Skip to main content
Sister Publication Links
  • Middle East Foam & Polyurethane
  • UTECH Asia/PU China
  • UTECH Europe
  • UTECH Las Americas
Subscribe
  • My Account
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • Ukraine
  • News
    • Asia
    • Americas
    • Europe
    • M & A
    • Financial results
    • Automotive
  • Data
  • Information
    • Country Overview
    • Market Sector overviews
    • Technical articles
    • Company profiles and strategies
  • Events
    • Exhibitions
    • Conferences
    • Webinars / Livestreams
    • Become a Speaker
    • UTECH Europe 2021
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Issues
  • Subscribe
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Information
December 07, 2009 11:00 PM

Investigation of new low GWP blowing agent AFA-11 for PU/PIR

Utech Staff
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Print

    Abstract

    The standards for energy efficiency have been constantly rising, and at the same time the rigid polyurethane foam industry is also facing ever increasing pressure to address climate change by eliminating global warming substances. Blowing agents are vital foam components and are responsible for the outstanding thermal performance of PU foams that are commonly used for thermal insulation in appliances and residential and commercial buildings.

    To meet these challenges, Arkema is investigating a new range of blowing agents, the AFA series, designed for most PU applications including appliances, pour-in-place (PIP), spray, and polyisocyanurate (PIR) boardstock. AFA blowing agents are both liquid and gas, and have very low global warming and negligible ozone depletion potential.

    The focus of this study was to evaluate solutions based on AFA-L1, which is a liquid under ambient conditions and is a candidate for replacement of the hydrofluorocarbon HFC-245fa and hydrocarbons. Using other blowing agents such as cyclopentane, HFC-134a, 245fa, and HCFC-141b (a hydrochlorofluorocarbon) as references, AFA-L1 was evaluated using an Edge Sweets high-pressure foam machine. AFA-L1 displayed a similar blowing efficiency, provided some improvement in dimensional stability, and an advantage in initial kfactor versus HFC-245fa and hydrocarbons. The solubility of AFA-L1 based agents in various polyols, and its compatibility with materials such as plastics, elastomers, and metals, was also evaluated.

    Introduction

    Since the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the mid 1990s as a result of the Montreal Protocol, the rigid polyurethane foam industry in North America has faced a constantly evolving period of change in the availability and use of different blowing agents.

    Although the regulations have imposed a significant cost burden on system suppliers and foam manufacturers due to the need to ensure that new blowing agents perform acceptably and that products conform to building code requirements, one aspect of the enforced changes is that the industry has developed a much greater understanding of the properties and performance attributes of different blowing agents. This has led to a greater degree of sophistication in use of combinations of liquid and low-boiling blowing agents. For example, liquid blowing agents are used in a wide range of applications including spray foams.

    CFC-11 was a remarkably versatile blowing agent but was phased out due to its very high ozone-depletion potential (ODP). The hydrofluorochlorocarbon HCFC-141b was a good replacement, but its higher boiling point and its greater solubility in the polymer matrix led to some problems with dimensional stability requiring an increase of the foam density. The inclusion of the low-boiling blowing agent, HCFC-22, gave improvements in dimensional stability and a reduction in overall density.

    However, the high ODP of these HCFCs also led to their eventual phase-out.

    To fill the void created by these phase-outs, third-generation blowing agents, such as the hydrofluorocarbons HFC-34a and HFC-245fa were developed, commercialised, and have become widely used in many rigid PU foam uses in appliances, pour-in-place and spray.

    However, the chemical industry is now facing ever-increasing pressure to address climate changes by focusing on carbon footprint and more specifically on the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of blowing agents. In Europe, the European Parliament has committed to adoption of the Kyoto protocol whose purpose is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas by 8 percent, compared to the 1990 level, from 2008-2019.

    Because of their high GWP values (1300 for 134a and 1020 for 245fa), HFCs are becoming regulated for some applications. For example, the European Mobile Air Conditioning directive prohibits use of HFC-134a in MAC systems for new platforms in 2011 and all new cars in 2017.

    To address future market needs, Arkema is therefore contemplating the development of fourth-generation blowing agents to replace HFCs such as 245fa and 134a. To be fully environmentally acceptable, this next generation must have a zero ODP and a very low GWP while maintaining excellent general foam properties, including insulation performance.

    Properties Arkema is investigating a range of new blowing agents, called the AFA series. Designed for most PU applications including appliances, PIP (pourin- place), spray, and PIR (polyisocyanurate) boardstock, these molecules possess very low GWP and negligible ODP. Among them, AFA-L1, which is a liquid under ambient conditions, is a potential candidate for replacement of HFC- 245fa and pentanes.

    Table 1 summarises the properties of AFA-L1 and other blowing agents such as cyclopentane (cC5), isopentane (iC5), normal pentane (nC5), HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and HCFC-141b.

    Physical properties — Besides its low GWP, AFAL1 did not exhibit either a flashpoint (FP) or flammability limit under ambient conditions.

    Table 1Properties of AFA-L1 and references
    MWt BPt FP* Lambda (mw/m-°K) LFL/UFL** GWP
    AFA-L1 >15 None 9 10 None
    iC5 72 28 -51 13 14 1.4 11
    nC5 72 36 -49 14 15 1.5 11
    cC5 70 49 -7 11 13 1.5 11
    F-365mfc 148 40 -24 11 12 3.4/13.0 782
    F-245fa 134 15 None 13 13 None 1020
    F-141b 117 33 None 9 10 7.4/15.5 700
    *Flash Point **At ambient temperature
    AFA-L1 exhibits a low gas-phase thermal conductivity (Lambda), comparable to F141b, which should contribute to the insulation value of the rigid polyurethane foam. Toxicity properties — The use of any new material requires a thorough risk and toxicity assessment. The toxicity assessment has a long path, including acute and chronic testing, which requires a strong commitment. Arkema has already started the toxicity evaluation of several compounds. Initial findings showed that AFA-L1 was not mutagenic in the AMES test. Experimental Last year, Arkema reported the dimensional stability and initial k-factor of PU foams blown with AFA-L1 compared to HCFC-141b, HFC- 245fa and a cyclo/isopentane 80/20 blend1. Since that initial investigation we have continued to accumulate aged k-factor data. Experiments were also performed to assess the compatibility of AFA-L1 with various plastics and elastomers, as well as its solubility/miscibility in a number of rigid foam polyols and polymeric isocyanates. Finally, the performance of AFA-L1 in foams processed on a high-pressure foam machine is being investigated. Table 2 summarises the formulations of that initial study. The blowing level/density and reactivity were set from the results obtained using HCFC-141b; gel time around 50 seconds and free rise density around 2.0 pcf.

    Table 2: PU formulations
    Formulation HCFC-141b HFC-245fa Cyclo/ isopentane AFA-L1
    Voranol 490 18.27 18.05 18.85 18.09
    Jeffol R-425X 10.96 10.83 11.31 10.85
    Stepanpol PS-2352 7.31 7.22 7.54 7.24
    Polycat 5 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
    Polycat 8 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
    Tegostab 8846 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71
    TCPP 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36
    Water 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64
    Forane141-b 6.27 0 0 0
    HFC-245fa 0 7.19 0 0
    Cyclo/isopentane (80/20) 0 0 3.75 0
    AFA-L1 0 0 0 7
    Rubinate M 53 52.6 54.4 52.7
    Isocyanate index 115 115 115 115
    Total blow ml/g 20 20 20 20
    % physical blowing 60 60 60 60
    % water blowing 40 40 40 40

    In that earlier work1, physical test samples were made in 6x6x6” (15x15x15 cm) open-box pours by conventional hand mixing. One box each was made for k-factor testing and dimensional stability at 70°C/97 percent Relative Humidity (RH). Due to the nature of the free rise foams, k-factor samples were cut such that the foam rise was parallel to the test face, in order to minimise the effect of any defects running right through the sample thickness. Also, since the k-factor samples were undersized, 5x5”, each test piece was surrounded by like material in order to test a full 12x12x1” sample. Dimensional stability test samples were cut such that the foam rise was perpendicular with the 4x4” test face. Material compatibility Table 3 lists the elastomers and plastics tested for compatibility with AFA-L1. Three dog-bone shaped samples of typical dimensions 75 mm x 4 mm x 2 mm were prepared from each material. Each piece was measured then introduced into a test tube filled with AFA-L1.

    Table 3: Elastomers and plastics
    Elastomers
    Neoprene
    Polyacrylate
    Viton fluoroelastomer
    EPDM (ethylene propylene diene M-class rubber)
    Hypalon (chlorosulphonated polyethylene)
    Natural rubber
    Silicone rubber
    SBR (styrene-butadiene rubber)
    NBR (nitrile rubber)
    Plastics
    PBT (polybutylene terephthalate)
    PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene)
    PVC (polyvinylchloride)
    #
    The tube was sealed and placed in a water bath kept at slightly above the boiling point of AFAL1 for 5 minutes, 24 or 100 hours. Then the polymer was removed from the test tube and any change in dimensions measured. The samples were then subjected to a tensile test with crosshead speed of 50 mm/min and the distance between grips set at 30 mm. Solubility/miscibility experimental details One of the first considerations in using a new blowing agent in PU and PIR foams is to evaluate its solubility in polyols and isocyanates. This parameter for AFA-L1 was determined by two methods: 1) a simple miscibility experiment, where the amount of blowing agent in the polyol was steadily increased until incompatibility was reached, as determined visually; and 2) a more involved determination from measuring the vapour pressure of the blend at various levels of AFA-L1 addition. Solubility experiments The setup consists of a pressure vessel with magnetic stirring, a pressure and a temperature transducer. Temperature inside the vessel is controlled to within 0.1°C and the pressure to within 0.1 percent. In the vessel (volume about 100ml), 50g of polyol was loaded. The vessel was then placed under vacuum to remove air. The change of pressure in the metal cylinder was monitored to ensure that there was no leak. The blowing agent was introduced in the vessel with a specially designed gas syringe. The amount of blowing agent loaded was verified by measuring the weight of the syringe before and after introduction. The temperature of the vessel was maintained at 50°C (above the boiling point of the different blowing agents) and the speed was maintained at 300 rpm. The vapour pressure of the blowing agent was recorded as a function of time. It was important to allow time for the system to reach equilibrium. After reaching equilibrium, the amount of blowing agent dissolved in the polyol was the difference between the added blowing agent present in the polyol and the blowing agent present in the gas phase of the vessel. Then another small amount of blowing agent was added. The procedure was repeated several times until the pressure in the vessel was equal to the liquid-gas equilibrium vapour pressure of the blowing agent at this temperature (maximum attainable pressure at temperatures below the critical temperature of the blowing agent). Miscibility experiments Table 4 lists the various polyols and isocyanates examined for miscibility with AFA-L1. Blends were prepared by adding a predetermined weight of polyol to a 125ml (~4 oz.) clear Boston Round bottle with Taperseal lined cap.

    Table 4: Miscibility study
    OH value* Viscosity**
    Glycerine based polyether polyols
    Carpol GP-700 230-250 250
    Carpol GP-725 230-250 250
    Carpol GP-4000 39-42 700
    Carpo lGP-4520 34-38 890
    Amine based polyether polyols
    Carpol TEAP-265 625-645 470
    Carpol EDAP-770 757-783 56000
    Jeffo lAD-310 2400
    Sucrose based polyether polyols
    Jeffol SG-360 360 3500
    Jeffo lSD-361 360 2500
    Jeffol SG-522 520 27000
    Voranol 490 490 5500
    Carpol SPA-357 335-365 2500
    Mannich based polyether polyols
    Jeffol R-425X 425 4500
    Jeffol R-470X 470 8200
    Sorbitol based polyether polyols polyols
    Jeffol S-490 490 9000
    Aromatic polyester polyols
    Terate 2451 240 3200
    Terate 3510 240 6000
    Stepanpo lPS-2352 240 3000
    Terol TR-925 295-315 11000
    Polymeric MDI % NCO
    Rubinate M 31.2 190
    Papi 580N 30.8 700
    AFA-L1 was then added to the appropriate weight of polyol to obtain 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 weight percent of blowing agent, i.e. one bottle for each polyol and weight percent level of blowing agent. Weights of both components were adjusted in order to maintain a similar volume and headspace in each bottle. The bottle was immediately capped and placed on a roller mixer for several minutes until thoroughly mixed. The blends were allowed to stand for 24 hours before being reweighed, to ensure no loss of blowing agent, and then observations were made of the blend condition as follows: stable solution (clear); stable emulsion (cloudy, but not separated); or showing signs of separation. Observations were repeated after one week at room temperature. Machine runs Using an Edge-Sweets Flexamatic 25HP-BT highpressure foam machine, foams were run with AFA-L1, HCFC-141b, HFC-245fa, or a cyclo/isopentane (80/20) blend. The polyol blends or ‘B’ sides were blended and mixed with an air mixer in an open pail. For blowing agents with boiling points at or below room temperature, the blend, minus blowing agent, was conditioned at 10°C along with a container of the blowing agent, prior to final mixing. Machine parameters shown in Table 5 were based on the control system using HCFC-141b and kept constant throughout the runs. Table 5: Foam machine parameters Chem Temp (F) 70 Mix pressure (psi) 1800 Total 160 Mould Temp (F) k-factor 115 Lanzen panel 110 Results & discussion: k-factor testing As reported last year1 and reviewed in Table 6, AFA-L1 exhibited similar initial k-factor performance to HCFC-141b over all the temperatures tested and performed slightly better than HFC-245fa. Also AFA-L1 performed significantly better than cyclo/isopentane foam.

    Table 6 :11 Initial k-factor for liquid blowing agents (BTU.in/ft2.h.°F)
    Mean Temp (F) HCFC-141b HFC-245fa Cyclo/isopentane (80/20) AFA-L1
    18 0.162 0.153 0.172 0.156
    32 0.165 0.159 0.171 0.162
    50 0.173 0.167 0.173 0.169
    75 0.184 0.179 0.183 0.181
    104 0.196 0.193 0.198 0.193
    Table 7 shows the k-factor results after almost one year of ageing at room temperature (samples are 1” thick core foams).

    Table 6 :11 Month aged k-factor for liquid blowing agents (BTU.in/ft2.h.°F)
    Mean Temp (F) HCFC-141b HFC-245fa Cyclo/isopentane (80/20) AFA-L1
    18 0.162 0.153 0.172 0.156
    32 0.165 0.159 0.171 0.162
    50 0.173 0.167 0.173 0.169
    75 0.184 0.179 0.183 0.181
    104 0.196 0.193 0.198 0.193
    After almost a year, AFA-L1 is still performing well, exhibiting similar results to HFC-245fa and slightly better than both HCFC-141b and pentane, especially at the lower mean test temperatures. It is well known that the mean temperature at which a k-factor is measured can greatly affect the thermal performance of a foam depending on the state of the blowing agent in the cells2. In other words, a blowing agent with a higher boiling point will not perform as well at lower test temperatures due to condensation of the gas in the foam cells, making it a less effective insulating material. Also, it should be noted that since last year, we have had the opportunity to reproduce those initial results for AFA-L1 several times. Material compatibility results The materials shown in Table 3 were subjected to 5 minutes, 24 or 100 hours emersion in AFAL1 at a temperature slightly above its boiling point. Once the test sample was removed from the test tube, at the designated time, it was checked for percent change in weight, volume, elongation at break and tensile strength at break. Most of the materials were not degraded in AFA-L1, especially EPDM, Hypalon, SBR, NBR, PBT, PTFE, PVC and PA 6. However, at the longest exposure, some materials showed more than 35 percent swelling, such as polyacrylate, Viton, natural rubber and silicone rubber. Concerning mechanical properties, we noted a slight decrease in tensile strength at break and elongation at break, respectively, for plastics and elastomers. Solubility experiment results The increase of vapour pressure for different blowing agents in a polyester polyol. The solubility limit is reached when the pressure is equal to the vapour pressure of the blowing agent. For example, with AFA-L1 the solubility limit in this polyester polyol is ~35 parts or roughly 25 weight percent. Similar data was generated for a sucrose- based polyether polyol, resulting in higher levels of solubility, as is typical for polyether polyols, for all the tested blowing agents. Combining these two data sets shows the vapour pressure of AFA-L1, HFC-245fa and HCFC-141b with the two different polyols. We can see that for each blowing agent the increase of the vapour pressure will depend on the nature of the polyol. The vapour pressure will increase gradually with the blowing agent concentration when the affinity is high (for example polyether polyol); conversely, when affinity is low, vapour pressure increases more quickly at lower blowing agent concentrations (for example polyester polyol). For typical polyol compositions using a polyether and a polyester polyol, the vapour pressure will therefore be somewhere in the area between the two curves. Note that this area is very similar for AFA-L1 and HCFC-141b, meaning that the solubility of AFA-L1 is very close to the solubility of HCFC-141b. Also, this area is much larger for these two blowing agents than for HFC-245fa, leading to a higher flexibility when designing the foam formulation, especially in situations, such as in the spray foam industry, where the blowing agent is blended into the ‘B’ side or polyol blend of the system prior to packaging for shipment. Miscibility experiment results AFA-L1 was completely miscible in all the polyether polyols and both polymeric MDIs up to and including the 30 weight percent level, giving a stable clear premix. It was felt that the 30 percent level was a reasonable upper limit based on typical levels needed for most application densities. For the polyester polyols, AFA-L1 was completely miscible in the Terate and Terol polyols. With the Stepanpol, AFA-L1 was miscible up to and including the 20 weight percent level. However, both the 25 and 30 percent blends gave an opaque emulsion upon mixing, which separated overnight. This level was similar to that seen in the solubility experiment reported earlier. Machine runs A generic PiP formula as discussed previously was used. Total blowing agent level was 23.0 ml/g, free rise density was about 1.65 to 1.70 pcf, and gel time was approximately 30 sec. We used a 3”x14”x14” mould to determine k-factor. Linear regression was used to calculate minimum fill weight. The panel was packed to about 15 percent above minimum fill. The initial k-factor of AFA-L1 foam is better than those of cC5/iC5 and HFC-245fa at the full range of mean temperatures. Above 50°F, however, AFA-L1 foam has a slightly higher k-factor than HCFC- 141b foam while under 50°F AFA-L1 foam has a lower k-factor. Conclusions and path forward It was shown last year that AFA-L1 displayed a similar blowing efficiency, provided some improvement in dimensional stability, and exhibited a slight advantage on initial k-factor versus HFC-245fa. It was also shown to have a significant advantage in k-factor versus hydrocarbons. Those initial results have been confirmed in our continued study of this low GWP material. In this study, AFA-L1 continued to perform well as a potential blowing agent for PU/PIR foams. After a year of ageing, foams made with AFA-L1 showed comparable insulation performance to foams blown with HFC-245fa and better than those using HCFC-141b and pentane. Additionally, AFA-L1 showed excellent solubility with various polyols and good compatibility with various polymers Arkema has already announced its commitment to providing solutions in helping reduce the carbon footprint of HFCs. In the PU foam blowing agent area, Arkema’s intent is to pursue the development of the best low GWP blowing agent candidate. So far that candidate appears to be AFA-L1, although several others have shown improved effectiveness as a foam blowing agent. AFA-L3, L4 and L5 have shown some advantages over L1 and L2 as a low GWP foam-blowing agent for the entire range of rigid polyurethane foam segments and applications. References 1. Chen B., P. Bonnet, L. Abbas, J. Costa, and M.Elsheikh. 2008. “Investigation of New Low GWP Blowing Agents for Rigid Polyurethane Foams,”Proceedings of Polyurethanes Conference 2008. 2. Bogdan M., F. Moore Jr., and Jason Hoerter. 2003. “Meeting the Insulation Requirements of the Building Envelope with Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Foam,” Proceedings of the Polyurethane Expo 2003. 47-56. Suppliers Forane foam blowing agents, solvents and refrigerants, Arkema Inc.; Rubinate M, a polymeric methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (pMDI), Huntsman International; Jeffol polyols, Jeffcat catalysts, Huntsman Petrochemical Corp.; Carpol polyols, Carpenter Co.; Voranol polyols and Papi pMDI, Dow Chemical Co.; Terate polyols, Invista North America; Terol polyols, Oxid LP; Stepanpol polyols, Stepan Co.; Tegostab surfactants, Goldschmidt GMBH; Polycat catalysts, Air Products and Chemicals Inc.; Hypalon, Viton elastomers, DuPont Performance Elastomers llc; Zytel plastics, E.I.DuPont De Nemours and Co.
    Recommended for You
    2022, Alesund, original, Norway, Laader Berg
    From Norway to the world
    2022, iStock, Machinery, cogs, 800.jpeg
    Machinery survey 2021: Room for improvement
    Econic raises funds aims for commercialisation in 2023
    Econic raises funds aims for commercialisation in 2023
    Latest Issue
    April/May 2022 issue
    Click HERE for Free Download
    View All Archives
    Get our newsletters

    Breaking news and in-depth coverage of essential topics delivered straight to your inbox.

    Subscribe today

    Register to access our archive of leading information on the polyurethanes industry.

    Subscribe now
    Connect with Us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Youtube

    Follow us on social media for the latest polyurethanes industry news and event updates.

    Logo
    Contact Us

    Crain Communications
    11, Ironmonger Lane
    London
    EC2V 8EY
    United Kingdom

    Editorial
    Phone +44 (0) 20 3287 5935
    Email click to send

    Customer Service
    Phone +1 313 446 0450
    Email click to send

    Resources
    • Advertise with Us
    • Media Kit
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • Ad Choices Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Copyright © 1996-2022. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • Ukraine
    • News
      • Asia
      • Americas
      • Europe
      • M & A
      • Financial results
      • Automotive
    • Data
    • Information
      • Country Overview
      • Market Sector overviews
      • Technical articles
      • Company profiles and strategies
    • Events
      • Exhibitions
      • Conferences
      • Webinars / Livestreams
      • Become a Speaker
      • UTECH Europe 2021
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • Issues
    • Subscribe