Bookcase formaldehyde emission poses health hazard
Be wary of new wooden bookcases which emit an irritating smell.
For the smell could be caused by formaldehyde, a colourless chemical gas which gives a pungent odour at high concentration. Urea-formaldehyde resin was used as a glue in the furniture.
The International Agency for Research of Cancer has classified formaldehyde as a PROBABLE human cancer causing substance.
This means that while there is sufficient evidence to indicate that formaldehyde at high concentration causes nasal cancer in experimental animals, the evidence in human beings is deemed not adequate.
In a test on 20 samples of wooden bookcases, the Consumer Council has detected formaldehyde emission in 4 of the samples, at levels beyond the safety limit laid down in German and Austrian legislation and Chinese Standard (GB 18580-2001).
Further, in the same test, the Consumer Council found also volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in some samples. VOCs are other contributing source of irritating smell in indoors.
If significant amounts of VOCs accumulate in the air, they can cause irritation of skin, eyes, mucous membranes or respiratory tract.
In addition, the Council found excessive harmful heavy metals of lead and/or chromium in 8 samples.
Included in the test were 8 made-to-order bookcase samples (priced from $1,180 to $2,000) and 12 ready-made ($249 to $2,100). All were made of derived (man-made) wooden boards - fibreboards, particleboards, plywood - in which the surfaces were decorated with plastic laminates, wood laminates or paints.
Highlights of the Consumer Council test, published in the April (306) issue of CHOICE:
Formaldehyde Emission
The 4 made-to-order samples detected with formaldehyde emission were in excess of the stipulated safety limit of 0.12mg/m 3 .
The worst sample was measured to reach a high value of 1.16 mg/m 3 , exceeding the limit by nearly 9 times.
All ready-made samples were, however, found to be within the limit. This could be due to the fact that formaldehyde emission diminishes over time.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has recommended an exposure limit of formaldehyde at not more than 0.1 mg/m 3 for a 30-minute period.
Though the source strength of one bookcase may not be sufficient to raise the indoor formaldehyde level to above the WHO exposure limit, consumers should nevertheless be cautious as there may be other emission sources of formaldehyde in the same room (such as carpets and other wooden furniture and interior decorations).
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 to 5 VOCs were found in the surface materials of some samples. A total of 59 VOCs (which included methylene chloride, chlorodibromomethane, n-propylbenzene, styrene, toluene, ethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene and xylene) were tested.
According to the test, surface materials coated with paints have a higher chance of containing VOCs than those with plastic or wood laminates.
Heavy Metals
8 of the samples were found to contain either soluble lead or soluble chromium or both in excess of the Chinese Standard for wood based furniture and the British and European Standard for children furniture of 90 ppm and 60 ppm respectively.
In the most severe of samples, it contained 7,806 ppm soluble lead and 1,049 ppm soluble chromium, exceeding the standards by 85 times and 16 times respectively!
Construction Performance
As with ready-made samples in an earlier Consumer Council test, the problem of unsatisfactory construction performance existed also with made-to-order bookcases.
6 out of 8 such bookcases were judged unsatisfactory - 1 was without physical stops to prevent its shelves from falling out, and the shelf supports of 5 others were found to deform after the test.
In view of the health hazard posed by formaldehyde to both consumers and furniture workers, the Consumer Council is calling on the trade to refrain from using glues that contain urea-formaldehyde resin.
Instead, manufacturers are urged to consider the use adhesives such as phenol-formaldehyde resin, or wood-based panels of formaldehyde emission grade E1 in accordance with the Chinese Standard, as well as the use of materials that do not pose such health hazards as VOCs and heavy metals.
Such information should be marked on the furniture for the easy reference of importers, retailers and consumers alike.
Traditional wet markets are still strong contenders to supermarkets
A Consumer Council survey on 2,727 households has revealed strong consumer preferences for the traditional wet markets in the provision of fresh food produce.
Nearly 70% of the respondents indicated that they purchased fresh food produce mostly from wet markets; the remainder 30% bought from supermarkets.
This comes as a rather surprise amid growing concerns that traditional wet markets are rapidly being replaced by megastores of supermarket chains.
However, it should be noted that the survey presents an overall view of consumer preferences and would not, for example, reflect the geographic circumstances of any specific districts.
The "freshness of the food produce" was the single most cited reason by respondents (46%) for preferring the wet markets, followed by "the many competing stalls and the ease of comparison of food freshness and prices" (38%) and "cheaper prices in general" (36%).
But the hygiene of environment and ventilation are areas clearly in need of improvement, according to the survey.
"Hygiene of environment" (26%), "longer operation hours" (22%) and "one-stop-shopping" (21%) topped the list of reasons which drew consumers to supermarkets for fresh food produce.
When it comes to shopping for groceries, on the other hand, consumers show a clear preference for supermarkets.
According to the survey, some 32% of the respondent households purchased groceries from supermarkets 10 times or more each month.
Some 6% of the households could even have visited supermarkets virtually every day - from 26 times to more than 30 times a month.
Slightly more than half (52%) of the respondent households spent over $1,000 each month in supermarkets with 12% of them spending $2,200 and above a month.
Supermarket shopping via the Internet is still at a comparatively infancy stage of growth. Only 11% of respondents had reportedly experienced purchasing groceries from supermarkets through the Internet.
The main reasons for consumers' low interest ranged from "unable to inspect the quality of goods" (52%) to "unable to obtain the goods immediately" (50%).
A myriad of sales plans to bind you into broadband internet service
A Consumer Council price survey on broadband internet service has unveiled a myriad of promotional and prepayment sales plans in competition for a share of the growing market.
With few exceptions, these plans all have one thing in common: they bind you contractually and should you decide to break off, you stand to lose or bepenalised.
The broadband internet market has seen rapid expansion over the past year - rising from 407,000 users in January 2001 to 649,000 users in January 2002, an increase of 60%.
This has also brought on keen competition as more operators entered the trade, with prices generally on a downward trend.
Nevertheless, consumer dissatisfaction has been on the rise - from 928 complaints in 2000, to 2,042 in 2001 and 489 for the first three months of this year. Most complaints concerned unfair sales tactics and dissatisfied service.
The survey, based on information from 14 operators, revealed sales tactics that include:
- Cheap monthly fee: but valid for only the first few (2 to 6) months and provided you sign a contract that binds you for 12 months or more. You revert to paying the original price on expiration of the promotion period. Or the plan includes only a basic charge and no usage hours, you are charged for every online usage.
- Free services: you get to enjoy such free services only at a much later stage, i.e. the 13th or 14th month into the contract.
- Free gifts: yes but first you must agree to prepay or sign a binding contract.
Consumers are advised to pay particular attention to the terms and conditions of a plan - in what ways will you be bound by it and how you will be penalised if you do not complete it.
Penalties for breaking a contract, according to the survey, vary among the operators and include:
- Pay the remaining service fees/rental fees plus (in a few cases) the modem fees.
- Pay for the remaining service period (in months) x a fixed amount of, say, $100. Or a fixed amount of, say, $600.
While the survey found prices generally on a downward trend, there exist considerable variations in average monthly fees, ranging from $148 to over $300 for the basic plans (on usage of 50 hours per month).
Monthly fees for plans with bandwidths 3M or 6M are generally higher than 1.5M. For 3M plans, the monthly fees ranged from $160 to $450.
In shopping for broadband internet service providers, consumers will do well to ask friends about their experiences, or check the user experiences from some of the online discussion groups.
If your contract is about to complete and due for renewal, call the service centre as you may enjoy some upgrade (e.g. from bandwidth 1.5M to 3M) or free gifts. But, of course, you may be bound by another new contract.
On the other hand, if you want to terminate the service, give one month prior notification and make sure you obtain the termination email from the operator.
Test affirms substantial savings in use of energy-saving lamps
Ever imagine you could reduce electricity cost for illuminating your home by as much as two-thirds?
A Consumer Council test on energy-saving compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) has found this to be totally possible.
Included in the test were 17 models of CFLs of different wattage, priced from $39 to $104, and life tested up to 10,000 hours.
On the basis of the test results, and an earlier one on the traditional incandescent light bulbs, it was found that the average cost of using, for example, a 13W CFL - with largely the same brightness as a 60W light bulb - was just about one-third of a 60W bulb.
So, switching to energy-saving CFLs could mean substantial savings of up to two-thirds of your expenditure on lamp and electricity costs in the long run, not to mention the beneficial consequence on the environment.
The test revealed that not all CFL samples had the same longevity. In fact, they were found to differ significantly from 3,000 to more than 10,000 hours.
Even the tested lives among samples of the same model could vary from one another by more than 7,000 hours, indicating the need for better quality control by manufacturers.
Some differences in the lives of various groups of CFL models could be observed in the test. In general, CFLs of smaller size rated at 7W or below, and brighter ones at 20W or more, were found to have shorter lives than the others.
As CFLs are bigger and heavier than incandescent light bulbs, consumers should consider the size of the lampshade and additional loading to existing luminaries. Consumers are also advised to check the integrity (defects, if any) and functionality (if it works) of CFLs at the time of purchase.
Chairing the press conference today (April 15) on the publication of CHOICE issue number 306 is Dr. Matthew NG, Vice Chairman of Publicity and Community Relations Committee of the Consumer Council.