See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257764920

Use of fluoropolymer permanent release coatings for molded polyurethane

foam production

Article  in  Journal of Coatings Technology and Research · November 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s11998-012-9413-y

CITATIONS READS

7 3,603

5 authors, including:

Leandro Figueiredo Pedro Bandeira

Universidade da Madeira GGB Bearings
8 PUBLICATIONS   166 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   76 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adélio Mendes Fernão D. Magalhães

University of Porto University of Porto
432 PUBLICATIONS   13,466 CITATIONS    193 PUBLICATIONS   4,473 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SunStorage View project

ICEER2017 - The 4th International Conference on Energy and Environment Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fernão D. Magalhães on 15 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J. Coat. Technol. Res., 9 (6) 757–764, 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11998-012-9413-y
Use of fluoropolymer permanent release coatings for molded
polyurethane foam production
Leandro Figueiredo, Pedro Bandeira,
Adélio Mendes, Margarida M. S. M. Bastos,
Fernão D. Magalhães
 ACA and OCCA 2012
Abstract The problem of adhesion of polyurethane
foams to fluoropolymer permanent release mold coatings
was studied. Two coatings, based on polytetrafluoroeth-
ylene (PTFE) and perfluoroalkoxy polymer (PFA) aque-
ous dispersions, respectively, were applied on aluminum
plates, and the foam release performance evaluated. The
PTFE coating displayed gradual loss of antiadhesion
properties with consecutive exposure to the reactive
mixture, which was associated with isocyanate surface
penetration. Penetrant mass uptake experiments, per-
formed on free films, indicated that PTFE retains about 10
times more isocyanate than PFA, probably because of its
porous surface morphology. A synergistic effect was
found by applying a very small quantity of a waterborne
release agent on the PTFE coating, before every foam
molding cycle. The release agent formed a protective
barrier that minimized contact of the coating with the
reactive mixture, allowing for stable and robust foam
release performance. The problem of polyurea build-up,
associated with the use of aqueous release agents, was not
observed because of the small amounts of compound used.
Keywords Fluoropolymer coating, Mold release,
Polyurethane foam, Isocyanate
Introduction
Polyurethanes (PURs) include a very extensive group
of polymers with different compositions and proper-
L. Figueiredo, A. Mendes, M. M. S. M. Bastos,
F. D. Magalhães (&)
LEPAE—Departamento de Engenharia Quı́mica,
Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto,
Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
e-mail: fdmagalh@fe.up.pt
P. Bandeira
Flupol, Rua da Central, 401, 4440-043 Campo, Portugal
ties, with major applications as coatings, adhesives,
elastomers, and foams. Typically, they are produced by
polycondensation of polyisocyanates with polyalco-
hols. In the case of PUR foam production, water reacts
with isocyanate, forming carbamic acid which decom-
poses to an amine and carbon dioxide which acts as the
foam blowing agent. The amine then reacts with excess
isocyanate resulting in the formation of ureas.
Flexible foam parts are manufactured industrially in
a batch molding process. The reactive components are
premixed with catalysts, foam stabilizers, reinforcing
agents, and others additives, and then poured into a
heated aluminum mold. The mold is then closed,
allowing for foam expansion and cure of the reactive
mixture. At the end of this step, the molded part is
removed and allowed to cool down.
Permanent release coatings are used in several
industrial molding applications, ranging from food to
epoxy part manufacture. Fluoropolymers are the most
common choice for these coatings, since the very low
surface energies result in excellent antiadhesion prop-
erties.1–3 However, it is well known in the industry that
with PUR-molded foam production, this type of
approach leads to poor results. The permanent coat-
ings tend to lose nonstick performance after relatively
few cycles, causing the foam to tear when removed
from the mold. The need for short-term coating
replacement is economically unfeasible. For this
reason, the molded PUR foam industry continues to
use liquid release agents applied directly to the
uncoated aluminum mold surface in generous quanti-
ties.4 These are usually aqueous dispersions typically
composed of tin or amine accelerants, siloxane-based
foam stabilizers, polyethylene waxes, and polybutadi-
ene.5 The water present in the release agent is slow to
evaporate and, owing to the short cycle times used in
industrial production, a residue persists when the
reactive mixture is poured into the mold. This residual
water reacts with isocyanate producing polyureas that
757
J. Coat. Technol. Res., 9 (6) 757–764, 2012

adhere strongly to the mold surface, forming thick

incrustations that have to be removed daily, in a cost-
intensive cleaning process.4,5 In addition, the large
amounts of release agent used per area of mold
originate a high volume of liquid effluents with organic
content, which has to be appropriately treated.
There is no information in the published literature
concerning the reasons for failure of permanent release
coatings on PUR foam molding. The purpose of this
study is to identify a possible cause for the problem and
suggest a strategy to enable the use of a fluoropolymer
coating in this context.

Experimental
Materials

Aluminum plates (90 9 90 9 1.5 mm) were coated by

Flupol (Valongo, Portugal) with industrial grade coat-
ings: polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating—Flucoat
X32, and perfluoroalkoxy polymer (PFA) coat-
ing—Flucoat 108. A primer was previously applied to
improve adhesion to the aluminum substrate: DuPont
459–808 and DuPont 420–704 primers were used for
PTFE and PFA topcoats, respectively. The coatings
were obtained from aqueous dispersions sprayed onto
the substrates, and baked under controlled tempera-
ture programs. The final film thicknesses were 60 lm
for PTFE and 100 lm for PFA.
The raw materials for the PUR foam were a
formulated polyetherpolyol (polyether polyol com-
bined with catalysts, surfactants, and water) and
4,4¢-methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI). A com-
mercial aqueous release agent, ACMOS 37-9234, was
tested on some of the foam release tests. These
materials were supplied as gift by Grupo Copo (Vigo,
Spain).
Polyurethane foam formulation and molding
Polyurethane foams were produced in an aluminum
mold with dimensions 184 9 184 9 76 mm3, shown in
Fig. 1. The mold was composed of three parts: the
cover, which is held in place by two locks; the housing,
with four circular cavities (ID 80 mm) in the bottom,
under which four test plates can be attached, and a
base plate that is screwed onto the bottom of the
housing, holding the test plates in contact with the
expanding foam. The mold interior was coated with
PTFE and was sprayed with abundant quantities of
released agent before placement of test plates, in order
to facilitate foam removal at the end of each test.
The amount of reactive mixture used in every foam
molding cycle was 180 g, containing a ratio of 1.7 (w/w)
of formulated polyol to isocyanate. The polyol formu-
lation was: polyether polyol (94 wt%), water
(3.5 wt%), amine (0.7%), surfactants (0.9 wt%), and
Fig. 1: 3D drawing of the mold used for production of
polyurethane foams: (a) top view, with top cover removed;
(b) bottom view with base cover in place; (c) bottom view
without base cover, showing the test plates in place;
(d) bottom view without test plates, showing cavities for
contact of plates with foam
catalysts (0.9 wt%). The polyol was first mechanically
stirred for 20 s, allowing for air microbubble incorpo-
ration. This facilitates bubble nucleation and foam
growth upon CO2 release from the polyol/isocyanate
reaction. The isocyanate was then added to the
formulated polyol, the mixture was stirred for 10 s,
and then rapidly poured into the mold. After closing,
the mold was introduced in an oven, set to a temper-
ature of 60C, and kept there for 5 min. At the end of
this foam-curing step, the mold was removed, inverted,
and the base cover removed. The square plates were
then detached from the foam using a dynamometer, as
described later, to evaluate the release performance.
When release agent was applied on the plates, the
dosage was controlled by weighing it on an analytic
balance before and after spraying.
Evaluation of the release force and release work
A digital force gauge (Mecmesin BFG 10N) was used
to evaluate the force necessary to detach the coated
plates from the foam. A motorized system was
employed to displace the force gauge at a constant
linear velocity of 2 mm/s. The plates were individually
detached from the foam after the predefined curing
period, as shown in Fig. 2.
The release force was recorded via the instrument’s
serial interface. The results presented in this article are
in terms of maximum force exerted (peak maximum)
and total ‘‘work’’ performed (area under the force vs
time curve) during the plate release.

758
 J. Coat. Technol. Res., 9 (6) 757–764, 2012

Fig. 2: Illustration of the detachment of the aluminum

plates from the foam in the release tests

FTIR spectroscopy

FTIR measurements were performed using a Perkin

Elmer Spectrum 100 FT-IR Spectrometer in ATR
mode with single reflection plate. Each sample was
scanned eight times with a resolution of 4 cm 1. The
frequency range was from 4000 to 650 cm 1.

Scanning electron microscopy

Samples sized 1 9 1 cm2 were obtained by mechani-

cally cutting the coated aluminum plates and examined Fig. 3: SEM image of unused PTFE coating surface with a
on an FEI Quanta 400 FEG ESEM/EDAX Genesis magnification of 10,000 times
X4M without gold coating application.

Penetrant mass uptake measurements

Unsupported films of PTFE and PFA (30 9 90 9

0.1 mm3) were immersed in MDI in a closed flask and
placed in an oven at 60C. At given time intervals, the
films were removed from the flasks, wiped with
absorbent paper to remove surface liquid, and weighed
in an analytic balance. The penetrant mass uptake was
defined as [(ms m0)/m0] 9 100, where m0 is the
initial mass of the film, and ms is the mass of the film at
a given time.

Results and discussion

Surface morphology

Formation of a continuous film from aqueous fluoro-

polymer dispersions involves a baking step, performed
above the polymer melting temperature, which causes
the coalescence, or sintering, of the particles.6 In
industry, this step is often called a ‘‘curing’’ step, even
though it is usually a solely physical process, with no
chemical crosslinking reaction taking place. Figure 3
shows an SEM image of the PTFE coating applied on an
aluminum plate. An apparently porous surface, resulting
from a fibrillar structure, is visible. Dürrschmidt and
Hoffmann7 studied coalescence of waterborne PTFE
dispersions, having also observed these fibrillar struc-
tures on films produced above the polymer melting
temperature (332C). This was associated with the fact
that PTFE latex particles are highly crystalline, exhib-
iting one-directional chain orientation. This, combined
with chain rigidity, originates unidirectional particle
Fig. 4: SEM image of unused PFA coating surface with a
magnification of 1000 times
coalescence when the material is heated above Tm.
Intertwined wormlike morphologies are therefore cre-
ated.
The PFA film surface is shown in Fig. 4. The surface
is now apparently nonporous, and the previous fibrillar
morphology is absent. Interstices resulting from the
particle coalescence process are visible.6
Penetrant mass uptake
The mass uptakes of PTFE and PFA films toward the
two main reactants in the PUR foam, MDI and polyol,

759
J. Coat. Technol. Res., 9 (6) 757–764, 2012
were measured at 60C. Zero uptake was found for
polyol, as was expected from its large molecular size.
On the other hand, MDI originates measurable uptake,
especially on PTFE, as seen in Fig. 5. After less than
5 h of contact, the penetrant mass uptake for PTFE
rises above 1.5% and then tends to stabilize. On PFA,
uptake increases steadily but at a much slower rate,
reaching about 0.1% after 60 h of contact. The much
higher measurement reproducibility obtained with
PFA is probably a consequence of the surface homo-
geneity in comparison with PTFE. Values of penetrant
mass uptake up to 0.7% have been measured by Park
and coworkers for PFA in contact with benzene and
dichloromethane.8
The porous structure of the PTFE coating is the
probable cause of the significantly higher MDI pene-
tration observed. The results obtained by Akinci and
Cobanoglu,9 reporting about 13% decrease in water
contact angle after contacting a PTFE coating with
isocyanate, and only 1% decrease for a PFA coating,
are probably a repercussion of this same effect.
Foam release performance of PTFE
and PFA coatings
The force required for detaching the coated plates
from the foam was measured with a digital force gauge.
Figure 6 shows an example of the force vs linear
displacement for the release of a PTFE-coated plate
after an increasing number of molding cycles. It is
evident that, in this case, the release is increasingly
difficult, both in terms of maximum force necessary
and duration of adhesion until full release is attained.
This illustrates the successive degradation of the
3 behavior, with the measured values being always
PTFE
Penetrant mass uptake/%
2 20
1 6
PFA
0
0 10 20 30 40
t /h
Fig. 5: Penetrant mass uptake, defined as percent weight
increase, for PFA and PTFE films in contact with MDI at
60°C. The bars represent 95% confidence intervals. The
high reproducibility for results with PFA originated very
short bars that are hardly visible in the plot
760
antiadhesive performance of this coating along the
molding cycles, as will be discussed later.
Note that when testing an aluminum plate with no
applied coating or release agent, the release force
exceeded the measurement limit of the dynamometer.
In addition, a complete removal implied destruction of
the foam surface, as some portions still remained
adhered to the plate.
The results obtained for the PTFE coating are
shown in Fig. 7 in terms of maximum release force and
release work (area under the force vs distance curve)
measured after each cycle. Two different situations are
compared: with and without post-cure contact time. In
the first case, the plates were left in contact with the
foam for 20 min after removal from the oven, while in
the second, the plates were peeled off immediately at
the end of the oven curing step. In both cases, the
release force and the release work are seen to increase
steadily with the number of cycles, denoting a cumu-
lative degradation of the coating performance. In
addition, the values are always higher for the plates
that were detached earlier. This is due to the cure
being incomplete, with the foam still presenting signif-
icant tackiness. In industrial production, in-mold cur-
ing cycles are allowed for only a few minutes, and the
foam is removed immediately afterward. Therefore, in
order to test the coatings performances under the most
stringent conditions, all the subsequent measurements
were performed immediately after removal from the
oven. To avoid redundancy, in the remainder of the
article, the plate release results are presented only in
terms of release work, since the maximum force values
always show an equivalent evolution along the number
of cycles.
Figure 8 compares the release performance of the
PTFE and PFA coatings, along the same number of
cycles. Unlike PTFE, PFA shows an apparently stable
0.9
0.8
0.7
15
0.6
0.5 10
F /kgf
0.4
0.3
1
0.2
0.1
50 60 0
0 1 2 3 4
Linear displacement/cm
Fig. 6: Example of release force vs linear displacement for
detachment of a plate coated with PTFE. The number on
each curve indicates the number of foam molding cycles
that the plate has been subjected to

(a)
1.2
1 0.14
0.8
F /kgf
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Cycle
(b) 0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
W /N m
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Cycle
Fig. 7: Evolution of (a) maximum release force and
(b) release work along consecutive foam molding cycles
for plates coated with PTFE. Plates were detached imme-
diately after the end of foam cure (triangles) or 20 min after
the end of foam cure (empty squares). The points represent
the average of measurements performed on four plates.
The bars represent 95% confidence intervals
significantly lower than for the other coating. The
steady increase in release work measured for PTFE
indicates the presence of a cumulative phenomenon.
We suggest that the cumulative penetration of MDI on
the PTFE film, much higher than on PFA as discussed
previously, contributes to the observed degradation of
antiadhesion performance. The retention of this highly
reactive substance in the coating potentiates the
adhesion of polyol molecules to the surface in
subsequent foam formations, thereby counteracting
the coating’s antiadhesion properties. It must be noted
that SEM images of the plate surfaces after 20 molding
cycles (not shown here) did not show foam residues
adhered to it or any evidence of morphologic changes
in the coating.
It must be noted that apparently good results
obtained with PFA may be deceptive, as it is known
in the industry that this type of coating also ends up
adhering to PUR foams after a certain number of
J. Coat. Technol. Res., 9 (6) 757–764, 2012
0.18
0.16
0.12
W /N m
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Cycle
Fig. 8: Release work along consecutive foam molding
cycles for plates coated with PTFE (triangles) and PFA
(empty squares)
production cycles. The number of cycles shown in
Fig. 8 may therefore be too short to show evidence of
performance degradation with PFA. This will probably
be a slower process than for PTFE, due to the lower
tendency for isocyanate penetration, as shown in the
penetrant mass uptake measurements. This issue was
not analyzed further, since the rest of the study was not
focused on the use of PFA coatings.
Performance of PTFE coating combined
with release agent
Except for the observed degradation in antiadhesion
performance, other known properties of the PTFE
coating used in this study, like abrasion resistance,
make it an appropriate choice for demanding industrial
applications. Therefore, the viability of its use as a
foam release coating was investigated further.
The PUR foam industry uses waterborne or solvent-
based release agents applied directly on the uncoated
aluminum mold surface to provide, upon water evap-
oration, an antiadhesion wax layer. Release agents are
formulated so as not to interfere with the physico-
chemical foam expansion/cure process, allowing for the
formation of a uniform foam surface. However, the
large quantities needed for efficient foam release imply
significant cleaning, maintenance, and residue disposal
costs. In the remainder of the study, the synergistic
combination of low amounts of aqueous release agent
with the PTFE coating was investigated.
A value of 20 g/m2 of release agent per area of mold
was assumed as representative of the value typically
used in industry on uncoated molds. Successively lower
amounts were tested in combination with the PTFE
coating. Figure 9 shows the results when the amounts
of release agent applied, before each molding cycle, are
12% and 25% of the reference value. The performance
of the PTFE plates with release agent is consistently
better than that of the bare PTFE plates. There is
761
J. Coat. Technol. Res., 9 (6) 757–764, 2012

actually a slight initial decrease in the maximum
release force and work, as the release agent accumu-
lates along the first applications. There is no difference
in the results for 12% or 25% dosages. The measure-
ment reproducibility in each cycle improved signifi-
cantly in both cases. It must be noted that if a 12%
dosage is applied to an uncoated aluminum plate, the
foam adheres very strongly right after the first cycle,
and its surface is destroyed when detachment is
attempted. This suggests that PTFE is playing a
decisive part in the demolding process, working syner-
gistically with the release agent. The latter acts as a
protective barrier that reduces contact between the
reaction mixture and the PTFE coating, therefore
preserving its performance along several cycles. The
release agent forms both as a physical barrier to
isocyanate penetration into the coating, and as a
chemical barrier, since its formulation contains a
catalyst that accelerates isocyanate consumption when
reacting with polyol at the interface between foam and
25% release agent. A continuous film now covers the
surface (Fig. 12a). At some points, the film can be seen
to be broken (Fig. 12b). This release agent residue
could be easily removed with a sponge and a household
detergent, as long as the mold surface was kept warm
(50–60C).
FTIR analyses were performed to study the nature
of the residual film. Three samples were analyzed: the
original PTFE coating, the residue obtained after
drying the release agent in an oven for 2 days, and
the PTFE-coated plate surface after 20 molding cycles.
The FTIR spectra obtained are shown in Fig. 13. The
0.06
0.05
0.04

W /N m
release film. 0.03
Another test was performed in which the release
agent was not applied before every molding cycle.
0.02
Figure 10 shows the obtained results. After the first
application, the release work increases steadily, but
decreases again every time the release agent is reap- 0.01
plied. The release agent residue that remains on the
surface wears out after a short number of cycles and 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
has to be replenished to maintain low adhesion of the
Cycle
surface. The performance of the coating does not seem
to be irreversibly damaged by these periods of Fig. 10: Release work along consecutive foam molding
‘‘unprotected’’ operation. cycles for plates coated with PTFE. The arrows indicate the
SEM analysis of the surface of a PTFE coating after only three times when release agent was applied, with a
a single application of 25% release agent, before each 12% dosage relative to the reference amount of 20 g/m2
molding cycle, as seen in Fig. 11, shows that a uniform
film has not yet been formed. The release agent forms
scattered drops on the surface. Figure 12, on the other
hand, shows the surface of a PTFE-coated plate that
has undergone 20 molding cycles with application of

0.12

0.1

0.08
W /N m

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Cycle

Fig. 9: Release work along consecutive foam molding

cycles for plates coated with PTFE only (triangles) and
PTFE combined with different dosages of release agent: Fig. 11: SEM image of the surface of a PTFE coating after a
25% (diamonds) and 12% (empty squares) relative to the single application of 25% release agent, with a magnifica-
reference amount of 20 g/m2 tion of 3000 times

762

Fig. 12: SEM images of the surface of a PTFE coating with the application of 25% release agent throughout 20 molding
cycles, with magnifications of (a) 3000 and (b) 100 times
PTFE
RA
Plate
%T
4000,0 3600 3200 2800 2400 2000
Fig. 13: FTIR spectra of the original coating (PTFE), release agent dry residue (RA) and coated plate surface after 20
molding cycles with release agent applied (Plate)
spectrum obtained for the plate surface shows the
presence of release agent, as expected, with bands at
966 and 911 cm 1, corresponding to (C–H) out-of-plane
deformation vibration on CH=CH2 and CH=CH
polybutadiene units, respectively, and in the
2850–3000 cm 1 region, corresponding to (C–H)
stretching vibration on CH2 and CH3 groups present in
polybutadiene and waxes. Note that polybutadiene is
commonly present in release agent formulations.4
However, other relevant peaks are visible on the plate
surface and not on the release agent residue. The
presence of C=O and N–H groups is indicated by bands
at 1648 and 3315 cm 1, respectively. This value of C=O
J. Coat. Technol. Res., 9 (6) 757–764, 2012
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 650
cm–1
stretching vibration does not match the characteristic
wavenumber for C=O group on PUR, which should
appear in the range of 1730–1740 cm 1 (free C=O) or
1703–1710 cm 1 (C=OÆÆÆNH).10,11 These bands indicate
the presence of polyureas in the residue film. These are
known to be formed by reaction of MDI with the
relatively large amount of water present in the release
agent formulation. Polyureas present a serious problem
for the conventional PUR-molded foam industry. They
tend to adhere strongly to the aluminum mold surface,
creating hard deposits that have to be removed daily by
manual scraping or using abrasive processes, in a time-
consuming operation. However, since a much lower
763
J. Coat. Technol. Res., 9 (6) 757–764, 2012
amount to release agent is being used in the current
approach, the polyureas are expected to form in much
lower quantities, becoming incorporated in the release
agent residues and being easily removable.
Further tests were performed with a Flucoat X32-
coated mold (without release plates) exposed to 100
molding cycles (typical for a one day work in an industrial
production line), with 12% release agent application
before each cycle. Foam release, although not quantified,
was facile throughout all cycles, and the foam’s surface
remained uniform, with no signs of damage associated
with detachment from the mold. The film deposit at the
end of the 100 cycles was easily removed by washing the
heated mold with a sponge. Only a few hard residues
remained in the corners of the mold, which were removed
by scraping without difficulty. These results validated the
proposed synergistic combination of the PTFE coating
with a small amount of release agent.
Conclusions
The antiadhesion behavior of PFA and PTFE coatings
in contact with reacting PUR foam in a closed mold
was investigated. Foam release tests indicated an
apparently stable low adhesion behavior for PFA.
With PTFE, on the other hand, foam adhesion to the
coating increased steadily after each molding cycle.
This behavior was related to the porous morphology of
the PTFE surface, which facilitates isocyanate pene-
tration and promotes foam adhesion. This hypothesis
was supported by penetrant mass uptake measure-
ments that showed MDI to be absorbed about 10 times
more in PTFE films than in PFA.
Taking into account the better mechanical proper-
ties of PTFE coating, appropriate for this demanding
industrial application, an approach was found to make
its use practically possible. Small amounts of water-
based release agent, as low as 12% of the reference
dosage typically used in industry, were sprayed on the
PTFE coating surface before each molding cycle. This
led to stable and robust antiadhesion behavior. There
is apparently a synergistic effect in this combination.
The PTFE coating by itself provides low adhesion, but
its performance is significantly degraded over time if it
is allowed to contact repeatedly with the reaction
mixture. On the other hand, the low amount of release
agent applied is insufficient to insure foam release by
itself, but it is effective as a protective barrier for the
PTFE film. In case this film is broken and removed
with the foam, then the underlying PTFE coating
insures good release performance, while a new protec-
tive layer is formed. Thanks to the reduced quantities
of release agent used, polyurea build-up, resulting from
the reaction of isocyanate with residual water from the
release agent, is not expected to be formed in signif-
icant amounts. FTIR analysis of the coating surface
after a series of foam molding cycles indicated that
polyureas remain mixed within the release agent
764
View publication stats
deposit. This is easily removed if the surface is warm
enough to soften the film.
If a solvent-based release agent were used in com-
bination with the PTFE coating, instead of an aqueous
product, then a similar synergistic effect is anticipated.
Even though some degree of solvent penetration in the
coating would be a possibility, it should not present a
problem, since the nonreactive solvent does not pro-
mote foam adhesion. Formation of a protective barrier
should again be the decisive factor in preserving the
coating along repeated production cycles.
Acknowledgments This study was partly funded by
the Agência de Inovação (project Vale Inovação ref.
3762). The authors are thankful to Grupo Copo for
supplying raw materials for PUR foam production and
a production mold, as well as facilitating the necessary
industrial validation tests. An expression of our
gratitude is due especially to Arturo González and
Alejandro Plaza, from Grupo Copo, for their useful
insights and discussions.
References
1. Scheirs, J, Fluoropolymers—Technology, Markets and
Trends. Smithers Rapra Technology, Shrewsbury, 2001
2. Ebnesajjad, S, Khaladkar, P, Fluoropolymers Applications in
Chemical Processing Industries. William Andrew Publishing,
Burlington, 2005
3. Critchlow, GW, Litchfield, RE, Sutherland, I, Grandy, DB,
Wilson, S, ‘‘A review and Comparative Study of Release
Coatings for Optimised Abhesion in Resin Transfer Mould-
ing Applications.’’ Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., 26 577–599 (2006)
4. Henning, T, Kindling, A, Althoff, R, ‘‘Aqueous Release
Agents and Their Use in the Production of Polyurethane
Molding.’’ US Patent 20,080,289,532 (2008)
5. Wypych, G, Handbook of Antiblocking, Release, and Slip
Additives, 2nd ed., pp. 148–149. ChemTec Publishing,
Toronto, 2005
6. McKeen, LW, Fluorinated Coatings and Finishes Handbook,
pp. 163–164. William Andrew Publishing, Norwich, 2006
7. Dürrschmidt, T, Hoffmann, H, ‘‘Film-Forming Process from
Globular Polytetrafluoroethylene Latex Particles.’’ J. Appl.
Polym. Sci., 92 733–742 (2004)
8. Park, KR, Kang, PH, Nho, YC, ‘‘Preparation of PFA-g-
Polystyrene Sulfonic Acid Membranes by the c-Radiation
Grafting of Styrene onto PFA Films.’’ React. Funct. Polym.,
65 47–56 (2005)
9. Akinci, A, Cobanoglu, E, ‘‘Coating of Al Mould Surfaces
with Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Fluorinated Ethylene
Propylene (FEP), Perfluoro-Alkoxy (PFA) and Ethylene-
Tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE).’’ e-Polymers, no. 033 (2009)
10. Yilgor, E, Burgaz, E, Yurtsever, E, Yilgor, I, ‘‘Comparison of
Hydrogen Bonding in Polydimethylsiloxane and Polyether
Based Urethane and Urea Copolymers.’’ Polymer, 41
849–857 (2000)
11. Garrett, JT, Xu, R, Cho, J, Runt, J, ‘‘Phase Separation of
Diamine Chain-Extended Poly(Urethane) Copolymers:
FTIR Spectroscopy and Phase Transitions.’’ Polymer, 44
2711–2719 (2003)