Today's KNOWLEDGE Share : Risk Evaluation for Tris(2-chloroethyl) Phosphate (TCEP)

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share

Risk Evaluation for Tris(2-chloroethyl) Phosphate (TCEP)

Risk Evaluation Findings:

EPA reviewed the exposures and hazards of TCEP uses and made risk findings on this chemical substance. EPA considered relevant risk-related factors, including, but not limited to: the hazards and exposure, magnitude of risk, exposed population, severity of the hazard, and uncertainties, as part of its unreasonable risk determination.

EPA has determined that TCEP poses an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. TCEP has the potential to cause kidney cancer, damage the nervous system and kidneys, and harm fertility.

EPA assessed TCEP exposure to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations (PESS), like workers, pregnant women, infants that breastfeed, children, people living in fenceline communities near facilities that emit TCEP, and people and Tribes whose diets include large amounts of fish. EPA identified health risks for PESS, including neurological effects, reproductive effects, developmental effects, kidney effects, and cancer from exposure to TCEP.

EPA found that TCEP presents unreasonable risk of kidney cancer and noncancer health effects to workers and consumers. EPA determined that seven out of 21 conditions of use of TCEP contribute significantly to the unreasonable risk to workers:

Manufacturing imports;

Paint and coating manufacturing;

Polymers used in aerospace equipment and products;

Aerospace equipment and products and automotive articles and replacement parts containing TCEP;

Paints and coatings for industrial use;

Paints and coatings for commercial use; and 

Laboratory chemicals.

EPA found unreasonable risk to consumers from three out of 21 conditions of use: fabric and textile products; foam seating and bedding products; and wood and engineered wood products. Consumers are most at risk when they breathe or ingest dust from TCEP that comes off of fabrics, textiles, foam and wood products. 

EPA found unreasonable risks for people who eat large amounts of fish contaminated with TCEP. The chemical can accumulate in fish if they live in a stream or other waterbody with high concentrations of TCEP. These concerns are particularly notable for groups that eat higher quantities of fish, such as subsistence fishers and Tribes.

EPA assessed the impact of TCEP on aquatic and terrestrial species and found that TCEP poses unreasonable risk to aquatic species like fish and aquatic invertebrates.

EPA will now move forward on risk management to address the unreasonable risk presented by TCEP. EPA will release a proposed rule under TSCA section 6 to protect people and the environment from the risks EPA identified.

Background on TCEP

TCEP (CASRN 115-96-8) is a colorless liquid. The primary use for TCEP is as a flame retardant and plasticizer in polymers used in aerospace equipment and products, and as a flame retardant in paint and coating manufacturing. Information from the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) for TCEP indicates the reported production volume was 39,682 lbs/year. While no companies reported the manufacture (including import) of TCEP in the United States from 2016 to 2020, the reporting threshold for TCEP in CDR is 25,000 lb and some manufacturing could be occurring below that threshold.

Uses of TCEP

In the final scope of the risk evaluation, EPA identified conditions of use associated with the importing; processing; distribution in commerce; industrial, commercial and consumer uses; and disposal of TCEP, for example:

• As a flame retardant in paint and coating manufacturing, polymers, and articles;
• In industrial and commercial aircraft interiors and aerospace products;
• For laboratory chemicals; and
• In commercial and consumer products, including paints and coatings, fabric and textile, products, foam seating, and construction materials.

source:EPA

Project Successfully Reduces Time Taken to Perform Bioplastics Biodegradation Tests

The BIOFAST Project has successfully concluded and achieved its main objective: to reduce the time taken to carry out biodegradation tests on bioplastics in composting environments.

This research was coordinated by the Plastics Technology Centre (AIMPLAS) with the participation of the Materials Technology and Sustainability Research Group (MATS) in the Chemical Engineering Department of the ETSE School of Engineering at the Universitat de València, and the company Prime Biopolymers.

Greater Efficiency in Compostable Bioplastics Development:

The BIOFAST Project received funding from the Valencian Institute of Business Competitiveness and Innovation (IVACE+i) through the Strategic Projects in Cooperation Program and ERDF. It not only demonstrated an effective reduction in the time taken to perform biodegradation tests applied to bioplastics, but also generated significant economic and environmental impact.

Speeding up biodegradation studies allows for greater efficiency in the development processes of compostable bioplastics by reducing operating costs and improving the sustainability of new product lines.

“This breakthrough represents an important step towards a circular economy model in which bioplastics can be rapidly broken down and valorized, thus reducing the accumulation of plastic waste and mitigating its environmental impact. The methodological protocol developed could be adopted on a large scale to promote more sustainable and efficient practices in the treatment of compostable bioplastic waste,” said researchers involved in the project.

The project consortium therefore developed and validated an innovative methodological protocol that combines specific bioplastic formulations, various oxidative pretreatment technologies and compost enrichment to speed up the bioplastics biodegradation process.

Collaborative Effort to Optimize the End-of-Life Assessment Conditions

Specifically, the MATS Research Group applied a series of abiotic pretreatment technologies to biopolymeric materials, including plasma and UV irradiation, as well as hydro- and chemo-thermal degradation. The impact of the oxidative pretreatments was evaluated in terms of the short- and medium-term stability of the materials’ structure, morphology and functional performance.

Meanwhile, Prime Biopolymers successfully prepared several compositions of compostable biopolymeric materials of great impact on the current market. AIMPLAS, the project coordinator, analyzed factors that significantly affect the biodegradation process to develop a strategy to speed up the process based on increasing the potential of the biotic and abiotic components involved in composting.

Source: AIMPLAS/omnexus.specialchem.com

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share : Injection molded polyamide hydraulic tank

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share

BASF and Bemis win SPE Automotive Composites Conference & Expo for the largest known injection molded polyamide hydraulic tank on compact excavators

BASF and Bemis Manufacturing Company received honorable mention at the Altair Enlighten Awards in the enabling technology category for their collaboration on large hydraulic tanks for compact excavators. By leveraging a combination of injection molding and vibration welding techniques, the team was able to lower costs by approximately 20% and reduce mass by approximately 5% compared to the traditional roto-molding process while providing a more eco-efficient solution delivering both environmental savings (reductions in life cycle CO2 emissions) and reducing life cycle cost.

“We needed a way to produce large, complex parts with shorter cycle times, while reducing secondary processing waste,” said Jeff Lallensack, Senior Project Engineer, Bemis Manufacturing. “The BASF team understands our business and their engineering expertise in vibration welding improved the functional performance of the hydraulic tank by successfully containing vibration weld flash during processing.”

The hydraulic tank, which was injection molded and then vibration welded by Bemis Manufacturing, uses a BASF polyamide 6 (PA6) grade, Ultramid® B3WG6 GPX BK23238, reinforced with 30% short glass-fiber. This specific grade of Ultramid provides exceptional vibration weld joint strength and high temperature fatigue strength. Using BASF’s Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) expertise, via ULTRASIM® and Burst Failure Index (BFI)-for-weld methodology, the stringent structural part performance requirements were successfully met.

“At BASF, collaborative innovation with our customers, mutual trust and respect and customer-led engineering is crucial to their

success as well as ours. “BASF’s technical expertise via ULTRAJOIN®, and simulation expertise via ULTRASIM and Burst Failure Index (BFI)-for-weld methodology were the key differentiators that were extensively leveraged to surpass stringent performance requirements. As a team, we made the impossible possible by delivering approximately 20% cost savings to our customer partners while delivering an eco-efficient solution. It’s a true demonstrator of the power of co-creation.”

Ultramid, ULTRAJOIN and ULTRASIM are registered trademarks of BASF SE

 

Source: BEMIS & BASF

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share : EPS vs XPS insulation

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share

EPS vs XPS insulation

Performance Attributes:

1. Long-term Thermal Performance

Over time, the insulation performance of both materials can degrade due to various factors. However, XPS tends to maintain its thermal resistance better than EPS. This is partly due to its superior resistance to moisture absorption, which can significantly impact insulation effectiveness.

2. Freeze-Thaw Resistance

In applications where freeze-thaw cycles are a concern, XPS demonstrates superior performance. Its closed-cell structure and low water absorption rate make it highly resistant to damage from repeated freezing and thawing, maintaining its insulative properties and structural integrity over time.

3. Fire Performance

Both EPS and XPS are combustible materials and require proper fire protection measures in building applications. However, both can be treated with flame retardants to improve their fire performance. It’s worth noting that the specific fire ratings can vary depending on the manufacturer and the exact formulation of the product.

Applications: expanded vs extruded polystyrene

Understanding the specific applications of EPS and XPS can further clarify their respective advantages.

Common Applications for EPS

Residential Insulation: Used in walls, roofs, and floors for thermal efficiency.

Packaging: Provides cushioning for fragile items during shipping.

Lightweight Concrete: Often utilized in lightweight concrete mixes for enhanced insulation.

Common Applications for XPS

Foundation Insulation: Ideal for below-grade applications due to its moisture resistance.

Roof Insulation: Used in flat roofs where high compressive strength is required.

Perimeter Insulation: Effective for insulating the exterior of foundation walls.

Installation and Handling: extruded vs expanded polystyrene:

EPS is generally easier to cut and shape on-site, making it more forgiving for complex geometries or DIY applications. Its lighter weight also simplifies handling and transportation. XPS, while still workable, requires more effort to cut and shape due to its denser structure. However, XPS boards often come with tongue-and-groove edges, facilitating tighter connections between panels and potentially reducing thermal bridging.

source:shobeirshimi

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share : XPS Vs EPS

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share

Extruded Polystyrene XPS Vs EPS Expanded Polystyrene

Physical Properties:

1. Thermal Conductivity

Both materials offer excellent thermal insulation properties, but XPS generally outperforms EPS in this regard. XPS typically has a lower thermal conductivity (λ-value) of 0.029-0.036 W/mK, compared to EPS’s range of 0.032-0.040 W/mK. This means that, for the same thickness, XPS provides slightly better insulation.

2. R-Value Comparison

When it comes to thermal performance, both EPS and XPS offer impressive insulation values, but their R-values differ significantly.

The R-value measures a material’s resistance to heat flow; the higher the R-value, the better the insulation.

EPS typically has an R-value ranging from 3.6 to 4.2 per inch, depending on the density and specific formulation. This makes it an effective choice for various insulation applications, especially where cost is a concern.

XPS, however, boasts a higher R-value, generally around 5.0 per inch. This superior thermal resistance makes XPS ideal for applications where space is limited, and maximum insulation is required.

3. Moisture Resistance

Moisture resistance is a critical factor in choosing insulation materials, particularly in areas prone to high humidity or water exposure.

EPS Moisture Absorption

EPS has a higher moisture absorption rate compared to XPS. Although it is resistant to water, prolonged exposure can lead to a decrease in thermal performance. To mitigate this issue, proper installation and protective barriers are essential when using EPS in moisture-prone environments.

XPS Moisture Resistance

XPS excels in moisture resistance due to its closed-cell structure, which significantly reduces water absorption. This characteristic makes XPS an excellent choice for applications such as below-grade insulation and areas exposed to water, such as foundation walls and under concrete slabs.

4. Compressive Strength

The compressive strength of insulation materials is crucial for applications where structural support is necessary.

EPS Compressive Strength

EPS offers decent compressive strength, typically ranging from 10 to 30 psi, depending on the density of the foam. While suitable for many applications, it may not provide the necessary support in high-load situations.

XPS Compressive Strength

XPS outperforms EPS in terms of compressive strength, with values often exceeding 25 psi and reaching up to 60 psi for high-density formulations. This makes XPS ideal for use in demanding applications, such as under heavy loads in commercial buildings and infrastructure projects.

5. Density

XPS typically boasts a higher density than EPS, ranging from 28 to 45 kg/m³. This increased density translates to superior compressive strength, making XPS an excellent choice for load-bearing applications. EPS, with its lower density of 15 to 35 kg/m³, offers a lighter weight option but sacrifices some strength in the process.

source:Shobeir shimi

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share "Gevo's breakthrough in Ethanol to Olefin process

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share

U.S. GRANTS GEVO A PATENT FOR BREAKTHROUGH ETHANOL-TO-OLEFIN PROCESS

Gevo, Inc. is proud to announce the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted to Gevo, a patent for its ethanol to olefins (“ETO”) process. This patent further cements Gevo’s position as a leader in intellectual property (“IP”) surrounding bio-based renewable fuel and chemical production from alcohols.

+

Gevo has been awarded U.S. Patent No. 12,043,587 B2 covering the ETO process. This patent protects the process of using certain proprietary catalyst combinations for converting ethanol into olefins. This process is designed to give best-in-class cost and yields of olefins from ethanol, with improved energy efficiency, which is intended to help to reduce the cost of biofuels and biochemicals.

Olefins with three or four carbon atoms are key building blocks to produce fuels or chemicals. Existing technology makes ethylene, a 2-carbon olefin, from ethanol, and then additional steps are needed to produce the larger and more useful olefins, such as three or four carbon olefins (e.g., propylene and butenes). This patent protects Gevo’s ETO process, which makes three and/or four carbon olefins in addition to ethylene from ethanol in a single step with a high degree of selectivity and control, which is critical for success. The ETO process is expected to reduce energy and capital cost because of the fewer unit operations involved; and reduce complexity of the process design. The ETO process technology can be optimized to produce fuels and/or chemicals, the latter of which has been licensed to LG Chem, Ltd. (“LG Chem”) under the previously disclosed joint development agreement. Together Gevo and LG Chem are working to scale up the process for chemicals.

“We’ve been pursuing simplified alcohol to olefin technology since 2007, understanding that low cost, robust processes to make the right olefins is the critical step to make jet fuel, gasoline, and plastics. It’s our mission to make the transition practical from fossil-based to renewable fuels and chemicals,” says Dr. Pat Gruber, CEO of Gevo. “Key to making the transition are low-cost, drop-in products. The ETO process technology covered by this patent is expected to be a step-change improvement in capital cost and energy efficiency to produce biofuels, such as sustainable aviation fuel (“SAF”), or chemicals, such as propylene, from ethanol.”

source:Gevo,Inc

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share : Weld-line weakness

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share

Enhance your understanding of polymer behavior and their impact on end-use performance with this comparison of two polymers exhibiting distinct rheological characteristics.

Due to differences in molecular structure, these polymers diverge in their non-Newtonian behaviors, particularly in terms of viscosity.

The polymer associated with the red curve shows a significantly wider molecular weight distribution, leading to the absence of a Newtonian plateau in typical measurement windows.

This plateau is shifted out of view and could be observed at very low shear rates.

Interestingly, these polymers have identical viscosities at molding rates but display drastically different Melt Index values, which is a low shear-rate single-point viscosity measure.

In injection molding, the weld-line strength is critical.

The polymer represented by the red curve exhibits longer re-entanglement times, resulting in inherently weaker weld-lines.

In contrast, the blue curve's Newtonian plateau signifies fewer components with long relaxation times, enabling rapid inter-diffusion of polymer chains at weld interfaces.

To effectively identify weld-line weaknesses, conduct creep or fatigue tests, as they are more revealing than classical tensile tests.

Research shows that moderate re-entanglement can recover adequate stress at break in standard tensile testing.

source:Vito leo

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share : Improved process should accelerate tire recycling

Today's KNOWLEDGE Share

Improved process should accelerate tire recycling

Evonik wants to help make rubber materials from scrap tires easier to re-use in the manufacture of new automobile tires. So far, the suitability of recycled rubber has been very limited because its chemical structure hampers interaction with new tire materials. A team of researchers at Evonik has now made a key step forward with a process that could make it possible to use up to four times as much recycled rubber in new tires as in the past. “That brings us much closer to the key targets of sustainability and resource efficiency in this sector,” says Christian Mani, Project Manager Circularity at Evonik.

New tire rubber is normally produced by vulcanization of raw rubber, sulfur, and other components. When heat and pressure are applied, the sulfur forms bonds with the long carbon chains in the rubber, resulting in a robust, three-dimensional network. That is also the structure of ground tire rubber from end-of-life-tires. However, since the material has already been vulcanized, its properties differ from those of non-vulcanized rubber. Currently, trade associations in the tire recycling sector therefore set an admixture of about 5 percent ground tire rubber from end-of-life-tires as the upper limit.

Consequently, only small amounts of recycled rubber powder are re-used in the manufacture of new automobile tires at present. The majority of the recycled rubber is used, for example, in the production of protective elements for playgrounds and running tracks. In addition, many end-of-life-tires still undergo thermal reprocessing as fuels for energy generation. However, Mani is sure: “Rubber is far too valuable a raw material to be used only once in tires. We want to incorporate it into a circular system.”

He and his team of researchers have now succeeded in reversing the vulcanization of rubber to a large extent. “By adding a special formulation containing vinyl silanes, the firm bonds in the recycled rubber can be split. We cleave the sulfur bridges in the rubber, yet leave as many of the long carbon chains as possible untouched,

The research team has already used these vinyl silanes successfully for devulcanization. In trials, the proportion of recyclate in the rubber blend could be increased to up to 20 percent—compared with the technical threshold of around 5 percent outlined above.

The sustainability benefits of a circular solution of this type would be tremendous: Globally, there are more than 1.3 billion passenger cars. More than 2,000 new tires are produced every minute. There is no sign that demand will end—because even electric and hydrogen-powered automobiles will use rubber tires in the future. Annual global sales of tires for passenger cars amount to over €100 billion.

source:Evonik