1 / 12

Coalescent evaluation

This agenda focuses on the evaluation of coalescents in the LA region, taking into consideration legislation and existing standards. The results of the evaluation are discussed, including the performance of different coalescent options in terms of MFFT, scrub resistance, drying time, and Brookfield viscosity. Next steps involve validating the results with other emulsion systems and evaluating blends of COASOL with other coalescents for a better cost-benefit balance.

peggyc
Download Presentation

Coalescent evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Coalescent evaluation

  2. Agenda • Legislation • Coalescents in LA • Evaluation • Results • Discussion

  3. Legislation • LA • Only Mexico has standards for VOC, but it is not in place. • Brazil • Standards are under discussion in Brazilian Coatings Manufacturing Association (ABRAFATI). • Dow is participating on this discussion. • It may be aligned with Europe standards.

  4. Coalescents in LA • DALPAD E: • Glycol ethers blend. • It is known. • Texanol / Nexcoat / UCAR Filmer IBT • It is well known / Commodity. • It works. • ULTRASOLVE P240 • E serie glycol ether (DOWANOL EPh) • Local producer (Oxiteno) • DALPAD C (DOWANOL TPnB) and COASOL: • No VOC under Europe guidelines. • DALPAD C has been sampled for few customers. New !

  5. Critical Customers Requirements • Good Cost / Benefit balance. • “Read to use”: • Customers are not willing to make many evaluations neither changing their formulations to the new coalescent. • It is difficult to get their formulations to optimize coalescent using at Dow’s facility. • Low environmental impact: • no VOC. • Low odor. • Renewal source.

  6. Evaluation • Design of Experiments • Latex: Dow Latex 3433 (SA). • Concentrations: 0.5, 1, 2, 3 and 5%. • Coalescents: • DALPAD E, DALPAD C, DOWANOL DPnB, COASOL and Texanol. • Tests: • MFFT, Scrub resistance, Drying time, Brookfield viscosity. • Neat latex and samples. • Triplicate analyzes.

  7. MFFT / Lowest temperature is expected • Coasol: was the most effective coalescent to decrease MFFT, for 1, 2 and 3 % • MFFT = 4°C: 2% Coasol or 5% DALPAD C • DALPAD E, DOWANOL DPnB and Texanol had intermediate performance. • DALPAD C was not good.

  8. Scrub resistance / biggest# cycles is expected • It is variable result test. • COASOL and Texanol had a good performance. • DALPAD C was not good “again”.

  9. Drying time / shorter time is expected • Any significant difference was detected.

  10. Brookfield visco / shorter visco is expected • All coalescents were until 2 and 3%. • By adding 5% of COASOL and Texanol visco increased too much (comparing to the sample without coalescent. • It is no exactly a problem because customers will not add 5% of coalescent.

  11. Results summary • MFFT • Coasol had good performance and the best, comparing to other studied coalescents. • Scrub resistance • Coasol and Texanol were the best options. • Drying time • Any coalescent point out. • Brookfield viscosity • Any coalescent point out. • Except for highest studied concentrations (5%).

  12. Next steps • Validate these results with other emulsions systems. • Evaluation blends of COASOL with other coalescents (DOWANOL PPh, DOWANOL DPnB, DOWANOL TPnB, etc.) in order to look for better cost / benefit balance. • Evaluate commercial and logistics aspects • Cost / Price for LA. • Availability. • Etc.

More Related