Barbara Kanegsberg BFK Solutions LLC (310)459 -3614 info@ bfksolutions.com “Expert Public Workshop on Alternatives and Risk Reduction Approaches to Trichloroethylene (TCE) Use as a Degreaser” July 29, 2014 EPA, Washington, D.C 

### .

## BFK Solutions Critical Cleaning Consultants, est. 1994

 As the industry leaders, we provide  Process improvement, not product sales  Experience, expertise, common sense  Industry involvement: JS3 (military), IPC, ASTM, ISO delegate, EPA, FDA  Barbara Kanegsberg, “ The Cleaning Lady ”  Biochemist, clinical chemist, manufacturing process  Ed Kanegsberg, “

The Rocket Scientist ”  Physicist, engineer, process evaluation  “ Clean Source ” eNewsletter (free)  Editors , 2 volume “ Handbook for Critical Cleaning, ” CRC Press, 2 nd edition, 2011

# Always question authority - including BFK Solutions

 We make the best effort to provide accurate, up-to- date information  Information, especially quantitative information, is obtained from reliable references  It ’ s always prudent to reconfirm all technical and regulatory information from the appropriate supplier or regulatory agency  MSDS  Technical data sheet  Most recent requirement or regulationOverview: Process- Based Risk Reduction for Cleaning 

###  

### Cleaning and Manufacturing  

### Diversity  

### Decisively Holistic

## Is it soil or is it dirt?

## Soils Solder flux (rosin, organic acid, low residue) Oils, greases Metal working fluids Lapping, polishing compounds compounds Particles (metal fines, chips, skin flakes, polishing grit) Acids Water Solvent Product Assortment Residual product/breakdown (in processing equipment) Deposited cleaning agent residue (including flux residue) Rust- preventative Bacteria, mold, life -forms (alive or dead)

# Critical cleaning  

### Soil  Matter out of place 

###  

### Cleaning  Removing matter out of place  Removing live dirt, dead dirt, any matter out of place 

###  

### Critical cleaning  Value - added, tipping point  If you don’t do it, product quality suffers  Critical cleaning happens in small & large companies 

###  

### Any cleaning step is potentially critical

## Cleaning is a Process  

### Beyond the cleaning chemistry  Force  Temperature  Rule of thumb  10 degree Centigrade increase in temperature doubles reaction rate  Time  Wash, rinse, dry 

###  

### Cleaning process influences  Chemical exposure  Chemical emissions

# “Degreasing” in manufacturing  

### Confusing term  

### Can mean the chemical function  Sometimes refers to aqueous 

###  

### Can mean the equipment plus the chemical  Aqueous batch or in - line  Cold cleaning, co -solvent  Vapor degreaser 

###  

### Vapor degreaser can be  Vapor phase and or spray in air and/or liquid  Reduced pressure system (airless)

# There is no universal cleaning chemistry or cleaning process  

### S oils  

### The substrate (What’s being cleaned)  What it’s made of  Single material or mixed substrate  Damage by the cleaning process?  How it’s shaped (size, complexity)  Product line diversity 

###  

### How clean is clean enough  Product functionality  What the customer wants

## Small versus Large Manufacturers  

### Size of cleaning system not always proportional to number of employees  

### Supply chain – complex  

### Job shops – increasing numbers  Specialized, fabrication, coating or assembly  Cleaning operations often required  Diverse product line, many customers  Small, often sophisticated 

###  

### Larger companies face similar problems  Technical, quality, costs, regulatory

## Manufacturers need effective 

# degreasing tools – chemicals and processes  

### Small & large manufacturers  Small, specialized job shops 

###  

### Technical manufacturing challenges  Complex electronics, miniature product  3D printing  High value product (medical, military, aeronautics)  Increased product lifetime expectation ( eg.implantable medical devices)  Many soils more difficult to removeOverview: Process- Based Risk Reduction for Cleaning



###  

### Cleaning and Manufacturing  

### Diversity  

### Decisively Holistic

## “One -size fits all” cleaning is a fantasy  

### We n eed aqueous - based processes  

### We n eed for organic solvent- based processes  

### Biobased processes, high - boilers not universally suitable

 

### Some cleaning situations require an aggressive solvent  

### Banning aggressive solvents is like telling a surgeon 

### she has to use a rubber scalpel so she doesn’t cut herself

## Where a TCE - like solvent is desirable  

### Complex shaped part  B lind holes 

###  

### Wettability  Access & remove soils 

###  

### Wide solvency range  

### Low cleaning agent residue  

### Rapid, complete drying

## Tools for cleaning agent selection  

### Solubility, solvency “style”  Hansen parameters  TEAS diagram 

###  

### Aggressiveness  Kauri Butanol number (higher number is stronger) 

###  

### Physical properties  Density, viscosity, Surface tension (“wettability”)  Boiling point 

###  

### Water- based & solvent- based cleaning agents have different characteristicsTeas Diagram– Solvency “Style”

(Adapted from Burke, “ Handbook for Critical Cleaning” )Cleaning Agents Density g/ cm3 (25 C) Surf.Tension

Dynes/cm3 (25 C) Viscosity

Centi-poises (25 C) Wetting

Index KB number—

(higher - > more aggressive) TCE 1.46 26.4 0.54 102 87 HFC-43 - 10 (VertrelTM) 1.58 14.1 0.67 167 55 HFE 7200 (2) (NovecTM) 1.43 13.6 0.61 172 76 Honeywell “Solstice” PF 1.3 13.3 0.489 200 25 Isopropyl alcohol 0.78 21.8 ( 15 C) 2.4 (20 C) 15 Not applicable (NA) Acetone 0.79 (20 C) 23.3 (20 C) 0.36 (20 C) 94 NA Hexane 0.66 (20 C) 18 (25 C) 0.31 (20 C) 118 27 d-limonene 0.84 25 1.28 26 178 Water 1.00 72.8 1.00 14 NA Water, 6% ethanolamine based saponifier 1.00 29.7 1.08 31 NA Physical Properties, Wetting Index, KB

## Aqueous cleaning agents  

### Water  

### Organic & inorganic chemical additives  Surfactants  Builders  Chelating agents (sequestrants)  Corrosion inhibitors 

###  

### Often used for polar and mixed soils

## Case studies, success stories, solvent substitution  I have published many case studies  Solvent - > aqueous  Regulated solvent - > more favorable solvent  Case studies have value  Approaches to cleaning process change  Case study limitations  Experimental failures less likely to be published

 Dwan et.al ., “Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias,” PLoS ONE. 2008; 3(8): e3081 .  Limitations of success often not reported  Costs, cleaning efficacy, process reliability, energy usage, actual process implementation

## “Success stories?”  

### Aqueous in - line system, electronics  Reported at juried conference, glowing terms  I asked presenter for details  Limited success  Limited use in production  Problems, management of waste streams

## “More success stories?”  

### Aqueous cleaning, complex tubing  Reported at conference as a success  I visited facility with client  Very high pressure required  Parts flew across room  Became missiles

## “Even more success stories?”  

### Assertion – replaced halogenated solvents, research facility  Conducted site visit  Had filled vapor degreaser with isopropyl alcohol  Flammability issue 

###  

### Recurrent question – how long should I heat the acetone  Answer: How soon would you like to remodel the facility?Overview: Process- Based Risk Reduction for Cleaning



###  

### Cleaning and Manufacturing  

### Diversity  

### Decisively Holistic

# Illustrative anecdotal comment by a regulator (to me)  

### We should ban or strictly control toxic chemicals and force manufacturers to choose an alternate  

### That alternate has a 50/50 chance of being less toxic  

### If it isn’t, and too many manufacturers choose it, we’ll regulate that one, too  

### Etc , etc ......TANSTAAFL ( “ There ain ’ t no such thing as a free lunch ” ) Robert Heinlein, “ The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”

 Better solvency desired  If it dissolves the soil, it MAY damage the product  Everyone wants a universal solvent  How would you store it?  Safety, low environmental impact desired  If a cleaning agent dissolves the soil  it can impact you  Our products depend on organic chemicals (metalworking fluids)  We ’ re made of organic chemicals  It can impact the environment

## Blends - Synergy  

### Assumption – chemical combinations are additive  Not necessarily 

###  

### Replacement blends may have non -additive effects  Higher efficacy of cleaning  More material compatibility problems  Unexpected environmental impacts  Undesirable impact on workers  R . Harrison et al., “n - Hexane related Peripheral Neuropathy Among Automotive Technicians California, 1999 – 2000,” MMWR Weekly 50(45):1011 -3, Nov. 16, 2001

# Substitution, reformulation not the answer  

### Aggressive chemicals needed for certain applications  

### Substitutes may have baggage  Performance  Worker exposure  Flammability  Community exposure  Resource consumption (energy, water, space)  Global environmental problems  Product safety  Costs

## Solvent substitution, product reformulation? 

## Enough, already!  Replacing a pint of chemical A with 4 gallons of chemical B is not a sustainable approach  Product reformulation is disruptive  No one chemical or process works for everything  We need a diversity of chemicals  The chemical “witch - hunt” doesn’t work  Never- ending  Not sustainable  Competitive manufacturing needs to be  Safe  Sustainable  High quality  Cost effective

## Decisively holistic – productive approach  

### Manage the process, not the chemical  

### Make the presumption that all cleaning processes need at least a basic level of  Safety, environmental control, containment  Product safety (public safety) 

###  

### Gentle suggestion: increase inter-agency coordination, cooperation  More effective  Conserves governmental resources  Allow technology to develop