Recent Advances in the Development of Catalytically Active
Polyols for the Automotive Market
J. M. SONNEY, F. M. CASATI
Dow Europe GmbH
International Development Center
13 Rue de Veyrot – P.O. Box 3
CH-1217 Meyrin 2
Switzerland
K. N. KHAMENEH
Dow Automotive
1250 Harmon Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
USA
R. D. DAWE
The Dow Chemical Company
1086 Modeland Road, P.O. Box 1012
Sarnia, Ontario N7T 7K7
Canada.
T. JONES, J. OLARI, P. FIELDING
Renosol Corporation
P.O. Box 1424
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
USA
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Recent activity within the Automotive Industry has focused on reducing Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
emissions from interior components. As part of that campaign, polyurethane flexible molded foams, used in automotive seating, have been under scrutiny. Tertiary amine
catalysts coming from the manufacturing process have
been found to contribute to fogging and VOC emissions.
The Dow Chemical Company has embarked on a program of development of catalytically active polyols aimed
at reducing the need for these amine catalysts in foam
formulations, thereby lowering VOC emissions both during the foaming process and when the car is in use. The
first step of the development program, presented in previous papers, was to develop a chemistry to manufacture
these new polyols and to test their performance under
laboratory conditions [1,2]. This paper reports on the industrialization of this new process. Data will be provided
demonstrating the attributes of these foams versus conventional products. Resolution of important technical issues such as foam processing and foam physical
characteristics will be discussed with the aim of demonstrating that this approach is an effective way of reducing
emissions.
Reduction of VOC emissions from molded polyurethane
foams for automotive seating has recently become a major
objective in Dow’s R&D efforts. Starting with the replacement of fugitive antioxidants in polyols and isocyanates and the reduction of monomers in SAN (StyreneAcrylonitrile) based copolymer polyols, these efforts were
then concentrated on the subject of amine catalysis. Two
papers presented at previous API meetings were devoted
to this environmentally important subject [1,2]. As the
title of the second document indicated, this work is both a
challenge and an opportunity. Whilst it is not straightforward to replace conventional amine catalysts with active
polyols while maintaining foam processing and physical
characteristics, there is a real chance of improving total
passenger compartment comfort of new vehicles through
drastic reduction in volatiles and odors [3].
The present article deals with the industrialization process of the VORANOL* VORACTIV* polyols, which was
conducted in two parallel phases. In the first phase, this
new class of polyols was scaled up to production level in
Dow’s manufacturing plants; the potential impact of the
new polyols process on the environment was evaluated,
and then large scale trials on customers’ foaming lines
were performed, to develop polyurethane formulations
* Trademark of the Dow Chemical Company
meeting all requirements in terms of moldability and foam
properties, i.e. meeting OEM’s specifications. At the same
time, other key tests, such as VOC’s and fogging measurements were carried out on these foams to assess how
this technology improves working conditions on the
molding lines as well as end-use application in automotive
interiors.
VORANOL VORACTIV polyols have the potential to
eliminate conventional amine emissions when used in
combination with a reduced amount of non-fugitive
amines. However, none of the reactive amines presently
on the market generate the desired reactivity profile when
TDI 80/20 is the isocyanate chosen to produce the foams.
Hence there is still progress needed to be able to fully
replace the fugitive conventional catalysts and achieve the
same processing and identical foam characteristics. The
present paper demonstrates that VORANOL VORACTIV
polyols can be used in formulations based either on TDI
80/20 or on MDI to replace at least half of the amount of
conventional amine catalysts. This 50% reduction in
amine usage is already an important step in the direction
towards reducing VOC’s.
BACKGROUND
Most commercially manufactured polyurethane foams
are made with a combination of amine catalysts, some
being used to catalyze the blowing (isocyanate with water)
reaction, other catalysts for the chain propagation or gelling (isocyanate with polyol) reaction. The catalysts are
usually added to the polyol-water-surfactant premix.
Catalyst levels and ratios are adjusted to meet specific
formulations and local processing conditions.
Main parameters influencing these choices of catalyst
combinations are presented in Table 1. This list shows the
wide variety of factors that have to be taken into consideration for industrial lines, depending on desired foam
densities (influenced by water level and plant altitude),
demolding times and OEM’s requirements in terms of
foam load-bearing and foam ageing specifications. Fully
Table 1: Parameters Influencing Foam Catalysis
Required Demolding Time
Dispensing Time
Lid Closing Time
Foam Parts Sizes and Configurations
Mold Venting
Foam Hardness Range
Foam Density
Mold Temperature
Isocyanate Type
Machine and Mix Head Type and Output
Geographical Location
Table 2: List of Conventional Raw Materials
SPECFLEX* NC-632
Polyether polyol
SPECFLEX NC-630
“
VORANOL* CP 6001
“
VORANOL CP 1421
“
SPECFLEX NC-700
SAN copolymer polyol
SPECFLEX NE-150
MDI isocyanate
VORANATE* T-80
TDI 80/20 isocyanate
* Trademark of the Dow Chemical Company
Table 3: List of Amine Catalysts
CATALYSTS
SUPPLIER
DABCO1 33LV
AIR PRODUCTS
POLYCAT1 15
“
DABCO NE-200
“
DABCO NE-1060
“
NIAX2 A-1
CROMPTON
NIAX A-4
“
NIAX A-400
“
TOYOCAT3 RX-20
TOSOH
1
Trademark of Air Products & Chemicals Inc.
2
Trademark of Crompton Corporation
3
Trademark of The TOSOH Corporation
replacing conventional catalyst systems with an active
polyol or a combination of active polyols is a real challenge when one wants to meet all of these parameters
across the global market. Hence Dow developments have
been focused on the partial replacement of these amine
catalysts and the fine-tuning of foam formulations under
these new conditions.
EXPERIMENTAL
A list of all raw materials used in this study is given in
Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4.
VORANOL VORACTIV Polyol Production
VORANOL VORACTIV polyols were first produced in
pilot plant reactors in drum quantities. Process conditions
were adjusted to optimize production yield. Conventional
polyol finishing was used. The same process was then
scaled up in Dow’s polyol manufacturing plants, using
standard equipment.
Table 4: List of VORANOL VORACTIV Polyols
OH Number
Reactivity
Polyol A
32
medium-high
Polyol B
32
high
Polyol C
31
medium
Foam Preparation
Foam formulations are indicated in each section of the
paper. Bench scale molded foams were produced into a 30
x 30 x 10 cm test mold heated at 60oC using the standard
hand-mix procedure [4]. Free-rise foams were poured in a
cardboard box.
Machine-made foams were produced using highpressure-impingement mixheads (KRAUSS-MAFFEI and
CANNON) and either standard test block molds (40 x 40
x 10 cm) or in a variety of production seat molds.
Foam Testing
Foam physical properties were determined in accordance with ASTM, ISO, NF and major OEM’s testing
procedures.
Foam Processing
Dow laboratories evaluate foam processing and foam
quality by producing foams at various indexes under free
rise conditions and recording reactivity (cream, gel, rise
times) and density. Test blocks are then made at specific
weights and assessed for part aspect and cell structure.
After demold, the foam pad is indented at 50% deflection.
This value in Newtons is referred to as the “Crushing
Force”. This latter test gives an indication of the level of
closed cells in the fresh foam. Additionally, 50% Indentation after foam crushing gives a relative value for foam
curing.
Industrial Foam Production
The production foam for this study was processed at
Renosol in a high-pressure-impingement foam machine
using a “L” style mixhead attached to a 4-axis robot. The
molds in cast aluminum were water-heated to 65oC. The
pads were inspected upon demold for defects and apparent
openness and then sent through a brush style roller
crusher. A variety of pads were produced, including full
bench cushions and backs as well as 3-piece front seat
backs. The pads had densities ranging from 40 to 45 kg/m3
and a range of indexes from 90 to 105.
VOC and Fogging Measurements
Two methods are currently used to determine the VOC’s
in a material. The first method, developed by VW, is
based on static headspace [5]. The sample is introduced in
a headspace vial and equilibrated at 120oC for 5 hours. An
aliquot of the headspace gas is then introduced in a gas
chromatograph, using a flame ionization detector. Results
are reported in µg Carbon per g sample (µgC/g) and are
based on an external calibration, using acetone as the calibration substance. We have also used a modification of
this method in which the FID detector was replaced by a
mass spectrometer and the acetone replaced by perdeuterotoluene. Results are reported in µg C7D8/g. The other
method, developed by Daimler Chrysler, is based on a
dynamic headspace method [6]. The sample is heated at
90oC and purged for 30 minutes with an inert gas. The
volatile substances emitted during the process are transferred to a gas chromatograph, where they are first cryofocused at – 150oC in a cryogenic trap before injection by
quickly heating the trap to 280oC. The focused substances
are separated by a capillary column and detected by mass
spectroscopy. Results are reported in ppm, using toluene
as the calibration substance.
Higher boiling point substances have a tendency to condense and produce a light scattering film on a glass surface. A number of manufacturers have their own
procedures, which are derived from DIN 75 201. For our
study we used the Daimler Chrysler method, which uses
the same principle in determining the VOC but in this case
the thermodesorption is carried out at 120oC for 60 minutes. Results are reported in ppm using hexadecane as the
calibration substance.
Foam samples were taken and wrapped in 2 layers of
aluminum paper and a polyethylene bag immediately after
demold for shipment to the analytical laboratories.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
VORANOL VORACTIV polyols were scaled up in several Dow manufacturing plants and foamed in Dow laboratories to establish control tests, before being shipped to
customers for extended industrial trials on molding lines.
During such trials the formulations were fine-tuned. These
foams were then tested for VOC emissions and for physical characteristics. Reference foams, based on conventional amine catalyst packages, were also produced and
tested in parallel for comparative purposes. This paper
will present each step of this development program.
Scale up of VORANOL VORACTIV Polyol production
VORANOL VORACTIV polyols were initially produced on a small scale in Dow laboratories to optimize
reaction yields. These polyols were then produced in pilot
plant reactors in drum quantities and foamed using highpressure machines. Data on these programs have been
reported in previous papers [1,2]. The main objective was
then to test the reproducibility of the process with a series
of pilot runs, which confirmed the robustness of the technology.
These positive results were confirmed when these
polyols were scaled up in commercial size reactors and,
Table 5: Toxicity Profile of VORANOL VORACTIV Polyol
Test
Result
Mammalian Acute Toxicity
Oral LD-50 in rats
> 2000 mg/kg
21 Days Daphnia Reproduction Toxicity
NOEC
> 1 mg/liter
Fish Toxicity
LC-50
> 100 mg/liter
Ready Biodegradation Test
14% in 28 days
when using the process developed in the laboratory, were
found to have the same final product composition. Of
major importance was the fact that these polyols could be
produced, using standard equipment and processes, without additional safety measures [7]. Obviously, contamination with conventional polyols should be prevented
through proper pipe-purging and separate storage.
Evaluation of the toxicity aspect of VORANOL
VORACTIV polyols showed that they are not corrosive or
irritant to skin or eyes and can be handled with the same
protective equipment as conventional polyols. Other environmental characteristics of a representative sample of
VORANOL VORACTIV polyol are given in Table 5.
Based on the 21-day daphnia reproduction toxicity test
and fish toxicity, this polyol is not considered harmful to
aquatic organisms. Mammalian acute toxicity is also low.
It degrades fairly slowly with surfactant properties that
tend to reduce partitioning to the aqueous phase. The molecular weight range of this material (6800 Dalton average) minimizes the potential for bioaccumulation.
Overall, VORANOL VORACTIV polyol has a low
spectrum of acute toxicity, with some degradability and no
potential for bioaccumulation under anticipated use.
Another important aspect of the environmental impact of
these new Dow polyols is their VOC emission in foams
made therefrom. This is the subject of the next section of
this paper.
Polyurethane Foam VOC’s and Fogging
The first step to VOC’s testing was to evaluate the repeatability/reproducibility of each step in the whole chain
from foam production, through sample preparation to
sample analysis. To this end a series of identical foams,
based on MDI and conventional catalysts, were prepared.
Three samples from the same cushion and samples from
different cushions were analyzed using the different methods. Samples were taken from the center of the pad to
avoid any influence of the release agent. Results are given
in Table 6. Each result is the average of three measurements. Due to the fact that each method uses a different
calibration substance and/or a different detection technique, the results cannot be compared. The data show a
good homogeneity of the results from within the same pad
and from one pad to the other.
VOC’s come from all the raw materials used in foam
production. VOC’s could potentially occur from side reactions, processing aids, the uncompleted polymerization
during their production or be generated during foam production or foam testing. It is not the intention of this paper
to address this issue in general terms and we will concentrate on the substances that are generated from the catalysts used in the foaming reaction. Conventional catalysts
are relatively volatile substances and it is therefore not
surprising to find them as VOC’s. What is more surprising
is to find products like dipropylene glycol, derived from
the solvent used for these catalysts, in the vapor phase.
This result shows that even low-molecular-weighthydroxyl-bearing substances are not fully incorporated in
the polymer matrix. Although reactive catalysts are not
detected as VOC’s, we have shown that under certain
conditions some of these products can contribute to PVC
staining [1]. Round Robin tests were then organized with
other analytical laboratories both within and outside Dow
and are still underway. At the time of writing this article,
initial outside reports confirm the validity of the data
shown in Table 6. In view of that a study was undertaken
on VORANOL VORACTIV-based foams using polyols
Table 6: Repeatability/Reproducibility Study of VOC Measurements
Method
PB-VWT-709
HS-GC-MS
PV 3341
PV 3341
OEM
DaimlerChrysler
Dow
VW
VW
Results expressed as
ppm C7H8
µg C7D8/g
µg C/g
µg C/g
Cushion #1
Cushion #1
Cushion #1
Cushion #2
Sample #1
1035
162
8.3
9.1
Sample #2
1108
228
8.0
8.7
Sample #3
882
211
8.1
9.2
PV 3341
VW
µg C/g
Cushion #3
9.4
9.4
9.4
Table 7: Foam Formulations and Reactivity Comparison
Formulation 1
php
70
SPECFLEX NC-632
Polyol A
SPECFLEX NC-700
Water
DEOA (85%)
NIAX A-1
DABCO 33 LV
POLYCAT 15
NIAX L-3555
VORANATE T-80
Index
Cream Time
Gel Time
Rise Time
s
s
s
90
6
59
84
100
6
59
97
105
6
58
104
90
5
58
109
100
5
60
116
Kg/m3
31
29
28
29
28
* Silicon containing components
662
80
HC
3
*
N
N H
C 4H 9
N
80
1406
37.3
2
N
27.5
272
100
*
105
5
63
118
tional reactive amine catalyst. The data shown in Table 7
also indicate the free rise reactivity comparison. Formulation 2 had been adjusted to meet the same gel time as the
control Formulation 1. However, one can see that rise time
was longer in Formulation 2 indicating a lack of final
1481
CH
3
O
HC
3
containing
* Silicon
components
650
17.3
4
CH3
N
N
60
60
HC
3
804
21.3
9
40
16
N
CH
3
*
0
500
1000
*
N
*
0
0
250
*
148
39.3
595
15.8
7
791
21.0 880
8 23.4
4
*
500
750
101
26.9
3
7
109
29.1
5
100
0
125
33.5
9
0
135
36.0
5
125
0
Figure 3: FOG Chromatogram of Formulation 1
* Silicon containing components
100
Silicon containing components
*
*
713
CH
3
20
295 423
1500
80
NH
C 8 H 17
HC
3
Figure 1: VOC Chromatogram of Formulation 1
100
O
40
1545
41.0
1
1285
34.1
0
20
0
0.5
0.90
0.90
from Table 4. Two formulations, as shown in Table 7
were initially used to compare emissions of low-density
polyurethane foams. One formulation was based on conventional catalysts, and the other formulation contained
polyol A combined with some POLYCAT 15, a conven-
N
70
30
3.5
0.8
30
3.5
0.8
0.05
0.40
Free Rise Density
100
Formulation 2
80
N H
C 4H
9
60
60
NH
40
40
140
37.3
20
* *
154
41.0
662
17.6
706
18.8
122
32.5
160
192
42.6 171 51.0
45.4
0
0
500
100
150
*
Figure 2: VOC Chromatogram of Formulation 2
C 8 H 17
651
17.3
20
460 546
12.2 14.5
0
0
250
500
*
*
*
714 792
827 878 1014 1134 1243 1355
21.9 23.3 26.9 30.1 33.0 36.0
750
1000
1250
Figure 4: FOG Chromatogram of Formulation 2
Method
OEM
Results expressed as
Formulation 1
Formulation 2
Table 8: VOC and FOG Measurements (Index 100)
PV 3341
HS-GC-MS
PB-VWT-709 (VOC)
VW
Dow
Daimler Chrysler
µg C/g
µg C7D8/g
ppm C7H8
6.2
156
378
3.0
22
208
catalysis. We propose that since POLYCAT 15 contains a
secondary amine group, it reacts in the early stage of the
reaction with the isocyanate and therefore its catalytic
activity weakens at the end of rise. This result is apparent
from both the crushing force at demold, which is higher
for Formulation 1, and the final foam properties. Indeed
foams produced with Formulation 2 are significantly
softer after curing than foams A.
These foams were tested for their VOC’s and FOG content. Table 8 reports the results according to the different
methods used for index 100. Similar figures were obtained
with Index 90 and 105. Figure 1 to Figure 4 show the
chromatograms obtained when these foams were tested
according to the PB-VWT-709 method for VOC and FOG
content respectively. These data confirm that VORANOL
VORACTIV polyols reduce the emission from the foam
and that they do not generate volatiles by themselves.
Industrial Production of Molded Parts at Renosol
The industrial production of VORANOL VORACTIV
polyols was dependent on the development of formulations matching current foaming conditions on Renosol’s
molding lines and meeting OEM’s foam property specifi-
Formulation
SPECFLEX NC-630
SPECFLEX NC-700
Polyol B
Water
DEOA (85%)
Silicone
Catalyst A
Catalyst B
Catalyst C
Catalyst D
VORANATE T-80
Cream Time
Gel Time
Rise Time
Free Rise Density
Odor at Demold
PB-VWT-709 (FOG)
Daimler Chrysler
ppm n-C16H34
182
107
cations . Hence a program was initially carried out in
Dow’s laboratories to achieve this aim. The main results
of this work are presented in Table 9, giving comparative
formulations and foam reactivities. Total machine output
was 320 g/s and raw material temperatures were 25oC.
Table 9 shows that the use of 47 parts of VORANOL
VORACTIV polyol B has allowed a reduction of 60% by
weight of the total amine package while maintaining foam
reactivity and processing. Foam physical properties were
found comparable for both systems. This will be described
in more detail in the next section of this paper.
Industrial trials were then based on similar formulations
and using the conditions described in the experimental
section. The foam made with VORANOL VORACTIV
polyol had an approximately 2 to 3 seconds longer cream
time with equal end cure when compared with the conventional foam and seemed to give improved flow with
equal cell openness. No changes in pour patterns were
required to produce equivalent quality parts with the
VORANOL VORACTIV polyol. During the initial trial,
the production line was run for 4 hours, producing about
500 parts in different molds without any difficulties.
Photographs of some of these parts are shown in Figure 5
and Figure 6.
Table 9: Comparison of Foam Formulations (Index 100)
Conventional
VORANOL VORACTIV
php
47
53
53
47
3.2
3.2
1.65
1.65
1.0
1.0
0.16
0.16
0.2
0.5
0.20
41.7
42.3
s
s
s
Kg/m3
4
50
77
34.6
Offensive
5
51
83
34.7
Mild
Figure 5: Front Seat
6293M and ASTM D3794 test methods. The averages of
results for several parts are reported in Table 10.
The data in Table 10 demonstrate that there is little difference in foam physical characteristics between both
foam types and that the VORANOL VORACTIV based
formulation, having 60% less amine catalyst, meets G.M.
specifications. Dynamic fatigue and flammability (according to MVSS 302) tests have also confirmed the feasibility of this new chemistry
The data presented in Table 11 show that the introduction of the VORANOL VORACTIV polyol has reduced
the volatile content by about 65% and the FOG content by
35%, compared with the original formulation.
CONCLUSION
Figure 6: Rear Seat Set
Foam Physical Properties and Emissions Comparison
Foam pads produced during this extensive industrial trial
were tested for foam properties according to G.M.E.
In parallel to these positive developments, new formulations using VORANOL VORACTIV polyols, reduced
amine catalysts and either TDI or MDI have been successfully run on industrial lines located in various parts of the
globe, and several plants are being converted to this new
technology.
This paper has demonstrated that diminution of amine
catalysts use level leads to odor and volatile reduction in
automotive
seating
foams.
Hence
VORANOL
VORACTIV polyols are helping the industry meet the
target of lower VOC’s.
Test
Part Weight
50% IFD
Sag Factor
Core Density
50% CFD
Airflow
Resiliency
Tensile Strength
Elongation
Tear Strength
Compression Set 50%
Compression Set 75%
Humid Aged CS 50%
Humid Aged CFD Loss
Table 10: Comparison of Foam Physical Properties
Units
Conventional
g
719
N
480
3
Kg/m3
40.9
Kpa
7.4
Cfm
1.7
%
62
Kpa
200
%
125
N/m
260
%
15.4
%
13.4
%
23.7
%
1.9
Method
OEM
Results expressed as
Conventional
VORANOL VORACTIV
Table 11: VOC and FOG Measurements of Industrial Foams
PV 3341
HS-GC-MS
PB-VWT-709 (VOC)
VW
Dow
Daimler Chrysler
µg C/g
µg C7D8/g
ppm C7H8
16.2
248
1105
6.2
94
318
VORANOL VORACTIV
720
474
2.9
41.1
7.3
1.6
61
230
120
297
13.1
15.0
23.0
7.1
PB-VWT-709 (FOG)
Daimler Chrysler
ppm n-C16H34
327
210
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank their many Dow and Renosol
colleagues who had a role in generating the data presented
in this paper. Special thanks are extended to Jim Cosman,
Jean Courtial, Hugo de la Ruelle, Richard Elwell, Jose
Godoy, Luis Hernandez, Tim Landry, Olga Milovanovic,
Chris Noakes, Carole Plumb, Ross Polk, Alan Schrock,
Jeroen Schuit, Mark Sonnenschein, Duane Ulmer, Freddy
van Damme and the Meyrin and Sarnia foam testing laboratories personnel.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Broos R.; Sonney J.M.; Phan Thanh H.; Casati F.M.
(2000), “Polyurethane Foam Molding Technologies
for Improving Total Passenger Compartment Comfort”, Proceedings of the Polyurethane Conference
2000, Technomics: Lancaster, Pa, 341-353
Casati F.M.; Sonney J.M.; Mispreuve H.; Fanget A.;
Herrington R.; Tu J. (2001), “Elimination of Amine
Emissions from Polyurethane Foams: Challenges and
Opportunities” Proceedings of the Polyurethane Conference 2001, Technomics: Lancaster, Pa, 341-353
Reed D. (1999), “VW aims to cut amines”, Urethanes
Technology, 16/4, 3
Herrington, R.; De Genova, R.; Casati, F. and Brown
M. (1997), “Molded Foams, Chapter 11”, in Flexible
Polyurethane Foams; Herrington, R. and Hocks, K.
eds, The Dow Chemical Company, Form No 10901061, 11.1-11.41
Volkswagen AG; Nichtmetallische Werkstoffe der
Kfz-Innenaustatung, bestimung der Emission organischer Vebindungen, PV 3341
DaimlerChrysler, analysis of the emission of volatile
and condensable substances from vehicle interior
materials by thermodesorption; PB VWL 709
Gum, W.F.; Riese W.; Ulrich, H. (1992), “Reaction
Polymers, Chemistry, Technology, Applications,
Market”, Hanser publishers, p. 77-79
BIOGRAPHIES
Jean-Marie Sonney
Dr
Jean-Marie
Sonney
graduated from the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (Switzerland) and received his Ph.D.
degree in physical organic
chemistry from the same
institution in 1979. After a
post-doctoral research fellowship at the University of
California, Santa Cruz, he joined the Geneva-based Research and Development group of BP Chemicals in 1981
and was transferred to the Dow Chemical Company in
1989. During this period, he had various responsibilities in
the field of Analytical Chemistry, Quality Assurance,
EH&S, Quality Management and Technical Service. He is
currently a Senior Development Specialist in the Development Group for Flexible Foams.
François M. Casati
François M. Casati graduated
from ICPI (F), now CPELyon (Ecole Superieure de
Chimie
Physique
Electronique de Lyon), in 1967.
He has over 30 years of experience in Polyurethanes, Industrial
Amines
and
Biocides, with S.N.P.E.,
Recticel, Abbott Laboratories, BP Chemicals and The
Dow Chemical Company. During that time he has held
various positions in Manufacturing, Marketing and Research & Development. He is currently working as a
Product Development Leader for the Flexible Foam business of Dow.
Bob Dawe
Bob Dawe joined Dow in
1986 and worked on enhanced crude oil recovery,
pulp and paper applications,
and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Bob
joined Polyurethanes as a
TS&D specialist in 2000 for
molded foam applications,
and is based in Sarnia, Canada.
He has a Ph.D. (1982) in synthetic organic chemistry from
the University of Waterloo and has held postdoctoral positions at the Australian National University and the National Research Council of Canada.
Paul Fielding
Paul Fielding has worked in the polyurethane industry
since graduating from Michigan Technological University
with a Chemical Engineering degree in 1993. He has held
various process engineering related positions. These positions have involved RIM, SRIM, integral skin, cast elastomer, microcellular and HR automotive seating
applications. He currently works for Renosol Corporation
as Process Manager at the Farwell, Michigan production
facility.
Khalil N. Khameneh
Khalil Khameneh is a Senior
Technical Support Specialist
in the Dow Automotive Foams
Research & Development Department of The Dow Chemical Company in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. He received a
Bachelor's Degree in Chemistry and a Master's Degree in
Polymer Technology from
Eastern Michigan University.
He joined Dow in 1988 and has responsibilities for development and technical service for molded foams used in
automotive seating and Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH)
applications. Prior to joining Dow, Khalil gained experience in molded foams and elastomer at Renosol Corporation
John Olari
John Olari has worked in the
urethane industry since
graduating from Michigan
Technological
University
with a Chemical Engineering degree in 1986. He has
worked as a chemist, process engineer, technical manager and tech service
engineer. He has worked in
molded acoustical, integral
skin, and seating foam areas as well as cast elastomers and
RIM. He currently works for Renosol Corporation as a Sr.
Technical Service Engineer.
Thomas Jones
Tom received a B.S.E. (Chemical Engineering) from the
University of Michigan and M.B.A. from Eastern Michigan University and has been associated with the polyurethane industry for over 30 years. He initially started as a
formulator and process engineer for a business participating in both hot and HR TDI based polyether urethane
molded foams for automotive seats. Tom has been involved on both the technology and product management
side of a broad array of polyurethane applications. These
applications have ranged from polyether and polyester
urethane shoe materials, elastomers, automotive instrunt
panel and interior trim to rigid spray foams. Tom joined
Renosol Corporation in 1981 and his current position is
Vice President, Polyurethane Development.