CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING
NEWS VOLUME 38, NUMBER 2o
The Chemical World This Week
MAY 16, 1960
Isocyanates Ride Foam Boom Nopco's move into TDI reflects strength of urethane sales; more industry capacity may be needed soon Nopco Chemical's plans to get more basic in urethane foams by producing its own toluene diisocyanate (C&EN, May 9, page 17) illustrates at least one point: Sales of urethane materials are having no trouble keeping pace with market forecasts. Two years ago, when urethane foam output was running at about 35 million pounds per year, the 1960 market was estimated at 100 million pounds (C&EN, Sept. 29, 1958, page 4 0 ) . Current forecast for 1960: 110 million pounds. This year's foam output will soak up about 35 million pounds of TDI. The three producers who compete for this business—Du Pont, Mobay, and National Aniline—have a combined capacity of 51 million pounds per year. This figure will rise to 58 million pounds in midsummer, when Mobay finishes its latest expansion, and then
climb to 68 million pounds when Nopco brings its plant on stream in January 1962. By that time, the market for T D I in foams should be clipping along at an annual rate near 60 million pounds. Bright Outlook. The current T D I capacity-demand picture shows about 50 % excess capacity, not a happy situation if taken at face value. But to be judged properly, excess capacity must be viewed in the light of the urethane foam growth curve. Foam output should increase about 2 5 % per year during the next four years to total something like 275 million pounds in 1964. This will provide a 90 million pound outlet for TDI. The outlook in TDI, then, is bright, and announcements of additional capacity are likely to come along before the end of the year. Strong demand for TDI, however,
probably will not bring a rush of new producers into the business. The process is complicated: nitration of toluene to dinitrotoluene, catalytic hydrogénation to diaminotoluene, and reaction with phosgene to yield TDI. One producer says the process is not really polished; some fine points of optimum manufacture won't be worked out for another couple of years. Capital costs run high (Nopco's 10 million-pound plant, expandable to 20 million pounds, will cost $7 million), and a fairly large plant is needed to keep operating costs down. Ambitious Move. Nopco's entry into TDI is regarded by the industry as an ambitious move. The company currently sells prefoamed flexible urethanes and prepolymer systems for rigid foams. It ranks about sixth or seventh among the country's foam producers. Nopco figures that its
SOARING POLYURETHANE OUTPUT BOOSTS TDI DEMAND Production (Millions of pounds)
1958 1959 I960" 1962* 1964*
Total Foam
Flexible Foam
Rigid Foam
Toluene Diisocyanate
35 75 110 175 275
35 65 93 125 185
10 17 50 90
10 23 35 57 91
* Estimated
MAY 16, 1 9 6 0 C&EN
29
TDI CAPACITY RISES TO MEET DEMAND Toluene Diisocyanate Capacity (Millions of pounds per year) 1960 1961 1962
Producer Du Pont Deepwater Point, N J . Mobay New Martinsville, W.Va. National Aniline Moundsville, W.Va. Nopco New Jersey* Total
25
25
25
18
25
25
8
8
8
.. 58
10 68
L.
51
* Exact location not announced.
foam business will be large enough by the time the plant is ready so that most of the output can be used captively. This means that Nopco, which is estimated to have sold about 5 million pounds of foam in 1959, will have to come up with a fivefold increase in foam sales over the next couple of years if it is to take full advantage of its TDI plant. Nopco may be pinning a large part of its hopes to markets that are about to open up for rigid urethane foam. Flexible foams have had most of the attention during the young life of urethane materials and now have footholds in furniture, bedding, and autos (C&EN, Sept. 7, 1959, page 3 4 ) . Rigids, on the other hand, are just getting started. Between now and 1964, output of flexible foam is expected to double (93 million pounds to 185 million pounds), while rigid foam production will go up about five times ( 17 million pounds to 90 million pounds). Growth for rigids should come in two main areas: insulation for refrigerators, transportation equipment, and industrial uses; plastic panels for home construction. At present, almost all of the rigid foam produced goes into insulation. Price a Big Factor. Most in the industry agree that the future of rigid urethane foam is tied to price. Unhke flexible urethanes, which are priced competitively with other foams, the rigids are more expensive than their main competitor, foamed polystyrene. But two factors are working to narrow the difference: lower T D I prices and the economy of one-shot systems. One-shot processing of flexible 30
C&EN
MAY
16,
1960
foams has gained rapid acceptance since techniques were brought out in 1958. In rigids, though, prepolymer systems are just beginning to give ground to one-shot methods. While the change probably will not be as rapid or as complete as it was for flexible foams, it will help the cost outlook in some uses. Lower T D I prices, of course, would help urethane sales across the board. Flexible foam is about 30% TDI; rigid, about 40%. While no one plans now to lower TDI prices, trade sources feel that the current 70 cents-per-pound tag will eventually fall to about 55 cents. Not to be overlooked in the future of TDI and other isocyanates are markets outside of the foam field—in urethane coatings, elastomers, and adhesives and as intermediates for chemicals and pharmaceuticals. These outlets now account for perhaps a million pounds per year of isocyanates. Growth should be steady.
Scientists Urge Stepped Up Radiation Research Research on atomic radiation and its hazards "on a wide front is urgently needed." That's a conclusion of over 140 scientists in a joint report issued by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council. The report, by and large, is reassuring. No new facts about radiation hazards brought to light in recent years, it says, "call for a drastic revision of earlier recommendations. . . . Man can expect to derive increasing
benefits from the release of nuclear energy with a minimum hazard to himself and his descendants." But another, more cautious theme runs throughout the findings: "Many questions about radiation hazards . . . are unanswerable with present data." The new NAS-NRC report, "The Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation," brings up to date similar reports published by NAS in 1956. Its aim is to point out future objectives and call attention to research needs, as well as to summarize present knowledge. It is the work of six committees of scientists supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. Greater Difficulties. The report notes that despite many important developments in genetics and radiobiology, in some respects hazards are now more difficult to estimate than was thought four years ago. Scientists now believe, for example, that genetic damage from a given amount of radiation differs when exposure is chronic at low rates rather than acute. Genetic effects from low radiation doses may be less than previously estimated, the report adds. Nevertheless, the NAS committee on genetic effects corvtinues to recommend that the average gonadal dose accumulated during the first 30 years of life not exceed 10 r of man-made radiation. The report suggests that future studies of the induction of genetic mutation should extend to agents other than radiation. Industrial effluents, food additives, drugs, hormones, and cosmetics are among the materials that may induce mutations. "Chemical mutagens (or antimutagens) are of particular interest," it states, "since recent studies indicate that radiation may act through chemical products." While exposure to radiation may shorten the lives of animals, the report continues, no such shortening has been found in man following small doses. But it cautions that the effects of dose, dose rate, and dose fractionation on length of life are not known. The report is cautious, too, regarding the accumulation of fallout elements in food. All living things, it notes, now have a different and higher burden of radioactivity than in the pre-atomic era. The effect of this radioactivity is not known. Since fallout is far from uniform throughout the world, levels of radioactive isotopes in foodstuffs from various locations vary sharply, and our inability to monitor all food material poses a problem.
