Effects of R-1233zd/pentane Blends on the Performance and

Properties of a Polyisocyanurate Foam System

JOSEPH COSTA BEN CHEN

Arkema, Inc. Arkema, Inc.
900 First Ave. 900 First Ave.
King of Prussia, PA 19406 USA King of Prussia, PA 19406 USA

LAURENT ABBAS LUCY CLARKSON

Arkema, Inc. Arkema, Inc.
900 First Ave. 900 First Ave.
King of Prussia, PA 19406 USA King of Prussia, PA 19406 USA

ABSTRACT
Fluorochemicals have been an integral component in polyurethane foams since the 1950s. The unique combination of
boiling point, solubility, and thermal conductivity, inherent in these materials, has improved the insulation properties
of rigid polyurethane (PUR) and polyisocyanurate (PIR) foams. This improvement has, in turn, reduced the energy
consumption of various products which use rigid foam as insulation, such as domestic and commercial appliances as
well as homes and commercial buildings. While there is a continued need for further reductions in energy
consumption, fluorochemicals are also being challenged to have less impact on climate change by having a low Global
Warming Potential (GWP).

To meet those performance and environmental challenges Arkema introduced the hydrofluoroolefin (HFO), low GWP
blowing agent, R-1233zd. We have shown many different foam applications blown with HFO 1233zd, exhibiting
improved thermal properties over other low GWP materials like hydrocarbons. Such applications include appliance,
spray foam, and various cold chain systems.

In this paper, we will show improvements in both system performance and foam properties that can be obtained by the
addition of HFO 1233zd to a normal/isopentane blown PIR system. Thus we will show that replacing the
normal/isopentane blowing agent with increasing amounts of HFO 1233zd, while keeping the overall blowing level
the same, provides improvements in thermal insulation. Additionally, we will show the impact of this change on other
properties, such as compressive strength, dimensional stability, and small scale fire performance.

INTRODUCTION
Over the last three decades, the blowing agents used in making rigid polyurethane foams for insulation have evolved
to become increasingly better for the environment. The first generation chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had both high
ozone depletion potential (ODP) and high global warming potential (GWP). The hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
that followed, had lower ODP, but still had high GWP. Next were the generation three hydrocarbons (HCs) and
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), neither of which contributed to the depletion of ozone. HCs also had much lower GWP
than HFCs, but the insulation value of those foams tended to be not as good as those blown with HFCs.

Recently, hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) were developed as fourth generation blowing agents. HFOs are more
environmentally friendly than any of the earlier generations and unlike many of those previous ones, these most recent
fluorocarbon blowing agents have shown superior performance, in terms of insulation value to either HCs or HFCs
and to some extent, HCFCs. This is especially true for the HFO product, R-1233zd or trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoropropene, .(1 – 9).

According to a 2015 European Commission report (10), energy consumption is expected to increase 30% by 2030, but
global harmonization of product energy efficiency requirements could achieve significant energy savings. The subject
of this current paper is the impact of replacing a portion of the normal/isopentane blend with increasing amounts of R-
1233zd in a generic boardstock foam, focusing on improvements in overall performance with particular attention to
insulation values in an effort to make those future improvements in energy efficiency of the boardstock product.

©2017 American Chemistry Council

PROPERTIES
Arkema has been investigating a range of new blowing agents, previously identified as the AFA series (1). Designed
for most PUR applications including appliances, pour-in-place (PiP), spray, and polyisocyanurate (PIR)
bunstock/boardstock, these molecules possess very low global warming potential and negligible ozone depletion.
Among them, R- 1233zd, which is a liquid under ambient conditions, is a potential candidate for replacement of HFC
365mfc and pentanes. Table 1 summarizes the properties of R- 1233zd and references other blowing agents currently
in use such as cyclopentane (cC5), isopentane (iC5), normal pentane (nC5), , HFC 365mfc and HCFC 141b.

Table 1. Properties of R- 1233zd and references

MW BP (oC) FP (oC) Lambda (mw/m-oK) LFL/UFL GWP
10oC 25oC
R- 1233zd 130.5 19 None 9 10 None 1
iC5 72 28 -51 13 14 1.3/9.2 <11
nC5 72 36 -49 14 15 1.4/7.8 <11
cC5 70 49 -40 11 13 1.1/8.7 <11
HFC 365mfc 148 40 -24 11 12 3.6/13.3 910
HCFC 141b 117 33 None 9 10 7.6/17.7 700

R- 1233zd exhibits a low gas phase thermal conductivity (Lambda), comparable to HCFC-141b, which should contribute
to the insulation value of the rigid polyurethane foam. In addition to its low GWP, R- 1233zd does not exhibit either a
flashpoint (FP) or flammability limit under ambient conditions.

EXPERIMENTAL

As mentioned previously, the main focus of this work was to determine the impact of replacing a certain amount of the
normal/isopentane (50/50 by weight) blowing agent blend with R- 1233zd on foam processing and properties. To this
end, work was completed in two phases. First, a screening run of handmixes was carried out to measure the changes
in foam properties such as free rise density, dimensional stability, compressive strength and most importantly
insulation value over a full range of pentane replacements from 0 to 100%. Second, based on the results from the
handmix work, larger scale runs were completed on our high-pressure foam machine on one of the most promising
blends in order to confirm the results of the screening experiment under processing conditions of a more commercial
nature. Foam systems were tested for the same properties as well as small scale fire performance.

The control system selected for this work was a generic normal/isopentane PIR boardstock system, replacing the
normal/isopentane with 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, and finally 100% (by weight) of R- 1233zd for the experimental blends.
Handmix foams were evaluated for several basic properties such as reactivity, free rise density, dimensional stability,
compressive strength, thermal conductivity, and closed cell content. It should be noted that several experiments were
run prior to this work with the goal of optimizing our control system. Once the catalysts choice was made, experiments
were completed which varied both the polyester polyol and surfactant choices. After an analysis of the data for
reactivity, foam quality, k-factor, dimensional stability, compressive strength, and closed cell content, the formulation
shown in Table 2 below, was selected as the control.

The screening run foams were made using a standard handmix set-up and procedure. In order to reduce any frothing
and to minimize loss of blowing agent in an open cup pour, the chemicals were cooled to 60oF; see Table 2 for
formulation details. To keep the catalysts, surfactant, water, and blowing levels, as well as index, consistent across the
experiment, it was necessary to have the polyol levels vary slightly, as noted in the table below.

Table 2. PIR Boardstock System Formulations for Handmix Study

Components Normal/ R- R- R- R- R- R-
isopentane 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd
control (10%) (20%) (40%) (60%) (80%) (100%)
Stepanpol® PS 2352 29.92 29.80 29.68 29.37 28.99 28.51 27.88

©2017 American Chemistry Council

 PMDETA 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Dabco® TMR 20 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Polycat® 41 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Dabco® Si 3203 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
TCPP 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01
Water 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
Normal pentane 3.31 3.11 2.91 2.42 1.81 1.03 ---
Isopentane 3.31 3.11 2.91 2.42 1.81 1.03 ---
R- 1233zd --- 0.69 1.45 3.22 5.43 8.24 11.98

Total B-side 41.12 41.32 41.53 42.02 42.62 43.40 44.44

Total pMDI 58.88 58.68 58.47 57.98 57.38 56.60 55.56
(Mondur® 489)
Index on ROH 280 280 280 280 280 280 280

Total blowing 22.85 22.85 22.85 22.85 22.85 22.85 22.85

(ml gas/g foam)

Physical blowing to 90/10 90/10 90/10 90/10 90/10 90/10 90/10

CO2 blowing (%)

Preparation of Handmix Foam

Handmixing was performed using a typical air powered mixer with a 5 cm (2”) mix blade and a 1 liter (32 oz) paper
cup for blending A and B-sides at 15°C (60°F); measuring reactivity and free rise density. Test samples for k-factor
testing and other physical properties were made using the same mixer with a 7.6 cm (3”) blade and 15 cm x 15 cm x
15 cm (6”x 6”) open box pours. Due to the nature of the free rise foams, the k-factor samples were cut such that the
foam rise was parallel to the test face, in order to minimize the effect of any defects running completely through the
sample thickness. Also, since the k-factor samples were undersized, 12.7 cm x 12.7 cm x 2.54 cm (5”x 5” x 1“), each
test piece was surrounded by like material.

Preparation of Machine Made Foam

Using a high-pressure foam machine, foams were made with normal/isopentane (control) compared to a system blown
with the pentane blend and R- 1233zd. Since the machine runs were for confirmation of the results from the screening
experiment, only one pentane/R- 1233zd system was run along with the control. Balancing the property improvements
noted in the handmix study, it was decided to run only the 40% R- 1233zd blend for confirmation; see Table 3 for
formulation details. The polyol blends or ‘B’ sides were blended and mixed with an air mixer in an open pail. For
blowing agents with boiling points at or below room temperature, the blend, minus blowing agent, was conditioned at
10°C (50°F) along with a container of the blowing agent prior to final addition and mixing.

Table 3. PIR Boardstock System Formulations for Handmix Study

Normal/isopentane R- 1233zd
Component control (40%)
Stepanpol® PS 2352 29.35 28.81
PMDETA 0.06 0.06
Dabco® TMR 20 0.45 0.45
Polycat® 41 0.30 0.30
Dabco® Si3203 0.60 0.60
TCPP 3.01 3.01
Water 0.18 0.18
Normal pentane 3.31 2.42
Isopentane 3.31 2.42
R- 1233zd --- 3.23

Total B-side 40.56 41.46

Total pMDI 59.44 58.54
(Rubinate® 1850)
Index on ROH 280 280

©2017 American Chemistry Council

 Total blowing 22.85 22.85
(ml gas/g foam)

Physical blowing to 90/10 90/10

CO2 blowing (%)

Machine parameters shown in Table 4 were kept constant throughout both runs. A water jacketed aluminum mold was
used for the machine evaluations. A mold with internal dimensions of 35.6 cm x 35.6 cm x 7.6 cm thick (14” x 14” x
3”) was used to prepare k-factor, closed cell, cell size, dimensional stability, and fire test samples by injecting the liquid
foam mixture through a pour hole located on the top of the mold in a horizontal orientation. All samples for physical
property testing were demolded in 10 minutes. Pieces shot to determine minimum or just-fill were demolded in about
5 minutes. A minimum fill was determined for each system and then molds for foam properties were over-packed by
about 5% above the minimum fill weight.

Table 4. Foam Machine Parameters

Chemical temperatures, °C (°F)
A-side
B-side
Mix pressures, bar (psi)
Total throughput, g/sec (lb/min)
Mold temperatures, °C (°F)
k-factor
20 – 21 (68 – 70)
19 – 21 (67 – 70)
124 – 128 (1950 – 2000)
120 – 123 (15.9 – 16.3)
49 – 53 (120 – 127)

Determination of Foam Properties

Measurement of all foam properties was conducted using standard ASTM procedures for rigid polyurethane foams.
Foam density was measured according to ASTM D1622. Measurement of k-factors was done on 12.7 cm x 12.7 cm x
2.54 cm (5”x5”x 1”) core foam samples using a LaserComp FOX 314 heat flow meter according to ASTM C518; as this
was a screening experiment to prove the concept, it was decided measure k-factors with this method instead of Long
Term Thermal Resistance (LTTR) as per ASTM C1289. Future experiments to optimize these types of formulation will
likely look at LTTR. Closed cell contents were measured using a Gas Pycnometer according to ASTM D6226.
Dimensional Stability was measured at -40°C/amb RH, 93°C/amb RH and 70°C/97% RH (-40, 199.4 and 158°F)
according to ASTM D2126. Compressive strength was measured according to ASTM D1621.

RESULTS and DISCUSSION

Results for Handmixed Foams – Initial Screening for Foam Properties

Table 5 shows the reaction times and free rise density (FRD) of the seven foam systems. As mentioned earlier,
catalysts, surfactant, and water levels were kept constant across the various blends. This was displayed by the similar
reaction profiles across the seven formulations. Free rise density was also very consistent; averaging 29.0 + 0.3 kg/m3
(1.81 + 0.02 pcf) for all the foams.

Table 5. Handmix Reaction Times and Free Rise Densities

Normal/ R- 1233zd R- R- R- R- R- 1233zd
isopentane (10%) 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd (100%)
control (20%) (40%) (60%) (80%)
Reactivity Details
A/B temp. °C (°F) 15.6 / 15.6 (60 / 60)
Mix time, sec 5
Reactivity and density
Cream time, sec 10 10 10 10 10 10 11
Gel time, sec 35 35 35 34 33 33 31
Tack-free time, sec 54 57 56 54 54 57 53
Rise time, sec 69 70 66 70 65 69 64
Free rise density, 28.5 29.0 29.0 28.9 29.0 29.2 29.3
kg/m3 (pcf) (1.78) (1.81) (1.81) (1.80) (1.81) (1.82) (1.83)

©2017 American Chemistry Council

Foam Properties
Table 6, below, contains the test results for thermal conductivity, both initial and aged. As expected from previous
studies comparing hydrocarbons to hydrocarbon/R- 1233zd blends (11), the thermal conductivity improved
significantly with increasing amounts of R- 1233zd in the blowing agent package. The foam samples were tested at
three mean temperatures, 0, 10, and 24oC (32, 50, 75oF), to fully assess the overall performance profile of the blowing
agent package.

The addition of R- 1233zd to the blowing agent package provided improvement to the thermal performance of the
foam in two major ways. First, the overall insulation value showed improvement over the entire test temperature
range compared to the all pentane blown control. On average, each increase in R- 1233zd showed a better thermal
conductivity over the previous lower loading; from a low 2.6% better, versus the control, for the 10% loading to a high
of over 20% better for the all R- 1233zd foam. Additionally, this difference was fairly consistent over the 4 months of
aging data that had been collected up to the time of this writing, especially for blends < 60% loadings. The two higher
blends, 80 and 100% R- 1233zd, did see a slight narrowing of the improvement over the control from 15 down to 13%
for the 80% loading and from 21 down to 15% for the all R- 1233zd blown foam; indicating that foams with the
highest loadings of R- 1233zd may be aging more rapidly than the lower loadings and the control. Looking at it in
terms of percent change from initial for each system, for blends around 60% and below, the change was similar
compared to the control, however above that loading, the change was greater than the control. It is important to note,
that even with the narrowing observed for higher loadings, those foams were still providing insulation values
significantly better than the all pentane blown control.

The second major improvement to insulation value found when replacing some of the pentane with R- 1233zd was an
overall enhancement in the thermal insulation value over the entire test temperature range, especially at the lower
temperatures of 0oC (32°F) and 10oC (50°F). For the control and blends with 10 and 20% R- 1233zd, the thermal
conductivity at 0oC (32°F) was actually higher than at the 10oC (50°F) test point. This behavior can be attributed to
the higher boiling point of the pentane, which when subjected to lower test temperatures condenses in the cells,
making it less effective as an insulating gas (12). Due to the lower boiling point of the R- 1233zd, the thermal
conductivity of the blends with 40% and higher, actually improved at the lower test temperatures.

Table 6. Handmix Foam Properties – Initial and Aged*

Normal/ R- R- R- R- R- R-
isopentane 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd
control (10%) (20%) (40%) (60%) (80%) (100%)
Thermal conductivity, Initial
mW/K.m3
(Btu.in/hr.ft2.°F)
0oC (32°F) 22.2 21.2 20.6 19.3 18.2 17.2 16.2
mean test temp (0.1540) (0.1473) (0.1425) (0.1338) (0.1261) 0.1193) (0.1126)
10oC (50°F) 21.1 20.6 20.2 19.5 18.7 18.0 16.9
mean test temp (0.1462) (0.1426) (0.1398) (0.1351) (0.1299) (0.1245) (0.1175)
24oC (75°F) 21.6 21.4 21.2 20.8 20.2 19.4 18.3
mean test temp (0.1500) (0.1485) (0.1471) (0.1446) (0.1404) (0.1347) (0.1271)
1 month aged
0oC (32°F) 22.8 21.9 21.3 20.2 19.1 18.1 17.2
mean test temp (0.1580) (0.1519) (0.1475) (0.1398) (0.1324) (0.1254) (0.1196)
10oC (50°F) 21.8 21.3 20.9 20.3 19.6 18.8 18.0
mean test temp (0.1511) (0.1477) (0.1541) (0.1411) (0.1362) (0.1306) (0.1246)
24oC (75°F) 22.4 22.2 22.0 21.7 21.2 20.3 19.3
mean test temp (0.1555) (0.1539) (0.1526) (0.1507) (0.1468) (0.1408) (0.1339)
2 month aged
0oC (32°F) 23.7 22.8 22.1 20.9 19.8 18.8 18.2
mean test temp (0.1645) (0.1582) (0.1534) (0.1451) (0.1373) (0.1302) (0.1260)
10oC (50°F) 22.6 22.0 21.6 21.0 20.3 19.5 18.9
mean test temp (0.1564) (0.1528) (0.1499) (0.1456) (0.1406) (0.1354) (0.1311)
24oC (75°F) 23.2 22.9 22.7 22.4 21.9 21.0 20.3
mean test temp (0.1607) (0.1591) (0.1573) (0.1553) (0.1516) (0.1459) (0.1408)
4 month aged

©2017 American Chemistry Council

 0oC (32°F) 24.6 23.7 23.0 21.8 20.7 19.7 19.1
mean test temp (0.1705) (0.1640) (0.1597) (0.1514) (0.1435) (0.1368) (0.1328)
10oC (50°F) 23.2 22.7 22.3 21.7 21.1 20.6 20.0
mean test temp (0.1612) (0.1575) (0.1549) (0.1508) (0.1465) (0.1425) (0.1385)
24oC (75°F) 23.8 23.6 23.4 23.2 22.7 22.1 21.5
mean test temp (0.1648) (0.1633) (0.1623) (0.1606) (0.1577) (0.1535) (0.1488)
*samples were 2.54 cm (1 inch) thick and aged at room temperature

Table 7 contains the remaining physical test data for compressive strength, dimension stability, and percent closed
cell. Compressive strengths were run in both the parallel and perpendicular directions. In the parallel direction, all the
experimental blends gave foam with similar strengths. In the perpendicular direction, foams using from 10 to 40% R-
1233zd, also exhibited similar compressive strengths to the control. The compressive strengths showed a steady
reduction from the 60% loading to the all R- 1233zd blown foam. This could be due, in part, to some plastization of
the foam by the R- 1233zd, which could be dealt with by optimizing the formulation. Or since the samples were made
in a free rise orientation, not molded, the lower boiling point R- 1233zd, could have caused more stretching in the rise
direction, resulting in lower perpendicular strength.

Dimensional stability was run in the three typical conditions for boardstock formulations: 70oC/97% RH (158°F),
93oC/amb RH (200°F), and -40oC/amb RH (-40°F) for 14 days. Overall, the experimental blends gave comparable and
acceptable percent volume changes to the control. Similar to dimensional stability, the percent closed cell for all the
formulations showed little difference for the various blends. All were acceptable, running between 94 and 98%.
Although, there did appear to be a trend towards decreasing percent closed cell as the amount of R- 1233zd increased;
mostly for the highest level of 100%. This slight increase could be attributed to surfactant choice. As mentioned
earlier in the Experimental section of this paper, a fair amount of work was done to insure the validity of the control
formulation, including surfactant selection. In their 2013 CPI paper on pentane/HFO blends in appliance foams (13),
Evonik concluded that the blends using lower levels of HFO, tend to behave more like pentane blown foams and as the
blowing agent ratio gets closer to 100% HFO, surfactant optimization would be necessary.

Table 7. Handmix Foam Properties – Comp. Str., DimStab, Closed Cell

Normal/ R- R- R- R- R- R-
isopentane 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd 1233zd
control (10%) (20%) (40%) (60%) (80%) (100%)
Compressive Str.
kPa (psi)
Parallel 372.2 372.6 362.4 358.9 353.0 357.1 361.0
(54.0) (54.0) (52.6) (52.1) (51.2) (51.8) (52.4)
Perpendicular 114.3 114.1 96.2 99.4 84.4 85.6 77.7
(16.6) (16.6) (14.0) (14.4) (12.3) (12.4) (11.3)

Dimensional Stability
(% volume change*)
70oC/97% RH (158°F) 6.7 7.5 6.9 6.9 6.1 5.5 4.4
93oC/amb RH (200°F) 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.4 2.1
-40oC/amb RH (-40°F) -0.1 -0.6 -0.3 -0.1 -0.7 -0.5 -0.2

Closed Cell (%) 97.9 97.4 96.5 96.2 94.9 96.0 93.7
*after 14 days in various conditions

Results for Machine Made Foams

Table 8, below, contains the reaction times and core/bucket densities for the normal/isopentane control system and the
40% R- 1233zd containing blend. The experimental system gave similar reaction profile and densities to the pentane
control.

©2017 American Chemistry Council

 Table 8. Machine Reaction Times and Free Rise Densities
Normal/isopentane R- 1233zd (40%)
control
Reactivity Details
Cream time, sec 5 3
Gel time, sec 20 19
Tack-free time, sec 37 28
Core density, kg/m3 (pcf) 27.7 (1.73) 28.2 (1.76)
Bucket density, kg/m3 (pcf) 31.7 (1.98) 32.5 (2.03)

Process Properties
Tables 9, below, contains information on how the foam systems processed in the k-factor mold. This information
includes minimum fill data, over pack and packed densities. Minimum fill weights and densities for the foam blown
with 40% R- 1233zd was similar to the control system.

Table 9. Machine Foam Process Properties – k-factor mold details

Normal/isopentane R- 1233zd (40%)
control
Fill weights and densities
Minimum fill wt, g 308 310
Minimum fill density, kg/m3 (pcf) 32.1 (2.00) 32.2 (2.01)
Percent over-pack 5.6 5.0
Panel weight at over-pack, g 325.2 325.5
Density at over-pack 33.8 (2.11) 33.8 (2.11)

Foam Properties
Overall, the machine run foam properties, shown below in Table 10, confirmed the findings of the handmix screening
study. The thermal properties of foams made with R- 1233zd continued to outperform the normal/isopentane control.
Depending on the mean test temperature the 40% R- 1233zd k-factors were improved as much as 12% at the lower test
temperature to slightly over 2% for the higher temperature; results which matched the performance of the 40% loading
in the handmix study.

Compressive strengths were comparable to the control in both directions. As was the dimensional stability for all
conditions. Percent closed cells were acceptable at 98% for the control and 94% for the experimental blend.
Potentially, as mentioned previously, surfactant optimization could improve the closed cell content of foams blown
partially with HFO 1233zd.

Table 10. Machine Foam Properties

Normal/isopentane R- 1233zd (40%)
control
Thermal conductivity data,
mW/K.m3 (Btu.in/hr.ft2.°F)
@ 0 °C (32 °F) 23.5 (0.1629) 20.6 (0.1429)
@ 10 °C (50 °F) 22.2 (0.1536) 20.5 (0.1424)
@ 24 °C (75 °F) 22.5 (0.1557) 21.9 (0.1521)

Compressive Str.
kPa (psi)
Parallel 163.4 (23.7) 140.0 (20.3)
Perpendicular 184.8 (26.8) 177.9 (25.8)

Dimensional stability
(% volume change*)
70oC/97% RH (158°F) 4.4 5.1
93oC/amb RH (200°F) 5.6 5.5
-40oC/amb RH (-40°F) -0.3 -1.5

©2017 American Chemistry Council

 Closed cell, % 97.5 94.1
*after 14 days in various conditions

CONCLUSION

In the past, we have focused most of our efforts on the total replacement of the high GWP HFC blowing agents with
R- 1233zd. However, as energy requirements continue to become incrementally more severe, there will be potential to
meet those requirements with changes in the blowing agent package. This most recent investigation determined that
such improvements in the performance of a normal/isopentane boardstock foam would be achieved by the replacement
of as little as 10% of the pentane with R- 1233zd. For example, the results of the handmix screening experiment,
showed that on average, each increase in R- 1233zd showed a better thermal conductivity over the previous lower
loading; from a low 2.6% better, versus the control, for the 10% loading to a high of over 20% better for the all R-
1233zd. Additionally, this difference was fairly consistent over the 4 months of aging data that had been collected up
to the time of this writing, especially for blends < 60% loading. These improvements were confirmed with the
machine runs as was the overall enhancement in the thermal insulation value over the entire test temperature range,
especially at the lower temperatures of 0oC (32°F) and 10oC (50°F). Due to the lower boiling point of the R- 1233zd,
the thermal conductivity of the blend with 40%, actually improved at the lower test temperatures.

Both these improvements in thermal performance, provide yet another example that R- 1233zd continues to provide
superior insulation and potential improvement in energy performance for rigid polyurethane foams either as the sole
physical blowing agent or in combination with other low GWP materials such as normal and isopentane. A property
that will be more indispensable as future energy requirements become more stringent and tougher to meet.

REFERENCES

1. Chen B., P. Bonnet, L. Abbas, J. Costa, and M Elsheikh. 2008. “Investigation of New Low GWP Blowing
Agents for Rigid Polyurethane Foams,” Proceedings of the Polyurethanes Conference 2008.

2. Chen B., P. Bonnet, L. Abbas, and J. Costa. 2009. “Investigation of a New Low GWP Blowing Agent, AFA-
L1, for PUR/PIR,” Proceedings of the Polyurethanes Conference 2009.

3. Costa J., B. Chen, L. Abbas, and P. Bonnet. 2010. “A Continued Investigation of AFA-L1, a New Low GWP
Blowing Agent,” Proceedings of the Polyurethanes Conference 2010.

4. Costa J., B. Chen, L. Abbas, and S. Seshadri. 2011. “An Investigation of a New Low GWP Blowing Agent
for Spray Polyurethane Foam”, Proceedings of the Polyurethane Conference 2011.

5. Costa J., B. Chen, L. Abbas, and S. Seshadri (Arkema); M. Krupa, F. Saad, and K. Scarlett (BASF Corp.); Y.
Sinaga and B. Grimm (Whirlpool Corp.). 2012. “AFA-L1, a Low GWP Blowing Agent for the Appliance
Industry”, Proceedings of the Polyurethane Conference 2012.

6. Costa J., B. Chen, L. Abbas, and S. Seshadri. 2013. “AFA-L1, a Low Global Warming Potential Blowing
Agent for Cold Chain Applications”, Proceedings of the Polyurethane Conference 2013.

7. Costa J., B. Chen, L. Abbas, and S. Seshadri. 2012. “Improved Shelf Stability of Rigid Polyurethane
Premixes Using AFA-L1, a low GWP Blowing Agent”, Proceedings of the Polyurethane Conference 2012.

8. Costa J., B. Chen, L. Abbas, and S. Seshadri. 2013. “AFA-L1, a Low Global Warming Potential Blowing
Agent for Cold Chain Applications”, Proceedings of the Polyurethane Conference 2013.

9. Costa J., B. Chen, L. Abbas, and S. Seshadri. 2014. “Forane® 1233zd – Continued Improvement in Resin
Shelf Stability with this Low GWP Liquid, Non-flammable Blowing Agent”, Proceedings of the
Polyurethane Conference 2014.

©2017 American Chemistry Council

 10. Savings and Benefits of Global Regulations for Energy Efficient Products, European Commission Report,
September 2015.

11. Costa J., B. Chen, L. Abbas, and S. Seshadri. 2015. “Effects of HFO 1233zd/Cyclopentane Blends on the
Performance and Properties of an Appliance System”, Proceedings of the Polyurethane Conference 2015.

12. The Polyurethane Book, Huntsman Polyurethanes, Copyright 2002, Chapter 15, pg 236.

13. Tauchen R., C. Eilbracht, and C. Schiller. 2013. “Optimizing Surfactant Technology for Blends of Blowing
Agents in Next Generation Appliance Formulations”, Proceedings of the Polyurethane Conference 2013.

Forane® is a registered trademark of Arkema.

Mondur® is a registered trademark of Covestro
Polycat® and Dabco® are registered trademarks of Evonik
Rubinate® is a registered trademark of Huntsman International
Stepanpol® is a registered trademark of Stepan Company

BIOGRAPHIES

JOSEPH COSTA
Joe is currently a Senior Tech Service Engineer of Fluorochemicals at Arkema’s Technical Center in
King of Prussia, PA. He received a BS degree in Psychology from the University of Miami (FL) in
1979 and an MS in Chemistry from the University of Scranton (PA) in 1984. He then began his career
in rigid polyurethane foams with the Carpenter Co. After which he held various positions in the
polyurethane field at Elf Atochem, ICI/Huntsman, and IFS, returning to Arkema in 2006.

BEN CHEN
Ben is currently a Senior Research Scientist of Fluorochemicals at Arkema’s Technical Center in King
of Prussia, PA. He received PhD in Chemical Engineering from University of Pittsburgh in 1995, and
BSc in East China University of Science and Technology in Shanghai, PR China in 1985. He started
his career with the company in 1995 in the area of fluorochemicals’ process research, and joined
specialty chemicals group of Additives at the end of 2000 and was responsible for polyester additives
research and application development. He joined Fluorochemicals’ foam, solvent, and aerosol
application group in middle of 2006.

LAURENT ABBAS
Laurent received his Ph.D. in Polymer Science from the Université Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg,
France in 2006. After being a Postdoctoral fellow in the microelectronic industry, he joined Arkema
France in 2007 as a technical development manager of fluorinated blowing agents. He is also
involved in technical service and development of fluorinated solvents.

LUCY CLARKSON
Lucy is an R&D Director for the Fluorochemicals Division at Arkema, Inc.’s Technical Center in
King of Prussia. She received her Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
UK, in 1991. She began her career as a Visiting Scientist in the Central Research and
Development department at the DuPont Co. in Wilmington, DE, and joined the company full time
as a research scientist in 1993. Lucy has held a number of technical and business positions at
DuPont, and spent the last 10 years in the company’s Engineering Plastics division, first leading the
global technology groups for chemistry and polymerization, and Vespel® Parts and Shapes, and
more recently in Strategic Planning. She joined Arkema in 2016.

©2017 American Chemistry Council

This paper may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this paper is being used for nonprofit
educational purposes and will not be made available for distribution. ACC believes this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information, go
to:http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107. If copyrighted material from this paper is further used for
purposes that go beyond “fair use,” permission from the copyright owner must be obtained.

©2017 American Chemistry Council