Defining Product Toxicity

In order for a building product and its life cycle impacts to be completely transparent, additional information is needed beyond the basic information provided in EPDs. The missing item in the process so far has been toxicity, that is, the presence of substances that can poison or create toxic conditions. Those substances come from the various ingredients, minerals, compounds, etc. that are included in or are the result of creating a building product.

 

The concern over these ingredients is seen in two areas:

• Eco-toxicity is the potential or biological, chemical or physical stressors to adversely affect ecosystems. There are plenty of examples over the past 100 years or more of a product manufacturer polluting the air, water, or soil to the point that animals, birds, fish, or vegetation were destroyed due to the toxic nature of the pollution. Of course, it is important to recognize that products can contribute to eco-toxicity during several or even all phases of their life cycle. Extracting raw material in a manner that kills off parts of an ecosystem immediately or over time have been seen in many products that are mined or harvested. Manufacturing plants that use industrial process to create products sometimes also create toxic by-products or emissions that can damage or kill living things of all types. And the disposal of some products has led to landfills or incinerators producing toxic air or liquids emanating from them. This recognition of toxicity is a significant environmental impact, but not all PCRs or EPDs fully address the toxic potential to the environment over the life cycle of their products.
• Human Toxicity is the likelihood of an environmental toxicant to have an adverse effect on human health. In essence it talks about the ability of a product, its component materials, or its byproducts to be toxic (i.e. poisonous) to people. Unfortunately, the construction industry can point to plenty of instances where some rather mainstream and standard materials proved to be detrimental to people. Products that contained asbestos, lead, and urea-formaldehyde garnered a lot of public attention and many companies are still paying the astronomical costs of abatement and legal liability from the real or threatened human harm that occurred. The business consequences were disastrous for the product manufacturers and the consequences were equally staggering for the architects, specifiers and building owners who unwittingly put these toxic products to use. In recognition of these past issues and in the interest of avoiding such issues in the future, green building rating systems began to address indoor environmental quality (IEQ). This is definitely a step in the right direction and limits the use of particular chemicals such as urea-formaldehyde and VOCs in building products. However, there are plenty of other chemicals, compounds, and by-products that can be harmful or toxic to people over the life cycle of the manufactured products. It should also be noted that the concern here has often been the exposure to people during the building use phase but the reality is that people can be exposed throughout the full life cycle of the product.


All building products are made up of selected and necessary ingredients, some of which have raised concerns over their toxicity to the environment, people, or both.

Photo courtesy of Forbo Flooring Systems

Architects and interior designers have been aware of the need to address human toxicity in the built environment for some time. Diane Brandli, ASID, CID, LEED AP is principal of dbdesign, a sustainability & interiors consulting firm in upstate New York. She has undertaken to independently research and investigate building products in depth and look at the substance behind different product certifications. She notes that “There are specific means by which human health is affected by building products. For example the very act of inhaling in an indoor environment containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) exposes our airways and lungs to potentially serious harm.” What if we are eating in a space that has toxic materials in it? Diane warns that “ingestion of toxic dust particles is entirely possible when people are exposed to materials that contain toxins.” But we don’t need to inhale or ingest to be affected. “Dermal Exposure, which is toxic components absorbed through the skin, can come about just by being in contact with surfaces, furnishings, or finishes.” She also points out that “human health reaction can be immediate (allergic) or long term (persistent bioaccumulative toxins or PBTs.)  The long term effects are the most insidious.” Given all of the potential ways that people can be affected, it is clear that addressing human toxicity is not only the right thing to do from a health, safety, and welfare perspective, it is paramount to protecting life.

Ecotoxicity and human toxicity are broad and complex issues. They aren’t always easy to categorize or inexpensive to quantify. For these reasons, it is tempting to simply deny or ignore them. Unfortunately, denial and ignorance can sometimes seem to be a fairly effective marketing strategy but the evidence of history proves otherwise.