ECHA's New Report Highlights Environmental Risks of Aromatic Brominated Flame Retardants

What Are Aromatic Brominated Flame Retardants?

Aromatic brominated flame retardants are chemical additives used in materials like plastics, textiles, and electronics to reduce flammability. They are commonly employed in sectors such as construction, automotive, and consumer electronics. ABFRs can be categorised as reactive or additive:

• Reactive ABFRs chemically bond to the material and pose lower risks of leaching.
• Additive ABFRs are mixed without bonding and are more likely to escape into the environment.

Non-polymeric ABFRs, a subset of additive ABFRs, are particularly concerning due to their smaller molecular size and higher propensity to leach into ecosystems.

Key Findings from ECHA’s Investigation

High Environmental Risks

ECHA identified five ABFRs that fulfil criteria for being persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB). An additional 37 ABFRs are likely PBT, with non-polymeric additives posing the greatest environmental risks.

Primary Sources of Pollution

The lifecycle of ABFR-containing products—from manufacturing to disposal—is riddled with pollution risks. Waste management stages, such as shredding and landfilling, release these chemicals into the environment. The lack of effective recycling solutions exacerbates this issue.

Regulatory Gaps

Not all ABFRs are registered under the EU's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. Yet, they are detected in alarming concentrations in the environment, suggesting compliance and import monitoring gaps.

Challenges in Managing ABFR Waste

The report highlights inefficiencies in waste management systems, particularly in recycling facilities. Mechanical recycling methods often fail to completely remove ABFRs, allowing small amounts to re-enter the market through recycled materials. Additionally, high costs associated with advanced analytical techniques limit their widespread adoption.

Available Alternatives

ECHA's research reveals that several alternatives exist for ABFRs, including:

• Organophosphate Flame Retardants: These are available for applications like electrical enclosures but may share similar hazards.
• Non-combustible Materials: Glass and stone wool offer viable substitutes in insulation but lack compatibility with some niche applications.
• Polymeric Additives: These provide safer options for specific uses but require further research and investment.

ECHA stresses that the substitution process must be tailored to individual applications, considering not only flame retardancy but also material properties and manufacturing constraints.

Regulatory Roadmap and Future Implications

ECHA’s findings are part of the European Commission’s Restrictions Roadmap under the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. The roadmap prioritises addressing substances like ABFRs that harm ecosystems and human health. A group-based regulatory approach targeting all non-polymeric additive ABFRs is under consideration to close current regulatory loopholes.

Industry and Environmental Concerns

Industry representatives have voiced concerns about the feasibility of phasing out ABFRs, citing their widespread use and limited availability of alternatives in some sectors. However, environmental advocacy groups argue that the persistent nature of these chemicals necessitates decisive action.

Conclusion

The ECHA report highlights the dual challenge of balancing industrial needs with environmental protection. While alternatives exist, transitioning away from ABFRs requires innovation, collaboration, and regulatory clarity. The findings provide a clear path for the European Commission to take meaningful action, ensuring that these hazardous substances are systematically eliminated from the value chain.