Nigel Triumph Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Fernox seems to use monopropylene glycol as an antifreeze, replacing the ethylene glycol in blue antifreeze. Both are toxic, though monopropylene glycol is slightly less so (fatal dose for dogs about 2/3 of that for ethylene glycol). For me that's not enough reason to switch for ethylene glycol based antifreeze, which is widely available. Nigel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jimt Posted April 16 Report Share Posted April 16 (edited) 17 hours ago, Nigel Triumph said: Fernox seems to use monopropylene glycol as an antifreeze, replacing the ethylene glycol in blue antifreeze. Both are toxic, though monopropylene glycol is slightly less so (fatal dose for dogs about 2/3 of that for ethylene glycol). For me that's not enough reason to switch for ethylene glycol based antifreeze, which is widely available. Nigel Mono propglycol is apparently used in many food products, sweeteners, medical products, cattle feed, shampoos and even some dog foods! etc etc and is generally regarded as non toxic and safe. Now I’m not a chemist but looking online you can see lots of info regarding its applications. I appreciate anything can be regarded as toxic/harmful if taken in excessive quantities above recommended limits eg. Salt, alcohol, sugar etc and I wouldn’t recommend drinking it but I can’t imagine it being approved by the US FDA in food applications or being given a European Union E-number E1520 for food grade applications if it was “toxic”. Certainly safer then Ethylene glycol that can destroy your organs or kill with relatively small doses Edited April 16 by jimt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel Triumph Posted April 16 Report Share Posted April 16 8 hours ago, jimt said: Mono propglycol is apparently used in many food products, sweeteners, medical products, cattle feed, shampoos and even some dog foods! etc etc and is generally regarded as non toxic and safe. Now I’m not a chemist but looking online you can see lots of info regarding its applications. I appreciate anything can be regarded as toxic/harmful if taken in excessive quantities above recommended limits eg. Salt, alcohol, sugar etc and I wouldn’t recommend drinking it but I can’t imagine it being approved by the US FDA in food applications or being given a European Union E-number E1520 for food grade applications if it was “toxic”. Certainly safer then Ethylene glycol that can destroy your organs or kill with relatively small doses I've found data online starting the lethal dose of ethylene glycol for dogs is about 6mg/kg bodyweight. The equivalent figure for monopropylene was stated as 9mg/kg. Doesn't seem much of a reduction in toxicity to me. Animals accidentally drinking EG or MPG antifreeze will be seriously ill, possibly fatal, depending on the quantity ingested. I wonder at what concentration MPG is approved for food use. Is it approved as a good additive per se, or as a component of materials that may come into contact with food e.g. packaging materials? Nigel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobH Posted April 16 Report Share Posted April 16 Info here Nigel. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/ethylene-propylene-glycol/propylene_glycol.html "....the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (FDA 2017). FDA considers an average daily dietary intake of 23 mg/kg of body weight to be safe for persons 2–65 years of age....." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel Triumph Posted April 16 Report Share Posted April 16 Rob, here's what American vets say about propylene glycol. Nigel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jimt Posted April 16 Report Share Posted April 16 1 hour ago, Nigel Triumph said: I've found data online starting the lethal dose of ethylene glycol for dogs is about 6mg/kg bodyweight. The equivalent figure for monopropylene was stated as 9mg/kg. Doesn't seem much of a reduction in toxicity to me. Animals accidentally drinking EG or MPG antifreeze will be seriously ill, possibly fatal, depending on the quantity ingested. I wonder at what concentration MPG is approved for food use. Is it approved as a good additive per se, or as a component of materials that may come into contact with food e.g. packaging materials? Nigel Dogs seem to be more susceptible to things that are not as harmful to us - a whole bar of 85% dark chocolate is enough to poison your dog. Yes for use in food - albeit in small food grade quantities- if you’ve had a cuppa today with milk you’ve had some - When milk is pasteurized, propylene glycol is added as an emulsifier to help distribute the fat more evenly throughout the liquid solution so it doesn’t separate from the other components during storage and transport. I’m starting to feel I wish I’d never looked it up! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel Triumph Posted April 16 Report Share Posted April 16 1 minute ago, Nigel Triumph said: Rob, here's what American vets say about propylene glycol. Nigel Sorry, forgot to add the link: https://vetmeds.org/pet-poison-control-list/propylene-glycol/#!form/PPCDonations Nigel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Charlie D Posted April 17 Report Share Posted April 17 Marley says: “8 out of 10 cat owners prefer Fernox Alphi-11.” (And Marley knows what he is talking about. He's not as daft as he looks.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
250 Posted April 17 Report Share Posted April 17 We use tonnes of monopropylene glycol as a secondary refrigerant in the food industry which means it flows through heat exchangers and machines that are within the production areas although not in direct food contact and its considered as "not classified as hazardous" by the manufacturers and supplier which meets the HSE requirements, obviously this is against humans not animals although the MSDS say minimal effect on aquatic life, but I still wouldn't drink it. Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.