1 

# A Proposed Methodology for Establishing a Safe Work Zone

around an SPF Application to Exterior Walls of a Commercial

Structure

SCOTT ECOFF

Bayer Material Science

100 Bayer Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15205 JIM LAMBACH

Bayer Mat erial Science

100 Bayer Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15205

ABSTRACT

Bayer MaterialScience TM (BMS) evaluated airborne concentrations of spray polyurethane foam (SPF) chemicals during

application of continuous insulation to exterior walls of co mmercial structures. Application of medium

- density closed

- cell

SPF involves the use of various chemicals including methylene dip henyl diisocyanate (MDI), amine catalysts , and a

hydro fluorocarbon. Airborne concent rations of these chemicals in th e spray ar ea require the applicator and helpers to wear

respiratory protection and protective clo thing . The potential for SPF chemical exposure to other construction trade workers

has not been well characterized. The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) in its “Health and Safety Product

Stewardship Workbook for High

- Pressure Application of Spray Polyurethane Foam” listed considerations for site

preparation that include establishing a work zone around the work area to minimize exp osure to adjacent workers dur ing

SPF application. It indicates that the distance between the SPF application w ork area and adjacent workers is typically 25

feet, but adds that the dis tance depends on several factors. The purpose of this study was to assess airborne concentrations

o f SPF chemicals at specific distances from the application area and develop a methodology that could be used by the

industry to help protect non

- SPF workers from spray foam chemicals at commercial construction work sites.

Based on our research , it appea rs that establishing the boundary for the “safe work zone” at a minimum distance of 50 feet

is appropriate for exterior SPF work in the absence of control methods such as isolation and exhaust ventilation. Outside

SPF application work is highly influenced by wind speed and at 25 feet downwind it appears likely that workers from other

trades could periodically work in areas with airborne MDI monomer concentrations between 10% and 47% of the

occupation al exposure limit (OEL)

. This paper suggests using a gui deline of less than (<) 10% of the OEL for establishing

perimeter protection around the SPF a pplicator

. Since the re are many variables that can a ffect spray drift and movement of

airborne chemical vapors around an SPF exterior wall application, a proposed methodology consisting of three steps is

outlined to help protect non

- SPF workers prior to, during, and post application

.

BACKGROUND

This study focused only on application of high pressure SPF systems manufactured by Bayer MaterialScience (BMS).

Th e BMS SPF formulations evaluated in this study were those used to produce Bayseal ® and EcoBay TM medium density

closed cell foams . Four construction work sites were visited while SPF was applied to exterior walls

, each in a different

geographica l region of the United States

.

The SPF contractors that volunteered to participate in this study were requested to obtain approval from the General

Contractor (GC) before each site visit. BMS did not provide any guidance prior to the site visit on how or where t o set

- up a

safe work zone around the SPF a pplication area. This approach was used so BMS could observe current pr actices on how

safe work zone s are established at a typical commercial construction project

. Interviews with SPF supervisors and

observations made during each si te evaluation helped to assess current practices used to establish a safe work zone.2 The typical SPF system is comprised of an “A” side and a “B” side which, when combined, form polyurethane foam within

a few seconds. The A

- side, po lymeric methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (pMDI), contains approximately equal amounts of

monomeric MDI (predominantly 4,4’

- MDI, a chemically bonded two ring structure) and higher molecular weight oligomers

of MDI (three

- ring bonded structures and larger). The B

- side is a blend of chemicals , typically containing polyols, flame

retardants, catalysts, blowing agents, surfactants, and other additives.

There are several published studies documenting ai rborne concentrations of some chemical components contai ned within

the A and B

- side of a typical SPF system. The existing work shows clearly that MDI exposu res for both the spray foam

applicator and helper can exceed both task and work shift occupational exposure limits 1 . This is true for both exterior and

in terior applications of SPF insul ation, with outdoor projects general ly resulting in airborne MDI levels less than 50% of

those measured during interior SPF applications . Airborne concentration levels of some of the B

- side components are not as

well docume nted

, but it would seem reasonable that one could detect these SPF constituents . It should be noted that some

B

- side chemical components , specifically many of the amine catalysts, do not have pu blished exposure limits making it hard

to interpret the air s ampling d ata for determining a safe level of exposure . Because of the nature of the chemical hazards

associated with SPF application, it is important for SPF installation contractors to not only be well aware of the protective

measures needed for their ow n workers but also to e stablish worksite guidelines for protect ion of non

- SPF trade workers at

the site. The respiratory protection and protective clothing needed to prevent inhalation of and skin/eye contact with SPF

c hemicals requires proper selection a nd s pecific training to ensure PPE is used properly

. Most non

- SPF workers would not

have the PPE or training needed to adequately protect them if assigned to a project that required working near an SPF

application

. T he Center for the Polyurethane s Indust ry ( CPI ) ( www.spraypolyurethane.org ) and the Spray Polyurethane

Foam Alliance (SPFA) ( www.sprayfoam.org ) are good resource s for Health & Safety information as well as guidance on

selection of personal protective equipment for SPF applicators and helpers.

Current Guidance and Study Observations for Protection of non

- SPF Workers

It is the opinion of the authors that most SPF contractors are generally aware of the f ollowing guidance from the CPI

webpage titled “Health and Safety

- Site Preparation” that addresses protection for non

- SPF workers

.

“ If local exhaust ventilation and containment methods are not used, establish a safe work zone around the work area to

prote ct adjacent workers. The distance between the work area and adjacent workers is typically 25 feet, but depends

on several factors, including but not limited to volume of SPF applied, the area covered, and air movement . Signage

may be used to communicate access restrictions. Consider limiting access to persons wearing proper personal

protective equipment or trying to schedule other trade workers at times when SPF application is not underway

. ”

The CPI “Health and Safety Product Stewardship Workbook f or High

- Pressure Application of Spray Polyurethane Foam”

provides similar information. Another publication from the Canadian Urethane Foam Contractors Association also provides

guidance to SPF contractors for protecting workers from other trades. It sugg ests that, since outside spray application is

highly influenced by wind speed, an “exclusion zone” be established at 6 meters (20 feet) on either side of the applicator in

still air conditions, or 3 meters (10 feet) upwind and 8 meters (25 feet) downwind o f the applicator

. 2

Engineering control techniques such as exhaust ventilation and isolation (e.g. plastic sheeting, tarps , wind screens ) were

not used at any of the work sites evaluated by BMS

. T he SPF contractors interviewed during this study agree d that it is

necessary to establish prot ective measures to prevent exposure of non

- SPF workers to the chemicals associated with

application of high pressure spray foam insulation

. However, i mplementing a standardized procedure to protect non

- SPF

workers is difficult . This is most likely due to how quickly SPF can be applied and the many variables that cause changing

conditions at each co nstruction project (e.g. project schedule, number of other contractors on site, height/size of the

structure, prox imity of other buildings/acces s roads to the work site, number of SPF applicators, type of work platforms

used by the SPF contractor to apply spray foam

, environment al conditions such as win d, temperature, and humidity).

STUDY METHODOLOGY

There are many ref erence materials available from CPI /SPFA that explain the equipment used in applying polyurethane

foam insulation. Therefore, the methodology described be low will focus only on the SPF chemicals evaluated, how

sampling locations were selected around the a pplication area , and the air sampling and analytical techniqu es used to

complete this study.

SPF Chemicals Ev a luated3 The specific SPF chemical components selected for ev aluation during installation of closed cell foam insulation used

during this study include d :

• Polymeric MDI (the A

- side mater ial represents 50% by volume of the mixture to produce PU foam )

• Amine catalys ts (three amines are included in each B

- side SPF formulation but are no t specifically identified for

proprietary reasons; they are ident ified in this report as Amine #1, #2, and #3)

• 1,1,1

, 3,3

- Pentafluoropropane (blowing agent)

Although there are other chemicals found in the B

- side of the SPF formulation, this study focused only on the above

chemi cals. The primary reasons are listed bel ow :

• The chemical components evaluated are g enerally considered the most likely to be emitted during SPF applicat ion

due to their composition within the formulation and physical characteristic s (vapor pressure , boiling point, etc.

. .)

• BMS industrial hygien e s ampling and analytical methods exist for these chemicals (not publically available)

• Limitations associated with the number of pumps an d types of sample media that ca n be practically used per

sample location

Air Sampling and Analytical Techniques

Gener al

Industrial hygiene air sampling pumps used during this investigation included SKC Airchek 52 and A.P. Buck Libra

models. The SKC Airchek sample pumps were used for c ollection of the amine and blowing agent samples. The Buck

Libra sample pumps were used for collection of the MDI/pMDI samples. All air sampling pumps were calibrated before

sample collection to the appropriate sampling rate, as specified in the Sampling and Analytical Method provided by the

analytical laboratory, using a Bios DryCal ® DC

- Lite Primary Flow Meter. The sampling rate was measured after each

sampling event, and the average of the pre

- and post

- value was used to calculate the total sample volume. To assess the

airborne concentrations within the SPF Applicator breathing zone , the sample media was attached near the neck/shoulder

area (outside the respirator) . To assess airborne concentrations at specific locations around the SPF Applicator, tripods or

step ladders were used to mount the sample media at breathing zone height ( e.g. 4 to 6 feet above ground level). All

samples were analy zed at the BMS Industrial Hygiene Laboratory, which is accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene

Association (AIHA).

Polymeric MDI (includes monomeric forms of MDI and oligomers of MDI referred to as pMDI)

For the purpose of this paper, pMDI refers to three

- ring bonded structures and larger. A ir samples for monomeric MDI

and pMDI were collected using glass impingers containing 15 milliliters of a solution of toluene and 1

- (2

- pyridyl )

piperazine backed up by coated 13 millimeter (mm) glass fiber filters (SKC, 1.0 μ m, type AE) mounted in two

- piece

Millipore Swinnex cassettes . Each filter is coated with 2 milligrams (mg) of 1

- (2

- pyridyl) pipera zine and diethyl phthalate.

Per the BMS s ampling and analytical method , the sample flow rate was approximately 1.0 liter per minute (LPM). Soon

after completion of the sampling period and post calibration, the filter was removed from the Swinnex holder and desorbed

in 2 milliliters (mL) of aceto nitrile/dimethyl sulfoxide (90:10 v/v) solution. The impinger solution was transferred from the

midget impingers to amber glass bottles where they were subsequently packaged for shipment to the laboratory. When

airborne MDI/pMDI is drawn through the impi nger solution and the filter, it is converted to a stable urea derivative, which

i s quantitatively analyzed by High Performance Liquid Chromatograph (HPLC) with fluorescence detection. BMS

Sampling and Analytical Method s 1 .20.1 (impinger solution) and 1. 7.7 (filter desorption fluid) were used for evaluation of

MDI/pMDI

.

Amine Catalysts

Sampling for amine catalysts was accomplished using XAD

- 2 s orbent tubes (SKC Inc. 226

- 30

- 06 ; 8 mm diameter x 110

mm). Sampling was conducted at a rate of approximatel y 0.5 LPM. Each sample was quantitatively analyzed by Gas

Chro matograph/Mass Spectrometer ( Nitrogen Phosphorus Detector) using BMS Industrial Hyg iene Laboratory Method

2.10.3.

Blowing Agent4 Sampling for the blowing agent (1,1,1,3,3

- pentafluoropropan e or HFC

- 245fa) was accomplished using a large charcoal

tube (SKC Inc. 226

- 09, 8 mm x 110 mm). Sampling was conducted at a rate of approximately 0.05 LPM. Each sample was

quantitatively analyzed by Gas Chromatograph/Flame Ionization Detector using BMS In dustrial Hygiene Laboratory

Method 3.53.0.

Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL)

MDI/pMDI

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

– Time

Weighted Average (TLV

- TWA) for 4,4’

- methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI) of 51 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m 3 )

or 5 parts per billion (ppb). This is an airborne concentration for a normal 8

- hour workday and a 40

- hour workweek and

represents conditions under which nearly all workers can be exposed without adverse health effect. In addition, the federal

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for 4,4’

- MDI

of 200 ug/m 3 or 20 ppb as a Ceiling (C) limit. The Ceiling limit is a concentrati on that should not be exceeded without the

use of proper respiratory protection during any part of the work day.

At present, neither an ACGIH TLV nor a federal OSHA PEL has been established for 2,4’

- MDI or polymer ic MDI

(pMDI). However, Bayer Material Science recommends that the exposure limit for 4,4’

- MDI (51 ug/m 3 ) be used for the

2,4’

- MDI isomer as well as for pMDI.

Amine Catalysts

At present, none of the amine catalysts evaluated during this study have published occupational exposure limits (O ELs).

1,1,1,3,3

- Pentafluoropropane (blowing agent HFC

- 245fa)

The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established a Workplace Environmental Exposure Level

(WEEL) for 1,1,1,3,3

- pentafluoropropane of 300 parts per million (ppm) as an 8

- hou r TWA concentration. The AIHA

Guideline Foundation WEEL provides guidance for protecting most workers from adverse health effects related to

occupational chemical exposures. They are not intended for the general public and are normally averaged over an 8

- hour

workday and serve to protect against acute and chronic health effects.

Sampling Locations

Personal

Personal air samples were collected on the SPF applicator for the purpose of determining the airborne concentrations of

each SPF chemical evalu ated in the im mediate spray zone or application area. The personal samples were collected only

during application of SPF insulation. T he personal MDI air samples were typically collected for a sample period of one to

two hours

. The personal amine/blowin g agent air samples were typically collected for a sample period of two to three

hours. The sample time periods we re based primarily on the ability to report to a specific minimum airborne concentration.

Application of SPF insulation occurred for approx imately four hours at each of the work sites visited

.

Area

Because many SPF contractors a re aware of the CPI guideline of establishing a distance of 25 feet between the SPF

application work area and other non

- SPF workers

, area sample locations were es tablished at a distance of 25 feet left, right,

and behind the Applicator. Another area air sample location was selected at a distance of approximately 50 feet downwind

of the Applicator

. For each site visit , one addition al area sample location was selec ted inside the building. The sample

inside the buil ding was located on the opposite side of the wall from where the SPF was being applied , at a distance of

approximately 10 feet from the exterior wall. Window and doorway openings were covered with plasti c at each site

. Air

sampling equipment was mounted on tripods or step ladders and moved as the job progresse d.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All the air sample results are illustrated on three tables found at the end of this paper

. Table 1 illustrates the airborne

concentrations of MDI and pMDI (oligomers). Table 2 illustrates the airborne concentrations of the amine catalysts5 evaluated. Table 3 illustrates the airborne concentrations of 1,1,1,3,3

- pentafluoropropane (blowing agent). The following

paragra phs summarize the airborne concentrations found

, and the applicable criteria levels used to compare results.

Personal Sample Results

- SPF Applicator

MDI/pMDI

Airborne concentra tions of MDI and pMDI were detected on all the SPF Applica tor samples co llected at each of the four

work site s

. As discussed previously, the individual sample periods on the Applicator generally ran g ed from one to two

hours resulting in multiple long

- term samples collected per work shift

. The average airborne concentrations of monomeric

MDI (2,4 and 4,4

- MDI added together) in the Applicator breathing zone for each site visit were 31 micrograms per cubic

meter (ug/m 3 ), 70, 85 and 195 ug/m 3

. This correlates to airborne MDI concentrations during SPF ap plication ranging from

61% to 382 % of the recommended occupational exposure limit (ACGIH TLV = 51 ug/m 3 ). Th e values illustrated in Table 1

are the average airborne MDI concentrations found d uring the spray period and not the 8

- hour work shift average. The

airborne concentrations of pMDI were similar to the airborne concentrations for monomeric MDI. The average airborne

concentrations of pMDI in the Applicator breathing zone for each site visit were 17, 79, 111, and 191 ug/m 3

.

Amine Catalysts

Airborne concentrations o f amine catalysts were detected on only one SPF Applicator (at site visit #2). One of the amines

in the SPF formulation (Amine #2) resulted in airborne concentration s of 37 and 41 parts per billion (ppb) on the Applicator

at this particular work site. Ot her than these two data points, all other amine airborne concentrations were non

- detectable

(ND) les s than the analytical limit of quantitation (LOQ). ٭ Table 2 illustrates the LOQ values for each sample. None of

the amine catalysts evaluated have a publ ished occupational exposure limit (OEL).

٭ Note: The limit of quantitation (LOQ) refers to a minimum concentration of a chemical that can be measured within the

specified limits of precision and accuracy set by the laboratory analytical method (instrume ntation). The LOQ is also

depen dent upon the sample duration and flow rate, which is used to calculate the volume of air sampled

. When reporting

non

- detectable (ND) , it means that the chemical is not present in a sufficient amount to be reliably quantifi ed below this

value

.

Blowing Agent

Airborne concentrations of blowing agent were detected on two SPF Applicators (at site visit #3 and #4). The airborne

concentrations of blowing agent where detected ranged from 3.8 parts per million (ppm) to 6.8 p p m. These values are less

than 3% of the OEL. All other blowing agent air sample results as illustrated in Table 3 were less t han the LOQ (all ND <

10 ppm ) . The blowing agent has an OEL of 300 ppm (AIHA WEEL).

Area Sample Results

MDI/pMDI

The outli ne below summarizes the airborne concentrations of MDI/pMDI at 25 feet (left, behind, right), 50 feet downwind

of the SPF Applicator, and inside the building.

• 25 Feet: Detectable airbo rne concentrations of MDI monomer (2,4 and 4,4’

- MDI ) were found at t hree of the

four work sites surveyed . MDI was detected on eleven of eighteen area air samples collected at 25 feet to the

left, behind, or right of the SPF Applicator. The average airborne concentration of MDI monomer at the

eleven sample locations where detected was 9.5 ug/m 3 (approximately 18% of the TLV of 51 ug/m 3 ) and

ranged from 1.0 to 23.9 ug/m 3 . PMDI was detected on only four of eighteen area ai r samples collected at 25

feet.

• 50 Feet: Detectable airborne concentrations of MDI monomer were found at two of the three work sit es

surveyed at this distance . MDI was detected on three of the five area air samples collected at 50 feet

downwind of the SPF Applicator. The three detectable airborne MDI results at 50 feet downwind were 1.0,

2.4, and 3.9 ug /m 3 (approximately 2% to 8% of the TLV). PMD I was not detected on any of the area air

samples collected at 50 feet.

• Inside Building: Detectable airborne concentrations of MDI monomer were found inside the building at one of

the four work sites surveyed. The one work site where MDI monomer was detected resulted in airborne

concentrations of 14.0 and 19.8 ug/m 3 (27% to 39% of the TLV). B reaches (e.g. small holes and openings) in6 the pla stic covering the windows were observed in close proximity to the samp ling stations inside the building

and most likely contributed to the detectable airborne MDI values.

Amine Catalysts

The outline below summarizes the airborne concentrations of amine catalysts at 25 feet (left, behind, right), 50 feet

downwind of t he SPF Applicator, and inside the building.

• 25 Feet: All sixteen area air samples collected at 25 feet were ND less than the LOQ for all three amines

contained within the SPF formulations.

• 50 Feet: All six area air samples collected at 50 feet were N D less than the LOQ for all three amines

contained within the SPF formulations.

• Inside Building: All seven area air samples collected inside the building during spray application were ND

less than the LOQ for all three amines contained with in the SPF formu lations

.

Blowing Agent

The outline below summarizes the airborne concentrations of blowing agent at 25 feet (left, behind, right), 50 feet

downwind of the SPF Applicator, and inside the building.

• 25 Feet: All fif teen area air samples collected at 25 feet were ND less than the L OQ for 1,1,1,3,3

- pentafluoropropane. The LOQ values for each sample were all < 1% of the OEL of 300 ppm.

• 50 Feet: All four area air samples collected at 50 feet were ND less than th e LOQ for 1,1,1,3,3

- pentafluoropropane

. The LOQ values for each sample were all < 1% of the OEL.

• Inside Building: All seven area air samples collected inside the building during spra y application were ND

less than the LOQ. The LOQ values for each sample were all < 1% of the OEL.

Criteria Used t o Assess Acceptable Airborne Chemical Concentrations to non

- SPF Workers

E xp osure assessment models exist to assign a risk factor to employees working with hazardous agents (e.g. chemical

hazards, physical hazards such as noise, biological hazards, etc ...). It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a

summary of the various models/techniques available for conducting occupational exposure assessment s. It is important to

note t here are many fact ors to consider when assessing the hazards associated wi th an exposure such as application of SPF

insulation

. These factors include : the unique toxic characteristics of each chemical agent involved, potential changes in the

toxic ch aracteristics when they exist in mixtures, potential for some chemicals to be a bsorbed into the body upon skin

contact, variations in duration of exposure to chemicals, type of PPE/work clothing worn , and environmental conditions

.

For the purpose of this paper , the authors relied primarily upon air monitoring data in determining guidance for

establishing a boundary (perimeter distance) sufficient to protect non

- SPF workers from SPF chemical vapors and aerosols.

The authors used r ecommended criteria published by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) in a reference

en titled: “A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposu res.” Figure 1 below is specific to occupational

exposures (work sites) and not to be used for establishing criteria for members of the general public (by

- standers that are not

assigned to work at the site ).

Figure 1

Criteria for Assessing Occupational Exposure to Chemicals 3

Exposure Rating ٭ Description Actual or Estimated Exposure

(% of OEL)

1 Highly Controlled < 10%

2 Well Controlled 10

- 50%

3 Controlled 50

- 100%

4 Poorly Controlled >100%

٭ R a t in g s b a s e d o n “ A S trat e g y f o r A s s e s s i n g a n d M a n ag i n g O cc u pa t ion a l E xp o s u r e s ”

, 2 0 0 6

, 3 rd e d i t i on . A me ric a n

I ndu strial H y g ie n e A s so c iati o n

, F a ir f ax

, V A

.

Based on the criteria above

, the “safe work zone” boundary for non

- SPF workers a t a n SPF insulation project should be

establish ed so that chemical exposures are less than 10% of a published occup ational exposure lim it (i.e. OSHA PEL, AIHA7 TLV, AIHA WEEL , NIOSH REL ) or a chemical manufacturer’s recommended limit. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)

are one reference for finding regulatory, professional association, organizational (i.e. NIOSH), or m anufacturer OELs

.

The authors recognize th at using the above criteria is a conservative approach to es tablishing a “safe work zone” for

exterior SPF applications. Because there are several chemicals associated with this type of operation and the variou s factors

discussed previously that can influence risk of exposure, it appears to be a prudent approach in the efforts to prevent

exposure to non

- SPF workers

.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

It is common at construction projects for several other constr uction trades such as plumbers, carpenters, ironworkers, and

electricians to be at the work site during SPF application. The OSHA Hazard Communication r egulation (1910.1200 and

1926.59) define s minimum requirements that must be established when chemicals are handled/used at multi

- employer work

sites. To briefly summarize the requirements, the OSHA Hazard Communication standard requires the contractor using a

hazardous chemical that could result in exposure to other workers to provide labeling and MSDS inf ormation about those

chemicals. There is no specific guidance on how to establish a “safe work zone” nor is there a clearly defined safe airborne

concentration for a chemical where other workers would be considered “not” exposed. It would be difficult to provide

specific guidance due to the many variables discussed earlier that affect risk of exposure to chemicals. So, it is not

surprising tha t safety professionals involved with overseeing an SPF insulation project struggle with the concept of

establishi ng a safe working distance for non

- SPF workers

. The following paragraphs provide a propos ed methodology for

protecting non

- SPF workers during an exterior insulation construction project

.

Airborne concentrations of amine catalysts and blowing agent were below t he analytical limit of quantitation at the 25 feet

sample locations set up to the right, behind, and left of the Applicator. However, airborne MDI monomer concentrations

above 10% of its OEL were found at these sample locations at three of the fou r work sites evaluated. Therefore, the

findings of this study indicate that MDI is the primary airborne SPF chemical detected during exterior SPF application.

BMS believes t hat establishing a boundary for the “safe work zone” at a minimum distance of 50 feet helps protect non

- SPF

workers in the absence of control methods such as isolation and exhaust ventilation at the SPF application area

.

I nhalation of SPF chemicals is not the only exposure route of conc ern. One must also consider the potential for direct

skin /eye contact with SPF chemical aerosols (e.g. mist particles from spray drift). Other non

- SPF workers would not

typical ly be provided PPE to prevent skin c ontact from chemical hazards. Therefore, a comprehensiv e tiered approach is

necessary w hen establishing guidelines to protect non

- SPF construction trade workers from chemical hazards associated

with an SPF insulation project.

As a st arting point for pr otecting non

- SPF workers , the authors suggest that SPF contract ors read and be knowledge able

with the CPI/SPFA guidance document entitle d “Exterior Spray Polyurethane F oam Insulation Health & Safety Q&A.” The

tiered approach below includes many good work practices published in this document

, as well as finding s based upon

observations made d uring this field study.

Proposed Methodology to Establish a Safe Work Zone and Protection of non

- SPF Workers at Commercial

Construction Work Sites

A. Step #1: Planning of SPF Work (prior to the date of application)

• Meet with the General Contractor

, Const ruction Manager , and building owner representatives to discuss

chemical hazards of SPF application work. Use health and safety information like that available from CPI

an d SPFA to inform them of potential SPF hazards a nd good work practices to establish t o protect other

workers

.

• Request that the General Contractor assist in properly scheduling SPF application work to avoid other trades

fro m being on site while SPF is sprayed

.

• If other construction trades must be on site, establish protec tive measures to ensure non

- SPF trade workers

are not within 50 fee t of the SPF application area in the absence of control methods such as i solation and

ventilat ion . In some situations, a perimeter greater than 50 feet may be necessary due to natural air

movement (wind speed), size of SPF area to be sprayed, and height of the structure.

• I nform supervisors of non

- SPF trade workers of the chemical hazards associated with SPF application work

per OSHA Hazard Communication requirements

.

• Develop an Overspray Mitigation Plan (see CPI/SPFA document referenced previously)

.8 • Plan to i solate and ven tilate the spray a pplication area when it appears difficult to control overspray or site

conditions restrict the ability to establish a safe work zone of 50 feet

.

B. Step #2: SPF Application (on the day of application)

• Check wind forecast for day (adjust ov erspray mitigation plan as necessary)

• Restrict access to the SPF application area.

• Establish a boundary (safe work zone) of at least 50 feet to the left, behind, and right of the SPF Applicator.

Be sure to tak e into account factors that can affect spray d rift and the entire area where SPF will be applied.

• Post warning signs and install physical barriers (e.g. snow fence, saw horses, warning tape, cones, etc...) to

help keep non

- SPF workers from entering the safe work zone.

• Ensure all window an d doorway openi ngs are covered. When other construction trade employers must work

on the other side of the building enclosure, use durable building materials (e.g. wood) along with tarps or

plastic sheeting to prevent SPF mist and vapors from entering the structure thro ugh window/doorway

openings

.

C. Step #3: Post Spray Application

• N on

- SPF workers should not enter the spray area until the SPF contractor has removed all spray equipment

and cleared the work zone

.

• Establish appropriate housekeeping procedures to clean up d ebris associated with SPF application work

before leaving the site

.

• Ensure all waste materials (SPF debris , empty drums, or any liquid A or B

- side chemicals) are disposed of

properly (e.g. contact the chemical manufacturer and federal, state, and local ag encies to be aware of the

regulations pertaining to this work )

.

REFERENCES

1. Spence, M., 2009. “The Current MDI Industrial Hygiene Data on Spray Foam” in Center for the Polyurethanes

Industry (CPI) Conference , 2009

. 2. Canadian Urethane Foam Contract ors As sociation (CUFCA). 2005 Ass essment of Isocyanate Exposure d uring

Outdoor Spray Application of Polyurethane Foam for Cavity Wall Insulatio n. CUFCA Safety Bulletin, Winni peg,

Manitoba: Canadian Urethane Foam Contractors Association.

3. Ignacio, J.S ., Bulloc k, W.H. 2006. ISBN: 978

- 1

- 931504

- 69

- 0 “A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational

Exposures”, American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was conducted by Bayer MaterialScience LLC, Spray Foam Roofing & Insul ation Group, Product Safety &

Regulatory Affairs Department, and the Industrial Hygiene & Environmental Analytics Laboratory located in Pittsburgh,

PA.

The project was completed with the support of various Bayer MaterialScience employees including:

Sp ray Foam Roofing & Insulation

RJ Anderson

Terry Roye

Industrial Hygiene & Environmental Analytics Lab

Karen Mattson

Tom Frampton

Luann Bidka

- Rieck

Jason Miller

Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs9 Tim Feeley

Cathie Sayles

Brian Karlovich

BIOGRAPHIE S

Author Name s

Scott Ecoff is an Industrial Hygienist with the Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs group, Bayer

MaterialScience (BMS), Pittsburgh, PA. Scott has 26 years of experience in the industrial

hygiene field . He is a Certified Industrial Hygi enist (CIH) in Comprehensive Prac tice (1989).

Jim Lambach is the Head of Technology and Technical Marketing for the Spray Polyurethane

Insulation and Roofing Materials business of Bayer MaterialScience. Jim has 24 year s of

experience in the polyu rethane industry, working in various capacities.10 

### Table 1

Airborne MDI Concentrations (ug/m 3 

### ) 1 

### during Exterior Wall SPF Applications at Commercial

Buildings

Notes:

1 u g/m3 is read mic rograms per cubic meter

2 A pplicator airborne concentrations shown are the average airborne MDI and pMDI (oligomer) concentrations of 2 or 3

personal samples collected during SPF application (not the 8

- hr average). Actual SPF application occurred for

appr oximately 4.0 hours at each work site visited

.

3 dw is read downwind

4 ND is read non

- detectable less than (<) the number reported , which is the laboratory limit of quantitation (LOQ)

MDI Monomer OEL = 51 ug/m3 (8

- hr TLV

- TWA); Bayer recommends the same OEL for Oligomer or pMDI

. Applicator 2 25 Feet Left 25 Behind 25 Feet Right 50 Feet Downwind Inside Building

during SPF Work

Survey

# Monomer Oligomer Monomer Oligomer Monomer Oligomer Monomer Oligomer Monomer Oligomer Monomer Oligomer

1

CO 195 191 5.8

(dw) 3 ND 4 < 27

(dw) - - - - - - ND <0.8 ND < 25

- - 4.7

(dw) ND< 24

(dw) - - - - - - ND <0.9 ND < 28

2

PA 31 17 6 .0

(dw) ND< 18

(dw) 1.0 ND< 19

- - 1.0 ND< 17 ND<0.5 ND< 16

- - ND<0.8

(dw) ND< 23

(dw) 1.0 ND< 23

- - ND< 0.7 ND< 22 ND<0.6 ND< 19

3

NV 70 111 ND < 1.1 ND< 33 ND < 1.3

(dw) ND < 38

(dw) ND < 1.1 ND < 33 ND < 1.4 ND <43 ND< 1.1 ND< 34

ND < 1.1 ND< 32 ND < 2.5 ND < 77 ND < 1.8

(dw) ND < 53

(dw) -- -- ND< 1.3 ND< 38

4

TX 85 79 8.5

(dw) ND< 22

(dw) 9.9 10.0 23.9 33.0 3.9 ND <25 14.0 13.3

23.5

(dw) 21.3

(dw) 11.4 ND< 29 18.3 14.5 2.4 ND <32 19.8 27.511 

### Table 2

Airborne Amine Concentrations (ppb ) 1 

### during Exterior Wall SPF Applications at Commercial

Buildings

NOTES:

1 ppb is read parts per billion

2 ND is read non

- detectable less than (<) the number reported, which is the laboratory limit of quantitation (LOQ)

.

3 dw is read downwind

None of the amine co mpounds evaluated have an OEL. Applicator 25 Feet Left 25 Feet Behind 25 Feet Right 50 Feet Downwind Inside Building during

SPF work

Survey

# Amine

#1 Amine

#2 Amine

#3 Amine

#1 Amine

#2 Amine

#3 Amine

#1 Amine

#2 Amine

#3 Amine

#1 Amine

#2 Amine

#3 Amine

#1 Amine

#2 Amine

#3 Amine

#1 Amine

#2 Amine

#3

1

- CO ND 2

<20 ND

< 70 ND

< 11 ND

<12

(dw) 3 ND

< 40

(dw) ND

< 6

(dw) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- N D

< 13 ND

<44 ND

< 7

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2

- PA ND

< 19 37 ND

< 11 ND

< 17

(dw) ND

< 19

(dw) ND

< 10

(dw) ND

< 20 ND

< 22 ND

< 11 -- -- -- ND

< 16 ND

< 18 ND

< 12 ND

< 14 ND

< 16 ND

< 8

ND

< 23 41 ND

< 13 ND

< 22

(d w) ND

< 25

(dw) ND

< 13

(dw) -- -- -- -- -- -- ND

< 20 ND

< 23 ND

< 11 ND

< 17 ND

< 19 ND

< 10

3

NV ND

< 31 ND

< 35 ND

< 36 ND

< 19 ND

< 21 ND

< 21 ND

< 19

(dw) ND

< 22

(dw) ND

< 22

(dw) ND

< 19 ND

< 21 ND

< 21 ND

< 19 ND

< 21 ND

< 21 ND

< 22 ND

< 25 ND

< 25

ND

< 14 ND

< 16 ND

< 16 ND

< 19 ND

< 22 ND

< 22 ND

< 37 ND

< 75 ND

< 67 ND

< 18

(dw) ND

< 21

(dw) ND

< 21

(dw) ND

< 19 ND

< 22 ND

< 22 ND

< 24 ND

< 27 ND

< 27

4

TX ND

< 26 ND

< 47 ND

< 15 ND

< 17

(dw) ND

< 31

(dw) ND

< 10

(dw) ND

< 17 ND

< 30 ND

< 1 0 ND

< 15 ND

< 27 ND

< 8 ND

< 14 ND

< 25 ND

< 8 ND

< 20 ND

< 36 ND

< 11

ND

< 23 ND

< 41 ND

< 13 ND

< 15

(dw) ND

< 27

(dw) ND

< 9

(dw) ND

< 15 ND

< 27 ND

< 9 ND

< 17 ND

< 30 ND

< 9 ND

< 16 ND

< 29 ND

< 9 ND

< 17 ND

< 30 ND

< 1012 

### Table 3

Airborne 1,1,1,3,3

- Pentafluoropropane (245fa) Concentrations (ppm) 1 

### during

Exterior Wall SPF Applications at Commercial Buildings

Notes:

1 ppm is read parts per million

2 ND is read non

- detectable less than (<) the number reported

, which is the laboratory limit of quantitat ion (LOQ)

3 dw = downwind

AIHA WEEL = 300 ppm (8

- hr TWA) for pentafluoropropane Survey Applicator 25 Feet Left 25 Feet Behind 25 Feet Right 50 Feet Behind Inside Building

during SPF Work

1

- CO ND 2 < 2.0 ND < 1.3 (dw) 3

-- -- -- ND < 1.4

2

- PA ND < 4.0 ND < 2.2 (dw)

ND < 2.8 (dw) --

-- --

-- --

-- ND < 2.0

ND < 2.4

3

- NV ND < 4.0

6.8 ND < 2.7

ND < 2.8 ND < 2.9 (dw)

ND < 10.1 ND < 2.7

ND < 2.9 (dw) ND < 2.8

ND < 3.0 ND < 2.7

ND < 2.7

4

– TX 5.6

3. 8 ND < 2.7 (dw)

ND < 2.7 (dw) ND < 2.3

ND < 2.4 ND < 2.2

ND < 2.7 ND < 2.1

ND < 2.7 ND < 2.8

ND < 2.113