Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 151–156 | Cite as

Chemical emissions from residential dryer vents during use of fragranced laundry products

  • Anne C. Steinemann
  • Lisa G. Gallagher
  • Amy L. Davis
  • Ian C. MacGregor
Article

Abstract

Common laundry products, used in washing and drying machines, can contribute to outdoor emissions through dryer vents. However, the types and amounts of chemicals emitted are largely unknown. To investigate these emissions, we analyzed the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) both in the headspace of fragranced laundry products and in the air emitted from dryer vents during use of these products. In a controlled study of washing and drying laundry, we sampled emissions from two residential dryer vents during the use of no products, fragranced detergent, and fragranced detergent plus fragranced dryer sheet. Our analyses found more than 25 VOCs emitted from dryer vents, with the highest concentrations of acetaldehyde, acetone, and ethanol. Seven of these VOCs are classified as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and two as carcinogenic HAPs (acetaldehyde and benzene) with no safe exposure level, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. As context for significance, the acetaldehyde emissions during use of one brand of laundry detergent would represent 3% of total acetaldehyde emissions from automobiles in the study area. Our study points to the need for additional research on this source of emissions and the potential impacts on human and environmental health.

Keywords

Emissions Fragrance Dryer vent Laundry products VOC 

References

  1. Alvarez FR, Shaul GM, Krishnen ER, Perrin DL, Rahmen M (1999) Fate of terpene compounds in activated sludge wastewater treatment systems. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 49(6):734–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bickers DR, Calow P, Greim HA, Hanifin JM, Rogers AE, Saurat JH, Sipes IG, Smith RL, Tagami H (2003) The safety assessment of fragrance materials. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 37(2):218–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper S, Raymer J, Pellizzari E, Thomas K, Castillo N, Maewall S (1992) Polar organic compounds in fragrances of consumer products. Final report, contract # 68-02-4544, US EPA, Research Triangle ParkGoogle Scholar
  4. CPSC (2000) U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Electric & gas clothes dryers—staff evaluation (0101), February 2000. http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia00/os/clothes.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2011
  5. Destaillats H, Lunden MM, Singer BC, Coleman BK, Hodgson AT, Weschler CJ, Nazaroff WW (2006) Indoor secondary pollutants from household product emissions in the presence of ozone: a bench-scale chamber study. Environ Sci Technol 40(14):4421–4428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Efficiency Vermont (2010) Your guide to electrical usage in your home. http://www.efficiencyvermont.com/pages/Residential/SavingEnergy/HighElectricBills/. Accessed 16 Apr 2010
  7. Ford RB, Domeyer O, Easterday KM, Middleton J (2000) Criteria for development of a database for safety evaluation of fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 31(2):166–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hardin County (2008) Hardin County Planning and Development Commission. Building code clarification handout, #2008.004, January 2008. http://www.hcpdc.com/KYbuildingcode.asp. Accessed 16 Apr 2010
  9. Jo WK, Lee JH, Kim MK (2008) Head-space, small-chamber and in-vehicle tests for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from air fresheners for the Korean market. Chemosphere 70(10):1827–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. MarketResearch.com (2007) Laundry care products in the U.S. Packaged Facts, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  11. Nazaroff WW, Weschler CJ (2004) Cleaning products and air fresheners: exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants. Atmos Environ 38(18):2841–2865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Peck AM, Hornbuckle KC (2006) Synthetic musk fragrances in urban and rural air of Iowa and the Great Lakes. Atmos Environ 40(32):6101–6111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rastogi SC, Heydorn S, Johansen JD, Basketter DA (2001) Fragrance chemicals in domestic and occupational products. Contact Dermat 45(4):221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reiner JL, Kannan K (2006) A survey of polycyclic musks in selected household commodities from the United States. Chemosphere 62(6):867–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reiner JL, Berset JD, Kannan K (2007) Mass flow of polycyclic musks in two wastewater treatment plants. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52(4):451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rimkus GG (1999) Polycyclic musk fragrances in the aquatic environment. Toxicol Lett 111(1):37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sarwar G, Olson DA, Corsi RL, Weschler CJ (2004) Indoor fine particles: the role of terpene emissions from consumer products. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 54(3):367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Simonich SL, Begley WM, Debaere G, Eckhoff WS (2000) Trace analysis of fragrance materials in wastewater and treated wastewater. Environ Sci Technol 34(6):959–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Simonich SL, Federle TW, Eckhoff WS, Rottiers A, Webb S, Sabaliunas D, de Wolf W (2002) Removal of fragrance materials during U.S. and European wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Technol 36(13):2839–2847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. State of Wisconsin Department of Commerce (2001) Optional Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC) makeup and combustion air worksheet, April 2001. http://commerce.wi.gov/sb/. Accessed 16 Apr 2010
  21. Steinemann AC (2009) Fragranced consumer products and undisclosed ingredients. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29(1):32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steinemann AC, MacGregor IC, Gordon SM, Gallagher LG, Davis AL, Ribeiro DS, Wallace LA (2011) Fragranced consumer products: chemicals emitted, ingredients unlisted. Environ Impact Assess Rev 31(3):328–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. US Census Bureau (2005) American FactFinder, Data Set: 2005 American Community Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=. Accessed 11 May 2010
  24. US DOE (2009) 2009 Buildings energy data book. US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. US EPA (1994) Environmental Protection Agency, technical background document to support rulemaking pursuant to the Clean Air Act, Section 112(g), ranking of pollutants with respect to hazard to human health, EPA-450/3-92-010, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  26. US EPA (1999) Determination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in air collected in specially-prepared canisters and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Method TO-15. Compendium of methods for the determination of toxic organic compounds in ambient air, 2nd ed. EPA/625/R-96/010b. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati. http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/airtox.html. Accessed 4 Feb 2010
  27. US EPA (2005) Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F, Washington, D.C., March 2005Google Scholar
  28. US EPA (2008) United States Environmental Protection Agency, air quality system, raw data report (AMP350). Beacon Hill site, Seattle, WA. Report generated March 29, 2011Google Scholar
  29. US EPA (2010) Table 1, prioritized chronic dose-response values for screening risk assessments (4/27/2010). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html. Accessed 26 Apr 2011
  30. Wallace L, Nelson W, Pellizzari E, Raymer J, Thomas K (1991) Identification of polar volatile organic compounds in consumer products and common microenvironments. Paper #91-62.4 presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vancouver, BC, JuneGoogle Scholar
  31. Washington State (2005) WA Emissions Inventory 2005, King County. Washington State Department of Ecology, OlympiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne C. Steinemann
    • 1
  • Lisa G. Gallagher
    • 1
  • Amy L. Davis
    • 1
  • Ian C. MacGregor
    • 2
  1. 1.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Battelle Memorial InstituteColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations