2016 ilma annual meeting metalworking fluids committee october … · 2016-10-28 · 2016 ilma...
Post on 13-Aug-2020
14 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
2016 ILMA Annual Meeting
Metalworking Fluids Committee
October 17, 2016
3:00PM-4:30PM
TRibological Innovative Advancements for General Energy-
efficiency (TRIAGE)Carlton Reeves, Ph.D.
Technology to Market Advisor
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC
Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association Annual Meeting, Scottsdale, AZOctober 17, 2016
ARPA-E Directive
Goals: Ensure America’s
• Economic Security
• Energy Security
• Technological Lead in Advanced Energy Technologies
Mission: To overcome long-term and high-risk technological barriers in the development of energy technologies
Means:
• Identify and promote revolutionary advances in fundamental and applied sciences
• Translate scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations
• Accelerate transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty
3
Reduce Emissions
Improve Energy
Efficiency
Reduce Energy Imports
Measuring ARPA-E’s Success
• New Companies formed (Public, Acquired, or Private)
4
‣ Over $1.25 Billion in Private Sector Funding
‣ Follow-on Funding from Other Government Agencies
If so, Where?
1 Quad = 1018 Joules
5
Can Tribology Save a Quad of Energy ?
Program Conception
• $30 Million• ~10 Projects• 3 Years• Engage Industry, Academia, & Gov’t
• Ground Transportation• Power Generation• Aviation• Manufacturing & Metal Working• Functional Fluids & Lubricants• Simulation Technologies
6
Materials
Coatings
Lubricants
Transportation
7
Breakdown of Passenger Car Energy Consumption
33% Friction Losses
Reduces Exhaust & Cooling Losses
Potential Technologies
• New and Nano-materials • Coating Technology• Surface Treatments• Novel Lubricant Base Stocks/Lower Viscous Oils• Enhanced Additives • Ionic Liquids• Graphene/Graphane• Lamellar Solids
Could these improve efficiency, promote longer life, increase output, and ensure reliability?How much energy could be reduced? Can this be measured?
8
9
https://arpa-e.energy.gov
9
Thank You
Carlton Reeves, Ph.D.Technology to Market AdvisorAdvanced Research Projects Agency – EnergyU.S. Department of EnergyCarlton.Reeves@hq.doe.gov
ILMA 2016 Annual Meeting Metalworking Fluids
Committee
Chemical Salts UpdateJohn K. Howell, Ph.D., GHS Resources Inc., and
James Eggenschwiler, Esq., The Redstone Group
Chemical Salt Update
• Topics:– ILMA 2015 testing results
–Corfree M1
–Chemical salt survey results
–Alternate salt compositions
–Canada Schedule 5, Schedule 6 testing requirements
–Discussion
ILMA 2015 Chemical Salt Testing Results
Salt CAS Number
Estimated SubstanceClassification,Eye (BCOP)
Estimated Substance Classification, Skin Irritation
Estimated Acute Toxicity Classification
TEA + dibasic acids
1078712-94-3
Not classified, not an eye irritant
Uncategorized, not a dermal irritant
GHS Acute Tox 5 or unclassified (OSHA)
DGA + dibasic acids
292849-36-6
Not classified, not an eye irritant
GHS Cat 3 mild dermal irritant or unclassified (OSHA)
GHS Acute Tox 5 or unclassified (OSHA)
AMP + tall oil fatty acids
67701-21-7
Mild eye irritant, GHS Eye Cat 2B
GHS Category 1C skin corrosive
GHS Acute Tox 5 or unclassified (OSHA)
TEA + isononanoic acid
67801-51-8
Moderate eye irritant, GHS Eye Cat 2A
Uncategorized, not a dermal irritant
GHS Acute Tox 5 or unclassified (OSHA)
MEA + isononanoic acid
67801-50-7
Severe eye irritant, GHS Eye Cat 1
GHS Cat 3 mild dermal irritant or unclassified (OSHA)
GHS Acute Tox 5 or unclassified (OSHA)
Corfree M-1 Possible Substitutes
• Corfee M-1 CAS #: 72162-23-3, Nitric acid, reaction products with cyclododecanol and cyclododecanone, by-products from, high boiling fraction
• Possible substitutes: Cathay Industrial Biotech Pure Mix II; Emery Oleochemicals Emerox 1199, 1185, 1175, 1112– Note: producers of possible substitutes describe their product’s
compositions in terms of dibasic acid component percentages, not by manufacturing process
• Corfree M-1 composition(from Invista Technical Brochure)– Sebacic acid, CAS 111-20-6, 5 – 10%– Undecanedioic acid, CAS 1852-04-6, 30 – 45% – Dodecanedioic acid, CAS 693-23-2, 30 – 45%– C4 – C9 dibasic acids, < 10%– Other acids, < 6%– Water, 0.3%
Chemical Salt Survey Results, August 19, 2016
• 13 respondents (not every respondent answered every question): “a small but likely significant group of MWF formulators”
• Question 1. Which countries/jurisdictions are important to your MWF product line?– United States – 12 respondents, #1; 1 respondent, #11– Canada – 8 respondents, #2; 2 respondents, #3; 1 respondent,
#5; 1 respondent #11– EU – 3 respondents, #2; 2 respondents #3; 2 respondents, #4; 1
respondent #6; 2 respondents, #11– China – 3 respondents, #3; 5 respondents, #4; 1 respondent, #9;
1 respondent, #11– Japan; South Korea; Australia; New Zealand; Philippines; Taiwan
– lower levels interest/support
Chemical Salt Survey Results, August 19, 2016
• Question 2. If you are considering another organic acid product (or products) as a partial or complete replacement for Corfree M-1, what alkanolamines would you use or are you using in combination with that organic acid product or products?– Triethanolamine (TEA), 10 responses = 71%
– Ethanolamine (MEA), 9 responses = 64%
– 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP), 9 responses = 64%
– Isopropanolamine (MIPA), 8 responses = 57%
– 1-(2-aminoethoxy)ethanol (DGA), 6 responses = 43%
– Any others? Butylethanolamine, MDEA
Chemical Salt Survey Results, August 19, 2016
• Question 3. Of the above alkanolamines, which two would be your top choices?– TEA, MEA– MIPA, AMP– TEA and AMP 95– MEA, TEA– AMP– MIPA, DGA or MEA (undecided)– AMP, MIPA; AMP, TEA– TEA, DGA– MIPA, TEA– MEA, AMPNote: each of eleven respondents chose a different combination of amines as their “preferred top 2.” TEA was chosen in combination with another alkanolamine by many (6) but not by all respondents
TEA Dibasic Acid Salt Compositions/CAS Nos.
CAS Number Name
Dibasic
Acid
Carbon
Chain
Length
Precursor
Acid
Contained
in Emerox
1199
Precursor
Acid
Contained
in Emerox
1185
Precursor
Acid
Contained
in Emerox
1175
Precursor
Acid
Contained
in Emerox
1112
Precursor
Acid
Contained
in Pure
Mix 2
68833-70-5 Azelaic acid, compd. with 2,2',2"-nitrilotriethanol 9 X X X X
85030-05-3 Azelaic acid, compd. with 2,2',2"-nitrilotriethanol (1:2) 9 X X X X
70103-35-4 Decanedioic acid, compd. with 2,2',2"-nitrilotriethanol 10 X
85030-07-5 Undecanedioic acid, compd. with 2,2',2"-nitrilotriethanol (1:2) 11 X X
85050-08-6 Dodecanedioic acid, compd. with 2,2',2"-nitrilotriethanol (1:2) 12 X X X
Canada Schedule 5 (1,000 kg/year; not on NDSL)
• Physical/chemical:– Melting point– Boiling point or decomposition temperature– Water solubility– Biodegradablility
• Animal Tox:– OECD 437 Bovine Eye Opacity– OECD 405 Eye irritation– OECD 404 Skin Irritation– OECD 402 Dermal Acute Toxicity Class Determination– OECD 471 Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test (Ames Test)
• Ecotox:– OECD 201 LC50 Algae
Canada Schedule 6 (10,000 kg/year; not on NDSL)
• In addition to tests required for Schedule 5:• Physical/chemical:
– Infrared spectrum or liquid chromatography – mass spec– Adsorption-desorption screening test data– Hydrolysis rate as a function of pH (likely not an issue with salts)
• Animal Tox:– Info to assess skin irritation potential (OECD 404 should be sufficient)– Skin sensitization, such as OECD 429 Local Lymph ode Assay– OECD 410 28-day dermal toxicity– Mammalian in vitro mutagenicity test such as OECD 487 in vitro mammalian
cell micronucleus test– An in vitro mammalian test for chromosomal aberrations such as OECD 473 in
vitro chromosomal aberration test
• Ecotox:– OECD 202 daphnia magna LC50
– OECD 203 fathead minnow LC50
Phosphorus Concerns in the Great Lakes Region
John Burke
Houghton International
GLWQA• U.S. and Canada addressing issue under Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (signed in 1972, amended several times)
• Provides a framework and outlines principles, approaches, and objectives to accomplish goals of pollution abatement and prevention
• Canada/U.S. agreed to target reductions to achieve a 40% reduction in phosphorus levels (compared to 2008)
• Implementation plans by February 2018– Mayors of impacted cities (through Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence Cities Initiative) called on U.S. and Canada for more prompt action
Lake Erie Panel • EPA’s Science Advisory Board – Lake Erie Phosphorus Objective
Review Panel reviewed a draft report last week regarding the development of reduction targets
• Independent advice to EPA consistent with Federal Advisory Committee Act
• “The SAB agrees that the 40% reduction in total phosphorus load to the Western and Central Basins of Lake Erie recommended by the Task Team will improve Lake Erie water quality and reduce harmful algal blooms. However, even with this reduction, blooms are still likely to occur relatively frequently, perhaps even routinely, in the western arm of the western basin in Maumee Bay. Ultimately, greater load reductions may be necessary to achieve the desired thresholds.”– Full report can be reviewed here:
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf//MeetingCalBOARD/150AB78DDAB990B5852580180076194A?OpenDocument
State Level Activities
• Ohio and other Midwestern states looking to address issue on state level too
• Ohio crafted state plan with similar goal (40% reduction), but seeks to achieve goal by 2025
– No such deadline under GLWQA
– Draft plan calls for several proposed actions within 12-36 months (if finalized)
State Level Activities • Ohio EPA will publish two-year Water Quality Milestone
for each county and priority watershed• Ohio EPA will coordinate with local authorities to
conduct monitoring of nutrient discharge levels• Other actions planned from Ohio Dept. of Natural
Resources, Ohio Lake Erie Commission, Dept. of Health • Mainly focused on agricultural, livestock, and failed
septic tanks, but one potential key area of focus as plan finalized: NPDES permits
• It was noted in comments: over 700 entities in Lake Erie Basin that have NPDES permits (from Ohio EPA) to discharge wastewater containing phosphorus (over 80% have no limit on phosphorus)– Something to watch
NTP – TRIM ® VX
NTP – TRIM® VX
• ILMA and Master submitted extensive comments and participated in peer review panel in February 2016– Panel voted to adopt NTP’s recommended conclusions
(two incidents of clear evidence of carcinogenicity and two incidents of equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity under conditions of study) subject to certain limitations
• Submitted three sets of comments after the meeting
• The final technical report should be published around the end of 2016/start of 2017– ILMA and Master anticipate it will be inclusive of the
limiting language that the results cannot be extrapolated to other MWFs.
Chlorinated Paraffins Update
Recent Activities ILMA continued to work with the following Coalition:
American Chemistry CouncilChlorinated Paraffins Industry Association
American Wire Producers AssociationIndustrial Fasteners Institute
Center for the Polyurethane Industry National Association of Manufacturers
Auto Alliance Global Automakers
Vinyl Institute Aerospace Industry Association Adhesives and Sealants Council
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association
Recent Activities
• ILMA members met with SBA Office of Advocacy during NAM Summit in June 2016– Attorney in that office continues to be heavily
involved
• ILMA published a “Status Update” in July 2016 due to regulatory misinformation – Mid-2017 date to cease domestic production and
foreign importation is illusory and has no legal or regulatory effect in ILMA’s opinion
• Regular meeting with Coalition members throughout the summer
Risk Assessments
• Sent in submission that outlined the impact of TSCA reform on risk assessments– requirements of §26(h)and(i) to use “best available
science” and make decision based on “weight of scientific evidence”
– Statute instructs EPA to prioritize and address chemicals on 2014 update to TSCA Work Plan (MCCPs/LCCPs on list)
• ILMA and Coalition continue to push EPA to peer review the risk assessments for MCCPs and LCCPs– No response yet, but hopefully soon
ILMA 2016 Annual Meeting MWF Committee
Canada: Boric Acid UpdateJohn K. Howell, Ph.D., GHS Resources
Inc.
Canada: Boric Acid Update
• July 23, 2016, Environment Canada published Draft Boric Acid Screening Assessment initiating 60-day comment period– Includes boric acid, borax, sodium tetraborate but not
boric acid amides
– “The draft screening assessment proposes to conclude that boric acid, its salts and its precursors are harmful to the environment as set out in section 64 (a) of CEPA 1999. It also proposes to conclude that boric acid, its salts and its precursors are harmful to human health as set out in section 64 (c) of CEPA 1999.”
Proposed Rule 1430
John Burke
Houghton International
Mike Pearce
W.S. Dodge Oil
ILMA 2016 Annual Meeting MWF Committee
Formaldehyde/Biocides UpdateStephan Baumgärtel, Ph.D., German Lubricant
Manufacturers AssociationJohn K. Howell, Ph.D., GHS Resources Inc.
Formaldehyde Status
• 1999: approx. 100 active substances/biocides available• Today: 25• 12 of 25 are formaldehyde release agents• As of 2016, formaldehyde is now classified as CMR 1B• Customers now hesitant to use formaldehyde release
biocides although formaldehyde concentration is far below threshhold
• Impact on formulators?
Note: CMR = Carcinogen/mutagen/reproductive toxin
Formaldehyde / other chemicals
• 1999: approx. 100 active substances/biocides available
• Today: 27
• 7 of 27 are formaldehyde release agents
• As of 2016, formaldehyde is now classified as CMR 1B
• Customers now hesitate to use formaldehyde releasing biocides although formaldehyde
concentration is far below threshold.
• Alternative technology: high pH products, sometimes based on dicyclohexylamine.
• BHT / Benztriazole: CoRAP list of potential SVHC substances, suspected endocrine disruptors
• Boric acid reaction products: still used, but declining.
Remaining Biocides &
Fungicides (D)Chemistry Addition Primary
Efficacy
Issues
Formaldehyde
Releasers
conc &
tankside
bacteria formaldehyde
Pyridinethione conc &
tankside
fungi Iron complexing
Thiocyanobenzo-
thiazole
tankside fungi sensitizer
Isothiazolones
•BIT
•CMI/MIT
tankside
tankside
both
both
Corrosive,
sensitization potential,
formulating into
concentrates difficult,
short lifetime. BIT: not
against Pseudomonas
OPP conc &
tankside
bacteria environmental
top related