River Keepers

An EU-wide survey on The State of Our Rivers has just been released and is quite notable. Among the many chemical groups identified by the study, the presence of molecules from prescriptive drugs and personal care products stood out. This isn't just happening overseas. The EPA has conducted similar studies and similar results. For example, in Las Vegas waterways the agency discovered a measurable presence of meta-amphetamines!

The Green Nose blog wants to bring out a point made on an earlier post, Green Chemistry and the Current Industry Position, that the fragrance industry stood by environmental toxicity data that was generated from several decades worth of "quantitative risk analysis." This EU survey does report that the amount of toxic chemicals decreased in rural areas which had less storm drain or sewer run-off. Therefore the only valid aquatic toxicity data that is acceptable is "hazard based" which is representative of the population centers.

What might be a difference in USA rivers for comparative survey results? Here in my new home state Oregon very little. Portland, long considered a European-like city, has built something identical; that is a combined sewer/storm water system. Atlanta, my previous residence is slowly changing from the same system as is NYC. Paris has the most famous combined system, Les Égouts de Paris. None-the-less, all kinds of sewer systems seem to be overwhelmed after a large storm.

Sewers are an important part of our society. They serve to promote public health, protect the environment and support economic growth within our communities. Sewers also happen to provide a unique view into everyday life known as sewer sociology. Contrary to popular concepts, sewer treatment facilities regardless of the treatment methods, do not remove household chemicals.

Yesterday, OPB's "Think Out Loud" had a segment on greenwashing and discussion for the need to define sustainability and green for all the products or lifestyle choices. The terms are often confused, made interchangeable, and abused. One listener made a simple delineation. Sustainability is the economy, green is the biology.

Today, we find that the USA's infrastructure funding is bankrupt. Completely. And the unseen chemical elements that are underground are off any priority rescue landscape. To act socially responsible and sustainable, we should continue the good efforts of the EPA's Design for the Environment. DfE which has sound scientific environmental survey data to prove that we must prevent the use of chemicals of concern and replace them with near equal performing chemicals for the public health and to protect the environment. Just starting with cleaners that are rinsed off down the drain is preventatively comparative to reducing auto emissions. Not the end all but a significant improvement.

The Green Nose supports the upcoming fragrance ingredient module which is now under final review this month and will be presented to the entire Fragrance industry this June at the Sustainable Fragrance for Cleaning Products conference. The module will not include many of the materials that produce wonderful, loud, long lasting ultra trendy fragrance accords because they are persistent or toxic. What remains are attractive impactful fresh clean green materials that will mask the unpleasant base odors and make the cleaners appealing and safer for the professional and consumer user and protect our waterways.

We just need to get all of the cleaning product manufacturers to place in the continuum sound green chemistry when improvements are available. It they do not, then they are greenwashing and inexcusable after June 2009.

Perfumer's Point of View

The Green Nose applauds Jeb Gleason-Allured for starting a forum and providing coverage of sustainability issues for the past two months. A Senior Perfumer, Pascal Gaurin responded to "The F&F Horizon: 2009 and Beyond" posted by Mr. Gleason-Allured 12/17/08.  Mr Gaurin reply is titled "Perfumer POV: An Opportunity to Reinvent the Fragrance Creation Process". 

The reply was thoughtful and reasonable and explained the reality of the environmental toxicity circumstance (and other issues) that the Perfumer must contend with when deciding what raw materials are available to use. 

Understanding opportunity vs renunciation is a wonderful step in this process of setting responsible standards. As mentioned in my post of 1-24-09 "Sustainable Fragrances for Cleaners", we are finally getting closer to our goal. If we can count on Perfumers to grasp the simple concepts we are there.  

Sustainable Fragrances for Cleaners

All fragrances are created and do not have mysterious origins. No matter what marketers want you to think fairy pheromones are not scraped off the wings of a butterfly into a perfume bottle and a rainbow's essence has never been successfully evaporated into a magic decanter of dishwashing detergent. Fragrances for cleaning products are simply chemical compounds added to a product base that ultimately are flushed down the drain and into our water supply. This means that these compounds have come under more and more scrutiny by governing agencies leaving suppliers to justify safe toxicity in the environment.

Many Fragrance Houses argue that creativity will be compromised due to the upcoming EPA's DfE criteria and the resultant non-acceptable lists. They also state a lack of known material substitutions for the Perfumer's palette will result in an inferior product. With the new DfE module finalized this Spring and the conference on how to develop responsible sustainable formulas this June, the Green Nose would like to contribute to the dialog by providing a demonstration fragrance compound developed from ingredients that complied to 2008 DfE criteria, as follows:

Fresh Herbal Floral GPF-0411

          [Fresh Notes]

parts            Name and CAS#

01.3     aldehyde c-10     112-31-2

00.5     aldehyde c-12 lauric     112-54-9

00.5     aldehyde c-12 mna     110-41-8

01.5     citronellyl nitrile     51566-62-2

11.2     dihydro myrecenol     18479-58-8

02.0     ethylene brassylate     105-95-3

20.0     tetrahydro linalool     76-69-3

          [Herbal Notes]

02.5     amyl salicylate     2050-08-0

01.0     camphor powder     76-22-2

01.0     dimetol     13254-34-7

00.2     estragole     140-67-0

00.3     ethyl amyl ketone     106-68-3

01.0     eucalyptol     470-82-6

04.0     iso bornyl acetate     125-12-2

09.0     terpinyl acetate     80-26-2

          [Floral Notes]

02.5     benzyl salicylate     118-58-1

02.0     cyclacet     5413-60-5

02.0     dimethyl octanol     151-19-9

10.0     hedione     24851-98-7

05.0     koavone     81786-73-4

10.0     lilial     80-54-6

03.5     linalyl acetate     115-95-7

01.0     methyl napthyl ketone     941-98-0

04.0     terpineol alpha     98-55-5

          [Green Notes]

00.5     cis-3-hexenol     928-96-1

00.5     cis-3-hexenyl acetate     3681-71-8

00.5     liffarome     67633-96-9

01.0     triplal     68039-49-6

00.5     undecavertol     81782-77-6

01.0     viridine     101-48-4

------

100.0

When formulating fragrances for a cleaner intended for DfE approval, Perfumers must depend on what they know thus the importance of the new module and the agreements that should be forged at the June conference. This will facilitate the cleaning product manufacturers to require environmental safe cleaners.

There is an apparent need based from recent trade reports to mention the difference of creating a safe fragrance for skin products like perfume or lotions. For these assignments, the Perfumers enjoy a power of mystique, naivete and experimentation. The Perfumers have access to thousands of materials that help the artistry of the craft. An entirely different set of toxicity reviews and risk assessments guide the safety of those products prior and after consumer market introduction.

My faith and personal experience in the fragrance industry based on past actions, is they will embrace and promote the new environmental interpretive skills to their suppliers and their clients in the future. The time for prevention is now and responsible sustainability is the answer.

Nose Against the Glass

As we all have been waiting the past few weeks for the Bush administration to relax existing requirements in order to deregulate and weaken environmental protections along comes a National Academy of Science's report commissioned by the EPA. The report was made public on 12/3 at www.nas.edu. 

According to the NY Times 12/4 article, the report highlights how certain EPA regulatory assumptions identify information gaps as defaults and therefore treat a suspected material as no risk. In the specific case of Fragrance materials which are always used in very complex combinations, I have to wonder how the pending DfE (Design for the Environment) material review module which is expected to be running by year end, will ever pass EPA Management's final  review. 

The external DfE module which has been in development for over a year and is a positive process step to develop fragrances for institutional and consumer products that are rinsed off down the drain. Fragrance industry self regulating agencies were involved in the standards phase and managed to finally drop their self preservation stances in the light of intense political and economic pressure. Now we have to worry about the final days of the Bush administrations low regard for environment regulation and not forgotten, Child Safety or Worker Safety programs?

My Green nose is against the glass.    

Green Aspiration

Most fragrance trends are created by the perfumer skillfully adding a new nuance or "note" to an existing theme. The time honored example is Coco Chanel mistakenly adding too much Aldehydes to her floral creation. This provided a sophistication and an attractive uniqueness. This mistake became Chanel #5. As people encoded this odor memory as they were exposed to the #5 Perfume form or the hundreds of adaptations that followed in skin products, a trend was born and tracked. 

This "conditioning" of recognizing new fragrances and inputting borrowed demand has repeated itself in nearly every fragranced product. Even when something was technically deemed impossible like chlorine based cleaners, R&D was devoted and rewarded with positive results.

Today consumers are so manipulated that they have created a real economy based on products that they adorn themselves, their clothing, living space and everyday cleaners with every evolving trends. Most of this actually serves a common good and should thrive. People are healthy, feel better about themselves and how they want others to relate to them. Houses are cleaner and germ free as the fragrance products promote correct usage and hygienic habits. And despite the so-called synthetic chemical backlash, what people put on themselves is a free choice and causes virtually no harm. 

Now the tasks are to inform people that there is a small population sector that has a real sensitization and we should all try to minimize contact when known. And we should all voice opinion and try to influence consumers that they do not need fragranced cleaners that imitate every odor trend when the raw materials, both of Natural and Synthetic origins are tested for its environmental impact. We can actually start this in 2009 when the EPA DfE (design for the environment) program provides the Perfumers a method to access raw material data for environmental persistence, sensitization, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and target organ toxicity. Thereafter, the consumer can intelligently decide and aspire to make their space a healthier place while contributing to a safer planet.  

 

Rocket Scientist

Referring back to the GCI article on "Materials: Scent of a Winner" September 2008, I could not help noticing the claim, that was recently repeated by a RIFM representative, that material bans often seem to have no basis in valid scientific research.   An example was given in the GCI article, that some ingredients in fragrance formulations are used in very small concentrations, "say, one part in a billion, which in scientific terms means  "VIRTUALLY UNDETECTABLE."  In terms for those without scientific backgrounds, that's the equivalent of one inch in 15,782 miles.  But if legislators see a given ingredient as a risk, a valuable ingredient that has served the industry safely and effectively for years may be lost.  This hurts perfumery."

Lets assume since the article was in a trade journal, that the readers have some scientific background and understand or appreciate why the example was given.  And that the readers know that the practice and prior safe use of a perfumery material does not likely include an environmental test standard such as water or soil phase toxicity as these are currently being assembled.  

Tests like, Level 1 Fugacity are used to determine the relative concentrations of a chemical in water or soil phases at equilibrium.  And since all perfumery items have different tendencies of "fleeing" or accumulating, it is scientifically impossible to relate ingredient dosage to dilution miles.  

The Green Nose just wants to remind the Fragrance industry that the use of many longstanding materials is based on attractiveness, skin safety and performance.  Performance by evaluation techniques is most liked by consumer panels when the ingredient's effect is long lasting and has awareness.  Environmental behavior is a new standard and now a product registration requirement.  Therefore the inadvertent use of materials that are recognized as an environmental hazard can not be excused away today.  Success is judged by the absence of aromatic ingredients in the waste stream. 

In non-scientific terms, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that compounds for example, that were designed for fabric fixation and to survive a cold or warm washing and drying cycle and last for weeks in storage, will accumulate in water and soil in our population centers.   They were scientifically designed to not flee.

    

          

Green Economy Awareness and 401K losses

When the global credit bailout steps are finally set in place, and after your 401K / IRA statements are digested, we all should be AWARE to focus on personal health and thriving as the first important process step to recovery.  And  good personal health includes a healthful environment. 

 

If we Green the bailout, it is possible to create more economic value and purpose to our everyday survival.  Imagine a rescued new economy that includes real and safe science, materials, and manufacturing.  Or should we continue with a dread and reluctance to Greening our consumer and institutional product world only because of the ordeals of change and risk?

The Green Nose's objective today is to encourage our global economic makeover to include specific goals, timeline and incentives that all products that go down the drain do not linger, contaminate or poison our water.    It is doable, viable and not a wistful whim.         

   

The Green Monster

Kudos to Mike Napoli of the CA Angels to hit two homers out of Fenway last night.  Two other green monster homers were quietly signed into law this week, A.B.1879 and S.B.509 that will give CA state regulators to identify, evaluate and have the authority to ban potentially industrial chemicals of concern.  Both bills establish the framework for a comprehensive Green Chemistry program to reduce or eliminate toxic substances in consumer products and the environment.  A.B.1879 gives the CA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control till January 1, 2011 to develop a science-based program to identify and prioritize chemicals of concern and analyze alternatives or improvements through the establishment of an advisory Green Ribbon Science Panel.  

The companion bill S.B.509 requires establishment of an online Toxics Information Clearinghouse to increase consumer knowledge about the toxicity and hazards of everyday chemicals.  It also requires the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to develop, through a public process hazard traits and environmental and toxicological endpoints for the online clearinghouse.

Very heady events but not without warning.  For the past couple of years, EPA's DfE program has opened their data channels from the committee work that has been coordinated with CleanGredients.  One of the data sharing outlets has been to the CA EPA.  The first three studies involved the establishment of attributes and criteria for surfactants, then solvents and recently Fragrances.  I happened to participate in twenty sessions for the Fragrance TAC, and a working module  for Fragrance industry members should be operational by year end if EPA management gives clearance.  More specifics can be gleaned from the DfE website and www.greenblue.org.   

The "green monster" for the fragrance group was protecting trade secrets and manage to identify as many as possible allowable ingredients for DfE clearance.  The system still in place, is for sponsor companies to submit their entire formulas for safety review.  The Fragrance formulas would be submitted and opened for third party review (mostly to www.nsf.org) directly by the fragrance creator/supplier by-passing the manufacturer.  Some of the larger consumer companies already have an open formula procedure for their own product safety guidelines and vendor contract requirements.  

One green monster element was that nearly all fragrance formulas after review have needed some revision.  Since the sponsor's product had already been tested for fragrance stability and odor purchase preference studies, most products were launched with a provisional approval though all the consumer saw was the DfE logo.  Why, how come, what was needed, who would find a workable first level fragrance formula solution?  We'll address this in future posts.

The epizootic green monster for Fragrance self regulatory associations is now keeping peer control over scientific studies, not interrupt the supply chain despite numerous data gaps, make members aware of safety positions and develop strategy for a new science, environmental toxicity that now has equal standing.  In effect for this blogger, after I worked through the process issues to satisfy my customer's needs, I was confronted that I should share my data and join the same regulatory organization that does not want independent member solutions.  Furthermore, environmental science was chided in speeches or private letters as only a "social science", "Internet science" and a potential cause for consumer group's criticism.   Basically, I was told bottom line, there would be too much negative attention and need to revise fragrances currently in the marketplace.  

Ouch.  More to follow.  

   

Green Chemistry and current Fragrance Industry position

I was not going to start out this way. Too many excellent references I'd prefer to first mention such as Maria Cone's two articles in the LA Times (Environment) as well Thomas Friedman's promotion of "The Green Collar Economy." But the recent article in GCI titled Materials: The Scent of a Winner is purposely obfuscating the challenges of Green Fragrance's for cleaning products.

I like the piece with regards to the industry's history for safety, on-going research, creativity, green marketing and intellectual protection. However, it's overall premise only applies to toiletries and personal skin care items and not to products containing fragrances that are rinsed off down a drain.

Firstly, the industry association, FMA that the GCI article's author is a board member, is not a cheerful participant in the ongoing regulatory reviews of EPA's DfE (Design for the Environment) and EU's REACH. The FMA has valid scientific concerns that many commonly used fragrance materials will not meet the soon to be finalized environmental safety standards resulting in the palette reduction the author fears. Furthermore, he is sticking with an invalid environmental risk assessment based on dosage and quantitative analysis rather then hazard based analysis. Quantitative risk analysis is regarded as acceptable for human safety toxicity but not for peer reviewed attributes and criteria for environmental toxicity. Hazard based analysis or modeling reflects the concentration of bio-accumulation in the population centers. Hazard risk modeling is closer to reality.

Secondly, there is more then enough fragrance raw materials that will pass human and environmental toxicity review to create attractive clean smelling functionally acceptable fragrance compounds. Will these compounds smell similar to the latest or classic cologne, candle or after bath splash? Not very. Because the overuse of persistent trendy long lasting materials found in those unique creations are the source of bio-accumulative and aquatic toxic material discoveries in sediment and estuaries.

Thirdly, looking for clarity in the overuse of green marketing does not exist in the overall cleaning industry initiatives sponsored by the DfE. The personal skin care platforms, most often associated with natural, organic, essential oils, are borrowed terms from food product trends. The food industry has struggled with authenticating the organic origins and material processing. Whereas the long established fragrance industry practice is to utilize standardized odor qualities that are readily available with tiered purity and cost for the intended end-use. Most of the so called naturals in use today in cleaners are technical grades that contain many impurities. Only recently have suppliers offered traceable certified organic fragrance materials but their availability is limited and costly to find usage in mass produced products.

Lastly, what really is compelling is the foot dragging (again see the LA Times article) and the fear that many fragrance compounds need to be revised and that the fragrance industry will suffer a negative image and the resultant slippery slope will carry over into all product categories. The FMA is protecting the supply chain as their primary interest.

So, my message is we can create customized attractive fragrance compounds today and continue with providing fragrance products market uniqueness and pleasure. A transition to a greener future is already within our grasp. Consumers and professional cleaner manufacturers will embrace this transition. Value does exist in the economy for Green Chemistry. We do have ahead some meaningful assignments to revise persistent bio-accumulative and aquatic toxic formulas but better to be GREEN before it's too late.