# May 20, 2014



# POLYURETHANE FOAM 

# INSULATION TECHNOLOGIES

BLOWING AGENTS UPDATE

# Agenda

 Administrative Items

 EPA SNAP Staff Remarks

 Polyurethane (PU) Foam Insulation Technologies

 General Overview of Applicable Building Codes & Standards

 Steps for Identifying Potential Substitute Blowing Agents



##  Life

- Cycle Assessment and Insulation Technologies

 Other Items

# Intro to Polyurethane Foam 

# Insulation Technologies  Unique Role of Blowing

Agents in PU Foam Insulation 

# Technologies

 Types of Polyurethane Foam Insulation Technologies

# Chemical vs Physical BA

Chemical Blowing Agents (BA) for PU Foams

Chemical conversion creates gaseous byproduct:



## MDI (A side) + Water (B side)  CO 2 

## gas

Common process for all flexible PU foams, as well as open

cell, low density SPF.

100% CO 2 

## is not practical for closed

- cell foams due to high 

## thermal conductivity, high diffusion and dimensional stability problems.

# Chemical vs Physical BA (cont.)

Physical Blowing Agents for Spray Polyurethane Foam

High molecular weight (MW) (compared to CO 2 

## ), low 

## diffusion rate and low thermal conductivity  fluorine

based molecules

High

- Pressure SPF : Liquid phase at room temperature and 

## pressure, changes to gaseous phase by heat from exothermic polymerization reaction

Low

- Pressure SPF : Gaseous phase at room temperature (under pressure) expands when pressure is released and aided by exothermic reaction

# Chemical vs Physical BA (cont.)

Physical Blowing Agents for PU Foams

High MW = low diffusion rate and low thermal conductivity



##  Fluorine based

“Liquid” Blowing Agents : Liquid phase at close to room temperature and pressure; become volatilized by heat from 

## exothermic polymerization reaction

Low

- Boiling Blowing Agents (LBBAs) : Gaseous phase at room temperature (under pressure); expand when pressure is released and aided by exothermic reaction

# Polyurethane Foam Insulation 

# Technologies

 PIR Board/ Bunstock

 Appliance

 Metal Panel

 High

- Pressure Two Component

 Closed

- cell

 Open

- cell



#  Low

- Pressure Two Component



#  One Component Foam factory made



## f ield applied

# Spray Polyurethane Foam 

# Insulation Technologies

One Component

Foam Low

- Pressure Two Component High

- Pressure Two Component

• A and B side mixed >> pre

- polymer

• Moisture cure 3

- 20 min

• Bead application for air sealing/ firestop

• DIY and weatherization • A and B side in separate pressurized cylinders (<250 psi)

• No pre

- heating of chemicals

• Mechanical mixing of A and B at nozzle

• Chemical cure <1 min

• Bead application and small area insulation/repair

• Weatherization and professional use • A and B side in separate unpressurized
drums or totes

• Chemicals are preheated (~130F) and pressurized (~1200 psi) using special equipment

• Aerosolized chemicals > impingement mix

• Chemical cure <15 seconds

• Large area insulation and roofing

• Professional use only

# Regulatory Evolution (US)

PU Foams (factory) Spray Polyurethane Foams (field) Key Properties

Name PIR Board/

Bunstock Appliance Metal Panels HP

- SPF LP

- SPF

two

- component OCF

- one

component foam ODP

(CFC eq) GWP (1)

(CO 2 eq) lambda

(W/m ° K) boiling

point ( ° C) flammable

Generation 1

CFC

- 11     1 4660 0.01 23.7 no

CFC

- 12   1 10200 0.011

- 29.8 no
Generation 2

HCFC

- 141b     0.11 782 0.010 32.2 no

HCFC

- 142b 0.065 1980 0.013

- 9.8 no

HCFC

- 22    0.055 1760 0.011

- 40.8 no
Generation 3

HFC

- 245fa    0 858 0.013 15.3 no

HFC

- 365mfc  (2) 0 804 0.011 40.2 yes

HFC

- 134a   0 1300 0.014

- 26.2 no
Generation 4

HFO

- 1233zd  under devl. under devl. 0 1 0.010 19 no

HFO

- 1336mzz

- Z under devl

. under devl

. under devl. 0 2 0.011 33 no

HFO

- 1234ze under devl. (3)  0 <1 0.010

- 19 no Other Options

pentanes    0 <25 0.015 49 YES (4)

CO 2 (from water)  Gen 3 additive 0 1 0.087 (5)

- 71 no
methyl formate Gen 3 additive (6) 0 <25 0.0107 31.5 YES
(1) IPCC 5th Assessment Report 2013
(2) Beginning January 2013; often blended with HFC

- 227ea
(3) Challenges with extended shelf

- life for two

- component low

- pressure SPF
(4) High flammability poses safety hazard for field applied products like HP

- SPF and LP

- SPF
(5) Rapidly diffuses from within closed

- cell foam without diffusion barrier (e.g., metal facings) resulting in low R

- value and d imensional stability issues (shrinkage) (6) Not a stand

- alone blowing agent for HP

- SPF; typically blended with other blowing agents to reduce flammability

# Regulatory Evolution (US) (cont.)

# Considerations for SPF 

# Blowing Agents

There are many factors to consider when selecting blowing agent for Spray Polyurethane Foams

• Boiling Point below → just above room temp (RT) (for HP SPF)

• Boiling Point well below RT for LP SPF

• Remains chemically stable in one and two

- component systems

• Soluble with all raw materials

• Partially soluble in LP SPF

• Low

- solubility in final polymer foam (reduce thermal drift)

• Provides good thermal properties (low lambda)

• Environmentally benign (low ODP, GWP)

• Non flammable (important for field applied foam)

# Overview of Application Building Codes 

# & Standards (US)  U.S. Model Building Codes

 Evaluation Reports

 Material Performance

# US Model Building Codes

International Code Council (ICC) Code Sections

– Separate from „traditional‟ insulations

– IBC: Ch 26, Section 2603 Foam Plastic Insulation

– IRC: Ch 3, R316 Foamed Plastic



# Code Focus

– Fire Protection

– Thermal Performance

– Moisture Control

# Evaluation Reports

ICC Evaluation Services Acceptance

Criteria AC

- 377

– Provides guidance for creating Evaluation Service Reports (ESRs)

– ESRs assure product compliance with specific versions of the building code

– Defines mandatory and option testing and 

## performance requirements for SPF
insulation

– Requires 3 rd 

## party oversight of manufacturing process

# SPF Performance Tests

ASTM Test 

### Sealant Low 

### Density Med.



### Density Roof

PERFORMANCE

Thermal Resistivity (R/in) C518, C1363 C1303, C177 N/A 3.6

- 4.5 6.2

- 6.8 6.2

- 6.8

Air Impermeable E283, E2178 * > 3.5

- 5.5” > 1” > 1”

Vapor Retarder E96 1 perm > 2” 1 perm > 2”

Surface Burning (FSI/SDI) E84 75/450 75/450 75/450 75/n o limit

Room Corner Fire Test NFPA 286, UL1715, FM4880 TB > 4” > 4”

“Appendix X” Test Mod NFPA 286 IB IB IB

Dimensional Stability D2126 < 15% < 9

- 12% < 5

- 6%

Water Resistance D2842 

###  

Fungi Resistance C1338 

###  

Compressive Strength C165 >15 psi > 40 psi

Tensile Strength D1623 > 20 psi > 42 psi Four categories of SPF for construction applications

# Identifying

Potential Substitute 

# Blowing Agents for Spray Polyurethane Foam Insulations  Discussion Regarding Commercially Available


# Substitutes

 Research and Development
Consideration



#  Field Testing Considerations

 Building Codes & Standards 

# Testing

# Development of New BA

Blowing Agent Suppliers

• Use a generic foam formulation to determine compatibility and functionality



## • Perform wide range of chemical safety, toxicity and environmental testing (SDS development, EPA

- TSCA Pre

Manufacturing N otice, REACH compliance, etc

. )



## • Modification or construction of production facilities

• 6

- 8 year development cycle for BA manufacturers

• Development (not use) of 4 th 

## Generation BA for PU is nearing completion

# Integration of New BA for SPF

SPF Systems Houses

• Each foam suppliers formulation is different; new blowing agents are never „drop in,‟ and require re

- formulation of the B

- side



## • B

- side reformulation involves several, often iterative , steps:

• Lab evaluation and product design

• F ield evaluation for spray

- ability in different seasons and climates

• N ew set of material property tests

• R e

- issuance of the ESR



## • 3

- 5 year integration cycle is typical for SPF systems houses

• Can overlap with end of BA supplier development cycle



## • Some US HP

- SPF systems houses are beginning to research use of

4 th 

## generation BA

# Integration of New BA for SPF (cont.)

Low Pressure SPF Systems Houses

• Each foam suppliers formulation is different; new blowing agents are never „drop in,‟ require re

- formulation of the B

- side

• B

- side reformulation involves iterative steps (like HP SPF)

• 3

- 4 year integration cycle is typical for LP SPF systems houses

• Major delay with integration of low

- GWP BA in two

- component foam is shelf life stability c aused by chemical interactions between BA and some catalysts.

• LP systems houses are having significant technical issues with low

- GWP blowing agents and no clear path to a solution has yet been identified

-- data available for EPA SNAP review.



## • No US LP systems houses currently using low

- GWP BA in two

component foam. However, one

- component foam with low

- GWP is commercially available.

# Life

- Cycle Assessment and Insulation 

# Technologies  LCA Considerations for

Energy Efficiency 

# Technologies

 SPF Industry LCA and


# Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)

 Next Generation Low GWP Blowing Agents

# LCA Considerations for Energy 

# Efficiency Technologies

“Solely using GWP as selection criteria for foam blowing agents could lead to the selection of alternative technologies that provide a reduced

R

- value and over time would result in more GHG emissions than would be emitted from the foam insulation itself.”

– Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy

# SPF Industry LCA and EPD

• SPF, like all building materials, has an environmental impact from production, transportation, installation and disposal

• Energy savings from insulating and air sealing 

### buildings with SPF can recover negative impacts
within a short time

• An ISO

- compliant, third

- party Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) by the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA) for LD, MD and Roofing SPF materials

Copies of the full SPFA LCA and EPD report may be downloaded from www.sprayfoam.org This report details the known environmental impacts of SPF on primary energy, global warming, smog creation, acidification, eutrophication and ozone depletion. 

# Long

- Term Environmental Impacts

# SPF Industry LCA and EPD

Total GWP per Functional Unit of SPF

• Impact from End

- of

- Life, Use

- Phase and Installation directly affected by GWP from BA



## • BA contributes GWP to Raw Materials and Blending

# SPF Industry LCA and EPD 1

Application SPF Type Ratio & Payback Houston Richmond Minneapolis

Energy GHG Energy GHG Energy GHG

Residential Insulation Low Density Open

Cell Avoided/Embodied 64 92 128 164 194 248

Payback (Yr) 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2

Medium Density

Closed

- Cell Avoided/Embodied 32 7.6 64 13.6 98 21

Payback ( Yr ) 1.9 7.9 0.9 4.4 0.6 2.9

Commercial Roofing Roofing

R4

-- > R20 Avoided/Embodied 55 15 56 15 66 17

Payback ( Yr ) 1.1 4 1.1 4.1 0.9 3.6

Roofing

R12

-- > R20 Avoided/Embodied 30 8.2 28 7.5 29 7.3

Payback ( Yr ) 2 7.3 2.1 8.0 2.1 8.3 

# Use

- Phase Analysis for Generation 3 HFC BA

• 3

- 8 year return for MD

- SPF

• 4 year return for Roofing SPF Anticipated service life of these products is 60+ years

1. For additional information and definitions, please download the full SPFA LCA and EPD reports from
www.sprayfoam.org

.

# Impact of Next Generation BA for SPF

Product

- Level LCA Available for HFO BA

• ~1000x reduction in GWP for HFO vs. HFC molecules

• Both Liquid and Gas BA‟s

• Honeywell: Analysis shows a significant decrease of GWP in
finished SPF when low

- GWP blowing agents are used.

• 25

- 35 kg CO 2 eq. for HFC

- 245fa

- blown SPF

• 4 kg CO 2 eq. for HFO

- 1233zd(E) blown SPF



## • DuPont: Analysis shows a significant decrease in both Direct (>99%) and Indirect (Up to 12% in multiple foam uses) Climate 

## Change Potential (CCP )

• Arkema

# Other Items  Question & Answer

 Additional Information
Needs