Smooth Transition; Using Safe And Cost-effective Gaseous Blowing Agents The Benefits of HFC-134a & HCFC-22/142b Technology

Agenda Blowing Agent properties. Blowing Agent properties. Semi-optimized formulations. Semi-optimized formulations. Blending and handling methods. Blending and handling methods. Foam Processing. Foam Processing. Foam Properties, Energy Consumption results. Foam Properties, Energy Consumption results. Cost. Cost.

Properties Of The Blowing Agents PROPERTIES HCFC- 141B HCFC- 142B HCFC-22 HCFC- 22/142B (40/60) HCFC- 124 HFC- 134A HFC- 245FA Gaseous Phase Thermal 111 o F & 1 atm. (Btu-in/ft 2 hr o F) NA Gaseous Phase Thermal 77 o F & 1 atm. (Btu-in/ft 2 hr o F) BOILING POINT ( o F) Molecular Weight Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) Vapor 68 o F (psia)

Formulations We modified each formulation for each blowing agent to optimize flow and thermal conductivity. We modified each formulation for each blowing agent to optimize flow and thermal conductivity. –Except HFC-245fa where we used published data to generate the comparison due to patent restrictions. Our targets were: Our targets were: –31.5ml/g total blowing. – pcf free rise density. –25% CO 2 blowing from water.

Attributes of Formulations HCFC- 141B HCFC- 142B HCFC-22 HCFC- 22/142B (40/60) HCFC- 124 HFC- 134A HFC- 245FA Total Blowing (ml gas/mg foam) CO 2 Blowing (mole% of total blowing) Physical Blowing (wt.% of foam) Gel Time (sec) Free Rise Density (lbs./ft 3 ) Blend Vapor Pressure 70 o F)

Discussion of Formulations HCFC-22/142b uses 15% less physical blowing agent than HCFC-141b to achieve the same total blowing and free rise density. HCFC-22/142b uses 15% less physical blowing agent than HCFC-141b to achieve the same total blowing and free rise density. HCFC-22 required an increase in total blowing to achieve the target density. Due to HCFC-22’s lower molecular weight, the % physical blowing agent and % CO 2 were maintained. HCFC-22 required an increase in total blowing to achieve the target density. Due to HCFC-22’s lower molecular weight, the % physical blowing agent and % CO 2 were maintained.

Discussion of Formulations HCFC-124 and HFC-245fa maintained the total blowing and % CO 2 blowing. However, due to higher molecular weights they use 19% and 13% more physical blowing agent. HCFC-124 and HFC-245fa maintained the total blowing and % CO 2 blowing. However, due to higher molecular weights they use 19% and 13% more physical blowing agent. HFC-134a had poor solubility in the polyols. Therefore, only 9.3% physical blowing agent could be achieved. The blowing level was maintained and density achieved by increased % CO 2 blowing. HFC-134a had poor solubility in the polyols. Therefore, only 9.3% physical blowing agent could be achieved. The blowing level was maintained and density achieved by increased % CO 2 blowing.

Blending and Handling GBA Mixtures Methods Two Methods of Blending for Production. Two Methods of Blending for Production. –In-line mixer supplied by several equipment suppliers. »To day tanks. »To a holding tank to supply the entire plant. –Batch method. »Same as liquid blending only under pressure. »Use of a static mixer and pressure rate blend tank required. »Supply to day tanks or holding tank.

Blending and Handling GBA Mixtures Methods This project used the batch method. This project used the batch method. –A small pressure vessel with a static mixer. –Blend time was 45 minutes. –Peak pressures observed were 55 psig. Plant trials are carried out using a large scale model of the laboratory unit. Plant trials are carried out using a large scale model of the laboratory unit.

Blend Units

Foam Dispensing This project used a standard high-pressure impingement mix machine. This project used a standard high-pressure impingement mix machine. –No modifications were required. –Day tanks were rate to 150 psi. We used the following conditions. We used the following conditions. –70 o F Chemical temperatures. –110 o F mold temperature. –2000 psi mix pressure.

Properties of Foams FOAM PROPERTIES HCFC- 141B HCFC- 142B HCFC-22 HCFC- 22/142B (40/60) HCFC- 124 HFC- 134A HFC- 245FA Thermal o F (Btu-in/ft 2 hr o F ) Thermal o F (Btu-in/ft 2 hr o F ) Flow Minimum Fill Weight (gm) Freeze Stable Density (lbs./ft 3 ) Compatibility with CFC-11 grade HIPS NoYesYesYesYesYesYes

Discussion of Foam Properties The differences in thermal conductivity are reduced when the mean temperature is reduced 50 o F. The differences in thermal conductivity are reduced when the mean temperature is reduced 50 o F. Gaseous Blowing agents will achieve equal flow to liquid blowing agents. Gaseous Blowing agents will achieve equal flow to liquid blowing agents. Better plastic liner compatibility can be achieved with the gaseous blowing agents. Better plastic liner compatibility can be achieved with the gaseous blowing agents.

Results in Cabinets As reported cabinets made with HCFC-124 and HFC-245fa give equal energy consumption to current HCFC-141b technology. As reported cabinets made with HCFC-124 and HFC-245fa give equal energy consumption to current HCFC-141b technology. –This is confirmed by the similar flow and low temperature thermal conductivity results for these foams. Base on these results we expect a 2-4% increase in energy consumption for cabinets made with HCFC-22. Base on these results we expect a 2-4% increase in energy consumption for cabinets made with HCFC-22.

Results in Cabinets We achieve equivalent energy consumption for cabinets made with HCFC-22/142b as those made with HCFC-141b. We achieve equivalent energy consumption for cabinets made with HCFC-22/142b as those made with HCFC-141b. The results of the HFC-134a system indicate a 5-7% energy penalty. The results of the HFC-134a system indicate a 5-7% energy penalty.

Conclusions Gaseous blowing agent technology using HCFCs now achieves energy efficiency and other foam properties equivalent to existing liquid systems and offers significant performance improvements and environmental benefits. Gaseous blowing agent technology using HCFCs now achieves energy efficiency and other foam properties equivalent to existing liquid systems and offers significant performance improvements and environmental benefits. HCFC-22/142b is the most cost-efficient short term replacement for HCFC-141b. It will achieve equal energy efficiency to HCFC-141b. HCFC-22/142b is the most cost-efficient short term replacement for HCFC-141b. It will achieve equal energy efficiency to HCFC-141b. HCFC-22/142b technology allows easy conversion to HFC-134a. HCFC-22/142b technology allows easy conversion to HFC-134a.

Conclusions Master batches using GBAs can be stored and processed under moderate pressure as efficiently and cost effectively. No modifications to dispensing equipment is necessary. Master batches using GBAs can be stored and processed under moderate pressure as efficiently and cost effectively. No modifications to dispensing equipment is necessary. All of the GBAs shown can be process using the same blending modifications (batch or in-line). This allows smooth transition from HCFC-22/142b to zero ODP HFC-134a. All of the GBAs shown can be process using the same blending modifications (batch or in-line). This allows smooth transition from HCFC-22/142b to zero ODP HFC-134a.

Conclusions The improvements to GBA technology have resulted in improved HFC-134a blown foam systems. Resulting in improved energy consumption results and density reduction. The improvements to GBA technology have resulted in improved HFC-134a blown foam systems. Resulting in improved energy consumption results and density reduction. Therefore, HFC-134a will be the most cost/performance effective replacement for HCFCs. Therefore, HFC-134a will be the most cost/performance effective replacement for HCFCs.