Which has a cleaner burn?

[Stephanie]

I've only made candles with paraffin, so my knowledge of wax beyond that is pretty limited. So I apologize if this is a dumb question, but... which burns cleaner - beeswax or soy? And I guess by "cleaner", I mean less soot (I think). Thanks for the help!

[topofmurrayhill]

Whichever you wick correctly and keep out of a draft.

[ChrisR]

Whichever you wick correctly and keep out of a draft.

Good answer and absolutely the truth!! Even paraffin can have a clean burn if it's made properly and people trim their wicks!!! All burning candles have soot of one form or another. It's just that a poorly made candle has lots more!!

[Stephanie]

Good to know! But seriously, isn't soy at least supposed to be better environmentally than paraffin?

[topofmurrayhill]

Good to know! But seriously, isn't soy at least supposed to be better environmentally than paraffin?

There's no difference in how cleanly soy burns versus paraffin. To produce the wax, soybean oil is refined and hydrogenated in factories at the expense of a lot of (petroleum-generated) energy. The plants are grown by big corporations using chemical fertilizers and pesticides. So no.

[backyardcandles]

There's no difference in how cleanly soy burns versus paraffin. To produce the wax, soybean oil is refined and hydrogenated in factories at the expense of a lot of (petroleum-generated) energy. The plants are grown by big corporations using chemical fertilizers and pesticides. So no.

Very awesome answer!

[Henryk]

Well, its not that simple really. I know this is from the Iowa Soybean promotion board - but it is also a scientifically done study comparing burning of soy, beeswax and paraffin wax (paraffin users won't like this):

http://www.iasoybeans.com/ispb/soycandles/cumbstion.pdf

[topofmurrayhill]

Well, its not that simple really. I know this is from the Iowa Soybean promotion board - but it is also a scientifically done study comparing burning of soy, beeswax and paraffin wax (paraffin users won't like this):

http://www.iasoybeans.com/ispb/soycandles/cumbstion.pdf

Yes HenryK, it's absolutely simple. The hype about sooty paraffin is wrong.

I have the full version of this study sitting on my desk. When you read all the details it's easier to realize the flaw in the experimental design, but you can catch it in the abstract if you read carefully.

They stuck the same big wick into all the waxes without compensating for their viscosity. All they proved is that you need a smaller wick for paraffin than for soy, which every candlemaker knows already.

This is the best research available to the soy wax industry and it is meaningless. What little other research there is contradicts the conclusions.

[Jeana]

I have spoken with Candlescience about this before. They sell all kinds of waxes. They said they do their own testing and soy does burn cleaner, but the soot that burns is light not black. Maybe more testers should be measuring the amount of toxins being release as each type of wax is being burned rather than the amount of soot anyway.

Here is some other research I have seen on this subject that has nothing to do with soot. I know the state of CA is not on the "soy train".

The state of California, under its Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986), has identified at least seven major toxins in paraffin wax, including toluene, benzene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and naphthalene--substances found in paint, lacquer and varnish removers. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that toluene and benzene are probable human carcinogens. Burning paraffin candles for long periods indoors produce toxin levels that are higher than the EPA's guidelines.

In 2001, the American Lung Association issued warnings that candles are a common unrecognized cause of poor indoor air quality. The National Association of Home Builders has received increasing reports implicating candles as a major cause of Black Soot Deposition (BSD) that damages home interiors and contents, not to mention skin and lungs. These microscopic particles -- smaller than 2.5 microns -- are recognized by the EPA as responsible for aggravating respiratory illnesses, especially in children.

As far as the lung irritation of "candles" this could be any type because it is not mentioned which type of candles the ALA tested.

[Henryk]

First, you seem to have taken this as some sort of attack - wasn’t meant to be. What I found interesting is the chemicals being released that you can’t see.

I do not have access to what you have, but on page 11 they do mention different wicks regarding the melt pool testing so they must have used them, plus on page 7 they mention 10 different paraffin candles. Does the full study go into detail on that?

Frankly, I would rather go by this study as far as analysis than taking as gospel truth what people reiterate on boards without any scientific studies at all - i.e. "soy throws soot, but its white". I've posted about this in my apartment (I should be seeing HEAVY deposits of white soot from the amount of soy candles I burn).

Do you happen to have any links with similar studies that are properly done then? Because I'm getting the idea that the paraffin folks are starting to get angry on being called on some of this stuff that prior to this have not been bought up.

I probably won't keep debating this - I'm not getting paid by either the soy or paraffin people to be thier advocate, but would like to read some of the other studies if they are on line.

Thanks.

[Suzanne]

From the information I've read, the kind of wicks have a lot to do with the harmful toxins being released. Lead, lead core, zinc, or wicks with lead containing alloy seem to be ones that contribute to lead poisoning. So if the soot you are refering to contains lead, then I think it's due to the wicks. Hopefully that makes sense.

Edited to add: Beeswax is cleaner burning.

[Jeana]

Do you happen to have any links with similar studies that are properly done then? Because I'm getting the idea that the paraffin folks are starting to get angry on being called on some of this stuff that prior to this have not been bought up.

I probably won't keep debating this - I'm not getting paid by either the soy or paraffin people to be thier advocate, but would like to read some of the other studies if they are on line.

Thanks.

I am really curious for the truth also. I don't want to just repeat things other people are saying. And I don't want to make anyone mad, especially if all I am repeating is hearsay. I emailed the EPA here in CA to see if I can get my hands on the prop 65 info I posted. It will be a miracle if they respond- hehe. If they do, and I find out any good info, I can pass it on. I love research!!

[topofmurrayhill]

I wasn't feeling attacked. The edge of annoyance you may have detected was not aimed at you and I apologize if I came off badly.

I really was quite annoyed when I originally looked into this question and discovered that soy wax claims hinged primarily on the study you linked here.

The researchers describe their experimental procedure in great detail, and if there was a step involving wick optimization I believe it would have been mentioned. My copy contains graphs of the soot measurements, and there is only one set of data with no reference to wick size. For lack of anything to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume the wick sizes were the same.

I had originally missed that reference to wick size in connection with melt pool measurements. It's the only mention of that in the entire paper. For the first time, it has raised the question in my mind that this presentation is intentionally manipulative rather than just based on a flawed procedure. If they tried different sizes of wicks it's rather amazing that the presentation is devoid of any discussion of how wick size might affect soot production. Since the research is specifically about candles, and since the researchers seemed pretty well informed, I was originally surprised that they appeared to be oblivious to the fact that wick optimization is a critical step in candlemaking. But perhaps they were not oblivious and simply chose not to present that.

For some interesting information on sooting in relation to wick size, you might like to check out http://www.igiwax.com/Comparison%20of%20Soot%20Testing%20Methods%20Rev042205.pdf.

Some studies of how soot production varies with wax type and fragrance oils in wick-optimized systems you can refer to http://www.igiwax.com/downloads/Spring2004%20White%20Paper%20030404.pdf.

[backyardcandles]

Do you happen to have any links with similar studies that are properly done then? Because I'm getting the idea that the paraffin folks are starting to get angry on being called on some of this stuff that prior to this have not been bought up.

You see that is the problem, in "most" cases (and I'm not saying that everyone who sells soy uses this technique) your soy candlemakers promote their product by bashing paraffin users. They promote their candle as "all natural" when in fact they use FO's & colorants as the same as us paraffin users which totally crosses out the "all natural" to it.

I know I can't say that I have any more docmentation of research but I can only say that I don't have sooty walls and all I burn & make is paraffin candles and have been for almost 4 years, and as long as their made & maintained correctly there isn't any soot!!!

[Henryk]

Alex - I've read those before. What I could never understand in the first pdf, table 6, is why couldn't they just simply do a test of the blends themselves (I see they picked appropriate wicks), but without any FOs? They need that control IMO because what that table represents is a wax/fo soot rate - not a wax soot rate.

Am I missing this in the article? Unless its in there somewhere, this still doesn't tell one which, soy or paraffin, produces less soot, when properly wicked on their own.

Thanks.

[topofmurrayhill]

Alex - I've read those before. What I could never understand in the first pdf, table 6, is why couldn't they just simply do a test of the blends themselves (I see they picked appropriate wicks), but without any FOs? They need that control IMO because what that table represents is a wax/fo soot rate - not a wax soot rate.

One thing I like about the candle people at IGI is that they are practical and balanced. I think it's pretty much taken for granted over there that all the products on the market are potentially good candlemaking materials. Rather than trying to duplicate or refute the Iowa State study, I think they ignored the hoopla and simply did a presentation of some of the variations you see in the aesthetics and performance of the different sorts of products on the market.

Frankly I wish someone would do the Iowa State study properly just to help enforce some sense on the industry, but I think you can argue that for reasonable people it's not necessary. The Iowa State results indicate that the difference between paraffin and soy is like the difference between a coal-powered locomotive and a hybrid car. This obviously has no bearing on real life experience for anyone who's used all these types of waxes, unless they make a practice of, let's say, using nothing but ECO 12 wicks for every type of candle they make.

Not only are the IGI studies more plausible and true to real experience, but within the data you still do have the all the information you need to understand how flawed and possibly manipulated the Iowa State research is. One of those papers shows the variations in soot production across a range of LX wick sizes and it goes from near zero to very heavy. Not dealing with that variable renders the Iowa State results meaningless. In the paper with the different waxes you can also see that the lowest levels of soot production were very low, and those cases occured with all three wax types. Finally, you can see that the huge variations in the rate of consumption just don't seem to exist.

What I would conclude is that wax type is a very small variable in these things, whereas wick size and FO type are many times larger variables. It all makes a good deal of sense, whereas the Iowa State study only seems to make perfect sense if they either overlooked or ignored the wick optimization step in candlemaking.

It was Nature's Gifts (the EcoSoya people) who originally pointed me to the Iowa State study. I went back and asked them if they had noticed this oversight in the experimental procedure. This is a straight copy and paste of the answer I received:

"Sure did but as you say everyone has their way of doing things. This is the best info other than simple qualitative observation that we have. Sorry."

So if that's the best data I don't think paraffin needs any defending and I would say there's no basis for one product to be marketed at the expense of the other. "Simple qualitative observation" may simply be that paraffin is easier to overwick because of its much lower viscosity, and much more tempting to overwick because it has a higher melt point and people like to try making large containers.

[Henryk]

All good points, especially that the variables (additives, FOs, wicking) are the main determiners, but don't you think if someone would just test plain waxes, wouldn't that at least put the "soy burns cleaner" argument finally to rest? After all, those that make that claim aren't even looking at those variables, but the wax itself.

[topofmurrayhill]

Yes I agree with you. A clean experimental design to clearly address the major issues that people talk about.

Still, unless FO has ability to suppress soot, you could argue that the IGI material contains some useful data in that regard. Even with FO they got a few very low values for all the waxes.

[RobinInOR]

...

The state of California, under its Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986), has identified at least seven major toxins in paraffin wax, including toluene, benzene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and naphthalene--substances found in paint, lacquer and varnish removers. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that toluene and benzene are probable human carcinogens. Burning paraffin candles for long periods indoors produce toxin levels that are higher than the EPA's guidelines. ....

Actually, another study was done for the Prop65 and it was found that paraffin wasn't a problem.

"...public health risks posed by candle emissions (benzene, lead and soot) do not exceed the threshold (1 excess cancer in 100,000 people) for California Proposition 65 listing and labeling."

The original article by the group has been taken off their site, but the way back machine has it

http://web.archive.org/web/20001012145246/http://www.litigation.support.ene.com/candle_emissions.htm

[Stephanie]

Since I started this thread, I'd just like to jump in and say, um, WOW! You people are doing your homework! I was expecting a very simple answer and this became quite an education. Thank you! Not that it matters, but I'm really impressed with how knowledeable you are about the industry and its products. I feel humbled.

[cryptic]

For me, I prefer soy wax candles simply because of the following: I hated being around candles (regardless of where they were purchased from - Walmart, specialty shops, gift shops, big & small stores, etc.) and very rarely did I purchase them - only to fill the room with a nice scent. But they made me sneeze, cough, headaches, or cause me to have a "gagging" feeling, while they are burning and immediately when they are extinguished (the worst reaction) ...until I came across a candle one day that did not cause me to experience those symptoms. I asked what type of candle it was and was informed that it was 100% soy wax, etc. Since then, I've purchased some soy candles and now I say: Wow, now I can actually enjoy candles without having those annoying effects. This is what led me to investigate the contents of candles further and coming across "candle making."

Whatever is used in those non-soy wax candles when they "burn" is what causes my reactions. I only get the symptoms above when the candle is burning. However, every now and then I did experience a small headache from smelling certain candles.

I'm not saying soy is "pure" or that it's better than non-soy candles...I'm just saying that I choose soy because it doesn't cause me to have reactions to them. Regardless, I am glad that soy wax candles exist and don't really care to use the other candles.

I have yet to try a palm wax candle or beeswax candle to see what reactions I experience from those.

P.S. This is just my experience and point of view.