In 1998, one phase of the Design for Environment project, technical report EPA 744-R-98-002 was published, entitled “Alternative Technologies for Making Holes Conductive”. Seven alternative technologies to the formaldehyde copper plating process were assessed for risk to human health and the environment, performance and cost.
In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) changed formaldehyde from Group 2A, probable human carcinogen, to Group 1, known human carcinogen.
In 2006, the Toxic Use Reduction Institute of Massachusetts, (TURI), published the “Five Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study” with formaldehyde being one of the five chemicals. The use of formaldehyde in chemical reduction copper plating was reported to be more than 500,000 pounds in 2003 by Massachusetts companies, approximately 10% of the total usage reported in the state.
In spite of numerous cost-effective, safer alternative technologies, formaldehyde was still used extensively for copper plating in 2003. This finding prompted an investigation to answer one driving question, “Why is formaldehyde still being used for this application?” Results of the investigation suggested equipment justification and technical limitations of alternative technologies as the leading reasons, which led to the conclusion the use of formaldehyde containing copper plating baths to make through-holes conductive in printed circuit boards will continue to be the dominant technology in the foreseeable future. With that understanding, each opportunity for exposure to formaldehyde in a circuit board shop was identified and the appropriate “best practices” developed to prevent worker exposure, contamination of the work place and pollution of the environment. If formaldehyde is to be used for this application, it is the responsibility of the formulator to inform users of the risks and to be sure safeguards are in place to prevent exposure.