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% 4 th Gen and CP 5. Conclusions

Introduction  As market conditions change, blends of 4 th 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% 4 th Gen and CP 5. Conclusions

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

Formulations Weight % 4 th Ingredient Weight % Co-Blown Weight % Cyclopentane Generation Blowing agent 77.2 Polyol Blend 81.6 68.7 2 Surfactant 2 2 2.1 Catalyst Package 2.1 2.1 Water 1.5 1.8 1.2 8.6 Cyclopentane 12.5 - 4 th Generation Blowing 8.6 - 26.0 Agent 1.21 A/B Ratio 1.21 1.21

Designing Surfactants for Multiple Blowing Agents Lower Boiling Blowing Agent Surfactant CP - Surfactant B A

Surfactants Tested Degree of Silicone Polyether Surfactant Description Backbone Emulsification modification Standard Evonik Rigid B 8462 - ++ Surfactant Evonik Rigid Surfactant for high B 8465 solubility CP formulations and ++ --- gaseous blowing agents High Nucleation Surfactant for B 8492 --- + 245 fa formulations Experimental + - Candidate 1 Experimental B ++ -- Candidate 2 Experimental +++ - Candidate 3 Experimental A +++ -- Candidate 4 Experimental ++ - Candidate 5 --- -- -

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

Machine Parameters and Testing Resin Temperature 70 ( o F) MDI Temperature ( o F) 70 Pour Pressure (psi) 1500 (A/B) Direction of flow 2” Brett Mold 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Temperature ( o F) Throughput(lb/min) 40 1.21 A/B Ratio K-factor Compressive Str

Reactivity Stability and Solubility Surfactant Cyclopentane 4 th Gen/CP 4 th 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 Bottom Surface Internal Cell Quality Quality 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 Min Fill Density FRD Core (lb/ft^3) Flow Factor (lb/ft^3) 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 Core Section 8 Core Density Compressive Str Density Compressive Str (lb/ft^3) (psi) (lb/ft^3) (psi) 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 4 th Gen system?  Help transfer results to other formulations and better develop future molecules

Formulations Weight % 4 th Ingredient Weight % Co Blown Weight % Cyclopentane Generation Blowing Agent 77.2 68.7 Polyol Blend 81.6 2 2 Surfactant 2 2.1 2.1 Catalyst Package 2.1 Water 1.5 1.8 1.2 8.6 - Cyclopentane 12.5 4 th Generation Blowing 8.6 - 26.0 Agent 1.21 1.21 A/B Ratio 1.21 B 8462 EC - 4

Foam Appearance Surface Bottom Surfactant Cell Structure/Void Quality Quality 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 4 th Gen EC – 4 4 th Gen B 8462 CP EC – 4 CP

Insulation Value of Different Blowing Agent Combinations

Other Physical Properties Surfactant/ Core Compressive Compressive Core Core MFD Flow Blowing FRD Str Section 4 Str Section 8 Density Density (lb/ft^3) Factor agent (lb/ft^3) (psi) (psi) (lb/ft^3) (lb/ft^3) B 8462 4th 1.44 1.98 1.37 20.78 21.00 1.98 1.90 Generation EC - 4 4th 1.44 1.98 1.37 21.31 21.57 1.98 1.91 Generation 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% 4 th Gen and CP 5. Conclusions

Conclusions  Blends of 4 th 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% 4 th 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