Special Upholstery Feature

Upholstery Manufacturers Leaving Meth-based Adhesives

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - funded adhesives study, prompted by an OSHA regulation finalized in January of 1997 on methylene chloride, has revealed that many upholstery manufacturers are moving away from meth-based adhesives in favor of hot melt or water-based adhesives.

The study, conducted last year by the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) among members of the Association of Woodworking & Furnishings Suppliers (AWFS), reviewed 11 companies in three industries - foam fabricators, upholstered furniture manufacturers and mattress manufacturers. Compared were the feasibility, cost and health/environmental effects of adhesive alternatives to the meth-based adhesives that have been used widely for bonding foam in a variety of substrates. Investigated alternatives include water-based, hot melt, acetone, acetone/heptane and n-propyl bromide adhesives.

Dr. Katy Wolf of IRTA presented interim results on November 9, 1999 at a one-day conference co-sponsored by AWFS, IRTA, ISPA (International Sleep Products Association), SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District), EPA’s Design for the Environment, CAL/EPA’s Department of Toxic Substances Control and Southern California Edison.

While dependent on each company’s optimization, with labor costs dominating conversion cost, the study found that most upholstery companies studied (which included La-Z-Boy, Sit-On-It and American Seating) have converted or are moving away from meth-based adhesives. Research concluded that hot melt is the best option where bond line is not an issue and water-based one-parts are a good option for some office furniture manufacturers. It also was learned that companies can optimize water-based systems to be cost competitive with meth and acetone systems, while acetone-based adhesives were shown to be low cost and a low toxicity solvent option, provided flammability issues can be handled. Finally, n-propyl bromide-based adhesives were shown to be high cost and a potentially high toxicity option, though advantageous because there is no flash point.

IRTA completed the feasibility and cost analysis findings before the end of December 1999. Dr. Wolf told Modern Woodworking that the EPA is publishing a detailed report with a separate case study of 8-15 pages for all three participating industries. "We hope this project has helped companies to identify technologies that are effective, have a lower cost and provide better protection for human health and the environment," she expressed.

Currently, the on-going project is comparing health and environmental effects of different adhesives used in the study.

Please contact webmaster@modernwoodworking.com with your comments.