Chemical exposure and flammability risks of upholstered furniture

Abstract

Upholstered furniture remains a consumer fire hazard. Flame retardant technologies are necessary but may present a health risk from chemical exposure. This study developed methodologies for measuring exposure to flame retardants and flammability performance, comparing the effectiveness of differing flammability reduction strategies on upholstered chairs with and without added flame retardants and the use of a barrier material. The chemical analysis focused on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and flame retardants. Open flame tests were conducted on chair assemblies, and smolder resistance tests were conducted on chair materials. Results showed that VOC inhalation exposure during consumer use was low for all chair types. However, VOCs were significantly elevated during the chair burns. The organophosphorus flame retardant used in this study was found in air, settled dust and dermal transfer samples. The chairs with a barrier material demonstrated significantly lower flammability hazards when compared to the other chair types. All assembled chairs did not meet the criteria for smolder testing, suggesting a lack of correlation with open-flame performance. This study demonstrated that combined human health and flammability advantages may be achieved for upholstered chairs constructed with an effective fire barrier material without any added flame retardants.

Chemical exposures from upholstered furniture with various flame retardant technologies

“…Applied FR technologies should be free from potentially toxic chemicals, but they should also meet their objective which is fire prevention. Harris et al 19 presents the coinciding results from a series of smoldering and open fire experiments conducted on the four types of chairs studied. In summary, the only FR technology that suppressed a match‐equivalent open flame placed on top of the chair from igniting completely was the barrier textile.…”

“…This paper focuses on the exposure assessment component of a larger study on furniture flammability and human exposure to FRs, where chemical emissions into the surrounding environment during typical use of a lounge chair were examined using an exposure chamber and measuring inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact exposures. The second portion of the study investigated flammability performance of the differently constructed lounge chairs and the relationship between daily exposure to FRs and fire hazards 19 …”

“…The second portion of the study investigated flammability performance of the differently constructed lounge chairs and the relationship between daily exposure to FRs and fire hazards. 19 …”

Off-Gassing of Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds from Fire-Fighters’ Uniforms in Private Vehicles—A Pilot Study

“…The exposure to PAHs is the result of partial combustion of organic materials. OPFRs and PBDEs are used as flame retardants, in a wide range of products and materials, and can be released from these materials during combustion [ 1 , 2 ]. After firefighters have attended fire scenes, the clothing and equipment worn to protect themselves inevitably become contaminated with residues from the fire [ 3 , 4 , 5 ].…”

The well-meaning but misguided rollback of fire safety in the United States

“…10,11 Natural fibers, such as cotton and animal fibers do not pass this test, and require FRs (I suppose you could call them smolder retardants) to pass. TB 117 2013 is a very easy test to pass, and all the data to date, including information from the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), and even from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), [11][12][13][14][15] made it very clear that this test was not going to improve fire safety of furniture, which remains the largest fuel load in the US home. 16 Despite recommendations against using this test, it went forward anyway.…”