Banishing Bad Hair Days since 1997!™
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Biolage mousse-Laura Jane
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedBiolage mousse-Laura Jane

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Lori View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: July 24 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Biolage mousse-Laura Jane
    Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:07am
After reading Mickhael's post about the nasty ingredients in some mousses, I checked mine. The Pantene had the ones mentioned, the Biolage Hydro-foaming styler did not. Instead it listed an ingredient called hydrofluorocarbon 152A. My question is is this an ozone-depleting chemical, like the chlorofluorocarbons? I really like the foam- it's rich and moisturizing and makes my hair wonderfully curly, but if it's bad for the enviroment I want nothing to do with it. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Lori
Back to Top
Laura Jane View Drop Down
Unregistered
Unregistered
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laura Jane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:07am
> After reading Mickhael's post about the nasty> ingredients in some mousses, I checked mine. The> Pantene had the ones mentioned, the Biolage Hydro-foaming> styler did not. Instead it listed an ingredient> called hydrofluorocarbon 152A. My question is> is this an ozone-depleting chemical, like the> chlorofluorocarbons? I really like the foam- it's> rich and moisturizing and makes my hair wonderfully> curly, but if it's bad for the enviroment I want> nothing to do with it. Any help would be greatly> appreciated! Thanks, LoriThe short answer is that I'm not 100% positive, but that I don't think they harm the ozone layer. I'll see whether I can find out absolutely for sure tomorrow while I'm at the lab, and let you know.Meanwhile, here's what I do know. CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) were originally developed as refrigerants to replace the dangerous and toxic gases that had been used (ammonia, dichloromethane, etc.). CFCs were regarded as ideal because they are essentially inert (undergo no chemical reactions) under the conditions found on the surface of the Earth. They were first used as refrigerants in the 1920s, but it wasn't until the 1970s that Rowland and Molina discovered that the conditions in the upper atmosphere allowed CFCs to undergo reactions that could destroy ozone. This happens when ultraviolet light hits a CFC molecule and releases a reactive form of chlorine known as a radical. This energetic chlorine atom can attack ozone and break it down.HFCs have since been developed as an alternative refrigerant and propellant (another, later-developed use of CFCs - as in mousse, hairspray, etc.). There is no chlorine atom in the HFC molecule, so it cannot undergo the reactions that destroy ozone the way CFCs do. My one warning is that HFCs have not been widely used for as long as CFCs, so we don't know quite as much about them. However, I'm not unduly worried, because I think we've learned something from the CFC crisis - new chemicals are generally tested much more thoroughly now than they were even 10 or 20 years ago, let alone 70!If you're interested in reading about CFCs and HFCs, many general chemistry texts aimed at college freshmen have relatively good summaries of the issues. You might also try an environmental chemistry textbook, although that will get a lot more technical. Some magazines aimed at non-scientists have also had excellent articles on the subject - you might look in the indices for Scientific American or Science News for the past few years.Anyway, I'll let you know what I can find out.Laura Jane lswanson@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down