(~~ . '""v i5aycr MaterialScience 

An Evaluation of 

Airborne Methylene Diphenyl 

Diisocyanate (MDI) 

at 

Forno Products, Inc. 

Norton, OH 

Conducted and Reported by: 

B.F. Karlovich, Manager- Industrial Hygiene Customer Services, 

Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs 

Date of Evaluation: February 4, 2010 

Date of Report: March 9, 2010 

..... 

= 

-...... 

(_ 

<= • I 

\.0 

> 

:X 

s> 

:::-

The testing and evaluation described in this report have been conducted as a customer service at no additional charge 

to the Customer. As such, any information contained in this Report has been obtained in accordance with industry 

standards and is, to the best of our knowledge, true and accurate, and is based only upon the conditions observed at 

the time of the evaluation. The test results, recommendations and/or suggestions contained in this Report are made 

only as a courtesy as part of olll' customer service and Bayer makes no warranty, either expressed o1· implied, with 

respect to any such test results, recommendations and/or suggestions. 

Cl;:o 

""OfTl 

-on 

--II'Tl 

n:;:: 

~I'Tl 

("')0 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

SUMMARY ............. u ..................................................................................................... l 

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 2 

II. PROCESS OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................... 2 

m. CRITERIA .................................................................... uooooouoooooootoooooooooooOoooooocoo4 

IV. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES ....................................... 5 

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 6 

VI, RECOMMENDATIONSooo.oooooooooooooootoooooooooooooo•uuuuouooooooooouooooooooouooooooooooouooo7 

TABLE 1 Airborne MDI Concentrations- Personal & Area Samples .................... 8 
SUMMARY 

On February 4, 2010 air sampling for methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) was conducted 

during the production of one component polyurethane foam products, as well as during the test 

application ofboth one and two component polyurethane foam products at Forno Products, 

Inc., Norton, Ohio. Both personal and area samples were collected. Sample results are 

summarized in Table 1. 

Personal Samples 

Airborne MDI was detected in the two samples collected in the breathing zone of the aerosol line 

operator. The airborne concentrations were 15 and 2.7 uglm3

, with a corresponding sampling 

period TWA concentration of8.8 uglm3

• This value does not exceed theACGIH 8-hr. TLVTWA of 51 uglm3

. 

Airborne MDI was not detected at or above the analytical quantitation limit in three short-term 

air samples collected in the breathing zones of 1) the technical training representative during the 

application of the E84 Class I Refillable System in the Training Lab hood, using the "I 0, 10, 1 0" 

rule, 2) the product manager during the application of a two component 205 Disposable Kit in 

the Spray Lab hood, using the "1 0, 10, 1 0" rule, and 3) the product manager during the 

application of one component HandiFoam in the Humidity Chamber. Therefore, the OSHA 

PEL-C of 200 uglm3 was not exceeded. 

Airborne MDI was identified at a level of 89 uglm3 in the one short-term air sample collected in 

the breathing zone of the product manager during the continuous application of the 205 

Disposable Kit in the Training Lab hood. However, the OSHA PEL-C of200 uglm3 was not 

exceeded. Because the employee wore an air purifYing respirator during this activity, the 

airborne concentration to which the employee was potentially exposed was likely Jess than the 

measured concentration. It is of note that the local exhaust ventilation hood was purposely not 

operated during this activity. 

Area Samples 

Airborne MDI was identified at 3.0 and 1.1 uglm3 in the two samples collected near the 

dispensing heads of the aerosol filling station. 

Airborne MDI was not identified at or above the analytical quantitation limit in the two area 

samples collected at a distance of 10 feet from spraying activities, or in the two area samples 

collected beginning one hour following spraying activities in the Training Lab. 

Recommendations based on results and observations at the time of the evaluation appear on 

Page 7. 
I. INTRODUCTION 

At the request of Forno Products, Inc., the Bayer MaterialScience (BMS) Product Safety & 

Regulatory Affairs Department sampled for potential airborne MDI during the manufacture of 

one and two component low pressure polyurethane foam systems, as well as the test application 

of these systems. BMS supplies Forno with Mondur MR Light, which contains approximately 

equal amounts of monomeric MDI and polymeric MDI. 

II. PROCESS OBSERVATIONS 

The Norton facility blends and packages various-sized one and two-component low pressure 

polyurethane foam systems. The one component systems dispense somewhat like a caulking, 

whereas the two-component systems are spray applied. The aerosol filling operation was 

evaluated during this investigation. In addition, air sampling was conducted during the test 

application of some of Forno's one and two-component low pressure polyurethane foam systems. 

The aerosol line is highly automated and is located in a large production area (greater than I 0,000 

square feet with ceilings of approximately 15 feet). Two lines, 1 and 2, are immediately adjacent 

to and run parallel with one another. For each line, a conveyor first delivers empty metal cans· 

(typically 12 or 24 ounce) to the aerosol filling station, where two heads dispense MDI under low 

pressure into the tops of two cans for a period of about 1 to 2 seconds. Following this, the cans 

proceed a short distance down the line, and two additional heads dispense polyol blend into the 

tops of the cans, also for a period of about I to 2 seconds. Heads that dispense other additives 

are also present and are used for certain products. Following the addition of product, valves are 

then automatically added to the tops of the cans. The cans then proceed to the "Gas House" 

where propellant is injected. Following the Gas House, the conveyor delivers the cans to a 

station where collars are added (for products that use a gun attachment), and then to the shaker 

(I 0 to 15 shakes per can). The cans are then submerged in a "hot bath" to increase the 

temperature to about 120 degrees Fahrenheit, and then proceed through a cold bath. The cans 

then move to the "Blower House" to be dried with fast moving air. The cans then proceed along 

to the labeler, capper, and adapter placer, before being fitted with an outer thin plastic sleeve, 

which is then heated via heat gun, and then followed up by a heat tunnel. The cans are then 

boxed up manually. From here, the boxes of cans proceed to the palletizer. The pallet with 

boxes of product is then shrink wrapped, at which point it is ready for shipment. On the day of 

the evaluation, the products produced included 24-ounce Window and Door, 12-ounce Straw 

Foam, and 12-ounce Window and Door. Approximately cans were produced in total. 

The aerosol filling station is equipped with a canopy hood; the dimensions of the hood face are 

approximately 4 feet by 4 feet. The face of the hood is located about 6 feet above the floor. 

Smoke gun testing indicated that air was moving slowing into the hood. 

Forno has implemented a "10, 10, I 0" policy where two component spray polyurethane foam 

systems are being demonstrated for customers, or where customers are being trained. The policy 

is reportedly used at both the Forno facility as well as at customer locations. The policy is as 

2 
follows. Spraying is permitted for no more than 1 0 seconds at a time; observers must be at least 

10 feet away from the applicator; and there is a minimum 1 0-minute waiting period between 

spraying events. 

On the day of the evaluation, test application of various Forno products were conducted in the 

Training Lab, Spray Lab, and Humidity Chamber. The Training Lab is approximately 24 feet by 

19 feet by 12 feet high. Two supply air diffusers are located in the ceiling. A local exhaust 

ventilation hood with the dimensions of approximately 6 feet wide, by 3 feet deep, by 6 feet high 

is located in the far comer of the room. Two component foam kits are applied into simulated 

wall cavities or onto other substrates in the hood. The hood is reportedly operated during 

spraying; however, Forno chose to not operate the hood on the day of the evaluation in order to 

represent worst case conditions. 

The room that houses the Spray Lab is approximately 45 feet by 20 feet by 18 feet high. One 

supply air diffuser was observed in overhead ductwork. A local exhaust ventilation hood with 

the dimensions of approximately 10 feet wide by 5 feet deep is present in the Spray Lab. Similar 

to the hood in the Training Lab, two component foam kits are applied into simulated wall 

cavities or onto other substrates in the hood. The hood is reportedly operated during spraying; 

however, similar to the Training Lab hood, Forno chose to not operate the hood on the day ofthe 

evaluation in order to represent worst case conditions. 

The Humidity Chamber is approximately 8 feet by 16 feet by 8 feet high. One supply air diffuser 

was observed in the ceiling. The room is reportedly kept at a relative humidity of approximately 

50 percent for the purpose of testing single-component foam products. 

Three employees were monitored during this investigation, an aerosol line operator, a technical 

training representative, and a product manager. The aerosol line operator worked at both Lines 1 

and 2. His primary tasks were to restock the conveyor lines with empty cans and valves, and to 

weigh the aerosol cans at different stages of the process for quality control purposes. He wore 

boots, pants, a short sleeved work shirt, safety glasses with side shields, disposable latex gloves, 

and earplugs. 

The technical training representative demonstrated the "1 0, 10, 1 0" rule in the hood ofthe 

Training Lab. He applied a two component "E84 Class I Refillable System" to a cardboardlined, simulated wall assembly (2" by 4" framing) in the hood. The E84 Class I Refillable 

System was equipped with a 1 0-inch HandiGun with a disvosabJe tip and a Magnum hose heater 

(80 degrees F). Dynamic pressure at the gun was reported to be.approximately 75 pounds per 

square inch. The product was applied for 10 seconds, and then applied for another 10 seconds 10 

minutes later. The total length ofthe activity was 15 minutes. When not spraying, the employee 

stood at approximately the same location as when spraying. As previously stated, the ventilation 

hood was not operated. The door to the Training Lab was closed during the sampling period. 

The employee wore boots, jeans, a short sleeved shirt, safety glasses with side shields, Duraskin 

disposable nitrile gloves, and disposable plastic sleeves to cover the forearms. 

3 
The product manager conducted three separate tasks. The first task was the application of a two 

component "205 Disposable Kit" into cardboard boxes on the floor in the hood in the Training 

Lab. One entire kit was dispensed over a period of approximately 15 minutes. The ventilation 

hood was not operated, and the door to the room was closed. The product manager wore shoes, 

pants, fabric lab coat, half mask air purifying respirator with organic vapor cartridges, disposable 

nitrile gloves, and safety glasses with side shields during this activity. 

The product manager's second task was to apply a one component "HandiFoam" with attached 

straw dispenser to plastic covered cardboard sheets in the Humidity Chamber. The cardboard 

sheets were located on a desktop about 3 feet above the floor. The foam was nearly continuously 

applied in a bead width of about 3/8-inch. Approximately one and one half cans were used over 

a IS-minute period. The door was closed during this activity. The employee wore shoes, pants, 

fabric lab coat, High Five disposable latex gloves, and safety glasses with side shields during this 

activity. 

The product manager's third task was to demonstrate the "1 0, I 0, I 0" rule in the hood of the 

Spray Lab. She applied the two component "205 Disposable Kit" to a piece of cardboard on the 

back wall of the hood at a height of about 3 to 4 feet above the floor. The product was applied 

for I 0 seconds, and then applied for another 10 seconds 1 0 minutes later. The total length of the 

activity was IS minutes. When not spraying, she stood at approximately the same location as 

during spraying. As previously stated, the ventilation hood was not operated. She wore shoes, 

pants, fabric lab coat, Duraskin disposable latex gloves, and safety glasses with side shields 

during this activity. 

III. CRITERIA 

MDI 

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has adopted a 

Threshold Limit Value- Time Weighted Average (TLV-1WA) for 4,4'-methylene bisphenyl 

isocyanate (MDI) of 0.005 parts per million (ppm) (i.e., 5 parts per billion, ppb) or 51 

micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug!m'). This is an airborne concentration for a normalS-hour 

workday and a 40-hour workweek and represents conditions under which nearly all workers can 

be exposed without adverse effect. In addition, the federal Occupational Safety illld Health 

Administration (OSHA) has established a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for 4,4' -MDI of 

0.02 ppm or 200 ug/m3 as a Ceiling (C) limit. The Ceiling limit is a concentration that should 

not be exceeded during any part of the day. 

At present, neither an ACGIH TLV nor a federal OSHA PEL has been established for2,4'-MDI 

or polymeric MDL However, Bayer MaterialScience recommends that the exposure limits for 

4,4'-MDI be used for the 2,4'- MDI isomer. 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a Reference 

Concentration (RfC) for 4,4' -MDI of0.06 ppb (0.6 ug/m3). The RfC is for chronic inhalation 

4 
exposure, and represents the airborne exposure to the human population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 

IV. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES 

Where spraying activities were conducted, samples of airborne MDI were collected using glass 

impingers containing 15 milliliters of a solution of toluene and 1-(2-pyridyl)piperazine, backed 

up by coated 13mm glass fiber filters mounted in Swinnex holders, and connected to A.P. Buck 

Basic 5 air sampling pumps. The impinger/filter sampling trains were either attached to the 

workers' lapels (i.e., personal samples) or placed in the surrounding work area (i.e., area 

samples). All pumps were calibrated before sample collection to a sampling rate of 

approximately 1 Lpm using a Bios DryCal® DC-Lite Primary Air Flow Meter. The sampling rate 

was reconfirmed after the sampling event, with the average value used in the sample volume 

calculation. Prior to mounting the filter to the Swinnex holder, each filter was coated with 2 mg 

of 1-(2-pyridyl)piperazine and diethyl phthalate. Immediately upon completion of sampling, the 

impinger solution was transferred to sample bottles, and the filters were removed from the 

Swinnex holders and desorbed in 2 ml of acetonitrile/dimethyl sulfoxide (90: I 0 v/v) solution. 

When airborne MDI is drawn through the impinger solution (and treated filter) it is converted to 

a stable urea derivative, which is quantitatively analyzed by HPLC using Bayer MaterialScience 

Method 1.20.0. The 13mm filters were analyzed according to Bayer MaterialScience Method 

1.7.7. 

Where spraying activities were not conducted, samples of airborne MDI were collected using 1-

(2-pyridyl)piperazine and diethyl phthalate-coated 13mm glass fiber filters mounted in Swinnex 

holders, and connected to SKC Airchek 52 air sampling pumps. The filters were either attached 

to the workers' lapels (i.e., personal samples) or placed in the surrounding work area (i.e., area 

samples). The 13mm filters were analyzed according to Bayer Material Science Method 1. 7. 7. 

All samples collected were analyzed at the Bayer MaterialScience Industrial Hygiene Laboratory, 

which is accredited by the AIHA. · 

Airflow 

Air movement in the aerosol filling station area was assessed with a Te!Tru1M Borozin A. C. Gun 

(i.e., smoke gun) that uses 100% Air Test Grade Zinc Stearate as the testing powder. 

5 
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

The analytical results are presented in Table 1. Note that the reported MDI values for the 

samples collected during/following spraying activities represent MDI found in the impinger 

solution only, as MDI was not identified in any of the back-up l3mm filters. 

Personal Samples 

Airborne MDI was detected in the two samples collected in the breathing zone of the aerosol line 

operator. The airborne concentrations were 15 and 2. 7 ug/m3

, with a corresponding TWA 

concentration of8.8 ug/m3

. This value does not exceed the ACGIH 8-hr TLV-TWA of 51 uglm3 

Airborne MDI was not detected at or above the analytical quantitation limit in the one short-teffil 

sample collected in the breathing zone of the technical training representative during the 

application of the E84 Class I Refillable System in the Training Lab hood, using the "10, 10, 10" 

rule. Therefore, the OSHA PEL-C of200 ug/m3 was not exceeded. 

Airborne MDI was not detected at or above the analytical quantitation limit in the one short-temJ 

sample collected in the breathing zone of the product manager during the application of the two 

component 205 Disposable Kit in the Spray Lab hood, using the "1 0, 10, 1 0" rule. Similarly, 

airborne MDI was also not detected at or above the analytical quantitation limit in the short-temJ 

sample collected during the application of the one component HandiFoam in the Humidity 

Chamber. Therefore, the OSHA PEL-C of 200 ug/m3 was not exceeded for either of these 

samples. 

Airborne MDI was identified at a level of 89 ug/m3 in the one short-tenn sample collected in the 

breathing zone of the product manager during the application of the two component 205 

Disposable Kit in the Training Lab hood. However, the OSHA PEL-C of 200 ug/m3 was not 

exceeded. Because the employee wore a half mask air purifYing respirator during this activity, 

the airborne concentration to which the employee was potentially exposed was likely less than 

the measured concentration. 

Area Samples 

Airborne MDI was identified at 3.0 and 1.1 ug/m3 in the two samples collected near the 

dispensing heads of the aerosol filling station. 

Airborne MDI was not identified at or above the analytical quantitation limit in the two area 

samples collected at a distance of 10 feet from spraying activities, one for the E84 Class I 

Refillable System, and one for the 205 Disposable Kit. Airborne MDI was also not identified in 

the two area samples collected beginning one hour following continuous 205 Disposable Kit 

spraying activities in the Training Lab. 

6 
TABLE! 

AIRBORNE METHYLENE DIPHENYL DIISOCYANATE (MDI) CONCENTRATIONS 

Personal & Area Samples - Forno Products, Inc. 

Norton, Ohio- February 4, 2010 

Sample Name/ Sampling Sample 2,4'-MDI 4,4'-MDI Total MDI TWA' 

Number Job Description/Location Period Volume (ugim3

) (ug/ru3

) (ugim3

) (ugim3

) 

(liters) 

PERSONAL SAMPLES LONG TERM 

006-1 I Aaron Runyon, Aerosol Line Operator I 7:04-11:08 I 251.3 I 1.5I I 13.1 J 15 I 8.8 

006-2 I I Il:08-15:03 I 242.I I ND' I 2.73 I 2.7 I 

PERSONAL SAMPLES- SHORT TERM 

308-1 Derrick Hyde~ 8:I8-8:33 15.7 ND ND ND -- Technical Training Representative, 

Applies E84 Class I Refillable System 

inTrainingLabHood{HIO, 10 10") 

308-2 Sandy GumpJ, Product Manager, 8:50-9:05 15.3 I7.0 71.9 89 30 

Applies 205 Disposable Kit in Training 

Lab Hood 

308-4 Sandy Gump, Product Manager, I 0:41-10:56 15.5 ND ND ND 

Applies 205 Disposable Kit in 

Spray Lab Hood 

("10, 10, 10") 

442-1 Sandy Gump, Product Manager, 9:15-9:30 15.4 ND ND ND 

Applies One Component HandiFoam 

in Humidity C'hamber 

AREA SAMPLES 

900-1 Aerosol Filling Station, Between Lines 7:00-11:09 264.7 0.60 2.46 3.0 -- 900-2 1 and 2, immediately upline of 11:09-15:03 248.7 0.40 0.68 l.l -- dispensing heads, about 5 feet above 

floor 

531-1 On cart, I 0 feet from Training Lab 8:18-8:33 15.3 ND ND ND -- hood> 3 feet above floor, during 

E84 Class J Refillable System 

application ("10, 10, 10;1

) 

308-3 On cart .. 10 feet fi·om Training Lab 10:05-10:20 15.8 ND ND ND -- hood, 3 feet above floor, one hour 

following end of IS-minute application 

of 205 Disposable Kit 

531-2 On cart, 10 feet from Training Lab 10:05-13:05 178.2 ND ND ND -- hood, 3 feet above floor, started at one (<0.56 (<0.56 

hour following end of lS~minute ug/m') uglm3

) 

application of 205 Disposable Kit 

309-1 On desk top, 10 feet from Spray Lab 10:41-10:56 15.5 ND ND ND -- hood, 3 feet above floor, during 

application of 205 Disposable Kit 

(;'10, 10, 10") 

1. Time Weighted Average (TWA) based on the combined samples. 

2. ND (Non-detectable)- concentration was less than the analytical Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) ofO.! !lg/sample. Forsarnples that 

were 15 minutes in duration, the corresponding total MDI concentration is of approximately <13 ug/m3

. 

3. Employee wore a half mask air purifying respirator during this activity. Therefore, the airborne concentration to which the 

employee was potentially exposed was likely less than the concentration shown. 

8