4387 Rider Trail N. | Earth City, MO 63045 | 1.800.325.4875 | +1.314.344.3330www.foamsupplies.com | www.ecomatesystems.com

TITLE:Improved Insulation for Commercial & Domestic Appliances

AuThoR:John Murphy, Foam Supplies, Inc.

ABSTRACT:There is both economic and environmental pressure on the Appliance Industry to produce appliances that are energy efficient as well as non-damaging to the environment. The choice of foam blowing agent plays a major role in the efficiency of the appliance and upon its impact on the environment both now and in the future [a legacy of encapsulated BAs and ever tighter restrictions]. The change from CFC to HCFC to HFC has had its challenges, both in efficiency and particularly in cost. HFE conversion will also lead to high cost insulation.

This paper will show how the patented blowing agent ecomate®(1,2) can improve the environmental impact of these appliances while achieving all the other criteria requisite for superior appliance manufacture: good fill properties, good dimensional properties and good thermal properties. Finally we will demonstrate the cost and environmental savings that can be had with ecomate blown foams with improved Energy Star ratings.

(1). Ecomate® is a registered trademark of Foam Supplies, Inc. for methyl formate foam blowing agent.

(2) (a) US 6,753,357, “Rigid Foam Compositions and Method Employing Methyl Formate as a Blowing Agent,” Kalinowski, Timothy T., et al., June 22, 2004.

(b) Australia Patent 2002357892 “Rigid Foam Compositions and Methods Employing Alkyl Alkanoates as a Blowing Agent.” Schulte, Mark S., et al. Issued Aug.17, 2006.

(c) Singapore Patent 104780 “Rigid Foam Compositions and Methods Employing Alkyl Alkanoates as a Blowing Agent.” Kalinowski, Timothy T., et al. June 30, 2005.

(d) South Korea patent 10-0649377, “Rigid Foam Compositions and Methods Employing Alkyl Alkanoates as a Blowing Agent.” Kalinowski, Timothy T., et al. Nov. 17, 2006.

(e) Mexican Patent (No number issued at this point. Appl. No. 2006/010120). “Rigid Foam Compositions and Methods Employing Alkyl Alkanoates as a Blowing Agent” Kalinowski, Timothy T., et al. Feb. 20, 2009.

(f) Mexican Patent 242616 Rigid Foam Compositions and Methods Employing Methyl Formate as a Blowing Agent. Kalinowski, Timothy T., et al. Dec. 11, 2006.

(g) South Africa Patent 2007/00963 Reactivity Drift and Catalyst Degradation in Polyurethane Foam. Schulte, Mark S., et al. Oct. 29, 2008.

(h) Chinese Patent in 2009. Number not available at this time.

ABSTRACT

Improved Insulation for Commercial & Domestic Appliances

John Murphy

Foam Supplies Inc

4387 N Rider Trail

Earth City MO 63045

ABSTRACT

There is both economic and environmental pressure on the Appliance Industry to produce appliances that

are energy efficient as well as non-damaging to the environment. The choice of foam blowing agent plays

a major role in the efficiency of the appliance and upon its impact on the environment both now and in the

future [a legacy of encapsulated BAs and ever tighter restrictions]. The change from CFC to HCFC to HFC

has had its challenges, both in efficiency and particularly in cost. HFE conversion will also lead to high

cost insulation.

This paper will show how the patented blowing agent ecomate®(1,2)

can improve the environmental impact

of these appliances while achieving all the other criteria requisite for superior appliance manufacture: good

fill properties, good dimensional properties and good thermal properties. Finally we will demonstrate the

cost and environmental savings that can be had with ecomate blown foams with improved Energy Star

ratings.

INTRODUCTION

The Domestic Appliance Industry in the US continues to be challenged by its need to produce appliances

that are energy efficient as well as non-damaging to the environment, and to do this economically. The

thermal efficiency of a refrigerator is dependant mainly on the choice of foam blowing agent selected, and

in the system in which it is used. The onus of Ozone Depletion initially forced a change from CFC-11 to

HCFC-141b, and Global Warming worries prompted a second change to either hydrocarbons, such as the

pentanes, or to HFCs [such as HFC-245fa]. All the while blowing agents choices have become more

expensive, and at the same time less thermally efficient.

In addition, while these transitions are taking place in developed countries like the US, manufacturers in

other countries who did not have to make the transition are allowed to import their products into the US,

unfairly competing with their more efficient, less costly units.

COMPETITION - PRESENT AND FUTURE

While there is mounting pressure to transition the less developed countries over to HFCs or other BAs,

there is similar pressure mounting to curtail the use of HFCs in the US. Why? Because HFCs, as improved

as they are, still contribute to global warming, and also because it has recently been discovered that HFCs

are stable enough NOT to decompose in landfills at the end of the refrigerator lifetime. Thus the units

produced today with HFCs are immediately becoming a legacy for our sons & daughters.

What about HFE and HFOs? They are not immediately available because of ongoing toxicity testing and

needed production scale-up. We have been told that they might be available in late 2010 to early 2012.

What do we surmise these molecules are, and what might they cost?

Future potential BAs are described in Table 1.

These potential next generation BAs may eventually come to market, if they pass toxicity testing.

Although we do not yet know the exact properties of each of the molecules, we do know that the HFOs

[hydro fluoro-olefins] below can be readily made from HFC-245fa(3)

. It is likely that AFA-L1 could be

made from HFC-365mfc, by a similar process. FEA-1100 is more likely an ether, rather than an olefin.

TABLE 1: Potential New BAs [4th

Generation]

FSI DuPont

Honeywell /

DuPont Honeywell ARKEMA

ecomate FEA1100 HFO1234yf

HBA1

HFO1234ze AFA-L1

HCOOCH3 CF3CF2CH2-0-CH3 CF3CF=CH2 CF2H-CH=CF2 CF3CH2CH=CFH

MW 60 164 114 114 128

normalized

MW 1 2.7 1.9 1.9 2.1

# F 0 5 4 4 4

%F 0 58% 67% 67% 59%

BP, ºC 32 25 -29 <-15 <30>10

Lambda 10.7 10.7 13 ? 13 10

FLASH PT, C -32 NO NO NO NO

LFL 5 NO NO NO NO

UFL 23 NO NO NO NO

ODP 0 0 0 0 0

GWP 0 5 4 6 <15

VOC EXEMPT ? YES? YES? YES?

While these blowing agents have much improved GWP values, they still have some drawbacks. First, they

likely will be more expensive than the already costly HFCs they are replacing. Combined with their high

molecular weight, the overall cost will reduce their attractiveness to potential users. They are unlikely to

obtain VOC exemption because of the presence of unsaturation. Unsaturated molecules usually have much

higher MIR (maximum incremental reactivity) values relative to the creation of smog. It does not seem

advisable to trade one environmental problem for another. The cost to be non-flammable seems too high.

To be an acceptable blowing agent for this industry, the foam made from it has to have good physical

properties, especially thermal properties. The thermal properties of a neat blowing agent [lambda, above]

are only an indication that the BA might perform adequately. Because of this, the industry usually requires

that several units be made and tested by a procedure called a Reverse Heat Flow Analysis to ascertain its

ability to insulate adequately, independent of the compressor. More on this later.

Besides the establishment of good thermal properties, this industry requires the BA to obtain GRAS

[Generally Recognized As Safe], a legal opinion based upon a large amount of testing that if the blowing

agent should leach through the foam and the plastic inner liner of the refrigerator and be absorbed into the

food inside, that it would be in low enough concentration [or have low enough toxicity] to be of no

consequence to humans. This testing, and the subsequent publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal

may well take over a year. To say nothing of cost!

Some manufacturers have transitioned to pentanes to blow their foams in order to maintain a competitive

stance with HC and HCFC imports. This transition comes with an acceptance of flammability, and the

requisite process changes to use flammable BAs. And very often this transition requires an acceptance of

poorer lambda values. Fortunately, in July of this year the importation of products containing HCFC-141b

will cease, allowing domestic manufacturers to better compete against foreign imports.

ENTER ECOMATE

While ecomate [neat] is flammable, it is far less flammable than HCs. This has been documented in many

previous papers (4)

. When blended into polyol [or isocyanate], it can be handled in the same way as 141b.

It has almost identical properties, such as boiling point, solubility and flammability.

Before investing heavily in obtaining GRAS approval, we thought it prudent to demonstrate to this industry

the benefits that ecomate use can bring. First of all, ecomate has been approved at one of the major Drink

Dispenser manufacturers in the country. It [ecomate] provided superior flow and fill properties to the

previous 134a based system, and the insulation properties were identical as measured by side-by-side ice

melt testing [Figure 1].

Figure 1: Drink Dispenser Ice Melt Tests at 75ºF – 134a v ecomate blown insulation

It is also achieving marked success in display cases and commercial refrigeration, getting identical results

as foamed units blown with 245fa. For example, an industrial refrigeration manufacturer adopted ecomate

blown foam in its latest cabinets and surpassed Energy Star requirements by 23.7%.

Another commercial appliance manufacturer, when faced with the proposition of changing to 134a blown

foam when R22 was phased out, decided instead to convert to ecomate blown systems because of its

efficiency and low environmental impact. They achieved the same insulation values at the same

thicknesses as the original products, and used 10% less foam.

Drink Dispenser Tests

Ice Melt @ 75 F

Identical results !

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

0 1000 2000 3000

minutes

ice r

em

ain

ing

(g

)

134a

ecomate

Figure 2: Commercial Fridge besting ENERGY STAR requirements by 23.7%

Inspired by this success, a supplier to the domestic refrigeration market was approached to build a number

of units foamed with ecomate blown foam. The unit selected was a 7 cubic foot freezer chest.

The dimensions of the unit are shown in Table 2a. The nominal 7 cu. ft. unit was only 6.67 cu. ft, and

required 9.5 pounds of foam at a targeted 2.13 pcf core density. The foam was dispensed in 3.23 seconds

through a 40 ppm High Pressure machine. Demold was 2.5 minutes after shot time.

Table 2a: Ecomate Chest Dimensions Table 2b: 141b Chest Dimensions

ECO ID OD

141b ID OD

L 26.5 31.5

L 31.5 37

W 16.25 22.75

W 15.125 20.75

H 28.75 31.75

H 27.5 31 COMPRESSOR

WELL

COMPRESSOR WELL

L 9

L 7.5

W 9

W 7.75

H 10.5

H 20.75

CU FT 6.67 13.17

CU FT 6.88 13.77

In order to do a modified Reverse Heat Flow test, a second commercial unit from the same supplier was

purchased from a local hardware. Its dimensions were not quite the same [Table 2b], and we then learned

that it was made in China and its foam blown with 141b. Not a true side by side comparison, since no

current foam blowing agent can equal the gas lambda of 141b [10 v 10.7 for ecomate]. Undaunted, we

pressed on.

In the first test, the units were placed inside a walk-in refrigerator, maintained at 42ºF.

Figure 3: Ambient Cooler Temp [42 ºF] for Reverse Heat Flow testing.

Heat was generated inside the boxes by a transformer controlled [to 89.9 volts] 40 Watt light bulb.

Temperatures inside both units and inside the cooler were monitored with 3 EXTECH RHT10

temperature probes [one for each unit and one for the ambient cooler]. We monitored the units once each

minute for 70 hours.

Figure 4: Reverse Heat Flow of ecomate- and 141b- blown Freezer Chests

While there is some variation in the minute to minute readings of each box [which follows the cyclic

variation in the electricity supply during each 24 hr period, thus affecting the wattage of the bulbs used],

the trendline shows that both units have the same slope and differ only by the average temperature they

held over those 70 hours:

141b blown foam = 89.894ºF

Ecomate foam = 88.644ºF

A difference of 1.25ºF, or 0.7 ºC

We then decided to place the two units in a Cold Storage Freezer maintained at 0ºF [Figure 5]. The

ambient temperature in the freezer shown in this figure averaged negative 1 degree F. The chests under test

were heated in the same manner, this time using 100W bulbs. An attempt was made to get the interiors of

the freezer chests once again to 90ºF, but we fell slightly off the mark [Figure 6]. The rheostat was set at

75% in this trial. With a delta temperature this time of almost 90ºF, the chests again did remarkably well:

141b blown foam = 86.007ºF

Ecomate foam = 84.735ºF

A difference of 1.27 ºF, or 0.7 ºC

Figure 5: Ambient temperature of ZeroºF Freezer used in Test 2

Figure 6: Reverse Heat Flow of ecomate- and 141b- blown Freezer Chests at ZeroºF

While elated at the excellent performance [identical results at two different temperatures] of the ecomate

blown system against that of the HCFC-141b blown chest, we know that there were several deficiencies in

the formulation we investigated.

Having no previous experience with domestic refrigeration formulations, this formulation was in no

manner optimized. In our first effort, our reaction rates were slow [in fact, we adjusted reactivity at the

demo], our densities high, and our closed cell content low. This lack of optimization resulted in poorer

than expected thermal conductivity.

The thermal conductivity of a urethane foam is a result of the thermal conductivity of the blowing agent

certainly, but also of the polyurethane matrix – the fineness of cells and their orientation. The finer the

cells, the better the insulation. And the faster the reaction rate, the finer the cells. However, faster

reactivity may prove to be a challenge in terms of processability, particularly resulting in reduced flow and

elongated , stretched cells. Our formulation [Table 3], while finally having the required reactivity, did not

have the flow parameters [flow index and core/fill ratio] it needed, nor the closed cell content. In spite of

these deficits, we feel it did very well in the reverse heat flow tests.

Table 3: System Properties of foam used

Run Summary Req’d S1a

Gel 35-40 35

Tack Free 55-65 55

Free Rise Dens, pcf 1.40 1.42

LANZEN PANEL

MFD, pcf 1.94 1.98

Flow Index [MFD/FRD] 1.38 1.40

Physicals

Core Density 1.8 1.8

Core/Fill Ratio 0.90 0.80

Closed Cell Content 90% min 87.4

K-factor @75°F 0.137 0.166

@50°F 0.127 0.156

Dim Stab 14d @ -25°C <-2% -1.42

We have recently done work in-house with ecomate foam formulations and have achieved the requisite

thermal properties listed above and are anxious to put these formulations to the test. And with this

confidence, we are pursuing GRAS status for ecomate.

Ecomate affords the formulator economies of cost. With the lowest MW of any commercial blowing agent,

and with pricing similar to hydrocarbons, the usage levels will be low and the pricing right. It offers

economy of production, since no expensive plant conversions will be required for its implementation. It

offers environmental economy as well, since for every pound of ecomate used to replace an HFC, over one

metric tonne [2200 lbs] of CO2 equivalents can be saved. And best of all, ecomate performs. … we have

had loyal customers successfully using ecomate for the past decade.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The next generation of HFEs or HFOs are still probably 2 years away. They will be as expensive

as the HFCs they are made from. They may be flammable, and may be smog producers.

Toxicology is pending.

2. Ecomate is here today! It is efficient, cost effective, and benign to the ecology. It leaves no

legacy to the environment.

3. Ecomate gives very nearly same reverse heat flow results as did 141b, both at refrigerator and

freezer temperatures, without being formulation optimized.

FOOTNOTES

(1). Ecomate® is a registered trademark of Foam Supplies, Inc. for methyl formate foam blowing agent. (2) (a) US 6,753,357, “Rigid Foam Compositions and Method Employing Methyl Formate as a Blowing

Agent,” Kalinowski, Timothy T., et al., June 22, 2004. (b) Australia Patent 2002357892 “Rigid Foam Compositions and Methods Employing Alkyl Alkanoates

as a Blowing Agent.” Schulte, Mark S., et al. Issued Aug.17, 2006. (c) Singapore Patent 104780 “Rigid Foam Compositions and Methods Employing Alkyl Alkanoates as a

Blowing Agent.” Kalinowski, Timothy T., et al. June 30, 2005. (d) South Korea patent 10-0649377, “Rigid Foam Compositions and Methods Employing Alkyl

Alkanoates as a Blowing Agent.” Kalinowski, Timothy T., et al. Nov. 17, 2006. (e) Mexican Patent (No number issued at this point. Appl. No. 2006/010120). “Rigid Foam

Compositions and Methods Employing Alkyl Alkanoates as a Blowing Agent” Kalinowski, Timothy T., et al. Feb. 20, 2009.

(f) Mexican Patent 242616 Rigid Foam Compositions and Methods Employing Methyl Formate as a

Blowing Agent. Kalinowski, Timothy T., et al. Dec. 11, 2006. (g) South Africa Patent 2007/00963 Reactivity Drift and Catalyst Degradation in Polyurethane Foam.

Schulte, Mark S., et al. Oct. 29, 2008. (h) Chinese Patent in 2009. Number not available at this time.

(3). US Patent Application 20050247905, Honeywell Corp. (4) (a) Murphy, J. A, 2008 “Ecomate - Environmentally Benign Foam Blowing Agent”, Presented at the

American Chemical Society‟s 12th

Annual Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference, Washington DC, June 26, 2008

(b) Murphy. J, Schulte, M, and Green, B. 2005 POLYURETHANES Technical Conference „05 “Ecomate Foam Blowing Agent”, 302-309

(c) Murphy, J. 2006 POLYURETHANES Technical Conference „06, “Ecomate – a multi-faceted Blowing

Agent”, 580-587 (d) Murphy, J. 2007 API POLYURETHANES Technical Conference 2007, Energy Critical Foams - Paper

8 “Factors contributing to k-factor optimization with ecomate blown foams” (e) Murphy, J. 2008 API POLYURETHANES Technical Conference 2008, Insulation Options – paper 58,

“A Comparison Of Physical Properties [and their causative factors] Of Froth v Pour Foams” (f) Murphy, J, Jones, D. 2006. “The Revolutionary New Blowing Agent for Europe”, presented at the 2006

Utech Conference Paper 18 (g) Murphy, J. 2009. “Environmentally Benign Foam Blowing – the time has come”, presented at the 2009

Utech Conference, paper 43 (h) Murphy, J, Jones, D. 2009. “Environmental Advantages of Pentane and NIK Blends”, presented at

the 2009 Rapra Conference, Paper 202

BIOGRAPHY

John A. Murphy

John received his BS in Chemistry in 1965. During his 35 years researching

urethanes he has worked for [among others] ARCO Chemical and Elf

Atochem, where he introduced HCFC-141b to the industry. Currently

employed by FSI, he is responsible for New Product Development -

Ecomate.

IMPROVED INSULATION FOR COMMERCIAL & DOMESTIC APPLIANCESJohn Murphy - Foam Supplies, IncCPI - Washington 2009

1

Domestic Appliances

US & Europe converted to HFCs and HCs ROW still using HCFCs

Import into US allowed until July’09

Pressure mounting to transition from HFCs

What’s Wrong with HFCs?

HIGH MW = HIGH COST LAMBDA POORER than

141b [=10] GWP HIGH ! Don’t DECOMPOSE in Soil Building a GWP LEGACY

134a 245fa 365mfc /227ea

MW 102 134 150

BP -26.2 10 30λ 14 12 10.7

ODP 0 0 0

GWP 1430 1030 964

VOC EXEMPT EXEMPT N/A

NOTHING - EXCEPT

HFC PROPERTIES

GWP LEGACY

BA MW

ecomate 60

134a 102

245fa 134

365/227 150

GWP LEGACY

BA MW NORM

ecomate 60 1

134a 102 1.7

245fa 134 2.2

365/227 150 2.5

GWP LEGACY

BA MW NORM GWP

ecomate 60 1 ~1

134a 102 1.7 1430

245fa 134 2.2 1030

365/227 150 2.5 964

GWP LEGACY

BA MW NORM GWP CO2 e

ecomate 60 1 ~1 1

134a 102 1.7 1430 2431

245fa 134 2.2 1030 2300

365/227 150 2.5 964 2410

GWP LEGACY

BA MW NORM GWP CO2 e

ecomate 60 1 ~1 1

134a 102 1.7 1430 2431

245fa 134 2.2 1030 2300

365/227 150 2.5 964 2410

FOR EVERY POUND OF ECOMATE USED TO REPLACE an HFC, OVER 1 METRIC TONNE OF CO2e IS SAVED

BA PropertiesAfter HFC Phase-Out

n-Pentane c-Pentane ecomate

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Molecular weight 72 70 60 g/mol

Boiling Point 37 49 31.5 ºC

Liquid density 0.626 0.751 0.982 g/cc

Vapor density 2.5 2.07 g/cc

Gas Lambda 14 11 10.7 mW/mKSolubility POOR FAIR-POOR EXCELLENT

BA PropertiesAfter HFC Phase-Out

n-Pentane c-Pentane ecomate

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Molecular weight 72 70 60 g/mol

Boiling Point 37 49 31.5 ºC

Liquid density 0.626 0.751 0.982 g/cc

Vapor density 2.5 2.07 g/cc

Gas Lambda 14 11 10.7 mW/mK

Solubility POOR FAIR-POOR EXCELLENT

FLAMMABILITY

Flash Point -40 -37 -19 ºC

LFL 1.4 1.1 5 % v/v

UFL 7.8 8.7 23 % v/v

Heat of Combustion -49.7 -46.9 -16.2 KJ/g

BA PropertiesAfter HFC Phase-Out

n-Pentane c-Pentane ecomate

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Molecular weight 72 70 60 g/mol

Boiling Point 37 49 31.5 ºC

Liquid density 0.626 0.751 0.982 g/cc

Vapor density 2.5 2.07 g/cc

Gas Lambda 14 11 10.7 mW/mK

Solubility POOR FAIR-POOR EXCELLENT

FLAMMABILITY

Flash Point -40 -37 -19 ºC

LFL 1.4 1.1 5 % v/v

UFL 7.8 8.7 23 % v/v

Heat of Combustion -49.7 -46.9 -16.2 KJ/g

ENVIRONMENTAL

GWP 11 11 ~1

ODP 0 0 0

VOC YES YES exempt

Potential New BAs – HFEs & HFOs* Our best guess based on info given

FSI DuPont

Honeywell /

DuPont Honeywell ARKEMA

ecomate FEA1100 HFO1234yf

HBA1

HFO1234ze AFA-L1

HCOOCH3 CF3CF2CH2-0-CH3 CF3CF=CH2 CF2H-CH=CF2 CF3CH2CH=CFH

MW 60 164 114 114 128

Potential New BAs – HFEs & HFOs* Our best guess based on info given

FSI DuPont

Honeywell /

DuPont Honeywell ARKEMA

ecomate FEA1100 HFO1234yf

HBA1

HFO1234ze AFA-L1

HCOOCH3 CF3CF2CH2-0-CH3 CF3CF=CH2 CF2H-CH=CF2 CF3CH2CH=CFH

MW 60 164 114 114 128

normalized

MW 1 2.7 1.9 1.9 2.1

Potential New BAs – HFEs & HFOs* Our best guess based on info given

FSI DuPont

Honeywell /

DuPont Honeywell ARKEMA

ecomate FEA1100 HFO1234yf

HBA1

HFO1234ze AFA-L1

HCOOCH3 CF3CF2CH2-0-CH3 CF3CF=CH2 CF2H-CH=CF2 CF3CH2CH=CFH

MW 60 164 114 114 128

normalized

MW 1 2.7 1.9 1.9 2.1

# F 0 5 4 4 4

%F 0 58% 67% 67% 59%

BP 32 25 -29 <-15 <30>10

Lambda 10.7 10.7 13 ? 13 10

Potential New BAs – HFEs & HFOs* Our best guess based on info given

FSI DuPont

Honeywell /

DuPont Honeywell ARKEMA

ecomate FEA1100 HFO1234yf

HBA1

HFO1234ze AFA-L1

HCOOCH3 CF3CF2CH2-0-CH3 CF3CF=CH2 CF2H-CH=CF2 CF3CH2CH=CFH

MW 60 164 114 114 128

normalized

MW 1 2.7 1.9 1.9 2.1

# F 0 5 4 4 4

%F 0 58% 67% 67% 59%

BP 32 25 -29 <-15 <30>10

Lambda 10.7 10.7 13 ? 13 10

FLASH PT -32 NO NO NO NO

LFL 5 NO NO NO NO

UFL 23 NO NO NO NO

Potential New BAs – HFEs & HFOs* Our best guess based on info given

FSI DuPont

Honeywell /

DuPont Honeywell ARKEMA

ecomate FEA1100 HFO1234yf

HBA1

HFO1234ze AFA-L1

HCOOCH3 CF3CF2CH2-0-CH3 CF3CF=CH2 CF2H-CH=CF2 CF3CH2CH=CFH

MW 60 164 114 114 128

normalized

MW 1 2.7 1.9 1.9 2.1

# F 0 5 4 4 4

%F 0 58% 67% 67% 59%

BP 32 25 -29 <-15 <30>10

Lambda 10.7 10.7 13 ? 13 10

FLASH PT -32 NO NO NO NO

LFL 5 NO NO NO NO

UFL 23 NO NO NO NO

ODP 0 0 0 0 0

GWP ~1 5 4 6 <15

VOC EXEMPT ? YES? YES? YES?

Potential HFO Manufacture

HFC-245fa HFO-1234yf

CF3-CF2-CH3 ------> CF3-CF=CH2 + HF

MW = 134 MW = 114 MW = 20

HFC-365mfc

CF3-CH2-CF2-CH3 ------> CF3-CH2-CF=CH2 + HF

MW = 148 MW= 128 MW = 20

US Pat App 20050247905

SMOG – The Next Challenge

COMPOUND MIR ValuesMethyl Formate 0.06

n-pentane 1.54iso-pentane 1.68

cyclo-pentane 2.69

Maximum Incremental Reactivity [SMOG] Values

COMPOUND MIR ValuesMethyl Formate 0.06

n-pentane 1.54iso-pentane 1.68

cyclo-pentane 2.69Unsaturation challenge

Ethane -C-C- 0.31Ethene >C=C< 9.08

Maximum Incremental Reactivity [SMOG] Values

COMPOUND MIR ValuesMethyl Formate 0.06

n-pentane 1.54iso-pentane 1.68

cyclo-pentane 2.69Unsaturation challenge

ethane 0.31ethene 9.08

n-pentane 1.541-pentene 7.79

Maximum Incremental Reactivity [SMOG] Values

HFO Challenges

Toxicity – Must pass stringent TOX screening Cost – at least as expensive as HFCs Some may be flammable

Olefins have higher MIR values than alkanes May be VOC generators

The cost to be non-flammable seems too high!

Foam Requirements –Domestic Appliances

Good Gas Lambda values Good Foam Physicals GRAS [Generally Recognized As Safe] Side-by Side comparisons BEST

Due to Variations in Density, Flow, Cell Orientation Ice melt times Reverse Heat Flow analysis

Ice Melt Tests

Drink Dispenser Tests

Ice Melt @ 75 F

Identical results !

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

0 1000 2000 3000

minutes

ice r

em

ain

ing

(g

)

134a

ecomate

Side-by-Side Comparisonswith Ecomate

Display Cases & Commercial Refrigeration –3 CASE STUDIES: Equivalent Results to 245fa units Another: Surpassed Energy Star requirements by 23.7% A Third: Used 10% less foam converting from R22 Lower MW Blowing Agent Less BA Loss Better Flow

Reverse Heat Flow – Our Study

7 cu ft Freezer Chests from same MFGR Ecomate blown foam 141b blown foam

Two Ambient temps: 40°F & 0°F Heated by 1 Light Bulb at regulated voltage

40W @ 40°F, 100W @ 0°F Target Chest temperature = 90°F Each Chest fed SAME VOLTAGE

Reverse Heat Flow – Chest Dimensions

ECO ID OD 141b ID OD

L 26.5 31.5 L 31.5 37

W 16.25 22.75 W 15.125 20.75

H 28.75 31.75 H 27.5 31

COMPRESSOR WELL COMPRESSOR WELL

L 9 L 7.5

W 9 W 7.75

H 10.5 H 20.75

CU FT 6.67 13.17 CU FT 6.88 13.77

Test Cabinetw bulb & sensor

sensor

bulb

Ambient Temp DeterminationTest1 = 42°F

y = -0.0003x + 41.949

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 500 1000 1500

Tem

p, F

Minutes

Cooler Ambient Temp

Ambient

Linear (Ambient)

Reverse Heat Flow Test1 @ 42 °F Ambient

y = -9E-05x + 88.644

y = -9E-05x + 89.894

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

1 481 961 1441 1921 2401 2881 3361

Tem

p, F

Minutes

Reverse Heat Flow

eco141bLinear (eco)Linear (141b)

Chest Temps @ 42°F

141b blown foam 89.894

ecomate blown foam 88.644

Difference, °F 1.25

Difference, °C 0.7

Test Results

Chest Temps @ 42°F

141b blown foam 89.894

ecomate blown foam 88.644

Difference, °F 1.25

Difference, °C 0.7

Test Results – O Boy!

y = 0.0006x - 1.0299

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 50 100 150 200 250

Tem

p, F

Minutes [x 10]

Ambient Temp DeterminationTest 2 = - 1 °F

TempLinear (Temp)

y = 0.0037x + 84.735

y = 0.0036x + 86.007

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

0 50 100 150 200 250

Che

st T

emp,

F

Minutes [x 10]

Freezer ChestsReverse Heat Flow, 0 F

ecomate141bLinear (ecomate)Linear (141b)

Chest Temps @ 42°F -1°F

141b blown foam 89.894 86.007

ecomate blown foam 88.644 84.735

Difference, °F 1.25 1.27

Difference, °C 0.7 0.7

Test Results

Run Summary Standard S1-b

Gel 35-40 35

Tack Free 55-65 55

FRD, pcf 1.40 1.42

LANZEN PANEL

MFD, pcf 1.94 1.98

Flow Index [MFD/FRD] 1.38 1.40

Physicals

Core Density 1.8 1.8

Core/Fill Ratio 0.90 0.80

K-factor @75°F 0.137 0.166

@50°F 0.127 0.156

Comp Strength @ 1.8 pcf 19 psi 14.54

Closed Cell Content 90% min 87.4

Dim Stab 14d @ -25°C <-2% -1.42

But - Not Optimized for Application

Not optimized Slow [Adjusted at demo] High Flow Index Low core/Fill ratio Low Closed Cell content Therefore: Poor thermal

properties

Recent Developments

Enthused by results to date! Have recently optimized ecomate system for flow

and closed cell content. Continuing Tests!

Ecomate Advantages

Advantages of ECONOMY, Low MW, & PRICING similar to HCs

PRODUCTION EASE, No expensive plant conversion necessary

ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS Benign; [zero ODP, negligible GWP, non-VOC] Every lb of ecomate used will save a metric tonne of

CO2e in replacing HFCs

CONCLUSIONS

HFOs – Maybe 2 yrs out Toxicology pending Perhaps as EXPENSIVE as HFCs May be Flammable, and produce SMOG

Reverse Heat Flow Ecomate nearly same as 141b Both at Refrigerator and Freezer temps

Even when System not optimized!

Compare for Yourself !