Your cart is empty
Low emission & environmental
The line usually arrives as three words: “low VOC material”. No limit, no standard, no test method — and in the UAE the three rating systems a project might be chasing do not point at the same document. This page sets out what is actually measurable, which standard answers which question, and the part most schedules leave out: on a printed wall, the covering is only one of four things going onto it.
Each of these is a separate property with its own test. A sheet that asks for all of them under one heading has asked a question nobody can answer with a single certificate.
| What is asked for | Standard & method | What it answers |
|---|---|---|
| VOC emissions | ISO 16000-9 / -11 chamber testing, read against a scheme: CDPH Standard Method v1.2 (California 01350), AgBB in Germany, or the French A+ label | How much the finished material gives off into the air of the room, usually measured after 28 days. This is EMISSION — not the VOC content printed on a tin |
| VOC content | SCAQMD Rule 1168 for adhesives, Rule 1113 for coatings — grams per litre | How much solvent is in the wet product before it is applied. It is the figure rating systems set for ADHESIVES and paints, and it is a different number from an emission result |
| Formaldehyde | EN 717-1 chamber test, graded E1 (≤ 0.1 ppm) and E2; EN 120 for the perforator method | Whether the material releases formaldehyde. E1 is the class normally written into European-referenced specs |
| Heavy metals & monomers | EN 12149 — the wallcovering-specific test for release of barium, lead, cadmium, chromium, mercury, antimony, arsenic and selenium, plus vinyl chloride monomer and formaldehyde | Whether what is in the material can come out of it. This is the one standard written for wallcovering rather than borrowed from another trade |
| Phthalates | REACH Annex XVII and the SVHC candidate list — DEHP, DBP, BBP, DIBP | Whether the plasticiser in a PVC material is one of the restricted ones. It is a question about PVC: a non-woven or paper covering has no plasticiser to declare |
| PVC-free | No test — it is a statement about what the material is: non-woven, polypropylene or paper rather than vinyl | Often written for healthcare and schools. It is verified by the material declaration, not by a laboratory result |
| Responsible fibre | FSC or PEFC chain of custody, certificate number traceable to the mill | Where the paper or non-woven fibre came from. It says nothing about emissions, and the two get asked for together constantly |
VOC content and VOC emissions are not the same measurement and are not interchangeable. A product can be low in content and still emit, or be solvent-free and still fail a chamber test. If your specification gives a g/L figure, it has specified content — which is the right question for the adhesive and the wrong one for the wallcovering.
The certificate is issued for a roll of material. Four things end up on the wall, and the roll is the one with the paperwork.
This is what the certificate covers: the non-woven, vinyl or paper itself, tested under EN 12149 and whichever emission scheme the project follows. It is the part most easily evidenced — and on a printed wall it is also the part nobody sees.
A printed wall is covered in ink, and the ink has its own emission behaviour. Water-based latex and UV-cured inks sit at a different place from solvent and eco-solvent, and some printing systems hold their own indoor-air certification. A certificate for the blank material says nothing about what was printed on it.
If a protective film is specified — for scrubbing, or to slow fading — it becomes the surface of the wall, and the emission question transfers to it. A low-emission base under a film that was never tested is not a low-emission wall.
Litres of wet paste go on the wall on the day, which is why rating systems set a g/L limit for adhesives specifically. It is the largest wet source in the room, it is almost never named in the wallcovering line, and it is usually chosen by whoever is hanging the wall.
Emission is highest when the material is new and falls away over days and weeks, which is why chamber methods report at 28 days rather than on day one. Hanging a wall and sealing the room is the worst case; hanging it with the air moving, before handover, is how it is normally managed.
Recycled content, FSC fibre, recyclability at end of life and PVC-free are environmental claims, but none of them is an indoor-air result. They belong on the sheet — just not on the same line, and not as evidence for each other.
They are not the same, and which one applies decides which evidence is worth anything. LEED points at chamber emission testing for interior finishes — the CDPH Standard Method v1.2, with separate VOC-content limits for adhesives and coatings. Abu Dhabi’s Estidama Pearl Rating System sets low-VOC requirements for interior materials under its Livable Buildings credits, with its own limit tables. Dubai’s Al Saʼfat and the Green Building Regulations set VOC limits of their own for the materials used inside. A supplier who hands over a single “eco” declaration has usually met none of them, because each wants a named test with a named limit and a certificate traceable to the batch. The useful first question is therefore not “is it low VOC” but “which system, which credit, and what evidence does the consultant want to see” — and that question is answerable before anything is ordered.
Send these and we will come back on what can be evidenced, what cannot, and what the alternative is.
We will not call a wall “eco-friendly”, because the word is not a test result and carries no limit anyone can check. We do not publish an emission class for our printed walls, and we will not hand over a supplier’s certificate for a blank roll as though it covered the ink, the laminate and the paste as well. What we will do is read the clause your consultant wrote, tell you plainly which parts of it can be evidenced for a printed wall and which cannot, name what is missing from the line, and confirm it in writing before you order. Where a project genuinely needs a certified low-emission build-up, that is a conversation about the whole wall — base, ink, film and adhesive together — not about one certificate.
It is enough to start, not to finish. “Low VOC” with no limit, no unit and no test method cannot be evidenced, and the three rating systems used here ask for different documents. We would need to know which system and credit applies, whether the limit is a g/L content figure or a chamber emission result, and whether the adhesive and any laminate fall inside the same clause. Send the schedule as the consultant issued it and we will come back with exactly what is missing from it.
Content is how much solvent is in the wet product, measured in grams per litre and printed on the tin — the right question for an adhesive or a paint. Emission is how much the finished material gives off into the air of the room, measured in a test chamber under ISO 16000 and read against a scheme such as CDPH Standard Method v1.2, usually reported after 28 days — the right question for a wall finish. They are different measurements, and a low number on one does not predict the other.
Not on its own. Four things end up on that wall: the base material, the ink printed onto it, a laminate if one is specified, and the adhesive. The certificate covers the first. The adhesive is the largest wet source going into the room on the day, which is why rating systems set a separate limit for it — and it is the item wallcovering specifications almost always leave out.
It is the stricter of the two European classes, tested in a chamber under EN 717-1, and it caps the formaldehyde the material may release at 0.1 ppm. E2 is the looser class. A specification that writes “formaldehyde-free” is asking for something different again, and in practice harder to evidence, because trace formaldehyde occurs naturally in many materials rather than being added to them.
It is wider. EN 12149 is the wallcovering-specific migration test: it covers the release of heavy metals — barium, lead, cadmium, chromium, mercury, antimony, arsenic and selenium — along with vinyl chloride monomer and formaldehyde. It is the one standard in this area written for wallcovering rather than borrowed from another trade, but it does not replace a chamber emission test, which is what a LEED-style credit will ask for.
No, and asking for it reveals an assumption. Phthalates are plasticisers used to make PVC flexible, so the question only arises for a vinyl material. A non-woven, polypropylene or paper covering has no plasticiser to declare, which is why “PVC-free” and “phthalate-free” tend to arrive together — the first makes the second automatic.
No. PVC-free is a statement about what the material is made of, not a measured result, and a PVC-free material can still emit, still use a high-solvent adhesive and still come from an uncertified fibre. It is usually asked for in healthcare and education for reasons of material policy and end-of-life disposal rather than indoor air. It is a legitimate requirement — it is simply not evidence of anything else.
Nothing at all. FSC and PEFC are chain-of-custody schemes: they trace where the fibre came from and that it was responsibly sourced. They are frequently written on the same line as a VOC requirement, and the two are entirely separate questions — a certificate for one is not an answer to the other.
We can pass on what genuinely exists and say plainly what it covers. The base material carries its supplier’s test reports, and those are real documents for the blank roll. What does not exist is a single certificate covering the base, the ink, the laminate and the adhesive as installed, and we will not present one document as though it were the other. Tell us what the consultant needs to see and we will confirm in writing what is available before you order.
Odour and emission are related but not the same thing, and the nose is not a measuring instrument: some low-emission materials smell, and some odourless ones test poorly. A new wall gives off most of what it is going to give off in the first days, which is why chamber methods report at 28 days and why ventilating the room before handover matters more than any single product choice. If a project has a measured requirement, that is settled on paper in advance — not by how the room smelled on the Thursday.
B1, Class A and B-s1,d0 — what each one means and which your schedule asks for
ISO 22196, hospitals and what a treatment may lawfully claim
Scrubbable, washable and what actually wears a corridor wall out
Blue Wool, rub fastness and what actually fades on a printed wall
Bathrooms, lobbies and why Gulf walls fail from behind
Sizes, finishes, how a wall is printed and installed
Reviewed 2026-10-03
