unep_guideance on the process for selecting alternatives to hcfcs in foams
TRANSCRIPT
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 1/109
Guidance on the Process
for selectinG alternatives
to hcfcs in foams
Sourcebook on technology options for
safeguarding the ozone layer and the
global climate system
p h a s e - o u t
o f h c f s
i n
t h e
f l e x i b l e
a n d
r i g i d
f o a m s
e c t o r
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 2/109
2
Guidance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives
to HCFCs in FoamsSourcebook on technology options for Safeguarding the
Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System
Prepared by:
Caleb Management Services Ltd
The Old Dairy, Woodend Farm
Cromhall, Wotton-Under-Edge
Gloucestershire, GL12 8AA
United Kingdom
July 2010
Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2010
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-prot
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source
is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a
source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever
without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent
the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade
names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.
UNEP Job number: DTI/1281/PA
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 3/109
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
3
I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This publication was produced by the
UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and
Economics (DTIE) OzonAction Branch as
part of UNEP’s work programme as an
Implementing Agency of the Multilateral
Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol.
The project was managed by the following
team in the OzonAction Branch, UNEP
DTIE, France:
Mr. Rajendra Shende, Head
Mr. James S. Curlin, Interim Network and
Policy Manager
Mr. Ruperto De Jesus, Programme Assistant
This publication was written by:
Mr. Paul Ashford, Managing Director, Caleb
Management Services Limited
Prof. Miguel Quintero, Consultant
with support from
Dr. Jason Yapp, Senior Consultant, Caleb
Management Services Limited
Ms Hookyung Kim, Project Ofcer, Caleb
Management Services Limited
The quality reviewers were:
Dr. Mike Jeffs, Consultant
Mr. Bert Veenendaal, Principal, RAPPA Inc.
Mr. Bob Russell, President, RJR Consulting
Other reviewers were:
Dr. Ezra Clark, Programme Ofcer, OzonAction
Branch, UNEP DTIE, France
Mr. Etienne Gonin Project Coordinating
Consultant, EC JumpStart Project, OzonAction
Branch, UNEP DTIE, France
Dr. Janusz Kozakiewicz, Associate Professor,
Head of Ozone Layer and Climate ProtectionUnit, ICRI, Poland
Design:
Mr. Andrew Laver, Creative Director, UK Design
II GLOSSARY
ABS – Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene
CAR – Climate Action Reserve
CDM – Clean Development Mechanism
CEIT – Countries with Economies in Transition
CFC – Chlorouorcarbons
CHP – Combined Heat and PowerCOC – Polyether(C-O-C stretch)
COOC – Polyester(C-O-O-C stretch)
DME – Dimethyl Ether
Executive Committee – Executive Committeeof the Multilateral Fund of the MontrealProtocol
FTOC – The UNEP Foams Technical OptionsCommittee
FUA – The functional unit approach
GEF – The Global Environment Fund
GWP – Global Warming Potential
HC – HydrocarbonsHCFCs – Hydrochlorouorocarbons
HFC – Hydrouorocarbons
HFO – Hydrouoroolen – an alternative namefor unsaturated HFCs
HIPS – High Impact Polystyrene
HPMP – HCFC Phase-out Management Plan
IOC – Incremental Operating Costs
IPCC/TEAP – Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change, the Technology andEconomic Assessment Panel
ISF – Integral skin foam
ISO – International Standards Organisation
ITH – the Integrated Time Horizon
LCA – Lifecycle Assessment
LCCP – Lifecycle Climate Performance
LVC – Low volume ODS consuming country
MCII – The Climate Indicator underdevelopment at the MLF secretariat
MDI – Methylene Di-phenyl Di-isocyanate
MF – Methyl Formate
MLF –United Nations Multilateral Fund for theImplementation of the Montreal Protocol
NCO – Polymers containing isocyanate groups
ODP – Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS – Ozone Depleting Substances
OEL – An occupational exposure level
OH – Hydroxyl
World Bank/OORG – The World Bank’s OzoneOperations Resource Group
ORNL – the US Department of Energy’s Oak
Ridge National Laboratory
PFC – Peruorocarbon
PIR – Polyisocyanurate
PU OCF – Polyurethane One ComponentFoam
PUR – Rigid Polyurethane
RAC – Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
s-HFCs – Saturated HFCs
SME – Small Medium Enterprises
SNAP – Signicant New Alternatives Program
SROC – Special Report on Ozone and Climate(IPCC/TEAP, 2005)
TDI – Toluene diisocyanate
TEWI – Total Equivalent Warming Impact
TLV – Threshold Limit Value
u-HFCs – Unsaturated HFCs
VCM – The Voluntary Carbon Market
VCS – The Voluntary Carbon Standard
VOC – Volatile Organic Compounds
XPS – Extruded polystyrene foams
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 4/109
4
III Why this sourcebook is important
At the Meeting of the Parties that ttingly took
place in Montreal in October 2007 to celebrate
the establishment of the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer20 years earlier, the Parties entered into an
agreement which has taken the Protocol
community into a new phase of activity.
Noting that the projected on-going use of
hydrochlorouorocarbons (HCFCs) was likely
to place additional and avoidable ozone
and climate burdens on the atmosphere,
the Parties, in Decision XIX/6 (see full text
in Annex 10-3), created a framework within
which the phase-out of use of HCFCs could be
accelerated over and above the 2016 freeze
and nal phase-out in 2040 originally foreseen
within the Beijing Amendment. The new stepsintroduced as a result of the Decision imposed
an earlier freeze, together with a step-wise
country-level reduction in the intervening years
leading to a phase-out of HCFC use in most
applications by 2030.
For many, the step was clearly necessary
in view of the rapid growth in consumption
of HCFCs in developing (Article 5) countries
as existing HCFC uses continued to grow
in importance (e.g. commercial refrigeration)
and chlorouorocarbon (CFC) phase-out
requirements necessitated the selection of
interim HCFC-based technologies, often oneconomic grounds.
In practice, the Decision has created a
number of precedents, perhaps the most
important of which is the fact that Decision
XIX/6 is the rst under the Montreal Protocol
to explicitly address climate concerns in its
framework. Although it does not mandatetechnology choices that are optimal from a
climate perspective, the Decision identies and
allocates the responsibilities for consideration
of the climate component of technology
selection. In doing so, it also requires the
development of appropriate methods for
assessing climate impacts, not only at product
level but also at enterprise level, since the
Montreal Protocol continues to provide its
technology transition support to the enterprise
itself or to the government agencies managing
national transitions.
With the ozone obligations from Decision XIX/6mandated, and the climate components (as
well as other environmental effects) requiring
assessment and prioritisation, there is now a
more complex set of criteria to be managed
than has ever been the case before. It is
not always the case that what is the best
for ozone is best for climate and therefore
value judgements need to be made, not
only at enterprise level, but also at national
compliance level. The introduction of HCFC
Phase-out Management Plans (HPMPs) by the
Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol
(Executive Committee) aims at ensuring that
the overall objectives of Decision XIX/6 are
achieved. However, to be fully effective, these
need to straddle the whole phase-out period
from 2010 to 2030. This is not possible, at
the enterprise level and much of the high-level
planning needs to be completed at sectoral
level, at the very least. A list of possiblelegislative and policy options that may facilitate
HCFC phase out is included in the booklet
published recently by UNEP that can be found
at
http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/topics/hcfc.asp
The two main sectors using substantial
quantities of HCFCs currently are the
refrigeration and air conditioning (RAC) sector
on the one hand and the foam sector on the
other (see pie chart). The current HCFC usage
patterns themselves are only part of the story,
since these will change with time depending
on the availability of alternative technologies. Inaddition, factors such as the emission proles
through the lifecycle of the products and
equipment using HCFCs affect overall climate
impact and all vary considerably between
sectors. As a consequence, all of these factors
need to be considered in parallel in order to
build up the full climate picture (see Section
3). In practice, however, both consumption
and emissions from the RAC sector are likely
to dominate the consumption and emissions
patterns for the foreseeable future.
Even though the RAC sector will remain the
primary focus for major climate benets,the foam sector is still a critical part of
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 5/109
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
5
Estimated Consumption of HCFCs in Developing Countries in 2010(~445,000 tonnes)
Other 2%
Refrigeration and
AC 77%
Foams 21%
most HPMPs, since these are driven by
consumption criteria only. Accordingly, this
Sourcebook provides guidance to the foam
sector itself, and those operating both in it
and with it, regarding the factors to be
considered when choosing alternativetechnologies within the framework of Decision
XIX/6. The guidance also gives consideration
to methods of quantifying and potentially
nancing climate benets, although notes
that not all alternative technologies are, by
denition, favourable to climate.
This Sourcebook builds on earlier technology
and policy materials, developed by UNEP
OzonAction to assist the foam industry in
Article 5 countries to phase out CFCs, and
seeks to continue and further develop that
same capacity-building and information
sharing service.
Source: IPCC/UNEP data
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 6/109
6
Contents
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 7/109
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
7
I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3
II Glossary 3
III WHY THIS SOURCEBOOK IS IMPORTANT 4
1 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 THE CHALLENGE OF ACCELERATED HCFC
PHASE-OUT 9
1.2 GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF THIS
SOURCEBOOK 10
2 THE INTERFACE BETWEEN OZONE
DEPLETION & CLIMATE CHANGE 12
2.1 MEASURING IMPACTS – ODP, GWP AND
CARBON INTENSITY 13
2.2 DECISION XIX/6 AND THE FRAMEWORK
FOR MITIGATION 15
2.3 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR BUSINESS
AND THE ENVIRONMENT 16
3 METHODS OF QUANTIFYING CLIMATE
IMPACT 18
3.1 LIFECYCLE APPROACHES BASED ON
DIRECT EMISSIONS ONLY 19
3.2 LIFE CYCLE APPROACHES ALSO
CONSIDERING ENERGY 20
3.3 HYBRID APPROACHES (e.g. Functional
Unit & Climate Indicators) 21
4 FOAM MANUFACTURE AND EXISTING
FLUOROCARBON TECHNOLOGIES 24
4.1 AN INTRODUCTION TO FOAM TYPES25 25
4.2 FOAM MANUFACTURE AND THE ROLE
OF BLOWING AGENTS 29
4.3 POINTS IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN WHERE
CONSUMPTION OCCURS
(fully formulated polyol issue) 31
4.4 REASONS FOR ORIGINAL SELECTION OF
CFCs & HCFCs 32
4.5 REASONS WHY HFCs ARE POTENTIAL
REPLACEMENTS FOR HCFCs 34
4.6 WHY HFCs CAN BE SUB-OPTIMAL
SOLUTIONS FOR CLIMATE 35
5 GENERAL REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE
BLOWING AGENTS 40
5.1 HYDROCARBONS (both directly added
and pre-blended) 41
5.2 LIQUID CARBON DIOXIDE 42
5.3 IN-SITU CARBON DIOXIDE (water blown foams) 42
5.4 OXYGENATED HYDROCARBONS (Methyl Formate,
Methylal and Dimethyl Ether) 42
5.5 CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS (Methylene
Chloride, Trans-1,2 di-chloroethylene and
2-chloropropane) 44
5.6 SATURATED HFCs 45
5.7 UNSATURATED HFCS (HFOS) 46
6 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 48
6.1 ESTABLISHING TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
& ECONOMIC VIABILITY 49
6.2 EVALUATING SAFETY ASPECTS &
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 50
6.3 ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS
AND PRACTICALITY 516.4 SUMMARY DECISION TREE 51
7 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC FACTORS INFLUENCING THE
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AT
APPLICATION LEVEL 54
7.1 PU RIGID 55
7.1.1 PU RIGID – Domestic Refrigerators
& Freezers 61
7.1.2 PU RIGID – Other Appliances 63
7.1.3 PU RIGID – Transport and Reefers 65
7.1.4 PU RIGID - Boardstock 677.1.5 PU RIGID – Continuous Panels 68
7.1.6 PU RIGID – Discontinuous Panels 69
7.1.7 PU RIGID – Spray 70
7.1.8 PU RIGID – Blocks 72
7.1.9 PU RIGID – Pipe-in-Pipe 73
7.1.10 PU RIGID – One Component Foam 74
7.2 PU FLEXIBLE FOAMS 75
7.2.1 PU FLEXIBLE – Integral Skin (Automotive) 79
7.2.2 PU FLEXIBLE – Integral Skin (Automotive) 80
7.3 PHENOLIC 80
7.3.1 PHENOLIC – Boardstock 83
7.3.2 PHENOLIC – Blocks 84
7.4 THERMOPLASTIC FOAMS 85
7.4.1 EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE – Board 89
7.4.2 POLYOLEFIN FOAMS 90
8 FUNDING STRATEGIES 92
8.1 FUNDING THE OZONE COMPONENT 93
8.2 CLIMATE CO-FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN
THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL FRAMEWORK 95
9 CONCLUSIONS 96
10 ANNEXES 100
10.1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION15 101
10.2 CONTACT DETAILS OF BLOWING AGENT
& OTHER PROVIDERS 103
10.3 FULL TEXT OF DECISION XIX/6 106
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 8/109
8
Section 1.Introduction
“Decision XIX/6 is the rst Montreal Protocol
decision to take active account of climate in
its language”
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 9/109
9
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
1.1 The Challenge of Accelerated
HCFC Phase-out The Beijing Amendment of the Montreal
Protocol, negotiated in 1999, set out the
commitment of countries operating under
Article 5 of the Protocol (developing countries)
to freeze their consumption of HCFCs at 2015
levels ahead of nal phase-out in 2040. This
commitment was made alongside a more
accelerated commitment of non-Article 5
countries (developed countries) to substantially
phase down their use of HCFCs by 2015 and
nally phase-out the small remaining ‘tail’ of
use by 2030.
It was envisaged that, by the time technology
transitions out of HCFCs in Article 5 countries
were required, the non-HCFC technology in
developed countries would already be well
established. However, what was not fully
foreseen was the fact that the backdrop
for transition in Article 5 countries would be
signicantly different than for non-Article 5
countries in at least two respects:
I. The preponderance of small, medium
enterprises (SMEs) in Article 5 countries would
make it impossible to take advantage of the
economies of scale available in non-Article 5
countries
II. By the time technology transition was being
contemplated in Article 5 countries, the impacton climate of a number of HCFC alternatives
would be fully understood and would need to
be taken into consideration
Indeed, the concern over the climate impact
of HCFCs themselves was to become
another critical factor in the policy debate.
Rapid growth in HCFC use, particularly in
the consumption of HCFC-22, became
increasingly evident through the early years
of the 21st century, leading to predictions
that much of the inadvertent climate benet
gained from the Montreal Protocol could be
lost through increased emissions of HCFCs.It was in this spirit that Parties met at the 19th
Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
in Montreal in 2007 to address this issue.
Decision XIX/6 was the result of that
deliberation and was the rst Montreal Protocol
decision to take active account of climate
in its language, while avoiding any binding
commitments which might be considered
as global climate legislation based around
consumption rather than emission control.
The Parties concluded that, in addition to
efforts to reduce consumption by promoting
good servicing practices in the refrigerationsector, the most effective way of avoiding the
climate impact of rapid growth in HCFCs was
to accelerate their phase-out by advancingthe freeze in production/consumption to 2013,
based on the consumption in years 2009 and
2010, while introducing phase-down steps in
the subsequent years of 2015, 2020, 2025
and 2030. The ‘old’ and the ‘new’ regimes are
shown in the graphic below.
However, what became self-evident during
the nalisation of the decision was that
these additional climate benets would be
contingent on the use of HCFC substitutes
that displayed lower climate impacts. This had
not been considered as a signicant factor
when the bulk of HCFC phase-out had takenplace in non-Article 5 countries and had led
to technology transitions which were often no
better in their climate proles than the HCFCs
they replaced. Recognising this reality, Parties
were keen not to repeat this pattern in Article 5
countries but equally believed that they would
have some inuence on the outcome through
the funding mechanisms available under the
Montreal Protocol (primarily the Multilateral
Fund).
In order to highlight this opportunity, the
Parties included within the Decision language
that required the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to ‘give priority’ to
cost-effective projects and technologies that
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040
New
Base
Old
Base
Year
New A5 HCFC Measures
Old A5 HCFC Measures
Annual Growth Rate: 5%
Percentage of
2009-10 Baseline
Montreal Protocol HCFC phase-out schedule for Article 5 countries
Section 1.Introduction
Source: UNEP/Caleb
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 10/109
10
minimise other impacts on the environment,
including on the climate, taking into account
global warming potential, energy use and other
relevant factors’. One of the key aspects of this language is that it includes not only the
global warming potential of the substitute itself
but also the lifecycle implications resulting from
energy use. This will be explored further in
Section 3.
As a consequence, the Parties had set a very
challenging timeline for HCFC phase-out, with
all the legal compliance issues that this entails,
while making the selection of alternatives
more demanding than it had hitherto been in
non-Article 5 countries. As stakeholders began
to assess this, there was a growing realisation
that the priorities, both in terms of sectoralphase-out and technology choice might not be
aligned to achieve both ozone compliance and
maximum climate benet simultaneously.
In an effort to approach the subject holistically,
the Executive Committee of the Multilateral
Fund introduced the concept of an HCFC
Phase-out Management Plan (HPMP) which
would be established for each Article 5 Party
seeking to comply with Decision XIX/6. This
would focus primarily on the early steps to
accommodate the 2013 freeze and the 2015
reduction of 10% of HCFC consumption.
However, it would also need to consider theoverarching plan to meet the later phase-out
objectives, while minimising climate impact.
To plan at this level over such a long period
is proving to be a major challenge and this
Sourcebook is an attempt to assist foam
sector stakeholders in assessing the relevant
aspects.
In addition, further analysis of HCFC
consumption in Article 5 countries revealed
that the bulk of consumption was limited to
just a few countries which had signicant
manufacturing capacity for refrigeration
equipment and/or foams. For other countries,
HCFC consumption might be limited to
servicing activities in the refrigeration sector.
The challenges of meeting specic phase-down targets would be very different in
these countries and might lead to different
priorities, projects and programmes. This is
an issue that is largely beyond the scope of
this Sourcebook, since phase-out in the foam
sector will take place at the manufacturing
enterprises themselves or, where fully
formulated polyols are used, in combination
with their suppliers.. Nevertheless, care is
needed to see the foam sector strategy as part
of a larger HPMP and to realise that the pace
of that strategy may be heavily inuenced by
the on-going HCFC needs in other areas.
A further factor may be the ‘worst rst’
component of the Decision which states that:
11. To agree that the Executive Committee,
when developing and applying the funding
criteria for projects and programmes, and
taking into account paragraph 6, gives priority
to cost-effective projects and programmes
which focus on, inter alia:
(a) phasing-out rst those HCFCs with higher
ozone depleting potential, taking into account
national circumstances
….and may predicate against HCFC-141b(see Section 7).
1.2 Guidance on the use of this
Sourcebook This Sourcebook is primarily intended to
provide overarching guidance to National
Ozone Units, Implementing Agencies and
Project Proponents on the processes
and techniques used to select alternative
technologies. It does this by outlining the key
factors to be considered and the principles
that need to be applied to assess their
signicance. In Section 7 of the document,
the state of technology development in each
foam sector and the alternatives currently
available are outlined. However, this is not
done to provide denitive recommendations,
but to offer real-life examples of the decision
processes in action. These decision-processesare themselves outlined in Section 6.
The authors would stress that it would be
impossible to provide denitive guidance
on technology selection in a Sourcebook of
this type, since it would very rapidly become
outdated. Readers are therefore encouraged
to use this Sourcebook alongside other
sources of information such as the regular
reports of the UNEP Foams Technical
Options Committee (FTOC), publications by
the Implementing Agencies (e.g. those from
the Ozone Operations Resource Group of
the World Bank), National Ozone Units, theoutputs from Regional Workshops and Industry
Conferences/Publications.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 11/109
11
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 12/109
12
Section 2. The interface betweenozone depletion andclimate change
“Knowledge of the key environmental benets
of technology selection has been shown to
provide a signicant competitive advantage in
the foam sector”
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 13/109
13
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
2.1 Measuring Impacts - ODP, GWP
and Carbon Intensity of Energy Use The scientic inter-relationship between ozone
depletion and climate change is complex -
partly because it occurs at a number of levels
simultaneously and partly because there are
feedback loops whereby changes on one
side lead to changes on the other. These
inter-linkages are extensively explained in
the IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Ozone
and Climate (SROC, 2005) and it is not the
purpose of this Sourcebook to repeat those
arguments here. Responsible technology
selection, while phasing out HCFC use, can
create a substantial overall climate benet even
when the offset of increased ozone levels (a
greenhouse gas in its own right) is taken into
account. The Montreal Protocol community
has underpinned this principle by making clear
that compliance with HCFC phase-out targets
will not be compromised for reasons of climate
protection as Decision XIX/6 is implemented.
In order to help policy-makers and otherstakeholders to assess the competing claims
of the alternatives in this complex scientic
environment, a series of metrics have been
introduced to provide guidance on the
comparative impacts of options on both the
ozone layer and on climate. These include,
ozone depletion potential (ODP), global
warming potential (GWP) and carbon intensity
of energy, each of which will be considered in
turn.
Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) This measure of assessing the damage that a
given substance could do to the stratospheric
ozone layer was rst introduced by the UNEP
Scientic Assessment Panel in the years
running up to the instigation of the Montreal
Protocol in 1987. In simple terms, the impact
of all substances is compared to a baseline
centred on CFC-11 and CFC-12, which
are both considered to have an ODP of 1.
This process is usually called normalisation
and is a common technique for this type of
comparative analysis. Therefore HCFC-141b,
the HCFC most commonly used as a foam
blowing agent, has an ODP of 0.11 because
a molecule of HCFC-141b is likely to do
only 11% of the damage in its stratospheric
lifetime that would have been done by a
molecule of CFC-11. It can be noted that all
ozone depleting substances controlled by
the Montreal Protocol have either chlorine
or bromine atoms, or sometimes both, in
their molecules. This is often combined with
uorine. Therefore, if a molecule containsuorine but not bromine or chlorine atoms, it
can be recognised as not controlled by the
Montreal Protocol.
In practice, substances with lower ODPs often
have shorter atmospheric lifetimes than those
they replace. However, assessing precise
atmospheric lifetimes can be complex and it
may be necessary occasionally to revise ODPs
based on new scientic evidence. This can
create particular issues for policy-makers who
normally require certainty to implement policies
which need to be consistent over a number of
years. Hence, there is sometimes an ‘ofcial’value (as stated in the Annexes of the Montreal
Protocol) and a latest scientic value, which
might be marginally different. Enterprises are
encouraged to always use the ofcial value in
their assessments.
In some instances, the atmospheric lifetime of
a substance can be so short that, even though
it might contain chlorine or bromine, it is
unlikely to reach the stratosphere at all. These
substances therefore have no ozone depleting
potential in practice. However, this does not
mean that there are no circumstances under
which a stray molecule might get to the
stratosphere. Care should therefore be taken in
using terms such as “zero-ODP”, even though
they are widely used in marketing literature
and, unfortunately, as a requirement in a
number of product and building codes. Better
terminology would be negligible ODP, but this
seems to be rejected in practice because it is
less emphatic.
Stakeholders should also note that there are
a number of short life-time substances that
are not controlled under the Montreal Protocol
even though they have measurable ODPs. The
reason for this is that they are not considered
sufciently signicant by policy-makers to have
any bearing on the environmental outcome.
Enterprises could well be best served,
therefore, by using terms such as ‘controlled
under the Montreal Protocol’ or ‘not controlled
under the Montreal Protocol’, when referring to
their blowing agents. It should be further noted
that compliance with the Montreal Protocol ismeasured in terms of avoidance of controlled
substances, not avoidance of ozone depleting
substances (ODS).
Section 2. The interfacebetween ozone depletionand climate chnange
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 14/109
14
Global Warming Potential (GWP) The metric described as Global Warming
Potential (GWP) has a lot of similarities with
ODP in that it is a comparative assessmentof climate impact which is normalised against
carbon dioxide (CO2
= 1). Many other parallels
exist with ODP. For example, it is quite
common for substances to have an ofcial
GWP (often based on the Assessment Reports
of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate
Change) and a latest scientic GWP. Therefore
care needs to be taken in deciding which one
to use.
Since the climate impact of a substance is
also dependent on its lifetime, decisions have
to be made about the period over which the
comparison is made. Carbon oxide itself
is a relatively long-lived molecule (50-200
years, depending on the circumstances) and
therefore a comparison over 100 years has
become accepted as something of a standard
for policy-making purposes. The selected
period is known technically as the Integrated
Time Horizon or ITH. The approach taken
under the Kyoto Protocol in adopting a ‘basket
of gases approach’ to target setting required
clear GWPs for each of the gases involved and
these were quoted in the Second Assessment
Report on the basis of a 100 year ITH. This has
also become the basis for most carbon trading
activities globally. However, the debate goeson about whether different time horizons would
be more appropriate.
The level of contribution to global warming
that can be attributed to a substance is
primarily based on the ‘space’ it occupies
in the radiative spectrum. This is referred to
technically as its degree of radiative forcing.
It so happens that chlorine and uorine
containing compounds (CFCs, HCFCs and
HFCs) occupy a particular part of the spectrum
that is otherwise uncluttered. This means that
their impact is considerably higher than would
normally be expected and leads to a highGWP. This subject is covered more specically
in Sections 4 and 5.
The main impact of the GWP of a gas is
experienced only when it is released. Therefore
efforts to reduce releases will either delay or,
at best, totally avoid the climate impact of
that gas within the lifecycle of the product
or equipment in which it is being used. For
foams, the main points of potential release are
during foam manufacture and at end-of-life.
In general, there is little emission during the
use phase – particularly from insulating foams,
where retention of blowing agent is critical
performance.
Carbon Intensity of Energy UseDecision XIX/6 requests the Executive
Committee of the Multilateral Fund to
include energy use in its consideration of technology options. This may arise from
primary consumption of fuel or from the use
of fuels to generate electricity. Where primary
consumption occurs (e.g. in the transport
sector or in the direct burning of gas, coal or
oil) the values of carbon intensity are relatively
consistent globally. The following graphic
illustrates the point for a number of fuels and
bio-fuels:
However, where fuels are used to generate
electricity, the mix of fuels will have a bearing
on the overall carbon intensity of the electricity
consumed. This can vary substantially
by country/region and will be inuenced
signicantly by the amount of renewable
energy (e.g. hydro) available. For large portions
of the refrigeration, air conditioning and
appliance sectors, electricity is the key source
of energy and hence knowledge of the carbon
intensity of local electricity is required.
In practice, the rst determination that needs
to be made is in respect to the contribution
of energy efciency impacts on overall energy
consumption. Once this value is available it can
be combined with information on the carbon
intensity of the supply to assess the overall
impact on carbon emissions. This means that
the adoption of the same technology may
have different impacts in different regions. It
may even mean that the relative ranking of a
range of technologies changes by region. An
example would be where a particularly energy
efcient technology is deployed in a region with
very high ‘renewables’ content in its electricity
supply. In such a region, the impact of its use
would be much less signicant than in a heavily
coal burning environment.
Tables exist (see below) giving average carbonintensities for electricity in specic countries
and regions, but care needs to be taken with
these to ensure that they are representative of
the particular supply being drawn on by the
project and its manufactured products.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cooking Oil and Tallow
Oilseed Rape (UK)
Oilseed Rape (Ukraine)
Oilseed Rape (Poland)
Oilseed Rape (Germany)
Oilseed Rape (France)
Oilseed Rape (Finland)
Oilseed Rape (Canada)
Oilseed Rape (Australia)
Soy (USA)
Soy (Brasil)
Soy (Argentina)
Palm Oil (Malaysia)
Palm Oil (Indonesia)
Natural Gas
Diesel
Gasoline
Coal
Biodiesels
Gram of Carbon Dioxide produced per Megajoule of energy (UK Government gures)
13
55
59
45
47
46
52
54
55
42
38
38
62
86
85
112
63
73
Data taken from http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/rtfo/govrecrfa.pdf
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 15/109
15
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
2.2 Decision XIX/6 and the
Framework for Mitigation The metrics outlined in Section 2.1 are
essential tools in assessing the potential forcompliance with the ozone requirements of
Decision XIX/6 and quantifying the climate
impact of technology options throughout the
lifecycle. Methodologies for achieving this
quantication will be covered in more detail
within Section 3. However, it is important
to note in the interim a few key aspects of
the Decision XIX/6 framework for emissions
mitigation.
The assessment of climate impact requires a
number of key pieces of information to make it
possible. These include:
• The ODP (if any) of the alternative and
conrmation that it is not a controlled
substance under the Montreal Protocol
• The GWP of the alternative based on a100 ITH.
• The likely emissions prole of the
substance through the lifecycle of the
manufactured product/equipment
• Details of any mitigation actions that may
be taken to minimise emissions (e.g. special
treatment at end-of-life)
• The carbon intensity of any primary fuels
consumed
• The fuel mix used to generate electricity
in the country/region considered and the
resulting carbon emissions occurring during
generation.
The challenge is to use a method that is
sufciently robust to be reliable but not so data
intensive as to be impossible to use. This is the
subject matter of Section 3.
Country Grams of carbon per kilowatt hour Country Grams of carbon per kilowatt hour
1 Estonia 328.9 26 Czech Republic 206.8
2 Moldavo 314.2 27 Singapore 206.7
3 Kazkstan 309.0 28 Lebanon 200.3
4 Qatar 300.4 29 Romania 198.5
5 Poland 286.1 30 Bahrain 187.4
6 China 259.9 31 Trinidad and Tobago 185.3
7 Turkmenistan 245.8 32 Cote d’Ivorie 184.6
8 Indai 240.7 33 Algeria 183.4
9 Senegal 237.1 34 Kuwait 182.6
10 Malta 234.7 35 Morocco 180.3
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina 232.0 36 Jordan 179.0
12 Cyprus 231.5 37 Ireland 178.7
13 Belarus 229.9 38 Zimbabwe 175.8
14 South Africa 229.7 39 Libya 172.6
15 Serbia and Montenegro 227.6 40 Kenya 170.0
16 Oman 222.8 41 Indonesia 166.8
17 Togo 222.2 42 Hungary 166.3
18 United Arab Emirates 220.7 43 Nicaragua 166.1
19 Greece 220.1 44 Denmark 165.6
20 Israel 215.7 45 Latvia 162.0
21 Australia 215.6 46 Russian Federation 158.8
22 Cuba 214.9 47 Bulgaria 154.8
23 Azerbaijan 212.8 48 Bangladesh 152.2
24 Brunei 208.4 49 Iran 151.8
25 Uzbekistan 207.1 50 Iraq 148.8
Carbon intensity of electricity production for selected countries’
Source: UNIDO
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 16/109
16
2.3 Potential Benets for Business
and the EnvironmentMany enterprises reviewing these data
requirements will be beginning to wonder
whether the investment of time and effort is
proportionate to the outcomes that might be
obtained. However, in the case of the foam
sector, the experience from enterprises in
developed countries has been that knowledge
of the key environmental benets of technology
selection has provided a signicant competitive
advantage in the market place. This has been
particularly important for insulating foams
where it has been critical to understand
the upsides of improved thermal insulation
performance against the potential downsides
of direct greenhouse gas emissions.
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-
Governmental Panel on Climate Change
(AR4) provided some important new analysison the critical role of buildings in the ght
against global warming. Buildings and the
appliances used in them account for over
40% of total CO2 emissions per year and the
use of appropriate insulation levels in both
new and existing buildings would contribute
substantially to reducing this footprint. Not only
would such measures be productive in terms
of the quantity of savings, but they would also
be more cost-effective than a large numberof competing policy options. The following
graphic illustrates these ndings:
With such market upsides potentially available,
there is a clear incentive to ensure that foam
products are positioned to take advantage. If
part of the argument used to justify the greater
use of thermal insulation in general, and foam
in particular, is based on the environmental
benet, it stands to reason that speciers will
want to understand the environmental proles
of the products they are buying from ‘cradle-
to-grave’.
There has been a substantial surge in thelevel of environmental assessment being
now applied to building products. In some
instances, this is also being extended to the
buildings themselves, as building energy
standards and sustainability requirements are
being imposed. It seems therefore inevitable
that these issues will become mainstream in all
global markets, to the extent that they have not
already done so. Enterprises could therefore
benet signicantly from the assessmentsrequired as part of the technology transition
process.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
<20 <50 <1000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
<20 <50 <1000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
<20 <50 <1000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
<20 <50 <1000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
<20 <50 <100
Energy Supply Transport Buildings Industry Agriculture
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
<20 <50 <1000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
<20 <50 <100
Forestry Waste
GtC0 -eq / year2
potential at
<US$100/tC 0 -eq:
2.4-4.7 Gt C0 -eq/yr2
2
potential at
<US$100/tC 0 -eq:
1.6-2.5 Gt C0 -eq/yr2
2
potential at
<US$100/tC 0 -eq:
2.5-5.5 Gt C0 -eq/yr2
2
potential at
<US$100/tC 0 -eq:
2.3-6.4 Gt C0 -eq/yr2
2
potential at
<US$100/tC 0 -eq:
1.3-4.2 Gt C0 -eq/yr2
2
potential at
<US$100/tC 0 -eq:
0.4-1.0 Gt C0 -eq/yr2
2
potential at
<US$100/tC 0 -eq:
5.3-6.72
US$/tC 0 -eq
Non-OECD
EIT
OECD
World
2
Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 17/109
17
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 18/109
18
Section 3.Methods for quantifyingclimate impact
“the impact of technology choice on energy
consumption will be an additional source of potential
climate contributions”
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 19/109
19
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
Section 2.2 has already made reference to the
fact that quantitative assessments of climate
impact need to take account of activities that
occur throughout the lifecycle of the products
and/or equipment manufactured as a result of
the implementation of a project.
However, when assessing technology
transition projects at enterprise level, this can
be a relatively complex and uncertain exercise,
since the quantity and scope of products and/
or equipment manufactured by an enterprisewill not be known in full at the point of
investment.
This challenge, however, is not insurmountable
if the primary purpose for quantifying the
climate impact of a measure is to compare
technology options. In such cases, it is
possible to take dened units of manufacture/
production, based on typical demand patterns,
and compare the relative climate impacts
arising from specic technology choices prior
to making a nal decision. It is in this context,
that this Sourcebook reviews the options
available for quantifying climate impact.
3.1 Life Cycle Approaches based on
Direct Emissions only (e.g. GWP)It is well known that the direct emissions of
chlorinated and uorinated substances over
the lifecycle of products and/or equipment can
lead to signicant climate impacts. The graph
below illustrates the signicance of the global
warming impacts of common CFCs, HCFCs
and HFCs, when compared with carbon
dioxide. If aspects such as initial charge sizes
and emission proles are well understood, it ispossible to make relatively precise estimates
of the climate impact of emissions including
their signicance with time. However, even
where the focus of attention is only on direct
emissions of refrigerants and/or blowing
agents, care must be taken to ensure that the
comparisons are appropriate. In the foams
sector, the following questions might be part
of a useful checklist to ensure that ‘like is
compared with like’:
I. Do the boiling points of the respective
alternative blowing agents inuence the
losses in production?
II. Does the technology choice involve
co-blowing with another blowing agent?
III. How do the blowing efciencies of
different technology options impact the
level of blowing agent required in the
respective formulations?
IV. Is the rate of permeation of blowing
agent through the cell walls the same for all
blowing agents?
V. If not, how are these diffusion differences
accounted for in the respective emissions
proles?
VI. Are there any constraints from the
technology choice that would prevent
recovery at end of life?
Section 4.6 of this Sourcebook provides tables
illustrating the current default emission proles
for various foam processes and applications
using liquid and gaseous blowing agents.
Annual emission rates are provided for each
basic lifecycle stage. These tables are typically
used as an initial basis of assessment for
direct emissions from foams. Where no further
adjustments are made for items II-VI above,
the choice of blowing agent from a climate
perspective is generally directly linked to its
GWP, which is why it is sometimes referred to
as the GWP method. Although this provides
a temptingly simple basis for evaluation,
care needs to be taken that all appropriately
adjustments are made before conclusions are
drawn.
Refrigerator TEWI Contributors(Typical for HFC product in USA)
RefrigerantDirect GWP
0.4%
Power Plant
Emissions
92.4%
Blowing AgentDirect GWP
7.2%
Section 3.Methods for quantifyingclimate impact
Source A.D. Little (2002)
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 20/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 21/109
21
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
3.3 Hybrid Approaches (e.g.Functional Unit and Climate
Indicators)Hybrid approaches of the type included in this
section are targeted at addressing the more
practical challenges of evaluating the climate
impact of technology choices at enterprise
or project level. This may also extend to the
overall evaluation of HPMPs themselves. This
higher level evaluation (which some have
called ‘climate proong’) is a critical part
of the objectives of National Ozone Units,
Implementing Agencies and other interested
parties. In practice, hybrid approaches are
expected to be more widely used in the
implementation of Decision XIX/6 than the
more formal methods of LCA, TEWI and LCCP.
However, as pointed out in the sections that
follow, care needs to be taken to maintain
sufcient rigour to give reliable predictions of
climate impact.
In addressing this concern for both practicality
and rigour, and following the negotiation
and nalisation of Decision XIX/6, there
were substantial discussions about how the
language concerning the evaluation of climate
impact might be interpreted in practice. Somefelt that a GWP-based approach would be
sufcient, arguing that LCCP was too complex,
particularly in applications where there were
uncertainties about the use conditions. Others
felt that LCCP was the only way in which the
full text of the Decision could be implemented.
As a potential means of bridging this difference
in view, two new approaches have emerged.
These are the functional unit approach (FUA)
and the Multilateral Fund Climate Indicator
(MCII). Both methods have sought to provide
guidance in technology selection specically in
the context of Decision XIX6.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 22/109
Calculations HCFC-141b n-Pentane
Annual Foam Volume 7,143 m3 7,143 m3
Area of Insulation Created 128,571.17 m2 128,571.17 m2
Energy Transmitted in Lifetime 121722.17 MWh 189345.60 MWh
Carbon equivalent 23127.21 t-CO2-equiv 35975.66 t-CO
2-equiv
Energy difference 67623.43 MWh
Carbon equivalent difference 12848.5 t-CO2-equiv
Blowing Agent Losses 25.00 tonnes 16.15 tonnes
Carbon equivalent 17825 t-CO2-equiv 178 t-CO
2-equiv
Carbon equivalent difference -17647 t-CO2-equiv
Total Carbon Equivalents 17825 t-CO2-equiv 13026 t-CO
2-equiv
Example of Foam Comparisons using the Functional Unit Approach for Foams (Constant Thickness)
22
Functional Unit Approach (FUA) This approach was originated in the foam
sector and seeks to establish a basis for
comparison of insulation foams in typical
building or appliance applications. In doing
so, it has needed to take account of matters
such as building energy sources, local carbon
intensity values for electricity generation andlocal building insulation standards. Since
these vary between residential buildings
and commercial/industrial buildings, it can
be necessary to take into account the likely
split of foam sales to each sector. However,
by considering the fate of a typical unit of
foam (the functional unit), the scenario for a
particular manufacturing plant or enterprise can
be established. As with other techniques, the
fact that the tool is being used for comparative
purposes means that the sensitivity to the
assumptions used is somewhat diminished.
The table below provides an indication of thetype of output obtained using the functional
unit approach when comparisons are made
between the old HCFC-141b technology and a
replacement n-Pentane technology at constant
thickness (constant thermal performance being
the other typical basis of comparison). The
calculations are based on the lifecycle impact
of the annual production of an enterprise
currently using 25 tonnes of HCFC-141b per
year.
It can be seen that the better thermal
performance of HCFC-141b results in less
energy being transmitted through the foam
during its lifetime and hence less CO2
emitted
from power generation. However, the quantity
of n-Pentane used in the foam is reduced
because it has better blowing efciency and
its lower GWP also contributes to a net savingof around 4,800 tonnes CO2-equiv. when
compared with the HCFC-141b baseline.
If the comparison had been conducted on
the basis of constant thermal performance,
the n-Pentane option would have required
additional thickness of foam and hence the
embodied energy of the additional foam would
have also needed to have been included in the
comparison.
In a further enhancement of the Functional
Unit Approach an attempt was made to
assess likely differences in cost resulting
from technology choices. This permitted the
calculation of cost per unit of climate benet
for the rst time. However, to do this, the
model needed to assess the cost of a climate
neutral transition (i.e. one with the same
climate prole as the HCFC-141b technology
being replaced). One of the interesting aspects
to emerge from this assessment was that the
climate mitigation costs (measured in US$ per
tonne of CO2
saved) increased dramatically
for technologies requiring signicant capital
investment as the size of the plant diminished.
This observation was no more than a
demonstration of the basic principles relating
to economies of scale, rst mentioned inSection 1 and elaborated further in Section 4.5
and elsewhere. Nevertheless, it did highlight
the fact that climate mitigation costs in excess
of US$200/tonne of CO2-equiv. might be
incurred in the most extreme cases. Further
detail on the basis for these analyses is found
in the relevant MLF Executive Committee
publication on the treatment of Environmental
Issues in technology transition (Annex V of
UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/47).
Climate Indicators (e.g. MCII) Although foam scenarios could be relatively
well modelled using the Functional Unit
Approach, a further level of simplication was
seen as necessary for the refrigeration sector.
The UN Multilateral Fund Secretariat took
direct responsibility for this further step and
developed, in conjunction with experts in theeld, a simplied model that essentially limited
the refrigeration and air conditioning sector
to ve primary cooling scenarios. This further
level of simplication has been seen to make
the absolute comparative values less reliable
but continues to provide sufcient certainty to
allow for technology-ranking to take place.
As with the FUA, comparison with the
technology being replaced is an important
element of the assessment, since this has
a strong bearing on whether it should be
prioritised in an overall HCFC Phase-out
Management Plan (HPMP) or not. In addition,the relative climate performance against such
a benchmark can be used to incentivise
or discourage certain technology selection
options. Stakeholders are certainly advised
to review periodically how quantied climate
impacts might be used to assess technology
appropriateness, funding eligibility and levels
of support in future. This Sourcebook will
return to this point in Section 8 where ‘Funding
Strategies’ are considered.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 23/109
23
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 24/109
24
Section 4.Foam manufactureand existing uorocarbontechnologies
“The characteristics of CFC-11 and CFC-12
were so appropriate for polymeric foams that
they seemed ‘designed-for-purpose”
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 25/109
25
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
4.1 An introduction to
Foam Types.
Polyurethane Foams (including
Polyisocyanurate)Polyurethane Foam technologies were
developed as early as the 1930s in exible,
rigid and semi-rigid forms, and have played a
dominant role in the eld of foamed polymers
ever since. This is largely because of the
technology’s basic capacity to produce
materials with a wide range of critical end
properties such as low density, consistent
foam morphology, mechanical strength and
resilience. In most cases, these properties can
be achieved by relatively simple formulation
adjustments, indicating the versatility of
polyurethane chemistry.
Flexible foams, which demonstrate excellent
elastic and deformation characteristics, nd
their major applications in the area of furniture
cushioning (bedding, seating, carpet backing,
etc.) and packaging (electronic, computer,
china, equipments). Semi-rigid foams are used
in the automotive industry (dash panel, liner,
visors) and footwear (shoe soles) [Lee, 2006].
However, the largest single application for
polyurethane rigid foam is in thermal insulation,
although similar foams can also be used to
provide structural integrity and buoyancy.
For thermal insulation applications, old and
modern buildings, transport systems and
household appliances all take advantage of the
excellent energy performance offered through
the low thermal conductivity of the foam.
It is in the area of thermal insulation that the
contribution of the blowing agent is at its most
signicant, since the gas in the foam cell is
the major contributor to the overall thermal
performance of the insulation. This subject is
explored further in Section 4.2.
A variant of basic polyurethane chemistry is
polyisocyanurate, which has greater rigidity
and provides improved re performance.
However, it is less resilient and is therefore
not a replacement for polyurethane in all
applications.
Phenolic FoamsPhenolic foams take the characteristics of
polyisocyanurate a step further and are very
highly cross-linked. This makes them very
rigid (high modulus) and, historically, has led
to unacceptable friability where vibration or
thermal shock is a factor. Nonetheless, more
recent technologies have achieved very ne
cell structures which have both improved
the resilience of the foam and its thermal
performance. Indeed, phenolic foam now
typically delivers the best thermal performanceamong the insulating foam types available.
However, this is not the primary reason for its
use. Phenolic foam has made ground primarily
because of its overall re performance and,
most importantly, low smoke generation.
As with polyurethane and polyisocyanurate,
phenolic foams were historically blown with
CFCs and have progressed through a number
of alternatives which are documented in
Sections 5 and 7.
Extruded Polystyrene
A number of polystyrene foam product typesexist. Expanded polystyrene foams are blown
from beads of polystyrene which already
contain a hydrocarbon blowing agent (typically
pentane). These beads are then expanded
in hot moulds to create blocks and moulded
shapes. For this reason, the foams have been
used more for packaging than for demanding
thermal insulation applications. These foams,
sometimes referred to as bead foams, have
never used CFCs as blowing agents and are
not the subject of this [Sourcebook].
An alternative type of polystyrene foam is
extruded polystyrene foam which, as itsname suggests, is manufactured by an
extrusion process at elevated temperatures.
This product has historically used CFCs and
their substitutes. The nature of the extrusion
process is such that it creates more integral
foams than those generated from beads and
provides better thermal properties as a result.
Some extruded products are manufactured
specically for construction applications and
are typically referred to as ‘board’, while others
are manufactured for packaging purposes,
sometimes with a thermal component (e.g.
disposable food packaging) and are typically
known as ‘sheet’ products.
Section 4.Foam manufacture andexisting urocarbontecnologies
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 26/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 27/109
27
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
Polyolen (Polyethylene/
Polypropylene) FoamsPolyolen foams are processed similarly to
extruded polystyrene foams and have largely
similar characteristics and applications.
They have additional resilience in packaging
applications and are often selected as the
material of choice. Again polyolen foams
historically used CFCs and have progressed to
other alternatives over the last 20 years.
Non-Foam Insulation Products A variety of non-foam products are used for
thermal insulating purposes. Although this
Sourcebook is focused on polymeric foams, it
is important to understand that these co-exist
with other insulation types in a competitive
market, where changes in the cost-structure
of foams can have consequences for market
share. The most widespread product ismineral bre, which can be based on spun
rock (rock bre) or glass (glass bre). The low
density of these products makes them both
inexpensive and comparable in embodied
energy, despite the high energy intensity of the
manufacturing process. However, since they
rely on entrapped air for their thermal insulating
properties they are losing ground against the
more thermally efcient foamed productsin many markets, particularly in chilled
applications where moisture ingress can result
in degradation of properties.
There are a number of other insulation
materials available, often marketed on their
apparent environmental credentials. These
include naturally sourced materials such as
sheep’s wool and recycled materials such
as cellulose bre. However, none of these
products have broken through to the mass
market.
There are also specialist insulation products
such as calcium silicate, which is particularly
good for high temperatures applications.
The following tables add to the earlier diagram
in that, while they similarly relate the application
areas with the type of foam, they also provide
an indication of prevalence of use and a
comparison with non-foam alternatives. They
are based on an assessment generated for
the IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Ozoneand Climate . In this chapter, after a brief
introduction on rigid foam and the role of the
blowing agent, the different technology options
will be reviewed by application.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 28/109
28
Slabstock 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Seating Safety Bedding Furniture Food & Other Marine &
Leisure
Application Area
Moulded 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Integral Skin 4 4 4 4 4
Injected/ P-I-P
4 4 4
Cont. Block 4
Spray 4
Sheet 4 4 4
Board 4 4 4
Board 4 4 4 4
Foam Type
Polyurethane
ExtrudedPolystyrene
Polyethylene
Transport Comfort Packaging Buoyancy
4 4 4 = Major use of insulation 4 4= Frequent use of insulation 4= Minor use of insulation
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4
4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Domestic
Appliances
Other
Appliances
Reefers &
Transport
Wall
Insulation
Roof
Insulation
Floor
Insulation
Pipe
Insulation
Cold
Stores
Application AreaFoam Type
Polyurethane Injected P+P
Boardstock
Cont. Panel
Disc. Panel
Cont. Block
Disc. Block
Spray
One Component
Board
Boardstock
One Panel
Disk Block
Board
Pipe
Extruded
Polystyrene
Phenolic
Polyethylene
Mineral Fibre
Refrigeration & Tranport Buildings & Building Services
4 4 4 = Major use of insulation 4 4= Frequent use of insulation 4= Minor use of insulation
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 29/109
29
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
4.2 Foam Manufacture and the Role
of Blowing AgentsBoth tables shown in Section 4.1 give the rst
indication of the wide range of processes that
are available for the processing of polymeric
foams. The challenges relating to technology
selection for each of these processes are
covered in detail in Section 7. However,
this section focuses primarily on the basic
principles surrounding foam manufacture.
In general terms, a blowing agent is present
in a foam formulation to ensure that the
polymer matrix expands prior to solidifying.
This expansion can be created by raising
the temperature of the mix and causing the
blowing agent to volatilise, or by reducing the
pressure to which the mix is exposed (typical
in extrusion processes), or a combination of
both. The amount of blowing agent added
and the processing conditions applied dictates
the nal density of the foams generated. For
insulating foams, densities are typically in the
range of 25-40 kg/m3. For packaging foams
the densities will be lower and for comfort
foams they will be lower still – often well below
20kg/m3.
Some products and processes lend
themselves to the selection of blowing agents
which are gaseous at room temperature.
These are typically those products and
processes in which expansion is controlled
by pressure. In some cases, these types of
processes are known as ‘froth foaming’, sincethe formulations froth when the pressure is
released. Other processes rely on the blowing
agent being in liquid form for the early stages
of the process, with foam expansion and
curing usually achieved by the application
of heat. The following paragraphs use the
example of polyurethane foam to illustrate the
basic process involved.
Polyurethane rigid foams are prepared by
the reaction under controlled conditions
-reactants ratio, temperature and pressure- of
a “fully formulated polyol” with an isocyanate,
normally polymeric MDI. The term “fullyformulated polyol” describes a blend of polyols
with a variety of additives such as catalysts,
surfactants, water, ame retardants (not
typically in appliances), including the blowing
agent (FTOC, 2001).
A wide spectrum of polyols of different
chemical nature -polyether and polyester-
and molecular architecture -functionality and
equivalent weight- is used. Water is commonly
added to generate CO2
by the reaction with
the polymeric MDI; the polyurea groups which
are simultaneously formed contribute to thebuild-up of the polymer skeleton. Optimum
processing characteristics and end foam
properties cannot usually be achieved with a
single polyol and the same holds for catalysts
and the other additives. As a consequence,
in today´s industrial practice, a large number
of formulations has been and continue to be
developed to meet the different application
requirements. The formulation process of
polyurethane rigid foam can be graphically
described as follows:
Network Formation
+
Polyether Polyols
Polyether Polyols Catalysts
Surfactants
Water
Blowing Agents
Polymeric MDI
Kinetics Control
Stabilizers
CO2
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 30/109
30
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Urethane Specic chemical link formed by thereaction of a hydroxyl (OH) with anisocyanate (NCO) group
TERM EXPLANATION APPLICATION MAY CONTAIN
BOWING AGENT
Polyurethane Polymer consisting of a multiple of urethane linkages formed from thereaction between a polyol and anisocyanate
To produce foams, elastomers,adhesives, sealants, coatings, andmore
Isocyanate Family of chemicals with typicallytwo or more NCO groups. Mostcommon are MDI, P-MDI and TDI
As component in the manufacture of polyurethanes
Isocyanate prepolymer(also called polyurethane prepolymer)
Modied isocyanate by reactingexcess of this substance with apolyol. Provides technical effectsthat cannot be obtained byunmodied ones
Main use is in exible foam formoulding, MDI-based slabstock,elastomers, including shoe solesand integral skin foams and onecomponent (”canister”) foams
(Base) Polyol Short chain chemical with two ormore OH groups. Can be polyether(COC) or polyester (COOC) based
Used as a component by self-formulators, such as system houses,slabstock and rigid boardstockmanufacturers
(Base)Polyol blend Blend of two or more base polyols Same as base polyol users, plussome appliance manufacturers
Blowing agent ubstance used to achieve a cellular(“foam”) structure
To produce rigid and exible foamsas well as expanded (micro-cellular)elastomers
Polyol formulation(also called formulated polyol)
Polyol or polyol blend plus catalyst(s),surfactant(s) plus sometimes otheradditives such as re retardants
Larger polyurethane manufacturers,such as manufacturers of appliancesand sandwich panels, who addblowing agent according tofoaming conditions, including safetyconsiderations
Fully formulated polyol As above, plus blowing agent Smaller polyurethane manufacturers,such as sprayfoam contractors, withrelatively simple operating conditions
Polyurethane system Marketing term used to describe agenerally two component package,consisting of an isocyanate and afully formulated polyol
Same as fully formulated polyol
The following guide to polyurethane terminology prepared by the UNEP FTOC (2001) is illustrative:
Since a degree of pre-blending occurs within the supply-chain, these terms have become important in the implementation of the MontrealProtocol itself, since the denition of the ‘point of consumption’ is a critical aspect of Governmental reporting.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 31/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 32/109
32
The goal of consistent future reporting will
depend on further considerations by the
Parties. The Parties are currently reviewing
how to resolve this in such a way as to avoid
double-counting at the same time as avoiding
the omission of actual consumption in Article
7 reporting. Readers of this Sourcebook areencouraged to check with their National Ozone
Unit on the reporting policy that is currently
being adopted within their own countries
in order to conrm that stated baselines in
HPMPs properly reect their uses and that the
legitimate funding requirements for projects in
the foam sector are met.
4.4 Reasons for Original Selection of
CFCs and HCFCsFor a large proportion of the foams in which
ODS have been used historically, and
particularly those in which HCFCs are currently
used, the blowing agent has two principal
functions:
1. The physical expansion of the foaming
mixture to produce the desired foam
density. In PU rigid foam the expansion is
normally achieved by the combination of two
mechanisms:
• the generation of CO2
as a consequence
of the water/isocyanate reaction
and
• the evaporation of the blowing agent by
the exothermically reaction mixture.
The boiling temperature of the blowing agent
inuences how these two mechanisms are
combined in time, which strongly affects the
foam ability to ow. Lower the boiling point,
better the ow (KHUN, 1993). Immediately
after the foam is produced there are usually
two gases simultaneously present in the cells:
carbon dioxide and the selected blowing agent
(HCFC-141b, HFC-245fa, cyclo pentane, etc.).
2. Contribution to the thermal insulating
performance of the foam. The blowing agent
should remain in the closed celled foam and
have a low gaseous thermal conductivity plus a
low rate of diffusion through the foam (polymer
matrix) so that the good insulating properties
are retained for many years.
A number of publications have highlighted the
preferable characteristics for a blowing agent.
However, these have changed over time. Prior
to the existing concerns over ozone depletion
and climate change, the list would have
appeared as follows:
• Physiologically non hazardous (low toxicity)
• Non ammable
• Chemically/physically stable
• Advantageous boiling point for ease of
handling
• Good solubility in polyols (for polyurethane
systems)
• Commercially available, and
• Economically viable.
As an additional set of characteristics for
thermally insulating foams, the following were
deemed as advantageous:
• Low gaseous thermal conductivity
• Boiling point to minimize condensation
of the blowing agent in the nal foam at
operational temperatures
• Low solubility in the foam polymer to avoid
matrix plasticisation which can cause
dimensional stability problems.
• Low diffusion rate through the polymer
matrix.
When the polymeric foam industry was
emerging in the early 1960s, CFCs had
already been in use as refrigerants within the
refrigeration sector for some years. They were,
therefore, relatively plentiful, inexpensive and
offered virtually all of the characteristics listed
above. In particular, the gaseous thermalconductivities of the substances were low,
reecting the thermodynamic properties that
had also made them suitable as refrigerants.
Coupled with low toxicity and chemical
stability, CFC-11 and CFC-12 were seen as
virtually designed-for-purpose and dominated
the industry for 25 years. Of course, it was the
chemical stability of CFCs which nally became
their downfall.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 33/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 34/109
34
4.5 Reasons why HFCs are Potential
Replacements for HCFCsIn a list of appropriate criteria for replacement
blowing agents published in 1994, OERTEL
had included ‘zero ODP’ and ‘low GWP’as desirable parameters. This reected the
fact that climate factors associated with the
manufacture and use of foams were already
beginning to emerge as important aspects to
be considered.
The regulatory stance on HCFCs had already
been noted and some CFC-users had decided
to make the direct transition to hydrocarbons
(HCs) even though their thermal performance
was poorer than the uorocarbons and there
were issues surrounding the management
of their ammability. In Europe and Japan,
the most visible sign of this trend was inthe domestic refrigerator sector, where
manufacturers believed that other design
factors could be adjusted to compensate for
the poorer thermal performance of the foam. In
addition, the economies of scale were sufcient
to justify the investment in the management
of safety issues during manufacture. The
consequence of this, and other similar
technology choices, was that the replacement
of CFCs by HCFCs was not a 1:1 replacement.
Indeed, in the polyurethane sector, formulators
had already started to assess how they could
reduce reliance on ODS by increasing the
amount of co-blowing being contributed by the
isocyanate/water reaction and its generation of
in-situ CO2.
Since hydrocarbons were already less
expensive than any of the uorocarbon
alternatives, there was clearly a commercial
incentive to maximise their use. However,
for small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
in particular, the economies of scale were
insufcient to justify the capital investment.
Even where the incremental cost of the
transitions was funded by the Multilateral
Fund (i.e. for developing countries operating
under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol) the
investment costs were often prohibitive and
understandable threshold limits prevented
investment in hydrocarbon technologies. The
default technology choice in this instance
became HCFC-141b. The Cost Paper
prepared by the Multilateral Fund Secretariat in
2008 (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ ExCom/55/47) provides
important background on this subject and
highlights the fact that more than 70 per cent
of all foam enterprises in Article 5 countries
had an annual CFC consumption below 40
ODP tonnes per year.
Most foam manufacturers in Article 5 countries
have therefore found themselves in something
of a cul-de-sac. They have transitioned to
a low-ODP solution in order to respond to
the original call of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol for CFC phase-out, but have no cost-
effective way out of HCFCs when it comes
to the implementation of Decision XIX/6 on
accelerated HCFC phase-out. Although there
is more time to make this second transition
than in developed countries (non-Article 5), the
technology choices are not always obvious,
particularly where thermal performance is
an on-going requirement. HFCs remain one
option, but their potential cost and availability
have remained a cause for concern.
Although the thermal efciency of
hydrocarbon-based foams has improved in
recent years as a result of development focus,
foam manufacturers in developed countries
have still been challenged by three factors in
seeking to make the onward transition from
HCFCs to zero-ODP alternatives. These are:
• Insufcient economies of scale to
accommodate the safety requirements
associated with ammable blowing agents
(and, in the case of PU Spray Foam, an
overall technical constraint)
• Product ammability concerns in sensitive
markets
• Lack of guaranteed thermal performance
in areas where thermal performance is
critical
These issues were probably at their height
in the early years of the decade (i.e. 2002-
2006) when many technology decisions were
being made and led to an uptake in the use of
hydrouorocarbons (HFCs) as replacements for
HCFCs, even though it was known that they
had relatively high global warming potentials.
The main HFCs that emerged to meet the
foam blowing need were HFC-134a and HFC-
152a for gaseous/frothing applications such
as extruded polystyrene, polyolen and one
component PU foams, while HFC-245fa and
HFC-365mfc/227ea emerged for applications
reliant on liquid blowing agents, such as the
majority of polyurethane and phenolic foams.
Again, cost and concern about the possibility
of an eventual third transition led the industry
to minimise its uptake of HFC technologies
and this was a signicantly lower than 1:1replacement against HCFCs as is shown in the
following graph:
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 20142012
YEAR
Total HCs
Total HFCs
Total HCFCs
Total CFCs
C O N S U M P T I O N ( t o n n e s )
Global Trends in Blowing Agent Consumption by Type (1990-2014)
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 35/109
35
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
4.6 Why HFCs can be Sub-optimal
Solutions for Climate
Recent analysis has shown that HFCs arebeing used in a variety of foam technologies
globally, these include, but are not limited to:
• PU Steel-faced panels (both continuously
and discontinuously produced)
• PU Spray Foam
• Extruded polystyrene foams (XPS)
• PU Integral Skin foams and Shoe Soles
• PU Appliance Foam (particularly in North
America)
Section 3 of this Guidance has already
provided an overview of the factors to be
considered when evaluating the climate impact
of technologies and making comparisons
between them. One of the lessons to be drawn
from such analyses is that climate impact
is driven by emissions and not technology
choice per se. Therefore, it is important to
ensure that, when considering the use of
HFCs, due account is taken of any measures
that may be implemented across the lifecycle
of the product to limit emissions. For foams,
this could include capture of blowing agents
during the production process or end-of-life
management provisions.
The use of HFCs could therefore be justied
on an on-going basis if it could be guaranteed
that emissions were largely avoided from all
phases of the lifecycle. Equally, there would
be a case for the on-going use of HFCs if the
incremental energy efciency advantages could
be quantied and would result in the lower
level of overall greenhouse gas emissions,
when corrected for the appropriate global
warming potential of the HFCs used. To
make this judgement, it is necessary to have
access to the comparative impacts of different
blowing agent types. Although this is covered
further in the next Section, the following Table
extracted from the IPCC/TEAP Special Report
on Ozone and Climate is likely to be helpful at
this juncture:
Apart from the global warming potential of the
blowing agent itself, one of the other factors
that needs to be considered alongside the
energy efciency assessment is the carbon
intensity of the fuels used to heat and/or
cool. This can be particularly important where
electrical heating/cooling is applied routinely,
since it will be the fuel used to generate the
power that will count in this case.
Assessing the applications listed earlier in
which HFCs are being used currently, it can
be seen that the use in PU integral skin and
shoe soles might be the hardest to defend on
climate grounds, since they are totally emissive
and the use of HFCs does not contribute to
any thermal benet..
For the thermal insulation products, the case
might be greater, although the relative high
emissions associated the extruded polystyrene
foam manufacturing process (see the IPCC
table below) makes the case harder to justify,
particularly when HFC-134a is the blowing
agent of choice, since this has a GWP of 1410.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 36/109
36
Gas GWP for direct radiative GWP for indirect radiative forcing Lifetime (years) UNFCCC
forcinga (Emission in 2005b) Reporting GWPc
CFCs
CFC-12 10,720 ± 3750 -1920 ± 1630 100 n.a.d
CFC-114 9880 ± 3460 Not available 300 n.a.d
CFC-115 7250 ± 2540 Not available 1700 n.a.d
CGC-113 6030 ± 2110 -2250 ± 1890 85 n.a.d
CFC-11 4680 ± 1640 -3420 ± 2710 45 n.a.d
HCFCs
HCFC-142b 2270 ±800 -337 ± 237 17.9 n.a.d
HCFC-22 1780 ± 620 -269 ± 183 12 n.a.d
HCFC-141b 713 ± 250 -631 ± 424 9.3 n.a.d
HCFC-124 599 ± 210 -114 ± 76 2.8 n.a.d
HCFC-225cb 586 ± 205 -148 ± 98 5.8 n.a.d
HCFC=225ca 120 ± 42 -91 ± 60 1.9 n.a.d
HCFC123 76 ± 27 -82 ± 55 1.3 n.a.d
HFCs
HFC-23 14,310 ± 5000 ~0 270 11,700
HFC-143a 4400 ± 1540 ~0 52 3800
HFC-125 3450 ± 1210 ~0 29 2800
HFC-227ea 3140 ± 1100 ~0 34.2 2900
HFC-43-10mee 1610 ± 560 ~0 15.9 1300
HFC-134a 1410 ± 490 ~0 14 1300
HFC-245fa 1020 ± 360 ~0 7.6 _c
HFC-365mfc 782 ± 270 ~0 8.6 _c
HFC-32 670 ± 240 ~0 4.9 650
HFC-152a 122 ± 43 ~0 1.4 140
PFCs
C2F
612,000 ± 4200 ~0 10,000 9200
C6F
149140 ± 3200 ~0 3200 7400
CF4
5820 ± 2040 ~0 50,000 6500
Halons
Halon-1301 7030 ± 2460 -32,900 ± 27,100 65 n.a.d
Halon-1211 1860 ± 650 -28,200 ± 19,600 16 n.a.d
Halon-2402 1620 ± 570 -43,100 ± 30,800 20 n.a.d
Other Halocarbons
Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) 1380 ± 480 -3330 ± 2460 26 n.a.d
Methyl chloroform (CH3CCl
3) 144 ± 50 -610 ± 407 5.0 n.a.d
Methyl bromide(CH3Br) 5 ± 2 -1610 ± 1070 0.7 n.a.d
a Uncertainties in GWPs for direct positive radiative forcing are taken to be +35% (2 standard deviations) (IPCC, 2001).
b Uncertainties in GWPs for indirect negative radiative forcing consider estimated uncertainty in the time recovery of the ozone layer as well as uncertainty in the negative radiative forcing
due to ozone depletion.
c The UNFCCC reporting guidelines use GWP values from the IPCC Seconf Assessment Report (see FCCC/SBSTA/2004/8, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2004/sbsta/08.pdf).d ODSs are not covered under the UNFCCC.
e The IPCC Second Assessment Report does not contain GWP values for HFC-245fa and HFC-36mfc. However, the UNFCCC reporting guidelines contain provisions relating to the
reporting of emissions from all greenhouse gases for which IPCC-assessed GWP values exist.
Environmental Characteristics of various Fluorocarbons
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 37/109
37
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 38/109
38
Even where the emission prole is relatively
controlled, product groups that do not need
to rely on HFCs for process or property
reasons are continuing to move away from
these blowing agents. A prime example is
the continuous panel industry in the United
Kingdom, where the re performancerequirements of the industry have now been
largely met by hydrocarbon technologies,
thereby facilitating a transition from HFCs to
HCs. This is despite the fact that such panels
have the potential for recovery and destruction
and end-of-life and are relatively non-emissive
during their other life cycle phases (see the
IPCC table above)
Sub-Application Product First Year Loss % Annual Loss % Maximum
Life in years Potential
End-of-Life Loss %
Polyurethane – Integral Skin 12 95 2.5 0
Polyurethane – Continuous Panel 50 10 0.5 65
Polyurethane – Discontinuous Panel 50 12.5 0.5 62.5
Polyurethane – Appliance 15 7 0.5 85.5
Polyurethane – Injected 15 12.5 0.5 80
One Component Foam (OCF) a 50 95 2.5 0
Extruded Polystyrene (XPS)b - HFC-134a 50 25 0.75 37.5
Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) - HFC-152a 50 50 25 0
Extruded Polyethylene (PE) a 50 40 3 0
a Source: [Ashford and Jeffs, ETF, 2004] assembled from UNEP FTOC Reports 1998, 2002.
b Vo and Paquet: An Evaluation of Thermal Conductivity over time for Extruded Polystyrene Foams blown with HFC-134a and HCFC-142b
* Emission factors predicted for the products and processes identied.
Source: IPCC 2006 Reporting Guidelines Table 7.6
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR HFC-134A AND HFC-152A USES
(FOAM SUB-APPLICATIONS ) (IPCC, 2005)
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 39/109
39
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
In summary, therefore, it can be seen that,
while HFCs are still a current technology
selection option, they may be sub-optimal
for a signicant number of applications. Care
therefore needs to be taken in advocating their
selection. In making these comments, it should
be noted that they apply to the currentlyavailable ‘saturated’ HFCs. There are a further
generation of ‘unsaturated’ HFCs (sometimes
referred to as ‘HFOs’) which may still formally
classify as HFCs but will have much lower
GWPs. This highlights the importance of
treating each technology option on its merits
and avoiding generalisations about classes of
compounds. The next Section deals in more
detail with blowing agents currently available or
likely to be available in the near future.
Sub-Application Product First Year Loss % Annual Loss % Maximum
Life in years Potential
End-of-Life Loss %
Polyurethane – Continuous Panel 50 5 0.5 70
Polyurethane – Discontinuous Panel 50 12 0.5 63
Polyurethane – Appliance 15 4 0.25 92.25
Polyurethane – Injected 15 10 0.5 82.5
Polyurethane – Cont. Block 15 20 1 65
Polyurethane – Disc. Block for pipe sections 15 45 0.75 43.75
Polyurethane – Disc. Block for panels 50 15 0.5 60
Polyurethane – Cont. Laminate / Boardstock 25 6 1 69
Polyurethane – Spray 50 15 1.5 10
Polyurethane – Pipe-in-Pipe 50 6 0.25 81.5
Sources: [Ashford & Jeffs ETF, 2004] assembled from UNEP FTOC Reports 1998, 2002
* Emission factors predicted for the products and processes identied.
Source: IPCC 2006 Reporting Guidelines Table 7.7
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR HFC-245FA/HFC-365MFC/HFC-227EA USES
(FOAM SUB-APPLICATION)
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 40/109
40
Section 5.General review of alternativeblowing agents
“Alternatives exist for all current HCFC
applications and the majority of these
have low global warming potentials”
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 41/109
41
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
The major blowing agents being commercially
used as substitutes for HCFCs in the foam
sector, or being considered for commercial
introduction in the short-term, are shown in
the sub-sections that follow – each of which
contains a table with basic properties and
supply information.
These tables are supplemented by descriptive
paragraphs which provide technical information
on the blowing agents themselves and some
information on usage patterns and commercial
availability. It should be noted that there are
no references to regulatory constraints in thisSection. While the impact of ODS regulations
is probably well known to the reading audience
and does not require further iteration here, it
might be useful to note, for example, that other
environmental factors, such as classication as
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may have
a bearing on local acceptance. The reader is
therefore encouraged to make a full evaluation
of the national and local circumstances when
choosing blowing agent options.
5.1 Hydrocarbons (both directly
added and pre-blended with polyol) These ve major blowing agents (cyclo-
pentane, n-pentane, iso-pentane, iso-butane
and n-butane) continue to be the primary
hydrocarbon alternatives offered to the foam
sector. The boiling point range is sufciently
wide to allow for gaseous blowing agent
processes such as extruded polystyrene and
one-component polyurethane systems to
be served by the ‘butanes’, while the higher
boiling point, liquid applications can be served
by the ‘pentanes’.
A signicant further advantage of the
hydrocarbon family is that they can easily
be blended to provide a combination of
properties. For example, it has always
been known that cyclo-pentane offered
better thermal performance (lower gaseous
conductivity) than the other hydrocarbons,
but its boiling point is relatively high leading to
lower blowing efciency and, in some cases,
poorer processing. This led to the realisation
that blending cyclo-pentane with iso-pentane
could retain the overall thermal properties while
lowering the overall boiling point and improvingthe processing characteristics – the latter, in
turn, leading to lower densities. In addition,
the cost of iso-pentane is generally lower than
for cyclo-pentane and cost savings could be
achieved. This, therefore, led to the ‘birth’ of
what became known as the “cyclo-iso blends”.
The major potential drawback with the
hydrocarbon family is their ammability. This
can have impact on both the capital costs for
processing (to ensure that safety is properly
engineered) and on product properties.
For some product types, the impact of
hydrocarbon inclusion on re performance
is less than for others. These aspects are
covered in more depth in Section 7.
From a processing perspective, the
ammability of hydrocarbons is at its most
acute when the blowing agents are used in
concentrated form at the foam manufacturingpremises. This can be particularly problematic
for smaller enterprises. Efforts have been
made to establish whether the pre-blending
of hydrocarbons into polyols at systems
houses can limit this ammability and provide
a less hazardous material at the point of
foam manufacture. Since early experiences
(during the CFC phase-out) produced
mixed results, the matter has been taken
up by the Multilateral Fund together with the
Implementing Agencies and a pilot project has
been sponsored. In view of the large number
of Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) involved,
the further penetration of hydrocarbon-basedblowing agents into the PU sector during
HCFC-phase-out will depend very much on
this outcome of this work.
Cyclo-Pentane n-Pentane Iso-Pentane Iso-Butane n-Butane
Chemical Formula (CH2)5
CH3(CH
2)3CH
3CH
3CH(CH
3)CHCH
3CH
3CH(CH
3)CH
3CH
3CH
2CH
2CH
3
Molecular Weight 70.1 72.1 72.1 58.1 58.1
Boiling Point ( 0C ) 49.3 36 28 -11.7 -0.5
Gas Conductivity (mW/mK @ 100C) 11.0 14.0 13.0 15.9 13.6^
Flammable Limits in Air (vol.%) 1.4-8.0 1.4-8.0 1.4-7.6 1.8-8.4 1.8-8.5
TLV or OEL (ppm) (USA) 600 610 1000 800 800
GWP (100 yr time horizon) <25* <25* <25* <25* <25*
Key Producers
^ Measured at 00C * Precise gure varies according to local atmospheric conditions
Chevron Phillips
ExxonMobil
Dow Haltermann
Maruzen
Haldia Petrochem
Yixing City Changjili
Productos Quimicos
Coin
Exxon Mobil
Dow Haltermann
Chevron Phillips
Shell
Maruzen
Beijing Yanshan
Productos Quimicos
Coin
Exxon Mobil
Dow Haltermann
Chevron Phillips
Shell
Jilin Jinlong
Productos Quimicos
Coin
Chevron
Bayer
Huntsman
Phillips
Quhua Yonghe
Chemical
Jinling
Petrochemical
Section 5.General review of alternative blowingagents
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 42/109
42
5.2 Liquid Carbon DioxideCarbon Dioxide (CO
2) is a gas at normal
temperature and pressure (triple point occurs
at 5.11 bar pressure and – 56.60C) and is only
viable as a blowing agent when it is supplied
under pressure (see the Phase Diagram
below).
Liquid CO2
has found widespread use,
particularly in Europe, in the extruded
polystyrene sector, but has also offered
opportunities in other product/process types.
The attraction of using CO2
is its relative
inertness and also its low global warming
potential (GWP=1).
Handling gases at pressure, however, requires
signicant engineering resources and one of
the challenges of rolling out such technologies
to a wider processing base has been the ability
to control the foaming reaction in a consistentway, when ambient conditions may vary
substantially.
The use of liquid CO2
is therefore limited to
those processes which lend themselves to
gaseous blowing agents and have a sufciently
high degree of in-built engineering to be robust
in the eld of operation.
5.3 In-situ Carbon Dioxide (water
blown foams) All of the attractive properties of CO
2
highlighted in Section 5.2 are, of course,
available to foam manufacturers no matter
what source of carbon dioxide is used. For PU
foam manufacturers, the opportunity exists to
take advantage of the presence of isocyanate
in the formulation to generate carbon dioxide
in-situ. This possibility is created by the
fact that excess isocyanate can be used to
generate CO2
through a reaction with water –
which can be added as required.
This process bypasses all of the processing
complications that arise from the use of liquid
CO2. However, it does bring with it a number of
complications of its own. These include:
• Isocyanate is typically a more expensive
component of the formulation and usingexcess of it as a means to generate CO
2is
often not an efcient use of the material
• Formulations that are high in isocyanate
tend to be highly cross-linked and this can lead
to less resilience and poorer cell structure
• The generation of CO2
in-situ means that
its availability is governed by the chemical
reaction itself. In some instances, this can lead
to less efcient blowing and densities can be
higher than intended.
• Since CO2
is a small molecule it tends to
migrate from the cells of the foam rapidly.Where no other blowing agent is present this
can result in loss of cell pressure and potential
shrinkage (or other forms of poor stability).
To compensate for this, higher densities may
need to be targeted intentionally.
Liquid CO2
normally the case that (CO2) water
blown foam formulations are reserved for some
of the less demanding roles.
5.4 Oxygenated Hydrocarbons
(Methyl Formate, Methylal and
Dimethyl Ether) As the industry has searched for cost-effective
solutions to HCFC substitution, the potential
for using oxygenated hydrocarbons hasemerged. These had broadly been ignored in
non-Article 5 countries because the economies
of scale were sufcient to allow the direct use
of hydrocarbons. However, substances such
as methylal had been commercially available
for a considerable time, based on its use in
other areas.
The emergence of methyl formate (typically
marketed as Ecomate®) has brought this
class of compounds to centre-stage, although
there is still considerable debate about how
wide a range of applications it can serve. In
parallel with pre-blended hydrocarbons, methylformate has therefore become the subject of
a Multilateral Fund supported pilot project to
explore the capabilities of this material. The
outcomes of this work will be important, since
methyl formate does, on paper at least, meet
the majority of criteria for an environmentally
sound alternative to HCFCs as is shown in the
following table.
+20+100-10-20-30-40-50-60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P (atmos)
C
PC
0
GAS
PT
LIQUID
S OL I D
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 43/109
43
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
The US Environmental Protection Agency
has evaluated methyl formate and related
substances in its Signicant New Alternatives
Program (SNAP) and, in the absence of data
to the contrary, has suggested that their global
warming potential is negligible. Di-methyl ether
is the only one for which a GWP is cited by theInter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and the Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4) provides a value of 1. However, as with
all short-lived compounds, there is a degree of
uncertainty dependent on local atmospheric
circumstances. For this reason, the authors
have grouped methylal and methyl formate
with other hydrocarbons at <25.
Methylal has been typically used as a co-
blowing agent rather than as a blowing agent
in its own right. It has been marketed primarily
within the thermoplastic foam sector (extruded
polystyrene and polyolen) as a co-blowing
agent with HFC-134a to date. However,
the literature suggests that polyol miscibility
in polyurethane systems may provide a
processing advantage, as well as better skin
forming properties (important for integral skin
foams).
Di-methyl ether is placed to serve the gaseous
blowing agent market in view of its boiling
point. It has an established market as an
aerosol propellant and capacity is growing
rapidly based on its potential as an alternative
to Liquid Petroleum Gas. The product is
already used as a propellant/blowing agentin one component foams and is also being
evaluated for extruded polystyrene
Methylal Methyl Formate Di-methyl Ether
Chemical Formula CH3
OCH2
OCH3
CH3
(HCOO) CH3
OCH3
Molecular Weight 76.1 60.0 46.07
Boiling Point ( 0C ) 42 31.5 -24.8
Gas Conductivity (mW/mK @ 150C) Not available 10.7 (@ 250C) 15.5
Flammable Limits in Air (vol.%) 2.2-19.9 5.0-23.0 3.0-18.6
TLV or OEL (ppm) (USA) 1000 100 1000
GWP (100 yr time horizon) <25* <25* 1
Key Producers
* These products are sometimes cited as ‘zero-GWP’ or ‘negligible GWP’ but see narrative below
Spectrum Chemicals
Alcan International
Kimbester (China)
Caldic
Lambiotte & Cie
BOC
Foam Supplies
Multiple Chinese producers
Air Liquide
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 44/109
44
5.5 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
(Methylene Chloride, Trans-1,2
di-chloroethylene and
2-chloropropane)Methylene Chloride became a widely used
substitute for CFCs as an auxiliary blowing
agent in exible and moulded polyurethanefoams throughout the 1990s. However,
there remains some debate about the health
effects of methylene chloride exposure which
has led to signicant regional variations in
uptake. The primary area of contention has
been the potential of methylene chloride as
a carcinogen. This has led to slightly differing
treatments in North America and Europe with
the latter tending to be more conservative in
its approach. The need for care in managing
exposure is reected in the relatively low
threshold limit value (TLV) range of 35-100
ppm.
Although, methylene chloride is well
established as an auxiliary blowing agent,
its use, in general, is on the decline. The full
characteristics of methylene chloride, trans-
1,2-dichloroethylene and 2-chloropropane are
shown in the following table.
In similar fashion to methylal, trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene has not been usedsignicantly as a blowing agent in its own right,
but has tended to be used as a co-blowing
agent in order to modify the processing
characteristics of other blowing agents. It
has found a particular niche in modifying the
froth foaming behaviour of HFC-134a and
HFC-245fa, as well as enhancing the blowing
efciency of these materials.
2-chloropropane (also known as iso-propyl
chloride) has been used only to a limited extent
as a blowing agent. Most notably it has found
use in the manufacture of phenolic foams in
Europe for some years. It is understood that
preliminary evaluation has also occurred in
polyurethane foam systems, although the
outcome of tat work is not known.
Despite their chlorine content, all three of these
compounds, and many like them, escape from
consideration under the Montreal Protocol
because of their very short atmospheric
lifetimes which make it that the respective
molecules do not reach the stratosphere
and trigger ozone depletion. However, as
with all short-lived halogenated substances,
care needs to be taken to evaluate the
impact of breakdown products created in the
troposphere
Methylene Chloride Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 2-chloropropane
Chemical Formula CH2Cl
2ClHC=CHCl CH
3CHClCH
3
Molecular Weight 84.9 97 78.5
Boiling Point ( 0C ) 40 48 35.7
Gas Conductivity (mW/mK @ 100C) Not available Not available Not available
Flammable Limits in Air (vol.%) None 6.7-18 2.8-10.7
TLV or OEL (ppm) (USA) 35-100 200 50
GWP (100 yr time horizon) Not available <25 Not available
Key Producers
* These products are sometimes cited as ‘zero-GWP’ or ‘negligible GWP’ but see narrative below
Multiple Sources Arkema Alfa Aesar
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 45/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 46/109
46
5.7 Unsaturated HFCs (HFOs)
This class of compounds represents an
emerging group of potential blowing agents
which spans the blowing agent range required
for foam manufacture. They exhibit a number
of the characteristics also displayed by
saturated HFCs, but have considerably lowerGWPs. The prime reason for these lower
values relates to the shorter lifetime of the
molecules in the atmosphere, which itself is
caused by the presence of a double bond
between adjacent carbon atoms (the so-called
unsaturation).
Since these compounds are still in the state
of development and early commercialisation,
there is often incomplete information available.
This is sometimes because testing is still in
progress, but, more often, because companies
are seeking to maintain condentiality
while establishing their respective patent
positions. The most advanced, in terms of
commercialisation and disclosure, is
HFO-1234ze which has already been
introduced into the European market as a
replacement option for HFC-134a in the PU
one-component foam (OCF) market. The
product has a GWP of 6 in this instance.
The following table also illustrates the various
other compounds that are believed to fall in
this class.
Further disclosures are expected on these and
other potential blowing agents over the next
months, but it is clear that, despite some very
promising characteristics, they are unlikely
to be available in sufcient time to meet the
early stages (pre-2015) of the HCFC phase-
out required under Decision XIX/6. This is
particularly frustrating, since compounds such
as FEA-1100, HBA-2 and AFA-L1 seem to
have the potential of replacing HCFC-141b,
which will be amongst the rst technologies
to be phased-out under ‘worst-rst’ principle
mandated by the Decision.
HFO-1234ze FEA-1100 HBA-2 AFA-L1
Chemical Formula Trans- CF3CH=CHF Cis- CF
3-CH=CH-CF
3Undisclosed Undisclosed
Molecular Weight 114 164 Undisclosed Undisclosed
Boiling Point ( 0C ) -19 32 15.3<T<32.1 10.0<T<30.0
Gas Conductivity (mW/mK @ 100C) 13.0 10.7 Not Reported 15.9
Flammable Limits in Air (vol.%) None to 280C^ None None None
TLV or OEL (ppm) (USA) Unpublished 9.7 Undisclosed Undisclosed
GWP (100 yr time horizon) 6 5 <15 <15
Key Producers
^ Flame limits of 7.0-9.5 at 300C are quoted
Honeywell DuPont Honeywell Arkema
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 47/109
47
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 48/109
48
Section 6.Decision-making process
“When developing country experience is
limited, a balanced assessment of available
information is critical”
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 49/109
49
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
6.1 Establishing Technical Feasibility
and Economic Viability The technical feasibility of a blowing agent
technology will depend on a number of factors
which will include:
• The chemistry of the foam formulation
being processed
• The existing (or future) foam processing
equipment being proposed
• The quantity of foam being manufactured
and sold each year
• The application of the foam and the local
standards pertaining
• Experience already gained by others both
internationally and locally in similar processes
and applications
Chemistry of the foam formulation
being processedFoam formulations are selected and optimised
for a variety of differing purposes. For r igid
foams, these can include such aspects as
reaction to re, mechanical strength and
resilience. For exible foams these might be
matters such as softness and elastic response.
Inevitably, the relationship between theseproperties and density of foam required to
deliver them, becomes a key aspect of the
assessment, making the inter-linkage between
technical and economic components of the
decision-making process almost unavoidable
from the outset. The formulation itself
could also require additional components to
accommodate certain blowing agent solutions
(e.g. ame retardants) and these can affect
the overall economic viability of a potential
solution.
Existing (or future) foam processing
equipment being proposedEvery project will have its constraints with
respect to equipment. These may be
imposed through the existing equipment at
hand, particularly if no capital is available to
support the proposed technology transition.
Alternatively, where capital is availa ble,
it is likely that the budget will be capped.
This may be on an absolute basis or on a
level of investment per unit quantity of foam
manufactured or blowing agent used. Either
way, there may be the potential necessity to
make compromises in order to accommodate
the equipment that can be made available.
Quantity of foam being manufactured
or sold each yearWhere capital investments need to be made,
the cost-effectiveness of the investment
will depend on the quantity of foam being
produced on the equipment currently and
will also need to take into account any future
trends that are expected. Although the most
cost-effective investment is not always the
best, it is likely that a threshold will exist (in
US$ per unit of production) above which,
the investment is viewed as non-viable.
Conversely, the same assessment might be
made by establishing the minimum amount
of foam that would need to be manufactured
annually to support the investment.
Application of the foam and the local
standards pertaining There is no value in producing foam in the
most cost-effective manner if it is not t-
for-purpose in its intended application. In
some instances, this may not be established
immediately but could emerge only with time.
In order to combat this risk, attempts are often
made to mimic the long-term requirements on
the foam in an accelerated fashion (e.g. ageing
at elevated temperatures). This approach
serves to provide a view of the likely future
performance of the foam. However, since
the predictive capabilities of such techniques
always have their limitations, the tendencyis naturally to be a little more conservative
in the deployment of new technologies. In
some instances, local standards will also
introduce a level of conservatism in order to
ensure tness-for-purpose. Enterprises need
to satisfy themselves that risk is mitigated to
the extent possible, but that the nal approach
is not so over-cautious as to rule out perfectly
acceptable alternatives. This is usually an issue
of expert judgement and will involve a number
of local factors as well as generic technology
issues.
Section 6.Decision-making process
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 50/109
50
Experience already gained by others
both internationally and locally in
similar processes and applicationsOne of the primary factors in providing
condence about technology selection
emerges is knowledge that a technologyhas been deployed successfully elsewhere –
particularly if the circumstances are similar to
those pertaining to the proposed technology
transition. Accordingly, an enterprise needs to
be alert to the information available to it from a
number of sources. This can include any of the
following:
• International Foam Conferences
• Assessments contained in the UNEP
Foams Technical Options Committee Reports
• Advice and information from National
Ozone Units• Local trade associations
• Periodic regional workshops convened by
one or more Implementing Agencies
• Supplier Literature (particularly where this
contains case studies)
• Supplier Literature (particularly where this
contains case studies)
These sources take on increased importance
when technology transitions are contemplated,
particularly if the pace of technology
development is rapid. In this context, there isno doubt that the implementation of Decision
XIX/6 has brought about challenges that were
previously unforeseen. As technology suppliers
respond to these challenges, the level of
offerings in the market place increases – often
specically tailored to the needs of developing
country enterprises and markets. In these
circumstances, good market intelligence is a
critical part of the decision-making process.
6.2 Evaluating Safety Aspects and
Environmental Impact There are a number of examples where the
some excellent technological options have
been ruled out or, at least demoted, because
of their safety aspects and/or environmental
impacts. For a long period, HCFC-123 was
seen as a very promising replacement for
CFC-11 as a foam blowing agent (low ODP
and GWP) but was eventually ruled out
because of its intrinsic toxicity to man.
Evaluating safety is a complex issue and
involves the assessment of risk, as dened
by the intrinsic hazard of a chemical and
the statistical likelihood of exposure. Even
hazardous chemicals can be handled safely
where the solution can be engineered to
avoid exposure. An example would be the
regular handling of petroleum on a fuel station
forecourt. However, for foam, the fact that
many blowing agents remain in the foam
after manufacture and slowly diffuse during
the use phase, means that having intrinsically
hazardous substances as blowing agents is
usually not tolerable. For this reason, it is only
in exceptional circumstances that such an
option would be contemplated. Toxicity testing,
in particular, is therefore a high priority for
potential blowing agents and enterprises would
be cautioned against choosing a technology
where the toxicity of the blowing agent has not
already been fully characterised.
Section 3 of this Sourcebook has already
addressed the evaluation of environmental
impact of technology transitions as it relates
to the climate criterion. As noted there, three
separate parameters can contribute to the
overall impact. These are:
• Embodied (or embedded) energy
• Direct emissions of greenhouse gases
(particularly of those used as blowing agents)
• Indirect emissions of CO2
related to the
energy consumption of buildings or products
(where the energy saved by a foam can
reduce those emissions)
However, apart from climate impacts, there
can be a number of other environmental
considerations. These include:
• Impact on low level ozone formation
(usually associated with VOCs)
• Environmental (or human) toxicity of atmospheric breakdown products
Decision XIX/6 is careful in its language to
ensure that the evaluation process includes
this wider perspective when it encourages
Parties to the Montreal Protocol to:
‘…….promote) the selection of alternatives to
HCFCs that minimise environmental impacts,
in particular impacts on the climate, as well
as meeting other health, safety and economic
considerations’.
However, seldom does one technology
minimise all health, safety and environmentalimpacts at the same time and there is therefore
a value judgement to be made between
them. For HCFC alternatives, some criteria
are absolute (e.g. zero ODP), while others are
graduated factors, such as embodied energy
and(GWP. When selecting a technology it
is therefore important to identify the non-
negotiable elements and use them for
screening purposes before evaluating these
graduated factors. This process is shown
schematically in Section 6.4.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 51/109
51
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
6.3 Assessing Cost Effectiveness
and PracticalityCost effectiveness is another graduated factor
and can be assessed either in the context of:
I. Initial capital costs
II. On-going variable costs
III. A combination of the two
The appropriate choice for comparison often
depends on the size of the operation being
managed by the enterprise. Where the plant
throughputs are potentially high, a greater
degree of capital investment can be justied,
since the investment per unit of production
is still relatively low and may be recovered
by operational savings. However, where
plant throughputs are likely to be low, capital
investment might need to be minimised with
possible incremental cost being incurred atthe operational level. Of course, the best
option under any method of evaluation is one
that involves minimal capital cost and results
in operational savings. In practice, the basis
of comparison is a choice for the individual
investor. However, the key aspect to bear in
mind is that competing technologies need to
be assessed using the same approach.
Care needs to be taken to ensure that cost
comparisons take into account all factors.
For example, a blowing agent may be more
expensive per kilogram purchased, but may
result in a foam that can deliver the requiredproperties at lower density. Such a blowing
agent may therefore be more cost effective
than a less expensive alternative, which does
not have the same capability. The improved
cost-effectiveness arises through the fact
that less of the overall chemical formulation is
needed.
If cost effectiveness is a graduated factor, then
some aspects of practicality are absolute in
their nature. For example, a key parameter
in making technology selections is the local
availability of the alternative blowing agent.
Although it may generally be viewed that
an alternative blowing agent is available‘globally’, it is always worth checking the local
distribution network. Long shipment distances
can affect costs but, more importantly, can
jeopardise production continuity if supplies are
subsequently interrupted through lack of local
stocks.
Not only is availability an issue, but packaging
can also be a factor. This may be dictated
by the physical characteristics of the blowing
agent (e.g. boiling point) and also local
legislation. In some instances, local legislation
may limit the amount of the blowing agent that
can be stored in one place.
6.4 Summary Decision TreeIn summary, there are a number of absolute
and relative factors that combine to inuence
technology selection. In some instances,
the process of selection can be iterative.
However, the following Decision Tree is an
attempt to provide some guidance on the
logical prioritisation of issues to be considered
if the maximisation of climate benet is to be
achieved while seeking to be compliant with
the ozone objectives of Decision XIX/6.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 52/109
52
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
TECHNICAL
YES
COST
YES
YES
Is proven technology
available today to phase-out
current ODS usage?
Does this technology
reect the best environmental
option, particularly
for climate?
Is there a cost penalty
associated with the choice
of this technology?
Conrm technology selection
and implement, together with
an assessment of climate
impact arising.
Is a co-funding source
available which can deliver
parallel to the
Multilateral Fund ?
Should it be done
irrespective of cost?
Revert to sub-
optimal climate technology
with prospect of further transition
later. Assess climate impact of
sub-optimal transitions.
Commission further
pilot/demonstration trials to
establish states of
candidate technologies.
Can the project be
delayedpending further
development and the country
still meet ozone obligation?
What would be the preferred
choice for climate and
why is it not being chosen?
Is the cost-eectiveness
of additional carbon savings
attractive when compared with
other climate options?
START
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 53/109
53
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 54/109
54
Section 7.Review of specic factorsinuencing the selection of alternative technologies atapplication level
“Demands on blowing agents
vary substantially by process and
application, so specic information
is essential”
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 55/109
55
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
As noted in the previous Section, there
are a number of key factors that inuence
technology decision choices.
These are:
• Technical Feasibi lity
• Economic Viability
• Safety Aspects
• Environmental Impact
• Cost Effectiveness
• Practicality
Each of these factors will have a component
which is relevant to the technology sector as a
whole (e.g. PU Rigid Foams) and a component
which is relevant to the specic application
area (PU Spray) into which the new blowing
agent technology is being applied. In order to
avoid repetition this Section is structured in
such a way as to distinguish between those
factors that are related to the technology
sector as a whole and those that are specic
to an application. This means that the reader
may need to look into both the sub-Section
and the sub-sub-Section in order to gain a full
picture of the alternative technologies available.
7.1 PU RIGID FOAMS The majority of rigid polyurethane foams are
required for insulating and semi-structural
purposes. The major characteristics required
for these applications are similar, but the
emphasis on each can vary. The following table
illustrates the primary required foam properties
and their relative importance in different
applications
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ease of
Processing
Curing
Time
Insulating
Capability
Mechanical
Strength
Density Ozone
Depletion
Global
Warming
Required Foam Property or Process Characteristic7.1 Application
Domestic Refrigerators/Freezers
Other Appliances
Transport and Reefers
Boardstock
Continuous Panels
Discontinuous Panels
Spray
Blocks
Pipe-in-Pipe
One Component Foams
Section 7.Review of specicfactors inuencing theselection of alternative
technologies atapplication level
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 56/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 57/109
57
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
4. Mechanical Strength. During the lifetime of
a product the foam must remain dimensionally
stable. There is an important correlation
between the dimensional stability of closed
cell foams and the compressive strength. This
is primarily related to the degree of cross-
linking achieved. As the ambient temperature
changes, there are changes in internalpressure within the foam caused by expansion
or contraction of the cell gas. In some
instances, the blowing agent’s condensation
or diffusion out of the cell leads to signicant
pressure differences relative to prevalent
atmospheric conditions. If the foam is to be
dimensionally stable, the compressive strength
must be greater than this pressure difference.
For example, when the foam is cooled, a
pressure difference as large as 1 bar can occur
when the blowing agent gases are completely
condensed (OERTEL, 1994). There is a direct
relationship between the compressive strength
(or, more correctly, the overall mechanical
properties of the foam) and the foam density.
Higher density typically results in greater
compressive strength, but at the same time
higher cost. The foam should also be able to
act as an adhesive to the facing materials with
which it comes in contact (plastic and metal) in
order to form a dimensionally stable composite
structure (adhesion).
5. Foam Density. As mentioned in the above
point, there is a direct relationship between
foam density and the strength foam properties,
particularly the compressive strength and
dimensional stability. The foam density is
usually not uniform throughout the foam
section, whether injected or laminated. It
generally increases from a minimum valuelocated at the centre of the foam to a
maximum gure at the skin. For this reason,
when referring to this property, the type of
density should be specied: Core and Skin
densities, as their names indicate, are the
values obtained at the centre and at the
skin of the section respectively. Meanwhile
Moulded or Average density reects the global
density of the foam (i.e. total weight divided
by volume). In domestic refrigeration,
the moulded density is typically greater by
4 kg/m3 than the core density. When using
HCFC-141b as blowing agent the foam core
density varies from 31 to 33 kg/m3, equivalent
to a moulded density range of 35 – 37 kg/m3. In
other product types, densities can be as high
as 60 kg/m3. However, this reects the role in
which the foam is placed. In general terms,
all manufacturers will seek for cost reasons
to minimise the density required to achieve a
desired performance objective and the blowing
agent choice will be a critical component in
achieving this objective.
Blowing Agent Selection and how
it contributes to Required Foam
Properties As a consequence of the required foam
properties and the items mentioned earlier in
this Section, the key criteria for blowing agent
choice in PU rigid foam applications are asfollows: (DEDECKER, 2002; OERTEL, 1994)
Flammability (the lower the better)
Boiling Point (significance depends on handling equipment)
Solubility in Formulation (the higher the better)
Gas Thermal Conductivity*
Permeability through Cell Wall (the lower the better)**
Gas Thermal Conductivity*
Permeability through Cell Wall (the lower the better)**
Solubility in Cured Matrix (the lower the better)
Boiling Point (the lower the better to improve cell pressure & avoid condensation)
Blowing Efficiency (molecular weight)
GWP
ODP
Relevant Blowing Agent PropertyRequired Property
1. Ease of Processing
2. De-mould time
3. Insulating Performance
4. Mechanical Strength
5. Foam Density
6. Environmental
* In the normal density range (30 – 40 kg/m3) the thermal conductivity of polyurethane rigid foam is primarily determined by the composition of the cell
gas. However, it should be noticed that the cell structure (morphology) also has a strong effect on the thermal conductivity (thermal radiation).
** Permeability is the combination of the gas diffusivity though the cell wall and its solubility in cured matrix
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 58/109
58
Using this analysis of desirable properties as a
guide for the selection of a blowing agent, the
following table provides an assessment of the
various blowing agent groups in the context of
these properties in order to assist technology
selection:
From this table it can be seen that each of the
blowing agent options provides some relevant
qualities in meeting the requirements, some of
them considerably better than the HFC-141b
being replaced. Performance can be further
optimised by blending blowing agents withinand between groups. However, this table
does not reect some of the economic and
investment challenges faced. This aspect is
address in the next section.
Economic Viability and Cost
Effectiveness Criteria As can be seen from the table above
hydrocarbons offer a number of technical
advantages and, with the on-going
optimisation of formulations, now offer few
signicant disadvantages. However, the key
factor inuencing the decision to choose
hydrocarbons is the management of the
ammability issue. Section 5.1 has already
addressed this issue and highlighted the
fact that pre-blended hydrocarbons (i.e.
hydrocarbons pre-blended with polyols
are being evaluated as a possible way of
overcoming the engineering costs associated
with the handling of hydrocarbons. However,
for the purposes of this Section, it is assumedthat the only commercial means available
is to handle neat hydrocarbons at the
manufacturing facility. The following table
illustrates the impact that this has on the
decision process.
It can be seen that the challenge when
using hydrocarbons is to overcome the
investment costs in order to benet from the
attractive operating costs. Whether the useof hydrocarbons is possible or not is critically
linked with the likely annual consumption
of blowing agent, both currently and in the
future. In many plants in developed countries,
the decision is easily made because of the
size and maturity of the markets served. In
essence, the market supports the investment.
For emerging markets in developing countries,
the situation is less certain and a high up-front
investment carries greater risk. In addition,
care needs to be taken to ensure that a tight
operating discipline is established in order to
minimise the risk of accidents. The following
table on costs (WORLD BANK- OORG, 2009)
gives an indication of the incremental capital
cost for a typical foam manufacturing facility
consuming 25-50 tonnes of blowing agent per
annum:
++ + +++ ++/+++ +/++ +++
++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ ++
+++ ++ +++ +++ ++ N/A
++ +/++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ +
+/++ ++ +++ +++ +/++ +
++ ++/+++ +++ +++ ++ ++
++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ +++
++ +++ ++ ++ +++ +++
+ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
+/++ ++/+++ + ++/+++ +++ ++/+++
HCFC-141b Hydrocarbons SaturatedHFCs
UnsaturatedHFCs (HFOs)
Methyl Formate CO2 (water)
Rating of Blowing Agent Types by Criterion
Flammability
Blowing Agent Criterion
Boiling Point (Processing)
Solubility in Formulation
Gas Thermal Conductivity
Permeability through Cell
Insolubility in cured matrix
Boiling Point
Blowing Efciency
Ozone Depletion Potential
Global Warming Potential
+++= Good ++= Fair += Poor
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 59/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 60/109
60
The pentane storage tank is major element
(30 - 40%) of the costs and, in certain
circumstances, could be replaced by thepentane transport container. The second
largest elements are the pre-blending stations
and all the safety related components. So
far, formulations containing pre-blended
pentane have not been supplied but two
pilot projects have been proposed under the
Multilateral Fund (MLF) scheme to investigate
the feasibility/safety of such an operation.
The above costs assume that the enterprises
already have high pressure metering units.
If this is not the case, then high pressure-
metering units costing up to US$150,000 to
250,000 each would be required.
A point to consider is a potential increment in
the operation costs. Pentanes for the foaming
industry are not locally produced in many
developing countries and transportation costs
may be expensive. In additional to the local
cost difference of the blowing agents, the
following items deserve further consideration:
• The higher blowing efciency of pentanes
due to their lower molecular weight. In
economic terms the benet of this feature
depends on the relative local cost of the
other polyurethane raw materials compared
to HCFC-141b. If the PU raw materials aremore expensive, an incremental operating
cost will exist.
• The need to increase the foam density to
meet the dimensional stability requirements.
• More expensive polyols than those
normally used with HCFC-141b may be
required to match the foam insulating
performance. In some specic cases a 3%
increase in the local cost of the formulated
polyol has been anticipated.
There may be additional expenditure to cover
the provision of nitrogen for the blanketing of
storage tanks and other tanks and pipes. The
cost will depend on the level of facilities already
installed (WORLD BANK – OORG, 2009).
As indicated by the comparative table earlier in
this sub-Section, other blowing agent optionsdo not present the same investment cost
challenge even though they may be ammable
to a lower degree in some instances (as was
HCFC-141b). The uptake of each of these
therefore hinges on issues of the cost of the
blowing agent itself, the impact of this cost
on overall formulation cost and, nally, on
availability.
Apart from their high global warming
potentials, saturated HFCs are relatively costly
and would not typically be sustainable if it were
not for the fact that they can be successfully
co-blown with CO2 (water). For this reasonthey do represent a genuine option the rigid
polyurethane foam market, although care
must be taken about availability. This may
vary by region, but also by the specic HFC in
question. It may be that the liquid HFCs(HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc) are harder to
obtain locally because they have no parallel
use in the refrigeration sector, unlike HFC-134a
and HFC-227ea and HFC-152a.
For reasons of commercialisation and
availability, it is unlikely that unsaturated
HFCs (HFOs) will play a signicant role in the
replacement of HCFCs in developing countries
in the rigid polyurethane foam sector. However,
other emerging technologies such as methyl
formate and methylal may have a signicant
role to play over the same time-scale. The
following table illustrates the sectors in whichthese technologies have been (or will be)
evaluated under the Pilot Project activities
targeted at this sector:
Local costs for these emerging alternatives
are still being established, although both
blowing agents are expected to be relatively
competitively priced once available.
Pilot Project Scope for Methyl Formate and Methylal
Application Area Methyl Formate Methylal
Domestic Refrigerators/Freezers
Other Appliances
Transport and Reefers
Boardstock
Continuous Panels
Discontinuous Panels
Spray
Blocks
Pipe-in-Pipe
One Component Foams
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 61/109
61
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
7.1.1 PU RIGID – Domestic
Refrigerators and Freezers
Refrigerators and refrigerators/freezers are
built by joining an outer case, normally painted
metal, and an inner plastic case which is
typically vacuum drawn from high impact
polystyrene (HIPS) or acrylonitrile-butadiene-
styrene (ABS). The void between the two
cases is then lled with rigid polyurethane
foam to create an integrated cabinet which
delivers the necessary insulation to maintain
the temperature differential at least energy
consumption (DESCHAGT, 2002). The
refrigerator door is built in the same way from
an inner thermoplastic sheet and a painted
metal outer sheet, with the space between
the two sheets also lled with rigid
polyurethane foam.
Historical trends in actual Blowing
Agent selection The diagram below illustrates the historic
transitional strategies that have been
undertaken in the domestic refrigeration
sector. It depicts the fact that the technology
transition has taken two separate and parallel
paths depending on the local/regional
attitude towards the use of hydrocarbons. As is evidenced from the table in Section
7.1, the ammability of hydrocarbons is
their key weakness. However, some major
appliance manufacturers identied relatively
early in their research of alternatives that
the ammability issue could be managed
with appropriate equipment selection and
engineering safeguards. For others, particularly
in North America, either the challenge of
investment or local safety regulations meant
that the hydrocarbon option was viewed as
unmanageable, leading to the transitions to
HCFC-141b and onwards into saturated HFCs(particularly HFC-245fa).
50% reduced
CFC11
HCFC 141b
HFC245fa
c-pentane
Cyclo/iso-
pentane
c-pentane/
Other
HFC134a
CFC11
Source: Huntsman
Carrousel type line for cabinets foam injection in domestic refrigeration
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 62/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 63/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 64/109
64
Commercial Rerigerators (including
Vending Machines & Display
Cabinets)
These are typically much larger than domestic
units and include open top display units. For
vending machines, included in this category,
there have been requirements for zero ODP
and low GWP blowing agents from large
manufacturers of soft drinks (Coca-Cola,
Pepsi, etc.).
Basic performance requirements are the same
than those for domestic refrigerators, but the
additional space availability often associated
with these units, means that there are more
degrees of freedom in meeting the thermal and
processing requirements. Notwithstanding this,
ow requirements can be more demanding
because of the increased size of the cabinets.
In any event, the delivery of the required
mechanical strength at lowest possible density
remains the challenge for most systems.
Since many of the manufacturers in this
sector are small/medium enterprises, the
foam components are often supplied as fully
formulated polyols ready for further reaction
with the isocyanate.
Historical trends in actual Blowing
Agent selection As with water heaters, this sector favoured
HCFC-141b as its rst technology transitionout of CFCs in the absence of experience with
hydrocarbons. However, as the sector has
approached the second technology transition
in developed countries, hydrocarbons have
ranked higher amongst the options, having in
mind the demand for lower GWP substances.
Accordingly, cyclo-pentane alone or preferably
blended with iso-pentane is now the blowing
agent of choice for large enterprises. Especially
in this application, when capital investment isaffordable the cyclo/isopentane blend provides
a good balance between foam properties and
density.
When addressing the HCFC conversion,
one of the questions frequently asked is the
minimum size (HCFC consumption) that an
enterprise should have to develop a cost
effective hydrocarbon-based project.
The “rule of thumb” that was used during
the CFC-11 phase out to guide decisions in
project preparation was 50 tonnes per annum.
Current conversion cost for a small
manufacturer (consumption of 30 to 50tonnes of HCFC-141b), including one high
pressure dispenser with two mix heads, is in
the range of US $ 450,000 to 550,000. At
this consumption level a storage underground
tank for pentane is not necessary and the
operation can handle with 200 – 250 kg
drums. However, a pentane storage area
having a polyol/pentane premix station should
be conditioned in agreement with safety
standards. An enterprise should analyze the
balance between the relatively high capital
investment cost required for hydrocarbons
and the long term sustainability (low operating
costs, low GWP) of the option.
For small/ medium manufacturers the other
low GWP options are:
• CO2
(water): Although high foam densities
are required to meet the dimensional stability
requirements.
• Methyl Formate: There are some commercial
refrigerators manufacturers that are using or
have used this substance as blowing agent.
They report a 10 % increase in operating costs
arising from the need for higher densities to
combat foam instability.
Where high GWP compounds are a possibility,
HFC-245fa or HFC-365mfc/HFC-227ea can
be blended with high amounts of water for
co-blowing present as described for water
heaters. However, operating costs can be
higher under such circumstances and, as
noted earlier, some major outlets may object tothe supply of units containing saturated HFCs.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 65/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 66/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 67/109
67
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
7.1.4 PU RIGID – BoardstockContinuous processes for rigid polyurethane
foams have been mostly limited to developed
countries, where the size and maturity of
the markets has supported the investment.
In North America, a high proportion of the
demand for PU Boardstock (often referred toin the United States as “polyiso”) comes from
the residential sheathing market, where the
product competes with extruded polystyrene
and mineral wool. In Europe, the use is
focused much more on the commercial and
industrial buildings sector, although recent
increases in energy standards in the residential
sector have improved its competitive position
with respect to mineral wool.
In developing countries, continuous laminators
are rare with only Turkey and Mexico known
to have signicant investments. However,
this situation is expected to change rapidlyas attention is focused globally on the need
for greater energy efciency in buildings in
order to combat climate change. The growth
in construction has already stimulated rapid
growth of the extruded polystyrene market in
China and the development of a signicant
polyurethane boardstock industry in China is
expected to follow close behind.
Historical trends in actual Blowing
Agent selection As with most other sectors based on rigid
polyurethane foam, the blowing agent of choice for the period up to the early 1990s was
CFC-11. Under pressure to make the transition
from CFCs, most of the industry initially went
to HCFC-141b, with the exception of a few
manufacturers in the European Union. German
manufacturers, in particular, were encouraged
by pending regulatory pressures to move
directly to hydrocarbons and managed to
make the transition directly.
The cost-effectiveness of the hydrocarbon
solution spurred others to investigate it, and
where the product’s re classication was
not impaired, further transitions took place.
However, the primary shift to hydrocarbons
came in the 2003-2004 period when the
North American “polyiso” industry, facing a
ban on the further use of HCFC-141b in 2005,
decided to move to hydrocarbons rather
than to saturated HFCs, which were its other
choice.
Only very few developed country
manufacturers have made the transition to
saturated HFCs and this has been primarily
where product re requirements have
necessitated this transition and the cost
burden can be absorbed.
The few developing country activities are either
using HCFC-141b or HCFC-22 currently.
Retrot to hydrocarbons would require
signicant further investment and it may be
easier for new capacity to be installed based
on hydrocarbon from the outset in view of the
likely growth in demand for this product type in
coming years.
Concluding remarks
The PU Boardstock industry is heavily
focused in developed countries at present,
but substantial growth is expected to
occur in developing countries as the focus
increases on the insulation of buildings
globally. The growth of construction in
places such as China means that increased
levels of insulation are essential. In this
context, there will be few, if any, PU
laminators meeting the cut-off date fortransitional investment under Decision
XIX/6, but it will be important for new
investments to be guided to the most
environmentally sound technologies, in
view of their future signicance.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 68/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 69/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 70/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 71/109
71
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
Generally polyurethane technology is used,
but for some specic re or temperature
requirements polyisocyanurate (PIR) is applied.
Good adhesion between the substrate and
the sprayed foam is extremely important so
all substrates should be clean, dry and free
of grease, oil, loose material or dust. Thefoam needs to be highly reactive, especially
for adhering to vertical surfaces. Typical core
densities are in the range of 35 to 40 kg/
m3 for roofs. Additional foam requirements
are: high resilience, low moisture absorption
and transmission; good thermal properties;
sufcient re performance to meet relevant
building codes; application capability in a
variety of climatic conditions; and ease of use
(FTOC, 2006).
The use of PU Spray Foam is at its most
prevalent in North America, Spain and Japan.
All three regions have therefore already facedthe challenge of HCFC-141b phase-out. Early
experiments with hydrocarbon technologies
in the United States resulted in incidents
which conrmed that the ammability of
hydrocarbons was unmanageable in this
application. Attempts to overcome this set-
back with changes in practice have failed to
deliver and interest in the use of hydrocarbons
has waned.
In Japan, super-critical CO2
technology has
been introduced and made some headway,
although levels of market penetration,
whilst signicant, suggest that there maybelimitations in some applications. Nonetheless,
the technology has now become the focus of a
possible UNDP pilot-project which might shed
more light on the potential.
As noted earlier, CO2
(water) provides an
option for less critical applications, but the
system must be well formulated to prevent
shrinkage and to promote good adhesion.
Apart from the saturated HFCs which are now
well established, there is initial evidence to
suggest that unsaturated-HFCs could have a
signicant role to play in the future of PU Spray
Foam worldwide. A recent study (BOGDAN,
2009) that covered the diversity of the polyol
blends found in the industry indicated that
spray foams blown with unsaturated HFCs
of low GWP were equivalent or better quality
compared to current HFC-245fa based foamsand that they can be processed in existing
commercial equipment.
There is also the possibility that methyl formate
could have a role to play, but it is not yet clear
whether the ammability of methyl formate
will be sufciently low to meet the safety
requirements of the application. Although PU
Spray was included in the recent UNDP pilot
project on methyl formate, results are still
awaited on the foams produced. In addition, it
is not yet clear how the processing boundaries
were evaluated.
For super-critical CO2, the technology relies on
direct CO2
injection to the polyol component.
With a minor modication to conventional
spray machines (Gusmer FF type with a
1:1 mixing ratio by volume) supercritical
CO2
assisted water blown foams with good
dimensional stability and a comparable
density to HCFC-141b blown systems are
produced. Liquid CO2
cooled to 0 °C with a
heat exchanger is supplied to the Gusmer
type auxiliary pump which is remodelled so
that brine can circulate internally and the CO2
injected to the polyol component. The unitary
cost to modify conventional Gusmer typeequipment is estimated to be US $ 14,000.
Foams with either normal rigid polyurethane
(PUR) or polyisocyanurate (PIR) for applications
requiring ame-retardant systems can be
provided. Despite its signicant penetration in
the Japan spray foam market it is still not clear
how widely applicable this technology may be
outside of the country.
Historical trends in actual Blowing
Agent selectionOriginally, the technology used throughout
the world was based on CFC-11. At the point
where CFC-11 was phased-out, HCFC-141b
became the obvious replacement and few
others were evaluated. Only at the point of
HCFC-141b phase-out, were hydrocarbons
and saturated HFCs seriously evaluated.
In the United States, there was also some
intermediate evaluation of HCFC-22 in view of
the fact that the phase-out date for HCFC-22
was later and the most appropriate saturated
HFCs (notably HFC-245fa) were only just
becoming available.
A proportion of the PU Spray Foam market in
all three territories (North America, Spain and
Japan) moved to CO2(water) blown foam, but
this was not seen to be a universal solution.
The choice of saturated HFC depended to an
extent on availability, which itself was driven
by the patent cover in each region. This led to
only HFC-245fa being used in North America
while, in Europe, both HFC-245fa and HFC-
365mfc/227ea have been used successfully.
In Japan, where pressure to avoid saturated
HFCs has been greater, the balance of the
market has been shared between HFC-245fa
and super-critical CO2.
The rapid growth of the PU Spray market in
China over recent years based on HCFC-141b
has created an urgent need to evaluate the
best alternatives for this region – particularly
because of the ‘worst-rst’ presumption in
Decision XIX/6.
Concluding remarks
This is another sector where the prevailing
technology in use in developed countries
is unlikely to provide a full solution for
Article 5 country transitions. The emerging
technologies include super-critical CO2,
methyl formate and unsaturated HFCs, but
it is still unclear which of these will best
meet developing country needs.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 72/109
72
7.1.8 PU RIGID – BlocksPU rigid foam blocks (called ‘buns’ in the
United States) can be produced by either
continuous or discontinuous processes. The
purpose of producing foams in this form is to
create the largest level of utility from a single
manufacturing source. This makes PU Blockmanufacture particularly popular in small
and emerging markets. Blocks can be cut
into slabs in order to allow the production of
composite panels with metal or plasterboard
surfaces. They can also be cut into foamed
pipe sections using computer-controlled
specialist cutting equipment. This type of
approach becomes even more powerful for the
fabrication of three dimensional shaped for the
insulation of tanks and vessels.
However, the penalty paid for the versatility
offered by block foam technologies is in
the utilisation of the foam itself. Even forwell designed computer-controlled cutting
equipment it is difcult to get above 55%
yields for foam utilisation. This leads to
considerable waste streams and a requirement
for appropriate waste management strategies
– particularly if the blowing agent selection
involves gases that are either ozone depleting
or contribute signicantly to climate change.
The situation is slightly less severe for
continuous processes than for discontinuous
processes, but the waste issue remains a
signicant one for all fabricated parts.
Historical trends in actual Blowing
Agent selection The often small-scale nature of PU Block
Foam plants has meant that polyurethane
systems have needed to be both versatile
and tolerant. Most, if not all, PU Block Foam
facilities therefore used CFC-11 until, at least,
the early 1990s when HCFC-141b began to
emerge as a vi rtual drop-in replacement. For
the manufacture of blocks, the rise/cure prole
is critical and this relates directly back to the
boiling point of the blowing agent. If the cure
is too slow it leads to block collapse, but if
the curing on-set is too early it leads to highly
distorted cell structures.
Hydrocarbons (particularly n-pentane) also
meet these requirements but the concern has
always been the management of accumulation
of pockets of blowing agent within the
manufacturing facilities. Flame proong and
adequate ventilation are both required to
avoid these risks and the level of investment
is typically too great for this type of process
– particularly in the case of discontinuous
production.
Transitions from HCFCs in developed countries
have tended to follow the saturated HFC
option, with HFC-365mfc/227ea blends being
used in Europe (primarily because of their
boiling points) and HFC-245fa tending to be
used in North America, where experience with
froth foaming technology is more advanced
than elsewhere.
Concluding remarks
This type of process has particular use in
Low Volume Consuming (LVC) countries
because of its relatively low investment
cost and its versatility in meeting a number
of foam end-uses. The most likely solution
for the HCFC-141b phase-out could be pre-
blended hydrocarbons (avoiding the needto mix on site) or methyl formate. However,
in both cases, the ammability risks need
to be fully characterised in order to dene
the minimum investments required (if any)
for adequate risk management.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 73/109
73
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
7.1.9 PU RIGID – Pipe-in-Pipe The deployment of this technology has
grown rapidly in the last 25 years based on
the increased trends towards district heating
systems. These systems were already well
established in former Eastern Bloc countries,
but have been promoted further by recognitionthat small-scale, localised combined heat
and power (CHP) facilities are an important
component of future decentralised energy
generation strategies to combat climate
change.
The technology involves the in-situ foaming
of polyurethane insulation foam between a
steel pipe and outer casing which may be
high density polyethylene pipe or other similar
product. There are a number of continuous
and discontinuous processing methods
including casting, injecting with a withdrawing
mixing head (see rst illustration) and formingthe external jacket in a continuous process
(see second illustration).
The drawbacks of this method include the
difculty in manufacturing long pipe sections
and ensuring that the quality of the foam is
consistent throughout. Similar issues exist for
a variant of this process called the paper draw-
through method.
For continuous processes the method is as
shown below:
In this instance the key to the success of the
process is in ensuring that the external pipecovering provides an integral seal. This is
important since many such pipes are installed
underground and need to be particularly
immune to water ingress.
Additional challenges for continuous processes
include the fact that changes in pipework and
insulation diameters can involve long set-up
times. There is also a need for sophisticated
process control.
Historical trends in actual Blowing Agent selection As with many other complex processes,
the technology was simplied by the original
adoption of the most versatile of blowing
agents, CFC-11. In transitioning from
CFC-11, a signicant part of the industry
went to HCFC-141b in order to optimise
thermal performance. However, a number of
European manufacturers also focused on the
further development of hydrocarbon systems
based on n-pentane and/or cyclo-pentane.
These have since been optimised and are
now perceived as broadly state-of-the-art.
Other users of HCFCs in developed countries
have transitioned to saturated HFCs, such as
HCFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc/227ea.
Concluding remarks
The future technology options for
pipe-in-pipe polyurethane foams in
developing countries seem to be based
on the capability to achieve appropriate
transfer of hydrocarbon technologies.
There are very few intrinsic drawbacks
with the hydrocarbon choice since the
manufacturing processes are relatively
sophisticated and engineering solutionscan be managed. For the products
themselves, they are largely underground
and represent little intrinsic hazard. In
addition, there is little penalty in insulation
thicknesses with the most recent,
optimised hydrocarbon technologies.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 74/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 75/109
75
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ease of
Processing
Skin
Formation
Resilience Mechanical
Strength
Hardness Ozone
Depletion
Global
Warming
Application
PU Integral Skin Foams
PU Shoe Soles
7.2 PU FLEXIBLE FOAMS At the time of the CFC phase-out in the late
1980s and early 1990s, this sector represented
a substantial element of the ODS consumption
in the foam sector, even though the chemicals
were only used as an auxiliary blowing agent.
Their prime purpose was to bring an extraboost to the CO
2(water) already present and
allow lighter and softer foams to be produced.
This was (and is) of particular importance in the
bedding and furniture sectors, which are the
largest segments of the exible polyurethane
foam market.
Being close to the consumer interface and
needing a relatively rapid phase-out strategy,
the bulk of the exible foam industry did
not wait for the development of a technical
replacement for CFCs (i.e. HCFCs) but elected
instead to invest in existing technologies, such
as the use of methylene chloride, despite thefact that health concerns had been expressed
in some quarters. The two major sectors that
decided not to take such a route were the
exible integral skin applications (e.g. car dash
boards) and the shoe sole sector, both of
which had (and still have) relatively challenging
specications. In both of these instances,
HCFC-141b and, to a lesser extent, HCFC-22
became the blowing agents of choice.
Critical Foam Processing and
Product PropertiesBoth applications require three primary
characteristics. These are hardness, resilience
and skin formation. Moulded polyurethane
foams with integral skins provide the precise
combination of characteristics to deliver these
properties and have therefore increasingly
dominated the market for both. Within car
interiors, the use of integral skin polyurethane
foam has extended as far as the steering
wheel, where the technical specications are at
their highest.
The following table illustrates the primary
technical requirements of PU integral skin foam
systems:
Required Foam Property or Process Characteristic
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 76/109
76
In general, the specications for automotive
applications are more stringent than for other
applications in view of the safety implications
associated with these uses. This is reected in
the requirements shown in the table.
1. Ease of processing. Virtually all of the
products manufactured in this sector are
moulded. The processing characteristics that
are most signicant therefore relate to the ow
of the polyurethane system through the mould,
and its consistency of rise and cure. A further
property of importance is mould-release.
All of these parameters are fundamentally
a combination of the polyurethane system,
the mould design and mould operation. It is
therefore difcult to point to a universal foam
formulation that delivers optimum properties in
all integral skin foam applications.
2. Skin Formation. This is an absolutely
critical characteristic both from the point of
view of aesthetics and longevity of service.
Imperfections in the surface nish can lead to
further accidental damage, since the integrity
of the surface can be breached more easily. As
is shown later in this sub-Section, the choice of
blowing agent can have a substantial inuence
on the quality of skin formation.
3. Resilience. In softer foams, the
characteristic would be known as visco-
elasticity. It is fundamentally, the ability to
regain its original shape following impact.
In most integral skin applications, where
densities are higher, the process is virtually
instantaneous and the foam is described
as resilient. This property is dependent on
a balance between polyurethane system
formulation and foam density. These can
be varied to a degree, but automotive
manufacturers understandably seek the
required resilience at minimum density in order
to save weight in their vehicles.
4. Mechanical Strength. Again, mechanical
strength in the foams is broadly a function of
density. It is important that the foams are able
to provide sufcient structural integrity to meet
their requirements. For automotive fascias, for
example, the foam can be used to encompass
glove compartments and other such features.
It is therefore important that factors such as
tear strength, elongation, tensile strength and
compression are all sufcient to meet the
application requirements.
5. Hardness. This is a characteristic that is
measured across many plastics and rubbers
and is effectively assessing the resistance to
indentation. There are a number of routine test
regimes, amongst which Shore and Rockwell
are the most well known. The avoidance of
skin penetration is critical for both automotive
and shoe sole applications in order that the
products concerned can have a level of
longevity.
Although signicantly inter-related, these
properties collectively represent an expression
of what needs to be achieved by a successful
polyurethane foam system. The impact that
blowing agent selection can have on these
characteristics is the subject of the next sub-
Section.
Blowing Agent Selection and how
it contributes to Required Foam
Properties The following table provides an overview of
the interaction of blowing agent selection with
desired foam properties:
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 77/109
77
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
Flammability (the lower the better)
Boiling Point (significance depends on handling equipment)
Solubility in Formulation (the higher the better)
Boiling Point (blowing agent to condense at surface under temp./pressure)
Solubility in Formulation
Broadly independent of blowing agent choice, if processing OK
Broadly independent of blowing agent choice, if processing OK
Broadly independent of blowing agent choice, if processing OK
GWP
ODP
Relevant Blowing Agent PropertyRequired Property
1. Ease of Processing
2. Skin Formation
3. Resilience
4. Mechanical Strength
5. Hardness
6. Environmental
It can be seen that the primary interaction
between blowing agent choice and foam
properties occurs on the issue of skin
formation and, indeed this has been the
experience in practice – particularly in the more
demanding applications of the automotive
sector. The following table illustrates the HCFC
alternatives available and their strengths and
weaknesses.
++ + +++ ++/+++ +/++ +++
++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ ++
+++ ++ +++ +++ ++ N/A
++ ++/++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ +
+++ ++ +++ +++ ++ +
+ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
+/++ ++/+++ + ++/+++ +++ ++/+++
HCFC-141b Hydrocarbons Saturated
HFCs
Unsaturated
HFCs (HFOs)
Methyl Formate CO2
(water)
Flammability
Blowing Agent Criterion
Boiling Point (Processing)
Solubility in Formulation
Boiling Point (Skin Form)
Solubility in Formulation
Ozone Depletion Potential
Global Warming Potential
+++= Good ++= Fair += Poor
Rating of Blowing Agent Types by Criterion
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 78/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 79/109
79
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
7.2.1 PU FLEXIBLE – Integral Skin
(Automotive)Historical trends in actual Blowing Agent
selection
As with many other polyurethane foam
processes, this application was based almostexclusively on CFC-11 until the onset of
the ozone depletion. Perhaps more than
others, however, it is a set of applications
that has grown in stature and become part of
mainstream product design during a period
when it has been managing technology
transitions. This has been particularly the case
for the automotive sector, where the use of
PU foams in automotive interiors has grown
signicantly through the period.
In order to create minimum disturbance to
the achievement of challenging specications,
the industry initially moved to HCFC-141b.However, in view of the global nature of
the automotive industry and the advanced
schedule for HCFC phase-out in developed
countries, there was a need for a further
response by the industry as early as the
year 2000. This was coupled with consumer
pressure for ODS-free products.
The choices for the substitution of HCFCs
in this sector have already been described
and it is clear that solutions based on
HFCs (e.g. HFC-134a, HFC-245fa and
HFC-365mfc), which have been used in a
number of developed countries might now
be less favoured because of pressure fromregional climate policy. This may play into the
hands of alternatives such as methyl formate,
provided that any ammability characteristics
can be contained more cost-effectively than
traditional hydrocarbons. The Pilot Project in
Brazil/Mexico has already gained recognition in
the fact that products manufactured appear to
meet the specications set by Volkswagen.
Concluding remarks
With the exception of skin formation, the
impact of blowing agent selection on nal
foam properties is limited. However, there
is a minimum set of requirements that the
blowing agent needs to meet in order to
assist in the satisfactory processing of
integral skin foams. The processing and
product demands are at their highest in the
automotive sector, where the specications
are very exacting. Alternative blowing
agents are available for HCFCs and a
number of these could deliver appropriate
climate benets.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 80/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 81/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 82/109
82
Against these criteria, the eligible blowing
agents for phenolic foams can be assessed as
follows
As can be seen, the blowing agent choices
for phenolic foam are similar, but not identical,
to those available for polyurethane foams.Notable absentees are CO
2(water), since
the isocyanate reaction is not an option, and
methyl formate – which remains untried with
this chemistry.
In the early stages of transition, it was
believed that the selection of hydrocarbons
as alternative blowing agents would be
substantially detrimental to the re properties
of phenolic foam. However, in practice, as is
described in the following sub-sections, the
phenolic matrix has been demonstrated to be
sufciently robust to counter any signicant
impact from the presence of hydrocarbons.
This has meant that hydrocarbons have
emerged as a major alternative for the sector inrecent years.
Economic Viability and Cost
Effectiveness CriteriaPicking up on this trend towards
hydrocarbons, the investment to manage the
ammability issue is similar to that for rigid
polyurethane foams. Accordingly, the following
table provides an assessment of the economic
viability and cost effectiveness of alternatives:
As with other foam types, the capital
investment for hydrocarbons is the main
barrier, while benets are gained in on-goingoperating costs. However, the reverse is the
case for saturated HFCs and this is likely to
extend to unsaturated HFCs as well.
++ ++ + +++ ++/+++
++ +++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++
++ ++ ++ +++ ++/+++
++ ++ +/++ ++/+++ ++/+++
+ ++ +++ +++ +++
+/++ ++ ++ +++ +++
+/++ ++/+++ ++/+++ + ++/+++
++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++
++ ++ +++ + ++/+++
HCFC-141b 2-chloropropane
Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons Saturated
HFCs
Unsaturated HFCs
(HFOs)
Flammability
Blowing Agent Criterion
Boiling Point (Processing)
Emulsion Formation
Gas Thermal Conductivity
Ozone Depletion Potential
Permeability through Cell
Global Warming Potential
Boiling Point
Blowing Efciency
+++= Good ++= Fair += Poor
+ ++ +++ + +
++ ++ + ++/+++ +++
++ ++ ++ +/++ +
++ ++ ++/+++ +++ ++
HCFC-141b 2-chloropropane
Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons Saturated
HFCs
Unsaturated HFCs
(HFOs)
Investment Costs
Blowing Agent Criterion
Operating Costs
Widespread Availability
Potential to blend
+++= High ++= Medium += Low
Rating of Blowing Agent Types by Criterion
Economic viability and cost effectiveness criteria
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 83/109
83
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
7.3.1 PHENOLIC – Boardstock As noted in the introductory paragraphs
of Section 7.3, the growth of the phenolic
boardstock sector has been thwarted to
an extent by technology issues in the North
American market. However, the European
market, and most notably the markets in theUnited Kingdom and Benelux have been able
to press ahead with the commercialisation
of technologies into this sector. The intrinsic
re, smoke and toxicity performance of the
products coupled with their high degree of
thermal performance has made them highly
competitive with other forms of boardstock
product in the marketplace. Market penetration
has been assisted by the uctuations in cost of
various polyurethane raw materials and, more
latterly, by the rapid growth in demand for
boardstock products in general, as the thermal
requirements in xed-dimension cavity wallshave increased.
This said, the geographic spread of phenolic
boardstock production and use remains
limited – partly because of the availability of
technology and partly because of the precise
processing parameters associated with these
technologies. There are some less onerous
technology options available, but these have
not tended to meet the product performance
required to make signicant market in-roads.
Historical trends in actual Blowing
Agent selection The traditional blowing agent for phenolic
boardstock was CFC-11, although this was
rapidly superseded by HCFC-141b. The use of
HCFC-141b presented a particular challenge
for the phenolic emulsion chemistry because of
its solubility and the major technology holders
found it necessary to modify the blowing agent
with additives to make it less soluble in the
foam mix.
In the transition that took place from HCFC-
141b in Europe, it became self-evident that
the phenolic product itself was sufciently
robust in its re performance to accommodate
hydrocarbon blowing agents for the bulk of
end-uses. Therefore, the bulk of continuous
processes are now based on n-pentane,
either on its own or in blends with other
hydrocarbons. One technology in Europe
had moved directly from CFC-11 to 2-chloro-
propane and continues to use this blowing
agent as the basis for its product range.
There is limited use for saturated HFCs in
these continuous processes, since thermal
performance based on optimised hydrocarbon
formulations is seen as sufcient for most
end-uses.
Concluding remarks
Although it is not yet clear how the
emergence of unsaturated HFCs might
affect the blowing agent choices for
future phenolic boardstock formulations,
the overall performance of the various
hydrocarbon-based technologies make it
unlikely that there will be further technology
transitions in the short term.
There has been little, if any, implementation
of phenolic foam boardstock facilities in
developing countries to date, so any future
investment is likely to be based completely
on technology transfer from Europe or
elsewhere.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 84/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 85/109
85
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ease of
Processing
Moisture
Resistance
Insulating
Capability
Mechanical
Strength
Density Ozone
Depletion
Global
Warming
Required Foam Property or Process Characteristic Application
XPS – Board (Construction)
Polyolen - Board (Other)
XPS – Board (Other)
7.4 THERMOPLASTIC FOAMS As noted in Section 4.1, extruded
thermoplastic foams are the only ones
that have historically used ozone depleting
substances. In the case of extruded
polystyrene, products fall into two categories:
‘board’ and ‘sheet’, with ‘board’ beingused for a variety of insulation, buoyancy
and recreational activities, while ‘sheet’
has been focused on food and other
packaging. Polyolen (both polyethylene and
polypropylene) foams have also found uses
in these sectors, but the use of polyolen
foams in insulating applications has been more
limited.
Equipment for the manufacture of extruded
thermoplastic products varies substantially
by region and application. In North America,
where the primary requirement for extruded
polystyrene is insulating sheathing boardsfor the residential construction market,
the manufacturing lines tend to be long,
for optimum speed and also capable of
producing wide boards (typically 1.2 metres) at
thicknesses down to 25mm. This requirement
necessitates a substantial engineering solution
and makes the transfer from one blowing
agent to another very challenging.
In Europe, the requirements are more
modest, with many lines generating product
at a maximum of 0.6 metres in width and
at greater thicknesses – often driven by the
higher thermal insulation requirements of the
commercial building sector. In South East
Asia (most notably China), where the demandfor extruded polystyrene foam is growing
at its fastest, the technical and processing
requirements are still more limited. In many
cases, the polystyrene being used for extrusion
has a high recycled content, making it less
easy to process. Products generated in
this scenario tend to be lower grade than in
North America and Europe and are typically
processed on 0.6 metre lines.
Critical Foam Processing and
Product PropertiesExtruded thermoplastic foams provide some
signicant properties not available with rigid
polyurethane foams. These include an extra
measure of resilience and excellent moisture
resistance. This makes them particularly suited
for oor insulation in construction applications.
The table below highlights these foam
properties and reects also the demanding
nature of manufacture for the construction
industry in some regions.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 86/109
86
1. Ease of processing. Since the industry is
working with thermoplastic raw materials,
processing characteristics such as polymer
melt temperature and melt viscosity becomecritically important. These characteristics
depend signicantly on the quality and
consistency of the raw materials, making the
use of post-consumer recycled materials, as
practiced in China, particularly challenging. The
blowing agent can have in impact of properties
such as melt viscosity, since they can often
plasticise the mix. The compatibility of the
blowing agent can also inuence its solubility
and, in particular the pressure at which the
matrix degasses and the foam expands.
2. Moisture Resistance. This is typically a
characteristic of the polymer itself and can bemaintained in foam products provided that the
cell structure is of a high quality. This usually
means that the density cannot be driven too
low or inferior sources of raw materials used.
The process needs to remain consistent
throughout.
3. Insulating Capability. Again, high quality
cell structure is a pre-requisite to deliver
closed cells which can retain the blowing
agents. However, thermoplastic materials are
also more susceptible to diffusion through
the cell walls. Considerable study has beenconducted on the relative diffusion rates of
popular blowing agents and these have been
reported in a number of publications (e.g. Vo
and Pacquet, 2004).
4. Mechanical Strength. Extruded
thermoplastic foams are generally renowned
for their strength-to-weight ratio and their
resilience, since the action of the extruder
is to provide a ‘skinned’ product which
provides a degree of extra protection. For
ooring applications in the construction sector,
particular care needs to be taken in ensuring
that foam quality is high enough to provide thedesired strength at minimum density.
5. Foam Density. Typical foam densities for
thermoplastic foams range from 25-35 kg/m3.
The previously listed properties tend to improve
with density within this range. Therefore,
the skill of the manufacturer is to tailor the
manufactured density to the minimum required
to meet the requirements of the application.
The more consistent the raw materials and
process conditions are, the more condent the
manufacturer can be and the less margin for
variability needs to be applied.
Blowing Agent Selection and how
it contributes to Required Foam
PropertiesMost thermoplastic foams still depending
on HCFCs have used a combination of
HCFC-142b and HCFC-22. The proportions
of each have varied considerably depending
on the application and, in some instances,
each blowing agent has been used in isolation.
This will be discussed further in Section 7.4.1.
The inter-relationship between foam property/
processing characteristic and blowing agent isshown in the following table:
Flammability (the lower the better)
Boiling Point (significance depends on handling equipment)
Solubility in Formulation (the higher the better)
Broadly independent of blowing agent choice, if processing OK
Gas Thermal Conductivity*
Permeability through Cell Wall (the lower the better)**
Broadly independent of blowing agent choice, if processing OK
Blowing Efficiency (molecular weight)
GWP
ODP
Relevant Blowing Agent PropertyRequired Property
1. Ease of Processing
2. Moisture Resistance
3. Insulating Performance
4. Mechanical Strength
5. Foam Density
6. Environmental
* In the normal density range (25 – 35 kg/m3) the thermal conductivity of thermoplastic foams is primarily determined by the composition of the cell
gas. However, it should be noticed that the cell structure (morphology) also has a strong effect on the thermal conductivity (thermal radiation).
** Permeability is the combination of the gas diffusivity though the cell wall and its solubility in cured matrix
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 87/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 88/109
88
It can be seen here that unsaturated HFCs
have the potential to provide the best all-
round solution from a purely technical and
environmental perspective. Hydrocarbons also
offer a signicant solution provided that the
ammability issues can be managed at both
product and process level. The extruded foamindustry has had signicant experience of
managing hydrocarbons in the ‘sheet’ sector
which tended to bypass HCFCs and move
straight to hydrocarbons when phasing out of
CFCs. However, the experience of res was
common-place and led some to conclude
that this was not really a sustainable solution.
Nevertheless, few ‘sheet’ manufacturers have
stepped back from their choice and have
presumably found coping strategies.
There is an additional challenge for ‘board’
products, however. ‘Sheet’ products tend
to be relatively thin and lose their blowing
agent rapidly, whereas board products can be
substantially thicker for both construction and
packaging applications. In developed countries
where hydrocarbons have been adopted(particularly in polyolen foams), this led to a
particular problem with boards in storage and
transport. In essence, the rate of diffusion
of hydrocarbon out of the products was not
sufciently fast after production to avoid the
build-up of ammable gases in the post-
production areas. This led to some incidents.
The matter was nally addressed by most
manufacturers through the use of perforating
equipment to release the hydrocarbon blowing
agent physically.
Economic Viability and Cost Effectiveness
Criteria
Some of the major challenges for the
thermoplastic foams sector lay in dealing
with investment costs and/or blowing agent
availability. The following table illustrates
the fact that penalties are likely to be faced
either in the context of investment cost (e.g.
hydrocarbons or CO2) or in operating costs
and availability (saturated and unsaturated
HFCs). However, it should be noted that
HFC-134a is relatively widespread because of
its use as a refrigerant.
+ ++/+++ + + +++ ++/+++
++ + ++/+++ +++ +/++ +/++
++ ++ +/++ + +/++ +/++
++ ++/+++ +++ ++ ++/+++ ++/+++
HCFC-142b/22 Hydrocarbons Saturated
HFCs
Unsaturated
HFCs (HFOs)
CO2 CO
2/ethanol
Investment Costs
Blowing Agent Criterion
Operating Costs
Widespread Availability
Potential to blend
+++= High ++= Medium += Low
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 89/109
89
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
7.4.1 EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE
– Board
As noted in previous sections, the use of
extruded polystyrene is primarily in the
construction sector where it is used for a
variety of insulation purposes, both in walls and
roofs, but most notably in oors, where the
product has specic competitive advantages.
The product has competed successfully
against both rigid polyurethane foams and
mineral bre in all the major regions of the
world, although its mode of success has varied
depending on the regional demand patterns.
This point speaks to the versatility of extruded
polystyrene in its application.
Historical trends in actual Blowing
Agent selection The whole extruded thermoplastic foam
sector was established on the ease of useof CFC-12 as a blowing agent. The blowing
agent provided the inert character and thermal
performance to deliver high quality products
at affordable prices. It was only when the
phase-out of CFCs was required that the
split between choices for ‘board’ and ‘sheet’
materials occurred. As noted in Section 7.4,
sheet products moved predominantly to
hydrocarbons, while board products chose
to use HCFC-142b/22 blends for the most
part, in order to retain the requisite thermal
performance.
When the blend was chosen, it was knownthat the cell wall permeability of HCFC-142b
was signicantly lower than that of HCFC-22.
Therefore, the long-term thermal performance
of products would largely be determined
by the proportion of HCFC-142b in the
blend and its subsequent retention. Since
HCFC-22 is a major refrigerant, its availability
has been greater, and its price lower,
throughout its period of use. This has been
particularly important in some developing
country regions where access to HCFC-
142b has been more difcult and the cost
signicantly higher. Since some product andbuilding codes will have been written around
the sole use of HCFC-22, it may make the
transitional hurdle a little easier when phase-
out of HCFCs is nally embraced.
Concluding remarks
The extruded polystyrene sector is
continuing to grow rapidly in China and
elsewhere in Asia and practical transitional
solutions will be essential. It seems unlikely
that either saturated or unsaturated HFCs
will make major in-roads in the markets for
reasons of cost and availability. Therefore,
the most likely solution will be based on
hydrocarbons, on their own or in blends.
The level of investment needed to support
this is unclear, but, since the plants are
relatively small, and there is parallel
experience with extruded polystyrene
sheet, it may be that the transition will be
less challenging than currently envisaged.
CO2
seems unlikely as a solution in
isolation. The extrusion process remains
highly emissive, and this puts a particular
burden on the avoidance of high GWP
solutions, such as saturated HFCs. The
only time when such an approach might be justied is in applications and jurisdictions
where thermal performance is absolutely
paramount. In these cases, it may be
possible to maker further transitions from
saturated to unsaturated HFCs in due
course.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 90/109
90
7.4.2 POLYOLEFIN FOAMSPolyolen foams have made less penetration
into the construction markets that have been
the bedrock of the extruded polystyrene
industry. The one exception to this has
been in the pipe insulation sector, where
the added resilience offered by the producthas proved of substantial value. The primary
use for polyolen foams has been as a high
performance packaging material – particularly
when used for the packaging of delicate, high
value equipment.
Historical trends in actual Blowing
Agent selection The choice of blowing in the polyolen foam
sector has followed a very similar pattern to
that of extruded polystyrene foam. However,
because of the lack of a large demand for
insulating properties, the industry switchedmore fully to hydrocarbons when transitioning
from CFCs. It therefore had to address some
of the issues discussed in sub-Section 7.4
regarding the storage and transport of these
products.
The remaining use of HCFCs in this product
sector is much more limited than in the
extruded polystyrene sector. Nevertheless,
where use does exist – possibly in goods
related to recreational applications – technical
assistance may be necessary to ensure that
appropriate precautions are taken in any nalswitch to hydrocarbons
Concluding remarks
The polyolen foam sector is only seen to
present a limited challenge in the efforts to
phase of HCFCs under Decision XIX/6. It
would appear that relevant climate-positive
solutions are available and that widespread
experience exists concerning their use.
There maybe some, as yet, unidentied
niche applications that could present more
of a challenge, but no evident has yet
emerged to this effect.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 91/109
91
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 92/109
92
Section 8.Funding Strategies
“The provisions for the funding of HCFCphase-out investments are becoming
clearer, although some aspects related
to climate benets remain uncertain”
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 93/109
93
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
8.1 Funding the Ozone Component
The Multilateral Fund was established atthe London Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol in 1990. The London
Amendment signalled the intent of the non-
Article 5 Countries to assist nancially the
Article 5 Countries in meeting their phase-
down (and ultimately phase-out) obligations
for CFCs. The principle was extended to
what were then known as Countries with
Economies in Transition (CEIT) through the
Global Environment Fund (GEF). Both the
Multilateral Fund and the GEF therefore had
early exposure to the challenges of technology
transition for ODS. As noted in Section 1, the Beijing Amendment
introduced a time-certain phase-out for HCFCs
for Article 5 Countries based on a production/
consumption freeze in 2016 followed by a nal
phase-out in 2040. No phased reductions
were scheduled at that time. These came
later in Decision XIX/6 when the phase-out
was effectively brought forward to 2030 by
restricting the tail of use between 2030 and
2040 to 2.5% of the initial capped level of
consumption in 2013. Additional steps were
inserted for 2015 (10%), 2020 (35%) and
2025 (65%) as already described in Section1. Within the same negotiation it was agreed
that a similar funding provision would be made
for HCFC phase-out under the Multilateral
Fund, even though there had been an earlier
rule preventing the funding of ‘second
conversions’.
Since the negotiation of Decision XIX/6,
the Parties in general, and the Executive
Committee of the MLF in particular, have
sought to dene the funding rules for
transitions away from HCFCs. These have
proved to be more challenging than originally
envisaged for a number of reasons:
• Threshold limits for investment had
previously been calculated in terms of costper ODP- tonne. However, the lower ozone
depletion potentials of HCFCs result in much
higher costs for each ODP-tonne phased out
and provide a signicant discontinuity with
previous practice.
• There has been an increase in multi-
national ownership of companies in
developing countries and this makes a higher
proportion of the installed capacity ineligible
for funding.
• Where overarching HPMPs provide a
phase-out schedule, often on a sector-
by-sector basis, there is no obligation for
individual enterprises to comply with the
schedule unless the HPMP is enforced
through national regulation
• There has been a need to re-establish cut-
off dates for funding and the inter-relationship
with rules for second conversions
• The ‘worst-rst’ principle may place focus
on sectors that are not the most cost-
effective to convert and take exibility from
the HCFC Phase-out Management Plans
themselves.
• As noted in Section 3, there is still
some uncertainty about how to factor the
climate component into decision-making
and prioritisation under the MLF. This is a
separate issue from climate co-funding itself,
but is closely inter-related.
These factors have made it extremely difcult
for the Montreal Protocol bodies to assess
the likely funding requirements for HCFC
phase-out. An initial assessment in 2008 by
the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel (TEAP) through its Replenishment Task
Force estimated project costs (excluding
refrigeration servicing) of US$ 66.5-115 million
for the period 2009-2011, but growing to US$
238.3-357.5 million in the triennium 2012-2014as the project activities in advance of the 2013
freeze were undertaken.
These gures were believed to be a pragmatic
estimate of the likely technology transitions
foreseen at the time, but did not specically
exclude some implicit climate impacts. Other
scenarios that were considered were:
1. Lowest cost technology options only,
irrespective of climate benet or dis-benet
(the Baseline Scenario)
2. A cost estimate based on an available
threshold investment for climate (e.g. US$20 per additional tonne of CO2 saved) (the
Functional Unit Scenario)
3. The cost of achieving the total technically
feasible climate benets.
In most instances, it was viewed as
premature to make these assessments since
a high level of project analysis would be
required to produce meaningful estimates.
In addition, there was concern that, with
further developments in technology options
likely, the estimates would become rapidly
outdated. Nevertheless, these arguments did
not diminish interest in this type of analysis
and one of the most interesting conceptual
assessments was deemed to be the evaluation
of the cost of the ozone-related transition
element only – i.e. the investment that would
lead to climate neutrality. The value of such
an analysis arises from the possibility of
distinguishing between ozone-related nance
and climate-related nance. The following
graphic illustrates the principle:
Ozone Component (Usually MLF funded)
Climate Component
(various funding options)
Existing HCFC Use
HCFC replacement
technology
Section 8.Funding Strategies
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 94/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 95/109
95
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
8.2 Climate Co-Funding
Opportunities within the Montreal
Protocol Framework The Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol
provides nancial assistance to Article 5
countries for the incremental costs of phasingout ozone depleting substances. The total
incremental costs can include both agreed
capital investment costs and incremental
operating costs (IOCs). IOCs will generally only
be met for a limited period after the technology
transition is made.
In cases where the enterprise proposing the
project would get additional benets from a
technology upgrade, the Multilateral Fund
does not pay for such costs as they are not
considered “incremental.” In such cases,
the enterprise has to bring its own funding to
cover the technology upgrade. However, thisprinciple does not apply to climate benets,
which are viewed as in line with the objectives
of the objectives of the accelerated HCFC
phase-out.
Decision XIX/6 of the Meeting of the Parties
encourages countries to select alternatives
to HCFCs that minimize the climate impact.
Decision XXI/9 taken at the 21st Meeting
directs the Executive Committee of the
Multilateral Fund “to consider providing
additional funding and/or incentives for
the additional climate benets where
appropriate….” This key decision, along withDecision XIX/6, gives quite clear guidance to
include additional funding for projects that
benet both ozone layer and global climate.
The provision of up to 25% additional funding
for the introduction of low-GWP alternatives
can be viewed as rst step to obtain climate
benet from ozone layer protection projects.
The Multilateral Fund is considering the
establishment of a Special Funding Facility
for HCFC phase out projects which produce
climate gains. The reader is advised to keep in
contact with his/her country’s National Ozone
Unit and the relevant Implementing Agency to
understand the additional funding mechanismthrough the Special Funding Facility, as and
when it is established.
Additional avenues for nancing
HCFC phase out projects that have
climate benets A number of parallel, grant-nanced and
market-nanced opportunities also exist for
co-funding of climate benets. These include:
• Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM)
-supported by frameworks such as those
provided through the Voluntary Carbon
Standard;
• Pre-compliance Market - supported by
frameworks such as those provided through
the Climate Action Reserve ;
• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - in
cases where the project results in improved
energy efciency;
• Global Environment Facility (GEF);
• Other donor-led funds - such as those that
may emerge via the Copenhagen Accord
Since the options are evolving quickly, it
is important that the reader discusses the
applicability of these nancing schemes with
the National Ozone Unit and the relevant
Implementing Agency. Some of these nancing
options are dependent on the existence of
international regulatory frameworks, and
attention must be paid to the rules and
regulations of the respective mechanism.
1 The Climate Action Reserve activities also extend to the voluntary
carbon market
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 96/109
96
Section 9.Conclusions
“The schedule established
for HCFC phase-out creates
pressure for the foam sector to
act urgently”
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 97/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 98/109
98
- Domestic Appliance
- PU Boardstock
- Other Appliance
- PU Pipe-In-Pipe
- PU Rigid Integral Skin
- PU Continuous panel
- PU Discontinuous panel
- PU Block Foam
- Transport & Reefers
- PU Spray Foam
The following tables summarise the
characteristics of some of the main alternative
technologies available:
Sector
HCs High Medium Low Low Low Variable High Low
Impacts Production Use Phase E-o-L Investment Operating
Option Maturity Energy GWP Emissions Cost
u-HFCs Low Medium Low Low Low Variable Low High
HCs High Medium Low Low/Med Low/Med MedHigh High Low
HCs Medium Medium Low Low Low Variable High Low
u-HFCs Low Low Low Low/Med Low/Med MedHigh Low High
u-HFCs Low Low Low Low/Med Low Variable Low High
u-HFCs Low Low Low Medium Low Variable Low High
MF Low Medium Low MedHigh Medium MedHigh Low/Med Low/Med
MF Low/Med Medium Low High Medium High Low/Med Low/Med
u-HFCs Low Low Low High Medium High Low High
HCs High Low/Med Low Low Low Low MedHigh Low
HCs Low Low Low MedHigh MedHigh High MedHigh Low
MF Low Low Low MedHigh MedHigh High Low/Med Low/Med
MF Medium Medium Low Low Low Variable Low/Med Low/Med
HCs High Low/Med Low Low/Med Low Variable High Low
MF Low/Med Medium Low Medium Low Variable Low/Med Low/Med
HCs Medium Medium Low MedHigh Medium MedHigh High Low
HCs Low Medium Low Medium Low MedHigh Medium Low
s-HFCs Medium Medium High Low Low Variable Low MedHigh
s-HFCs Medium Low High Medium Low MedHigh Low MedHigh
CO2/H2O High High Low Low Low Variable Low MedHigh
s-HFCs High Low High Low/Med Low Variable Low MedHigh
s-HFCs MedHigh Low High Medium Low Variable Low MedHigh
s-HFCs High Low High High Medium High Low MedHigh
s-HFCs MedHigh Low High MedHigh Medium MedHigh Low MedHigh
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 99/109
99
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
- PU One Component
- PU Flexible Integral Skin
- XPS – Board
- Phenolic – Block
- Phenolic – Boardstock
- Polyolen
Tables of this nature need to be approached
with caution, since it is impossible to cover
all of the possible technology and application
nuances that can inuence the validity of
choices in such a summarised format.
Nevertheless, the intention, as with the
Sourcebook overall, is to provide some initial
guidance in the strengths and weaknesses
of the relative technologies and to focus
on the areas that may need more in-depth
investigation and project and/or programme
level.
Sector
s-HFCs High Low High Low High N/A Low MedHigh
Impacts Production Use Phase E-o-L Investment Operating
Option Maturity Energy GWP Emissions Cost
DME Medium Low Low Low High N/A Low High
s-HFCs MedHigh Low High MedHigh Medium MedHigh Low MedHigh
MF Low/Med Low Low Low High N/A Low/Med Low/Med
u-HFCs Low Low Low MedHigh Medium MedHigh Low High
DME Low Low Low Low/Med Low/Med MedHigh Low High
s-HFCs Low Low Low Medium MedHigh MedHigh Low/Med MedHigh
u-HFCs Low Low Low MedHigh MedHigh MedHigh Low/Med High
CO2/H2O MedHigh Low Low MedHigh High N/A Low/Med MedHigh
CO2 Medium MedHigh Low High Low/Med MedHigh High Low
u-HFCs Low/Med Medium Low Medium Low/Med MedHigh Low/Med Low/Med
u-HFCs Low Low Low MedHigh Low/Med MedHigh Low High
u-HFCs Low/Med Low Low Low High N/A Low MedHigh
HCs Medium Medium Low MedHigh Medium MedHigh High Low
HCs MedHigh Medium Low Low/Med Low/Med MedHigh High Low
s-HFCs High Low High High Low/Med MedHigh Low/Med MedHigh
HCs MedHigh Low High Medium MedHigh MedHigh Low MedHigh
Fully Sustainable
Partially Sustainable
Largely Unsustainable
* Options listed are coded as follows: s-HFCs = Saturated HFCs
u-HFCs = Unsaturated HFCs
HCs = Hydrocarbons
MF = Methyl Formate
DME = Dimethyl Ether
Other abbreviations; N/A = Not applicable
E-o-L = End-of-life
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 100/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 101/109
101
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
10.1 Sources of Information This Annex provides a Section-by-Section Guide to relevant references cited in the text. Where a reference is repeated in more than one Section,
the reference itself is cited in full on its rst occurrence, and is cross-referenced thereafter.
Summary
UNEP 2009. Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Eighth edition, ISBN: 9966-7319-0-3,
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 2009
Introduction
UNEP 2009. Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Eighth edition, ISBN: 9966-7319-0-3,
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 2009
Interface between Ozone Depletion and Climate Change
IPCC/TEAP. 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, SROC 2005.
Available at <http://www.autots.com/hcfc/technology%20option/Refrigeration/transport%20refrigeration.pdf>
IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4).
Available at <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf>.
Methods for Quantifying Climate Impact
TEAP, 1999. The Implications to the Montreal Protocol of the inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol. Mar 2000.
Annex V of UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/47. Revised analysis of relevant cost considerations surrounding the nancing of HCFC phase-out
(Decision 53/37(I) and 54/40).
Foam Manufacture and Existing Fluorocarbon Technologies
Lee Shau Tarng, C.B. Park and N.S. Ramesh, 2006. Polymeric Foams, CRC Press, New York.
IPCC/TEAP. 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System.
Available at: <http://www.autots.com/hcfc/technology%20option/Refrigeration/transport%20refrigeration.pdf>
UNEP FTOC, 2002. Report of the Flexible and Rigid Foam Technical Options Committee, 2002 Assessment, ISBN 92-807-2285-9, UNEP/ Ozone
Secretariat, Nairobi, Kenya, March 2003.
Khun E. and Schindler, P, 1993. Advances in the Understanding of the Effects of Various Blowing Agents on Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam
Properties, SPI Polyurethanes World Congress 1993, Vancouver, BC, October 10-13.
Molina M.J. & Rowland F.S.,1974. Stratospheric sink for Chlorouoromethanes – Chlorine atomic catalyzed destruction of ozone,
Nature 249:810-812.
Oertel, Günter (editor), 1994. Polyurethane Handbook, 2nd. Edition, Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich.
UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/47. Revised analysis of relevant cost considerations surrounding the nancing of HCFC phase-out (Decision 53/37(I)
and 54/40).
IPCC/TEAP. 2005. “Chapter 7: – Table 7.6” Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, SROC 2005.
Available at <http://www.autots. com/hcfc/technology%20option/Refrigeration/transport%20refrigeration.pdf>
Vo and Paquet, 2004. An Evaluation of Thermal Conductivity over time for Extruded Polystyrene Foams blown with HFC-134a and HCFC-142b
General Review of Alternative Blowing Agents
IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4).
Available at <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf>.
Signicant New Alternatives Program (SNAP), US Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/
IPCC/TEAP. 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, SROC 2005.
Available at <http://www.autots.com/hcfc/technology%20option/Refrigeration/transport%20refrigeration.pdf>
Section 10. Annexes
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 102/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 103/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 104/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 105/109
105
UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010
Solvay
Stepan
Supresta
Tosoh Corporation
Yantai Wanhua Polyurethanes
Co.
Zhejiang Lantian Enviromental
Protection
Chemical Co.,Ltd.
Zhejiang Sanhuan Chemicals
Co. Ltd.
Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind.
Co. Ltd.
Solkane
Stepanpol
Fyrol
Toyocoat
Wannate, Wanol, Waneex
Frog
Rue du Prince Albert 33
B-1050
Brussels
22 West Frontage Rd.
Northeld, IL 60093
USA
420 Saw Mill River Road
Ardsley, New York 10502
USA
3-8-2, Shiba, Minato-ku
Tokyo 105-8623
Japan
No. 7 South Xingfu Road
Yantai,Shangdong Province
P.R.China
Hangzhou gulf ne chemical zone
shangyu, zhejiang
R.P.China
YongKang,
Zhejiang Province
P.R.China
Huchu Industry Area
Wuyi County
Zhejiang Province
P.R.China.
HCFCs, HFCs, 134a,
141b, 142b,
22, 365mfc, 227ea
Polyester polyols
Phosphorous based
ame retardants for rigid
and exible foams
Amine Catalysts
MDI based Isocyanates,
polyols,
Thermoplastic Urethanes
HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b,
HFC-245fa
HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b,
HCFC-22, HFC-152a,
HFC-134a
HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b,
HCFC-22, HFC-152a,
HFC227ea
www.solvayuor.com
www.stepan.com
www.supresta.com
www.tosoh.com
www.ytpu.com
www.tchem.com
www.sanhuanchemicals.com
www.sanmeichem.com
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 106/109
106
10.3 Full text of Decision XIX/6
F. Decision XIX/6: Adjustments to
the Montreal Protocol with regard
to Annex C, Group I, substances
(hydrochlorouorocarbons)
The Parties agree to accelerate the phase-
out of production and consumption of
hydrochlorouorocarbons (HCFCs), by way of
an adjustment in accordance with paragraph
9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol and
as contained in the annex to the present
decision, on the basis of the following:
1. For Parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 of the Protocol (Article 5 Parties),
to choose as the baseline the average of
the 2009 and 2010 levels of, respectively,consumption and production; and
2. To freeze, at that baseline level,
consumption and production in 2013;
3. For Parties operating under Article 2 of the
Protocol (Article 2 Parties) to have completed
the accelerated phase-out of production and
consumption in 2020, on the basis of the
following reduction steps:
(a) By 2010 of 75 per cent;
(b) By 2015 of 90 per cent;
(c) While allowing 0.5 per cent for servicing theperiod 2020–2030;
4. For Article 5 Parties to have completed
the accelerated phase-out of production and
consumption in 2030, on the basis of the
following reduction steps:
(a) By 2015 of 10 per cent;
(b) By 2020 of 35 per cent;
(c) By 2025 of 67.5 per cent;
(d) While allowing for servicing an annual
average of 2.5per cent during the period
2030–2040;
5. To agree that the funding available through
the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation
of the Montreal Protocol in the upcoming
replenishments shall be stable and sufcient
to meet all agreed incremental costs to
enable Article 5 Parties to comply with the
accelerated phase-out schedule both for
production and consumption sectors as set
out above, and based on that understanding,
to also direct the Executive Committee of
the Multilateral Fund to make the necessary
changes to the eligibility criteria related to the
post-1995 facilities and second conversions;
6. To direct the Executive Committee, in
providing technical and nancial assistance, to
pay particular attention to Article 5 Parties with
low volume and very low volume consumption
of HCFCs;
7. To direct the Executive Committee to
assist Parties in preparing their phase-out
management plans for an accelerated HCFC
phase-out;
8. To direct the Executive Committee, as a
matter of priority, to assist Article 5 Parties in
conducting surveys to improve reliability in
establishing their baseline data on HCFCs;
9. To encourage Parties to promote the
selection of alternatives to HCFCs that
minimize environmental impacts, in particular
impacts on climate, as well as meeting otherhealth, safety and economic considerations;
10. To request Parties to report regularly on
their implementation of paragraph 7 of Article
2F of the Protocol;
11. To agree that the Executive Committee,
when developing and applying funding criteria
for projects and programmes, and taking
into account paragraph 6, give priority to
cost-effective projects and programmes which
focus on, inter alia:
(a) Phasing-out rst those HCFCs with higher
ozone-depleting potential, taking into accountnational circumstances;
(b) Substitutes and alternatives that minimize
other impacts on the environment, including
on the climate, taking into account global-
warming potential, energy use and other
relevant factors;
(c) Small and medium-size enterprises;
12. To agree to address the possibilities or
need for essential use exemptions, no later
than 2015 where this relates to Article 2
Parties, and no later than 2020 where this
relates to Article 5 Parties;
13. To agree to review in 2015 the need for
the 0.5 per cent for servicing provided for in
paragraph 3, and to review in 2025 the need
for the annual average of 2.5 per cent for
servicing provided for in paragraph 4 (d);
14. In order to satisfy basic domestic needs,
to agree to allow for up to 10% of baseline
levels until 2020, and, for the period after
that, to consider no later than 2015 further
reductions of production for basic domestic
needs;
15. In accelerating the HCFC phase-out,
to agree that Parties are to take every
practicable step consistent with Multilateral
Fund programmes, to ensure that the best
available and environmentally-safe substitutesand related technologies are transferred from
Article 2 Parties to Article 5 Parties under fair
and most favourable conditions;
Annex to the decision on Adjustments
to the Montreal Protocol with regard
to Annex C, Group I, substances
(hydrochlorouorocarbons)
Adjustments agreed by the Nineteenth
Meeting of the Parties relating to the controlled
substances in group I of Annex C of the
Montreal Protocol
The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties tothe Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer decides to adopt,
in accordance with the procedure laid down
in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal
Protocol, and on the basis of assessments
made pursuant to Article 6 of the Protocol, the
adjustments and reductions of production and
consumption of the controlled substances in
Group I of Annex C to the Protocol, as follows:
Article 2F: Hydrochlorouorocarbons
1. The current paragraph 8 of Article 2F of the
Protocol shall become paragraph 2, and thecurrent paragraph 2 shall become paragraph
3.
2. The current paragraphs 3 to 6 shall be
replaced by the following paragraphs, which
shall be numbered paragraphs 4 to 6:
“4. Each Party shall ensure that for the
twelve-month period commencing on 1
January 2010, and in each twelve-month
period thereafter, its calculated level of
consumption of the controlled substances in
Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually,
twenty-ve per cent of the sum referred to
in paragraph 1 of this Article. Each Partyproducing one or more of these substances
shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
calculated level of production of the controlled
substances in Group I of Annex C does not
exceed, annually, twenty-ve per cent of the
calculated level referred to in paragraph 2 of
this Article. However, in order to satisfy the
basic domestic needs of the Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated
level of production may exceed that limit by
up to ten per cent of its calculated level of
production of the controlled substances in
Group I of Annex C as referred to in paragraph2.
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 107/109
8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 108/109
About the UNEP Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics
The UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE) helps
governments, local authorities and decision-makers in business and
industry to develop and implement policies and practices focusing on
sustainable development.
The Division works to promote:
> sustainable consumption and production,
> the efcient use of renewable energy,
> adequate management of chemicals,
> the integration of environmental costs in development policies.
The Ofce of the Director, located in Paris, coordinates activities
through:
> The International Environmental Technology Centre - IETC (Osaka, Shiga),
which implements integrated waste, water and disaster management programmes,focusing in particular on Asia.
> Sustainable Consumption and Production (Paris), which promotes sustainable
consumption and production patterns as a contribution to human development through
global markets.
> Chemicals (Geneva), which catalyzes global actions to bring about the sound
management of chemicals and the improvement of chemical safety worldwide.
> Energy (Paris), which fosters energy and transport policies for sustainable development
and encourages investment in renewable energy and energy efciency.
> OzonAction (Paris), which supports the phase-out of ozone depleting substances in developingcountries and countries with economies in transition to ensure implementation of the Montreal
Protocol.
> Economics and Trade (Geneva), which helps countries to integrate environmental
considerations into economic and trade policies, and works with the nance sector to incorporate
sustainable development policies.
UNEP DTIE activities focus on raising awareness, improving
the transfer of knowledge and information, fostering
technological cooperation and partnerships, and implementing
international conventions and agreements.
For more information,see www.unep.fr