Comment Log Display

Although tailpipes and smokestacks typically figure in the social
construction of urban smog, a startling new study suggests that
homes, white-collar offices, and people themselves may contribute
more than ever imagined to the volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
found in urban air.  In 2010, a US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) team led by Brian McDonald was puzzled by
high levels of VOCs in Pasadena air that could not be linked to
vehicular combustion (Carswell, 2018). Though a combination of
traditional roadway measurements, plus data from California Air
Resources Board (a division of Cal EPA) on indoor emissions from
consumer products (specifically pesticides, coatings, printing
inks, adhesives, cleaning agents, and personal care products), the
team concluded that VOC emission factors from common consumer
chemical products in homes and offices were "one to two orders of
magnitude higher than from automobile exhaust" (McDonald et al.,
2018).  VOC pollution was also surprisingly disproportionate to
fossil fuel consumption.  Ninety-five percent of oil in the U.S. is
used for fuel, whereas just five percent gets refined into
pesticides, personal care products, adhesives, and the like (Amos,
2018).  Albeit a small slice of the overall national energy pie,
consumer products nevertheless accounted for an astonishing half of
VOCs in Los Angeles smog.  News editors frolicked with ironic
headlines, "Smog Has As Much Deodorant As Diesel In It" (Forbes),
"Want Cleaner Air? Try Using Less Deodorant" (NY Times), "Shampoo
is Causing Air Pollution, but Let's not Lose our Heads" (New
Scientist).  Although a few articles mention cologne or body sprays
as a culprit, the titles largely placed blame on women's personal
care products.  If McDonald's team is correct about one the world's
most infamous cities for traffic jams, then thousands upon
thousands of outdoor air quality studies focused on mobile-source
pollution emissions could be overestimated by forty percent or
more. 

That astonishing error rate might be worse, because in reading
McDonald's paper with a close gendered eye, I noticed that this
male-dominated (17/20) team had not factored in dryer vents as
another key source of home/personal emissions (personal
communication, Chris Cappa).  Although McDonald's study team cited 
another article by Australian civil engineer and world expert, Anne
Steinemann (Steinemann et al., 2011), they overlooked another study
of hers that quantified acetylaldehyde emissions from house laundry
vents.  Her team concluded that VOC pollution from just one
synthetically scented dryer load would be equivalent to three
percent of vehicular emissions in a Seattle neighborhood
(Steinemann, Gallagher, Davis, & MacGregor, 2013).  Add together
the daily laundry of a whole community, and the portrait of urban
air quality would change dramatically (personal communication, Anne
Steinemann).Many severely chemically sensitive people cite laundry
fumes as one of the key triggers that keeps them housebound.

I urge you to put teeth into this regulation.  I am among the 1-3%
of the population severely incapacitated by synthetic fragrances. 
Most stores, schools, theaters are inaccessible to me because of
everyday personal care smog. Most days, I cannot even be in my yard
or take a walk because of the laundry venting in my neighborhood. 


Attached are the referenced studies as well as a recent article I
was inspired to write on the "ins and outs" of pollution.

I am posting the link to Steinemann's studies here.  They are
essential reading.  https://www.drsteinemann.com/publications.html

Her three articles on laundry emissions are here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-020-00929-0
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-018-0643-8
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-011-0156-1