GREENGUARD Gold (formerly Children & Schools), CA 01350, CARB II

No, NAUF is still required. That said, a CARB II product is essentially a ban on UF. There are no UF added composite wood products that meed CARB II that I have seen to date.

As a point of information, the reason UF in composite woods is a chemical of concern is that the curing temperatures for bonding are lower than for other types for formaldehyde, such as phenol. Manufacturers like UF because is costs less to make a a UF composite. A lower curing temperature results in increased off-gassing because the adhesive is not fully cured such that any organics are rendered inert.

CARB II is not a ban on UF. There are CARB II ULEF (ultra-low emitting urea formaldehyde) products available in the market. The ANSI standards for Particleboard (A208.1) and for MDF (A208.2) in fact have harmonized to CARB Phase II emission standards as has the ANSI standard for Hardwood Plywood (HP-1).

Additionally, I believe the assertion that lower curing temperature results in increased offgassing is incorrect. Urea formaldehyde is a simple bond that can hydrolize (molecules unzip in the presence of heat and moisture) unless there is adequate scavenging reserve in the panel to recapture the formaldehyde before it is emitted. In comparison, Phenol formaldehyde type resins cure at a higher temperature but the chemistry is quite different. The higher heat and different reactants produce a PF cross linked polymer which is not subseptible to hydrolization. The notion that the higher temperature of the PF process "cooks out" formaldehyde that would otherwise emit later is a misnomer, in my opinion.

Paul, you statements are quite different from from what the LEED IEQ TAG researched and used as a basis for the original UF ban. I will stick with what I know from an expert group.

If you do make products at your company that meet CARB Phase II that use UF as an added component then that is the first time I have seen such a claim made.

Maybe your company has revised the process of manufacturing to be able to address the recent CARB Phase II requirements. But do realize that the IEQ TAG was aware of UF encapsulation processes that were good enough to let testing be passed, but were not good enough to truly contain UF over a long-term of time.

Here is the list of ULEF/Exempt mills that meet the ATCM: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/naf_ulef/listofnaf_ulef.htm

Here is an article covering how the composite industry converted its baseline standards to CARB emission levels: http://www.surfaceandpanel.com/articles/tech-spec/ansi-approves-revised-...

I am not debating the value of chemical scavenging methods inside the glue bond or the affects of encapsulation of the core by laminates or other means. In industry the terms encapsulation and scavenging do relate to different place where formaldehyde gas emission control takes place.)

I was simply working to correct this assertion: "That said, a CARB II product is essentially a ban on UF. There are no UF added composite wood products that meed CARB II that I have seen to date.”

"That said, a CARB II product is essentially a ban on UF. There are no UF added composite wood products that meed CARB II that I have seen to date.”

Part I is a claim by CDHS experts. Take it up with them.

Part II is based on "my" experiences when reviewing products specified and purchased for installation on projects. I have yet to see a submitted CARB II compliant product that contained any added UF.

Paul,

By the way, thank you for the information about ULEF products that do meet CARB II requirements. This is good information for product specifiers and submittal reviewers. "Do not accept CARB II compliant composite wood product unless you have confirmed it contains no added UF of any kind. Also, make sure that laminating adhesives used to make assembles with composite wood cores has no UF content of any kind."

Hi Hernando.
Agreed!

The answers posted to this question clearly address CARB II, however didn't touch on Ca 01350. Does a product certified to CA 01350 meet the requirements of NAUF for this credit? Or is more info from the supplier required?