Standardizing net quantity statements for aerosol contents

March 7, 2014 by David Sefcik
Standardizing net quantity statements for aerosol cans
Different methods of sale -- one by net weight, one by fluid volume -- may make consumer comparisons difficult.

The work of NIST can be found in many unexpected places in American life—including store shelves containing different kinds of aerosol products. So perhaps it's not surprising that PML's Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) was recently called upon to help resolve a dispute over the way such products are labeled and sold.

It all began a few years ago in Massachusetts when a state official was out in the field and noticed a spray can on which the net quantity statement was apparently mislabeled. Under the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation found in NIST Handbook 130 (Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality), which most states adopt or use as the basis for their regulation, aerosols and similar pressurized containers must be sold by net weight. This one was sold by fluid volume. State officials notified the manufacturer that the net-weight requirement applied to all aerosols and similar pressurized containers.

But the company's used "bag-on-valve" (BOV) technology. "And a lot of BOV manufacturers do not regard themselves as 'similar'," says David Sefcik of OWM, "because their technology is different."

Many familiar aerosol products contain a mixture of the active ingredient and the propellant gas. Both are expelled at the same time. But in BOV containers – which are used for a range of products including sunblock sprays, deodorants, window cleaners, insecticides, furniture polish, and automotive lubricants – the is confined in a sealed bag within the can. The bag is surrounded by pressurized gas, which never leaves the container.

Standardizing net quantity statements for aerosol cans
It can be hard to determine from the exterior of the container (left), but contents may be either mixed with the propellant (center) or confined in a bag (right).

"The manufacturer argued that because its products don't expel the propellant, it should continue to use its existing net-volume declaration," Sefcik says. "The state contacted us. We recommended that net weight be used for BOV products, and encouraged them to bring the issue before the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM), which makes the ultimate decisions about such questions."

A couple of years passed, and industry representatives, two major trade associations, and other interested parties were not able to reach a consensus on the matter. As a result, a significant problem remained: Products using different dispensing technology that cannot be easily distinguished at the point of sale had the net quantity labeled in two different ways, making consumer value comparisons difficult, if not impossible.

"Meanwhile," Sefcik says, "we had begun to examine the subject more closely. The issue crossed over several different federal agencies, and we soon realized that the agencies' regulations and guidance were not entirely consistent among themselves."

For example, the Uniform Labeling and Packaging Regulation, adopted or used as a basis of adoption by 45 states as of this year, clearly calls for the declaration of quantity in an "aerosol package and on a similar pressurized containers" to be expressed in terms of weight. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), however, allows a "net quantity" of "weight or volume." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance stipulates that "the net contents of BOV pesticide products must be expressed in terms of both liquid measure and weight." And the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires that the package state the "net quantity" of the contents, but does not specify whether it should be by weight or volume.

"So the Laws and Regulations committee of the NCWM recommended that NIST facilitate a meeting of all the concerned parties" Sefcik says. "And that's what we did – invite all stakeholders together, in an effort to educate them regarding the issue and to reach a consensus on the proper method of sale." *

On January 9 of this year, OWM's Sefcik and colleagues hosted a meeting of representatives from various aerosol industry groups, trade associations, and federal agencies (FDA, FTC, EPA, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission). After multiple presentations and a thorough discussion, "we were able to reach a unanimous consensus that the products should be sold by weight," Sefcik says.

The report on that meeting became the basis for a recommendation to the NCWM that products using BOV technology be sold by weight in accordance with current federal and state regulations. It was also recommended that current language in NIST Handbook 130's section on aerosols and pressurized containers be revised and clarified. Proposed language will be voted on in July at the NCWM's 99th annual meeting in Detroit. It is expected that manufacturers will be given a grace period of about three years to re-label their products, and that federal agencies will act to make their regulations and guidance more consistent.

"It's as fair as it can be," Sefcik says. "The BOV companies won't have to distinguish themselves from aerosols. And consumers will be able to make rational purchasing decisions and value comparisons based on a common method of sale."

Explore further: Proposed rules would allow metric only labeling for some products

Related Stories

FDA allows two new cigarettes to hit market

June 25, 2013

(HealthDay)—Using its newfound authority to regulate tobacco, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has for the first time allowed two new cigarette brands to hit the market.

FDA seeks to improve safety of antiseptic swabs

November 14, 2013

(HealthDay)—Manufacturers of antiseptic swabs and solutions are being asked to make voluntary labeling and packaging changes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Thursday.

Battle over GMO labeling rumbling in US

January 5, 2014

A GMO labeling battle is rumbling in the United States, with those demanding full disclosure of genetically modified organisms in food products pitted against big companies.

Feds crackdown on four bogus weight loss aids

January 7, 2014

Makers of a weight loss additive called Sensa will return more than $26 million to consumers to settle federal charges that the company used deceptive advertising claiming that consumers could lose weight by simply sprinkling ...

Recommended for you

Isolation of Fe(IV) decamethylferrocene salts

August 29, 2016

(Phys.org)—Ferrocene is the model compound that students often learn when they are introduced to organometallic chemistry. It has an iron center that is coordinated to the π electrons in two cyclopentadienyl rings. (C5H5- ...

Bringing artificial enzymes closer to nature

August 29, 2016

Scientists at the University of Basel, ETH Zurich, and NCCR Molecular Systems Engineering have developed an artificial metalloenzyme that catalyses a reaction inside of cells without equivalent in nature. This could be a ...

New method developed for producing some metals

August 25, 2016

The MIT researchers were trying to develop a new battery, but it didn't work out that way. Instead, thanks to an unexpected finding in their lab tests, what they discovered was a whole new way of producing the metal antimony—and ...

Force triggers gene expression by stretching chromatin

August 26, 2016

How genes in our DNA are expressed into traits within a cell is a complicated mystery with many players, the main suspects being chemical. However, a new study by University of Illinois researchers and collaborators in China ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Z99
not rated yet Mar 08, 2014
Aerosols are sold (among other reasons) because of their application properties. It makes as much sense to sell by net weight as it does to sell tires (tyres) that way. Concentration and coverage are what needs be compared. (speaking as an old aerosol chemist). The "consensus" by "stake holders" such as CPSC and EPA? You gotta be kidding. "Well Joe, what can we regulate today? I'm bored, lets go screw up something we know nothing about. After all, we know better than consumers what they need to be told."

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.