Mattress Forum

I personally would tend to believe what you have been told as my doubts lie not in the facts as known by the mattress manufacturer ... there is no doubt in my mind that the wool they and many others use passes the test... but in the original processing of the wool and ticking. Different qualities and processing methods of wool have different flammability qualities. At the very least ... the wool needs to be thicker and then compressed (thus the 4" you were told earlier which would then be compressed to a thinner layer). There are some very stringent organic manufacturers out there who do use thicker "organic"  wool that is compressed and use it on the sides as well and they pass the test. It is not so much the actual thickness as the oz/sq ft and the type and quality of wool that makes the real difference. This is the main reason that I didn't use wool in my quilting since I believed that not only would it need to be compressed and not be as "fluffy" (confirmed by my experience where the same mattress had a compressed wool fire barrier option and that bed was firmer) but that it would also compress over time and harden up my latex. Of course my mattress doesn't have a removeable cover so I couldn't take it off and fluff it up as you can with the removeable covers.

In the end, it didn't really matter so much to me since the old standard was more than sufficient in my eyes and if I had my choice I would rather have a mattress that didn't comply with any standard if compliance meant doing anything that would in any way "denature" or "alter" the materials used. I am also not as sensitive as many others are and a completely organic mattress is not as high on my list of priorities as it is for some others. I am much more "sensitive" to dumb regulations (laughing). I really don't like what the regulations have forced the industry into doing and the distortions of information that have come about as a result.

Interesting about Berkeley Ergonomics. They make a really nice microcoil mattress and in the early part of my search I was seriously looking at a mattress of this type since another one I tried was really comfortable. I wonder why they use them for their testing since they don't commercially sell the same mattress as flobeds and the mattress has to be tested as a complete unit (the cover cannot be tested by itself and used on "multiple mattresses"). There are some minor exceptions with this if the "other" mattress is not substantially different from the prototype that was tested.

The source of all this information is the regulation itself rather than anything I have been told.

Phoenix

Perhaps even more important ... given that you have some good options for testing near you ... I would go (with your son) and lay on some mattresses with different ILD's and layering before I bought something online as you will have a much much better idea of what is suitable for you. This is probably more important than anything else in terms of getting it "right" ... especially if you are thinking of a thinner mattress with less "changeability" in the layering.

Phoenix

I was told that they buy the cover from Berkeley Ergonomics and use it on their mattresses.  I wonder if they are simply transferring the testing done on that cover to their own bed?  It would be expensive for a "kitter" who buys latex layers and a cover from someone else and just sells them together as a bed to do any type of extensive testing.  I wonder if they can just list "Latex Foam/Viscose" as the material and essentially put any diffent amounts in and get away with a single test?  The cover would be the same material in all tests.  The only difference would be the size of the cover.  The internal material would be essentially the same.

Am I off in my thinking here?
 

This is not allowed under the regulations. If they did this their mattress would not be considered as having passed the regulations. Covers are not tested except as part of a complete and specific prototype. Even a mattress that requires a certain foundation is tested specifically with that foundation and the mattress itself is not considered to have passed without that foundation.

None of this would matter to me personally since if the cover had passed with a different prototype that was similar ... it would be more than enough for me ... even if it wasn't good enough according to the regulation. I would happily buy a mattress from a reputable manufacturer that hadn't passed the regulations (and may even prefer it in some cases) if that was possible to do without a doctor's prescription.

Phoenix

If this were something I were concerned about,  which it is, I would ask if "anything" was added at all, and if so, what.  The mattress seller might not have this info, and might need to ask the company from whom they purchase the cover, who then might need to check with their suppliers. What is hard to know is, if somewhere in the supply chain, the wool wasn't treated.

But this all begs the question that Strobel raises, which is, if one manufacturer has to fire treat their wool, then why not all? All other variables being equal. That is still where I am stumped.

Naturepedic's fire protection, designed by an expert environmental scientist, contains no wool or borate powder and is instead made of baking soda and hydrated silica bonded to cellulose fiber. Baking soda can be found as a naturally occurring compound, but is generally made from other naturally derived materials. Silica is a natural mineral that comprises about 70% of the earth's crust. Clay, rocks, sand, etc. are all made primarily of silica. It is a major constituent of human tissue, bones, teeth, skin, eyes, glands, organs and is even available in food supplements. The cellulose fiber used is derived primarily from eucalyptus and poplar trees and has a low carbon footprint.

Visil is a trade name for a cellulose fiber manufactured by Sateri

Milliken makes something similar called Paladin

It seems that visil/wool blends don't do very well in fire tests and that even the weave pattern can make a difference.

From my research different types of wool have different fire retardency qualities. Similar thicknesses/processing methods/compression of different types of wool could very well have different outcomes. The lanolin content also makes a difference (lanolin can be flammable). How it is treated and manufactured, and how much wool and how compressed it is are also factors. I also think it is quite likely that some mattress manufacturers are only repeating what they have been told about the wool in their covers and may not know for sure. In other cases they (some "organic" manufacturers) will independently test for chemicals but I doubt that silica is one of the chemicals they test for.

In regards to the Strobel claims ... OMI disputes this on their website here under "PULLING THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES"

I also checked and Silica is not one of the specific "chemicals" that are tested for in GOTS certification

I also know it is not cheap to test an individual prototype so it passes the fire regulations so there would be some pressure on smaller companies to do "whatever they could to pass with the least possible cost".

In the end I guess we all have to decide "how pure is pure" for ourselves and decide on the level of uncertainty we are willing to live with in our mattress.

Phoenix

It would be great if a complete list of ingredients, and info on the treatments that those ingredients have undergone, were available with all products we purchase, including mattresses. It would certainly make our jobs as consumers easier. As that is not the case, it makes our purchasing decisions more difficult.

I am not aware of any health warnings for Silica as it is used in a mattress. Of course as it is used in diatomaceous earth (as a crystaline powder) there would be a warning not to inhale it as it could cause respiratory problems. Exposure to crystaline silica as used in drywall for example can lead to silicosis.

Could you direct me to any warnings you have seen that are specific to how it is used in a mattress? If my beliefs are based on faulty information, I would certainly like to correct them :).

Phoenix

I also wonder that if silica and other "natural" products are safe and effective fire retardants, why don't all companies use these safer methods rather than other chemical methods? It must come down to cost and the flammability of certain materials.