DecaBDE difficulties continue

The withdrawal of the ROHS exemption 9a, namely “DecaBDE in polymeric applications” last year, is a subject of much discussion, and I still receive many questions on the matter some 10 months after the event (July 1, 2008).

DecaBDE was investigated intensively for more than 10 years and it is safe to say that there is more scientific data for this substance than any other alternative flame retardant. The problem is that DecaBDE was one of the most widely used flame retardants (FRs) in electrical and electronic equipment, but manufacturers and their component suppliers would not know which FRs are used in any parts they buy.

If you buy a connector, for example, the data sheet will not specify which FR is used. Distributors will not know, and quite often, the parts manufacturer will not know. Plastics supply chains can be quite long, often originating in Asia and, as DecaBDE is still used in other applications, there is a risk that it could be present.

The approach used by most manufacturers is to tell their suppliers not to use PBDEs, including DecaBDE. A few ban all brominated flame retardants, but this is not always possible technically, and is not justified environmentally, despite what some “green” groups might claim.

There are many suitable alternative flame retardants to DecaBDE, although it could be argued that none of them have gone through a risk assessment as intensive as that for DecaBDE. Most of the alternatives are more expensive and many will affect the plastics properties.

About the author
As director of legislation and environmental affairs, Gary Nevison is Newark’s and Farnell’s spokesperson and customer interface on legislation that affects the electronics industry, such as the ROHS (all variations around the world), REACH, EuP, and WEEE directives. For more on Gary, visit this page.