|
|
Paraffin is a byproduct of this process.
|
Our soy flakes are a byproduct of this process. |
One source for that statement in green above:
Combustion Characteristics of Candles Made from Hydrogenated Soybean Oil
(Karamatollah Rezaei, Tong Wang, and Lawrence A. Johnson
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, and the Center for Crops Utilization Research, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011)
Although widely quoted online, I haven't seen this work published in full on the Internet for the general public. I have contacted the journal that owns its copyright, and am trying to get permission to post my copy for you.
The researchers investigated following aspects of soy wax: production of soot, production of potential harmful volatile components (acrolein, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde) and burning time. The candles were made by melting 200 g of wax and poring it in glass containers in several steps to avoid cracking of the wax. To determine the soot formation the candles were burned under a funnel and the air with sooth was then collected on a membrane filter. Disturbance of candles flame was artificially created running a fan at small speed. The amount of soot was estimated by measuring the darkness of the filter. The volatile components were captured in a trichlorophenylhydrazine solution.
They found that paraffin candles produced significant amounts of soot as opposed to soy candles, which produced little or no soot. All paraffin candles visually produced soot while burning, whereas practically no visual soot formation was observed with beeswax and soy candles. The membrane filters which collected the soot from paraffin candles showed an average L-value of 32 (rather dark) as opposed to a L-value of about 95 (very light) for both beeswax and soybean candles. Soy candles also burned slower, resulting in longer burning time. However, this effect was only observed with trimmed soy wax candles. These soy candles had a smaller flames size, which logically translates into longer burning times. The larger molecules of soy wax may explain the longer burning time: they migrate more slowly through the candlewick. The smaller flame size and lower heat production maybe advantageous in rooms where higher temperatures are not desirable. The combustion of soy wax and beeswax candles did not produce measurable quantities of formaldehyde whereas paraffin candles produced 3.2 mg formaldehyde per g paraffin. No acrolein production was observed in any of tested candles.
The study concluded that soy wax shows promise as use for production of candles. This study did not test the affect of scents on soot formation. Other studies have shown that the addition of scents to paraffin candles increases soot formation. Scented soy candles may probably also produce more soot than unscented soy candles.
The Soy vs. Paraffin Debate
Welcome to the "politics of soy." What appears in yellow below are statements I wrote recently. I was challenged to cite my statements, and so here are those citations.
Common, petroleum-based (paraffin) candle products can emit soot - which studies show may contain carcinogenic toxins...
A common citation on the Web is from writer “Stephanie Davies.” She writes that “...soot is in fact not harmful to you...” She cites no one for that claim. Her current Web site offers Tarot card readings for $9.95, and there are no studies on her site to document any of her candle-related statements.
But on June 21, 2007 at the Atmospheric Science Progress Review Meeting in Research Triangle Park, researchers from the Center for Aerosol and Cloud Chemistry - Aerodyne Research -and- from the Department of Chemical Engineering at MIT gave their presentation, “Particle Sampler for On-Line Chemical and Physical Characterization of Particulate Organics.”
Reprinted below here is Page 14 of their report,indicating that they detected these five chemicals in paraffin candle soot...

1. NAPTHALENE - Name sound familiar? Sure it does: It is the main fumigant used in mothballs. Exposure to large amounts of naphthalene may damage or destroy red blood cells. Humans, particularly children, have developed this condition after ingesting mothballs or deodorant blocks containing naphthalene. Symptoms include fatigue, lack of appetite, restlessness, and pale skin. Exposure to large amounts of naphthalene may cause nausea,vomiting, diarrhea, blood in the urine, and jaundice.
When the U.S. National Toxicology Program exposed male and female rats and mice to naphthalene vapors on weekdays for two years, male and female rats exhibited: evidence of carcinogenic activity, based on increased incidences of adenoma and neuroblastoma of the nose, female mice exhibited some evidence of carcinogenic activity, based on increased incidences of alveolar and bronchiolar adenomas of the lung, and male mice exhibited no evidence of carcinogenic activity.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies naphthalene as possibly carcinogenic to humans [Group 2B]. The IARC also points out that acute exposure causes cataracts in humans, rats, rabbits, and mice, and that hemolytic anemia can occur in children and infants after oral or inhalation exposure or after maternal exposure during pregnancy.
Over 400 million people have an inherited condition called glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. Exposure to naphthalene is more harmful for these people and may cause hemolytic anemia at lower doses.
2. TRIDECANE is an alkane hydrocarbon with the chemical formula CH3(CH2)11CH3. It is a light, combustible colorless liquid that is used in the manufacture of paraffin products, the paper processing industry, in jetfuel research and in the rubber industry; furthermore, tridecane is used as a solvent and distillation chaser. n-tridecane is also one of the major chemicals secreted by some insects as a defense against predators.
I do not know a lot about Tridecane. But here’s a MSDS indicating that it shouldn’t be breathed by humans...
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/TR/tridecane.html
3. TETRADECANE is another light oily hydrocarbon. According to this MSDS...
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/TE/tetradecane.html
...tetradecane is irritating to eyes, irritating to the respiratory system, irritating to skin, may cause lung damage if swallowed, and its vapors may cause drowsiness and dizziness.
4. PENTADECANE is another hydrocarbon of the paraffin series, (C15H32) found in petroleum, tar oil, etc., and obtained as a colorless liquid - so called from the fifteen carbon atoms in the molecule. And this MSDS indicates it is not necessarily harmful...
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/PE/pentadecane.html
5. HEXADENE is another story. Highlights of this MSDS for hexadecane...
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/h1211.htm
...indicate:
DANGER! HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED. HARMFUL IF INHALED. CAUSES SEVERE SKIN IRRITATION. MAY CAUSE EYE AND RESPIRATORY TRACT IRRITATION. PROLONGED EXPOSURE CAN CAUSE NARCOTIC EFFECTS.
Burning paraffin candles emit compounds (like acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and acrolein) that the EPA and the State of California have deemed either "toxic air contaminants" or "increasing the risk for cancer."
Look at Page 7 of this 189-page report from the U.S. EPA to substantiate the “pariffin / acetaldehyde” connection claim. And then jumpto Page 19 and forward to read the carcinogenicity factor of acetalehyde.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/airtox1c.pdf
5. FORMALDEHYDE - A formaldehyde peak was obvious for paraffin candles, with an average of 1.7 mg formaldehyde per g combusted paraffin. Based on the minimum formaldehyde recovery of 54% in the system, as measured by a simulated run for a standard, a maximum of 3.2 mg formaldehyde is expected to be released for each gram paraffin consumed.
But is formaldehyde a carcinogen? Although the short-term health effects of formaldehyde exposure are well known, less is known about its potential long-term health effects. In 1980, laboratory studies showed that exposure to formaldehyde could cause nasal cancer in rats. This finding raised the question of whether formaldehyde exposure could also cause cancer in humans. In 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen under conditions of unusually high or prolonged exposure. Since that time, some studies of industrial workers have suggested that formaldehyde exposure is associated with nasal cancer and nasopharyngeal cancer, and possibly with leukemia. In 1995, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen. However, in a reevaluation of existing data in June 2004, the IARC reclassified formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen.
My source? International Agency for Research on Cancer (June 2004). IARC Classifies Formaldehyde as Carcinogenic to Humans. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from:
http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/archives/pr153a.html
And the aforementioned ACROLEIN: In organic chemistry, acrolein or propenal is the simplest unsaturated aldehyde. It is produced widely but is most often immediately reacted with other products due to its instability and toxicity. It has a piercing, disagreeable, acrid smell similar to that of burning fat.
Acrolein is a severe pulmonary irritant and lacrimating agent. It has been used as a chemical weapon during World War I. It is, however, not outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Acrolein is also a metabolite of the chemotherapy drugcyclophosphamide, and is associated with hemorrhagic cystitis. Skin exposure to acrolein causes serious damage. Acrolein concentrations of 2 ppm are immediately harmful. Acrolein is a suspected human carcinogen.
SOURCE -
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/acrolein.html
Is acrolein in paraffin candle wax? According to the EPA it is...
Acrolein can be formed in burning tobacco, wood, plastics, gasoline and diesel fuel, paraffin wax, and in the heating of animal and vegetable fats and oils at high temperatures.
http://www.epa.gov/OSA/hsrb/files/meeting-materials/jun-27-29-2007-public-meeting/atsdr-2005-acrolein.pdf
Also please read...
STUDIES ON NUCLEIC ACID METACHROMASY
II. Metachromatic and Orthochromatic Staining by
Toluidine Blue of Nucleic Acids in Tissue Sections
NED FEDER and MERRILL K. WOLF
From the Biological Laboratories, Harvard University, and the Laboratory Neuropathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
See http://www.jcb.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/327.pdf
Another researcher wrote that candle soot particles actually contain many of the same compounds given off by burning diesel fuel.
Ahhh, the infamous Kraus report. Self-proclaimed “experts” love to dismiss Krause’s report as nonsense. While searching for the obscure study that the National Candle Association emphatically states refutes Krause’s that paraffin candles emit some of the same materials as do diesel truck emissions, I came up with OVER FIFTY references indicating that soot and ultrafine particulate matter is harmful to life.
Add to that list of over fifty references is a ten-year study (that’s a study conducted over the past ten years, not ten years old) on the effects of soot and diesel emissions and overall environmental pollution on the development of children’s lungs by USC’s Keck School of Medicine...
[W. James Gauderman, Edward Avol, Frank Gilliland, Hita Vora, Duncan Thomas, Kiros Berhane, Rob McConnell, Nino Kuenzli, Fred Lurmann, Edward Rappaport, Helene Margolis, David Bates and John Peters, “The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age.” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 351, No. 11, Sept. 9, 2004.]
And add this Danish study to your latenight reading list. It, too, shows detrimental effects on human health caused by ultrafines. The study was supported by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and the Research Centre for Environmental Health under the Danish Ministry of the Interior and Health.
Personal Exposure to Ultrafine Particles and Oxidative DNA Damage.
by Peter S. Vinzents , Peter Moller , Mette Sorensen , Lisbeth E. Knudsen , Ole Hertel , Finn Palmgren Jensen , Bente Schibye , Steffen Loft
Environ Health Perspect 113:1485-1490 (2005). doi:10.1289/ehp.7562 available via http://dx.doi.org/
Health hazards are being increased when paraffin is mixed with synthetic fragrance (some not even meant for combustion), and are compounded with chemical fixatives, synthetic glosses and bleached cotton wicks.
This is one of those "common knowledge in the industry" factoids: scented candles emit more soot than non-scented ones. And it is worse when either (a) a candle is over-scented or (b) scents not specifically formulated for the candle wax type are used.
And if the wick is bleached in chlorine, that produces undesireable emissions. I wlll better research this paragraph soon, and post my findings here.
Health problems have been more evident in the past five or so years due to the increase in popularity of highly scented candles.
http://www.ghchealth.com/candle-wicks-and-health.html
Hundreds of thousands of dollars of home and furniture damage have been reported, causing a battle with insurance companies and retailers of the candles.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/32cqfl
Copyright 2008, Clint Bradford and Soytives.com.
All rights reserved.
Be notified of
page updates
|
|
|
|
|