Hubbry Logo
PolyisocyanuratePolyisocyanurateMain
Open search
Polyisocyanurate
Community hub
Polyisocyanurate
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Polyisocyanurate
Polyisocyanurate
Polyisocyanurate
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
The generalised chemical structure of polyisocyanurate showing the isocyanurate group. The polyols are abbreviated as R-groups.

Polyisocyanurate (/ˌpɒlɪˌaɪsoʊsaɪˈænjʊəreɪt/), also referred to as PIR, polyol, or ISO, is a thermoset plastic[1] typically produced as a foam and used as rigid thermal insulation. The starting materials are similar to those used in polyurethane (PUR) except that the proportion of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) is higher and a polyester-derived polyol is used in the reaction instead of a polyether polyol. The resulting chemical structure is significantly different, with the isocyanate groups on the MDI trimerising to form isocyanurate groups which the polyols link together, giving a complex polymeric structure.[2]

Manufacturing

[edit]

The reaction of (MDI) and polyol takes place at higher temperatures compared with the reaction temperature for the manufacture of PUR. At these elevated temperatures and in the presence of specific catalysts, MDI will first react with itself, producing a stiff, ring molecule, which is a reactive intermediate (a tri-isocyanate isocyanurate compound). Remaining MDI and the tri-isocyanate react with polyol to form a complex poly(urethane-isocyanurate) polymer (hence the use of the abbreviation PUI as an alternative to PIR), which is foamed in the presence of a suitable blowing agent. This isocyanurate polymer has a relatively strong molecular structure, because of the combination of strong chemical bonds, the ring structure of isocyanurate and high cross link density, each contributing to the greater stiffness than found in comparable polyurethanes. The greater bond strength also means these are more difficult to break, and as a result a PIR foam is chemically and thermally more stable: breakdown of isocyanurate bonds is reported to start above 200 °C, compared with urethane at 100 to 110 °C.

PIR typically has an MDI/polyol ratio, also called its index (based on isocyanate/polyol stoichiometry to produce urethane alone), higher than 180. By comparison PUR indices are normally around 100. As the index increases material stiffness the brittleness also increases, although the correlation is not linear. Depending on the product application greater stiffness, chemical and/or thermal stability may be desirable. As such PIR manufacturers can offer multiple products with identical densities but different indices in an attempt to achieve optimal end use performance.

Uses

[edit]
Polyisocyanurate insulation boards

PIR is typically produced as a foam and used as rigid thermal insulation. Its thermal conductivity has a typical value of 0.023 W/(m·K) (0.16 BTU·in/(hr·ft2·°F)) depending on the perimeter:area ratio.[3] PIR foam panels laminated with pure embossed aluminium foil are used for fabrication of pre-insulated duct that is used for heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. Prefabricated PIR sandwich panels are manufactured with corrosion-protected, corrugated steel facings bonded to a core of PIR foam and used extensively as roofing insulation and vertical walls (e.g. for warehousing, factories, office buildings etc.). Other typical uses for PIR foams include industrial and commercial pipe insulation, and carving/machining media (competing with expanded polystyrene and rigid polyurethane foams).[citation needed]

Effectiveness of the insulation of a building envelope can be compromised by gaps resulting from shrinkage of individual panels. Manufacturing criteria require that shrinkage be limited to less than 1%[citation needed] (previously 2%[citation needed]).[4] Even when shrinkage is limited to substantially less than this limit, the resulting gaps around the perimeter of each panel can reduce insulation effectiveness, especially if the panels are assumed to provide a vapor/infiltration barrier. Multiple layers with staggered joints, ship lapped or tongue & groove joints greatly reduce these problems.[citation needed]

Polyisocyanurates of isophorone diisocyanate are also used in the preparation of polyurethane coatings based on acrylic polyols[5] and polyether polyols.[6]

Health hazards

[edit]

PIR insulation can be a mechanical irritant to skin, eyes, and upper respiratory system during fabrication (such as dust).[7] No statistically significant increased risks of respiratory diseases have been found in studies.[8][better source needed]

Fire risk

[edit]
PIR board fire test

PIR is at times stated to be fire retardant, or contain fire retardants, but these describe the results of "small scale tests" and "do not reflect [all] hazards under real fire conditions";[9][better source needed] the extent of hazards from fire include not just resistance to fire but the scope for toxic byproducts from different fire scenarios.

A 2011 study of fire toxicity of insulating materials at the University of Central Lancashire's Centre for Fire and Hazard Science studied PIR and other commonly used materials under more realistic and wide-ranging conditions representative of a wider range of fire hazard, observing that most fire deaths resulted from toxic product inhalation. The study evaluated the degree to which toxic products were released, looking at toxicity, time-release profiles, and lethality of doses released, in a range of flaming, non-flaming, and poorly ventilated fires, and concluded that PIR generally released a considerably higher level of toxic products than the other insulating materials studied (PIR > PUR > EPS > PHF; glass and stone wools also studied).[10] In particular, hydrogen cyanide is recognised as a significant contributor to the fire toxicity of PIR (and PUR) foams.[11]

PIR insulation board (cited as the FR4000 and the FR5000 products of Celotex, a Saint-Gobain company)[12] was proposed to be used externally in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, London, with vertical and horizontal runs of 100 mm and 150 mm thickness respectively;[13] subsequently "Ipswich firm Celotex confirmed it provided insulation materials for the refurbishment."[14] On 14 June 2017 the block of flats, within 15 minutes, was enveloped in flames from the fourth floor to the top 24th floor. The public inquiry into the fire determined that the Celotex Insulation material was a contributory factor to the causes of the rapid spread of the fire. [15]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Polyisocyanurate

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Polyisocyanurate (PIR), also known as polyiso, is a thermosetting closed-cell rigid foam plastic formed through the catalyzed trimerization of isocyanates, yielding isocyanurate ring structures that confer exceptional thermal stability and fire resistance compared to polyurethane foams. Developed commercially in the 1970s for building applications, PIR serves primarily as continuous thermal insulation in commercial roofing (accounting for over 70% of installations), walls, and industrial settings due to its high R-value of approximately 5.6 to 6.5 per inch and low thermal conductivity. Its closed-cell structure traps low-conductivity gases, enhancing insulating performance, while the inherent chemical stability of isocyanurate linkages provides superior char formation and reduced flammability during exposure to heat, though ignited PIR can still propagate fire rapidly under certain conditions.

Overview

Definition and Composition

Polyisocyanurate (PIR), also known as polyiso, is a thermoset polymeric foam material distinguished by its rigid structure and use in thermal insulation applications. It forms through the trimerization of isocyanate monomers, creating a cross-linked network of isocyanurate rings that impart superior thermal stability and fire resistance compared to polyurethane foams. The primary chemical composition of PIR involves the reaction of polyisocyanates, such as methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), with polyols at an elevated isocyanate-to-polyol ratio that favors isocyanurate formation over urethane linkages. This process incorporates blowing agents to generate the closed-cell foam structure, catalysts to control reaction kinetics, and flame retardants like tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate to enhance fire performance. Blowing agents historically included chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), but modern formulations use hydrocarbons such as pentane to minimize environmental impact while maintaining low thermal conductivity. In terms of molecular structure, the isocyanurate rings—cyclic trimers of isocyanate groups—provide a highly stable backbone resistant to degradation at temperatures up to 200°C, enabling PIR's classification as a high-performance insulation with R-values typically ranging from 5.6 to 6.5 per inch. Additives such as surfactants stabilize cell formation, ensuring uniform density, often around 32 kg/m³ for commercial boards. Polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam differs from polyurethane (PUR) foam primarily in its chemical structure, formed through the trimerization of isocyanate monomers into rigid isocyanurate ring linkages, whereas PUR relies on urethane linkages from the reaction between polyols and isocyanates. This results in PIR employing a higher isocyanate index, typically around 250% compared to 105% for PUR, often using polyester polyols that promote greater crosslinking and rigidity. In terms of performance, PIR exhibits superior fire resistance and thermal stability over PUR due to its more stable ring structure, which resists degradation at elevated temperatures and produces less smoke and fewer toxic gases during combustion. Rigid PUR foams, while effective insulators, are more prone to flammability and dimensional changes under heat, limiting their use in high-risk fire applications. Compared to polystyrene foams such as expanded (EPS) or extruded (XPS), PIR is a thermoset material that maintains structural integrity without melting or dripping under fire exposure, unlike the thermoplastic polystyrene which softens and propagates flames. PIR also offers higher thermal resistance, with R-values around 5.6-6.5 per inch versus 3.8-4.4 for polystyrene, enabling thinner applications for equivalent insulation. Phenolic foams surpass PIR in fire resistance and smoke suppression due to their inherently low flammability and closed-cell structure derived from phenolic resins, but they are more brittle, moisture-sensitive, and costly to produce, whereas PIR balances durability with manufacturability. These distinctions position PIR as a versatile intermediate in insulation hierarchies, prioritizing thermal efficiency and fire safety over the flexibility of PUR or the economy of polystyrene.

History

Early Development and Invention

Polyisocyanurate, a thermoset polymer formed primarily through the trimerization of isocyanates, traces its roots to advancements in chemistry, which Otto Bayer and his team at IG Farben first synthesized in 1937 via the reaction of polyols with diisocyanates. This foundational work enabled subsequent explorations into isocyanate-derived foams, where trimerization—catalyzed reactions yielding isocyanurate ring structures—emerged as a method to produce materials with enhanced thermal stability and fire resistance compared to standard polyurethanes. Early research in the 1950s focused on rigid polyurethane foams, but limitations in combustibility prompted investigations into polyisocyanurate variants, leveraging the isocyanurate linkages for superior char formation and reduced smoke evolution during fires. By the mid-1960s, urethane-modified polyisocyanurate (PIR) foams were developed as a hybrid class, combining polyurethane's flexibility in formulation with polyisocyanurate's rigidity and low-flammability profile. These materials were introduced in 1967, representing a deliberate engineering improvement over pure polyurethane foams to meet growing demands for safer insulation in construction and industrial applications. The modification involved balancing urethane linkages for processability with isocyanurate cross-linking for structural integrity, achieved through precise catalyst control during foaming. Commercial viability followed swiftly, with Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) in the United Kingdom pioneering a practical PIR foam formulation in 1968, marketed as Hexafoam for its hexameric isocyanurate emphasis and early adoption in rigid insulation boards. This breakthrough addressed key challenges like dimensional stability under heat, positioning PIR as a candidate for building envelopes where fire codes increasingly mandated non-combustible barriers. Initial production emphasized closed-cell structures with blowing agents like chlorofluorocarbons to achieve high R-values, though environmental concerns later drove reformulations.

Commercialization and Adoption

Urethane-modified polyisocyanurate foams were introduced in 1967 as an enhancement to polyurethane foams, incorporating isocyanurate crosslinking for improved thermal stability, dimensional stability, and flame resistance. Commercialization followed in the early 1970s, with initial production focused on rigid foam boards for sidewall and roof insulation in building applications. Early manufacturing employed continuous or batch processes to produce bunstock, prioritizing consistency in density and performance metrics like compressive strength. Adoption gained momentum in the 1970s for low-slope commercial roofing systems, where polyisocyanurate's inherent fire resistance reduced the requirement for supplementary thermal barriers, distinguishing it from polyurethane alternatives. By the 1980s, it had emerged as the dominant insulation in U.S. commercial roofing, achieving greater than 65% market share in new low-slope roof construction and approximately 60% in re-roofing as documented in 2006-2007 surveys. The material also found use in refrigeration, petrochemical facilities, and LNG storage due to its low thermal conductivity and high compressive resistance. Regulatory pressures from the 1987 Montreal Protocol accelerated adaptation, phasing out chlorofluorocarbon blowing agents by 1996 and transitioning to hydrocarbons like pentane by 2002, which preserved environmental compliance without compromising insulation efficacy. This evolution supported sustained growth, with polyisocyanurate comprising over 70% of North American commercial roof insulation by the late 2010s. The Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association, established in 1987, facilitated industry standardization and advocacy amid these changes.

Chemistry and Manufacturing

Chemical Reactions Involved

Polyisocyanurate polymers are primarily formed through the cyclotrimerization of isocyanate groups, where three isocyanate moieties (-N=C=O) undergo a stepwise nucleophilic addition to yield a stable six-membered isocyanurate ring consisting of alternating nitrogen and carbonyl units. This reaction is exothermic and typically requires catalysis by strong bases, such as potassium carboxylates (e.g., potassium octoate) or organometallic compounds, which initiate the process by nucleophilic attack on the electrophilic carbon of the isocyanate. The mechanism involves sequential additions: the catalyst adds to one isocyanate, forming an intermediate that reacts with a second isocyanate to produce an imidazolone-like species, followed by cyclization with a third isocyanate to close the ring and regenerate the catalyst. In polyisocyanurate rigid foams (PIR), this trimerization competes with and complements the polyaddition reaction between polyisocyanates, such as polymeric methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (pMDI), and polyols to form polyurethane linkages. Formulations for PIR emphasize excess isocyanate (isocyanate index often exceeding 200) to promote isocyanurate formation over urethane bonds, enhancing cross-linking density and thermal stability. Trimerization catalysts are added alongside urethane catalysts (e.g., amine or tin compounds) and blowing agents to achieve the closed-cell structure during the simultaneous foaming and curing process. The prevalence of isocyanurate linkages distinguishes PIR from polyurethane (PU) foams, contributing to superior fire resistance and char formation due to the aromatic and heterocyclic nature of the rings, which resist depolymerization at elevated temperatures. Experimental studies confirm that higher trimerization extent correlates with reduced smoke production and improved limiting oxygen index values in combustion tests.

Production Processes and Raw Materials

Polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam is produced through a chemical reaction emphasizing the trimerization of isocyanates, which forms rigid, closed-cell structures distinct from polyurethane foams. The primary raw materials include polyisocyanates, such as polymeric methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), which provide the isocyanate (-NCO) groups essential for both urethane linkage and isocyanurate ring formation. Polyols, typically polyester types with hydroxyl numbers exceeding 200 mg KOH/g, serve as co-reactants to initiate the reaction and influence foam density and rigidity. Additional components encompass blowing agents like hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) or water (which generates CO₂ via reaction with isocyanates), trimerization catalysts such as potassium acetate or quaternary ammonium salts to promote isocyanurate ring cyclization, surfactants for cell stabilization, and flame retardants for enhanced fire performance. These materials are stored as liquids in on-site tanks and heated prior to use to optimize viscosity and reaction kinetics. The employs a two-component : the A-component (isocyanate-rich, often at an isocyanate index of 200–350% relative to polyol stoichiometry to favor trimerization over simple urethane bonds) and the B-component (polyol premix with catalysts, blowing agents, and additives). In continuous for insulation boards— the predominant method—facers (e.g., glass-fiber reinforced mats or foil) are unwound to form top and bottom layers. The components are compounded separately, with the polyol heated and mixed with blowing agent, then combined with isocyanate at a high-speed mixing head. The reactive mixture is poured onto the lower facer, covered by the upper facer, and fed into a laminator where exothermic foaming occurs, expanding the material into a rigid core while adhering to the facers. The laminator controls parameters like temperature (typically 140–160°C for curing), conveyor speed, and pressure to achieve uniform cell structure and specified thicknesses, often producing tapered or flat boards. Post-lamination, the continuous sheet undergoes trimming, cross-cutting into standard lengths (e.g., 4 ft or 8 ft), and gang sawing for width. The boards are then packaged in plastic film, labeled, and warehoused for further curing to ensure dimensional stability and full reaction completion. Alternative processes include spray foaming or batch molding for non-board applications, where the mixture is applied or poured into molds and cured in ovens, but these are less common for rigid PIR insulation due to challenges in controlling uniformity. Quality control involves testing samples for metrics like R-value, compressive strength, and foam density throughout production.

Physical and Thermal Properties

Key Physical Characteristics

Polyisocyanurate foams are characterized by a rigid, closed-cell structure formed through the polymerization of isocyanates, resulting in a thermoset matrix with over 90% closed cells that enhances mechanical integrity and restricts fluid ingress. This structure contributes to the material's high stiffness and resistance to deformation under load, distinguishing it from more flexible open-cell foams. Nominal density for standard polyisocyanurate insulation boards used in building applications typically ranges from 1.8 to 2.5 lb/ft³ (29 to 40 kg/m³), with 2.0 lb/ft³ (32 kg/m³) being common for roofing and wall products; higher densities, such as 6.0 lb/ft³ (96 kg/m³), are available for specialized high-strength uses like pipe supports. Compressive strength, evaluated parallel to the foam rise per ASTM D1621, generally falls between 16 and 25 psi (110 and 172 kPa) for Type I and II boards under ASTM C1289 classification, enabling load-bearing capacity in applications like roof decks without significant creep. Water absorption remains low due to the closed-cell morphology, typically under 1% by volume after 96-hour immersion per ASTM C272, though immersion values can reach up to 3% in prolonged exposure scenarios, with facers further mitigating uptake. Dimensional stability is favorable, showing linear changes of less than 2% after 7 days at 158°F (70°C) and 97% relative humidity per ASTM D2126, supporting long-term structural performance in varying environmental conditions.
PropertyTypical ValueTest Method
Density2.0 lb/ft³ (32 kg/m³) nominalASTM D1622
Compressive Strength16–25 psi (110–172 kPa)ASTM D1621
Water Absorption<1% by volumeASTM C272
Dimensional Stability<2% linear changeASTM D2126

Thermal Performance Metrics

Polyisocyanurate rigid foam insulation demonstrates high thermal resistance, with a typical initial thermal conductivity of 0.020 to 0.022 W/m·K under standard laboratory conditions defined in ASTM C518, equating to an R-value of approximately 6.0 per inch (ft²·h·°F/Btu) at a mean temperature of 75°F (24°C). This performance stems from its closed-cell structure filled with low-conductivity blowing agents like pentane, which minimize convective and conductive heat transfer. Long-term thermal resistance (LTTR), a predictive metric for aged performance incorporated into ASTM C1289 specifications, adjusts for cell gas diffusion and polymer aging, yielding effective R-values of 5.6 to 5.7 per inch for commercial polyiso boards after simulated five-year exposure. LTTR testing involves accelerated aging at elevated temperatures (e.g., 70°C) followed by extrapolation, revealing a 20-25% decline from initial values in polyisocyanurate samples due to replacement of insulating gases with air. Temperature significantly influences metrics; polyiso's thermal conductivity rises at both extremes, decreasing R-value by up to 10% at mean temperatures above 50°C from enhanced gas permeation and by as much as 20% at low temperatures (e.g., -4°C mean) due to reduced blowing agent efficacy and potential cell stiffening effects. In roofing assemblies with mean temperatures often exceeding 100°F (38°C), design R-values may require upward adjustment by 10-15% to account for this drift, as validated by field-correlated models.
MetricTypical ValueTest Condition/StandardNotes
Thermal Conductivity (λ)0.020–0.022 W/m·KASTM C518 at 75°F meanInitial value; increases with aging and temperature extremes.
Initial R-value per inchR-6.075°F mean temperatureLaboratory short-term measurement.
LTTR per inchR-5.6 to R-5.7ASTM C1289 accelerated agingAccounts for 5+ years in service; lower for thicker boards due to diffusion gradients.
Temperature Adjustment-10% to -20% R-value>50°C or <0°C meanEmpirical from lab and modeled data; critical for cold climates or hot roofs.

Applications

Building and Construction Uses

Polyisocyanurate (polyiso) rigid foam insulation boards are primarily applied as continuous thermal insulation in commercial and residential building envelopes, with predominant use in roofing systems where they constitute over 70% of installations in new and re-roofing projects. These boards, typically faced with materials such as glass-fiber reinforced felts, provide a lightweight, high-R-value layer beneath roofing membranes in built-up, single-ply, or modified bitumen assemblies. In wall applications, polyiso serves as exterior sheathing or continuous insulation (CI) in both commercial and residential structures, including high-rise apartments and condominiums, minimizing thermal bridging and complying with energy codes through adherence to ASTM C1289 standards for faced rigid cellular polyisocyanurate thermal insulation. In roofing, polyiso functions as a cover board for added protection against foot traffic and mechanical damage during installation, often in multi-layer systems to enhance overall assembly performance. For walls, it integrates into exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS) or as a drainage plane in rainscreen designs, compatible with most cladding types due to its dimensional stability and low water absorption. Below-grade uses include foundation walls and perimeter insulation, where its closed-cell structure resists moisture ingress in applications like insulated concrete forms (ICF). Polyiso boards are also employed in floors and ceilings for radiant barrier systems, though less commonly, prioritizing scenarios requiring high compressive strength per ASTM testing. These applications leverage polyiso's conformance to building standards, such as those outlined by the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA), ensuring suitability for diverse climates and construction methods without requiring thermal barriers in many non-combustible assemblies. Installation typically involves mechanical fastening or adhered methods, with board thicknesses ranging from 1 to 5.5 inches to achieve specified R-values, supporting energy-efficient designs in compliance with International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requirements.

Industrial and Other Applications

Polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam serves as high-performance insulation for industrial pipes, vessels, and equipment, particularly in process industries requiring thermal management across wide temperature ranges. In oil refineries, chemical processing such as ethylene production, and fertilizer plants, PIR provides low-temperature heat insulation with superior thermal efficiency, often requiring half the thickness of mineral wool alternatives. Its closed-cell structure enables use in cryogenic applications, including LNG plants, where it withstands temperatures down to -297°F (-183°C). In refrigeration systems and appliances, PIR foam is poured or injected to insulate refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerated transport vehicles like trucks and lorries, enhancing energy efficiency by minimizing heat transfer and maximizing internal volume. This application leverages PIR's low thermal conductivity (k-factor of approximately 0.19 BTU·in/hr·ft²·°F at 75°F) and structural stability, reducing reliance on heavier metal reinforcements. Beyond insulation, PIR functions as a core material in composite panels and structural elements for transportation, marine vessels, pultrusion processes, and modular shelters such as telecommunications enclosures. In marine applications, it contributes buoyancy and lightweight strength, while its machinability supports custom fabrication for fittings and covers in diverse industrial settings. These uses exploit PIR's compressive strength variations and dimensional stability over polyurethane foams.

Performance Advantages

Insulation Efficiency and Benefits

Polyisocyanurate (PIR) insulation exhibits high thermal efficiency due to its closed-cell rigid foam structure, which traps low-conductivity gases and yields R-values typically ranging from 5.6 to 6.8 per inch at a mean temperature of 75°F, outperforming expanded polystyrene (EPS) and extruded polystyrene (XPS) by 20% to 70% on a per-inch basis. This superior insulating performance stems from PIR's low thermal conductivity, often around 0.019 W/m·K, enabling thinner layers to achieve equivalent thermal resistance compared to fibrous or other foam insulants. In commercial roofing applications, where PIR constitutes nearly 70% of installations, it contributes to sustained energy efficiency by minimizing heat transfer across assemblies. The benefits of PIR's insulation efficiency include substantial energy savings in building envelopes, with studies indicating up to 22% reduction in heating and cooling demands when substituting lower-performing insulants, primarily through decreased air leakage and enhanced thermal barriers. Its moisture resistance—retaining over 90% of R-value even after prolonged exposure—preserves long-term performance in humid or below-grade environments, unlike open-cell foams that degrade faster. Additionally, PIR's high compressive strength, exceeding 20 psi, supports load-bearing uses without compressing and losing insulating capacity, facilitating durable installations that maintain efficiency over decades. Compared to polyurethane (PUR) foams, PIR provides 10-15% higher thermal resistance due to additional isocyanurate linkages, translating to lower operational energy costs in walls, roofs, and floors. Lifecycle analyses confirm PIR's role in reducing overall building energy consumption by optimizing envelope design, though benefits are maximized with proper installation to avoid thermal bridging. These attributes position PIR as a high-efficiency choice for code-compliant assemblies targeting low U-values.

Fire Resistance Properties

Polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam exhibits superior fire resistance compared to polyurethane (PUR) foam due to its chemical structure, which incorporates a higher isocyanate-to-polyol ratio—typically 250% versus 105% in PUR—resulting in more stable isocyanurate ring formations that enhance thermal stability and char formation during combustion. This structure prevents melting and dripping, instead promoting an intumescent char layer that acts as a barrier to flame spread and heat transfer. In standardized testing, PIR insulation achieves Class 1 ratings under ASTM E84 (UL 723), with flame spread indices often below 25 and smoke developed indices under 450, meeting or exceeding building code requirements for low flame propagation and smoke production in applications like roofing and walls. Unlike thermoplastic foams such as extruded polystyrene (XPS), which soften at approximately 165°F (74°C), PIR maintains structural integrity in tests like NFPA 285 and NFPA 286, contributing to its approval in fire-rated assemblies without additional thermal barriers in many jurisdictions. PIR's fire performance supports its use in FM Global 4880-approved systems and UL 1040/1715 classifications for interior finishes, where it demonstrates resistance to flame penetration and low heat release rates, outperforming PUR in both small- and large-scale fire scenarios due to reduced fuel contribution from the crosslinked polymer matrix. However, while PIR chars effectively, it can still generate smoke and potentially toxic gases under prolonged exposure, necessitating compliance with ventilation and code-specific facer or covering requirements in occupied spaces.

Criticisms and Limitations

Thermal Drift and R-Value Variability

Thermal drift in polyisocyanurate (PIR) insulation refers to the progressive decline in thermal resistance (R-value) over time, primarily due to the outward diffusion of high-performance blowing agents—such as HCFCs or HFCs—from closed foam cells, replaced by lower-insulating air via mechanisms governed by Fick's law of diffusion. This process increases thermal conductivity, with laboratory and field studies showing initial R-values (often labeled at R-6.5 per inch) degrading to LTTR estimates of around R-5.6 per inch after accounting for accelerated aging per ASTM C1303 standards, which predict 5-year performance as a proxy for a 15-year service life average. Field evaluations reveal more substantial and variable long-term losses than LTTR projections: a 2006 National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) analysis of in-service samples found 17 of 20 specimens exhibited R-values below their LTTR ratings after less than 5 years, while RDH Building Science studies reported up to 25% reductions in 3-year-old PIR at low temperatures and confirmed lower resistance in 5.5-year-old roof samples compared to lab-aged counterparts. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) aging research, including full-thickness exposure over 5 years, indicates ongoing degradation without stabilization, with R-value overstatements of 7-10% relative to decades-long averages, as thin-slice methods (e.g., ASTM C1303) accurately forecast short-term drift but underestimate extended exposure effects. R-value variability in PIR is exacerbated by temperature dependence and aging interactions: a 2017 RDH/ROCKWOOL study of field-aged samples (from 1995-2014 installations) measured R-values ranging from R-3.5 to R-6.6 per inch across mean temperatures of -20°C to 50°C under ASTM C518, with older HCFC-blown foams showing superior cold-weather retention (higher R at low temps) versus newer hydrocarbon-blown variants, which favor warmer conditions but drift more variably overall. A National Research Council Canada examination of 13- to 31-year-old samples yielded in-service R-values of R-4 to R-5.5 per inch, with only 50% meeting or exceeding R-5, highlighting how installation factors, facer permeability, and climate amplify discrepancies between labeled and realized performance. These findings underscore NRCA recommendations to derate PIR R-values (e.g., to R-5 per inch for heating-dominated roof designs) to mitigate overestimation risks.

Durability and Installation Challenges

Polyisocyanurate insulation demonstrates vulnerabilities in dimensional stability, with observed shrinkage occurring primarily in the initial two years following installation. A field study monitoring polyiso roofing boards in New Westminster, British Columbia, from 2009 to 2015, documented shrinkage rates independent of temperature variations, though stabilization differed by manufacturer, with one brand exhibiting continued slow changes into years 3–6 accompanied by thermal expansion. Such instability can lead to gaps or uneven surfaces in assemblies, potentially exacerbating long-term performance degradation. Facer delamination represents a key durability issue, characterized by the separation of glass-fiber-reinforced cellulosic felt facers from the foam core, often visible as buckling under fully adhered single-ply roofing systems. Bond strengths typically range from 0.05 to 0.60 pounds for top facers and 1.5 to 2.0 pounds for bottom facers, rendering the material susceptible to mechanical stresses. Additional defects include edge cavitation manifesting as depressions along board edges, cupping or bowing from uneven foam density, and localized crushing where foam powders under load. Prolonged exposure to significantly compromises structural and , as polyisocyanurate absorbs or during wet conditions, fostering risks of mold, decay, and in underlying substrates like decks. Construction-phase sources, such as 1 of from a 4-inch per 1,000 square feet or gallons from a 200-pound , heighten these threats if unmanaged. Installation demands rigorous moisture protection protocols, including storage in dry conditions, multi-layer application with staggered joints for air and water barriers, and daily covering of completed sections to prevent wetting. Precise handling is essential to avoid dust-related irritation, requiring personal protective equipment, while the material's rigidity necessitates accurate cutting and fitting to minimize thermal bridging. The National Roofing Contractors Association recommends incorporating cover boards in low-slope assemblies to mitigate defect impacts from shrinkage or delamination. Delays in finishing exposed installations can further degrade performance through incidental UV or environmental exposure.

Health and Safety Concerns

Occupational Exposure Risks

Occupational exposure to polyisocyanurate (PIR) primarily occurs during manufacturing, where workers handle isocyanates such as polymeric methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (pMDI), a key reactant in the foaming process. Inhalation of vapors, mists, and aerosols generated during mixing, pouring, and curing poses the greatest risk, alongside dermal contact with uncured liquid components. These exposures can lead to acute irritation of the eyes, skin, nose, throat, and respiratory tract, manifesting as coughing, chest tightness, and dermatitis. Chronic effects are dominated by respiratory sensitization, where repeated low-level exposure triggers an immunological response, resulting in occupational asthma in approximately 5% to 10% of affected workers. Sensitized individuals may experience severe bronchoconstriction and asthma attacks even at concentrations below occupational exposure limits, potentially necessitating permanent removal from isocyanate-exposed environments. Dermal sensitization can contribute to systemic uptake, exacerbating respiratory risks through skin absorption of MDI, which hydrolyzes to diamines in vivo. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for MDI at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) as a ceiling concentration, equivalent to 0.20 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m³), reflecting the need for stringent controls due to sensitization potential. For workers handling cured PIR insulation boards, such as during installation or cutting, risks shift to mechanical irritation from dust and fibers, which can cause reversible eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation without isocyanate involvement, as the foaming reaction binds nearly all monomers into the polymer matrix. Freshly manufactured panels may off-gas blowing agents like pentane, leading to transient dizziness or headache at high concentrations, but residual isocyanate levels are typically negligible post-cure. No elevated cancer risks have been conclusively linked to occupational PIR exposure in peer-reviewed studies, though historical concerns with isocyanates prompted monitoring for lung effects.

Fire and Combustion Hazards

Polyisocyanurate (PIR) foams, when ignited, burn rapidly and generate intense heat, dense smoke, and a range of toxic and flammable gases, posing significant hazards in fire scenarios. These materials exhibit low thermal inertia, leading to short ignition times and rapid flame spread, particularly in open flame or high-heat exposure conditions. The isocyanurate ring structure in PIR provides enhanced char formation compared to polyurethane foams, which can limit oxygen access and reduce fuel release in well-ventilated fires, but this benefit diminishes under ventilation-limited or smoldering conditions where toxic gas yields increase. Key combustion products from burning PIR include carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and other irritants such as nitrogen oxides and isocyanates, which can cause acute respiratory distress, eye irritation, and systemic toxicity upon inhalation. Hydrogen cyanide, in particular, contributes substantially to the overall toxic hazard, often doubling the predicted incapacitation risk in flaming decomposition tests due to its high yield from nitrogen-containing polymers. Smoke production is high, obscuring visibility and exacerbating escape challenges, with total smoke release correlating to fire growth rates in standardized tests like the cone calorimeter. Toxicity assessments under ISO 19700 steady-state tube furnace conditions show PIR foam's predicted endpoint exposure (time to incapacitation) falling just below the threshold for immediate danger in post-flashover fires, driven by elevated HCN and CO levels as equivalence ratios shift toward under-ventilated combustion. In industrial applications, PIR's ability to absorb low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons can lead to autoignition risks if exposed to volatile flammable gases, amplifying fire initiation potential. Fire safety standards, such as ASTM E84 for surface burning characteristics, classify many commercial PIR products as low flame spread (Class A or B), but real-world performance depends on facings, installation, and exposure intensity, with delamination of foil facings potentially accelerating burning.

Environmental Impact

Lifecycle Assessment

A lifecycle assessment (LCA) of polyisocyanurate (PIR) insulation examines environmental impacts from raw material extraction through manufacturing, installation, use, and end-of-life disposal. Industry-conducted cradle-to-grave LCAs, often excluding detailed use-phase benefits to focus on embodied impacts, report global warming potential (GWP) values ranging from 2.2 to 5.4 kg CO₂ equivalent per square meter, depending on board thickness and R-value. For instance, a 2024 analysis of polyiso wall insulation yields 4.29 kg CO₂ eq per functional unit, while roof boards at facilities like those in Corsicana, Texas, show 2.63 kg CO₂ eq per m² for products with 1.92 lbs/m² density. Production dominates impacts, with raw materials such as methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), polyester polyols, and blowing agents accounting for 65-85% of GWP and primary energy demand (PED). A 2011 North American LCA, drawing from primary data across 94% of polyiso plants (2007 operations), quantifies GWP at 0.5 kg CO₂ eq per square foot for R-15.3 roof insulation (≈5.4 kg/m²) and PED at 7 MJ per square foot (≈75 MJ/m²). Acidification potential stands at 0.002 mol H⁺ eq per square foot, and eutrophication at 0.0001 kg N eq per square foot for similar units. These figures reflect TRACI methodology and ISO 14040 compliance, though reliance on secondary datasets for upstream processes introduces uncertainty. During the use phase, PIR's high R-value enables rapid energy payback, with savings from reduced building heating and cooling far exceeding embodied energy. For PUR/PIR boards, production requires 293 MJ/m², but over 50 years, operational savings reach 29,100 MJ/m²—a 137:1 ratio when including end-of-life energy recovery via incineration. GWP from production is 2.9 kg CO₂ eq per kg material, offset by use-phase reductions assuming standard European climate conditions. Newer low-GWP blowing agents like hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) further mitigate impacts compared to phased-out HFCs. End-of-life handling contributes minimally in most scenarios, with options limited to landfilling (negligible recovery), incineration (energy offset of up to 20-30% of impacts), or rare mechanical recycling due to PIR's thermoset structure. While industry LCAs emphasize net benefits, they often aggregate data from manufacturers, potentially understating variability in blowing agent leakage or long-term degradation; independent studies confirm similar trends but stress sensitivity to regional energy grids and insulation lifespan assumptions exceeding 50 years.

Blowing Agents and Regulations

Polyisocyanurate (PIR) foams rely on blowing agents to generate gas during polymerization, forming closed-cell structures that enhance thermal insulation by trapping the agent within cells to reduce heat transfer. Historically, trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) served as the primary blowing agent in PIR production from the late 1970s, providing high initial R-value due to its low thermal conductivity. However, CFC-11's ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 1.0 and global warming potential (GWP) exceeding 4,000 prompted its phase-out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, ratified in 1987 and leading to a global ban for foam production by January 1, 1996. Following CFC elimination, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) such as HCFC-141b (ODP 0.11, GWP 725) temporarily replaced them in rigid foams, including PIR, but faced similar restrictions via Montreal Protocol amendments, with U.S. production and import bans for foam blowing enacted by January 1, 2015, and full global phase-out targeted by 2030. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) like HFC-245fa (GWP 1,030) then emerged as transitional zero-ODP alternatives, though their high GWPs necessitated further regulatory action under the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which mandates an 80-85% HFC reduction from baseline levels by 2047, effective for the U.S. after Senate ratification on September 21, 2022. In response, the U.S. American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020 directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to phase down HFC production and consumption to 15% of historic baseline by 2036, with sector-specific prohibitions. Current PIR manufacturing in North America predominantly employs n-pentane or cyclopentane, hydrocarbon blowing agents with GWP less than 5 and zero ODP, which maintain closed-cell integrity while complying with low-GWP mandates. These agents yield initial R-values of approximately 6.0 per inch but are less efficient at retaining long-term insulation compared to higher-GWP predecessors, contributing to observed thermal drift. EPA regulations under the AIM Act, finalized in October 2023, prohibit HFCs or blends exceeding 150 GWP in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate foams (including boardstock and laminated applications) starting January 1, 2025, accelerating the shift to hydrocarbons or hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) like HFO-1234ze (GWP <1). This framework ensures ongoing compliance, with EPA allocating application-specific allowances for transitional uses until 2028 in some subsectors, while emphasizing verifiable low-GWP alternatives to minimize environmental impact without compromising foam performance.

Recent Developments

Advancements in Formulations

Recent advancements in polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam formulations have targeted improvements in reaction kinetics, fire performance, and long-term thermal stability to meet demands for high-efficiency insulation in building applications. Optimization of foaming parameters, such as catalyst selection and blowing agent ratios, has enabled finer cell structures and reduced thermal conductivity without sacrificing mechanical integrity. A February 2025 study modeled rigid PIR formulations for sandwich panel production, employing low-functionality polyols, trimerization catalysts, and n-pentane as the blowing agent to control expansion dynamics. This yielded start times of 10.9 seconds, gel times of 37 seconds, and rise times of 57 seconds, resulting in foams with thermal conductivity of 23.7 mW/(m·K) and compressive strength of 0.32 MPa—values comparable to commercial benchmarks for roofing and wall systems. Further refinements, including cell size reduction, could lower conductivity to 19–20 mW/(m·K), enhancing insulation efficacy while maintaining densities suitable for structural use. Fire retardancy has advanced through additive integration in halogen-free compositions. A 2025 patent describes PIR foams with 0.5–5.5 wt% phosphorus-based retardants (e.g., triethyl , providing ≥0.1 wt% ) and uniformly distributed fibers at 1.24–1.59 kg/m³, formulated at NCO indices of 225–480 and 11–19.5 wt% trimer content. These achieve Class A ratings with Spread Indices of 0–25 and Smoke Development Indices ≤450 under ASTM E84 testing, surpassing traditional PIR in smoke suppression and spread resistance. Hybrid polyurethane-polyisocyanurate (PUR/PIR) formulations have also emerged, balancing reactivity and rigidity via two-component systems that polymerize exothermically. September 2024 patent disclosures highlight such blends for spray foams, incorporating controlled isocyanate-polyol ratios to improve processability and dimensional stability in on-site applications.

Ongoing Research and Standards Updates

Research into polyisocyanurate (PIR) foams continues to emphasize enhancements in thermal performance, with efforts directed toward developing formulations that achieve higher R-values while maintaining structural integrity under varying environmental conditions. Studies have explored modifications to foam density and cell structure to mitigate long-term thermal drift, building on empirical data from accelerated aging tests that reveal potential R-value degradation over time due to factors like moisture ingress and temperature cycling. Sustainability-driven investigations have advanced the integration of bio-based polyols and recycled content into PIR production, with 2023 initiatives yielding products that reduce reliance on petroleum-derived feedstocks without compromising insulation efficacy. Concurrently, development of next-generation blowing agents aims to lower global warming potential, focusing on hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) and other low-GWP alternatives that comply with evolving phase-down regulations under the Montreal Protocol amendments. Fire safety remains a priority, with recent peer-reviewed work evaluating halogen-free flame retardants' effects on PIR mechanical properties and combustion behavior; for instance, a 2025 study demonstrated that certain phosphorus-based additives improve char formation and reduce heat release rates during cone calorimeter testing, though trade-offs in foam flexibility were noted. Additional research incorporates "smart fillers" like layered double hydroxides to bolster thermal stability, showing reduced peak heat release in large-scale fire tests compared to unmodified PIR. Standards updates include the 2023 revision of ASTM C1289, which refines specifications for faced rigid cellular PIR thermal insulation boards, incorporating updated requirements for dimensional stability, water vapor , and long-term thermal resistance based on revised test protocols. The Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA) issued a 2023 technical bulletin on PIR dimensional stability, clarifying compliance with ASTM and CAN/ULC standards through expanded guidance on exposure testing. PIMA also published updated Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for PIR roof and wall insulation, reflecting life-cycle assessments that account for recent raw material shifts and manufacturing efficiencies. These developments align with building code emphases on verified data amid stricter energy and safety mandates.

References

  1. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/insulation-materials
  2. https://www.americanchemistry.com/content/download/4859/file/Polyurethane-and-Polyisocyanurate-Foams-Insulation-that-Works.pdf
  3. https://www.iko.com/comm/blog/what-is-polyiso-rigid-foam-insulation/
  4. https://www.insulation.org/io/articles/insulation-materials-polyisocyanurates/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001430572400199X
  6. https://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/2016/docs/presentations/practices/practices-07/Practices07_Paper64_Biswas.pdf
  7. http://www.osha.gov/publications/hib19890510
  8. https://www.epic.uk.com/pir-the-facts-part-1/
  9. https://www.polyiso.org/page/TB201
  10. https://insulation.org/io/articles/insulation-materials-polyisocyanurates/
  11. https://www.dupont.com/content/dam/dupont/amer/us/en/performance-building-solutions/public/documents/en/isocast-r-polyisocyanurate-insulation-pis-43-D100097-enNA.pdf
  12. https://zhuozhusip.com/blog/pur-vs-pir-know-the-difference/
  13. https://junyuanpetroleumgroup.com/polyisocyanurate/pur-vs-pir-know-the-difference/
  14. https://www.kingspan.com/us/en/knowledge-articles/pur-vs-pur/
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0141391002000861
  16. https://insights.made-in-china.com/Differences-Between-Polyurethane-PIR-Foam-and-Polyurethane-PUR-Foam_MAptzHwhVQIE.html
  17. https://blog.gltproducts.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-styrofoam-and-polyiso-insulation-why-choose-one-over-the-other.html
  18. https://www.hunterpanels.com/blog/roofing-comparison-of-polyiso-and-eps-insulation/
  19. https://mapespanels.com/blog/polystyrene-vs-polyisocyanurate/
  20. https://www.atlasroofing.com/asphalt-life/polyiso-insulation-and-xps-insulation-what-are-the-differences
  21. https://www.clear-heat-insulation.com/news/what-is-the-difference-between-pir-and-phenolic-board.html
  22. https://www.buildinggreen.com/blog/phenolic-foam-insulation-revisited
  23. https://www.kingspan.com/tr/en/knowledge-articles/types-of-insulation-a-beginners-guide/
  24. https://www.eresson.com/en/news/polyisocyanurate-pir-new-material-for-insulation
  25. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57a39be0579fb3a3a8540f56/t/5aba7c6f1ae6cfd1328a40a9/1522170998474/PIMA_LCA_Final_Report.pdf
  26. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.joc.1c00119
  27. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cctc.202201362
  28. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2019/cc/c9cc03339d
  29. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/py/c8py00637g
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142941820322017
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8405120/
  32. https://polyisofactory.com/knowledge/what-is-polyisocyanurate-foam-properties-manufacturing-process/
  33. https://www.polyiso.org/page/HowPolyisoisMade
  34. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.polyiso.org/resource/resmgr/website_images/thumbnails/tb200/tb200_footer_updates_2023/tb201newfoot_dec2021.pdf
  35. https://www.polyiso.org/page/TB602
  36. https://www.buildsite.com/pdf/atlasroofing/Atlas-Roofing-Polyiso-Roof-Insulation-574980.pdf
  37. https://insultherm.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ISO-C1-6.0-Polyisocyanurate-Data-Sheet-03-18.pdf
  38. https://www.polyiso.org/page/TB102
  39. https://www.astm.org/c1289-23a.html
  40. https://images.thdstatic.com/catalog/pdfImages/fe/fe9aaeae-4b31-472a-8b8a-e0ee1f444dd8.pdf
  41. https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/article/thermal-conductivity-r-values-and-u-values-simplified/
  42. https://iibec.org/publication-post/polyiso-foam-insulation-a-refresher-by-thomas-j-taylor/
  43. https://documents.gaf.com/brochures-&-literature/education__polyiso_foam_insulation__a_refresher.pdf
  44. https://www.roofingcontractor.com/articles/90119-new-lttr-values-and-what-they-mean-for-roofing-industry-professionals
  45. https://www.polyiso.org/page/R-VALUEMETRICS
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9695631/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352710221003041
  48. https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/10639/Jagdev_GurpreetSingh_MASc_2019.pdf
  49. https://buildingscience.com/documents/information-sheets/info-502-temperature-dependent-r-value
  50. https://www.dupont.com/content/dam/dupont/amer/us/en/performance-building-solutions/public/documents/en/tech-solutions-538-understanding-polyiso-temps-43-d100866-enna.pdf
  51. https://www.polyiso.org/
  52. https://www.atlasrwi.com/products/roof/polyiso-roof-insulation
  53. https://www.astm.org/c1289-22a.html
  54. https://www.gaf.com/en-us/blog/building-science/polyiso-insulation-explained-281474980047776
  55. https://www.siplast.com/systems/exterior-wall-insulation
  56. https://www.rmax.com/blog/polyiso-below-grade-applications
  57. https://insulation4us.com/blogs/guides-and-news/a-short-guide-to-polyisocyanurate-insulation
  58. https://www.continuousinsulation.org/resources/standards
  59. https://cold-rite.com.au/how-are-cool-rooms-insulated/
  60. https://www.jm.com/en/industrial-insulation/polyisocyanurate-insulation/
  61. https://www.haltermann-carless.com/blog/pu-foam-and-pir-foam-production-use-and-recycling
  62. https://gbdmagazine.com/polyiso-insulation/
  63. https://highperformanceinsulation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Thermal_insulation_materials_made_of_rigid_polyurethane_foam.pdf
  64. https://www.rmax.com/blog/polyiso-r-value-over-time
  65. https://australianmodernbuildingalliance.org.au/images/amba/resources/Comparison_of_polyurethane_insulation_with_other_insulants.pdf
  66. https://www.whitcoroofing.com/sustainable-solutions/polyiso-roof-insulation/
  67. https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub40530.pdf
  68. https://www.polyiso.org/page/InstallationHowItImpactsR-Value
  69. https://www.carlislesyntec.com/en/Resources/Media/Blog-Landing-Page/SpecTopics/2020/01/09/Fire-Performance-of-Polyiso
  70. https://www.rmax.com/blog/2019/4/25/polyiso-fire-performance
  71. https://www.polyiso.org/page/FirePerformance
  72. https://cdn.atas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/07144442/Fire-Resistance-Properties-of-Polyiso-Foam-Plastic-Insulation-Used-in-Wall-Assemblie.pdf
  73. https://www.jm.com/content/dam/jm/global/en/building-insulation/Files/BI%2520Toolbox/PIMA%2520Performance%2520Bulletin%2520Polyiso%2520vs.%2520XPS.pdf
  74. https://www.americanchemistry.com/content/download/5076/file/Fire-Safety-Guidelines-for-Use-of-Rigid-Polyurethane-and-Polyisocyanurate-Foam-Insulation-in-Building-Construction.pdf
  75. https://www.coldroom-china.com/pur-vs-pir/
  76. https://www.polyiso.org/page/TB105
  77. https://huntsmanbuildingsolutions.com/es-US/sites/es_us/files/2019-10/fire-safety-guidance.pdf
  78. https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/polyisocyanurate-rigid-foam-and-thermal-drift
  79. https://www.rockwool.com/siteassets/o2-rockwool/documentation/research/research-summary/temperature-dependence-of-aged-polyisocyanurate-insulation-r-values---research-summary.pdf
  80. https://www.rdh.com/resource/long-term-study-polyiso/
  81. https://www.roofingcontractor.com/articles/83969-polyisocyanurate-insulation-concerns-revisited
  82. https://www.polyiso.org/page/TB112
  83. https://www.osha.gov/isocyanates
  84. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/mdi.pdf
  85. https://www.americanchemistry.com/content/download/4787/file/Health-Effects-of-Diisocyanates-Guidance-for-Medical-Personnel.pdf
  86. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96-111/pdfs/96-111.pdf
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10359961/
  88. https://www.atlasrwi.com/uploads/resources/ACFoam_III_RB_HD-SDS.pdf
  89. https://www.buildsite.com/pdf/siplast/Paratherm-Polyisocyanurate-Insulation-SDS-2917753.pdf
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6403833/
  91. https://firesciencereviews.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40038-016-0012-3
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378778810003671
  93. https://www.jm.com/content/dam/jm/global/en/MSDS/200000004451_US_EN.pdf
  94. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/IR/nistir4664.pdf
  95. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fire-Toxicity-of-polyurethane-foam-and-polyisocyanurate-foam-in-a-range-of-conditions_tbl6_301572988
  96. https://www.foamglas.com/en/advice-center/general-advice/fire-and-smoke-in-industrial-installations
  97. https://www.polyiso.org/blogpost/854653/500176/Polyiso-EPDs-Creating-an-eco-conscious-building-envelope
  98. https://www.holcimelevate.com/content/dam/elevateamericas/migrated-document/Documents/us/epd/ISO-Boards-EPD-2025-Corsicana-TX.pdf
  99. http://info.nsf.org/Certified/Sustain/ProdCert/EPD10466.pdf
  100. http://highperformanceinsulation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Factsheet_13-1_Environmental_product_declaration__EPD__for_PU__PUR-PIR__thermal_insulation_boards_and_energy_saving_potential__updated_12-12-14_.pdf
  101. https://www.polyiso.org/page/HFC
  102. https://www.professionalroofing.net/Articles/A-blowing-agent-update--02-01-2005/590
  103. https://www.sprayfoammagazine.com/foam-news/the-evolution-of-blowing-agents/3801
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6213201/
  105. https://www.eelp.law.harvard.edu/tracker/hydrofluorocarbons-and-kigali-amendment-to-montreal-protocol/
  106. https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/frequent-questions-phasedown-hydrofluorocarbons
  107. https://www.polyiso.org/page/Low-GWPBlowingAgentSolution
  108. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-12/final_rule_fact_sheet_updated.pdf
  109. https://www.polyiso.org/page/RegsLow-GWPBlowingAgent
  110. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/24/2023-22529/phasedown-of-hydrofluorocarbons-restrictions-on-the-use-of-certain-hydrofluorocarbons-under-the
  111. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/18/4/881
  112. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18040881
  113. https://patents.justia.com/patent/12202973
  114. https://www.astm.org/e0084-23.html
  115. https://patents.justia.com/patent/20240317960
  116. https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/polyisocyanurate-pirboardstock-foam-421258
  117. https://www.astm.org/c1289-23.html
  118. https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/pir-foam-sheet-415557
  119. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-6255/8/9/360
  120. https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/ws/files/85701244/TCA_2020_454_Accepted_Version.pdf
  121. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.polyiso.org/resource/resmgr/tech_bulletins/2023/tb107newfoot_sept2023.pdf
  122. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.polyiso.org/resource/collection/5A3AED4A-4DF2-4640-A3F2-FA998884D606/PIMA.EPDs.FINAL.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.