Albemarle sets the record straight on La Guardia et al.’s (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 6707-6706.)

December 1st, 2011

Letter to ES&T re La Guardia et al from Albemarle, accepted for publication in near future.

Comment on La Guardia et al.’s (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 6707-6706.) Speculation on the Origin of Monochloro-Nonabromodipehnyl Ethers.

La Guardia et al.1 commented on the detection of three nonabromochlorodiphenyl ethers (NBCDEs) in air and soil samples from Guangzhou China and at an e-waste recycling area2, and speculated in this and a prior publication3 that these compounds were impurities in Albemarle Corporation’s commercial decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE) product.  Albemarle would like to set the record straight.  Yes, Albemarle filed the patent application described in La Guardia et al. (2011).  Albemarle has an active research and development program, files many patent applications as a result of this active research and development, and holds numerous patents.  A substantial number of these patents and patent applications include processes that are never commercialized, including the process described in the cited patent application4.  In fact, Albemarle abandoned the cited patent application some time ago, and a simple check of the public patent databases would have revealed this.  Our manufacturing process for DecaBDE does not use bromine chloride or mixtures of bromine and chlorine.  Albemarle has never commercialized a bromochlorodiphenyl ether and has no intention to do so, nor do we do manufacture a “decahalodiphenyl oxide” product as indicated in the authors’ 2010 publication on page 4663.  Albemarle does not manufacture DecaBDE in China.

To our knowledge, the authors did not contact Albemarle to ascertain whether their speculation was based on fact.  Rather, La Guardia et al. (2010, 2011) assumed a patent equated to a commercial product, a commercial product’s market introduction was that of the patent date, and a business presence in a country equaled manufacture of a product in that country.  Those assumptions are incorrect.  We recommend the authors, and the editors of Environmental Science & Technology, do a better job of fact checking prior to publication.  Erroneous publications such as these divert attention and research dollars from meaningful pursuits.

Marcia L. Hardy*^, Niomi L. Krystowczyk^, Steve W. LeVan+, David W. Clary++

^Health, Safety and Environment, Albemarle Corporation, 451 Florida Street, Baton Rouge, LA

+Advocacy, Albemarle Corporation, 451 Florida Street, Baton Rouge, LA

++Chief Sustainability Officer, Albemarle Corporation, 451 Florida Street, Baton Rouge, LA

References

(1)  La Guardia, M.; Hale, R.; Harvey, E.; Harvey, E.; Chen, D.  Comment on “Identification of Monochloro-Nonabromodiphenyl Ethers in the Air and Soil Samples from South China”.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 6707-6706.

(2)  Yu, Z.; Zheng, K.; Ren, G.; Wang, D.; Ma, S.; Peng, P.; Wu, M.; Sheng, G.; Fui, J. Identification of Monochloro-Nonabromodiphenyl Ethers in the Air and Soil Samples from South China.   Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 2619-2625.

(3) La Guardia, M.; Hale, R.; Harvey, E.; Chen, D.  Flame-Retardants and Other Organohalogens Detected in Sewage Sludge by Electron Capture Negative Ion Mass Spectrometry.    Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 4658-4664.

(4)  WIPO, WO/2008/027780, Preparation of decahalodiphenyl oxide.  http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008027780 (as cited by La Guardia et al. 2011).

  • Share/Bookmark

1 Comment »

End of the RoHS Directive Recast

December 9th, 2010
RoHS logo

November 24th 2010, the European Parliament overwhelmingly supported a science-based approach to European Union (EU) legislation by adopting the new RoHS Directive  This decision secured the continued use of flame retardants, including brominated flame retardants, in electrical and electronic equipment.  Albemarle applauds this decision as the text of the agreement is a significant improvement compared to the current RoHS Directive. The new Directive moves away from blacklisting of substances to a modernized legislation aligned with the newest evaluation processes such as REACH.  It provides clarity, predictability and legal certainty not only for our industry, but for society as a whole, on the issue of substance restriction.

For our customers, this means that they can continue to use substances currently on the market today, such as brominated flame retardants, in their electrical and electronic equipment applications to secure the highest fire safety for their consumers.  For Albemarle, this means that we will continue to provide you with the portfolio of safe, effective and efficient materials that you are accustomed to.  We are pleased with the Parliament’s vote, and with their reliance on sound science to reach this decision.  It is a clear recognition of the growing need for legislation based on facts rather than perception and the importance of the role of brominated flame retardants in electrical and electronic equipment.

The agreement was negotiated between the European institutions, and is expected to be formally adopted in December.  Following formal adoption, the final Directive will be published in early 2011.

More About the New RoHS Directive
As approved, the new RoHS Directive includes a more consistent framework for assessing chemicals in the EU and a defined methodology for reviewing and amending the Directive, which shall be coherent with REACH.  All the EU institutions have supported the Commission’s proposal not to expand the list of restricted substances in Annex IV, and The Parliament and the Member States have also addressed the concerns over potentially discriminatory listing of substances by deleting Annex III.

Impact on Flame Retardants
-All flame retardant substances currently on the market for electrical & electronic equipment devices can continue to be used as no new restrictions have been added.

-The principle of sound science has been adhered to. The European Institutions recognize the need for evaluation of individual flame retardants rather than blacklisting whole families of flame retardants without scientific basis.

Impact on DecaBDE
The scope of new RoHS Directive was extended, which has an impact on DecaBDE. Being banned already under the current RoHS, there are now more applications covered where alternatives to DecaBDE must be found. Albemarle has a broad portfolio of solutions which meet these needs, and we look forward to finding optimal solutions to provide the market with the very best solutions.

If you have any further questions or inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact our European Advocacy Department – eMail: Florian.Kohl@albemarle.com, Tel.: +32-10-48-17-56.

  • Share/Bookmark

No Comments »