Reconciling chemical flame retardant exposure and fire risk in domestic furniture.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests that standards for resistance of furniture to ignition may lead to an increase in use of chemical flame retardants (CFRs). This is motivating the development of new approaches that maintain high levels of fire safety while facilitating a reduction in use of CFRs. However, reconciling potential fire risk with use of CFRs in relation to specific policy objectives is challenging. OBJECTIVES: To inform the development of a new policy in the UK for the fire safety of furniture, we developed for domestic furniture quantitative models of fire risk and potential for CFR exposure. We then combined the models to determine if any lower fire risk, higher CFR exposure categories of furniture were identifiable. METHODS: We applied a novel mixed-methods approach to modelling furniture fire risk and CFR exposure in a data-poor environment, using literature-based concept mapping, qualitative research, and data visualisation methods to generate fire risk and CFR exposure models and derive furniture product rankings. RESULTS: Our analysis suggests there exists a cluster of furniture types including baby and infant products and pillows that have comparable overall properties in terms of lower fire risk and higher potential for CFR exposure. DISCUSSION: There are multiple obstacles to reconciling fire risk and CFR use in furniture. In particular, these include a lack of empirical data that would allow absolute fire risk and exposure levels to be quantified. Nonetheless, it seems that our modelling method can potentially yield meaningful product clusters, providing a basis for further research.

Self-reported Side-effects of Ultraviolet-C Disinfection Devices.

The COVID-19 pandemic increased sales of portable UV-C devices as a means of inactivating the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Research suggests that excessive UV-C exposure to the eyes and skin can lead to side-effects, primarily photokeratitis and erythema, but these findings are limited to case studies. This study explores self-reported side-effects of UV-C devices by collating five waves of UK consumer survey data from April 2020-December 2021 (N = 26 864). 30%-46% of owners report a side-effect after using a device claiming to emit UV-C. However, detailed analysis of Wave 4 data (N = 309) highlights inconsistencies between reported and plausible side-effect(s) associated with skin or eye exposure from UV-C devices. Alternative explanations are considered, namely that the reported side-effect(s) were psychosomatic or misattributed to direct exposure of UV-C radiation. Data regarding awareness of warnings about device side-effect(s) supports the misattribution explanation. For risk assessment purposes, limited reliable information about specific irritation or injury to the eye and skin was found from self-reporting surveys. To optimize future data collection, we recommend addressing recall errors by: reducing the period under investigation, supplementing responses with empirical measures, and incentivizing respondents to provide accurate information about the make and model of the UV-C device.

Survey of Home-Use UV Disinfection Products†.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a commercial opportunity for traders marketing a range of ultraviolet (UV) radiation products for home-use disinfection. Due to concerns about the efficacy of such products and the potential for harmful levels of UV exposure to people, a range of products were purchased from on-line trading platforms. Spectral irradiance measurements were carried out to determine whether the products could be effective against the SARS-CoV-2 virus and whether they were likely to exceed internationally agreed exposure limits. It was concluded that many of the devices were not effective and many of those that were potentially effective presented a risk to users.