Rachael Morgan points out that regional efforts, while commendable, aren’t sufficient to address the global threat posed by DCM.
DCM presents serious health and environmental risks that have prompted regulatory actions in many parts of the world. However, these regional efforts aren’t sufficient to address the global threat posed by DCM.
I often talk about DCM, a widely used volatile organic compound that serves as an industrial solvent in numerous applications, including paint strippers, degreasers, and aerosol adhesives.
Despite its versatility and effectiveness, DCM still poses significant health and environmental hazards, which have prompted regulatory authorities across the world to impose restrictions or bans on its use. The chemical’s acute toxicity, and evidence of carcinogenic effects coupled with the known environmental impact have long raised concerns among health and safety regulators, leading to calls for a full global ban on DCM, especially in consumer products such as aerosols.
We all know what my thoughts are but what do you think?
Health hazards of DCM (Dichloromethane/Methylene chloride)
The highly toxic solvent has been linked to various acute and chronic health problems. The experience of short-term exposure is pretty well known in our trade and often something of a joke or to be brushed aside, dizziness, headaches, and nausea.
But other symptoms like depression of the central nervous system which can potentially lead to a loss of consciousness or even death in severe cases and less voiced alongside the results of prolonged or repeated exposure, associated with more serious health issues, including liver damage, cardiovascular complications, and an increased risk of cancer.
One of the most alarming aspects of DCM is its ability to be metabolised in the human body into carbon monoxide. This metabolic process can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning. In aerosol form, these risks are particularly acute, as the chemical is dispersed into the air in fine particles or vapours, making it easier for users to inhale dangerous amounts without realising the full extent of the danger.
Changes in the US
If you’ve read my previous articles, you’ll know that back in April this year regulatory authorities in the US finally took action against the use of DCM with a full consumer ban and the implementation of heavily monitored restrictions on industrial use.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), implemented these stringent measures in a bid to reduce exposure to DCM. This follows on from the work in 2019, after years of public pressure and regulatory review, when the EPA banned the manufacturing, processing, and distribution of DM-based paint strippers.
This decision was made following numerous documented deaths caused by the use of these products in enclosed spaces, where toxic fumes built to fatal levels.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) imposed regulations on DCM use in the workplace, by setting permissible exposure limits (PELs) to control the amount of DCM that workers can be exposed to over an eight-hour workday, additionally, short-term exposure limits (STELs) of 125ppm over a 15-minute period have been established to further protect workers from acute exposure.
OSHA mandates that employers implement safety measures, such as proper ventilation, air monitoring, and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), to minimise the risk of exposure along with regular medical surveillance and safety training for workers handling DCM. Although this is a huge victory more still needs to be done.
European Union’s approach
The EU has taken a similarly stringent stance on DCM, implementing a series of regulations aimed at reducing human and environmental exposure to the chemical.
DCM is regulated under the EU’s REACH (registration, evaluation, authorisation, and restriction of chemicals) framework, which seeks to ensure the safe use of chemicals while promoting innovation and competitiveness within the European chemical industry.
Under REACH, DCM is classified as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) owing to its acute toxicity and potential carcinogenicity.
In 2009, the EU implemented Regulation (EC) No 552/2009, which banned the use of DCM in paint strippers for consumers and restricted its use by professional workers. With some EU member states, such as the UK and France, enacting complete bans on DCM in all paint strippers, but what about adhesives?
In addition to REACH, DCM is regulated under the EU’s directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work. This directive mandates occupational exposure limits and requires employers to assess risks, implement preventive measures, and ensure workers are properly trained and equipped to handle the chemical safely, I’m not so sure we can say this is happening certainly not in the UK flooring market.
Is there is a case for a global ban?
Given the substantial risks posed by DCM, particularly in aerosol products, there is growing support for a full global ban on the chemical. Aerosolised DCM is particularly dangerous because it increases the likelihood of inhalation, especially in confined or poorly ventilated spaces and with millions of these aerosols in circulation in the UK flooring market alone where they are often used without PPE, training or the proper safeguards, people can be exposed to high concentrations of DCM, with this type of user and form of exposure responsible for many of the fatalities and health issues associated with the chemical.
Fatal accidents involving DCM-based aerosols have been well documented. These incidents often occur when individuals use aerosolised DCM in enclosed spaces such as bathrooms or basements, where the chemical can quickly build up to toxic levels. The volatile nature of DCM makes it easy for users to unintentionally inhale dangerous amounts, leading to acute toxicity, carbon monoxide poisoning, and, in some cases, death.
Beyond the immediate risks to human health, DCM also poses environmental threats. As a volatile organic compound (VOC), it contributes to air pollution and can degrade air quality in populated areas.
A full global ban on DCM would not only reduce the number of fatal accidents but also mitigate its environmental footprint. With safer alternatives readily available, the continued use of DCM is unnecessary.
Many of these alternatives, such as benzyl alcohol and soy-based solvents, offer comparable efficacy without the extreme health and environmental risks associated with DCM. While individual countries and regions, such as the US and the EU, have implemented significant restrictions on DCM, a global ban would ensure a consistent and coordinated approach to eliminating the chemical’s risks.
In conclusion DCM presents serious health and environmental risks that have prompted regulatory actions in many parts of the world. In the US and the EU, restrictions have been implemented to reduce consumer and worker exposure, however these regional efforts are not sufficient to address the global threat posed.
A full global ban, especially on its use in aerosols, would be a critical step toward protecting public health and the environment. With safer alternatives available, there is little justification for the continued use of this hazardous chemical. A coordinated global effort would prevent future fatalities and promote a healthier and safer world for us all.
www.gekko-adhesives.com
Rachael Morgan is sales manager at Quin Global