poly(tetrafluoroethylene-co-hexafluoropropylene-co-vinylidene fluoride) (THV (FKM 2)), CAS 25190-89-0

2 companies have told Minnesota that this compound is intentionally added to 4 of their products, in 4 filings across 2 components. Each row names the product, where in it the compound sits and what it is there to do.

Disclosures
4
Companies
2
Products
4
CAS number
25190-89-0

How much is reported

Concentration bands as filed, heaviest declared first, with filings that give no concentration at the bottom. Counts are of filings, since one product can report more than one compound.

  • 600,000 to <900,000 ppm (90%)2 filings
  • 150,000 ppm to <300,000 ppm (30%)2 filings

All 4 filings

Where in the product,
BRAKE SHOE
What it is doing,
Resins (prepolymers)
How much the filer reports,
600,000 to <900,000 ppm (90%)

Shimano Part Number Y8L298070 · Minnesota disclosure MN-MUI1B1K · published 2026-09-30

Where in the product,
BRAKE SHOE
What it is doing,
Resins (prepolymers)
How much the filer reports,
600,000 to <900,000 ppm (90%)

Shimano Part Number Y8PP98060 · Minnesota disclosure MN-MUI1B1K · published 2026-09-30

888IStonhardStonhard
Where in the product,
Flexibility and adhesion
What it is doing,
Adhesion/cohesion promoter
How much the filer reports,
150,000 ppm to <300,000 ppm (30%)

HTS 3904691000 · Minnesota disclosure MN-90964Q6 · published 2026-08-07

Stonflex CR9StonhardStonhard
Where in the product,
Flexibility and adhesion
What it is doing,
Adhesion/cohesion promoter
How much the filer reports,
150,000 ppm to <300,000 ppm (30%)

HTS 3208900000 · Minnesota disclosure MN-90964Q6 · published 2026-08-07

Other compounds in the filings

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.