The staff at the British Aerosol Manufacturers’ Association (BAMA) is terrible at throwing anything away. In a recent “tidy up,” we generated 15 sacks of wastepaper, which were sent away to be shredded and recycled. However, before we did this, everything was packed up, sent to be scanned and stored on our ever-expanding cloud drive archive.
One of the dangers of having an extensive archive is that sometimes you go off to find one piece of information to answer a question and then get drawn in, spending long hours reading back through old discussions, comparing filling stats from years gone by, finding pictures of people you knew—and still know—and then sniggering at how they have changed while you are still as handsome, vital and debonair as you were 25 years ago.
However, what is odd (or maybe isn’t) is that many of the issues we faced back in the day, we still continue to face today. Take, for example, this discussion in the BAMA Annual Report from 1963 on hairspray and the potential risks of inhalation of hairspray resins:
Given that the products we make, whether from a pressurized aerosol can, trigger or pump dispenser, go up into the air around us as they are used, it is not a surprise that researchers and regulators are as concerned about the potentially detrimental effects from inhalation today as they were back in 1963.
Measuring VOCs today
Today, analytical techniques have become significantly more accurate and, probably more importantly from a research perspective, portable. BAMA is involved with one such study and part of its work involves traveling around to different cities measuring volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions using a mass spectrometer (in the back of a van) that is sampling the air around it. BAMA can then map the level of VOCs as it travels along the high street or in industrial areas.
It probably won’t come as a surprise that the mass spectrometer sees higher levels of VOCs when passing hair salons and nail bars, and there are also spikes in the industrial areas traveled through. The study is also finding spikes when traveling past restaurants and takeaways as a combination of gas stoves, cooking oil and the frying of various ingredients releases a whole variety of materials into the local atmosphere. The study is also making similar measurements in the home.
The question is: what is the danger to public health from being exposed to these materials? As an industry, we make detailed health assessments of the products we place on the market. There are constant changes to regulations that require the reduction or elimination of ingredients as new scientific data becomes available. The 1963 formulation of a hairspray, for example, is very different to those on the market in 2024.
We must never lose sight of the need to reassure consumers that the products we produce are as safe as they can possibly be, based on the best possible scientific information. Should consumers ever lose confidence in our products, this would have a far more detrimental effect on the industry than anything any regulator could ever do. SPRAY
Hello everyone. In the last issue, we discussed the complexity of corrosion and how one could determine if spray package corrosion will or will not occur. I listed the nine known factors that cause or contribute to spray package corrosion.
The empirical equation for these nine factors help determine what type(s) of corrosion occurs and how fast corrosion occurs.
Equation 3 provides an empirical equation for all nine factors that could be used to estimate corrosion rates and help determine what type(s) of corrosion are occurring.
The symbols in Equation 3:
• Ψ and Γ have the same meanings as in Equation 2
• Subscript and superscript items have the same meanings as in Equation 2
• ß is proportionality constant that converts the probabilities into corrosion rates
• f (letter or phrase) is the exponent for each group of factors—each is a complex function
Obviously, Equation 3 is more complex than Equation 2. The increased complexity occurs because it answers both the What type(s)? and How fast? questions. Equation 2 only answers the question, Will it corrode?
There are ~362,880 possible combinations of the nine factors that could cause corrosion or contribute to spray package corrosion—making corrosion probabilistic instead of deterministic. Groups that have probabilities (ψ1-9) >1 affect corrosion and those that are (ψ1-9) = 1 have no effect on corrosion. Consequently, Equation 3 provides information about the type(s) of corrosion that occur.
Let’s look at each group in Equation 3, proceeding from left to right for the first two (pH and metal type), and then from the second line (surface tension) to the bottom.
The first group estimates how pH affects the corrosion rate magnitude. ψ1 is the probability that the pH of formula water or contaminant water will decrease or increase the corrosion rate, and the exponent “a” determines how much pH affects the rate, and is typically a single number.
The second group (metal type) estimates how the type of package interacts with the product. Spray package metals could be tinplated steel, tin-free steel, aluminum and aluminum foils. Coated metals, laminated metals and uncoated metals corrode at different rates when exposed to the same formula. Consequently, the second factor accounts for how different types of metals/coated-metals influence the rate of spray package corrosion. The exponent f(h) is a complex function that generates a single number for each metal type exposed to a specific formula.
The third group estimates how surface tension affects package corrosion. Surface tension determines how easy or difficult it is for formula ingredients to:
1. Absorb onto uncoated metal surfaces;
2. Diffuse through polymer coatings and laminate films; and
3. Adsorb onto substrate metals under laminated films and coatings.
The exponent f(i) is a complex function that generates a single number for each component surface tension.
The fourth group estimates how electrochemically active (ECA) ions and molecules affect corrosion rates. The ECAϒj symbol represents the electrochemical activity for individual ions and molecules in a formula that are electrochemically active. The exponent f(j) is a complex function that generates a single number for each specific electrochemically active ion or molecule in a formula.
The fifth group estimates how the metal surface treatments affect corrosion rates. Surface treatments include polymer coatings or laminate films, tin coatings on steel and chromium/chromium oxide coatings on steel (tin-free steel). The exponent is a complex function that generates a single number for each type of surface treatment.
The sixth group estimates the cathode/anode area ratios on the metal surface that determines if pitting corrosion will occur and how fast pitting corrosion will penetrate through a package. Metal surfaces—both coated and uncoated—are composed of cathodic areas where valence electrons are transferred from surface atoms to ECA formula ingredients and anodic areas where the atoms are ejected from the bulk metal as ions.
This factor also helps determine if corrosion will be either general or localized. Pitting corrosion occurs when the exponent f(m) is >0. The exponent is a complex function whose magnitude is determined by the specific chemical composition of a formula and the type of package materials.
The seventh group accounts for emulsion stability. Emulsions break after a certain age and when exposed to either high or low temperatures. Water and cream phases are typically generated when an emulsion breaks—and one or more of these phases could be very corrosive. Consequently, the exponent for this factor is an equation that is a function of both temperature and emulsion age. This particular factor is zero for non-emulsion products and greater than one for emulsions.
The eighth group is the age of a product in its spray package. General corrosion typically occurs shortly after a package is filled; pitting corrosion follows afterward. The exponent “n” for this factor is typically a single number that is determined by the specific chemical composition of a formula and the type of package materials.
The ninth factor accounts for formulas incorporating corrosion inhibitors. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all corrosion inhibitor.
There are also many types of formula ingredients, such as fragrances, that in some instances act as corrosion inhibitors. Consequently, the exponent of this factor is a complex function that accounts for specific formula chemical compositions, pH, synergy between all formula ingredients that could inhibit corrosion and the effective concentration range for each ingredient that inhibits corrosion.
To summarize both Parts 1 and 2 of this series:
• Predicting corrosion with Equation 2—the theoretical equation for whether corrosion will or will not occur—does not provide operational data for making decisions on product-package longevity.
• There is no available public domain knowledge for the parameters needed to use empirical Equation 2 and Equation 3 for predicting corrosion and corrosion rates.
Consequently, corrosion testing with either a storage stability test and/or an electrochemical corrosion test are the only ways to reliably measure and predict if corrosion will occur and how fast corrosion will penetrate spray packaging.
Both types of tests must be conducted with the appropriate testing procedures (e.g., a minimum of one year for a storage test), data analysis procedures and models for predicting both service lifetimes and their associated percent failures.
Thanks for your interest and I’ll see you in an upcoming issue. Contact me at 608-831-2076; rustdr@pairodocspro.com or from our two websites: pairodocspro.com and aristartec.com. SPRAY
AIM Technology Transition
The American Innovation & Manufacturing Act (AIM) Technology Transition section regulates hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in Consumer Aerosol Products and Technical Aerosol Products. This regulation was adopted Oct. 24, 2023, and becomes effective Jan. 1, 2025; as of this date, any Consumer Aerosol Product that has an HFC compound with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) above 150 is prohibited from use unless the product is a Technical Aerosol. Listed below are all the Technical Aerosol Products that can continue to use HFC compounds greater than 150 GWP; HFC-134a is used in most products:
• Cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics;
• Refrigerant flushes;
• Products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors;
• Lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or electronics;
• Sprays for aircraft maintenance;
• Sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment;
• Pesticides for use near electrical wires or in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants;
• Mold release agents and mold cleaners;
• Lubricants and cleaners for spinnerets for synthetic fabrics;
• Duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, specimens under electron microscopes and energized electrical equipment;
• Adhesives and sealants in large canisters;
• Document preservations sprays;
• Topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and
• Products for removing bandage adhesives from skin
HFC-152a has a GWP of less than 150; it is therefore not restricted under this rule, except for labeling.
Lastly, products manufactured or imported before their respective effective date of Jan. 1, 2025, or Jan. 1, 2028, have a three-year sell-through period.
Under the AIM Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created disclosure and reporting requirements. Starting Jan. 1, 2025, all Consumer Aerosol Products must disclose the use of any HFC on the label. For technical aerosol products, the use of HFCs must be disclosed starting Jan. 1, 2028. Additionally, each aerosol product needs to identify the date of its manufacture.
EPA is also requiring annual online reporting from manufacturers and importers of aerosol products. This requirement takes effect for all sectors and subsectors beginning with calendar year 2025 data. Reports are due to the EPA 90 days after each calendar year. Thus, the first reports submitted by manufacturers and importers will be due March 31, 2026.
This means you have three months to get labeling on your product, mainly for those containing HFC-152a. Also, remember that numerous States have HFC regulations, as well.
CARB
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is still working on preparing the next Consumer Products Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) survey. As discussed in my September column, we expect CARB to survey 40–50 product categories. Industry has learned that CARB will likely hold a few preliminary meetings this month (October 2024) on what product categories will be added to the survey, so Industry will at least have an opportunity to comment. However, this doesn’t mean that Industry comments will influence CARB’s ultimate decision.
Oregon
Oregon has begun its look into Consumer Product and Architectural Coating VOC regulations. Its most recent advisory committee meeting was held Sept. 13. Oregon will likely adopt Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Phase IV for Consumer Products and OTC Phase II for Architectural Coatings.
New Jersey
New Jersey is proposing to amend its existing Consumer Products VOC regulation, which is currently at OTC Model Rule II. The Garden State is likely to move to OTC Model Rule IV. A virtual public meeting will be held on Oct. 15, 2024, at 12:30 EDT and written comments are due by Oct. 18, 2024.
SCAQMD
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) continues to work through its variety of VOC rules to remove the compounds parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF) and tert-Butyl acetate (TBAc). On Aug. 30, 2024, SCAQMD held its first Public Workshop, which followed three workgroup meetings on Rule 1151 Automotive Coatings.
Staff is working hard to remove PCBTF and TBAc from Automotive Coatings. These two compounds have been exempt from this rule for a long time and manufacturers have relied on them to formulate Automotive Coatings. SCAQMD staff has set a pathway to quickly phase out these compounds by temporarily allowing higher limits at rule adoption—which is Phase I, followed by Phase II—that provide time for a future effective date, and that lowers the limits back down. Staff is doing this at the direction of the Board to remove toxic compounds instead of reducing VOC compounds.
This rule will make it challenging for manufacturers to reformulate products with a reduced number of exempt compounds to work with. The higher limits will be the National VOC Automotive Limits for Phase I. The Rule will be adopted by Nov. 1, 2024. Staff had requested that all comments on the proposed rule be submitted by Sept. 13. In addition, SCAQMD is proposing to add a Reactivity Limit of 1.0 Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) for Automotive Thinner by Jan. 1, 2030. Although this is a long time away, even SCAQMD is aware of the benefits of Reactivity in dealing with VOC reductions. SPRAY
Keeping up with the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulatory landscape continues to be a daunting challenge for manufacturers and their supply chains. It’s been a rollercoaster trying to understand which chemicals are considered PFAS due to the lack of a standardized scientific definition of this class of substances and the different statutory interpretations used by jurisdictions across the U.S.
Some jurisdictions treat all substances with at least one fluorinated carbon atom as PFAS, while others use a more measured approach, recognizing that not all fluorinated compounds are identical. A recent example is the Updated Draft State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Reporti by Health Canada (HC) and Environment & Climate Change Canada (ECCC), which indicates that fluoropolymers may have significantly different exposure and hazard profiles compared to other fluorinated compounds. Based on this evidence, HC and ECCC have proposed excluding fluoropolymers from the PFAS chemical class.
Regardless of this evidence, many States in the U.S. continue to define PFAS as one fully fluorinated carbon atom and insist that this entire chemical class is dangerous and must be eliminated from products. With that in mind, it’s important to stay informed about recent activity and upcoming restrictions.
U.S. (Federal)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) updated reporting period for the one-time PFAS Reporting Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is November 2024–July 2025. The March 2024 edition of Pressure Pointsii discussed this reporting obligation in more detail.
California & Colorado
California and Colorado both passed laws restricting the sale of personal care/cosmetics containing intentionally added PFAS, beginning Jan. 1, 2025.
Aerosols are included under the Colorado law; however, hydrofluoroolefins in personal care/cosmetics are exempt through 2027. Cleaning products (among other product categories) will be on the restricted list starting in 2026.
In California, legislation was sent to the Governor to establish a compliance framework for certain products related to registration and testing. While aerosols are not currently in scope, it is important to be aware of the provisions should this new structure be considered for future product categories.
Connecticut
In June, Connecticut passed a law restricting the sale of personal care/cosmetics and cleaning products, beginning in 2028; however, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrofluoroolefins used as propellants in personal care/cosmetics are exempt.
Maine
In April, Maine enacted legislation to amend the State’s PFAS in Products Program. Changes to the bill include the elimination of the broad notification requirement that was scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2025; the addition of numerous exemptions; and allowing the use of aerosol propellants that are considered PFAS to be used until Jan. 1, 2040. Manufacturers should be aware that, starting Jan. 1, 2026, cleaning products and personal care/cosmetics are prohibited from containing intentionally added PFAS (unless that PFAS is an aerosol propellant). The 2026 prohibition also includes products packaged in a fluorinated container.
Maine requires manufacturers of products containing intentionally added PFAS, which the State has determined is a “currently unavoidable use” (CUU), to provide detailed information on the product.iii However, the recent amendments to the PFAS in Products Program have significantly decreased the number of products within scope of the reporting requirements.
Minnesota
In March, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency solicited input on how to consider and make determinations about PFAS applications that qualify as a CUU. These determinations would be for products that may be banned from sale and distribution in Minnesota beginning in 2032. However, beginning Jan. 1, 2025, 11 product categories will be prohibited from containing intentionally added PFAS, including cleaning products and personal care/cosmetics. It should be noted that Minnesota’s 2025 prohibition applies to all primary packaging, including the container and any components that dispense the product.
Minnesota also requires that a product manufacturer using intentionally added PFAS report detailed information about each product to the Commissioner by Jan. 1, 2026, with limited exemptions for pesticides or agricultural products sold, offered for sale or distributed in the State. There are also testing and certification requirements to ensure compliance.iv
Washington State
Under the Safer Products for Washington Program, the Washington Dept. of Ecology is working through the regulatory process that will require either a PFAS reporting requirement or prohibit the use of intentionally added PFAS. Product categories under current review include cleaning products, polishes and waxes, and hard surface sealants. It should be noted that aerosol propellants are currently proposed to be out of scope of the rules.
Canada
Canada is currently collecting information on certain PFAS substances—either alone or in mixtures, products and manufactured items—that are for sale in Canada. This information will help establish baseline use commercial data and inform future regulatory activity related to PFAS. The reporting period opened in July and will close on Jan. 29, 2025.
It is obvious that legislative and regulatory activity on PFAS will not stop anytime soon, and companies need to stay up-to-date on the different requirements to ensure compliance.
For more information about PFAS or State-specific questions, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
Detergents are products containing soaps and/or other surfactants intended for washing and cleaning. They come in various forms, including aerosols, trigger sprays, liquids and powders, and are marketed for household, institutional or industrial purposes. Common examples of aerosol detergents include stain removers, carpet and upholstery cleaners, glass cleaners and multipurpose cleaners. Given their widespread use, detergents play an important role in daily life and industrial processes, making their regulation essential to ensure safety, environmental protection and consumer transparency. Recent regulatory updates in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) reflect the ongoing efforts to address these needs.
Regulatory Framework
In Europe, detergents are regulated under the Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization & Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labeling & Packaging of Substances & Mixtures (CLP Regulation). Additional regulations that need to be considered include the Aerosol Dispensers Directive (ADD) 75/324/EEC and Detergents Regulation (EC) No 648/2004.
The Detergents Regulation, in force since 2005, applies to all detergents and surfactants sold in Europe. It standardizes the rules for surfactant biodegradability, specifies labeling requirements—including ingredient and dosage information—mandates the online publication of ingredient lists, sets record-keeping standards and imposes limits on phosphorus content in consumer laundry and dishwasher detergents.
The key point to consider when determining if a product falls under the scope of the Detergents Regulation is whether it has a cleaning function. A product intended for cleaning is considered a detergent, even if it does not contain a surfactant. If the product does contain surfactants, proof of ultimate aerobic biodegradation to 60% mineralization within 28 days is required.
Proposed updates
In April 2023, the European Commission released a proposal to update the European framework on detergents and surfactants. The proposal intends to tackle issues with the current detergents requirements and account for new market developments, such as detergents containing living microorganisms and refill sales. It also aims to address overlaps in labeling requirements with other EU laws such as CLP Regulation.
New definitions & requirements
The proposal updates and clarifies the definition of a detergent by including microorganisms and focusing on the cleaning function, regardless of whether surfactants are present. Under the new requirements, it would no longer be permitted to request a derogation for surfactants used in professional detergents that do not meet the ultimate biodegradability criteria.
Specific requirements for detergents containing microorganisms are outlined in the proposal, including prohibitions on genetically modified organisms and requirements for stability, shelf life and safety testing. Detergent labels must inform consumers about the presence of microorganisms and provide instructions on the proper use and storage of the product to maintain its effectiveness and safety.
Labeling & compliance
The proposal also includes changes to labeling responsibilities and requirements, aiming to modernize and enhance the clarity of information provided to consumers. Specifically, the proposal allows certain information to be moved to digital labels, reducing the amount of physical label space needed and enabling more detailed information to be accessed online. Additionally, the responsibility for transmitting ingredient data sheets is shifted from medical personnel to poison centers in an effort to streamline the process and ensure that relevant safety information is readily accessible to those who need it in emergencies.
Requirements for the content of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in detergents are also updated in the proposal with respect to consumer laundry detergents, automatic dishwashing detergents and hand dishwashing detergents.
The concept of a product passport is introduced as a new prerequisite for placing a detergent on the market. This passport is a comprehensive digital record containing all necessary information about the detergent, ensuring transparency and compliance with regulatory standards. Customs authorities will be able to check product passports to validate compliance for detergents entering the EU market from third countries.
Implementation timeline
Since updates are still in the proposal stage, the specific timeline for compliance has not yet been clarified. Once enacted, the framework will include specific dates for the transition and application of the new obligations. These will include deadlines for the industry to comply with new biodegradability criteria, labeling adjustments and the product passport system. The earliest application of the new rules is anticipated to be 2027.
Regulations in Post-Brexit UK
Although Great Britain is no longer part of the EU, the UK has retained the existing Detergents Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 within its own legal framework to ensure continuity and stability for businesses. Therefore, the legal requirements for the composition, labeling and safety of detergent products remain largely unchanged in the UK. The Detergents Regulation continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol. One key difference to keep in mind is that a UK-based company must be listed on the label instead of an EU one.
The UK introduced the UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) marking to replace the Conformité Européene (CE or European Conformity) marking, which indicates compliance with UK regulations. The UK government has enacted legislation to continue recognition of current EU requirements, including the CE marking. This means that businesses have the flexibility to use either the UKCA or the CE marking to sell products in Great Britain.
The proposed updates to the Detergents Regulation will not necessarily apply in the UK. Any new updates to EU regulations post-Brexit are not automatically retained in EU law. The UK government may choose to adopt similar updates independently if they align with domestic priorities and regulatory goals. This decision would involve a separate legislative process within the UK to incorporate any desired changes into national law.
It is advisable to consult UK-specific guidance documents and monitor announcements from UK regulatory bodies such as the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) to stay up to date with potential updates and ensure that all requirements are met when selling detergents in Great Britain.
Microplastics
There are some new restrictions coming up in Europe for synthetic polymer microparticles, commonly known as microplastics, under the Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055. Microplastics are small pieces of plastic (usually smaller than 5mm) that are persistent, very mobile and difficult to remove from nature. From Oct. 17, 2028, microplastics will be banned in detergents unless they contain microbeads, a type of synthetic polymer microparticles (SPM) used for exfoliating, polishing or cleaning purposes. No transitional period was proposed for microbeads because industry was expected to have voluntarily phased out their use by 2020.
There are currently no equivalent restrictions on the sale of products containing microplastics in the UK, except for a ban on the manufacture of microbeads in rinse-off personal care products that came into force in 2018.
Future outlook
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) recently published an updated Key Areas of Regulatory Challenge document describing the specific challenges and research needs for the organization in alignment with the European Green Deal and the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. The proposed updates to the Detergent Regulations represent a significant step towards addressing these challenges by providing ECHA with additional tools to combat chemical pollution and enhance the availability of chemical data.
As the regulatory landscape for detergents evolves, businesses must stay informed and proactive in adapting to new requirements. The proposed updates to the EU Detergent Regulations represent a forward-thinking approach to managing chemical safety and environmental impact. By aligning with broader sustainability goals and addressing emerging market trends, these regulations will play a role in shaping the future of the detergent industry.
For questions about detergent compliance in Europe and around the world, feel free to reach out to us at Nexreg Compliance. SPRAY
The aerosol products industry [sees] … more than 90%i of aerosol products manufactured and sold in the U.S. However, manufacturing an aerosol product in a U.S. facility is not enough to justify an unqualified claim of “Made in USA.”
In 2021, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which prevents unfairness in the marketplace and investigates claims that can deceive consumers, finalized the Made in USA Labeling Rule,ii which requires that products with a “Made in USA” claim be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. However, the law doesn’t explain in detail what this means for companies from a practical standpoint.
In July of this year, the FTC published an updated version of its Complying with the Made in USA Standard guidance document.iii The document provides the staff’s view of the law’s requirements and is not binding to the FTC. According to the guidance, to satisfy the “all or virtually all” standard, the final manufacturing must take place in the U.S., all significant processing that goes into the product must occur in the U.S. and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product must be made and sourced in the U.S.
The FTC cautions companies from relying solely on their suppliers to provide information about the domestic content of ingredients, packaging and other product elements. In other words, companies should do their due diligence and request specific information and/or documentation from their suppliers before citing a “Made in USA” claim.
If a company cannot meet the “all or virtually all” standard, they can make a qualified “Made in USA” claim, which discloses that a product is not entirely of U.S. origin. Examples of qualified claims include “60% U.S. content” and “Made in USA of domestic and imported parts.”
Any product claim must be clear and there must be no implication that the product is made of more domestic parts than it actually is. This includes online and other forms of marketing beyond the product label.
The guidance document also addresses imported products and the requirement for a product to identify its country of origin, which is important because a number of companies manufacture aerosol products outside the U.S.
Additionally, U.S. Customs & Border Protection defines the country of origin as the last country in which “substantial transformation” occurs. “Substantial transformation” is a manufacturing process that results in a new and different product—including name, character and use—than what previously existed. U.S. Customs & Border Protection has its own guidance that addresses country of origin claims in more detail.iv
For more information on country of origin claims or the aerosol industry in general, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i Based upon 2001–2019 Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) and Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) Aerosol Pressurized Products Survey.
ii 16 CFR Part 323
iiilink
iv link
CARB
On July 23, Nicholas Georges from the Household & Commercial Product Association (HCPA) and I, representing the National Aerosol Association (NAA) and Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), met with numerous members of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to discuss the progress on the next Consumer Products Rule amendments.
The meeting was very informative. As we know, there needs to be a survey of product categories and, for the first time, we were provided an expected number—between 40 and 50. Most of these categories will be based on the higher volatile organic compound (VOC)-emitting products, whether by mass-based VOC or reactivity-based VOC. Thus, we can look back at the 2013–2015 survey data and get an idea of which categories will be impacted. However, while this is just speculation, we are expecting the survey to be released soon. My guess for expected survey timing is now October.
In addition to higher VOC-emitting categories, CARB will also be targeting product categories with toxic compounds. For months, we have been trying to discover which compounds CARB will target as toxic.
There was also a long discussion of toxic compounds and the product categories that contain them. The good news is that there were no surprises. Topping the list is parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF). This compound is also being targeted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in numerous district rules. Next on the list are methylene chloride and perchloroethylene. Again, no surprises there, as CARB had previously targeted these compounds and the product categories that contain them. Topping the Consumer Product category list for containing toxics is Paint Remover or Stripper and Energized Electrical Cleaner. Both of these categories have been targets of CARB in past rulemakings. However, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prohibition on methylene chloride in Paint Strippers, this category may move lower on the targeted list, depending on with what the manufacturers have reformulated the Paint Strippers.
CARB implemented a very comprehensive and complicated method to rate the toxicity of both compounds and product categories; it must have taken CARB staff a significant amount of time and effort to comb through all of the existing data to develop this process and some of the product categories that will be included on the survey will be from this exercise.
New CARB Manager
CARB has announced that the new Manager of the Implementation Section is Moslem Hossein Mardi, who comes from the Mobile Source Control Division of CARB. More information on Hossein Mardi can be found on p. 29 and on Spraytm.com. We look forward to working with him.
CARB Enforcement
We met with Shannon Downey, CARB Enforcement Manager of Consumer Products, who stated that, as always, CARB is looking at Consumer Products and finding products with no date codes. This incurs an automatic fine, so be sure your products are date-coded.
If you use a code different from CARB’s standard date code, remember to send it to CARB for its records. It’s as easy as that, and will ultimately save you time and money.
Oregon
On Aug. 1, the State of Oregon Air Quality Division held a meeting to discuss the development of VOC regulations on Consumer Products and Architectural Coatings. The meeting lasted two hours as staff explained the reasons and potential pathways it will take to develop the regulation. Staff will more than likely use Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) existing rules. This is the strange part—Oregon is already in compliance with VOC regulation. So why a new regulation? We have yet to find out. SPRAY
Hello everyone. Corrosion is a probabilistic process, not a simple deterministic process with only one causative factor. There are approximately nine major factors that could cause corrosion, which means there are 362,880 possible combinations of these factors that could cause spray package corrosion. This is why corrosion is probabilistic.
There are three basic corrosion questions that should be addressed with each new or derivative formula in order to provide operational information about package-formula compatibility and avoid very costly corrosion failure:
1. Will a formula or a derivative formula corrode the chosen spray package?
2. What type of corrosion will occur?
3. How fast will corrosion penetrate the package materials?
In other words, what is the package service lifetime with your formulas?
In this month’s column, we’re going to use math to illustrate why corrosion is so complex and often (seemingly) unpredictable. I’ll use aerosol container corrosion as the example since aerosols are among the most widely used packages for consumer packaged goods (CPG).
Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the multiple types of corrosion that often occur inside aerosol containers and on aerosol valves. In addition, the types of corrosion noted in Figure 1 can be general corrosion and/or pitting corrosion. This means there are 14 possible types of corrosion in steel aerosol containers, 10 possible types of corrosion in aluminum aerosol containers and six types of corrosion on aerosol valves.
The percentages to the right of the steel aerosol container in Figure 1 show how often corrosion was observed in ~7,500 steel aerosol containers used for a variety of CPG products. Similar percentages are expected for aluminum aerosol containers and aerosol valves. Simultaneous occurrence of several different types of corrosion inside a spray package is common, hence the percentages in Figure 1 add up to over 100%.
Can corrosion be modeled mathematically?
The Gibbs free energy equation in Equation 1 indicates that corrosion can be modeled mathematically:
Equation 1
∆G = nFK (corrosion potential)
Where:
• ∆G represents theoretical Gibbs free energy
• n is the number of electrons in the corrosion reaction
• F is a conversion factor known as the Faraday constant
Metal corrosion occurs when ∆G is a negative number.
There are published lists with corrosion potentials for specific metals and environments, but no lists for aerosol containers with a CPG. In addition, corrosion potentials are also probabilistic and the function of at least five factors for aerosol containers:
1. Formula water or contaminant water pH
2. The type of package (e.g., aerosol, laminated foil bag, etc.)
3. The formula-package surface tension
4. Electrochemically Active (ECA) ions and molecules in a formula
5. The internal package metal’s surface treatment, such as coated and uncoated
Hence, we need an empirical equation for the corrosion potential in Equation 1. Equation 2 provides such an equation, written in the Gibbs free energy format.
These five factors are enclosed inside the Equation 2 brackets and the various symbols mean:
• ψ is the probability for each factor group. ψ ranges from 0–1 and has no effect on corrosion when it = 0 (and removed from the calculation). The greatest effect is when ψ is 1
• Γ indicates that a group has multiple sub-factors (from 1 to a number symbolized by a letter) that multiply together.
Notice there is also a probability associated with this type of group that allows for the magnitude of the affect by each group to be nothing 0–1.
• ϒj is the chemical activity coefficient for each ECA in a formula, such as water
• F is the Faraday constant, a conversion factor for electro-chemical corrosion
• K is the proportionality constant for the overall equation
• Concentrations are indicted by square brackets, such as [ECA]
• Exponents for each factor are the super-script lower-case letters
Most of the factors in Equation 2 are unknown.
Figure 1 shows that there are multiple corrosion types that can occur inside spray packages. Consequently, Equation 2 only determines that corrosion is possible and does not answer the other two basic questions:
The last two questions could be addressed with a single equation. However, this equation is much more complex than Equation 2.
Currently there are nine known factors that influence the magnitude of spray package corrosion rates and the corrosion type(s) that occur:
1.Water pH
2.Type of package metal
3. Surface tension
4. Chemical activity for each ECA ion and molecule in a formula
5. Package metal surface treatment
6. The cathode to anode area ratio
7. Emulsion stability
8. Package age (time)
9. Corrosion inhibitors (both added and ingredients that unexpectedly act as inhibitors)
These nine factors are all part of Equation 3, which will be discussed in the next issue.
Thanks for your interest and I’ll see you in September. Contact me at 608-831-2076; rustdr@pairodocspro.com or from our two websites: pairodocspro.com and aristartec.com. SPRAY
There are a number of codes and regulations that can apply to the flammability classification of aerosol products in the U.S. While this usually depends on the aerosol’s product category, manufacturers and marketers must know which test to select for proper classification and compliance. However, it is also required for the safe manufacture, storage, transport and use of these products.
Consumer aerosol productsi that are used in or around the house, including garages and sheds, are regulated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and either do not require a warning or can be classified as Extremely Flammable or Flammable. This is determined by the flame extension test, as detailed in the 16 CFR 1500.45, which measures the results of the distance from the flame projection, a flashback (a flame extending back to the dispenser) and the flashpoint when tested in accordance with the 16 CFR 1500.43a.
Workplace aerosol products are regulated by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) under the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). As explained in a previous edition of Pressure Points, OSHA recently finalized amendments to the HCS, which include changes for how aerosol products are classified for flammability. These requirements can be found in the 29 CFR 1910.1200 Appendix B, which follows the United Nations (UN) Manual of Tests & Criteria.ii Manufacturers must select the appropriate tests depending on how the product is ejected from the product [container], choosing from the ignition distance test, enclosed space ignition test or the aerosol foam flammability test, as well as calculate the chemical heat of combustion.
Aerosol products classified as cosmetics or food are regulated by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). They follow a testing and classification process that is similar to consumer products. Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs need to follow the specifications and requirements from the applicable OTC monograph, although the FDA has also used 16 CFR 1500.45 for many of these products.
The data requirements for pesticide products, which are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are detailed in the Series 830–Product Properties Test Guidelinesiii The OPPTS 830.6315 covers the flame extension and points to the “Standard Method of Test for Flammability of Aerosol Products, ASTM D-3065”iv and the results coincide with those required by CPSC.
The shipping of aerosol products is regulated by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and typically falls under a hazard class of Division 2.1 (flammable) or Division 2.2 (not flammable); however, there is also a Division 2.3 (toxic). To determine whether an aerosol product is a Division 2.1 or 2.2,v most products need to undergo the appropriate tests from the UN Manual of Tests & Criteria, similar to workplace products, unless the amount of flammable material, or lack thereof, and the heat of combustion automatically assigns the product into either Division.
The manufacture and storage of aerosol products is defined in NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture & Storage of Aerosol Products,vi which provides the minimum requirements for the prevention and control of fires and explosions in facilities that manufacture, store and display aerosol products. For most aerosol products in metal containers, there are three levels that are determined by the heat of combustion. Aerosol products in plastic containers are also classified by Levels1, 2, 3 or X because plastic aerosol products open differently in a fire than those in a metal container. However, for both plastic and metal containers, aerosol cooking sprays have their own category.
The disposal of aerosol products with leftover content is regulated by the EPA under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), and the characteristics of ignitability for aerosol products can be found in 49 CFR 173.115(l). The determination of ignitability also uses the UN Manual of Tests & Criteria, which only applies to the disposal of aerosol products from retailers, manufacturers or workplace settings. Under RCRA, empty aerosol containers are not considered hazardous and can be accepted in recycling programs that accept these products. While consumers are not subject to the requirements under RCRA, they are strongly encouraged to recycle empty aerosols.
If readers have any questions or would like to learn more, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i 15 U.S. Code § 2052
ii link
iii link
iv link
v 49 CFR 173.115
vi link
SCAQMD
On July 11, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) held its third work group meeting for Proposed Amendments to Rule 1151 Motor Vehicle & Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations—more often referred to as the Auto Refinish rule. This was a continuation from the last two work group meetings. The focus of the amendments is the removal and prohibition of parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF) and tertiary butyl acetate (tBAc). Currently, staff has suggested moving the volatile organic compound (VOC) limits higher (to the National [U.S.] or European VOC limits) to promote faster reformulation of certain categories of Automotive Refinish Coatings.
Staff should have had a more refined plan for how this will be accomplished in time for July 11 work group meeting. Hopefully much more detail on timing will be provided. There will be more to come on this issue in a future edition of Regulatory Issues.
On July 9, SCAQMD had its first work group meeting on three different rules:
1. Rule 1107: Coating of Metal Parts & Products
2. Rule 1124: Aero-Space Assembly and Components Manufacturing & Operations
3. Rule 1136: Wood Products Coating
The focus on these work group meetings is the same as Rule 1151—to phase out the use of tBAc and PCBTF. Currently, we don’t know how much of these compounds is used in these products; again, there will be more to come on this topic.
CARB
There is still no word on the next California Air Resources Board (CARB) survey on Consumer Products. CARB does not plan to release the survey until a new manager is hired, which, I’m told, will be this Summer. When this person will be on board is another issue. Thus, for now, we continue to wait.
OTC
On June 13, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) held its Annual Meeting in Portland, ME. At the meeting, the HCPA’s Nicholas Georges and I, representing Industry, made comments to the OTC, calling for consistency and the future use of Reactivity.
In addition, representatives from New Jersey told us that they would be starting on a Consumer Product rule soon.
Oregon
Oregon is considering a Consumer Products VOC regulation. Our first pre-meeting was in January 2024. Oregon has informed Industry that it is indeed moving forward with Consumer Products and Architectural Coating Rulemakings. The Beaver State is planning a Rule Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting late July or early August; this first RAC meeting will be a hybrid of virtual and in-person.
Nevada
Clark County, Nevada, showed interest in developing a rulemaking on Consumer Product VOC regulations. To date, Clark County has not acted on this rulemaking; however, it has moved ahead with other VOC regulations. The latest is the Architectural & Industrial Maintenance Rule, which means that Consumer Products are likely next on the list.
AIM
As a reminder, there are only five months until The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) American Innovation Manufacturing Act (AIM) regulation takes effect.
As of Jan. 1, 2025, the EPA is restricting the use of all Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) greater than 150 in aerosol products.
However, the following categories will have an extension until Jan.1, 2028, to utilize HFCs higher than 150 GWP:
• Cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics;
• Refrigerant flushes;
• Products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors;
• Lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or electronics;
• Sprays for aircraft maintenance;
• Sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment;
• Pesticides for use near electrical wires or in aircraft, in total-release insecticide foggers or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants;
• Mold release agents and mold cleaners;
• Lubricants and cleaners for synthetic fabric spinnerets;
• Duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, specimens under electron microscopes and energized electrical equipment;
• Adhesives and sealants in large canisters;
• Document preservations sprays;
• Topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and
• Products for removing bandage adhesives from skin
Therefore, as of Jan. 1, 2028, all aerosol products can only use HFCs with a GWP of 150 or less. This includes an extension for the use of HFC-43-10mee and HFC-245fa in aerosols until Jan. 1, 2028.
Remember, HFC-152a has a GWP of less than 150, thus it is not restricted under this rule, except for labeling.
Finally, products manufactured or imported before their respective effective date of Jan. 1, 2025, or Jan. 1, 2028, have a three-year sell-through period.
Labeling for HFCs: Additional reminder
This rule requires the disclosure of the HFC used in the product and the date of manufacture.
For products such as cosmetics and over-the-counter drugs, ingredient disclosure is already required by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and therefore shouldn’t be an issue. It is the same with cleaning products due to the requirements of the California Product Right to Know Act of 2017.
However, companies need to be aware that for the use of any HFC, including HFC-152a, in any aerosol product other than the technical aerosol products listed in the rule, and metered dose inhalers and defense sprays, the label must disclose the HFC(s) in the product, starting Jan. 1, 2025. For the technical products listed in the rule, the label must disclose the HFC(s) that are in the product starting Jan. 1, 2028. These label requirement deadlines line up with the restrictions on the use of HFC with a global warming potential greater than 150.
It is important to note that the deadlines—including label disclosure—are for products manufactured on those dates and beyond. There are no restrictions on products manufactured before those dates under the AIM Act (although please be aware of the restrictions/requirements that States may have on certain HFCs). SPRAY