snell@utzoo.uucp (snell) (10/14/89)
In article <3441@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: #> >This is why a can of Pam simply states "propellant" as an ingredient. #> > #> Interesting. In Canada the propellants *are* listed on the can. I went #> to the grocery store and checked when the Pam-high was first mentioned here. #> The propellants were both alcohols, but not ethanol, and there was a note to #> effect of, "Don't worry, the propellants will evaporate and will neither #> contaminate your food nor cause environmental damage." # # I would be interested in knowing *exactly* what the Candian version #of "Pam" states on its ingredient listing. There may be a different #formula for the Candian market. # Ok. Here is what is on a can of PAM for sale in Toronto, in the ingredients list. Sounds delicious ;-). | Ingredients: lecithin (pure vegetable product), propellants isobutane, | trichlorofluoromethane and propane. Contains 29 calories per 100 ml | or 1.1 calories per 4 second spray (of which approximately 1/2 a | calorie is absorbed by food). -- Name: Richard Snell Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 UUCP: uunet!attcan!utzoo!snell BITNET: snell@zoo.utoronto.ca
eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) (10/15/89)
>In article <3441@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > >#> Interesting. In Canada the propellants [in PAM] *are* listed on the can. >#> .... and there was a note to >#> effect of, "Don't worry, the propellants will evaporate and will neither >#> contaminate your food nor cause environmental damage." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Ok. Here is what is on a can of PAM for sale in Toronto, in the >ingredients list. Sounds delicious ;-). > >| Ingredients: >| trichlorofluoromethane.... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Excuse me, are these statements compatible? Trichlorofluoromethane is about as prototypical a chlorofluorocarbon as there is. Canadians have a lot of nerve complaining about acid rain if they still haven't banned CFC's in such products. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TTGATTGCTAAACACTGGGCGGCGAATCAGGGTTGGGATCTGAACAAAGACGGTCAGATTCAGTTCGTACTGCTG Eric E. Snyder I love this mansion, Department of Biochemistry 'though it's too many windows University of Colorado, Boulder to open half-way each morning Boulder, Colorado 80309 to close half-way each night. LeuIleAlaLysHisTrpAlaAlaAsnGlnGlyTrpAspLeuAsnLysAspGlyGlnIleGlnPheValLeuLeu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/15/89)
In article <12770@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) writes: > >Ok. Here is what is on a can of PAM for sale in Toronto, in the > >ingredients list. Sounds delicious ;-). > >| Ingredients: > >| trichlorofluoromethane.... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Excuse me, are these statements compatible? Trichlorofluoromethane is about > as prototypical a chlorofluorocarbon as there is. Canadians have a lot of > nerve complaining about acid rain if they still haven't banned CFC's in > such products. I am just as surprised as you are, since it is my understanding that Canada banned CFC's as propellants some time ago. However, there may be some alternative explanations which I have seen in other instances: (1) the can may be _old_ stock which had somehow surfaced; (2) the can may be an old lithograph version which would not reflect the current composition, although such use would certainly be in violation of product ingredient disclosure requirements; (3) the maker of Pam may be exploiting a loophole in the CFC ban, in that the CFC is claimed as a solvent, NOT a propellant. The latter situation may well be true, at least in the case of trichlorofluoromethane (a/k/a Fluorocarbon 11). Trichlorofluoromethane does not boil until around 75 deg F, so it is often a liquid at room temperatures. The vapor pressure of trichlorofluoromethane is too low for it to be used as a propellant by itself, but it has been used in combination with other CFC's to create a mixture with particular vapor pressure and solvent characteristics. CFC's have also been mixed with alkane hydrocarbon propellant gases to achieve particular propellant characteristics. In any event, as was clearly pointed out on the Canadian label, Pam contains both isobutane and propane as its propellants. My opinion of Pam, its previous "safety" record notwitstanding, is that this material used around a stovetop is an accident waiting to happen. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 | 716/773-1700 {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 | 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?"
snell@utzoo.uucp (snell) (10/16/89)
In article <3446@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
#
#> >Ok. Here is what is on a can of PAM for sale in Toronto, in the
#> >ingredients list. Sounds delicious ;-).
#> >| Ingredients:
#> >| trichlorofluoromethane....
#> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#> Excuse me, are these statements compatible? Trichlorofluoromethane is about
#> as prototypical a chlorofluorocarbon as there is. Canadians have a lot of
#> nerve complaining about acid rain if they still haven't banned CFC's in
#> such products.
#
# I am just as surprised as you are, since it is my understanding
#that Canada banned CFC's as propellants some time ago.
#
In fact, I was surprised too, when I read the label prior to posting
the list of ingredients. As government offices had closed by then,
I could not follow it up until today.
Seems the CFC ban in Canada of 10 years ago was restricted to
"personal care products" such as deodorants, hairspray and similar items.
Apparently most aerosol food items (like cooking oil) were converted
voluntarily by industry to non-CFC propellants years ago. From an industry
perspective, one of the trade-offs is that while CFC's are more
expensive than the alternatives, they are far less inflammable (this
ignores the environmental damage issue).
The persons I spoke to today at Environment Canada (federal) and the
Ontario Ministry of Environment (provincial) argued that the 10 yr old
legislation covered 90% of applications. Regardless, additional regulation
was passed (though only this past summer) at both federal and provincial
levels extending the CFC ban to "about 90% of remaining products"
including foodstuffs. This was passed on July 1, and comes into effect
December 31 of this year. Pam can still be manufactured with CFC propellant
until then, and apparently the stock manufactured up to that point will
be sold. Rather poor show, I would say.
As well, the CFC ban remains incomplete. Apparently various drug and
pharmaceutical companies which use aerosol propellants in their
products will still be allowed to use CFC's. It was suggested to me
by the environment office `spokespersons' that there currently
are "no acceptable alternatives" for such products, but that "industry
would be encouraged to develop them."
This all begs the question of whether the CFC ban in the USA is really 100%
or whether certain `special cases' continue to be allowed, as evidently
is the case here in Canada.
As well, there is the question of non\-propellant use of CFC's. For
instance a `correction fluid' for typists called `LIQUID PAPER'
would appear to contain such products. In two bottles I just picked
up in our storeroom here, are slightly different labels:
1) Contains: Chlorinated solvent(s)
and, 2) Content: 1.1.1Trichloroethane
Clearly when this stuff evaporates and dries on the page, these
solvents are released. Can you buy LIQUID PAPER in the USA? Do they
say what is in it?
--
Name: Richard Snell
Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1
UUCP: uunet!attcan!utzoo!snell BITNET: snell@zoo.utoronto.camarks@ssdevo.enet.dec.com (10/17/89)
In article <1989Oct16.145131.13913@utzoo.uucp>, snell@utzoo.uucp (snell) writes... > >As well, there is the question of non\-propellant use of CFC's. For >instance a `correction fluid' for typists called `LIQUID PAPER' >would appear to contain such products. In two bottles I just picked >up in our storeroom here, are slightly different labels: > 1) Contains: Chlorinated solvent(s) >and, 2) Content: 1.1.1Trichloroethane > >Clearly when this stuff evaporates and dries on the page, these >solvents are released. Can you buy LIQUID PAPER in the USA? Do they >say what is in it? I have 3 varieties of liquid paper in my desk. None of the 3 list ingredients on the label. - Liquid Paper (LP) just for copies Water based. No warnings about inhaling. - LP for pen & ink Warnings about inhaling. Recommends use of LP thinner. - LP std. stuff Warnings about inhaling. Recommends use of LP thinner. I'm not chemically inclined, so can't postulate on what might be in the U.S. version of LP. Randy Marks (UUCP) {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!ssdevo.enet!marks (INTERNET) marks@ssdevo.enet.dec.com (domain-based INTERNET) marks%ssdevo.enet@decwrl.dec.com ......................................................................... "Proper technique will get you through times of no strength better than strength will get you through times of bad technique." -- Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers .........................................................................
wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson) (10/17/89)
Trichloroethane is not a CFC, it lacks the F. The contents are not listed for Liquid Paper on the bottle that I have. But it will be a long time before chloro-carbons (?) are banned, as they are widely used as solvents (dry cleaning, metal cleaning, etc).
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/17/89)
In article <1989Oct16.145131.13913@utzoo.uucp>, snell@utzoo.uucp (snell) writes: [ongoing discussion about chlorofluorocarbons and aerosol products deleted] > As well, the CFC ban remains incomplete. Apparently various drug and > pharmaceutical companies which use aerosol propellants in their > products will still be allowed to use CFC's. It was suggested to me > by the environment office `spokespersons' that there currently > are "no acceptable alternatives" for such products, but that "industry > would be encouraged to develop them." The above is also true in the U.S.; under certain circumstances, a manufacturer may continue to use a CFC as a solvent or solvent/propellant in an aerosol product if they can demonstrate that there is no alternative substance available. > As well, there is the question of non\-propellant use of CFC's. For > instance a `correction fluid' for typists called `LIQUID PAPER' > would appear to contain such products. In two bottles I just picked > up in our storeroom here, are slightly different labels: > 1) Contains: Chlorinated solvent(s) > and, 2) Content: 1.1.1Trichloroethane > > Clearly when this stuff evaporates and dries on the page, these > solvents are released. Can you buy LIQUID PAPER in the USA? Do they > say what is in it? I just so happen to have a bottle of "Liquid Paper" in front of me. NO WHERE on the container does it give as clue as to ANY ingredient, although there is a warning against inhalation of vapors. It sure does smell like 1,1,1-trichoroethane, though. However, 1,1,1-trichloroethane is neither a CFC posing any environmental harm to the ozone layer, nor is it a carcinogen. There are no restrictions on the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (which is often confused with trichloroethylene, which IS a carcinogen). On the other hand, 1,1,1-trichloroethane is a solvent which can cause liver and other injury following prolonged inhalation or ingestion. It certainly seems that the government of Canada is more aggressive than that of the U.S. with respect to labeling requirements for product ingredients. With the advanced state of analytical laboratory instrumentation today, there can be little objection on the part of product manuifacturers to disclose ingredients based upon a claim of "proprietary formulation". For most consumer products, any manufacturer can readily ascertain the composition of a competitor's product through chemical analysis. The real objection to explicit ingredient labeling is the fear of impeding sales when unknowledgable consumers read a label and start to see listings of - gasp! - CHEMICALS. To some extent, I sympathize with the manufacturers. On the other hand, manufacturers of soap and cosmetic products which have required *explicit* labeling by the FDA have obviously survived the requirement and remained in business. On yet another hand, I *GUARANTEE* you that sales of aerosol products would decrease if consumers REALLY KNEW than a 12 oz can of a typical aerosol deodorant contains more isobutane than half a dozen Bic lighters! Ah, the double-edged sword of dealing with consumer products. I'm glad that I only deal with testing 'em, and don't have to deal with marketing or manufacturing 'em - or even worse, deal with the public itself. :-) <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 | 716/773-1700 {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 | 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?"
terry@utastro.UUCP (Terry Hancock) (10/17/89)
> >As well, there is the question of non\-propellant use of CFC's. For >instance a `correction fluid' for typists called `LIQUID PAPER' >would appear to contain such products. In two bottles I just picked >up in our storeroom here, are slightly different labels: > 1) Contains: Chlorinated solvent(s) >and, 2) Content: 1.1.1Trichloroethane > >Clearly when this stuff evaporates and dries on the page, these >solvents are released. Can you buy LIQUID PAPER in the USA? Do they >say what is in it? >-- Since trichloroethane is a chloro-carbon, but evidently not a chloro-fluoro-carbon (CFC) (I assume, not being a chemist), I wouldn't think the ban would cover it. Which brings up a question I've wanted to ask -- do chloro-carbons or fluoro-carbons catalytically reduce ozone too, or is it only the CFC's? I'd appreciate an e-mail reply, as I read this newsgroup only intermittently. >Name: Richard Snell >Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 >UUCP: uunet!attcan!utzoo!snell BITNET: snell@zoo.utoronto.ca ******************************** Terry Hancock terry@astro.as.utexas.edu ********************************
eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) (10/17/89)
What "chlorofluorocarbons" detrimental to the ozone layer? I thought any organic chlorine compound that is volatile enough to get into the upper atmosphere was capable of generating chlorine free radicals and this taking out ozone.... I ask after the several comments saying trichloroethane is not a CFC (well of course it isn't-- it is just a CC!) and (thus?) does not threaten the ozone layer..... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TTGATTGCTAAACACTGGGCGGCGAATCAGGGTTGGGATCTGAACAAAGACGGTCAGATTCAGTTCGTACTGCTG Eric E. Snyder Department of Biochemistry Proctoscopy recapitulates University of Colorado, Boulder hagiography. Boulder, Colorado 80309 LeuIleAlaLysHisTrpAlaAlaAsnGlnGlyTrpAspLeuAsnLysAspGlyGlnIleGlnPheValLeuLeu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/17/89)
In article <12860@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) writes: > What "chlorofluorocarbons" detrimental to the ozone layer? I thought any > organic chlorine compound that is volatile enough to get into the upper > atmosphere was capable of generating chlorine free radicals and this > taking out ozone.... It's much more complex than that. I don't claim to understand all of the applicable reaction mechanisms and kinetics, but here are a few salient points: 1. The ozone layer is in the stratosphere. 2. There are various tropospheric processes which are resonsible for decomposition of chlorocarbons (CC's), but which do NOT affect chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's). 3. As a result of (2) above, CFC's are not removed in the troposphere and diffuse to the stratosphere where they undergo photodissociation caused by UV radiation, therefore forming chlorine atoms. These chlorine atoms undergo a "Chlorine Oxide Cycle" where they combine with ozone (depleting it) to form chlorine oxide and oxygen, which further reacts to again form elemental chlorine plus oxygen. 4. So the major point is: most CC's never make it to the stratosphere to cause the above problem. 5. The effective "tropospheric lifetime" [tau] for the "problem" CFC's is something like 70 years, whereas the tropospheric lifetime for a CC such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane is measured in weeks or even days. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 | 716/773-1700 {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 | 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?"
shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff) (10/17/89)
In article <1989Oct16.145131.13913@utzoo.uucp> snell@utzoo.uucp (snell) writes: >Can you buy LIQUID PAPER in the USA? Do they say what is in it? Conveniently, yesterday's paper has a proposition 65 notice: Liquid Paper Correction Fluid Bond White containes trichloroethylene. Pen and Ink and Thinner contain 1,4 dioxane. Some Liquid Paper Stock Colors contain TCE and lead. Mistake Out and Just for Copies are water based and do not contain TCE, 1,4 dioxane, or lead. (Proposition 65 notice is this strange California law requiring the public to be notified of everything sold that causes cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. The notice goes on to say that these products are being reformulated so they will no longer contain these chemicals.) Ken Shirriff shirriff@nutmeg.Berkeley.EDU
stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters) (10/21/89)
In article <12860@boulder.Colorado.EDU> eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) writes: >I thought any >organic chlorine compound that is volatile enough to get into the upper >atmosphere was capable of generating chlorine free radicals and this >taking out ozone.... It takes *chemical stability* as well as volatility to get to the upper atmosphere. The chlorine in other chlorinated organic compounds is chemically removed long before reaching the upper atmosphere. The same reactions that eventually cleanse chlorine from the stratosphere prevent it from ever reaching there except in CFCs. Followups directed to sci.chem. -- Dick St.Peters, GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com uunet!dawn.crd.ge.com!stpeters