Fluorochemicals used in paper and packaging - is the new C6 chemistry an advance on the problematic C8?

To the many of you who read the earlier blog on fluorochemicals and their use in paper, and any others with an interest in this topic, it may be worth reading the recent article by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

EWG, 'Finds no evidence that the industry-touted replacement chemicals being rushed to market are safer -- and plenty of evidence that DuPont and other manufacturers are continuing a decades-long pattern of deception about the health risks of PFOA and related chemicals.'

EWG make the point that the move from C8 to C6 chemistry is,

'Greenwashing – claiming environmental benefits for a product that's little better than its replacement – at its worst. PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge "green chemistry" is like calling anything under 200 miles per hour a safe speed limit. For C6 replacements, the full extent of the public record on their safety consists of a PowerPoint presentation delivered by Asahi Glass Company to the Environmental Protection Agency. Public records show that DuPont, Asahi, and Clariant are all shifting from PFOA to C6 chemistries despite an absolute dearth of public safety data, and despite the fact that on 3 critical counts, C6 may be as great a concern as PFOA:

• C6, like all the other PFCs, is extraordinarily persistent in the environment (NAS 1972).
• C6 is potentially 3 to 5 times more toxic than C8 to aquatic organisms (Asahi 2006).
• C6 crosses the placenta to contaminate children before birth, according to an EWG study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn babies (EWG 2005). While many studies of thousands of people by CDC, industry, and academic university researchers show that PFOA contaminates nearly the entire U.S. population, industry has failed to publish even a single study of C6 in people. EWG's tests of cord blood show it to be potentially as great a concern as PFOA.

EWG certainly make some good points in amongst the sometimes emotive and hyperbolic writing. The fact remains, does it make sense to continue with fluorine chemistry? Surely this is an opportunity to develop and market fluorine-free alternatives.

The main companies involved in the manufacture and supply (directly or indirectly) of fluorine-based chemicals to the paper industry are: Arkema, Asahi, Ciba, Clariant, Daikin, DuPont, 3M/Dyneon and Solvay Solexis. There are others.

Fluorine-based chemicals are mainly used in paper and packaging to give grease-resistance (eg pizza boxes, burger wrap, butter wrap, soap wrap, pet-food bags). Alternative barriers are available for some of the current applications, but in some of the more demanding applications it has been difficult to find chemicals which perform as well as those containing fluorine with its unique physical properties. Finding fluorine-free alternatives is an opportunity.