1 Classification of concrete release agents: A successful application of the control banding concept Ton Spee, Arbouw Jeroen Terwoert, IVAM.

1

Classification of concrete release agents:

A successful application of the control banding concept

Ton Spee, Arbouw

Jeroen Terwoert, IVAM

2

Concrete release agents

• What and where

• Which health risks

• Reducing risks

• Implementation and evaluation

3

Uses of concrete relase agents

• Concrete products factory (e.g. concrete paving stones, prefab construction elements)

• Building site (pouring concrete)

4

5

Traditional concrete release agent

• Technical requirement:

Creating a hydrophobic layer on the mould

• Petroleum product– Heavy fraction: creating a hydrophobic layer– Light fraction: solvent

6

Risks of traditional concrete release agents

• Environment – Overspray, losses (soil)– Evaporation (atmosphere)

• Transport and storage– Flammable liquid

• Working conditions– Irritation: skin, respiratory tract– Central nervous system (+)

7

8

Alternative products

• (Bio)degradable oil: modified petroleum products

+ Less harmful to environment– Irritation: skin and respiratory tract

• Fatty ester emulsions

+ Renewable raw materials

+ Biodegradable

+ Non-irritating

9

Classification system for concrete release agents

• Purpose:– Transparency in the market

• By:– IVAM, in cooperation with Arbouw, suppliers,

government, within a European project

• Result:– Five classes of concrete release agents:

1 = best, 5 = worst

10

Implementation: shift to class 1 products

• Opportunities

• Threats

• Dealing with opportunities and threats

11

Opportunities

• Suppliers:– Higher added value to product

• Employers– Less health complaints from employees– Costs related to spills– Image of ‘responsible’ company

• Employees– Less health complaints– Bad smell

• Government– Reducing VOC emission is priority

12

Threats

• Suppliers – Laggards, divided

• Employers – Higher costs– Complicated

• Employees– New product new technique, (lack of) skills

different appearance– Complicated

• Government– Priority: ‘small’ source of VOC (5 mln L/y)

13

Dealing with threats

• Complicated: clear, univocal, simple message

• Higher costs: example calculation

• New technique: courses (concrete society, suppliers)

• Disagreement among suppliers: solved within BLF

• Priority: included in priorities for VOC reduction (money)

• Money: grant from European Union

14

Class 1

• “Ready biodegradable according to OECD 301 B,C,D or F test• No R-phrases• Minimum 75% (excl water) renewable raw materials• Fp > 100oC

• Ready biodegradable according to OECD 301 B,C,D or F test (excl 10 days window)

• No R-phrases, except R65• Fp > 100oC

Class 2

15

Class 3

• > 80% degradable according to CEC L 33-A-93• No R-phrases, except R65• Fp > 61oC

• No R-phrases, except R65• Fp > 61oC

• All other products

Class 5

Class 4

16

Message for the worker (and employer)

Class 1 is the best product, class 5 the worst

• Suppliers

• Leaflet EU

• Course from Concrete Society

• Arbouw– State of the art document– Product group information system Arbouw (PISA)

17

P I S A

18

Leaflet

19

Course

20

Different appearance of surface layer

21

Message for employers

• State of the art document– Alternatives– Which agent in which situation– How to apply

• Apperence of the surface• Type of sprayer• Technical details (pressure, spraying angle)

– Ppe related to class of agent• Example calculation of effect on building costs

– Total costs for a building project: € 8.6 mln– Extra costs of new release agent: € 750– Extra costs in percantage: 0.009%

22

Message for occupational health professionals

Class Composition

1 Most renewable raw materials; biologically degradable; free of solvents

2 Mixture of mineral and renewable oils; partly biodegradable; free of solvents

3 Primary degradable (not necessarily biodegradable); may contain solvents

4 Insufficiently degradable or no degradability data available; may contain solvents

5 Contains solvents; R-phrases; poorly degradable

23

Market development for concrete release agents (2001 – 2003 estimated)

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fatty Ester

Water

Mineral Oil

Solvents

24

VOC emissions 1998 - 2003, relative to 1998

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

1 2 3 4 5 6

year

VO

C e

mis

sio

n r

elat

ive

to 1

998

all

construction

concrete releaseagents

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics (except yellow line)

25

Conclusions

• Implementation of an alternative may be successful

• Complicated, many parties involved

• Apart from employers and employees:

• IVAM, EU, Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment, Concrete Society, Arbouw

• All parties communicate a clear, univocal and simple message

• Analyse and use opportunities and threats

26

Thanks !!

• Sponsors- Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment

- European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

- Arbouw

• VOC Emission data- CBS: Kees Olsthoorn

- TNO: Peter Coenen

27

28