Number

004-EN

Section

General Section

Use

Abstract

Substitution of methyl chloroform (1,1,1 trichloroethane) by isopropanol and heptane for spot-washing has been carried out by a textile company, as part of a more complex process that included waste and emissions reduction. In this process biphenyl, tetrachloroethylene and trichlorobenzene were also substituted, but the alternative (methylnaphthalene) has no harmonised classification according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation)..

Substituted substances

Alternative Substances

Reliability of information

Internet information: data are from an internet document and only a basic and partial evaluation could be performed

Reason substitution

ecotoxicity

Hazard Assessment

Substance to be substituted: Methylchloroform is not listed in the SUBSPORTplus Database. Its main hazard is that it harms public health and environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere (is classified Ozone 1). Alternative substances: Heptane is included in the EU harmonised classification as causes skin irritation. Isopropanol and heptane are not listed on the SUBSPORTplusdatabase SDSC for substances known to be of very high concern. » Check the Substance Database according to SUBSPORTplus Screening Criteria (SDSC)

Description of Substitution

A textile company implemented a complex environmental protection programme with measures to reduce hazardous emissions, wastes and energy consumptions. As part of this programme some hazardous substances were replaced. The company substituted a solvent containing isopropanol and heptane as spot-washing alternative for methyl chloroform (1,1,1 trichloroethane), a hazardous air pollutant due to its potent ozone depleting properties. No loss of quality was noted with the substitution. The substitution helped the company comply with emission limits. Tetrachloroethylene, biphenyl, and trichlorobenzene were used as constituents of a dye carrier. They are all hazardous and were substituted, but the alternative, methylnaphthalene, has no harmonised classification according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation)., therefore this substitution is not further presented in this case story (the exposure was reduced by computerised process control).

Case/substitution evaluation

The substitution is efficient in eliminating the hazard of ozone depletion, which is a significant concern for solvents, which are generally more likely to pollute the atmosphere. The components of the alternative solvent are slightly less volatile than chloroform, thus reducing VOC emissions. However, the alternative mixture contains heptane (percentage is not stated) which is highly toxic for aquatic life. Discharges into waste water and/or water bodies should be strictly controlled, and the company should look further for alternatives that are less toxic for all environmental compartments. This case study shows a successful reduction in VOC emissions, but dangerous substances are still used, so it is important to substitute them in the future.

State of implementation

Full capacity

Date and place of implementation

1994 in USA

Availability of Alternative

Alternative is available on the market.

Type of information supplier

Authority

Type of publication and availability

Internet publication, freely available.

Publication source: author, company, institute, year

The description is based on the case study published initially by NCDENR - North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and republished by Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange on its website.

Publication source

Type of publication and availability

https://p2infohouse.org/ref/01/0056604.pdf

Date, reviewed

December 11, 2020