Health Toll From Open Flame and Cigarette-Started Fires on Flame-Retardant Furniture in Massachusetts, 2003-2016

A Class Act? Regulating Organohalogen Flame Retardants in Groups versus Singly

Regulating chemicals by class based on chemical similarities may help reduce risk of regrettable substitutions while enhancing health protection. A new Commentary summarizes OFR toxicity and exposure research to inform this effort.

Opportunities in Assessing and Regulating Organohalogen Flame Retardants (OFRs) as a Class in Consumer Products

BACKGROUND

In 2015, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) received and then, in 2017, granted a petition under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to declare certain groups of consumer products as banned hazardous substances if they contain nonpolymeric, additive organohalogen flame retardants (OFRs). The petitioners asked the CPSC to regulate OFRs as a single chemical class with similar health effects. The CPSC later sponsored a National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report in 2019, which ultimately identified 161 OFRs and grouped them into 14 subclasses based on chemical structural similarity. In 2021, a follow-up discussion was held among a group of scientists from both inside and outside of the CPSC for current research on OFRs and to promote collaboration that could increase public awareness of CPSC work and support the class-based approach for the CPSC's required risk assessment of OFRs.

OBJECTIVES

Given the extensive data collected to date, there is a need to synthesize what is known about OFR and how class-based regulations have previously managed this information. This commentary discusses both OFR exposure and OFR toxicity and fills some gaps for OFR exposure that were not within the scope of the NASEM report. The objective of this commentary is therefore to provide an overview of the OFR research presented at SOT 2021, explore opportunities and challenges associated with OFR risk assessment, and inform CPSC's work on an OFR class-based approach.

DISCUSSION

A class-based approach for regulating OFRs can be successful. Expanding the use of read-across and the use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in assessing and regulating existing chemicals was considered as a necessary part of the class-based process. Recommendations for OFR class-based risk assessment include the need to balance fire and chemical safety and to protect vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women. The authors also suggest the CPSC should consider global, federal, and state OFR regulations. The lack of data or lack of concordance in toxicity data could present significant hurdles for some OFR subclasses. The potential for cumulative risks within or between subclasses, OFR mixtures, and metabolites common to more than one OFR all add extra complexity for class-based risk assessment. This commentary discusses scientific and regulatory challenges for a class-based approach suggested by NASEM. This commentary is offered as a resource for anyone performing class-based assessments and to provide potential collaboration opportunities for OFR stakeholders. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12725.

Impact of "healthier" materials interventions on dust concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and organophosphate esters

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and organophosphate esters (OPEs) are found in building materials and associated with thyroid disease, infertility, and impaired development. This study's objectives were to (1) compare levels of PFAS, PBDEs, and OPEs in dust from spaces with conventional versus "healthier" furniture and carpet, and (2) identify other product sources of flame retardants in situ. We measured 15 PFAS, 8 PBDEs, and 19 OPEs in dust from offices, common areas, and classrooms having undergone either no intervention (conventional rooms in older buildings meeting strict fire codes; n = 12), full "healthier" materials interventions (rooms with "healthier" materials in buildings constructed more recently or gut-renovated; n = 7), or partial interventions (other rooms with at least "healthier" foam furniture but more potential building contamination; n = 28). We also scanned all materials for bromine and phosphorus as surrogates of PBDEs and OPEs respectively, using x-ray fluorescence. In multilevel regression models, rooms with full "healthier" materials interventions had 78% lower dust levels of PFAS than rooms with no intervention (p < 0.01). Rooms with full "healthier" interventions also had 65% lower OPE levels in dust than rooms with no intervention (p < 0.01) and 45% lower PBDEs than rooms with only partial interventions (p < 0.10), adjusted for covariates related to insulation, electronics, and furniture. Bromine loadings from electronics in rooms were associated with PBDE concentrations in dust (p < 0.05), and the presence of exposed insulation was associated with OPE dust concentrations (p < 0.001). Full "healthier" materials renovations successfully reduced chemical classes in dust. Future interventions should address electronics, insulation, and building cross-contamination.