Cable Cleaning Solvents:
Their Use and Evaluation
John T. Smith, 111, BICC Cables Corporation*
*formerlyReynolds/CPI Technical Center
Introduction
,1,1 Trichloroethane, commonly known as
1 methylchloroform, is being used in the wire and
cable industry as a general purpose cable cleaner
for medium voltage power cable. It cleans the cable
insulation of any remaining semicon residue that may
remain after stripping the insulation shield from cables
to terminate them for installation or testing purposes.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane is also commonly used to clean
conductor surfaces of greases and oils left from the wire
drawing process. It has no flash point, cleans oily and
greasy soils extremely well, dries very quickly, leaves
no residue, is inexpensive and does not affect the opera-
tion of the cable’s extruded components when its con-
tact is limited to short-term exposure. However, 1,1,1
trichloroethane has been designated by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) as a substance that
may damage the stratospheric ozone layer. As such, it
will be banned from production in this country by
December 31,1995 [l].
For these reasons, alternate solvents that are effective
as cable cleaners have been evaluated, and continue to
be evaluated by cable, solvent and accessory manufac-
turers [2,3,4,5,6]. Early on, these alternate solvents were
generally evaluated for evaporation rate and flam-
mability. Evaluations also usually included some as-
sessment of solvent compatibility with the cable
materials, especially the semiconductive shielding
layers that the solvent may come in contact with during
the cleaning operation. In addition to the earlier criteria
used in evaluating alternates to 1,1,1 trichloroethane,
this article attempts to point out other important per-
formance properties of potential alternates that should
be considered.
Solvent Evaluation Procedures
In looking for a suitable alternate to 1,1,1
trichloroethane, several factors should be considered.
They are listed below.
1.Personal hygiene and safety issues
0883-75541931s ,0001993
18 JanuaryIFebruary 993-V01.9,NO.1
1
Attention should be paid to regulatory
issues and worker safety as well as cleaning
efectiveness in seeking a replacement for
1,1,1 trichloroethane.
2. Federal/local governmental environmental and
industrial waste status/classification
3. Cleaning effectiveness
4. Evaporation rate and presence/absence of solvent
residues
5. Compatibility with cable materials
6. Economics
7. Ease of handling/use
1. Personal Hygiene and Safety
Toxicity
The material safety data sheet (MSDS) provides a
wealth of information that can be useful in determining
whether or not a potential alternate solvent should be
tested [7].If the candidate solvent has any components
that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or that have any long-
term systemic health hazards associated with them, it
should probably not be tested. Solvents that have these
drawbacks will cause unnecessary worker concern if
they are used. These drawbacks may even place the
solvent in danger of being banned by federal and local
regulatory agencies at some time in the future.
Flammn bil ity
As part of the concern for worker and equipment
safety, the ignitability rating of the candidate solvent
should also be considered. Not only is flash point used
by the EPA as a criteria to rate solvents as to their waste
disposal, it is also used in classifying solvents with
regards to ignitability [ 8 ] .Accordingto the National Fire
Protection Agency (NFPA), there are two categories of
flammability;flammable and combustible [9,10]. Flam-
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
mable solvents fall into three classes; IA, IB and IC. The
criteria for each class is shown below. Combustible
solvents fall into three classes; 11, IIIA and IIIB. Those
requirements are also shown below. Class IIIB solvents
are the least hazardous with regards to ignitability.
Flammability Classification
Flammable Combustible
Flash point,"F Flash point,"F
Class IA <73 & BP <100"F Class I1 100 - 140
Class IB <73 & BP 2100°F Class IIIA 140 - 200
Class IC 73 - 100 Class IIIB 2200
BP - Boiling Point
Flammable and/or combustible liquids also have a
minimum and maximum concentration of vapor in air,
below which flame propagation will not occur in the
presence of an ignition source. These limits are known
as the upper and lower explosive limits, (UEL) and
(LEL), respectively [9]. The UEL and LEL of a solvent
should also be taken into consideration when reviewing
a potential cable cleaning solvent. When cleaning cables
in confined spaces such as manholes, switching houses
and transformer cabinets, the vapor density, volatility
(evaporation rate) and explosive limit range of the
cleaning solvent can combine to form a potentially haz-
ardous working environment. Therefore the explosive
limits and the flammable range should be considered
when reviewing the MSDS of a candidate cable cleaning
solvent.
2. EnvironmentalMaste Classification
A quick review of the MSDS for a candidate solvent
is an important screening step in finding an alternate to
1,1,1 trichloroethane. According to current federal
regulatory right-to-know laws, and the Code of Federal
Regulations, any substance that conains 0.1% of a
suspected carcinogen or mutagen must have it iden-
tified on the substance's MSDS [7].oAnysubstance that
has a flash point of less than 140 F is classified as a
hazardous waste by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) [8]. Obviously, in attempting to find
suitable alternates to 1,1,1 trichloroethane, these re-
quirements should be kept in mind, and any solvents
that have these characteristics should be avoided. In
addition, any solvents or substances that fall into the
class of compounds that are considered to be ozone
depleting by the EPA should also be avoided.
Although 1,1,1 trichloroethane is considered ozone
depleting, it is not considered a volatile organic com-
pound (VOC) by the EPA. VOC's are another class of
compounds regulated by the EPA. A potential alternate
solvent may be classed as a VOC by regulatory agencies.
Any substitute must be evaluated to determine if its use
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine January/February 1993-Vo1.9,No. 1
~~
1
will trigger any environmental regulatory programs.
Other potential environmental releases, such as waste
water, resulting from the use of a substitute material
must be considered. A solvent may be an effective
cleaner, but if it falls into any of the categories men-
tioned above, it is not worth the effort to evaluate it.
There will be opposition to it from all involved with its
handling, use and disposal.
3. Cleaning Effectiveness
Insulation Surfaces
Clean insulation/ termination interfaces of medium
voltage cables are necessary in order for the termination
and cable to continue to operate properly. Once the
insulation shield is removed from the end of the cable
to be terminated, the insulation surfacemust be cleaned
of all remaining particles of semiconductive insulation
shield compound before the termination is installed.
Also any oils, greases or grime that might have inadver-
tently come in contact with the insulation surface must
be cleaned from the surface. Any foreign substances left
at the interface can interfere with the electrical function
of the termination and cause premature failure.
Some of today's strippable insulation shield com-
pounds, based on blends of ethylene-vinyl acetate
copolymers (EVA'S) and certain types of elastomers,
have a tendency to leave particles of residue (commonly
known as "pick-off") both in and on the insulation
surface. 1,1,1Trichloroethaneis an excellent solvent for
removing those particles becauseit has adequate solvat-
ing power (the ability to dissolve) for pick-off. Alterna-
tives to l,l,l, trichloroethane must also have similar
solvating power in order to be effective cleaners. One
quick way of screening for a solvent's ability to dissolve
and remove pick-off is to wipe the insulation shield of
the cable with a paper or cloth towel saturated with the
candidate solvent. If black insulation shield residue is
transferred to the towel, it can be concluded that the
solvent has some solvating power for the insulation
shield and therefore may be an effective cleaner.
Extensive cleaning evaluations can be carried out
using cables that have large amounts of pick-off in/on
the insulation surface. Cables like this can be used to
qualitatively and quantitatively determine if a solvent
is an effective cleaner. In cleaning evaluations, the cur-
rently used solvent (or 1,1,1trichloroethane) should be
included as a control.
Conductor Surfaces
The cleanliness of the conductor surface is impera-
tive when the conductor shield compound is applied. If
the surface is soiled with greases and/or lubricants left
from the wire drawing process, the conductor/conduc-
tor shield interface will be less than optimum. The
19
~~
frictional bonding that takes place at the conduc-
tor/conductor shield interface and the electrical perfor-
mance of the interface are optimized when the
conductor surface is clean. Cleaning the surface of the
conductor may be necessary just prior to its entry into
the conductor shield extruder. For this reason, conduc-
tor cleaning solvents must meet all of the criteria of
solvents that are used to clean the insulation surfaces of
cables.
4. Evaporation Rate and Solvent Residues
In terminating and installing cables, it is imperative
that the labor cost be optimized. One way that cable
cleaners contribute to that optimization is by having
fast evaporation, or drying rates. One of 1,1,1
trichloroethane’s main features is its short drying time,
or fast evaporation rate. This keeps a terminating crew
from having to wait excessively long times for the sol-
vent to dry before proceeding with the next step of the
termination process. The MSDS of some solvents report
evaporation rate relative to a standard (butyl acetate,
ether or water). The evaluation of evaporation (drying)
rate of a potential cable cleaning solvent should be
made based on the same standard.
Since it is important that foreign substances be
removed from the cable insulation and the intended
insulation/termination interface, it is also important
that the cable cleaning solvent itself leave no residue.
Solvents that do an effective cleaning job in removing
pick-off and other soils and yet leave their own residue
may still cause the termination to operate improperly.
Therefore the solvent of choice should be 100% volatile
and have no solids component that can be left on the
insulation surface after cleaning.
5. Compatibility with Cable Materials
Evaluation of the compatibility of the cable cleaning
solvent with the insulation and semiconductive shield-
ing compounds of the cable is very important. By com-
patibility, we really mean the absence of any permanent
or long-term deleterious effects of the solvent on the
cable’s extruded materials during and after cleaning. In
evaluating candidate cable cleaning solvents for con-
ductor cleaning prior to extrusion, an evaluation of the
solvent’s impact on the conductor shield compound’s
electrical and physical properties should be performed.
The same evaluation should take place for solvents that
are candidates for cleaning the cable’s insulation layer
prior to installation of accessories or terminations.
1,1,1Trichloroethane,the solvent most widely used
in the past, has very few short-term or long-term effects
on the insulation layer of the cable. This is primarily
because the cohesive energy densities and polarity of
20 January/February 1993-Vo1.9,No.1
1
the insulation materials are not conducive to absorption
of 1,1,1 trichloroethane into the materials’ matrix or
dissolution of the materials’ components by the solvent.
Other solvents that may be potential replacements for
1,1,1trichloroethane should be evaluated with this in
mind.
However, today’s semiconductive shielding com-
pounds are formulated with copolymers and ter-
polymers of ethylene and blends thereof.
Ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers (EVA’S), ethylene-
ethyl acrylate copolymers (EEAs), ethylene-propylene
copolymers (EPR’s) and ethylene-propylene-dieneter-
polymers (EPDM’s) and their blends are used for both
conductor shielding and insulation shielding com-
pounds. These materials are more amorphous (less
crystalline) than the insulation layer of the cable. They
are prone to swelling,absorption and/or dissolution by
1,1,1 trichloroethane and other similar hydrocarbon-
based solvents.
The physical and electricalproperties of the semicon-
ductive compounds should be evaluated after contact
with the solvent. There is a school of thought that says
the candidate solvent should be applied to samples of
the semiconductive compounds in small amounts and
the contact/exposure time should be for short periods
of time. This is based on the theory that effective cable
cleaning procedures should minimize the time that the
solvent is in contact with the cable components [ll].
Although cable cleaning solvents should not be allowed
to puddle, be sprayed directly onto the cable, or im-
mersed in the cable cleaning solvent, these practices are
known to exist in the field. Therefore, thecase for longer
contact/exposure times is a valid one. These extended
exposure times give an indication of the effects of the
”worst case” scenario.
Properties of the compounds can be evaluated before
and after exposure of compression-molded specimens
of the semiconductivecompounds to the candidate sol-
vents. The compression molded samples should be
fully curedlcrosslinked in order to duplicate the degree
of crosslinkingthat is present in the insulation shielding
layer of cables made by today’s continuous steam and
dry-cure processes. Suggested exposure method and
duration is complete immersion for 1 and 24 hours at
ambient temperature. The specimens are allowed to dry
at ambient room temperature and 50% relative
humidity on paper napkins for 1, 24 and 168-hour
drying times. The physical and electrical properties are
evaluated after each exposure/drying time combina-
tion. Applicable American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM)test procedures are used in all evalua-
tions where available, including applicable condition-
ing/annealing periods and thicknesses of the molded
test specimens [12]. The properties evaluated are tensile
strength and elongation (ASTM D638), volume swell,
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
 I
weight gain, environmental stress crack resistance
(ASTM D1693) and volume resistivity (ASTM D991).
An overall ranking based on the solvent’s performance
relative to 1,1,1trichloroethane can then be devised. The
candidate solvent with the best rating can then be
evaluated under actual field conditions.
6. Economics
Solvents can be purchased on a weight or volume
basis. When purchasing on a weight basis, one factor
that should be considered in the solvent’s initial cost is
its density or specific gravity. Any cable cleaning sol-
vents that have the same purchase price, but differing
densities should be compared on a pound-volume
basis. This pound-volume cost is calculated by multi-
plying the purchase price of the solvent by its density.
If the purchase is based on volume, the comparison is
straightforward. Amounts required to achieve effective
cleaning also affect the overall cost and should be part
of the economic consideration.
7. Ease of HandlinglUse
If the solvent of choice is difficult to handle or use for
any reason, it will not be accepted in the field. Examples
of properties that can cause objections to its use are:
1. Evaporation rates so fast that effective cleaning
cannot be accomplished with reasonable quantities.
2. Unpleasant odors.
3. Potential of the solvent to cause allergic reactions.
Conclusions
In order to come up with acceptable and successful
cable cleaning solvents, all of the factors discussed here
should be given serious attention and evaluation. Con-
sideration of regulatory issues and concern for worker
safety in finding a suitable replacement for l,l,l,
trichloroethane should not be minimized. The primary
property of concern once these two issues are resolved
should be cleaning effectiveness. Lastly, the short and
long-term effects of the potential replacement solvent
on the operating characteristics of the cable materials
and the resultant termination should be minimized. The
likelihood that all of the factors will be optimized in one
solvent, or at least be as good as they are for l,l,l,
trichloroethane, is remote. Nevertheless, an effective,
long-term replacement for 1,1,1 trichloroethane can be
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine January/February 1993-Vo1.9,No.1
~ ~~
~
identified and evaluated if these factors are kept in
mind.
John T. Smith, 111 (M’90) was born in Waco, TX on
August 7,1947. He received his B.S. degree from Prairie
View A&M University in 1973 with a major in
chemistry. From 1973 to 1979 he was employed by the
Dow Chemical Co., Freeport, TX. From 1979 to 1980 he
was with BASF Wyandotte Corp. in Wyandotte, MI. In
1980, he joined Alcoa Conductor Products Co. (ACPC)
in Scotttsville, TX as a polymer chemist in their R&D
Laboratory. Upon ACPC’s closure of the Scottsvile
facility, he joined Alcoa’s corporate R&D laboratories in
Alcoa, PA. He joined Conductor Products Inc. (CPI) in
1984. CPI was acquired by the Electrical Division of the
Reynolds Metals Co. in 1989 and by BICC Cables Corp.
in 1992. He is currently a senior staff chemist at the
Indianapolis Technology Center. He is a member of
IEEE and the Insulated Conductors Committee (ICC) of
IEEE.
References
[I] Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Title VI, Section 608.
[2] B. Robbins, Reynolds Metals Co., Electrical Division. Internal
Project Reports 3/88 and 16/88.
[3] J. T. Smith, 111, Reynolds/CPI Technical Center. Internal Project
Reports 35/89 and 58/90.
[4] D. D. Perry, J. P. Bolcar, ”Effects of Degreasing Solvents on Con-
ductive Separable Connector Shields and Semiconductive Cable
Shields”; IEEE, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1989.
[5] D. I? Wilcox, D. N. Hunter, ”Cable Cleaning Solvents: Environ-
mental Issues and Effective Replacements”; IEEE, Dallas, Texas,
September 1991.
[6] S. L. Helmbrecht, J. M. Fee, “Theoretical and Practical Control of
Solvent Exposures During Electrical Cleaning”; IEEE, Dallas,
Texas, September 1991.
[7] 29 Code of Federal Regulations. Parts 1910.1000 and 1910.1200,
”The Hazard Communication Standard”, Office of Federal
Register National Archives and Records Administration,
Washington, D. C. 1990.
[8] 40 Code of Federal Regulations. Part 261.22., ”Characteristics of
Hazardous Wastes”, Office of Federal Register National Archives
and Records Administration, Washington, D. C. 1990.
[Y] Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 7th Edi-
tion, National Safety Council, 1978, pp. 1287- 1290.
[lo] National Fire Protection Association, Standard No. 321, 1991
Edition.
[ll] J. Fee, “Don’t Let Solvents Degrade Cable Shields”, Electrical
World, October 1991, page 48.
[12] ASTM, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1187,USA.
21