1,1-difluoroethane, CAS 75-37-6
1 company has told Minnesota that this compound is intentionally added to 3 of their products, in 3 filings across 1 component. Each row names the product, where in it the compound sits and what it is there to do.
- Disclosures
- 3
- Companies
- 1
- Products
- 3
- CAS number
- 75-37-6
All 3 filings
- Where in the product,
- Connector
- What it is doing,
- Refrigerants
- Compound,
- 1,1-difluoroethane (CAS 75-37-6)
- How much the filer reports,
- 10,000 ppm to <150,000 ppm (15%)
UPC 800549375962 · Minnesota disclosure MN-AP3C7AS · published 2026-09-30
- Where in the product,
- Connector
- What it is doing,
- Refrigerants
- Compound,
- 1,1-difluoroethane (CAS 75-37-6)
- How much the filer reports,
- 10,000 ppm to <150,000 ppm (15%)
UPC 800549375740 · Minnesota disclosure MN-AP3C7AS · published 2026-09-30
- Where in the product,
- Connector
- What it is doing,
- Refrigerants
- Compound,
- 1,1-difluoroethane (CAS 75-37-6)
- How much the filer reports,
- 10,000 ppm to <150,000 ppm (15%)
UPC 800549375566 · Minnesota disclosure MN-AP3C7AS · published 2026-09-30
Other compounds in the filings
- poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE)14,002
- Ethene, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-, homopolymer12,349
- Fluoropolymers10,203
- poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (VDF-co-HFP (FKM 1))5,191
- potassium 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane-1-sulfonate2,420
- PFAS Present but unknown at this time2,305
- 1-Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoro-, polymer with 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethene1,214
- Methyl(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)silanone1,213
- poly(tetrafluoroethylene-co-hexafluoropropylene) (FEP)1,187
- 1-Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoro-, oxidized, polymd.1,115
- 1,1-Difluoretylen-hexafluorpropenpolymer986
- Ethene, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-, oxidized, polymd777
Source, manufacturer filings made to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency under the state’s PFAS in Products law and published through PRISM, run by the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse. These are the manufacturers’ own statements, not our grades and not laboratory results. A filing covers the product as sold in Minnesota and says nothing about products or formulations the company did not file. Reporting was still open when this was pulled, so absence from the set is not evidence a product is PFAS-free.