TCF vs. ECF: Understanding Chlorine in Diapers
In our diaper materials review, we briefly covered chlorine and TCF vs. ECF. I still plan to do a bleach and chlorine deep dive some day, but for now I wanted to cover TCF vs. ECF a little more thoroughly for those interested.
Chlorine and bleach are somewhat misunderstood. There are debates about the toxicity of some forms of chlorine (like bleach, which is actually sodium hypochlorite), but the base of it is that chlorine and chlorine gas is toxic to humans and the environment.
Luckily, we don’t encounter this form of chlorine much. It can be created if you mix bleach with vinegar while you clean, so don’t do that. It’s literally been used in chemical warfare…
Chlorine is useful in wastewater treatment and product manufacturing. Many argue that the bleaching of so many products (diapers, eggs, parchment paper, coffee filters, everything) is just plain unnecessary, and I would agree for the most part. Sometimes the bleaching process is useful for the performance of the product/material, because the molecule stripping process of bleach does more than just whiten. This is true for the wood pulp used for absorbency in diapers.
Elemental chlorine, which is those two joined molecules of chlorine, which is not naturally occurring, used to be used in diaper wood pulp production. The problem with this is that, while elemental chlorine breaks down to less problematic forms in water (though some still debate this), it produces toxic dioxins, which were found in significant quantities when used for products like this. These dioxins are bad for the environment and bad for baby bums. This is why the EPA passed new rules around the use of elemental chlorine in the 90s and diaper companies don’t use it anymore.
Processes developed and today we have two main options: elemental chlorine free (ECF) and total chlorine free (TCF). This really refers to the wood pulp, not necessarily other parts of the diaper.
ECF
ECF is elemental chlorine free. This refers to pulp bleached without the use of elemental chlorine, and is a process that instead uses chlorine dioxide. Some will argue that the use of this can still produce some toxins like dioxins, which are very toxic, causing a range of health issues including reproductive.
A major reason a lot of companies use or have switched to using ECF over TCF pulp is that significant research has come out over the last decade or so that the presence of dioxins in wastewater from ECF pulp production are so minimal and dissipate naturally that they are not considered a concern and they also appear to have similar impact to TCF pulp on aquatic systems (which is to say both methods are equally non-impactful). A lot of research even states that the production of various dioxins and furans are essentially zero, meaning that they are there but they’re but they’re below what is considered a measurable amount.
However, there are some sources evaluating pulp and paper mill sludge (waste from manufacturing their products) for other purposes that do find notable though still small concentrations of dioxins and furans. Also, there are some studies showing that, though the most toxic dioxins are virtually eliminated by using the ECF process, there are some other dioxins that are still present at “acceptable” ranges. It’s also good to note that some studies evaluate wastewater post treatment, but there are enough that look at it pre-water treatment that the picture painted is still reliable.
All in all, the industry considers ECF a very safe process and end product. It’s also cheaper than TCF, since it is less energy and resource intensive and produces more end product per equal amount of hard or softwood. And when I say more, I mean 2% and 4% more respectively for hard and soft wood. This is still significant, but not as much as some blogs and whatnot spin it to be.
It is also the most common process used. I’ve seen varying figures but it looks like around 99% of USA pulp is ECF and upwards of 85% of world pulp is ECF, with probably less than 5% of global pulp being TCF. This poses another advantage for US-based diaper companies to use ECF pulp, because it requires less shipping and is therefore cheaper to get and created less environmental pollution. Companies that want to use TCF have to ship it from other countries, pretty much all across the ocean.
TCF
TCF is total chlorine free. This means that pulp bleached with this method does not use any chlorine. Instead it uses hydrogen peroxide and oxygen, sometimes known as “green bleach.” This is kind of the equivalent of using hydrogen peroxide laundry whitening products in your laundry as opposed to bleach. There are some people experimenting with peracetic acid right now but it’s not common or thoroughly understood yet.
The upside of this process is there is no risk of any chlorine byproducts anywhere near your baby’s bum or in the environment. As we discussed, this is barely a concern with ECF, as the most toxic dioxins are virtually eliminated with that process, but there is some evidence of other dioxins and furans potentially remaining, even if at low levels.
The downside of the TCF process is that it is less efficient, requiring more wood and energy to make the same amount of product as the ECF process. This carries environmental concerns as well as increases the cost of products. Additionally, TCF pulp is not as strong as ECF pulp, which impacts its ability to absorb and perform its other functions. However, I’ve used both TCF and ECF diapers and I don’t necessarily find TCF to be less capable of absorbing or more prone to leaks.
Mostly, there’s very little evidence that ECF pulp is any more toxic than TCF pulp. I looked and looked and looked, trust me. I wanted to find it if it was there. I read a lot of pretty dry articles digging for it. It just doesn’t seem to be there.
Summary / TLDR
Personally, I think diapers using ECF or TCF are pretty near equal and are both definitely safe. Neither should cause irritation to your baby’s bum and neither should contribute to their toxic load. However, it is true that ECF pulp diapers may contribute to a very small degree to toxic load because of the small amounts of toxins they could potentially pass on.
This is important to a lot of people, myself included. The reality is that you’re exposed to more dioxins from other sources in your life, like paper or meat, than you will ever be from an ECF diaper. The petroleum plastic is also probably more toxic than ECF pulp. However, we only have so much control and I’m all for limiting exposure to harmful compounds wherever we can, if it’s feasible to do so and we can afford it.
I discussed cost in our diaper ranking post so I’ll just briefly mention it here again. ECF diapers are usually but not always cheaper than TCF diapers.
Kirkland’s diapers (though you have to have their membership otherwise the price goes way up), come in at about 18-20 cents a diaper depending on size. Kudos, my preferred diaper, come in at 41 to 70 cents a diaper depending on size. Pampers Swaddlers, a fragranced ECF diaper I do not recommend, when bought from Walmart and ordering in similar quantities to Kudos, range from 25 to 42 cents a diaper.
(I do receive commission off any diapers purchased through this Kudos link or if you use code WHOLEFAMILEE10 for 10% off. But I fully support, recommend, and personally use this brand. They’re the best disposable on the market.)
As you can see, the TCF Kudos diaper is definitely more expensive, around 2-4x more expensive depending on what size of what diaper you’re looking at. I’d say closer to 2x is most common. However, Kudos, which I consider the “best” disposable diaper due to their use of cotton and minimization of petroleum plastic, is cheaper than a lot of other TCF diapers and even some ECF diapers. For instance, Coterie TCF diapers will run you from 45 to 83 cents a diaper. Honest diapers, an ECF option, runs 37 to 81 cents a diaper.
Cost is an important factor in everything. This can be because someone simply does not have the money for a more costly option or because they are trying to steward the money they do have the best they can. This can include value in your investment. While I would consider Kudos worth the raised cost (because of the cotton, not really the TCF, but small points for that) I wouldn’t consider other TCF diapers at a cost higher than Kudos worth the cost. And for some, the potentially negligible difference in toxin exposure isn’t worth the cost at all.
If you are on a limited budget and are trying to figure out the best place to put your money, I would put it into organic food before I’d put it into a TCF diaper. However, if you can afford to go the TCF route, I’d definitely do that. Also, check the price on an ECF diaper, even one that claims to be super natural, before you buy it. You may be able to find a cheaper TCF or certainly a cheaper ECF version.
I use TCF diapers, personally. I use Kudos diapers, but again, I honestly use them more for their cotton top layer than their TCF pulp, though I do appreciate the pulp. If there were a cheaper ECF version that utilized cotton in the same way, I would consider a switch.
If I had to caption this post in one blurb it would be this: ECF is probably fine and it may be worth saving your money and focusing on other more pertinent areas of toxin exposure if you’re interested in protecting your baby that way. Also, the whole industry is probably debating the wrong diaper ingredients at this point in the game. And as always, do what’s best for your family based on your research and budget.
I hope you found this content helpful and enlightening. If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an email. If you enjoyed this content, please consider subscribing to our newsletter to stay in the loop on future posts and holistic health news. Also feel free to browse our other posts on a variety of topics that may also interest you.
I know in the natural living world, preservatives can get a bad rap. They’re sometimes talked about this evil addition to our food that should absolutely be avoided. But what’s the truth? Are preservatives bad for you? Should we avoid eating foods with added preservatives?
Read more to find out.