Blending formulation costs

Proprietary blend formulations based on polysulfone, polyethersulfone, and polyphenylsulfone are sold commercially by Amoco Corporation to meet various end use requirements. The blends based on polysulfone are sold under the MINDEL trademark. A glass fiber-reinforced blend based on PES is offered under the trade name RADEL AG-360. This offers most of the performance characteristics of 30% glass fiber-reinforced polyethersulfone but at a lower cost. Two blend product lines are offered based on PPSF. These are designated as the RADEL R-4000 and R-7000 series of products. The former is a lower cost alternative to RADEL R PPSF homopolymer offering most of the performance attributes unique to PPSF. The R-7000 series of resins have been formulated for use in aircraft interiors for civil air transport. They exhibit a very high degree of resistance to flammabihty and smoke release. 

Computerized optimization using the three-parameter description of solvent interaction can facihtate the solvent blend formulation process because numerous possibihties can be examined quickly and easily and other properties can also be considered. This approach is based on the premise that solvent blends with the same solvency and other properties have the same performance characteristics. Eor many solutes, the lowest cost-effective solvent blends have solvency that is at the border between adequate and inadequate solvency. In practice, this usually means that a solvent blend should contain the maximum amount of hydrocarbon the solute can tolerate while still remaining soluble. 

A recently developed computer-based technique allows time spent in laboratory screening of solvent formulations for particular applications to be greatly reduced (I). In this method, blend performance properties are calculated by simple mixing rules from the properties of the component solvents, and a blend composition is chosen which will match a required set of properties while minimizing cost. Solvent blends formulated in this way have an excellent chance of success in subsequent laboratory tests. 

Therefore, an understanding of the relationship between recycled polyolefinic blend formulation and processing on one hand and blend morphology and properties on the other should facilitate a more cost-effective approach to product formulation and processing and product design for applications using recycled polyolefins. 

There is an important caveat, however, about the cost of blends. Their price cannot be the simple tie line connecting those for A and B (see right side of Figure 2) since there is a formulation cost, A,that may include extra processing steps,... 

As has been shown here, POT is moderate volume thermoplastic polyesters with applications in molded plastics and fibers, and it is often used in blend formulations [136]. Because of the low melt viscosity and melt stability, PBT can be melted with other thermoplastic polyesters or with entirely different polymers. The key reason for blending PBT with other polymers is to "tailor" new materials with beneficial performance-cost profiles which will meet actual application... 

The added raw material and production costs relative to other elastomers (polybutadiene, styrene-butadiene copolymers, etc.) have kept polyoctenamer from entering the realm of a commodity mbber, but Vestenamer has achieved success as a minor component in numerous elastomer blends. Formulations containing 10-20% of Vestenamer have lower melt viscosity and better green strength than their parent... 

These surfactants, in conjunction with soap, produce bars that may possess superior lathering and rinsing in hard water, greater lather stabiUty, and improved skin effects. Beauty and skin care bars are becoming very complex formulations. A review of the Hterature clearly demonstrates the complexity of these very mild formulations, where it is not uncommon to find a mixture of synthetic surfactants, each of which is specifically added to modify various properties of the product. Eor example, one approach commonly reported is to blend a low level of soap (for product firmness), a mild primary surfactant (such as sodium cocoyl isethionate), a high lathering or lather-boosting cosurfactant, eg, cocamidopropyl betaine or AGS, and potentially an emollient like stearic acid (27). Such benefits come at a cost to the consumer because these materials are considerably more expensive than simple soaps. 

Reformulating to reduce HAP solvents frequently means that solvent blend costs increase. The newer blends are generally not be as effective. For example, many coatings were usually formulated using ketones as the active solvents with aromatic hydrocarbons as diluents. This combination produced the most cost-effective formulations. However, when MEK, MIBK, toluene, and xylene became HAP compounds, less-effective solvents had to be used for reformulation. Esters are the most common ketone replacements, and aUphatic diluents would replace the aromatic hydrocarbons. In this situation, more strong solvent is required compared to the ketone/aromatic formulation and costs increase. The combination of reduced VOC emissions and composition constraints in the form of HAP restrictions have compHcated the formulator s task. 

Other additives. Amorphous polypropylene, waxes and asphalt can be added to decrease the cost of BR formulations. On the other hand, PIB can be blended with NR, styrene-butadiene rubber, EVA and low molecular weight polyethylene to impart specific properties. 

The cost/performance factor of individual surfactants will always be considered in determining which surfactants are blended in a mixed active formulation. However, with the recent advent of compact powders and concentrated liquids, other factors, such as processing, density, powder flowability, water content, stabilization of additives, dispersibility in nonaqueous solvents, dispersion of builders, and liquid crystalline phase behavior, have become important in determining the selection of individual surfactants. 

Since EPDM is a cheaper elastomer, it is often added to SBR to reduce cost. Zhao et al. have studied the effects of curative and accelerator concentration as well as the effect of mixing on the properties of ablend compound containing 70 parts of SBR and 30 parts of EPDM [41]. Table 11.18 gives the general formulation of the blend compounds. 

Solvent Formulation System. Another technology area which cuts across product lines is solvent formulation. For each pound of coatings applied, cost of solvents represents an appreciable portion of the total cost. Solvent raw material cost can be as much as one-third of the total raw material cost of coating manufacturers. In addition, solvent formulation affects many end use properties, such as aesthetics, coverage, application latitude, functional properties, etc. For our computerized solvent formulation system, we have developed a number of models which predict properties of solvent blends known to be important in solvent formulation. 

Table 7.6 shows the solution of the refineries network using the SAA scheme with N = 2000 and N = 20000 where the proposed model required 790CPUs to converge to the optimal solution. In addition to the master production plan devised for each refinery, the solution proposed the amounts of each intermediate stream to be exchanged between the different processes in the refineries. The formulation considered the uncertainty in the imported crude oil prices, petroleum product prices and demand. The three refineries collaborate to satisfy a given local market demand where the model provides the production and blending level targets for the individual sites. The annual production cost across the facilities was found to be 6 650 868. 

Further, the use of aqueous additive systems eliminates dust and compaction problems associated with the handling of powder form additives. Finally, the use of aqueous additive systems provides flexibility for mixing the additive with the resin. The additive can be mixed and dried with the resin still in moist, wet-cake form. It can be blended with other formulation ingredients, or pumped into an extruder or kneader during the compounding step. This flexibility can, in turn, provide still lower-cost processes and improved uniformity of mixing. 

The development and testing of a suitable inhibitor program of alkaline zinc/stabilized phosphate combination was undertaken in the United States. The conditions for the trial unfortunately required the product to be similar to the existing vendor s program (a me-too" product). In addition, the formulation had to be fairly simple, as the raw material blending was to take place within the region by relatively inexperienced people (which saved on the cost of effectively importing water). 

Where experience with water chemistry, system metallurgy, or system operation suggests that only minimal waterside problems may occur, or where customer demands are for minimal expenditure, inhibitor treatments may consist of only simple formulations, such as a phosphonate/polyacrylate blend. Many cooling systems around the world, both large and small, do in fact operate on little more than just this type of simple low-cost approach. However, for the most part, the operators face an uphill battle to maintain operational efficiency, and many are unaware of the benefits to be gained by using a more comprehensive treatment program. 

---