NOTES FOR DRAFT
TABLE OF REACTIVE SULFUR GAS EMISSIONS (Release Date May 27, 2010)
data being released in this table continues to be in draft form. Due
to refinements in measurements of the molecular weights and other
calculations, certain of the draft emission factor results in this
table may be different from those reported in Table 1 of the CPSC
Staff Preliminary Evaluation of Drywall Chamber Test Results,
Reactive Sulfur Gases, authored by Babich, Danello, Hatlelid,
Matheson, Saltzman, and Thomas, March 2010. Staff does not believe
the differences are of a substantial nature which would change the
conclusions of the CPSC Staff Preliminary Evaluation. Staff will
continue to refine its analysis as it reviews new data and works in
cooperation with staff at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories.
The draft table released today is ordered from “high to low”
according to the levels of Hydrogen Sulfide emission rates. The
ordering of the draft table matches the ordering in the Reactive
Sulfur Gas Emissions graph released on May 25, 2010.
1 in the CPSC Staff Preliminary Evaluation was ordered by sample
number and not according to emission rates. The sample labeled “NA9”
was incorrectly identified in Table 1 of the CPSC Staff Preliminary
Evaluation. The “NA9” sample is actually the “3/8" drywall manuf.
uncertain (date uncertain)*: China” as noted in the Reactive Sulfur
Gas Emissions graph released on May 25, 2010. For all samples,
parentheses indicate years of manufacture where known. All drywall
tested was regular 1/2” drywall (from 4’ x 8’ and 4’ x 12’ samples)
except for the sample described as 3/8”. All samples were untreated.
Chinese and North American samples were obtained from various
sources as part of CPSC’s ongoing compliance investigation.
______________________________________ ^ Sample collected in China
and it is not believed to have been imported into the United States.
* Sub-sample tested is known to be imported from China into the
United States in either 2006 or 2007. This sample was collected from
a source which had imported from two Chinese manufacturers and there
was insufficient information for staff to positively determine which
of the two Chinese manufacturers’ drywall is represented by this
National Advocacy Group for Consumer
Protection and Corporate Fair Play