ORNL/M-XXXX

and Ceramics Division

REFRIGERATOR INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO REPLACE HCFC-141b

AS A BLOWING AGENT FOR URETHANE FOAM INSULATION

K. E. Wilkes and D. W. Yarbrough

Date Published - September 1996

Prepared for the

U. S. Department of Energy

Office of Buildings Energy Research

Prepared by

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831

Managed by

LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY RESEARCH CORP.

for the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

under contract DE-AC05-96OR22464

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

· .. 

DRAET 

ORNL/M-XXXX 

Metals and Ceramics Division 

REFRIGERATOR INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO REPLACE HCFC-141b 

AS A BLOWING AGENT FOR URETHANE FOAM INSULATION 

K. E. Wilkes and D. W. Yarbrough 

Date Published - September 1996 

Prepared for the 

U. S. Department of Energy 

Office of Buildings Energy Research 

Prepared by 

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 

Managed by 

LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY RESEARCH CORP. 

for the 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

under contract DE-ACOS-960R22464 

· .. 

DRAET 

ORNL/M-XXXX 

Metals and Ceramics Division 

REFRIGERATOR INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO REPLACE HCFC-141b 

AS A BLOWING AGENT FOR URETHANE FOAM INSULATION 

K. E. Wilkes and D. W. Yarbrough 

Date Published - September 1996 

Prepared for the 

U. S. Department of Energy 

Office of Buildings Energy Research 

Prepared by 

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 

Managed by 

LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY RESEARCH CORP. 

for the 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

under contract DE-ACOS-960R22464 
E, T

REFRIGERATOR INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO REPLACE HCFC-141b

AS A BLOWING AGENT FOR URETHANE FOAM INSULATION

K. E. Wilkes and D. W. Yarbrough

INTRODUCTION

The primary insulation used in refrigerators is polyurethane foam. Until recently, these insulations

were foamed using CFC-11 (trichlorofluorocarbon). Because of the Montreal Protocol,

production of CFC-11 for use as an insulation blowing agent ceased on January 1, 1996. During

1994 and 1995, the refrigerator industry discontinued use of CFC-11 as a blowing agent, and

switched primarily to HCFC-141b, with some use of HCFC-142b and HCFC-22. Production and

import of HCFC-141b for use as a foam blowing agent is due to cease on January 1, 2003.

Because of this, the refrigerator industry is actively searching for a zero-ozone-depletion-potential

blowing agent to replace HCFC-141b. This report provides a brief assessment of efforts by the

refrigerator industry to, develop replacements for HCFC-141b. Information for this report was

obtained primarily from the proceedings of conferences in which the authors participated. These

included Polyurethanes 1995, the International CFC and Halon Alternatives Conference, and the

International Appliance Technical Conference. Information was also obtained from personal

contacts at meetings of the Insulation Technical Advisory Committee of the Appliance IndustryGovernment CFC Replacement Consortium, Inc. (also known as the Appliance Research

Consortium, or ARC). The industries represented in the ARC are listed in Table 1. Other

participants are the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Electric

Power Research Institute.

ALTERNATIVE BLOWING AGENTS

A systematic search to identify third-generation blowing agents has been performed by the

Syracuse Research Corporation and the Environmental Protection Agency. (1) A number of

literature sources were searched and a list of about 1000 chemicals was compiled. No chemicals

containing chlorine or bromine were included in this master list. They screened this list to 125

chemicals by requiring that the boiling point be between -60°C and 60°C. This range was selected

because known or experimental blowing agents for polyurethane foam have boiling points

between -50°C (difluoromethane) and 50°C (cyclopentane). Several compounds were eliminated

because of factors such as expected reactivity with feedstocks used in polyurethane production, or

the inability to estimate the vapor thermal conductivity or boiling point. The final list consisted of

105 chemicals. The 105 chemicals were ranked based on four criteria:

• Boiling point. Chemicals with boiling points closest to that of CFC-11 were given the

highest ranks. This was based on the presumption that a boiling point as close as possible

to that of CFC-11 would result in the least amount of retrofitting of the production

processes.

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

DRAEJ 

REFRIGERATOR INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO REPLACE HCFC-141b 

AS A BLOWING AGENT FOR URETHANE FOAM JNSULATION 

K. E. Wilkes and D. W. Yarbrough 

INTRODUCTION 

The primary insulation used in refrigerators is polyurethane foam. Until recently, these insulations 

were foamed using CFC-I1 (trichlorofluorocarbon). Because of the Montreal Protocol, 

production ofCFC-II for use as an insulation blowing agent ceased on January 1, 1996. During 

1994 and 1995, the refrigerator industry discontinued use ofCFC-II as a blowing agent, and 

switched primarily to HCFC-141 b, with some use ofHCFC-I42b and HCFC-22. Production and 

import ofHCFC-141b for use as a foam blowing agent is due to c~ase on January 1, 2003. 

Because of this; the refrigerator industry is actively searching for a zero-ozone-depletion-potential 

blowing agent to replace HCFC-141 b. This report provides a brief assessment of efforts by the 

refrigerator industry to. develop replacements for HCFC-14I b. Information for this report was 

obtained primarily from the proceedings of conferences in which the authors participated. These 

included Polyurethanes 1995, the International CFC and Halon Alternatives Conference, and the 

International Appliance Technical Conference. Information was also obtained from personal 

contacts at meetings of the Insulation Technical Advisory Committee of the Appliance IndustryGovernment CFC Replacement Consortium, Inc. (also known as the Appliance Research 

Consortium, or ARC). The industries represented in the ARC are listed in Table 1. Other 

participants are the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Electric 

Power Research Institute. 

ALTERNATIVE BLOWING AGENTS 

A systematic search to identify third-generation blowing agents has been performed by the 

Syracuse Research Corporation and the Environmental Protection Agency. (1) A number of 

literature sources were searched and a list of about 1000 chemicals was compiled. No chemicals 

containing chlorine or bromine were included in this master list. They screened this list to 125 

chemicals by requiring that the boiling point be between -60°C and 60°C. This range was selected 

because known or experimental blowing agents for polyurethane foam have boiling points 

between -50°C (difluoromethane) and 50°C (cyclopentane). Several compounds were eliminated 

because of factors such as expected reactivity with feedstocks used in polyurethane production, or . 

the inability to estimate the vapor thermal conductivity or boiling point. The final list consisted of 

105 chemicals. The 105 chemicals were ranked based on four criteria: 

• Boiling point. Chemicals with boiling points closest to that of CFC-ll were given the 

highest ranks. This was based on the presumption that a boiling point as close as possible 

to that of CFC-ll would result in the least amount of retrofitting of the production 

processes. 

1 

DRAEJ 

REFRIGERATOR INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO REPLACE HCFC-141b 

AS A BLOWING AGENT FOR URETHANE FOAM JNSULATION 

K. E. Wilkes and D. W. Yarbrough 

INTRODUCTION 

The primary insulation used in refrigerators is polyurethane foam. Until recently, these insulations 

were foamed using CFC-I1 (trichlorofluorocarbon). Because of the Montreal Protocol, 

production ofCFC-II for use as an insulation blowing agent ceased on January 1, 1996. During 

1994 and 1995, the refrigerator industry discontinued use ofCFC-II as a blowing agent, and 

switched primarily to HCFC-141 b, with some use ofHCFC-I42b and HCFC-22. Production and 

import ofHCFC-141b for use as a foam blowing agent is due to c~ase on January 1, 2003. 

Because of this; the refrigerator industry is actively searching for a zero-ozone-depletion-potential 

blowing agent to replace HCFC-141 b. This report provides a brief assessment of efforts by the 

refrigerator industry to. develop replacements for HCFC-14I b. Information for this report was 

obtained primarily from the proceedings of conferences in which the authors participated. These 

included Polyurethanes 1995, the International CFC and Halon Alternatives Conference, and the 

International Appliance Technical Conference. Information was also obtained from personal 

contacts at meetings of the Insulation Technical Advisory Committee of the Appliance IndustryGovernment CFC Replacement Consortium, Inc. (also known as the Appliance Research 

Consortium, or ARC). The industries represented in the ARC are listed in Table 1. Other 

participants are the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Electric 

Power Research Institute. 

ALTERNATIVE BLOWING AGENTS 

A systematic search to identify third-generation blowing agents has been performed by the 

Syracuse Research Corporation and the Environmental Protection Agency. (1) A number of 

literature sources were searched and a list of about 1000 chemicals was compiled. No chemicals 

containing chlorine or bromine were included in this master list. They screened this list to 125 

chemicals by requiring that the boiling point be between -60°C and 60°C. This range was selected 

because known or experimental blowing agents for polyurethane foam have boiling points 

between -50°C (difluoromethane) and 50°C (cyclopentane). Several compounds were eliminated 

because of factors such as expected reactivity with feedstocks used in polyurethane production, or . 

the inability to estimate the vapor thermal conductivity or boiling point. The final list consisted of 

105 chemicals. The 105 chemicals were ranked based on four criteria: 

• Boiling point. Chemicals with boiling points closest to that of CFC-ll were given the 

highest ranks. This was based on the presumption that a boiling point as close as possible 

to that of CFC-ll would result in the least amount of retrofitting of the production 

processes. 

1 
CRAFT

Molecular weight. The lowest molecular weights were given the highest ranks. This was

based on the expectation that the lower the molecular weight, the lower the cost per unit

weight.

• Global warming potential. The chemicals with the highest reaction rates with hydroxyl

radicals were given the highest rankings. This is an indicator of the rate of removal of the

chemical from the atmosphere.

Vapor thermal conductivity. The chemical with the lowest vapor thermal conductivity

was given the highest ranking. The vapor thermal conductivity of the blowing agent is an

indicator of the energy performance of a foam insulation, with lower thermal

conductivities giving lower energy usage.

Toxicity was not included in the criteria because of the lack of confidence in available estimation

methods.

The above four criteria were given equal weighting, and the chemicals were ranked from 1 to 105.

The 105 chemicals are listed in Appendix A in order of their overall ranking. Appendix A also

gives the ranking for each of the above four criteria. We have correlated the rankings for each of

the four criteria against the overall ranking, and found the following correlation coefficients:

+0.63 for global warming potential, +0.61 for molecular weight, -0.10 for vapor thermal

conductivity, and +0.66 for boiling point. This shows that, while there are reasonably good

correlations between the overall ranking and global warming potential, molecular weight, and

boiling point rankings, there is very little correlation between the vapor thermal conductivity

ranking and the overall ranking.

The Appliance Research Consortium has divided candidate replacement blowing agents into three

groups.(2) Group A includes those chemicals that are now commercially available and have been

used as a blowing agent for refrigerator insulation: cyclopentane, HFC-134a, and carbon dioxide.

Group B includes those that are available in sample quantities large enough for tests on

refrigerator cabinets. These are HFC-245fa, HFC-236ea, HFC-356mffm, and HFC-365mfc.

Group C includes special new chemicals such as fluoroiodocarbons (FICs) that would only be

available in sufficient quantities for testing under an expensive program. At present the ARC is

not working with any Group C chemicals. They are proceeding with tests on the above chemicals

from Groups A and B, as discussed below.

Alternative blowing agents presently being investigated in Japan are HFC-152a, HFC-236ea,

HFC-245ca, HFC-245fa, andHFC-356mffm.(2) Results of tests with these blowing agents are

discussed below.

In Europe, the primary blowing agent currently being used for refrigerators is cyclopentane.(3) In

addition, there is small amount of use of HFC-134a and HCFC-141b in Europe. Prior to the

2

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

• 

• 

• 

ORAET 

Molecular weight. The lowest molecular weights were given the highest ranks. This was 

based on the expectation that the lower the molecular weight, the lower the cost per unit 

weight. 

Global warming potential. The chemicals with the highest reaction rates with hydroxyl 

radicals were given the highest rankings. This is an indicator of the rate of removal of the 

chemical from the atmosphere. 

Vapor thermal conductivity. The chemical with the lowest vapor thermal conductivity 

was given the highest ranking. The vapor thermal -conductivity of the blowing agent is an 

indicator of the energy performance of a foam insulation, with lower thermal 

conductivities giving lower energy usage. 

Toxicity was not included in the criteria because of the lack of confidence in available estimation 

methods. -

The above four criteria were given equal weighting, and the chemicals were ranked from 1 to 105. 

The 105 chemicals are listed in Appendix A in order of their overall ranking. Appendix A also 

gives the ranking for each of the above four criteria. We have correlated the rankings for each of 

the four criteria against the overall ranking, and found the following correlation coefficients: 

+0.63 for global warming potential, +0.61 for molecular weight, -0.10 for vapor thermal 

conductivity, and +0.66 for boiling point. This shows that, while there are reasonably good 

correlations between the overall ranking and global warming potential, molecular weight, and 

boiling point rankings, there is very little correlation between the vapor thermal conductivity 

ranking and the overall ranking. 

The Appliance Research Consortium has divided candidate replacement blowing agents into three 

groups.(2) Group A includes those chemicals that are now commercially available arid have been 

used as a blowing agent for refrigerator insulation: cyclopentane, HFC-134a, and carbon dioxide. 

Group B includes those that are available in sample quantities large enough for tests on 

refrigerator cabinets. These are HFC-245fa, HFC-236ea, HFC-356mffm, and HFC-365mfc. 

Group C includes special new chemicals such as fluoroiodocarbons (PICs) that would only be 

available in sufficient quantities for testing under an expensive program. At present the ARC is 

not working with any Group C chemicals. They are proceeding with tests on the above chemicals 

from Groups A and B, as discussed below. 

Alternative blowing agents presently being investigated in Japan are HFC-152a, HFC-236ea, 

HFC-245ca, HFC-245fa, and HFC-356mffm.(2) Results oftests with these blowing agents are 

discussed below. 

In Europe, the primary blowing agent currently being used for refrigerators is cyclopentane.(3) In 

addition, there is small amount of use ofHFC-134a and HCFC-141b in Europe. Prior to the 

2 

• 

• 

• 

ORAET 

Molecular weight. The lowest molecular weights were given the highest ranks. This was 

based on the expectation that the lower the molecular weight, the lower the cost per unit 

weight. 

Global warming potential. The chemicals with the highest reaction rates with hydroxyl 

radicals were given the highest rankings. This is an indicator of the rate of removal of the 

chemical from the atmosphere. 

Vapor thermal conductivity. The chemical with the lowest vapor thermal conductivity 

was given the highest ranking. The vapor thermal -conductivity of the blowing agent is an 

indicator of the energy performance of a foam insulation, with lower thermal 

conductivities giving lower energy usage. 

Toxicity was not included in the criteria because of the lack of confidence in available estimation 

methods. -

The above four criteria were given equal weighting, and the chemicals were ranked from 1 to 105. 

The 105 chemicals are listed in Appendix A in order of their overall ranking. Appendix A also 

gives the ranking for each of the above four criteria. We have correlated the rankings for each of 

the four criteria against the overall ranking, and found the following correlation coefficients: 

+0.63 for global warming potential, +0.61 for molecular weight, -0.10 for vapor thermal 

conductivity, and +0.66 for boiling point. This shows that, while there are reasonably good 

correlations between the overall ranking and global warming potential, molecular weight, and 

boiling point rankings, there is very little correlation between the vapor thermal conductivity 

ranking and the overall ranking. 

The Appliance Research Consortium has divided candidate replacement blowing agents into three 

groups.(2) Group A includes those chemicals that are now commercially available arid have been 

used as a blowing agent for refrigerator insulation: cyclopentane, HFC-134a, and carbon dioxide. 

Group B includes those that are available in sample quantities large enough for tests on 

refrigerator cabinets. These are HFC-245fa, HFC-236ea, HFC-356mffm, and HFC-365mfc. 

Group C includes special new chemicals such as fluoroiodocarbons (PICs) that would only be 

available in sufficient quantities for testing under an expensive program. At present the ARC is 

not working with any Group C chemicals. They are proceeding with tests on the above chemicals 

from Groups A and B, as discussed below. 

Alternative blowing agents presently being investigated in Japan are HFC-152a, HFC-236ea, 

HFC-245ca, HFC-245fa, and HFC-356mffm.(2) Results oftests with these blowing agents are 

discussed below. 

In Europe, the primary blowing agent currently being used for refrigerators is cyclopentane.(3) In 

addition, there is small amount of use ofHFC-134a and HCFC-141b in Europe. Prior to the 

2 
implementation of cyclopentane, carbon dioxide was used as a blowing agent in a limited amount

of production. While cyclopentane has zero ozone depletion potential , there are other concerns

that have hindered its immediate adoption by the U. S. refrigerator industry . These include a

higher insulation thermal conductivity that results in higher energy usage for refrigerators/freezers,

unknown toxicity risk from transfer to food, flammability risks during the foam processing, and an

environmental concern about volatile organic compounds . However, cyclopentane is still being

viewed as a possible alternative blowing agent for use in refrigerators and freezers in the U. S.(2)

The use of isopentane and normal pentane as less expensive alternatives to cyclopentane has been

explored in Europe. (4) Both isopentane and normal pentane have vapor thermal conductivities

that are higher than that of cyclopentane and would be expected to produce foams with higher

thermal conductivity as well.

There is continued interest in carbon dioxide as a blowing agent for polyurethane . During the

foaming of polyurethane, water reacts with isocyanate (one of the batch ingredients) and liberates

carbon dioxide. Studies have been performed on improvements to foams blown with carbon

dioxide from this water-isocyanate reaction.(5,6) An alternative which uses liquid carbon dioxide

as the blowing agent has been reported.(7)

Other blowing agents being explored include HFC-245eb (8,9), perfluorobutyl-ethylene (10),

flourinated ether ( 11), and azeotropes of hydrocarbons with carboxylic acid esters, ketones, or

ethers (12).

The remainder of this report will focus on those blowing agents under active study by the U. S.

and Japanese refrigerator industry as replacements for HCFC-141b . These are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 also shows the correspondence between the names used by the refrigeration industry and

the chemical names given in Appendix A.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

The ARC has conducted an experimental program to test the energy efficiency of the alternative

blowing agents.(2) The blowing agents evaluated in this program were HCFC - 141b (for a

baseline), carbon dioxide, cyclopentane, HFC-134a, HFC-236ea, HFC-245fa, HFC-356mffm, and

HFC-365mfc.

Refrigerator cabinets and doors were foamed with each ofthese blowing agents and two types of

energy tests were run. The first energy test was the DOE test, where the refrigerator is placed in

a 90°F environment, with the cabinet operating, the doors closed, and the defrost cycle turned on.

When electric anti-sweat heaters were used, the tests were conducted with the heaters on and off

and the results were averaged. For the Group B blowing agents, the tests were conducted only

with the heaters on, which is a departure from the DOE test. The other type of test was the

reverse heat leak test, which is performed on a nonoperating refrigerator . Here, the unit is placed

in a 0°F test chamber, and the'interior of the cabinet is controlled to higher temperatures using

3

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

DRAB 

implementation of cyclopentane, carbon dioxide was used as a blowing agent in a limited amount 

of production. While cyclopentane has zero ozone depletion potential, there are other concerns 

that have hindered its immediate adoption by the U. S. refrigerator industry. These include a 

higher insulation thermal conductivity that results in higher energy usage for refrigerators/freezers, 

unknown toxicity risk from transfer to food, flammability risks during the foam processing, and an 

environmental concern about volatile organic compounds. However, cyclopentane is still being 

viewed as a possible alternative blowing agent for use in refrigerators and freezers in the U. S.(2) 

The use of isopentane and normal pentane as les.s expensive alternatives to cyclopentane has been 

explored in Europe.( 4) Both isopentane and normal pentane have vapor thermal conductivities 

that are higher than that of cyclopentane and would be expected to produce foams with higher 

thermal conductivity as well. 

There is continued interest in carbon dioxide as a blowing agent for polyurethane.· During the 

foaming of polyurethane, water reacts with isocyanate (one of the batch ingredients) and liberates 

carbon dioxide. Studies have been performed on improvements to foams blown with carbon 

dioxide from this water-isocyanate reaction.(5,6) An alternative which uses liquid carbon dioxide 

as the blowing agent has been reported.(7) 

Other blowing agents being explored include HFC-245eb (8,9), perfluorobutyl-ethylene (10), 

£lourinated ether (11), and azeotropes of hydrocarbons with carboxylic acid esters, ketones, or 

ethers (12). 

The remainder of this report will focus on those blowing agents under active study by the U. S. 

and Japanese refrigerator industry as replacements for HCFC-141b. These are listed in Table 2. 

Table 2 also shows the correspondence between the names used by the refrigeration industry and 

the chemical names given in Appendix A. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

The ARC has conducted an experimental program to test the energy efficiency of the alternative 

blowing agents.(2) The blowing agents evaluated in this program were HCFC-141b (for a 

baseline), carbon dioxide, cyclopentane, HFC-134a, HFC-236ea, HFC-245fa, HFC-356mffm, and 

HFC-365mfc. 

Refrigerator cabinets and doors Were foamed with each of these blowing agents and two types of 

energy tests were run. The first energy test was the DOE test, where the refrigerator is placed in 

a 90°F environment, with the cabinet operating, the doors closed, and the defrost cycle turned on. 

When electric anti-sweat heaters were used, the tests were conducted with the heaters on and off 

and the results were averaged. For the Group B blowing agents, the tests were conducted only 

with the heaters on, which is a departure from the DOE test. The other type oftest was the 

reverse heat leak test, which is performed on a nonoperating refrigerator. Here, the unit is placed 

in a OaF test chamber, and the"interior of the cabinet is controlled to higher temperatures using 

3 

DRAB 

implementation of cyclopentane, carbon dioxide was used as a blowing agent in a limited amount 

of production. While cyclopentane has zero ozone depletion potential, there are other concerns 

that have hindered its immediate adoption by the U. S. refrigerator industry. These include a 

higher insulation thermal conductivity that results in higher energy usage for refrigerators/freezers, 

unknown toxicity risk from transfer to food, flammability risks during the foam processing, and an 

environmental concern about volatile organic compounds. However, cyclopentane is still being 

viewed as a possible alternative blowing agent for use in refrigerators and freezers in the U. S.(2) 

The use of isopentane and normal pentane as les.s expensive alternatives to cyclopentane has been 

explored in Europe.( 4) Both isopentane and normal pentane have vapor thermal conductivities 

that are higher than that of cyclopentane and would be expected to produce foams with higher 

thermal conductivity as well. 

There is continued interest in carbon dioxide as a blowing agent for polyurethane.· During the 

foaming of polyurethane, water reacts with isocyanate (one of the batch ingredients) and liberates 

carbon dioxide. Studies have been performed on improvements to foams blown with carbon 

dioxide from this water-isocyanate reaction.(5,6) An alternative which uses liquid carbon dioxide 

as the blowing agent has been reported.(7) 

Other blowing agents being explored include HFC-245eb (8,9), perfluorobutyl-ethylene (10), 

£lourinated ether (11), and azeotropes of hydrocarbons with carboxylic acid esters, ketones, or 

ethers (12). 

The remainder of this report will focus on those blowing agents under active study by the U. S. 

and Japanese refrigerator industry as replacements for HCFC-141b. These are listed in Table 2. 

Table 2 also shows the correspondence between the names used by the refrigeration industry and 

the chemical names given in Appendix A. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

The ARC has conducted an experimental program to test the energy efficiency of the alternative 

blowing agents.(2) The blowing agents evaluated in this program were HCFC-141b (for a 

baseline), carbon dioxide, cyclopentane, HFC-134a, HFC-236ea, HFC-245fa, HFC-356mffm, and 

HFC-365mfc. 

Refrigerator cabinets and doors Were foamed with each of these blowing agents and two types of 

energy tests were run. The first energy test was the DOE test, where the refrigerator is placed in 

a 90°F environment, with the cabinet operating, the doors closed, and the defrost cycle turned on. 

When electric anti-sweat heaters were used, the tests were conducted with the heaters on and off 

and the results were averaged. For the Group B blowing agents, the tests were conducted only 

with the heaters on, which is a departure from the DOE test. The other type oftest was the 

reverse heat leak test, which is performed on a nonoperating refrigerator. Here, the unit is placed 

in a OaF test chamber, and the"interior of the cabinet is controlled to higher temperatures using 

3 
ORAET

electrical heaters. Finally, thermal conductivity measurements were made on samples of the foam

insulation.

Average results from the ARC tests are shown in Table 3. Table 4 gives the individual cabinet

energy data from which the averages in Table 3 were derived. The results are given as percentage

differences between data with the new blowing agent and data with HCFC-141b. A positive

value for thermal conductivity, cabinet energy, or reverse heat leak indicates a higher energy

usage for the alternative blowing agent than for HCFC- 141b. Table 3 shows that the energy

usage with cyclopentane would be about 10 percent higher than with HCFC-141b, and that

energy usage with carbon dioxide or HFC- 134a would be more than 10 percent greater than with

HCFC-141b. HFC-245fa gave average energy usage and thermal conductivity that were very

comparable with HCFC-141b. Individual energy usages for HFC-245fa were both higher and

lower than for HCFC-141b. The other three new HFCs (236ea, 356mfc, and 365mffm) had

energy usages that were higher than for HCFC-141b, but lower than for cyclopentane. It was

noted that the formulations for the four new HFCs have not been optimized, while the

commercially available technologies based on cyclopentane , HFC-134a, and carbon dioxide would

presumably have been optimized . Even without optimization, the four new HFCs performed

better than the three available technologies . In particular, it was noted that the HFC-365mfc,

which had the highest energy usage of the four new HFCs, was formulated with a higher than

normal amount of water and that it would be expected to perform better ifless water were used in

the formulation.

While the thermal conductivity of the foam insulation is an indicator of the energy performance of

a refrigerator, the percentage change in thermal conductivity due to differences in blowing agent

will not generally be the same as the percentage change in energy usage. This is because of two

main factors. The first is that the heat leaks through the insulated walls and doors of a

refrigerator/freezer are not the only sources of energy requirements for the entire refrigerator.

Other energy requirements arise from heat transfer around door gaskets and at penetrations

through the insulation, energy used for anti-sweat heaters, and energy used for the defrost cycle.

These other energy sources would tend to make the percentage difference in energy consumption

somewhat less than the percentage difference in thermal conductivity.

The second factor is related to the temperature imposed on the insulation during a thermal

conductivity test as compared with the temperatures experienced by the insulation in an operating

refrigerator. In a thermal conductivity test , the mean temperature of the insulation is usually

75°F, while the insulation in a refrigerator is at a lower temperature. The thermal conductivity of

foam insulations vary with mean temperature, and different blowing gases give different

temperature dependencies. The result is that the curves of thermal conductivity versus

temperature for two blowing agents may get closer together (less percentage difference ), farther

apart (greater percentage difference), or cross over (reverse in sign of percent difference) as the

temperature is lowered from 75°F to the mean temperatures typical of refrigerator operation.

Reference 2 also gives results of tests conducted by the Home Appliance Department of the

4

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

electrical heaters. Finally, thennal conductivity measurements were made on samples of the foam 

insulation. 

Average results from the ARC tests are shown in Table 3. Table 4 gives the individual cabinet 

energy data from which the averages in Table 3 were derived. The results are given as percentage 

differences between data with the new blowing agent and data with HCFC-141b. A positive 

value for thennal conductivity, cabinet energy, or reverse heat leak indicates a higher energy 

usage for the alternative blowing agent than for HCFC-14lb. Table 3 shows that the energy 

usage with cyclopentane would be about 10 percent higher than with HCFC-14l b, and that 

energy usage with carbon dioxide or HFC-134a would be more than 10 percent greater than with 

HCFC-141b. HFC-245fa gave average energy usage and thennal conductivity that were very 

comparable with HCFC-141b. Individual energy usages for HFC-245fa were both higher and 

lower than for HCFC-14lb. The other three new HFCs (236ea, 356mfc, and 365rnffm) had 

energy usages that were higher than for HCFC-141 b, but lower than for cyclopentane. It was 

noted that the fonnulations for the four new HFCs have not been optimized, while the 

commercially available technologies based on cyclopentane, HFC-134a, and carbon dioxide would 

presumably have been optimized. Even without optimization, the four new HFCs perfonned 

better than the three available technologies. In particular, it was noted that the HFC-365mfc, 

which had the highest energy usage of the four new HFCs, was fonnulated with a higher than 

normal amount of water and that it would be expected to perform better ifless water were used in 

the formulation. 

While the thermal conductivity of the foam insulation is an indicator of the energy perfonnance of 

a refrigerator, the percentage change in thennal conductivity due to differences in blowing agent 

will not generally be the same as the percentage change in energy usage. This is because of two 

main factors. The first is that the heat leaks through the insulated walls and doors of a 

refrigerator/freezer are not the only sources of energy requirements for the entire refrigerator. 

Other energy requirements arise from heat transfer around· door gaskets and at penetrations 

through the insulation, energy used for anti-sweat heaters, and energy used for the defrost cycle. 

These other energy sources would tend to make the percentage difference in energy consumption 

somewhat less than the percentage difference in thennal conductivity. 

The second factor is related to the temperature imposed on the insulation during a thennal 

conductivity test as compared with the temperatures experienced by the insulation in an operating 

refrigerator. In a thermal conductivity test, the mean temperature of the insulation is usually 

75°F, while the insulation in a refrigerator is at a lower temperature. The thermal conductivity of 

foam insulations vary with mean temperature, and different blowing gases give different 

temperature dependencies. The result is that the curves ofthennal conductivity versus 

temperature for two blowing agents may get closer together (less percentage difference), farther 

apart (greater percentage difference), or cross over (reverse in sign of percent difference) as the 

temperature is lowered from 75°F to the mean temperatures typical of refrigerator operation. 

Reference 2 also gives results of tests conducted by the Home Appliance Department of the 

4 

electrical heaters. Finally, thennal conductivity measurements were made on samples of the foam 

insulation. 

Average results from the ARC tests are shown in Table 3. Table 4 gives the individual cabinet 

energy data from which the averages in Table 3 were derived. The results are given as percentage 

differences between data with the new blowing agent and data with HCFC-141b. A positive 

value for thennal conductivity, cabinet energy, or reverse heat leak indicates a higher energy 

usage for the alternative blowing agent than for HCFC-14lb. Table 3 shows that the energy 

usage with cyclopentane would be about 10 percent higher than with HCFC-14l b, and that 

energy usage with carbon dioxide or HFC-134a would be more than 10 percent greater than with 

HCFC-141b. HFC-245fa gave average energy usage and thennal conductivity that were very 

comparable with HCFC-141b. Individual energy usages for HFC-245fa were both higher and 

lower than for HCFC-14lb. The other three new HFCs (236ea, 356mfc, and 365rnffm) had 

energy usages that were higher than for HCFC-141 b, but lower than for cyclopentane. It was 

noted that the fonnulations for the four new HFCs have not been optimized, while the 

commercially available technologies based on cyclopentane, HFC-134a, and carbon dioxide would 

presumably have been optimized. Even without optimization, the four new HFCs perfonned 

better than the three available technologies. In particular, it was noted that the HFC-365mfc, 

which had the highest energy usage of the four new HFCs, was fonnulated with a higher than 

normal amount of water and that it would be expected to perform better ifless water were used in 

the formulation. 

While the thermal conductivity of the foam insulation is an indicator of the energy perfonnance of 

a refrigerator, the percentage change in thennal conductivity due to differences in blowing agent 

will not generally be the same as the percentage change in energy usage. This is because of two 

main factors. The first is that the heat leaks through the insulated walls and doors of a 

refrigerator/freezer are not the only sources of energy requirements for the entire refrigerator. 

Other energy requirements arise from heat transfer around· door gaskets and at penetrations 

through the insulation, energy used for anti-sweat heaters, and energy used for the defrost cycle. 

These other energy sources would tend to make the percentage difference in energy consumption 

somewhat less than the percentage difference in thennal conductivity. 

The second factor is related to the temperature imposed on the insulation during a thennal 

conductivity test as compared with the temperatures experienced by the insulation in an operating 

refrigerator. In a thermal conductivity test, the mean temperature of the insulation is usually 

75°F, while the insulation in a refrigerator is at a lower temperature. The thermal conductivity of 

foam insulations vary with mean temperature, and different blowing gases give different 

temperature dependencies. The result is that the curves ofthennal conductivity versus 

temperature for two blowing agents may get closer together (less percentage difference), farther 

apart (greater percentage difference), or cross over (reverse in sign of percent difference) as the 

temperature is lowered from 75°F to the mean temperatures typical of refrigerator operation. 

Reference 2 also gives results of tests conducted by the Home Appliance Department of the 

4 
Japanese Electrical Manufacturers Association (JEMA). These results are given in Table 5. The

energy usage with HFC-152a was higher than the ARC results with cyclopentane. The energy

usage with HFC-236ea was comparable to the ARC results, but the energy usage with HFC-245fa

(6 to 14%) was higher than the ARC results. The differences in HFC-245fa results between ARC

and JEMA may be due to differences in the foam formulations.

JEMA presented more recent data on alternative blowing agents at an ARC-ITAC/JEMA

Workshop in June 1996, and will be presenting the same information at the International

Conference on Ozone Protection Technologies (formerly the International CFC and Halon

Alternatives Conference) in October, 1996. Results of thermal conductivity measurements on

foam insulations at a mean temperature of 10°C (50°F) are given in Table 6, where the values are

given relative to HCFC-141b. Again, cyclopentane-blown foam has a thermal conductivity about

10 percent higher than for HCFC-141b, while the four new HFCs have thermal conductivities that

are 3 to 7 percent higher. They also performed energy measurements on refrigerator cabinets and

found that cabinets insulated with HFC-245fa used 3 to 6 percent more energy than with HCFC141b, and those insulated with HFC-236ea used 8 to 14 percent more than HCFC-141b.

Researchers at Elf Atochem North America have reported values for thermal conductivity of

polyurethane foam insulation blown with HCFC - 141b, HFC-245fa, HFC-245ca, and HFC

365mfc.( 8,9) Foams were blown entirely with these blowing agents and also with 50 % with the

blowing agent and 50% with carbon dioxide generated by water reacting with the isocyanate in

the foam mix . No optimizations of the formulations were made , and indeed, the thermal

conductivity values appear to be high for all the blowing agents , including the HCFC-141b.

Thermal conductivity was measured after blowing and then after aging for 30 days . Table 7 gives

the percentage difference relative to HCFC-141b for foam immediately after blowing.

Other researchers have reported changes in foam thermal conductivity relative to HCFC-141b.

SOLVAY ( 11) has reported an increase of 9.5 percent for HFC-365mfc . Allied Signal ( 13) has

reported an increase of 4.7 to 5.0 percent for HFC -245fa. Bayer ( 14) has reported an increase of

5.4 percent for polyurethane foam blown with HFC -245fa. Bayer has also reported increases of

3.6 and 9.4 percent for polyisocyanurate foam blown with HFC-245fa and HFC-356mffm,

respectively.

MATERIALS COMPATIBILITY

An acceptable foam blowing agent must be compatible with materials with which the foam

insulation is in contact. The ARC is currently performing a test of the compatibility of a number

of blowing agents with the different types of plastics that are used as the internal liner of

refrigerators. Blowing agents included in these tests are cyclopentane, HFC-134a, HFC-236ea,

HFC-245fa, and HCFC-141b (to act as a baseline). The tests will include thermal cycling of the

liner and impact and adhesion tests. A report on progress on these tests will be given at the

International Conference on Ozone Protection Technologies (formerly the International CFC and

Halon Alternatives Conference) in October, 1996.

5

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

DRAET 

Japanese Electrical Manufacturers Association (JEMA). These results are given in Table 5. The 

energy usage with HFC-152a was higher than the ARC results with cyclopentane. The energy 

usage with HFC-236ea was comparable to the ARC results, but the energy usage with HFC-245fa 

(6 to 14%) was higher than the ARC results. The differences in HFC-245fa results between ARC 

and JEMA may be due to differences in the foam formulations. 

JEMA presented more recent data on alternative blowing agents at an ARC-ITAC/JEMA 

Workshop in June 1996, and will be presenting the same information at the International 

Conference on Ozone Protection Technologies (formerly the International CFC and Halon 

Alternatives Conference) in October, 1996. Results of thermal conductivity measurements on 

foam insulations at a mean temperature of IOoC (50°F) are given in Table 6, where the values are 

given relative to HCFC-141b. Again, cyclopentane-blown foam has a thermal conductivity about 

10 percent higher than for HCFC-141 b, while the four new HFCs have thermal conductivities that 

are 3 to 7 percent higher. They also performed energy measurements on refrigerator cabinets and 

found that cabinets insulated with HFC-245fa used 3 to 6 percent more energy than with HCFC14Ib, and thoSe insulated with HFC-236ea used 8 to 14 percent more than HCFC-141b. 

Researchers at Elf Atochem North America have reported values for thermal conductivity of 

polyurethane foam insulation blown with HCFC-141b, HFC-245fa, HFC-245ca, and HFC365mfc.(8,9) Foams were blown entirely with these blowing agents and also with 50% with the 

blowing agent and 50% with carbon dioxide generated by water reacting with the isocyanate in 

the foam mix. No optimizations of the formulations were made, and indeed, the thermal 

conductivity values appear to be high for all the blowing agents, including the HCFC-141b. 

Thermal conductivity was measured after blowing and then after aging for 30 days. Table 7 gives 

the percentage difference relative to HCFC-141 b for foam immediately after blowing. 

Other researchers have reported changes in foam thermal conductivity relative to HCFC-141b. 

SOLVAY (11) has reported an increase of9.5 percent for HFC-365mfc. Allied Signal (13) has 

reported an increase of 4. 7 to 5.0 percent for HFC-245fa. Bayer (14) has reported an increase of 

5.4 percent for polyurethane foam blown with HFC-245fa. Bayer has also reported increases of 

3.6 and 9.4 percent for polyisocyanurate foam blown with HFC-245fa and HFC-356mffm, 

respectively. 

MATERIALS COMPATIBILITY 

An acceptable foam blowing agent must be compatible with materials with which the foam 

insulation is in contact. The ARC is currently performing a test of the compatibility of a number 

of blowing agents with the different types of plastics that are used as the internal liner of 

refrigerators. Blowing agents included in these tests are cyclopentane, HFC-134a, HFC-236ea, 

HFC-245fa, and HCFC-141b (to act as a baseline). The tests will include thermal cycling ofthe 

liner and impact and adhesion tests. A report on progress on these tests will be given at the 

International Conference on Ozone Protection Technologies (formerly the International CFC and 

Halon Alternatives Conference) in October, 1996. 

5 

DRAET 

Japanese Electrical Manufacturers Association (JEMA). These results are given in Table 5. The 

energy usage with HFC-152a was higher than the ARC results with cyclopentane. The energy 

usage with HFC-236ea was comparable to the ARC results, but the energy usage with HFC-245fa 

(6 to 14%) was higher than the ARC results. The differences in HFC-245fa results between ARC 

and JEMA may be due to differences in the foam formulations. 

JEMA presented more recent data on alternative blowing agents at an ARC-ITAC/JEMA 

Workshop in June 1996, and will be presenting the same information at the International 

Conference on Ozone Protection Technologies (formerly the International CFC and Halon 

Alternatives Conference) in October, 1996. Results of thermal conductivity measurements on 

foam insulations at a mean temperature of IOoC (50°F) are given in Table 6, where the values are 

given relative to HCFC-141b. Again, cyclopentane-blown foam has a thermal conductivity about 

10 percent higher than for HCFC-141 b, while the four new HFCs have thermal conductivities that 

are 3 to 7 percent higher. They also performed energy measurements on refrigerator cabinets and 

found that cabinets insulated with HFC-245fa used 3 to 6 percent more energy than with HCFC14Ib, and thoSe insulated with HFC-236ea used 8 to 14 percent more than HCFC-141b. 

Researchers at Elf Atochem North America have reported values for thermal conductivity of 

polyurethane foam insulation blown with HCFC-141b, HFC-245fa, HFC-245ca, and HFC365mfc.(8,9) Foams were blown entirely with these blowing agents and also with 50% with the 

blowing agent and 50% with carbon dioxide generated by water reacting with the isocyanate in 

the foam mix. No optimizations of the formulations were made, and indeed, the thermal 

conductivity values appear to be high for all the blowing agents, including the HCFC-141b. 

Thermal conductivity was measured after blowing and then after aging for 30 days. Table 7 gives 

the percentage difference relative to HCFC-141 b for foam immediately after blowing. 

Other researchers have reported changes in foam thermal conductivity relative to HCFC-141b. 

SOLVAY (11) has reported an increase of9.5 percent for HFC-365mfc. Allied Signal (13) has 

reported an increase of 4. 7 to 5.0 percent for HFC-245fa. Bayer (14) has reported an increase of 

5.4 percent for polyurethane foam blown with HFC-245fa. Bayer has also reported increases of 

3.6 and 9.4 percent for polyisocyanurate foam blown with HFC-245fa and HFC-356mffm, 

respectively. 

MATERIALS COMPATIBILITY 

An acceptable foam blowing agent must be compatible with materials with which the foam 

insulation is in contact. The ARC is currently performing a test of the compatibility of a number 

of blowing agents with the different types of plastics that are used as the internal liner of 

refrigerators. Blowing agents included in these tests are cyclopentane, HFC-134a, HFC-236ea, 

HFC-245fa, and HCFC-141b (to act as a baseline). The tests will include thermal cycling ofthe 

liner and impact and adhesion tests. A report on progress on these tests will be given at the 

International Conference on Ozone Protection Technologies (formerly the International CFC and 

Halon Alternatives Conference) in October, 1996. 

5 
TOXICITY

Allied-Signal has completed a number of toxicity tests on HFC-245fa.(13) These included acute

dermal, acute inhalation screen, cardiac sensitization, human lympocyte, mouse micronucleus,

Ames assay, and acute (4-hour) inhalation tests. Longer term, repeated dose studies are planned.

Allied-Signal says that the results to date show that the toxicity ofHFC-245fa is as good as or

better than that ofHCFC-141b.

SOLVAY ( 11) has completed acute toxicity tests on HFC-365mfc. These included acute dermal,

acute 6-hour inhalation, and Ames tests. As with the toxicity tests on HFC-245fa , the results of

acute toxicity tests on HFC-365mfc look promising.

JEMA has performed " reverse-mutation assay in bacteria" and "chromosomal aberration tests" for

HFC-245fa, HFC-236ea, HFC-245ca, and HFC-365mfc, and have found no negative toxicity data

so far.

Even though the results of acute toxicity tests are encouraging, they do not allow, any conclusion

about the toxicological behavior under long-term, repeated dose conditions. Further work is

needed to fully define the toxicological characteristics of the new HFC blowing agents.

AVAILABILITY OF BLOWING AGENTS

Of the new blowing agents, the one farthest along in development is HFC-245fa. Allied-Signal

has publicly stated a commitment to develop HFC-245fa, and has a development schedule that

could have product ready to meet the 2003 deadline.(13) The critical element is successful

completion of toxicity testing. Suppliers of other HFCs are performing toxicity tests and are

evaluating feasibilities, and have not yet made commitments to supply the chemicals.

COMPRESSOR EFFICIENCY

In order to meet increasing demands for energy efficiency of refrigerators, compressor

manufacturers are developing more efficient compressors. Energy efficiency ratios (EERs) for the

best currently available compressors are in the range of 5.4 to 5.5. (15) Ed Wuesthoff, Vice

President of Engineering for Americold, estimates that the compressor EER will be about 5.8 by

the year 2003. (16) This amounts to a 5 to 7 percent increase in compressor efficiency. This

increase in compressor efficiency will translate into approximately a 3 to 4 percent increase in the

overall coefficient of performance for the refrigeration cycle.(15)

SUMMARY

With the phaseout of HCFC-141b less than seven years away, the U.S. appliance industry is

actively researching replacement blowing agents for the polyurethane foam insulation used in

refrigerator/freezers. Potential replacement blowing agents presently being studied are

6

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

, '. 

DRAEf 

TOXICITY 

Allied-Signal has completed a number of toxicity tests on HFC-245fa.(13) These included acute 

dermal, acute inhalation screen, cardiac sensitization, human lympocyte, mouse micronucleus, 

Ames assay, and acute (4-hour) inhalation tests. Longer term, repeated dose studies are planned. 

Allied-Signal says that the results to date show that the toxicity ofHFC-245fa is as good as or 

better than that ofHCFC-I4Ib. 

SOLVAY (11) has completed acute toxicity tests on HFC-365rnfc .. These included acute dermal, 

acute 6-hour inhal(l.tion, and Ames tests. As with the toxicity tests on HFC-245fa, the results of 

acute toxicity tests o'n HFC-365rnfc look promising. 

JEMA has performed "reverse-mutation assay in bacteria" and "chromosomal aberration tests" for 

HFC-245fa, HFC-236ea, HFC-245ca, and HFC-365mfc, and have found no negative toxicity data 

so far. 

Even though the results of acute toxicity tests are encouraging, they do not allow any conclusion 

about the toxicological behavior under long-term, repeated dose conditions. Further work is 

needed to fully define the toxicological characteristics ofthe new HFC blowing agents. 

AVAILABILITY OF BLOWING AGENTS 

Of the new blowing agents, the one farthest along in development is HFC-245fa. Allied-Signal 

has publicly stated a commitment to develop HFC-245fa, and has a development schedule that 

could have product ready to meet the 2003 deadline.(13) The critical element is successful 

completion of toxicity testing. Suppliers of other HFCs are performing toxicity tests and are 

evaluating feasibilities, and have not yet made commitments to supply the chemicals. 

COMPRESSOR EFFICIENCY 

In order to meet increasing demands for energy efficiency of refrigerators, compress'or . - manufacturers are developing more efficient compressors. Energy efficiency ratios (EERs) for the 

best currently available compressors are in the range of5.4 to 5.5. (15) Ed Wuesthoff, Vice 

President of Engineering for Americold, estimates that the compressor EER will be about 5.8 by 

the year 2003. (16) This amounts to a 5 to 7 percent increase in compressor efficiency. This 

increase in compressor efficiency will translate into approximately a 3 to 4 percent increase in the 

overall coefficient of performance for the refrigeration cycle.(I5) 

SUMl\lARY 

With the phaseout ofHCFC-I4Ib less than seven years away, the U.S. appliance industry is 

actively researching replacement blowing agents for the polyurethane foam insulation used in 

refrigerator/freezers. Potential replacement blowing agents presently being studied are 

6 

, '. 

DRAEf 

TOXICITY 

Allied-Signal has completed a number of toxicity tests on HFC-245fa.(13) These included acute 

dermal, acute inhalation screen, cardiac sensitization, human lympocyte, mouse micronucleus, 

Ames assay, and acute (4-hour) inhalation tests. Longer term, repeated dose studies are planned. 

Allied-Signal says that the results to date show that the toxicity ofHFC-245fa is as good as or 

better than that ofHCFC-I4Ib. 

SOLVAY (11) has completed acute toxicity tests on HFC-365rnfc .. These included acute dermal, 

acute 6-hour inhal(l.tion, and Ames tests. As with the toxicity tests on HFC-245fa, the results of 

acute toxicity tests o'n HFC-365rnfc look promising. 

JEMA has performed "reverse-mutation assay in bacteria" and "chromosomal aberration tests" for 

HFC-245fa, HFC-236ea, HFC-245ca, and HFC-365mfc, and have found no negative toxicity data 

so far. 

Even though the results of acute toxicity tests are encouraging, they do not allow any conclusion 

about the toxicological behavior under long-term, repeated dose conditions. Further work is 

needed to fully define the toxicological characteristics ofthe new HFC blowing agents. 

AVAILABILITY OF BLOWING AGENTS 

Of the new blowing agents, the one farthest along in development is HFC-245fa. Allied-Signal 

has publicly stated a commitment to develop HFC-245fa, and has a development schedule that 

could have product ready to meet the 2003 deadline.(13) The critical element is successful 

completion of toxicity testing. Suppliers of other HFCs are performing toxicity tests and are 

evaluating feasibilities, and have not yet made commitments to supply the chemicals. 

COMPRESSOR EFFICIENCY 

In order to meet increasing demands for energy efficiency of refrigerators, compress'or . - manufacturers are developing more efficient compressors. Energy efficiency ratios (EERs) for the 

best currently available compressors are in the range of5.4 to 5.5. (15) Ed Wuesthoff, Vice 

President of Engineering for Americold, estimates that the compressor EER will be about 5.8 by 

the year 2003. (16) This amounts to a 5 to 7 percent increase in compressor efficiency. This 

increase in compressor efficiency will translate into approximately a 3 to 4 percent increase in the 

overall coefficient of performance for the refrigeration cycle.(I5) 

SUMl\lARY 

With the phaseout ofHCFC-I4Ib less than seven years away, the U.S. appliance industry is 

actively researching replacement blowing agents for the polyurethane foam insulation used in 

refrigerator/freezers. Potential replacement blowing agents presently being studied are 

6 
cyclopentane, carbon dioxide, HFC-134a, HFC-236ea, HFC-245fa, HFC-356mffm, and HFC365mfc. While cyclopentane has been adopted for use as the blowing agent for refrigerators in

Europe, there is reluctance for the U.S. refrigerator industry to adopt it immediately because of

concerns about its higher energy usage, unknown toxicity risk from transfer to food, flammability

risks during foam processing, and an environmental concern about volatile organic compounds.

Cabinet energy tests showed that cyclopentane, carbon dioxide, and HFC-134a result in energy

consumptions about 10 percent or more than that for HCFC-141b. These three blowing agents

have been used commercially and are expected to be optimized. HFC-245fa gave an energy usage

that was very comparable with HCFC-141b, and the other three new HFCs had energy usages

that were higher than for HCFC-141b, but lower than for cyclopentane. Since the foam produced

with the four new HFCs have not been optimized, there is potential for better performance than

has been seen thus far. Tests of compatibility of the candidate blowing agents with plastic liners

used in refrigerators are underway.

Acute toxicity testing has been performed on HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc. The results of these

tests are encouraging, but long term, repeated dose tests are needed to fully characterize the

toxological behavior.

Of the new HFCs, only HFC-245fa has a supplier that has committed to develop and

commercialize it. Potential suppliers of other third-generation blowing agents have not yet made

such committments. Many new blowing agents are under study around the world, and it is

possible that over the next few years some of them will emerge as viable candidates for replacing

HCFC-14l b.

.REFERENCES

1. P. H. Howard, J. L. Tunkel, and R. V. Hendriks, "Identification of CFC and HCFC Substitutes

for Blowing Polyurethane Foam Insulation Products," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and

Halon Alternatives Conference, pp. 417-426 (October 1995).

2. G: J. Haworth, "Next Generation Insulation Foam Blowing Agents for Refrigerator /Freezers,"

Proceedings, 47th Annual International Appliance Technical Conference , pp. 271-282 (May

1996).

3. V. Mariani and G. Mersiadis, "For the Insulation of Domestic Refrigerators, the Use of CPentane has Become Almost An Industry Standard . Its Use, However, Does Require Dedicated

Machinery," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp . 501-480, 1995.

4. A. J. Birch, V. Parenti, K.-J. Van Duin, G. F. Smits, and P. Clavel, "Iso-/n-pentane Blown

Rigid Polyurethane Foam for Appliances: A Realistic and Economically Attractive Alternative to

Cyclopentane," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 448-452, 1995.

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

DRAET 

cyc!opentane, carbon dioxide, HFC-134a, HFC-236ea, HFC-245fa, HFC-356mffm, and HFC365mfc. While cyclopentane has been adopted for use as the blowing agent for refrigerators in 

Europe, there is reluctance for the U.S. refrigerator industry to adopt it immediately because of 

concerns about its higher energy usage, unknown toxicity risk from transfer to food, flammability 

risks during foam processing, and an environmental concern about volatile organic compounds. 

Cabinet energy tests showed that cyc!opentane, carbon dioxide, and HFC-134a result in energy 

consumptions about 10 percent or more than that for HCFC-141b. These three blowing agents 

have been used commercially and are expected to be optimized. HFC-245fa gave an energy usage 

that was very comparable with HCFC-141 b, and the other three new HFCs had energy usages 

that were higher than for HCFC-141 b, but lower .than for cyclopentane. Since the foam produced 

with the four new HFCs have not been optimized, there is potential for better performance than 

has been seen thus far. Tests of compatibility of the candidate blowing agents with plastic liners 

used in refrigerators are underway. 

Acute toxicity testing has been performed on HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc. The results of these 

tests are encouraging, but long term, repeated dose tests are needed to fully characterize the 

toxological behavior. 

Of the new HFCs, only HFC-245fa has a supplier that has committed to develop and 

commercialize it. Potential suppliers of other third-generation blowing agents have not yet made 

such committments. Many new blowing agents are under study around the world, and it is 

possible that over the next few years some of them will emerge as viable candidates for replacing 

HCFC-141b . 

. REFERENCES 

1. P. H. Howard, J. L. Tunkel, and R. V. Hendriks, IIIdentification ofCFC and HCFC Substitutes 

for Blowing Polyurethane Foam Insulation Products:' Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and 

Halon Alternatives Conference, pp. 417-426 (October 1995). 

2. G. J. Haworth, IINext Generation Insulation Foam Blowing Agents for RefrigeratorlFreezers, II 

Proceedings, 47th Annual International Appliance Technical Conference, pp. 271-282 (May 

1996). 

3. V. Mariani and G. Mersiadis, "For the Insulation of Domestic Refrigerators, the Use ofCPentane has Become Almost An Industry Standard. Its Use, However, Does Require Dedicated 

Machinery," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 501-480, 1995. 

4. A. J. Birch, V. Parenti, K.-J. Van Duin, G. F. Smits, and P. Clavel, "Iso-/n-pentane Blown 

Rigid Polyurethane Foam for Appliances: A Realistic and Economically Attractive Alternative to 

Cyc!opentane," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 448-452, 1995. 

7 

DRAET 

cyc!opentane, carbon dioxide, HFC-134a, HFC-236ea, HFC-245fa, HFC-356mffm, and HFC365mfc. While cyclopentane has been adopted for use as the blowing agent for refrigerators in 

Europe, there is reluctance for the U.S. refrigerator industry to adopt it immediately because of 

concerns about its higher energy usage, unknown toxicity risk from transfer to food, flammability 

risks during foam processing, and an environmental concern about volatile organic compounds. 

Cabinet energy tests showed that cyc!opentane, carbon dioxide, and HFC-134a result in energy 

consumptions about 10 percent or more than that for HCFC-141b. These three blowing agents 

have been used commercially and are expected to be optimized. HFC-245fa gave an energy usage 

that was very comparable with HCFC-141 b, and the other three new HFCs had energy usages 

that were higher than for HCFC-141 b, but lower .than for cyclopentane. Since the foam produced 

with the four new HFCs have not been optimized, there is potential for better performance than 

has been seen thus far. Tests of compatibility of the candidate blowing agents with plastic liners 

used in refrigerators are underway. 

Acute toxicity testing has been performed on HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc. The results of these 

tests are encouraging, but long term, repeated dose tests are needed to fully characterize the 

toxological behavior. 

Of the new HFCs, only HFC-245fa has a supplier that has committed to develop and 

commercialize it. Potential suppliers of other third-generation blowing agents have not yet made 

such committments. Many new blowing agents are under study around the world, and it is 

possible that over the next few years some of them will emerge as viable candidates for replacing 

HCFC-141b . 

. REFERENCES 

1. P. H. Howard, J. L. Tunkel, and R. V. Hendriks, IIIdentification ofCFC and HCFC Substitutes 

for Blowing Polyurethane Foam Insulation Products:' Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and 

Halon Alternatives Conference, pp. 417-426 (October 1995). 

2. G. J. Haworth, IINext Generation Insulation Foam Blowing Agents for RefrigeratorlFreezers, II 

Proceedings, 47th Annual International Appliance Technical Conference, pp. 271-282 (May 

1996). 

3. V. Mariani and G. Mersiadis, "For the Insulation of Domestic Refrigerators, the Use ofCPentane has Become Almost An Industry Standard. Its Use, However, Does Require Dedicated 

Machinery," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 501-480, 1995. 

4. A. J. Birch, V. Parenti, K.-J. Van Duin, G. F. Smits, and P. Clavel, "Iso-/n-pentane Blown 

Rigid Polyurethane Foam for Appliances: A Realistic and Economically Attractive Alternative to 

Cyc!opentane," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 448-452, 1995. 

7 
DRAF3.,

5. S. Mirasol, D. Bhattacharjee, and S. J. Williams, "100% CO2 Blown Class I* Flame Rated

Polyurethane Foam," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 47-50, 1995.

6. H. J. M. Grunbauer, L. Cikut, and G. J. Haworth, " Improved Aging CO2 Blown Foam for

Refrigerators/Freezers," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon Alternatives

Conference, pp. 463-472 (October 1995).

7. C. Fiorentini, M. Taverna, and J. Luca, "Liquid-Carbon -Dioxide-Blown Molded Foams: the

Technology and Initial Applications," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 476-480 (1995).

8. J. Murphy and J. Costa, "An Examination of Liquid and Gaseous Fluorochemicals for Foam

Insulation - Part II," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon Alternatives Conference,

pp. 428-437 (October 1995).

9. J. Murphy and J. Costa, " An Examination of Liquid & Gaseous Fluorochemicals for Foam

Insulation - Part II," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp . 39-45, 1995.

10. J. D. Roux, A. Albouy, J. Murphy, and J. Costa, "Recent Developments in Zero ODP

Blowing Agents for Rigid Polyurethane Foams," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon

Alternatives Conference, pp. 448-452 (October 1995).

11. P. P. Barthelemy and A. Leroy, "Latest Results in the Development of Next Generation HFC

Blowing Agents," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 26-33, 1995.

12. K. Ashida, K. Morimoto, and A. Yufu, "Zero ODP , Halogen-free Azeotropes as Blowing

Agents for Plastic Foams," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon Alternatives

Conference, pp. 438-447 (October 1995).

13. D. J. Williams, M. C. Bogdan, R. C. Parker, and G. M. Knopeck, "Update on the

Development of HFC-245fa as a Liquid HFC Blowing Agent," Proceedings of Polyurethane

1995, pp. 2-9, 1995.

14. F. C. Rossitto and M. E. McGregor, "Evaluation of HFC Blowing Agents in Continuous and

Discontinuous Panel Formulations," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 182-185, 1995.

15. Private communication from E. A. Vineyard (ORNL) to K. E. Wilkes (August 21, 1996).

16. Private communication from E. Wuesthoff (Americold) to E. A. Vineyard (ORNL), (August,

1996). Americold is a major manufacturer of compressors for refrigerators.

8

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

DRA 

5. S. Mirasol, D. BhattachaIjee, and S. J. Williams, "100% CO2 Blown Class 1* Flame Rated 

Polyurethane Foam," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 47-50, 1995. 

6. H. J. M. Grilnbauer, L. Cikut, and G. J. Haworth, "Improved Aging CO2 Blown Foam for 

RefrigeratorslFreezers," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon Alternatives 

Conference, pp. 463-472 (October 1995). 

7. C. Fiorentini, M. Taverna, and J. Luca, "Liquid-Carbon-Dioxide-Blown Molded Foams: the 

Technology and Initial Applications," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 476-480 (1995). 

8. J. Murphy and J. Costa, "An Examination of Liquid and Gaseous Fluorochemicals for Foam 

Insulation - Part II," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon Alternatives Conference, 

pp. 428-437 (October 1995). 

9. J. Murphy and J. Costa, "An Examination of Liquid & Gaseous Fluorochemicals for Foam 

Insulation - Part II," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 39-45, 1995. 

10. J. D. Roux, A. Albouy, J. Murphy, and J. Costa, "Recent Developments in Zero ODP 

Blowing Agents for Rigid Polyurethane Foams," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon 

Alternatives Conference, pp. 448-452 (October 1995). 

11. P. P. Barthelemy and A. Leroy, "Latest Results in the Development of Next Generation HFC 

Blowing Agents," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 26-33, 1995. 

12. K. Ashida, K. Morimoto, and A. Yufu, "Zero ODP, Halogen-free Azeotropes as Blowing 

Agents for Plastic Foams," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon Alternatives 

Conference, pp. 438-447 (October 1995). 

13. D. J. Williams, M. C. Bogdan, R. C. Parker, and G. M. Knopeck, "Update on the 

Development ofHFC-245fa as a Liquid HFC Blowing Agent, II Proceedings of Polyurethane 

1995, pp. 2-9, 1995. 

14. F. C. Rossitto and M. E. McGregor, "Evaluation ofHFC Blowing Agents in Continuous and 

Discontinuous Panel Formulations," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 182-185, 1995. 

15. Private communication from E. A. Vineyard (ORNL) to K. E. Wilkes (August 21,1996). 

16. Private communication from E. Wuesthoff (Americold) to E. A. Vineyard (ORNL), (August, 

1996). Americold is a major manufacturer of compressors for refrigerators. 

8 

DRA 

5. S. Mirasol, D. BhattachaIjee, and S. J. Williams, "100% CO2 Blown Class 1* Flame Rated 

Polyurethane Foam," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 47-50, 1995. 

6. H. J. M. Grilnbauer, L. Cikut, and G. J. Haworth, "Improved Aging CO2 Blown Foam for 

RefrigeratorslFreezers," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon Alternatives 

Conference, pp. 463-472 (October 1995). 

7. C. Fiorentini, M. Taverna, and J. Luca, "Liquid-Carbon-Dioxide-Blown Molded Foams: the 

Technology and Initial Applications," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 476-480 (1995). 

8. J. Murphy and J. Costa, "An Examination of Liquid and Gaseous Fluorochemicals for Foam 

Insulation - Part II," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon Alternatives Conference, 

pp. 428-437 (October 1995). 

9. J. Murphy and J. Costa, "An Examination of Liquid & Gaseous Fluorochemicals for Foam 

Insulation - Part II," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 39-45, 1995. 

10. J. D. Roux, A. Albouy, J. Murphy, and J. Costa, "Recent Developments in Zero ODP 

Blowing Agents for Rigid Polyurethane Foams," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon 

Alternatives Conference, pp. 448-452 (October 1995). 

11. P. P. Barthelemy and A. Leroy, "Latest Results in the Development of Next Generation HFC 

Blowing Agents," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 26-33, 1995. 

12. K. Ashida, K. Morimoto, and A. Yufu, "Zero ODP, Halogen-free Azeotropes as Blowing 

Agents for Plastic Foams," Proceedings, 1995 International CFC and Halon Alternatives 

Conference, pp. 438-447 (October 1995). 

13. D. J. Williams, M. C. Bogdan, R. C. Parker, and G. M. Knopeck, "Update on the 

Development ofHFC-245fa as a Liquid HFC Blowing Agent, II Proceedings of Polyurethane 

1995, pp. 2-9, 1995. 

14. F. C. Rossitto and M. E. McGregor, "Evaluation ofHFC Blowing Agents in Continuous and 

Discontinuous Panel Formulations," Proceedings of Polyurethane 1995, pp. 182-185, 1995. 

15. Private communication from E. A. Vineyard (ORNL) to K. E. Wilkes (August 21,1996). 

16. Private communication from E. Wuesthoff (Americold) to E. A. Vineyard (ORNL), (August, 

1996). Americold is a major manufacturer of compressors for refrigerators. 

8 
Table 1 . Industry Representation in Appliance Research Consortium

Refrigerator/freezer manufacturers

Amana

Frigidaire

General Electric

Marvel

Maytag

Sanyo

Sub-Zero

W. C. Wood

Whirlpool

Potential blowing agent suppliers

Allied-Signal

DuPont

Elf Atochem

ICI

Foam chemical suppliers

Air Products

BASF

Bayer

Dow Chemical

Goldschmidt Chemical

ICI

Plastic suppliers

BASF

Bayer

Dow Chemical

G. E. Plastics

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

DRAEJ 

Table 1. Industry Representation in Appliance Research Consortium 

• Refiigerator/freezer manufacturers 

Amana 

Frigidaire 

General Electric 

Marvel 

Maytag 

Sanyo 

Sub-Zero 

W. C. Wood 

Whirlpool 

• Potential blowing agent suppliers 

Allied-Signal 

DuPont 

Elf Atochem 

ICI 

• Foam chemical suppliers 

Air Products 

BASF 

Bayer 

Dow Chemical 

Goldschmidt Chemical 

ICI 

• Plastic suppliers 

BASF 

Bayer 

Dow Chemical 

G. E. Plastics 

9 

DRAEJ 

Table 1. Industry Representation in Appliance Research Consortium 

• Refiigerator/freezer manufacturers 

Amana 

Frigidaire 

General Electric 

Marvel 

Maytag 

Sanyo 

Sub-Zero 

W. C. Wood 

Whirlpool 

• Potential blowing agent suppliers 

Allied-Signal 

DuPont 

Elf Atochem 

ICI 

• Foam chemical suppliers 

Air Products 

BASF 

Bayer 

Dow Chemical 

Goldschmidt Chemical 

ICI 

• Plastic suppliers 

BASF 

Bayer 

Dow Chemical 

G. E. Plastics 

9 
DRAFT

Table 2. Blowing Agents Under Active Study by the U. S. and Japanese Refrigerator Industries as

Replacements for HCFC-141b

Industry Name Chemical Name Syracuse/EPA Rank

Cyclopentane Cyclopentane 13

Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide Not listed

HFC-134a 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane 79

HFC-152a 1,1-Difluoroethane 68

HFC-236ea 1, 1, 1,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 75

HFC-245ca 1, 1,2,2,3-Pentafluoropropane 9

HFC-245fa 1, 1, 1,3,3-Pentafluoropropane 32

HFC-3 56mffm 1, 1, 1,4,4,4-Hexafluorobutane 21

HFC-365mfc 1,1,1,3,3-Pentafluorobutane Not listed

10

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

DRAB 

Table 2. Blowing Agents Under Active Study by the U.S. and Japanese Refrigerator Industries as 

Replacements for HCFC-141 b 

Industry Name Chemical Name SyracuselEP A Rank 

CycIopentane CycIopentane 13 

Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide Not listed 

HFC-134a 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane 79 

HFC-152a 1,1-Difluoroethane 68 

HFC-236ea 1, I, 1,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 75 

HFC-245ca 1,1,2,2,3-Pentafluoropropane 9 

HFC-245fa 1,1,1,3,3 -Pentafluoropropane 32 

HFC-356mffm 1, 1, 1,4,4,4-Hexafluorobutane 21 

HFC-365mfc 1, 1, 1,3,3-Pentafluorobutane Not listed 

10 

DRAB 

Table 2. Blowing Agents Under Active Study by the U.S. and Japanese Refrigerator Industries as 

Replacements for HCFC-141 b 

Industry Name Chemical Name SyracuselEP A Rank 

CycIopentane CycIopentane 13 

Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide Not listed 

HFC-134a 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane 79 

HFC-152a 1,1-Difluoroethane 68 

HFC-236ea 1, I, 1,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 75 

HFC-245ca 1,1,2,2,3-Pentafluoropropane 9 

HFC-245fa 1,1,1,3,3 -Pentafluoropropane 32 

HFC-356mffm 1, 1, 1,4,4,4-Hexafluorobutane 21 

HFC-365mfc 1, 1, 1,3,3-Pentafluorobutane Not listed 

10 
DRAFT

Table 3. Results of ARC Tests of Replacement Blowing Agents.

Results are relative to HCFC-141b.

Blowing Agent Thermal Conductivity Cabinet Energy Reverse Heat Leak

Cyclopentane +11.9% +9.6% -

HFC-134a +16.8% +13.6% -

Carbon dioxide +16.9% +12.1% -

HFC-356mffm +5.3 to +7.0% +3.69% +3.11%

HFC-245fa -1.8 to 0.0% +0.90% -0.64%

HFC-236ea +4.0 to +7.6% +3.08% 0.52%

HFC-365mfc +7.9 to +11.6% +7.37% +8.14%

Cyclopentane +9.1 to +10.3% +8.78% +6.71%

Table 4. Individual Cabinet Energies from ARC Tests

Results are Relative to HCFC-141b

Blowing Agent Cabinet Energy

Cyclopentane +6.6%,+9.2%,+11.3%,+10.0%,+11.0%,+9.6%

HFC-134a +15.8%,+6.5%,+18.5%

Carbon dioxide +12.1%

HFC-365mffm +2.5%,+3.1%,+4.7%,+5.5%,+2.7%

HFC-245fa +1.1%,+9.2%,-8.8%,+4.4%,-0.8%

HFC-236ea +3.4%,+0.9%,+3.2%,+7.1%,+1:0%

HFC-365mfc +5.2%0,+4.6%,+11.7%,+10.0%,+5.4%

Cyclopentane +9.2%,+9.1%,+6.3%,+12.2%,+7.2%

11

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

Blowing Agent 

Cyclopentane 

HFC-134a 

Carbon dioxide 

HFC-356mffm 

HFC-245fa 

HFC-236ea 

HFC-365mfc 

Cyclopentane 

Blowing Agent 

Cyc!opentane 

HFC-134a 

Carbon dioxide 

HFC-365mffm 

HFC-245fa 

HFC-236ea 

HFC-365mfc 

Cyclopentane 

DRAET 

Table 3. Results of ARC Tests of Replacement Blowing Agents. 

Results are relative to HCFC-141b. 

Thermal Conductivity Cabinet Energy 

+11.9% +9.6% 

+16.8% +13.6% 

+16.9% +12.1% 

+5.3 to +7.0% +3.69% 

-1.8 to 0.0% +0.90% 

+4.0 to +7.6% +3.08% 

+7.9 to + 11.6% +7.37% 

+9.1 to +10.3% +8.78% 

Table 4. Individual Cabinet Energies from ARC Tests 

Results are Relative to HCFC-141b 

Cabinet Energy 

Reverse Heat Leak 

-

-

-

+3.11% 

-0.64% 

0.52% 

+8.14% 

+6.71% 

+6.6%, +9 .2%, + 11.3%, + 1 0.0%, + 11.0%, +9.6% 

+ 15.8%,+6.5%,+ 18.5% 

+12.1% 

+2.5%,+3.1 %,+4.7%,+5.5%,+2.7% 

+ 1.1 %,+9.2%,-8.8%,+4.4%,-0.8% 

+3.4%,+0.9%,+3.2%,+7.1 %,+ 1:0% 

+5.2%,+4.6%,+ 11.7%,+ 10.0%,+5.4% 

+9.2%,+9.1 %,+6.3%,+ 12.2%,+7.2% 

11 

Blowing Agent 

Cyclopentane 

HFC-134a 

Carbon dioxide 

HFC-356mffm 

HFC-245fa 

HFC-236ea 

HFC-365mfc 

Cyclopentane 

Blowing Agent 

Cyc!opentane 

HFC-134a 

Carbon dioxide 

HFC-365mffm 

HFC-245fa 

HFC-236ea 

HFC-365mfc 

Cyclopentane 

DRAET 

Table 3. Results of ARC Tests of Replacement Blowing Agents. 

Results are relative to HCFC-141b. 

Thermal Conductivity Cabinet Energy 

+11.9% +9.6% 

+16.8% +13.6% 

+16.9% +12.1% 

+5.3 to +7.0% +3.69% 

-1.8 to 0.0% +0.90% 

+4.0 to +7.6% +3.08% 

+7.9 to + 11.6% +7.37% 

+9.1 to +10.3% +8.78% 

Table 4. Individual Cabinet Energies from ARC Tests 

Results are Relative to HCFC-141b 

Cabinet Energy 

Reverse Heat Leak 

-

-

-

+3.11% 

-0.64% 

0.52% 

+8.14% 

+6.71% 

+6.6%, +9 .2%, + 11.3%, + 1 0.0%, + 11.0%, +9.6% 

+ 15.8%,+6.5%,+ 18.5% 

+12.1% 

+2.5%,+3.1 %,+4.7%,+5.5%,+2.7% 

+ 1.1 %,+9.2%,-8.8%,+4.4%,-0.8% 

+3.4%,+0.9%,+3.2%,+7.1 %,+ 1:0% 

+5.2%,+4.6%,+ 11.7%,+ 10.0%,+5.4% 

+9.2%,+9.1 %,+6.3%,+ 12.2%,+7.2% 

11 
9..

Table 5. Results of JEMA Energy Consumption Tests

Results are relative to HCFC-141b.

Blowing Agent Energy Penalty

HFC-152a +17%

HFC-236ea +4%

HFC-245ca +4%

HFC-245fa +6% to +14%

HFC-356mffm No baseline HCFC-141b data for comparison.

Table 6. Results of JEMA Thermal Conductivity Tests

Results are relative to HCFC-141b, and apply to a 50°F mean temperature.

Blowing Agent Thermal Conductivity Increase

HFC-245fa +3.1%

HFC-236ea +5.6%

HFC-245ca +4.3%

HFC-356mffm +6.8%

Cyclopentane +9.9%

Table 7. Results of Elf Atochem Thermal Conductivity Tests Immediately after Blowing

Results are relative to HCFC-141b.

Blowing Agent Blown 100% with blowing agent Blown with 50% CO2

HFC-245fa +3.8% HCFC-141b data questionable

HFC-245ca + 1.6% +6.3%

HFC-365mfc - 1.1%, -4.9% +2.3%

12

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

Blowing Agent 

HFC-152a 

HFC-236ea 

HFC-245ca 

HFC-245fa 

HFC-356mffm 

DRAEaTt .. 

Table 5. Results of JEMA Energy Consumption Tests 

Results are relative to HCFC-141b. 

Energy Penalty 

+17% 

+4% 

+4% 

+6% to +14% 

No baseline HCFC-141b data for comparison. 

Table 6. Results of JEMA Thermal Conductivity Tests 

Results are relative to HCFC-141 b, and apply to a 50°F mean temperature. 

Blowing Agent Thermal Conductivity Increase 

HFC-245fa +3.1% 

HFC-236ea +5.6% 

HFC-245ca +4.3% 

HFC-356mffm +6.8% 

Cyciopentane +9.9% 

Table 7. Results of Elf Atochem Thermal Conductivity Tests Immediately after Blowing 

Results are relative to HCFC-141b. 

Blowing Agent Blown 100% with blowing agent Blown with 50% CO2 

HFC-245fa +3.8% HCFC-141 b data questionable 

HFC-245ca +1.6% +6.3% 

HFC-365mfc -1.1%, -4.9% +2.3% 

12 

Blowing Agent 

HFC-152a 

HFC-236ea 

HFC-245ca 

HFC-245fa 

HFC-356mffm 

DRAEaTt .. 

Table 5. Results of JEMA Energy Consumption Tests 

Results are relative to HCFC-141b. 

Energy Penalty 

+17% 

+4% 

+4% 

+6% to +14% 

No baseline HCFC-141b data for comparison. 

Table 6. Results of JEMA Thermal Conductivity Tests 

Results are relative to HCFC-141 b, and apply to a 50°F mean temperature. 

Blowing Agent Thermal Conductivity Increase 

HFC-245fa +3.1% 

HFC-236ea +5.6% 

HFC-245ca +4.3% 

HFC-356mffm +6.8% 

Cyciopentane +9.9% 

Table 7. Results of Elf Atochem Thermal Conductivity Tests Immediately after Blowing 

Results are relative to HCFC-141b. 

Blowing Agent Blown 100% with blowing agent Blown with 50% CO2 

HFC-245fa +3.8% HCFC-141 b data questionable 

HFC-245ca +1.6% +6.3% 

HFC-365mfc -1.1%, -4.9% +2.3% 

12 
CRAFT

APPENDIX A

RANKING OF THIRD GENERATION BLOWING AGENTS BY

SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORPORATION

AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

13

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

'DRAfT 

APPENDIX A 

RANKING OF THIRD GENERATION BLOWING AGENTS BY 

SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORPORATION 

AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

13 

'DRAfT 

APPENDIX A 

RANKING OF THIRD GENERATION BLOWING AGENTS BY 

SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORPORATION 

AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

13 
Rank

Name

Overall GWP MW TC BP

Cyclopentene 1 2 9 24 52

1,4-Pentadiene 2 8 10 68 7

1-Butene, 2-methyl- 3 3 13 76 20

3-Flourocyclobutene 4 6 17 67 25

2-Pentene 5 4 12 70 34

1-Pentene 6 10 14 86 18

Butane, 1-fluoro- 7 28 22 65 23

2-Butene, 2-methyl- 8 1 15 93 30

1,1,2,2,3-Pentafluoropropane 9 59 69 9 5

1-Butene, 3,3-dimethyl- 10 12 26 61 44

Butane, 2-methyl 11 21 18 97 11

2-Butene 12 5 3 83 58

Cyclopentane 13 18 11 54 68

1,1,1,2,3-Pentafluoropropane 14 70 70 10 4

Difluoromethyl fluoromethly ether 15 73 43 21 17

1-Pentene, 4-methyl- 16 11 25 43 76

1,2-Difluorocyclobutane 17 49 34 73 1

1,4-Difluorobutane 18 30 38 77 14

Fluorocyclobutane 19 43 20 85 15

1,1-Difluoroacetone 20 68 36 32 28

1,1,1,4,4,4-Hexafluorobutane 21 56 92 14 3

2-Propanone, 1,1,3,3-tetrafluoro- 22 87 62 16 2

1,1-Difluorocyclobutane 23 40 35 74 19

GWP = global warming potential; MW = molecular weight; TC = thermal conductivity;

BP = boiling point

14

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

ORA J 

Rank 

Name 

Overall GWP MW TC 

Cyclopentene 1 2 9 24 

1,4-Pentadiene 2 8 10 68 

I-Butene, 2-methyl- 3 3 13 76 

3 -Flourocyclobutene 4 6 17 67 

2-Pentene 5 4 12 70 

I-Pentene 6 10 14 86 

Butane, I-fluoro- 7 28 22 65 

2-Butene, 2-methyl- 8 1 15 93 

1,1,2,2,3 -Pentafluoropropane 9 59 69 9 

I-Butene, 3,3-dimethyl- 10 12 26 61 

Butane, 2-methyl 11 21 18 97 

2-Butene 12 5 3 83 

Cyclopentane 13 18 11 54 

1,1,I,2,3-Pentafluoropropane 14 70 70 10 

Difluoromethyl fluoromethly ether 15 73 43 21 

I-Pentene,4-methyl- 16 11 25 43 

1,2-Diflllorocyclobutane 17 49 34 73 

1,4-Diflllorobutane 18 30 38 77 

Fluorocyc1obutane 19 43 20 85 

l,l-Difluoroacetone 20 68 36 32 

1, 1, 1,4,4,4-Hexafluorobutane 21 56 92 14 

2-Propanone, 1,1,3 ,3-tetrafluoro- 22 87 62 16 

I,I-Difluorocyclobutane 23 40 35 74 

GWP = global warmmg potentIal; MW = molecular weight; TC = thermal conductivity; 

BP = boiling point 

14 

BP 

52 

7 

20 

25 

34 

18 

23 

30 

5 

44 

11 

58 

68 

4 

17 

76 

1 

14 

15 

28 

3 

2 

19 

ORA J 

Rank 

Name 

Overall GWP MW TC 

Cyclopentene 1 2 9 24 

1,4-Pentadiene 2 8 10 68 

I-Butene, 2-methyl- 3 3 13 76 

3 -Flourocyclobutene 4 6 17 67 

2-Pentene 5 4 12 70 

I-Pentene 6 10 14 86 

Butane, I-fluoro- 7 28 22 65 

2-Butene, 2-methyl- 8 1 15 93 

1,1,2,2,3 -Pentafluoropropane 9 59 69 9 

I-Butene, 3,3-dimethyl- 10 12 26 61 

Butane, 2-methyl 11 21 18 97 

2-Butene 12 5 3 83 

Cyclopentane 13 18 11 54 

1,1,I,2,3-Pentafluoropropane 14 70 70 10 

Difluoromethyl fluoromethly ether 15 73 43 21 

I-Pentene,4-methyl- 16 11 25 43 

1,2-Diflllorocyclobutane 17 49 34 73 

1,4-Diflllorobutane 18 30 38 77 

Fluorocyc1obutane 19 43 20 85 

l,l-Difluoroacetone 20 68 36 32 

1, 1, 1,4,4,4-Hexafluorobutane 21 56 92 14 

2-Propanone, 1,1,3 ,3-tetrafluoro- 22 87 62 16 

I,I-Difluorocyclobutane 23 40 35 74 

GWP = global warmmg potentIal; MW = molecular weight; TC = thermal conductivity; 

BP = boiling point 

14 

BP 

52 

7 

20 

25 

34 

18 

23 

30 

5 

44 

11 

58 

68 

4 

17 

76 

1 

14 

15 

28 

3 

2 

19 
Rank

Name

Overall GWP MW TC BP

Pentane 24 20 19 98 33

1-Propene, 3,3,3-trifluoro- 25 13 41 27 90

Cyclobutane 26 36 5 99 31

Trifluoromethoxymethoxymethane 27 24 61 75 16

1,2,3-Trifluorocyclobutane 28 58 48 59 12

2-Propanone 29 53 7 38 81

Cyclopropane, ethyl- 30 32 16 103 29

1,4-Pentadiene, 3-methyl- 31 7 24 71 79

1,1,1,3,3-Pentafluoropropane 32 77 71 13 21

Dimethoxymethane 33 16 21 101 45

Butane, 2,3-dimethyl- 34 17 27 60 83

Cyclopropane, methyl- 35 50 4 84 51

1,1,2,2,3,3,-Hexafluorocyclopentane 36 29 97 37 27

1,1-Difluorobutane 37 31 40 79 40

Trimethylene oxide 38 22 6 92 70

2-Propanone, 1,1,1-trifluoro- 39 86 50 46 9

1,1,1-Trifluorobutane 40 33 49 49 60

1,1-Difluorocyclopentane 41 19 47 69 57

1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoropropane 42 54 53 23 65

1,2,3,4-Tetrofluorocyclobutane 43 72 58 39 26

1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethyl ethyl ether 44 38 76 57 24

Methane, iododifluoro- 45 93 96 2 6

1,2-Difluorobutane 46 41 39 78 39

15

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

, .' 

DRA~T 

Rank 

Name 

Overall GWP MW TC BP 

Pentane 24 20 19 98 33 

I-Propene,3,3,3-trifluoro- 25 13 41 27 90 

Cyclobutane 26 36 5 99 31 

Trifluoromethoxymethoxymethane 27 24 61 75 . 16 

1,2,3-Trifluorocyclobutane 28 58 48 59 12 

2-Propanone 29 53 7 38 81 

Cyclopropane, ethyl- 30 32 16 103 29 

I,4-Pentadiene,3-methyl- 31 7 24 71 79 

I,l,I,3,3-Pentafluoropropane 32 77 71 13 21 

Dimethoxymethane 33 16 21 101 45 

Butane, 2,3-dimethyl- 34 17 27 60 83 

Cyclopropane, methyl- 35 50 4 84 51 

I,I,2,2,3,3,-Hexafluorocyclopentane 36 29 97 37 27 

I,I-Difluorobutane 37 31 40 79 40 

Trimethylene oxide 38 22 6 92 70 

2-Propanone, 1,1, I-trifluoro- 39 86 50 46 9 

1,1,1-Trifluorobutane 40 33 49 49 60 

1,I-Difluorocyclopentane 41 19 47 69 57 

1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoropropane 42 54 53 23 65 

1,2,3,4-Tetrofluorocyclobutane 43 72 58 39 26 

1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethyl ethyl ether 44 38 76 57 24 

Methane, iododifluoro- 45 93 96 2 6 

1,2-Difluorobutane 46 41 39 78 39 

15 

, .' 

DRA~T 

Rank 

Name 

Overall GWP MW TC BP 

Pentane 24 20 19 98 33 

I-Propene,3,3,3-trifluoro- 25 13 41 27 90 

Cyclobutane 26 36 5 99 31 

Trifluoromethoxymethoxymethane 27 24 61 75 . 16 

1,2,3-Trifluorocyclobutane 28 58 48 59 12 

2-Propanone 29 53 7 38 81 

Cyclopropane, ethyl- 30 32 16 103 29 

I,4-Pentadiene,3-methyl- 31 7 24 71 79 

I,l,I,3,3-Pentafluoropropane 32 77 71 13 21 

Dimethoxymethane 33 16 21 101 45 

Butane, 2,3-dimethyl- 34 17 27 60 83 

Cyclopropane, methyl- 35 50 4 84 51 

I,I,2,2,3,3,-Hexafluorocyclopentane 36 29 97 37 27 

I,I-Difluorobutane 37 31 40 79 40 

Trimethylene oxide 38 22 6 92 70 

2-Propanone, 1,1, I-trifluoro- 39 86 50 46 9 

1,1,1-Trifluorobutane 40 33 49 49 60 

1,I-Difluorocyclopentane 41 19 47 69 57 

1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoropropane 42 54 53 23 65 

1,2,3,4-Tetrofluorocyclobutane 43 72 58 39 26 

1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethyl ethyl ether 44 38 76 57 24 

Methane, iododifluoro- 45 93 96 2 6 

1,2-Difluorobutane 46 41 39 78 39 

15 
Rank

Name

Overall GWP MW TC BP

1,1,2,3,3-Pentafluoropropane 47 83 68 6 41

1,1,1,3-Tetrafluoroacetone 48 90 60 36 13

Methyl trifluoroacetate 49 71 57 26 49

1,1,2,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 50 75 82 12 35

Butane, 2,2-dimethyl- 51 26 28 81 69

1,2,3-Trifluorocyclopentane 52 35 56 52 62

Tetramethyl silane 53 63 33 102 8

1,1,2,2-Tetrafluorocyclobutane 54 44 59 45 59

1,1,2,3,4,4-Hexafluoro-l-butene 55 14 88 34 72

2-Propanone, 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoro- 56 96 77 15 22

Propane, 1,1,1-trifluoro- 57 51 42 31 86

Trifluoromethyl ethyl ether 58 39 52 63 56

1,3-Difluoroacetone 59 60 37 48 67

1,1,3,3-Tetrafluorooxetane 60 82 63 58 10

1,2-Difluorocyclopentane 61 27 46 66 74

1-Trifluoromethoxy-2-fluoroethane 62 42 67 55 50

1-Fluoro-2-ethylcyclopropane 63 34 31 95 54

1-Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoro- 64 15 81 22 97

1-Methoxy-2,2,2-trifluoroethane 65 48 51 62 55

Fluorocyclopentane 66 23 29 82 82

Bis-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether 67 64 99 17 38

Ethane, 1,1-difluoro- 68 76 8 40 94

1,2,3,4-Tetrafluorocyclopentane 69 47 74 53 47

16

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

r. 

Rank 

Name 

Overall GWP MW Te BP 

1,1,2,3,3 -Pentafluoropropane 47 83 68 6 41 

1,1,1,3 -Tetrafluoroacetone 48 90 60 36 13 

Methyl trifluoroacetate 49 71 57 26 49 

I,I,2,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 50 75 82 12 35 

Butane, 2,2-dimethyl- 51 26 28 81 69 

.1,2,3-Trifluorocyclopentane 52 35 56 52 62 

T etramethyl silane 53 63 33 102 8 

1,1,2,2-Tetrafluorocyclobutane 54 44 59 45 59 

1,1,2,3,4,4-Hexafluoro-l-butene 55 14 88 34 72 

2-Propanone, 1,1,1,3 ,3-pentafluoro- 56 96 77 15 22 

Propane, 1,1, I-trifluoro- 57 51 42 31 86 

Trifluoromethyl ethyl ether 58 39 52 63 56 

1,3-Difluoroacetone 59 60 37 48 67 

1,1,3,3 -T etrafluorooxetane 60 82 63 58 10 

1,2-Difluorocyclopentane 61 27 46 66 74 

1-Trifluoromethoxy-2-fluoroethane 62 42 67 55 50 

I-Fluoro-2-ethy1cyclopropane 63 34 31 95 54 

I-Propene, 1,1,2,3 ,3,3-hexafluoro- 64 15 81 22 97 

I-Methoxy-2,2,2-trifluoroethane 65 48 51 62 55 

Fluorocyclopentane 66 23 29 82 82 

Bis-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether 67 64 99 17 38 

Ethane, 1, I-difluoro- 68 76 8 40 94 

1,2,3,4-Tetrafluorocyclopentane 69 47 74 53 47 

16 

r. 

Rank 

Name 

Overall GWP MW Te BP 

1,1,2,3,3 -Pentafluoropropane 47 83 68 6 41 

1,1,1,3 -Tetrafluoroacetone 48 90 60 36 13 

Methyl trifluoroacetate 49 71 57 26 49 

I,I,2,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 50 75 82 12 35 

Butane, 2,2-dimethyl- 51 26 28 81 69 

.1,2,3-Trifluorocyclopentane 52 35 56 52 62 

T etramethyl silane 53 63 33 102 8 

1,1,2,2-Tetrafluorocyclobutane 54 44 59 45 59 

1,1,2,3,4,4-Hexafluoro-l-butene 55 14 88 34 72 

2-Propanone, 1,1,1,3 ,3-pentafluoro- 56 96 77 15 22 

Propane, 1,1, I-trifluoro- 57 51 42 31 86 

Trifluoromethyl ethyl ether 58 39 52 63 56 

1,3-Difluoroacetone 59 60 37 48 67 

1,1,3,3 -T etrafluorooxetane 60 82 63 58 10 

1,2-Difluorocyclopentane 61 27 46 66 74 

1-Trifluoromethoxy-2-fluoroethane 62 42 67 55 50 

I-Fluoro-2-ethy1cyclopropane 63 34 31 95 54 

I-Propene, 1,1,2,3 ,3,3-hexafluoro- 64 15 81 22 97 

I-Methoxy-2,2,2-trifluoroethane 65 48 51 62 55 

Fluorocyclopentane 66 23 29 82 82 

Bis-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether 67 64 99 17 38 

Ethane, 1, I-difluoro- 68 76 8 40 94 

1,2,3,4-Tetrafluorocyclopentane 69 47 74 53 47 

16 
Rank

Name

Overall GWP MW TC BP

Methane, difluoro- 70 89 2 29 104

1,1,1,2,2,3-Hexafluoropropane 71 62 83 18 63

t-Butyl methyl ether 72 25 30 94 80

Propane, 2-fluoro-2-methyl- 73 46 23 91 73

1-Trifluoromethyl-1,2,2-

trifluorocyclobutane

74 45 98 56 36

1,1,1,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 75 88 85 20 46

2-Fluoroethylcyclopropane 76 37 32 96

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

75

Ethane, pentafluoroiodo- 77 100 103 7 32

Methane, iodofluoro- 78 79 87 1 77

Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro- 79 92 45 11 96

Ethane, fluoro- 80 52 1 90 101

Ethane, 1-iodo-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro- 81 97 102 3 43

Propane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-

iodo82 99 104 4 42

Difluoromethyl ether 83 84 54 64 48

Propane,1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoro-2-iodo- 84 101 105 8 37

1,1,1,2,2-Pentafluoropropane 85 55 72 41 88

1,1,1,3,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 86 94 84 19 61

Methane, trifluoroiodo- 87 61 101 5 92

1 -Methoxy- 1, 1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 88 65 64 47 84

1-Difluormethoxy-2,2-difluoroethane 89 85 65 50 64

1-Difluoromethoxy-1,1-difluoroethane 90 69 66 51 85

1,1,2,3,3,3-Pentafluoropropyl methyl

ether

91 66 100 30 78

17

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

Rank 

Name 

Overall GWP MW TC BP 

Methane, difluoro- 70 89 2 29 104 

1,1,1,2,2,3 -Hexafluoropropane 71 62 83 18 63 

t-Butyl methyl ether 72 25 30 94 80 

Propane, 2-fluoro-2-methyl- 73 46 23 91 73 

1-Trifluoromethyl-l ,2,2- 74 45 98 56 36 

trifluorocyclobutane 

1, 1, I,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 75 88 85 20 46 

2-Fluoroethylcyclopropane 76 37 32 96 75 

Ethane, pentafluoroiodo- 77 100 103 7 32 

Methane, iodofluoro- 78 79 87 1 77 

Ethane, 1,1, I,2-tetrafluoro- 79 92 45 11 96 

Ethane, fluoro- 80 52 1 90 101 

Ethane, l-iodo-l, 1 ;2,2-tetrafluoro- 81 97 102 3 43 

Propane, 1,1,1 ,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3- 82 99 104 4 42 

iodoDifluoromethyl ether, 83 84 54 64 48 

Propane, 1,1,1,2,3,3 ,3-heptafluoro-2-iodo- 84 101 105 8 37 

1,1,1,2,2-Pentafluoropropane , 85 55 72 41 88 

1, 1, 1,3,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 86 94 84 19 61 

Methane, trifluoroiodo- 87 61 101 5 92 

I-Methoxy-l, 1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 88 65 64 47 84 

1-Difluormethoxy-2,2-difluoroethane 89 85 65 50 64 

I-Difluoromethoxy-l,l-difluoroethane 90 69 66 51 85 

1, 1,2,3,3,3-Pentafluoropropyl methyl 91 66 100 30 78 

ether 

17 

Rank 

Name 

Overall GWP MW TC BP 

Methane, difluoro- 70 89 2 29 104 

1,1,1,2,2,3 -Hexafluoropropane 71 62 83 18 63 

t-Butyl methyl ether 72 25 30 94 80 

Propane, 2-fluoro-2-methyl- 73 46 23 91 73 

1-Trifluoromethyl-l ,2,2- 74 45 98 56 36 

trifluorocyclobutane 

1, 1, I,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 75 88 85 20 46 

2-Fluoroethylcyclopropane 76 37 32 96 75 

Ethane, pentafluoroiodo- 77 100 103 7 32 

Methane, iodofluoro- 78 79 87 1 77 

Ethane, 1,1, I,2-tetrafluoro- 79 92 45 11 96 

Ethane, fluoro- 80 52 1 90 101 

Ethane, l-iodo-l, 1 ;2,2-tetrafluoro- 81 97 102 3 43 

Propane, 1,1,1 ,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3- 82 99 104 4 42 

iodoDifluoromethyl ether, 83 84 54 64 48 

Propane, 1,1,1,2,3,3 ,3-heptafluoro-2-iodo- 84 101 105 8 37 

1,1,1,2,2-Pentafluoropropane , 85 55 72 41 88 

1, 1, 1,3,3,3-Hexafluoropropane 86 94 84 19 61 

Methane, trifluoroiodo- 87 61 101 5 92 

I-Methoxy-l, 1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 88 65 64 47 84 

1-Difluormethoxy-2,2-difluoroethane 89 85 65 50 64 

I-Difluoromethoxy-l,l-difluoroethane 90 69 66 51 85 

1, 1,2,3,3,3-Pentafluoropropyl methyl 91 66 100 30 78 

ether 

17 
Rank

Name

Overall GWP MW TC BP

Ethane, pentafluoro- 92 95 55 25 103

1 -Difluoromethoxy- 1, 1,2,2-

tetrafluoroethane

93 74 93 42 71

1,1,2,2,3-Pentafluorooxetane 94 78 78 80 53

1-Difluoromethoxy-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 95 80 80 44 87

Trifluoromethyl methyl ether 96 67 44. 87 93

2,3,4,5-Tratrfl ourotetrahydrofu ran 97 57 75 100 66

1,1,1,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoropropane 98 81 95 35 89

1-Propene, 3,3,3-trifluoro-2-

(trifluoromethyl)-

99 9 89 105 99

Hexafluorocyclopropane 100 102 79 28 102

1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane 101 98 94 33 91

Trifluoromethyl ether 102 103 86 72 105

Trifluoromethyl difluoromethyl ether 103 91 73 . 104 100

1,1,2,2,3,3-Hexafluorooxetane 104 104 90 88 98

2-Propanone, hexafluoro- 105 105 91 89

::^

q5

18

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 227

DRA~T 

Rank 

Name 

Overall GWP MW TC BP 

Ethane, pentafluoro- 92 95 55 25 103 

1-Difluoromethoxy-1, 1,2,2- 93 74 93 42 71 

tetrafluoroethane 

1,I,2,2,3-Pentafluorooxetane 94 78 78 80 53 

I-Difluoromethoxy-I,2,2-trifluoroethane 95 80 80 44 87 

Trifluoromethyl methyl ether 96 67 44. 87 93 

2,3,4,5-Tratrflourotetrahydrofuran 97 57 75 100 66 

1, 1, I,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoropropane 98 81 95 35 89 

I-Propene,3,3,3-trifluoro-2- 99 9 89 105 99 

(trifluoromethyl)-

Hexafluorocyclopropane 100 102 79 28 102 

1,1,1,2,3 ,3,3-Heptafluoropropane 101 98 94 33 91 

Trifluoromethyl ether 102 103 86 72 105 

Trifluoromethyl difluoromethyl ether 103 91 73 104 100 

1, 1,2,2,3,3 -Hexafluorooxetane 104 104 90 88 98 

2-Propanone, hexafluoro- 105 105 91 89 95 

18 

DRA~T 

Rank 

Name 

Overall GWP MW TC BP 

Ethane, pentafluoro- 92 95 55 25 103 

1-Difluoromethoxy-1, 1,2,2- 93 74 93 42 71 

tetrafluoroethane 

1,I,2,2,3-Pentafluorooxetane 94 78 78 80 53 

I-Difluoromethoxy-I,2,2-trifluoroethane 95 80 80 44 87 

Trifluoromethyl methyl ether 96 67 44. 87 93 

2,3,4,5-Tratrflourotetrahydrofuran 97 57 75 100 66 

1, 1, I,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoropropane 98 81 95 35 89 

I-Propene,3,3,3-trifluoro-2- 99 9 89 105 99 

(trifluoromethyl)-

Hexafluorocyclopropane 100 102 79 28 102 

1,1,1,2,3 ,3,3-Heptafluoropropane 101 98 94 33 91 

Trifluoromethyl ether 102 103 86 72 105 

Trifluoromethyl difluoromethyl ether 103 91 73 104 100 

1, 1,2,2,3,3 -Hexafluorooxetane 104 104 90 88 98 

2-Propanone, hexafluoro- 105 105 91 89 95 

18