The Concierto de Aranjuez, by Spanish composer Joaquín Rodrigo, is one of the most famous pieces of music for classical guitar. It premiered in 1940.
Nearly nine decades later, companies are arguing that the concerto cannot be played without PFAS. Classical guitar strings made from a fluorocarbon called PVDF – a fluoropolymer made from PFAS monomers – make a better sound, they say.
You might think: surely they can’t be serious? But the logic of the arguments goes to the heart of the debate over the proposed PFAS ban in Europe. Industry is pressing for exceptions from the ban because, they say, PFAS is essential to their production.
Some of the most passionate demands for an exception, called a “derogation” in EU jargon, come from companies making strings for classical guitars.*
These arguments go to the heart of the debate over the PFAS ban
“The disappearance of PVDF strings would be a catastrophe,” writes the French company Savarez in its response to the proposed PFAS ban in Europe. “They allow to give high level results, and make the public feel incomparable emotions.”
Before PVDF, classical guitar strings were made from nylon, and before that from animal intestines. But the sound of PVDF strings is clearer and more sustained, its supporters say, and it would take many years to find alternatives. Famous classical guitarists want to continue to use fluorocarbon strings, Savarez says.**
Cultural value or essential use?
PFAS are everywhere because they have such useful properties. Are there any cases when their use would be justified?
Europe’s Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability commits the EU to phase out PFAS unless a particular use is proven “essential”. An essential use must be critical for society and there must be no acceptable alternatives. This year, the European Commission said that a critical use can include protection of cultural heritage. However, it describes cultural heritage almost exclusively in terms of the conservation of monuments as defined by UNESCO, which does not mention musical instruments at all.
So it is very hard to see how a subtle change in musical tone can be defined as a “critical” use of PFAS. The first nylon guitar strings were made in 1948. The cultural heritage of the guitar has far more to do with animal intestines than with PFAS.
What about production?
Another hole in the argument from guitar string manufacturers concerns the production of PVDF. One of the main producers is Kureha Corporation, a chemicals company in Japan. Kureha manufactures the strands of PVDF, and Savarez says it simply adds packaging.
But Kureha has a PFAS pollution problem. The company has recently partnered with a US startup to try to clean up its PFAS emissions, which take place during PVDF production. In this way, the company says, it hopes to “contribute to reducing environmental impact” of PFAS. Japan is only just waking up to the high levels of PFAS contamination in parts of the country.
A ban on PFAS would undoubtedly hurt companies such as Savarez and frustrate their customers. These are real issues. But it is nonsense to suggest that classical guitar strings are an essential use and should be derogated from the PFAS ban in Europe.
The world has a PFAS crisis. We need to turn off the tap. People will continue to be moved by the Concierto de Aranjuez, whether or not it is played using PFAS strings.
* The classical guitar is a hollow, wooden instrument with strings made of gut or nylon. It is different from modern, steel-string acoustic and electric guitars, both of which use metal strings.
** There is another type of classical guitar string that has a Teflon PFAS coating, but the companies who make these products have kept their arguments for continuing to do so confidential, so ChemSec cannot respond to them. Many guitarists are simply unaware of this use of PFAS on their strings.
