Document 7OXY1a47OzL3Xym2wek9naqeB

TENNECOI N,,T ER-OFFICE MEMO CHEMICALS, INC. V From Subject W.W. Heal at Burlington date January 7, 1971 F.W. Kanzler Microscopic Analyses at Burlington cpv to of 1730 Dispersion Resin H.B. E.J. G.W. R.D. txFile Carr Hourihan Leach Richards At your request, several samples of 1750 resin were subjected to microscopic analyses with the aim'to identify the "gels" showing when the resin is mixed with DOP and subsequently , drawn out on a glass sheet. Figures 1 through 5 show a cotton fiber (Figure 1) and synthetic fibers (Figures 2 and 3) in a paste prepared from a finished resin (lot number 801002)-. Most of the "gels" investigated showed fiber contamination. It is suspected that the fibers cause lumping of the polymer re sulting in a gel phenomena. In addition to the gels caused by fibers, several burnt pieces of polymer were noted to have the gel appearance. A sliver of "fused polymer" from the wet collector about 5 mm long and 0.25 mm in diameter was softened in DOP. Subsequent scraping of the softened surface revealed fibers under the outer polymer layer (Figure 4). The fibers are very similar in appear ance to the surface lint found on a 5 yu Cuno filter (Figure 8). 4 The very rough surface of the wet product bin paste was mainly due to the retained moisture in the polymer (Figure 5) however, synthetic fibers were also noted in this sample. The fine product bin samples were subjected to a two-step ex amination: (l) the drawdown paste was investigated and (2) the paste was oven cured for three minutes followed by macroscopic analysis. The curing step resulted in a better identification of the fibers. Figure 6 shows a fiber in a cured -sample, while Figure 7 shows a fiber in a paste sample. Both fibers are .sus pected to be synthetic, with the fiber in the cured sample show ing apparent heat damage. Again, at least two burnt polymer particles were noted in the fine product samples in addition to the fiber contamination. . * Lastly, a sample from the latex blend tank was investigated. Aside from fibers clearly visible similar to Figure 7> the cur ing step revealed fibers which were not visible initially in the paste. Figure 9 shows a gel found in the paste. Figures 10 and 11 show the same gel after curing. Unfused po'lymer and fi bers are clearly visible. While the most likely source of fibers (synthetic and natural) would be at the filters, the Cuno filter could be considered a likely starting point for1 contamination, particularly in view of COLORITE 013847 Page 2 of ability of wool to form small felt-like agglomerates (Fig ure 4) when agitated in warm water. Attachments (4). FWK/jt Vf- ; FvW. Kanzler 4 COLORITE 013848 Lcii *oiooi Ptut* .I loox 'Ty^ff n*o Lqx4 *01002 PfKiri ISx Tyfi nv> M . ' ^o*i | OOioox PrtiT# iox t y{? HJtf ' , ' ' P'V7- . ., ( ^^ COLORITE 013849 ' . V Wit ctucctfft. ft/JSO ^OwynfR MIOOX r'V V/*t Pmoua Bm PmT6 3SX COLORXTE 013850 Lute* Biktao'T**k Poire loon <-ATEx StefrpTflrtK loo* Lots* 8tea.TAi.ic Fi/jso Fvisp P'6- 11 3tic COLORITE 013852