The COVID-19 pandemic has made clear the influence that interior environments have on human health. For architects and designers, tools that facilitate the selection of healthy materials have assumed unprecedented importance.
The earliest versions of online product platforms that focused on health or sustainability offered minimal functionality, such as providing lists of toxic chemicals. Ingredient lists were often challenging to obtain, because manufacturers were not required to produce the data, were protecting trade secrets, or had something to hide. But growing environmental advocacy has motivated industry change, pressuring companies to divulge their material contents so they can be specified in “green” projects. Platforms such as Perkins + WIll’s Transparency, the Health Product Declaration (HPD) Open Standard, and the Quartz Common Products Database reflect efforts to increase the transparency of building product data. Tools like these have grown in number and sophistication—enabling material searches, detailed ingredient lists, and community discussions.
I decided to take a closer look at three recent tools that are particularly well-suited for product selection by design application: the Healthy Building Network’s Pharos, the International Living Futures Institute’s Declare, and the Mindful Materials library. I test-drove these platforms from the perspective of an architect or designer, to see how how useful and accessible they are as part of the design process. To be fair, each tool has a slightly different objective, making a direct comparison challenging. But it's a useful comparison nonetheless.
According to the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council, the Pharos Project “is an independent and comprehensive database for identifying health and environmental hazards associated with building products.” Launched in 2000, and named after the ancient Pharos Lighthouse of Alexandria, the database aims to offer a comprehensive survey of more than 37,500 chemicals for 30 health hazards. Its holistic approach and open-source evaluation system inspired Healthy Building Network founder Bill Walsh to call Pharos “the future of materials selection.”
Declare, meanwhile, is the International Living Future Institute’s label for ingredient disclosure—known as the “nutrition label for products.” Designers can use an online tool, developed in 2012, to search for information among labeled products (manufacturers must have a paid license to add entries). In addition to ingredients, the tool also includes the presence of any red-list chemicals, product life expectancy, its origin (or location of final assembly), and end-of-life options.
And finally, Mindful Materials describes its platform as “not another certification” but an “agnostic product certification library.” Established by HKS in 2014, the database aggregates ingredient lists and certifications for a wide variety of products. It’s powered by the material data-exchange hub Origin, and its development has been influenced by founding partner BuidlingGreen and other collaborators. The platform has grown quickly, presumably thanks to its free memberships for manufacturers and users (paid accounts are available to manufacturers for enhanced data-sharing options).
To test-drive these different platforms, I selected three materials a designer might choose to research, from the common to the uncommon: gypsum wallboard (GWB), bamboo flooring, and Hempcrete.
First Test: Drywall
GWB, or drywall, is ubiquitous: The international market for GWB surpassed a $45 billion valuation in 2020 and is expected to grow by nearly 12% in the next eight years. One should expect to find copious amounts of relevant environmental information.
Unfortunately, none of the three platforms recognize the term “GWB,” but “drywall” does deliver results in Pharos and Mindful Materials (Declare appears to list all of its products when it cannot provide specific search information). Pharos lists eight common products by MasterFormat number, including drywall and related materials such as drywall joint tape. The platform groups product ingredients according to drywall core, facing, and adhesives, and lists all established process-related chemicals of concern, such as arsenic, cadmium, and lead. Although Pharos reports that most of these chemicals are frequently used, nearly all have “unknown” quantities in weight percentages. Surprisingly, Pharos lists “no resources for this common product,” although there are links to many source documents. A search for “gypsum,” meanwhile, reveals a list of 28 chemicals, such as flue gas desulfurization, but no products.
Mindful Materials, on the other hand, lists four products by various manufacturers, including drywall primer, drywall grid system, and drywall frame—not exactly what I’m after. One product—USG Ensemble Acoustical Drywall Ceiling—comes close to my search. The product description reads like an advertisement, touting this “breakthrough ceiling solution” that “allows new freedoms in design.” Health product declaration documentation is included under “certification/declaration/test report” data, and specifications are also available. A search for “gypsum” is much more helpful, yielding 72 products (these appear on individual pages of 30 items each, requiring one to “load more” to access additional products). The top listing is devoted to CertainTeed’s 5/8 Easi-Lite Veneer Plaster Base Type X, including similar information categories as displayed with the USG product.
One of the best aspects of Mindful Materials’ search results is that they are delivered in a spreadsheet-like matrix, including expandable columns for material ingredients, environmental profiles, VOCs, material sourcing, social responsibility, and “other information.” Even with this comparable data, users must still drill down into each product’s documentation to enable an adequate product-to-product comparison.
Although “GWB” and “drywall” are dead-ends in Declare, the tool does respond to the term “gypsum,” delivering over 50 product results. Not all of these are gypsum wallboard (products like slotted steel framing or “Mosswallart” somehow crept into the mix), but there is still some useful information. The top hit in my desired category is 10 mm GIB Aquiline Plasterboard by Winstone Wallboards. Because this product is listed in the Declare database, it has a Declare ID and its Living Building Challenge compliance is also listed here (thankfully, it is LBC red-list free). I learned that the product is assembled in Auckland, New Zealand, is 100% recyclable, and is expected to last 50 years. The product’s ingredients are also arranged in order of proportion, with gypsum comprising “90 to 100%” of the wallboard.
Second Test: Bamboo Flooring
The popularity of bamboo building products increased significantly after awareness of bamboo’s rapid renewability began to grow about two decades ago. One of the most common applications of bamboo in building construction is flooring. Although bamboo comprises less than 5% of the global flooring market, the material’s popularity is anticipated to yield growth of 3.5% over the next five years.
Pharos delivers four listings for “bamboo” under chemicals and one for “bamboo flooring” under common products. On the product page, the application lists the common contents (Moso bamboo is 94.74%, followed by 3.93% phenol-formaldehyde resin, 0.85% boron sodium oxide tetrahydrate, and 0.49% UV cured finish). The process chemistry page yields a similarly eye-opening list of “known or potential residuals,” along with a similar number of “unknowns.” The resources page contains one report on asthmagens and two guides on flooring products—not very specific to bamboo, but somewhat informative.
Declare reports “nothing found” when I enter “bamboo flooring” as a search term, but “bamboo” produces five products, including four door faces from Oregon Door and one decorative hardwood plywood from Columbia Forest Products. I’m surprised by the paucity of results, particularly given bamboo’s common use in flooring applications and the material’s general appeal when it comes to sustainability. An internet search reveals that Smith & Fong achieved Declare certification for its Plyboo flooring in 2014, but the manufacturer may have allowed its Declare license to lapse (“Plyboo” and “Smith Fong” no longer appear in Declare’s search results). This omission raises questions about the “pay-to-play” approach to certification: Should search results be confined to paying members, or should other viable options also be included?
Mindful Materials lists three products for “bamboo flooring” offered by the brands Parterre and Reward Hardwood Flooring. Of these, only Parterre’s product listing indicates information in the additional material criteria columns mentioned above. Called “Natural Bamboo,” Parterre’s offering turns out to be quite the opposite. The product is a vinyl plank manufactured to look like bamboo—part of the Grained Luxury Vinyl Plank” collection. MM lists six forms of “possible compliance” for “Natural Bamboo," including LEED v4.1 Low Emitting Materials and Living Building Challenge Imperative 08, and four certifications, including a Health Product Declaration and Environmental Product Declaration. By contrast, Reward’s Strand Bamboo Collection—presumably made from actual bamboo—lists no possible forms of compliance or certifications.
Third Test: Hempcrete
The least common of the materials in my search list, Hempcrete, is a biocomposite made from the fibrous core of the hemp plant combined with a lime binder. Initially used in France in the early 1990s, the lightweight material is employed primarily as an insulating, non-structural material (although some recent varieties exhibit structural properties) and is appreciated for its breathability, bio-compatibility, and pest-resistance.
Pharos comes up empty for the search term “Hempcrete,” although “hemp” delivers several chemical listings (it is odd that hemp is considered a chemical). Unfortunately, the entry for “hemp” is empty, listing “none found” under hazard lists (no ingredients or other benefits listed). The term “hemp” also reveals two common products: chlorinated polyvinyl chloride pipe and copper piping. Which is befuddling, because I did not see hemp listed in a quick scan of these products’ contents or process chemistry data.
Declare reports “nothing found” for “Hempcrete,” and the search term “hemp” reveals two unhelpful project case studies and no products. The case study for “The Summit Foundation/Sant Associates” shows up since its description states that the architects could not use hemp because “100% of their binding ingredients could not be identified.” (The other project, the Hawaii Prep Academy Energy Lab, includes acoustic wall panels with hemp fabric covering—but no further information is provided.)
Mindful Materials has nothing on “Hempcrete,” but it does list two products under “hemp.” Both of these are textiles—not what I’m looking for, but better than Pharos’s or Declare’s results. Camira Fabrics’ Hemp line includes a product description, two possible forms of compliance from SCS Indoor Advantage Gold, and four certifications.
The Verdict
In summary, my test-drive of these healthy product platforms was a big disappointment. Although I limited my test to three products, I still expected these tools to deliver more useful information. So far, these applications don’t have the necessary functionality. Pharos is a robust tool when searching for specific chemicals, a generic ingredient list for some standard products, or the potential chemicals used in processing some everyday products. Declare is the buggiest of the tools (the “back” button is often unresponsive or searches come up blank, requiring me to refresh my browser). But it offers a clearer, more intuitive, and more visually accessible interface than the other platforms. Mindful Materials boasts the most extensive collection of products and provides a helpful matrix-style format for its search results. Mindful Material’s product descriptions, however, are excerpted straight out of the manufacturer catalog and are riddled with “sales speak”—compared with the unbiased information offered by Pharos.
The other significant disappointment: There is no easy way to compare multiple products on any of these platforms. Many manufacturer websites allow users to “select up to three products for comparison.” A good materials database should have this functionality. Even with its inclusion, a true comparison between different products will still be difficult, given the tremendous uncertainty about chemical quantities, the growing number of product certifications, and the intricacies of environmental program compliance.
That said, these platforms can deliver a couple of big wins without any herculean effort: They can emphasize natural materials, provide unbiased scientific descriptions (not sales pitches), include product benefits as well as drawbacks, and simplify the ability for architects to discern differences between options (one product might exhibit cautionary levels of toxic ingredients, for example, and one might be generally non-toxic). With just a few more upgrades, these databases can help empower architects and designers to make a difference.
