Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Wax burning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Wax burning

1,200
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,200
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. TRANSLATIONDetermining and Evaluatingthe Emissions ofPCDID1PCDF,PAB..and Short-Chain Aldehydes in CumbustionGases of Candles
  • 2. . . . ,0.. . .· _. . . . . .Determining and Evaluating the Emissions ofPCDD/PCDF,PAB:and Short-Chain Aldehydes in Combustion Gases of Candles- Examination of Waxes and Wicks- Determining Emissions of Candle Combustion Gases- Toxicological EvaluationBy 1Karl-Heinz Schwind, 1Jamshid Hosseinpour, 2 Heidelore Fiedler,2 Christoph Lau,2 Otto HutzingerIOkonometric GmbH, Bayreuth Institute for Environmental Research, 17-21 Bernecker Str., D-95448 Bayreuth2DcpartmCllt of Ecological Chemistry and Geochemistry, University of Bayreuth, 30 Jcan-Paul-Str., D-95440 BayreuthAbstract: In the frrmework of a program investigating the pollutant emissions ofparaffin, stearin and beeswax candles without coloring and lacquer additives, both waxesand wicks as well as the combustion gases of these candles were examined for theirtoxicologically especially relevant pollutant classes of PCDDJPCDF, PAR and short­chain aldehydes. Even. with an assumed "worst-case scenario" and allowing for govern­mental limits and specifications, the toxicological evaluation arrived at the result that theexamined candles do not cause any additional health risk.1 IntroductionProviding atmosphere at festive events, candles radiate warmth, tranquility and comfort.Salesandproduction figures reflect their great popularity. Presently, for example, about90,000 tonsof candles are produced annually alone in the Federal Republic of Germany[1]. The three wax types used in the German candle production are paraffin, stearin andbeeswax, with paraffin wax accounting for 90% of the wax consumption for candles.Stearin has a share of several percent, the market share of beeswax (nearly 1000 tonsannually) is estimated at about 1% [2]. Expressed at times, the assumption that the com­
  • 3. · . Emissions - Page 3bustion emissions of paraffin candles show toxicologicallya more·ut1favdtabfe rnoturethan the emissions from beeswax and stearin candles ~ which therefore are said todeserve preference - points to the necessity of systematic examination.To be able to sufficiently answer these and other questions from scientific aspects,a study program was conducted which also covered the candle raw materials - waxes andwicks - and the combustion gases of these raw materials without additives of coloringand lacquers. While PCDD/PCDF and the major precursor compounds were searchedfor in the waxes and wicks, the combustion gases were analyzed for their toxicologicallyrelevant pollution of PCDD/PCDF, PAR and short-chain aldehydes. For reason ofcomparability, all of the paraffin, beeswax and stearin candles tested measured 245 mmin length and 20 mm in diameter. The wax grades of the specimens are in the relevantgrad spectrum typical and popular in the German candle production. The same is true forthe grades of wicks used [2]. The specimen composition of just wax and wick, i.e.,without decorative additives such as coloring, lacquers, glitter and the like, were chosendeliberately so as to obtain representative measuring results for the inevitable majoringredients of any candle, namely wax and wick. This procedure makes it possible topursue with further measuring programs in the ncar future the question which effects arebeing caused by the use of coloring, lacquers and other decorative elements. While suchdecorated candles have so far been the object of several specific pollutant examinations[3], continuing the present measuring program and using the test equipment developed,however, guarantees defined, reproducible measuring conditions at which more accu­rately distinguished information can be obtained.2· Analysis of Candle Raw MaterialsAt the start of the work, the candle raw materials - paraffin, stearin and beeswax as wellas the pertaining wicks - were examined for any contamination by PCDD/PCDF,chlorobenzols, chlorophenols and several selected pesticides.The analysis of the various wax types for PCDD/PCDP contaminations showed forparaffin 0.59 ng/kg I-TE (toxicity equivalent), for stearin 1.62 ng/kg I-TE, and for theexamined beeswax 10.99 ng/l:g I-TE. The sum concentrations of chlorophenol in bees­
  • 4. Emjssions -Fag!: 4·wax range with256,~g/kgabovelhose of.stearin and paraffin, ~e.cI11orobenzolcon­taminations differ only slightly from one another in all three wax types (refer to Tbl. 1).The analysis of candle wicks (refer to Tables 2, 3) showed that the three wick typesdiffer from one another only insignificantly with respect to the examined pollutantclasses. The PCDDIPCDF values range here between 0.08 and 0.18 ng/kg I-TE (toxicityequivalent). The sum concentrations of chlorophenol range between 0.74 and 1.23 j1g/kg,the sum values for chlorobenzol fluctuate between 0.34 and 0.67 p.g/kg. The two dichlo­rodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) isomers were found with concentrations of 6 p.g/kgrespectively 13 p.g/kg merely in the wick material of the paraffin candles.3 Performing Burn TestsA test chamber with a volume of 1.2 m3 was developed for the candle burn tests; itallows a reproducible candle bum under conditions approaching reality, with minimalturbulences and defined rates of air ex­change. Ninecandles each were burned si­multaneously in each bum test (refer toFig. 1). The candle bum took place inburn cycles approaching reality. The can­dles were extinguished by blowing out,two hours after lighting with a gas lighter;the gases of seconds of aftersmoking wereabsorbed as well by the collection filter.The next cycle was started after a one­hour pause. Three burn cycles each wereconducted to determine the PCDD/PCDFand PAR emissions from the burn gases.In measuring thealdehyde emissions, onlyone cycle each was run for reasons ofsampling.Fig. 1: Test setup for determining the pollutant emis­sions in the candle bum.
  • 5. · Emissions - Page 5Table 1: PCDD/PCDF, Chlorophenol and ChlorcbenzolContaminations in the ~""<HIL-ined Waxes .Wax Type PCDD/PCDF I-TE*Value in(nanogram/kg]ChlorophenolsSum Value in[nanogram/kg]ChlorobenzolsSum Value in[nanogram/kg]Paraffin 0.59 14.8 0.13---_._.Beeswax 10.99 256.2 0.12Stearin 1.62 32.3 0.33"Toxicity equivalentTable 1: PCDD/PCDF, Chlorophenol and Chlorobenzol Contaminations in the Exam­ined WicksWick Type FCDD/PCDF I-TEValue in[nanogram/kg]ChlorophenolsSum Value in[nanogram/kg]ChlorobenzolsSum Value in[nanogram/kg]For paraffin candles 0.18 1.23 0.67For beeswax candles 0.08 0.74 0.35For stearin candles 0.12 0.94 0.34Table 3: Pesticide Concentrations in the Examined WicksType of Wick Pesticides Utg/kg]For paraffin candles aJpha-HCHgamma-HCHo,p-DDTp,pDDTalpha-HCHgamma-HOIo,p-DDTp,pDDTalpha-HCRgamma-HCHo,p-DDTp,pDDT< 0.5< 0.56.013.0< 0.5< 0.5< 1.0< 1.0< 0.5< 0.5< 1.0< 1.0For beeswax candlesFor Stearin Candles
  • 6. Emissions - Page 64 Results of Burn TestsThe combustion gases of the respective candles were analyzed for PCDD/PCDF, PAHand short-chain aldehydes. For exact determination of the pollutant quantities emitted bythe candles, blank tests were conducted for each of the substance classes examined. Therelevant blank value was then deducted from the value of the corresponding bum test.The concentrations compiled in Tables 4-6 are corrected by the relevant blank value. Allconcentration references by unit (amount of substance/m) correspond to the emissionsof nine candles.Although the beeswax used for the candles showed higher PCDD/PCDF and chloro­phenol contaminations than paraffin and stearin waxes, the PCDD/PCDF emissions inthe bum tests, with 4 femtogram/g of wax burned, are the lowest (refer to Table 4). Theconditions of combustion in the candle flame were apparently suited to reduce PCDD andPCDF. The corresponding emission values for paraffin and stearin candles range slightlyhigher.Table 4: PCDD/PCDF Emissions from Candle Bum Tests Corrected by Blank ValueBurn Test I-TEQ* Values[picogramlg wax burned}I-TEQ* Values[picograrn/rrr]Paraffin candles 0.015-~0.183Beeswax candles 0.004 0.038Stearin candles 0.027 0.340"Toxicity equivalentThe PAR emission values found in the bum tests are shown in Table 5. Since thePAH must not be included in the scheme of toxicity equivalent factors (TEF) , due to thedifferent working mechanism of the PCDD/PCDF and on account of the metabolic con­version of several of their representatives, any possible hazard potential needs to be esti­mated for the individual compound. Suitable as a reference substance, e.g., is benzo­pyrene. The benzopyrene emission in the combustion gases of all three candle types isless than 0.02 nanogram/g of V;lX burned,
  • 7. p,mis-~ions - Page 7 . .Table 5: PAH Emissions from Candle TestsCdttect¢dby BlankBum Test Paraffin Candles Bum Test Beeswax Candles Bum Test Stearin CandlesPAil [nanogram/g wax burned] PAIl [nanogram/g wax burned] PAll [nanogram/g wax burned]Naphthalene 152.05Acenaphthylene <0.08Acenaphthene <0.08Fluorene <0.03Phenanthrene 2.81Anthracene 0.19Fluoroanthene 0.35Pyrene 0.20Benzoanthracene 0.01Chrycene (+ tripbenylene) 0.05Benzofb-l-j-l-kjfluoroanth. 0.05Benzopyrene 0.01Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.03Bcnzo(ghijperylene 0.03Dibenz(ah -l-acjanthracene 0.07Naphthalene 4.33Acenaphthylene <0.06Acenaphthcnc <0.17Fluorene <0.05Phenanthrene <0.13Anthracene 0.05Fluoroanthene 0.20Pyrene 0.03Benzoantluacene <0.01Chrycene (+ triphenylene) 0.01Benzo(b +j + kjfluoroanth. 0.05Benzopyrene <0.02Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.04Benzo(gbi)perylcne 0.05Dibenz(ah+ ac)anthracene 0.09Naphthalene 3.36Acenaphthylene <0.06Acenaphthene <0.02. Fluorene <0.07Phenanthrene <0.11Anthracene 0.30Fluoroanthene 0.28Pyrene 0.11Benzoanthracene 0.01Chrycene (+triphenylene) 0.02Benzo(b +j + k)fluoroantll:::: 0.01Benzopyrene <0.01Indeno(l,2,3-ed)pyrene 0.11Beazoighi)perylene 0.12Dibenz(ab+ac)anthracene 0.10Naphthalene 42.75Acenaphthylene <0.79Acenaphthene <0.24Fluorene <0.88Phenanthrene < 1.41Anthracene 3.87Fluoroaotbene 3.50Pyrene 1.41Benzoanthracene 0.11Chrycene (+tripbenylcne) 0.20Benzo(b+j+k)fluoroanth. 0.87Benzopyrene <0.16Indeno(l,2,3-cd)py rene 1.45Benzotghijperylene 1.52Dibenz/ah +ac)anthracene 1.32Naphthalene 1810.41Acenaphthylene <0.93Aceuaphthene <0.91Fluorene <0.31Phenanthrene 33.51Anthracene 2.28FJ uo roanthene 4.16Pyrene 2.37Benzoanthracene 0.12Chryceue (+triphenylene) 0.63Bcnzo(b+j + k)f1uoroanth. 0.55Benzopyrene 0.12Indeno(1,2,3-ed)pyrene 0.33Benzotghijperylene 0.33Dibenz(ah+ac)antlJracene 0.79Naphthalene 41.38Acenaphthylene <0.61Acenaphthene < 1.63Fluorene <0.47Phenantluene < 1.22Anthracene 0.49Fluoroanthene 1.88Pyrene 0.29Benzoanthracene <0.11Chrycene (+ triphenylene) 0.05Benzo(b+j +k)f1uoroanth. 0.51Benzopyrene <0.15Indene(L,2, 3-cdjpyrene 0.36Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.45Dibenz(ah+ac)anthracene 0.885. Toxicological EvaluationBasing on the available results and allowing for limits and specifications [4-14] (maxi­mum workplace concentration [MWC] values, carcinogenic limit concentration [CLC]values, World Health Organization [WHO] air quality specifications, Association ofGerman Engineers [VDI] specifications for maximum imrnission concentrations andothers), an additional health hazard due to candle burning is not possible even with anassumed "worst-case scenario" (30 candles burning for 4 hours in a room with 50 013
  • 8. --Emissions - Page 8and no air exchange during that time 7- which is an extremesitu;ttidnreflcetlng themaximal load ceiling with all negative factors occurring simultaneously).Table 6: Aldehyde Emissions from Candle Bum Tests Corrected by Blank ValuesAldehydeBurn Test Aldehyde[nanogram/g wax used] [milligram/rrr]Paraffin candles Formaldehyde 14.1 Formaldehyde 0.017Acetaldehyde <0.1 Acetaldehyde <0.001Acrolein 0.1 Acrolein <0,001Propionaldehyde <0.1 Propionaldehyde <0.001Formaldehyde 0.005Beeswax candles Formaldehyde 4.7Acetaldehyde <0.3 Acetaldehyde <0.001Acrolein <0.1 Acrolein <0.001Propionaldehyde <0.1 Propionaldehyde <0.001Formaldehyde 3.7Stearin candles Formaldehyde 0.006Acetaldehyde <0.4 Acetaldehyde <0.001Acrolein 5.4 Acrolein 0.009Propionaldehyde <O.i Propionaldehyde <0.001The PAH and aldehyde emissions of 9 paraffin, beeswax or stearin candles burning atthe same time range by a multiple below tile value produced by a burning cigarette [15].The dioxin inhalation in such room air is negligible by the average annual inhalation rate.No significant contribution either derives from using the examined candles, not even inrooms with poor or no ventilation at all, as regards the average overall inhalation ofPCDD/PCDF.An additional health risk by way of "inhaled absorption .of candle emissions" doestoxicologically not derive from the examined substances..6 ConclusionsThe measuring program has shown that the burning emissions of the examined candlesdo not represent a potential health hazard to the candle user. The bum emissions of theexamined paraffin, stearin an beeswax candles show no significant differences withrespect to the pollutant classes examined. Candles made from paraffin are toxicologically
  • 9. Emissions - Page 9just as innocuous as beeswax or stearin candles. These conclusions apply also to the threewick types used..It.should.he nOt~jthoug h,.. .exdusiItt);.!l.on~OI~ped car1.Q;J(:S A/Hil n 1U O€<Go [;:l.S1~v.eadditives were used in the test program. Therefore, further examinations with coloredand enameled candles need to be performed.The test results obtained may serve as a scientific basis for the assessment of the.quality and environmental compatibility of candle products.AckknowledgementsThe support of Dr. Alsorachi of the Landesgewerbeanstalt Nuremberg, Germany indeveloping the sampling apparatus is greatly appreciated.7 References[1] Candle production in Germany,Statistischen Bundesamtes, Wiesbaden, Germany[2] Personalcommunication Dr.Schtitz, Verband der Deutschen Kerzenhersteller, Frankfurt,Germany[3] Grimmer H: Untersuchung der Luftkonzentration von Polychlor-Dibenzo-Dioxinen und -Furanen nachAbbrennen von lilagefarbten Kerzen: PAH-Konzentrationen beim Abbrand von gefarbten und lackiertenKerzen: Verband DeutscherKerzenhersteller,Karlstral3e 21, D-60329 Frankfurt[4] Beck H., Dral3 A., Ende M., FUrst C., FUrst P., Hille A., Mathar W. und Wilrners K. (1991):Polychlorierte Dibenzofurane und -dioxine in Frauenmilch. Bundesgesundheitsblatt12/91,564-568[5] BGA/UBA (1993): Dioxineund Furane - ihr Einflu13 auf Umwelt und Gesundheit ErsteAuswertung des2. Internationalen Dioxin-Symposiums und der fachoffentlichen Anhorung des Bundesgesundheitsarntesund des Umweltbundesamtes in Berlin vom 9. bis 13.11.1992. Bundesgesundheitsbl. Sonderheft/93 (36.Jahrgang,Mai 1993)[6] BLAG, Bund/Ui.nderarbeitsgruppe mOXINE (1992): Umweltpolitik: Bericht der Bun<:l/Ulnder-Arbeits­gruppe mOXINE. Rechtsnormen, Richtwerte, Handlungsempfehlungen, Meliprogramrne; Me13werte undForschungspragramme. Bundesminister fllr Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Hrsg.), Bonn,Januar 1992[7] CHeryl P. (1991): Die Gefahrdung des Menschen durch Dioxin und verwandte Verbindungen. Nachr.Chern.Tech.Lab.39,648-656[8] Deutscher Bundestag (1988): Schadstoff-Hochstmengenverordnung, BGBI, Bundesgesetzblatt I, 422,vom 23.03.1988[9] DFG - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1993): MAK- und BAT-Werte-Lisle 1993,Senatskommissionzur Prtlfung gesundheitsschadlicher Arbeitsstoffe,Mitteilung 29, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim[10] Grimmer G. (1983): Profile Analysis of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Air. In: Bjerseth A.(Hrsg.):Handbook of PolycyclicAromatic Hydrocarbons, Marcel Dekker, NewYork.[11] GSF- Gesellschaft fUr Strahlen- und Umweltforschung (1984): Intemationale Studien zur Erkennungcarcinogener Chemikalien. In:Jahresbericht 1984,S. 121- 123[12] VDI-Richtlinie 2310 (1974): Maximale Immissionswerte, Hrsg: VDI-Kommission der Luft(Hauptausschull: Wirkungen von Staub und Gasen)[13] VDI-Richtlinie 378Ul (1992): Ausbreitung von Luftverunreinigungen in der Atmosphare, Gau13schesAusbreitungsmodell fllr Luftreinhalteplane, Beuth-Verlag,Berlin[14] WHO - World HealthOrganization, InternationalAgency for Research and Cancer (1983): IARC Mo­nographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans. Benz[a]anthracene.lARC Vol.32, 135-145[15] DFG - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1985): Passivrauchen am Arbeitsplatz, VCH Verlagsgesell­schaft, Weinheim

×