Document QgOZXZjozZ3K51p4Mmk9BBOZ8

CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00723 McCrone2-00724 C O N F ID E N T IA L 2002 1002 0002 6661 8661 661 9661 9661 661 661 2661 1661 0661 6861 8861 861 9861 3861 861 8861 2861 * t ->nW( J? '-Hjrl-YJ'-L'.jiO PROJECT COST RECORD PROJECT TITLE talc analysis by SEM or TEM SPONSOR: ADDRESS: TJHTTTAW P PT.ARV & UANTF.T.SJ ..TUC 1000 Cuulluge G t SouLli Plainfield, NJ-- 0708ft PROJECT NO. : MA 8683 DATE RECEIVED P .O . NO. COMMITMENTS: $ Contact,: Ra3y R. Krammes SUMMARY OF PROBLEM Lab Notebook References: No. Initials No. Initials No. Initials Photom icrographic reco rd no Telephone No. : (201) 561 6100 Sample disposal returned filed (where) discarded DIRECT COSTS (Exclusive of oper. Individual tim e tim e on inst. below) Date Name Hours Travel Instrument time SEM TEM XRD EMP ESCA EMMA MOLE Hours .O . Photo Photo M aterials Supplies O VA o 5 ^^ j Destination Charge Summary Individuals Instrum ent Travel Outside Other Company Total Charge Cost OK fo r billing U l Project Ldr _ Group Ldr TOTAL CHARGE $ 3 < b U BILLED TO CLIENT $ INVOICE NO. (S) W\ j PROJECT LEADER: //> Y o -- ' 2-o i \<^v <b>\ CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00725 alter c. mccrone associates, inc. NSULTING: ULTRAMICROANALYSIS MICROSCOPY SMALL PARTICLE PROBLEMS SOLID-STATE CHEMISTRY 12 March 1982 Mr Ray R. Kramines Whittaker Clark Daniels, Inc. 1000 Coolidge Street South Plainfield, New Jersey 07080 Dear Mr. Kr amines We have examined the two talc samples you submitted for particle evaluation. They are identified as 14S04 and 14S45. These were examined on the scanning electron microscope (SEM) as the previous samples, and micrographs were taken at 220X and 1100X magnification (i original magnifications on a 4 x 5 micrograph). Magnification bars are included on the 8 x 10 prints which properly relate to the particle sizes as enlarged Enclosed herewith for each sample are: one 8 x 10 print at each magnificatioin 2 ) one 2 x 2 slide at each magnification Also enclosed are one 2 x 2 slide of each of the two 8 x 10 prints you submitted of Sample 229P73 and your original prints The two samples, 14S04 and 14S45, are very different. Sample 14S45 has a larger particle size range (i.e., larger and smaller particles) than Sample 14S04. Also Sample 14S04 is more flakelike than 14S45. Thank you for consulting McCrone Associates and if you should have any questions concerning this work, please contact us Yours sincerely, JAB :fe Enel Ref 8683 John A. Brown Research Associate 2820 SOUTH MICHIGAN AVENUE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60616 312/842-7100 CABLE CHEMICRONE CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00726 WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIEL NC 1000 COOLIDGE STREET SOUTH PLAINFIELD, N.J 07080 Phone: (201) 561-6100 Mr. John Brown SPEED HESSAG, DATE January 22, 1982 SUBJECT SEM Micrograph Please discuss with Ian!________________________________________ _____ Please prepare micrograph of two talcs 14SAF.and.U S 0 4 .at 220X & 1100X. We want 2 x2 slides and 8 x 10 prints.____________________________ Also 2 x 2 slides of two 8 x 10 prints identified as 229P73 Talc. from GRAYARC INOftrooktyn, NY 11232 CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00727 CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00728 CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00729 CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00730 C O N F ID E N T IA L ji 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1................. McCrone2-00731 SAMPLES FROM W HITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC. 1000 COOLIDGE STREET SOUTH PLAINFIELD, NEW JERSEY 07080 tfalter C. HcCrooe Association 2820 South Michigan Avenue Chicagor Illinois 60616 Lucy McCrane 693R06 Talc (CTFA Method 1-4-1 ) Forwarded Via: RRK/hm/RRK Date.... CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00732 CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00733 CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00734 Mr. Ray R. Krammes Page two Evaluation of the particle morphology and surface detail in terms of odor retention at this stage is unknown. There is a great difference between samples in particle size distribution which may or may not relate to odor retention. Certainly there is a big difference in total surface area which could relate. Particle surface texture ,,is diverse enough from particle to particle as well as from one part of a large particle to another part that a simple evaulation in terms of a single micrograph is not statistical enough to have a high enough confidence level to be usable. In order to use this feature for evaluation, a rather long and involved research effort would be required. One feature of the particles which could relate to odor retention is the fact that the large particles are dense while the smaller particles are somewhat extended. If the large particles have very fine pores then odor retention would be good for them, while if they are solid then odor would be poor. The smaller particles because of higher surface area per weight may have better odor retention if the odor has good retention on the surface. Evaluating these aspects could best be done by microtomy and intensive TEM evaluation, or by the B.E.T. nitrogen adsorption techniques which determine surface area and pore size distribu tion. Other adsorption techniques similar to the B.E.T. method might also be used with the odor material to evaluate odor retention if this were done on specially selected particle size powders. Enclosed with this report are the following: 2x2 in. slides - 1 each at 2 magnifications on each sample 8x10 in. prints - 2 each of the area shown on the slides 4x5 in. prints - 1 each of the area shown on the slides 4x5 in. negatives - 1 each of the area shown on the slides The 4x5 inch prints and negatives were the initial results taken directly from the SEM. CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00735 Mr. Ray R. Krammes Page three Thank you for consulting McCrone Associates. If you should have any questions or comments regarding this work, please feel free to contact me. Yours sincerely, John A. Brown Research Associate JAB:fe Enel. Ref: 8683 P.0. 20460 and 12074 f CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00736 ooo COOL DGE STREET (201 ) 561-6100 SOUTH PLA ELD 07080 December 19 1979 C A B L E "S L E IN A D Telex: 138248 Mr. Ian M. Stewart waiter C. McCrone Associates 2820 South Michigan Avenue Chicago, IIImois 60616 RECEIVED DEC 2 i m Dear Mr. Stewart: This is to confirm our phone conversation of Wednesday, December 19, 1979. The five talcs sent to you, namely 229P41, 229P50, 229P15, 229P28 and 229P09, are to be examined either in the TEM or SEM. They should be examined under identical conditions and the same magnification. The preparation and magnification are le ft to your choice. We would like to show differences, if any, in particle shape and surface. The resultant micrographs would then be used to prepare one 2 x 2 projection slide for each talc. We would also need two 8 x 10 prints of each of the field selected for the projection slide. On both the prints and the slide, we would like a measure of size, ie. 5, 10, 20 microns, whichever is appropriate. We have a deadline whereby the slides and prints must be in our hands by January 8, 1980. Very truly yours, WHITTAKER, CLA DANIELS, INC RRK/ceb . Krammes Manager-Technical Services Chicago 651 Executive Drive Willowbrook, Illinois 60521 (312) 323-5775 & 5777 SU3 Branch Offices: Detroit 1900 Big Beaver Road Troy. Michigan 48084 (313) 640-6620 & 6621 Ohio 2598 Merrittview Lane Cincinatti, Ohio 45231 (513) 825-3424 IM P O R T E R S M A N U F A C T U R E R S E X P O R TE R S M IN ER AL S, CO LORS, PIG M E N T S Canada 280 Bloor Street West Suite 107 Toronto, M5S 1W1 Ontario 416 923-6777 CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00737 CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00738 CONFIDENTIAL McCrone2-00739