Reconciling chemical flame retardant exposure and fire risk in domestic furniture
Evidence suggests that standards for resistance of furniture to ignition may lead to an increase in use of chemical flame retardants (CFRs). This is motivating the development of new approaches that maintain high levels of fire safety while facilitating a reduction in use of CFRs. However, reconcili...
Saved in:
| Published in | PloS one Vol. 18; no. 11; p. e0293651 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
San Francisco, CA USA
Public Library of Science
29.11.2023
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| Summary: | Evidence suggests that standards for resistance of furniture to ignition may lead to an increase in use of chemical flame retardants (CFRs). This is motivating the development of new approaches that maintain high levels of fire safety while facilitating a reduction in use of CFRs. However, reconciling potential fire risk with use of CFRs in relation to specific policy objectives is challenging. To inform the development of a new policy in the UK for the fire safety of furniture, we developed for domestic furniture quantitative models of fire risk and potential for CFR exposure. We then combined the models to determine if any lower fire risk, higher CFR exposure categories of furniture were identifiable. We applied a novel mixed-methods approach to modelling furniture fire risk and CFR exposure in a data-poor environment, using literature-based concept mapping, qualitative research, and data visualisation methods to generate fire risk and CFR exposure models and derive furniture product rankings. Our analysis suggests there exists a cluster of furniture types including baby and infant products and pillows that have comparable overall properties in terms of lower fire risk and higher potential for CFR exposure. There are multiple obstacles to reconciling fire risk and CFR use in furniture. In particular, these include a lack of empirical data that would allow absolute fire risk and exposure levels to be quantified. Nonetheless, it seems that our modelling method can potentially yield meaningful product clusters, providing a basis for further research. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 Competing Interests: PW declares they are a self-employed consultant who provides research, training, and editorial services on a contracted basis for industry, NGO, academic, and publishing clients. Given the controversial nature of the issues researched in this project, the way the work is received could affect their prospects for securing future contracts in this area. However, they do not identify any specific financial interests that would be directly affected at this time. For non-financial interests, they declare involvement in environmental advocacy for over 15 years and being motivated by a perceived need for significant improvement in identification and management of potential risks to health posed by the environment in which humans live. They have written several papers and held public positions, such as developing and/or signing consensus statements, about the need for improved regulation and scientific assessment of chemical substances with flame retardants as an example. They are actively involved with NGOs, particularly in the UK, who are advocating for reforms to chemical regulation. Being prominently involved as a Research Fellow in the Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration, their views could be perceived as upholding that organisation’s views. They are also Editor-in-Chief of Evidence-Based Toxicology, a new journal concerned with promoting improved research and publishing practices in toxicology and environmental health. While these financial and non-financial interests are pertinent to the manuscript, PW does not believe them to have compromised the integrity of the work undertaken. SW declares scientific consultancy services in fields unrelated to the topic of research in this manuscript. The way the work is received could affect their prospects of future employment. CB declares employment at the University of Central Lancashire in the Centre for Fire and Hazards Sciences as part of a team who examine the toxicity of flammable materials. CB is also a trade union representative at the University. As a result of previous work in their current role, CB declares an awareness of the potential hazards presented by both flammable materials and flame retardants, and the belief that it is important to accurately assess hazards and strive to protect people from them as much as possible. They do not think that this conviction has affected their ability to contribute objectively to this work. NB declares employment by Oakdene Hollins at the time the research was carried out. Oakdene Hollins is a sustainability consultancy that works with private and public sector clients on reducing their environmental impacts. SH declares being an academic researcher. Given the controversial nature of the issues we have researched in this project, the way the work is received could affect their prospects for securing future research grants and contracts, as well external consultancy work in this area. However, they cannot identify any specific financial interests that would be directly affected at this time. For non-financial interests, their extensive previous research into human exposure to a wide range of chemical contaminants including flame retardants inherently influences the submitted publication. They declare being a current member of the UK government’s Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee; while this manuscript may be perceived as reflecting the views of this committee, it has not to date involved consideration of human exposure to flame retardants and moreover SH’s views are purely their own and not those of the committee. While these financial and non-financial interests are pertinent to the manuscript, SH does not believe them to have compromised the integrity of the work undertaken. NJ declares employment as a Post Doctoral Researcher at the University of Central Lancashire at the time the research was carried out. TK declares they are currently employed by the Department for Business and Trade (formerly the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy at the time this research was completed), and that they commissioned this work on behalf of the Office for Product Safety and Standards under the science division (Research, Evidence and Dissemination team) within OPSS. They were involved in setting the objectives and the design of the research. TK’s role in this context was to provide scientific and technical advice to policy makers, and they were not themselves a decision-maker or policy lead. As a civil servant they state they are impartial to the findings of the research, and that the research does not necessarily represent the views of the department. DN declares being employed by OPSS during the conduct of the study, as Head of the Science Strategy team overseeing research projects in the science division (Research, Evidence and Dissemination team) within OPSS. DN’s role in this context was to provide scientific and technical advice to policy makers, and they were not themselves a decision-maker or policy lead. EP declares employment by Oakdene Hollins at the time the research was carried out. Oakdene Hollins is a sustainability consultancy that works with private and public sector clients on reducing their environmental impacts. EW declares employment by the University of Central Lancashire at the time the research was carried out. RH declares employment as a Professor of Chemistry and Fire Science by the University of Central Lancashire since 2007. They do not have any secondary employment, consultancy, board membership, patents or patent applications. They have received research funding from external organisations: in 2018, £15,000 by Silentnight Beds Ltd., to undertake four large scale fire tests and assess the smoke toxicity; in 2019, £161,000 from Innovate UK and Silentnight Beds Ltd., to support a Knowledge Transfer Partnership aimed at helping Silentnight reduce their fire retardant use, the smoke toxicity, and the recyclability of their products, in order to improve their access to the wider mainland European market (Silentnight Beds had no involvement in the current BEIS project, nor in the authorship of this paper); funding from Fire Safe Europe to support a PhD student investigating smoke toxicity of construction products; and funding from the Construction Products Group, Europe to develop fire protective coatings for structural steel. RH has also supported their colleague Prof Anna Stec in their role as an expert witness to the United Kingdom’s Grenfell Tower Inquiry, and is a member of the BEIS Expert Advisory Panel for the revision of the English Furniture Flammability Regulations. RH does not believe they have any interests that compete with those of the research described in the manuscript. |
| ISSN: | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| DOI: | 10.1371/journal.pone.0293651 |