|

PFOA emissions from Non stick cookware and Popcorn Bags

Byoliveridley

Important research coming out of NY. See here for previous PFOA posts. Perfluorinated compounds are used in the manufacture of Teflon, and are bioaccumulative. The theory is that the salts left over in the manufacture (residuals) are offgassing during use, and exposing consumers to bioaccumulative compounds.

Cast Iron, anyone!!

Quantitation of Gas-Phase Perfluoroalkyl Surfactants and Fluorotelomer Alcohols Released from Nonstick Cookware and Microwave Popcorn Bags

Fluoropolymer dispersions are used for coating certain cookware products and food-contact packaging to impart oil and water repellency. Since salts of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) are used as a processing aid in the manufacture of many fluoropolymers, it is necessary to determine if these compounds are still present as residuals after the process used to coat nonstick cookware or packaging, and could be released during typical cooking conditions. In this study, we identified and measured perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFCAs), particularly PFOA, and fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs; 6:2 FTOH and 8:2 FTOH), released from nonstick cookware into the gas phase under normal cooking temperatures (179 to 233 C surface temperature). PFOA was released into the gas phase at 7-337 ng (11-503 pg/cm2) per pan from four brands of nonstick frying pans. 6:2 FTOH and 8:2 FTOH were found in the gas phase of four brands of frying pans, and the sources of FTOHs released from nonstick cookware are under investigation. We observed a significant decrease in gas-phase PFOA following repeated use of one brand of pan, whereas the other brand did not show a significant reduction in PFOA release following multiple uses. PFOA was found at >5 ng during the fourth use of both brands of pans. FTOHs were not found after the second use of either brand of pans. PFOA was found at 5-34 ng in the vapors produced from a prepacked microwave popcorn bag. PFOA was not found in the vapors produced from plain white corn kernels popped in a polypropylene container. 6:2 FTOH and 8:2 FTOH were measured in the vapors produced from one brand of prepacked microwave popcorn at 223 ± 37 ng and 258 ± 36 ng per bag, respectively, but not measured at >20 ng (LOQ) in the other two brands. On the packaging surface of one brand of microwave popcorn several PFCAs, including C5-C12, 6:2 FTOH, and 8:2 FTOH, were found at concentrations in the order of 0.5-6.0 ng/cm2. This study suggests that residual PFOA is not completely removed during the fabrication process of the nonstick coating for cookware. They remain as residuals on the surface and may be off-gassed when heated at normal cooking temperatures.

More later.

Similar Posts

  • Corn Can't Solve Our Problem – washingtonpost.com

    Byoliveridley

    A must read for anyone who likes articulate scientists writing very approachable articles about important subjects!
    Corn Can’t Solve Our Problem – washingtonpost.com

    If every one of the 70 million acres on which corn was grown in 2006 was used for ethanol, the amount produced would displace only 12 percent of the U.S. gasoline market. Moreover, the “new” (non-fossil) energy gained would be very small — just 2.4 percent of the market. Car tune-ups and proper tire air pressure would save more energy.

    Proper tire pressure is not sexy, and does not lead to billions of dollars of profits!

    The net effect is that ethanol from corn grown in the Corn Belt does increase atmospheric greenhouse gases, and this increase is only about 15 percent less than the increase caused by an equivalent amount of gasoline

    Corn is such a boondongle, it’s amazing what the ADMs and Monsantos of the world can do.

    This means that when tropical woodland is cleared to produce sugar cane for ethanol, the greenhouse gas released is about 50 percent greater than what occurs from the production and use of the same amount of gasoline. And that statistic holds for at least two decades.

    Brazil will not solve all your problems (unless they’re samba related!). Increased demand for ethanol from Brazil could lead to clearcutting of the rain forest/other fallow grassland.

    Across the full process of growing high-diversity prairie hay, converting it into an energy source and using that energy, we found a net removal and storage of about a ton and a half of atmospheric carbon dioxide per acre. The net effect is that ethanol or synthetic gasoline produced from this grass on degraded land can provide energy that actually reduces atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

    It’s a very well written article.

  • Dear American Public Media, Coal is not clean!

    Byoliveridley

    Overheard this morning on The Marketplace morning report…

    “The use of scrubbers have made coal fired power plants much cleaner”

    Umm, this only refers to the scrubbing of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Unless some marvelous scrubber has been invented and perfected (top secret, the coal fired power plants don’t want you to know about all the good things they do!) that picks up all the CO2 belching out of those smokestacks, no claim can be made that coal is cleaner.

    Dear Marketplace, your own website says the following:

    KAI RYSSDAL: And it’s official. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The Supreme Court says so. The Bush Administration had been arguing the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases

    To argue this from a strictly legalistic standpoint, coal is dirtier now than it has ever been because we finally count CO2 as a pollutant (Yes, I know, Supreme Court only ruled on automobile emissions because that was the case in front of it, but gas is gas!).

    Dear Marketplace, please stop using the words clean and coal in the same sentence unless and until CO2 emissions from coal are scrubbed!

    Update 30Aug07: Apparently (see comments!), NPR does not like the use of the word NPR in the blog title because (and I quote)

    “Marketplace” is not an NPR show. It is produced by American Public Media, a separate company, and has its own news operation”

    True, so it’s not dear NPR anymore, it’s “dear American Public Media”. There, that takes care of that. My point obviously stands, coal is not clean!!

  • Fish good for You? – this byline stinks

    Byoliveridley

    BBC NEWS | Health | Benefits of fish ‘outweigh risks’

    Dariush Mozaffarian, lead author of the study said: “Overall, for major health outcomes among adults, the benefits of eating fish greatly outweigh the risks.

    “Somehow this evidence has been lost on the public.”

    Concerns have been raised about chemicals found in fish from pollution.

    These include mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins.

    And in other news, “breathing is good for you”. Please, I can’t take this any more. The question is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, “Is fish good for you?”. Of course it is. The question is: “What kind of fish is good for you, and whether appropriate labeling can help the consumer decide”.

    At least in the US of A, which is where I have eaten the bulk of my fish, the primary source of information you can get about eating fish is on the web and for North Carolina, here. So, you’re supposed to go around with a checklist of good and bad fish in your head when you go to the grocery store. Most consumers do not have this kind of information, especially when there are so many categories to choose from. Is it fatty, or non? Is it freshwater or marine? Is it canned, fresh or frozen? Is it caught or farmed? Canned light tuna is okay, but canned albacore tuna is not, can you remember this when shopping for 30 other things at the store?

    Confused enough? How about, tilefish at 3.99 a pound versus salmon at 7.99 a pound? What will you buy on a tight budget?

    If you’re the average consumer, you have a minute to decide whether it’s fish for dinner, or something else, unless you’re carrying around this handy checklist in your hand/PDA (in which case you’re not the average consumer), you have two opposing thoughts in your head….

    1. I know that fish is good for me, so I need to eat more fish
    2. I know that certain fish is not good for me, especially if I’m pregnant/nursing/feeding kids – But I don’t know if this fish that’s on sale is on the safe list, or not.

    What will you do given that you have one minute to decide, you have no information in the store, and you have no one in the store looking out for you?

    And this paper wonders, and I paraphrase,

    “Somehow this evidence has been lost on the public”

    Labeling is important, information is power, if you’re buying fish, you want to know where it is from, what the average pollutant loadings of the fish from this area are, and what the advisory on this fish is, so you can make an informed choice in the one minute that you have. This has been widely researched, and the information is easily available (on the web, where you don’t shop for groceries). Is it too much to ask for a list to be posted wherever fish is sold? I guess it “hurts business”.

    Personal responsibilty is accepted, but if you do not give people the tools to make informed choices, it’s just a cynical ploy to shift blame, shift burden, and shift risk.

    This paper deserves to be read in full, so here’s the abstract. Needless to say, the study, funded in full by tax payer money through the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, is behind a subscription wall.

    Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health

    Evaluating the Risks and the Benefits

    Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH; Eric B. Rimm, ScD

    JAMA. 2006;296:1885-1899.

    ABSTRACT

    Context  Fish (finfish or shellfish) may have health benefits and also contain contaminants, resulting in confusion over the role of fish consumption in a healthy diet.

    Evidence Acquisition  We searched MEDLINE, governmental reports, and meta-analyses, supplemented by hand reviews of references and direct investigator contacts, to identify reports published through April 2006 evaluating (1) intake of fish or fish oil and cardiovascular risk, (2) effects of methylmercury and fish oil on early neurodevelopment, (3) risks of methylmercury for cardiovascular and neurologic outcomes in adults, and (4) health risks of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in fish. We concentrated on studies evaluating risk in humans, focusing on evidence, when available, from randomized trials and large prospective studies. When possible, meta-analyses were performed to characterize benefits and risks most precisely.

    Evidence Synthesis  Modest consumption of fish (eg, 1-2 servings/wk), especially species higher in the n-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), reduces risk of coronary death by 36% (95% confidence interval, 20%-50%; P<.001) and total mortality by 17% (95% confidence interval, 0%-32%; P = .046) and may favorably affect other clinical outcomes. Intake of 250 mg/d of EPA and DHA appears sufficient for primary prevention. DHA appears beneficial for, and low-level methylmercury may adversely affect, early neurodevelopment. Women of childbearing age and nursing mothers should consume 2 seafood servings/wk, limiting intake of selected species. Health effects of low-level methylmercury in adults are not clearly established; methylmercury may modestly decrease the cardiovascular benefits of fish intake. A variety of seafood should be consumed; individuals with very high consumption (≥5 servings/wk) should limit intake of species highest in mercury levels. Levels of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in fish are low, and potential carcinogenic and other effects are outweighed by potential benefits of fish intake and should have little impact on choices or consumption of seafood (women of childbearing age should consult regional advisories for locally caught freshwater fish).

    Conclusions  For major health outcomes among adults, based on both the strength of the evidence and the potential magnitudes of effect, the benefits of fish intake exceed the potential risks. For women of childbearing age, benefits of modest fish
    intake, excepting a few selected species, also outweigh risks.

  • |

    Senate 1, Plutocrats 2

    Byoliveridley

    It was a close game. But in the end, the plutocrats prevailed on energy legislation. Yes, fuel economy will go up some, but the push towards renewable energy will have to wait. Even on fuel economy standards, the requirement to incrementally increase standards every year after  getting to 35 mpg by 2020 was dropped.

    Well, given the notoriously undemocratic nature of the US senate, progress will be slow.
    Senate Adopts an Energy Bill Raising Mileage for Cars – New York Times

    The Senate passed a broad energy bill late Thursday that would, among other things, require the first big increase in fuel mileage requirements for passenger cars in more than two decades. The vote, 65 to 27, was a major defeat for car manufacturers, which had fought for a much smaller increase in fuel economy standards and is expected to keep fighting as the House takes up the issue. But Senate Democrats also fell short of their own goals. In a victory for the oil industry, Republican lawmakers successfully blocked a crucial component of the Democratic plan that would have raised taxes on oil companies by about $32 billion and used the money on tax breaks for wind power, solar power, ethanol and other renewable fuels. Republicans also blocked a provision of the legislation that would have required electric utilities to greatly increase the share of power they get from renewable sources of energy. As a result, Senate Democrats had to settle for a bill that calls for a vast expansion of renewable fuels over the next decade — to 36 billion gallons a year of alternatives to gasoline — but does little to actually promote those fuels through tax breaks or other subsidies. The combination of breakthroughs and setbacks highlighted the blocking power of the entrenched industry groups, from oil companies and electric utilities to car manufacturers, that had blanketed Congress in recent days to defend their interests.

    Technorati Tags:

  • Gapminder -Visualize Global Development Data

    Byoliveridley

    I must have been living in a cave somewhere to not have heard of this before today.

    The Gapminder World 2006, beta

    Gapminder is a non-profit venture that develops information technology for provision of free statistics in new visual and animated ways. In short, it enables you to make sense of the world by having fun with statistics. Our method is to turn boring data into enjoyable interactive animations using Flash technology. Gapminder is a Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden. Funding has been mainly by grants from Swedish International Development co-operation Agency, Sida. In collaboration with United Nations Statistic Division we promote free access to searchable public data and our animations of different types of data are freely available at www.gapminder.org.

    The Pros
    You have to take it for a test drive to see how cool it is, especially the animations to see how parameters like life expectancy, population, etc. change over time. You can pick countries to compare, or just scatter plot everyone. Look at Botswana’s life expectancy, for instance, see it peak in 1987 at 65 years and start a steep  plummet to 35 years in 2004 as its AIDS mass murder (epidemic is a word that does do this one justice) took hold. To watch the dot for life expectancy drop that quickly as you animate it is pretty powerful, as powerful as a statistic can be. Each parameter you change also changes the URL, so you can send links easily.

    The Cons
    You have to plot something against something else. Not everything is a scatter plot between two variables, you use it long enough, and you start seeing correlations (=causations!) where none exist. There’s no way to extract plots to use for later, though I guess you can do a screen capture.

    Regardless, very cool, and nothing beats free access to large amounts of data that previously needed specialists to visualize and make sense of.