NISTIR 8131

Characterization of Emissions from a 

Non-Ideal Spray Polyurethane Foam 

Sample

Letter Report to U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Interagency Agreement CPSC-I-13-0016 MOD 1

Dustin Poppendieck

Mengyan Gong

Lauren Lawson

Steve Emmerich

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8131
NISTIR 8131

Characterization of Emissions from a 

Non-Ideal Spray Polyurethane Foam 

Sample

Letter Report to U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Interagency Agreement CPSC-I-13-0016 MOD 1

Dustin Poppendieck

Mengyan Gong

Lauren Lawson

Steve Emmerich

Engineering Laboratory

Energy and Environment Division

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8131

April 2016

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

Objective 

This report summarizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) activities 

under the FY2014 interagency agreement between the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) and NIST. The objective of that agreement is to develop testing and measurement 

protocols for determining the quantities and properties of compounds released from spray 

polyurethane foam (SPF) as it is applied in residential settings. Specifically, this report reviews 

data collected from two SPF samples associated with residential complaints supplied by CPSC. 

Background 

Many homeowners are using insulating products, such as SPF, at a growing rate, and many 

government programs recommend their use in order to increase the energy efficiency of 

residences and other buildings. Retrofitting or use of foam insulation in new construction is also 

supported in the United States by Federal efforts, such as tax incentives, and programs like 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star and Design for the Environment. Because 

of these programs and other drivers for more efficient buildings, the insulation foam industry 

expects significant growth in the use of their products over the coming years.

1,2

SPF is used as both an insulation and an air sealant. It is formed onsite via an exothermic 

chemical reaction between A-side and B-side chemicals. The A-side typically consists of 

monomeric or polymeric methylene diphenyl diisocyanate. Polyols are part of the B-side 

chemicals, which also include amine and/or metal catalysts, blowing agents, surfactants, and 

flame retardants. Amine and/or metal catalysts are used to promote the reaction between polyols 

and A-side chemicals, which help polyurethane foam cells develop sufficient strength to 

maintain their structure and resist collapsing. 

CPSC, along with EPA and other federal agencies, has received a number of complaints 

regarding health effects coinciding with the installation of SPF in homes.3 These residents have 

complained about a multitude of health effects including severe respiratory irritation, breathing 

difficulties, dizziness and nausea. In some cases, the reported effects are so severe that 

consumers report that they can no longer live in their homes.4 These health effects are typically 

reported to occur several days to months following the SPF installation in the home.

One hypothesis is that the consumer complaints related to SPF are the result of applying SPF in a 

non-ideal manner. Non-ideal conditions include off-ratio (A-side to B-side) application, low 

substrate temperature application, and wrong nozzle pressure and temperature. To date there is

minimal data on emissions from non-ideal foam (Poppendieck et al., 2016). This report provides 

emission data on two SPF samples from a residential building in which the occupants have 

complained about the SPF. As per the NIST/CPSC agreement this foam will be described in this 

report as non-ideal foam. However, no details are available about the preparation and application 

of this specific foam. 

 1 http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130717005300/en/SPF-Insulation-Demand-Growth-CreatingInvestment-Opportunities#.U2p6n_ldXzg 2 http://sprayfoamsupply.com/foam-insulation-to-gobble-up-market-share-by-2017/

3 http://www.saferproducts.gov/Search/Result.aspx?dm=0&q=Spray+foam+insulation&srt=0. 4 http://www.saferproducts.gov/Search/Result.aspx?dm=0&q=Spray+foam+insulation&srt=0.
1

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

The ASTM Indoor Air Quality (D22.05) subcommittee develops standard test methods and 

protocols to determine the emissions rates from materials. Currently a new standard for 

measuring the emissions of chemicals from SPF using micro-chamber apparatus is being 

developed (WK 40293). For this report, the draft version of this test method (balloted Spring 

2016) was used to quantify emissions from foam described as non-ideal that was submitted by 

CPSC to NIST for testing.

Methods 

Two samples of closed cell foam from the same spraying event, but applied at two different 

locations in the house, were delivered to NIST on February 22, 2016. The foam was stored in 

room temperature coolers between delivery and testing. Preliminary testing commenced on

February 24, 2016 conducted to determine the chemicals present in the foam and the required 

sampling times. After preliminary sampling, newly identified chemicals were acquired and 

standards were made. Quantification testing began on March 14, 2016.

Density of the foam was determined by cutting 3.0 cm (±0.1 cm) cubes from the 15 cm x 33 cm 

x 45 cm sample. Triplicate cubes were randomly taken from the sample. Each cube was weighed 

to the nearest mg. A machined cutting tool was used to cut six SPF samples to fit tightly within 

Markes 125 small micro-chambers (44 mL chambers) according to ASTM D7859-e13. Three 

chambers were filled with SPF from location 1, and three chambers were filled with SPF from 

location 2. The top of each sample was removed to make the samples uniformly flat. Samples 

were cut to a depth of 24 mm, leaving 6 mm headspace. 

The 44 mL chambers were operated for 200 hours at a temperature of 35.2 °C (standard 

deviation 0.4 °C) with a 24.1 mL/min (standard deviation 1 mL/min) airflow of ultra-high purity 

air. No moisture was added to the high purity air, resulting in a relative humidity of zero. 

Emissions were captured on sorption tubes. Tenax TA sorption tubes were used to capture amine 

catalysts, flame retardants and other volatile organic compounds, and were subsequently 

analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometer (GC/MS). Aldehyde analysis is not covered 

in this report. 

Prior to sampling, the Tenax TA tubes were cleaned with ultra-high purity helium for one hour at 

315 °C with a Markes TC-20 tube cleaner. The tubes were attached to the effluent flow of each 

chamber for 5 min to 1 h depending on the estimated concentrations of the target chemicals

determined from the preliminary experiments. Samples were taken 2 h, 24 h, 48 h, 96 h, 120 h, 

172 h, and 196 h after samples were placed in the chambers. At each sampling time two sorbent 

tubes were collected to ensure each chemical sampled was within the standard curve. 

Following sample collection, the Tenax TA tubes were spiked with 1 μg deuterated toluene as an 

internal standard by injecting liquid solution into a TALBOYS Standard Heatblock. The Tenax 

TA tubes were thermally desorbed using a Gerstel thermal desorbing system. The set points used 

for the thermal desorption system and GC/MS are summarized in Table 1. A Rtx-5 Amine 

column (30.0 m x 250 μm x 0.50 μm) was used for compound separation in the GC/MS.

Preliminary work identified the presence of over 80 different chemicals after heating SPF 

samples to 35 °C for 24 h and sampling for 20 minutes. Of these chemicals, 17 were identified 

with the GC/MS (spectrum match with a quality score greater than 80) and had relatively large 

response areas (over 30 000). These chemicals are listed in Table 2 ranked in order of GC/MS 

response area. 
2

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

Table 1. Summary of thermal desorption and GC/MS parameters.

Parameter Setting

Thermal Desorption Unit (TDU)

Hold 30 °C for 0.5 min

Ramp 360 °C min-1

Final 300 °C for 8 min

Cooled Injection System (CIS)

Hold -120 °C

Ramp 12 °C s-1

Final 275 °C for 8 min

Oven

Flow 1 mL min-1

Hold 40 °C for 2 min

Ramp 20 °C min-1

Final 300 °C for 2 min

The first seven chemicals in Table 2 were targeted for the quantification experiment, since they 

had the largest response areas (over 100 000) in the preliminary testing. Chemical standards 

(Table 2) were purchased for target compounds. Neat chemical standards were prepared by 

dilution in methanol. Neat triethylenediamine was purchased but was not received in time for the 

quantification experiment. Nevertheless, this chemical’s relative response ratio (area response for 

quantitation ion of the chemical divided by the area response for quantitation ion of the 

deuterated toluene) is reported.

Table 2. Chemicals identified in preliminary sampling (ranked in order of largest GC/MS response area)

Chemical

CAS 

Number Acronym

Average

Linear RSQ

Triethylenediamine 280-57-9 TEDA N/A

1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 D 0.999

Propane, 1,2-dichloro- 78-87-5 DCP 0.992

Piperazine, 1,4-dimethyl 106-58-1 DMP 0.991

Tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate 13674-84-5 TCPP 0.989

Benzene, 1,2-dichloro 95-50-1 DCB 0.996

1,3-Dioxolane, 2-ethyl-4-methyl 126-39-6 DEM 0.993

Cyclotetrasiloxane, octamethyl- 556-67-2 N/A

1,4-Dioxane, 2,5-dimethyl- 15176-21-3 N/A

Octane 111-65-9 N/A

1-Propanol, 2-chloro- 19210-21-0 N/A

Piperazine, 1,2,4-trimethyl- 120-85-4 N/A

Azulene 275-51-4 N/A

Benzaldehyde 100-52-7 N/A

1,4-Dioxin, 2,3-dihydro- 493-09-4 N/A

2-Butenal, 2-methyl-, (E)- 497-03-0 N/A

Benzene 71-43-2 N/A
3

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

Standards were spiked onto Tenax TA tubes along with the deuterated toluene internal standard. 

Chemicals were quantified using the response ratio between target chemical and internal 

standard for each chemical. Linear standard curves (injected mass versus relative response ratio)

were created for each chemical (average RSQ values for each linear curve are shown in Table 1) 

on a daily basis. Isocyanates were not analyzed as part of this research effort. The chambers were

tested prior to the introduction of the foam samples to ensure background concentrations of the 

chemicals of interest were below the detection limit. Blank Tenax TA tubes were run at least 

every seven tubes to demonstration the absence of carryover between samples. 

Results and Discussion 

Both concentrations and emission rates were determined for the samples. All concentrations and 

emission rates in this document apply only to micro-chamber conditions. The mass transfer

conditions or rates in building systems may not be similar to those experienced in a microchamber. Hence, this data should not be used to predict to full-scale emissions until further 

research has determined scaling parameters.

Density:

The average density of the foam from location 1 was 49.8 kg/m3 (triplicate measurements, 

standard error 2.6 kg/m3

). The density of the foam from location 2 was 33.0 kg/m3 (triplicate 

measurements, standard error 2.6 kg/m3). ASTM WK40293 cites the typical density for closedcell SPF as 24 kg/m3 to 32 kg/m3 and 6.4 kg/m3 to 9.6 kg/m3 for open-cell SPF. The non-ideal

foam samples from the test locations had higher densities than measured densities of 

comparative SPF provided by the American Chemistry Council’s Center for the Polyurethanes 

Industry (CPI): closed-cell foam (30.6 kg/m3) and open-cell foam (8.6 kg/m3). Both of the CPI 

foams were also tested for this work for comparison. These CPI research formulations were

developed in 2011 to be representative of SPF then available in the marketplace. The 

formulations were created for research purposes only and were not optimized to meet the 

specifications of commercial producers and therefore may not reflect formulations currently 

available in the marketplace.

Chemicals Present

In general, the non-ideal foam had a greater number of chemicals present (number of peaks) at 

greater concentrations (peak height) than previously tested CPI closed-cell foams (Figure 1)

(Poppendieck et. al., 2016). Comparison to internal data from four institutions showed that 

within the chemicals in Table 1, seven had not been previously identified in other foams: 1,2-

dichlorobenzene, triethylenediamine, 1,2-chloropropanol, 1,2,4-trimethylpiperazine, Azulene, 

2,3-dihydro 1,4-dioxin, and 2-methyl 2-butenal. Their presence may be specific to the non-ideal

foam or because the published surveys of chemicals emitting from SPF are limited. Of the seven 

new chemicals, 1,2-dichlorobenzene and triethylenediamine were chosen for quantification due 

to the large response areas.
4

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

Figure 1. GC/MS comparison of chromatograms from samples at 24 h from non-ideal foam (red, sampled 

for 45 min) and CPI supplied foam (blue, sampled for 90 minutes). Due to different GC/MS 

parameters the peaks do not exactly line up for the same chemicals. The horizontal axis is 

time (min), the vertical axis is abundance of the chemical. 

Location Comparison

In general the samples from the two locations of the same spray event had similar emission 

profiles (Figure 2). Peaks present in one sample were present in the second sample. For the 

quantified peaks, the concentrations were typically similar for both samples. Figure 3 shows a 

typical example of this trend (1,4 dioxane ). However, TCPP concentrations for foam from 

location 1 were higher for most of the samples (Figure 4). For the remainder of this document,

the concentrations and emission rates are presented as an average value from all six chambers, 

regardless of source location of the SPF . Toluene d-8

TCPP 1

TCPP 2 TCPP 3

DMP

DCP

DCB

Dioxane

DEM

Triethylenediamine
5

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

Figure 2. GC/MS comparison of chromatograms from different locations from non-ideal SPF. Blue line is 

from location 1 and red line is from location 2. The horizontal axis is time (min), the vertical 

axis is abundance of the chemical.

Micro-Chamber Concentrations

Concentrations of the flame retardant TCPP remained relatively constant for samples taken after 

48 hours (Figure 4), while concentrations of other quantified chemicals decreased in a negative 

exponential manner over time (Figure 5). The response ratio for triethylenediamine also 

decreased in a negative exponential manner (Figure 6). Toluene d-8Triethylenediamine DCB

TCPP 1 TCPP 2 TCPP 3

DCP

Dioxane

DEM

DMP
6

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

Figure 3. 1,4 Dioxane Concentrations over seven sampling periods. Error bars show the standard error 

for triplicates at each sampling time.

Figure 4. TCPP Concentrations over seven sampling periods. Error bars show the standard error for 

triplicates at each sampling time.
7

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

Figure 5. Concentrations of all quantified chemicals over seven sampling periods. Error bars show the 

standard error for triplicates at each sampling time. Vertical axis is a logarithmic scale. 

Figure 6. Relative response ratio between triethylenediamine and internal standard. Error bars show the 

standard error for each sampling time. Vertical axis is a logarithmic scale.
8

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

Micro-Chamber Emission Rates

The emission rates followed the same trends as the concentrations. The emission rate of all 

chemicals other than TCPP decreased in a negative exponential manner with time (Figure 7). 

The TCPP emission rates from the closed cell non-ideal foam followed similar trends compared

to previously tested open-cell CPI foam (although a lower value) (Poppendieck et. al., 2016), and 

were different from previously tested closed-cell CPI foam (red open square values in Figure 8). 

The emission data from the non-ideal foam were collected in 44 mL micro-chambers, while the 

remaining emission rates were collected in 114 mL micro-chambers. The differing flow rates of 

the two systems with different chamber sizes (25 mL/min versus 50 mL/min) is not expected to 

change the shape of the TCPP emission profile to the degree seen in Figure 8. This differing 

TCPP emission rate profile may be a function of non-ideal foam or the fact that published 

surveys of chemical emission rates from SPF are limited.

Figure 7. Emission rates for all quantified chemicals. Error bars show the standard error for each 

sampling time. Vertical axis is a logarithmic scale.

Both 1,4 dioxane and 1,2 dichloropropane were also quantified to be emitting from CPI closedcell foam. The emission rates for 1,2 dichloropropane was similar for the non-ideal and CPI 

foams over the duration of the experiments (Figure 9). However, the emission rates of 1,4 

dioxane was approximately an order of magnitude higher for the non-ideal foam compared to the 

CPI foam. 
9

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

Figure 8. TCPP emission rates for different samples. Error bars show the standard error for each 

sampling time. Vertical axis is a logarithmic scale. Comparison data from Poppendieck et. al. 

2016.

Figure 9. Emission Rates for 1,4 dioxane and 1,2 dichloropropane for tested non-ideal foam (Closed 1) 

compared to CPI closed-cell foam (Closed 2). Error bars show the standard error for each 

sampling time. Vertical axis is a logarithmic scale. Comparison data from Poppendieck et. al. 

2016.
10

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.

8131

Conclusions 

There is limited published data on emissions from SPF foams. This study sought to expand the 

known data by analysing a non-ideal foam sample. This foam had the following features:

1. SPF from location 1 had a density that was roughly 1.7 times greater than average closedcell SPF. SPF from location 2 had a density that was roughly 1.2 times greater than 

average closed-cell SPF.

2. Over 80 peaks representing different chemicals were recognized as emitting from the 

tested non-ideal SPF. A total of 17 chemicals were relatively substantial in size and 

identified with a spectrum match. Seven of those chemicals have not been identified in 

other SPF emission studies using a similar test method.

3. The concentrations of chemicals emitted from both location 1 and location 2 were 

similar. 

4. The emission rates of six chemicals were quantified. The emission rates of all chemicals 

except for TCPP decreased in a negative exponential manner. 

5. The emission rate of TCPP was relatively constant after 48 hours. This is in contrast to 

TCPP emission rates from other tested closed-cell foams. 

The above conclusions on the differences between tested SPF samples in the present study and 

previous CPI foam indicate that the tested non-ideal SPF may have been misapplied. However, 

the results may simply reflect the fact that the tested SPF samples are different from CPI foam. 

More surveys on chemicals emitting from SPF in real buildings are needed to determine if the 

tested foam is indeed a misapplied foam. Emission rates in this document apply only to microchamber conditions. This data should not be used to predict full-scale emissions until further 

testing has determined mass transfer parameters. 

Disclaimer 

Certain trade names or company products are mentioned in the text to specify adequately the 

experimental procedure and equipment used. In no case does such identification imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor 

does it imply that the equipment is the best available for the purpose.

Acknowledgements 

This work was funded in part by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) under 

Interagency Agreement CPSC-I-14-0023. 

References 

Poppendieck, D.; Schlegel, M.; Connor, A.; Blickley, A. Flame Retardant Emissions from Spray 

Polyurethane Foam Insulation. Accepted for publication ASTM Selected Technical Papers. 

2016.