ADVANCED COMPOSITES TECHNOLOGY
CASE STUDY AT NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH
CENTER
by
Kenneth R. Stone and Johnny Springer, Jr.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Project Officer
Kenneth R. Stone
Sustainable Technology Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review,
and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and
control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems ; remediation of contaminated sites and ground water; and prevention and control of indoor air
pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative,
cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA
to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to
ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
ABSTRACT
This report summarizes work conducted at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Langley
Research Center (NASA-LaRC) in Hampton, VA, under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Waste Reduction Evaluations at Federal Sites (WREAFS) Program. Support for this study was
provided by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). SERDP is a
cooperative effort between DoD, DOE and EPA to develop environmental solutions that enhance mission
readiness in defense operations.
The purposes of the WREAFS Program are to identify new technologies and techniques for reducing
wastes from process operations and other activities at Federal sites, and to enhance the implementation
of pollution prevention/waste minimization through technology transfer. New techniques and technologies
for reducing waste generation are identified through waste minimization opportunity assessments and
may be further evaluated through joint research, development, and demonstration projects.
Under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, NASA-LaRC is a member of the Tidewater Interagency Pollution
Prevention Program (TIPPP). At NASA-LaRC, a technique for producing advanced composite materials
without the use of solvents has been developed. This assessment was focused on the production of non-
refractory composite materials and aircraft structures made from those materials.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Section paqe
DISCLAIMER ;. . ii
FOREWORD •. jjj
ABSTRACT jv
FIGURES vi
TABLES ' vj
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ''* [[ 'v\\
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE 1
1.2 COMPOSITE USES AND TRADITIONAL MANUFACTURING METHODS
1.2.1 Uses and Methods of Producing Prepreg 2
1.2.2 Hot Melt Prepregging 2
1.2.3 Solution Prepregging 3
1.2.3 The Need for an Alternative 6
1.3 DRY-POWDER PREPREGGING 7
1.3.1 Description of the Dry-Powder Prepregging Process 7
1.3.2 Objectives of the Study 9
2 ASSESSMENT METHOD 10
2.1 DESCRIPTION 10
2.1.1 Project Parameters 10
2.1.2 Materials " 10
2.1.3 Processing Parameters 11
2.1.4 Waste Reduction Potential 12
2.1.5 Economic Assessment 12
2.2 PROCESS ASSESSMENT ''.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 12
2.2.1 Operating Conditions 12
2.2.2 Additional Parameters 13
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 14
3.1 SOLVENTS AND PARTICULATES 14
3.2 SOLID WASTE 15
3.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 15
4 ECONOMIC ISSUES 17
4.1 EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTION COST EVALUATION 17
4.1.1 Capital Costs 18
4.1.2 Operating Costs 19
4.2 SUMMARY 19
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .'...' ....'. 22
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section page
APPENDIX A MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS 23
FIGURES
Number . paqe
1 Solution Prepregging System 4
2 NASA Langley Dry Powder Towpregging System 8
TABLES
Number
1 Operating Conditions 13
2 Waste Reduction Potential of the Dry Prepregging Process 14
3 Dry Towpreg Capital Cost Estimate [[' \ \'_ " 20
4 Production Cost Estimate 21
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the help and cooperation provided by Mark Paisley and Dean
Poeth of Battelle, and by Dan Bowman, Jan DeWaters and Ricky Tropp of TRC Environmental
Corporation for their assistance in providing information contributing to this case study.
VII
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
This report summarizes work conducted at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
Langley Research Center (NASA-LaRC) in Hampton, Virginia, under the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Waste Reduction Evaluations at Federal Sites (WREAFS) Program. Support for this
study was provided by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP).
SERDP is a cooperative effort between DoD, DOE and EPA to develop environmental solutions that
enhance mission readiness in defense operations.
The purposes of the WREAFS Program are to identify new technologies and techniques for
reducing wastes from process operations and other activities at Federal sites, and to enhance the
implementation of pollution prevention/waste minimization through technology transfer. New techniques
and technologies for reducing waste generation are identified through waste minimization opportunity
assessments and may be further evaluated through joint research, development, and demonstration
projects.
Under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, NASA-LaRC is a member of the Tidewater Interagency
Pollution Prevention Program (TIPPP). At NASA-LaRC, a technique for producing advanced composite
materials without the use of solvents has been developed. This assessment was focused on the
production of non-refractory composite materials and aircraft structures made from those materials.
The prepregging process represents one of the first steps in the manufacture of composite
materials. During prepregging, carbon-based fiber tow bundles are impregnated with a plastic polymer
powder to produce towpreg materials, which can then be formed and finished into plastic composites.
The new prepregging process evaluated in this report has the potential to reduce air emissions, solid
-------
wastes, and hazardous wastes during the manufacture of prepreg materials. Currently, polymer
powders are most commonly applied to fibers by dipping the fibers into a tank containing a polymer
dissolved in an organic solvent. The organic solvents are then vaporized in drying ovens. The new
process evaluated at NASA Langley is a dry process that does not require the use of solvents for the
production of towpreg. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the dry process for its potential
to prevent pollution, as compared to a typical solvent-based process.
1.2 COMPOSITE USES AND TRADITIONAL MANUFACTURING METHODS
1.2.1 Uses and Methods of Producing Prepreg
The use of plastic composites has increased dramatically throughout the United States over the
past 20 years. Composites are used extensively in automobiles, sporting equipment, electronic devices,
and in many high-technology areas, including space travel and military equipment. Plastic composites
exhibit more attractive mechanical properties than conventional materials, including superior elevated
temperature qualities, higher strength-to-weight ratios, very low reactivity, and minimal degradation over
time (e.g., no rust development, smooth surfaces which resist rust and scratching). The increasing use
of composites is generally found in niches that were conventionally filled by metals, such as steel and
aluminum, or other plastics.
One of the most significant steps in the manufacture of plastic composites is the process of
combining continuous fiber tows with plastic resins to create prepreg materials, which can then be
formed and finished. Two widely used methods of accomplishing the prepregging process include hot
melt prepregging and solution prepregging. Solution prepregging is by far the most commonly used
method; hot melt prepregging applications currently are very limited.
1.2.2 Hot Melt Prepregging
During hot melt prepregging, prepreg materials are manufactured by coating a heated resin onto a
spread fiber tow. The plastic resin is heated first to reduce the viscosity as much as possible without
damaging the structure of the resin. Hot melt prepregging is rarely used due to two primary limitations.
The first limitation is that the viscosity of the plastic resin melt is generally quite high, which causes
difficulty in achieving a smooth and even coating on the carbon tow. The second limitation arises from
-------
the generally lower performance levels of the hot melt prepreg product, due to the uneven resin coating.
These low performance levels can be attributed directly to difficulties experienced during the coating
process.
Aside from the coating difficulties and performance limitations associated with the prepreg
product, hot melt prepregging is an attractive process. The machinery required to perform hot melt
prepregging is less complex than solution prepregging equipment. Environmentally, hot melt
prepregging is a relatively innocuous process, as little to no organic solvents are consumed or emitted
during operation. Minor amounts of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are possible during hot
melt prepregging due to the escape of residual VOCs in the resin from resin manufacturing. These
emissions are likely to be negligible in comparison to solution-based prepregging.
Hot melt prepregging may become a more attractive prepregging process as environmental
regulations increasingly restrict the use of volatile solvents. Despite its simplicity and environmental
advantages, however, it is unlikely that hot melt prepregging will gain acceptance without first
overcoming its processing difficulties and product quality .limitations.
1.2.3 Solution Prepregging
Solution prepregging is the most prevalent form of prepregging in use today. In one very common
form of solution prepregging, the carbon fibers of the tow are spread and then dipped into a tank
containing the polymer dissolved in a volatile solvent. The tow is then passed through a series of
furnace sections to evaporate the solvents and fuse the polymer to the tow fibers. A schematic of the
solution prepregging system is provided in Figure 1.
-------
<0
O3
CD
&
o
en
o>
u_
05
c
s
3
"5.
o
in
-------
The primary advantage of solution prepregging over other prepregging options is the high
performance levels that are possible with the product. Solution prepreg materials can be designed for
extreme environmental conditions, including applications in intense heat and for operations requiring
severe strain and puncture resistance. Solution prepregging appears to be the only widely used
prepregging process capable of producing the best product performance.
While the product performance of solution-based prepreg material is high, the process of solution
prepregging has significant drawbacks. The most obvious of these is that the process requires the use
of increasingly regulated organic solvents. The solvent acts as the carrier for the plastic resins which
are coated onto the carbon tow. Once the plastic resin is coated, the solvent must be evaporated,
usually by means of a drying oven. The vaporized solvent is then either recaptured, incinerated, or
otherwise disposed of. Simply venting the solvent to the atmosphere requires permits that are
increasingly expensive.
The low solubility of polymer materials in volatile solutions increases the amount of organic
solvent used and its subsequent vaporization. Polymer materials used in solution-based prepregging
are generally not very soluble. In order to achieve proper coating thicknesses of plastic resins on the
carbon tows, large amounts of solution must be used, resulting in the potential for large emissions of
VOC.
Another significant problem with solution-based prepregging is that a large solid waste stream of
waxed papers is created. After the plastic resin coating is applied, the coated prepreg material is very
tacky and will adhere to solution prepregging equipment, thereby fouling the system. To avoid this
problem, all rollers handling the prepreg are coated with waxed paper, as shown in Figure 1. This
waxed paper is cycled once through the system and is then discarded to avoid fouling the rollers with
dirty paper. The paper must be disposed of according to local regulations; in some areas, this material
may be considered a hazardous waste.
A third significant problem with solution prepregging is deterioration of the prepreg product after
coating. Prepreg materials are not generally manufactured into a usable product immediately after
formation but, rather, are stored until needed. During generation of the prepreg, it is not feasible to
-------
evaporate all the solvent in the ovens, as this would leave the prepreg too brittle to be formed into useful
shapes. A small amount of solvent must remain in the carbon and plastic matrix to keep it pliable,
enabling the solution prepreg to be easily be formed into useful materials. Residual solvent is retained in
the prepreg material by keeping it refrigerated and enclosed. Residual solvent will vaporize if the
prepreg is left in an open atmosphere, leaving the prepreg material unusable. Refrigeration adds
markedly to the cost of producing a solution-based prepreg product. Additionally, residual solvent
remaining in the prepreg material may escape directly to the atmosphere during the forming process if
control devices are not installed on the forming equipment.
A final drawback is that the process is very slow. A single production line produces only a few
meters of tow per minute. Generally, a number of process lines operate in parallel in order to produce
large amounts of the material within an acceptable period of time.
1.2.3 The Need for an Alternative
Although solution-based prepregging produces very high quality composite products, it has
several disadvantages, especially from an environmental standpoint. Hot melt prepregging is
environmentally advantageous and is a relatively simple process, but produces a low quality product.
An alternative prepregging process has been developed by NASA-LaRC which may enable the
production of high quality prepreg product in an environmentally acceptable fashion. This process,
called dry powder towpregging, employs a finely ground plastic resin which is coated and cured onto a
fiber tow material. A test site was established by NASA -LaRC in order to develop the dry powder
towpregging process. The ddry powder towpregging line at LaRC is capable of producing over 12 meters
(m) of coated tow per minute. Processes and issues relating to the dry powder process are fully
discussed in Section 1.3.
-------
1.3 DRY-POWDER PREPREGGING
1.3.1 Description of the Dry-Powder Prepregging Process
Dry powder towpregging, shown in Figure 2, is a conceptually simple process. A finely ground
plastic resin is placed into screw-type feeder units. Fiber tow is spread into a thin wall of individual fibers
by a fan blower. The ground resin is then deposited onto the spread fibers. The fibers are moved by a
series of horizontal rollers, which help to spread the resin across the tow, and are then passed through a
curing oven which enjoins the fiber with the ground resin. After exiting the oven, the tow is flipped by a
vertical roller so that the underside can be coated. A second feeder coats the bottom of the tow with
ground resin, after which it undergoes a second heating cycle in the oven. The fully coated tow is then
rolled onto a takeup spool until needed for manufacture of a laminate.
The dry powder towpregging process is environmentally advantageous to solution prepregging in
a number of ways. Unlike solution prepregging, dry powder towpregging does not require the use of
either solvents or waxed paper, thereby avoiding the associated VOC emissions and solid waste
generation. In addition, the towpreg material produced by the NASA Langley process can be stored at
room temperature, eliminating additional monetary and environmental costs associated with
refrigeration. Environmental impacts associated with prepregging processes are described in Section 3
of this report.
The dry powder towpregging process is similar to the hot melt method of coating prepreg in many
ways. Both are relatively simple processes that employ heat to cure plastic resin onto a fiber tow
substrate. As stated previously, coating and performance drawbacks seriously limit the use of the hot
melt method of prepreg production. These drawbacks occur because hot melt prepregging cannot
achieve a smooth and even, coating of plastic resin on the fiber tow.
The dry powder towpregging process appears to have potential to overcome the performance
limitations of hot melt prepregging. Since dry powder towpregging employs finely ground particles of
plastic resin, it could possibly achieve very smooth and even coatings. Coating thicknesses are easily
controlled by changing the rate of resin particle deposition onto the surfaces of the fiber tow.
Performance levels achieved by the NASA-LaRC process are not discussed in this report. As of this
-------
-------
NASA-LaRC continues to develop and demonstrate the dry powder towpregging process in order to
achieve performance levels comparable to solution prepregging.
1.3.2 Objectives of the Study
The focus of this study is the NASA-LaRC dry powder towpregging process as a potential
substitute to a conventional solution prepregging process by describing how similar prepreg material
would be produced by each process from the same starting materials. For assessment purposes, this
comparison was facilitated by the existence of both the bench scale dry powder towpregging line built by
NASA and a similar scaled solution prepregging line, each located in the Polymeric Materials Lab at
NASA-LaRC. Main objectives of the study included:
9 Assessment of the pollution prevention potential of the process.
o Technical and Economic feasibility of the dry powder process compared to solution prepregging.
Section 2 discusses the method of the study. Potential environmental impacts are discussed in Section
3. An economic assessment is provided in Section 4. Conclusions and recommendations for the NASA-
LaRC dry powder towpregging process are presented in Section 5.
-------
SECTION 2
ASSESSMENT METHOD
2.1 DESCRIPTION
2.1.1 Project Parameters
The extent of this project was defined in conjunction with EPA and NASA. Included within the
project parameters are all elements of the process cycle for production, from purchase of prepared
thermoplastic resins and fiber tow for both processes, through construction of a laminated composites.
For comparison purposes, identical raw materials were studied in both processes. Both processes are
designed to produce the same product. The study did not include resin or fiber production processes or
the ultimate disposal of the laminate in a landfill. These stages were excluded because both processes
start with the same resins and fiber tow materials.
2.1.2 Materials
The baseline assumption for the study is that the prepreg produced from both wet solution and dry
powder processes would use identical carbon fiber tows possessing identical tow counts. NASA-LaRC
provided information on the plastic resins selected for the testing: AMD-0036, a high performance epoxy
produced by the 3M Company, and LARC-IA, a resin produced by Imiter Incorporated. Material Safety
Data Sheets (MSDS) are presented in Appendix A. NASA-LaRC purchases these resins as powders
with a nominal 20 micron particle size. For solvent selection, it was assumed that in solution
prepregging, AMD-0036 would be dissolved in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and the LARC-IA would be
dissolved in n-methyl pyrolidone (NMP). Hercules Fiber AS-4 12K, which contains 12,000 fibers per tow,
was selected as the base tow for each resin product.
10
-------
2.1.3 Processing Parameters
Figures 1 and 2 display the wet solution and dry powder prepregging processing systems.
Process data from the wet solution process system were provided for the following parameters:
• tow speed
• solution temperature
• solution consumption
• curing oven temperature
• curing oven energy input
• release paper consumption
For the dry towpregging process, process data were provided for the following parameters:
• tow speed
o curing oven temperature
• curing oven energy input
• powder feed rate
• feeder power consumption
Organic vapors from the solution prepregging process and from the fiber sizing operation would
constitute the primary environmental impacts from this process. The use of fine, dry powders creates
the potential for fugitive dust emissions. Expanded development of dry powder towpregging systems; to
the operational level may entail a requirement for subsequent particulate control equipment.
Energy consumption is an important consideration because process operating costs generally
determine the acceptance of a process by industry. Further, energy generating operations have
environmental impacts raising concerns for conservation. Therefore, power consumption of components
in both process systems was included in the study. Energy consumption, along with the treatment costs
for organic and solid wastes, comprise the major factors in process operating costs. Energy costs for
11
-------
refrigeration of wet-solution produced prepreg are not included in this study because these costs are
highly variable, depending on the length and conditions of storage time. Also, organic and solid waste
treatment costs were not estimated due to the existence of variables in production rate, scale of
operations and to maintain conservative numbers for the economic assessment.
2.1.4 Waste Reduction Potential
Potential reductions in solvent use and emissions to the environment are projected for the NA8A-
LaRC process. Information gathered during this study has been utilized to project the waste reduction
potential of the dry powder process. The reduction in solvents was balanced against projected
emissions of fine particulate thermoplastic resin from the process. Based on process performance
experience at NASA-LaRC, information is provided on projected VOC emissions from solution
prepregging and sizing operations, energy consumption in the solution prepregging curing ovens, and
estimates of fugitive dust emissions form the dry powder feeders or web prior to curing, particulate
emissions from the dry powder towpregging chamber, and organic vapors from the dry powder
towpregging curing oven.
2.1.J5 Economic Assessment
System capital and operating costs have been estimated as part of an overall life cycle cost
assessment of the prepregging processes. The boundaries of the cost assessment are the starting raw
materials (i.e., fiber tow, polymer, and support materials such as release paper, if used) through the
fabricated parts. Initial preparation of the raw materials and the ultimate disposal of the discarded parts
are outside the boundaries of the economic assessment, because they are assumed not to be
significantly different.
2.2 PROCESS ASSESSMENT
2.2.1 Typical Operating Conditions
As noted in section 2.1.2, this study compares both processes on the basis of both a
thermoplastic and an epoxy product. The epoxy was AMD-0036, and the thermoplastic was LARC-IA.
AMD-0036 was assumed to be dissolved in MEK for solution prepregging, with the LaRC-IA dissolved in
12
-------
NMP. In the dry powder process no solvents are used. For operating conditions information, the study
set its parameters to the size and scale of equipment typically used in NASA-LaRC labs, as that
information was readily available. The average operating conditions of this equipment are shown in
Table 1.
TABLE 1. OPERATING CONDITIONS
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
Polymer Type & Process
LARC-1A, Dry
AMD-0036, Dry
LARC-IA/NMP, 30% solids*
AMD-0036/MEK, 70%
solids*
Tow Speed
ft/min
70.0
40.0
2.0
1.3
Total
Tow, ft
8050
5080
3375
2535
Oven
Temp. °C
300'C
190°C
71°C
205 C
Paper
usage, ft2
0
0
880
670
Power
Consumption,
Kw
5
5
27
27
'Solution processing
2.2.2 Additional Parameters
A number of other parameters were included for this study, as described in Section 2.1.3. Curing
oven temperature was provided by NASA-LaRC, along with average tow speed and total tow length.
Curing oven energy input was based on nameplate power requirements indicated on the ovens used for
both systems. Air flow rates into the curing ovens were also available on the equipment nameplates.
Release paper consumption during each of the wet solution processes is provided by weight.
Feeder power consumption was available on the equipment nameplates during the dry towpregging
process. Powder feed rates were provided by NASA-LaRC.
13
-------
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The first objective of this study was to calculate the potential environmental impacts of both
processes, in the areas of VOCs, solid waste and particulate emissions. Table 2 provides the estimated
waste reduction potential in these categories.
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED WASTE REDUCTION POTENTIAL OF THE NASA-LaRC PROCESS*
Process
Polyamide - Dry Process
Epoxy - Dry Process
Polyamide - Solution in NMP
Epoxy - Solution in MEK
VOC Emissions
Ib/yr
0
0
>1
15,230
Solid Waste
Ib/yr
0
0
866,160**
866,160**
Particulate
Emissions
Ib/yr
1
7
>1
>1
These estimates are generated assuming annual production rates equivalent to those shown in Table 1, accounting for
2000 hours operating time per year.
"This is the weight of the paper waste generated by the solution-based process assuming an annual production of
48,000 linear meters of 89 mm wide prepreg. Paper waste is generated at the rate of approximately 167.4 kg per 1000
linear meters of tape produced. Other wastes, such as drums for solvents and resin containers and accumulated
particulate matter generated by the dry powder process, were not calculated.
3.1 SOLVENTS AND PARTICULATES
As the table shows, VOCs would be eliminated by the dry powder prepregging, because no VOC
generating materials are used in the process. The reduction of VOC emissions for the epoxy would be
much greater than the thermoplastic, which reflects the fact that MEK is significantly more volatile than
NMP. With MEK as a common solvent in many prepregging operations, this level of reduction can
generate significant cost savings in terms of environmental control equipment and maintenance.
A significant emission source in conventional prepregging operations is the residual solvent that
might be released as the prepreg is used to produce composite materials. In the dry towpreg material,
the only residual solvents present are those resulting from the resin production, as no additional solvents
14
-------
are used in the towpreg production. The solution process, on the other hand, may generate material that
contains significant residual solvent. Although emissions from the wet solution prepreg material during
product formation have not been quantified during this evaluation, these emissions are potentially
significant.
3.2 SOLID WASTE
The wet solution prepregging process produces solid waste in the form of waxed paper, which is
used to prevent prepreg from touching the rollers of the prepregging equipment. The paper rolls through
the equipment along with the fiber tow, as shown in Figure 1. This paper cannot be reused because it is
contaminated with tow and resin, and must be disposed of after one pass through the prepreg line. The
amount of waste paper generated is variable, depending on the tow speed as presented in Table 1. For
an annual production rate, using the LARC-IA polymer in NMP solvent, approximately 3,375 feet of tow
per year will be produced, generating 866,160 pounds of waste paper annually. .
The NASA dry powder towpregging process produces essentially no solid waste. Waxed paper
use is not required for equipment protection, and no products other than fiber tow, plastic resin, and
energy are consumed in the process. An additional solid waste stream may be produced by the
accumulated particulates generated by the dry powder process and removed by particulate control
equipment. This material will primarily consist of fine particles of plastic polymer, and will require
disposal or recycling.
3.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The primary focus of this study was to ascertain the estimated reduction of VOC emissions from
prepregging operations, the first step in the production of polymer composites. The NASA Langley dry
powder towpregging process has the potential to significantly reduce or eliminate VOC emissions from
the prepregging operation.
As shown in Table 2, VOC emissions are virtually eliminated in the dry powder towpregging
process. When MEK is the solvent, as is the case in many prepregging operations, reductions of this
magnitude can result in significant savings in terms of avoided costs for environmental process controls.
15
-------
Even when less volatile solvents such as NMP are utilized, the elimination of VOC emissions is
desirable. Also, the elimination of liquid hazardous waste is a benefit.
Solid wastes are significantly reduced by eliminating the use of release paper in the dry powder
process. In a typical wet solution prepregging system, release paper contributes 167.4 kg of solid waste
for every 1,000 meters of tow processed. These solid wastes are potentially contaminated with the
organic solvents used in the process and could therefore be subject to disposal restrictions.
Although some particulate emissions are produced by the dry powder towpregging process line
currently operating at NASA Langiey, conventional particulate control technology would significantly
reduce these emissions. Accumulated particulates removed by control equipment would eventually
represent an additional solid waste stream consisting primarily of polymer material, which would require
disposal or recycling. Particulates are not emitted from the solution process.
16
-------
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC ISSUES
4.1 EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTION COST EVALUATION
A preliminary economic evaluation of the dry powder towpregging process was performed using
general chemical engineering cost estimating procedures. The economic evaluation focuses on the wet
solution and dry powder epoxy systems, since this demonstration was primarily interested in eliminating
the use of organic solvents (MEK). VOC emissions from the solution process using NMP would be
small. The following assumptions were made for the economic analysis:
(1) The dry process operates at 21.3 m/min and produces 2,556,000 linear meters of 89 mm tape
annually.
(2) The solution process operates at 0.61 m/min and produces 73,200 linear meters of 89 mm tape
annually. . :
(3) The dry process can be scaled up to coat 15 tows simultaneously.
(4) The dry process can be made to produce a 89 mm tape using hot nip rolls.
(5) The dry process has an epoxy powder loss of approximately 15 percent, due to recycling and
handling.
(6) No epoxy powder losses are experienced with the wet solution process.
(7) Power usage is estimated from equipment name plate data.
(8) No costs were included in either process for such items as:
(a) supervision
(b) maintenance
(c) laboratory charges
(d) taxes
(e) insurance
(f) plant overhead
(g) administrative costs
(h) distribution and selling costs
17
-------
(i) research and development
(j) financing
(k) emissions control equipment
(I) waste disposal
(m) refrigeration
(9) The dry process was assumed to have a three year lifetime expectancy, and the solution process
a five year lifetime expectancy, both with no scrap value. Linear depreciation was used in each
case.
4.1.1 Capital Costs
The major items of equipment involved in the dry powder towpregging process have been
estimated from manufacturers' quotations, NASA Langley information, and Peters and Timerhaus scale-
up factors. Since the bench scale process at NASA Langley is the only known process of this type, the
capital cost estimates are based on the bench scale process scaled up by a factor of five. The scalecl-
up equipment would produce an amount equivalent to that produced by the 15-tow wet solution
prepregging process in use at NASA Langley. The wet solution prepregging process (15 tows) at NASA
produces a 89 mm wide tape. In the capital cost estimate for the dry process, an attempt was made to
include the equipment required to also produce a 89 mm tape. The preliminary estimate is, at best,
within an accuracy of 50 percent.
Estimated capital costs for the dry powder towpregging process are shown in Table 6. The total
capital cost is estimated at $402,700. Reported capital costs for the wet solution prepreg process
equipment at NASA Langley are $650,000. If we assume 50 percent accuracy of the dry powder
process capital cost estimate, the total dry powder towpregging capital costs are comparable to, and
possibly less than, the reported capital costs for the wet solution prepreg process at NASA. Because of
the different line speeds (i.e., 21.3 m/min versus 0.61 m/min), the dry process will produce approximately
35 times more product than the wet solution process annually. Annual operating costs for the wet
solution process are less than those of the dry powder process. However, this difference is more than
compensated for by the difference in production rates. Because the dry process has a much higher line
speed than the solution process (see Table 1), there are cost savings to be gained in the higher annual
production rate by the dry powder process. The estimated cost of producing a 89 mm tape by the
solution process is $5.38 per meter while the dry process is estimated at only about $0.94 per meter.
18
-------
4.1.2 Operating Costs
Operating costs have been estimated, on an annual and per-unit-production basis, for both the dry
powder towpreg process and the wet solution prepregging process at NASA Langley. Operating costs
for the dry powder process have been adjusted to reflect the production of an equivalent of 15 tows
simultaneously, at 89 mm. Estimated operating costs for both processes are shown in Table 4.
4.2 SUMMARY
This economic analysis has demonstrated that epoxy-coated prepreg can be produced by the dry
powder process for approximately 18 percent of the costs associated with the wet solution process
($0.94 per meter, versus $5.38 per meter). Such a cost reduction should easily offset any development
costs necessary to provide an acceptable product from the dry powder process. Capital costs for the
dry powder and wet solution process lines are estimated at $402,700 and $650,000, respectively. These
costs are comparable, within the 50 percent margin of error associated with their estimation.
A large number of assumptions were made for this economic comparison, as shown in
Section 4.1. A principal assumption is that the dry process can be scaled up to simultaneously produce
15 tows, resulting in a 89 mm wide tape similar to that produced by the wet solution process. Additional
assumptions include the omission of several costs, including emissions control equipment and
refrigeration costs. Refrigeration of the solution process prepreg will be necessary to maintain its value.
No such refrigeration is necessary with the dry powder towpreg material. Refrigeration costs were not
included but would increase the operating cost of the solution process, perhaps significantly. Emissions
control equipment is another item which may differentially affect the two processes, since the wet
solution process would require controls for VOC emissions while the dry powder process would require
particulate emissions controls. Due to the large number of simplifying assumptions made in the
economic analysis, cost estimates for both processes should be considered as comparative costs only
and not as detailed capital and operating cost estimates.
19
-------
TABLE 3. DRY TOWPREG CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
Est|mated Major Equipment Costs
Equipment Estimated Cost, K $
Fiber Feed Spool Creel and Tension Brake (1) 40.0
Pneumatic Spreaders (2) 12.0
Powder Feeders (2) 30.0
Vibrators (4) 1.2
Electrical Variacs (4) 1.2
Electric Oven (1) 13.5
Powder Overfeed Collection and Recycle (2) 10.0
Hot Nip Rollers (2 sets) 60.0
Rollers (8) 8.0
Take up Spools and Speed Control (1) 60.0
Exhaust Ventilation Blower (2) 18.0
Total Estimated Major Equipment 253.9
Cost
Estimated Direct Costs
Estimated Cost. K $
Major Equipment 253.9
Installation (10% of equipment cost) 25.4
Instrumentation and Controls (5% of equipment cost) 12.7
Piping (2% of equipment cost) 5.1
Electrical (5% of equipment cost) 12.7
Total Estimated Direct Costs 309.8
Indirect Costs (@ 30% of direct costs) 92.9
Total Estimated Capital Cost 402.7
20
-------
TABLE 4. PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Est. Cost, K $
Raw Materials*
Fiber,AS-4(12K)($55/kg, = 1176m) 1,800.0
Epoxy Powder (3M, AMD-0036) ($209/kg) ' 380.0
Labor
1 operator ($20/hr x 2000 hr) 40.0
1 helper ($14/hrx 2000 hr) ' 28.0
Utilities (40,000 KwH/yr@ $0.10/KwH) 4.0
Rent (1500 ft2 ©$12/^0 . 18.0
Depreciation (3 yr life @ $402,700) 134.0
Total Annual Cost $2,404.0
@ 2,556,000 m/yr of 89 mm tape $0.94/m
Wet.Solution Process with MEK
Est. Cost, K $
Raw Materials
Fiber, AS-4(12 K) ($55/kg = 1176m) 51.4
Epoxy powder (3 M, AMD 0036) ($209/kg) 78.2
MEK ($2.56/liter = 0.82 kg) 0.8
Paper 36.0
Labor
1 operator ($20/hr x 2000 hr) 40.0
1 helper ($14/hrx 2000 hr) 28.0
Utilities (60,000 KwH/yr@ $0.10/KwH) 6.0
Rent (2,000 ft2 @$12/ft2/yr) 24.0
Depreciation (5 yr life @ $650,000) 130.0
% Total Annual Cost $394.4
@ 73,200 m/yr of 89 mm tape __ $5.38/m
Tiber Cost
(1) Dry Powder Process
S55.00 x 2,556,000m x 15 process lines = $1,800 K
1,175.6m yr
(2) Wet Solution Process
$55.00 x 73,200 mx 15 process lines = $51.4 K
1,175.6m yr
Epoxy and solvent costs are based on usage rates experienced during the evaluation, for Run numbers 2 and 4. Usage
rates for the dry process have been scaled up by a factor of 5, to account for the production of an equivalent of 15 tons at
89 mm.
21
-------
SECTIONS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The NASA-LaRC dry powder towpregging process shows considerable promise as an alternative
prepregging process for production of polymer composites, suggesting the potential to achieve
significant reductions in VOC emissions and solid wastes when compared to conventional technology,
while greatly reducing production costs.
In order for the NASA LaRC dry powder towpregging process to become widely accepted by
industry, the physical properties of the material produced must be comparable to those of the material it
is replacing. Measurements of the strength of the coated fibers and the impact resistance of dry towpreg
materials must be evaluated in comparison to solution prepreg. After adequate testing is performed, the
process may prove acceptable, or may require the development of alternative lamination procedures to
improve performance levels.
Even if performance levels are shown to require improvement, the development costs of an
improved process would likely be more than offset by the reduction in environmental impacts and
processing costs achieved by the dry powder towpregging process.
22
-------
APPENDIX A
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS
23
-------
HERCULES
Product Data
Hercufoa AOvancad Mat&iai*
and Syilwnc Company
Composw Products Group
Magna. Uttft 84044-0098
T«l: (801)251-5372
{800} 443-423?
NUMBER 847-6
(Supersedes 847-5)
HERCULES® CARBON FIBER
Type AS4
Typical Fiber Properties
Tensile modulusU)
Tangent at 1/2 load
Chord 6000-1000
— i
Ultimate elongation^)
Carbon content
Density
Specific heat
at167«F(75'Q
«t347*F (175^3
Electrical resistance, 12K
Electrical resistivity, 12 K
36 x
32xjl06psi
1.60%
.0.228tu/1bf*F
0.27Btu/lb."F
S.03 x 10-5 ohm-ft
221 GPa
1.60%
0.22cal/g,"C
0.27cal/g,'C
0.32 ohm/cm
_1.53x10-3 ohm-cm"
Typical Epoxy Composite Properties
{« Room Temperature)
Tensile strength
Tensile modulus
20.5 x 106psi
Flexural stren
Flexural modulus
18.5 x 106 psi
Short-beam shear strength
Fiber volume
W Calculated from tow t«it data.
•>-.'•. •
(over)
**«* to determine th« safety »nd.«uiubiliw of «ieh «uch «,^TT ^- P^UCB. u»n *re adviuid to mak« their own
24
-------
NUMBER 847-6
Page 2 of 2
•t:
•' :v-
Yarn/Tow Characteristics
Filament diameter
Filament shape
Twist
Tow cross-sectional area
' . • 3K i
6K
12K
Approximate yield
3K
6K
12K
Weight/length
3K . .'
6K
12K
U.S. Units
0.31 5 mil
Round
None
1^82 x 1
-------
MATERIAL, SAFETY DATA SHEET
MANUFACTURER'S NAME: IMITEC, INC.
1990 Haxon Rd - PO Box 1412
Schenectady, NY 12301
DATE OF PREPARATION: Feb. 7. 1992 EMERGENCY PHONE NO.: 1-518-374-9101
Updated 5/18/92 INFORMATION PHONE NO.: 1-518-374-9101-
' SECTION I - PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION ;
PRODUCT NUMBER: X-881
PRODUCT NAME: LARC-IA .
PRODUCT CLASS: Polyimide Adhesive
SECTION II - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS
INGREDIENT PERCENT OCCUPATIONAL VAPOR
EXPOSURE LIMITS PRESSURE
TLV PEL
' l-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidinone 70.6 HA NA .29 mm Hg
r (NMp) at 20 deg. C
.'<• Polyamic acid 30.0 NA NA NA
j CtHcO3-{C«oH3o
*As recommended by supplier.
SECTION'III - PHYSICAL DATA
BOILING RANGE: 202 deg. C VAPOR DENSITY: Heavier Than Air
EVAPORATION RATE: Slower Than Ethyl 70% VOLATILE VOLUME
HT/GAL: 9.17«/Gal.
SECTION IV - FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA
FLAMMABILITY CLASSIFICATION: OSHA:IIIA FLASH POINT: 187 deg. F
LEL: NA DOT: Combustible Liquid
26
-------
*XT?NGUISHINGrMEDIA: .^ FOAM COi DRY CHEMICAL
U/MUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: NA
SPECIAL FIREFIGHTING PROCEEDURES: Firefighters should be equipped Hith
Self-contained breathing apparaturs and turn-out gear.
SECTION V - HEALTH HAZARD DATA
•EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE: Skin and eye irritation. Vapor inhalation may cause
^eadache, nausea, impairment of coordination and reaction time.
MEDICAL CONDITIONS PRONE TO AGGRAVATION BY EXPOSURE:' NA
i
PRIMARY ROUTE(s) OF ENTRY: DERMAL INHALATION
EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES: Inhalation - move to fresh air to improve
Breathing. Remove contaminated clothing. Eye contact- flush with water for
at least 15 minutes. Call physician.
SECTION VI - REACTIVITY DATA
'STABILITY: STABLE
HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION-. HILL MOT OCCUR
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: CO and NO* fumes emitted when heated to
Decomposition.
•CONDITIONS TO AVOID: NA
[jfNCOMPATIBILITY { MATERIALS TO AVOID): Strong oxidizing agents.
£
, .__SECTION VII - SPILL OR LEAK PROCEEDURES.
STEPS~TO~BE~TAKEN IN CASE MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED:
Avoid prolonged contact with skin and breathing vapor.
Remove sources of ignition.
Remove with inert absorbent.
t^ASTE DISPOSAL: Disposal method must comply with local, state and federal
regulation.
27
-------
SECTION VIII - SAFE HANDLING AND USE INFORMATION
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: Use NIOSH/tiSHA respirator TC-23C.
VENTILATION: Provide sufficient ventilation to keep below TLV/LEV.
t
PROTECTIVE GLOVES: Use when prolonoed or repeated contact.
EYE PROTECTION: Use safety eyewear.
OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: NA
HYGENIC PRACTICES: Wash thorounhly after handling.
——— : — — —
SECTION IX - SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS
"•^"•"•"•"» — — — ™"" •" — — — — •- — •»•"—• —• — —.—. — — — _ _ _. . _ _ « — — — •.«. — — -••..»_«,—.-.«_ «_fc. ••••••»,..•___«_ _ ^.•«-^_ — ^™_ — — _ -
PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN iN HANDLING ANP STORING: Keep away from heat, sparks
and open flame. Close container after each use. Do not store above 100 deo
1-. . - 'y
OTHER PRECAUTIONS: Wash thoroughly after handlina and before eating and
smoking. Observe label precautions. Containers should be grounded when
pouring.
-------
00-02
3M General Offices ' 75
3M Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55144-1000
612/733-1110
Duns No.i 00-617-3082
MATERIAL SAFETY
DATA SHEET
DXVXSXONi AEROSPACE MATERIALS DEPARTMENT
MATERIALi
3M EXPERIMENTAL EPOXY POWDER AMD 0036
3H X.D. NWJBERi 63-0000-0096-6
ISSUEDi JULY 6, 1992
SUPERSEDES. JULY 2, 1992
DOCUMENTi 05-5363-6
INGREDIENT C.A.S. NO. PERCENT
AMINE CURATIVE - TRADE SECRET (T.S.).. TradeSecret 30.0 - 60 0
AROMATIC DIGLYCIDYL ETHER - TRADE
SECRET CT.S.) TradeSecret 15.0 - 40 0
EPOXY RESIN 29690-82-2 15.0 - 400
EPOXY RESIN 25036-25-3 15.0 - 400
PHYSICAL DATA
BOILING POINT. N/A
VAPOR PRESSURE ' N/A
VAPOR DENSITY. N/A
EVAPORATION RATE N/»
SOLUBILITY IN WATER. .. Insoluble
SP. GRAVITY 1.200 Water = 1
PERCENT VOLATILE 0.00 % by wt
VOLATILE ORGANICS. .. N/D
VOC LESS H20 & EXEMPT SOLVENT N/D
pHt N/A
VISCOSITY. N/A
MELTING POINT.... N/D
APPEARANCE AND ODOR. powder, light purple to tan, slight odor
3. FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA
FLASH POINT. N/A
FLAMMABLE LIMITS - LELs N/A
FLAMMABLE LIMITS - UEL N/A
AUTOIGNITXON TEMPERATURE. ... N/D
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA.
C02, foam, dry chemical, water
SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES.
Fire fighters should be equipped with self-contained breathing
apparatus when fighting fires involving this product.
UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS.
None ' • .
NFPA-HAZARD-CODES. HEALTH 1 FIRE 0 REACTIVITY 1
UNUSUAL REACTION HAZARD, none
U. REACTIVITY DATA
STABILITY. Stable
INCOMPATIBILITY - MATERIALS TO AVOID.
N/A CONDITIONS TO AVOID. Storage at OF or lower is required to
maintain product shelf life. Allow resin to warm to room
temperature.
Abbreviations. N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable
>29
-------
oo-oz
3M General Offices 76
3M Center
St. Paul. Minnesota 55144-1000
612/733-1110
Duns No.i 00-617-3082
MATERIAL SAFETY
DATA SHEET
3M
HSDSi 3M EXPERIMENTAL EPOXY POWDER AMD 0036
JULY 6, 1992 PAGEi 2 of 4
(,. REACTIVITY DATA (continued)
HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION. Mill Not Occur
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTSi
CO and C02 when subjected to excessive heat or flame.
S, ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
SPILL RESPONSE!
Ventilate the area. Observe precautions from other sections,
particularly Section 7. Collect spilled material. Place collected
material in a Department of Transportation approved metal container
lined with a polybag and seal.
RECOMMENDED DISPOSAL:
Incinerate bulk product after mixing with flammable material in an
industrial or commercial facility. Disposal should be in accordance
with applicable regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA:
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)i
Maximum VOC = N/A.
Maximum VOC minus Mater minus Exempt Solvents = N/A.
SARA HAZARD CLASSi
FIRE HAZARD* No PRESSURE: No REACTIVITY: No ACUTE: Yes CHRONIC: Yes
6. SUGGESTED FIRST AID
EYE CONTACT:
Flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 10 minutes. Call a
physician.
SKIN CONTACT:
Thoroughly wash affected area with soap and water.
INHALATION:
Remove person to uncontaninated air. Call a physician. •
IF SWALLOWED*
Do not induce vomiting. Immediately call a physician or poison
control center.
7. PRECAUTIONARY INFORMATION
OTHER PRECAUTIONARY INFORMATION:
FOR INDUSTRIAL USE ONLY. FOR INVESTIOATIONAL USE ONLY. To protect
yourself, you must wear impervious gloves* chemical safety goggles
and clothing which covers any exposed areas of the arms, legs and
torso while handling this Material. Use impervious gloves (e.g.,
Viton or nitrile rubber) and Tyvek coveralls. Discard contaminated
clothing or launder before reuse. Keep container closed when not in
Abbreviations: N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable
'30
-------
3M General Offices
3M Center
St. Paul. Minnesota 55144-1000
612/733-1110
Duns No.i 00-617-3082
00-02
77
MATERIAL SAFETY
DATA SHEET
3M
MSDS. 3M EXPERIMENTAL EPOXY PONDER AMD 0036
JULY 6, 1992
PAGE. 3 of
PRECAUTIONARY INFORMATION
-Ls.
(continued)
use. Use only in areas with proper ventilation to prevent dusting.
Avoid breathing vapors released during heat curing. Curing equipment
should be properly vented to a suitable emission control system or to
the outdoors. Any person who may be exposed to the powder or vapor-
shall; at a minimum wear a NIOSH approved, catagory 19C, Type C
supplied air respirator, operated in pressure demand or positive
pressure mode, and equipped with a full facepiece. Use of the
respirator shall be according to 29CFR 1910.13A and 30 CFR 11 Subpart
J. Use local exhaust ventilation and appropriate eye, skin and
respiratory protection if dusting occurs during cutting and
processing of cured specimens.
UNIT
NONE
EXPOSURE LIMITS
INGREDIENTS VALUE
AMINE CURATIVE - TRADE SECRET CT.S.).. NONE
AROMATIC DIGLYCIDYL ETHER - TRADE
SECRET (T.S.) NONE NONE
EPOXY RESIN .. .: NONE NONE
EPOXY RESIN I NONE NONE
TYPE AUTH SKINX
NONE NONE
NONE NONE
NONE NONE
NONE NONE
X SKIN NOTATION. Listed substances indicated with "Y" under SKIN refer to
the potential contribution to the overall exposure by the cutaneous route
including mucous membrane and eye, either by airborne or, more particularly,
by direct contact with the substance. Vehicles can alter skin absorption,
SOURCE OF EXPOSURE LIMIT DATAi
- NONE: None Established
8. HEALTH HAZARD DATA
EYE CONTACT.
May cause eye irritation on contact.
SKIN CONTACTt
May cause skin irritation.
reaction in some persons.
May cause an allergic skin
INHALATIONi
Vapors may cause respiratory system irritation.
Symptoms include coughing, sneezing and itching.
IF SWALLOWEDi
May be harmful if swallowed.
include nausea and vomiting.
Symptoms of ingestion may
OTHER HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION.
Chemicals similar in structure to the amine curative and
aromatic diglycidyl ether have been found to cause cancer, retinopathy
and liver and reproductive toxicity in laboratory animals.
Abbreviations. N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable
31
-------
3M General Offices '
3M Center
Si. Paul. Minnesota 55144-1000
612/733-1110
Duns No.i 00-617-3082
MATERIAL SAFETY
DATA SHEET
MSDSi SM EXPERIMENTAL EPOXY POWDER AMD 0036
JULY 6, 1992 DA_C , ..
; PAGE« 4 of
HEALTH HAZARD DATA (continued!
NOTE, Although the U.S. E.P.A. review of the trade secret amine
curative has indicated that this material may cause the health
effects that have been delineated above, the toxicity testing that
has been performed on this material may help to put the E.P?A
on^??InenK ln£° PerPac'tive. SKIN SENSITIVITY STUDY. The amine
Slhfni J.hM+beenTKhown-*° «»«*;.«ini«al and no skin irritation in
<«n«??4»^ ^ * The amine curative is not considered a skin
ACUTF Tn5frTTYe S19"s of toxinity were observed. The
«\t 100?,m9xKs/day included decreased lymphocyte and total
1^ fU"?-1" one «f «ve femal rats' In «ddi«en, an
5 3U5*** JjXSr and adrenal weights was observed for
d°SSd 5* 12°° ^Kg/day. Histologically, only minimal
+ + hepatocyte enlargement was observed in one of five
IF 2 8t ^hlS «0se J?V81' No histolosical changes were
H « adrenal5- Overall, the findings observed at 1000
day were considered to be of a minor nature by the independent
eomo-? ^"itv that conducted the study. MORE INFORMATION, More
complete detail of these test results is available on request.
SECTION CHANGE DATES"
HEADING SECTION CHANGED SINCE JULY 2, 1992 ISSUE
Abbreviations, N/D - Not Determined N/A - Not Applicable
Sheet represents our current data and best"
_ — —v, -...—« —« «.«a wi•«,
-------
Fluka
Fluka Chemical Coip.
980 South Second Street
. Neyy-vYork 11 779
Telex 96-7807
Fax 516-467-0663
. , .
ATTJ4: SAFfcTY
SUZAAI/UE lARf:HSKI
oroMETics/sci c TGCH GRP
MAIL STOP 429/dLDS. ilo2r
NASA LANGLGV RES C TR
HAMPTON VA
23665
EMERGENCY PHONE 1-5 1 6-4 6 7-35 35
DATE: 02/06/92
CUST*: 000000
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
PAGE 1
IDENTIFICATION
PKillJUCf it: &
CAS .*: 8 72-:>0-4
MF: C5H9NO
NAME: l-HETHYL-2-PYRROLIDONE
7^-f
P0T .fll*fa&
E ^l-HETHYL-?-
*/-HErHYLPYRr
-------
Fluka
Fluka Chemical Corp.
980 South Second Street
Ronkonkonia. New York 1 1779
Phone 516-467 0980
Telex 96-7807
Fax 516 467-0663
MAT fcj_R IAL fAF^TY DATA SHEET PAGE 2
tf: 000000
PRODUCT tf: c.9120
CAS it • A / 2-50-^
MF: C5H9NO
NAME: l-METHYL-2-PYRROL IDONE
HEALTH HAZARD DATA
ACUTt L-FFECTS
HARMFUL IF SWALLOWEDf INHALED, OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN.
!SIRRirATrNG T0 Tll£ EYES» MUCOUS MEMBRANE
*
CAUSES SKIfl IRRITATION.
PROLONGED EXPOSURE CAN CAUSE:
MEMBRANES AND UPPER
S6 R£PRODUC TI V£ OISORDER(S) BASED ON TESTS WITH
TARGET ORGAN* S):
fiONE MARROW
THYHUS
SPLEEN
LYMPHATIC SYSTEM
PIRST AID
III CASc _UF Ci)NTACf, IHHcUIATELY FLUSH EYES OR SKIN WITH COPIOUS
AMOUNTS OF WATER FOR AT LEAST 15 MINUTES WHILE REMOVING CONTAMINATED
CLOTHING AND SHOES*
ASSURE ADEQUATE FLUSHING OF THE EYES BY SEPARATING THE EYELIDS
; WITH nINijfcRS*
1 IF INHALED, REMOVE: TO FRESH AIR. IF NOT BREATHING GIVE ARTIFICIAL
RESPIRATION. IF BREATHING IS DIFFICULT, GIVE OXYGEN.
, IF SHALLOWED, WASH OUT MOUTH WITH WATER PROVIDED PERSON IS CONSCIOUS.
I CALL A PHYSICIAN.
REMOVE AMD WASH CONTAMINATED CLOTHING PROMPTLY.
DISCARD CONTAMINATED SHOES.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RATS EXPOSED TO l-HETHYL-2-PYRROLIDINON£ AT A CONCENTRATION OF I HG/L
AS AN AEROSOL FOR 10 DAYS SHOWED DEPLETION OF HEMATOPO IE TIC CELLS IN
THE BONE MARROW AND ATROPHY OF THE LYMPHOIO TISSUES OF THE THYHUS ,
— PHYSICAL DATA
80ILIW6 PT: 2O2 C
MELTING f»T: -24 C
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
3 .«t*iw« S*. 14
O4ST MZSIt
0000 2«3XO
34
-------
Fluka
Fluka Chemical Coip. Phone 516-467-0980^
980 South Second Street ' Tulex 96 7807
Ronkookoma. New York 11779 Fax 516 -J67 0663
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET PAGE 3
CUSTtf: 000000 .. ... •
. - POff:
PRODUCT tf: 69120 NAME: l-METHYL-2-PYRROLIDONE
CAS tf:a72-50- COLORLESS LIQUID
FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA
FLASHPOINT: 187 F
AUTDIGNlTIOf* TEMPERATURE: 518 F
LOWER EXPLOSION LEVEL: 1.3*
UPPER EXPLOSION LEVEL: 9.5*
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA
• CARBON DIOXIDE, DRY CHEMICAL POWDER OR APPROPRIATE FOAM.
APPARATUS AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING TO
PREVENT CONTACT WITH SKIN AND EYES.
COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID.
UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSIONS HAZARDS
EMITS TOXIC FUMES UNDER FIRE CONDITIONS.
REACTIVITY DATA
STRONG ACIDS
STRONG OXIDIZING AGENTS _„„
JSgSA^giSKSSiJSoS^^IiKgy ESBoVSoNoxroE. CARBON DIOXIDE.
AND NITROGEN OXIDES.
— : --------- — SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES ------- •• -------
TO 86 TAKEN If MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED
BREATHING APPARATUS, RUBBER BOOTS AND HEAVY—
W
ABSORB ok^SANO OR VERMICULITE AND PLACE IN CLOSED CONTAINERS FOR
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
-~.AC HM>|. H^« »^.lli. p.i« •».. S-»1 rU.CIu-B • 27 rw« dm 1
T M»hiOCS4Hn~~
1»44il
35
-------
Fluka
Flukj Chemical Corp. Phone 516 467-0980
980 Sooth Second Street Telex 96-7807
Ronkonkoma. New Yotk 11 779 Fax 516 467-0663
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET PAGE ClMM«AG Fk*«S«il. H*
""""""l 70111 T«)«ivii. WSJ M»ir
c 0400 2«2MO
36
------- |