Home Distiller

if plastic is an enemy , how do I get my alcohol from the end of my 5l reflux still into the bottle

Copper, glass or stainless are probably best.

Teflon would be an astronomical price to fabricate into this still/thing. Silicone would be amusing because it would be a big floppy bucket.

I suggest that we stop talking about this 130 dollar bucket.

bourbonbob wrote:Copper, glass or stainless are probably best.

sounds simple

how do I connect to the end of the condenser

You can solder it, I use brass joiner

tater wrote:[
Two other plastic that can be used and are commonly available are PTFE and aquarium grade RTV silicone. Other types of silicones have also been tested succesfully.

Cheers, Riku

tested by who?Please show info where they are ok to use in a still.[/quote]

By me, by Mike Nixon & Mike McCaw, by Harry Jackson (Harry actually found some other silicones that work well) and countless others you probably don't recognize. I've read one report about problems with Teflon and in that case person in question was using pink HD teflon tape, not the white one that is documented.

If none of the names above are familiar I suggest you do some reading.

Cheers, Riku

Tested how? what methodology? was a GCMS involved or did it just look ok?

Riku, I respect your knowledge of stills and appurtances, but I respectfully disagree. I had a few years of working in a plastic testing lab to determine my stance. Even tho the risk from some of the things talked about in this post may be small, I believe in the interest of general safety that only the best practices should be advocated on this forum. or any other distilling forum. When I see the best distillers in the world using a plastic boiler I might think twice, but until then....

There are proven safe materials to use in a still... This eliminates only one of the many dangers involved in this hobby, but its a start. We're not talking about ways to cobble together some prison toilet hootch, we want to make a good, (relatively) safe product. The best you can say about this plastic bucket and aquarium heater still is that it will generally perform the function of an ethanol seperator. Maybe we can start a new forum or section here to discuss these types of still. maybe jailhousetoiletbooze.com???

Plenty of stuff about Teflon (PTFE) on this thread:

http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... on&start=0

This subject has been discussed and re-discussed to death. I agree, a 130 dollar bucket is not worth talking about.

I'm done with this thread.

Aidas

rkr i reckon when they went to space they come up with a hole bunch of new stuff but i cant see how if you put a hp pipe burn under that plastic
kettle an stoke it there aint gonna be problem.
dont no them folks but who do them folks get paid by

junkyard dawg wrote:Tested how? what methodology? was a GCMS involved or did it just look ok?

Riku, I respect your knowledge of stills and appurtances, but I respectfully disagree. I had a few years of working in a plastic testing lab to determine my stance. Even tho the risk from some of the things talked about in this post may be small, I believe in the interest of general safety that only the best practices should be advocated on this forum. or any other distilling forum. When I see the best distillers in the world using a plastic boiler I might think twice, but until then....

There are proven safe materials to use in a still... This eliminates only one of the many dangers involved in this hobby, but its a start. We're not talking about ways to cobble together some prison toilet hootch, we want to make a good, (relatively) safe product. The best you can say about this plastic bucket and aquarium heater still is that it will generally perform the function of an ethanol seperator. Maybe we can start a new forum or section here to discuss these types of still. maybe jailhousetoiletbooze.com???

I don't know whether Mikes used lab gear for their tests. Personally I'm poor amateur who will have to rely on my senses for testing. I do test any materials before use by soaking stuff at hot 95.6% alcohol and afterwards testing the alcohol for any off-smells/tastes. Also tested visual appearance for coloring. Practical tests have been roughly 150 hours continuous run at low power ambient cooled stills. Using that methodology I discovered that PP does indeed leach softeners if used in column, at least certain brands do. Boiler however was fine and similar tests using copper column and PP boiler have shown no problems.

I'm not saying there couldn't be miniscule amounts of something in the spirits that can only be detected by cromatogrophy. However, if you are that worried about getting microscopic amounts of stuff into your system you shouldn't drink booze or smoke or use any plastic in the kitchen either.

Those PP buckets can be had for ~10$ here so they are OK alternatives for boilers with internal elements. You also need some gaskets and there PTFE and silicone come to play. Other than that I see no need for plastics in stills, well - there are some commercial plans to build tower column using moulded PP tray elements which could be quite interesting.

BTW, how many of you have checked the o-rings in your needle valves? I know many valves have o-rings made from non-nitrile rubber causing all kinds of nasties to leach to your spirits.

Cheers, Riku

rkr wrote:

tater wrote:[
Two other plastic that can be used and are commonly available are PTFE and aquarium grade RTV silicone. Other types of silicones have also been tested succesfully.

Cheers, Riku

tested by who?Please show info where they are ok to use in a still.

By me, by Mike Nixon & Mike McCaw, by Harry Jackson (Harry actually found some other silicones that work well) and countless others you probably don't recognize. I've read one report about problems with Teflon and in that case person in question was using pink HD teflon tape, not the white one that is documented.

If none of the names above are familiar I suggest you do some reading.

Cheers, Riku[/quote]Like I thought bullshit. Know who those guys are.You throw up names but I asked for the research saying they are ok to use in a still by an independent study whos not working for a plastics company . Ive read all the stuff I could find online about aquarium grade RTV silicone and dont see any thing saying its ok to use in stills.One thing I did find take any plastic that says its safe and you can find reports saying it isnt.

I don't know why you bother arguing with them Tater. Every week or so there's another one. If these people are convinced plastics and silicones are safe to use so be it. They obviously know it all, so why do they bring it to this board demanding proof that it isn't safe . Personally I don't give a rat's ass what these guy use for materials in their stills, I'm never going to be drinking their swill anyway. Like you said before it's called thinning the herd.

Junkyard Dawg had a great idea. Create a new section called Jailhouse Toilet Hooch and move all these kind of posts into it as they come up. That way these guys can go there and convince themselves that it's ok to use questionable materials (after all nobody's given any proof that their not safe) That way we can use the rest of the forum for intelligent discussions.

I was going to say something, but it would go right over the heads of those it would be directed at.

Carry on...

Best to just leave these people alone Riku and let them be set in their ways so to speak. Any opinion that isn't theirs is obviously wrong.

I'd like to hear it xylic... pm me if its not appropriate to the forum.

Riku, you as usual, have a good point.

I'm not saying there couldn't be miniscule amounts of something in the spirits that can only be detected by cromatogrophy. However, if you are that worried about getting microscopic amounts of stuff into your system you shouldn't drink booze or smoke or use any plastic in the kitchen either.

So how do we address the issue of people using clearly bad materials in their stills and gettting large doses of toxic material? folks will do some crazy things to get a drink...

I'm not directing my comments anyone in specific. It's just these posts come up again and again and again. You point out to someone that a material is questionable, and they start demanding you show them proof somewhere that says it's not safe.

The key word here is questionable. These guys who say they soaked a piece of silicone in ethanol for a few day and can't smell or taste anything doesn't mean it's okay to use. That is not proof it's safe to use in a still.

Food grade silicon is safe for food (don't assume it's safe for ethanol production) Aquarium sealer is safe to use around fish (fish swim in water not ethanol) Does it say on the package " also safe to use for the distillation of ethanol"? I think not.

A lot of people here are assuming various sealers and plastics are safe because they haven't found any literature saying there not. Wrong Logic

If I saw an legitimate independent laboratory analasis where they tested ethanol for specific chemicals which could leach out a specific sealant.... and none showed up then Yes I would be convinced that that paricular sealant is safe material to use No one has shown that here yet. Until then I will continue to use materials that are known to be safe and advise others to do the same.

Riku,
You'll never change Tater's viewpoint on PTFE or silicones. Each to his own & everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But FYI, here's something which you may find useful in making up your own mind (one way or the other).

------------------------------------------------------

Gaskets
Gore sealants are among the world's tightest chemically-resistant gaskets. Made from 100 percent expanded PTFE, GORE™ gaskets are suitable for use throughout the entire pH range, except molten alkali metals and elemental fluorine. These gaskets withstand temperatures from -450oF to 600oF (-268oC to 315o C), making them ideal for both high temperature and cryogenic applications.

GASKET TAPE FOR GLASS-LINED EQUIPMENT

GORE™ Series 600 Gasket Tape is a form-in-place gasket for glass-lined equipment, that guards against premature sealing failure. Unlike PTFE envelope gaskets, GORE™ Series 600 Gasket Tape will not degrade due to chemical attack, ensuring a tight, long-lasting seal. The entire gasket is chemically inert, so the user will not experience the sealing problems associated with aggressive media or the outside environment. It conforms to the imperfections common in glass-lined flange surfaces, while maintaining dimensional stability for superior sealing reliability.

http://www.gore.com/en_xx/products/seal ... _tape.html

------------------------------------------------------


GORE™ Series 600 Gasket Tape Case Histories


Application-Glass-Lined Distillation Column, 70 Feet Tall, 42 Inches Diameter, Six Sections

Summary
A processor handling methanol at 15 psig and 215o F, using envelope gaskets, had experienced eight unplanned shutdowns over two years due to leaks. These outages resulted in significant operational and maintenance costs for the plant.

To protect against chemical attack while ensuring a tight, long-lasting seal, GORE™ Series 600 Gasket Tape was used.

Results
GORE™ Series 600 Gasket Tape was installed in January and has remained sealed as of September 2001. For the plant, reduction of unplanned outages results in nearly $250,000 per production day recaptured and $50,000 per installation effort eliminated.

http://www.gore.com/en_xx/products/seal ... tape1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps a few more people need to get a dictionary.

Definition: Inert

In English, to be inert is to be in a state of doing little or nothing.

In chemistry, the term inert is used to describe something that is not chemically active. The noble gases were described as being inert because they did not react with the other elements or themselves. It is now understood that the reason that inert gases are completely inert to basic chemical reactions (such as combustion, for example), is because their outer valence shell is completely filled with electrons. With a filled outer valence shell, an inert atom is not able to acquire or lose an electron, and is therefore not able to participate in any chemical reactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert
------------------------------------------------------



It was me who gathered all the necessary info on metals to use in distilling, and finally put the Aluminum issue to bed (that subject had been ongoing for years).
Home Distiller Forum Index -> Research and Theory: Sticky: Still metal question



Maybe this info on PTFE series 600 and the methanol still column will drag a few kicking & screaming into the 21st century, but I'm not hopeful.

But hey, the simplest gasket of all is a ribbon or cutout shape from 100% cotton cloth. Soak it in a watery solution of flour & water (aka 'sizing'). Put it in place & screw or clamp the pieces together. It'll NEVER leak!

All this aside, I'm in complete agreement with others about the plastic bucket still which started this thread. Overpriced, a waste of time & money. Good booze requires good equipment. Poor results gotten by first-timers usually puts them off the hobby altogether. They'll never know what they're missing.

.

Actually all you have to do is to go to the company's website who produces the product. I use DAP silicone for example on some gaskets on the plastic still I use for stripping. The particular kind I am using said that it is food safe and also safe for use around solvents after it is cured.

JD, it was inflammatory and I thought the better of it given the fact that I have read this forum for a long time and never posted. It looks like things have cleared themselves up now that Harry has joined in, so no need.

Xyl

I figured it was inflammatory...

I'm working on some drywall today and that makes me wanna fight... the devils wallboard.... finally done.

Well I guess we'll put this topic away for now. I'm sure it'll be back soon enough.

Riku, I took out the rubber orings in my cheap brass needle valves and replaced it with ptfe tape. took a few tries to get it right, but works fine. hasn't leaked yet. I had done a few runs with the rubber and it crumbled with it came off.

every company out there is careless with the truth on ocasions
ask for one of them metrial safety data sheets on whatever you gonna use an read carefuly

well sed.

914
January 31, 2004


Toxic Teflon Frying Pans
Categories
Environment
Health

The Fumes from non-stick frying pans lined with fluorine compounds such as Teflon, can be deadly to birds. We don't seem to understand that warning sign very well, although Canaries have for a long time been used to warn miners of deadly gases in the 'underworld'. A recent report available on the site of the Environmental Working Group accuses Du Pont, maker of Teflon non-stick material used in frying pans and non-stick cookware.

In cases of "Teflon toxicosis," as the bird poisonings are called, the lungs of exposed birds hemorrhage and fill with fluid, leading to suffocation. DuPont acknowledges that the fumes can also sicken people, a condition called "polymer fume fever." DuPont has never studied the incidence of the fever among users of the billions of non-stick pots and pans sold around the world. Neither has the company studied the long-term effects from the sickness, or the extent to which Teflon exposures lead to human illnesses believed erroneously to be the common flu.

Fluoride in frying pans, fluoride in the drinking water, fluoride in toothpase, fluoride in a large selection of pharmaceutical drugs. Would anyone care to explain to me why we are putting ourselves at high risk of poisoning by fluoride?

Update 9 July 2004 - An article in the New York Times - E.P.A. Says It Will Fine DuPont for Holding Back Test Results - relates that DuPont did some testing on a toxic compound related to its Teflon product. The EPA is charging DuPont for withholding the test results:

ASHINGTON, July 8 - The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that it would fine the DuPont chemical company for failing to report test results on a chemical related to the manufacturing of Teflon.

DuPont conducted tests that showed that the chemical, known as C-8, was transmitted from a pregnant DuPont worker to her fetus and that traces of it were found in public drinking water in communities near DuPont facilities, but the company did not reveal that it had done the tests, the agency said.

Congress cannot mandate such testing by a chemical company, but if testing is conducted, the results must be made public, according to the Toxic Substance Control Act.

The E.P.A. also found DuPont in violation for failing to provide all of the toxicological data it had gathered on the chemical after a 1997 request from the agency.

DuPont said it would contest the fines. "We believe that we have complied with the guidelines and the reporting requirements," R. Clifton Webb, a company spokesman, said.

A spokesman for the E.P.A. said the agency would impose a multi-million dollar fine, but he declined to be more specific.

It is unclear whether C-8, or perfluorooctanoic acid, is harmful to humans. In one study, researchers concluded that it caused developmental defects in rats, but the results could not be replicated.

In 1981, DuPont had results of blood tests conducted on pregnant workers, which showed that C-8 had been transmitted from a worker to her developing fetus, the E.P.A. said. The child appeared to be normal at birth, but the agency's complaint does not say if the child was monitored thereafter.

In 1991, the agency said, DuPont compiled evidence that C-8 levels in drinking water in communities along the Ohio River, near the company's plant in Washington, W.Va., exceeded an exposure level set by company's internal guidelines.

In March 2001, a lawyer representing residents along the river in a class-action lawsuit against DuPont sent copies of the test results to the agency.

Here is the BBC News article.

Frying pan fumes 'kill canaries'
By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

Fumes given off by cancer-causing chemicals used to make non-stick frying pans are killing hundreds of pet birds every year, environmentalists say.

The Worldwide Fund for Nature says it is hearing reports that many US caged birds are being killed by the fumes.

It says the chemicals, perfluorinated compounds, are also contaminating both people and wildlife with grave effects.

The chemicals industry says it doubts that birds exposed to ordinary levels of the compounds could die from them.

Guilty till proved harmless

In a report, Causes For Concern: Chemicals and Wildlife, WWF says the compounds, also used in some textiles and food packaging, are among "the most prominent new toxic hazards".

It says: "Scientists have found perfluorinated compounds, classified as cancer-causing chemicals by the US Environmental Protection Agency, in dolphins, whales and cormorants in the Mediterranean; seals and sea eagles in the Baltic; and polar bears."

Elizabeth Salter-Green, head of WWF's toxics programme, said: "Years ago, coal miners took canaries with them down the pits to detect lethal gases.

"Now, canaries are dying in our kitchens, but no action is being taken about the suspect chemicals.

"The global production of chemicals is increasing, and at the same time we have warning signals that a variety of troubling threats to wildlife and human health are becoming more prevalent.

"It is reckless to suggest there is no link between the two and give chemicals the benefit of the doubt."

WWF says while the harmful effects of chemicals like DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls have been documented, recent studies of other chemicals on sale today show the dangers to people and wildlife.

It says: "As well as perfluorinated compounds other harmful man-made chemicals still in use today include phthalates, phenolic compounds - such as bisphenol A - and brominated flame retardants (BFRs).

"Phthalates can be found in plastics (including PVC), phenolic compounds in food cans, plastic bottles and computer casings, and BFRs in fabrics and TVs.

Brussels' approach defended

"These toxic compounds, which contaminate a wide range of animals, can cause severe health disorders such as cancer, damage to the immune system, behavioural problems, hormone disruption, or even feminisation."

WWF says the European Union's planned legislation, Reach (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) does not go far enough.

It says Reach "falls short of ensuring that hazardous chemicals are replaced with safer alternatives".

Judith Hackitt, director-general of the UK's Chemical Industries Association, told BBC News Online: "It sounds highly unlikely to me that birds exposed to perfluorinated compounds in normal household conditions would be killed.

"With them and the other chemicals WWF is concerned about, the industry is spending a lot on investigating them.

"And with Reach, it's a big assumption to say replacement won't happen - I think it will."

Story from BBC NEWS

Published: 2004/01/29 14:42:36 GMT


See also related:


Teflon trouble sticking to DuPont
Chemical used in coating may be making people sick
Agency claims company withheld evidence of concerns
(August 9, 2004)

DuPont's troubled chemical
C-8 is widespread in the environment. How did it get there, and should we be worried?

E.P.A. Says It Will Fine DuPont for Holding Back Test Results

Hearth & Home: Watched Pots
It's not just what you cook, it's what you cook in - by Elizabeth Larsen

Teflon linked to birth defects and illness

Teflon Chemicals are a Threat to Health - Dr. Mercola

Teflon questions and Eliminate the use of Teflon

Teflon linked to birth defects and illness; but is it safe to use in cooking?
Dupont is facing new charges from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that it concealed research showing that pregnant workers were passing on Teflon chemicals to their unborn children. The EPA has also accused Dupont of failing to report evidence that the chemicals used to manufacture Teflon had contaminated water supplies affecting 12,000 people in the local area. Many of those affected families are suing Dupont.

Teflon's sticky situation - By Chris Summers - BBC News Online
It's on saucepans, clothing, even buildings, but now Teflon - the famed non-stick chemical - is at the centre of a slippery controversy about cancer and birth defects.

DuPont has hidden harmful effects of Teflon for 50 years

U.S. Officials Accuse DuPont of Concealing Teflon Ingredient's Health Risk

Toxic Gore-tex
Skip the gory Gore-tex and wander winter wrapped in warm, green alternatives

Teflon Chemical in Drinking Water Costs DuPont $107 Million

More Troubles With Teflon Toxicity

Board: Teflon Cancer Risks Downplayed
By RANDALL CHASE - The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; 9:50 PM
DOVER, Del. -- A controversial chemical used by DuPont to make the nonstick substance Teflon poses more of a cancer risk than indicated in a draft assessment by the Environmental Protection Agency, an independent review board has found. The EPA stated earlier this year that its draft risk assessment of perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts found "suggestive evidence" of potential human carcinogenicity, based on animal studies. In a draft report released Monday, the majority of members on an EPA scientific advisory board that reviewed the agency's report concluded that PFOA, also known as C-8, is "likely" to be carcinogenic to humans, and that the EPA should conduct cancer risk assessments for a variety of tumors found in mice and rats.

Teflon firm faces fresh lawsuit
BBC News, 19 July 2005 - US chemicals giant DuPont is facing a lawsuit accusing the company of failing to warn consumers about the health hazards of Teflon non-stick coatings. Two Florida law firms said they were filing the suit on behalf of 14 people who bought and used Teflon cookware. DuPont denied the claims, stating its products were safe and has vowed to vigorously defend itself. Plaintiffs want DuPont to spend $5bn to replace million of people's pots and pans and to issue Teflon warnings. They also want a fund to be created for medical monitoring of people who bought Teflon products.

CONSUMERS BEWARE: TEFLON CAN GIVE YOU CANCER
After ignoring numerous warnings from independent scientists for years, the "nonstick" chemical used in Teflon has now officially been categorized as a "likely carcinogen" by the U.S. government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA scientists found four different types of tumors in lab animals exposed to the chemical. The agency announced it plans to collect millions of dollars in fines from DuPont, the maker of Teflon, for concealing studies indicating related health and environmental risks for over two decades.

Teflon May Be Just The Tip Of the Iceberg...

DuPont Warned Long Ago About Teflon in Paper Products

DuPont Pays Heavy Price For Teflon Cover-Up
DuPont's cover-up over allegations it failed to reveal the dangers of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) -- the chemical used to make Teflon -- reached closure when the company and the EPA agreed to a settlement that could amount to more than $300 million in civil fines.

EPA Fines Dupont for Poisoning Consumers with Teflon Cookware
From: Environment News Service

Failure to Reveal Teflon Manufacturing Risk Costs DuPont $16.5 Million
DuPont has agreed to pay a $10.25 million fine for failing to report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk information about a chemical used in the manufacture of fluoropolymers, including some Teflon® products. Fluoropolymers impart desirable properties, including fire resistance and oil, stain, grease, and water repellency. They are used to provide non-stick surfaces on cookware and waterproof, breathable membranes for clothing. Under the settlement, filed with the agency's Environmental Appeals Board, Dupont is also committing to $6.25 million for Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), for a total of $16.5 million.

EPA Calls For Teflon Ban
Jan 26, 2006
Considering all the bad news stemming from DuPont's negligent behavior regarding perfluorooctanoic acid -- a chemical used to produce Teflon -- the EPA has asked eight manufacturers to eliminate their production of that toxic substance by 2015.

Seattle Times, Feb,08.
Suspected carcinogen found in cord blood
BALTIMORE - A suspected carcinogen used to make Teflon was found in nearly all the umbilical cord blood samples tested by researchers at Johns Hopkins Hospital. The researchers are now trying to determine whether it has harmed the newborns.

Leg Pain Disappears by Throwing Away Teflon Cookware

Consumer fraud alert: Swiss Diamond non-stick cookware made with same chemical as Teflon



posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Saturday January 31 2004
updated on Wednesday November 15 2006
Print this article

TrackBack

URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/20 ... g_pans.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow




Related Articles

Fluoride and IQ
The practice of dumping toxic-waste fluorosilicates into public water supplies in the name of fighting tooth decay has just received another damper. According to a recently released Chinese study, there is a clear relation between fluoride levels in the water that is consumed by a population and low Intelligence quotient scores of children who do the consuming. I wonder why there is a generalized push to introduce fluoridation in some... [read more]
August 25, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger

Fluoride - no thank you!
Bradford (UK) - A motion to say "no" to fluoridation of Bradford's water supply was passed by a large majority on July 1, 2003. The Motion was presented to the Lord Mayor and Members of Bradford Council (UK) by Councillor Martin Love of the Green Party. It passed by a large majority and no amendments were brought, showing the full support of Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Greens and most of... [read more]
July 03, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger

Fluoride Linked to Obesity Epidemic, Thyroid Trouble
Could it be that the obesity epidemic that is plaguing the US, the UK and other countries is linked to fluoride in drinking water? Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield certainly seems to support that possibility when he says that "there is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones", adding that "people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland." But in addition... [read more]
July 12, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger

PTFE and PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic Acid) - Teflon
Further to my earlier note following are some data that I dug up on Teflon. We are getting too many toxic fluorine compounds form pesticides, water and food and now cooking utensils... See also: Toxic Teflon Frying Pans 'Green Gasoline' Benzene Leukemia Risk In Children Confirmed ... Chris Gupta ------------------------ Comments from Paul Connett, PhD: Teflon is the trade name for the polymer polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) used in electrical insulating tape;... [read more]
December 14, 2004 - Chris Gupta

DuPont Pays Heavy Price For Teflon Cover-Up
Here is more on: PTFE and PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic Acid) - Teflon. Chris Gupta ----------------------------------- DuPont Pays Heavy Price For Teflon Cover-Up DuPont Co. has reached a settlement with federal officials over the charges that DuPont had concealed the harmful health effects of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used to produce Teflon. As Much as $313 Million Neither DuPont nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have disclosed the terms of the... [read more]
December 14, 2005 - Chris Gupta

Definition of "Halogen-free" Leaves Many Materials Incorrectly Classified

The fluorine loophole

Editorial Comment by:
John M. Moritz, Jr.
President
JMME, Inc.

While chlorine and bromine are widely recognized, reported and restricted as halogens in many applications, it is noteworthy that fluorine, iodine, and astatine (other Group 17/VIIA halogens on the Periodic Table of the Elements) are not restricted in the accepted industry definitions of "halogen-free". Dependent on the industry considering the "halogen-free" designator, chlorine and bromine are the only halogens restricted and then at levels below 900-1,000 parts per million.

In the case of fluorine used in plastics, many anti-drip agents employed in "halogen-free" plastic compounds including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), better known as Teflon®, contain fluorine and the anti-drip agents have been reported to be used in the 0.1-1.4 wt% range. Some of these products can contain significant quantities of fluorine exceeding the level typically accepted under IEC 61249-2-21 as content limits established for other halogens (0.09% or 900 parts per million). In other cases, fluorinated salts may be formulated into plastic products at typical levels of 800 parts per million, especially plastic parts produced from polycarbonate, to impart flame retardant properties while the product is labeled "halogen-free."

Additionally, it is noteworthy to consider that fluorinated polymeric resins incorporated or alloyed into a plastic compound also do not contribute to the "halogen-free" standing of a finished polymer because of the omission of fluorine from the list of considered halogens. Such fluorinated resins that could be incorporated or alloyed to impart improved electrical, flammability and processing properties include:

* polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF),
* ethylenetrifluoroethylene (ETFE)
* copolymers of ethylene and chlorotrifluoroethylene (ECTFE)
* polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
* fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP)

The apparent omission of fluorine, a halogen used in polymeric additives and plastics that are subsequently compounded into other plastics regularly to impart flame resistance and other properties, is due primarily to test methodology and limitations in detecting fluorine. The test methods employed to detect bromine and chlorine do not have the capability to detect fluorine and as such fluorine is left undetected and unreported although it too is a halogen. Without significant address in test methodology, it is unlikely that total halogen content will be considered by regulators in the near future; however, environmentalists have become aware of fluorine toxicology and the potential human effects in recent developments related to groundwater contamination by fluorinated compounds and potential effects of thermal decomposition of PTFE.

Recent concerns over the potential toxicological effects of groundwater contamination by some fluorinated precursors and by-products including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in the United States as well as potential human toxicological effects caused through contact with products containing PTFE produced by DuPont, better known as Teflon®, could cause a review of this apparent dual status for halogen materials used throughout industry. According to the environmental investigative organization Environmental Working Group:

"…in the past five years, the multi-billion dollar "perfluorochemical" (PFC) industry, which underpins such world-famous brands as Teflon®, Stainmaster®, Scotchgard® and Gore-Tex®, has emerged as a regulatory priority for scientists and officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The PFC family is characterized by chains of carbon atoms of varying lengths, to which fluorine atoms are strongly bonded, yielding essentially indestructible chemicals that until recently were thought to be biologically inert. No one thinks so now."

Since 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has undertaken a significant review of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). [US EPA PFOA Factsheet] In 2000, the US EPA peremptorily forced the elimination of PFOS, the chemical used for decades as the active ingredient in the popular Scotchgard® stain and water repellant from 3M. At about the same time, 3M ceased manufacture of the related perfluorochemical PFOA.

Throughout 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has had PFOA under intense regulatory scrutiny due to reports of groundwater contamination. PFOA is most widely used in the manufacture of PTFE. One significant brand of PTFE under scrutiny is Dupont Teflon®. Due to findings from toxicity studies and by the presence of PFOA in the blood of more than 90 percent of the United States population, the United States Environmental Protection Agency continues its review of human toxicity studies and potential health effects.

In December 2005, Dupont reached a US$16.5 million settlement agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in an enforcement action related to the chemical compound PFOA; this settlement follows a civil settlement of US$107 million in March 2005 on related matters concerning alleged PFOA contamination of local drinking water by Dupont in West Virginia, USA.

In 2006, the issue of PFOA and PFOS content in plastics and other materials will be considered by many states. In California (USA), a coalition consisting of the United Steelworkers (USW), Sierra Club, Environmental Law Foundation, Environment California, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed a petition to have PFOA listed as "a chemical that is known to the state to cause cancer" under California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Proposition 65. If adopted, the finding would require information labels on products based on specific toxicological findings under California Right to Know requirements. Additionally, a preliminary report on perfluorochemical contamination in Minnesota was considered by the Senate Environmental Committee in February 2006.

In April 2006, sixteen lawsuits filed in a US$5 billion class-action suit have been transferred to a Federal Court in Des Moines, Iowa, USA. Court papers allege Teflon® makers withheld information about chemicals used to make Teflon® chemicals that are allegedly released when the pans are heated. Dupont, the manufacturer of Teflon® says the material is safe.

With the settlements in recent cases, pending class actions in Iowa (USA) related to potential human poisoning from fluorinated stick-free cooking surfaces and the information that has now been developed and exchanged during peer review, environmental watchdog groups and regulatory officials alike are continuing their reviews and investigations into the widespread use of perfluorochemicals in many industries with no immediate indication of potential outcome. It should be noted that the use of perfluorochemicals as anti-drip agents and flame retardants or the use of fluorinated polymers like PVDF or FEP has not been affected by any of the investigations to this point. However, because the use of perfluorochemicals is allowed within the guidelines of "halogen-free" materials, the reformulation of polymeric materials to eliminate the use of these scrutinized materials provides for significant opportunity from a technological development standpoint in providing truly "non-halogen" materials for the marketplace.

John Moritz is President of JMME, Inc., (http://www.jmme.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow) a consulting firm providing manufacturers, end users and regulators with advice and strategic guidance on the important role plastics play in today's corporate and personal worlds. Since its inception, JMME has been dedicated to corporate responsibility for developing safe products, effective protections provided by codes and standards for the safe use of plastic products and the overall protection of sports participants and spectators through effective testing and development of plastic sports equipment. John has written numerous articles and presentations on issues related to the selection of plastics in various industries and their potential effects on the marketplace, environment and regulatory processes. John serves on numerous codes and standards technical committees where he has fought diligently to preserve the consensus process and the integrity of the documents. Inquiries are encouraged and welcomed.

Copyright 2006, JMME, Inc., All rights reserved

As much as I would love to rest easy with silicone (it seals very well), I have to side with Tater until someone shows some proof that doesn't come from name dropping or 'there was a study' or some testimony from the product's manufacturer.

I think it's careless and wrong for us to advise others to use it until we actually know the truth, which we DO NOT.

I was using the food grade silicone, but not anymore. I must say, I enjoy the peace of mind that I have since I stopped using it. I will happily switch back to it when I see some proof from a reliable source.

Hey NZ folks, since distilling is legal out there, can one of you guys take one for the team and soak some silicone in hot booze and get it analyzed for us?

Please? A lot of us here would probably chip in for the cost.

I'm with you guys on the materials and MSDSes and I'm sure that this has been put forward before but... The standard that everyone seems to accept for the "traditional" materials seems to be "we've been doing it for ages and it tastes ok" while something like silicone gets the full lab analysis. Something like cork (or oak, or corn for that matter) isn't automatically safe just because it's natural. Heck if you actually read the the data on copper, you'd have to conclude that it's bad for you...

I fretted about my solder for ages, then had lunch at the local deli. If I eat there once a week, and run an average amount of product through my still (and over the same single solder joint every single time) which one is likely to contribute more unknowns to my diet?

I'm not disagreeing with anything being said here (and pity the op) but silicone is used all over the place in baking these days (seriously - cook food in plastic! my reaction as well...) Higher heats, acidic foods, you name it. Industry loves the stuff because it is easy to clean, and releases well.

I'm slowly working toward getting rid of most of the plastics in my life, but to be honest the wood is as much of a hazard (talk to my sinuses). Ceramics and glass have the potential to be "clean" and some metals are better for your biology than others, but it isn't an easy job in today's world. A plastic still certainly doesn't fit in with this ethic, but neither does the plastic bottle that my food and water comes in (you mix anything with that pristine drink?). A little less rhetoric would help some of the new guys around here...

Just a newb's 2 cents...

DM


-----
(LuNaTiX: a simple inline reflux is 60$ and an afternoon's work away for small volumes. Maybe your next project. I'd still like to hear how this one turns out)

Since everyone is so keen to come down on the additives in booze, I feel obliged to break my silence on the REAL dangerous ingredient, ie the ETHANOL.

HUHHH!!!, you say? Bear with me & have a good read.

Goose Eye said:
every company out there is careless with the truth on ocasions
ask for one of them metrial safety data sheets on whatever you gonna use an read carefuly

Ordinarily that would be sound advice. However, it doesn't always hold up for all situations. Take the case of ETHANOL (yeah, the stuff we're fiddling with).

The MSDS on that says it's a POISON, an eye irritant, damages liver, intestines and any number of nasty things. If you drink a bottle of whiskey in around 5 minutes (who'd be that stupid?) it WILL KILL YOU.

But it doesn't prevent us from using it. Why is that? Why are we more worried about a bit of plastic than the documented horrors that ethanol can cause? Do we believe we're capable of managing it? Not without ALL the facts, as I'll explain.

Before the rise of the Internet, we mere mortals didn't even have ready access to these MSDS nor any number of other pieces of info that we SHOULD HAVE. Medicos, scientists, govt bodies etc. had them, but not us. Why?

Now I'm going to spill my guts on what is a very raw & painful truth for my family.


My wife was a social drinker up until 5 years ago when she quit altogether. That's part of the reason I took up the hobby many years ago, to defray our social costs.

She drank throughout all our pregnancies. All our kids (4) have FASD which is only just now manifesting itself in their anti-social behaviour at school. One has Aspergers (ASD-autism), & one has ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). Two others are suspect ODD.

We've known about and managed the first two for seven years, never really knowing or being told what was the cause. We just thought we were unlucky. Little did we know the full extent of the problem, that it was incurable, but above all, that it could have been PREVENTED!!

It's only in the last month that the TRUE underlying cause in all four kids has been pinpointed, FASD or Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Most days now our house is like a war zone. The agressiveness in the kids attitudes is really ramping up. They feed off each other! & we're in the middle trying to restore law & order.

I don't blame my wife. Neither she nor any of us knew what far-reaching affects drinking during pregnancy could have (remember this was pre-internet, pre- the information age). The doctors never picked it up, because there wasn't much info around on it until recently. Even now, some medicos say it's "alright" to have a couple of drinks while pregnant.

It turns out that some can drink all they want and have no problems, while others only need to drink one or two per day or drink at a particular stage of pregnancy to have these damaging effects. We were unlucky to be in the latter group.

Now we have to live with it, manage it, & learn/teach/train the kids AND their school educators on managing it. There's bugger-all help or support coming from govt. They don't want to know.

Canada is the most enlightened country on this, with lots of support. USA doesn't have much, currently pushing for legislation. Here in AU there's ONE small non-govt help group in the entire country.

I've included a link about FASD. Have a read, it's an eye-opener.
http://www.come-over.to/FASCRC/


As you can imagine, I'm in a quandary as to which way to jump on this, me being the 'supposed booze expert'.
Do I mount the white charger and crusade against alcohol? That would not achieve a thing, & I'd be a hypocrite.

Do I warn all & sundry of the dangers of drinking during pregnancy? That would be useful, but probably not taken seriously.

Do I say nothing? Can't do that. These forums are about educating people on alcohol, the good AND the bad.

Do I quit the forums? You tell me!

Anything I do or say on the subject will immediately draw "Please explain your position" requests from all who know me, online AND in real life. I can just hear the comments..."Jeez, what a hypocrite!"..."Fuckin' idiot, don't he or his missus have a brain?"

In my/our defense, I state again that NOBODY had a clue 15 years ago this 'could' be the results of what most folk consider to be just social drinking. Certainly the medicos are only now revealing it. Before the internet, there was NO INFO! It's all come too late for us. Medical science won't be any help to us. Frontal lobe damage cannot be repaired.


This is completely at odds with my hobby, my pastime, my interests.

Shit! it would be easier to be a gay person "coming out"! (I'm not, by the way)

So there's where we're at. It's a very uncomfortable seat in the gallery of life.

The point I'm trying to make is that the ETHANOL itself is probably far more dangerous to humans than anything that may be inadvertantly included in it. I'd wager you could grind up a plastic bucket and eat it for breakfast & only give yourself a nasty guts-ache. People should worry more about the garbage they are feeding the yeast to make the ethanol in the first place. Yeast is quite capable of making any number of poisonous chemicals, it all depends what you feed it & how you stress it.

I still enjoy the hobby and my whisky, but I would strongly advise any budding young mothers out there to have a real good think about the possible consequences of even a couple of drinks while pregnant. Fathers aren't off the hook either. Alcohol deforms sperm cells. And as for the current trend of binge drinking at college, FORGET IT !!!

Now that the full info on pregnancy & alcohol is available, the situation will change. Look out for the future where parents will be sued by their handicapped kids for criminal negligence.

I intend to cross-post this to my own Yahoo distillers groups. Everyone who knows me should be informed of this. It ain't easy hangin' yer ass out.

Sorry, but I am going to cross post my reply from the Yahoo Distillers group.

I really have to say that it has been known for longer than 15 years that drinking while pregnant can cause problems to the fetus. There were surgeon general warnings about it. I know because the bar I was frequenting 15 years ago (when I was 15) had an old warning sign hanging up. Hell, I happen to own that sign now that the bar is closed down. Plus beer bottles had that warning years before (I know, I was drinking them!).

As for the kids, I really don't think the alcohol the wife "socially drank," if that is all she did drink, had a major bearing on their behavior. People like to make excuses for their shortcomings as parents. And doctors like to make money on prescribing drugs for behaviors instead of trying to work them out. There is a drug and a name for everything and no one wants to accept that they just can't handle their kids or don't discipline them. Super Nanny with a cattle prod needs to go in there and open up a can of whoop-ass because the parents don't do it. If it is a battle-zone in the house then the parents are really to blame. Not a few social drinks while the kid was invitro. But after reseach that was done on the web, I guess every problem can be explained. Unless those social drinks throughout every pregnancy was a bit more than what is alluded to.

Everybody has to blame something other than themselves. Poor parenting skills.... I see it every goddamn day when I go to work.

The point I'm trying to make is that the ETHANOL itself is probably far more dangerous to humans than anything that may be inadvertantly included in it.

Harry

Ethanol is by far the most acutely and chronically toxic chemical humans (willingly) take in any significant quanitity.

In many parts of the world, including Australia, a big fraction of the admissions to hospital casualty departments are alcohol (ethanol) related. And an awful lot of the health and welfare system's resources are also spent trying to deal with the long term effects of alcohol abuse.

Hey NZ folks, since distilling is legal out there, can one of you guys take one for the team and soak some silicone in hot booze and get it analyzed for us?

Please? A lot of us here would probably chip in for the cost.

MasonJar

Excellent idea. I'd happily throw in $20-30 towards a properly controlled chemical analysis of standard PTFE plumbing thread tape in high strength (90%+), high temperature ethanol.

Silicone is a different story, apart from anything else there are many different types of silicone, whereas PTFE is a specific standardised chemical.

="Harry"
All our kids (4) have FASD which is only just now manifesting itself in their anti-social behaviour at school. One has Aspergers (ASD-autism), & one has ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). Two others are suspect ODD.

Sorry to hear that Harry. I hope you and your family are able to find some peace. Good luck.

Cheers,
J

harry may god bless you an yours


we was talkin about silicone an trustin company websites for the truth