Plasticizer cost-performance

Finally, repeat the first four steps, but this time use the small numbers on the selector chart and only for the plastic group that was found to be the best. The plastic with the lowest final total will be the best for the application on a cost-performance basis. 

For over a century plastics have successfully competed with other materials in old and new applications providing cost-performance advantages, etc. In fact within the plastic industry there is extensive competition where one plastic competes with another plastic. Examples include many such as thermoplastic elastomers vs. thermoset... 

A route to compatibility involving ionomers has been described recently by Eisenberg and coworkers [250-252]. The use of ionic interactions between different polymer chains to produce new materials has gained tremendous importance. Choudhury et al. [60] reported compatibilization of NR-polyolefin blends with the use of ionomers (S-EPDM). Blending with thermoplastics and elastomers could enhance the properties of MPR. The compatibility of copolyester TPE, TPU, flexible PVC, with MPR in aU proportions, enables one to blend any combination of these plastics with MPR to cost performance balance. Myrick has reported on the effect of blending MPR with various combinations and proportions of these plastics and provided a general guideline for property enhancement [253]. 

The ability to downgauge, decrease part weight, improve barrier properties and reach new levels of product performance are propelling polyolefins into new markets previously dominated by other plastics. The high growth rate in PP production capacity is mainly being driven by the ability of PP to replace other resins on a cost/performance basis. For example, functionalisation of PP by incorporation of acrylic functionality has extended its weatherability performance. Interpolymer competition will have a significant impact on the amount and type of additives used. 

There are no simple rules of thumb in defining the cost of reinforced plastic components. Their successful use has resulted from proper design, utilizing the benefits these materials offer, process selection, tooling cost advantages that fit the production needs, and consideration of life cycle economics. Each existing application illustrates the cost-performance advantage of reinforced plastic over the traditional material that is displaced. 

Ethylhexanol. Use of 2-ethylhexanol in the manufacture of PVC plasticizers, most notably DOP (di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate), has historically accounted for over 70 percent of U.S. demand for this alcohol. DOP has been the most widely used general purpose PVC plasticizer for close to half a century and is considered the "workhorse" of the industry. The material is used in a wide variety of PVC resin applications including flooring, wire and cable, packaging and coated fabrics. In the past, DOP has represented the industry cost/ performance standard against which all competing plasticizers were measured. 

The Increasing Acceptance of Plasticizers with Better Cost-Performance than POP. While the breakthrough n-butyralde-hyde technology of the mid seventies will tend to make new 2EH capacity competitive with existing plasticizer range alcohol plants, there has been a trend away from DOP in the U.S. 

These environmentally degradable polyolefins, because of their cost/ performance profiles are very competitive for the growing markets for such plastics. They will be strong competition for the polyester types such as poly(lactic acid) and polyhydroxyalkanoates so frequently publicized as the innovative solution to plastic waste management. 

FYARESTOR-100 is a highly effective, economical, halogen-ated organic ideally suited for use in plastic and other products requiring flame retardancy with optimum cost/performance advantages. 

Abstract Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) is an attractive material because it can be produced from renewable resources and because of its plastic-like properties. In addition, PHA can be degraded by the action of microbial enzymes. Although PHA resanbles some commodity plastics, the performance and cost of PHA are not yet good enough for widespread applications as plastic materials. Therefore, the PHA commercialization attempts by many industries for bulk applications have been challenging. However, PHA also possesses interesting properties that can be developed for non-plastic applications. This chapter describes some new niche applications for PHA in cosmetics and wastewater treatment. 

With hyperbranched polyesterpolyols and polyesteramides, molecular nanosystems have now reached the cost-performance threshold for use in plastics and composites along a broad front. 

According to these data, the moduli of elasticity of plastics lie below those of wood, concrete, and metals thus, these materials are more rigid than plastics. But the yield stress limit of plastics is significantly higher than that of concrete (particulate filled cement), and about the same as that of wood, copper, and aluminum, but it is much lower than that of cast iron, titanium, and steel. Concrete and wood are less expensive materials, whereas plastics and metals cost about the same per unit mass. But, because of their low densities, plastics cost considerably less than metals on a volume basis. Plastics compare relatively poorly with concrete, wood, and metals in terms of the performance per unit cost with respect to the modulus of elasticity. But plastics compete successfully with concrete and metals in respect to the cost per unit of tensile strength. 

Plastics, as a class of material, is a truly exceptional one in that within a short span of less than a single lifetime it has pervaded nearly all aspects of modem life in all parts of the civilized world. Examples of successful replacement of conventional materials by plastics are far too numerous to list. What is important to note, however, is that nearly all of these substitutions survived in the marketplace and often continue to increase their market share in the relevant sectors. These obviously provide good value for the money because successful applications of plastics deliver performance comparable to (or better than) the materials they replaced but at a lower cost. A valid argument might be made that the market cost of plastics seriously underestimates the true cost, which reflects the use of common resources and externalities associated with their production. The same, however, holds tme for competing materials as well. The available (albeit incomplete) data suggest that even a comparison based on the true cost of materials would find plastics to be an exceptional value. 

---