Document DMv4REbdXKov86VyYg0N6ZQvB

Materials PVDF PFAS Alternatives in the Proposed Restrictions EPDM Silicone PEEK Mica Polyvinyl Polyethylene Ceramic chloride Based PP-SFP-IPD-Ele 23/Aug/2023 Sumitomo Electric Fine Polymer Flexibility Semi rigid Continuous use temperature() 175 Tensile breaking strength(MPa) Tensile breaking elongation(%) Flexural Modulus(MPa) Oil resistance 45 200 800 Excellent Abrasion resistance Heat Shrinkable Tubing (Shrink ratio) Excellent Possible (min.50%) Flexible 90 520 100800 5~10 Poor Poor Possible (50%) Flexible 180 312 100500 5~10 Poor Poor Possible (50%) Rigid 260 90 50 4000 Excellent Excellent Possible (1520) Rigid 500(Mica) 180(Adhesi ve) 0 10000 Poor (Adhesive) Excellent Impossible Flexible Semi rigid 100 1550 500100 203000 Possible (min.50%) Flexible Semi rigid 120 1030 5001000 202000 Possible (min.50%) Rigid 500 0 10000 Impossible Comparison of properties between [PVDF] and other PFAS alternatives. Gray shaded cells are issues when substituting PVDF heat-shrink sleeve. Materials with 175 or higher are Silicone, PEEK, Mica and Ceramic. Mica and Ceramic are inorganic, so cannot processed into tubing. Silicone and PEEK are potential candidate, but they have following issues: PEEKVery stiffsee "Flexural Modulus")Shrink ratio is low SiliconeWeak in mechanical strength (see "Tensile breaking strength"), oil resistance, abraision Therefore, they cannot be the substitute of PVDF heat-shrink tubing. Shrink ratio: (D-d)/D *100 (%) where as D: Inside diameter before shrink d: Inside diameter after shrink Shrink ratio 50% = 2:1 shrink 67% = 3:1 shrink before shrink after shrink