4.6 Article

Formaldehyde Emissions from Wooden Toys: Comparison of Different Measurement Methods and Assessment of Exposure

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14020262

关键词

formaldehyde; wooden toys; emission test chamber; flask method; EN 717-3; microchamber

资金

  1. BfR [1329-559, 1322-631]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study highlighted the need for a reliable and convenient method for monitoring formaldehyde release from toys, as current methods are not ideal. Researchers tested the feasibility of using miniaturised emission test chambers and found that they showed better consistency in results compared to standard methods.
Formaldehyde is considered as carcinogenic and is emitted from particleboards and plywood used in toy manufacturing. Currently, the flask method is frequently used in Europe for market surveillance purposes to assess formaldehyde release from toys, but its concordance to levels measured in emission test chambers is poor. Surveillance laboratories are unable to afford laborious and expensive emission chamber testing to comply with a new amendment of the European Toy Directive; they need an alternative method that can provide reliable results. Therefore, the application of miniaturised emission test chambers was tested. Comparisons between a 1 m(3) emission test chamber and 44 mL microchambers with two particleboards over 28 days and between a 24 L desiccator chamber and the microchambers with three puzzle samples over 10 days resulted in a correlation coefficient r(2) of 0.834 for formaldehyde at steady state. The correlation between the results obtained in microchambers vs. flask showed a high variability over 10 samples (r(2): 0.145), thereby demonstrating the error-proneness of the flask method in comparison to methods carried out under ambient parameters. An exposure assessment was also performed for three toy puzzles: indoor formaldehyde concentrations caused by puzzles were not negligible (up to 8 mu g/m(3)), especially when more conservative exposure scenarios were considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据