Number

277-EN

Section

General Section

Use

Abstract

This study was performed for the US EPA to evaluate the performance of safer alternatives to halogenated solvents used for cleaning of electrical equipment. The study could identify safer alternatives for all the tested applications. These alternatives include soy -and acetone based cleaners, high pressure deionised water and carbon dioxide pellet blasting.

Substituted substances

Alternative Substances

Reliability of information

Internet information: data are from an internet document and only a basic and partial evaluation could be performed

Reason substitution

CMR
skin/respiratory sensitizing
ecotoxicity

Other type of alternative

In addition to cleaners based on soy, acetone and water, also technical solutions were evaluated and found to perform well. These include high pressure deionised water and carbon dioxide pellet blasting.

Hazard Assessment

Substances to be substituted: The halogenated solvents targeted for substitution here represents a range of undesired properties including carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, genotoxicity aquatic toxicity and ozone depletion. Several are also listed in the Substance Database according to SUBSPORT Screening Criteria (SDSC). Trichloroethylene may cause cancer, causes serious eye irritation, is suspected of causing genetic defects, is harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects, causes skin irritation and may cause drowsiness or dizziness. Tetrachloroethylene is suspected of causing cancer and is toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects. It is an endocrine disruptor (SIN List) and an endocrine disruptor category 2 (EU EDC database) as listed in the Substance Database according to SUBSPORTplus Screening Criteria (SDSC). Volatile organic compounds, voc has no harmonised classification according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation). Hydrofluorocarbon gases are strong greenhouse gases but have no harmonised classification according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation). 1,1,1-Trichloroethane is harmful if inhaled and harms public health and the environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere. 1-Bromopropane may damage fertility and may damage the unborn child, is a highly flammable liquid and vapour, causes serious eye irritation, may cause damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure, causes skin irritation, may cause respiratory irritation and may cause drowsiness or dizziness. 1,1-Dichloro-1-fluoroethane is harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects and harms public health and the environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere. Alternative substances: The alternatives using high pressure water and dry ice blasting represents no chemical hazard. The alternative acetone should be handled with care since it is flammable, and the vapours may cause drowsiness and irritation to eyes. The other ingredients are not included in the SUBSPORTplus screening criteria (SDSC) database for hazardous substances.

Description of Substitution

Commonly, halogenated solvents have been used for cleaning electrical equipment. Major advantages of using these solvents are that they do not catch fire and they are not conductive. Many halogenated solvents have faced restrictions due to health and environmental concerns, such as carcinogenicity, ozone depletion and global warming potential. This study investigated less toxic alternatives for cleaning of electrical equipment. The investigated alternatives included water based cleaners, acetone and soy based cleaners as well as alternative technologies using high pressure deionised water and carbon dioxide pellet blasting. The different alternatives were tested for different applications and also cost aspects were considered. Even the alternative not to clean at all was considered. The results showed that for non-energised electrical equipment water based cleaners, soy based cleaners and acetone cleaners were most appropriate. For mechanism cabinets water based cleaners, acetone cleaners and carbon dioxide pellet blasting worked best. For control panels the best choice was carbon dioxide pellet blasting and for insulators and other energised equipment the best options were deionised water, media blasting, and carbon dioxide pellet blasting.

Case/substitution evaluation

This is a well performed study, investigating carefully the performance of the alternatives. The report contains much information for the user, including photos of the different cleaning methods.

State of implementation

Full capacity

Type of information supplier

Authority

Type of publication and availability

report

Publication source: author, company, institute, year

Prepared by: Katy Wolf Institute for Research and Technical Assistance, IRTA Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX

Publication source

Type of publication and availability

http://www.irta.us/reports/EPA%20X9969695010%20no%20Appendices.pdf

Date, reviewed

November 26, 2021