Recent reports have labeled sulfuryl fluoride (SF) and nitrogen trifluoride (NT) as greenhouse gases. The fumigant SF is 4,000 times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. It was previously estimated that SF stays in the atmosphere for about five years.

However, new research shows it lasts for a few decades. NT is thousands of times more effective at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. It is used in the electronics industry as a replacement for perfluorocarbons.

Last fall, the journal Geophysical Research Letters published a study about which showed that levels of NT in the atmosphere could be as high as 16 percent. The electronic industry claims there is only two percent of NT in the atmosphere.

Just how much NT is used is not known, but Michael Prather, atmospheric chemist at the University of California-Davis thinks that production of NT is almost doubling every year.

Originally developed by Dow Chemical Company, SF is used by farmers to fumigate soil, treat termites, and control insects after harvest on grains, fruits, and nuts. It is

SF is classified as a "restricted use pesticide" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, meaning it can only be purchased and used by certified applicators. It was first registered in the U.S. in 1959, and since methyl bromide was phased out under the Montreal Protocol, it is now widely used.

Dr. Paul Fraser from the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research co-authored a research paper about SF and NT. According to Fraser, scientists are just now starting to understand "the abundance of these gases in the atmosphere, their growth rates, lifetimes, and emissions."

Fraser thinks the research about both SF and NT will "affect the revision of the Kyoto Protocol later this year."

Mads Sulbaek Anderson of the University of California-Irvine published a study about SF in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. Anderson pointed out that presently there is not much SF in the atmosphere, but pointed out that it "contributes to the warming of the atmosphere."

A study by scientists at the University of California-San Diego and other institutions found that the concentration of SF increased four to six percent a year from 1978 to 2007. In 2007 the concentration of SF in the atmosphere was 1.5 parts per trillion.

Ron Prinn, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), characterized the research team's approach as "a new frontier for environmental science."

Prinn said SF is currently "very important for controlling pests in the agricultural and building sectors." Prinn added that alternatives to SF need to be developed.

Before large amounts of SF are "emitted into the atmosphere," it must be taken into account that it is "a greenhouse gas that stays in the atmosphere longer than previously thought," said Jens Mühle, lead author of the study.

"The only place where the planet is able to emit heat that escapes the atmosphere is in the region that sulfuryl fluoride blocks," said Donald Blake, chemistry professor. "If we put something with this blocking effect in that area, then we're in trouble - and we are putting something in there."

In 2002, the EPA found SF to have "virtually no impact on the global atmosphere." In spite of the recent studies, a report released recently on greenhouse gas emission by the EPA did not list SF.

In February 2004, California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) received applications requesting using SF on crops, including dried fruits and nuts. The Director of the CDPR found that it is not "not expected to cause any significant adverse effect on human health and the environment."

What is interesting to note is that, at the time of its use, chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) were thought to be one of the most banal harmless substances possible.  Later on, it was discovered that this gas was responsible for developing massive holes in the Earth's protective ozone layer.  These holes still linger over large portions over the southern hemisphere and allow harmful amounts of UV radiation to penetrate to ground level.  Both Australia and New Zealand have extremely high skin cancer rates due to this excessive UV radiation. 

How many more of these seemingly "harmless substances" are likely to prove highly detrimental to life on our planet?

Related articles on Celsias:
The Age of Tradeoffs
Climate Debate Focuses on Deforestation

Follow us on Twitter: Celsiastweets