A Comparison of Concrete Chemical Hardeners (Densifiers)

By Roger Allbrandt, B.A. Environmental Biology

Retroplate (Sodium Silicate)

FGS Permashine (Lithium Silicate)
Green Umbrella (Amorphous Silica)

Background

The most common building material today is concrete. It is a used in building construction,
consisting of a hard, chemically inert particulate substance, known as an aggregate (usually made
from different types of sand and gravel), that is bonded together by cement and water.

In 1756, British engineer, John Smeaton made the first modern concrete (hydraulic cement) by
adding pebbles as a coarse aggregate and mixing powered brick into the cement. In 1824,
English inventor, Joseph Aspdin invented Portland Cement, which has remained the dominant
cement used in concrete production. Joseph Aspdin created the first true artificial cement by
burning ground limestone and clay together. The burning process changed the chemical
properties of the materials and Joseph Aspdin created stronger cement than what using plain
crushed limestone would produce.

Concrete that includes imbedded metal (usually steel) is called reinforced concrete or
ferroconcrete. Reinforced concrete was invented (1849) by Joseph Monier, who received a patent
in 1867. Joseph Monier was a Parisian gardener who made garden pots and tubs of concrete
reinforced with an iron mesh. Reinforced concrete combines the tensile or bendable strength of
metal and the compressional strength of concrete to withstand heavy loads. Joseph Monier
exhibited his invention at the Paris Exposition of 1867. Besides his pots and tubs, Joseph Monier
promoted reinforced concrete for use in railway ties, pipes, floors, arches, and bridges.

Today we have removed the aggregate that was used 40 years ago, remove the metal that was
used to reinforce concrete, we add fiber, water reducers, plasticizer, and hardeners.

Today concrete is not the same as the product that was invented in 1756, or even the same
product that was being used even ten years ago. Each step in the evolution of densifiers has been
in direct response to the changes in concrete, and the perceived deficiency of the older products.
Older densifiers were designed to work with the concrete that was being produced at the time. As
concrete has changed the products that are being used in conjunction with concrete have
changed. In the beginning it was okay to just harden concrete, then customers wanted the
concrete to resist oils. Today the government, employees, and customers demand safer products
that perform better than the products that have been available in the past.

1
 Comparison

Chemical Hardeners (Densifiers) include three basic categories of chemicals: silicates,

silicinates and silica:

Silicates - penetrate and harden. They are not good sealers. Disposal of the waste material is
currently an issue.

1) The oldest is Magnesium Fluorosilicates, which have been around since 1905. This
type of product requires multiple applications with varying rates of dilution.
2) Sodium Silicates developed initially in Germany in the 1930s. Application of the
product requires that it be applied at an average of 200 square feet per gallon, spread and worked
until the surface tension is broken, mist with water, allowed to gel a second time and then rinsed
and wet vacuumed to remove.
3) Potassium Silicates. The main difference between the sodium silicates and potassium
silicates is sodium is more prevalent in the North American and potassium is predominate in
Europe.
4) Lithium Silicates. Lithium silicates were developed to combat Alkali Silica Reaction
(ASR). ASR is more prevalent in exterior applications where there is a constant source of water.
Lithium silicates are less susceptible to solubilization than sodium or potassium. One of the by
products of this particular silicate is its ability to reduce sweating on slabs.

Chemistry: Lithium vs. Sodium and Potassium (Li vs. Na and K)

1) The smaller size of the Li ion of the SiO2/Li2O molecule vs. the Na or K ion is
important.
2) The location of the Li ion in the SiO2/Li2O molecule is also important. The Li ion is
close, actually touching the SiO2, while Na and K are distant. The inter-atomic distances of
Na and K make them more available to react quickly with the available Ca or CaOH. The
quicker the reaction, the less penetration is able to occur.
3) With silica to Li ratio of 20:1 vs. 3:1 for Na, the lithium silicate is more potent,
relative to the silica content which is what reacts with the free Ca and CaOH to form C-S-H
(calcium-silicate-hydrates). In addition, when LiSiO2 reacts, it does not produce free Na or
NaOH, (sodium hydroxide) which can raise the pH of the concrete surface.
4) Na and K remain soluble in water. This solubility allows them to undergo
expansion/contraction cycles with wet/dry cycles. Li becomes insoluble and remains stable
throughout these environmental changes.

In summary, lithium silicate has about 1/5 less interfering mass as a sodium silicate.
This is the true beauty of the lithium and one in which size really matters. The smaller lithium
ion stabilizes the silicate ions more efficiently with less mass and fewer molecules, resulting in
improved performance while not contributing to higher pH levels. Naturally occurring sulfates
of sodium, potassium, calcium, or magnesium are sometimes found in soil or in solution in
ground water adjacent to concrete structures, or from sodium or potassium silicates added to
concrete as hardeners. The sulfate ions in solution will attack the concrete. There are apparently

2
two chemical reactions involved in sulfate attack on concrete. First, the sulfate reacts with free
calcium hydroxide which is liberated during the hydration of the cement to form calcium sulfate
(gypsum). Next, the gypsum combines with hydrated calcium aluminate to form calcium
sulfoaluminate (ettringite). Both of there reactions result in an increase in volume. The second
reaction is mainly responsible for most of the disruption cause by volume increase of the
concrete (ACI 201.2R):

(b) Symptoms. Visual examination will show map and pattern cracking as well as
general disintegration of concrete. EM 1110-2-2002 20 June 95
(http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-manuals/em1110-2-2002/c-3.pdf)

Leaching of sodium and potassium from concrete chemical densifiers into ground water is
currently the issue of investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Silicinates - excellent sealer, poor hardening characteristics. Real world typical life expectancy
is 18 to 24 months, and then it should be reapplied. Disposal of the waste material is currently an
issue.
1) Silicinates are applied the same way silicates, spray, scrub, mist, rinse, and vac.
2) Silicinates can offer increased abrasion resistance over silicates in the short term due to
the coating effect of the silicinates.
3) Silicinates are either potassium or sodium.

Silicates have been directly linked to silicosis.

Silicates and silicinates have been tagged as carcinogens.

Silicates and silicinates must be disposed of as hazardous material.

There is significant research that documents the ill effects of sodium, potassium silicates and
silicinates on reactive aggregate in concrete.

Silicas are the newest and most promising of the chemical hardeners:

Silicas are applied simply by spraying them on the surface of the slab and allowing them to
dry. The surface should be clean and void of any curing compound. Application rates are
between 400 to 600 square feet per gallon.

Unlike silicates or silicinates there is no scrubbing and rewetting of the product.

Unlike silicates or silicinates there is no waste material to dispose of.

Silicas increase abrasion resistance over silicates or silicinates by up to twice as much

3
 Silicas do not contribute to ASR

Silicas do not raise the pH of the concrete since the product is neutral 6.5.

Silicas have the highest increase in abrasion resistance

Silicas have reduced application and labor costs

Silicas have no hazardous waste to remove or dispose

Silicas do not contribute to silicosis and are not carcinogenic unlike silicates which do
contribute to silicosis and are carcinogenic

Silicas will not contribute to sweating or efflorescence

Silicas performance is not contingent on dwell time unlike silicates or silicinates

In Summary, there are features and benefits to each of these types of chemical
hardeners. The upside for the silicates is that they harden better than silicinates, Silicinates seal
better than silicates. Silicates have been directly linked to silicosis. Silicates and silicinates have
been tagged as carcinogens. Silicates and silicinates must be disposed of as hazardous material.
There is significant research that documents the ill effects of sodium, potassium silicates and
silicinates on reactive aggregate in concrete.

Currently the best technology for chemical densifiers is amorphous silica.

4
 ORGANIC VS INORGANIC

There are hundreds of products available to seal or stain wood, concrete and other masonry
materials. These products are available through big box stores like Home Depot, Wal-Mart,
Lowes and many other paint stores, contractor supply centers, lumber yards and websites.

It is common knowledge that most of these products fail within 1-3 years. The big question is
WHY? Why havent manufacturers like Dupont, GE, Sherman Williams, Olympic, Behr,
Thompsons, Dow Corning and hundreds of others been able to produce stains and sealers
much better than they were over 20 years ago?

The answer is complex, but here are a few of the more obvious reasons:
1. It is the American way to manufacturer products with built-in obsolescence
2. Flawed restoration and application procedures shorten the surface life of most products
3. Wood and concrete are difficult, unpredictable building materials to protect
4. Manufacturers are producing the best products they can given the raw materials and
technology they are set up to utilize
5. Most manufacturers are striving to improve the performance of products whose base
ingredients are produced from petroleum by-products, all of which are organic
compounds.

ORGANIC
What does being Organic mean? Anything derived from a living or once-living organism is
organic. All organic materials have a common trait that sets them apart from other materials;
they naturally decompose. Decomposition is natures way of recycling organic matter.
Decomposition of organic material is inevitable!

Examples of Organic Materials are: The human body, all fruits and vegetables, fats and oils,
gasoline, motor oil, paint, varnish, plastic, rubber, asphalt, epoxy, suntan lotion and even
lipstick, etc.

The decomposition of organic materials is sharply accelerated by being exposed to UV light,

wind, atmospheric pollution, water, temperature changes and freeze/thaw cycles.

Nearly all wood, concrete and masonry sealers, stains and finishes are organic, and will
therefore decompose and fail when exposed to the harsh elements of nature.

Additionally, most of these organic products contain Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC),
which are hazardous to humans, animals and the environment. Many of these products are
barely within Federal VOC Requirements. The Federal Government considers any amount of
VOC to be dangerous to our health and environment.

1.
CHARACTERISTICS & PROPERTIES OF ORGANIC SEALERS

Film Formers: Organic sealers form an oil slick type film when applied to wood, concrete
and masonry materials. This film temporarily prevents moisture from penetrating the material
but also prevents the material from breathing. Wood and concrete is hygroscopic. The
moisture it attracts must escape through the surface in order to keep its interior from water
damage. Wood swells and shrinks from trapped moisture, causing the film to pull apart or
flake off and loose its ability to repel water.

Decompose: All organic materials decompose and fail when exposed to UV, water, wind,
atmospheric pollution and temperature changes. A good example is acrylic. When used on
interior wood it will last for many years. When used on exterior materials such as wood,
concrete and pavers it will begin to decompose quickly, becoming brittle and flake off.

Mechanically Bonds: Organic paints, sealers, stains and finishes can only stick to
materials. Mechanically bonding (sticking) to a material is a weak attachment and can be
easily broken loose. It is often seen as peeling, chipping or flaking off the treated material.

Hazardous: All organic sealers, stains, paints, and finishes have some degree of danger
associated with them. Most are flammable, corrosive, carcinogenic, unsafe to breathe, ozone
depleting, harmful to vegetation and animals as well as smell terrible.

Destructive: Organic sealers, stains and water repellents are not compatible with standard
building materials and actually cause deterioration of the materials they are stuck to. They
remove small particles of the materials they are attached to when they begin to peel, chip or
flake off. They also leave the material unprotected during their process of decomposition.

Residue: Organic products decompose from the elements leaving behind chemical residue in
and on the material they were attached to. A good example of this is that of a well known
Water Sealer which leaves behind small particles of solvent and silicone after it appears to
have worn off the treated material. This residue then prevents subsequent re-treatments from
attaching solidly causing even faster product failure.

Short Service Life: All organic materials have a short service life because of their built in
ability to decompose when exposed to the harsh elements of nature.

No manufacturer has ever, or will ever, be able to significantly alter the natural
properties of organic materials given them by Mother Nature!

2.
INORGANIC
What does being Inorganic mean? Inorganic describes materials made from natural
compounds from the earths strata, such as titanium, lithium, potassium, quartz, zirconium,
calcium, salt, sand, common rock, granite, marble, mica, ceramic, iron oxides, and water.
Inorganic compounds are not derived from any living or once living organism. They are
completely inert.

Examples of Inorganic materials are: Cement, concrete, glass, steel, copper, iron, plaster, lime
potash, diamonds, precious stones, and other minerals.

Inorganic materials are extremely slow to deteriorate because they are not easily broken down
by UV light, water, wind, oils, salts, extreme heat and cold or atmospheric pollutants.

In the US, only about two percent of all wood, concrete and masonry sealers, stains, water
repellents and other finishes are made from inorganic compounds. The basic technology to
manufacture products made from inorganic compounds has been available for over 125 years
in European countries. In America however, technology and manufacturing of these products
is centered around organic chemistry because of its ties to the oil industry (petroleum by-
products).

CHARACTERISTS & PROPERTIES OF INORGANIC SEALERS

Non-Film Formers: Mineral based sealers are chemically incapable of forming an oil slick
type film when applied to building materials. With inorganic mineral sealers, microscopic
minerals penetrate deep into the pores of the treated material, forming a tight micro-crystalline
structure that blocks the penetration of water and other contaminants. These mineral structures
are just loose enough to allow vapor to escape upwards through the treated material, thus
allowing the treated material to remain dry inside. This process is known as breathing.

Decomposition: Inorganic materials do not decompose when exposed to the harsh elements
of nature. Good examples of long lasting inorganic materials are concrete, glass and metal.

Chemical Bond: Some minerals used in producing inorganic sealers are highly reactive and
therefore able to chemically fuse within the treated material. Chemical fusion prevents the
treatment from turning loose. It is not just stuck to the treated material; it becomes part of the
material.

Non-Hazardous: Most inorganic materials do not contain Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC). They are not flammable, and produce no dangerous fumes or ozone-depleting gasses.
Most inorganic sealers do not harm vegetation and do not leach harmful particles from the
treated material into surrounding soil.

Non-Destructive: Inorganic sealers are compatible with all standard building materials, many
of which are made of inorganic minerals.

3.
 INORGANIC MINERAL SEALER TECHNOLOGY

There are basically three types of inorganic mineral water sealer technologies: Sodium
Silicates, Potassium Silicates and Lithium Silicates. Each of these mineral families contains
different properties and therefore produces strikingly different results when used in the
production of water repellents and sealers.

Sodium Silicates: Sodium silicate formulas make up 94% of all mineral based water sealers
available on the market in the US. Their performance characteristics are:
1. Least expensive silicate to manufacture into a finished sealer
2. An antiquated technology developed by the Army in the 1940s
3. Is known to contribute to Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) in concrete
4. Typical formulation is only 3-7% silicate and the rest is water
5. Large particle size prevents deep penetration in most materials
6. Cannot be used to treat wood. It will not adhere to wood fibers
7. Forms an aero gel when dry, which can be re-emulsified and floated to the surface
causing a white residue on the wood called efflorescence
8. Badly effloresces on most masonry and brick surfaces
9. Will not bead water so proving it has been applies is nearly impossible
10. Short service life
11. Hundreds of companies sell various formulas without stating the main ingredient is
sodium silicate, which makes purchasing confusing
12. Sold mainly over the internet to end users & contractors interested more in profit than
performance
13. Sodium silicates may absorb water, rather than repel it, on some masonry materials

Potassium Silicates: Potassium silicate formulas make up less than 3% of the mineral based
water sealers available in the US. Their performance characteristics are:
1. Highly reactive, harder to formulate and more costly than sodium
2. Multiple particle sizes make penetration controllable and more complete
3. Extremely hard mineral used in match heads and atomic triggers
4. Certain hybrid blends are self-reactive allowing them to be effective in low or no
alkaline materials, such as old worn concrete
5. Will not cause efflorescence, but can leave a stubborn white residue if over applied
6. Will not deeply penetrate dense substrates
7. Some potassium formulations will actually absorb water rather than repel it
8. Can expand inside the treated material causing internal pressure which contributes to
crazing and map cracking on the surface of concrete
9. Potassium and sodium silicates both have a tendency to react violently and unevenly
sometimes leaving clumps of reacted and un-reacted calcium scattered throughout the
wear surface

4.
Lithium Silicates: Lithium silicate formulas make up less than 1% of the mineral based
water sealers available in the US. The latest state-of-the-art lithium technology is the most
significant advancement in concrete sealers and hardeners in over fifty years. Their
performance characteristics are:
1. Non-expansive and cannot contribute to Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR)
2. Non-soluble and will not absorb water or cause sweating
3. Ions are smaller than sodium and potassium ions so deeper penetration into dense
substrates is possible
4. Lithium is widely recognized as Green Chemistry
5. Prevents efflorescence and leaching of lime
6. Once applied, Lithium silicate protection improves with age
7. Can be burnished to create a glass like finish on concrete
8. Seals, hardens and densifies concrete and other masonry materials
9. Unaffected by salt spray and chemical attack
10. US DOT tests have demonstrated that treating ASR-affected concrete with lithium
compounds can reduce or eliminate expansion due to ASR
11. Less sensitive to application procedures than potassium sealers
12. Higher reactivity than potassium for a more complete crystalline structure
13. Zerovoc LithiSeal is self-reactive and therefore highly effective in old or worn concrete
and masonry structures
14. Concrete and masonry materials treated with Lithium Silicate sealers are considered
permanently water repellant

5.

AMORPHOUS SILICA IN WORKING ENVIRONMENTS
A Toxicological Overview
Lecture given at the Silica 2001 in Mulhouse, France Sept. 2001 by
Dr. Monika Maier
Product Safety, Aerosil & Silanes,
Degussa AG, P.O.B. 1345,
63403 Hanau, Germany
monika.maier@degussa.com
INTRODUCTION
Synthetic amorphous silica
(silicon dioxide, SiO2) is used
in a wide range of industrial
products. Amorphous silica
may be produced by different
types of processes: thermal,
pyrogenic, or fumed silica is
produced using a vapor-phase
process; wet processes lead
to precipitated silica or silica
gel. In addition, silicas may
be surface-modied to gain
special properties.
Due to their physico-
chemical properties silicas are
widely used in synthetic resins,
plastics, cosmetics, nutritional
products, and drugs, e.g. as
free ow or anticaking agent.
Therefore, with respect to
consumer safety as well as
potential hazards to workers
during silica processing or
consumer product formulation,
the toxicological prole of
synthetic amorphous silica is
of great interest. This overview
mainly addresses the situation
in the working environment.
Toxicological evidence is
presented concerning acute
toxicity, repeated dose toxicity,
Feb05
creating essentials
skin and eye irritation, skin
sensitisation, genetic toxicity,
and reproductive toxicity.
Human epidemiological data
will be given where available.
As dermal toxicity and effects
due to inhaled material are
most important for workers,
they are the main topics of this
overview.
ACUTE TOXICITY
Numerous studies were
performed following oral
administration of synthetic
amorphous silicas to rats.
During the observation
periods, no death occurred
and no signs of toxicity were
observed. In addition, there
were no macroscopical
ndings at necropsy of the
animals. According to this data,
synthetic amorphous silica
may be judged to be not toxic
up to 5000 mg/kg/bw.
For testing acute dermal
toxicity, intact and damaged
skin of rabbits was treated
with different types of
synthetic amorphous silica
for 24 hours. There were no
signs of systemic toxicity. After
application to intact skin, only
slight redness was observed.
In damaged skin, redness and
swelling occured. Therefore,
it can be concluded that
synthetic amorphous silica is
not toxic by the dermal route.
For inhalation toxicity,
the following results from
studies according to the
OECD guideline are available
(due to technical limitations,
the maximum attainable
concentration in the air was
below 5 mg/l): after the 4
hours exposure, no clinical
signswere observed. No
mortality occurred during the
exposure period or during
the subsequent observation
period of 14 days. At autopsy,
no abnormalities were found
in gross pathology.
SKIN AND EYE
IRRITATION
A great number of animal
studies was carried out
with regard to skin and eye
irritation. According to the
resulting data, the topical
application of synthetic
amorphous silica does not lead
to irritation. Instillation of silica
to the eyes also did not cause
irritation.
From occupational
physicians, there are case
reports for the working
environment describing
dryness or degenerative
eczema of the skin in workers
with chronic contact to
synthetic amorphous silica.
These reactions may be
avoided by the employment of
an intensive skin care program.

SKIN SENSITISATION
Animal data on skin
sensitisation are not available.
For humans, data collected
from industrial hygiene
surveillance do not indicate
any potential for skin sensiti-
sation. As mentioned above,
there are reports describing
degenerative eczema resulting
from dryness of the skin that
may be misinterpreted as a
sign of sensitisation or allergy.
GENETIC TOXICITY
Several common in
vitro assays with synthetic
amorphous silica (Salmonella
typhimurium, Escherichia coli,
Saccharomyces cerevisiae)
demonstrated the absence of
mutagenicity. In addition, there
were also negative results with
the toluene extract. In cultured
mammalian cells, neither point
mutations nor chromosomal
aberrations were induced. No
genotoxicity was detected
using in vivo assays. According
to the available data, there is
no evidence for a genotoxic
potential of synthetic
amorphous silica.
REPRODUCTIVE
TOXICITY
Several studies have been
carried out in rats, mice,
hamsters, and rabbits to
investigate toxic effects on
fertility as well as maternal
and embryonic development.
Synthetic amorphous silica
given by gavage did not affect
parent fertility.
No teratogenic effects or
Feb05
creating essentials
abnormalities in the develop-
ment of the progeny could be
detected.
REPEATED DOSE
TOXICITY
To address oral repeated
dose toxicity of synthetic
amorphous silica, studies in
rats and dogs have been
carried out. Silica was
administered with the diet
or given by gavage for up to
6 months. The results conrm
the absence of signicant
toxicity. No substance related
abnormalities could be
detected at autopsy.
Different types of synthetic
amorphous silica have been
tested in rats at various
concentrations for subacute
or subchronic inhalation toxi-
city. Transient increases in
markers of inammation and
cell injury have been reported.
In some studies, an increase
in lung collagen, focal brosis,
and nodule formation were
observed. As shown in studies
with a post-exposure recovery
period the observed effects
were clearly temporary.
Marked differences
between synthetic amorphous
silica and crystalline silica
have been described. In
contrast to crystalline silica,
amorphous silica did not
produce persistent changes or
progressive lesions resembling
silicosis. During recovery,
inammation markers rapidly
decrease for amorphous silica,
whereas the markers remain
elevated after crystalline silica.
Several animal species,
including mice, rats, guinea
pigs, rabbits, and monkeys
have been tested for chronic
effects of the inhalation of
synthetic amorphous silicas.
The results of long-term
inhalation studies (up to 18
months) differ markedly with
respect to species, airborne
concentration, and type of
silica. Inammatory responses,
granulomatous nodule
formation, and emphysema
were observed. But studies
with a recovery period showed
that pulmonary effects
diminished with time.
Unlike exposure to
crystalline silica, synthetic
amorphous silica does not
induce irreversible or pro-
gressive lung injury. Chronic
inhalation of crystalline silica
can produce lung tumors in
rats, whereas this has not been
shown for amorphous silica.
The mechanisms under-
lying this difference are un-
known. A signicant role
has been postulated for
chronic inammation and
cell proliferation. Both
amorphous and crystalline
silica show a high degree of
inammatory cell response
after subchronic exposure, but
genotoxic effects in alveolar
epithelial cells occured only
after crystalline silica. Besides
the inammatory response,
particle biopersistence,
solubility, and direct or indirect
epithelial cell cytotoxicity
may be responsible for the
induction of either mutagenic
events or target cell death.

HUMAN
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL
DATA
In many epidemiological
studies on workers with long-
term exposure to synthetic
amorphous silica no silicosis
was found. There is only
sparse information about the
exposure to non-crystalline
silica and the development of
chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD). In most cases,
a correlation of respiratory
symptoms with smoking or
other confounding factors
was described, but not with
the exposure to synthetic
amorphous silica.
With regard to
carcinogenicity, there is no
evidence in the literature
for an association between
the exposure of workers to
synthetic amorphous silica and
lung cancer development or
mortality.
As to synthetic amorphous
silica and airway function,
valuable epidemiological
data are currently collected
by manufacturers in Germany.
This study is carried out to
gain further information
about the association
between chronic exposure to
synthetic amorphous silica
in the working environment
and lung function or
respiratory morbidity. The
current workforce exposed to
amorphous silica at several
production plants represents
the study population. Current
workers without exposure
Feb05
creating essentials
to amorphous silica serve as of synthetic amorphous silica.
controls. In her monograph on Silica,
the International Agency for
Recently, an interim analysis Research on Cancer (IARC)
has become available. The data concluded that there is
show: inadequate evidence for the
carcinogenicity of amorphous
1. There is a clear dose- silica to humans (Group 3).
relationship between
smoking behaviour
and symptoms of chronic LITERATURE
bronchitis as well as
reduced lung function. FDA Research Laboratories,
1973
2. There is no clear
connection between IUCLID Data Set of the
the exposure to synthetic EUROPEAN Commission,
amorphous silica and February 2000
the presence of
chronic respiratory Wahrheit DB et al.; Fund Appl
morbidity. Toxicol 16, 590-601, 1991
Reuzel PGJ et al.; Fund Chem
CONCLUSION Toxicol 29, 341-354,1991
It is generally believed, that
Johnston CJ, Driscoll KE,
the toxicological prole of
Finkelstein JN et al.; Toxicol Sci
synthetic amorphous silica is
56,405-413, 2000
dominantly determinded by
its nonabsorbability. Synthetic
Straif K et al.; presentation at
amorphous silica is practically
the meeting of the German
insoluble in water and
Association of Epidemiology,
chemically inert. It is therefore
Garmisch-Partenkirchen,
unlikely to be absorbed from
September 6-7, 2001
the gastrointestinal tract in
signicant amounts. Taken
together with the available
data from toxicological assays,
synthetic amorphous silica
may be judged as obviously
nontoxic when used at
currently applied levels.
According to current
epidemiological data, there is
no evidence of lung cancer or
other long-term respiratory
health defects in workers
employed in the production
 creating essentials

For further information please contact:

Commercial Contact
NAFTA Asia (without Japan) Japan
Degussa AG Degussa Corporation Aerosil Asia Marketing Office NIPPON AEROSIL CO., LTD.
Business Line Aerosil Business Line Aerosil c/o NIPPON AEROSIL CO., LTD. Sales & Marketing Division
Weissfrauenstrasse 9 379 Interpace Parkway, P. O. Box 7015 P. O. Box 7015
D-60287 Frankfurt am Main, P. O. Box 677 Shinjuku Monolith 13F Shinjuku Monolith 13F
Germany Parsippany, NJ 07054-0677 3-1, Nishi-Shinjuku 2-chome 3-1, Nishi-Shinjuku 2-chome
Phone: +49 69/218-2532 Phone: +1 (800) AEROSIL Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo
Fax: +49 69/218-2533 Phone: +1 (973) 541-8510 163-0913 Japan 163-0913 Japan
E-Mail: aerosil@degussa.com Fax: +1 (973) 541-8501 Phone: +81-3-3342-1786 Phone: +81-3-3342-1763
http: //www.aerosil.com Fax: +81-3-3342-1761 Fax: +81-3-3342-1772

Technical Contact
NAFTA Asia (without Japan) Japan
Degussa AG Degussa Corporation Degussa AG NIPPON AEROSIL CO., LTD.
Technical Service Aerosil Technical Service Aerosil Technical Service Aerosil Applied Technology Service
Rodenbacher Chaussee 4 2 Turner Place Rodenbacher Chaussee 4 3 Mita-cho
P. O. Box1345 Piscataway, NJ 08855-0365 P. O. Box 1345 Yokkaichi, Mie
D-63403 Hanau-WoIfgang, Phone: +1 (888) SILICAS D-63403 Hanau-WoIfgang, 510-0841 Japan
Germany Phone: +1 (732) 981-5000 Germany Phone: +81-593-45-5270
Phone: +49 6181/59-3936 Fax: +1 (732) 981-5275 Phone: +49 6181/59-3936 Fax: +81-593-46-4657
Fax: +49 6181/59-4489 Fax: +49 6181/59-4489

Or your local Degussa Representative

Our information in this document is based on our best knowledge. We disclaim any warranty and liability whatsoever as to accuracy and completeness
of such information as well as to the potential infringement of any proprietary rights. We reserve the right to effect technical alterations. Any user of our
products shall bear the full risk connected to their use including but not limited to their properties and tness for any purpose.