Comparison of the VPF and Liquid C02 Foaming Processes

Abstract

A number of technologies are now available to replace ozone depleting chemicals and hazardous air pollutants in the manufacture of flexible polyurethane slabstock.

In the U.S.A. the Environmental Protection Agency has made provisional recommendations regarding the Presumptive Maximum Available Control Technology. Two of the options - Variable Pressure Foaming (V.P.F.) and the Liquid C02 Injection process are compared on the following basis: Production Range; Economics of Production; Process Improvements; Environmental Considerations; Capital Costs Both V.P.F. and Liquid C02 fulfil the requirements of the Montreal Protocol.

The comparisons illustrate that Liquid C02 is a part solution to the Environmental problem, V.P.F. is the more complete solution.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Triolo

Technical Meeting

Variable Pressure Foaming PFA

, September 1993

2. Clockaerts

, Variable Pressure, Foaming Utech, March 1994; Cell. Polym., 13, No. 2, 1994, 87

3. Blackwell

J.B.

Buckley

, Manufacture Foam VPF Process, Proceedings, Cellular Polymers III, 1995; Cell. Polym., 14, No. 4, 1995, 311

4. Eiben

R.G.

, , High Quality Flexible Slabstock Foam using Liquid Carbon Dioxide, PFA Meeting, Chicago, September 1995

Fiorentini

, Latest Manufacturing Solutions for Slabstock Foams, Utech 1994

6. Stone

Foam

Rapid Cure

Patent

U.S.

4906,672, March 1990

7. The Envirocure System - Crain Industries Inc, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72906, U.S.A.

8. Acetone Process - Hickory Springs Inc, U.S.A.

9. PFA P.MACT Meeting August 22nd 1995

10.

10. Rapna Inc, LaPorte, IN 46350, U.S.A.

11.

11. AMEG U.K. Ltd, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 6JF, England

12.

12. Beamech Patent Applied for: Beamech Group Limited, Trafford Park, Manchester, M17 1JT, England