Should we automatically assume that VOC replacement products will be inferior?

"Volatile Organic Compounds. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), VOCs are compounds that vaporize (become a gas) at room temperature.



Common sources which may emit VOCs into the air include housekeeping and maintenance products, as well as building and furnishing materials.



In sufficient quantities, VOCs can cause eye, nose, and throat irritations, headaches, dizziness and other health hazards"



A given manufacturer may have to "re-engineer" or "re-formulate" their products in order to conform to new local or federal laws but I'm sure they will try and do so in a matter that does not diminish that product's effectiveness.
 
MorBid said:




A given manufacturer may have to "re-engineer" or "re-formulate" their products in order to conform to new local or federal laws but I'm sure they will try and do so in a matter that does not diminish that product's effectiveness.
Click to expand...

That's kind of wishful thinking, isn't it? If that was completely true, why would the mfr. not have just made the item low-VOC to begin with? While it may be true that some products can be made equally effective by using more expensive ingredients, this is hardly the case for all scenarios. Just ask anyone in metal degreasing, foam blowing, or refrigeration if the Freon replacements are better, even if they are more expensive.
 
The list chemicals or combination of chemicals that are deemed harmful to either humans/plant life/or the environment is not something set down in stone or pass down from on high many moons ago.



Tests are done, studies conducted and a determination is made, it's and evolving type kind of thing.



So I do not see how any company could manufacture a product today based on future (yet to be determined) standards.



Your mentioning of Freon is a good example.



"Freon" is actually a trade name that describes a whole class of chemicals used in refrigeration. Freon dichlorodifluoromethane, commonly called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFC's)



Now when it was discovered and put to use in the 1920's no one had a probelm with CFC's. Bingo, now we have refigerators and air conditioning (among other things)



CFC's were later discovered to be contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer and are now heavily regualted to discourage use and substitues have been found.



Does my fav frosty beverage not get as cold in my frig today as it did in my mom's or grandma's frig did when I was kid? Nope



Has the price of refrigerators and Air Conditions gone through the roof? Not from what I've seen



One of my cars is a '85 Buick Reagal, that used R-12 (contains CFC's). You can't buy R-12 or even service unit's containing it unless your certified. That meant if you needed the AC charged or have the system repaired the car had to go to the shop.



They replaced R-12 in cars with R-134a. So I brought a retro kit at the local parts store a few years back, flushed and filled the system myself for less than $40.00 and the car is just as cool as with R-12.
 
Quote: Just ask anyone in metal degreasing, foam blowing, or refrigeration if the Freon replacements are better, even if they are more expensive. EOQ



There are many other solvents that can be used (taken from higher up the distillation column-short explanation=more expensive)

JonM
 
MorBid said:


"Freon" is actually a trade name that describes a whole class of chemicals used in refrigeration. Freon dichlorodifluoromethane, commonly called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFC's)



They replaced R-12 in cars with R-134a. So I brought a retro kit at the local parts store a few years back, flushed and filled the system myself for less than $40.00 and the car is just as cool as with R-12.
Click to expand...



I'm not going to get into a pissing contest here. Of course Freon is a trade name, and CFC's were used for far more than refrigeration, having unique properties for foam blowing and metal degreasing. People who know about refrigeration, know that R-134a, which is an HFC, is not as efficient as R-12 and requires a larger system to provide the same number of BTU's. So your car is not "just as cool", although you or I may not be able to tell the difference.
 
THe only thing you can know for certain is that the formula is different.



It may be better, or worse, but it is certainly different.



Generally speaking, the new low VOC solvents are more expensive, which will make the product more expensive, but it isn't necessarily a worse formula, just different.
 
Is water classified similarly?? It vaporizes at room temperature too... I have faith that chemically, someone will come up with something good, maybe intially water soluble until it sets... who is to say the products which will comply with standards will be inherently inferior ? I have faith in the desire of manufacturers to make profits, so I am sure there will be great products to come ;)
 
not neccessarily worse-after all synthetics last longer than carnauba-so using more refined solvents or more synthetic ingredients might make a product work better
 
The goal is to reformulate without a negative change in performance; chemicals may cost more, and R&D definitely has a price. At Meguiar's, at a minimum the performance of a product must be maintained at the previous level. What we saw from R&D was that in all most all instances, performance was improved.



Mike
 
Not to argue with you, Mike, but as a for instance, chemical cleaners; you (Meguiar's) recently discontinued both MPPC and Body Scrub. These weren't reformulated; the recommended replacement was DC Step 1, which by your own descriptions on MOL is less effective than the other two. This to me is clearly a case where the VOC regs have resulted in a less effective product. Unless you're telling us that Meg's has a new chemical cleaner in the wings...
 
Setec Astronomy said:
Not to argue with you, Mike, but as a for instance, chemical cleaners; you (Meguiar's) recently discontinued both MPPC and Body Scrub. These weren't reformulated; the recommended replacement was DC Step 1, which by your own descriptions on MOL is less effective than the other two. This to me is clearly a case where the VOC regs have resulted in a less effective product. Unless you're telling us that Meg's has a new chemical cleaner in the wings...
Click to expand...



Deep Crystal Paint Cleaner is effective for it's intended purpose, to say it's less effective portrays it in the wrong light. Deep Crystal Paint Cleaner is intended for light cleaning, for this purpose it is very effective.



Their were many factors used to determine which products were reformulated and which products were not. I was not a part of that process so I don't know all the factors.
 
Water is a solvent; silicone will also act as a lubricant (as water evaporates with heat) if you â€Ëœwrapâ€â„¢ silicone in water to form an emulsion youâ€â„¢ll lessen the need for high VOC (oil) solvents (which previously supplied the spread ability. Only problem I see will be for car care manufacturers to undo silicones (totally unfounded) bad reputation, brought about by the same Mfg using negative marketing to gain market share.



A couple of declaimers here- Iâ€â„¢m just a dumb Architect and the above â€Ëœchemistryâ€â„¢ is mostly supposition ( a â€Ëœscientific wild a$$ guessâ€â„¢)

The negative marketing is not aimed at Megs as MPhillips has gone out of his way to disclaim the â€ËœSilicone Mythsâ€â„¢ bantered by other Mfgs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top