search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
42 | Sector Focus: Preservatives & Fire Retardants


TACKLING TOXICITY


Ian King, chief operating officer at Zeroignition, explains how innovation has led to a generation of low-toxicity fire retardants and why this should lead to an uptick in the use timber for construction


emissions, so it’s no surprise that concerns around the environmental impacts of the industry are mounting. Several factors are at play regarding this growing issue, and toxic pollution within construction is one of the most significant.


Construction contributes 40% of global CO2


If these challenges are to be overcome, construction professionals need to develop a deeper understanding of the materials used in buildings. This includes considering the entire life cycles of structures, and their performance as part of wider systems. It is also crucial that developers remain critical of current safety standards, including the use of fire retardants, which can be hazardous and toxic to the environment.


Fire retardants are used to increase the protection of building materials such as timber against fire and fire spread. As an attractive and flexible material, timber is seeing a resurgence in popularity due to its renewability and properties as a carbon sink. Yet many fail to recognise that toxic chemicals used in the protection of this material reduce its green credentials, presenting an unforeseen danger to the environment. When specified as part of larger projects, the associated danger of toxic pollution is at risk of being overlooked. Fortunately, solutions are in place to resolve this issue, and extensive R&D has led to new innovations of low-toxicity fire retardants. Implementing these in a meaningful way will be a significant leap forward in the use of renewable building materials.


UNDERSTANDING THE DANGERS Timber can be an effective sustainable building option, but care must be given to its treatment when used within building projects. Schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council are improving sustainability within timber construction by providing greater visibility and assurances across supply chains. This means suppliers can hit sustainability targets, while also showcasing their commitment to improving environmental standards within construction. Whilst this is good news, there remains the danger posed by toxic pollution, which is equally as important as the ability to reduce carbon. However, if the construction industry can find a way of harnessing timber’s sustainable properties whilst removing the


risk of danger to health, then developers can rest easy in the knowledge that residents and our environment are being protected.


THE CHALLENGE OF TOXIC FIRE RETARDANTS


When untreated wood burns, volatile organic compounds and carcinogens are released into the atmosphere. Due to their chemical composition, fire retardants can exacerbate this by releasing highly noxious fumes which damage our health and our ecosystem even without fire. Chemicals from materials can also make their way into the environment via other routes such as water, through rain and drainage. This can even occur as early as the initial processing stages of timber products during manufacturing. A range of chemicals have been explored over the last few decades for applications in fire retardants in an effort to find a solution. Halogenated chemicals, such as brominated and chlorinated compounds have been one such popular, cost-effective solution. Unfortunately, these chemicals have been found to cause health complications such as hormone disruptions and infertility. Because of this, many products using this chemical have already been banned or voluntarily phased out.


In the EU, for example, the use of some brominated fire retardants is banned or restricted. This progress is encouraging; however, further advancements are needed to provide safer alternatives to these well- established solutions.


Living with toxic fire-retardants no longer needs to be an issue – non-toxic fire retardants are available, and by increasing awareness around their abilities, specifiers can build safer and more sustainably, particularly in regards to use of timber. Moving forward, it’s vital that research continues and leaders within the construction industry keep up the drive for safer solutions.


It’s understandable that the sector is now looking for sustainable building materials but players in the industry must ensure there’s a clear understanding on how they are used and protected when incorporated into a final build. Business leaders are open to adopting new technologies, however, there must be clarity and visibility on their risk to health from that protection. It’s this attention to detail that will create more environmentally friendly practices in years to come, and as further regulations around building safety come into play, allow the sector to stay one step ahead.


Continued R&D is playing a major role in making buildings more fire safe and sustainable but we need further progress to develop more products free of harmful substances such as halogenated chemicals, and they must be implemented regardless of cost. Ultimately, suppliers must begin prioritising human and environmental health above all else. It’s only then that we can truly achieve the cleaner, greener future we’re all striving for. ■


See also feature on pp60-61.


Above: Ian King: “suppliers must begin prioritising human and environmental health TTJ | November/December 2022 | www.ttjonline.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85