SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Fax: 610.438.8307

Cutting edge solutions to eliminate health & safety risks

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Spray Polyurethane Foam

Ventilation Research Project

Phase 2 - Industrial Hygiene Monitoring 

10 air changes per hour

Prepared For:

Heather Palfrey

American Chemistry Council

Center for the Polyurethanes Industry

700 2nd Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

Prepared By:

Brent Altemose, CIH, CSP

SABRE Health & Safety, LLC

1015 Zucksville Road

Easton, PA 18040

Report Date: December 19, 2012
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 2 of 6 Fax: 610.438.8307

Background

Industrial hygiene air monitoring was conducted in support of the Spray Polyurethane Foam 

(SPF) Ventilation Research Project, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Center 

for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI). The research plan for this project is detailed in the May 

2011 CPI SPF Ventilation Research Proposal. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the 

impact of changes in ventilation rates on the concentration of chemical vapors and particulates 

emitted during SPF application.

Emissions from three SPF formulations were evaluated: a low density (1/2-pound) high pressure

SPF, a medium-density (2-pound) high pressure SPF, and a low-pressure, two-component SPF 

kit. These three generic formulations were developed in Phase I of the project to ensure they 

were representative of formulations currently available in the SPF marketplace. The dates of the 

emission testing and the composition for each formulation are shown in Table 1. 

Table 1 : Generic SPF Formulations – Composition and monitoring dates (10 air changes per hour)

Low Density (1/2 pound) High 

Pressure SPF Formulation

Medium Density (2 pound) High 

Pressure SPF Formulation

Low Pressure (2 Component) Kit 

Formulation

Air monitoring dates

July 23 and 24, 2012 May 7 and 8, 2012 September 10 and 11, 2012

A-side composition

100% pMDI 100% pMDI 100% pMDI

B-side composition

Polyether Polyol (34%)

NPE Emulsifier (11.9%)

Aromatic Polyester Polyol (36.39%)

Aromatic Amino Polyether Polyol 

(33.61%)

Polyester Polyol (23%)

Polyether Polyol (23%)

Blowing agent 

Water (20%)

Blowing agent 

HFC-245fa (6.97%)

Water (2.53%)

Blowing agent 

HFC-134a (17%)

Fire Retardant 

Tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate 

(TCPP) (25.2%)

Fire Retardant 

Tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate 

(TCPP) (15.91%)

Fire Retardant

Tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate 

(TCPP) (30%)

Silicone Surfactant (0.7-1.0%) Silicone Surfactant (1.0) Silicone Surfactant (2%)

Catalyst

Bis (2-Dimethylaminoethyl) ether 

(BDMAEE) (0.9%)

Tetramethyliminobispropylamine 

(TMIBPA) (2.0-3.0%)

N,N,N-Trimethylaminoethylethanolamine (TMAEEA) (4.0%)

Catalyst 

Bis (2-Dimethylaminoethyl) ether 

BDMAEE (0.7%)

Bis (dimethylaminopropyl) 

methylamine (DAPA) (2.59%) 

N,N,N-Trimethylaminoethylethanolamine (TMAEEA) (0.3%)

Catalyst 

Pentamethyldiethylenetriamine 

(ethylhexanoic, 2-, potassium salt/ 

Oxybisethanol, 2,2’) (PMDETA) 

(5%)
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 3 of 6 Fax: 610.438.8307

The test chamber was 7’9’’ x 7’9” x 8’2’’ (490 cubic feet) with a ventilation rate of 85 cubic 

feet per minute, or 10.4 air changes per hour assuming perfect air mixing. Air flow was 

perpendicular to the worker and the spray application. The worker applying each SPF 

formulation wore portable sampling pumps with the sampling media placed in the vicinity of the 

worker’s breathing zone. Area samples were located several feet behind the applicator, at a 

height of approximately 6.5 feet. After approximately 15 minutes of spray time, the applicator 

exited the test chamber and the personal and area samples were retrieved. The sprayed cardboard 

inserts were left inside the test chamber. A second set of “post-spray” area samples were 

collected for one hour beginning 30 minutes after spraying stopped. After the second set of area 

samples were completed, the sprayed cardboard inserts were removed and the test chamber was 

allowed to “air-out” for two hours before starting another test run. A total of four runs were 

completed across two days for each of the three generic SPF formulations.

Air Sampling Results

The detailed results of the air monitoring are presented in our three previous reports, attached to 

this summary as Appendix A. A discussion of the results for each analyte follows. Our quality 

control of these samples included field blanks submitted for each type of media and an 

assessment of flow variability and breakthrough, as noted in the reports in Appendix A.

MDI

The concentrations of 4,4’-methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (4,4’-MDI) exceeded its 

occupational exposure limit (OEL) during spraying of both the low and medium density SPF 

formulations (0.011 to 0.037 parts per million or ppm), but not during spraying of the kit 

formulation (0.0012 to 0.004 ppm). The concentrations of 4,4’-MDI, 2,4’-MDI, and polymeric 

MDI (pMDI) were highest during spraying of the medium density formulation, next highest 

during spraying of the low density formulation, and lowest during spraying of the kit 

formulation. 

For all three formulations, MDI was not detected during the post-spray sampling period, 30 to 90 

minutes after spraying stopped, with the SPF still inside the test chamber. The limits of 

quantitation for 4,4’-MDI and 2,4’-MDI were 0.00014 to 0.00021 ppm, while the limits of 

quantitation for pMDI was 0.040 to 0.065 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). 

Catalyst (Amines)

As shown in Table 1, the type and percentages of amines present in the B side varied for each 

formulation. BDMAEE is the only amine that was present in any of the formulations that has an 

established OEL. 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 4 of 6 Fax: 610.438.8307

The low and medium density formulations contained BDMAEE at 0.7 to 0.9%, respectively, and

during spraying the applicator exposure and area concentrations exceeded the OEL

(concentrations were 0.40 to 2.42 ppm for the low density and 0.63 to 3.2 ppm for the medium 

density). During the post-spray periods, the concentrations were still above the OEL, however, 

the concentrations for the low density (0.16 to 1.04 ppm) were generally higher than the 

concentrations for the medium density (below detection, <0.039, to 0.44 ppm). 

TMAEEA was also present in both the low and medium density formulations, although only at 

0.3% in the medium density compared to 4.0% in the low density. For the medium density, 

TMAEEA was not detected in the air either during spraying or during the post-spray period 

(quantitation limits were 0.053 to 0.257 ppm depending on sample times). For the low density, 

TMAEEA was detected up to 0.52 ppm. During the post-spray period for the low density, 

TMAEEA was only detected during one of four runs, at 0.24 ppm. 

DAPA was also present in the medium density formulation at 2.59% and was detected both 

during spraying (0.93 to 6.74 ppm) and during the post-spray period (up to 0.08 ppm). 

TMIBPA was also present in the low density formulation at 3.0% but was not detected in any of 

the samples, spraying or otherwise. 

PMDETA was the only amine in the kit formulation. During spraying the concentrations were 

1.01 to 3.77 ppm. During the post-spray period, the concentrations were 0.07 to 0.5 ppm. 

Fire Retardant (TCPP)

TCPP was the fire retardant in all three formulations, between 15.9 to 30% in the B side. Of the 

three formulations, the medium density yielded the highest concentrations during spraying (0.16 

to 0.39 ppm), followed by the low density (0.12 to 0.24 ppm), and with the kit yielding the 

lowest concentrations (0.02 to 0.16 ppm). The low density was highest during the post-spray 

period (0.0036 to 0.0075 ppm), followed by the medium density (0.0018 to 0.0061 ppm), and 

with the kit again generally yielding the lowest concentrations (0.002 to 0.0034 ppm). 

Blowing agents

A hydrofluorocarbon blowing agent was used in the B side for the medium density (HFC-245fa) 

and kit (HFC-134a) formulations. The low density formulation used water as the blowing agent. 

During spraying of the medium density formulation, the concentrations for HFC-245fa were

between 186 to 599 ppm. The concentrations were over the OEL for HFC-245fa during 3 of 4 

runs. During the post-spray sampling period for this formulation, all samples were non-detect, at 

less than 5 ppm, which is well below the OEL. 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 5 of 6 Fax: 610.438.8307

During spraying of the kit formulation, the concentrations for HFC-134a were between 5,000 to 

11,000 ppm, which is over its OEL. During the post-spray sampling period for this formulation, 

all of the samples were between 188 to 590 ppm, which is below the OEL. 

Conclusions

Three SPF formulations were sprayed for 15 minutes in a 490 cubic foot chamber with 10.4 air 

changes per hour of general ventilation perpendicular to the spray. Breathing zone and area 

concentrations were measured during spraying, and were generally similar for all of the chemical 

vapors and particulates measures. Area concentrations were also measured for the period 30 to 

90 minutes after the spray. 

During spraying, the concentrations of 4,4’-MDI were over its OEL for the low and medium 

density formulations, and were detectable but below the OEL for the kit formulation. MDI was 

not detected during the post-spray period for any of the formulations. 

The concentrations of an amine, BDMAEE, were over its OEL during spraying of the low and 

medium density formulations. At times, the concentration of BDMAEE was still over its OEL

during the post-spray testing. BDMAEE was not present in the kit formulation, but another 

amine, PMDETA, was detected during spraying at concentrations similar to those observed for 

BDMAEE. Some of the other amines present in the formulations were also detectable in the air 

during the spray and post-spray periods. 

The fire retardant, TCPP, in all three formulations was detected in the air during the spray and 

post-spray periods, but at concentrations one to two orders of magnitude (approximately 10 to 

100 times) lower during the post-spray testing. 

The blowing agents in the medium density and kit formulations (HFC-245fa and HFC-134, 

respectively) were above their OELs during spraying, but below their limits during the postspray testing. 

These results indicate that during application of three generic SPF formulations with 10 air 

changes per hour general ventilation, OELs were exceeded and respiratory protection is needed. 

Also, during the time period 30 to 90 minutes after spraying was stopped, OELs were at times 

exceeded. For these formulations at 10 air changes per hour, more than 90 minutes may be 

required in order to enter the area without respiratory protection. 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 6 of 6 Fax: 610.438.8307

APPENDIX A

REPORTS
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Fax: 610.438.8307

Cutting edge solutions to eliminate health & safety risks

INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE MONITORING

SPF Ventilation Research Project

Prepared For:

Heather Palfrey

American Chemistry Council

Center for the Polyurethanes Industry

700 2nd Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

Prepared By:

SABRE Health & Safety, LLC

1015 Zucksville Road

Easton, PA 18040

Monitoring Dates: May 7-8, 2012

Report Date: June 22, 2012

Report Revised: February 8, 2013
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 2 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Background

This monitoring was conducted in support of the Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Ventilation 

Research Project, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Center for the 

Polyurethanes Industry (CPI). The research plan for this project is detailed in the May 2011 CPI 

SPF Ventilation Research Proposal. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the impact of 

changes in ventilation rates on the concentration of chemical vapors and particulates emitted 

during SPF application. The same chemicals were evaluated beginning 30 minutes after spraying 

to assess the rate at which decreases in the airborne concentrations occur. Chemical ingredients 

selected for evaluation represent those typically present in SPF formulations and vary with each 

formulation tested throughout the project. Substances to be evaluated include: Methylene 

diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), amine catalysts, blowing agents other than water, and flame 

retardants.

The first set of four runs occurred on May 7 and 8, 2012. The formulation for these four runs 

was medium-density (2-pound) high pressure SPF. The specific chemicals monitored in this 

formulation are shown in Table 1. The A and B sides were sprayed at a one to one ratio by 

volume. Table 2 shows the spray parameters. Data were not available on some spray parameters 

for the first run, due to a problem with the spray equipment. The session times shown are the 

approximate times spent by the applicator inside the test chamber. 

Table 1. Medium Density (2 pound) High Pressure SPF Formulation

A-side

100% pMDI

B-side

Aromatic Polyester Polyol (36.39%)

Aromatic Amino Polyether Polyol (33.61%)

Blowing agent 

HFC-245fa (6.97%)

Water (2.53%)

Fire Retardant 

Tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCPP) (15.91%)

Silicone Surfactant (1.0%)

Catalyst 

Bis (2-Dimethylaminoethyl) ether (BDMAEE) (0.7%)

Bis (dimethylaminopropyl) methylamine (DAPA) (2.59%)

N,N,N-Trimethylaminoethylethanolamine (TMAEEA) (0.3%)
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 3 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 2. Spray Parameters, Medium Density (2 pound) High Pressure SPF 

Formulation

Run 

No. 

Date Average 

density 

(lb/ft3)

Number of 

inserts 

sprayed

Quantity of B 

side sprayed 

(grams)

Total session 

time (minutes: 

seconds)

1 5/7/2012 AM Not 

recorded

6 Not 

recorded

Approximately 

7:00

2 5/7/2012 PM 1.83 12 9,350 14:55

3 5/8/2012 AM 1.88 12 10,966 18:10

4 5/8/2012 PM 1.85 12 10,931 15:30

Exposure Limits

Table 3 shows the exposure rating system used to categorize the air sampling results, based on 

the system recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Table 4 shows the 

exposure limits for the chemicals assessed in this report. For a key to these and all of the data 

tables, please see the key at the end of this report, prior to Tables 5 through 8. 

Table 3. Exposure Ratings 

Rating* Description Actual or Estimated Exposure

0 Trivial < 0.01 x OEL

1 Highly controlled 0.01 to 0.1 x OEL

2 Well controlled 0.1 to 0.5 x OEL

3 Controlled 0.5 to 1 x OEL

4 Poorly controlled >1 x OEL

5 Very poorly controlled >50 x OEL

*Ratings based on “A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures”, 2006, 3rd edition. 

American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax, VA. (trivial and very poorly controlled categories 

added)
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 4 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 4. Occupational Exposure Limits

CAS Analyte Occupational 

Exposure Limit

Type of OEL (e.g. 

OSHA Ceiling, 

ACGIH TLV, 

NIOSH REL)

OEL (units)

101-68-8 Methylene bisphenyl 

isocyanate (MDI)

0.02

0.005

OSHA Ceiling

ACGIH TLV-TWA

ppm

ppm

460-73-1 1,1,1,3,3-

Pentafluoropropane

(HFC-245fa)

300 AIHA WEEL ppm

3033-62-3 Bis (2-

Dimethylaminoethyl) 

ether (BDMAEE)

0.05

0.15

ACGIH TLV-TWA

ACGIH TLV-STEL

ppm

ppm

Air Sampling Methods

A worker applying SPF wore portable sampling pumps with the sampling media placed in the 

vicinity of the worker’s breathing zone. Area samples were located several feet behind the 

applicator, at a height of approximately 6.5 feet. After approximately 15 minutes of spray time, 

the applicator exited the test chamber and the personal and area samples were retrieved. The 

sprayed cardboard inserts were left inside the test chamber. A second set of “post-spray” area 

samples were collected for one hour beginning 30 minutes after spraying stopped. 

After the second set of area samples were completed, the sprayed cardboard inserts were 

removed and the test chamber was allowed to “air-out” for two hours before starting another test 

run. Before each run, the air in the test chamber was cleared with a real-time instrument 

calibrated for the blowing agent (HFC-245fa). No HFC-245fa was detected in the chamber prior 

to starting any run. For more detail on the air sampling methodology, please see Appendix A of

this report and the May 2011 ACC CPI research plan. A photograph of a typical configuration of 

the samples is shown in Appendix B. 

Our quality control of these samples included field blanks submitted for each type of media and 

an assessment of flow variability and breakthrough. No issues were observed in terms 

breakthrough (oversaturation) of the sampling media. Some issues were observed with flow 

variability and field blanks, as described in the following paragraphs and as noted in the data 

tables. 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 5 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

For MDI and pMDI, nothing was detected on the blanks, including the blind blank, and there 

was little breakthrough to the filters (some 4,4-MDI was detected on many of the filters sampled 

during spraying, but always at less than 5% of the amount detected in the impinger sample). The 

only issue was flow variability, which we believe may have been due to interference by the 

toluene with the pumps used. Four of the samples had 10-20% change in flow during the 

sampling, and 2 samples had 26-40% variability. A comparison of the results for these samples 

to the results for samples that did not have flow variability issues indicates that this issue did not 

substantially affect our results. Future samples will use specially configured pumps to avoid 

these issues.

For the amines, little breakthrough (less than 7%) was observed on the tubes, and the flow 

variability was generally low (10 of 12 were less than 10%, the other two were 17 and 24%). No 

amines were detected on three field blanks and a lab blank. 

For the blowing agent, nothing was detected on two field blanks. However, some overspray was 

observed on the applicator's samples, particularly during runs 2 through 4, so the applicator 

samples may have been biased high. This issue will be addressed with badge filter covers for 

future runs. 

For the fire retardant, there was one area sample during spraying that was invalid. The results 

came back non-detect, and for this sample the industrial hygienist noted in the field a possible 

pump problem. TCPP was not detected on two field blanks, and no breakthrough or flow 

variability in excess of 10% were noted. 

Air Sampling Results

Tables 5 through 8 show the results of our industrial hygiene air sampling. A discussion of the 

results for each analyte follows. 

MDI

As shown in Table 5, the levels of MDI were far over its exposure limit during spraying. The 

applicator and area results during spraying were similar during each run (+/- 36%) and varied by 

about a factor of 2 across the four runs. 2,4-MDI ranged from 0.0030 to 0.0058 ppm; 4,4-MDI 

ranged from 0.019 to 0.037 ppm; and pMDI ranged from 0.17 to 0.41 mg/m3. All three were 

non-detect during the post-spray sampling period (limits of detection ranged from 0.044 to 0.065

mg/m3 for pMDI or 0.00014 to 0.00021 ppm for 2,4-MDI and 4,4-MDI).
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 6 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Catalyst (Amines)

As shown in Table 5, the levels of BDMAEE were far over its exposure limit during spraying.

For both BDMAEE and DAPA, the area samples were consistently higher than the applicator 

samples during spraying. The area samples were 11 to 68% greater, with outliers that were 2.2

and 2.7 times greater during the first run for BDMAEE and DAPA, respectively. Notably, the 

first run had an abbreviated run time and the exposure time for the applicator was limited. There 

were also amines detected during the purge (30-90 minutes after spraying). BDMAEE was 

detected during runs 2 through 4, and the concentrations were 0.084, 0.051, and 0.44 ppm, which 

are still over its exposure limit. DAPA was only detected during the purge for runs 2 and 3, at 

0.08 ppm each time. TMAEEA was not detected in any of the samples, spraying or otherwise.

Fire Retardant (TCPP)

As shown in Table 6, during spraying TCPP concentrations were 0.16 to 0.37 ppm for the 

applicator and 0.29 to 0.39 ppm for the area sample. One of the four area samples during 

spraying was invalid due to a pump failure. The area concentrations were higher than the 

applicator exposures for 2 of 3 other runs. During the post-spray sampling period, TCPP 

concentrations were 0.0018 to 0.0061 ppm. 

Blowing agent (HFC-245fa)

As shown in Table 7, the concentrations for HFC-245fa were also generally over its exposure 

limit during spraying, except during the first run when the spray time was truncated. The 

applicator exposures ranged from 186 to 599 ppm (365 to 599 ppm if you omit the first, shorter 

run). The area samples during spraying ranged from 281 to 365 ppm. The area sample was 

higher than the applicator sample during run 1, but lower during runs 2 through 4. Because 

protective covers for the passive sampling badges were not available at the time of sampling, 

some overspray may have collected on the applicator samples and caused these samples to read 

higher than the actual exposure. This would also explain why in general only the blowing agent 

concentrations were higher for the applicator, compared to the area samples. During the postspray sampling period, all of the samples were non-detect, at less than 5 ppm.
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 7 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Conclusions

The concentrations of MDI and BDMAEE were well over their exposure limits during the 

application of spray polyurethane foam for 15 minutes in a chamber with 10 air changes per 

hour. The concentration of HFC-245fa was also generally over its exposure limit. Furthermore, 

the concentration of BDMAEE was also over its exposure limit during the post-spray sampling 

period (30 to 90 minutes after spraying) for 3 of 4 runs.

Revision History

2/8/2013 – Quantitation (also referred to herein as detection) limits for pMDI revised. 

Key to Tables

The following is a key to abbreviations and notes on the tables.

*= flow variation between pre- and post-calibration was between 10-20% 

**= flow variation between pre- and post-calibration was between 20-40%

mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter 

ppm = parts per million

L = Liters

min = minutes

ug = micrograms

Lpm = Liters per minute

OEL = Occupational Exposure Limit

OSHA PEL = Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit

ACGIH TLV = American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Values

AIHA WEEL = American Industrial Hygiene Association Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels

TWA = time weighted average, adjusted to eight hours

STEL = short term exposure limit, over 15 minutes

ach = air changes per hour

n/a = not applicable
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 8 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 5. MDI Results, Medium Density (2 pound) High Pressure SPF Formulation, 10 ach, May 

7-8, 2012
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 9 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 6. Amine Results, Medium Density (2 pound) High Pressure SPF Formulation, 10 ach, 

May 7-8, 2012
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 10 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 7. TCPP Results, Medium Density (2 pound) High Pressure SPF Formulation, 10 ach, 

May 7-8, 2012

Table 8. HFC-245fa Results, Medium Density (2 pound) High Pressure SPF Formulation, 10 

ach, May 7-8, 2012
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 11 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

APPENDIX A

SAMPLING METHODS 

This section describes the methods used to monitor for the chemicals during SPF application. 

For more detail, please see the May 2011 ACC CPI research proposal. 

SKC Aircheck 52 (Model 224-52) and SKC AirLite pumps were used for active sampling. The 

calibration of each pump was verified using a primary flow standard. The samples were 

analyzed by the laboratories and methods shown in Table A1.

Table A1: Air Sampling and Analytical Methodology for Select SPF Constituents.

CAS # Analyte Analytical Laboratory 

and Method

Flow 

Rate

Sampling media and limit of 

detection. 

101-68-

8

Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate 

(MDI)

Bayer; HPLC with UV 

Detection; BMS IH 

Laboratory Method 

Nos: 1.20.0 and 1.7.7

1.0 

Lpm

Midget impinger with 15 mL 

toluene / 1-(2-pyridyl)

piperazine, followed by: 13 mm 

glass fiber filter treated with 1-

(2-pyridyl) piperazine and 

diethyl phthalate housed in a 

Swinnex cassette, field 

extracted with 90/10 (v/v)

acetonitrile/dimethylsulfoxide

9016-

87-9

Polymeric MDI (pMDI)

(3-ring and larger oligomers of 

MDI)

460-73-

1

1,1,1,3,3-Pentafluoropropane 

(HFC 245-a)

Assay Technology; 

Modified OSHA 7 

N/A Diffusive sampler – Assay 

Technology Sampler No.548 

13674-

84-5

Tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate 

(TCPP)

Bureau Veritas; 

GC/NPD ICL-IP 

Method No GC 024-1

1.0

Lpm

XAD-2 tubes; SKC 226-30-16

3033-

62-3

Bis (2-Dimethylaminoethyl) ether 

(BDMAEE) 

Bayer; Bayer Method 

No. 2.10.3,

desorption with 

acetone and analyzed 

by GC/NPD

0.50 

Lpm

XAD-2 tubes; SKC 226-30-06 

2212-

32-0

N,N,N-Trimethylaminoethylethanolamine (TMAEEA)

3855-

32-1

Bis (dimethylaminopropyl) 

methylamine (DAPA)
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 12 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPH

Figure B1. SPF Application Sampling Locations
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Fax: 610.438.8307

Cutting edge solutions to eliminate health & safety risks

INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE MONITORING

SPF Ventilation Research Project

Prepared For:

Heather Palfrey

American Chemistry Council

Center for the Polyurethanes Industry

700 2nd Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

Prepared By:

SABRE Health & Safety, LLC

1015 Zucksville Road

Easton, PA 18040

Monitoring Dates: July 23-24, 2012

Report Date: August 31, 2012

Revised Date: February 8, 2013
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 2 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Background

This monitoring was conducted in support of the Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Ventilation 

Research Project, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Center for the 

Polyurethanes Industry (CPI). The research plan for this project is detailed in the May 2011 CPI 

SPF Ventilation Research Proposal. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the impact of 

changes in ventilation rates on the concentration of chemical vapors and particulates emitted 

during SPF application. The same chemicals were evaluated beginning 30 minutes after spraying 

to assess the rate at which decreases in the airborne concentrations occur. Chemical ingredients 

selected for evaluation represent those typically present in SPF formulations and vary with each 

formulation tested throughout the project. Substances to be evaluated include: Methylene 

diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), amine catalysts, blowing agents other than water, and flame 

retardants.

The first set of four runs occurred on May 7 and 8, 2012, as detailed in our previous report dated 

June 22, 2012. The formulation for those four runs was medium-density (2-pound) high pressure 

SPF. This report details the results of the second set of four runs which occurred on July 23 and 

24, 2012. The formulation for these four runs was low-density (1/2-pound) high pressure SPF.

The specific chemicals present in this formulation are shown in Table 1. The A and B sides were 

sprayed at a one to one ratio by volume. Table 2 shows the spray parameters. The session times 

shown are the approximate times spent by the applicator inside the test chamber. 

Table 1. Low Density (1/2 pound) High Pressure SPF Formulation

A-side

100% pMDI

B-side

Polyester Polyol (34%)

Blowing agent 

Water (20%)

Fire Retardant 

Tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCPP) (25.2%)

Silicone Surfactant (1.0%)

Catalyst 

Bis (2-Dimethylaminoethyl) ether (BDMAEE) (0.9%)

Tetramethyliminobispropylamine (TMIBPA) (3.0%)

N,N,N-Trimethylaminoethylethanolamine (TMAEEA) (4.0%)
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 3 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 2. Spray Parameters, Low Density (1/2 pound) High Pressure SPF Formulation

Run 

No. 

Date Average 

density 

(lb/ft3)*

Number of 

inserts 

sprayed

Quantity of B 

side sprayed 

(pounds)

Total session 

time (minutes: 

seconds)

Temperature in 

Test Chamber 

Start/End/Post** 

1 7/23/2012 AM 0.8 12 10 15:00 80 / 93 / 87 0F

2 7/23/2012 PM 0.8 12 10 15:00 85 / 96 0F

3 7/24/2012 AM 0.8 12 10 15:00 79 / 93 / 88 0F

4 7/24/2012 PM 0.8 12 10 15:00 84 / 97 / 90 0F

*This is the average density measured after shrinkage. Average density of the foam was approximately 0.6 lb/ft3. 

**Temperature was recorded at the start of spraying, at the end of spraying, and 30 minutes post-spray (except for 

run 2). For runs 3 and 4, the temperature 90 minutes post-spray was also recorded and was equal to the value 30 

minutes post-spray each time. 

Exposure Limits

Table 3 shows the exposure rating system used to categorize the air sampling results, based on 

the system recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Table 4 shows the 

exposure limits for the chemicals assessed in this report. For a key to these and all of the data 

tables, please see the key at the end of this report, prior to Tables 5 through 7. 

Table 3. Exposure Ratings 

Rating* Description Actual or Estimated Exposure

0 Trivial < 0.01 x OEL

1 Highly controlled 0.01 to 0.1 x OEL

2 Well controlled 0.1 to 0.5 x OEL

3 Controlled 0.5 to 1 x OEL

4 Poorly controlled >1 x OEL

5 Very poorly controlled >50 x OEL

*Ratings based on “A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures”, 2006, 3rd edition. 

American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax, VA. (trivial and very poorly controlled categories 

added)
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 4 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 4. Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs)

CAS Analyte Occupational 

Exposure Limit

Type of OEL OEL (units)

101-68-8 Methylene bisphenyl 

isocyanate (MDI)

0.02

0.005

OSHA Ceiling

ACGIH TLV-TWA

ppm

ppm

3033-62-3 Bis (2-

Dimethylaminoethyl) 

ether (BDMAEE)

0.05

0.15

ACGIH TLV-TWA

ACGIH TLV-STEL

ppm

ppm

Air Sampling Methods

A worker applying SPF wore portable sampling pumps with the sampling media placed in the 

vicinity of the worker’s breathing zone. Area samples were located several feet behind the 

applicator, at a height of approximately 6.5 feet. After approximately 15 minutes of spray time, 

the applicator exited the test chamber and the personal and area samples were retrieved. The 

sprayed cardboard inserts were left inside the test chamber. A second set of “post-spray” area 

samples were collected for one hour beginning 30 minutes after spraying stopped. 

After the second set of area samples were completed, the sprayed cardboard inserts were 

removed and the test chamber was allowed to “air-out” for two hours before starting another test 

run. For more detail on the air sampling methodology, please see Appendix A of this report and 

the May 2011 ACC CPI research plan. A photograph of a typical configuration of the samples is

shown in Appendix B. 

Our quality control of these samples included field blanks submitted for each type of media and 

an assessment of flow variability and breakthrough, as described in the following paragraphs and 

as noted in the data tables. 

For MDI and pMDI, nothing was detected on the field blanks or the lab blanks, and there was no

breakthrough to the filters (no MDI or pMDI was detected on the filters). The only issue was 

flow variability, which appeared to be due primarily to the accumulation of MDI inside some of 

the impingers, particularly those of the “fritted” type. Two of the samples had 10-20% change in 

flow during the sampling, another had 25% variability, and two samples had very high 

variability, 54 and 64%. A comparison of the results for these samples to the results for samples 

that did not have flow variability issues indicates that while the two samples with 10-20% flow 

variability did not appear to have been affected, the results for the three samples with greater 

than 20% flow variability all appear to be biased low. That is, the results appear to be lower than 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 5 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

expected. These three results, and particularly the two results with very high flow variability, 

may need to be ignored in any data analysis for the results. Future sampling will not use frittedtype impingers, hopefully eliminating this issue. 

For the amines, no breakthrough was observed on the tubes, and the flow variability was 

generally low (all varied less than 8%). No amines were detected on two field blanks and a lab 

blank. 

For the fire retardant, TCPP was not detected on two field blanks or the lab blank, and no flow 

variability in excess of 10% was noted. Two of samples showed excess breakthrough at 18% and 

37%. Excess breakthrough can be an indication of potential sample loss. However, both of the 

samples with breakthrough were taken during the post-spray period, and a comparison of the 

results for these two samples to the post-spray period for the other two runs indicates the results 

were similar and sample loss was most likely not a significant impact on the results. 

Air Sampling Results

Tables 5 through 7 show the results of our industrial hygiene air sampling. A discussion of the 

results for each analyte follows. 

MDI

As shown in Table 5, the applicator’s exposure to 4,4-MDI during the spray period was over the

exposure limit. The applicator results during spraying were 0.0020 to 0.0038 ppm for 2,4-MDI, 

0.011 to 0.020 ppm for 4,4-MDI, and 0.11 to 0.18 mg/m3for pMDI. Three of the four area 

samples during spraying were below the exposure limit. However, two of these samples showed 

very high flow variability which may have biased the results. The area sample during spraying

for the fourth run, which did not have an issue with flow variability, was greater than the 

exposure limit and the applicator exposure. All three MDI analytes were non-detect during the 

four post-spray sampling periods. Limits of detection were 0.043 to 0.049 mg/m3for pMDI or 

0.00016 ppm for 2,4-MDI and 4,4-MDI. 

Catalyst (Amines)

As shown in Table 6, the applicator’s exposure to BDMAEE was 0.75 to 1.45 ppm during 

spraying, which is far over its exposure limit. The applicator’s exposure to TMAEEA during 

spraying was 0.30 to 0.41 ppm. For both BDMAEE and TMAEEA, the area samples were 

generally higher than the applicator samples during spraying, on 3 of 4 runs. BDMAEE 

concentrations in the area samples during spraying ranged from 0.40 to 2.42 ppm, while 

TMAEEA ranged from non-detect to 0.52 ppm. BDMAEE was detected during the post-spray 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 6 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

sampling period for all four runs, at concentrations between 0.16 to 1.04 ppm, which are still 

over its exposure limit. TMAEEA was only detected during the post-spray period for run 2, at 

0.24 ppm. TMIBPA was not detected in any of the samples, spraying or otherwise.

Fire Retardant (TCPP)

As shown in Table 7, during spraying TCPP concentrations were 0.14 to 0.22 ppm for the 

applicator and 0.12 to 0.24 ppm for the area sample. During the post-spray sampling period,

TCPP concentrations were 0.0036 to 0.0075 ppm. 

Conclusions

The concentrations of MDI and BDMAEE were well over their exposure limits during the 

application of spray polyurethane foam for 15 minutes in a chamber with 10 air changes per 

hour. Furthermore, the concentration of BDMAEE was also over its exposure limit during the

post-spray sampling period (30 to 90 minutes after spraying) for all four runs. 

Revision History

2/8/2013 – Quantitation (also referred to herein as detection) limits for pMDI revised. 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 7 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Key to Tables

The following is a key to abbreviations and notes on the tables.

*= flow variation between pre- and post-calibration was between 10-20% 

**= flow variation between pre- and post-calibration was 25%

***= flow variation between pre- and post-calibration was between 50-65%

+=breakthrough to back section was 18%

++=breakthrough to back section was 37%

mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter 

ppm = parts per million

L = Liters

min = minutes

ug = micrograms

Lpm = Liters per minute

OEL = Occupational Exposure Limit

OSHA PEL = Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit

ACGIH TLV = American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Values

AIHA WEEL = American Industrial Hygiene Association Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels

TWA = time weighted average, adjusted to eight hours

STEL = short term exposure limit, over 15 minutes

ach = air changes per hour

n/a = not applicable
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 8 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 5. MDI Results, Low Density (1/2 pound) High Pressure SPF Formulation, 10 ach, July 

23-24, 2012
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 9 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 6. Amine Results, Low Density (1/2 pound) High Pressure SPF Formulation, 10 ach, July 

23-24, 2012
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 10 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 7. TCPP Results, Low Density (1/2 pound) High Pressure SPF Formulation, 10 ach, July 

23-24, 2012
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 11 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

APPENDIX A

SAMPLING METHODS 

This section describes the methods used to monitor for the chemicals during SPF application. 

For more detail, please see the May 2011 ACC CPI research proposal. 

SKC Aircheck 52 (Model 224-52) and SKC AirLite pumps were used for active sampling. The 

calibration of each pump was verified using a primary flow standard. The samples were 

analyzed by the laboratories and methods shown in Table A1.

Table A1: Air Sampling and Analytical Methodology for Select SPF Constituents.

CAS # Analyte Analytical Laboratory 

and Method

Flow 

Rate

Sampling media and limit of 

detection. 

101-68-

8

Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate 

(MDI)

Bayer; HPLC with UV 

Detection; BMS IH 

Laboratory Method 

Nos: 1.20.0 and 1.7.7

1.0 

Lpm

Midget impinger with 15 mL 

toluene / 1-(2-pyridyl)

piperazine, followed by: 13 mm 

glass fiber filter treated with 1-

(2-pyridyl) piperazine and 

diethyl phthalate housed in a 

Swinnex cassette, field 

extracted with 90/10 (v/v)

acetonitrile/dimethylsulfoxide

9016-

87-9

Polymeric MDI (pMDI)

(3-ring and larger oligomers of 

MDI)

13674-

84-5

Tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate 

(TCPP)

Bureau Veritas; 

GC/NPD ICL-IP 

Method No GC 024-1

1.0

Lpm

XAD-2 tubes; SKC 226-30-16

3033-

62-3

Bis (2-Dimethylaminoethyl) ether 

(BDMAEE) 

Bayer; Bayer Method 

No. 2.10.3,

desorption with 

acetone and analyzed 

by GC/NPD

0.50 

Lpm

XAD-2 tubes; SKC 226-30-06 

2212-

32-0

N,N,N-Trimethylaminoethylethanolamine (TMAEEA)

3855-

32-1

Tetramethyliminobispropylamine 

(TMIBPA)
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 12 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPH

Figure B1. SPF Application Sampling Locations
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Fax: 610.438.8307

Cutting edge solutions to eliminate health & safety risks

INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE MONITORING

SPF Ventilation Research Project

Prepared For:

Heather Palfrey

American Chemistry Council

Center for the Polyurethanes Industry

700 2nd Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

Prepared By:

SABRE Health & Safety, LLC

1015 Zucksville Road

Easton, PA 18040

Monitoring Dates: September 10-11, 2012

Report Date: October 24, 2012

Revised: February 8, 2013
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 2 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Background

This monitoring was conducted in support of the Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Ventilation 

Research Project, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Center for the 

Polyurethanes Industry (CPI). The research plan for this project is detailed in the May 2011 CPI 

SPF Ventilation Research Proposal. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the impact of 

changes in ventilation rates on the concentration of chemical vapors and particulates emitted 

during SPF application. The same chemicals were evaluated beginning 30 minutes after spraying 

to assess the rate at which decreases in the airborne concentrations occur. Chemical ingredients 

selected for evaluation represent those typically present in SPF formulations and vary with each 

formulation tested throughout the project. Substances to be evaluated include: Methylene 

diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), amine catalysts, blowing agents other than water, and flame 

retardants.

The first set of four runs occurred on May 7 and 8, 2012, as detailed in our previous report dated 

June 22, 2012. The formulation for those four runs was medium-density (2-pound) high pressure 

SPF. This second set of four runs on July 23 and 24, 2012, as detailed in our previous report 

dated August 31, 2012. The formulation for the second set of four runs was low-density (1/2-

pound) high pressure SPF.

This report details the results of the third set of runs for a low pressure (2 component) kit 

formulation, which occurred on September 10 and 11, 2012. The specific chemicals present in 

this formulation are shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. Low Pressure (2 Component) Kit Formulation

A-side

92.5% MDI

Blowing Agent – HFC-134a (7.5% )

B-side

Polyester Polyol (23%)

Blowing Agent – HFC-134a (17%) 

Fire Retardant - Tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate TCPP (30%)

Silicone Surfactant (2%)

Catalyst - Pentamethyldiethylenetriamine (PMDTA) (5%)

(ethylhexanoic, 2-, potassium salt/ Oxybisethanol, 2,2’)
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 3 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 2 shows the spray parameters. The session times shown are the approximate times spent 

by the applicator inside the test chamber. For each run, i.e. for each set of 6 inserts sprayed, two 

pairs of A and B side cylinders were used. Therefore, a total of 8 pairs of cylinders were used in 

all. With two exceptions, the calculated ratio of A to B side sprayed were 1.09 to 1.27. For the 

two exceptions, the ratios were 0.65 and 2.06. In one case, during the first run, the A side was 

consumed and spraying continued with B side only for one-half of one insert. 

Table 2. Spray Parameters, Low Pressure (2 Component) Kit Formulation

Run 

No. 

Date Average 

density 

(lb/ft3)*

Number 

of 

inserts 

sprayed

Quantity 

of A side 

sprayed 

(lbs)**

Quantity 

of B side 

sprayed 

(lbs)**

Total 

session time 

(minutes: 

seconds)

Temperature in 

Test Chamber 

Start/End/Post 

1 7/23/2012 AM 2.41 6 10.8 8.9*** 19:00 72 / 79 / 78 0F

2 7/23/2012 PM 2.41 6 10.8 8.9 15:00 74 / 84 / 78 0F

3 7/24/2012 AM 2.41 6 10.8 8.9 18:00 72 / 79 / 76 0F

4 7/24/2012 PM 2.41 6 10.8 8.9 16:00 73 / 82 / 78 0F

*This is the average density from five randomly selected inserts across all four runs. The measured densities ranged 

from 2.27 to 2.57 lb/ft3

**These are the approximate weights of A and B side sprayed based on the total used for all four runs.

*** For Run 1, approximately 1⁄2 of one insert was sprayed with B side only. 

Exposure Limits

Table 3 shows the exposure limits for the chemicals assessed in this report. Table 4 shows the 

exposure rating system used to categorize the air sampling results, based on the system 

recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. For a key to these and all of the 

data tables, please see the key at the end of this report, prior to Tables 5 through 8. 

Table 3. Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs)

CAS Analyte Occupational 

Exposure Limit

Type of OEL OEL (units)

101-68-8 Methylene bisphenyl 

isocyanate (MDI)

0.02

0.005

OSHA Ceiling

ACGIH TLV-TWA

ppm

ppm

3033-62-3 1,1,1,2-

Tetrafluoroethane 

(HFC-134a)

1000 AIHA WEEL ppm
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 4 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 4. Exposure Ratings 

Rating* Description Actual or Estimated Exposure

0 Trivial < 0.01 x OEL

1 Highly controlled 0.01 to 0.1 x OEL

2 Well controlled 0.1 to 0.5 x OEL

3 Controlled 0.5 to 1 x OEL

4 Poorly controlled >1 x OEL

5 Very poorly controlled >50 x OEL

*Ratings based on “A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures”, 2006, 3rd edition. 

American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax, VA. (trivial and very poorly controlled categories 

added)

Air Sampling Methods

A worker applying SPF wore portable sampling pumps with the sampling media placed in the 

vicinity of the worker’s breathing zone. Area samples were located several feet behind the 

applicator, at a height of approximately 6.5 feet. After approximately 15 minutes of spray time, 

the applicator exited the test chamber and the personal and area samples were retrieved. The 

sprayed cardboard inserts were left inside the test chamber. A second set of “post-spray” area 

samples were collected for one hour beginning 30 minutes after spraying stopped. 

After the second set of area samples were completed, the sprayed cardboard inserts were 

removed and the test chamber was allowed to “air-out” for two hours before starting another test 

run. For more detail on the air sampling methodology, please see Appendix A of this report and 

the May 2011 ACC CPI research plan. A photograph of a typical configuration of the samples is

shown in Appendix B. 

Our quality control of these samples included field blanks submitted for each type of media and 

an assessment of flow variability and breakthrough, as described in the following paragraphs and 

as noted in the data tables. 

For MDI and pMDI, one sample was voided due to a pump failure during sampling, for the 

sample worn by the applicator during the second run. No MDI or pMDI was detected on the field 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 5 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

blanks or the lab blanks. For all samples except one, there was no breakthrough to the filters (no 

MDI or pMDI was detected on the filters in all but one case). The exception was the sample 

collected on the applicator during the first run. For this sample, the concentration of 4,4-MDI on 

the filter was 18% of the concentration of 4,4-MDI found in the impinger. While excessive 

breakthrough can be an indication of sample loss and can indicate that the samples is biased low, 

we do not believe that to be the case for this sample based on a comparison of the results to the 

results on the other three runs. The 4,4-MDI result was in fact highest during the first run, which 

also may explain why this is the only sample with detectable concentrations on the filter. In 

terms of flow variability, five of the samples had 10-20% change in flow during the sampling. A 

comparison of the results for these samples to the results for samples that had less than 10% flow 

variability issues indicates that the samples with higher flow variability do not appear biased in 

any one direction, and we do not believe flow variability affected the results. 

For the amines, no breakthrough was observed on the tubes, and the flow variability was low (all 

varied less than 6%). No amines were detected on two field blanks and a lab blank. The only 

issue observed was one post-spray area sample during the fourth run showed a concentration of 

PMDTA on the back section of the tube but none on the front. Most likely, this sample was 

attached backwards during the sampling event. Since no PMDTA were found on the front 

section, we believe the back section was sufficient to capture the PMDTA present in the air and 

this can be considered a valid sample. 

For the fire retardant, TCPP was not detected on two field blanks or the lab blank, and no flow 

variability in excess of 8% was noted, with one exception, and no breakthrough in excess of 3%

was noted, with one exception. The exception was the area sample collected during spraying for 

the third run, which showed 23% flow variability and excess breakthrough at 17%. The varying 

flow rate may have resulted in the breakthrough, and excess breakthrough can be an indication of 

potential sample loss. A comparison of the result for this sample to the area results during 

spraying for the other three runs indicate that this sample had the lowest concentration of TCPP, 

0.02 ppm, compared to 0.03 to 0.16 ppm during the other runs. So, the area result for the third 

spray may be biased low. 

For the HFC-134a, flow variability and breakthrough are not assessed since a badge was used for 

sampling. The two field blanks did show some HFC-134a, with 20 and 27 μg detected. These 

results were not subtracted from the other sample results. A comparison of the uncorrected 

sample results to the sample results corrected for the field blanks indicate that the interpretation 

of the results would not be affected. That is, all of the HFC-134a results during spraying were 

well over the exposure limit both with and without blank correction, and all of the results postspray were below the exposure limit both with and without blank correction. 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 6 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Air Sampling Results

Tables 5 through 8 show the results of our industrial hygiene air sampling. A discussion of the 

results for each analyte follows. 

MDI

As shown in Table 5, the applicator’s exposure and all of the area samples for 4,4-MDI were 

below the exposure limit. The applicator results during spraying were 0.0005 to 0.001 ppm for 

2,4-MDI and 0.0012 to 0.004 ppm for 4,4-MDI. The area sample concentrations for 2,4-MDI 

and 4,4-MDI during spraying were as high as 0.0009 and 0.0014 ppm, respectively. The area 

results were consistently lower than the applicator’s exposure results. pMDI was not detected for 

the applicator or in the area samples during spraying. The three MDI analytes (2,4-MDI, 4-4-

MDI, and pMDI) were not detected during the four post-spray sampling periods. Limits of 

detection during the post-spray period were 0.04 to 0.05 mg/m3 for pMDI and 0.00015 to 

0.00016 ppm for 2,4-MDI and 4-4-MDI. 

Catalyst (Amines)

As shown in Table 6, the applicator’s exposures and area concentrations for PMDTA during 

spraying were 1.01 to 3.77 ppm. The area samples were generally higher than the applicator 

samples during spraying, on 3 of 4 runs. PMDTA was detected during the post-spray sampling 

period for all four runs. The post-spray concentration during the first run was 0.5 ppm, compared 

to post-spray concentrations between 0.07 to 0.11 ppm for the second through fourth runs. The 

first spray result was likely higher due to the fact that only B side was sprayed for one-half of 

one insert, leading to a relatively large amount of unreacted catalyst left in the room after 

spraying. 

Fire Retardant (TCPP)

As shown in Table 7, during spraying TCPP concentrations were 0.04 to 0.22 ppm for the 

applicator and 0.02 to 0.16 ppm for the area sample. The 0.02 ppm area sample result may have 

been biased low due to sample breakthrough. During the post-spray sampling period, TCPP 

concentrations were 0.002 to 0.0034 ppm. 

Blowing agent (HFC-134a)

As shown in Table 8, the concentrations for HFC-134a were over its exposure limit during 

spraying. The applicator exposures ranged from approximately 5,000 to 11,000 ppm and the area 

samples during spraying ranged from approximately 6,000 to 8,000 ppm, compared to the 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 7 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

exposure limit of 1,000 ppm. During the post-spray sampling period, all of the samples were

below the exposure limit, between 188 to 590 ppm.

Conclusions

The concentrations of HFC-134a were well over its exposure limits during the application of 

spray polyurethane foam for 15 minutes in a chamber with 10 air changes per hour. The 

concentrations of 4,4-MDI, however, were below its exposure limit during the application. The 

concentrations of both HFC-134a and 4,4-MDI were below their exposure limits during the postspray sampling period (30 to 90 minutes after spraying) for all four runs.

Revision History

2/8/2013 – Quantitation limits (also referred to herein as detection) for pMDI revised, and HFC134a table revised with detected blank concentrations. 

Key to Tables

The following is a key to abbreviations and notes on the tables.

*= flow variation between pre- and post-calibration was between 10-20% 

**= flow variation between pre- and post-calibration was 23%

+=breakthrough to back section or filter was 17-18%

^=tube may have been backwards during sampling, but data appear valid

mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter 

ppm = parts per million

L = Liters

min = minutes

ug = micrograms

Lpm = Liters per minute

OEL = Occupational Exposure Limit

OSHA PEL = Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit

ACGIH TLV = American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Values

AIHA WEEL = American Industrial Hygiene Association Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels

TWA = time weighted average, adjusted to eight hours

STEL = short term exposure limit, over 15 minutes

ach = air changes per hour

n/a = not applicable
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 8 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 5. MDI Results, Low Pressure (2 Component) SPF Kit Formulation, 10 ach, September 

10-11, 2012
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 9 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 6. Amine Results, Low Pressure (2 Component) SPF Kit Formulation, 10 ach, September 

10-11, 2012

Table 7. TCPP Results, Low Pressure (2 Component) SPF Kit Formulation, 10 ach, September 

10-11, 2012
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 10 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

Table 8. HFC-134a Results, Low Pressure (2 Component) SPF Kit Formulation, 10 ach, 

September 10-11, 2012
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 11 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

APPENDIX A

SAMPLING METHODS 

This section describes the methods used to monitor for the chemicals during SPF application. 

For more detail, please see the May 2011 ACC CPI research proposal. 

SKC Aircheck 52 (Model 224-52), SKC AirLite, and Buck Libra pumps were used for active 

sampling. The calibration of each pump was verified using a primary flow standard. The samples 

were analyzed by the laboratories and methods shown in Table A1.

Table A1: Air Sampling and Analytical Methodology for Select SPF Constituents.

CAS # Analyte Analytical Laboratory 

and Method

Flow 

Rate

Sampling media and limit of 

detection. 

101-68-

8

Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate 

(MDI)

Bayer; HPLC with UV 

Detection; BMS IH 

Laboratory Method 

Nos: 1.20.0 and 1.7.7

1.0 

Lpm

Midget impinger with 15 mL 

toluene / 1-(2-pyridyl)

piperazine, followed by: 13 mm 

glass fiber filter treated with 1-

(2-pyridyl) piperazine and 

diethyl phthalate housed in a 

Swinnex cassette, field 

extracted with 90/10 (v/v)

acetonitrile/dimethylsulfoxide

9016-

87-9

Polymeric MDI (pMDI)

(3-ring and larger oligomers of 

MDI)

811-97-

2

1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (HFC -

134a)

Assay Technology; 

Modified OSHA 7 

N/A Diffusive sampler – Assay 

Technology Sampler No.548 

13674-

84-5

Tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate 

(TCPP)

Bureau Veritas; 

GC/NPD ICL-IP 

Method No GC 024-1

1.0 

Lpm

XAD-2 tubes; SKC 226-30-16

3030-

47-5

Pentamethyldiethylenetriamine 

(PMDTA)

Bayer; Bayer Method 

No. 2.10.3,

desorption with 

acetone and analyzed 

by GC/NPD

0.50 

Lpm

XAD-2 tubes; SKC 226-30-06 
SABRE Health & Safety www.sabresafety.net

1015 Zucksville Road Phone: 866.734.0127

Easton, PA 18040 Page 12 of 12 Fax: 610.438.8307

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPH

Figure B1. SPF Application Sampling Locations