Explosion inhibitor, as a declared use for PFAS
2 companies have told Minnesota that they put PFAS into products to serve this purpose, in 3 filings covering 2 products and 3 distinct compounds. This is the field that makes the set worth reading, because it records PFAS being chosen for a job rather than turning up as a contaminant.
- Disclosures
- 3
- Companies
- 2
- Products
- 2
- Compounds used
- 3
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.
- 90 to 100%1 filing
- Practical Detection Limit to <100 ppm2 filings
All 3 filings
- Where in the product,
- Battery Accessories (Automotive) - Type Of Accessory - Unclassified
- What it is doing,
- Explosion inhibitor
- Compound,
- Ethene, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-, homopolymer (CAS 9002-84-0)
- How much the filer reports,
- 90 to 100%
HTS 3921190010 · Minnesota disclosure MN-EW768V3 · published 2026-08-07
- Where in the product,
- Dielectric films of capacitor
- What it is doing,
- Explosion inhibitor
- Compound,
- 2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropanoic acid (CAS 422-64-0)
- How much the filer reports,
- Practical Detection Limit to <100 ppm
HTS 8421.39.0115 · Minnesota disclosure MN-PKKUN43 · published 2026-09-30
- Where in the product,
- Dielectric films of capacitor
- What it is doing,
- Explosion inhibitor
- Compound,
- 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)propanoic acid (CAS 13252-13-6)
- How much the filer reports,
- Practical Detection Limit to <100 ppm
HTS 8421.39.0115 · Minnesota disclosure MN-PKKUN43 · published 2026-09-30
Other declared uses
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.