Hello, everyone. Corrosion is everywhere and no type of metal, coated metal or laminated metal foil package is immune from both metal and/or polymer corrosion.
It is often erroneously believed that chloride ions are the principal cause of spray package corrosion, particularly when chloride ions are found around or inside corrosion sites. In this issue, I’d like to discuss how chloride ions are actually involved in spray package corrosion.
Water is electrochemically active, so it does cause metal corrosion…
Let’s start by defining two terms commonly used in corrosion engineering and science: corrosion site and corrosion product. A corrosion site is any area on a coated or uncoated metal surface where electrons are removed from the metal and the metal ions are ejected from the metal. Corrosion sites can be:
• Very large (referred to as general corrosion) and/or
• Small localized areas, such as pits.
A corrosion product is a complex mixture of metal hydroxides and oxides with various polar molecules (e.g., water) plus both positive and negative ions. Corrosion product colors typically range from black to red for steel and white to black for aluminum. The actual color of corrosion products depends on a number of chemical factors, such as the pH of the corrosion product and the amount of oxygen in the environment around the corrosion products (e.g., the oxygen dissolved in formula water).
How chloride ions are detected & measured
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) are the most common types of analyses techniques used to examine corrosion sites and determine the chemical composition of corrosion products for both general corrosion and inside pit cavities.
EDS is often erroneously referred to as a surface analysis method. However, the SEM electrons bombarding the corroded metal penetrate into the bulk metal and the resulting emitted x-rays are from both the corrosion product and the bulk metal.
The role chloride ions play
Electrochemically active ions and molecules cause metallic corrosion by removing electrons from the metal. Chloride ions have a saturated valence shell—much like noble gases. Hence, chloride ions have no room in their valence shells for more electrons and are not electrochemically active. In other words, chloride ions can’t remove electrons from metals to cause corrosion.
However, chloride ions are negatively charged and corrosion products have a concentrated mix of positive metal ions, water and formula ingredients. The metal ions produce a large electro-osmotic pressure between the corrosion site and the bulk of a formula. This pressure enhances diffusion of polar molecules, such as water, along with ions and ionic molecules toward and into the corrosion site. This both decreases the concentration of the metal ions generated by corrosion and balances the electrical charge in the corrosion product.
Thus, the corrosion product chemistry is diluted by water, and the positive charge in the corrosion product is balanced by negative ions. Consequently, the chemical composition in a corrosion product is significantly different from that of a bulk formula; it could also be significantly more corrosive than the bulk formula.
It should be noted that most negative ions and molecules can fulfill the need to balance electrical charge, so chloride ions are not exclusively needed to support spray package metal corrosion. Also of note is that water is electrochemically active and thus causes corrosion.
Spray packages with an internal coating or laminate polymer film
Corrosion of polymer coatings and polymer films (laminated onto the package metal) is actually caused or enhanced when positively charged ions—such as cations like Na+ from sodium salts—diffuse through a coating/film to its substrate metal. Accumulation of water and cations in a coating damages it, reduces and/or eliminates its ability to be a barrier between the metal and a formula, and creates microscopic liquid-rivers through the coating that allow metal corrosion to initiate and continue growing through the substrate metal.
Cations are also surrounded by a water sheath that moves with its cation through coatings. Thus, cations have the ability to also deliver additional water to the metal substrate under a coating. To reiterate, water is electrochemically active, so it does cause metal corrosion.
Concept origins: Chloride ions cause spray package corrosion
Metals and alloys that spontaneously passivate—such as stainless-steel and nickel alloys—form very thin, transparent metal oxide film barriers between the metal and the environment (e.g., a formula). These passive films are approximately 20 Angstroms thick (2e-6 mm) and their compositions are very close to the theoretical oxygen-metal ratio for a metal oxide.
Chloride ions damage passive films in small spots by displacing the oxygen ion in the metal oxide via ion exchange. The resultant metal chlorides are water-soluble and dissolve in water leaving a hole in the passive film. Damaged areas of a passive film (holes) can quickly regenerate; however, pitting corrosion occurs whenever the chloride ions damage a passive film faster than it can regenerate.
The aluminum, steel and tin metals used for spray packages do not spontaneously form passive films. Hence, chloride ions do not cause corrosion of packaging metals because they do not spontaneously passivate.
The actual role of chloride ions in corrosion
The supporting role of chloride ions for pitting corrosion of non-passivating steel was confirmed several decades ago with auger electron spectroscopy studies on the chemical composition inside corroding pits. This research chronicled development of the chemistry inside pit cavities at various stages ranging from initiation to mature growth. Chloride ions were found inside pits after pitting corrosion was fully developed but not during the initial stages of pitting corrosion. Thus, this research demonstrated that the chloride ions corrosion role was supportive and not causative.
At my request, a similar separate study was conducted on a sample of tinplated steel that I provided. Chloride ions were found inside tinplate corrosion pits, but also only detected after the pitting process was fully developed.
In summary, chloride ions do not cause pitting corrosion in the types of metals used for fabricating spray packaging. Chloride ions can support corrosion by balancing the positive charge of the corrosion product at corrosion sites. However, any negative ion or molecule (anion) can balance charge, so chloride ions are not strictly necessary for spray package pitting corrosion.
Thanks for your interest and I’ll see you in March. Contact me at 608-831-2076; rustdr@pairodocspro.com or from our two websites: pairodocspro.com and aristartec.com. SPRAY
The Year In Review
During 2024, several significant regulatory changes occurred in respect to the use of Reactivity. First, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) decided that the next rule-making amendments will use Reactivity limits to regulate Consumer Products. This is a historic change to the way CARB has operated over the last 34 years. While it is true that CARB did adopt the Aerosol Coating Rule in 2001 solely using Reactivity, it had been reluctant to use Reactivity for Consumer Products. This changed in 2019 with the Alternate Compliance Option for Multi-Purpose Lubricants. Then again, in the last rulemaking, the new provisions for the Innovative Product Exemption (IPE) for hair spray, dry shampoo and personal fragrance were solely based on Reactivity. This next rulemaking should be interesting.
Did you know that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) also incorporated Reactivity into its amendments for Rule 1151 on Auto Refinish Coatings? Historically, SCAQMD has been the toughest agency in the country—if not the whole world—on reducing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in products. The SCAQMD region (Southern California) has the worst air quality in the country, thus its tough stance on reducing VOCs. In November 2024, SCAQMD adopted alternative Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) limits and effective dates for two coating categories, as well as thinners. I know it is only three categories, but it is a start. These limits become effective on Jan. 1, 2028.
For years, Industry has been fighting for Reactivity. Now is the start of a new way to regulate our products. Remember, a reduction in the MIR content is a reduction in ozone produced. This cannot be said about a reduction in mass VOC content. Thus, this should be a more scientific way to regulate smog production.
CARB
The new CARB survey is out for the Industry to complete by April 8, 2025. If a company manufactures a Consumer Product that appears on the CARB survey list, it is required to submit a completed survey by the April 8 deadline.
In addition, CARB held a webinar on Jan. 16 regarding its Toxicity Ranking Methodology. We learned CARB’s logic on this topic as staff gave an in-depth explanation of the calculations used to determine the toxicity scores that were used to select the categories for the 2023 Consumer Products Survey. In addition, CARB discussed its next steps for prohibiting toxic compounds, including parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF), which I will share in next month’s column.
SCAQMD 1151
Now that I referred to the SCAQMD Rule, let me provide more information. As stated, these are historic amendments from SCAQMD, with the Reactivity limits coming into play. Even more impressive is that the SCAQMD staff relaxed (yes, relaxed) some of the VOC limits in the regulation. SCAQMD is attempting to prohibit PCBTF and tertiary-Butyl Acetate (tBAc) from being exempt or used in the rules. Starting with Rule 1168 on Adhesive, staff is working through rules to eliminate the use of these two compounds. In Rule 1151, SCAQMD relaxed the VOC limits to the National limits for anywhere from 4–6 years for numerous categories.
The loosening of the VOC limits allows manufacturers time to reformulate SCAQMD products. This allows manufacturers to supply customers in the SCAQMD with products and phase-out of PCBTF. This phase-out of PCBTF starts as early as May 1, 2025, for some products and allows a one-year sell-through and an additional year for use. Other categories have a phase-out of Nov. 1, 2025, with sell-through and use-through dates also of one year.
Again, these are historic times, as I never thought I would see SCAQMD relax VOC limit to National limits. SPRAY
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) finalized amendments to the “short-form” safe harbor warnings under the Proposition 65 (Prop 65) regulations, which became effective Jan. 1.
Under Prop 65, formally known as the Safe Drinking Water & Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, companies are required to provide warnings about exposures to chemicals that have been identified by the State known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. It is important to note that exposure in this case does not refer to the mere presence of a substance; companies are not required to provide a warning if the exposure poses no significant risk.
The “safe harbor” warning language was significantly overhauled in 2016 and, due to the length of the “long-form” warning, many companies opted to use the “short-form” warning for smaller packages. In 2016, the “short-form” warning did not require a company to identify a specific chemical, instead only requiring that the risk (i.e. cancer, reproductive toxicity or both) was identified on the label.
Following the implementation of the safe harbor warnings, OEHHA had concerns about the number of companies utilizing the short-form warning and not identifying the chemical(s) that necessitated the language. Accordingly, OEHHA proposed changes and, after multiple rounds of stakeholder input, has amended the regulation.
Here are the key takeaways for those who use the “short-form” safe harbor warnings:
• The short-form warning language needs to contain at least one chemical. See below for more on the short-form warning language.
• The short-form warning language can be used immediately and all new products must be compliant by Jan. 1, 2028.
• Consumer product exposure warnings must be prominently displayed on a label, labeling or sign, and must be displayed with such conspicuousness as compared with other words, statements, designs or devices on the label, labeling or sign, as to rend the warning likely to be seen, read and understood by an ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase or use.
• For pesticide products, the word “ATTENTION” or “NOTICE” in capital letters and bold type may be substituted for the word “WARNING.”
• OEHHA has provided an unlimited sell-through period for products manufactured and labeled with the existing short-form warnings before or during the three-year transition period.
• Retailers have a 60-day transition period to update online short-form warnings after receiving notice from the manufacturer.
• For catalog purchases, if a short-form warning is provided on the label, the warning provided in the catalog may use the same content.
The new “short-form” warning may be provided as follows:
• The exclamation mark symbol. This symbol needs to consist of a black exclamation point in a yellow equilateral triangle with a bold black outline. Where the sign, label or shelf tag for the product is not printed using the color yellow, the symbol may be printed in black and white. The symbol shall be placed to the left of the text of the warning in a size no smaller than the height of the word “WARNING.”;
• The word “WARNING:” or the words “CA WARNING:” or “CALIFORNIA WARNING:” in all capital letters and bold print (or “ATTENTION” or “NOTICE” for Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) products); and
one of the following:
1. For exposures to listed carcinogens, the words:
“Cancer risk from exposure to [name of chemical].
See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
“Can expose you to [name of chemical], a carcinogen.
See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
2. For exposures to listed reproductive toxicants, the words:
“Risk of reproductive harm from exposure to [name of chemical]. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
“Can expose you to [name of chemical], a reproductive toxicant. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
3. For exposures to both listed carcinogens and reproductive toxicants, the words:
“Risk of cancer from exposure to [name of chemical] and reproductive harm from exposure to [name of chemical]. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
“Can expose you to [name a chemical], a carcinogen, and [name of chemical], a reproductive toxicant. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
4. For exposures to a chemical that is listed as both a carcinogen and a reproductive toxicant, the words:
“Risk of cancer and reproductive harm from exposure to [name of chemical]. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
“Can expose you to [name of chemical], a carcinogen and reproductive toxicant. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
When a warning is necessary, it is recommended that companies use the language created by OEHHA to guarantee their compliance with Prop 65 regulations. Remember, private citizens can act to ensure that warnings are properly provided, which has led to the rise of “bounty hunters” who are on the lookout for easy non-compliance targets. Update your warnings during the three-year transition period so as not to be an easy mark.
If you have any questions about the new “short-form” warning requirements or Prop 65 in general, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
Those who take the time to read my columns (and thank you if you do) will know that the UK is very busy at the moment writing new regulations to improve recovery and recycling rates for packaging. In fact, this is something that most major, developed economies appear to be working on.
The question about packaging, for any aerosol dispenser, is an odd one. Aerosols are certainly a package, and it has elements that are packaging. However, the aerosol system works holistically. One needs a container that can withstand both the pressure of the propellant gas, and the chemicals and ingredients used in the formulation. Plus, the formulation and the propellant gas, whether one is using liquefied gas or compressed gas, must be compatible with one another.
We know legislators are looking to bring forward regulations to make products simpler to recycle by mandating fundamental design changes; I think that the best people to work out how this can be done for aerosols are those working in the aerosol industry.
The valve must be sealed onto the container, in much the same way that a screw top needs to be sealed onto a bottle, but the valve does much more than merely keep the product inside. Along with the actuator, the product’s formulations and the gas, the valve controls the way the product is dispensed, creating the consumer experience.
If you are reading SPRAY Technology & Marketing, then I suspect that much of this will not be news to you. However, it will probably be news to those who work in a regulatory capacity. After all, often from an outside perspective, packaging is packaging—isn’t it?
Simplifying aerosol recycling
Aerosol dispensers are a special case when it comes to the package, and it is incumbent upon those of us who work in the aerosol industry to ensure that those who make the rules around packaging—and how packaging is recovered and recycled—understand why an aerosol might need to be considered a little differently. It would be very difficult, nay impossible, to make an aerosol out of a mono-material conforming to the current regulation. However, there are some simple things we can do to make the package easier to recycle.
Over the coming months, the British Aerosol Manufacturers’ Association (BAMA) will be working with our members to consider what industry might do to make the aerosol package simpler to recycle, both for the consumer and for when the product enters and exits the recycling system.
We know legislators are looking to bring forward regulations to make products simpler to recycle by mandating fundamental design changes. I think that the best people to work out how this can be done for aerosols are those working in the aerosol industry. Our ambition is to try and get ahead of the game and look at what changes we might suggest before others, with less experience, do.
I look forward to sharing the outcome of these discussions with you sometime in the very near future. SPRAY
Happy New Year from the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA). As 2025 begins, so do the terms for returning and newly elected Congress members, as well as the start of a second Trump Administration. We can expect many changes at both the Federal and State levels that will impact Industry. One area where we know this will be the case is trade, which will likely be dominated by tariffs.
On the campaign trail leading up to his election, President-elect Trump promised to impose significant tariffs on imports. He stated, on more than one occasion, that he wants to reshape global trade through tariffs, including as much as 60% on imports from China and 10–20% on all other foreign [non-U.S.] products.i Trump said this arrangement would favor domestic manufacturing and increase government revenue. As I write this column at the end of November 2024, he has already announced a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, effective when he takes office.ii Obviously, the specific details are unknown and will likely change as the impacted countries respond and/or negotiate, but it still creates uncertainty in the marketplace.
Recall that, in 2018, the first Trump Administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum at 25% and 10%, respectively, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 authorizes the President to adjust the import of goods through tariffs from countries if the goods are deemed a threat to national security.
The Trump Administration also imposed tariffs against China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, one of the principal means by which the U.S. enforces its trading rights and addresses unfair practices by its trading partners. You may remember that these tariffs were not well received by other governments, who retaliated by imposing their own tariffs on U.S. goods.
The media has discussed at length the impact that tariffs will have on U.S. consumers; however, their impact on U.S. businesses—especially those such as the aerosol industry that rely on imported materials such as steel and aluminum—isn’t discussed to the same extent. According to economists Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce,iii using tariffs as a tool for protecting and promoting domestic manufacturing is complicated by globally interconnected supply chains. Tariffs can reduce competitiveness due to retaliation and higher costs in downstream industries.
We don’t know for certain which laws and authorities President-elect Trump will employ during his second administration, but we can speculate that they will be similar to his first term in the White House. It’s likely that any additional tariffs imposed on China will continue to occur through the authority granted under Section 301. For other countries, the Trump Administration may continue to utilize Section 232, but could also use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the President to impose tariffs of up to 50% of a product’s value when a President finds that a foreign country has either discriminated against or imposed unreasonable charges on U.S. commerce. There’s also the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the President authority to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat (in this case, through a tariff), including national security and the U.S. economy, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to the threat.
Regardless of the avenue pursued, the U.S. should expect retaliation from other countries if Trump moves forward with new and/or additional tariffs in his second term. Consumers aren’t the only stakeholder burdened by tariffs. Like many industries, the aerosol industry doesn’t exist in a domestic vacuum where the impact of tariffs won’t be felt.
Should we see activity related to tariffs in 2025, HCPA will be working with allied trade associations and coalitions to advocate on behalf of the industry and educate policymakers about the negative impact that tariffs could have on business. If you have any questions or would like to be involved, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i Washington Post, November 8, 2024
ii Washington Post, November 26, 2024
iii Flaaen, Aaron, and Justin Pierce (2019). “Disentangling the Effects of the 2018–2019 Tariffs on a Globally Connected U.S. Manufacturing Sector,” Finance & Economics Discussion Series 2019-086. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, link.
Happy New Year! This year will be filled with new challenges as we work with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and likely Oregon and other jurisdictions, on volatile organic compound (VOC) issues. As we will also need to work on American Innovation & Manufacturing Act (AIM) compliance, we should look at these regulations as opportunities. Let the fun begin!
CARB
On Dec. 5, 2024, CARB held a webinar on its Consumer Products Reporting Tool (CPRT) for the upcoming 2023 survey. This survey is the beginning of the next rulemaking for Consumer Products. During the webinar, CARB staff responded to Industry’s comments from the October 2024 webinar in which they shared the categories that will be surveyed.
First change—and this is a big one—CARB has dropped reporting years 2020, 2021 and 2022. CARB listened to our comments, and this update will reduce the workload significantly. Now, Industry needs to report 2023 sales and formulations for products sold into California from the following categories, which includes three new ones (listed in Bold):
• General Purpose Cleaner (non-aerosol)
• Anti-Microbial Dry Hand Wash (hand sanitizer)
• Laundry Detergent
• Hand & Body Conditioner, Cream, Lotion and Moisturizer
• Air Freshener, Liquid/Pump Spray
• Deodorant
• Plastic Pipe Cement & Primer
• Disinfectant (aerosol)
• Permanent Hair Dye
• Conditioner without styling claims
• Floor Wax Stripper
• Oven & Grill Cleaner (non-aerosol)
• Sunscreen (hair or body) (aerosol)
• Body wash/Mousse/Gel/ Soap/Foam/Scrub
• Liquid Fabric Softener
• Antiperspirant
• Dual Purpose Air Freshener/Disinfectant (aerosol)
• Paint Remover Stripper
• Thinner/Reducer/Retardant (Motor Vehicle Coating Systems)
• Paint Thinner (non-aerosol)
• Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-chemically curing)
• Lacquer Thinner
• Footwear or Leather Care Product (all other forms)
• Multi-Purpose Solvent (non-aerosol)
• Footwear or Leather Care Products (aerosol)
• Clean-Up Solvent
• Rust Preventative or Rust Control Lubricant (aerosol)
• Undercoating (aerosol only)
• Carpet & Upholstery Cleaner (non-aerosol-dilutable)
• General Purpose Degreaser (aerosol)
• Metal Polish/Cleanser (aerosol)
• Cutting or Tapping Oil (aerosol)
• General Purpose Degreaser (non-aerosol)
• Spot Remover (non-aerosol)
• Sealant or Caulking Compound (chemical curing)
• Multi-Purpose Dry Lubricant
• Penetrant
CARB’s next change was to extend the deadline for the survey until April 8, 2025. This gives Industry an extra month from the original proposal to complete the survey. Once again, they listened to our comments and incorporated a change.
CARB staff answered our questions on definitions and OTC drugs, and while we might not have liked their answers, at least they responded to our comments. Another issue was Fate and Transport; CARB is still pursuing these categories, but stated that they will consider new data. Lastly, CARB added three new product categories to our list, as indicated above, bringing the total number of categories to possibly be regulated to 37.
One other feature for this survey is that CARB staff will follow up with formulators for Responsible Parties. This means that, if you have a filler/formulator for your product, then CARB will follow up with the third party. All the responsible party needs to do is supply CARB the formulator name, contact name and email address by the deadline of Jan. 14, 2025. Even though the turnaround is short to report this information, this should lessen the burden on marketers.
Overall, CARB gave us some positive changes, indicating that our comments were received and considered. I believe this is a good sign for this rule development.
CARB Date Code
This is my annual friendly reminder about Product Dating/Date coding. Make sure you are up to date on your date code filings, as this is an area that CARB continues to become stricter with.
Date code information needs to be reported to CARB every year by your company if you do not use CARB’s standard date coding. California Section 94512 (b) product dating specifically requires all consumer products sold into the State to display the day, month and year the product was manufactured or a code indicating the date. CARB has been increasing its activity on investigating and levying fines for non-compliance of this section.
The date or date-code information shall be located on the container or inside the cover/cap so that it is readily observable or obtainable (by simply removing the cap/cover) without irreversibly disassembling any part of the container or packaging. Information may be displayed on the bottom of a container as long as it is clearly legible without removing any product packaging.
CARB’s standard code that must be represented (separately from other codes on the product container so that it is easily recognizable) is the following: YY DDD = Year Year Day Day Day. A manufacturer who uses this standard CARB code to indicate the date of manufacture does not have to report this code.
Failure to register a date code is subject to a fine, which seems to go up each year. Your date code explanation needs to be submitted to CARB Enforcement on an annual basis, on or before January 31 of each year, and can be sent via email to: cpenforcement@arb.ca.gov.
AIM
Remember that the AIM labeling requirement for the four-digit date code began on Jan. 1. The date code required by the AIM Technology Transition Section is the four digits of the year (i.e., 2025) placed anywhere on the container. SPRAY
Hello, everyone. One of the most frequent questions that I’m asked is, “When is corrosion testing required for spray packaging?”
Spray packaging corrosion risk without corrosion testing or a comprehensive company corrosion database is approximately 62% for aerosol containers and approximately 20% for laminated metal foil packaging.
Therefore, high risk comes with no corrosion testing. Consequently, your best defense against spray product failures and litigation from unexpected corrosion is a complete and robust corrosion testing program. I recommend that corrosion tests be conducted on:
1. New products: Corrosion science is not advanced enough at this time to use first principles to determine if a formula’s chemical composition is or is not corrosive toward various types of spray packages and how fast corrosion penetrates and degrades package materials. Consequently, corrosion testing is needed to avoid a high risk of in-market failures.
2. Derivatives of existing products (line extensions): Small changes to the chemical composition of a formula could transform a benign formula into a spray package-eater. Thus, derivative formulas (or line extensions) should be tested for corrosion compatibility with the chosen spray package, no matter how small the changes to the formula.
3. All new and derivative insecticide formulas: Insecticide chemicals are often electrochemically active and thus corrosive toward spray packaging. Insecticide formulas also typically need a corrosion inhibitor to prevent or control spray package corrosion.
4. When developing a corrosion inhibitor: Corrosion testing is needed to develop a suitable inhibitor for a corrosive formula. Corrosion inhibitors typically have an effective concentration range, so corrosion testing is also needed to determine the effective inhibitor concentration range.
5. Anhydrous formulas and derivative anhydrous formulas: Anhydrous formulas are typically contaminated with small amounts of water, which is electrochemically active toward package metals; plus, water degrades polymer coatings and laminate films. Consequently, corrosion testing on anhydrous formulas is needed to determine if the formula is corrosive and if there is contaminant water concentration, below which package corrosion does not occur.
6. New and derivative low pH formulas: pH is the negative log of hydrogen ion concentration in moles per liter. Hydrogen ions are electrochemically active and cause corrosion of spray package metals and metal foils. Consequently, low pH formulas should be tested for corrosion with all types of spray packages.
7. New and derivative high pH formulas: High pH formulas can also cause spray package corrosion. Thus, high pH formulas should also be tested for their corrosivity toward packaging.
8. Changes to an existing formula’s chemical composition: Small changes to the chemical composition of a formula could transform a benign formula into a spray package-eater. Thus, any change to the chemical composition—no matter how small the change—should be tested for corrosion.
9. Changing package materials for existing formulas: Changes to package materials could include different types of polymer coatings or laminate films, different coating thicknesses and different package metals. The chemical composition of a formula determines if a given type of package material is resistant to corrosion. Thus, corrosion tests should also be conducted when switching package materials.
10. Changes to raw material suppliers for existing formulas: The chemical composition of raw materials from different suppliers might be different. Consequently, corrosion testing should also be conducted when changing raw material suppliers.
11. Changing surfactant suppliers, types and concentrations for existing formulas: Surfactants make a surface more or less susceptible to wetting by formula ingredients, formula-water and contaminant-water. Thus, corrosion testing should be conducted when changing the type of surfactant, its concentration or a surfactant supplier.
12. Changing fragrance types, fragrance suppliers and fragrance concentrations: Many fragrances offer some modicum of corrosion inhibition. There are also a few types of fragrances, such as those incorporating vanilla, that often cause corrosion. Consequently, changes to the type of fragrance, fragrance suppler and fragrance concentration in a formula should be tested for changes in corrosion.
Unexpected spray package corrosion can be very costly and disruptive of product development programs. It is also extremely costly when in-market corrosion failures disrupt product manufacturing. Indeed, the cost of unexpected corrosion typically significantly exceeds the cost for corrosion testing. Consequently, the answer to the “when-to-test-question” is—formula-package corrosion compatibility tests should be conducted on virtually every:
• New and derivative formulas
• Substitution of formula ingredients
• New formula ingredient supplier
• Change of ingredient concentration
• New package materials
• New package component supplier
Thanks for your interest and I’ll see you in February. Contact me at 608-831-2076; rustdr@pairodocspro.com or from our two websites: pairodocspro.com and aristartec.com. SPRAY
No progress on rule restricting PFAS & flame retardants
Canada is strengthening its regulatory framework for toxic substances, particularly targeting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and flame retardants due to their persistence in the environment and harmful effects. The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations 2022 aims to restrict the manufacture, use, sale and import of chemicals such as Dechlorane Plus (DP) and Decabromodiphenyl Ethane (DBDPE), as well as products containing these substances. The proposed regulations would also extend restrictions on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are already subject to prohibition—with some exemptions—under the current regulations. These substances are of concern because of their potential for long-term environmental damage and bioaccumulation.
The 2022 proposal seeks not only to improve environmental protection but also to align with international agreements such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Additionally, it aims to streamline Canada’s existing regulations by consolidating and clarifying the rules surrounding toxic substances.
While the regulatory framework was initially expected to be finalized in 2023, the Government of Canada announced a delay in August of that year, pushing the release of the final rule to no earlier than Summer 2024. As of Autumn 2024, there remains no clear timeline for when the final regulations will be published, leaving industries and environmental groups awaiting further updates.
State of PFAS Report & mandatory data submission
In July 2024, Canada released an updated draft of its State of PFAS Report, offering a comprehensive analysis of PFAS across the country. The revised draft incorporates a significant amount of feedback and data gathered during the initial consultation period, as well as information from additional sources. It aims to provide a qualitative assessment of the fate, sources, occurrence and potential impacts of PFAS on both the environment and human health.
In parallel, a mandatory information request was initiated for the 2023 calendar year, requiring companies to report on 312 types of PFAS that were manufactured, imported or used in Canada above specified thresholds. The deadline for submitting information—including company details, facility information, quantities of substances handled and data on related goods—is Jan. 29, 2025. Although foreign suppliers are not directly obligated to report, they are “encouraged to inform” their Canadian importers, promoting collaboration across supply chains to ensure accurate and comprehensive reporting. Health Canada has published a guidance manual for responding to the mandatory data submission notice, which outlines who is responsible for submitting information and how to complete the submission; as well, it explains the reporting thresholds and activities for PFAS listed in the notice.
Federal Plastics Registry set for 2025 launch
As part of Canada’s broader initiative to achieve zero plastic waste by 2030, the Federal Plastics Registry has been introduced to track plastic production, imports and waste management. The registry, managed by Environment & Climate Change Canada (ECCC), will require companies to report data on the lifecycle of plastics, including details on how plastic waste is managed. Reporting will be phased in between 2025 and 2027, with categories including plastic packaging, electronics, textiles and single-use plastics.
The registry, which was first outlined in an April 2024 publication by ECCC, will provide crucial data to support efforts against plastic pollution and promote a circular economy. Additional guidance to aid companies with reporting obligations is expected soon.
The first phase of reporting will begin in September 2025, focusing on plastic products placed on the market during the 2024 calendar year. The reporting system was expected to become accessible in the second half of 2024 to give companies time to prepare, but as of the time of writing, no update has been provided. Schedule 1 of the regulation outlines the types of plastics to be reported, broken down by resin types, resin sources, packaging and other plastic products, organized into various categories and subcategories.
The Government of Canada is considering developing a suite of open standards for plastics data. Due to the fragmented way plastics data is currently collected by various public and private entities, it is difficult to compare or combine datasets. Open standards would provide consistent definitions, formats and organization, improving data interoperability. These standards would help harmonize reporting, reduce administrative burdens for businesses and facilitate the exchange of information for better understanding of plastics flows in Canada.
Recent CEPA Developments
Several key initiatives have been introduced under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), focusing on enhancing transparency, chemical safety and addressing environmental justice concerns. One significant update is the implementation of new software that uses an automated workflow to prioritize chemicals listed on the Domestic Substances List (DSL). This tool allows regulators to efficiently identify substances requiring assessment or regulatory action by analyzing factors such as toxicity, exposure and bioaccumulation. The system integrates diverse data sources, supporting more effective resource allocation and contributing to the broader modernization of CEPA’s chemical management framework.
The Government of Canada has proposed unmasking the identities of 198 chemicals on the DSL that are currently classified as confidential business information. This would involve removing the concealed names and adding these substances to Part 1 of the DSL with their Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers. These amendments, which are part of CEPA reforms under Bill S-5, allow the Minister of the Environment to disclose the identities of substances after 10 years. The 198 substances included in this notice have been listed confidentially on the DSL since 2004 or earlier. The initiative aims to enhance transparency while maintaining protections for proprietary data when necessary.
Another significant development is the passage of Bill C-226, the National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism & Environmental Justice, which received royal assent in June 2024. This legislation mandates the creation of a national strategy to address environmental racism, a phenomenon where marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards. The bill’s goal is to reduce exposure to harmful pollutants in these communities, while improving overall environmental health and equity. The focus now shifts to implementation, which includes developing the strategy, ensuring community involvement and ongoing monitoring to effectively address environmental injustices. Bill C-226 marks an important step toward ensuring that vulnerable populations are protected from environmental injustices. SPRAY
Most people outside of certain regulated industries have never heard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). They may recognize that consumer products are regulated, but don’t know by who or the specific requirements that manufacturers and marketers have to meet in order for products to be available for sale.
The Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)i gives CPSC the authority to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury and/or death from consumer products, including children’s toys, off-road recreational vehicles and consumer chemical products.ii To do this effectively, the CPSC initiates rulemakings; develops voluntary standards (usually in coordination with industry); recalls products and arranges for their repair, replacement or refund; conducts research on product hazards; and provides education to consumers.
CPSC is working on a rulemakingiii on aerosol dusters, which I wrote about in the last edition of Pressure Points, but with the Commission currently considering its Fiscal Year 2025 Operating Plan,iv I want to discuss what else may be on their agenda.
The CPSC has a robust list of priorities, mostly focused on quickly identifying and communicating with consumers about hazardous products, especially those imported and sold online. This focus on aggressive enforcement stemsv from CPSC’s recent “reinvention,” which is demonstrated by the increase in notices of violation and monetary settlements.vi
In 2025, the Commission will aim to prioritize consistent enforcement of e-commerce platforms—as well as monitor post-recall actions to identify if additional compliance, enforcement or communication—is necessary. CPSC has already established numerous performance goals to assess the speed and effectiveness of these priorities.
CPSC will also continue to focus on new and ongoing regulatory activity. Beyond aerosol dusters, the Commission is expected to finalize a rule to amend mandatory information disclosure standards under Section 6(b) of the CPSAvii, which requires CPSC to provide manufacturers and marketers with advance notice and “a reasonable opportunity to submit comments” to the Commission on proposed disclosures of certain information. While this rulemaking is meant to streamline the process by which CPSC shares information with the public, the regulated community has expressed concerns that it could result in incorrect information or unintended consequences, such as damaging brand reputation.
Further, the CPSC plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to review consumer product labeling. The operating plan does not indicate what this would specifically cover, but could include enforcing existing Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) labeling requirements; ensuring products subject to certification and labeling requirements meet these obligations; reviewing consumer understanding of hazard and precautionary labeling; or something else entirely. No matter what the proposal entails, the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) will engage as necessary on behalf of member companies.
Finally, CPSC plans to engage in the development and/or revision of 92 voluntary standards, including chemical test methods, child-resistant packaging and flame mitigation.
The Commission also has several other ongoing projects, including support for the statistical analysis of the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) data, maintenance of the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS) and activity related to indoor air quality, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and non-animal alternative test methods.
CPSC is considerably smaller than other Federal agencies that the household and commercial products industry commonly works with, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), but they certainly have a lot on their plate for the remainder of 2024 and into 2025.
To stay up to date on CPSC’s activity or if you have specific questions, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051−2089
ii link
iii link
iv link
v link
vi link
vii link
CARB
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) finally released the product categories planned for the next survey; these categories have the potential to be in the next round of rule development.
On Oct. 30, CARB staff presented a webinar (view the recording here). It provided Industry with rationale for the product categories selected to be surveyed. There were three drivers—the first was to fulfill the 2022 CARB State Implementation Plan (SIP).
SIP requires CARB staff to reduce emissions in Consumer Products by 20 tons per day (tpd) by 2037. To do this, CARB needs to select categories that are either high in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or high in sales, preferably both. CARB is looking for 20tpd emission reductions because it expects Consumer Product emissions to grow by 28tpd by 2037. Thus, the 20tpd reduction is only a partial amount of the total VOC growth that CARB is trying to remediate. For the first time in the Consumer Product Program history, the SIP commitment is expressed by a choice of two metrics: VOC tons or VOC–eq.
VOC-eq is new to the program and means VOC Equivalent Ozone Forming Potential (OFP). In short, VOC-eq uses reactivity to measure the amount of reduction. Reactivity has been used in the past Aerosol Coatings Multi-purpose Lubricant Alternative Compliance option and the new Innovative Product Exempt Provision for Hairspray, Dry Shampoo and Personal Fragrances. However, this is the first time that CARB will embark on product regulation by OFP. The product categories that are being considered for survey to fulfill the SIP commitment are:
• General Purpose Cleaner (non-aerosol)
• Anti-microbial Dry Hand Wash (hand sanitizer)
• Laundry Detergent
• Hand and Body Conditioner, Cream, Lotion & Moisturizer
• Air Freshener, Liquid/Pump Spray
• Deodorant
• Plastic Pipe Cement & Primer
• Disinfectant Aerosol
• Conditioner without styling claims
• Floor Wax Stripper
• Oven & Grill Cleaner (non-aerosol)
• Sunscreen (hair or body) (aerosol)
• Body Wash/Mousse/Gel/Soap/Foam/Scrub
As a qualifier, just because a category is being surveyed does not mean it will be regulated. There are many factors that could prevent a product category from being regulated. If you make products in the above categories, you should stay involved in this process or get involved in the process to protect your products.
The second driver is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Remember, EPA prohibited Methylene Chloride in Paint Strippers in 2019. The Paint Remover or Stripper product category has had to reformulate this product and may be using more VOC compounds. This is due to two factors:
1. Methylene Chloride is an exempt compound, meaning it does not count towards the VOC limit because the compound is not a VOC.
2. The limit for Paint Remover or Stripper has a VOC limit of 50%, but due to the use of Methylene Chloride, the actual average VOC content of this category was below 25% VOC.
Thus, manufacturers have likely raised the VOC content in their products. CARB is attempting to capture this change. Possibly there could be some VOC reductions of emissions from this product category that will assist with the SIP commitment.
The third driver is Toxics. CARB is attempting to reduce toxic chemicals from Consumer Products and has already prohibited some toxics—namely Methylene Chloride, Perchloroethylene and Trichloroethylene—from 43 consumer product categories. CARB will next be looking at Parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF) in Consumer Products. PCBTF is another compound that was an exempt VOC and used by manufacturers in the following 19 Consumer Product categories that will be surveyed by CARB:
1. Thinner/Reducer/Retardant (Motor Vehicle Coating Systems)
2. Paint Thinner (non-aerosol)
3. Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-chemically curing)
4. Lacquer Thinner
5. Footwear or Leather Care Product (all other forms)
6. Multi-purpose Solvent (non-aerosol)
7. Footwear or Leather Care Product (aerosol)
8. Clean up Solvent
9. Rust Preventative or Rust Control Lubricant (aerosol)
10. Undercoating (aerosol only)
11. Carpet & Upholstery Cleaner (non-aerosol-dilutable)
12. General Purpose Degreaser (aerosol)
13. Metal Polish/Cleanser (aerosol)
14. Cutting or Tapping Oil (aerosol)
15. General Purpose Degreaser (non-aerosol)
16. Spot Remover (non-aerosol)
17. Sealant or Caulking Compound (chemically curing)
18. Multi-purpose Dry Lubricant
19. Penetrant
Unfortunately, when CARB regulates the above categories, it will be likely that more VOC emissions will need to be achieved.
Currently, CARB is planning to survey 34 product categories. The current timeline is:
• November 15, 2024: Industry to submit comments
• November 2024: CARB to finalize Product Categories for survey
• December 2024: Webinar on Reporting Tool
• December 2024: Survey launch
• Early March 2025: Deadline for completion of survey
By Nov. 15, Industry would have needed to comment on categories. In early December, CARB will instruct Industry how to complete the survey. Finally, CARB wants the surveys to be completed by March 2025. Obviously, this is very ambitious and Industry will ask for more time.
Industry has been waiting for the survey process to begin. I encourage anyone that has products in these categories to be involved as much as possible. The survey process is only the beginning of what will likely be a two or three year process.
More to come.
Wishing you all Happy & Safe Holidays! SPRAY
