth percep-
tion, peripheral perception, eye movement and fixation, color vision,
accommodation facility, divided attention, dynamical acuity, and acuity
with glare were performed on workers in a wood processing plant (Wayne
et al., 1976). Wayne et al. found that performance of the visual tasks did
not differ significantly between subjects exposed to high and low concen-
trations of formaldehyde. No association between reported eye irritation
and performance on the visual function tests was found. No significant
dose-response relationship between irritation and formaldehyde concentra-
tion was noted.
These results indicate the presence of eye irritation is expected to
have little effect on the abi1ity of the subject to perform his or her work
at low concentrations. At higher concentrations (above 9.0 ppm), some
workers report intolerable pain (Snell, 1979; Zenz, 1980). However, devel-
opment of tolerance after 10 minutes of exposure was noted at 13.8 ppm (Sim
and PatLle, 1957), and only irritation was reported at levels as high as
16.0 ppm to 30.0 ppm (Glass, 1961). It is possible that tolerance to
formaldehyde occurs in many occupational environments, and also that presenr.
2-18
-------
of some other irritant in combination with formaldehyde is responsible for
severe irritation at lower concentrations.
Symptoms of exposure have been noted in residential settings, particu-
larly in homes containing urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) and
furnishings which emit formaldehyde, and in mobile homes which use large
amounts of formaldehyde-emitting products (Woodbury, 1979; Breysse, 1977;
Sardinas et al. , 1979; Garry et al., 1980; Harris et al., 1981; Wisconsin
Division of Health, 1978; Hogan and Main, 1983; Dally et al., 1981; Thun
et al., 1982). The burning, stinging, and tearing reported usually disap-
peared when individuals left the exposure environment (Hogan and Main,
1983; Dally et al., 1981).
2.3.2 Nose, Throat, and Upper Airway Effects
Reported effects of the nose, throat, and upper airway due to formal-
dehyde exposure are reported in Table 2-2. These effects include burning
and stinging of the nose and throat, running nose, sneezing, dryness and
soreness of the throat, diminished smell, general irritation, and inflamma-
tion. Often these effects are associated with eye irritation, and with
noticeable odor (NRC, 1981; Dally et al., 1981; loomis, 1979).
The odor threshold has been defined in two ways (Leonardos et al.,
1969). One definition is the minimum identifiable odor or recognition
threshold, which requires distinct identification of the chemical. The
other definition requires a detectable difference from background odors.
Using the recognition threshold definition, Leonardos et al. (1969)
found the threshold for four trained panelists to be 1.0 ppm. This concen-
tration is also quoted by Zenz (1980). Snell (1979), using the second
definition, determined a threshold in occupational environments of 0.8 ppm
to 1.7 ppm. Thresholds as low as 0.04 (Freeman and Grendon, 1971), 0.05
(Wahren, 1980; Melekhina, 1964; Feldman and Bonashevskaya, 1971), and 0.07
(Walker, 1966) have been noted. Longer periods of exposure were necessary
to elicit odor threshold at the lower concentrations (Freeman and Grendon,
1971).
Irritation such as dryness of nose and throat, thirst, prickling,
burning, and stinging of the nose, soreness of the throat, and sneezing may
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-2. REPORTED HOSE, THROAT, AND UPPER AIRWAY EFFECTS Of FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE
Formaldehyde
concentration
(PP*)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0.02 - 4,1?
Residential
Human
Upper respiratory
tract irritation
Woodbury (1979)a; Breysse (1977);
Sardinas et.al. (1979); Garry et
ai. (I960);3 Harris et al. (1901)
0.03 - 2.54
Residential
Human
Sore throat and hoarseness
in 63 percent of 92 subjects;
RMnorrhea, sneezing, tingling
of nostril in 13 percent of
92 subjects
Breysse (1977)°
0.04 ¦ 1.25
Occupational -
chipboard makers
Human
Nose and throat irritation
in 36 percent of 47 subjects
Alexandersson et al. (1982)
0.04 - 8.0
Occupational -
laminating plant
workers
Human
Odor threshold
freeman and Grendon (1971)
0.05
Occupational -
resin production
workers
Human
Runny nose
Gamble et al. (13?6)t),d
0.05 - 0.06
Minutes - odor
panels, EES
activity monitor
Human
Odor threshold
Wahren (1980);3 MelekMna
(1964); ' feldtnan and
Bonashevskaya (1971)
0.07
1 minute
Hunan
Odor threshold for
group of 15 subjects
Walter (1986)c
See footnotes at end of table. (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-2 (continued)
formaldehyde
concentration
(ppm)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0.08 - 5,58
Occupational -
emba liners
Hunan
Burning of nose; Sneering
Her foot and Mooney (1975)a,c
0.12 - 0,46
Occupational -
dress shop
workers
Human
Burning and stinging ¦
of nose and throat;
"Suffocating" odor
Bourne and Seftrian (1959)a,c,e
0,12 - 1.6
Occupational/
Residential -
office in
mobile home
Human
throat and nose irritation
Hogan and Main (1983)
0.13 - 0.45
?
Hunan
Upper respiratory
tract irritation
Walker (1966)c
0.20
1 hour
Human
Nose and throat irritation
Ratier (1974)a
0.25 - 1.39
Occupational -
emba 1 (tiers
Human
Upper respiratory
tract Irritation
Kerfoot and Mooney ()975)C,d'e'!
0.25,0.42,1.6
5 hours/day,
4 days
Human
Dryness of nose and throat;
Decrease in mucous flew rate
Anderstn (1979)*'^
See footnotes at end of table. (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-2 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(ppm)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0.30 - 2.75 - Occupational Human
0.40 - 0.80 Occupational - Human
resin production
workers
0,5 - 7.3 Occupational - Human
wood processing
workers
0.50 - 8.9 Occupational - Human
wood processing
workers
0.8 - 1.7 Occupational Human
0.83 Occupational, Human
greater than 5 years
to less than 10 years
0.83 10 minutes Human
Annoying odor; Constant -
prickling of mucous
membranes; Thirst
Nose irritation
Upper respiratory irritation
in 129 of 278 workers
Throat irritation; diminished
smell; dryness ofthe nose
and throat; pharyngitis;
chronic rhinitis
Odor barely detectable
Loss of olfactory sense;
Increased upper respiratory
disease
Upper respiratory
tract irritation
a,c
Shipkovitz (1968)
Schoenberg and Mitchell (1975)d
Yefremov (1970);
Zaeva et al, (1368)'
National Institute of
Occupational Safety
and Health (1976)
a,d
Snell (1979)
Yefremov (1970);
Zaeva et al. (1968)v
Sgibnev (1968)a,c
See footnotes at end of table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-2 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(ppn)
length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0.83
10 months over
2 generations
Rat
Morphological change! in
upper respiratory tract
Hisiakiewicz et al, (1977)a
0.30 - 2 7
Occupational -
garment factory
workers
Hunan
Nose and throat
irritation
Slejer and Miller {1966)a,c,e
0.90 - 1.6
Occupational -
clothing store
workers
Human
Odor objectionable
Miller and Blejer (1966)c
0.92 - 1.58
Occupational -
paper conditioning
workers
Human
Ory and sore throats;
Unusual thirst open waking
Morrill (l%l)a,c
1.0
Odor panel
Hunan
Odor threshold for
4 panelists
Leonardos et al. (1969)c
1.0
Occupational
Hunan
Odor threshold for
most people
Zenz, ed. (1980)®
1,0
Occupational -
laminating
plant workers
Human
Odor objectionable
Freeman and Grendon (197l)c
1.0 - 11.0
Occupational -
nylon fabric workers
Hunan
Nose and throat Irritation
Ettinger and Jeremias (19S5)C
1.8 - 3.0
Occupational
Human
Odor clearly detectable,
but tolerable
Snell (1979)
See footnotes at end of table. (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-2 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(ppit)
length/type
of exposure
Specks
Effect
Reference
2.0 - 3,0
Occupational
Hunan
Hild nose and
throat irritation
Zmz, ed. (1980)®
3.1 - 5.2
Occupational
Human
Odor almost intolerable
Srve 11 (1979)
4.0
T
Human
Nasopharyngeal irritation
Commercial Solvents
Corporation (unpubl isheci)c
4.17 - 10.9
1 minute
Human
Odor unbearable without
respiratory protection
Wiley (1908)®*c
4,2 - 10,9
Occupational -
laminating plant
Hunan
Odor unbearable without
respiratory protection
Freeman and Grendon (1971)c
5.0
Occupation*! -
teachers and
students in
pre-fab school
Human
Respiratory tract irritation;
Increased thirst; Strong odor
Helwig (1977)f
5,3 and above
Occupational
Human
Odor intolerable
Snel! (1979)
8.07 •
60 days
Rat
Respiratory tract irritation
Dubreuil et ai. (197S)f
13.8
30 minutes
(smog chamber)
Hunan
Nose irritation; Development
of tolerance after 10 ainutev
Sim and Pattle (1957)c
See footnotes
at end of table.
*
(continued)
-------
Formaldehyde
concentration Length/type
(ppm) of exposure Species
18,0 - 30.0 Occupational - Human
resin production
worker*
41.8? 1 hour/day, House
3 days/week,
35 weeks
211.0 - 667.0 3.5 - 4 hours Cat
? Occupational - Huaan
r clothing production
workers
ivs
i
ro
cn
Occupational - Human
embalmers
Occupational - Human
polyethylene
thermocutters
Residential Human
See footnotes at end of table.
1 ABLE 2-2 (continued)
Effect
Threat irritation
Upper respiratory
tract 1 nf 1 annua t ion
Irritation of mucous
membranes with
recovery in Z days
Catarrhal Inflammation of
upper respiratory tract in
28 percent of 18 subjects;
Inflammatory rhinitis in
28 percent of 18 subjects
Nose and throat irritation
in 75 percent of 57 subjects
Dryness and irritation
of the nose and throat
Sore throat In 32 of 1,396
subjects (nonsignificant);
runny nose in 15 of 1,396
subjects (nonsignificant)
Reference
Glass (1961)c
Morton et al, (1963)*
Iwanoff (1911)C
Kratochvll (19?7)c,d
Plunkett and Barbel la (19??)'
Holding (1969)c
Thun et al. (1982)
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-2 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentrati on
(ppm)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
7
Residential
Human
Runny nose in 151 of 256
Dally et al. (1981)
subjects; Dry or sore throat
in 145 of 256 subjects
aCited in Gupta, K, C,, A, G. Ulsamer, and P. W. Preuss, 1982. "Formaldehyde in Indoor Air; Sources and Toxicity."
Environment International 8:349-358.
^Cited in Bardana, Eroil J., 1980, "Formaldehyde: Hypersensitivity and Irritant Reactions at Work and in the Koine."
Immunology and Alergy Practice 11(3):11-23.
cCi ted in National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 1976. Criteria far a Recommended Standard . , .
Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde. DHEW (NI05K) Publication No. 77-12S. Washington, 0. C.: Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
^ ^Cited in Federal Panel on Formaldehyde, 1982, "Report on the Federal Panel on Formaldehyde," Environmental Health
1X3 Perspectives 43:139-168.
m P
Cited in Wartew, G. A., 1983. "The Health Hazards of Formaldehyde." Journal of Applied Toxicology 3(3):121-126.
*Cited in National Research Council, 1981, Formaldehyde and Other Aldehydes, Washington, D, C.
^Ci ted in Loomis, T, A,, 1979, "Formaldehyde Toxicity," Archives of Pathological laboratory Medicine 103:321-324.
-------
occur at very low concentrations of formaldehyde, from 0.2 ppm to 0.8 ppm.
I'hese symptoms have been observed in both residential and occupational
settings (Woodbury, 1979; Breysse, 19/7; Sardinas et a)., 1979; Garry
et a]., 1980; Harris et al., 1981; AIexandersson et al. , 1982; Gamble
et a"!., 1976; Kerfoot and Hooney, 1975; Bourne and Seferian, 1959; Hogan
and Main, 1983; Walker, 1966; Racier, 1974; Shipkovitz, 1968; Schoenberg and
Mitchell, 1975; Yefremov, 1970; Zaeva et al,, 1968; PIunkett and Barbel 1 a,
19/7; Thun et al., 1982; Dally et al., 1981)-
At somewhat higher concentrations (0.8 ppm to 1.0 ppm), the sense of
smell is diminished, the odor becomes objectionable, and morphological
changes in the upper respiratory tract take place (Yefremov, 1970; Zaeva,
1968; Misiakiewicz et, al., 1977). Symptoms are noticed at increasingly
higher concentrations, as the odor becomes more noticeable, and finally,
unbearable at levels around 4,2 ppm and 5.3 ppm (Freeman and Grendon, 1971;
Wiley, 1908; Snell, 1979).
Other researchers have found that irritation is first experienced at
much higher levels, from 13.8 ppm to 30.0 ppm (Sim and Pattle, 1957; Glass,
1961). These individuals were determined to have developed tolerance for
lower levels due to occupational exposure (Sim and Rattle, 1957; Glass,
1961). The National Research Council (1981) concluded that some effects
may be felt at very low concentrations, but frequency of complaints is
noted at concentrations between 1.0 and 11.0 ppm.
More severe symptoms, such as inManimation of the upper respiratory
tract, have been observed in test animals at even higher concentrations of
formaldehyde, around 41.0 ppm and above (Norton et al., 1963; Iwanoff,
1911). Inflammation has also resulted in the occupational setting for
cothing production workers (Kratochvi1, 1971).
2.3.3 Pulmonary Effects
Table 2-3 outlines the reported pulmonary effects due to formaldehyde-
exposure. These effects are related to breathing functions and include
cough, shortness of breath, chest tightness, wheezing, inflammation of the
respiratory organs, pulmonary edema, pneumonitis, alterations in respirator
rate, and asthma.
2-27
-------
TABLE 2-3.
REPORTED PULMONARY EFFECTS Of FORMALDEHYDE
EXPOSURE
Formaldehyde
concentration
(ppm)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0.04 - -1.2b
Occupational -
chipboard makers
Human
Chest oppression in 10
percent of 47 subjects;
Cough in 4 percent of
4? subjects; Seduced
expiratory volume;
Increased closing volume;
Bronchioconstriction
Alejsandersson et al. (1982)
0,05
Occupational -
resin production
workers
Hunan
Cough; Chest tightness;
Decreased pulmonary function
due to respirable particles
Gamble et al. (1976)a,b
0,08 - 5.58
Occupational
Human
Cough; Asthma or sinus
problems In 3 of 5 subjects
Kerfact and Hooney <1975}c
0,12 - 1.8
Occupational/
Residential -
office in
mobile home
Human
Shortness of breath;
Chest tightness
Hogan and Main (1983)
0.3 - 2.7
Occupational -
permanent prtss
textile workers
Hurntn
Wheeling
ShipkovUz (19S8)d
0.33
1 hour
Guinea
P<9
Decrease in respiration;
Increase in compliance
Aflrtur (1959)c
0.40
Occupational -
resin users
Human
Chronic cough; Sputum
production; Reduction
In airflow -
Schoenberg and Mitchell (1975}e
See footnotes at end of table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-3 (continued)
formaldehyde
concentration
(PP«>
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0.56
10 ftlnutes
Rat
Reduction in
respiratory rate
Kme and Alarie (1977)c
0,83, 2.5
90 days
Rut
Peribronchial and perivascular
hyperemia; lywphohistiocytlc
proliferation In lungs
Feldmao and Bonashevskaya
(1971)
0,83
10 minutes
Human
Accelerated breathing
Sgibnev (1966)c
1.67
Continuous or
intermittent
Guinea
pig, rat
Sensi ti zation
Qstapovich (1975)c
3.l(induction),
0.55 - 13.4
(thalltnge)
10 *1nut«s/hour,
3 hours/day,
3 days
House
Increase in airflow resis-
tance; Development of
tolerance during exposure
period; Symptoms reappear
on challenge
Kane and Alarie (19/r')e
3.5
1 hour
Guinea
pig
Increase in airflor resis-
tance; Decrease in compliance
Amdur (I960)®
3.5
19 hour
exposure
to vapor
Rat
Inactivation of cilia
in bronchial tree
Murphy et al. (1964)b
3.83 - 5,0
90 days
continuous
Rat, clog
rabbit,
monk«y,
guinea pig
Inflammation of lungs in all
species; Death in 1/15 rats
Coon et al. (1970)c,f
See footnotes at
end of table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE Z-3 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(pp«)
length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
3.9
1 hour
Guinea
pig
Increase In airway resistance;
Increase in tidal volume;
Decrease in respiratory rate
Murphy et al. (1984)d
10,0'
5 hours
Rat
Decrease in respiratory rate
Lee et ai, (1384)
10.0 - 20,0
Occupational
Human
Breathing difficulties; Cough
Zenz, ed. (1980)9
15.8 - 16.7
10 hour exposure
to aerosol or vapor
Mouse,
guinea
plfl,
rabbit
tderaa of lungs; Hemorrhage
of lungs; Death in 20 to
90 percent of animals
Salens and Cullumbine (196G)d,h
43.0, 50.0
I hour, 4 hours
Guinea
• pig
Increased airway resistance;
Decreased compliance
todur <1959),d (1960)d
41.6?
1 hour/day,
3 days/week,
35 weeks
Mouse
Bronchopneumonia
Horton et al. (1963)c
731
2 hours
Mouse
Massive pulmonary edema
and hemorrhage
Morton et al, (1963)d
6,000
1 hour
Guinea
pig
Increased airway resistance;
Decretsed respiration rate;
No change in compliance
Davis et al. (1967)d
2,200-2,400 »g
Ingestion
Hu»an
Cyanosis; Shallow respiration
Earp (1916)d
See footnotes at
end of page.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2~3 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(ppm)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
3.7% - 9.25%
formaldehyde
in aqueous
solution
Occupational -
renal hemodialysis
nurses
Human
Asthma or bronchitis in 8
of 28 subjects; Positive
bronchial provocation in
2 of 26 subjects; Asthma
on challenge In i of 2 of
the same subjects 6 years
later
Hendrick and Lane (1975),b'e,~
(1977), 'e,g (1982)
Forina 1 dehyde
in aqueous
soluti on
Ingestion, 1^ oz
Human
Cyanosis; Shallow respiration
Earp (1916)d
1.6 - 3.3 pm
Sol id and
liquid aerosol
Mouse
Increased incidence of
pulmonary edema
LaSelle et al. (1955)b
?
Inhalation of high
concentration gas
Human
Pulmonary edema; Asthma
in one subject
Zannim' and Russo (1957)^
?
Inhalation of high
concentration gas
Human
Pulmonary edema
Bohmer (1934)d
?
Occupational -
physician
Human
Acute respiratory distress
Porter (1975)a,b,d'e
?
Occupational -
hospital lab
technician
Human
Acute respiratory distress
Sakula (1975)a,D
See footnotes at end of table. (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-3 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(pp»)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
?
Occupational -
embalftstrs
Huatan
Acute bronchitis in 9 of 5?
subjects; Chronic bronchitis
In 17 of 57 subjects
Plunkett and garbella (1977)*
7
Occupational -
workers using
histological
fixatives
Human
Inflammatory changes
in bronchial tract
Trinkler (1968)b
?
Occupational -
clothes irontrs'
Human
Chronic bronchitis
Kratochvil (197l)b
J
Occupational -
«*tch factory
workers
Hunan
Asthma
Vaughn (1939)b
?
Occupational -
¦eatwrappers
Human
Aithtu; Wheeling; Cough
Skerfving tt al. (1980)b
J
Occupational
Human
.Asthma
Popa et al. U%9)b
7
Residential
Human
Lung problems
Sardinas et al. (1979)
?
Res idential
Human
Asthma in 5 of 1,396
subjects (nonsignificant);
Wheeling in 8 of 1,396
subjects (significant);
Chest pain in 11 of 1,396
subjects (nonsignificant);
Cough in 30 of 1,396
subjects (nonsignificant)
Thun et al. (1982)
See footnotes at end of table. (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-3 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration t#ngtb/type
(ppn) of exposure Species Effect Reference
? • Residential Human Difficult breathing In 71 Dally et al, (1381)
of 256 subjects; Wheeling
in SO of 256 subjects;
Breath!essness in 44 of 256
subjects; Chest pain in 30
of 256 subjects; Bronchitis
in 22 of 256 subjects;
Pneumonia in 13 of 256
subjects; Chest tightness
in 44 of 256 subjects
aCited in Federal Panel on Formaldehyde, 1982. "Report of the Federal Panel on Formaldehyde." Environmental Health
Perspectives 43:139*168.
bC1tect in Bardana, Emil J,, 1980, Formaldehyde: Hypersensitivity and Irritant Reactions at Work and in the Home."
Immunology and Allergy Practice 11(3): 11-23.
cCited in Gupta, K. C,» A, G. Ulsaner, and P. V. Preuss, 1982. "Foraaldehyd# in Indoor Air; Source and Toxicity."
Environment International 8:349-358.
dCit«d In National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 1978. Criteria for a Recommended Standard . , .
Occupational Exposure to formaldehyde. DHEW (N10SH) Publication No. 7T:12J>" Washington, 0. C.: Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
*Ci ted in National Research Council, 1981. formaldehyde and Other Aldehydes, Washington, 0. C.
''cited in Cosmetic Ingredient Review, 1984. "Final Report on the Safety Assessment of formaldehyde." Journal of the
American College of Toxicology 3(3):157-184,
°Cited in Wartew, 6, A,, 1983. "The Health Hazards of Formaldehyde." Journal of Applied Toxicology 3(3):121-128,
''Cited in loomis, T. A., 1979, "Fonwldehyde Toxicity," Archives of Pathological laboratory Medicine 103:321-324,
-------
Low to moderate concentrations of formaldehyde (0.05 ppm to 0.3 ppm)
are associated with the more minor effects such as cough, chest tightness,
shortness of breath, and wheezing (Gamble et a 1., 1976; Kerfoot and Mooney,
1975; Hogan and Main, 1983; Shipkov i tz, 1968). These effects are among the
more severe experienced by those in a residential setting, where exposure
concentrations are somewhat lower than for occupational settings (Thun
et al. , 1982; Sardinas et. al. , 1979; Dally et al. , 1981). The National
Research Council (1981) concluded that these effects are reported often by
persons exposed to concentrations at 5.0 ppm to 30.0 ppm.
Some evidence to tolerance to these lower levels of exposure exists
(Sim and Pattle, 1957). The tolerance develops after 10 to 15 minutes of
exposure, but irritation returns after a 1- to 2-hour interruption of the
exposure (Kerfoot and Mooney, 1975; Shipkovitz, 1968; Blejer and Miller,
1966)...
Higher concentrations (above 0.33 ppm) cause decreases in pulmonary
function, reduced expiratory volume, and increases in airway resistance
(Amdur, 1959; Alexanders son et al., 1982; Kane and Alarie, 1977; Amdur,
1960; Murphy et al. , 1964; Lee et al., 1984; Zenz, 1980; Oavis et al. ,
1967). Gamble et a 1. (19/6) noted decreased pulmonary function at 0.05 ppm
in resin workers, but attributed the change to number of respirable particl
inhaled, rather than to formaldehyde concentration.
Inflammation of the lungs has been observed in rats, dogs, rabbits,
monkeys, and guinea pigs at concent rations from 3.83 ppm to 5.0 ppm (Coon
et al., 1970), Inflammatory changes in the bronchial tract have been noted
in humans occupational ly exposed through the use of histological fixatives
(Trinkier, 1968).
Inact. i vat ion of the bronchial tree cilia was observed in rats at an
exposure concentration of 3,5 ppm (Murphy et al., 1964). Edema and hemorr-
hage of the lungs occurs at 15.8 ppm to 16.7 ppm and above in the mouse,
guinea pig, and rabbit (Salem and Cullumbine, 1960, Norton et. al. , 1963;
LaBelle, 1955).
These symptoms have been noted in humans after inhalation of a high
concentration of formaldehyde in gaseous form (Zannini and Russo, 1957;
Bohiner, 1975). Acute respiratory distress has been reported in case studie
2-34
-------
(Sakula, 1975; Porter, 1975). Ingestion of formaldehyde solution causes
shallow breathing and cyanosis (Earp, 1916). The National Research Council
(1981) concluded that formaldehyde levels from 50.0 ppm to 100.0 ppm can
cause pulmonary edema, pneumonitis, with death expected to result at the
upper end of the range.
It has been suspected that formaldehyde exposure results in sensitiza-
tion through the inhalation pathway. Asthma and bronchitis symptoms have
been observed in several occupational settings (Hendrick and Lane, 1975,
1977; Vaughn, 1939; Skerfving et al., 1980; Popa et al., 1969; Kratochvi1 ,
1971; PIunkett and Barbel 1 a, 1977; Kerfoot and Mooney, 1975). Sensitization
has been elicted in guinea pigs and rats at 1.67 ppm (Ostapovich, 1975) and
in mice at 3.1 ppm induction and 0.55 ppm to 13.4 ppm challenge (Kane and
Alarie, 1977).
Studies have failed to demonstrate conclusively that pulonary sensiti-
zation to formaldehyde in humans does occur (Lee et a]., 1984; Gamble
et al., 1976; Hendrick et al. , 1982; Levi ne et al., 1984; Hogan and Main,
1983; Frigas et al. , 1984).
2.3.4 Skin Effects
Reported effects of formaldehyde exposure on the skin are outlined in
Table 2-4. Both primary irritant and allergic sensitization effects are
possible. The contact and inhalation' pathways are utilized in these reac-
tions. Itching, burning, redness, rashes, and inflammation are irritation
effects, while dermititis, eczema, and urticaria represent sensitization
responses.
Even low concentrations of formaldehyde (0.01 percent to 0^ 0925 percent)
in solution have been found to cause irritant effects in humans, rabbits,
and guinea pigs (Fielder, 1981; Pirila and Kilpio, 1949; DuPont, 1970;
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, 1975, 1976a, 1976b, 1977,
1978b, 1981).
Skin irritation has been reported in both occupational and residential
exposures. A study of erabalmers found that 37 percent of 57 subjects
experienced irritation (Plunkett and Barbel la, 1977). Permanent press
fabric workers have reported redness and tightness of the skin (Kachlik,
2-35
-------
TABLE 2-4, REPORTED SKIN EFFECTS OF FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE
Formaldehyde
concentration
(percent formal-
dehyde in Length/type
aqueous solution) of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0.C1
Occlusive patch
Human
Reaction in 1 of S formalde-
hyde sensitized subjects
Marzullt and Maibaeh (1973)a
0.01 - 0,02
(saline
solution)
Patch
Guinea
pig
Mild to moderate Irritation
DuPont (1970}b
0.0105
Repeat Insult patch
Human
Reaction in 4 of 101 subjects
during induction; No reaction
upon challenge
Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance
Association (CTFA) (19788)°
0.02
Product exposure -
newsprint
Human
Allergic dernutitus reaction
in formaldehyde-sensitized
individual
Black <1971)c
0.03
Product exposure -
paper towels
Human
Allergic ciermititis reaction
in formaldehyde-sensitized
individual
Black (1971)c
0.037
Repeat insult patch
Human
Reaction in 6 of 200 subjects
during induction; No reaction
upon challenge
Industrial Biology
Laboratories (1967)
0.04
f
Guinea
pig
Sensitization
Fielder (W81)b
0.074
Occlusive patch
Rabb i t
Slight irritation
CTFA (19Bl)b
0.074
24 hour
occlusive patch
Hunan
Slight e rythmic response
in 1 of 20 subjects
CFTA <19?7)b
See footnotes at
end of table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-4 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(percent formal-
dehyde in length/type
aqueous solution) of exposure
Sped es
Effect
Reference
0.074
21 daily applications
under occlusive patch
Human
Irritation in 3 of 8 subjects
CFTA (1976a)b
0.074
24 hour
occlusive patch
Human
Mild erythmic response
in 1 of 19 subjects
CFTA (1975)b
0.074
Repeat insult patch
Human
Reaction in 4 of 204
subjects during induction;
Reaction in 2 of 204
subjects upon challenge
CFTA (1976b)b
0.09 - 0.4
Occupational -
glue workers
Human
Irritant derraititis in 14
subjects; Sensitization in
1 subject
Pirila and Ki1 pio (1949)^
0.0925
Occlusive patch
Rabbit
Slight irritation
CFTA (1981)b
0.0925
24 hour
occlusive patch
Human
Slight erythmic response
in 1 of 20 subjects
CFTA (1978b>b
0.1
Product exposure -
cosmetics/toi1etries
containing
Quaterni um-15
Human
Sensitization
National Research Council (1981);
Jordan et al, (1979)
0,1, 0.2
Occlusive patch
Human
Reaction in 1 of S
formaldehyde-sensi ti zed
subjects
Marzulli and Maibach (1973)a
0.1 - 20. 0
Topical application
Rabbit
Mild to moderate irritation
DuPont (unpublished)3
See footnotes at end of table, (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-4 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(percent formal-
dehyde in Length/type
aqueous solution) of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0,5
Occlusive patch
Human-
Reaction in 2 of 5
formaldehyde-sensitized
subjects
Hamuli and Haibach (1373)a
0.5
Occupational
Human
Fingernails become brown,
soften, decay or become
scaly and friable;
Inflammation of skin
folds of fingers
Chajes (1930)d
0.80
Occlusive patch
HuSldfl
Reaction In 4 percent
of 1,200 subjects
North American Contact
Der*1t1tfs Group (1973)8
1,0
Occlusive patch
Human
Reaction in 4 of 5
formaldehyde-sens 111zed
subjects
Marzult) and Haibach ( 1973)a
1.0
Occupational -
hairdressers
using wave
solution
Human
Primary Irritant deraititit
Pirlla and KUpio (1949)d
1.0, 2.0
Open test
Human
Urticaria in one subject
previously sensitized
tindskov (1982)
2.0
(saline
solutlon)
Topical application
Guinea
Ptfl
Contact sensitivity
Lee et al. (1984)
2.0
?
Guinea
pig
Sensitization
Hagnusson and Kligaan (1977)^
See footnotes at
end of tabie.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-4 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(percent formal-
dehyde 1 ft Length/type
aqueous solution) of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
2.0 (induction),
0.8 (challenge)
?
Guinea
pig
Sensitization
CFTA (1981)b
2.0
?
Human
Sensitization In 124
of 2,374 subjects
North American Contact h
Dermititis Group (1980)°
2.0
Occupational -
hemodialysis
operators
Human
0er»1titis In 8 of 13
subjects; Sensitization
with 3% formalin solution
in patch test
Sneddon (1968)a,tS
2.0 - 10.0
Occupational
Human
Eczema on fingers; Vesicles,
fissures ulcerations on
hands extending to other
parts of the body
Chajes (1930)d
4.0
Patch
Human
Allergic reaction in 137 of
2110 subjects; Formaldehyde
eczema in 69 of the 137 who
reacted
Movdirtg (1961)
5.0,10.0,20.0
?
Guinea
Mild to moderate Irritation
DuPont fl970)b
10.0
Occupational -
nurses handling
thermometers
immersed in
formaldehyde
solution
Human
Allergic contact dermititis;
Sensitization responses in
5 subjects with patch tests
from 0,5 to 6.0 percent
formaldehyde
Rostenbtrg (1952)a *d
37.0
?
Guinea
pig
Sensitization
Nagnusson and Kligstan (1977)''
See footnotes at end of table (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-4 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(percent formal-
dehyde in Length/type
aqueous solution) of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
37.0
(with Freund's
complete
adjuvant)
Injection
Guinea
pig
Sensitization
Lee et al. (1984)
0,05 ppm
Occupational -
rubber workers
Human
Itch; Rash
Gamble et al. (1976)®
0.09-5.26 ppm
Occupational -
embalmers
Human
Dermitltis in 2 of 7 subjects
Kerfoot and Mooney <1975)e
4.0 ppm
?
Human
Irritation; Reddening and
drying of skin
Commercial Solvents .
Corporation (unpublished)
10-30 ppm
(gaseous)
Occupational
, Human
Eczema in formaldehyde-
sensitized subjects
Harris (3.953>a,d
16.0-30,0 ppm
Occupational
Human
Generalized skin reaction
Glass (1961)d
28,86 ppm
(methanol
and water
soluti on)
Pump spray applica-
tion, 2 times/day,
two weeks
Human
Minimal dermititis in 2
of 13 subjects; Burning and
itch in 3 of 13 subjects
Jordan et al. (1979)b
30 ppm
(aqueous
solution)
Closed patch,
168 hour
reading
Human
Reaction in 4 of 9
formaldehyde-sensi ti zed
subjects
Jordan et al. (1979)^
60 ppm
(aqueous
solution)
Closed patch,
168 hour
rtading
Human
Reaction in 5 of 9
formaldehyde-sensitized
subjects
Jordan et al. (1979)b
See footnotes at
end of table.
(continued)
-------
T '
TABLE 2-4 {continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(percent formal-
dehyde in length/type
aqueous solution) of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
100 ppn
{aqueous
solution)
Closed patch,
188 hour
reading
Hunan
Reaction in 6 of 9
f oraa 1 dehyde-sens i 11 zed
subjects
Jordan et at. (1979)b
0.2 mg/L in
water; 10.5ppm,
4i.7 ppm
10 minutes
immersion
Human
Dermatitis in
sensitized subjects
Horsfs11 (I934)d'f
3.7g/l-37g/L
(induction),
3.7 g/L
(challenge)
Intermittent patch
Human
Sensitized in 4,5 ptrctnt
to 7,8 percent of subjects
Hanoi 11 and Maibach (19?4)f
?
Occupational -
grocer handling
price libels
Human
Eczema in formaIdehyde-
sensitized individual
Pederson (1980)9
?
Occupational -
embalmers
Human
Irritation in 37 percent
in 57 subjects
Plundett and Barbell# (1977)h
1
Occupational -
auto workers
handling rubber
Human
Oermititls, 50 cases
in 150 subjtct
Engel and Calnan (1966)®
?
Occupational -
permanent press
fabric workers
Human
Redness; Tightness;
Acne in S3 cases
Kaehlik (1968)d
J
Occupational -
formaldehyde
resin workers
Hunan
Derail titis occurring 3-6
weeks after exposure in
355 of 2,370 employees
Harkuson et al. (1943)^
See footnotes at
end of table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-4 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(percent formal-
dehyde in Length/type
aqueous solution) of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
?
Occupational -
urea-formaldehyde
resin workers
Hunan
Dermitltii, 28 cases
in 300 subjects
Schwartz (1936)d
?
Occupational -
phenol formaldehyde
resin workers
Human
Dermititis, 27 cases
in 400 subjects
Schwartz (1936)d
7
Occupational -
plywood laainators
Human
OarmititU, 600 cases
in 800 subjects
Schwartz ft at. (1943)*
?
Occupational -
tool makers
hand)ing plastics
Human
Dermititis in 40
of 100 subjects
Schwartz et al. (1943)e
?
Occupational -
formaldehyde resin
production workers
Human
Dermititis in 3 subjects
Ryeroft (1982)
?
Residential
Human
Burning in 10 of 1,396
subjects (significant);
Rash in 3 of 1,396
(nonsignificant)
Thun et al. (1982)
?
Residential
Human
Rash in 41 of 256 subjects
Dally et al, (1981)
?
Product exposure -
orthopedic cast
Hunan
Contact dermititis in 3
subjects in 1972; Symptoms
in 6 subjects in 1973
Logan and Perry (1972),c (1973)d
See footnotes at end of table. (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-4 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(percent formal-
dehyde in Length/type
aqueous solution) of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
?
Product exposure -
nail hardener
Hunan
Reddening scaling of distal
phalanges of on# subject;
Sensitization reaction with
patch test of 5,0 percent
formaldehyde in aqueous
solution
lazar (1966)d
?
Product exposure -
permanent press
clothing
Human
Eczema in sensitized subjects
Skogh (1959)d; Shallow
and Altaian (1966) l 0'Quinn
and Kennedy (1965)
aCited in National Research Council, 1981, Formaldehyde and Other Aldehydes. Washington, 0. C.
bCited in Cosmetic Ingredient Review, 1984. "final Report on the Safety Assessment of Formaldehyde." Journal of the
American College of Toxicology 3(3):157-184,
Cited in Oardana, Eni1 J., 1980. Formaldehyde: Hypersensitivity and Irritant Reactions at Work and in the Home."
Immunology and Allergy Practice lI(3):ll-23.
dCited in National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 1976. Criteria for a Recoiwended Standard . . .
Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication Ho. 77-tZST"Washington, 0. "C.: Otpartment of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
eCited in Federal Panel on Formaldehyde, 1982. "Report of the Federal Panel on Formaldehyde." Environmental Health
Perspectives 43:139-168.
fCited in Gupta, K. C., A. G. Ulsamer, P. W. Preuss, 1982, "Formaldehyde in Indoor Air: Sources and Toxicity."
Environment International 8:349-350.
®Cited in Wartew, G, A,, 198J. "The Health Hazards of Formaldehyde." Journal of Applied Toxicology 3(3): 121-126.
hCited in Looms, T. A., 1979, "Formaldehyde Toxicity." Archive* of Pathological Laboratory Medicine 103:321-324.
-------
1968). Rash and burning of the skin have been reported due to residential
exposure (Tltun et al. , 1981; Dally et al. , 1981).
Exposure to products as diverse as newsprint, paper towels, toiletries,
nail hardeners, orthopedic casts, and permanent press clothing which contain
formaldehyde have elicited allergic reactions in sensitized subjects (Skogh,
1959; Shellow and Altman, 1966; O'Quinn and Kennedy, 1965; Lazar, 1966;
Logan and Perry, 1972, 1973; Black, 1971; Jordan et al., 1979). Testing by
the cosmetic industry has led to the conclusion by the Cosmetic Ingredient
Review (1984) that safe use of formaldehyde above 0.? percent in cosmetics
has not been established.
Sensitization has two aspects. One is the e1i c i tation of the initial
reaction, that is, the exposure at which the sensitization actually occurs.
The other is the el ici tation of a reaction in an individual who has been
previously sensitized. As mentioned in Section 2.2.2, the reaction of a
sensitized individual usually occurs at lower concentrations of formaldehyde
than the amount required to cause the reaction in the first place.
The onset of skin sensitization has been established for humans at low
concentrations (0.074 percent formaldehyde in solution) (Cosmetic, Toiletry,
and Fragrance Association, 1976b). Larger proportions of sensitized individ-
uals react with increasing concentrations of formaldehyde (Marzuili and
Mai bach, 1973; North American Contact Oermititis Group, 1973, 1980; Hovdiny,
1961; Jordan et al., 1979). This result provides some evidence of an
increasing dose-response function for skin sensitization.
A lower threshold for induction of repetitive non immunol ocjic contact
urticaria has been established at about one percent formaldehyde in solu-
tion (Marzuili and Mai bach, 1974). A lower threshold for induction of
allergic contact dermi t1 tis has been imprecisely determined at about five
percent formaldehyde in solution, or 30 ppm formaldehyde (Jordan et al..
1979). No threshold has yet been established for immunologic contact
urticaria (Consensus Workshop on formaldehyde, 1983).
The elicitation of reactions in formaldehyde-sens i ti zed individuals
has occurred at concentrations as low as 0.01 percent formaldehyde in
solution (Marzuili and Mai bach, 1973). At hi gher levels less time is
required for elicitat ion of response in sensitized individuals. Horsfal1
(1934) found that at 10,5 ppm reactions occurred in 10 minutes.
2-44
-------
The implications are important for those occupationally exposed because
these persons undergo a relatively high constant 8~hour exposure almost
daily for many years of their lifetime. Since many previously "normal"
persons develop sensitivity to formaldehyde, it is not unreasonable to
expect that a number of individuals exposed in this setting will develop
sensitivity (NRC, 1981). Once this sensitization is established, employment
in occupations with extensive exposure for the individual may become impos-
sible.
Reaction symptoms in sensitized individuals have been reported for
many occupations including embalmers, grocers, auto workers, permanent
press fabric workers, formaldehyde resin workers, plywood 1 aminators,
tool makers, hemodialysis operators, nurses, hairdressers, glue workers,
and rubber workers (Pirila and Ki1pio, 1949; Rostenberg, 1952; Gamble
et al., 1976; Kerfoot and Mooney, 1975; Glass, 1961; Pederson, 1980; Engel
and Calnan, 1966; Markuson et al., 1943, Schwartz et al., 1936; Sneddon,
1968; Rycroft, 1982; Harris, 1953).
2.3.5 Gastrointestinal System Effects
Table 2-5 lists reported effects of formaldehyde on the gastrointestinal
system. Minor effects such as vomiting, nausea, stomach cramps, and diarrhea
may result from prolonged inhalation of formaldehyde. More serious effects
such as severe gastrointestinal pain, dysphagia, and systemic damage derive
from ingestion of formaldehyde.
Residential exposures by the inhalation pathway in the range of 0.02
ppm to 4.17 ppm are reported to cause vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea (Wood- *
bury, 1979; Breysse, 1977; Sardinas et al., 1979; Garrey et al., 1980;
Harris et al. , 1981). Thun et al. (1982) reported the vomiting symptom,
but indicated it was not statistically significant for the exposed group.
Dal ly et al. (1981) reported nausea in 79 of 256 subjects and vomiting in
53 subjects..
More serious symptoms have occurred in rats from concentrations at
0.83 ppm in continuous exposure. These symptoms include decreased liver
weight and increased epithelial proliferation of the common bile duct
(Miaskiewicz et al., 1977; Gofmekler et al., 1968).
2-45
-------
TABLE 2-5. REPORTED GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM EFFECTS OF FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE
Formaldehyde
concentration
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
i
-P=
!T>
0.02 - 4,17 pprr Residential
0,83 ppm
0. 83 ppm
22 - 200 ing
50, 100, 150
mg/kg
50, 75, 150
mg/kg
100 - 200 mg
10 months over
2 generations
Continuous beginning
10 - 15 days before
mating
Daily ingestion,
14 days
Daily ingestion
in drinking water
Daily ingestion
i n food
Daily ingestion in
mi 1k, 3 weeks
Human Diarrhea; Nausea; Vomiting
Rat Decreased liver weight
Rat Increased epithelial prolif-
eration of common bile duct;
Increased abnormalities
of renal epithelium
Human Mild gastric discomfort
Rat Decreased weight gain
Dog Decreased weight gain
Human Stomach pain
Woodbury (1979); Sreysse
(1977); Sardinas et al. (1979);
Garry et al, (1980);a
Harris et al. (1981)
Miaskiewicz et al. (1977)a
Gofmekler et al. (1968)a
Yonkman et al. (1941)
Monsanto (1973a)c
Monsanto (1973fc)c
Wiley (1908)b
See footnotes at end of table.
(conti nued)
-------
TABLE 2-5 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
Varyi ng
concentrati ons
Ingestion,
0 - 7.5 oz
Human
Gastrointestinal pain;
Corrosion of contact organs
Kline (1925)b
Formaldehyde
in solution
Ingestion, 100 cc
Human
Severe epigastric pain;
Dysphagia, stenosis, and
corrosive destruction
of stomach
Heffernon and Najjar (1964)b
10% formalde-
hyde solution
Ingestion, 120 ml
Human
Dysphagia; Gastric
shrinkage after 3 months
Bartons et al. (1968)b
30% formalde-
hyde solution
Ingestion
Human
Death
Bdhmer (1934)b
37% formalde-
hyde solution
Ingestion, 240 ml
Human
Severe pain; Ulceration and
stenosis of stomach
Roy et al. (1962}b
37% - 40%
formaldehyde
solution
Ingestion, h oz
Human
Dry and sore throat; Vomiting
Bower (1909)b
40% formalde-
hyde solution
Ingestion; 150 cc
Human
Death; Edema of glottis
Rathery et al. (194Q)b
40% formalde-
hyde solution
Ingestion
Human
Death in child
Ely {1910)b
See footnotes at
end of table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-5 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
7
Residential
Human
Vomiting in 1 of 1,396
subjects (nonsignificant)
Thun et al. (1982)
7
Residential
Human
Nausea in 73 of 256
subjects; Vomiting In
53 of 245 subjects
Bally et al. (1981)
?
Ingestion
Human
Mucous membranes of mouth and
throat turn dry and white;
Vomiting
Earp (1916)b
I
ingestion
Human
Immediate inflammation of
linings of mouth, throat,
and gastrointestinal tract
Zenz, ed, (1980)d
aCited in Gupta, K. C., ft. 6. Ulsamer, P. W. Preuss, 1962. "Formaldehyde in Indoor .Air: Sources and Toxicity."
Environment International 8:349-358.
bCited in national Institute of Occupational Safety arid Health, 1976. Criteria for a RtcowBenderi Standard . . ,
Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde. DKEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-126. Washington, D. C.: Oe'par tine fit of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
c
Cited In Cosmetic Ingredient Review, 1984. "Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Formaldehyde." Journal of
the American College of Toxicology 3(3):117-184.
Cited in Wartew, 6, A.. 1983. "The Health Hazards of formaldehyde." Journal of Applied Toxicology 3(3):121-126.
-------
Mild symptoms from ingestion of formaldehyde involve very low doses.
Dryness, whiteness, and inflammation of the mouth and throat and vomiting
have been reported in humans following ingestion of 0.5 oz to 1,5 oz of
formalin (Bower, 1909; Earp, 1916; Zenz, 1908).
Decreased weight gain in rats and dogs has been reported from ingestion
of 150 mg/kg in drinking water daily and 100 ntg/kg in food daily, respec-
tively (Monsanto, 1973a, 1973b). Daily ingestion of 100 mg to 200 mg in
milk over a 3-week period was found to cause stomach pain in humans (Wiley,
1908). Daily ingestion of 22 mg to 200 mg of formaldehyde over a 2-week
period caused mi Id gastric discomfort in human subjects (Yonkman et al. ,
1941).
Severe epigastric pain, dysphagia, corrosion of contact organs, edema
of glottis, ulceration and stenosis of the stomach, gastric shrinkage, and
death have followed ingestion of small amounts {a few drops to 240 ml) of
varying concentrations (10 percent to 40 percent formaldehyde in solution)
of formaldehyde (Kline, 1925; Heffernon and Najjar, 1964; Rathery et al.,
1940; Roy et al. , 1962; Bartone et a!., 1968; Bohmer, 1934; Ely, 1910).
2.3.6 Central Nervous System Effects
fable 2-6 outlines reported central nervous system effects due to
formaldehyde exposure. Headaches, fatigue, insomnia, and dizziness have
been reported as symptomatic of low exposures from 0.02 ppm and above, in
both the residential and occupational environments (Woodbury, 1979; Breysse,
1977; Sardinas et al., 1979; Garry et al. , 1980; Harris et a!., 1981;
Kerfoot and Mooney, 1975; Hogari and Main, 1983; Bourne and Seferian, 1959;
Thun et al., 1982; Dally et al. , 1981).
Several studies have attempted to measure responses of the central
nervous system to formaldehyde exposure utilizing physiological changes.
Me 1ekina (1964) determined thresholds for optiona1 chronaxy at 0.07 ppm and
for effects on the functional state of the cerebral cortex at 0.08 ppm. At
1.7 ppm, Melekhina (1964) observed eye sensitivity to light reduced for a
dark-acc1imated group.
Bonashevskaya (1973) found histological and histochemical changes in
cerebral amygdaloid complex at 0.83 ppm. Alterations in functional state
2-49
-------
TABLE 2-6. REPORTED CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM EFFECTS OF FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE
Formaldehyde
concentration
(ppm)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
> Reference
0.02 - 4.Z7
Resldential
Human
Headache
Woodbury (1979);a Breysse
(1977); Sardinas et al.
(1979);a Garry et al. (1980);
Harrls et al. (1981)
0.07
Minutes
Human
Optical chronaxy threshold
HelekMna (1964)a
0.08
Minutes
Human
Threshold of effects
on functional state
of cerebral cortex
Melekhina (1964)a
0.08 - 5.58
Occupational
Human
Headaches
Kerfoot and Mooney (1975)a
0.12 - 1.25
Occupational
chipboard makers
Human
Headaches; Fatigue
Hogan and Main (1983)
0.12 - G. 46
Occupational
Human
Headaches
Bourne and Seferian (1959)a
0,83
3 months
Rat
Histological and
histochemical changes
in cerebral amygdaloid
compl ex
Bonashevskaya (1973)a
0.83
1 minute
Human
Altered functional state
of cerebral cortex
Feldman and Bonashevskaya {1971)a
0.83
90 days
Rat
Focal hyperplasia and
RE system activation
in cerebral cortex
Feldman and Bonashevskaya (1971)a
See footnotes
at end of table.
(conti nued)
-------
TABLE 2-6 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(ppm)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0,83
10 minutes
Human
EEG changes; Alteration of
autonomic nervous system
Sgibnev (1968)*
1.42
1 minute
Human
Eye sensitivity to light in
unacclimated group
Melekhina (1964)a
4,17
4 hours/day
Rat
Increase in the threshold of
neuromuscular excitability
Sheveleva (19?l)a
?
Resi dential
Human
Headache in 16 of 1,396
subjects (nonsignificant);
Insomnia in 11 of 1,396
subjects (nonsignificant);
Dizziness in 5 of 1,396
subjects (nonsignificant)
Thun et al. (1981)
I
?
Resi denti al
Human
Headache in 133 of 256
subjects; Difficulty
sleeping in 97 of 256
subjects; Weakness in
56 of 256 subjects;
Dizziness in 51 of
256 subjects
Dally et al. (1981)
aCited in Gupta, K. C., A, G. Ufsamer, and P. W. Preuss, 1982. "Formaldehyde in Indoor Air: Sources and Toxicity."
Environment International 8:349-358.
-------
of the cerebral cortex were observed by Feldman and Bonashevskaya (1971) at.
the same exposure. Syibnev (1968) noted changes in electroencephalogram
result, also at 0.83 ppm. An increase in the threshold of neuromuscular
excitability in rats at 4.17 ppm was described by Sheve1 ova {1971).
2.3.7 Circulatory System Effects
The reported circulatory system effects due to formaldehyde exposure
are outlined in Table 2~7, The effects listed result from inhalation and
product contact.
Changes in b1ood chemistry of rats and guinea pigs were noted by
Ostapovish (1975) and Sheveleva (1971) from exposures of 3.67 ppm and 4.17
ppm administered through the inhalation pathway. Symptoms included 1euco-
cytosi s, changes in blood cholinesterase, decreased hemoglobin and an
increase in peripheral white blood cells. Experiments by Stewart (1901)
indicated that formaldehyde in solution may cause the loss of the ability
of red blood cells to take up oxygen and the destruction of selective
permeability in red blood cells.
Exposure of dialysis patients to dialyzers sterilized and contaminated
with formaldehyde solutions leads to hemolysis, anemia, and peripheral
blood eosinophia in some subjects (Fassfainder et a!., 1979; Orringer and
Mattern, 1976; Hoy and Cestero, 1979).
2.3.8 Reproductive System Effects
Table 2-8 outlines reported effects of formaldehyde exposure on the
reproductive system.
Nagornyi et al. (1979) found a decrease in weight of testes of rats
upon continuous exposure to 0.42 ppm formaldehyde over 6 months. However,
the study failed to present histological data necessary to evaluate the
pathological results.
Shumilina (19/5) detected menstrual disorders and pregnancy complica-
tions in finishers and inspectors in a cotton mill at-concentrations of
1,25 ppm to 3.83 ppm. However, stress and socioeconomic factors were not
accounted for in the study.
Neshkov and Nosko (1976) reported complaints of male sexual dysfunction
in 58 of 143 subjects studied in a plant producing glass-fiber reinforced
2-52
-------
TABLE 2-7. REPORTED CIRCULATORY SYSTEM EFFECTS OF FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE
Formaldehyde
concentrati on
(PP»)
length/type
of »xpo»ur«
Species
Effect
Reference
1.67
Continous or
intermittent
Guinea
pig
Leucocytesi s; Change
in blood cholinesterase
Ostapov'ch (1975)a
3.70
24 hours'/day,
90 days
Guinea
pig, rat
Chronic inflammatory
changes in heart
Coon et al: {1970)b
4.17
4 hours/day
Rat
Increase in peripheral
white blood eel Is;
Decreased hemoglobin
Sheveleva (1971)a
0,2% (formalde-
hyde solution)
T reatment
of cells
Human
loss of ability of red blood
cells to take up oxygen
Stewart (1901)b
4$ (formalde-
hyde solution)
Treatment
of eel Is
Human
Destruction of selective
permeability In red
blood cells
Stewart (1901
7
Product contact -
dialyzers sterilized
with formaldehyde
Human
Hemolysis leading to renally
induced anemia in patients
Fassbinder et al. (1979}c
?
Product contact -
dialyztrs with
dialysis water
contaminated
with formaldehyde
Hunan
Henolytlc ane«ia
Orringer and Mattern (1976)d
See footnotes at end of table. < (continued)
-------
TABLE 2-7 (continued)
Formaldehyde
concentration
(pp«)
length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
?
Product contact -
Human
Peripheral blood eosirwphia
Hoy and Cestero (1979)®
Dialyitrs sterilized
in patients
with formaldehyde
dCi?.ed in Gupta, K. C. , A. G, Ulsamer, P. W. Preuss, 1982. "Formaldehyde in Indoor Air: Sources and Toxicity.1"
Environment Internationa] 8:349-358.
Cited in National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 1976. Criteria for a Recommended Standard . .
Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde, DHEW
-------
TABLE 2-8. REPORTED REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM EFFECTS OF FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE
Formaldehyde
concentration
(ppm)
Length/type
of exposure
Species
Effect
Reference
0.42
6 months continuous
Rat
'Decrease in weight of testes
Nagornyi et al. (1979)a
1.25 - 3.83*
Occupational
Human
Menstrual disorders;
Pregnancy complications
Shumilina (1975)a,b,c
?
Occupational -
plastic production
workers
Human
Hale sexual dysfunction in 58
of 143 subjects
Neshkov and Nosko (1976)c
aCited in Wartew, G. A. , 1983. "The Health Hazards of Formaldehyde." Journal of Applied Toxicology 3(3):121-126.
bCited in Gupta, K. C., ft. G. Ulsamer, P. W, Preuss. 1982. "Formaldehyde in Indoor Air: Sources and Toxicity,"
E.nvironinent International 8:349-358.
cCited in Federal Panel on Formaldehyde, 1982, "Report of the Federal Panel on Formaldehyde." Environmental Health
Perspectives 43:139-168.
-------
plastic. The study failed to utilize control groups and could not isolate
formaldehyde from among the several toxic substances in the work environment.
A study by Andeeva et a 1. (1980) of women employed in a plywood factory
where formaldehyde concentrations were about 1.25 ppm to 2.0 ppm indicated
that gynecological disorders were nonsignificant among 13,000 cases of
unfitness for work. Garry et a 1. (1980) investigated miscarriage rates
among women exposed to formaldehyde in a residential environment, but found
no significant difference from unexposed women.
2.4. SPECIAL POPULATION GROUPS
The studies concerning the health effects of formaldehyde cited above
are limited to a small portion of the general population. As mentioned
above, controlled experimental studies typically enroll healthy young
adults, usually white males, to study adverse health outcomes. Most epidemi-
ologic. studies in industrial populations focus on males of working age (18
to 65 years) who are heathly enough to hold employment outside of the home.
Some studies include women, but the sample size is usually small. Symptom
surveys of people nonoccupationally exposed to formaldehyde have included
persons of all ages, both male and female, but the analysis of these studies
has not been done in an age-sex-specific way. Therefore, while we know
what the disease burden of this population is as a who 1e, we do not know
if, for example, children are more susceptible than adults, or if females
are at greater risk than males for the consequences of formaldehyde exposure.
As with other pollutants or envi ronmentaI agents, different subgroups
of the population may be differently affected by similar exposures to
formaldehyde. Ca1abrese (1978) has shown that males and females have
different levels of susceptibility to various environmenta1 pollutantss as
demonstrated by differing cellular responses in experimental research. We
know that men and women, and specific age groups have differential risk of
heart disease, cancer at particular sites, and respiratory diseases. Based
on experiences with outdoor air pollution, of which formaldehyde is a
component, one might speculate that certain population groups are at high
risk of irritation, sensitization, and other outcomes of formaldehyde
exposure. These groups include newborns and young children, the elderly,
2-56
-------
persons with preexisting respiratory diseases, and atopic individuals
(persons with allergies) (Small, 1982). The special features of each of
these groups which enhance their susceptibility to formaldehyde wi11 be
addressed in turn.
2.4.1 Newborns and Young Children
Newborns and young children have displayed irritation effects through
the inhalation pathway (NRC, 1981). The Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde
(1983) attributed the potentially greater likelihood of symptomatic response
in children to a faster breathing rate in the younger age group than in
adults.
A survey conducted by the Wisconsin Division of Health and cited by
the NRC (1981) indicated that nosebleeds and rashes were common in infants
and young chiIdren exposed in the 96 homes studied with formaldehyde levels
at 0.68 + 0.66 ppm. Nine of 23 infants were hospitalized with symptoms
such as vomiting, diarrhea, and respiratory problems. The symptoms were
reported to disappear after the infants were removed from the homes.
Like individuals in the general population, infants and young children
have shown respiratory susceptibility to passive smoking (Surgeon General,
1984) and to use of gas cooking fuels, and coal and wood burning stoves
(Florey et al., 1979). The heightened exposure can cause susceptibility to
appear lower for this very young age group, even if tolerance is not actually
lower than for adults. The result is the same as if it were lower, si nee
the group will display effects that adults in the same environment may not.
Contact irritation for newborns and young children has not to our
knowledge been documented. It is generally accepted that infants and young
children have skin that is more sensitive to many chemicals than do adults.
Formaldehyde may be such a chemical, since it is known to be irritating for
adults. Many cosmetic products such as shampoo, lotion, oil, and powder
formulated for babies contain from less than 0.1 percent to 1.0 percent
formaldehyde. According to the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel
(1984), evidence is inadequate to certify as safe for adults cosmetic
products containing more than 0.2 percent formaldehyde.
2-57
-------
Sensitization effects in infants and young children are suspected for
formaldehyde exposure. The Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde (1983) noted
that studies have implicated formaldehyde as a potential factor predisposing
children to respiratory tract infections. Formaldehyde is also a suspected
contributing factor to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) at levels possibly
found in mobile homes (Small„ 1982). Further studies are recommended and
are actually underway in the case of SIDS (Small , 198?).
2.4.2 The Elderly
Studies of formaldehyde-related symptoms in the elderly are few. One
may speculate, however, that this group may have additional sensitivity to
respiratory, gastrointestinal, or dermal irritation or other effects,
because the body's immune system declines with advancing age. Other diseases
show similar trends in incidence and prevalence in the elderly, and formal-
dehyde induced disease may also show this pattern (Small, 1982). The
coexistence of other chronic diseases in the elderly may facilitate the
expression of formaldehyde-related symptoms and disease.
2.4.3 Persons with Preexisting Respiratory Diseases
The compromise of the respiratory system in persons with preexisting
disease may make them addi tionally susceptible to chemical insults. These
persons have hyperreactive airways and may have a lower threshold dose of
formaldehyde associated with the onset of symptoms (Small. 1982; Consensus
Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983, Gupta et al. , 1982). The National Research
Council (1981) indicated that such conditions are present in about 25
million persons (or about 10 to 12 percent of the population) in the United
States.
Persons with asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease, chronic obstruc-
tive pulomonary disease, and some others who react positively to methacho1ine
challenge tests are candidates for heightened sensitivity to formaldehyde
(NRC, 1981). However, asthmatic controls used in a study by Hendrick
et al. (1982) failed to respond to formaldehyde, even when subjected to
exposures of 5 to 8 pptn for 60 minutes, ft paucity of studies using
asthmatics and others with respiratory conditions as primary subjects of
the study precludes definite conclusions.
2-58
-------
2.4.4 Atopic Persons
Persons who have allergic reactions to common allergens including
inhalants and foods may also be more sensitive to formaldehyde than others
(Small, 1982). Persons with allergies may react to exposures of lower
concentration or shorter duration than nonatopic persons (Loomis, 1979).
Atopics may be more likely to experience allergic contact dermatitis
or respiratory problems than the general population (Consensus Workshop on
Formaldehyde, 1983). Although individual experiences suggest these results,
the Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde (1983) indicated it was unaware of
controlled studies documenting presensitization effects of other chemicals.
2.5 REFERENCES
A1exandersson, R. , B. Kolmodi n-Hedman, and G. Hedenotierna, 1982. "Exposure
to Formaldehyde: Ef fects on Pulmonary Function." Archives of Environ
mental Health 37(5):279-284.
Amdur, M. 0. , 1959. "The Physiological Response of Guinea Pigs to Atmos-
pheric Pollutants." International Journal of Air Pollution 1:170-183.
Amdur, M. 0. , 1960. "The Response of Guinea Pigs to Inhalation of Formal-
dehyde and Formic Acid Alone and With a Sodium Chloride Aerosol."
International Journal of Air Pollution 3:201-220.
Andeeva, I. A., V. P. Agudi n, L. M. Barysheva, 8. I. Karpunin, and I. Ya.
Saidasheva, 1980. "Physiological-Hygienic Evaluation of the Work of
Women in Plywood Production." Gigiena Truda i Professional'nye
Zabolevaniya [Russian] (2):30-32.
Anderson, I. , 1979. "Formaldehyde in Indoor Environment-Health implications
and the Setting of Standards." In Fanger, P. 0., and 0. Valbjorn, ed.
Indoor Climate: Effects on Human Comfort, Performance and Health in
Residential, Commercial, and Light-Industry Buildings. Proceedings of
the First International Indoor Climate Symposium, Copenhagen, August 30-
September 1, 1978. Copenhagen: Danish Building Research Institute.
pp. 65-87.
Andersen, K. E., N. Hyorth, H. Bundgaard, and M. Johansen, 1983. "Formal-
dehyde in a HypoalIergenic Non-woven Textile Acrylate Tape." Contact
Dermititi s 9(3):228.
Bardana, E. J. , 1980. "Formaldehyde: Hypersensitivity and Irritant Reac-
tions at Work and in the Home." Imrouno1ogy and Allergy Practice
-------
Barrow, C. S., W. H. Steinhagen, and J.C.F. Chang, 1983. "Formaldehyde
Sensory Irritation." Irs Gibson, J. E. , ed. Formaldehyde Toxicity.
Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Co. pp. 17-24.
Bender, J. R. , L. S. Mullin, G. J. Graepel, and W. f. Wilson, 1983. "Eye
Irritation Response of Humans to formaldehyde." American Industrial
Hygiene Association Journal 44(6):463-465.
Black, H. , 1971. "Contact Dermititis from Formaldehyde in Newsprint."
Contact Dermititis Newsletter 10:162.
B1ejer, H. P., and B. H. Miller, 1966. Occupational Health Report of
Formaldehyde Concentrations and Effects on Workers at the Bayly Manu-
facturing Company, Visalia, California. Study Report No. S-1806.
Los Angeles: State of California Health and Welfare Agency, Depart-
ment of Public Health.
Bohmer, K., 1934. "Formalin Poisoning." Deutsche Zei tschri ft fuer die
Gesarote Gerichtliche Medizin [German] 23:7-18.
Bourne, H. G., Jr., and S. Seferian, 1959. "Insufficiently Polymerized
Resins Used for Wrinkle-Proofing Clothing May Liberate Toxic Quantities
of Formaldehyde." Industrial Medicine and Surgery 28:232.
Breysse, P. A., 1977. "Formaldehyde in Mobile and Conventional Homes."
Environmental Health Safety News 26:1-20.
Calabrese, E. J. , 1978. Pollutants and High Risk Groups: The Biological
Basis for Increased Susceptibility to Environmental and Occupational
Pollutants. New York: Wiley Publishing Co.
Chajes , B., 1930. "Formaldehyde, Formalin." In Occupational and Health,
Encyclopedia of Hygiene, Pathology and Social Wei fare. Vol. I.
International Labour Office. Geneva:Noirclerc et Fenetrier.
pp. 806-810.
Commercial Solvents Corporation. Technical Data Sheet 0C Series. IDS
No. S. Formaldehyde. New York. 4 pp.
Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983. Peliberations of the Consensus
Workshop on Formaldehyde. Proceedings of a workshop held October 3-6,
1983 in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), 1982. "Consumer Product Safety
Commission Ban of UFF1, Withdrawal of Proposed Information Labeling
Rule, and Denial of Petition to Issue a Standard." Federal Register
47(64):14366-14419.
Coon, R. A., R. A. Jones, C. R. Jenki n, Jr., and J. Siegel, 19/0. "Animal
Inhalation Studies on Ammonia, Ethylene Glycol , Formaldehyde, Dimethyl -
amine, and Ethanol." Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 16:646-655.
2-60
-------
Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), 1984. "Final Report on the Safety Assess-
ment of Formaldehyde." Journal of the American College of Toxicology
3(3):157-184.
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA), 1975. Human Skin
Irritation. CTFA Code 2-1-25. Skin Cleanser. Unpublished data.
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA), 1976a. Twenty-one
Cumulative Irritancy Assay. CTFA Code 2-1-23. Facial Cleanser.
Unpublished data.
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA), 1976b. Skin Allergy
Testing. CTFA Code 2-1-24. Facial Cleanser. Unpublished data.
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA), 1977. Human Skin
Irritation. CTFA Code 2-1-38. Skin Moisturizer. Unpublished data.
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA), 1978a. A1 lergic
Contact Sensitization Test. Test No. APTC-045-78. CTFA Code 2-1-36.
Hair care product. Unpublished data.
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA), 1978b. Human Skin
Irritation. CTFA Code 2-1-38. Skin Moisturizer. Unpublished data.
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA), 1981. Formaldehyde:
Cosmetic Ingredient Safety Analysis. Summary. Unpublished data.
Dally, K. A., L. P. Hanrahan, M. A. Woodbury, and M. S. Kanarek, 1981.
"Formaldehyde Exposure in Non-occupational Environments." Archives
of Environmental Health 36(6):277-284.
Davis, T. R. A., S. P. Battista, and C. J. Kensler, 1967. "Mechanism of
Respiratory Effects During Exposure of Guinea Pigs to Irritants."
Archives of Environmental Health 15:412-419.
Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 1974. Philadelphia: W.8.
Saunders Co.
DuPont de Nemours and Company, 1970. Primary Skin Irritation and Sensiti-
zation Test on Guinea Pigs. Haskel1 Laboratory for Toxicology and
Industrial Medicine.
Earp, S. E. , 1916. "The Physiological and Toxic Actions of Formaldehyde -
With a Report of Three Cases of Poisoning by Formalin." New York
Medical Journal 104:391-392. ~
Ely, F., 1910. "Formaldehyde Poisoning." Journal of the American Medical
Association 54:1140-1141.
Engel, H. 0., and C. D. Calnan, 1966. "Resin Dermititis in a Car Factory."
British Journal of Industrial Medicine 23:62-66.
2-61
-------
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1984. "Formaldehyde; Determination
of Significant Risk; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice,"
Federal Register 49(101):21870-12898.
Fassbinder, W. , U. Frei, and K. M. Koch, 1979. "Haemolysis Due to
Formaldehyde-Induced Anti-N-Like Antibodies in Haemodialysis Patients.81
10 inislice Wochenschri ft [GermanJ 57:673-679.
Federal Panel on Formaldehyde, 1982. "Report of the Federal Panel on
Formaldehyde." Environmental Health Perspectives 43:139-168.
Feldman, Y. U. G. , arid T. I. Bonashevskaya, 1971. "On the Effects of Low
Concentrations of Formaldehyde." Giqiena i Sanitariva [Russian]
36(5):174-180.
Fielder, R. J. , 1981. Toxicity Review ^--Formaldehyde. Her Majes ty!s
Stationery Office, London. Publishers; Eyre and Spottiswoode,
Grosvenor Press Portsmouth. Prepared for the Health and Safety
Executive.
Finklea, J. F., 0. I. Hammer, D. E. House, C. R. Sharp, W. C. Nelson, and
G. R. Lowrimore, 1971. "Frequency of Acute Lower Respiratory Disease
in Children: Retrospective Survey of Five Rocky Mountain Communities:
1967-1970. In U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Conse-
quences of Sulfur Oxides: A Report from CHESS, 1970-1971, Washington,
D. C. pp. 3-35 ~ 3-56.
Florey, C. duV., R. J. W. Melia, S. Chinn, B. D. Goldstein, A. G. F. Brooks,
H. H. John, I. 8. Craighead, and X. Webster, 1979. "The Relationship
Between Respiratory IIlness in Primary SchoolchiIdren and the Use of
Gas for Cooking. Ill Nitrogen Dioxide, Respiratory Illness and Lung
Infection." International Journal of Epidemiology 8:347-353.
Freeman, H. G., and W. C. Grendon, 1971. "Formaldehyde Detection and
Control in the Wood Industry. Forest Products Journal 21(9):54-57.
Frigas, E. , W. V, Filley, and C. E. Reed, 1984. "Bronchial Challenge with
Formaldehyde Gas: Lack of Bronchioconstriction in 13 Patients Sus-
pected of Having Formaldehyde-Induced Asthma." Mayo Clinic Proceed-
ings 59:295-299^
Gamble, J. , 1983. "Effects of Formaldehyde on the Respiratory System." In
Gibson, J. E. , ed. Formaldehyde Toxicity. Washington, D.C.: Hemis-
phere Publishing Co.
Gamble, J. F., A. J. McMichael, T. Williams, and M. Battigel1i, 1976.
"Respi ratory Function and Symptoms: An Envi ronmental-Epidcmiological
Study of Rubber Workers Exposed to Phenol-Formaldehyde Type Resin."
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 37:499-513.
2-52
-------
Garry, V. F., L. Oatman, R. Pleuss, and D. Gray, 1980. "Formaldehyde in
the Home - Some Environmental Disease Perspectives." Minnesota Med"
icine 63:107-111.
Glass, W. I. , 1961. "An Outbreak of Formaldehyde Dermi titis." New Zealand
Medical Journal 60:423-427.
Gupta, K. C., A. G. Ulsamer, and P. W. Preuss, 1982. "Formaldehyde in
Indoor Air: Sources and Toxicity." Environmental International
8:349-358.
Harris, D. K. , 1953. "Health Problems in the Manufacture and Use of Plas-
tics. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 10:255-268.
Harris, J. C., B. H. Rumack, and F. B. Aldrick, 1981. "Toxicology of
Urea-Formaldehyde and Polyurethane Foam Insulation." Journal of the
American Medical Association 245:243-246.
Hendrick, D. J., and 0. J. Lane, 1975. "Formal in Asthma in Hospital Staff."
British Medical Journal. 1:607-608.
Hendrick, D. J., and D. J. Lane, Vfll. "Occupational Formalin Asthma."
British Journal of Industrial Medicine 34:11-18.
Hendrick, David J., Roy J. Rando, Donald J. Lane, and M. Joycelyn Morris,
1982. "Formaldehyde Asthma: Challenge Exposure and Fate After Five
Years." Journal of Occupational Medicine 24(11):893-897.
Hogan, David M., and Theodore J. Main, 1983. "Health Effects of Low-Level
Exposure to Formaldehyde." Journal of Occupational Medicine 25(2):
896-900.
Horsfal1, F. L. , 1934. "Formaldehyde Hypers ensitiveness--An Experimental
Study." Journal of Immunology 27:569-581.
Horton, A. W., R. Tye, and K. L. Stemmer, 1963. "Experimental Carcinogen-
esis of the Lung, Inhalation of Gaseous Formaldehyde or an Aerosol of
Coal Tar by C,H Mice." Journal of the National Cancer Institute
30:31-43.
Hovding, G. , 1961. "Contact Eczema Due to Formaldehyde in Resin Finished
Textiles." Acta Dermato-Venereoloqica 41:194-200.
Hoy, W. E. , and R. V. M. Cestero, 1979. "Eosinophilia in Maintenance
Hemodialysis Patients." Journal of Dialysis. 3:73.
Industrial Biology Laboratories, 1967. Repeated Insult Patch Test. CTFA
Code 2-1-37. Facial Moisturizer. Unpublished data.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 1982. Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans: Some Industrial Chemicals
and Dyestuffs. Monograph. Vol. 29, pp. 345-389.
2-63
-------
Jordan, W. P., W. T. Sherman, and S. E. King, 1979. "Threshold Response in
Formaldehyde-Sensitive Subjects." Journal of the American Academy of
Dermatology 1:44-48.
Kachlik, Z., 1968. "Mass Outbreak of Occupational Skin Disorders in Cloth-
ing Plant When Processing Materials with Crease-Resistant Finish.
Pracovni Lekarstr [Czech] 20:154-158.
Kane, L. E., Y. Alarie, 1977. "Sensory Irritation to Formaldehyde and
Acrolein During Single and Repeated Exposures in Mice." American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 38:509-522.
Kerfoot, E. J., and T. F. Mooney, 1975. "Formaldehyde and Paraformaldehyde
Study in Funeral Homes. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal
36:533-537.
Kratochvi1, I. , 1971. "Health Hazards Caused by Formaldehyde Liberated
from an Anti-Crease Textile Finish." Pracovni Lekarstr [Czech]
23:374.
LaBelle, C. W., J. E. Long, and E. E. Christofano, 1955. "Synergistic
Effects of Aerosols." AMA Archives of Industrial Health 11:297.
Lazar, P. , 1966. "Reactions to Nail Hardeners." Archives of Dermatology
92:446-448.
Lee, Hye Kyung, Yves Alarie, and Meryl H. Karol, 1984. "Induction of
Formaldehyde Sensitivity in Guinea Pigs." Toxicology and App1ied
Pharmocology. 75:147-155.
Leonardos, G. , D. Kendal 1, and N. Barnard, 1969. "Odor Threshold Determin-
ations of 53 Deodorant Chemicals." Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Assocation 19:91-95.
Levine, R. J., R. D. Dal Corso, P. B. Burnden, and M. C. Battigelli, 1984.
"The Effects of Occupational Exposure on the Respiratory Health of
West Virginia Morticians." Journal of Occupational Medicine 26(2):
91-98.
Lindskov, R. , 1982. "Contact Urticaria to Formaldehyde." Contact
Dermatitis 8(5):333-334.
Logan, N. S., and H. 0. Perry, 1972. "Cast Dermatitis Due to Formaldehyde
Sensitivity." Archives of Dermatology 106:717.
Logan, N. S., and H. 0. Perry, 1973. "Contact Dermititis to Resin-
Containing Casts." CIinical Orthopaedics 90:150-152.
Magnusson, B., and A. M. K1igman, 1977. "Usefulness of Guinea Pig Tests
for Detection of Contact Sensitizers." In Marzulli, N., and H. I.
Maibach, ed. Advances in Modern Toxicology, Vol. 4, Dermatotoxicology
and Pharmacology. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Co.
pp. 551-560.
2-64
-------
Maibach, H., 1983. "Formaldehyde Effects on Animal and Human Skin." In
Gibson, J. E., ed., Formaldehyde Toxicity Washington D.C.: Hemisphere
Publishing Co. pp. 166-173.
Main, D. M., and T. J. Hogan,1983. "Health Effects of Low-level Exposure
to Formaldehyde." Journal of Occupational Medicine 25(2):896-900.
Markuson, K. E., T. F. Mancuso, and J. S. Soet, 1943. "Dermititis Due to
the Formaldehyde Resins—Prevention and Methods of Control." Indus-
trial Medicine 12:383-386.
Marzul1i, F. N., and H. I. Maibach, 1973. "Antimicrobials: Experimental
Contact Sensitization in Man." Journal of the Society of Costmetic
Chemists 24:399-421.
Marzul1i, F. N., and H. I. Maibach, 1974. "The Use of Graded Concentra-
tions in Studying Skin Sensitizers: Experimental Contact Sensitiza-
tion in Man. Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 12:210-227.
Melekhina, V. P. , 1964. "Hygienic Evaluation of Formaldehyde as an Atmos-
pheric Air Pollutant." In Levine, B. S., ed. U.S.S.R. Literature
on Air Pollution and Related Occupational Diseases. Vol. 9. A Survey.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Public Health Service, pp. 9-18.
Miller, 8. H., and H. P. Blejer, 1966. Report of an Occupational Health
Study of Formaldehyde Concentrations at Maximes, 400 E. Colorado
Street, Pasadena, California. Study Report No. S-1838. Los Angeles:
State of California Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Public
Health.
Misiakiewicz, Z. , G. Szulinska, A. Chyba, and E. Czyz, 1977. Effect of
Formaldehyde on the Development of Rats During Long Term Continuous
Exposure." Roczniki Panstwowego Zakladu Hlgieny [Polish] 28:99-106.
Monsanto Company, 1973a. "Ninety-day Rat Feeding Study on Formaldehyde."
Project No. PRL 73-14. Performed by Pharmacopathics Research Labora-
tories. St. Louis, Missouri: Monsanto Co.
Monsanto Company, 1973b. "Ninety-day Dog Feeding Study on Formaldehyde."
Project No. PRL 73-14. Performed by Pharmacophathics Research Labora-
tories. St. Louis, Missouri: Monsanto Co.
Most, R. S., G. R. Curry, A. V. Sardinas, and J. S. Marks, 1981. "Persist-
ance of Symptoms Associated with Urea-formaldehyde Foam Insulation.
Journal of Environmental Health 43:251-253.
Murphy, S. D., M. V. Davis, and V. L. Zaratizian, 1964. "Biochemical
Effects in Rats from Irritating Air Contaminants." Toxicology and
Applied Pharmacology 6:520.
2-65
-------
Nagornyi, P. A., Zh. A. Sudakova, and S. M. Schablenko, 1979. "General
Toxic and Allergic Effects of Formaldehyde." Giegiena Truda i Pro-
fessional ] nye Zabolevaniya [Russian] (1):27-30.
National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Aldehydes, 1981. Formalde-
hyde and Other Aldehydes. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Neshkov, N. S., and A. M. Nosko, 1976. "Effect of Toxic Components of
Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastics on the Higher Nervous Activity and
Sexual Function in Male Workers." Gigiena Truda i Professional'nye
Zabolevaniya [Russian] 12:92-94.
North American Contact Dermititis Group, 1973. "Epidemiology of Contact
Dermatitis in North America: 1972." Archives of Dermatology 108:
537-540.
North American Dermititis Group, 1980. ' Standard Screening Tray 1979 vs.
1980 Summary.
0'Quinn, S. E., and C. B. Kennedy, 1965. "Contact Dermititis Due to Formal-
dehyde in Clothing Texti1es." Journal of the American Medical Associ-
. ation 194:593-596.
Orringer, E. P., and W. D. Mattern, 1976. "Formaldehyde-Induced Hemolysis
During Chronic Hemodialysis." New England Journal of Medicine 294:1416-
1420.
Ostapovich, I. K. , 1975. "The Features of Sensitizing Action of Sulfurous
Anhydride and Formaldehyde in Various Regimens of Their Inhalation."
Gigiena i Sanitariya [Russian] 2:9~13.
Pederson, N. B. , 1980. "Occupational Hand Eczema from Formaldehyde in
Price Labels." Contact Dermatitis 6(1):57-58.
Piri1 a, V., and 0. Kilpio, 1949. "On Dermititis Caused by Formaldehyde and
Its Compounds." Annales Medicinae Internae Fenniae [Finnish] 38:38-51.
Plunkett, E. R., and T. Barbel la, 1977. "Are Embalmers at Risk?" American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 36:533-537.
Popa, V., D. Teculescu, D. Stanescu, and N. GarriIscu, 1969. "Bronchial
Asthma and Asthmatic Bronchitis Determined by Simple Chemicals."
Pi seases of the Chest 65:395.
Porter, J. A. H., 1975, "Acute Respiratory Oistress Following Formal in
Inhalation." Lancet 1:603-604.
Rader, J. , 1974. Irritant Effects of Formaldehyde in Anatomy Laboratories:
Analytical and Experimental Investigations. Doctoral dissertation.
University of Wurzburg.
2-66
-------
Robbins, S. L., and M. Angel 1, 1976. Basic Pathology. Philadelphia: W. B
Saunders Co.
Rostenberg, A., Jr., B. Bairstow, and T. W. Luther, 1952. "A Study of
Eczematous Sensitivity to Formaldehyde." Journal of Investigative
Dermatology. 19:459-462.
Rycroft, R. J. G., 1982. "Contact Sensitization to 2-Monomethylol Phenol
in Phenol Formaldehyde Resin as an Example of the Recognition and
Prevention of Industrial Dermatoses." Clinical and Experimental
Dermatology 7(3):285-290.
Sakula, A., 1975. "Formalin Asthma in Hospital Laboratory Staff." Lancet
2:816.
Salem, H., and H. Cullumbine, 1960. "Inhalation Toxicities of Some Alde-
hydes. " Toxicology and'Applied Pharmacology 2:183-187.
Sardinas, A. V., R. S. Host, M. A. Giulietti , and P. Honchar, 1979.
"Health Effects Associated with Urea-Formaldehyde Foam Insulation in
Connecticut." Journal of Environmental Health 41(5)270-272.
Schoenberg, J. B., and C. A. Mitchell, 1975. "Airway Disease Caused by
Phenolic (Phenol-Formaldehyde) Resin Exposure." Archives of Environ-
mental Health 30:574-577.
Schwartz, L., 1936. "Dermatitis in the Manufacture of Synthetic Resins an
Waxes." In Skin Hazards in American Industry. Part II. Public
Health Builetin 229. U.S. Treasury Department, pp. 1-12.
Schwartz, L., S. M. Peck, and J. E. Dunn, 1943. "Dermititis from Resin
Glue in War Industries." Public Health Report 58:899-904.
Sgibnev, A. K., 1968. "Effect of Formaldehyde Fume Concentrations on
Humans." Gigiena Truda i Professional'nye Zabolevaniya [Russian]
Shellow, H., and A. T. Altman, 1966. "Dermatitis from Formaldehyde Resin
Textiles." Archives of Dermatology 94:799-801.
Sheveleva, G. A., 1971. "Investigation of the Specific Effect of Formalde
byde on the Embryogenesis and Progeny in White Rats." Toksikologiya
Novykh Promyshlennykh Khimicheskikh Veshchestv [Russian] 12:78-86.
Shipkovitz, H. D., 1968. Formaldehyde Vapor Emissions in the Permanent
Press Fabrics Industry. Report TR-52. Prepared for Public Health
Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Shumi1ina, A. V., 1971. "Menstrual and Reproductive Functions in Workers
with Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde." Gigiena Truda i Profes-
sional'nye Zabolevaniya [Russian] (12):18-21.
2-67
-------
Skerfvi ng, S., B. Akesson, B. G. Simonsson, 1980. "Meatwrappers' Asthma
Caused by Thermal Degradation Products of Polyethylene." Lancet
1:211.
Skogh, M., 1959. "Axillary Eczema in Women, a Syndrome." Acta Dermato
Venerealogica 39:348-356.
Small, Bruce, 1982. The Susceptibility Report: Chemical Susceptibility
and Urea-Formaldehyde Foam Insulation. Cornwall, Ontario: DECO-PLANS
Inc.
Sneddon, I. B., 1968. "Dermatitis in an Intermittent Haemodialysis Unit,"
British Medical Journal 1:183-184.
Solomon, W. R., 1982. "Disturbances of Immune Mechanisms (Part 2)." In
Price, S. A., and L. M. Wilson, ed. Pathophysiology, Clinical Con-
cepts of Disease Processes. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. pp.
Stewart, G. N., 1901. "The Conditions that Underlie the Peculiarities in
the Behaviour of the Coloured Blood-Corpuscles to Certain Substances."
Journal of Physiology 26:470-496.
Surgeon General1s Report, 1984. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Chronic
Obstructive Lung Disease. Publication No. (PHS) 84-50205. Washington,
O.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Thun, M. J., M. F. Lakat, and R. Altman, 1982. "Symptom Survey of Residents
of Homes Insulated with Urea-formaldehyde Foam." Environmental Research
29:320-334.
Trinkler, H., 1968. "Working With Formaldehyde." Medizinsiche Laboratorium
[German] 21:283.
Vaughn, W. T. , 1939. The Practice of Allergy. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby.
Wahren, H., 1980. "Swedish Indoor Air Standards." Presentation at U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission technical workshop on formaldehyde.
Walker, J. F., 1966. "Formaldehyde." In Kirk-Qthmer Encyclopedia of
Chemical Technology. Vol. 10. ed. 2 rev. New York: Interscience
Publishers, pp. 77-99.
Wayne, L. G., R. J. Bryan, and K. Ziedman, 1977. Irritant Effects of
Industrial Chemicals: Formaldehyde. DHEW (NI0SH) Publication No.
77-117. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Wei fare, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
Williams, T. M., R. J. Levine, and P. B. Blunden, 1984. "Exposure of
Embalmers to Formaldehyde and Other Chemicals." American Industrial
Hygiene Association Journal 45(3):172-176.
2-68
-------
Woodbury, M. A., and C. Zenz, 1978. ''Formaldehyde Vapor Problems in Homes
from Chipboard and Foam Insulation." Paper presented to the Wisconsin
Department of Hea!th, Education, and Welfare, Committee to Coordinate
Toxicology and Related Programs.
Yefremov, G. 6., 1970. "The State of the Upper Respiratory Tract in
Formaldehyde Production Employees." Zhurnal Ushnykh Nosvykhi Gorlovykh
Boleznei [Russian] 30:11-15.
Zaeva, G. N., I. P. Ulanova, and L. A. Dueva, 1968. "Materials for Revi-
sion of the Maximal Permissible Concentrations of Formaldehyde in the
Inside Atmosphere of Industrial Premises." Giqiena Truda i Profes-
sional 'nye Zabolevaniya [Russian] 12:16-20.
Zannini, D., and L. Russo, 1957. "Consequences of Acute Intoxications Due
to Gaseous Irritants of the Respiratory System." Lavoro Umano [Italian]
9:241-253.
Zenz, C, , ed., 1980. Developments in Occupational Medicine. Chicago:
Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc. pp. 349-353.
2-69
-------
CHAPTER 3
POPULATION AT RISK FROM FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE
factors that affect individuals' exposure to formaldehyde may be
divided into two broad categori es~-product factors (characteristics that
affect the emissions or offgassing of formaldehyde from the product) and
spatial-temporal factors (location of the individual at the time of exposure).
Under differing conditions, a product or production process is likely to
emit formaldehyde at different rates. Furthermore, locations differ with
respect to their capacity for trapping and holding formaldehyde. The
interaction of these factors causes formaldehyde exposure to reflect individ-
ual lifestyles to a large extent.
In this chapter, exposures from production processes and from use of
products containing formaldehyde are examined. An attempt is made to
estimate exposures for various subgroups of the population. Primarily,
these exposure estimates are applicable only to the inhalation pathway,
though the ingestion and skin contact exposure pathways occur in some
production processes and some product uses. It is important to note that
the estimates provided use existing data and are not based on an original
survey.
Section 3.1 provides estimates of formaldehyde concentrations in the
ambient environment and indoors. Both workplace and residential concentra-
tions are estimated. Section 3,2 provides time allocation profiles for
population subgroups. Formaldehyde exposure profiles by time of day and
cumulatively are presented for the population subgroups in Section 3.3.
Finally, estimates of the exposures of the entire U.S. population are
provided in Section 3.4.
3.1 FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS
Both natural and human activities result in the presence of formaldehyde
in the ambient (outdoor) and indoor environments. Formaldehyde concentra-
3-1
-------
lions in both environments are a function of the release rates of both
formaldehyde and its precursors from their sources, and of factors which
affect emissions rates and formaldehyde formation from precursors.
Formaldehyde is one of a class of pollutants predominantly generated
by indoor sources. Outdoor sources have little impact on ambient concen-
trations of the pollutant. They are briefly reviewed below for complete-
ness and because they affect background concentration. However, indoor
concentrations may be significant, especially in tight, energy-efficient
structures (Yocom, 1982).
3.1.1 Ambient Concentrations
Ambient levels of formaldehyde are determined by natural processes and
by combustion and production processes which liberate formaldehyde and its
precursors directly into the outdoor air. Factors such as amount of avail-
able sunlight, which affects photochemical processes; levels of hydrocarbon
and free formaldehyde released during combustion or production; wind condi-
tions affecting dispersion of emissions; arid temperature and rainfal 1
affecting rate of chemical processes are important to determination of
ambient concentrations (National Research Council (NRC), 1981a; Versar,
1982).
3.1.1.1 Natural Sources and Ambient Concentrations--
Formaldehyde is present even in "clean" air due to natural processes
that either directly release formaldehyde or cause its formation. FormaIde
hyde is a consti tuent. of various fruits, vegetables, trees, and other
vegetation where it may be given off in normal release or may be liberated
through combustion of vegetative materials as may occur during a forest
fire (NRC, 1981a). The incomplete combustion processes associated with
volcanic eruptions are another source of formaldehyde as is the anaerobic
decomposition of methane by bacteria and certain other microorganisms such
as yeast (Versar, 1982).
Photochemical processes in the atmosphere generate HO radicals that
react with hydrocarbons present in the atmosphere to create formaldehyde
(NRC, 1981a). This process is estimated to be responsible for approximate!
90,000 to 180,000 megagrams of formaldehyde annually (Oatway and Klemm,
-------
1981). The photodissociation of a 1kyI nitrates also results in formaldehyde
production (Oatway and Klemm, 1981).
Processes also exist, that break down formaldehyde in the natural
environment. Photo lyt ic reactions and oxidation are two such mechanisms
which break down formaldehyde in the air. Depending on the time of year,
the time of day, and various meteorologic conditions, the normal half-life
for formaldehyde is 4.6 hours to 11.4 hours (Versar, 1982).
The National Research Council (1981a) has summarized data indicating
that aldehyde concentrations in clean air range from 0.0005 to 0.002 ppm.
Formaldehyde is the dominant aldehyde. Versar (1982) estimates formalde-
hyde concentrations in rural places to average 0.0004 ppm. The NRC and
Versar values may suggest the approximate natural ambient levels of formal-
dehyde in the atmosphere.
The presence of formaldehyde in water is negligible due to its rapid
degradation in that medium (Versar, 1982). Formaldehyde penetrates deeply
into sandy, loamy, and chernozem soils and is uniformly distributed. In
clay soils absorption occurs most readily under dry, hot weather conditions.
Irs most cases, soil formaldehyde content is negligible (Versar, 1982).
3.1.1.2 Han-Made Sources and Ambient Concentrations-
Combustion and production processes are the main contributors to
formaldehyde in the ambient air both directly and indirectly. Direct
production of formaldehyde, formaldehyde resins and chemicals, and uses of
these products in production processes or as preservatives and disinfectants
may liberate substantial amounts of formaldehyde directly into the air.
Versar (1382) estimates that about 14,500 meyagrams were released by these
processes in 1980. Oatway and Klemm (1982) estimate 43,710 to 59,810 mega-
grams of formaldehyde are emitted annually.
The indirect production of formaldehyde is by far the largest source
for air release of the chemical. Versar (1982) reports that 99 percent of
the total identified airborne emissions for formaldehyde in 1980 are from
indirect production sources, while Oatway and Klemm (1982) placed that
figure annually at 90 percent. Indirect production results chiefly from
photochemical reactions in the presence of hydrocarbons, such as are emitted
in the combustion of fossil fuels and waste incineration. Processes included
-------
are combustion of fuel and diesel oil, aviation and automobile fuel, natural
gas, coal, and oil, incineration of municipal and vegetative wastes, and
oil refining (NRC, 1981a; Versar, 1982; Oatway and Klemm, 1982).
Certain other industrial processes which utilize fossil fuels have
been evaluated for their formaldehyde emission. These range from amberglass
and mineral wool manufacture to brakeshoe debonding (NRC, 1981a). In
effect, any such fassii fuel emissions containing incompletely combusted
hydrocarbons may serve as formaldehyde precursors.
The NRC data for polluted urban environments place aldehyde concentra-
tions in the 0.01 to 0.05 ppm range during the daylight hours (NRC 1981a).
Versar estimates urban concentrations to average 0.005 ppm. Us i ng the NRC-
and Versar-based estimates for natural ambient levels, human activity
appears to account tor virtually all ambient formaldehyde.
3.1.2 indoor Concentrations
Formaldehyde is a potential constituent of indoor air. The primary
places of exposure are in the workplace and the home.
3.1.2.1 Workplace Concentrations—
Significant formaldehyde concentrations in the workplace are found in
establishments that manufacture or use formaldehyde, formaldehyde derivatives,
and formaldehyde-releasing products. The key industries are shown in Table
3-1. Table 3-2 shows the estimates of workplace formaldehyde concentration
levels for high exposure industries adopted for this report. They are
primarily derived from Versar (1982). Other studies have also provided
workplace exposure estimates. For example, the Snell Division of Booz,
Allen, and Hamilton, Inc. performed a study for the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturers Association in 1979. Exposure levels were based on
a sensory perception scale utilizing probable concentration levels and
ranges for odor and eye effects experienced by workers. Two later analyses
criticized Snell for relying on a small sample with poor response rate
(about 400 of 3,365 mailed surveys were returned). One of these was a
workshop commissioned by the White House Office on Science and Technology
Policy to address the toxicologies 1 aspects of formaldehyde {Consensus
Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983).
3-4
-------
TABLE 3-1. USERS OF FORMALDEHYDE, FORMALDEHYDE DERIVIA]IVES
AND FORMALDEHYDE-RELEASING PRODUCTS
Industry SIC Code Product or service
Agri culture
Mining
Construct!on
Foods and Kindred
Products
Manufacturing
0134
0161
0181
0181
0182
0189
025
025
0711
0721
0849
1381
152
172
1742
1751
1752
20
201
226
2291
2295
231
232
233
234
236
237
242
2435
2436
2451
2452
2491
2492
251
2521
2531
Potato farm operation
Onion farm operation
Ornamental bulb growing
Nursery and greenhouse operation
Mushroom farm operation
Gar]ic seed processing
Producing and hatching of poultry eggs
Poultry farm operation
Soil preparation
Crop planting, cultivating and protection
Sugar maple tree tapping
Oil and gas well drilling
General residential contracting
Painting contracting
Plastering, drywal1, acoustical, and
insulation work
Carpentering
Floor laying and other floorwork
Food products
Meat products
Dyeing and finishing textiles
Felts goods, except woven felts and hats
Coated fabrics, not rubberized
Men's, youths' and boys' suits, coats,
and overcoats
Hen's, youths' , and boys' furnishings,
work clothing, and allied garments
Women's, misses1, and juniors' outerwear
Women's, misses', children's, and
infants' undergarments
Girls', children's, and infants' outerwear
Miscellaneous fabricated textile products
Sawmills and planing mills
Hardwood veneer and plywood
Softwood veneer and plywood
Mobile homes
Pre fabricated wood buildings
Wood preservatives
Particleboard
Household furniture
Wood office furniture
Public building and related furniture
(coiitTnuec
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
Industry
SIC Code
Product or service
Manufacturing
2541
Wood partitions, shelving, lockers, and
(continued)
office and store fixtures
2599
Furniture and fixtures
261
Pulp mills
2621
Paper, except building papers
2631
Paperboard
2641
Coated and glazed paper products
2643
Paper bags
2647
Sanitary paper products
2653
Corrugated boxes
2661
Building paper and building board
27
Printing and publishing
2751
Commercial printing
2821
Plastics, materials, synthetic resins,
and nonvulcanizable elastomers
283
Drugs
284
Soap, detergent and cleaning preparations,
perfumes, cosmetics, and other toilet
preparations
2851
Paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels,
and al1ied products
2865
Cyc1ic crudes, cyclic intermediates,
dyes, and organic pigments a
2869
Industrial organic chemicals, NEC
2873
Nitrogenous fertilizers
2879
Pesticides and agricultural chemicals, NEC
2891
Adhesives and sealants
2899
Chemicals and chemical preparations
2911
Petroleum refining
2952
Asphalt felt and coatings
3011
Tires and inner tubes
3069
Fabricated rubber products, NECa
3079
Urea-formaldehyde foam resins, phenol-
formaldehyde resin insulation foams,
and miscellaneous plastic products
3111
Leather tanning and finishing
314
Shoes
3231
Mirrors
327
Concrete, plaster, and related products
3291
Abrasive products
3292
Asbestos products
3296
Mineral wool insulation
332
Iron and steel foundries
336
Nonferrous foundries
3471
Electroplating, plating, polishing,
anodizing, and coloring
(continued)
3-6
-------
TABLE
3-1 (continued)
Industry
SIC Code
Product or service
Manufacture" ng
3479
Coating, engraving, and al1ied services, NEC
(continued)
3565
Industrial patterns
3634
Electric housewares and fans
364
Electric lighting and wiring equipment
366
Communication equipment ^
3679
Electric components, NEC
3694
Electrical equipment for internal
combustion engines
3714
Motor vehicles parts and accessories
3728
Aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment
3732
Boat building and repairing
3792
Travel trailers and campers
3861
Photographic equipment and supplies
394
Toys and amusement, sporting, and
athletic goods
3963
Buttons
Wholesale Trade
4221
Citrus storage facility operation
- 5031
Lumber, plywood and millwork
513
Apparel
516
Chemicals and al1ied forms
Retail Trade
5211
Lumber and other building materials
5271
Mob i1e homes
56
Apparel and accessories
571
Furniture, home furnishings and equipment
Services
721
Laundry, cleaning and garment services
7231
Beauty shop services
724
Barber shop services
7261
Funeral services
7342
Disinfecting and exterminating services
7391
Research and development laboratory work
7395
Photofinishing laboratory work
7641
Reupholstery and furniture repair
80 .
Health-related faci1ity cleaning and
maintenance services
806
Hospital services
8071
Medical laboratory work
8072
Dental laboratory work
821, 822
High school, college, and professional
school biology teaching
Not elsewhere classified.
See Sources on following page.
3-7
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
SOURCES: 1. Hattis, Dale, Clifford Mitchell, Janet McCleary-Jones, and
Nancy Gorel ick, 1981, C_ontroj of Occupationaj^ Exposures to
Formaldehyde: A Case Study of Methodology for Assessing the
Health and Economic Impacts of OSHA Health Standards. Report
No. CPA-81-17. Bedford, Massachusetts: Center for Policy
Alternatives, Massachusetts Institute of Techno logy.
2. Snell Division, 1979. Preliminary Study of the Costs of
Increased Requi ation of formalciehyde"' Exposure""in the U. S.
Workplace. Prepared for Formaldehyde Task Force of the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association. Florham Park, New
Jersey: Booz, Allen, Hamilton, Inc. pp. 359-364.
3. Versar, Inc. , 1982. Exposure Assessment for Formaldehyde.
Final Draft Report. Contract No. 68-01-6271. Prepared for
Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency,
Springfield, Virginia: Versar, Inc. Tables 5, 6, 8 in
Appendix A. n.p.
4.
3-8
-------
TABLE 3-2. WORKPLACE CONCENTRATIONS OF FORMALDEHYDE
Industry
Average
concentration (ppm)'
Formaldehyde
manufacture ng
Urea, phenol, me1 amine
and acetal formaldehyde
resin manufacturing
Hardwood plywood
manufacture ng
Particleboard
manufacturing
Wood furniture
manufacturing
Mobile home
manufacturing
Urea formaldehyde
foam chemicals
manufacturing
Urea formaldehyde
foam insulation
installation
0.46
(0.04 - 2.20)
1.40
(0.05 - 1.70)
0.68
(0.09 - 1.50)
1.15
(0.10 - 4.90)
1.30
(0.07 - 5.17)
0.40
(n.a.)
0.49
(0.04 - 5.17)
0.52
( < 0.03 - 2.40)
Metal molds and
castings manufacturing
Plastic products
manufacturi ng
Paper and paperboard
manufacturing
Textiles manufacturing
Apparel manufacturing
Apparel wholesaling
Building paper and board
manufacturing
0.33
(0.02 - 18.30)
0.26
( < 0.01 - 4.00)
0.15
(0.01 - 0.99)
0.42
( < 0.1 - 1.40)
0.64
( < 0.1 - 1.80)
0.38
(0.04 - 0.73)
1.15
(0.10 - 4.90)
3-9
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-2 (continued)
Average
Industry concentration (ppm)Q
Paints and coatings
manufacturi rig
0.12d
(0.08 - 0.15)
Abrasive products
manufacturi ng
1.10
(n.a.)
Asbestos products
manufacturing
1.10
(n.a. )
Urea formaldehyde
concentrates
manufacturing
0.46
(0,04 - 2.20)
Nitrogenous fertilizer
manufacturi ng
0.84
(0.20 - 1.90)
Other large volume
formaldehyde derivatives
manufacturing
0.46
(0.04 - 2.20)
Poultry egg producing
and hatching
1.70
(0.20 - 3.99)
Mushroom farm operation
0.32
( < 0.02 - < 10.0
Disinfecting and cleaning
service contracting
0.38
(0.05 - 3.50)
Service work in health-
related facilities
0.38
(0.05 - 3.50)
Medical and pathology
laboratory work
0.85
(0.06 - 8.00)
Dental laboratory work
0.03
(n.a.)
High school biology
teachers
5.30
(2.70 - 8.30)
High school biology
students
5. 30
(2.70 - 8.30)
College and university
bio!ogy teachers
5.30
(2.70 - 8.30)
(continued)
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-2 (continued)
Average
Industry concentration (ppm)
College and university 5.30
biology students, medical (2.70 - 8.30)
students, nursing students,
and dental students
Funeral service work 1.70
(0.20 - 3.99)
Metalwork machine 0.16
operation (0.05 ~ 1.20)
aRange of exposures in parentheses, n.a. - not available
^Reference for average exposure is Oatway and Klemm (1981). All others are
Versar, Inc. (1982).
SOURCES: 1. Oatway, Janet, and Hans A. Klemm, 1981. Formaldehyde Regulatory
Control Options Analysis. Draft Final Report. Contract
No. 68-01-5960. Prepared for Office of Chemical Control,
Environmental Protection agency. Report No. GCA-TR-81-1-G.
Bedford, Massachusetts: GCA Corportion.
2. Versar, Inc. , 1982. Exposure Assessment for Formaldehyde.
Final Draft Report. Contract No. 68-01-6271. Prepared for
Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency.
Springfield, Virginia: Versar, Inc. pp. 67-69.
3-11
-------
The Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde met and reviewed pertinent
literature, including that on exposure. They concluded that there is not
enough data to characterize temporal or with in-pi ant variation of any
occupation, or even describe exposure for more than a few plants in any one
industry. Furthermore, available data are not representative enough to
establish the ranges of exposures present in industry. Differences may be
substantial between industrial and professional workers with regard to the
nature of their exposures. Though available monitoring data was considered
reasonably reliable, it is available only for 34 job categories in 29 indus-
tries and occupations. Thus the data in Table 3~2 should be cautiously
interpreted.
The Center for Policy Alternatives at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology performed a study of control costs of alternative regulations on
formaldehyde in industry (Hattis et al. , 1981). This study provided frequency
distributions of the percentage of complaints related to formaldehyde at
different concentrations in the workplace. This distribution method provides
a refinement for assessing exposure, since the concentration of formaldehyde
is not assumed the same for all workers in an industry.
Although more realistic, the industry groups used by Hattis et al.
(1981) are too aggregated and no guidance is given as to a "best" estimate
of the total numbers of workers exposed. A combination of this approach
and the Versar (1982) method would provide an appropriate data base for
future investigations.
Concentrations of formaldehyde vary in different locations within an
establishment. A person's occupation can provide a guide to where the
concentrations may be found. The National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) (1981) identified 225 occupations involving exposure to
formaldehyde (see Table 3-3).
3.1. 2. 2 Residential Concentrations-
Formaldehyde concentrations in the home depend on the existence of
formaldehyde in consumer products, the rate of formaldehyde release or off-
gassing from the products, the type and extent of human activities, and the
extent to which the dwel1ing and activities of the residents result in
exchange of the indoor air (Yocom, 1982; National Research Council [NRC],
1981b).
3-12
-------
TABLE 3-3. OCCUPATIONS INVOLVING EXPOSURE TO FORMALDEHYDE
Accountants
Adult Educ«tion Toaetvers
idvertising Agents «t)d Salesmen
tcronautiul *»^rpet Installers
Ashlers
>m®nt and Cowerei® PWsiws
Ch»rat«rai«iib and Miitt, Except Private Household
Checkers, txammm, and Iwpeettr*; MM»ufaetnrer»
"hemica! Technicians
Chemists
Child Car* Worker*, E*e*pf Private Household
Cleans ts ars^ Ct*rw®ww
Clerical Superwsiom, W.E.C.
, .Cleric®! Worker* -
Clerical Workers - Hot Specified _ _
Clinical Laboratory Teet*»tofisW *w3 Technician*
Clothing Irener* and PresuM
Compositors Typesetters
Computer and Peripheral Eqwipatml Operator*
Computer fWfrtmmrn
Compute Sp^xsLtrts, H.E.C.
Obstruction Ut>orf.rs, Except Carpenters* Helper
Cooks, Except Privr.te Housetiold
Counter Clerics, Except foo<3
Craftsmen and Kuxirifd Viorkers, ^.FLC.
Crane men. Derrick men, and Holstroen
Credit men
Cutting Operatives, N.E.C.
Decorators and WinAjw Dressers
Dental Assistants
Dental Hyjienists
Dentil) L&boratory Technicians
Dens is tj
Besifner*
OiiDvMlwn
Drmlumcn
Dressmakers and Semnrtrewss, Eaeept Factory
Drill Press Operatives
- - Dry W&U Installers and Lathers
Di^lieatiftg MichuK Operator*
Dyers.
E<3itori and Reporters
Electric Power Linemen and Cattlemen
Electrical and Electronic Eng»eerin{ Technicians
Electrical and Electronic Enpneers
Electrician Apprentices
EleeutciaM
Elevator Operator*
Emttalmsrs
Btgweering and Science Technicians, K.E.C.
Engineers, H .EX.
Engraver*, Eit Fbotoenjfnivers
Estimators and Investigators, N.Z.C.
Expedjters and Prwtuctjon Controllers
File Clerk
Pliers, Polishers, Ssjr^m, and Buffers
P«>4 Counter and Fountain Worker*
Food Sendee Workers, H.E.C* Except Private
Porvrnen, H.E.C.
fort Lift and Tow Mote* Operatives
PreqjTil and Material fUnfflen
Funeral Directors
Punuteemen, Smalterman, and Pourer*
Fumltwe Mid Wood finishers
Garage Workers and Gas Station Attendants
GsrdeffcEfS and GrtxuKB*! supers, Exc. Farm
Geologists
Glaciers
Graders and Sorters, Mmnufacturing
Grading Machine Op^rati^es
Guards and Watchmen
Hairdressers and Cosmetologists
Health Administrators
, Health Aides, Except Hureing
Health Record Technologists and Technicians
Health Technologists and Technicians, N.E.C.
Heat Treaters, Anncolere, and Tensperers
Mzmvj Equipment Mechanics, including Diesel
Household AppliaJioe and Aec-essory IraLallenl
HiJissskeepers, Zseept Priifate Household
Xndostrisl Eagineeficg Twtihidciaia
bKfastnal Engineers
ksspectors, K.E-C.
hmwme* A«aT!ti¥e3 - Miscellaneous Specified
Machine Operatives -• Mot Specified
Machinists
Mail Hand!ere, Except Post Office
Managers and Administrator*, N.E.C.
Meat Cutters and Butchers, Eicept Manufacturing
Meat Cutlers and Butchers, Manufacturing
Mechanic, Esc. Auto, Apprentices
M&ehanicfiJ Engineers
Mechanics and Repairmen - Miscellan«Jis
Mech&nisland RepalrniEn - Mot Specified
Metal Platers
Millwrights
Mine Operatives, K.E.C.
Mixing Operatives
Molders, Matal
Motion Picture Projectionists
Nursing Aides, Orderlies, Mid Attendant*
Office Machine Operators, K.EX.
Offiet Majmfers, N.E.C.
Officers, Pilots, and Pursers; Sup
Oilers and Greasers, £jc. Auto
©ptfttions a«d Systems Roetj-ehers nod Amljsm
Operatives • MjseeUanwm
Operatives - Not Specified
Opticians, and Lefts Grinders and Polishers
Packers and Wrappers, E*c*pt Meat and Produc*
Painters and Sculptors
Painters, Construction und Mmntervinct
Pai/ilera, Majiufaetured Articles '
Pattern and Model Maken, Except
Payroll and TSmekeepii^ Clerks
PersotaJ Serviee, K.E.C, - AttrmSanu
and Labw Eelatior® Work^s
Phwrnaeiju
PhstoeBfr»*€rs and Utiiogrmpbef*
?>«tofrapf»er»
Pnotosraphje ?roee» WerttM
Ptrysicians, Mescal «nd Osteopathic
Plgtr.E>ers ind Pipe Pitters
Podiatrists
Practical Sar»o
Precision MecT.ine Operatives N.E.C.
Pressmen and Piatt Printer*. Priatinf
Fiomn Appreatica
Punch and StampLn Presis Operatives
Purchasing Agents and Buyers, N.E.C.
Radio and Television
R-nAologic Tachf?ok>f3stj and TachnicMsm
Receptionists
Eeere&tion iukI AnmsesBent - Attendants
Recreation Workers
E«firter«d Nmc*
Research Workers, not specified
Hestaurant, Cafeteria, and Ear Managm
Riveters and Fasteners
Sailers and Deeithaixk
SaJea Managers and Depart men? H«s<:s, Retail Trade
Sales Managers, Except Retail Tfrsde
Salesmen and Sales Ckrka, XXC,
S««ycnt
Secretaries, N.E.C.
SheetrneUi Workers and Tinsmith*
Shipping and Seceivmf Clerks
Sfiot Repairmen
iS»«n,«k(ng Midline Operative*
Siffa Painters ««S Letlerew
Social Worts era
SoKters
Specified Craft Apprentices, N.E.C.
spinners. Twisters, and WirKSej-
StttiMwy Ei^iri*ef»
StstSonary fireman
Statistical Clerks
Statisticians
Stenogmpivers
Stock Clerks and Storekeepers
Stock Handlers
Tailors
Teachers., Eieept CoUe^t and University, H.E.C.
Technicians, N.E.C.
Telephone installers and Repairmen
Telephone Linemen and Splicers
Telephone Operators
Tot tie Operatives, NXC
Tira-apbts
Therapy Assistants
Ticket, Station, and Express Agents
Tile Setters
Too] and Die Maker Apprentices
Tool and Die Makers
True* Drivers
Tfpisli
Optaetsterea
Vehicle d ashers «nd Equipment Cleaner*
Veterinarians
kuun
HiC.
Wtiytvtrs
Wtloers and Pkrae-cutters
Winding Operatives, H.E.C.
Writers, ArlJts, and Entertainers, N.E-C.
N.E.C. — Not Elsewhere Classified.
Source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (N(OSH), 1981.
Formahirhyilf!. Cvidfner of Carcinogenicity. Current Intelligence Bulletin No. 34.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, p. 9.
3-13
-------
Table 3-4 provides a partial list of products which may contain formal-
dehyde. There are a multitude of others, many of which can be identified
from Table 3~1, as products of industries which utilize formaldehyde or
formaldehyde by-products.
A number of factors may affect the emissions from formaldehyde-containing
products. These include:
Amount of formaldehyde used in product
Temperature
Humidity
Time of day
Season of year
Type of formaldehyde used in product
Extent of formaldehyde-containing products
Age of product
Exposed surface area of product.
The amount and type of formaldehyde in a product significantly affects
release rates. In many applications, urea-formaldehyde is added to products
as a cross-1inking or polymerization agent. As such, any excess formaldehyde
causes faster reactions but also leaves excess unreacted formaldehyde in
the final consumer product. This formaldehyde is then available for release
in such products as particleboard, indoor plywood, paper products, permanent-
press and flame-retardent textiles, and foams used as insulation (NRC,
1981a).
Other forms of formaldehyde in common use in consumer products include
phenolic- and me1 amine-formaldehydes. Both forms are more resistant to de-
gradation and subsequent release of free-formaldehyde than is urea-formaldehyde
(Versar, 1982). Cost considerations and suitability for particular products
determine their use.
Temperature and humidity often work together to affect the release of
formaldehyde from products. High temperatures and high humidi ties a °e con-
ductive to formaldehyde offgassing in many products (Pickeral1 et al.,
3-14
-------
Table 3-4. CONSUMER PRODUCTS CONTAINING FORMALDEHYDE
Adhesives
Insulation, foam and others
Automobile appliances
Intermediate chemicals
Brake linings
Laminates
Buttons
Leathers, Fur, and Hair
Carpet
Lubricants, synthetic
Clothing
MiIdewci des
Cosmetics
Paints
Deodorants
Paper and Paper goods
Detergents
Particleboard
D i nnerware
Pesticides
Drapery
Pharmaceuticals
Dyes
Plastics and Plastics moldings
Electrical components
Plywood
Embalming fluid
Printing
Explosives
Rubber products
Fertilizers
Sporting equipment
Fiberboard
Surface coatings
filters
Textiles
Food
Toiletries
Friction materials
Upholstery
Fuel s
Urethane resins
Fungicides
Watersofteni ng chemicals
Hardware, garden
Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), 1984. "Final Report on the
Safety Assessment of Formaldehyde." Journal of the American
College of Toxicology v. 3. No, 3. pp. 161-162.
Pickerall, J. A., L. C. Griffis, and C. H. Hobbs, 3982. Release
of Formaldehyde from Various Consumer Products. Final Report.
Report No. [MP-93, UC-48. Prepared for Consumer Products Safety
Commission. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Lovelace Biomedical
and Env i ronmental Research Insti tute. p. 3.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
1981. Formaldehyde; Evidence of Carcinogenic!ty. Current
Intelligence Bulletin No. 34. U. S. Department of Health and
Human Services, p. 2.
Versar, Inc. , 1982. Exposure Assessment for Formaldehyde, final
Draft Report. Contract No. 68-01-6271, Prepared for Office of
Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield,
Virginia, pp. 22-33.
SOURCES: 1.
2.
3.
4.
3-15
-------
1982; Yocom, 1982). It has been shown that time of day and season of year
reflect changing temperature, humidity, and human activity which in turn
influence release rates of formaldehyde from products used in construction
and household uses (Gammage, 1981; Gammage et al., 1983; Hawthorne et al. ,
1983).
The extent of formaldehyde-containing products in the home would
obviously affect indoor concentrations of formaldehyde. In particular, a
new mobile home has higher concentrations of formaldehyde than does a
conventional home on average because so much of the interior of a mobile
home is composed of pressed wood products (Dally et al., 1981; Versa",
1982').
More than one formaldehyde-containing product may be in use within a
given area at the same time. This could occur, for example, in a home that
contains urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) in the walls and is
furnished with formaldehyde-containing draperies, carpets, and particle-
board furniture. Interactions of various combinations of parti clebo.ird,
plywood, insulation, and carpet tested by Pickeral1 et al. (1982) reveal
that formaldehyde release is lower for two products together than fo- the
sum of their individual release rates. Further investigation is needed in
this area.
Age of products may give some indicator of their ability to release
free formaldehyde, since exposure of the product to temperature and "tumidity
will eventually eliminate most of the free formaldehyde from the product.
Investigation of homes containing UFFI by Gammage et al. (1983), Hawthorne
et al. (1983), and Dally et al. (1981) have confirmed this result. \
summary of monitoring data by the National Research Council (1981a) indicated
that an approximate value for the half-life of formaldehyde is 4.4 yaars.
The exposed surface area of a product such as particleboard or olywood
in relation to the space and ventilation available in a closed area can
affect the release rates (Bardana, 1980). Release rates are considered
most meaningful if expressed in relation to lateral surface area of a
product (Pickeral1 et al., 1982).
In a home, human activities such as cooking or heating with gas fuel
and smoking add substantially to indoor formaldehyde levels (Hawthorie et al.,
3-16
-------
1983; NRC, 1961a; Yocom, 1982; Gammage el a 1. , 1983). Structural charac-
teristics such as energy-efficient modifications create an. environment which
holds more of the formaldehyde, increasing exposure without influencing
offgassing of particular products. Attitudes toward ventilation by the
residents end the amount of traffic in and out of the home also affect
indoor air exchange rates.
Table 3-5 lists emissions rates for several consumer products and
activities. Among those products with comparable units of measure (i.e. »
those with emission rates measured in |_ig/m2/day), a relative ranking is;
pressed word products >> clothes ~ insulation products ~ paper products >
fabric > carpet (Pickeral1 et al. , 1982).
Picker-all et al. (1982) evaluated the relative emission rates of
several products. Products with formaldehyde offgassing rates less than 50
to 100 }jg/n2/day represent very low levels, and may be considered to approxi
mate a zero release coefficient. These would include drapery fabric (77 per
cent rayon/23 percent cotton), all types of upholstery fabric tested (100
percent ny on. 100 percent olefin, and 100 percent cotton), some samples of
latex-backed fabric, blend fabric, some samples of chiIdrens1 clothing
(65 percent polyester cotton/35 percent cotton), and some carpet tested.
Very low offgassing rates, compared to the highest rate found for all
products, were those less than 340 pg/m'Vday. This includes some plywood,
some fiberglass insulation, some paper products, some drapery fabric (100
percent cotton), and girls' polyester/cotton dresses, as well as those in
the zero release category mentioned above.
Combustion in gas stoves and cigarettes may be substantial sources of
Indoor formaldehyde (NRC, 1981a). The number of cigarettes smoked and
number of times and duration of gas stove use may be directly converted to
additional formaldehyde in the indoor envi ronnent.
The presence of formaldehyde in food is nonanthropogenic, originating
instead from processes the foods undergo in preparing them for consumption
(Versar, 1982). The freezing process increases formaldehyde levels found
in fish, while autooxidation caused by the debon i ng process elevates formal-
dehyde concentrations in mechanically deboned turkey. Maple syrup products
may be contaminated with formaldehyde from paraformaldehyde pellets placed
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-5. FORMALDEHYDE EMISSIONS FROM VARIOUS CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Product
Pcirticleboard
Plywood
Paneli ng
Fiberglass insulation
Paper plates and cups
Drapery fabric
100% cotton
77% rayon/23% cotton
Upholstery fabric
100% nylon
100% olefin
100% cotton
Latex-backed fabric
Blend fabric
New, unwashed clothes
Men's shirts
65% polyester cotton/35% cotton
Ladies1 dresses
Girl's dresses
polyester/cotton
Chi Id's clothes
65% polyester cotton/35% cotton
Emission rate
(jjg/m2/day)
1,800 - 28,000
54 -15,000
1,480 - 35,000
52 - 620
75 - 1,000
90 - 350
NDa - 50
6 - 11
NDa - 5
NDa
ND - 100
20 - 30
380
380
550
750
120 - 140
15 - 55
Reference
1
1
1
1
1
Carpets
ND - 65
Gas stove
Top burner 15,000 pg/hr 2
11.4 pg/Kcal 3
Oven 25,000 pg/hr 2
7.1 pg/Kcal 3
Cigarettes 0.02 - 0.04 mg/cig 2
Food products'3
Fish (frozen products) 1.1 ppm 4
Turkey (mechanically deboned) 0.7 pprn 4
Maple syrup products 2,0 ppra 4
Red meat unknown 4
See footnotes on following page.
3-18
-------
TABLE 3-5 (continued)
aND - not detectable.
5 . .
Units are for formaldehyde contents in the product, rather than emission rates
from the product.
SOURCES: 1. Pickerall, J. A., I. C. Griffis, and C. H. Hobbs, 1982. Release
of Formaldehyde from Various Consumer Products. Final Report.
Report No. IMF-93, UC-48. Prepared for Consumer Products Safety
Commission. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Lovelace Biomedical and
Environmental Research Institute, pp. 28-30.
2. National Research Council (NRC), 198.1. Formaldehyde and Other
Aldehydes. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 82-84.
3. Yocom, John E., 1982. "Indoor-Outdoor Air Quality Relationships -
A Critical Review." Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association v. 32. No. 5, p. 516.
4. Versar, Inc. , 1982. Exposure Assessment for Formaldehyde. Final
Draft Report. Contract No. 68-01-6271. Prepared for Office of
Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield,
Virginia: Versar, Inc. p. 64.
3-19
-------
in tap holes during sap collection to prevent fermentation. Red meats may
contain formaldehyde due to the practice of feeding treated casein to
ruminants (Versar, 1982; Cosmetic Ingredient Review [CIR], 1984).
Food may come in contact with formaldehyde through sealing devices
containing paraformaldehyde and with disinfectants containing formaldehyde
(Hattis et al., 1981; CIR, 1984). Food additives such as defoaming agents
containing formaldehyde are permitted by 1 aw (CIR, 1984). There has so far
been no attempt we are aware of to classify these foods or to assess their
consequent contribution to human exposure.
Building materials such as plywood and particleboard treated with
urea-formaldehyde resins and UFFI have the greatest potential for creating
elevated levels of formaldehyde in the home. (Concensus Workshop on Formal
dehyde, 1983; Versar, 1982; Pickerall et al., 1982). Transient elevations
in formaldehyde concentration may be expected where gas stoves or space
heaters are used, and where smoking takes place (Yocom, 1982; Consensus
Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983).
For this report, longterm rather than transient concentrations are
considered of primary importance. High exposure and low exposure for
consumer goods are determined in context with the home environment. High
exposure homes include those conventional homes containing UFFI, and newer
mobi1e homes, presumed to be constructed with substantial amounts of urea-
formaldehyde containing wood products, which have not yet aged enough to
significantly reduce exposures. This is generally considered to be the
half-life of formaldehyde. Low exposure homes include all other dwellings.
For high exposure homes, the assumed formaldehyde concentration is
0.40 ppm, which represents an average level for new mobile homes and conven
tional homes containing UFFI (NRC, 1981a). Low exposure homes are assumed
to have formaldehyde concentrations of 0.05 ppm (Consensus Workshop on
Formaldehyde, 1983).
It should be noted that the many factors outlined above prevent specif
estimates of exposure in homes. Proper estimation of actual exposures in
homes would require monitoring or estimated data which take these factors
into account, and at minimum provide categories of exposure ranges which
can be expected under specified conditions.
3-20
-------
3.2 ALLOCATION Of TIME
Exposire to formaldehyde is a function of the proximity of people to
the places where formaldehyde concentrations exist. Locations, and conse-
quently exposures, vary with activities. Activities vary with time of day,
day of week or year, and year of lifetime, with age, sex, occupation,
weather, rfce, and socioeconomic status (Spengler and Colome, 1982; Szalai,
1972; Robi r son, 1977a; Robinson. 1977b; Chapin, 1974; Chap i n and Brail,
1969; Hammer and Chapin, 1972; Brail and Chapin, 1973; NRC, 1981b).
An incividual makes choices as to how his or her time will be spent in
a twenty-fcur hour period. Time may be viewed as a resource used by the
individual in satisfying wants and needs. The activities an individual
selects ma^ be viewed as functional classes from which an individual derives
utility (Brail and Chapin, 1973). Time may be considered an input which is
equally distributed (over the course of a day, at least) among all individuals
(Robinson, 1977a). inequalities arise in a given day only through ''produc-
tivity levels" of individuals, and over a lifetime by the number of years
in that 1i1etime.
Becker (1965) argued that time use entails both direct and indirect
costs. Thfse costs are measurable since time used is associated with
foregone earnings which might have accrued from a different use of time,
such as producing some good. It may be seen in this context that exposure
levels are; to a significant extent, actually chosen by the selection of
activities and locations where those activities will take place. Of course,
enhanced awareness of individuals as to exposures associated with time
choices anc the effects of exposures may act to alter those choices.
In this report, we construct time usage profiles for selected population
subgroups based on available data and populations of interest for formalde-
hyde exposire. Twenty-four hour time weighted averages of exposure and
cumulative average exposures are also calculated.
3.2.1 Popilation Subgroups
Time ?]location studies require the grouping of events into activity
classes, ard the grouping of subjects into population classes (Brail and
Chapin, 1973). In this report, three prototype subgroups were evaluated,
3-21
-------
based on data collected from forty-four U.S. cities in a major international
study conducted in 1964-1965 (Szalai, 1972). Surveys were administered to
evaluate amount of time spent for various activity subclasses, the location
of the activities, and the time of day (where a day in defined as a twenty-
four hour period) at which the activities occurred.
The three subgroups were "employed men," "employed women," and "house-
wives. " The total sample size was 872, broken down into 375, 246, and 251
persons in the respective categories. Each individual gave descriptions of
their activities for one or two days of the week. From this data set, time
profiles for each subgroup were constructed.
This data set is utilized in this report, with assumptions made about
other relevant subgroups (such as young children and the elderly) as to
their allocation of time. These assumptions are explained in Section 3.3
and Section 3.4 where formaldehyde exposure profiles are constructed for
the entire U.S. population.
3.2.2 Time Profiles
The five-day work week is a major structuring element in time alloca-
tion. Weekdays and weekend days are two major classes used to subdivide
time for working populations (Brail and Chapin, 1973; Hammer and Chapin,
1972). For children attending school, this structure may be modified to
schooldays and nonschooldays, which occur on weekend days, hoiidays, and
summertimes. For housewives and others who are not employed outside the
home, a more useful structure centers around a division between Sundays and
other days (Szalai, 1972).
Time profiles for each of these subgroups are shown in Figures 3-1
through 3-8. These time profiles indicate where individuals spend their
time for average twenty-four hour periods for the week divisions described
above. Except for the subgroup of school age children, these figures are
constructed from the data published in Szalai (1972).
One immediate conclusion is that individuals in the U.S. population
subgroups described spend a substantial amount of time in homes, from 12 to
20 hours per day, depending on day of week. For those who work, at least
seven hours a day are spent at the workplace, which for many individua• s is
3-22
-------
Sit. Citlivr,'* tn'pHW-O
in places of husi&^s
0.6 hi.
? ift rt't'tsyrsiit? •*•. foiji'i
0.4 hi.
eteevherir
0.3 fs-T.
1%
mf.r^rt^it --
1 . 5 hr.
lit w>:«rkpl'iO»
Hi ho Eli'?
SOURCE: Szalai, Ale:rancier, ed., 1972. The Use of Time. 111*? Hague,
Netherlands: Mouton. pp. 795"799.
Figure 3-1. Spatial allocation of time: employed males-workday.
3-23
-------
SOURCE Ssalai. AtexarKler. 10?;: The Us-'1 of Time The Hague,
Netherlands: Mouton. pp. 7OS-79'^.
Figure 3-2. Spatial allocation of time: employed males-day off.
3-24
-------
Note: Zero time just outside home.
SOURCE: e-:l, 1972. The Use of Time. Thv
Netherlands: Moitton. pp. 795-799.
rigure 3 3. Spatial allocation of time: employed females-work day.
3-25
-------
?
i
SOURCE: Ssalai, Alexander, ed., 1972. The Use of Time. The Hague,
Netheriands: Mouton. pp. 795-799.
Figure 3-4, Spatial allocation of time; employed females-day off.
3-26
-------
Note: Zero time in workplace.
SOURCE: Szalai, Alexander, ed, 1072. Hie Use of Time. The Hague,
Netherlands: Mouton. pp. 795-799.
Figure 3-5. Spatial allocation of time: housewives-weekday*
3-27
-------
Note; Zero time In workplace.
SOURCE: Szalai, Alexander, ed, 1972. The Use of Time. The Hague,
Netherlands; Mouton.. pp. 795-799.
Figure 3-6. Spatial allocation of time: housewives—Sunday.
3-28
-------
Note: Zero time in places of business, restaurants and bars, and elsewhere.
SOURCE: Research Triangle Institute estimate.
Figure 3-7. Spatial allocation of time: school age children-school day.
3-29
-------
ill Louies«
1 i hx.
ii'i places ot
2.0 hx.
S'S.
in fidfLsit
2.0 hx.
Si's.
f in i estauxants & bars
/ 0,5 In.
/ 2%
itjgt orxtriii*' li'i'H!*::
Note. Zero time in school. Includes holidays and summer break.
SOURCE. Research Triangle Institute estimate.
Figure 3-8. Spatial allocation of time: school age children—weekend.
3-30
-------
indoors. Other indoor exposures occur in places of business, such as
banks, doctors' offices, and stores, in restaurants and bars, in others'
homes, and elsewhere. Thus, for most individuals, at least 90 percent of a
given day is spent in some indoor environment. For persons whose lifestyle
corresponds to that of a housewife, time indoors may account for 95 percent
of the time in a day. (Repace, 1982; Spengler and Sexton, 1983; Spengler
and Colome, 1982; NRC, 1981b).
The remainder of an individual's day is spent in the ambient environment
just outside his or her own home, or elsewhere, or in a transportation
microenvironment, such as a bus or automobile, while in transit. These
environments expose individuals at different levels than do indoor environ-
ments , as outlined in previous subsections.
The study of the division of time among different locations provides a
context for more accurately assessing the exposure a population subgroup,
or more appropriately, an individual, faces over the course of a day. The
next section describes this relationship and provides examples of daily
exposure patterns for three subgroups.
3.3 EXPOSURE PROFILES FOR SELECTED POPULATION SUBGROUPS
The emergence of indoor air pollution as a problem separate from
outdoor air pollution has enlarged the context for consideration of individual
exposure to pollutants. Previously, ambient monitoring data were considered
sufficient for calculation of exposure (Repace, 1982; Spengler and Colome,
1982). Much effort in the last ten years has focused on collecting data on
the sources and effects of indoor pol1utants (Spengler and Sexton, 1983).
Formaldehyde is of particular concern as an indoor pol1utant in both
the home and the workplace, because of its widespread use in buiIding
materials and furnishings present in most homes, and its use in many produc-
tion processes. The factors already discussed cause wide fluctuation in
emission rates and concentrations in the indoor environments.
Even within a structure, levels of formaldehyde vary from room to
room, and from hour to hour (Gammage et al., 1983; Hawthorne et al., 1983).
As concentrations vary, so wil1 exposures to formaldehyde. A daily exposure
profile may be constructed for any individual based on the exposure levels
3-31
-------
at locations an individual frequents, and the time of day he or she is
present at that site, or in that environment. Both hourly exposure profiles
and daily time-weighted averages of exposure to formaldehyde are provided
below.
3.3.1 Hourly Exposure_Profi1es
Figures 3-9 through 3-17 provide representations of hourly exposures
for sample employed males, employed females, and housewives, for weekdays,
Saturdays, and Sundays. On each line chart are graphs which depict different
combinations of low exposure jobs (LE job), high exposure jobs (HE job),
low exposure homes (LE home), and high exposure homes (HE homes). For
housewives, two graphs are shown - low exposure homes (LE home) and high
exposure homes (HE home), since this subgroup is presumed not to work
outside the home environment,
Data from Szalai (1972) and the ambient and indoor concentration
levels presented in Section 3.1 were used to construct these graphs.
Activities for each hour were associated with locations, and locations with
formaldehyde concentrations. For each hour, average exposure was calculated
by multiplying the percentage of the subgroup engaged in different activi-
ties and the exposure presumed to be associated with the activities, and
summing the results.
The activity categories used by Szalai (1972) and the locations which
we associated with them are as follows:
Television viewing
- in
home
Other media
- in
home
Other leisure
- in
restaurantsy bars, and places of business
Semi-lei sure
- i n
home
Home and family care
- i n
home
Traveling
- in
transit
Working
- in
workp]ace
Eating
- in
hone
Sleeping
- in
home
3-32
-------
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour of Day
a HE JOB, h'E HOME * HE JOB? LE HONE
0 LE JOB. HE HOME X LE JOB? LE HOME
Figure 3-9. Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed males—weekday.
-------
1.00
CO
I
CO
¦t*
0,90
0.80
s?
0.70
3
cn
O
0.60
Cl
X
UJ
0.50
5
a.
0.40
a.
0,30
0.20
0.10
^ \
1-1..
,r -4*\ J B.
' § \ ^ s
T¥ \ J ^t t
/ / V,> \ \ A •
J 4 V '. IHD-CT "1,
J L—L
''I'll'
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour of Day
* HE JOB? HE HOME 4> HE JOB, LE HOME
0 LE JOB.- HE HOME X LE JOB; LE HOME
Figure 3-10, Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed males—Saturday.
-------
0.50
0.45
0,40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
A / \ A. f \
K. _*/¦ " V
r
V W^'V f \
a x /\ \J %;
r-'ty / vXA. ^ V#
,.. \ ^ ^ v
r'N< ^ /v X,/
U I L_J_J I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I L
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour of Day
a HE JOB? HE HOME t *HE JOB? LE HOME
O LE JOB, HE HOME X LE JOB, LE HOME
Figure 3-11. Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed males-Sunday,
-------
Co
I
o_>
1.00 Jp
0.90
0.80
£ 0.70
o 0.60
£X
uj 0.50
wMBfcWMMM fiiwafii rfflTnnriTrfli*ni«im r.ffr
Q. 0.40
Q.
0.30
0.20
0.10
0
hl
jt
i
'f,
!>
, .JO,
&
fc-
iNa.
is
I _ A-&P.pj.+-UT-_Q^ ^
>K
^•V 1
rT4
\r
r^r
W4_
'4\
-x-a
, ,'4;
¦^¦a ¦ ¦¦ ¦ V"^v4=:
J—f L
LJ L
'ill
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour of Day
k HE JOB? HE HOME 4> HE JOB? LE HOME
0 LE JOB, HE HONE X LE JOB, LE
Figure 3-12. Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed females—weekday.
-------
0.50
0.45
0.40
0,35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
?¦, * / \
H / V 'i A / 9- -| '| fw'.
V;*v , /v '¦ ' '¦
X H /
'I'll! 1—i I—1 1—I—I ! i 1—L—i—I—I 1—1~
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22' 24
Hour of Day
a ME JOB? HE HOME i> HE JOB? LE HOME
n LE JOB, HE HOME X LE JOB, LE HOME
Figure 3-13. Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed females—Saturday.
-------
0.50
0,45
0,40
0,35
0=30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
I.
- IH,
-id
1%
* i V" \ ,Nf Q
,-s
/ \ ml B \ / H Kd. _ iST
w v,
4y-A
.ii
A A
A/^V^ \w
# ••¦•• <>y '•
JL-i—LJLJLJL-L
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour of Day
» HE JOBj HE HOME ~ HE JOB, LE HOME
0 LE JOB, HE HOME X LE JOB, LE HOME
Figure 3-14. Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: employed females-Sunday,
-------
0.50
0.45
0.40
0,35
0.30
0,25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
«. A m - ^ir
-L—1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I i !1 I t 1 I i I 1 I I I I »
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour -of Day
s HE JOB, HE HOME 4 HE JOB? LE HOME
Figure 3-15. Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: housewives-weekday.
-------
0.50 r-
00
I!
¦£*
O
0.45
0.40
0.35
2?
w 0.30
o
x 0.25
LU
CL
a,
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
-IHk
Sk M.
'IHX-M-if' V 'UHfc'
JH, JK&,
1-'
tr
¦* "B-.. JI-H^
A,
K /VAa
a ,' 'y *
I .L-J-—L—L-L
1 1 1 r t ? i i i
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour of Day
« ME JOB? HE HONE O HE JOB? LE
Figure 3-16. Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: housewives—Saturday,
-------
0,50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0,30
0.25
0,20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
Figure 3-17. Average hourly formaldehyde exposure: housewives-Sunday,
ft
4, ^
A A. / S
P++1T Y
.
Ll.JU.JL_X-J.^^ » ! I—i -
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour of Day
i NE JOB? HE HOME # HE JOB, LE HOME
-------
We recognize that these categorizations overgeneralize the locations
where each of the activities may be performed. However, this is necessary
due to the infeasibi1ity of determining how many persons are in each place
when performing each activity. The activity categories themselves are
simplifications of 96 activity categories originally surveyed (Szalai,
1972).
The exposure levels used to calculate the graphs are as follows:
High exposure job - 1.35 ppm
Low exposure job - 0.30 ppm
High exposure home - 0.26 ppm
Low exposure home - 0.05 ppm
In transit - 0.04 ppm
Restaurants, bars, ~ 0.50 ppm
and places of business
The value for the high exposure job is the average estimated exposure
for a worker in the wood furniture industry (Versar, 1982). The value for
the low exposure job was calculated from monitoring values for office
buildings (unpublished data from New Hampshire; Dally et al., 1981; NRC,
1981a).
The formaldehyde level presented here for a high exposure home repre-
sents a weighted average of measures for conventional homes containing UFFI
(unpublished data from Bennett Laboratories, Tacoma, Washington; unpublished
data from Public Health Departments in New Hampshire and Connecticut; Dally
et al., 1981; Gupta et al., 1982). The value for low exposure homes is a
weighted average value for conventional homes not containing UFFI, but
possibly containing wood products or furnishings which emit formaldehyde
(unpublished data from New Hampshire; Gupta et al. , 1982; Versar, 1982;
Hawthorne et al., 1983; Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983).
The value for the transportation microenvironment is based on expected
urban ambient concentrations, under an assumption of traffic conditions
conducive to formaldehyde release (NRC, 1981a; Versar, 1982). Actual
conditions will vary, but most cities are considered to have ambient levels
3-42
-------
lower than 0.1 ppm. Levels of 0.04- ppm were found in Wisconsin cities
(NKC, 1981a), The selected value may overstate formaldehyde concentrations
under many atmospheric conditions, and in many areas.
The value for restaurants, bars, and places of business is based on
the assumption that building conditions are exacerbated by possible crowding
and by smoking by the persons in the building. This concentration represents
an estimation derived from unpublished New Hampshire data, from Wisconsin
data (Dally et a 1 „ 1981), and from a value estimated for public buildings
(NRC, 1981a).
The calculation of twenty-four hour time weighted averages (TWA)
requires different values for formaldehyde exposure for some locations.
The TWA are primarily based on locations, rather than primarily on activities
and only secondarily on the locations of those activities. Exposures used
for TWA calculations are as follows:
Just outside home - 0. 01 ppm
In transit - 0.04 ppm
In places of business - 0.21 ppm
In others' homes - 0.05 ppm
In restaurants and bars - 0.50 ppm
Elsewhere - 0.01 ppm
In school - 0.07 ppm
In hone
(high exposure) - 0.40 ppm
(low exposure) - 0,05 ppm
In workplace
(high exposure) - see Table 3-2
(low exposure) - 0.05 ppm
Exposures for "in workplace" are obtained from Table 3-2 for particular
industries and for low exposure jobs. The exposures for the categories
3-43
-------
"just outside home" and "elsewhere51 are assumed to be in the ambient environ-
ment. The value is based on data compiled by the Health Sciences Directorate
at the Consumer Products Safety Commission (Gupta et al. , 1982). Exposure
"in others' homes" is assumed to be at the low exposure concentration,
since 98 percent of the homes in the U.S. are in this category (Versar,
1982). The value for "places of business" is based on data for public
buildings (NRC, 1981a). The exposure level for "in school" is based on
unpublished New Hampshire data. The concentration for high exposure home
is the average level for new mobile homes and conventional homes containing
UFFI (NRC, 1981a). The values for the categories "in transit," in restaurants
and bars," "in home" (at low exposure) have been discussed.
For employed males and employed females, the high exposure job-high
exposure home (HE job, HE home) combination exposes the individual to the
highest exposures on an hour-by-hour basis, for all days of the week. On
weekdays (Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-12), exposure is highest from about
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., the hours of an average workday, with a sharp
decrease in exposure between 1unchtime hours (11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.).
During this time, males face higher exposures than females because a greater
percentage of males are at work during these hours. Males have, on average,
longer workdays than females (8.5 hours versus 7.2 hours).
The low exposure job, low exposure home combination (LE job, IE home)
and the high exposure job, low exposure home (HE job, LE home) display the
same pattern of higher exposure in the workplace, with a decrease at 1unch-
time. The LE job, LE home graph is significantly lower than the HE job, HE
home graph. The HE job, LE home is closely associated with each of these
extremes, being similar to LE job, LE home during offwork hours, and similar
to HE job, HE home during work hours.
The low exposure job, high exposure home (LE job, HE home) combination
displays almost constant exposure throughout the day for weekdays. The ex-
posure level is simi1ar to the LE job, LE home during work hours, and to
the HE job, HE home during nonwork hours.
For employed males, exposures on Saturdays (Figure 3-10) are similar
to that of weekdays (Figure 3-9), but are at much lower concentrations, due
to having a 1ower percentage of males working on Saturday. For employed
females, Saturdays (Figure 3-13) show a greater resemblance to Sundays
3-44
-------
(figure 3-14). In general, these graphs display the effect of more women
spending time at home, or in restaurants, bars, and places of business.
During the morning hours, employed women tend to spend more time in the
home, while at night they spend more time working and going out. Employed
males also spend more time at home on Sunday (Figure 3-1.1), so that the
disparity between job and home circumstances is diminished.
Housewives experience very stable patterns of exposure, as would be
expected from the amount of time they spend in the home (figure 3-15,
Figure 3-16, and figure 3-17). The two combinations of relevance are no
exposure job, low exposure home (NE job, LE home), and no exposure job,
high exposure home (NE job, HE home). The highest exposures of the week
for both combinations occur on Sunday evenings, when many housewives are
participating in activities outside the home.
These values are relevant only for the circumstances specified, and
should not be construed to represent the entire U.S. population. The
graphs serve to indicate how individual exposures way be calculated for the
hour subdivisions in a day.
It must be noted that these graphs overlook differences between weekday
in time spent at home, at work, and elsewhere. This variation was described
by Chapin (1974). Based on a sample of 1667 divided among five days,
Chap in (1974, p. 121) reported the following mean hours spent out of home
by day of week;
Monday - 8.48 hours
Tuesday - 8.17 hours
Wednesday - 8.80 hours
Thursday - 7.85 hours
Friday - 10.85 hours.
Depending on other locations frequented and their exposures, hourly exposure
differences between days of week could be significant.
The lack of data for evaluation of hourly exposures is a major obstacle
in determining potential risk of acute conditions as a result of formaldehyd
A time budget study which specifies location and formaldehyde exposure for
particular times of day would greatly enhance exposure assessments.
3-45
-------
3.3.2 Average Daily Exposures
Daily exposure to indoor pollutants consists of the sum of exposures
received in different locations, weighted by the amount ot time spent in
each of those locations (Spengler and Colome, 1982). For many pollutants,
even if indoor concentrations are low, they may make a substantial contribu-
tion to a time-weighted average exposure (Spengler and Sexton, 1983).
The concept of a time-weighted average (TWA) exposure is well-known in
occupational settings. Standards are often set based on permissible eight-
hour maximum or average concentrations of a pol1utant. In the case of
formaldehyde, which is predominantly generated in indoor environments, a
useful measure of exposure is a TWA based on a twenty-four hour period. As
indicated in Section 3.3.1, total exposures to formaldehyde vary depending
on all the indoor environments an individual encounters, rather than only
the occupational setting.
Table 3-6 shows the average daily exposures, based on a twenty-four
hour TWA, associated with the three population subgroups and four exposure
combinations described in Section 3.3.1. The most prominent conclusion
from this table is that the workplace may contribute a substantial amount
to average daily exposure. On workdays, this factor overrides the exposure
in homes in importance. On days off, the exposure levels found in the
* homes assume greater significance because the amount of time spent in the
home increases by 40 percent for employed males and by 30 percent for
employed females (see Figures 3-1 through 3-4).
3.4 ESTIMATES OF THE POPULATION EXPOSED TO FORMALDEHYDE
Any estimates of time-weighted average or cumulative exposures to
formaldehyde for the entire U.S. population are bound to oversimplify the
actual circumstances, given presently available data. As the preceding
sections demonstrate, individual exposure is a function of lifestyle and of
the environments in which the individual spends his or her time. Even at
the level of population subgroups, substantial simplifications must be
made.
We have attempted to categorize persons in the U.S. population in
terms of the potential risk groups outl ined in Chapter 2. Table 3-7
shows the distribution of the U.S. population among these classes.
3-46
-------
TABLE 3-7 (continued)
Estimates assume no self-selection among persons with chronic respiratory
conditions with regard to type of home or participation in labor force. Zero
may be regarded as a lower bound on estimates of persons in high exposure
homes with chronic respiratory conditions with complete self-selection, since
potentially no one with such a condition would choose to live in a high
exposure environment, or work in a high exposure occupation.
^Type of home is based on Versar, Inc. (1982). The HE home category includes
conventional homes containing UFFI and new mobile homes, as defined by Versar,
Inc. (1982). The LE home category includes all homes not included in the HE
category.
c
Total population values derived from Statistical Abstract of the United States,
1982-83.
d
Chronic respiratory conditions include upper and lower respiratory conditions.
Data derived from National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey
(1980).
Total United States labor force, including Armed Forces.
SOURCES: 1. Bureau of Census, 1982. Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 1982-83. 103rd edition. Washington, D.C.: U. S.
Department of Commerce, pp. 30, 376, 379.
2. Research Triangle Institute, 1980. National Medical Care
Utilizations and Expenditures Survey~(NMCUES). Survey sponsored
by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Health Care
Financing Administration. Unpublished data.
3. Versar, Inc., 1982. Exposure Assessment for Formaldehyde.
Contract No. 68-01-6271. Prepared for Office of Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield, Virginia, p. 112.
3-49
-------
The National Research Council (1981a) has estimated that from 10 percent
to 20 percent of the U.S. population may be susceptible to formaldehyde.
Subgroups which are at highest risk include persons with hyperreactive
airways, some atopic persons, some nonatopic persons, and some "normal"
individuals (NRC, 1981a). Added to these categories may be the elderly,
the infirm, and the very young, who are highly susceptible to many types of
air pollution, and who may spend all or most of their time indoors (Yocom,
1982). Children may be at elevated risk because their breathing rates,
which determine exposure by inhalation, are higher than are those of adults
(Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983).
Besides inherently high risk subgroups, high exposure homes and occupa-
tions may contribute to adverse effects merely by providing an environment
in which continual exposure occurs. Although one might not expect high
risk populations to intentionally place themselves in a high exposure
environment, those persons who do not immediately experience problems with
formaldehyde may maintain 1ifestyles (jobs and homes) which expose them at
levels which eventually adversely affect their health.
We assume proportional distribution among the categories in Table 3-7.
Although self-selection undoubtly occurs, the lack of data leads us to
assume no self-selection in this analysis.
Adults in the labor force are assumed to be divided among those occupa-
tions causing elevated exposures to formaldehyde (see Table 3-8) and other
occupations. As the Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde (1983) pointed out,
U.S. industries have not been thoroughly evaluated as to the concentratioris
of formaldehyde to which individual workers are exposed. We use data from
Versar (1982), but do not suggest that it is fully representative of the
entire U.S. labor force. For this study, we assume that workers excluded
from the Versar categories are in low exposure occupations.
Based on the data in Table 3-7, approximately two percent of the U.S.
population live in a high exposure environment, defined as either a new
mobile home, or a conventional home containing UFFI. The average exposure
for this category is 0.40 ppm (NRC, 1981a). The remainder live in low
exposure homes at 0.05 ppm (Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983).
3-50
-------
TABLE 3-6. AVERAGE DAILY EXPOSURES FOR FOUR CASES (ppm)'
Employment/
gender/day
Employed male
Workday
Day off
Employed female
Workday
Day off
Housewife^
"Weekday
Sunday
HE Job
HE Home
0.64
0.26
0,58
0,27
HE Home
0,27
0.26
HE. Job
LE Home
0.52
0.11
0.46
0.10
LE Home
0.08
0.08
LE Job
HE Home
0.27
0.25
0.27
0.26
LE Job
LE Home
0.16
0.10
0.14
0.09
HE represents "high exposure"; LE represents "low exposure". HE job is
associated with exposure at 1.35 ppm. LE job is associated with exposure at
0.30 ppm. HE home is associated with exposure at 0.26 ppm. LE home is
associated with exposure at 0.05 ppm.
Housewives are assumed not to hold jobs which require them to travel to a
specified workplace and to perform the job at that location. The combinations
involving LE jobs and HE jobs do not apply for this category.
3-47
-------
TABLE 3-7. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO FORMALDEHYDE
BY AGE, HEALTH, LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION, AND TYPE OF HOME
(ASSUMING NO SELF SELECTION ) (103)
Type of
home^
Age/health/labor force
participation category
High
exposure
(HE)
Low
exposure
(LE)
Totals^
Infants and young children
( < 6 years old)
387.8
16,551.2
16,939.0
Chronic respiratory^
No chronic respiratory
114.3
273.5
4,876.3
11,674.9
4,990.6
11,948.4
School age children
(6 - 15 years old)
573.6
24,479.4
25,053.0
Chronic respiratory
No chronic respiratory
187.6
386.0
8,008.1
16,471.3
8,195.7
16,857.3
Adults not in labor force
(16 - 64 years old)
1,219.0
52,023.0
53,242.0
Chronic respi ratory
No chronic respiratory
160.6
1,058.4
6,851.3
45,171.7
7,011.9
46,230.1
Elderly not in labor force
(65 + years old)
532.6
22,728.4
23,261.0
Chronic respiratory
No chronic respiratory
87.3
445.3
3,729.4
. 18,999.0
3,816.7
19,444.3
Adults in labor force*"
(16 + years old)
2,537.0
108,275.0
110,812.0
Chronic respi ratory
No chronic respi ratory
341.2
2,195.8
14,558.8
93,716.2
14,900.0
95,912.0
Male
1,463.8
62,474.7
63,938.5
Chronic respi ratory
No chronic respiratory
196.9
1,266.9
8,400.4
54,074.3
8,597.3
55,341.2
Female
1,073.2
45,800.3
46,873.5
Chronic respiratory
No chronic respiratory
144.3
928.9
6,158.4
39,641.9
6,302.7
40,570.8
All age, health, and
labor force categories
5,250.0
224,057.0
229,307.0
See footnotes on following page.
3-48
-------
The data in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 indicate that approximately 1.7 percent
of the U.S. labor force works in high exposure jobs. The exposures vary
depending on the industry (Versar, 1982). Those labor force participants
employed in low exposure jobs are assumed to work at concentrations of
0.05 ppm, the minimum reported threshold for odor and neurophysiologic
effects (NRC, 1981a). For perhaps many persons in this group, formaldehyde
levels wi 11 exceed this concentration due to exposure in offices containing
furnishings with high emission rates. The separation of this subgroup is
not attempted in this report.
We may assign the population estimates in Table 3-7 to categories
similar to those in Section 3.3.2 as follows:
HE job, HE home - 43,000
HE job, LE home - 1,820,000
IE job, HE home - 2,495,000
LE jobs LE home - 106,454,000
No job, HE home - 2,712,000
No job, LE home ~ 115,783,000
These numbers represent 0.02 percent, 0.79 percent, 1.09 percent,
46.42 percent, 1.18 percent, and 50.49 percent of the U.S. population,
respectively. The'exposure patterns represented in Figures 3-9 through
3-17 roughly represent the relative hour-by-hour exposures for different
days of the week for these percentages of the population.
These are only approximate values, however, because some persons not
in the labor force are exposed to formaldehyde at elevated levels for at
least a portion of the day. These are mainly high school and university
biology students', medical, dental and nursing students (Versar, 1982).
School age children may also be exposed to formaldehyde in schools at
different levels than at home. Additionally, more or less homes than
estimated may be regarded as subjecting the occupants to elevated formalde-
hyde exposures.
A twenty-four hour TWA exposure is calculated for each of the age and
employment subgroups. The results are shown in Table 3-9 and Table 3-10.
3-51
-------
TABLE 3-8. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES TO FORMALDEHYDE
Number of persons exposed1
Industry
Men
Vfooen
Total
Formaldehyde manufacturing
1,170
230
1,400
Urea, phenol, net amine
and acetal formaldehyde
resin manufacturing
5,145
8SG
8,025
Hardwood plywood manufacturing
5,293
1,407
6,700
Partielaboard manufacturing
2,968
1,032
4,000
Wood furniture manufacturing
39,471
19,529
59,000
Mobile horae manufacturing
27,500
4,000
31,500
Urea formaldehyde foam
chemicals manufacturing
30
20
< 50
Urea formaidehyde foam
insulation installation
914
86
< 1,000
Metal wolds arid
castings manufacturing
54,600
5,400
60,000
Plastic products manufacturing
9,912
6,663
16,575
Paper and paperboard
manufacturing
7,463
2.667
> 9,730
Textiles manufacturing
12,389
5,411
17,800
Apparel aanufactoring
149,981
627,039
777,000
Apparel wholesaling
33,864
32,538
66,400
Building paper and board
manufacturi ng
2,91b
885
3,800
Paints and coatings
manufdcturing
18,538
4,462
23,000
Abrasive products manufacturing
5,467
1,633
7,100
Asbestos products manufacturing
2,69b
805
3,500
Urea formaldehyde
concentrates manufacturing
33
7
40
Nitrogenous fertilizer
manufacturing
1,991
234
2,225b
Other large volume formaldehyde
derivatives manufacturing
176
34
> 210
(continued)
3-52
-------
%
TABIi 3-8 (continued)
timber of persons exposed
Industry
Men
Women
Total
Poultry egg producing
and hatching c
Mushroom farm operation c
Disinfecting and cleaning
service contracting unknown
Service work in health-
related facilities unknown
Medical and pathology
laboratory work 23,fMb
Dental laboratory work 15,415
High school biology teachers 14,012
High school biology students c
College and university
biology teachers 56,738
College and university biology
students, medical students,
oursing students, and dental .
students c
funeral service work 40,095
Metalwork machine operation 394,300
Total Occupational Exposures
(excluding student exposures) c
c
c
unknown
unknown
31,355
20,185
24,588
c
51,802
c
14,905
75,200
1,300
1,400
unknown
unknown
55,300
35,600
38,600
3,834,000
108,600
3,244,400
55,000
470,000*'
1,862*855
aEst iroates of number of men and women exposed to formaldehyde were made based
on Bureau of Labor statistics of percentage of women in industries by SIC,
assuming that women are proportionally represented in the exposed occupations,
''Total number of persons exposed is midpoint of the range 1,600 to 2,850 given
by Versar, Inc. (1982) for this industry.
cNo estimates were made of numbers of *en and wo*en exposed to formaldehyde for
this industry,
dLower bound given by Versar, Inc. (1982).
SOURCES: 1. Qatway, Janet, and Hans A. Klein, 1981. Formaldehyde Regulatory
Control Options Analysis. Draft Final ReportT- Contract
Ho.68-01-5§60l Prepared for Office of Cheaical Control,
fnvi rorwenta t Protection agency. Report No. GCA-TR-8.1-3-G.
Bedford, Massachusetts; GCA Corporation.
2. Versar, Inc., 1982. Exposure Assessment for formaldehyde,
final Draft Report. Contract No. 68-01-6271. Prepared for
Office ot foxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency.
¦ Springfield, Virginia-. Versar, Inc. pp. 67-6<3.
3-53
-------
This average is the sum of the multiplications of exposure in a location
and the percentage of the day spent in that location, for all locations.
Figures 3-1 through 3-8 were used for percentage of time in location.
Previously cited concentrations are used for exposure levels.
Table 3-9 reports twenty-four hour TWA exposures for persons not in
the labor force. The majority of these subgroups are assumed to have
1ifestyles similar to that of the housewife subgroup in Figures 3-5 and
3-6. Average exposures for the infants and young children, adults not in
the labor force, and elderly not in the labor force in the HE home category
are not very different from the segment of the student population who are
exposed to formaldehyde in a laboratory setting at high levels (5.2 ppm).
These same subgroups are exposed at much lower levels on weekdays in LE
homes than are the students. School age children appear to have the lowest
daily exposures to formaldehyde for all categories except LE homes on
Sunday.
Table 3-10 gives twenty-four hour TWA exposures for persons in the
labor force, segregated by male and female workers. The highest exposures
occur for workers with HE homes and employment in formaldehyde resin manufac-
turing, particleboard manufacturing, wood furniture manufacturing, building
paper and board manufacturing, abrasive products manufacturing, asbestos
manufacturing, and college and university biology teaching.
For most occupations with exposure assumed to occur throughout the
workday, there appears to be a concentration level near 0.52 ppm above
which males in HE homes experience greater TWA exposures than females in
the same occupational and domestic status. For industries with hourly
exposures below this level , females in HE homes have slightly higher TWA
exposures.
There is some difference among workers of the same gender and occupa-
tional category who live in HE homes versus those who 1ive in LE homes.
Time-weighted average exposure for LE homes is between 40 and 75 percent of
the TWA for HE homes for the same occupational category and gender.
Cumulative individual annual exposures for all subgroups are provided
in Tables 3-11 and 3-12. For employed males, employed females, and the
student subgroup assumed to have time allocation similar to employed males,
3-54
-------
TABLE 3-9. TWENTY-FOUR HOUR TIME WEIGHTED AVERAGE (TWA)
EXPOSURE TO FORMALDEHYDE, PERSONS NOT IN LABOR FORCE (ppm)
HE home3 LE home*3
Age category Weekday Sunday Weekday Sunday
£
Infants and young children
( < 6 years old) 0.36 0.35 0.06 0.06
School age children^
(6 - 15 years old) 0.26 0.27 0.05 0.07
c
Adults not in labor force
(16 - 64 years old) 0.36 0.35 0.06 0.06
c
Elderly not in labor force
(65 + years old) 0.36 0.35 0.06 0.06
College and university
biology students, medical
students, nursing students,
and dental students 0.45 0.32 0.27 0.07
aH£ home represents high exposure home, with formaldehyde levels assumed to
be 0.40 ppm.
^LE home represents low exposure home, with formaldehyde levels assumed to be
0.05 ppm.
Daily time allocation assumed simi1ar to that of housewives (see Figures 3-5
and 3-6).
j
Daily time allocation for school age children is assumed to be as described
in text (see Figures 3-7 and 3-8).
eDaily time allocation assumed similar to that of employed males (see
Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Exposure at 1evels given in Table 3-4 for five hours
per day. Remaining portion of time "in workplace" is assumed to be at
formaldehyde levels 0.05 ppm.
3-55
-------
TABLE 3-10. TWENTY-FOUR HOUR TIME WEIGHTED AVERAGE (TWA)
EXPOSURE TO FORMALDEHYDE, PERSONS IK LABOR FORCE (ppm)
Male
Female
HE home
LE home
HE home
Industry
Day Day
Weekday , off Weekday off
Weekday
Day
off
LE home
Day
Weekday off
Forma Idehyde
manufacturi ng
Formaldehyde resin
manufacturing
Hardwood plywood
manufacturing
Particieboard
manufacturing
Wood furniture
manufacturing
Mobile home
manufacturing
UFF cherntcalSj
manufacturi ng
UFFI installation
Metal molds
and castings
manufacturi ng
Plastic products
manufacturing
Paper/paperboard
manufacturing
Textiles
manufacturi ng
Apparel
manufacturing
Appare.1 wholesaling
Building paper and
board manufacturing
Paints/coatings
manufacturing
Abrasive products
manufacturing
Asbestos products
manufacturing
UF concentrates
manufacturing
0.38
0 7
0.46
0.62
0.68
0.39
0.40
0.34
0.31
0.27
0.45
0.35
0.62
0.26
0.61
0.61
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.33
0 36 0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.37 0.32
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.38 0 32
0.20
0.53
0.28
0. 45
0.21
0.23
0.27
0.18
0.45
0..09
0.43
0.43
0.20
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.50 0.08
0.18 0.07
0.07
0.07
0.16 0.07
0.13 0.07
0.10 0,07
0.19 0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.39 0.34 0.18 0.06
0. 67 0.35
0.45 0.34
0.59 0.34
0.64 0.35
0.37 0.34
0.35 0.34
0.33 0.34
0.29 0.33
0.38 0.34
0.59 0.34
0-29 0.33
0.58 0 34
0.58 0.34
0.39 0.34
0.46 0.07
0.25 0.07
0.39 0.07
0.43 0.07
0.16 0.05
0.40 0.34 0.19 0.07
0.41 0.34 0.20 0.07
0.14 0.06
0.12 0.06
0.09 0.06
0.17 0.06
0.44 0.34 0.24 0.07
0.36 0.34 0.16 0.06
0.39 0.07
0.08 0.06
0 3/ 0 a/
0.37 0.07
0.18 0.06
(continued)
3-56
-------
TABLE 3-10 (continued)
Hale Female
HE home3 IE horaeb HE home3 IE horaeb
Day Day Oav Day
Industry Weekday off Weekday off Weekday off Weekday off
Nitrogenous
fertilizer
manufacturing 0.5,? 0.33 0.34 0.07 0,50 0.31 0.30 0.07
Other large volumes
formaldehyde deriva-
tives nanufacturing 0.38 0.32 0,20 0.0? 0.39 0.34 0.18 0.06
Poultry egg
producing ,
and hatching' 0.26 0.32 0.08 0.07 0,28 0,32 0.07 0.06
Mushroom
farm operation® 0.27 0,32 0.10 0.07 0.30 0.32 0.09 0.06
Medi ca1/pa toology
laboratory work 0.52 0.33 0.34 0.07 0.50 0.31 0.30 0.07
Dental
laboratory work 0.23 0.32 0.05 0.07 0.26 0.33 0.05 0.06
High school h
biology teaching" 0.45 0.32 0.27 0.07 0.47 0.32 0.27 0.06
College/university
biology teaching 0.66 0.32 0.*8 0.07 0.68 0.32 0.48 0.06
Funeral services9 0.45 0.32 0.28 0.07 0.48 0.32 0.27 0.08
MetaIwork
machine operation 0.28 0.32 0.10 0.07 0.30 0.33 0.09 0.06
All others-® " 0.24 0.32 0.06 O.OS 0.26 0.32 0.06 0.06
aHE home represents high exposure hone, with formaldehyde levels assumed to be 0.40 pp«
btE home represents low exposure home, with formaldehyde levels assumed to be 0.0b ppm.
CI nc 1udes urea, phenol, me 1 amine and acetal formaldehyde resin manufacturing.
dUrea formaldehyde foam chemicals manufacturing.
eUrea formaldehyde concentrates manufacturing.
fA$suaes 0.2 hour per day exposure at level given in Table 3-4 and the rest of the time
"in workplace" at 0.05 ppm.
''Assumes 3.2 hours per day exposure at level given in Table 3-4 and the rest of the time
"in workplace" at 0,05 ppm.
^Assumes 1.0 hour per day exposure at level given in Table 3-4 and the rest of the time
"in workplace" at 0.05 ppn.
'Assumes 2.0 hours per day exposure at level given in Tat>ie 3-4 and the rest of the time
"in workplace" at 0.05 ppm.
•'Assumes full-time exposure at 0.05 ppm.
3-57
-------
TABLE 3-11. INDIVIDUAL ANNUAL CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE
TO FORMALDEHYDE, PERSONS NOT IN LABOR FORCE (1G3 ppm-hr/yr)
Age category HE home3 LE home^
Infants and young children0
( < 6 years old) 3.12 0.52
School age children^
(6 - 15 years old) 2.32 0.53
c
Adults not in labor force
(16 - 64 years old) 3.12 0.52
c
Elderly not in labor force
(65 + years old) 3.12 0.52
College and university
biology students,
medical students, nursing
students, and dental studentse 3.57 1.80
3
HE home represents high exposure home, with formaldehyde levels assumed to be
0.40 ppra.
f3
LE home represents low exposure home,, with formaldehyde levels assumed to be
0.05 ppm.
Q „
Time allocation assumed to be similar to that of housewives (see figures 3-5
and 3-6).
ciDai ly time al location for school age children is assumed to be as outlined in
text (see Figures 3-7 and 3-8). It is assumed that children attend school
180 days per year.
¦0'
"Daily time allocation assumed similar to that of employed males (see
Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Exposure is assumed to be at levels given in Table 3-4
for five hours per day. Remaining portion of time "in workplace" is assumed
to be at formaldehyde levels of 0.05 ppm.
3-58
-------
TABLE 3-12. INDIVIDUAL ANNUAL CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE
TO FORMALDEHYDE, PERSONS IN LABOR FORCE (103 ppm-hr/yr)
Hale Female
Industry HE home3 [ E home'3 HE home3 LE home^
Formaldehyde
manufacturing
3.18
1.42
3.25
1.27
Formaldehyde
resin manufacturing
5.18
3.42
4.97
2.98
Hardwood plywood
manufacturing
3.65
1.88
3.65
1.67
Particleboard
manufacturi ng
4.65
2.89
4,51
2.53
Wood furniture
manufacturi ng
4.96
3.20
4.79
2.80
Mobile home
manufacturing
3.05
1.29
3.14
1.16
IJfF chemicals^
manufacturi ng
3.24
1.48
3.31
1. 32
UFFI installation
3.30
1.54
*
3.36
1.38
Metal molds/castings
manufacturi ng
2.90
1.14
3.01
1.03
Plastic products
manufacturi ng
2.75
0.99
2.89
0.90
Paper/paperboard
manufacturing
2.25
0.76
2.68
0.70
Textiles manufacturing
3.09
1.33
3. 18
1.19
Apparel manufacturing
3.56
1.80
3.58
1.59
Apparel wholesaling
3.01
1.25
3.11
1.12
Building paper/board
manufacturing
4.65
2.88
4.51
2.53
Paints/coatings
manufacturi ng
2.45
0.69
2.63
0.64
(continued)
3-59
-------
TABLE 3-12 (continued)
Hale Female
Industry HE home3 IE homeb HE home3 IE homeb
Abrasive products
manufacturing
4.54
2.78
4.42
2.44
Asbestos products
manufacturing
4.54
2.78
4.42
2.44
UF concentrates
manufacturing
3.18
1.42
3.25
1.27
Nitrogenous fertilizer
manufacturi ng
3.99
2.23
3.95
1.96
Other large volume
formaldehyde deriva-
tives manufacturing
3.18
1.42
3.25
1.27
Poultry eggs pro- ,
dueling and hatching
2.40
0.64
2.57
0.61
Mushroom farm
operation^
2.52
0.76
2.68
0.72
Medical/pathology
laboratory work
4.01
2.25
3.96
CO
a
t-4
Dental
laboratory work
2.26
0.50
2.47
0.48
High school ^
biology teaching
3.57
1.80
3.73
1.77
Co 1lege/universify
biology teaching
4.83
3.06
4.99
3.03
Funeral services"
3.59
1.83
3.76
1.80
Metalwork
mac hi rte operation
2.54
0.78
2.70
0.72
All others^
2.32
0.52
2.44
0.52
aHE home represents high exposure home, with formaldehyde levels assumed to be
0.40 ppffl.
IE home represents low exposure home, with formaldehyde levels assumed to be
0.05 ppra.
3-60
-------
TABLE 3-12 (continued)
c
Includes urea, phenol, me1 amine and acetal formaldehyde resin manufacturing.
Urea formaldehyde foam chemicals manufacturing.
eUrea formaldehyde concentrates manufacturing.
Assumes 0.2 hour per day exposure at level given in Table 3-4 and the rest of
the time "in workplace" at 0.05 ppm.
^Assumes 3,2 hours per day exposure at level given in Table 3-4 and the rest of
the time "in workplace" at 0.05 ppm.
Assumes 1.0 hour per day exposure at level given in Table 3-4 and the rest of
the time "in workplace" at 0.05 ppm.
Assumes 2.0 hours per day exposure at level given in Table 3-4 and the rest of
the time "in workplace" at 0.05 ppm.
^Assumes full-time exposure at 0.05 ppm.
3-61
-------
the calculation of yearly exposures is based on 50 workweeks per year (five
workdays and two days off per week), and 2 weeks of vacation with time
allocation corresponding to days off. School age children are assumed to
have 180 school days per year and to allocate time as for nonschool days
for the remainder of the year. Housewives, infants, and young children,
adults not in the labor force, and elderly not in the labor force are
assumed to have cumulative yearly exposures equal to 52 regular weeks (six
weekdays and one Sunday per week).
Among the persons not participating in the labor force shown on Table 3-
school age children have the lowest cumulative exposures for both categories
of homes and al1 days except Sunday in LE homes. Exposures for the infants
and young children, school age children, adults not in labor force, and
elderly not in labor force are about 70 percent lower than for col lege and
university students and other students exposed in laboratory settings and
living in LE homes..
Cumulative exposures for those who are occupationally exposed are
given in Table 3-12. The results reflect the twenty-four hour TWA exposures
presented in Table 3-10. The industries with the highest cumulative exposure
for both male and female employees are formaldehyde resin manufacturing,
particleboard manufacturing, wood furniture manufacturing, building paper
and board manufacturing, abrasive products and asbestos products manufactur-
ing, and college and university biology teaching.
It is interesting to note that the nonparticipants in the labor force
who live in HE homes, excepting school age children (Table 3-11), have
higher cumulative annual exposures than 40 percent of those individuals who
work in HE occupations and live in HE homes. When 1iving in LE homes,
these subgroups experience lower cumulative exposure than almost every
occupational subgroup participating in the labor force.
As yet, there is nc way to evaluate the magnitude of cumulative expo-
sures. There is sti 11 no agreement on whether cumulative exposures are of
greater significance than are TWA exposures in determining adverse effects
from formaldehyde (Hendrick et al., 1982; Hattis et al., 1981). However,
cumulative annual exposures provide a context for evaluating the conditions
under which an individual wi11 experience relatively greater exposures to
3-62
-------
formaldehyde. Cumulative exposures are measured in ppm-hr per unit time
so that conversion to inhaled concentrations can be made when further
epidemiologic research delineates harmful levels.
The estimates presented in this report are subject to the limitations
of the available data. Individual activities may alter exposures to a
great extent, unaccounted for in this data set. Two examples are smoking
and cooking with gas appliances.
Smoking emits formaldehyde at the rate of 0.02 to 0.04 mg per cigarette
smoked. A person smoking 15 cigarettes per day inhales 0.25 to 0.50 ppm of
formaldehyde. Sidestream smoke from 10 cigarettes may increase ambient
levels by 0.20 ppm (Versar, 1982). The Statistical Abstract of the U. S.
(1982-83) reported that in 1980 there were 15,200 persons smoking less than
15 cigarettes per day, 21,806 persons smoking 15 to 24 cigarettes per day.
6,800 persons smoking 25-34 cigarettes per day, and 7,945 persons smoking
35 or more cigarettes per day. Of these, 53 percent were males and 47 per-
cent were females. Persons in the 25 to 44 year old age group accounted to
44 percent of all smokers.
Gas stoves emit 15,000 ug per hour from top burners and 25,000 pg per
hour from ovens. Assuming both burners and ovens are operated for three
hours per day, this usage represents a total emission of 100 ppm of formal-
dehyde per day. There were 37,936 homes in the U.S. in 1980 using utility-
gas, bottled gas, tank gas, or liquid propane gas as a cooking fuel (Statis-
tical Abstract of the U.S., 1982-83). Given the energy efficiency of
modern homes, this may represent a substantial increase in indoor levels of
formaldehyde in homes which might otherwise be considered low exposure
homes. Similarly, use of gas as a heating fuel may elevate indoor exposure
levels.
The factors described throughout this chapter complicate the grouping
of the U.S. population into exposure categories. More data are needed on
lifestyles of subgroups at risk from elevated formaldehyde exposures, and
on the formaldehyde concentrations present in various locations.
3.5 REFERENCES
Bardana, Emi1 J., 1980. "Formaldehyde Hypersensitivity and Irritant Reactions
at Work and in the Home." Immunology and Allergy Practice II (3): 11-23.
3-63
-------
Becker, Gary S. , 1965. "A Theory of the Allocation of lime." The Economic
Journal 75(299):493-517.
Brail, Richard K., and f. Stuart Chapin, Jr., 1973. "Activity Patterns of
Urban Residents." Environment and Behavior 5(2):163-190.
Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr., 1974. Human Activity Patterns in the City - Things
People Do In Time and In Space. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr., and Richard K. Brail, 1969. "Human Activity Systems
in the Metropolitan United States." Environment and Behavior 1:107-130.
Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), 1984. "Final Report on the Safety Assess-
ment of Formaldehyde." Journal of the American College of Toxicology
3(3):157-184.
Consensus Workshop on Formaldehyde, 1983. Deliberations of the Consensus
Workshop on Formaldehyde. Draft Report. Conference he id in Li ttle
Rock, Arkansas on October 3-6, 1983.
Dally, Kay A., Lawrence P. Hanrahan, Mary Ann Woodbury, and Marty S. Kanarek,
1981. "Formaldehyde Exposure in Nonoccupational Environments." Archives
of Environmental Health 36(6):277-284.
Gammage, R. B. , 1981. Final Report to the Canadian Department of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs: Product Safety Branch. Report No. DOE/NBM-
2020919. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Gammage, R. 8., B. E. Hingerty, Thomas G. Matthews, Alan R. Hawthorne, Don
R. Womack, Rita R. Westley, and Kailish C. Gupta, 1983. Temporal
Fluctuations of Formaldehyde Levels Inside Residences. Report No.
DE 83009788. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Gupta, K. C., A. G. U1 saner, and P. W. Preuss, 1982. "Formaldehyde in
Indoor Air: Sources and Toxicity." Environment International.
8:349-358.
Hammer, Philip G., Jr., and F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., 1972. Human Time A11oca-
tion: A Case Study of Washington, D. C. Technical Monograph. Chapel
Hill, North Carolina: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University
of North Carolina.
Hattis, Dale, Clifford Mitchell, Janet McCleary-Jones, and Nancy Gorelick,
1981. Control of Occupational Exposures to Formaldehyde: A Case Study
of Methodology for Assessing the Health and Economic Impacts of OSHA
Health Standards. Report No. CPA-81-17. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Center for Policy Alternatives, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hawthorne, A. R., R. B. Gammage, C. S. Qudney, 0. R. Womack, S. A. Morris,
R. R. Westley, and K. C. Gupta, 1983. Preliminary Results of a Forty-
Home Indoor-Air-Pollution Monitoring Study. Oak Ridge, Iennessee:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
3-64
-------
Hendrick, David J., Roy J. Rando, Donald J. Lane, and M. Joycelyn Morris,
1982. "Formaldehyde Asthma: Challenge Exposure Levels and Fate After
Five Years." Journal of Occupational Medicine 24(11):893-897.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1981. Formal-
dehyde: Evidence of Carcinogenicity. Current Intelligence Bulletin
No. 34. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 15 pp.
National Research Council (NRC), 1981a. Formaldehyde and Other Aldehydes.
Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Counci1 (NRC), 1981b. Indoor Air Pollution. Washington,
O.C.: National Academy Press.
Oatway, Janet, and Hans A. K1 emits, 1981. Formaldehyde Regulatory Control
Options Analysis- Draft Final Report. Contract No. 68-01-5960.
Prepared for Office of Chemical Control, Environmental Protection
Agency. Report No. GCA-TR-812-1-G. Bedford, Massachusetts: GCA
Corporaion.
Pickeral1, J. A., L. C. Griffis, and C. H. Hobbs, 1982. Release of Formal-
dehyde from Various Consumer Products. Final Report. Report No. LMF-93,
UC-48. Prepared for Consumer Products Safety Commission. Albuquerque,
New Mexico: Lovelace Biomedical and Environmental Research Institute.
Repace, James L., 1982. "Indoor Air Pollution." Environment International
8:21-36.
Robinson, John P., 1977a. How Americans Use Time - A Social-Psychological
Analysis of Everyday Behavior. New York: Praeger.
Robinson, John P., 1977b. Changes in Americans' Use of Time: 1965-1975 - A
Progress Report. Technical Report for Communication Research Center,
Cleveland State University. Cleveland, Ohio: John P. Robinson.
Snell Division, 1979. Preliminary Study of the Costs of Increased Regulation
of Formaldehyde Exposure in the United States Workplace, Prepared for
Formaldehyde Task Force of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers
Association. Florham Park, New Jersey: Booz, Allen, and HamiIton,
Inc.
Spengler, John D. , and Steven D. Colome, 1982. "The Ins and Outs of Air
Pollution." Technology Review 85(6):32-44.
Spengler, John 0. , and Ken Sexton, 1983. "Indoor Air Pol 1ution: A Public
Health Perspective." Science 221 (4605):9-17.
Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1982-83. 103rd edition. Bureau of
Census, Department of Commerce.
Szalai, Alexander, ed., 1972. The Use of Time. The Hague, Netherlands:
Mouton.
3-65
-------
Versar, Inc., 1982. Exposure Assessment for Formaldehyde. Final Draft
Report. Contract No. 68-01-6271. Prepared for Office of Toxic
Substances, Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield, Virginia:
Versar, Inc.
Yocom, John E. , 1982. "Indoor-Outdoor Air Quality Relationships - A Critical
Review." Journal of the Air Pol lution Control Association 32(5): 500-520.
3-66
-------
CHAPTER 4
VALUATION OF REDUCTIONS IN EXPOSURE RISKS
While exposure to formaldehyde on the job or in the home may be
accompanied by a number of acute health risks, the values to workers and
consumers of reducing these risks is a major task of regulatory impact
analysis. However, the value to individuals of reducing exposure is unknown
because no market exists in which they can purchase reductions in health
risks from formaldehyde and thereby reveal their valuation. Fortunately,
two approaches are available for inferring the value of commodities not
traded in markets--revealed preference and expressed preference. The
former identifies the value of nonmarket commodities by analyzing changes
in the value of market commodities. The latter directly asks people to
value nonmarket commodities using one of a variety of techniques. This
study uses a variant of the revealed preference approach, the property
value method, to measure the values of the reductions in health risks
associated with formaldehyde exposure by comparing the prices of homes with
elevated formaldehyde concentrations to those with lower concentrations.
Our focus is only on valuing risks reductions to people exposed outside the
workplace. However, the results are extended to infer the benefits of
reducing occupation risks from formaldehyde.
The following sections explain the procedures used to value consumer
exposure risks and presents the results of this preliminary effort. Spe-
cifically, Section 4.1 briefly summarizes the property value technique for
valuing environmental quality, Section 4.2 outlines the specific procedures
used in this study, and Section 4.3 describes the data collection method-
ology. Section 4.4 presents the results, and Section 4.5 contains aggregate
benefits estimates.
4-1
-------
4.1 THE PROPERTY VALUE METHOD
The property value method has been employed by a number of researchers
to estimate the value of improvements in environmental quality. The basic
idea behind the technique is that the value of environmental quality is
reflected in the value of property. In particular, summarizing Freeman
(1979), suppose an individual has the utility function
U = U(X,Q) , (4-1)
where X is a vector of private good quantities and Q is a vector of environ-
mental amenities. Because individuals, in effect, choose their consumption
rate for environmental quality, Q, by selecting a specific bundle of private
goods, X, the value of any level--or a change in a level--of environmental
quality can be estimated by determining how the value of a given private
good, Xj, is affected by the level of environmental quality. In Figure
4-1, this value per period is represented (approximately) by area abed per
period. The demand curve Dq for the private good Xj is drawn conditional
on a particular level of environmental quality; demand curve 0( is drawn
assuming a comparatively better level of environmental quality.
Empirical application of this theory typically involves a two-step
procedure. In the first step, the implicit value of the marginal unit of
environmental quality, the hedonic price function, is estimated using
standard regression techniques. Specifically, the observed prices for the
market good, Xl5 are regressed on the observed quantities of the attributes
of the good and environmental quality, Q. For example, where X, is houses,
the price of houses, P , is regressed on the quantities of the character-
x i
isties of the house and neighborhood and on the quantities of environmental
quality. The house characteristics ~ nclude house-specific attributes
(size, square feet, number of bathrooms, etc.) and site- or neighborhood-
specific attributes (distance from schools , f i re station, etc.). The
marginal implicit price of any character!stic--e.g. , environmental quality-
is OP /3Q-, the partial derivative of the regression equation. This price
xi J
is the estimated value of a small change in environmental quality. As des-
cribed by Freeman (1973), the estimated implicit price function is the
sought-after inverse demand function as long as the changes in environmental
4-2
-------
Figure 4-1. Benefits of environmental quality changes.
4-3
-------
quality arc marginal ones. For nonmarginal changes, a willingness-to-pay
function for risk reductions must be estimated.*
Applying the hedonic method to value reductions in formaldehyde expo-
sure requires data on housing transactions, formaldehyde presence and
concentration levels, and other house and neighbor characteristics. Typi-
cally, data on as many as 30 or more characteristics are necessary to
satisfactorily estimate a hedonic property value model (Paltnqui st, 1982a).
In addition, it may be necessary to have information from multiple market
areas to estimate the wi11ingness-to-pay function. (See Bartik and Smith,
1984 and Palmquist, 1982b.)
4.2 FORMALDEHYDE AND HOUSING PRICES: AN OVERVIfW
With its distinctive pungent odor formaldehyde can he readily identi-
fied by consumers as the source of a number of uncomfortable effects, as
described in Chapter 2. Correctly or not, consumers may also associate
exposure with a number of adverse chronic effects. As long as the informa-
tion on the presence of formaldehyde is available to home purchasers, we
would expect that the prices of houses with significant concentrations of
formaldehyde would, all else being equal, have 1ower market values than
those with lower concentrations. These differences could be estimated with
the hedonic approach, but that effort is beyond the scope of this study.
As an alternative, we have used a variant of the hedonic approach
similar to the resale technique that Palmquist (1982a) used to determine
how individuals value reductions in highway noise levels. In particular,
we used price information collected in a small-scale realtor survey to
compare the sales price of houses with and without urea-formaldehyde foam
insulation (UfFI). Specifically, we asked realtors who were know!edgable
about the effect of UFFI on house prices to identify UFFI-containing houses
that had recently sold in their market area. For each identified house, we
elicited the actual sale price and their best estimate of what that price
would have been had-the house not contained UFFI. Hence, all other houses
*By assuming that our changes in risk are marginal ones, we have
skirted the complex estimation and conceptual issues discussed in Bartik
and Smith [1984]. While this assumption is more acceptable in a prelim-
inary assessment, it would require more careful consideration in a formal
hedonic property value study.
4-4
-------
and market characteristics (including the time-dependent variables that
must be accounted for in the repeat sales technique) remain constant. The
critical assumption in this approach is that realtors know and accurately
report the price of the houses without UFFI. In effect, we ask the realtors
to perform the hedonic estimation based on their knowledge of market values.
This is in the same spirit of eliciting experts encoding of probabilities
instead of estimates based on actual data.
4.3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
In accordance with Office of Management and Budget (0MB) regulations
for nonapproved surveys, we limited the survey sample to nine individuals.*
Thus, we mailed the questionnaire, instructions, and cover letter repro-
duced in Appendix ft to three real tors from each of three geographically
diverse northern metropolitan areas. The selected geographic regions
reflect areas where UFFI has been installed extensively, primarily single-
family houses predominantly in the northern portion of the United States.
The chosen metropolitan areas are from three northern regions—the North-
east, the North Central, and the Pacific: Northwest.
Officials from state realtor boards and from an independent air qual-
ity testing laboratory identified local realtors who had some experience
selling homes containing UFFI. From this group, we contacted realtors in
Tacoma, Washington; Hartford, Connecticut; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to
verify their familiarity with UFFI homes and to determine their wi!1ingness
to participate in the survey. In addition, we selected three realtors from
each of these areas to report particular characteristics of recently sol d,
UFFl^contai ning homes. These characteristics were similar to items found
on the multiple listing form and have been determined to relate to the
appraised value and selling price of a home. The realtors reported details
about the sale of the UFFI-containing homes, including whether the buyer
was aware of the presence of the UFFI and whether this awareness had an
*0MB regulations require a sometimes lengthy review and approval
process for efforts that would collect information from more than nine
individuals. The project schedule did not permit us to pursue approval of
a larger sample size for this effort.
4-5
-------
an effect on the list price or on the sale price of the home. In addition,
we obtained estimates of what the house would have sold for without UFFI.
Finally, the nine realtors provided information about their general •
impressions of the impact of UFFI on the housing market. In particular, we
asked them whether list price, sale price, and length of time a home remains
on the market are generally affected by the presence of the UFFI. Where
relevant, we also sought information on the quantitative effects the UFFI
had on each of these three variables. Other sources of information--such
as state public health authorities, state realtor's association officials,
and personnel in testing laboratories who assess formaldehyde levels in
UFFI-contai ni ng homes-- were evaluated to supplement the local realtors'
responses.
4.4 RESULTS
Mine respondents provided information on a total of 13 recent sales of
UFFI-contai ni ng houses in their market area. Table 4-1 provides data on
these houses. As expected, they tend to be older houses; the average age
is 66 years. UFFI was installed about 5 years ago in most of these houses,
5 years is also about the half-life of formaldehyde. Thi s suggests that
formaldehyde was still present in sufficient concentrations to be noticed.
Table 4-2 provides the actual sale price of each of the houses in the
sample and the realtors' estimates of the price if the houses had not
contained UFFI, As shown in the table, there is substantial variation in
the results. In particular, for over half the sample (seven houses), no
reduction in value was reported for the presence of UFFI. For one house,
moreover, the realtor indicated that UFFI actually increased the sale
price--a counterintuitive result. However, a followup telephone discussion
with the respondent indicated that other unusual circumstances in the sale
affected the price of the house. We omitted this response in the following
analysis.
In addition to listing actual and estimated sale prices, Table 4-2
also summarizes information about the buyer1s awareness of the UFFI in the
house. In every case, the buyer was aware that UFFI was in the home.
Realtors in all three states indicated that it is standard practice to
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-1. CHARACTERISTICS OF UFFI-CONTAINING HOUSES
Interior
Number
Lot
Garage
Age of
Year of
Age
Observation
code
floor area
of
size
size
house
Style of
locale.
UFFI
of UFFI
(ft2)
baths
(ft2)
(cars)
(years)
house
(U/C/NU)
installation
(years)
1
1,200
1.5
7,004
1
64
Coloni al
u
1978
3
1
2,000
3.5
17,500
2
54
Eng. Tudor
u
1979
5
1
1,000
1.0
10,000
0
27
Ranch
NU
1379 *
3
X
1,600
1.5
20,000
0
175
Colonial
NU
pre-1982
-
l
2,400
1.0
4,800
2
50
Duplex
u/c
1977
6
2
IPs,.
1,818
1.0
7,119
2 •
69
Cape Cod
u/c
1978
5
^ 2
1,400
1.75
21,780
0
30
Cape Cod
NU
Unknown
-
2
1,200
1.0
10,000
0
100
2-story
NU
1977
2
2
2,000
1.75
217,800
4
100
2-story
NU
1978
6
3
3,800
1.5
6,240
3
73
Victorian
U/C
1979
5
3
1,313
1.0
6,000
1
75
1.5-story
u/c
1976
7
3
940
1.0
20,000
1
20
Ranch
NU
Unknown
-
3
3,356
2.5
12,350
3
16
2-story
u
1978
7
Average
1,848
1.5
27,738
1.5
66
--
--
—
4.9
Standard
680
0.5
55,168
1.0
41
--
—
1.6
deviation
al = Connecticut; 2 = Wisconsin; 3 = Washington,
bU represents "urban," C represents "within the limits of the central city/1 and NU represents "nonurban."
-------
TABLE 4-2.
ACTUAL AND
ESTIMATED SALES PRICES
FOR UFFI-CONTAINING
HOUSES
Observation
code
Date of sale
(month/year)
Actual
sale price
($)
Real tor1s
estimated sale price
without UFFI ($)
Sale price
di fference
($) (%)
Buyer aware
of UFFI
Presale,
* * • b
testing
1
02/81
84,000
72,500
-8,500
-13.3
1
1
1
09/84
178,000
178,000
0
0,0
1
1
1
10/82
31,000
52,000
-21,000
-67,7
1
1
1
09/83
46,500
65,000
-18,500
-39.8
1
1
2
05/83
59,900
62,500
-2,600
-4.3
1
1
f 2
00
10/83
62,900
62,900
0
0.0
1
1
2
01/84
46,900
45,000
1,900C
4. 0C
1
1
2
09/79
46,000
48,000
0
0.0
1
0
2
08/84
58,000
58,000
0
0.0
1
0
3
03/84
64,500
64,500
0
0.0
1
1
3
06/83
47,500
47,500
0
0.0
1
1 •
3
10/83
52,500
52,500
0
0.0
1
0
3
11/83
142,000
150,000
»8,000
-5.6
1
1
1 = Connecticut; 2 = Wisconsin; 3 = Washington.
D0 = No
1 = Yes
c
The respondent reported unusual circumstances of sale arid did riot attribute the positive difference
to the presence of UFFI.
-------
disclose the presence of the product, even where disclosure is not required
by law. Moreover, in 10 of 12 cases, the homes were tested for formaldehyde
concentrat" ons before the sale was completed. According to realtors,
testing is recommended to assure the buyer of low risks. Testing would be
expected to be negatively correlated with the price differential, but
little variation occurred in this sample.
Table 4-3 provides means for the entire sample and for each state
separately. Before computing the means, we adjusted the sale price data to
1984 values using the implicit GNP price deflator for nonfarm residential
structures. This was necessary because the date of sale varied by as much
as 3 years in some cases.
As shown in Table 4-3, the average effect of UFFI for the sample is to
reduce house prices $5,044 or 6.5 percent (Table 4-3).* The state averages
in Table 4-3 show considerable differences across the states. In particular,
for Connecticut, the average sale price difference is 13.2 percent, sub-
stantial ly larger than the differences for Wisconsin and Washington.
Location may affect price differentials in two ways: climate differences
across regons affect formaldehyde emissions (see Chapter 3) and levels of
awareness of UFFI and concern for its presence in a home may differ due to
publicity generated in an area. Thus, the price differentials for
Connecticut may be larger than those for V/isconsin and Washington because
the State ban on UFFI heightened public awareness of the health risks of
formaldehyde exposure.
The results reported in Tables 4-1 through 4-3 are very tentative,
since none of the means is significantly di fferent from zero, even at the
0.10 level A larger sample drawn from different locations within each
state would obviously provide a better basis for calculating and comparing
mean differences in price due to the presence of UFFI in a house. However,
despite th>; possible limitations of sample size, the survey results are
supported by anecdotal evidence. For example, realtors in Connecticut and
Wisconsin %eported that mortgage companies were refusing loans for UFFI
*Alte 'natively stated, removal of UFFI from these homes and replace-
ment with i similar-performing material, in terms of insulating qualities
but withou; the health effects of UFFI, would raise the market value of
these hous ;s an average of 10.9 percent, all other factors being unchanged.
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-3. AVERAGE SALE PRICE DIFFERENCES FOR UFFI-CONTAINING HOUSES
Observation
code
Number
of houses
Average actual
sale price
(1984$) '
Average
estimated
sale price
without UFFI
(1984$) '
Average absolute
increase in value
without UFFI (1984$)
Average sale
price difference
($) (%)d
1
4
81,525
32,296 - 178,000
93,966
54,174 - 178,000
12,441
-12,441
-20.1
(17.9)
2
4
60 ,075
57,587 - 63,829
60,735
57,687 - 152,216
660
-660
-1.0
(2-1)
3
4
77,518
48,202 - 144,097
79,548
48,202 - 152,216
2,030
-2,030
-1.3
(2.7)
All
12
73,039
32,296 - 178,000
78,083
48,202 - 178,000
5,044
-5,044
-7.5
(13.3)
Note: One observation is excluded because it does not represent the effects of UFFI on the sale prices of
houses.
al = Connecticut; 2 = Wisconsin; 3 = Washington.
Id
Ranges for sample are reported beneath the averages.
c
Conversion to 1984 dollars using implicit GNP price deflator for nonfarm residential structures.
cf
Values in parentheses are standard deviations.
-------
homes strictly because they contained the insulation.* Further, the nine
realtors were asked for their general impressions of the effect of the
presence of UFFI on sale price and time on the market. As reported in
Table 4-4, about half the respondents believe that the presence of UFFI
reduces the sale price and increases the time required to sell the house.
The length of time a home is on the market should relate to the price
a seller receives for the home. An analogy may be drawn to rental markets.
Stull (1978) has shown that, at a given price, some proportion of the total
number of potential tenants will rent an apartment. After a length of
time, if the apartment is not rented, the landlord follows a sequence of
price (rent) reductions that is decreasing over time. At each lower price,
a larger proportion of the potential renters is available. At the equi-
librium price, then, the unit will be rented. Ideally, it would be desir-
able to model the interaction of list price, time on market, and sales
price for UFFI- and non-UFFI-containing houses.
Finally, we can estimate a simple model to identify factors besides
the presence of UFFI that may account for the price differentials:
R = f(Z,S,L) , (4-2)
where R represents the differential in prices, Z represents characteristics
of the house, S represents characteristics of the sale, and L represents
characteristics of the location. For this application, we selected a
linear form for the regression equation. The model estimated is
R = Po + PiWI + p2WA + p3TIMEMKT + p4SPRING + psSALE + e , (4-3)
where R represents the percentage differential in the price for houses
without UFFI and the actual sale price of the homes with UFFI, WI and WA
represent location dummy variables for Wisconsin and Washington, respec-
tively, TIMEMKT represents the length of time in months that a UFFI home is
on the market, SPRING is a dummy variable for the months February through
July, SALE represents the actual sale price of the UFFI home, and e is a
normally distributed error term.
*A survey of appraisers conducted in 1983 by Runzheimer (1983) indi-
cated that 19 percent of 98 respondents adjusted home values when UFFI was
present. Average adjustments were 14 percent of the value of the home,
with a range from 5 percent to 40 percent.
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-4. RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECi OF UFFI ON
SALE PRICES AND TIME ON MARKET
Percentage change in Excess time on market
Respondent sale price due to IJFf 1 due to UFFI (months)
1 -10 3-4
2 -15 >6
3 -10 3-4
4 0 >6
5 0: 0
6 0 0
7 0 0
8 -10 3-4
9 -20-30 Qa
^Respondent replied ">6 if not priced to allow for UFFI."
4-12
-------
The parameter values for the estimated node! are given in Table 4-5.
The intercept and the variables WI and WA are significant at least at the
0.05 level. The intercept, representing CT, displays a positive sign.
This may reflect the substantial adverse publicity due to the statewide ban
on the sale of UFFI. The coefficients associated with WI and WA are nega-
tive. This may reflect indifference to the presence of UFFI or less aware-
ness of the potential health effects on the part of the buyers in these
states. Climate factors influencing offgassi ng and subsequent health
problems due to the UFFI could also be involved.
TIMEMKT and SPRING are not significant for this data set, even at the
0.10 level. These results contradict intuitive suppositions. Possibly,
the very small size of the data set and its restriction to only three
metropolitan areas failed to generate enough variation in the sample to
capture these effects. The coefficient associated with SALE is significant
at the 0.05 level but had a very small magnitude. The negative sign implies
that clean indoor air is probably a normal good. Overall, the R2 value of
0.75 indicates that the model explains about 75 percent of the sample
variation in the price differential. These results should be considered
very prelimtnary because of the small sample size. Nevertheless, the
results seem plausible and suggest that more detailed investigations would
offer promise.*
4,5 ESTIMATES OF AGGREGATE BENEFITS
The data on exposures and house price differentials are used here to
develop some very prelimi nary approximations of the aggregate benefits of
reductions in formaldehyde exposures. The results are only suggestive and
may not even represent order of magnitude values. However, they do suggest
the value of the information obtained in a benefits assessment.
The survey-~which had a small number of observations, nonrepresenta-
tive, and based on opinion-- indicated that the average price differential
between UFFI and non-UFF1 homes was $5,044. This value is assumed here to
*0ther variables considered for analysis included whether homes had
been tested for formaldehyde levels, the age of the UFFI, and the interior
area of the home. Regressions including these variables generated nonsig-
nificant coefficients.
4-13
-------
TABLt 4-5. RESULTS OK REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Variable
INTERCEPT
WI
WA
TIMEMKT
SPRING
SALE
R-SQUARE
F VALUE
Parameter estimate
0.335341
-0.236886
-0.177108
0.002844
-0,065274
-0.000002
0.7513
3.624C
Significant at a - 0,01.
Significant at « ~ 0-05.
'Significant at « - 0.10.
T for Ho:
parameter ;
4,27QC
-3.428
h
-2.719
0.392
-1.112
-2.437*
4-14
-------
represent the equilibrium, capitalized marginal willingness to accept value
that individuals require to incur formaldehyde exposures in concentrations
found in the home. To convert this value into a marginal annual wi11ingness-
to-accept value requires adjusting for income and property taxes and consumer
rate of time preference. Following Freeman (1979), this annual value, r,
can be calculated from the capitalized value, k, using estimates of the
rate of time preference, i, the ad valorum tax rate, t, and the marginal
income tax rate, g. Using assumed values for these parameters,
r = k(i+t)(l-g)
= 5044(0.10 + 0.01X1-0.25)
= 416.
Further, assuming the average number of family members per household
is 2.3, the per capita annual value would be $181.
We estimate about 5,250 million prople are currently exposed to high
levels of formaldehyde in the home. An approximate measure of the dollar
value of the benefits to these individuals of the complete elimination of
all elevated formaldehyde concentrations would, therefore, be $950 million
annually.
People are also exposed to high concentrations of formaldehyde on the
job. These individuals would also benefit if the formaldehyde to which
they are exposed daily were eliminated- Assume comparabi1ity between the
concentrations they experience in the workplace and those found in UFFI
houses, and assume that they would similarly value reduction in exposure.
First, adjust the household value for the difference in the length of
exposure on the job (8 hours per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year)
and that in the home (14 hours per day, 7 days per week, 50 weeks per
year):
(181)(.41) = $74.
We estimate about 1,863 million workers are currently exposed to formalde-
hyde. Their approximate valuation of the benefits of completely eliminat-
ing al1 formaldehyde exposures on the job would, therefore, be about
$138 million annually. Summing the value to consumers and workers yields
an aggregate annual benefit of $1.1 billion annually.
4-15
-------
Finally, we again caution about the preliminary nature of our estimates.
Our estimates are based on very limited information and very restrictive
simplifying assumptions. Under these conditions, any confidence interval
about the mean must be very broad.
4.6 IMPLICATION
In this chapter, we have provided preliminary estimates of the benefits
of reducing formaldehyde exposures under TSCA. In so doing, we have tried
to provide an organizational structure consistent with economic principles.
Although the project scope and schedule permitted us to use only the crudest
methods and data, the magnitude of the potential benefits of reducing formal-
dehyde exposures is potentially large--sufficiently large, in fact, to
suggest that investing in better benefits information may prove quite useful
to EPA decisionmakers.
Sensible benefits analysis requires a matching of method and the
magnitude of the problem; we suggest that the returns to additional analysis
would prove positive. In particular, the foregoing analysis suggests that
the nature of the formaldehyde problem is well-matched to either the hedonic
or the contingent valuation approaches for benefits assessment. The commodity
is relatively well defined, its effects are reasonably well documented, and
consumers in housing markets are pretty consistently aware of its presence
(or absence). These characteristics make additional benefits research
considerably more attractive. In fact, formaldehyde would appear to present
an excellent case study for a comparison of the two benefits approaches.
4.7 REFERENCES
Barti k, Timothy J., and V. Kerry Smith, 1984, "Urban Amenities and Public
Pol icy," forthcoming in Handbook of Urban Economics, t. S. Mills, ed.,
review draft, May 1984.
Cohen, David, 1983. "Legal Dimensions of the UFFI Problem.11 Canadian
Business Law Journal 8:309-373.
Freeman, A. Myrick, III, 1379. The Benefits of Environmental Improvement--
Theory and Practice. Baltimore: Resources for the Future.
Palmquist, Raymond B. , 1982a. "Measuring Environmental Effects on Property-
Values Without Hedonic Regressions." Journal of Urban Economics,
11:333-347. ~~
4-16
-------
Palmquist, Raymond B., 1982b, "The Demand for Housing Characteristics:
Reconciling Theory and Estimation," unpublished paper, Department of
Economics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina,
July 1982.
Ruruheiffier Reports on Relocation, 1983. "Homes Discounted for 'Aggravation
Factor. ~ Trade newsletter. 2(6):b.
Stull, William v., 1978. "The Landlord's Dilemma—Asking Rent In a Hetero-
geneous Housing Market," Journal of Urban Economics 5:101-115.
4-17
-------
CHAPTER 5
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR RESPONSES
TO THE FORMALDEHYDE PROBLEM
As information has become available on the health effects of exposure
to formaldehyde governments, firms, trade organizations, citizen groups,
and individuals have responded in a number of ways. In the public sector
various policy initiatives have been considered and some adopted that
reduce the likelihood of exposure, inform people of the risks of exposure,
or compensate damaged parties. In the private sector various organizations
and groups have sought to educate the public on the risks of exposure and
have lobbied for government intervention. Damaged parties have sued for
damages. Firms have disclosed formaldehyde levels in products to potential
consumers. Producers and consumers have tested for the presence of formalde-
hyde and taken action to remove formaldehyde-containing materials already
in place. Producers have substituted away from formaldehyde in production,
and consumers have sought products without formaldehyde. This chapter
documents some of these public and private sector responses.
5.1 PUBLIC SECTOR RESPONSES
Several types of policy options are available and have been utilized
by governments to reduce people's exposure to formaldehyde. These options
include:
Exposure standards
Evaluation programs
Product and use standards
Product bans
Information disclosure requirements
Compensation schemes.
5-1
-------
This section summarizes the responses to the formaldehyde problem by
all levels of government in the United States for which information is
available from secondary sources. The responses of foreign governments are
also summarized.
5.1.1 Exposure Standards
Exposure standards are a key feature of most governments' attempts to
promote public health. They set upper limits on exposures to pollutants
for targeted populations. Compliance may be achieved by a number of means
including the use of engineering controls, changes in production methods or
product design, or by use of personal protective equipment such as respira-
tors by potentially exposed individuals. In some cases voluntary compliance
may be assumed. However, some enforcement mechanism is generally a prominent
component of an exposure standards policy.
Exposure standards are usually based on known or suspected threshold
levels of harm. In the case of formaldehyde, these thresholds are not
known precisely, but, as summarized in Chapter 2, some ranges of exposure
which result in adverse health consequences have been identified.
Compliance with formaldehyde exposure standards is complicated because
the formaldehyde offgassing from products, or release of fumes, varies with
environmental conditions. In particular, high humidity and high temperature
are conducive to offgassing. In any area that is not environmentally
controlled, the rates of offgassing and the subsequent exposure to formalde-
hyde fumes wi11 vary with the climatic conditions. This result has been
shown by Pickerel 1 et al. (1982), Gammage (1981), and Gammage et al. (1983),
and Hawthorne et al. (1983). Also, the offgassing decreases over time, so
that older materials tend to produce 1 ess fumes than newer materials
(Hawthorne et al. , 1983; Dally et al., 1981).
The two types of formaldehyde exposure standards in use—occupational
and nonoccupational—are summarized below.
5.1.1.1 Occupational Standards-
Standards that limit exposures to formaldehyde on the job are in place
in the United States and most industrialized nations. In the United States
(see Table 5-1) OSHA has promulgated a standard 1imiting the eight-hour
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-1. UNI 1 ED STATES OCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FORMALDEHYDE
Type of
Agency
or
State
Standard (ppm)
standard
Occupational Safety
and Health
3. 0a
TWAC
Administration
(OSHA)
a
5.0
8-hour ceiling
Florida
5. 0a
8-hour ceiling
Hawaii
10. oa
8-hour ceiling
Massachusetts
3. 0a
8-hour ceiling
Missi ssippi
5. 0a
8-hour ceiling
Pennsylvania
5.0a
TWAC
5,0a
5-minute cei 1 ii
South Carolina
5. 0a
8-hour ceiling
American Conference
of Governmental
2. Qb
8-hour ceiling
Industrial Hygieni sts (ACGIH)
National Institute of Occupational 1.0^ 8-hour ceiling
Safety and Health (NIOSH)
dPromulgated.
1 Recommended.
LTime-weighted average.
SOURCE: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1976.
Criteria for a Recommended Standard ... Occupational Exposure to
Formaldehyde. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-126. pp. 161-162.
b-3
-------
time-weighted average workplace exposure to 3.0 parts per million (ppm) and
the exposure ceiling at 5.0 ppm. Some states have also promulgated occupa-
tional standards for formaldehyde. The six states that are known to have
standards and their standards are shown in Table 5-1. Other states may
also have standards but if so, the information is not readily available.
Of the six states only Massachusetts has a more stringent standard than
OSHA.
The Arierican Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have
both recomrtended standards more stringent than OSHA's. The ACGIH recommended
standard 0'~ 2.0 ppm eight-hour ceiling has been adopted by several foreign
government:; in setting recommended or actual standards for the workplace
exposures :o formaldehyde (Geomet, Inc., and Techology and Economics, Inc. ,
1980). NIOSH recommends a 1.0 ppm eight-hour ceiling.
Although there appears to be a tendency for foreign countries to adopt
U.S. occupational standards in the case of formaldehyde, seventeen countries
have recomiended or promulgated standards stricter than the 3.0 ppm U.S.
standard (see Table 5-2). The Soviet Union has the lowest occupational
standard a; 0.4 ppm, while the United Arab Republic has the highest at
20.0 ppm. The highest value among the industrial countries occurs in Great
Britain at 10.0 ppm. No data are available on the degree of compliance
with these standards.
5.1.1.2 Nonoccupational Standards—
In tha United States there are no national ambient nor indoor air
standards. An ambient air standard of 0.1 ppm is recommended by the American
Industrial Hygiene Association. In general, ambient air formaldehyde
levels teni to be below thresholds for irritation. Urban ambient formaldehyde
levels are reported by Versar (1982) to average 0.005 ppm, while rural
ambient concentrations average 0.0004 ppm. The National Research Counci1
(NRC) (1981) concluded that ambient formaldehyde levels rarely get higher
than 1.0 pom and are usually less than 0.05 ppm.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recommended a
ceiling of 0.4 ppm of formaldehyde in manufactured housing. This action
reflects namerous complaints about acute effects suffered by residents of
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-2. FOREIGN OCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FORMALDEHYDE
Recommended.
bPromu!gated.
Country
Standard (ppra)
Type of
Standard
Reference
Australia
2.0a
Ce i1i ng
1
Belgium
2.0a
Ce i1i ng
1
Bulgaria
1. 0b
HPCd
1
Czechoslovakia
2-0 ^
4.0 b,c
TWA®
MAC
1,2
1,2
Denmark
1.0b
TLV9
i
Finland
2.0b
Ceiling
1
Federal Republic
of Germany
s.ob
1.0
Ceiling
Ce i1ing
2
1
German Democratic
Republic
2.0 b,c
2.0 ,c
MAK-0-
HAK-K
I
1
Great Britain
io.ob
Cei1ing
2
Hungary
1.0 b,c
1.0 b'c
Ceiling
TWA
2
1
Italy
4.0 b,c
1.0 a,c
Cei1ing
TWA
2
1
Japan
5-°S
2.0a
Ceiling
TWA, TLV9
2
1
Netherlands
2.0a
TLV®
I
Po1 and
4'° a'c
2.0 'c
Ceiling
Ceiling
2
1
Romania
2.0 b'c
Ceiling
2
Sweden
2.0a
Cei1ing
1
Switzerland
1.0b
MACf
1
United Arab Republic
20.0b
Ce illn g
2
USSR
0.4b
KACf
1,2
Yugoslavia
5.0 b,c
Ce i1i ng
2
cStandard converted from rag/m3 to ppm, using 1.2 mg/m3 - 1.0 ppm.
^Maximum permissible concentration.
eTime weighted average.
Maximum allowable concentration.
gThresbold limit value.
Maximum average concentration, 8 hour, 45 minute work period.
1Maximoa concentration not to exceed 30 minutes.
SOURCES: 1. Geomet, Inc., and Technology and Economics, Inc., 1980. An
Evaluation of Formaldehyde Problems in Residential Mobile~Homes.
Final Task 1 Report. Contract No. H-5105. Prepared for Office
of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing arid
Urban Development, pp. 55*67.
2. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
1976. Criteris for a Recommended Standard ... Occupational
Exposure to Formaldehyde. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. QHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-126. pp. 161-162.
5-5
-------
manufactured homes containing substantial amounts of plywood and particle-
board (Environmental Protection Agency [tPAj, 1984).
Standards for residences have been promulgated in Minnesota for new
homes, in Wisconsin for mobile homes, and in California for all residences
(see Table 5-3). Both standards have faced court challenges. The Minnesota
standard was overturned in the State Supreme Court.
Table 5-4 lists nonoccupational standards recommended or promulgated
in foreign countries. Both ambient, or outdoor, and indoor standards are
1i sted. Most of these countries have set or recommended indoor standards
at 0.1 ppm. These standards are generally lower than those established or
proposed for workplaces (see Table 5-2), perhaps because people often spend
more time in homes, and because a wider population is affected.
5.1.2 Evaluati on Programs
A survey conducted by the Center for Environmental Health and NIOSH in
50 states and the District of Columbia in 1982 revealed that 29 states have
a program or person responsible for evaluating nonoccupational exposures to
formaldehyde (Bernstein et al., 1984).
All of these states offer air-sampling services, either free of charge
or for a nominal fee, to evaluate such exposures. Table 5-5 (reproduced
from Bernstein et al., 1984) describes state practices. In most cases, air
sampling is offered based on individual complaints, without supporting
diagnosis by a physician. Some states require specific requests for testing
by a doctor or the State Health Department.
Comparison air-sampling in unaffected areas of a building or in ambient
environments for background purposes is rarely done. Environmental conditions,
which affect offgassinq rates, are not documentated in over half the programs.
Recommendations are made based on the testing as part of the evaluation
process (see Table 5-6, reproduced from Bernstein et al. , 1984). Ten
states have no criterion or specific exposure level upon which recommenda-
tions are based. The advice provided primarily concerns further testing to
assess exposure and seeing a physician if symptoms occur. In one state,
legal action to reduce exposure is recommended. In seven states, increased
ventilation is suggested. In five states, vacating the premises is advised
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-3. UNITED STATES NONOCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FORMALDEHYDE
Type of
State or agency Standard (ppm) standard Reference
American Industrial Hygiene
Association
o.r
Ambient air
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
(HUD)
American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE)
California
Minnesota
Wiscons in
Recommended.
0.4
o.r
0. 2C
0.8
0.4
b,c
Promulgated.
'Overturned in Minnesota State Supreme Court.
Ceiling for
manufactured
housing
Ceiling for
indoor air
Ceiling for
residences
Ceiling for
new homes
Cei1ing for
mobile homes
4
5
1,3
SOURCES: 1.
Geomet, Inc., and Technology and Economics, Inc., 1980. An
Evaluation of Formaldehyde Problems in Residential Mobi ie Homes.
Final Task 1 Report. Contract No. H-5105. Prepared for Office
of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, pp. 55-67.
2. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1984 "Formaldehyde:
Determination of Significant Risk; Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Notice." Federal Register, v. 49. No. 101
p. 21891.
3. Repace, James L., 1982. "Indoor Air Pollution." Environment
International. v. 8. p. 28.
4. Yocom, J. E., 1982. "Indoor-Outdoor Air Quality Relationships -
A Critical Review." Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, v. 32. No. 5. p. 516.
5. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), 1982. "Ban of UFFI,
Withdrawal of Proposed Information Labeling Rule, and Denial of
Petition to Issue a Standard." Federal Register, v. 47
No. 64. p. 14368.
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-4 FOREIGN NONOCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FORMALDEHYDE
Country
Standard (ppm)
Type of standard
Reference
Australia
0.1b
Cei1i ng
for
homes
1
Denmark
0.12a
Cei1ing
for
room air
2 5 3
Federal Republic
o.iab
Ceiling
for
bui1di ngs
1,2
of Germany
0. 02
Ambient
air
1,2
Netherlands
0. lb
Cei1ing
for
homes
2,3
Sweden
0. la
Cei1i ng
for
new homes
2,3
0.7a
Ceiling
for
older homes
2,3
USSR
0.01b
Ambient
ai r
1
Recommended.
Promulgated.
SOURCES: 1.
National Research Council, 1981. Indoor Air Pollution.
Was lington, D. C. : National Academy Press, p. 511.
Geonet, Inc. , and Technology and Economics, Inc. , 1980. An
Evaluation of Formaldehyde Problems in Residential Mobile Homes.
Final Task 1 Report. Contract No. H-5105. Prepared for Office
of 3olicy Development and Research, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, pp. 55-67.
The UFFI Centre, 1983. The UFFI (Urea-Formaldehyde Foam
Insulation) File. Information packet published by Consumer
and Corporate Affairs Canada, pp. 17-38.
5-8
-------
TABLE 5-5. STATE PRACTICES FOR SAMPLING AND ANALYZING NONOCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURES TO FORMALDEHYDE GAS IN 29 STAIES
Number of states
Criteria for Offering Air-Sampling
Upon receipt of a (biologically plausible) complaint 16
without an MO's diagnosis, and without documentation
of exposure
Upon request, regardless of symptoms, if a potential 2
source of formaldehyde is present
Physician or local health department makes the request 9
Part of state NIAPa research project 2
Sampling Strategy and Collecting Device
Active collection, area samples only, NIOSH Method #125 20
Active collection, area and personal samples, NIOSH I
#125 plus #318 or #354
Active collection, area samples, with use of detector 5
tubes
Passive collection, area samples, with use of dosimeter 2
badge
Other method (direct-reading instrument) 1
Documentation of Environmental Conditions
None specified 15
At least temperature and humidity 3
Temperature, humidity, and source data 6
Temperature, humidity, source data, and ventilation 4
character!sties
Temperature, humidity, source data, ventilation 1
characteristies, and occupancy/use characteristics
National indoor Air Pollutant,
SOURCE: Bernstein, Robert S., Henry Falk, Douglas R. Turner, and James M.
Melius, 1984. "Nonoccupational Exposures to Indoor Air Pollutants:
A Survey of State Programs and Practices." American Journal of
Public Health, v. 74. No. 9. p. 1021.
5-9
-------
TABLE 5-6. STATE PRACTICES FOR EVALUATING AIR-SAMPLING RESULTS AND
ADVISING REQUESTORS EXPOSED TO FORMALDEHYDE GAS
Number of states
Advice for asymptomatic exposed (% of 51)
(a) No advice given (or none specified) 5 (10)
(b) Don't worry, don't measure exposures, increase 7 (14)
ventilation if concerned
(c) See MD if (biologically plausible) symptoms occur 3 (6)
(d) Exposure monitoring and subsequent advice on abate- 5 (10)
Bent are available
(e) Responses (c) plus (d) 9 (18)
(f) Use a passive dosimeter or consult with a commercial 13 (25)
laboratory, private contractor, or QSHA
(g) Responses (c) plus (f) 7 (14)
(h) Provide state-prepared fact sheet on formaldehyde 2 (4)
hazards
Advice for Symptomatic Exposed
(a) No advice given (or none specified) 6 (12)
(b) See MO if (biologically plausible) symptoms occur 3 (6)
(c) Exposure monitoring and subsequent advice on 4 (8)
abatement are available
(d) Responses (b) plus (c) 15 (29)
(e) Take legal action to reduce exposure 1 (2)
(f) Use a passive dosimeter or consult with a commercial I (2)
laboratory, private contractor, or OSHA
(g) Responses (b) plus (f) 16 (31)
(h) Vacate premises if (b) and (c) or (f) are not helpful 5 (10)
Number of States
Evaluation Criteria (Exposure Level) for Adverse Effects (% of 29)
None specified 10 (34)
OSHA^ (3 ppm), acute effects only 1 (3)
CPSC (0.03 ppm), acute effects only 2 (7)
NAS ,(no threshold), acute effects only 1 (3)
1 ARC and Federal Panel (lowest feasible level), acute 8 (28)
and chronic effects
State or unspecified sources of criteria (0.05-0.5 ppm), 7 (24)
acute effects only)
See footnotes on following page.
5-10
-------
TABLE 5-6 (continued)
FOOTNOTES
aOSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission
c
NAS: National Academy of Sciences
IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer
eFederal Panel on Formaldehyde: a panel of experts designated by OSHA, NIOSH,
CPSC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Cancer Institute, the
Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, and the Department of Energy.
SOURCE: Bernstein, Robert S., Henry Falk, Douglas R. Turner, and James M.
Melius, 1984. "Nonoccupational Exposures to Indoor Air Pollutants:
A Survey of State Programs and Practices." American Journal of
Public Health. 74(9):1022.
5-11
-------
as a last resort. No specific advice is given for exposed individuals who
do not experience symptons in five states, or for exposed persons who do
experience symptoms in six states.
Bernstein et a 1. (1984) noted that State Health Departments could
enhance the level and quality of information on health effects of many
indoor air pollutants through coordination. The Federal Interagency Committee
on Indoor Air Quality, composed of representatives of EPA, CPSC, DOE, and
the Department of Health and Human Services, is suggested by Bernstein
et al. (1984) as a possible umbrella agency for this purpose.
5.1,3 Product and Use Standards
Rather than establishing an exposure standard and allowing producers
to decide how to best meet the standard, governments can and have regulated
products and work practices.
Four distinct areas of product and use standards are listed in Table 5-?:
installation and use requirements for urea-formaldehyde foam insulation
(UFFI), performance standards, formulation standards, and modified product
use standards. These standards are based on the premise that when UFFI is
correctly installed, or when products containing formaldehyde are of the
correct formulation few problems will result from offgassing.
5.1.3.1 Installation and Use Requirements for UFFI—
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) all
have recommended standards for installation of UFFI. All suggest that UFFI
not be installed in attics or ceilings due to enhanced detcrioration from
the humidity and temperatures usual in these locations (Consumer Product
Safety Commission [CPSCj, 1980).
France and Sweden have strict standards governing the use of UFFI and
its installation. I tie lack of significant problems in those structures
using the insulation is attributed to these standards (UFFI Centre, 1983).
California also has rigorous requirements on the use of field-applied UFFI
(Repace, 1982). In the United Kingdom, UFFI is recommended for use only in
masonry buildings and only under established standards (UFFI Centre, 1983).
1?
+/ X C.
-------
TABLE 5-7. PRODUCT AND USE STANDARDS
Regulatory action
Government or agency adopting
Reference
Standards for UFF]
installation and/or
use
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD)°
National Bureau of Standards (NBS)
Cali fornia
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
2
2
2
1
Performance standards
for formaldehyde
errti ss ions
from urn
HUD
Minnesota
California
from wood products
HUD
Limitations on content
of formaldehyde
in foods and food
packagi rig
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)d
in cosmetics
Requirements for use of
modified product with
lower offqassi no
for UFFI
FDA 1
European Economic Community (EEC)
Spai n
Switzerland
Limited use of UFFI
(de facto)
Austria
Finland
Italy
Japan
No may
See footnotes on following page.
5-13
-------
TABLE 5-7 (continued)
FOOTNOTES
aMaterial and foam installation standards for UFFI proposed under Residential
Conservation Program.
Use of Materials Bulletin No. 74 describes the conditions for acceptance of
UFFI and stipulates limitations on its use.
c ^
Proposed requirements stipulate maximums of 0.03 ppm for particleboard and
0.02 ppm for plywood used in manufactured housing.
^Formaldehyde approved as a preservative in defoaming agents for processing
beet sugar and yeast and in dimethylpolysiloxane defoaming agents. Also
approved as a component of resin-bound fi1ters in food contact use, as a
component in paper and paperboard in contact with dry food, and as a starch
adhesive component. Formaldehyde approved for use in treatment of casein in
feed for ruminants. Paraformaldehyde pellets approved for maple sap collection
provided formaldehyde content of finished syrup does not exceed 2.0 ppm.
Use of formaldehyde and paraformaldehyde regulated by preset ranges of accept-
able concentrations outlined in Title 21, Part 720.4 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel unable to assure safe
use of formaldehyde in cosmetics at levels above 0.2 percent.
^Maximum concentration for formaldehyde and paraformaldehyde is 0.2 percent
for all cosmetics except nail hardeners, oral hygiene products, and aerosol
dispensers. Nail hardeners may contain 5 percent formaldehyde and oral
hygiene products may contain 0.1 percent formaldehyde. Formaldehyde use in
aerosol products, except foams, is prohibited.
SOURCES: 1. The UFFI Centre, 1983. The UFFI (Urea-Formaldehyde Foam Insula-
tion) File. Information packet published by Consumer and
Corporate Affairs Canada, pp. 17-38.
2. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), 1980. "Urea-
Formaldehyde Foam Insulation; Proposed Notice to Purchasers."
Federal Register, v. 45. No. 113. pp. 39435, 39441.
3. Repace, James L., 1982. "Indoor Air Pollution." Environment
International. v. 8. pp. 27-28.
4. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1984. "Formaldehyde;
Determination of Significant Risk; Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemakinq and Notice." Federal Reqister. v. 49. No. 101.
p. 21891.
5. Versar, Inc., 1982. Exposure Assessment for Formaldehyde. Final
Draft Report. Contract No. 68-01-6271. Prepared for Office of
Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield,
Virginia, p. 63.
6. Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), 1984. "Final Report on the
Safety Assessment of Formaldehyde." Journal of the American
College of Toxicology, v. 3. No. 3. pp. 161-162, 179.
5-14
-------
At one point in 1977, the Canadian General Standards Board proposed
conditions under which UFFI could be acceptably installed, but these were
left to the industry to enforce. Subsequent passage of the UIF1 ban super-
seded these voluntary regulations (UFFI Centre, 1983).
5,1.3.2 Performance Standards-
Performance standards set limits on the actual emissions of formaldehyde
from the product. Fmissions rates, or offgassing, may be substantial., but
depending on climate, ventilation, and other factors, the measurable rates
in the air may not equal the concentrations found in the fumes (Pickerel 1
et al., 1982; Bowen et al., 1981).
HUD has proposed limits on emissions from plywood and particleboard
used in manufactured housing to reduce indoor concentrations in these
structures (EPA, 1984). Minnesota and California have actually set perform-
ance standards limiting formaldehyde emission from UFFI (CPSC, 1980).
h 1.3.3 Formulation Standards—
Limitations have been set on the amount of formaldehyde or paraformal-
dehyde permitted in certain products in the United States and in Europe.
Formaldehyde use is permitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) in the processing of certain foods, in packaging materials for foods,
and as an additive to animal feeds (Versar, 1982). The FDA allows the use
of formaldehyde in cosmetics, in which it serves mainly as an antimicrobial
agent (Cosmetic Ingredient Review [C1R], 1984). It restricts formaldehyde
concentrations to 5,0 percent in nail hardeners and to lower levels in
other products.
A European Economic Community (EEC) Directive imposes maximum concentra-
tions of 0.2 percent free formaldehyde in most cosmetics, 5.0 percent in
nail hardeners, and 0.1 percent in oral hygiene products (Cosmetic Ingredient
Review [CIR], 1984). Use of formaldehyde in most aerosol products is
prohifai ted..
5.1.3.4 Use of Modified Product--
Improvements in the formulation of UFFI have enabled researchers to
reduce offgassing from the product. Modified products are used in Spain
and Switzerland, where few significant problems from exposure have been
5-15
-------
noted. However, the UFFI Centre (1983) states that these products, while
better, are "still apparently not the; final answer as far as formaldehyde
emissions are concerned."
5.1.3.5 Limited Usage—
In several countries, UFFI is in limited use, if at all. For the most
part, the stated reasons are that UFFI does not have sufficient insulating
properties, or that it is not necessary due to climatic factors. These
countries include Austria, Finland, Italy, Japan, and Norway.
5.1.4 Product Bans
Although formaldehyde is a constituent of many products, urea-formaldehyde
foam insulation (UFFI) has come under particular scrutiny. UFFI was widely
used in residential structures in the middle 1970s to early 1980s as energy
pr ices rose.
In 1982 the CPSC banned the sale of UFFI. This action was based on
the results of a study performed by the Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology (CIIT) which linked nasal cancer to formaldehyde exposure in
rats (UFFI Centre, 1983) and on its own finding of acute irritant effects
in homeowners exposed to formaldehyde. The CPSC asserted that no feasible
safety standard could be devised to protect consumers from the adverse
health effects associated with UFFI, so that a ban was the only recourse
(Consumer Product Safety Commission [CSPC], 1982). The ban was overturned
by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Apri1 1983 on the grounds that the
CPSC failed to demonstrate enough harm from formaldehyde exposure to justify
the cost to industry of the ban (see Gulf South Insulation et al. v. Uni ted
States Consumer Product Safety Commission, 701 F.2d 1137 [1983]).
Bans have been promulgated or considered in several state and local
jurisdictions (see Table 5-8). Only two states, Connecticut and Massachusetts,
had established bans prior to the CPSC prohibition (CPSC, 1982). Other
states considering bans were unable to enact the necessary legislature in
the wake of the collapse of the Federal regulation.
Currently, three states have bans on the sale of UFFI, while Colorado
has a ban on its use in state-1icensed buildings. Several local governments
also have enacted regulations to prevent the sale of UFFI in their jurisdic-
tions.
5-16
-------
TABLE 5-8. PRODUCT BAMS
Regulatory action
Government or agency adopting
Reference
Ban on the sale
U.S. Consumer Product Safety
of UFfl
Coeaission (CPSC)
Colorado®3
1
Connecticut
1
Massachusetts
1
New Hampshire
2
Arvado County, Colorado
1
Denver County, Colorado
3
Woodstock, Illinois
2
Dearborn, Michigan
1
New York City Buildinq Deportment
1
Cincinnati, Ohio
2
Euclid, Ohio
1
Seattle, Washington
1
Canada
#
Israel
4
Considered ban on
Arizona
3
sale of UFF1
Cali fornia
3
Kentucky
I
Maryland
3
Michigan
1
New Jersey
3
Ohio
1
Oregon
5
Pennsylvania
1
Venrait
I
West Virginia
1
'Overturned in April 1983 by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
''Ban pertains only to use In state licensed buildings.
c Pro duct removed fross list of approved building materiais.
^Product removed from specifications for bids on low cost housing.
SQUSCtS: 1. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), 19H3. "Ban of Urea-
Formaldehyde Foam Insulation, Withdrawal of Proposed Information
Labeling Fule, and Denial of Petition to issue a Standard."
Federal Register, v. 47. No. 64. p. 11368.
2. Personal communication with Connie Smercek, Save Us From
Formaldehyde Environmental Repercussions (SUFFER), August 29,
1984.
3, Consumer Products Safety Commission (Ct'SC), 1380. "Urea-
Formaldehyde Foam Insulation; Proposed Notice to Purchasers."
Federal Register, v. 45. No. 113. pp. 39435, 39441.
4, The UFfl Centre, 1983. The UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde Foa»
Insulation) file. Information packet putiTished"by Consuwer
and Corporate hi fairs Canada, pp. 17-38.
5, Personal cowsunication with Or. Leslie P. Williams, Oepartaent
of Disease Monitoring and Control, Oregon Department of Health,
Hay 25, 1984.
5-1?
-------
Canada and Israel are two foreign countries known to have bans on
UFFI. In Canada, the product was banned by the Minister of Health and
Wei fare in 1980. This ban faced court chal lenges, but was upheld in 1981
(UFFI Centre, 1982).
5. 1.5 Information 0i scJosure Requirements
The previous policies use the police powers of government in an attempt
to dictate the behavior of producers or consumers. An alternative approach
is to make limited use of the police powers and only require producers to
provide information on the health consequences of their products. Consumers,
now more fully informed, may evaluate the potential health risks and product
cost against the utility they would enjoy and make their own decision on
the appropriateness of the product for them. Requirements to disclose the
possible health effects of UFFI and other products containing formaldehyde
have been established by a number of governmental entities in the United
States (see Table 5-9).
In 1979, DOE proposed a printed warning to be issued by manufacturers
to purchasers of UFFI stipulating spec i f ic symptoms of formaldehyde exposure
and their potential duration (CPSC, 1980). In 1980, the CPSC proposed a
requirement on manufacturers to give specific performance and technical
information to purchasers of UFFI, and to alert them to possible ill effects
of the use of the foam (CPSC, 1980). However, the proposal was withdrawn
in 1982 after the CPSC decided that such i nformation disclosure would not
provide enough protection from formaldehyde exposure (CPSC, 1982).
The FDA requires package labelling for cosmetics of the ingredients
listed in descending order of predominance. This label must "appear with
such prominence and conspicuousness as to render it likely to be read and
understood by ordinary individuals under normal conditions of purchase"
(CIR, 1984). In the case of nail hardeners, the FDA requires the package
to furnish instructions for safe use and warnings of possible adverse
health consequences. The EEC requires cosmetic product labels to list
formaldehyde and paraformaldehyde as ingredients when the concentration of
either in the product exceeds 0.05 percent (CIR, 1984).
5-18
-------
TABLE 5-9. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
Regulatory action
Government or agency adopting
Reference
Product labeling and/or
disclosure requirements
of possible adverse
health effects
of UFFI
U.S. Department of Energy (DQE)e
U.S. Consumer Product -Safety
Commission (CPSC)1
Connecticut
Kai ne
Hi nnesota
New Hampshire
New York
Rhode Island
Denver, Colorado
of fonialdehy
in cosmetics
of formaldehyde
in wood products
Government-issued warning
on possible adverse
health effects of UFFI
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)
European Econoni
Commoni ty (EEC)
New Hampshire
Colorado
Vi rginia
Material and foam installation standards for UFFI proposed under Residential
Conservation Program.
''standards proposed under Section 27(e) of the Consumer Product Safety Act.
cRequires listing of ingredients on label in descending order of predominance
in product.
^Requires listing of formaldehyde arid paraformaldehyde as ingredients when
concentrations of either exceed 0.0S%.
eLabel indicates formaldehyde is contained in the product.
SOURCES: 1. Consumer Products Safety Conraissiofi (CPSC), 1980. "Urea-
Formaldehyde Foaa Insulation; Proposed Notice to Purchasers."
Federal Register, v. 4h. No. 113. pp. 394.15, 39441.
2. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), 1983. "Ban on Urea-
Formaldehyde Foam Insulation, Withdrawal of Proposed Information
Labeling Rule, and Denial of Petition to Issue a Standard."
Federal Register, v. 47. Mo. 84. p. 14368.
3. Cosmetic Ingredient Review, 1984. "Final Report on the Safety
Assessment of Formaldehyde." Journal of the American College
of Toxicology, v. 3. No. 3. pp. 181-162.
4. Telecom, 1984. Telephone communication with John Stanton of
the New Hampshire Bureau of Environmental Health regarding
monitored levels of formaldehyde concentrations in nonoccupa-
tional settings in New Hampshire, and state legislation
regarding formaldehyde. May 2<-3, 1983.
5-19
-------
Government-issued warnings have been undertaken in Colorado and Virginia,
in Colorado, the Attorney General's Office published a warning in 1978 with
respect to formaldehyde and suspected high-risk groups. The warning suggested
that pregnant women, infants, young children, the elderly, the sick, and
anyone previously sensitized or with a history of respiratory problems
avoid exposure to formaldehyde vapors when possible (Small, 1982).
Six other states have required producers to label or verbally disclose
the possible adverse health effects of UFFI. New Hampshire requires labelling
of wood products as to their formaldehyde content (see Table 5-9).
5.1.6 Compensation Schemes
In addition to policies designed to reduce exposures to formaldehyde,
governments have also considered and in some cases implemented programs to
compensate homeowners who installed UFFI (see Table 5*10). Two countries
and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts require repurchase or compensation
for persons having UFFI in their homes.
Canada has the most comprehensive national program. All UFFI homeowners
(including detached, semi-detached, row, duplex, triplex, and pre-fabricated
housing, condominiums, and mobile homes on a permanent foundation) are
eligible to receive technical information from the governmant, including
testing for formaldehyde levels before and after UFFI removal, and financial
assistance up to $5,000 for "costs incurred in implementing corrective
measures" (UFFI Centre, 1983). The government's Canadian Home Insulation
Program (CHIP) provides funds to cover the cost of removal of UFFI and
replacement with another insulation for those homes which exceed $5,000.
The labor is provided free or at reduced cost, from the New Employment
Expansion and Development (HEED) program, a job creation program designed
to offer employment for those whose unemployment insurance benefits are
exhausted, to participatants in the CHIP or UFFI programs.
Programs in the Netherlands and Massachusetts require the supplier or
the installer of the UFFI, rather than the government, to pay for removal
of the insulation. In the Netherlands, homes which test above the official
0.1 ppm standard for residences are eligible for UFFI removal paid for by
the applicator of the foam (UFFI Centre, 1983).
5-20
-------
TABLE 5-10. COMPENSATION SCHEMES
Government
Regulatory action adopting Reference
Repurchase requirements Canada*1 I
Netherlands "D 1
c
Massachusetts 2
aCanadian government funds removal. There is no need to prove adverse health
effects to qualify for repurchase.
Applicator of foam funds removal if structure tests above 0.1 ppm standard.
c ~ <
If identified, supplier of foam pays for removal. There is no need to prove
adverse health effects to qualify for repurchase.
SOURCES: 1. The UFFI Centre, 1983. The UFF1 (Urea-Formaldehyde Foam Insula-
tion) File. Information packet published by Consumer and
Corporate Affairs Canada, pp. 17-38.
2. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 1984. "Fact Sheet -
UFFI Repurchase Regulations." Boston, Massachusetts.
5-21
-------
Massachusetts enacted repurchase legislation in 1980. After suspension
due to a court challenge, the requirement was upheld by the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court in April, 1983. According to the regulation, any
owner of a UFFI-insu1ated building is permitted to make a request through
the Department of Public Health for removal of the insulation and for
restoration of the building at the expense of the supplier of the insulation
(Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 1984). The owner is required
to provide the names of suppliers involved to qualify for a Certificate of
Right to Repurchase, which legally requires the supplier to fund the removal
of UFFI and restoration of the home. Lower level suppliers may be reimbursed
for the costs incurred by suppliers farther up the distribution chain, so
that the final responsibility rests with the manufacturer. The Massachusetts
Department of Public Health estimated that approximately 250 requests filed
between 1980 and 1982 were pending under this legislation, and more were
expected in 1984 (Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 1984).
5.2 PRIVATE SECTOR RESPONSES
The publicity generated by government actions to reduce population
exposure to formaldehyde, particularly the UFFI bans, has resulted in
heightened awareness of potential health problems associated with formalde-
hyde, according to State Public Health officials, realtors, and appraisers
contacted by telephone. A variety of responses on the part of the private
sector have been observed. They include:
Tort litigation
Public awareness programs
Disclosure of UFFI and appraisal of effects of UFFI on house
values
Testing programs
Removal or neutralization of UFFI
Changes in production processes.
These actions are outlined in Table 5-11 and discussed in the following
sect ions,
-------
TABLE 5-11. NONGOVERNMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE
Action Groups involved Purpose of action
Tort litigation
Public awareness
programs
Disclosure of
UFFI presence
in homes
Di f ferential
appraisal values
for homes with
UFFI
Testing for
formaldehyde
levels in bases
Treatments for
removal or
neutralization
ot um
Changes in
production
technology
to refute
formaldehyde
exposure
Persons living with and
being affected by
formaldehyde in the home
Citizen groups for
education (SUFFER ).
and activisa (CERTS )
Industry groups for
research and education
(Formaldehyde Institute,
Cosmetic Ingredient Review
Expert Panel)
Many State realtors'
associations
Many appraisal firms
during CPSC ban
Persons experiencing
exposure symptoms
(usually reconmended by
State public health
department)
Persons wishing to sell
a hone containing UFFI
(usually recommended by
realtor)
Persons experiencing
exposure symptoms or
fearful of future harm
from exposure
Persons wishing to sell
a home containing UFFI
Some industries using
large amounts of
formaldehyde
Compensation for injury
and economic loss from
property damage
Education about the
potential problems of
formaldehyde and solutions
to those problems
Standards recommendations
Research on formaldehyde
problems and use in
products
Avoidance of liability
for health hazards of
formaldehyde exposure
Avoidance of liability
for health hazards of
formaldehyde exposure
Identification of
possible cause of
syrup tows
Reassurance for buyer
that formaldehyde level
is not harmful
Relief of symptoms
or protection from
potential symptoms
Protection from market
devaluation due to
presence of UFFI
Protection of workers
from formaldehyde exposure
Protection from future
liability due to worker
and consumer exposure
Save Us Fro* Formaldehyde Environwental Repercussions,
'Citizens Engaged in Reaoval of Toxic Substances.
5-23
-------
5.2.1 Tort Litigation
Tort litigation is an option chiefly exercised by persons exposed to
formaldehyde from the offgassing of products in the home. The most well-
known product is UFFI, but other materials used in home constructions, such
as pressed wood products, in ay be candidates for tort litigation.
Hundreds of suits have been filed against manufacturers and installers
claiming i njury to persons or property from formaldehyde (Dworkin and
Ma 1 lor, 1983). A Minneapolis law firm which operates a clearinghouse for
attorneys representing formaldehyde victims estimates that there are approx-
imately 700 lawsuits pending in addition to a $2 billion class action suit
filed on behalf of 70,000 to 130,000 New York residents (Lewin, 1982).
Hundreds of lawsuits were filed even before the CPSC ban on UFFI (Dworkin
and Mai lor, 1983). Some insurers are concerned that UF FI claims may equal
or even exceed the number of asbestos claims in the near future (Mika,
1983).
Some awards in formaldehyde lawsuits have been substantial. Several
cases resulted in awards for more than $200,000 (Lewin, 1982). Mobile home
owners who sued over formaldehyde harms have been awarded replacement costs
for the homes (Chemical Week, 1982; Dworkin and Ma 11 or, 1983). Estimates
of costs of removal of the UFFI and installation of alternative insulation
range from $6,000 to $20,000 per home (Smith, 1982; Massachusetts Office of
Consumer Affairs, n.d.). If each owner of the estimated 500,000 homes
containing UFFI were granted only these damages, the potential total 1iabi1ity
could be as high as $10 billion (Johnson, 1983).
Recovery of damages may, however, be difficult in light of the UFFI
industry structure. Many of the manufacturers and installers who are
responsible for the UFFI in homes are small operators, and have inadequate
insurance to pay for large awards to consumers. Some speculation has
arisen that companies wi1i follow the lead of asbestos-related businesses
and file for bankruptcy (Dworkin and Mai lor, 1983).
The industry was declining even before the CPSC ban, as adverse public-
ity and better substitute insulations radically reduced the demand for UFFI
(Chemical Week, 1983). From an estimated 34 UFFI manufacturers in 1977,
the number dropped to six in 1982 by one estimate (Chemical Week, 1982) and
5-24
-------
to four by another (Smith, 1982). Dworkin and Mai lor (1983) stated that no
UFFI manufacturers were in operation by 1983. Estimates of the number of
installers have gone from more than 500 in 1977 to as few as 200 in 1981
(Smith, 1982).
5.2.2 Pub!ic Awareness Programs
Both citizen and industry groups have been formed in the wake of the
formaldehyde controversy. 7he Save Us From Formaldehyde Environmental
Repercussions (SUFFER) group is composed of individuals, health professionals
and attorneys who seek, to educate health and legal professionals concerning
formaldehyde problems. SUFFER was founded in 1980 and has 50 state groups
with 1000 members.
The Citizens Engaged in Removal of Toxic Substances (CERTS) group is
based in Michigan. This organization is primarily a legal activist group
which lobbies for changes in legislation to reduce the likel ihood of exposure
to substances like formaldehyde.
Industry organizations such as the Formaldehyde Institute, founded in
1979, primarily exist to conduct research on potential health effects
resulting from exposure to formaldehyde and formaldehyde products and
appropriate means of control. The Formaldehyde Institute is affi1iated
with the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association and provides
a medium of communication between industry members and government agencies.
Such organizations as the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel, the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers,
and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists perform a
quasi-governmental role. They study various aspects of the formaldehyde
problem such as toxicology of particular products and means to reduce
indoor exposures, and propose standards for governmental adoption. These
groups bring special expertise to the study of particular aspects of the
formaldehyde issue.
Other industry groups involved in the formaldehyde problem are directed
toward specific product groups. The Formaldehyde Task Force Fund, founded
in 1979, is composed of hardwood plywood and veneer manufacturers and
hardwood plywood prefinishers. It concentrates on production processes and
testing and labelling of formaldehyde-containing products. The Hardwood
25
-------
Plywood Manufacturers Association conducts tests on a variety of products
related to hardwood plywood, of which formaldehyde is one. The results are
then publicized. The Forest Products Safety conference and the National
Particleboard Association are concerned with safety standards and other
regulations in their respective production processes.
b. 2. 3 Disclosure and Appraisal of UFFI in Homes
The adverse publicity about formaldehyde exposure, and about UFFI in
particular, has had an impact on both real estate agents and appraisers.
The CPSC ban not only heightened public awareness, but also raised the
prospect of liability lawsuits against real tors, appraisers, and lenders
(Savings and Loan News, 1983).
Appraisers and lenders addressed the potential litigation resulting
from failure to correctly value homes containing UFF1, and from failure to
identify the presence of UFFI in the property. Since removal of UFFI and
replacement with another insulating material may not always solve irritation
and sensitization problems, it was recommended that merely devaluing a home
by the cost of such a procedure is inadequate for legal protection (Savings
and Loan News, 1983).
Revealing the existence of UFFI to the buyer would not afford legal
protection to appraisers. If undervalued, from the perspective that the
buyer experiences no health problems or is apathetic to the presence of the
UFFI, the seller of the home could sue the appraiser for the difference in
value assessed to the UFFI (Savings and Loan News, 1983; Runzheimer Reports
on Relocation, 1983). The confusion over proper valuation would require
toxicological opinions and timely comparable sales data for resolution
(Savings and Loan News, 1983).
Appraisers eager to shift detection responsibility from themselves
proposed a qualification to each appraisal report which warned that the
appraisal should become null and void if UFFI were discovered on the premises
(Savings and Loan News, 1983). Special loans were suggested for UFFI
properties, with hold-harmless releases to protect lenders and appraisers
in the event that the buyer experienced symptoms related to formaldehyde
exposure (Savings and Loan News, 1983). There are some instances in which
mortgage loans were simply not extended to homes containing UFFI during the
5-26
-------
period of the CPSC ban. In Wisconsin, legislation was enacted to provide
for inspection of properties for UFFI, as well as other structural problems.
During the duration of the CPSC ban, conferences and meetings for
discussion of potential UFFI liability were common among appraisers. The
overturn of the ban reduced, if not eliminated, concern for liability cn
the part of appraisers. The overturn was apparently perceived as a state-
ment that no real harm from formaldehyde exposure could be proved, and so
liability for failure to reveal or correctly value a defect (UFFI) in c"
structure no longer existed.
The effects of publicity for real estate brokers have been more long-
lasting. Real tors also feared liability for selling homes containing UFFI
to unsuspecting buyers. Realtors aimed at reducing their legal responsibil-
ity by increasing the awareness of the presence of UFFI among potential
buyers and sellers. They hoped that proof that both parties had this
knowledge prior to the sale of a home would reduce the chance of later
lawsuits.
The National Association of Real tors was aggressively involved in the
hearing process before the CPSC regarding the ban on UFFI. The Association
supported disclosure requirements to fend off lawsuits. Many State Realtors
Boards adopted disclosure requirements, providing forms for both the buyer
and seller to sign acknowledging their awareness of the presence of UFFI in
the home (Savings and Loan News, ,1983: Oregon Association of Realtors, n.d.
a and b). In some states, the UFFI designation is included on the multiple
listing forms filed with the State Boards.
In Massachusetts, brokers are advised to check for UFFI in homes "ihey
list and are coached on identification of insulation as UFFI (Massachusetts
Office of Consumer Affairs, n.d.). This information helps realtors to
ascertain the presence of UFFI in homes where the sel1er is unwi11ing co
provide such information.
During the CPSC ban, brokers were warned to allow only appraisers to
assess the value of homes containing UFFI to further protect themselves
from responsibility in the event of a lawsuit (Savings and Loan News,
1983). This action shifted the burden back onto appraisers to determine
the effect of the UFFI on the value of the home.
5-27
-------
Real estate agents continue to practice disclosure in many states,
despite the overturn of the UFFI ban. In effect, the public concern for
health effects of formaldehyde has prompted this action, since the threat
of lawsuits for failure to disclose has somewhat diminished since the court
decision.
5.2.4 Test-' ng Programs
Testing for formaldehyde levels is usually undertaken for two reasons.
One is to identify formaldehyde as the cause of symptoms experienced by
persons in homes or offices. ' The other is to reassure buyers of homes
containing IJFFI that the formaldehyde levels are not high enough to cause
adverse health effects.
In the first case, testing is usually recommended by a State Public
Health official after complaints of symptoms are made, and formaldehyde is
identified as a possible source of the problems. Conversations with State
Public Heal:h officials in New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Oregon
indicate that the demand for testing has been high. In most cases, symptoms
were experienced by those who requested information.
Realtors in many states recommend testing of homes containing UFFI to
protect all parties to the transaction. The real estate agent and the
seller are relieved of some fear of lawsuit for damages and the buyer is
made more certain that adverse health consequences from occupation of the
home are not likely to result.
The tests are performed by several methods, some more sensitive than
others. A previously widely used test is the Drager method, sensitive only
to levels aoove 0.5 ppm. A more reliable test utilizes a chromatographic
impinger. A self-testing kit being marketed for home use is the 3-M Monitor
which gives results approximately 66 percent lower than the chromatographic
impinger, according to Connie Smercek, of SUFFER (Telcom, 1984b).
The costs of the tests vary. Among eight laboratories referenced by
the Connecticut Department of Health, prices range from $25 to $90 per
sample, plus travel expenses of the technician. At Bennett Laboratories in
Washington, costs for technician testing are $50 per sample (plus travel)
with testing recommended in two to three rooms, and in the ambient environ-
ment (Telecom, 1984a), Bennett Laboratories also markets a self-testing
5-28
-------
kit for $50 which includes a laboratory analysis of the formaldehyde levels
die tec ted..
Despite the peace of mind offered by these tests, some agencies feel
that there is no "safe" level of formaldehyde. The CPSC made such art
attitude clear in its proposal to ban UFFI (CPSC, 1982). The Massachusetts
Office of Consumer Affairs also adopts this position (Massachusetts Of'ice
of Consumer Affairs, n.d.).
5.2.5 Treatments to Reduce UFFI Exposure
When testing reveals "excessive" levels of formaldehyde, usually con-
sidered either higher than ambient or above a level of 0.1 ppm, the standard
recommended by ASHRAE, some remedial measures to reduce formaldehyde exposure
may be taken. Persons who experience symptoms of exposure often prefeto
undertake some treatments to their homes, regardless of the levels of
formaldehyde tested. Nonhealth problems due to the reaction of UFFI with
the climate may include buckling of walls, exterior paint peeling, damage
to pipes in walls, deterioration of mortar, wood rot, and growth of fungus
(Thun et al., 1982; UFFI Centre, 1983). Attempts are also made to prevent
these structural problems through treatment of the LiFFI.
A variety of treatments to the structure containing UFFI have bee-i
tried. These include use of caulking compounds and vapor barriers to
reduce humidity reaching the UFFI, chemical absorption filters to remove
the formaldehyde from the air, increased ventilation to force formaldehyde
out of the home and to prevent buildup of moisture in the home, cleaning of
interior surfaces and airing out furniture to remove formaldehyde whicii may
be "clinging" to the interior of the home, and fumigation with "organic"
substances such as vegetable roots and leaves or coffee grounds and wi;h
ammonia solutions to trap the formaldehyde fumes (Bowen et al., 1981;
Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs, n.d.; UFFI Centre, 1983; Sma 1,
1982; Geomet, Inc., and Technology and Economics, Inc. , 1980). These
remedies have proved ineffective in many, if not most, cases (Telecom,
1984a; Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs, n.d.).
Removal of the UFFI and treatment of the cavity with sodium bisulfate
are considered to be the only permanent solution to the offgassing problem
by many (Small, 1982; Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs, n.d.).
5-29
-------
These methods have been used in Canada to achieve formaldehyde levels in
indoor air ;omparable to ambient levels (Bowen et al. , 1981; UFFI Centre,
1983). The cost of such a treatment may be prohibitive since removal of
either an iiterior or an exterior wall is necessary. Costs range from
$6,000 to $Z0,00G per home to complete the treatment and install another
type of ins jlation (Smith, 1982; Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs,
n.d.).
Removal of the UFFI without dismantling walls has been attempted in
Canada. Sone methods include mechanical vibration, compressed air jet
applications, steam soak followed by steam jet, and hot air soak followed
by air jet CUFF I Centre, 1983). The efficacy of these techniques is not
completely
-------
ammonia, to neutralize the acid catalyst which causes the chemical breakdown
leading to offgassing of formaldehyde (Telecom, 1984a). The company offers
a 10-year warranty that formaldehyde concentrations in the treated home
will be no greater than 0.05 ppm above ambient levels. The process, costing
$1,50 to $2.00 per square foot of floorspace, has proved popular among
those persons who wish to place their UFFI homes on the market and antici-
pate buyer resistance to the UFFI.
5.2.6 Changes in Production Processes Using Formaldehyde
Recognition of worker and consumer health problems due to formaldehyde
has lead to altered production technologies to reduce formaldehyde exposure.
Table 5-12 outlines the options available to industry groups.
5.2.6.1 Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde-Based Compound Production--
These industries prepare primary and intermediate products for use by
other industries. As such, reduction in production of actual quantities of
urea-formaldehyde are unlikely, unless demand characteristics of the market
change. Control options in these industries focus on providing better pro-
tection for workers through increased ventilation and better systems of
checking and repairing leaks in ventilation systems.
5.2.6.2 Particleboard and Plywood Manufacture—
Particleboard and plywood manufacture are industries which represent
some of the highest exposure levels for workers (Versar, 1982). This fact -
has been recognized in the industry. As early as 1971, attention was being
directed to problems experienced by workers exposed to formaldehyde (Freeman
and Grendon, 1971). Weyerhaeuser determined that formaldehyde levels
greater than 0.8 ppm were unsuitable, and effected use of "low odor" binders
in its glued and laminated wood plants (Freeman and Grendon, 1971).
Responses available to these industries include methods that reduce
use of urea-formaldehyde resins (by using substitutes, by using resins with
less free formaldehyde, or by using non-formaldehyde resins), methods which
limit the offgassing of formaldehyde (by using additives or treatments
which block emissions), provisions of better ventilation in work areas, and
prolonged storage to allow offgassing prior to distribution. Evaluations
of cost and feasibility will depend on the individual company attempting to
5-31
-------
institute the new techniques (Geomet, Inc., and Technology and Economics,
Inc., 1980).
Major producers of pressed wood products such as Weyerhaeuser and
Georgia-Pacific assert that use of "low-odor" formaldehyde has reduced
formaldehyde levels in plants to less than 0,1 ppm (Business Week, 1981;
Telecom, I98'1d). The National Particleboard Association and Hardwood
Plywood Manufacturers Association claim that airborne formaldehyde in
plants has baen reduced by 60 percent to 70 percent (Business Week, 1981).
Reductions in the formaldehyde levels associated with the products are
of concern to consumers. Technologies already in use have reduced vapor
release by 65 percent to 95 percent (Wynn, 1983). At least one lumber
manufacturer now produces a plywood product which is guaranteed to be free
of urea-formaldehyde resin (Telecom, 1984c), However, because these products
are sold in "lots," a retailer may have materials from several di f ferent
sources. This makes industry-wide control difficult to establish, since
not all producers use the "low-odor" processes (Telecom, 1984d).
5.2.6,3 Textile Finishing--
Formaldehyde compounds impart permanent press properties to textiles.
All these compounds have potential for offgassing (Wayland et al., 1981).
Release of formaldehyde occurs in the finishing p!ants during application,
in storage areas, in cutting rooms, and in retail stores (Reeves, et al. ,
1981; Andrews et al., 1980). The textile industry, as a whole, has made
progress in recognizing the problems associated with formaldehyde use, in
performing research di rected in solving these problems, and in instituting
the solutions. Despite these efforts, exposures remain fairly high because
of the pervasiveness of formaldehyde throughout the entire production
process (Versar, 1982).
Alterations in the production process may be made through changes in
the timing and temperature of the curing stage, treatment agent concentra-
te on, catalyst-to-agent ratio, fabric, catalyst, and other aspects of the
finishing process (Andrews et al., 1980; Wayland et al., 1981). Reductions
in agent concentrations and increases in catalyst-to-agent ratios mean that
formaldehyde is a smaller component in the treatment solution. Substitutes
eliminating formaldehyde have been found deficient, so much research has
5-32
-------
concentrated on developing chemicals which have enhanced resistance t >
vapor release (Wayland et al., 1981; Reeves et al. , 1981).
Various experiments have been conducted on the finishing process
These have provided alternative control options. Curing may be attempted
under different temperatures (Reeves et a 1. , 1981). Fabrics may be b ithed
after permanent press treatments to remove free formaldehyde (Reeves rt
al., 1981). Gaseous treatments compare very favorably with other typ ?s of
treatments in terms of both initial formaldehyde concentrations and r ?lease
of formaldehyde with washing (Reeves et al., 1981). Scavengers (mole rules
which bind the free formaldehyde) are added to the fabric, so that a -educ-
tion in vapor release occurs during finising, but an increase in releise
from treated fabric is observed (Reeves et al., 1981).
Storing fabrics in areas with increased ventilation permits offgassi ng
to occur before use in intermediate production and final consumption ]f a
garment.
5.2.6.4 Paper Manufacture--
Substitutes such as me1 amine resins for urea-formaldehyde resins are
recommended in paper manufacture. However, me1 amine substitutes are nuch
more costly to use than are urea-formaldehydes (Youngquist, 1981). Reduction
of free formaldehyde levels in treatments is another alternative to ontrol
of formaldehyde exposure in paper manufacture.
"Wet-strength additives" are acceptable resins which contain no formalde-
hyde. However, undesirable properties, such as embrittlement, reduced
absorbancy, and a harsh feel are associated with use of such additive; as
polyamide resins (Oatway and Klemm, 1981).
5.2.6.5 Embalmings-
Formaldehyde has been an important chemical in the embalming and
preserving industry due to its disinfecting and preserving properties
Additives such as germicides, preservatives, dispersing and wetting agents,
anticoagulants, red dyes, and perfumes are commonly contained in commercial
preparations (Oatway and Klemm, 1981).
Feasible alternatives to reducing this exposure include increasing
ventilation in embalming laboratories and using non-formaldehyde embalming
5-33
-------
fluids. Use of suggested substitutes is not only expensive, but toxicologi-
cally uncertain. Substitution may entail merely a tradeoff of one exposure
harm for another (Oatway and Klemm, 1981).
5.2.8.6 Industrial Coatings--
The product ion of a coated product, such as wood furniture or appliances
coated with baked enamel, consists of both a coating formulation process
and an application process (Oatway and Klemm, 1981). Reduction of free
formaldehyde levels in resins may be accomplished by use of 100 percent
solid resins and powdered resins, in which free formaldehyde is completely
driven off during the drying process (Oatway and Klemm, 1981)- This process
reduces Ihe exposure of the product consumer.
Reduction of formaldehyde exposure for the worker may be achieved by
increased ventilation in spray booths where the coatings are applied, and
by airless or electrostatic application techniques. These latter methods
reduce the amount of overspray, so that less free formaldehyde is in the
air (Oatway and Klemm, 1981).
5.2.6.7 Urea-Formaldehyde foam Insulation--
Though techniques exist for reduction of formaldehyde exposure through
product modification, the effectiveness under the many climatic conditions
to which the insulation is exposed is questionable (see Section 5.1.1).
Under current market conditions, it is unlikely that either control option
suggested in Table 5-12 will be extensively used in the United States.
Scavengers may reduce exposure to both the installer and the consumer,
but improper applications and mixing of the insulation may undermine effec-
tiveness of this option (Oatway and Klemm, 1981). Use of modi fied products
in Spa in and Switzerland has had some success in reducing the number of
complaints about problems with the insulation (see Section 5.1.2).
5.2.6.8 Mildew Preventatives--
Mildew preventatives contain paraformaldehyde to inhibit mildew growth.
They are used extensively in the southeastern United States (Oatway and
Klemm, 1981).
Substitution of other chemicals for this purpose is a questionable
solution because of the potential adverse health effects which may be
5-34
-------
TABLE 5-12.
INDUSTRY CONTROL OPTIONS TO REDUCE WORKER
CONSUMER FORMALDEHYDE EXPOSURE
AND
Industry
Control option
Reference
Formaldehyde and
resin production
Use vent scrubber to control storage
and handling emissions
1
Institute leak detection and repair
prograns
I
Formaldehyde-based
compound production
Improve local exhaust ventiljtion
in reactor charging/sampling ports
and in drum-filling stations
I
Institute leak detection and
repair programs
1
Part icleboard and
plywood Manufacture
Use resins containing less free
formaldehyde
2, 3, 4
Use phenolic resins instead of
urea-formaldehyde resins
1, 2, 4
Store particleboard or plywood
prior to distribution
1, 4
Treat particleboard or plywood
with ammonia or laminate
1, 2, 3, 4
Use adhesive* which do not contain
formaldehyde resins
I, 3
Equip production areas with
exhaust systems
3
Use flour, potato starch, nelamine
and 1ignosulphonates as additives
2
Textile finishing
Use resins which leave little
residual formaldehyde
1, 4, 5, 6
Use formaldehyde scavengers t.o
bind with free formaldehyde
1. 6
Include after-wash step in finishing
I, 4, 6
Increase ventilation in storage
and production stages
1, 4
Use gaseous treatment instead of
liquid treatment in finishing
6
Paptr Manufacture
Reduce free formaldehyde
resins
1
Ust "wet-strength additives", such
as polyaaide resins
1
Use «e!amine resins as a substitute
for urea-formaldehyde resins
1
Emba lining
Increase ventilation in embalming lab
Use oon-formaldehyde embalming fluids
I
(continued)
5-35
-------
TABLE 5-12 (continued)
Industry
Control Option
Reference
Industrial coatings
Reduce free formaldehyde levels in
1
resins
Increase ventilation in spray booths
1
Use application techniques resulting
1
in lower emissions
Urea- f ortaa 1 dehyde
Reduce free formaldehyde levels
1
foaa insulation
in resins
Use formaldehyde scavengers
1
Mildew preventatives
Product substitute raildewcides
1
AutoMotive
Manufacture
Use low wattage heaters
Produce catalytic converters and other
hydrocarbon control devices
SOURCES: 1, Oatway, Janet, and Hans A. X.le*», 1981. formaldehyde Regulatory
Control Options Analysis, draft Final Report. Contract
Ho. 68-01-5960. Prepared for Office of Chemical Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. GCA-TR-81-1-G.
Bedford, Massachusetts; GCA, Corporation.
2. Geomet, Inc., and Technology .iimI Economics, Inc., 1980. An
Evaluation of Formaldehyde Problems in Residential Mobile Homes.
Fina"! Task 1 Report. Contract No. H-5105- Prepared for Of I-ice
of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
3. HieaelS, Raimo, and Harri Vainio, 1381. "Formaldehyde Exposure
in Work and the General Enviforwent." Scandinavian Journal of
Work and Environmental Health. 7:95-100.
4. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1984. "Formaldehyde;
Determination of Significant Risk; Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Notice." LeiJf!rJiLR£9i?.i££- 4-9(101):21869-218Stl.
5. Andrews, B. A. Kottes, R. J. Harper, Jr., and Sidney L. Vail,
1980. "Variables That Influence Formaldehyde Release frotii
Cottons Finished for Durable Press." Textile Research Journal.
50:315-322.
6. Reeves, Wilson A., Mary 0. Day, K. Rinn Mctellan, Tyrone L. Vigo,
1981. "Foroal dehyde Release in formaldehyde- and Res in-Finished
fabrics." Textile Research Journal. 51(7):481-485.
5-36
-------
associated with these alternatives. Low wattage heaters may be employed to
dry out areas making them less hospitable to mildew growth (Oatway and
Klemm, 1981).
5.2.6.9 Automotive Manufacture—
Transportation vehicles contribute substantially to formaldehyde
levels in ambient air, particularly in metropolitan areas (NRC, 1981).
Formaldehyde emission rates for older, noncatalytic conversion engines are
three to six times those of catalytic converters (Oatway and Klemm, 1981).
Reduction of hydrocarbon emissions directly reduces formaldehyde
emissions. Increased use of the catalytic converters and other modifications
which reduce hydrocarbon emissions will result in enhanced consumer protec-
tion (Oatway and Klemm, 1981).
5.3 REFERENCES
Andrews, B. A. Kottes, R. J. Harper, Jr. , and Sidney L. Vail, 1980. "Variable
That Influence Formaldehyde Release From Cottons Finished for Durable
Press." Textile Research Journal 50:315-322.
Ashford, Nicholas A., C. William Ryan, and Charles C. Caldart, 1983. "A Hard
Look at Federal Regulation of Formaldehyde: A Departure from Reasoned
Decisionmaking." Harvard Environmental Law Review 7:297-370.
Bernstein, Robert S., Henry Fal k, Douglas R. Turner, and James M. Melius,
1984. "Nonoccupational Exposures to Indoor Air Pollutants: A Survey of
State Programs and Practices." American Journal of Public Health
74(9):1020-1023.
Bowen, R. P., C. J. Shirtliffe, and G. A. Chown, 1981. Urea-Formaldehyde Foam
Insulation: Problem Identification and Remedial Measures for Wood-Frame
Construction. Building Practice Note No. 23. Ottawa, Canada: Division
of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada.
Business Week, 1981. "A letup in the Drive to Regulate Formaldehyde."
(2709):88.
Chemical Week, 1982. "Urea-Formaldehyde Foam Gets the Axe for Home Insulation
130(9):12-13.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), 1982. "Ban of Urea-Formaldehyde
Foam Insulation, Withdrawal of Proposed Information Labe1ing Rule, and
Denial of Petition to Issue a Standard." Federal Register 47(64):14365-
14419.
5-37
-------
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), 1980. "Urea-formaldehyde Foam
Insulation; Proposed Notice to Purchasers." federal Register
45(113);39433-39444.
Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), 1984. "Final Report on the Safety Assessment
of Formaldehyde," Journal of the American College of Toxicology
3(3):157-184.
Dally, Kay A., Lawrence P. Hanrahan, Mary Arm Woodbury, and Marty S. Kanarek,
1981. "f ornaldehyde Exposure in Nonoccupational Env i ronments." Archi ves
of Environmental Health 36(6):277-284.
Dworkin, Terry Morehead, and Jane P. MaJlor, 1983. "Liability for Formaldehyde-
Contaminated Housing Materials: Toxic Torts in the Home." American
Business Law Journal 21(3):307-334.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1984. "Formaldehyde; Determination of
Signifi :ant Risk; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice."
Federal Register 43(101):21870-21898.
Federal Panel on Formaldehyde, 1982. "Report on the Federal Panel on Formalde-
hyde. " Environmental Health Perspectives 43:139-168,
Freeman, H. 1., and W. C. Grendon, 1971. "formaldehyde Detection and Control
in the Vood Industry.11 Forest Products Journal 21(9): 54-57.
Gammage, R. 3., L981. Final Report to the Canadian Department of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs: Product Safety Branch. Report No. D0E/N8H-2020919.
Oak Ridge, Fennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Gammage, R. 3., 3. E. Hingerty, Thomas G. Matthews, Alan R. Hawthorne, Don R.
Womack, Rita R. Westley, and Kailish C. Gupta, 1983. Temporal Fluctuations
of Formaldehyde Levels inside Residences. Report No. DE 83009788. Oak
Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Geomet, Inc., and Technology and Economics, Inc., 1980. An Evaluation of
Forma Ieehyde Problems in Residential Mobile Homes. Final Task I Report.
Contrac t No. H-5105. Prepared for Office of Policy Development and
Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Hattis, Dale, Clifford Mitchell, Janet McCleary-Jones, and Nancy Corelick,
1981. Control of Occupational Exposures to Formaldehyde: A Case Study
of Methodology for Assessing the Health and Economic Impacts of OSHA
Health Standards. Report No. CPA-81-17. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Center for Policy Alternatives, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hawthorne, P. R., R. B. Gammage, C. S. Dudney, D. R. Womack, S. A. Morris, R.
R. Westley, and K. C. Gupta, 1983. Preliminary Results of a Forty-Home
Indoor-Air-PoIuti on Honi toring Study. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge
Nation;1 Laboratory.
5-38
-------
Johnson, Greg, 1983. "Air Pollution, the ' Inside' Story." Industry Veek.
217(3):44-50.
Lewiri, Tamar, 1982. "Insulation Lawsuits Abound." New York Times. Nay 25,
1982. pp. Dl, D7.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 1984. "Fact Sheet - UFFI Fepurchase
Regulations." Boston, Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs, N. D. "Guide to the Sale of UFFI
Homes." Brochure printed by The Provident Institution for Sevines.
Boston, Massachusetts.
Mika. Peggy, 1983. Insurers Fear Formaldehyde Exposure Claims." National
Underwriter (Property/Casualty). 87(29):28, 40.
National Research Council (NRC), 1981. Formaldehyde and Other Alcehyces.
Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Oatway, Janet A., and Hans A. Klemm, 1981. Formaldehyde Regulatory Ccntrol
Options Analysis. Draft Final Report. Contract No. 68-01-5560. Prepared
for Office of Chemical Control, Environmental Protection Agercy. Report
No. GCA-TR-81-1-G. Bedford, Massachusetts: GCA Corporation.
Oregon Association of Realtors, n.d., a. "Notice to Sellers Regarding Urea-
Formaldehyde Foam Insulation." 2 pp.
Oregon Association of Realtors, n.d., b. "Notice to Buyers Regarding Urea-
Formaldehyde Foam Insulation." 2 pp.
Pickerel 1, J. A., L. C. Griffis, and C. H. Hobbs, 1982. Release cf Formaldehyde
from Various Consumer Products. Final Report. Prepared for Consumer
Products Safety Commission. Report No. LMF-93, UC-48. Albuquercue, New
Mexico: Lovelace Biomedical and Environmental Research Institute.
Reeves, Wilson A., Mary 0. Day, K. Rinn McLellan, and Tyrone L. Vigo, 1981.
"Formaldehyde Release in Formaldehyde- and Resin-Finished Fabrics".
Textile Research Journal 51(7):481-485.
Repace, James L. , 1982. "Indoor Air Pol 1 ution." Environment Intemat ional
8:21-36.
Runzheimer Reports on Relocation, 1983. "Homes Discounted for 'Aggravation
Factor. Trade newsletter. 2(6):5.
Savings and Loan News, 1983. "Insulation Exposes Lenders, Appraisers to Legal
Challenge." 104(3):110-111.
Small, Bruce P., 1982. Chemical Susceptibi1ity and Urea-Formaldehyde Foam
Insulation. Cornwal1, Ontario: Deco-Plan, Inc.
5-39
-------
Smith, Charles, 382. Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation - Final Economic
Assessment of a Ban on Sales. Washington, D. C.: Consumer Product
Safety Commission.
Snel 1 Division, 1979. Preliminary Study of the Costs of Increased Regulation
of Formaldehyde Exposure in the United States Workplace. Prepared for
Formaldehyde Task Force of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers
Association. Florham Park, New Jersey: Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, Inc.
Telecom, 1984a. Telephone communication with M. E. Lough, Bennett Laboratories.
Inc. regarding testing procedures for formaldehyde levels in structures,
and the neutralization of UFFI. August 24, 1984.
Telecom, 1984b. Telephone communication with Connie Smercek, Save Us From
Formaldehyde Environmental Repercussions (SUFFER) regarding formaldehyde
standards and testing for formaldehyde concentrations. August 27, 1984.
Telecom, 1984c. Telephone communication with Dr. Leslie P. Williams, Oregon
Department of Disease Monitoring and Control regarding levels of formalde-
hyde and associated symptoms experienced fay residents in mobile homes.
May 25, 1984.
Telecom, 1984d. Telephone communication with Lawrence P. Hanrahan, Wisconsin
Department of Health regarding studies done on formaldehyde exposure in
occupational and nonoccupational settings. May 25, 1984.
Thun, Michael J. , Michael F. Lakat, arid Ronald Altman, 1982. "Symptom Survey
of Residents of Homes Insulated with Urea-Formaldehyde Foam." Envi ron-
mental Research 29:320-334.
UFFI Centre, 1983. The UFFI (Urea-Formaldehyde Foam Insulation File. Infor-
mation packet published by Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada.
Versar, Inc. , 1982. Exposure Assessment for Formaldehyde. Final Draft Report.
Contract No. 68-01-6271.. Prepared for Office of Toxic Substances, Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Springfield, Virginia: Versar, Inc.
Wayland, R. Lee, Jr., Louis W. Smith, Julian H. Hoffman, 1981. "Low-Formaldehyde
Finishing in Production." Textile Research Journal 51(4)- 302-309.
Wynn, Jack, 1983. "Prospects Brighten for Manufactured Hones." Barron's
63(1).49.
Youngquist, John, 1981. "Laminated Wood-Based Composites." In Mark, H. F.,
0. F. Othmer et al. , ed. Kirk-Qthmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
v. 14. 3rd edition. New York: Wiley and Sons.
5-40
-------
Appendix A
Sample Questionnaire
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
Center for Fxonomics Research
August 7, 1984
Dear ,
As promised in our recent, telephone conversation, I am enclosing a questionnaire
for a study of the effects of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) on housing
values. We at the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) are conducting this survey as
part of a study for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
We are surveying realtors from several regions of the United States who have
particular knowledge about the effects of UFFI in the housing market. We want you
to provide detailed information about your experiences with detached single-family
dwellings containing UFFI, as well as your opinions about such homes.
The questionnaire itself contains four sections; instructions for completing
each are attached. The first section requests information on the characteristics of
the UFFI-containing home(s) recently sold by you or someone else in your region.
The second section asks for details about the sale of the home(s) described in the
first section. The third section elicits your general impressions about the effects
of UFFI on the housing market and the reasons for those effects. The fourth section
requests your address and telephone number for future follow-up by RTI. Neither
your name nor your firm's identity will be revealed to anyone outside RTI.
Enclosed with your copy of the survey questionnaire and instructions you will
find a stamped, addressed envelope for mailing your reply. Because our study roust
be completed very soon, we need your response as soon as possible. To incorporate
your responses, we should receive them no later than Friday, August 24, 1984.
I will be in contact with you by telephone approximately 1 week from today.
Please do not hesitate to call me at (919) 541-5847 if you have any questions or
problems before then.
We appreciate your cooperation in this effort.
Sincerely,
Lu Lohr
Enclosures
^st Office Box 12194 Research Triangle Rack, North Carolina 27709 Telephone: 919 541-6000
A-2
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
SURVEY ON THE EFFECTS OF UREA-FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION (UFFI)
ON HOUSING VALUES
PI ease read carefully and follow the instructions below.
GENERAL
1. Throughout the survey, the homes referred to are detached single-fami1y
dwel1inqs containing urea-formaldehyde foam insulation'TUFFI) at the time
of sale. Confine your answers to these types of homes, except where
otherwise indicated,
2. Type or legibly print all answers.
3. You are encouraged to call the contact person at Research Triangle
Institute (RTI) as you feel necessary.
SECTIONS I AND II
1. Complete al1 iterns in Sections I and II. Both sections concern homes
that you have actually sold or that you know have been sold. Complete
columns for the two(or one) homes with UFFI that have most recently sold.
2. Note that the column headings—"Home 1" and "Home 2"-~refer to the
same dwellings in both Sections I and 11.
SECTION III
1. Complete all relevant items in Section III. This section relates to the
more general relationship between housing markets and UFFI, rather than any
particular homes. The questions you answer will in some cases depend on
the responses you give to previous questions. After certain responses,
you are asked to proceed to another question by the statement "GO TO ."
The number following this phrase is the number of the next question you
are to answer.
2. For Questions 1 through 3 and Questions 5 through 12 you are asked to
compare homes with UFFI to homes with the same attributes but with another
type of equally effective insulation.
3. Use Question 13 to describe your opinions concerning trends in the housing
market due to UFFI or to describe other aspects of the housing market
affected by UFFI but not discussed in this survey (e.g. , availability of
mortage loans, industry concerns with liability, effects on UfFI-containing
homes that have been listed but not sold, etc.).
SECTION IV
1, Give full information in Section IV. Neither your name nor your firm's
identity wi11 be revealed to anyone outside RTI.
A-3
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE
SURVEY ON THE EFFECTS OF UREA-FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION (UFFI)
ON HOUSING VALUES
August 1984
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
A-4
-------
I. CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSES WITH UFFI
House Characteristic Home 1 Home 2
1.
Street address, city
and state?
2.
Interior floor area (ft2)?
3.
Number of baths
(1, lh, etc.)?
4.
Lot size (ft2)?
5.
Garage (yes, no)?
.
6.
If yes, size
(l~car, 2-car)?
7.
Age of home
(years)?
8.
Style of home
(ranch, Cape Cod, etc.)?
9,
Location of home in
metropolitan/urban
area (yes, no)?
10.
If yes, location
within limits of
central city (yes, no)?
11.
Special features which
add to (+) or detract
from (-) value (pool,
view, neighborhood, etc.)?
12.
Date of UFFI installation
if known (month, year)?
A 5
-------
Sale/Cost Detail
II.
SALE/COST DETAILS FOR HOUSES WITH UFFI
Home 1 Home 2
1. Length of time on
market (months)?
7
Cm »
Oid presence of UFFI
lengthen time on market
(yes, no, unsure)?
3.
Date of sale
(month, year)?
4.
List price with UFFI?
5
Was UFFI a factor in
determining list price
(yes, no, unsure)?
6.
Sale price with UFFI?
7.
Was UFFI a factor in
determining sale price
(yes, no, unsure)?
O
O,
Was buyer aware of UFFI
presence prior to sale
(yes, no, unsure)?
9.
Was home tested for
level of formaldehyde
prior to sale
(yes, no, unsure)?
10.
Were you (realtor) required
by law to disclose presence
of UFFI (yes, no, unsure)?
11.
Estimated sale price of
same, horns with other
type of insulation?
12,
Estimated cost to remove
UFFI and replace it with
alternative insulation?
A-6
-------
III. GENERAL EFFECTS OF UFFI ON THE HOUSING MARKET
In Section 11, did the actual sales prices for the homes with UFFI differ
from your estimated sales prices for the same homes with another type of
insulation (check one)?
yes GO TO 2.
no GO TO 3.
To what factors do you attribute the difference between actual sales
prices for homes with UFFI and your estimated sales prices for the same
homes with another type of insulation (check all that apply)?
Actual offgassing problems due to improper installation of
UFFI.
Actual offgassing problems even with proper installation of
UFFI.
Stigma attached to UFFI homes due to negative publicity.
Buyer expects to incur cost of removing UFFI and replacing
it with another type of insulation.
Other
To what factors do you attribute the lack of difference between actual
sales prices for homes with UFFI and your estimated sales prices for the
same homes with another type of insulation (check all that apply)?
Testing prior to sales revealed no excess formaldehyde
concentration.
Indifference of buyer to presence of UFFI.
Actual sale prices have already been adjusted to allow for
the presence of UFFI.
List prices have a 1 ready been adjusted to allow for the
presence of UFFI.
Other
-------
4. Is it the practice of your firm to recommend testing for formaldehyde con-
centration levels in homes containing UFF1 prior to their sale (check one)?
_ yfis
_____ no
_______ unsure
5. In general, is the presence of UFFI in homes a factor in determining their
1ist prices (check one)?
yes
GO
TO
6.
no
GO
TO
8.
unsure
GO
TO
6.
6. How does the presence of UFFI in homes affect their list prices (check one)?
tends to increase it GO TO 7.
tends to decrease it GO TO 7.
unsure GO TO 8.
7. By what percent do the 1 i st pri ces of homes change due to the presence of
UFFI (check one)?
% decrease
% increase
8. In general, is the presence of UFFI in homes a factor in determining their
sale prices (check one)?
yes GO TO 9.
no GO TO 11.
unsure GO TO 9.
9. How does the presence of UFFI in homes affect the sale prices (check one)?
tends to increase it GO TO 10.
tends to decrease it GO TO 10.
unsure GO TO 11.
A-fi
-------
10. By what percent do the sale prices of homes change due to the presence of
UFFI (check one)?
% decrease
% increase
11. In general, if placed up for sale, do homes containing UFFI remain on the
market longer than homes having another type of insulation (check one)?
yes GO TO 12.
no GO TO 13.
unsure GO TO 12.
12. How much longer do homes with UFFI remain on the market than homes with
another type of insulation (check one)?
______ 1 to 2 months
3 to 4 months
5 to 6 months
more than 6 months
13. Do you have any other comments concerning UFFI and its effect on home
sales or prices?
A-9
-------
IV. CONTACT INFORMATION
We would like your address and telephone number so we can contact you in the
future about your response or about other relevant details, as necessary. We
will not reveal either your name or your firm's identity to anyone outside the
Research Triangle Institute (RTI).
Ba"e
Firm '
Business Address
Business Telephone
If you have any questions concerning this survev please contact:
a# naff ® •
Lu Lohr
Center for Economics Research
Research Triangle Institute
Post Office Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
(919) 541-5847
A-10
-------
------- |