|
Research and testing
Continuous developments of the basic molecules, the methods and materials, as well as the analysis of the numerous customer services we carry out, push us to develop our existing and new products. Thanks to our relations with the major chemical groups, we are constantly informed of the new developments, and this allows us to introduce the latest technologies and products with the most up-to-date methods.
The evolution of the materials, lifestyle and requirements of our customers entail new methods and new products.
Softcare Textile Protector - Quality and Satety
Here are presented some practical level experiences and test results made either by us, our customers or testing laboratories. All experiences and tests are not fulfilling all the official test methods, but they represent well the level of quality of our product on daily use either at home or in contract environment. This information is given in good belief and is based on our best knowledge.
The product
SOFTCARE is a registered trademark of Soft Protector Ltd. Soft Protector has been on textile protection business since 1991 being one of the pioneers on textile protection on aftercare markets. Softcare is a Fluorpolymer-based product either in water- or alcohol-solution. The receipts have been developed by Soft Protector together with the best scientists on this area. The main task has always been to develop a product with the best possible performance, easy to use with highest safety for the end user and the environment. We believe that we have reached those targets, although the product development is an endless process. With the feedback from our customers and applicators combined with the latest technology makes that possible.
Softcare Textile Protector makes textiles water/oil repellent and dirt resistant without changing the feel, appearance or colour of the textile. It has no smell and it doesn't effect to the flammability or burning properties of the textile. Softcare is not toxic or harmful for the user or to the environment and it doesn't cause any allergic reactions.
The products are available according to customers needs in different sizes of containers for professionals and in handy consumer bottles for retailing.
The fields of use
Practically there are no limits for using Softcare. Wherever there are textiles in use and in risk of soiling you can protect them. Softcare textile Protector can be used on all types of textiles, leathers, papers and other porous fiber surfaces such as furniture, carpets, curtains and other decorative items, clothing, vehicles, wallpapers; where ever textiles meets the realities of daily life and its accidents. There are also other Softcare products available for stone, clay, wood and sandblast glass surfaces for protection and maintenance.
Some laboratory tests on Softcare
T.N.O Nutrition and Food Research, The Netherlands.
Test: Acute (4 hour) inhalation toxicity study with a spray containing Softcare Textile Protector.
Summary:
1. The acute inhalation toxicity of the Softcare spray was studied by nose - only exposure of one group of eight male and eight female rats to a test atmosphere containing 20.4 plus/minus 0.1g/m³ spray per m³ for a single period of 4 hours. The mean aerosol concentration based on gravimetrical analysis was 105,8+ 3.4 mg/cm³. Ca. 94 % of the particulate matter had an aerodynamic diameter between 1.0 and 4.2ym.
The results were compared with those obtained in one control group of eight male and eight female
Rats that were sham-exposed to humidified pressurized air for a single period of 4 hours.
Half of the sham-exposed rats and half of the rats exposed to the aerosol were necropsies one day after exposure. The remaining rats were kept for a 14-day observation period.
2. During the entire exposure visually decreased breathing frequency was observed in all rats. Shortly after exposure a considerable decrease in breathing frequency was measured in all rats exposed to the test material. No significant changes were recorded in mean tidal volume and mean ventilator flow. In addition, there were no significant changes in lung variables resistance, inertance and compliance. No abnormalities were seen during the 14-day observation period
3. Body weights were not affected by the exposure to the test material.
4. Mean relative lung weight was higher compared with sham-exposed control rats one day after
Exposure. Mean relative lung weight was comparable with that of controls on day 14.
5. Microscopic findings at autopsy revealed discolored lungs in two rats one day after exposure
6. Upon microscopic examination of the lungs, haermorhages, slight perivascular inflammatory cell infiltrates and very slight increased septal cellularity were observed in rats killed one day after exposure. Changes observed in a few rats 14 days after exposure were comparable in incidence and severity with those observed in control rats
7. From the results of the present study, it was concluded that acute exposure to 20.4 g/m3 aerosol containing Softcare resulted moderate changes in lung function measurements and lung pathology. These changes were considered to be reversible.
Softcare and Gore-Tex
Gore-Tex has done a test in Denmark to see how Softcare Textile / Leather Protector works on Gore-Tex materials.
The standards are the following:
1. The impregnation should not reduce the breathability more than 20%
2. After impregnation the material should not absorb water more than 20% in 4 hours
The results with Softcare were as follows:
1. 4.9 %
2. 10.0 %
Softcare impregnation is suitable for use on Gore-Tex material since it is not filling the pores of leather or making a film on textile. Softcare passes the test with good results.
Test done by Esben Thomsen/Gore-Tex Denmark.
Fire test by Finnair for Softcare Textile Protector
The tests were made to 100% wool, 100 % Trevira CS and 100% polyester. Test method FAR 25-32, 25,853 b.
Test requirements:
Ignition time: 12 seconds
Material position: Vertical
Extinguishing time: 15 seconds
Burn length: 203 mm
Drip extinguishing: 5 seconds
Samples 1-4 treated with Softcare, samples 5-8 without treatment.
Material Extinguishing time Burned length Drip extinguishing
Trevira CS seconds mm seconds
Sample 1 0 72 -
Sample 2 13 72 -
Sample 3 2 86 -
Sample 4 5 76.6 -
Sample 5 8 90 -
Sample 6 10 90 -
Sample 7 6 90 -
Sample 8 8 90 -
Polyester
Sample 1 0 88 -
Sample 2 0 92 -
Sample 3 0 96 -
Sample 4 0 92 -
Sample 5 0 89 -
Sample 6 0 71 -
Sample 7 0 94 -
Sample 8 0 84.6 -
Wool
Sample 1 0 54 -
Sample 2 1 47 -
Sample 3 0 54 -
Sample 4 0,3 52 -
Sample 5 0 51 -
Sample 6 0 48 -
Sample 7 4 46 -
Sample 8 1,3 48,3 -
Test result: All samples passed the test. Softcare does not affect to the flammability of these textiles.
Test done by Finnair Engineering Department, 22.10.1993. Reports 24/93, 25/93, 26/93.
Testing of abrasion resistance of Softcare Textile Protector
Test Method: BS 5690:1991, Nominal pressure: 12 kPa.
With your letter dated 13th of November 1997 the institute received two cuttings of a furniture fabric designated HALLINGDAL 2000, FV.750. You have informed us that one of the cuttings has been treated with a textile protection agent designated Softcare Textile Protector, and you have asked us to test the abrasion resistance of both cuttings.
As can be seen from the enclosed test reports, both cuttings obtained a test result of > 100.000 cycles, i.e. the end-point of two broken threads was not reached at 100.000 cycles.
For the Softcare treated fabric a test for guidance only of the water repellency was carried out. Before abrasion resistance testing the fabric shows good water repellency.
After 100.000 abrasion cycles the water repellency of Softcare treated fabric is somewhat reduced."
DTI Clothing and textile / Henrik Eigtved
DK-2630 Taastrup
General info about Softcare and its toxicity
Swedish Institute for Fiber and Polymer Research
After studied the toxicological and ekotoxicologic information together with the material safety data sheet, the following statement can be given.
Toxicological info
The product gives toxicological LC55- value >5000 mg/kg. That means that it is not potential risk for health for human in touch with the product.
Ekotoxicologic info
Biodegradability is BOD28. It means that the product is decomposing under 28 days. According to the information more than 60% is decomposing under 28 days, which means that it is easily biodegradable according to the OECD norms.
Bioaggregation is given as log Pow. If this is lower than 3 the product is consider not to be biodegradable. With Softcare the value is 0.3.
Ekotoxicological information is not available. Referring to the toxicological effects there seems not to be any acute effects on rat.
Other comments
When the product contains flour polymers we should think about the circumstances when the textile is burning. In low temperatures of burning there is a risk for haloidcoaloxsides, which are poisonous.
We have to remember that all chemicals have specially designed properties. In most cases with proper handling and by obeying the given instructions the safety of this kind of chemicals is good."
Stefan Posner, chief of the department, IFP
Fluoropolymers i textiles; environmental overview
A comprehensive overview of the environmental impact resulting from the flour chemical finishing of textiles considers all stages of the market chain as follows:
1. Production of Softcare Textile Protection
2. Application to textiles
3. End-use items
4. Disposal of flour polymers
5. What distinguishes Softcare from PTFE.
1. Production of Textile Protection
The production of textile protection is performed on computer-controlled machinery utilizing the latest technology to ensure consistent high quality. All the important criteria's regarding environmental impact is taken into consideration when choosing raw materials for Softcare products. Safety authorities perform periodic inspections and safety data sheets are provided by Soft Protector to ensure uniform operating instructions and adherence to safety standards.
2. Application to textiles
Some waste is produced in the application of textile protector in the spraying and laundry process. Residue from application baths can enter the wastewater streams from laundries and in washing processes. The hydrocarbon components in the wastewater are complete biodegrade in the treatment process. The fluorinated organic components decompose to non-biodegradable perfluoralkyl
Carboxylic acids, which pass through the waste treatment facility. These fluorinated organic components have been studied in laboratory tests and found to be low aquatic toxicity.
Softcare does not contain CFC's which are compounds linked to depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. Since Softcare is a solid and not a gas, it cannot evaporate and potentially rise to the ozone layer.
Softcare can be handled safely if the guidelines of the safety data sheets are followed. This information includes details on the content of volatile compounds, recommended operating conditions and safety measures to ensure proper handling and workers safety, limits on temperatures and adequate ventilation are included.
3. End use items
A number of studies have been performed by the well known dermatologist Professor H. Tronnier Dortmund. No signs of skin irritation or contact allergies were observed in humans exposed to flour chemicals in typical formulations on textiles.
4. Disposal of Softcare
Textiles treated with Softcare may be disposed either by incineration or landfill. The disposal method recommended is incineration. Less than half of the Softcare contains organic fluorine, a primary concern in waste disposal. During the incineration process, the small amounts of fluorine are converted to hydrogen fluorine vapors, which are trapped in water and neutralized by an alkaline scrubber. This process completely converts the organic fluorine to an inorganic salt, its natural state.
Textiles, which are disposed of in a landfill, decompose at very slow rate. The rate of decomposition is influenced only to a very small extent by finishing chemicals such as Softcare. The share of flour-components resulting from textiles treated is extremely low, that is less than 1% of the total fluorine components in such a landfill.
5. What distinguishes Softcare from PTFE-products.
Recently, public discussions have focussed on the environmental impact of disposal of fabrics laminated with PTFE. There are important differences between the behavior of garments treated with Softcare (TFE) and those laminated with PTFE.
The key differences between Softcare and PTFE are that Softcare contains many other non-fluorinated hydrocarbon components and is manufactured by a method that produces a substance chemically and physically different from PTFE. Fabrics laminated with PTFE contain very high amounts of fluorine, about 50g /m2 of fabric and are very difficult to biodegrade or incinerate.
Textiles treated with Softcare contain only about 0.25 g/m2 of fabric, 200 times less than a fabric laminated with PTFE. Because the presence of the hydrocarbon components, which donate enough energy to sustain incineration in Softcare, fabrics treated with Softcare can safely incinerated.
The surface tension in TFE is four times smaller than that of PTFE. That means that Softcare is also much more effective compared with PTFE-products.
SUMMARY:
The safety of the end use item, flour polymer (Teflon), is very good. It doesn't contain any poisonous nor harmful parts. It doesn't cause any allergic reactions. You can compare this to frying pans coated with Teflon. There is cooked food in high temperatures and it doesn’t give anything harmful to the food neither. The only you have to be aware is to follow the safety instructions when applying Softcare in solvent base solution. After the solvent is evaporated there is no risk what so ever with the product.
Test made by Heller Läder testing the Softcare Leather Care products
The test is made a.2ccording to the DUN 53350-18.4.2. Test report nr. 3758, 20.01.2003
The tests were performed with six antique coloured test leather pieces numbered from 1 -6.
Test piece Nr. 1: Treated with Softcare Leather Cleaner
Test piece Nr. 2: Treated with Softcare Leather Balsam
Test piece Nr. 3: Treated with Softcare Cleaner and Balsam
Test piece Nr. 4: Treated with Softcare Cleaner, Protector and Balsam
Test piece Nr. 5: Treated with Softcare Leather Protector
Test piece Nr. 6: Comparison piece without any treatments
The performed tests:
Dry rub resistance 500 x according to the DIN EN ISO 11640, > 4 is excellent result, scale 1-5.
Wet rub resistance 80 x according to the DIN EN ISO 11640, > 4 is excellent result, scale 1-5.
Adhesive strength according to the IUF 470, the result must be more than 1,5 N/cm.
Flexural resistance, 20.000 x according to the DIN 53351. There should not be any damage.
Identity nr. Test method Test item nr. Results of the test pieces
Nr. 1 Nr. 2
10 Dry rub resistance 24 5 4-5
11 Wet rub resistance 24 5 4-5
15 Adhesive strength 13/16 6,2 4,7
20 Flexural resistance 16 No damages No damages
Nr. 3 Nr. 4
10 Dry rub resistance 25 4-5 4-5
11 Wet rub resistance 25 5 5
15 Adhesive strength 13/16 5,1 3
20 Flexural resistance 16 No Damages No damages
Nr. 5 Nr. 6
10 Dry rub resistance 24 4-5 5
11 Wet rub resistance 24 4-5 5
15 Adhesive strength 13/16 3,8 3,7
20 Flexural resistance 16 No damages No damages
The type of the tested leather: Princess Grain Flama.
As the test results shows were Softcare products in excellent level. You can safely use Softcare products on leather.
Softcare Textile Protector is approved to be used on board of ships by Den Norske Veritas.
References
It is a pleasure to mention that Softcare has achieved the trust of our customers. The list of references speaks about it.
Finland:
The house of the President, Mäntyniemi.
The Presidential Castle
The Parliament House
Hotel Kämp
Hotel Palace
Hotel Vaakuna
Hotel Seaside and many,many others.
Offices of Nokia, UPM-Kymmene and many other companies and banks.
The Opera House of Helsinki
The Helsinki City Hall
Viking-Line, Silja-Line, Royal Caribbean Cruise lines, Tallink and Linda-line boats
Several shopping centers and other public places
Several Cinemas and restaurants.
Sweden
The house of Parliament
Kings Castle
Hotel Strand and many other main hotels
Offices, public places, Shops
Stena -Line boats
More than twenty Cruising boats for American markets done in shipyards.
And many, many places in many other countries like Norway, Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Russia ( Kreml ), Holland etc.
Recently there has been discussions about fluoropolymers and environment, The following statement gives an overview about this matter concerning Softcare and it's raw-materials.
Environment and Fluorotelomer Alcohols; Questions & Answers
Extensive scientific studies have been conducted to fully understand the hazards of fluorotelomer alcohols and potential human exposure to them. This data supports the conclusion that fluorotelomer alcohols and fluorotelomer-based products that may contain them are safe for their intended uses and pose no risk to consumers or the environment.
Q: I have been told that 4 chemistry is safer and more sustainable that the 8 chemistry DuPont uses in its fluorotelomer-based products. Is this true? '
* Products are first and foremost selected based upon their performance requirements. Fundamental scientific studies in the 1960’s showed that optimum repellency is achieved with eight fluorinated carbon chains. C-4 chains do not provide the repellency that C-8 chains can. Finished product formulation into which fluorinated carbon chains are incorporated, has a very strong influence on performance. Performance characteristics are defined by the fluorinated chain length, polymer backbone composition, and the surfactants, extenders, softeners, etc., that go into a complex, formulated sales product targeted to deliver specific performance attributed and consumer benefits in use.
A: product is determined to be safe for use based on study data about its hazards under real use conditions, not generalizations about product chemistry.
- For example, if workers or consumers come in contact with a product by skin contact (e.g. a treated textile such as apparel or carpet), then dermal hazard study data is needed, likewise for inhalation or ingestion. Often, the hazard (what may happen as a result of exposure) differs depending on how people are exposed. That is why having study data on the hazards and how people are exposed and to how much is what really matters in determining the safety of a product.
* Over 35 years of experience and extensive scientific data supports our conclusion that Softcare fluorotelomer-based Products are safe for their intended uses
* We are confident that our products are safe for their intended uses. Our extensive study data over four decades supports this conclusion.
* Consumer Article Study: A new scientific study sponsored by DuPont has reaffirmed that consumer articles made with the company’s materials are safe to use. The study reaffirms that there is no risk to consumers from potential exposure to trace levels of PFOA.
* DuPont has conducted extensive toxicology studies on our fluorotelomer-based products to understand the potential hazards of dermal, oral and inhalation exposures relevant to actual product uses.
These study results have reinforced our belief that Softcare fluorotelomer-based products are safe for their intended uses.
Fluorotelomer alcohol statement
Fluorotelomer alcohols, or FTOHs, are a class of polyfluorinated materials used as intermediates in the manufacture of many fluorotelomer-based products. Fluorotelomers are used to make soil, stain and grease repellents for articles such as textiles, carpet, paper and other products.
Fluorotelomer alcohols may be present at very low levels in fluorotelomer products, likely as a residual raw material from an efficient but incomplete set of chemical processing steps. These residual levels of fluorotelomer alcohols are expected to be at significantly lower levels on the final treated articles, such as textiles, carpets, and paper. Fluorotelomer alcohols have been shown to degrade to low levels of perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in atmospheric, biodegradation, and metabolism studies.
A significant amount of toxicology testing has been conducted on the fluorotelomer alcohols. These tests clearly show that the fluorotelomer alcohols are not acute toxicology hazards and are not genotoxic and neither selective developmental nor reproductive toxins.
Evidence from human health and toxicology studies suggests that PFOA exposure does not pose a health risk to the general public. To date, no human health effects are known to be caused by PFOA, even in workers who have significantly higher exposure levels than the general population. So, while residual fluorotelomer alcohols and PFOA may be present at trace levels in some fluorotelomer-based products, the products are indeed safe for their intended uses.
Many media outlets have focused on fluorotelomer alcohols as the source of PFCAs, which includes PFOA, in the environment. A mechanism has been proposed by Dr. Scott Mabury of the University of Toronto and his colleagues related to long-range atmospheric transport and degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols to PFCAs. Significant uncertainties exist in this hypothesis. Alternate hypotheses that focus on direct PFCA sources and indirect sources other than air transport have been proposed and are being considered. Although evidence does exist that shows that fluorotelomer alcohols may be one source of PFCAs in the environment, no evidence to date suggests they are the primary source.
To our knowledge, DuPont has been the only fluorotelomer manufacturer to publicly recognize the need to reduce residual fluorotelomer alcohols that may be present in fluorotelomer products. DuPont has laid out a plan to significantly reduce (>85%) fluorotelomer alcohols across its products lines over the next 18 months. This ambitious plan will directly address the question of both residual alcohols in fluorotelomer products as well as those that could be left on the ultimate consumer goods like textiles, paper and other products.
Mabury statement
A mechanism has been proposed by Dr. Scott Mabury of the University of Toronto and his colleagues related to long-range atmospheric transport and degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols to perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), that have been found at low levels in some plant and animal life in the Arctic and other regions.
This hypothesis was based on finding low levels of 6, 8, or 10-carbon fluorotelomer alcohols in certain regions of North America when air measurements were conducted. Coupling this finding with smog chamber work on degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols led to the “Arctic hypothesis.” Fluorotelomer alcohols have been shown to degrade to PFCAs in laboratory atmospheric studies in small smog chamber experiments, but only in the absence of nitrogen oxide (NOx). Most urban areas are NOx rich, meaning that if residual fluorotelomer alcohols do enter the air they will likely not be converted to PFCAs. However, the Arctic is a low-NOx region that could facilitate telomer alcohol conversion to PFCAs.
Dr. Mabury postulated that the fluorotelomer alcohols were transported to the Arctic via air, degraded in air over the Arctic, and the PFCAs then either rained out or deposited to the land and water in the Arctic and/or various remote regions. We are not aware that any direct fluorotelomer alcohol measurements have been made in the Arctic to confirm this hypothesis.
Significant uncertainties exist in this hypothesis, all of which have been documented via numerous public scientific meetings as well as in an international environmental conference held in Toronto in September 2004 and at the recent Fluoros meeting Dr. Mabury chaired in Toronto in August 2005.
At both Fluoros and at the Dioxin 2005 conference the following week, significant discussion occurred and work was presented around alternative hypotheses regarding the sources, fate, and transport of the PFCAs. These alternative hypotheses include consideration of significant direct PFCA sources from oceanic and marine aerosol transport and local sources as well as consideration of indirect sources other than fluorotelomer alcohols. It was noted that, in addition to Dr. Mabury’s fluorotelomer alcohol hypothesis, several other viable mechanisms must be considered to understand the primary sources of PFCAs in the Arctic. Although evidence does exist that shows that fluorotelomer alcohols may be one source of PFCAs in the environment, no evidence to date suggests they are the primary source.
Additional talking points:
* Most chemical reactions do not have 100% conversion of raw materials, so products have the potential to contain residual starting materials.
* Exact residual levels depend on the fluorotelomer product used, treatment level, and mill processing conditions where the particular article is made.
* Examples of the conversion of fluorotelomer alcohols to PFCAs include the following:
- FTOHs have been shown to degrade to PFCAs in lab atmospheric studies in small smog chamber experiments. Conversions are nominally 1-10% but only in the absence of NOx. Note the almost all urban areas are NOx rich regions thereby creating the expectation that if residual FTOH do get into air, they will more than likely not be converted to PFCAs.
- General degradation studies in soil/sediment/sludge have also shown low conversion of the FTOHs to PFCAs, generally on the order of 3-6%.
- Recent pharmacokinetics studies on the C8 FTOH, called Telomer 8-2 alcohol, clearly showed that only about 1-2% of the 8-2 alcohol was converted to PFOA via metabolism. One of the studies also showed that the bulk of the FTOH was passed through the test animal (rat) into the feces.
* Significant PFCA emission reduction has already occurred in the Fluoropolymer industry with further commitments to reduce emissions over the coming years.
* The alternative hypotheses to the Mabury mechanism include:
- Considerations of significant Direct PFCAs sources thus far ignored by presented hypotheses and their transport to various regions via 1) Oceans, 2) Marine/Atmospheric Aerosols, and 3) Local Sources
- Consideration of Indirect Sources other than air transport of FTOHs including 1) Fluorotelomer Olefins (FTOs), 2) POSF raw materials/residuals, and 3) potential degradation of products based on POSF-based materials and products based on Fluorotelomer-based materials.
Back to top
|
