Identify UFFI - Urea Formaldehyde Building Insulation

UFFI was a source of hazardous formaldehyde out gassing at time of installation, not later.

UFFI In Buildings: A Summary of What You Need to Know

Bottom line on UFFI & Formaldehyde Off Gassing

There is essentially no chance that UFFI found in a home today (and installed in the 1970s) would be a source of problematic formaldehyde gas levels indoors. It could be a harbor of problematic mold growth if it has been wet.

Depending on how it was mixed and building conditions, in some installations Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI) released or "off-gassed" significant levels of formaldehyde in a brief period of 1-2 weeks after its installation in buildings.

Watch out: however, if the UFFI was improperly mixed it did not cure quickly and formadehyde offgassing could have led to occupant complaints lasting for weeks or even months.

Also, while it is unlikely that UFFI would be a source of problematic formaldehyde off gassing in a building today, but there are other possible concerns such as deterioration of the UFFI where exposed to moisture or to high temperatures, and of course there are often other formaldehyde off-gassing products or materials in a building.

When was UFFI Installed, then Banned in Canada & The U.S.?

In Canada UFFI was installed in buildings as early as 1959 and was installed extensively in the 1970s, continuing (with a brief break in Canada 1973-1977) up to its ban in Canada in April 1981. (Lees 1983)

In the U.S. UFFI was installed in buildings up to Februray 22, 1982 when it was banned briefly in the U.S. by the US CPSC.

In April 1983 the Fifth Circuit Court vacated that CPSCC ban despite evidence of respiratory issues associated with that product during the time that it was offgassing formaldehyde. (U.S. CPSC 1983)

What does UFFI Look Like ?

UFFI is a white or pale yellow soft foam insulation that will easily crumble to a powder between the pressure of a thumb and fingers. You can easily distinguish it from other newer foam products by that feature.

Our photo above illustrates that even when there is no evidence of a UFFI retrofit from outside the building (wall plugs) nor inside the building (wall plugs in the occupied space or attic stair walls), a thorough inspection of rarely-entered (tight) attic or crawl space areas can discover UFFI that exuded into the space when it was pumped into the building walls.

Interesting in this image is that the characteristic yellow-gold skin color of the UFFI sprayed foam insulation is not always present, and a second slab of UFFI was stark white.

The photograph shows UFFI as it was found in a small attic crawl area in a New York home during a 2008 inspection.

We estimate that the home, built perhaps in the 1940's, had been insulated with UFFI in the early 1970's when, due to the Arab oil embargo and high heating costs in the Northeastern U.S. many people moved to improve their home's insulation.

Interesting in this image is that the characteristic yellow-gold skin color of the UFFI sprayed foam insulation is not always present, and a second slab of UFFI was stark white.

Detailed help in identifying UFFI in buildings is in this definitive guide found

at UFFI, HOW TO IDENTIFY in BUILDINGS

Level of Formaldehyde in Buildings

Here, in parts per million (ppm) of formaldehyde in building indoor air, we list ppm numbers with focus on formaldehyde off-gassing ascribed to UFFI. We include additional formaldehyde level readings and standards.

Studies performed in the 1970s and 1980s found initial off gassing of a variety of gases (acetaldehyde, acrolein, ammonia, benzaldehyde, benzene, creosol, formaldehyde and methylnaphthalene), of which formaldehyde was by far the most and perhaps the only significant gas found in buildings newly insulated with UFFI.

• 1-5 ppm or above: Formaldehyde concentrations in air ascribed to UFFI were around 1-5 ppm at the time of original installation.
• More than 1 ppm in some installations: Watch out: an exception occurred if the UFFI was improperly-mixed at the time of installation.
  
  Then off-gassing of formaldehyde might continue at high indoor levels in air for several weeks or even months.
• 1 ppm: Typical guideline for residential formaldehyde concentration in homes is 0.1 ppm (parts per million) in indoor air. (CT DPH 2009)
  
  Several studies reported a level of 0.8 to 1.0 ppm of formaldehyde in air as sufficient to be associated with building occupant IAQ or eye or respiratory irritation complaints.
• Less than 1 ppm: UFFI's formaldehde concentration in building air usually declined to 0.1 ppm or less, in 1-2 weeks after initial installation in most cases, unless the installation mix was improper.
  
  (Accounts of measured formadehyde levels vary, cited in research below).
• Less than 0.1 ppm: Currently UFFI-related formaldehyde offgassing, decades after its original installation, will be found below 0.1 ppm with some sources giving an even lower number of 0.01 ppm.
  
  We would not expect to detect formaldehyde gas traced to that material - levels would be expected to be "not detected" or at 0.1 ppm or less (the Canadian exposure standard).
  
  A study performed by the Connecticut Department of Health in 1986 found that "high" formaldehyde level homes where the department had in 1981 received health complaints averaged 0.98 ppm (Very close to 1 ppm - Ed.) at the time of initial measurement.
  
  That study found that fin 1986, five years after those complaints, the average formaldehyde level had fallen to 0.08 ppm (very close to the 0.1 ppm -we give abovce, Ed.) but that study also found two "problem houses" with continuing elevated formaldehyde levels.
  
  The DPH cites the presence of UFFI in both walls and ceilings in those homes but the DPH does not, in their summary, mention whether or not there were other newer formaldehyde sources in those homes such as particleboard or laminate flooring. - Ed.
• 0.04 ppm: The CT DPH 1986 study also found that the average formaldehyde level in homes that were not insulatedf with UFFI was 0.04 ppm - about the same as the UFFI-insulated homes.
  
  We note that the control homes used in this study apparently did NOT include homes with other sources of high formaldehyde from other building materials.
• 0.03 - 0.04 ppm - Typical Formaldeyde Levels Found in Modern Homes (Carson 2014)
• 0.03 ppm: An air concentration of 0.3 ppm will provide protection from eye irritation for virtually everyone. (Golden 2011)
• 0.01 ppm: 0.1 ppm (100 ppb) is recommended as an indoor air level for all individuals for odor detection and sensory irritation. (Golden 2011)

Really? Keep in mind that not all building insulation projects using this substance produced the same level of formaldehyde.

The level of formaldehyde in a building traced to UFFI depended on at least these factors

1. When the UFFI was installed
2. When and exactly where building formaldehyde levels were measured and how
3. Building conditions at the time of measurement: ventilation, temperature, HVAC operation, etc.
4. How the UFFI was mixed at the site.
5. What other formaldehyde off gassing building materials were present, where, and their condition

The level of outgassing formaldehyde from UFFI insulation declined steadily with age. This was an open-cell foam that did not retain its gases long term.

Typically, if you smell formaldehyde then it is present at a level of at least 1 ppm. (Wiberg 1981) (Lees 1982)

Normally there is No Ongoing Formaldehyde Outgassing after the Foam Aged / Cured

More important is the observation that perhaps largely because this insulation formed an open-celled foam, even if there were high initial formaldehyde out gassing levels, after months or at most a few years, even careful measurements were unable to detect any levels of ongoing formaldehyde out gassing from this material. (Lees 1983)

UFFI was an open-cell foam that did not retain its gases long term.

UFFI Formaldehyde (or Mold) Concerns for people who are Asthmatic, Allergic, or Hypersensitive to Chemicals

Sufferers of MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity) and some people with other respiratory illnesses have reported to us that they believed theyt had a reaction to this material.

Even in that case a study of such reactions is complicated by the observation that higher levels of formaldehyde out gassing from other building products such as some flooring or furniture padding or from some glues or finishes used in chipboard based cabinets or sub flooring.

Yet at the peak of the UFFI enviro-scare, and exacerbated by inconsistent advice offered by government and private health experts, some buildings were sold at a significant discount to allow for extensive gutting, cleaning, and re-insulating of building cavities.

Watch out: several researchers have pointed out that depending on its exposure to leaks or moisture and other building environmental factors, mold contamination can occur withi UFFI insulation. (Bissett 1987, Broder 1988)

If you are investigating a building in which occupants suspect that old UFFI is causing indoor air quality or respiratory or health complaints, be sure to inspect and check for mold contamination as well as for other contaminants and contaminant sources.

See also

• UFFI HAZARD HEALTH CANADA STATEMENT
• UFFI HAZARD RESEARCH Dust, Formaldehyde offgassing

Should You Avoid Buying a UFFI-Insulated Building? Conflicting answers from the U.S. CPSC

The short answer is no, in our opinion, but there may be some insulating defects (such as shrinkage) and a modest resale impact to consider.

Bottom line: confusion among home owners and buyers who considered whether or not UFFI should be considered a problem in homes originated in a formaldehyde offgassing problem that occurred in some UFFI installations, principally due to improper ingredient mix, exacerbated by conflicting opinions offered to consumers by the U.S. CPSC.

In the 1970's we made three successive telephone calls to the US CPSC to inquire about the hazards of UFFI in a home we were evaluating. Because UFFI is an open-cell foam product, even if excessive formaldehyde was present early in the insulation's life, it off-gassed rapidly.

It is highly unlikely that today you will detect formaldehyde offgassing from insulation retrofits performed in the 1970's and 80's. However there may be high indoor formaldehyde levels from other sources such as particle board or Chinese laminate flooring.

Today most experts agree that unless there are other related problems such as water leaks into the insulated cavities, UFFI in buildings is not a health hazard.

Photo above: we pulled out this plug in the wood clapboard siding of a Poughkeepsie home that we were inspecting to confirm that the wall had been insulated with blown-in UFFI.

Range of "Expert" Advice (OPINIONS) on Buying a Home with UFFI is Contradictory

Back in the 1970's we received these four different answers from three different people answering the CPSC UFFI hotline on the same day:

1. Do not buy the home under any circumstances. The cost to remove the UFFI and clean the wall cavities will be greater than the value of the home.
2. Buy the home but remove the UFFI insulation. The remaining scraps in the wall cavities will be insignificant as a formaldehyde source.
3. Buy the home and don't do anything about the insulation: the health hazards have been exaggerated and are probably very low if any.
   
   Today, in 2008, we add an updated opinion:
4. Don't refuse to buy a home because of the presence of UFFI in its walls or ceilings;
   • purchase some test kits and actually measure the formaldehyde level;
   • realize that the foam is open-celled and that all of the formaldehyde will leave the building;
   • if the insulation was added more than five years ago there is almost no chance that you will detect any formaldehyde from the insulation;
   • any remaining formaldehyde problems will probably be from other sources such as carpet padding or some composition wood-product building materials like chipboard shelving.
   • examine the insulation in wall cavities to see if UFFI shrinkage has left so many gaps that you need to improve the building insulation. Shrinkage of the insulation product produces openings which may permit significant air leakage or simply thermal bypass leaks, reducing the effectiveness of the insulation system - a problem referred to in the industry as thermal drift.

UFFI Shrinkage Is the Chief Defect in Its Insulating Value

Inspecting several such projects it was interesting to note that the one real defect of this insulation product was that depending on how it was mixed, it shrank after installation, leaving gaps of where there is then no insulation at the top and sides of wall cavities - it wasn't the perfect insulating seal that was promised, but it was not the carcinogen that was feared.

In a typical eight-foot high UFFI-insulated building wall framed with studs spaced 16" on center, we observed a 3/4" to 1" gap at each side of the UFFI in each stud bay, and a gap of 1-2" at the top of the stud bay. In our opinion this is a significant defect in the continuity of the building's insulating blanket.

Details about the UFFI shrinkage problem are discussed

at UFFI SHRINKAGE, THERMAL BYPASS LEAKS.

Fear of UFFI May Affect Future Home Sale

OPINION: while in our view it is by no means a "show stopper", it is possible that when you're ready to sell your home, a few future buyers may have an irrational fear of the UFFI - a condition that might have a (probably small) impact on property resale.

The CT Departments of Public Health (CT DPH) and Consumer protection (DCP) still receive occasional calls from potential home buyers, sellers, and real estate agents concerned over the “stigma” related to UFFI houses.

Inquiries about testing are related to these real estate transactions, not health complaints. (CT DPH 2015)

See UFFI INSULATION IMPACT ON HOME SALE PRICE - Details about the possible impact of the presence of UFFI insulation in buildings on the sale price or time on market of a home or other building for sale

and ENVIRO-SCARE the Cycle of Public Fear

Current Health Canada Statement on UFFI

UFFI, which is foamed in place and used to insulate buildings, has been banned in Canada under the Hazardous Products Act (HPA) since December 1980.

UFFI was banned due to the high levels of formaldehyde that were given off during the installation process, as well as the continued off-gassing of formaldehyde from poorly installed insulation.

The amount of formaldehyde released by UFFI was highest when first installed and decreased over time.

As a result, UFFI installed before 1980 would have little effect on indoor formaldehyde levels today.

If UFFI gets wet, however, it could begin to break down and may release more formaldehyde. Wet or deteriorating UFFI should be removed by a specialist and the source of the moisture problem should be repaired. Some provinces require homeowners to declare if they have UFFI installed, and this issue is generally raised during the re-sale of older homes.

For more information on UFFI please see Health Canada's It's Your Health factsheet on Formaldehyde or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) - Health Canada, "Formaldehyde in Indoor Air", Health Canada . Sante Canada, retrieved 29 March 2015, original source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/air/formaldehyde/fact-info-eng.php

See also

UFFI CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, CANADA

Research on UFFI Health Effects

Our photo shows the dark dusty skin on UFFI insulation where it oozed from a wall cavity opening into a crawl space in the attic over a building garage.

Does UFFI cause Cancer?

Earlier research on the carcinogenic effect (cancer causing) of urea formaldehyde foam insulation suggested that formaldehyde out gassing from the insulation formed a significant cancer risk.

Eventually, additional study suggested that the initial cancer risk from formaldehyde was not supported, at least not in this application in foam building insulation.

In elaboration we give the following:

Watch out: while some later studies seem to have identified possible cancer-causing concerns for formaldehyde exposure even at low levels later experts concluded that in fact a careful, evidence-based review of studies questioned that attributing those cancers to formaldehyde exposure were questionable. Quoting:

... association between formaldehyde inhalation and leukemia in some human studies is better interpreted as due to chance or confounding. (Golden 2011).

• Azuma, K., I. Uchiyama, and K. Ikeda. "The risk management for indoor air pollution caused by formaldehyde in housing: The historical perspectives on early warnings and actions." Facilities 24, no. 11-12 (2006): 420-429.
  
  Abstract excerpts:
  Purpose ‐ In order to clarify the determining features of approaches adopted in policies for regulating indoor air pollution, this paper analyzes case studies of the approaches taken, in four countries, to risk management of indoor air pollution caused by formaldehyde in housing.
  
  Design/methodology/approach ‐ We pursued case studies to provide historical perspectives on early warnings and actions taken in relation to suspected health hazards from exposure to formaldehyde, in Germany, the USA, Canada and Japan.
  
  Many investigations of indoor air pollution caused by formaldehyde in housing have been conducted, and regulations established, in these countries. We reviewed the vast quantity of literature and documents relating to governmental and/or industrial actions and of research on indoor air quality produced in the past 40 years, and compared the approaches adopted.
  
  Findings ‐ The study identified the differing character of the approaches adopted in policies for the regulation of indoor air pollution, in order to clarify the range of actions that may be taken in response to reported risk from indoor air pollutants and describe possible risk management models for indoor air pollution.
  
  Practical implications ‐ Understanding of the nature of approaches already adopted will help to preserve good indoor air quality and minimize health hazards due to indoor air pollution.
  
  Originality/value ‐ This paper identifies a range of actions that have been taken in response to suspected risk from indoor air pollutants, through the analysis of its case studies.
• Bissett, John. "Fungi associated with urea-formaldehyde foam insulation in Canada." Mycopathologia 99, no. 1 (1987): 47-56.
  Abstract:
  
  Sixty-eight fungal taxa were identified from samples of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation taken from Canadian residences.
  
  Mesophilic taxa were predominant, with Penicillium spp., Trichoderma harzianum and Paecilomyces variotii observed most frequently.
  
  Extensive or conspicuous growth also was seen for Hormoconis resinae, Stachybotrys chartarum and Trichoderma viride in some samples.
  
  The potential for these fungi to have contributed to the adverse health effects reported in some homes containing UF-foam insulation is discussed.
• Broder, I., and P. Corey. "Health status of residents in homes insulated with urea formaldehyde foam." (1986).
• Broder, Irvin, Paul Corey, Philip Cole, Michael Lipa, Sheldon Mintz, and James Ronson Nethercott. "Comparison of health of occupants and characteristics of houses among control homes and homes insulated with urea formaldehyde foam: II. Initial health and house variables and exposure-response relationships." Environmental research 45, no. 2 (1988): 156-178.
  
  Abstract
  Sixty-eight fungal taxa were identified from samples of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation taken from Canadian residences. Mesophilic taxa were predominant, with Penicillium spp., Trichoderma harzianum and Paecilomyces variotii observed most frequently.
  
  Extensive or conspicuous growth also was seen for Hormoconis resinae, Stachybotrys chartarum and Trichoderma viride in some samples.
  
  The potential for these fungi to have contributed to the adverse health effects reported in some homes containing UF-foam insulation is discussed.
• Carson Alan & John Caverly, Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation [Web page], (2014) Carson Dunlop Associates, 120 Carlton Street, Suite 407 Toronto, Ontario, M5A 4K2 Canada Toll-free: 877-739-5918 CDA's article includes a collection of supporting citations
• Crawford, Carl B., and C. J. Shirtliffe. "Urea-Formaldehyde Foam Insulation." (1984): 108-111.
  
  Abstract
  Although urea formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) is not a particularly good insulating material, because of its high initial water content and therefore its high volumetric shrinkage and known deterioration with age, it was installed in more than 80 000 Canadian homes before December, 1980, when its use was banned under the Hazardous Products Act.
  
  Subsequent studies in the laboratory and in the field have indicated that gases and/or particulales given off by UFFI cause illness in some people.
  
  This article discusses the nature of the problem and some of the studies carried out in Canada to improve understanding and develop methods of reducing exposure to the substances given off by the material.
• CT, Connecticut Department of Publich Health, UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION (UFFI) Fact Sheet [PDF] (Revised April 2009, August 2015) The State of Connecticut Department of Public Health Environmental Health Section Environmental and Occupational Health Assessment Program 410 Capitol Avenue, MS# 11CHA PO Box 340308 Hartford, CT 06134-0308 Telephone #: (860) 509-7740 http://www.ct.gov/dph - Copy on file as UFFI-Fact-Sheet-CT-DOH.pdf
  
  Excerpts:
  Formaldehyde levels in UFFI houses dropped rapidly after installation and if occupants experienced health complaints- mostly eye, nose, and throat irritation, headache, dizziness, difficulties with concentration, and nausea, they usually went away within a week or two.
  
  However, there were many cases where something went wrong during the installation. In these cases, the foam did not cure properly.
  
  This lead to significant amounts of formaldehyde that continued to off-gas from the insulation into the indoor air. In these cases, people complained about symptoms lasting many months. Their symptoms were consistent with acute formaldehyde exposure.
  
  ...
  
  Numerous studies performed 5 - 10 years after UFFI was installed showed that the formaldehyde concentrations in these homes decreased to low concentrations where health symptoms would not be expected.
  
  As a consequence, health officials do not believe that UFFI installed in homes during the 1970-80s represents an exposure problem today.
  
  The CT Departments of Public Health (CT DPH) and Consumer protection (DCP) still receive occasional calls from potential home buyers, sellers, and real estate agents concerned over the “stigma” related to UFFI houses.
  
  Inquiries about testing are related to these real estate transactions, not health complaints.
• CT DPH, UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION (UFFI) Revised April 2009 [PDF] (Op. Cit.) (copy on file as CT-DPH-UFFI-2009.pdf)
  
  Excerpts:
  
  Of the many ways to sample air for formaldehyde, the most sensitive and most commonly used method is the “chromotropic acid - impinger method”. Newly marketed “passive samplers” may also have the needed sensitivity. If you decide on testing, consult with your private laboratory about the sensitivity of the method it proposes to use.
  
  A level of 0.1 parts per million (ppm) is commonly used as a guideline for residential formaldehyde concentrations. Most people will not experience acute health effects below that level.
• Day JH, Lees REM, Clark RH, et al: Report on the Study of the Effect of Different Concentrations of Formaldehyde on Subjects Alleged to Have Symptoms Related to Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insula-. tion. Kingston, Queen's University, October 1982.
• Day, J. H., R. E. Lees, R. H. Clark, and P. L. Pattee. "Respiratory response to formaldehyde and off-gas of urea formaldehyde foam insulation." Canadian Medical Association Journal 131, no. 9 (1984): 1061.
  
  Note: Day et als found that test subjects had no adverse response to 90 minute exposure to formaldehyde at 1 ppm.
  
  But in our OPINION this was not a realistic test of the possible effects of formaldehyde on building occupants who would be expected to have a much longer exposure even at low levels.
  
  That's probably behind the Canadian standard of 0.1 ppm as the acceptable formaldehyde level in buildngs. - Ed.
• Elinson, Lynn. "Health policy and epidemiology: the scientific evidence for a ban of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation." Journal of public health policy 5, no. 4 (1984): 513-537.
• Frigas E, Filley WV, Reed CE: ASTHMA INDUCED BY DUST FROM UREA-FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATING MATERIAL [PDF] Chest 1981; 79: 706-707
  Abstract:
  
  A patient developed severe asthma following insulation of her house with urea-formaldehyde foam.
  
  Bronchial challenge with the buoyant dust of the foam caused an asthmatic attack; inhalation of formaldehyde, 3 ppm, did not.
• Frigas, E., W. V. Filley, and C. E. Reed. "UFFI Dust: Nonspecific Irritant Only?." Chest 82, no. 4 (1982): 511-512. [Letter] included in the PDF below
• Gammage, R. B. Nature of, and the formaldehyde off-gassing characteristics of, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI).
  
  Final report to the Canadian Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Product Safety Branch. No. DOE/NBM-2020919. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (USA), 1981.
• Gesser, H. D. "The reduction of indoor formaldehyde gas and that emanating from urea formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI)." Environment international 10, no. 4 (1984): 305-307.
  Abstract:
  
  It is shown that the addition of ammonia to urea formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) can reduce the release of formaldehyde from the foam. Other amines are also effective, indicating that the residual acid may be an important cause of the UFFI decomposition.
  
  Measurements of pH slurries of the foam confirm this. By circulating indoor air through filters treated with polymeric amines, it is possible to reduce the formaldehyde level in homes.
• Golden, Robert. Identifying an indoor air exposure limit for formaldehyde considering both irritation and cancer hazards [PDF] Critical reviews in toxicology 41, no. 8 (2011): 672-721. (Copy on file as Formaldehyde-Limits-Golden-2011.pdf)
  
  

  Abstract excerpts:
  
  Although individuals can differ in their sensitivity to odor and eye irritation, the majority of authoritative reviews of the formaldehyde literature have concluded that an air concentration of 0.3 ppm will provide protection from eye irritation for virtually everyone.
  
  A weight of evidence-based formaldehyde exposure limit of 0.1 ppm (100 ppb) is recommended as an indoor air level for all individuals for odor detection and sensory irritation.
  
  It has recently been suggested by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) that formaldehyde is causally associated with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) and leukemia.
  
  This has led US EPA to conclude that irritation is not the most sensitive toxic endpoint and that carcinogenicity should dictate how to establish exposure limits for formaldehyde.

  Later in Conclusions
  
  ... association between formaldehyde inhalation and leukemia in some human studies is better interpreted as due to chance or confounding.

• L'Abbé, Kristan A., and John R. Hoey. "Review of the health effects of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation." Environmental research 35, no. 1 (1984): 246-263.
  
  Introduction Excerpt:
  
  Much controversy exists over the health effects of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI),* and in many instances, the information reaching the public has very little scientific basis. The extent to which symptoms felt in the home can be attributed to the presence of UFFI is a major point of contention.
  
  Several investigators have suggested that formaldehyde emanation from UFFI and, consequently, formaldehyde concentrations in the air of dwellings may be the main cause of the alleged health problems.
  
  Some studies indicate, however, that formaldehyde may not be responsible, and that other presently unknown ingredients or some undefined interactions of chemicals in the home may be the cause of these putative health effects.
  
  A review of the pertinent literature will serve to dispel misinformation and to establish a framework for future research. Epidemiologic studies give the most direct evidence of the potentially detrimental health effects of UFFI, and several studies have now been conducted.
  
  Indirect evidence can be provided by epidemiologic studies on occupational exposure to urea-formaldehyde and formaldehyde-containing manufacturing processes.
  
  Laboratory studies on the toxicity, mutagenicity, and potential carcinogenicity of urea-formaldehyde and related products provide further essential indirect evidence for human health effects. Although epidemiologic investigations are more likely than laboratory studies ...
• Lees, R. E. M. Formaldehyde in insulation: villain or innocent bystander? [Article at NIH] Canadian Family Physician 29 (1983): 1127. (Copy on file as Formaldehyde-UFFI-Lees.pdf)
  
  Abstract
  When urea formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) deteriorates, it produces an off-gas mixture whose major constituent is formaldehyde. Most investigative studies of UFFI have concentrated on formaldehyde.
  
  Health concerns fall into three groups: irritant characteristics, allergenic capabilities and potential carcinogenicity. Except for the first of these, formaldehyde's hazard potential is not clear.
  
  The extent to which formaldehyde may be responsible for UFFI's evil reputation is explored in this paper but the degree to which either substance is a real threat to health still appears to open to debate.
  
  Note: Lees (1983) warned that should UFFI get wet, mold may grow in the insulation, leading to other health and IAQ complaints or hazards.
  
• Newhouse, Michael T. UFFI DUST: NONSPECIFIC IRRITANT ONLY? [PDF] Chest 82, no. 4 (1982): 511. [Letter]
• Norman, G. R., and M. T. Newhouse. HEALTH EFFECTS OF UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION: EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION [PDF] CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 134, no. 7 (1986): 733.
  
  Abstract:
  Studies of health effects of urea formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) were critically reviewed by means of accepted rules for evidence of causation. Three categories of health effects were examined: reported symptoms, primarily of the upper respiratory tract, lower respiratory tract disease and cancer.
  
  Most of the studies purporting to demonstrate health effects of UFFI failed to meet minimal methodologic criteria for evidence of causation. Evidence from the adequate studies provides little support for the hypothesis of a causative role of UFFI in health problems.
  
  Excerpt: Although there are biologic reasons to believe that exposure to formaldehyde might exacerbate asthma, only one case of asthma from exposure to UFFI has been reported in the literature, by Frigas and colleagues.27
  
  This case was paradoxical in that the patient showed a response to UFFI dust but not to formaldehyde. The report has been challenged on methodologic grounds.28 Frigas and colleagues"9 also reported a subsequent study in 20 subjects who presented with asthma suspected of being related to UFFI.
  
  In direct challenge testing none of the subjects showed a response consistent with UFFI- or formaldehyde-induced asthma.
• US CPSC, CPSC Bans Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI), March 01, 1982 [PDF] U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, retrieved de-novo 2024/11/16 (Copy on file as CPSC Bans Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI) _ CPSC.gov.pdf)
• US CPSC, Ban on UFFI Lifted, August 25, 1983 [PDF] U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, retrieved de-novo 2024/11/16 (Copy on file as Ban On UFFI Lifted _ CPSC.gov.pdf)
  
• Wiberg GS, Baranowski E: Health implications of ureaformaldehydefoam insulation. Can J Public Health 1981; 72 :335- 338.
• Also see the links to UFFI ARTICLES at the end of this page