Formaldehyde
The debate on formaldehyde in an international context is wide ranging and has continued for many years. In the writers opinion there are three interesting points to this debate to be noted.
- Many of the “against” lobby studies have been funded by large corporations with vested interests. This has led to doubtful investigative methods giving highly questionable results.
- In the early years of use the emerging industry had no controls on users by way preventing unprincipled operators using unsuitable plant, materials and untrained installers. This had the inevitable result of some work not being of a satisfactory standard, which in turn, led to a situation exploited by the corporations referred to in 1. above.
- Formaldehyde is an important part of modern economies. It is reported that some 12% of the US economy is dependent on the hundreds of forms of the product. These products range from false teeth, carpet backing, adhesives and to permanent creasing of fabrics to name just a very few.
It is important to note these points when considering the use of urea formaldehyde for insulation.
- Ensure that the materials used have been shown to be suitable for purpose by a proven track record.
- That all plant purpose designed and built.
- All operators are fully trained in the use and maintenance of the plant.
- That full training imparting the detailed knowledge of the many different New Zealand building materials that will be encountered.
- That full knowledge is available pertaining to the many different construction methods employed in New Zealand over the last 100 years or so.
Urea Formaldehyde foams
Urea formaldehyde (UF) foams were originally developed during the 1930’s in Germany. After World War 2 the material was further developed for insulation purposes. The product was used by the Allies for the insulation of temporary dwellings in occupied countries.
Further development in the 1960’s led to the commercial application, by specialist operators, for use in existing residential buildings. As the majority of dwellings, in the UK and those parts of Western Europe where the process was applied, were of double (cavity) brick construction a great deal of attention was given as to the suitability of the process for brick buildings. As the foam is hydrophobic it repels liquid water but is permeable to water vapour. This unique feature allows the building to expel internal water vapour in response to temperature differentials.
International performance
In spite of problems referred to in 2. above, it has been reported that millions of homes have insulated by the process. Western Europe 7 million by 1984. Britain 1.7 million. USA over 3 million.
Past and present situation in New Zealand
In New Zealand development of the AIRFOAM™ process commenced in 1972. Extensive travel to Australia, USA, Europe and the United Kingdom was embarked upon to gather information as to the state of the industry in those countries. This investigation provided the information, which allowed an extensive market research and product development schedule to be put in place and activated.
Particular attention was given to the work done by European authorities, The Agrément Board and others and the British Research Establishment (BRE). The BRE was at that time in the process of sponsoring two British Standards for the fledgling industry. The these later emerged as BS 5217:1985 and BS5218.The first was to cover the materials and their preparation. The second, and most importantly in the writers view, was a Code of Practice for the handling and installation of the materials.
It was decided to adopt the elements of these Standards that could be applied to the New Zealand market and buildings. An approach was made to Standards New Zealand and eventually in 1988 BS5218 was adopted as NZS 4235:1988.
At the same time an effort, to have a New Zealand Code of Practice introduced to give Authorities some control over the Industry, was promoted. After many years of fruitless endeavour and much expense this was abandoned as Standards maintained that such Codes of Practice were outside their jurisdiction. This unhappy situation persists to this day and results frequently in building disasters, particularly in the residential sector where sharp practices have become the normal expectation from speculative so-called “builders”.
The Management of AIRFOAM Thermal Insulation Ltd still use the guidelines of the British Standards and insist on proper training and licensing of all installers.
The AIRFOAM™ R and D programme continued during the 1970’s. During the three years from 1976 a series of buildings scheduled for demolition were insulated then dismounted and inspected. The purpose of this was to confirm that the various methods, which were being developed for different material/construction combinations, were appropriate and effective.
After modifications and improvements the process was introduced the New Zealand market in 1980. Since that time over 7,000 existing homes have been insulated using the proprietary AIRFOAM™ process. Of all those customers only 11 complaints have been recorded. Only 1 of these was regarding the product and that was subsequently proven to be correct.
It is interesting to note that in New Zealand the complaint rate for new homes has been stated as being in excess of 3%.
The AIRFOAM™ complaint rate is less than 0.0016%. This is in line with UK experience where the complaint rate is stated as “less than 1%.
H J Munro
AMNZIHVE - March 2004
