Robert Tauchen, Christian Eilbracht, Carsten Schiller - September - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Optimizing Surfactant Technology for Blends of Blowing Agents in Next Generation Appliance Formulations

Robert Tauchen, Christian Eilbracht, Carsten Schiller - September 2013

Agenda

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Project Design
• 3. High Pressure Machine Results
• 4. Comparison to 100% 4th Gen and CP
• 5. Conclusions

Introduction

 As market conditions change, blends of 4th generation blowing agents and

cyclopentane will be considered for low GWP solutions Benefits – Improved insulation values compared to cyclopentane blown foams, cost effective  Challenges – Handle the emulsification/stabilization needs of cyclopentane and the nucleation needs of lower boiling blowing agents  Goals:

 Demonstrate the need for optimized surfactants when using blends of vastly different blowing agents  Illustrate the optimization process of surfactant technology for these blends  Develop initial surfactant trends for this combination of blowing agents as combinations could be infinite

Agenda

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Project Design
• 3. High Pressure Machine Results
• 4. Comparison to 100% 4th Gen and CP
• 5. Conclusions

Experimental Design

50:50 by Weight Blend of 4th Generation and CP Standard Evonik Product Theoretical Products Best Candidate + B 8462 100% HFO 100% CP Formulations TRENDS

Formulations

Ingredient Weight % Co-Blown Weight % Cyclopentane Weight % 4th Generation Blowing agent Polyol Blend

77.2

81.6 68.7 Surfactant

2

2 2 Catalyst Package

2.1

2.1 2.1 Water

1.5

1.8 1.2 Cyclopentane

8.6

12.5

• 4th Generation Blowing

Agent

8.6

• 26.0

A/B Ratio

1.21

1.21 1.21

Designing Surfactants for Multiple Blowing Agents

CP - Surfactant Lower Boiling Blowing Agent Surfactant A B

Surfactants Tested

Surfactant Description Degree of Silicone Backbone modification Polyether Emulsification B 8462 Standard Evonik Rigid Surfactant

• ++

B 8465 Evonik Rigid Surfactant for high solubility CP formulations and gaseous blowing agents

• ++

B 8492 High Nucleation Surfactant for 245 fa formulations

• +

Experimental Candidate 1

• +

Experimental Candidate 2 B

• ++

Experimental Candidate 3

• +++

Experimental Candidate 4 A

• +++

Experimental Candidate 5

• ++

Agenda

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Project Design
• 3. High Pressure Machine Results
• 4. Comparison to 100% 4th Gen and CP
• 5. Conclusions

Machine Parameters and Testing

Resin Temperature (oF) 70 MDI Temperature (oF) 70 Pour Pressure (psi) (A/B) 1500 2” Brett Mold Temperature (oF) 125 Throughput(lb/min) 40 1.21 A/B Ratio

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Direction of flow

K-factor Compressive Str

Reactivity Stability and Solubility

Surfactant Cyclopentane 4th Gen/CP 4th Gen B 8462 Clear Clear Clear B 8465 Clear Clear Clear B 8492 Hazy - Separation Hazy - Separation Hazy - Separation EC - 1 Clear Clear Clear EC - 2 Clear Clear Clear EC - 3 Clear Clear Clear EC - 4 Clear Clear Clear EC - 5 Hazy Hazy Hazy 1 Week (122F) Week 2 (122 F) B 8462 Stable Foam Stable Foam B 8465 Stable Foam Stable Foam B 8492 Coarse Foam Coarse Foam EC - 1 Stable Foam Stable Foam EC - 2 Stable Foam Coarse Foam EC - 3 Stable Foam Stable Foam EC - 4 Stable Foam Stable Foam EC - 5 Stable Foam Stable Foam

Criteria for Foam Appearance

 Top Surface Quality: Judging the appearance of the top surface below the facer paper for defects cell structure (1-10)  Bottom Surface Quality: Judging the appearance of the bottom surface below the facer paper for defects cell structure (1-10)  Internal Cell Structure/Voids: Judging the interior of the foam for large voids or areas of poor mixing/streaking (1-10)

Foam Appearance

Top Surface Quality Bottom Surface Quality Internal Cell Structure/Voids B 8462 7 6 7 B 8465 8 7 6 B 8492 7 7 7 Experimental Candidate 1 7 6 7 Experimental Candidate 2 7 7 6 Experimental Candidate 3 8 8 6 Experimental Candidate 4 8 7 9 Experimental Candidate 5 8 7 6

Insulation Value 35 F Mean Temperature

Insulation Value 75 F Mean Temperature

Flow Properties

FRD Core (lb/ft^3) Min Fill Density (lb/ft^3) Flow Factor B 8462 1.48 2.05 1.39 B 8465 1.48 2.05 1.39 B 8492 1.48 2.06 1.39 EC - 1 1.45 1.99 1.37 EC - 2 1.46 2.01 1.37 EC - 3 1.47 2.01 1.37 EC - 4 1.50 2.05 1.37 EC - 5 1.48 2.06 1.39

Compressive Strengths/Core Density

Section 4 Compressive Str (psi) Core Density (lb/ft^3) Section 8 Compressive Str (psi) Core Density (lb/ft^3) B 8462 23.62 2.03 23.10 1.99 B 8465 23.31 2.09 23.46 2.00 B 8492 24.68 2.07 23.40 2.01 EC-1 22.40 1.99 22.41 1.97 EC-2 22.92 2.01 22.53 1.98 EC-3 22.93 2.05 23.13 2.00 EC-4 25.07 2.04 24.62 1.98 EC-5 22.14 2.04 22.06 1.97

Agenda

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Project Design
• 3. High Pressure Machine Results
• 4. Comparison to 100% 4th Gen and CP
• 5. Conclusions

Why Investigate non co-blown?

 Demonstrate the need for surfactant investigation  Understand if a universal molecule was created  Develop an understanding of formulation performance: CP or 4th Gen system?  Help transfer results to other formulations and better develop future molecules

Formulations

Ingredient Weight % Co Blown Weight % Cyclopentane Weight % 4th Generation Blowing Agent Polyol Blend

77.2

81.6

68.7

Surfactant

2

2

2

Catalyst Package

2.1

2.1

2.1

Water

1.5

1.8

1.2

Cyclopentane

8.6

12.5

• 4th Generation Blowing

Agent

8.6

• 26.0

A/B Ratio

1.21

1.21

1.21

B 8462 EC - 4

Foam Appearance

Surfactant Surface Quality Bottom Quality Cell Structure/Void B 8462 4th Generation 7 7 8 EC - 4 4th Generation 7 7 8 B 8462 CP 7 6 6 EC - 4 CP 8 6 8 B 8462 4th Gen EC – 4 4th Gen B 8462 CP EC – 4 CP

Insulation Value of Different Blowing Agent Combinations

Other Physical Properties

Surfactant/ Blowing agent Core FRD (lb/ft^3) MFD (lb/ft^3) Flow Factor Compressive Str Section 4 (psi) Compressive Str Section 8 (psi) Core Density (lb/ft^3) Core Density (lb/ft^3) B 8462 4th Generation 1.44 1.98 1.37 20.78 21.00 1.98 1.90 EC - 4 4th Generation 1.44 1.98 1.37 21.31 21.57 1.98 1.91 B 8462 CP 1.39 2.05 1.48 18.93 19.94 2.02 2.01 EC - 4 CP 1.42 2.06 1.45 22.37 22.84 1.99 1.96

Agenda

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Project Design
• 3. Project 2: Design
• 4. Comparison to 100% 4th Gen and CP
• 5. Conclusions

Conclusions

 Blends of 4th generation blowing agents offer development challenges for both formulators and additive suppliers  The combination of a balanced siloxane backbone and emulsifying polyether pendants lead to improved performance in this formulation  The formulation tested has cyclopentane like characteristics with greatly improved insulation values  Adding 8.6% 4th generation blowing agent to this appliance formulation has a dramatic impact on insulation value  Improved surfactant technology did not transfer across all blowing agents

Final Thoughts

 Every appliance formulation is different depending on the polyol initiators and catalyst packages which all impact surfactant selection  No one size fit all solution  General trends from this paper can be adapted to fit other formulations  Surfactant optimization is an important tool for all next generation formulations  Further improvements in co-blown surfactant technology could be derived by combining the surfactant properties of experimental candidate 1 and experimental candidate 4