1 Introduction
-
Which testing methods and regulative systems for the determination of VOC of wood-based materials are considered appropriate by experts?
-
To what extent is Argument Delphi suitable to point out consent or dissent within the expert panel?
2 Materials and methods
-
Delphi round 1: expert interview
-
Delphi round 2: data verification by the experts
-
Delphi round 3: experts’ positioning
3 Results
Argument category | Number of arguments and statements (Σ = 130) |
---|---|
Excluding wood-based materials from VOC regulations | 18 |
Difficulty in implementation of VOC regulations in general | 4 |
Criticism regarding customers | 1 |
Regulative systems in the EU | 14 |
Criticism regarding regulative systems in the EU | 12 |
Harmonised testing method | 36 |
Criticism regarding chamber testing | 5 |
Criticism regarding chamber size | 1 |
Toluene equivalent vs original response | 5 |
Lowest concentration of interest (LCI) and toxicology | 6 |
Analytics | 3 |
Limit values | 16 |
Global testing methods | 3 |
Pos. | Description | Selected arguments of the position |
---|---|---|
1 | No VOC regulations for wood-based materials | Emissions from wood-based materials are natural. There is no toxicological verification for TVOC values in wood-based materials Wood is a natural emitter and this fact cannot simply be changed by product development. There are people, who react sensible to individual emissions, but only a few. Simply banning these products, just because they emit more than stone, would be unwise |
2 | No harmonised testing method | The harmonised testing method has numerous flaws. Inter laboratory tests have shown, that the results of different laboratories are quite different. This is not only because of the chamber sizes, but also the fault of analytics. The problem is not an inaccurate work of the employees, but a fundamental weakness of the testing method The problem with chamber testing is that it is not possible to use emission measurement to indicate real concentrations within wood-based materials. Considering this, emission testing of wood-based materials can only be seen as indication |
3 | Harmonised testing method with nationally varying limit value systems | I prefer a harmonised testing standard, which has to base on a technically justified basis and must not be solely a political issue I don’t think there is a need to unify limit values. Different countries have their individual regulations based on their climate, conditions and culture A harmonised testing method in the EU is preferable and beneficial for the market. Regarding regulations, I think that the individual member states of the EU should set their own limit values, depending on each one’s climate and culture |
4 | Harmonised testing method with nationally varying classification systems | The French system is appealing, because it lacks the “German stubbornness”. In Germany a product is approved or rejected. Within the French system, the market and therefore consumers have the ability to decide for themselves whether or not to acquire a specific product I am not fond of limit values because they restrict the consumer’s ability to decide freely |
5 | Harmonised testing method with harmonised limit value system | We do need a European “overall system”. A harmonised testing system is the first step towards this goal. Now we need an evaluation system and following a limit value system. The European commission already went towards this by proposing LCI values for several substances The Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission has already harmonised a number of limit values of different member states. These are implemented in the new Belgium regulation. The JRCs list of harmonised limit values is shorter than the mandatory list of Germany. Therefore, the Belgium regulation uses the German values complementary |
6 | Harmonised testing method with harmonised classification system | No arguments were named for this position |