Chemical Lobby Group Attacks CPSC Chinese Drywall Study 

NU Online News Service, Nov. 24, 3:55 p.m. EST

The Consumer Product Safety Commission defended a study it commissioned on Chinese drywall after a chemical trade group criticized one of its findings related to the presence of formaldehyde.

Yesterday, the CPSC announced the completion of a 51-home study conducted by Massachusetts-based Environmental Health & Engineering (EH&E) which found a linkage between the Chinese drywall, the level of hydrogen sulfide in homes with the drywall, and the corrosion of metal components in the homes.

A passage in the study regarding health problems reported in the homes stated: “While the study of 51 homes detected hydrogen sulfide and formaldehyde in homes containing the problem drywall at concentrations below irritant levels, it is possible that the additive or synergistic effects of these and other compounds in the subject homes could cause irritant effects.”

The Arlington, Va.-based Formaldehyde Council took exception to that finding and issued a statement.

The Formaldehyde Council, a group of chemical producers and manufacturing firms, lists its mission on its Web site as “[t]o encourage accurate scientific evaluation of formaldehyde and formaldehyde-based materials and to communicate sound scientific information relating to the uses, benefits and sustainability of these products.”

Betsy Natz, executive director of the council, said about the study, "Formaldehyde is not associated with corrosion and is not a component of dry wall. It is irresponsible to speculate that formaldehyde and hydrogen sulfide can act in a synergistic or additive manner to cause irritant effects in human beings at the low levels found in the CPSC study.”

“This is particularly the case,” she said, “because the only statistically significant difference between the complaint and control homes examined in the study was the levels of hydrogen sulfide detected, while there was no difference between the levels of formaldehyde measured in each group."

Alex Filip, deputy director of public affairs for CPSC, responded, “Our scientists said they believe there was an association between those two elements and other contaminants.”

He said the confusion may stem from the omission of “other contaminants” in some media reports. Some stories, he noted, only reported the hydrogen sulfide and formaldehyde combination.

“Our people believe it’s a synergistic effect of the two main things discovered [formaldehyde and hydrogen sulfide] and other contaminants,” he said. 

• • 11/24/2009 9:50:56 PM
  • rick
  • Formaldehyde Council.
  • The Formaldehyde Council continues to maintain that the typical residential formaldehyde level is only 14 ppb. Sorry, but they lost their credibility a long time ago enlight of numerous studies that show significantly higher levels of formaldehyde. 14 ppb may have been typical in the 1990's but energy codes and building practices have changed. Current new construction 100 ppb is common. This is significant as studies show 30 ppb decrease lung function, 60 ppb increases asthma, 100 ppb and most adults get experience negative health effects. Then there is the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments that lowered their recommended 8-hour exposure level to just 7 ppb. I wish the formaldehyde council was concerned about accurate scientific information. In reality, FCI appears to be trying to convenice everyone that formaldehyde is as safe as clean water.

Archived Issues

• Hurricane Earl Warnings Expand; Modelers Break Down N.C. Exposure
• Atlantic Storm Season Heats Up; Danielle A Cat 4
• Lloyd’s Flagged To Insure Against NFL Player’s Bad Hair Day
• Catching The Cloud: Managing Risk When Utilizing Cloud Computing
• Cat 3 Hurricane Earl Triggers N.C. Hurricane Warning