1

EPHECT Stakeholder meeting Minutes

Date: 15

th of May, 2013

Meeting location: Federal Public Service, Eurostation, Room 0D0010/0D0011. Victor Horta plein 40, 1060 Brussels

Participants: See annex 1

Morning session: EPHECT, a preview of the key outcomes This session aimed at presenting an overview of the EPHECT strategy and its outcomes up to now. EPHECT and its objectives (E. Goelen VITO, Belgium)

After welcoming the participants, the objective of formulating ideas for policies in Europe and guidance for end users (regarding the products addressed in EPHECT) in this stakeholder meeting was highlighted. The ideas resulting from this stakeholder consultation will be ranked and used to formulate the final EPHECT policy recommendations. Prior to this stakeholder consultation, an overview of the EPHECT strategy, its outcomes and scientific/policy value up to now was presented in the morning session.

The EPHECT flow chart was presented (See annex 2). An important aspect in the EPHECT strategy is the fine-tuning of its focus during the project’s progress:

- the initial literature review on existing data and knowledge on product emissions and health effects included studies on all consumer products;

- consumer products which were further investigated were the selected personal care products, air fresheners, cleaning agents, with emphasis on sprays (in line with the grant agreement), causing an exposure related to the use and use scenario and being potential sources of health relevant air pollutants in households. The household use of 15 selected consumer product classes (See annex 3) in the EU was explored in the EPHECT market study;

- consumer product emission testing identified all relevant chemical emissions, but focused on the quantification of selected EPHECT key and emerging chemical pollutants. These are compounds that have been prioritised by concerted actions, projects and activities run by European Commission and WHO, and have been reported as occurring in the products and being potential hazardous;

- health effects addressed in the EPHECT’s exposure and health risk assessment are those caused by inhalation exposure, and focused on the selected EPHECT key and emerging pollutants in the tested products.

The scheduled end date of the EPHECT’s contract is 15th

of September 2013.

Uses and use scenarios of selected consumer products in the EU (A. Johnson, IPSOS)

IPSOS created an inventory of information on consumption and use habits of the 15 EPHECT consumer product classes at EU level, in order to: (1) produce knowledge which can serve as input for simulating real life emission testing and exposure and risk assessment: (2) identify the most popular brands, products and formats of

2

consumer products used in European households and (3) collect information on behaviour patterns for each of the selected product classes (such as frequency of use, time of day when the product is used, rooms where it is used, surfaces on which it is used, protection measures, and reading/respecting instructions).

An online survey was conducted in 10 countries, across Western Europe, Southern Europe, Northern Europe and Eastern Europe. A total sample size of 4335 interviews was reached, with 350-550 respondents per country. The reported results were weighted across the countries.

A few teasers of the outcomes were presented. For example, all-purpose cleaners and bathroom cleaning agents appeared to be the most common used consumer products, whilst floor cleaners and coating products were used by the smallest group of respondents. For respondents from Northern Europe the environment is the most important criterion when selecting a consumer product, whilst brand and price are least important. In Southern, Western and Eastern Europe on the contrary, environment was ranked with low priority, whilst mostly the price, but the brand as well, were more important selection criteria.

Consumer product emission testing: strategy (M. Stranger VITO, Belgium)

The EPHECT lab testing experiments aimed at formulating harmonized emission test scenarios for the EPHECT product classes, at developing repeatable/reproducible test protocols and at evaluating the comparability of results. The strategy respects the existing international standards for building and furnishings in product testing as much as possible, and includes an evaluation of the outcomes of similar scenarios in rooms with different dimensions.

The EPHECT consumer product test protocol was presented. It consists of an EPHECT umbrella for consumer product testing (see annex 4), the list of the EPHECT key compounds and related analytical methods, a QA/QC strategy for all emission tests and analysis steps and a detailed plan of work to perform the consumer product emission tests in 4 laboratories, each using a test room of different dimensions.

Continuous total hydrocarbon (THC) emission profiles, established using flame ionization detection, are applied to complement the discontinuous chamber measurements during the emission tests. Although the absolute value of the THC outcome may be different from the reported TVOC concentrations (integration of all peaks in the range C6-C16 in the chromatogram, relative to the internal standard 2-fluorotoluene) because of the different methods, the emission profiles are essential when characterizing emissions and establishing emission test scenarios. It was also illustrated that although all emitted compounds are identified and (semi) quantified in the experiments, the EPHECT key pollutants for exposure and health risk assessment may only represent a small fraction of those compounds.

In order to evaluate the reproducibility of the test scenario in different laboratories, 3 products (one cleaning agent, one air freshener and one personal care product) have been tested in all laboratories applying the EPHECT umbrella for consumer product testing. Because of the different room dimensions, loading factors (LF), and air exchange rates (AER), a straightforward comparison of test room concentrations or emission factors cannot be made. Therefore, the comparison was made by calculating specific emission rates (SER), which are corrected for room dimensions, LF, and AER. The outcomes confirmed that the most reproducible results were obtained for products that imply a straight-forward use scenario, such as perfumes. For this product category, a relative standard deviation of the peak SER’s for limonene between the laboratories (NRCWE, VITO, and IDMEC) was 7%. For the limonene average SER’s (i.e. the emission rate averaged over the duration of the emission test), a between laboratory relative standard deviation of 22% was obtained. A similar repeatability was found for the other identified and quantified key compounds. Comparable results were obtained for the electrical air freshener comparison, provided that the loading factor was sufficiently high to achieve room concentrations above the detection limit. It was seen that at too low loading factors in the test chamber with dimension representative of a real life exposure scenario, compounds may not be identified or seemed to lead to deviating SER’s because steady state cannot be reached in the same time and chamber concentrations are close to the detection limit. These low concentrations lead to an increased uncertainty of the result or to unidentified compounds. Creams appeared to be the most complex products to test in a reproducible way, because of the layer thickness, the mass and the surface which next to factors such as surface wind speed all influence the emissions. Still, even though the between laboratory deviation is higher, the within laboratory deviation of 3 experiments performed in each laboratory ranges from 6-40% for the limonene peak SER and from 6-15% for the average SER. In EPHECT, one creamy product (kitchen cleaning agent) was tested.

3

Consumer product emission testing: what we learned (P. Wolkoff NRCWE, Denmark)

A more detailed overview of the EPHECT intercomparison experiment was presented. It was concluded that small emission test chambers (up to 0.0509 m³) were not suitable for consumer products testing in the scope of EPHECT, because of a possible underestimation of terpene emission rates (and to a lesser extent aldehydes).

The EPHECT deliverable ‘Review of the literature on methods of measurement of chemical emissions from consumer products’, written by Crump D. et al, was cited. An important conclusion of this review is that chamber tests involving the measurement of emitted substances under controlled environmental conditions, offer the most appropriate means of obtaining emission data of substances into indoor air and the concentrations arising from product use. Although all approaches outlined in the review (i.e. content, small chamber / large chamber and real room combined with modelling) provide useful information, the lowest uncertainty of the scenario is achieved when tests most closely reproduce the exposure scenario. Here it should be noted however, that while field measurements may represent a true exposure, due to the large variety of practices and environmental conditions that can occur, this type of test does not allow for an efficient comparison of products or modes of product use. This latter was indeed confirmed in the EPHECT intercomparison, since the fewer the degrees of freedom of the use scenario simulation, the smaller the deviation between different test chamber emission rates. The authors of the review also underlined that up to now only few studies have discussed repeatability of testing; none have addressed inter-laboratory reproducibility or compared in-chamber and in-field exposures. The EPHECT intercomparison is thus the first of its kind.

Based on the EPHECT experience in consumer product testing, it was concluded that conditioning/application, loading/dosage and selection of suitable climate chambers, are very important aspects in performing and comparing consumer product emission tests. It would be beneficial to cover certain of these features by modelling (such as wall sink effects, incomplete mixing, transformation reactions, and modelling of the inhaled dose), however, still a lot of additional research is needed in order to appropriately doing so., The objectives of EPHECT include a comparison of specific emission rates, the assessment of peak and average concentrations, and the assessment of realistic exposures for a representative risk assessment. A report on guidance on emission testing, with a critical evaluation of strong and weak aspects of the EPHECT emission testing, is being formulated.

In the context of representativeness of consumer product testing, EPHECT also includes transformation reactions with ozone. Therefore 3 consumer products have been tested in an ozone enriched atmosphere. Studied compounds include: formaldehyde, other aldehydes, poly-oxygenated and secondary organic aerosols (UFP) and will be reported by the end of May 2013.

The speaker clarified that, integrated exposure and risk assessment should be done in the future for all emitted compounds and all relevant health endpoints. The current data set obtained from emission testing is applicable, but needs to be extended in further studies to more products, more compounds and to a standardized test protocol.

Exposure to key pollutants and health risk assessment (P. Carrer UMil, Italy)

The methodology of health risk assessment (HRA) in EPHECT consists of 4 steps: (1) Selection of target compounds for HRA, (2) hazard identification and dose-response relationship, (3) exposure assessment and (4) risk characterization.

Exposure and HRA is performed in relation to key and emerging indoor air pollutants, emitted during the household use of selected consumer products. As EPHECT focuses on air pollutants known to be risk factors of respiratory diseases, health effects are assessed considering irritative and respiratory health end-points. Acute health effects are studied by 30 minute exposures (reflecting the exposure during use), whilst long term exposures are studied during 24h, reflecting exposure during the day (considering as representative all days of a year). In general, the most representative worst-case scenario was put forward in EPHECT and focus was put on housewives and the elderly (who spend the majority of their time indoors). Furthermore, human and animal toxicological data concerning adverse effects of short- and long-term inhalation exposure are evaluated in order to identify the critical effect, and the corresponding No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level (NOAEL) or Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level (LOAEL). Using this information, the limit of exposure is calculated in the framework of EPHECT. This exercise was illustrated with the candle emission test, where the similarity of the

4

exposure outcomes between two candle emission tests in two different emission test rooms was emphasized. The outcomes were also demonstrated for all other tested consumer products, where it was indicated that HRA in EPHECT opted for the worst case situation. According to the ‘worst-case scenario’ strategy, in case the same product was analysed by several laboratories (e.g., intercomparison experiments) or several times by the same laboratory (e.g., duplicate analyses), emissions that resulted in the highest exposures were taken into consideration for HRA.

Following a remark of a stakeholder, room volumes applied for indoor exposure modelling have been reconsidered, with respect to the “English Housing Survey, Housing stock report 2008” (published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in the UK, October 2010); “Housing Statistics in the European Union 2010” (edited by Kees Dol and Marietta Haffner, OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology for The Hague: Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, September 2010); and Torfs et al. (2008).

The example given on the HRA results is based on the first level of exposure modelling in EPHECT [1 product / 1 compound / 1 microenvironment, ME]. The second level [many products / 1 compound / 1 ME] and the third level [1 or many products / all compounds (that can be modelled) / 1 dwelling (several MEs) in the UK] of the exposure modelling is still on-going. Work on HRA of secondary reaction products is on-going, as well. All outcomes will be included in one of the EPHECT deliverables, named “Report on the health risk associated with the household use of selected consumer products”.

Presentation of the BUMAC database (E. Tolis UOWM, Greece)

The objective of setting up the BUMAC database in EPHECT, is to compose a database on the state-of-the-art of emissions and health end points from consumer products. The database contains emission data that were inventoried on the basis of a comprehensive literature review on the current state-of-the-art on consumer product compositions and emissions, on test chamber experimental results, exposures, risks and health end points related to the use of consumer products which emit pollutants of health concern. Its content is restricted to outcomes of procedures derived from standardized emission test protocols and published in reviewed scientific journals. BUMAC includes product categories, not only on the EPHECT focused consumer products, but extends on much larger categories of consumer products relevant to indoor air quality. It includes: air fresheners, appliances, clothes and fabrics, decoration, electronic equipment, fireplaces, flowers and plants, household products, personal care products/cosmetics, pest control, pet care products, printed material, and toys. Each product category included, consists of several product classes that contain relevant products. For each included product, experimental set-ups and product emissions/concentrations are shown. BUMAC is continuously updated, and up to now consists of 42 literature sources, 87 products from almost all categories of products considered, 110 experiments, 422 compounds and 2699 emissions.

The use of BUMAC was demonstrated by representative screen shots.

From building materials policy’s point of view (C. Däumling UBA, Germany)

In this presentation a selection of EPHECT product emission data was critically evaluated in the light of the building material expertise in Germany. At first the different approach of EPHECT, i.e. the evaluation the respiratory health risk related to selected key air substances compared to the German AgBB scheme, i.e. the evaluation of all emissions, was clarified. The stepwise approach in the German AgBB product evaluation strategy was described: (1) the assessment of the toxicological relevance of all detected single substances (harmless and relevant substances with LCI values; carcinogens), (2) to limit the not assessable substances (precautionary principle: VOCwithout LCI, (3) to limit the total amount of VOC emissions (TVOC, TSVOC).

The concept of EU-LCI (Lowest concentration of interest), the French CLI (concentration limite d’intérêt) or the German NIK (German Niedrigste Interessierende Konzentration) was also clarified, as being an auxiliary parameter for a comparable evaluation of product emissions under test chamber conditions. They represent evaluations for emissions from single sources in standard room conditions and dimensions (sources usually being building products); in contrast to indoor air guideline values, which are evaluations for overall concentrations indoors (accounting for contributions from all present sources).

Even though compared to building materials, EPHECT consumer products may have specific emission scenarios or special purposes (fragranced products), the emissions of two products characterized by an emission profile

5

reaching a steady state were tentatively evaluated. For this purpose, the test room concentrations of one passive and one electrical air freshener were recalculated to standard room concentrations. Even in the dilution of a standard room the amount of contributing emissions cannot be neglected. Evaluation with the AgBB evaluation scheme shows that the two consumer products would be rejected if this building material evaluation scheme would be applied to this category of consumer products because the major part of emissions have no toxicological assessment (LCI values).

EPHECT in relation to EU perspective (S. Kephalopoulos EC, DG JRC/IHCP/I.01, Italy)

It was emphasized by the speaker that most of existing EU policies on chemicals and consumer products (e.g. REACH, General Product Safety Directive, CLP/GHS, Biocidal Products Directive, Toys Safety Directive, Cosmetics Directive, etc.) specify safety conditions and limits mostly based on chemical content and not on emissions patterns. The EPHECT proposed recommendations on exposure reduction guidelines and risk assessment framework on consumer products should be further developed and exploited in liaison with policy makers and relevant industrial associations so that existing knowledge can be enhanced and a more informed and scientifically supported implementation of existing product policies and risk management options for reducing the risks associated to the use of consumer products in EU can be achieved.

The EPHECT’s emission testing umbrella protocol for various categories of consumer products:

- should be seen as a pre-normative work, which at the end of the project will provide advice and recommendations on future standardisation of emission testing of consumer products along with gaps identified and needs for further research

- can directly feed and be beneficial to the work of CEN Technical Committees on consumer products (e.g. CEN/TC 52 on safety of toys, CEN/TC 392 on cosmetics, CEN/TC 369 on candles, CEN/SS H99 on products for household and leisure use, etc.)

- points out the need for harmonised, standardised and reproducible test protocols specific for each product type and for standardised and real-life exposure scenarios to consumer products

The EPHECT’s evaluation of the health impact of the chemicals emitted from the consumer products may feed into a future extension of the recently developed EU-LCI harmonisation framework, which is actually focusing on evaluating from a health standpoint the chemicals emitted from construction products based on the LCI (Lowest Concentration of Interest) concept to those emitted by various consumer products.

EPHECT is a potential provider to the recently launched DG ENV’s initiative called IPCheM (Information Platform for Chemical Monitoring). The initial phase of IPCheM will be carried out through an administrative arrangement between DG ENV and DG JRC (04.02.2013 - 03.02.2016) and its objective is to create a single access point to all chemical monitoring data and metadata of Europe. It can be used initially by European Commission Services and at a later phase by EU Agencies, by the EU Member States and International Organisations, respecting existing conditions of data access and use. On the short term, the objectives are focussed on facilitating decentralised access to chemical monitoring data produced by EU funded projects and chemical monitoring programs in the EU member states (for which data providers will remain custodians and responsible for their data) through appropriate metadata interfaces along with online search, discovery and download functionalities. It is also foreseen to provide hosting facilities for data not properly stored or not readily accessible as may happen with several EU funded projects after their completion. An option under discussion is to potentially provide chemical monitoring information of defined quality such as those resulting from qualified labs and standardisation and harmonisation activities in EU.. Therefore, on a medium to long term the ambition of IPCheM is to focus on: 1) data quality and usability, by improving data quality via standardisation and/or best practices and on 2) facilitating assessment of chemical monitoring data. IPCheM is being developed across 4 modules: (1) food and feed monitoring, (2) environmental monitoring, (3) bio-monitoring, and (4) product and indoor air monitoring. Among the potential providers identified for module 4 are: AIRMEX, SINPHONIE, OFFICAIR, EPHECT (BUMAC database) and the indoor air monitoring programs/activities in some EU MS (Germany, France, etc.). Screen shots of the current status of the IPCheM platform were demonstrated.

6

Afternoon session: EPHECT for you as a stakeholder (E. De Oliveira Fernandes, IDMEC, Portugal)

This section aimed at consulting all stakeholders attending the meeting on a few points that may somehow define the IAQ issue seen from the source control perspective.

An introduction was made by Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes including the presentation of the 4 topics for discussion by 4 working groups.

The questions put to each working group were:

Topic 1. Current policies and practices in the EU (and MS)

- Do we think current policies in the EU are in line and up to date with the current knowledge? Please motivate.

- Are the current policies in the EU holistic and easily applicable? What could be better?

- Which pathways for the future do we advise? E.g. A green paper on indoor air, IAQ embedded in every policy (industry, consumer, space)?.

Topic 2. On supporting tools for a source control strategy: testing, labelling, and reinforcement (voluntary or mandatory)

- How would you describe product labelling as an efficient mean of source control in this context?

- On which criteria should the most suitable labelling system for these specific consumer products be based (emissions vs. content)?

- Do we think a harmonisation on EU level would generate an added value? Please motivate.

Topic 3. Links with more mature systems of IAQ source inventory, management and control (paints, building materials …)

- Can we identify any possible crosslink(s) between consumer product source inventory systems and other currently existing systems like EPBD (Energy Performance of Buildings Directive), Reach, GPS or other auditing tools such as...?

- How do you see possible relations with other source inventory systems (e.g. ...), with exposure and health risk assessment tools, or with other databases? Please motivate.

Topic 4. Cooperation industry/policy makers/consumer groups: implementation, information and communication

- Which are the current obstacles in the interaction between science, industry, policy and users?

- What are the needs to optimize the interaction between science, industry, policy and users? Which pathways for the future do you advice towards the most effective dialogue and cooperation?

- How to communicate to the users?

The distribution of participants by each working group was:

Topic 1. Eddy Goelen, Stylianos Kephalopoulos, Fabrice Thielen, Maria Carrega, Maria Uhl, Leendert van Dijk, Kim Constandt, Tine Cattoor and Irina Zastenskaya

Topic 2. Marianne Stranger, Gabriela Ventura, Marc Lor, Reinhard Oppl, Evangelos Tolis, Caroline Widdowson, Borislav Lazarov, Laura Chiappini, Gerard Stijntjes

Topic 3. Peder Wolkoff, Paolo Carrer, Marilena Trantallidi, Christine Däumling, Thomas Letzel

Topic 4. Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes, Paul Lloyd, Sean Murray, Yann Devorest, Simon Terwagne and Dieter De Lathauwer

7

The discussion took place in parallel in different rooms after what each “rapporteur” presented to the plenary session the conclusions of each working group, by the order, Stylianos Kephalopoulos, Laura Chiappini, Christine Däumling and Dieter De Lathauwer.

After a short discussion, a set of main conclusions could be retained as the result for the afternoon session.

- There is a wide array of policies in the EU and EU MS related to chemicals and consumer products which are scattered and not fully harmonised. This, besides creating barriers in trade, does not allow performing a robust and cumulative risk assessment of chemicals.

- More EU wide guidelines on indoor air quality is the preferred option as an umbrella of policy, however it is difficult to reinforce them in practice especially as regards the implementation for household products used in private dwellings. Both at EU as at MS level a broad range of legislations and scientific studies exist which leads to confusion and delay. An overarching long term direction is missing. Such a timeline with clear goals established at policy level would contribute to convergence.

- The prioritisation of consumer products to focus on emission measurements and the harmonisation of related testing methodologies are the “must-have” which subsequently could help to develop enough good quality data to support a more robust assessment of the risks linked to the emission of chemicals.

- Some of the current policies, standards and tools related to the chemicals in consumer products are sector-oriented, with the exception of REACH, which is useful in the identification of substances, and should be aligned under an umbrella framework in a comprehensive hierarchical way which will develop and enforce a minimum level of harmonisation across the EU MS.

- Need to setup a horizontal platform for exchanging info on developments in emission testing methodologies, results and exposure assessment for indoor air quality related policies which amongst others will identify critical points and reinforce existing legislation on chemicals (e.g. REACH) and consumer products, where relevant. Risk assessment approaches would take appropriately on board these consolidated results in view of adopting restriction on chemical content in products while in parallel accounting for their related potential emissions from the same product(s) under typical product use in real-life scenarios.

- Product labelling could be an efficient mean of source control but a lot of work should be done: standardized methods should exist; the methods chosen for products labelling should be close to reality but not too complex to ease their use among the different countries, reference materials should developed (two kinds of reference material, analytical and for test chambers for inter-laboratory comparison exercises purposes).

- The methods for evaluate consumer products should be easy to use. Emissions should be measured since it provides different and more representative information than content. But face to the difficulties of measuring early emissions, the product content could be determined at a first stage, and the emissions could be measured in case of negative evaluation of first stage. The substances to be measured should also be well defined. Should be the Secondary Organic Aerosol formation taken into account? Are Ultra Fine Particles, Total Volatile Organic Compounds measured? Is a screening performed?

- The assessment of substances by ECHA would be useful for LCI generation that can be useful for evaluation of consumer products. In some cases the evaluation could be performed based on the content, assuming immediate release: worst case scenario.

- Testing methods should reflect the intended use and application which is not always the case. Harmonization of scenarios for the different product groups is necessary.

- The EPHECT’s outcome should be seen as a pre-normative work, which provides advice and recommendations on future standardisation of emission testing of consumer products along with gaps identified. It can directly feed, inform and enrich the work undertaken by CEN Technical Committees on consumer products and extent the recently developed CEN TC 351 horizontal standard on construction products and more importantly the recently set-up CEN Project Committee ("PC 421") on "Emission safety of combustible air fresheners and similar products". Harmonization would be positive for all: industry, laboratories and consumers.

8

- The most important obstacle identified is the need for open dialogue and communication between the stakeholders. A continuous platform where policy makers, consumers, industry and science exchange their needs is regarded necessary. Taking into account each other needs leads to a win-win situation and achieves an equal partnership. This way efforts of industry can be validated while the policy objectives can move on and set long and midterm targets. Creating a level playing field and achieving general protection of the citizens (not just users) is for all parties positive.

- The existence of multiple sources in a building (building materials and consumer products) can reveal some new issues to be explored.

9

Annex 1: List of participants

Surname Name Institute Country

Carrega Marie French ministry of ecology France

Carrer* Paolo University of Milan Italy

Cattoor Tine Essenscia Belgium

Chiappini Laura INERIS France

Constandt Kim Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie Belgium

Däumling# Christine UBA - German Federal Environment Agency Germany

De Lathauwer Dieter Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment Belgium

de Oliveira Fernandes* Eduardo IDMEC-FEUP - University of Porto, Portugal Portugal

Devorest Yann 1) ExxonMobil Chemical 2) Harrpa Technical Organization Belgium

Goelen* Eddy VITO Belgium

Johnson* Andrew Ipsos Belgium

Kephalopoulos# Stylianos JRC - IHCP Italy

Lazarov Borislav VITO Belgium

Letzel* Thomas TU Muenchen, Garching Germany

Liégeois Eric European commission DG Entreprise and Industry Belgium

Lloyd# Paul AISE UK

Lor Marc BBRI Belgium

Martin Paloma European Agency Health and Consumers Luxemburg

Murray Sean EUK Consulting Belgium

Oppl# Reinhard Eurofins Product Testing AS Denmark

Pacary Tiphaine Certech Belgium

Palkonen Susanna EFA European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients' Associations

Belgium

Stijntjes# Gerard AISE Belgium

Stranger* Marianne VITO Belgium

Terwagne Simon CEFIC Belgium

10

Thielen# Fabrice Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment Belgium

Tolis* Evangelos University of Western Macedonia Greece

Trantallidi* Marilena University of Milan Italy

Uhl Maria Umweltbundesamt, Environment Agency Austria Austria

van Dijk Leendert Eastman Chemical, representing ESVOC (European Solvents VOC Coordination Group)

Netherlands

Ventura* Gabriela IDMEC-FEUP Portugal

Widdowson Caroline Markes International UK

Wolkoff* Peder NRCWE Denmark

Zastenskaya Irina World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe Germany

*

EPHECT Associated Partners # EPHECT Collaborating Partners

11

Annex 2: EPHECT Flow Chart

12

Annex 3 Selected EPHECT consumer product classes

A1 All purpose cleaners (gel, liquid, tissue, cream)

A2 Kitchen cleaning agents (liquid, spray, tissues)

A3 Hard surface (floor) cleaner (powder, spray, gel)

A4 Glass and window cleaner (Liquid, spray, tissues)

A5 Bathroom cleaning agents (liquid, sprays, tissues)

A6 Furniture polish (liquid, spray, tissues)

A7 Floor polish (liquid, spray, tissues)

A8 Combustible air fresheners (candles, incense)

A9 Air fresheners (spray)

A10 Passive units (air fresheners)

A11 Electric units

A12 Coating products for (hard surfaces, leather, textiles)

A13 Hair styling products (sprays, gels,…)

A14 Deodorants (sprays)

A15 Perfumes

13

Annex 4: EPHECT Umbrella for consumer product testing