A Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Mineral Wool Fibre and Sprayed Polyurethane Foam Insulations

A Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Mineral Wool Fibre and Sprayed Polyurethane Foam Insulations

A Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Mineral Wool Fibre and Sprayed Polyurethane Foam Insulations

By: Mike Richmond -Genyk Polyurethanes

Is it possible for a plastic to be considered environmentally beneficial? Is mineral wool a long term
solution and consistently efficient? The following comparison of medium density spray foam and mineralwool insulations highlights the environmental strengths and weaknesses of both products.

Five categories are used to compare the products – Quality Assurance, Health and Safety, Durability, Life
Cycle Valuation and Energy Efficiency. While not an exhaustive list of the categories associated with
environmental assessments, the groupings do address the most prevalent merits/issues with each
product.

Quality Assurance

Both mineral fibre and spray foam insulation are subject to material and installation standards. CAN/ULC-S702.1 is the material performance standard for mineral wool. CAN/ULC-S702.2 is associated with the installation of fibrous materials. CAN/ULC-S705.1 is the material standard for medium density spray foam. CAN/ULC-S705.2 is the accompanying installation standard.

Significant Differences

  •  CAN/ULC S702.1 encompasses all fiber products. That is, dissimilar products, from
    mineral wool to cellulose, are referenced under one standard. Conversely, spray foam
    products are dedicated to specific material type – S705.1 for medium density spray foam;
    S712.1 for light density spray foam.
  • Both material standards for spray foam have been formalized by the spray foam industry
    and sanctioned by the Canadian Standards Council. There is no corresponding
    agreement in the fibre standard. While written by the fibre community, the standard has
    not been ratified, nor is any of the content enforceable by an oversight organization.
  • CAN/ULC-S702.2 is a generalized standard that describes the installation of various types of fibrous materials and is not referenced in the National Building Code. The CAN/ULC-S705.2 standard for spray foam is referenced in the National Building Code. As such, installers are bound by the NBC to perform daily QAP procedures.
  • The material and installation standards for spray foam are certified by a third-party organization. The material standard requires that products must be certified by a testing organization that is ISO 17020 accredited. The installation standard requires that the certification process requires third-party verification of classroom testing and on-site practical confirmation. The third-party organization must be ISO 17024 certified. Conversely, the fibre industry’s standards are confirmed by the manufacturing community.

 

Impact –

Because of the stringent training and certification required by the spray foam industry, the products are consistently installed by certified professionals. The spray foam process starts with certification, requires daily testing and subjects installations to regular third- party evaluation. Thus, the quality control process is consistently applied from manufacture of the material to in-situ installation.

Mineral wool is subject to a manufacturer-only quality assurance program. There are no
third-party plant inspections. More importantly, the product is installed by anyone –
homeowners, drywall installers, masons, carpenters. Typically, because it is difficult to
work with, and an on-site irritant, the product is installed by the most junior
tradespersons.

 

Health and Safety

Both spray foam and mineral wool have been subject to significant scrutiny regarding health and safety
issues. Spray foam products use MDI isocyanate in the formation of foamed plastic insulation. During
the spraying process, the MDI is atomized, and the airborne particles are considered a “sensitizer”. Thus,
workplace asthma is associated with the installation of spray foam. To a lesser degree, some other
ingredients in the spray foam materials are considered irritants to some people.

Health concerns regarding mineral wool are well documented. And despite industry efforts to adapt
countermeasures to some of the most pertinent issues, the health and safety problems persist.
Formaldehyde binders are at the centre of health concerns. Further, “concerns regarding mineral wool
are not limited to the issue of the level of carcinogenicity. Mineral wool is known to cause skin and lung
abnormalities. Inhalation can lead to pulmonary fibrosis, a chronic disease accompanied by
breathlessness that cannot be cured”(i).

 

Similarities –

  • Outgassing, or chemical release, of materials after installation of both products is a well
    documented concern. The outgassing occurs relatively quickly with spray foam (within
    the first ninety days). Thereafter, minute amounts of gas release occur in undetectable
    amounts for approximately two years.
    With mineral wool, the outgassing of formaldehyde occurs during the manufacturing
    process. While two manufacturers of mineral wool insulation have announced that they
    will stop using binders containing formaldehyde in “at least some of their products”, no
    dates were given, and, no testing data is available to support the claims(ii).
  • Appropriate Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) must be worn during the installation of both spray foam and mineral wool. When the proper PPE is worn, the dangers of both products is mitigated.

Significant Differences –

  • Use of appropriate PPE is stipulated in the CAN/ULC spray foam standards. As such,
    wearing the correct safety equipment is mandatory. Failure to do so can result in
    decertification of the installer.
    As mentioned, there is no training, certification or inspection of the mineral wool
    installation. The use of PPE is recommended and voluntary.
  • The CAN/ULC spray foam standards dictate that the installer must protect the entire jobsite. Mandatory barriers, warning signs and ventilation are part of the daily requirements of the installer. Failure to adequately protect the jobsite can result in loss of certification. The lack of a binding installation standard for mineral wool often means that the jobsite is inadequately protected. Airborne particulate from the mineral wool is dangerous. In fact, “there is some data which suggests mineral wool slivers in the lungs may cause cancer, by slicing DNA and causing cell mutation”(iii).

Impact –

Both spray foam and mineral wool experience outgassing during and after installation of
the product. Similarly, both industries have made significant advancements regarding
the risk associated with outgassing. As a requirement of the CAN/ULC-S705.1 material
standard, every certified spray foam material must undergo a Human Health Risk
Assessment. For use in an inhabited structure, the HHRA provides guidelines as to the
adequate time before occupancy. The risk from any emissions is typically gone within
the first few hoursiv. For additional safety, the CAN/ULC-S705.2 installation standard
requires contractors to instruct residents not to return for occupation for twenty-four
hours. Further, new advancements in the spray foam materials have established zero
VOC tolerances (GreenGuard Gold Certified).

Although there is no binding material standard for mineral wool, and thus, no way to
verify the statements, manufacturers have assured the public that the use of
formaldehyde has been discontinued in selected fibre products. The majority of VOC emissions are burned off during the manufacturing process, the outgassing risk to
inhabitants of homes insulated with mineral fibre is negligible. Some mineral wool
products have also achieved GreenGuard Certification.

Durability
Spray foam, and all plastic insulations, typically grade superior than fibre products when analyzing
durability. Moisture resistance, rigidity, and adhesion to substrate equate to a product that performs
efficiently, longer. However, recent advancements to mineral wool insulation have made significant
durability advancements.

Similarities –

  • Spray foam and mineral wool are both resistant to moisture absorption. Each product
    has hydrophobic properties, and thus, at least theoretically, resist mould growth.
    Further, if water is absorbed by both products, once dried, the materials retain their
    thermal resistance.
  • Once cured, spray foam maintains the initial performance properties for the life of the
    structure. The material will not sag or settle. Likewise, the higher density mineral wool
    products are resistant to compaction and settlement.

Significant Differences –

  • The advertised thermal resistance properties of spray foam remain unchanged with time.
    The CAN/ULC-S705.1 material standard requires manufacturers to post the Long Term
    Thermal Resistance. The LTTR value is calculated by estimating the loss of gas and is
    representative of the thermal resistance after five years. Because spray foam is
    manufactured ‘in-situ’, the advertised thermal resistance is the installed property.
    Mineral wool advertises the thermal resistance of the material as tested in a laboratory
    prior to manufacture, shipping and installation. Transportation and installation are
    known to reduce the effectiveness of mineral wool.
  • Environmental factors such as wind have a negative impact on all insulations. However,
    the reduction in thermal resistance due to wind load is significantly less for spray foam
    than that of mineral fibre. The U.S. Department of Energy studies cite air infiltration in
    buildings as responsible for 40% of the energy loss in homes. Given that spray foam is
    an integral air barrier material that exceeds the physical properties of most stand-alone
    air barrier materials (i.e. house wrap, bitumen membranes), the effects of wind pressure
    is not a detriment to thermal resistance.
  • Closed-cell spray polyurethane foam is the only Class 5 flood damage-resistant insulation,
    as rated by FEMA. FEMA defines a flood damage-resistant material as any building
    product capable of withstanding direct and prolonged (72 hours or longer) contact with
    floodwaters without sustaining significant damage. While mineral wool is water resistant,
    sustained exposure to water, and subsequent saturation, renders the product unusable.
  • Closed-cell spray polyurethane foam adds structural strength to roof and wall assemblies.
    Factory Mutual Global measured medium density spray foam’s adhesion to concrete at
    over 990psf of uplift pressure; and over 220psf of resistance to metal deck assemblies.
    The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Centre concluded “during a
    design racking event such as a hurricane, there would be less permanent deformation of
    the wall elements and possibly less damage to a structure that was braced with SPF-filled
    walls”. Further, NAHB research demonstrated that spray foam “doubled the maximum
    average racking load of a plywood-clad wall assembly at 16” spacing and was 2.2 times
    the racking load at 24” spacing”.(v)

Note: more recent research demonstrates that “applying a medium density spray foam fillet along wood roof member can increase the wind uplift capacity of 1⁄2” thick OSB roof sheathing panels by more than two times the uplift capacity of the control panel fastened using only nails. The results also showed
that a continuous 3” layer of medium density spray foam can increase the wind uplift capacity by as much as three times that of the control roof panel.”(vi)

Impact –

The mineral wool used today is more rigid, more hydrophobic and higher in thermal
resistance than any other currently available fibre insulation. However, when compared
to plastic insulation in general, and spray foam specifically, in terms of durability, the
advantage goes to plastic insulations.
Based on research, the installation of spray foam results in significant structural benefits
and reduced building damage for impact and high winds. Spray foam performs
consistently for the life of the building. Finally, unlike other insulations, spray foam is not
negatively impacted by environmental factors like wind, cold and flooding.

Severe Weather Performance Comparison

 Similarities

  • The raw materials used in the manufacture of spray foam and mineral wool are found in
    close proximity to the products’ manufacturing facilities.
  • The majority of mineral wool and spray foam manufacturers have facilities in Canada.
    Thus, the distribution of the products is usually local.
  • Both insulation products contribute to the reduction in the amount of energy used from fossil fuels – the most important factor in promoting sustainability.
  • Spray foam has made significant changes to the blowing agent associated with outgassing. Historically, the gases used to provide spray foam with superior thermal resistance came with substantial environmental impact. The ozone depletion emissions were high and the global warming potential was similarly unacceptable. Today, with the advent of halogenated olefin blowing agents, spray foams boast zero ozone depletion, and extremely low global warming potential. Similarly, the rockwool industry has begun the process of reducing harmful emissions produced during the manufacturing process. The elimination of formaldehyde in some of the fibre products is an initial step towards lowering the pollution created during manufacture.

Significant Differences –

  • The manufacturing process of spray foam products is relatively safe when compared to
    that of mineral wool. Further, there is minimal embodied energy used in the extraction
    of raw materials and the manufacture of materials. The spray foam ingredients are
    shipped in liquid form and are contained in sealed containers throughout the
    manufacturing process. There are very few pollutants emitted during the refining
    process. Conversely, the mineral wool manufacturing process is the subject of significant concern.
    In the summer of 2018, protests escalated in the United States in response to the
    building of a mineral wool facility in Jefferson County, West Virginia. Citizens Concerned
    About Rockwool said of the rockwool manufacturing facility, in a handout entitled Stop
    Toxic Rockwool, “the use of both coal and slag causes the emissions to be toxic in
    nature…emissions are estimated at 470 tons of volatile organic compounds and 239 tons
    of nitrogen oxides a year”. Residents concerns do not seem to be unfounded: the plant
    is permitted to release a total of 310,291,620 pounds of regulated air pollutants
    annually.vii Additionally, in Europe, Gary Cartwright has voiced concern about the
    pollution and related health risks connected to the manufacture of mineral wool: “an
    elevated standard mortality ratio for lung cancer has been demonstrated in cohorts of
    workers exposed to MMVF, especially in the early technological phase of mineral (rock
    slag) wool production”.(viii)
  • While both mineral wool and spray foam products use minimal amounts of packaging,
    mineral wool packaging (plastic) is diverted directly to landfill facilities. Conversely, spray
    foam is delivered to the site in metal drums (recyclable), and reusable plastic totes.
  • Spray foam is delivered as raw materials and is manufactured on the jobsite. The product
    comes as a liquid and is expanded up to 100 times the shipping volume. The result is less
    energy used in distribution. Depending on the size of the home/structure, one spray foam
    truck can hold enough material for up to five projects.
    Conversely, mineral wool is shipped by volume. Thus, a minimum of one trip is required
    for distribution of a project’s material requirements.
  • Both products are considered useable for the life of the structure. At the end-of-cycle
    deconstruction, both spray foam and mineral insulations cannot be effectively reused.
    Both are disposed of at landfill sites – while spray foam will eventually degrade, the
    process is essentially infinite. Save for the chemicals added during the manufacturing
    process, rockwool is an organic material and will decompose naturally.

 

 

Energy Efficiency
Both mineral wool and spray foam insulations are thermal insulators. Thus, both products contribute to
sustainability by reducing the amount of energy used from fossil fuels. When considering an insulation
material in terms of environmental attributes, it is often the case that the “natural” material is considered the most beneficial. Beyond the obvious thermal conductivity of a material, and not withstanding this 

paper’s beforementioned product environmental impacts, in regards to a product’s energy efficiency, three characteristics must be considered – ease of installation, protection against air infiltration, and protection against moisture.

 

 Similarities –

  • Both mineral wool and spray foam have low thermal conductivity. The thermal
    resistance of spray foam is consistently thirty percent greater than that of mineral wool.
    However, per inch thermal resistance is only an attribute when space for insulation is at
    a premium (i.e. retrofit applications, sloped ceilings).

 

Significant Differences –

  • The performance of an insulation product is ultimately determined by how effectively the
    material is installed. Mineral wool is quite difficult to install – the material is quite dense
    and is labour intensive to cut, fit and handle. Saws are required to cut mineral wool –
    the process is laborious. Mineral wool does not compress easily, and thus, squeezing the
    product into odd corners and around wires is difficult. As with all batt insulation, the
    extent of the care provided during installation is directly related to the effectiveness of
    the finished product.
    Because of the degree of difficulty installing mineral wool, it is a product often done by
    apprentices and people new to construction. Thus, the installation rarely done by
    tradespersons dedicated to insulation in general, and mineral wool in particular.
    Spray foam installers must be CAN/ULC-S705.2 certified. As such, a spray foam installer
    typically handles the product on a dedicated, daily basis. Further, because spray foam is
    manufactured on site, it is ideally suited to be installed/injected into small, irregular
    cavities.
    Gaps and voids undermine a product’s value and can render any insulation ineffective. If
    any insulation is not completely tight to the inner wythe of an exterior wall, convective
    loops can occur behind the insulation and reduce the product’s thermal resistance by up
    to fifty percent. All board insulations, including rockwool, are susceptible to gaps caused
    by irregular surfaces. Spray foam is ideally suited for irregular surfaces. The product
    tenaciously bounds to the surface rather than being fitted.
    The potential for gaps because of structural irregularity, and voids due to mechanical
    services, are significantly reduced when using spray foam.
  • Air movement through a building can increase energy use by up to forty percent,
    produce interstitial moisture issues and create poor indoor air quality. Mineral wool does
    not prevent the movement of air through the thermal gradient. The product requires a
    separate air barrier material.
    Spray foam is an integral air/vapour and thermal barrier. As such, with additional
    detailing of areas not covered by spray foam (i.e. jack studs), spray foam can be a part
    of an effective air barrier system.
    Given that air cannot move through spray foam, neither can debris and organic material.
    This makes spray foam an effective barrier to mould generation. Conversely, while
    mineral wool material does not encourage mould growth by itself, the product can trap
    moisture and organic material much like a fiberglass filter. This process can contribute to
    mould growth. 
  • Similarly, moisture created by vapour diffusion easily passes through mineral fibre. Like
    the air movement, transported moisture can also contribute to creating the conditions
    necessary for organic material capture and subsequent mould growth.
    Spray foam is a vapour retarder. Unlike conventional vapour retarders that provide a
    single plane of resistance, spray foam is resistant to moisture movement throughout the
    material. This provides consistent protection regardless of environmental conditions (i.e.
    reverse vapour drive in summer conditions). Further, spray foam is not completely
    impermeable to moisture movement. So, any moisture that does enter the spray foam
    can also dry.

Impact –

  • Mineral wool and spray foam provide excellent thermal resistance. But installation
    difficulties can make mineral wool unproductive at best; inadequately installed at worse.
    Spray foam is installed by certified installers who have been trained and are subject to
    recertification and site quality inspections.
    Mineral wool requires the inclusion of separate air and vapour barriers. While all three
    products can be effectively installed and contribute to the energy efficiency of the
    structure, the separate processes add to the production schedule.
    Spray foam is an integral thermal, air and vapour barrier material. The productivity gains
    match the advantages of having a material that is resistant to all forms of energy
    inefficiency.

Conclusion –

All insulation materials reduce pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions by reducing heating and air-
conditioning requirements of a building. This benefit almost always outweighs environmental problems associated with certain materials. All insulation materials strengthen local and regional economies by reducing expenditures on fossil fuels – generally imported from outside the region.
To be certain, insulation has the greatest potential for reducing CO2 emissions.
Mineral wool has advantages over all insulations – made from 75% recycled materials, low environmental impacts and a commitment to environmental improvement are a few. Similarly, spray foam provides licenced installers bound by a Building Code referenced standard, an integral thermal/air/vapour barrier and the advantage of manufacturing the material specific to site requirements.
Mineral wool is often considered a ‘green’ product while spray foam has traditionally struggled to be
considered an environmentally friendly product. However, labels can often be the result of
misinformation and marketing. A complete analysis of both products demonstrates that mineral wool can be a long-term solution. However, in regard to embodied energy, VOC emissions and durability, spray foam exceeds traditionally held beliefs. When the facts are examined, spray foam proves that a plastic can be green.

(viii) Gary Cartwright, “Is it time to legislate the Mineral Wool industry more tightly at EU level”, EU Today, June, 2018. The health data found within the article can be found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/86666112

(i) Martin Banks, “Safety concerns over some fibre-based insulation products”, June 2018, Brussels Express.

(ii) Scott Gibson, “Mineral Wool Makers Dropping Formaldehyde Binders”, May 2017, Green Building News.

(iii) “Mineral Wool Insulation Pros and Cons”, Solar365/GreenHomes/Insulation.

(iv) Dr. Lalita Bharadwig, University of Saskatchewan, “Human Health Risk Assessment for Genyk ‘Boreal Nature”,

“Overall data suggest a low risk for adverse inhalational exposures and thus a low potential for health risk. Ambient VOC concentrations at 1 hour following the application of “Genyk PU-Foam” will be within an acceptable range for human exposure. Therefore, the recommended limiting residential occupancy time for “Genyk PU-Foam” is 1 hour and applies to residents of structures insulated with this material.”

(v) Mason Knowles, NAHB Research Centre, 1992.
vi Richard S. Duncan, “Wind Uplift Behaviour of Wood Roof Sheathing Panels Retrofitted with Spray-applied Polyurethane Foam”, University of Florida, 2007.

(vii) James Wilson, “Environmental and health concerns over mineral wool production spread from the US to Europe”, September, 2018

 

(viii) Gary Cartwright, “Is it time to legislate the Mineral Wool industry more tightly at EU level”, EU Today, June, 2018. The health data found within the article can be found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/86666112

WEBSITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Combat Foam spray foam Insulation oakville

Have a remodeling project?

Contact Shawn, he’d love to talk with you about your project!

Get a free Quote

Contact Us For
A free Quote!

(905) 407-1821

 

Our services:

-2lb Closed Cell Spray Foam
-0.5lb Open Cell Spray Foam
-Attic Insulation
-Crawlspace Insulation
-Garage Insulation
-Basement Insulation
-Wall Insulation

A Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Mineral Wool Fibre and Sprayed Polyurethane Foam Insulations

Green Plastics? A Review of Medium Density Sprayed Urethane Foam’s Contribution to Sustainable Design

Green Plastics? A Review of Medium Density Sprayed Urethane Foam’s Contribution to Sustainable Design 

By: Mike Richmond -Genyk Solutions

Green is in. It is trendy to use cloth bags for your groceries, to condense and divert consumable plastics and to place your plastic bags in retail stores for recycling. Everyone is doing it. Today’s consumer has bought in and marketing dollars are flowing—so LEED, environmentally sound building strategies and making ‘green’ choices are here to stay. Generally, making climate conscious decisions feels good. But defining ‘green’ choices is still very much a formless undertaking. The use of plastics for instance. Most everyone thinks that the elimination of plastics is good for the environment. But sound environmental strategies are about making logical choices. When a product contributes to durability, superior energy efficiency and provides developmental density economies of scale, a ‘green’ designer is obligated to consider the option. Even if that product happens to be a plastic.

So how can Sprayed Polyurethane Foam (SPF), a plastic, be a prudent, environmental choice? In Southern Ontario, SPF is quickly becoming the product of choice for cavity wall applications. Similarly, the growth of SPF in the Alberta and British Columbia ICI markets is dramatic. Historically, SPF in Quebec remains the insulation/air barrier material of choice. Further, spray foam is realizing a significant share of the high-rise residential wall insulation market. Across Canada, SPF has experienced exponential growth in residential exterior wall, floor and attic installations. Cumulatively, according to statistics gathered by the American Chemistry Council, the SPF industry has more than quadrupled product usage since 2000. But in today’s “go green” movement, is spray foam a good fit?

Admittedly, spray foam is a plastic, and as such, being considered a “green” product is challenging. However, an investigation of SPF’s performance results lends credence to the idea of SPF’s environmental contribution and the product’s considerable rise in popularity. SPF has significantly better thermal resistance qualities than all other commercially available insulation materials. SPF is a CCMC-approved air barrier material and has considerably better air barrier performance than the most popular membrane materials(1) . SPF is manufactured on the jobsite, and as such, is better able to conform to design/construction incongruities. Material performance distinguishes SPF as the premier insulating material.

The thermal resistance of SPF is a significant feature. When compared to fibrous insulation materials, 25mm of spray foam can yield up to 58% better thermal resistance.

Source: Insulation Materials; Installer Site Reference Manual for Energy Efficiency, Building Performance Training Institute for Construction

Source: Insulation Materials; Installer Site Reference Manual for Energy Efficiency, Building Performance Training Institute for Construction

Further, the in-situ performance of SPF when compared to fibrous insulations multiplies the
already disproportionate product efficiencies. Consider the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
research that demonstrates that “commonly installed” fiberglass batts lose 28% of their labelled
R-value. Additionally, according to Oak Ridge research, fiberglass insulation maintained only
46% of initial thermal resistance when subjected to low outside temperatures. In comparison,
SPF maintained up to 83% of reported R-value at low outside temperatures(2). In tests performed
by Architectural Testing Inc., the Oak Ridge research was validated.

 

Insulation Efficiency Comparison: Fiberglass vs. Spray Foam

SPF, then, is installed at a higher per-inch thermal resistance than fibrous insulations and
performs in-situ much more efficiently.

Further, SPF weathers much better than other insulations. SPF, especially the medium density
closed cell version, provides considerable resistance to vapour diffusion. Enough, in fact, to be
considered a vapour barrier in most applications(3). Additionally, while most cavity wall insulation and membrane systems are restricted to a six-week exposure limit by manufacturers, SPF’s exposure capacity is measured in months (minimally six depending on supplier). When considering the thermal efficiency of a structure, spray foam provides the design profession with an advanced thermally resistant product, that maintains its RSI value through cold/hot exposure, and is a superior air barrier with vapour barrier capacity. Plus, the product is able to maintain integrity during exposure—a significant factor when considering construction schedules.

Because of the product’s versatility, both design professionals and constructors are realizing the
product’s cost efficiency. Given SPF’s greater thermal resistance, designers are able to get more
‘RSI’ value in less space. That is, the exterior stud members of a high-rise condominium project
can be either reduced in size or the thermal resistance can be improved. The cost savings of
reducing stud size members is often comparable to the revenue generated by the additional area
created by decreasing stud wall cavities around the perimeter of the building—hence the rise in
SPF high-rise popularity. From an energy efficiency standpoint, with SPF, 150 mm stud cavities
can achieve RSI values of up to RSI 7.0 (R40)—nearly twice the thermal resistance of mineral or
glass fibre products which provide insulation value by trapping air.
The same concept applies to cavity wall construction.

SPF as part of the rain-screen assembly is a natural fit. Spray foam’s significant resistance to vapour diffusion and air infiltration allows the design professional to specify one single material as the vapour retarder, air barrier and thermal insulation. Material and labour costs are reduced, single application productivity gains are achieved, and from a thermal resistance perspective, the designer is able to achieve considerable gains in thermal performance—all without changing the conventional dimensions of the wall assembly.

Residential housing construction is also realizing the benefits of SPF. Spray foam to the walls and
ceilings of custom homes is becoming commonplace. Again, builders are able to offer more
thermal resistance, a product that inhibits water vapour transmission, and a material that
provides superior protection from air infiltration. All in the traditional framed space. A 150mm
stud wall can now offer the energy conscious consumer with a 58% increase in thermal
resistance when compared to the historical mineral or glass fibre products. And not only is the
cost of the extraneous air barrier and vapour barrier materials recovered with the use of SPF,
protection from reverse vapour drive caused by sun-driven moisture and air-conditioned
environments is enhanced by a product able to retard moisture throughout the thermal gradient.

But it is not just material performance that distinguishes SPF. There is more to SPF than
statistical advantages. Rim joists, garage ceilings and cathedral ceilings are just some areas
where the discord between design and construction occur in residential construction. The result
of poorly fitted insulation and air/vapour barrier materials is often customer complaints and costly
warranty claims. Because SPF is manufactured on the jobsite, the product lends itself to unique
situations. Given that excessive air infiltration and exfiltration leads to significant losses in
energy, and impairs comfort, the use of SPF in critical assembly spaces is now commonplace.
SPF is an energy solution, from thermal resistance to ease of application. In short, SPF is an
energy saver, and thus, the use of SPF a responsible energy design decision.

 

But SPF is still a plastic, right? Cumulatively, one can make a case for the contribution spray
foam makes to an enhanced energy efficient design. As the demand for energy efficiency grows
– either by building owners who want to conserve energy or by regulatory agencies that what to
reduce CO2 emissions, spray foam’s ability to provide greater thermal resistance and superior air
barrier performance will ensure increased use of the product. But is that enough for spray foam
to be considered a green building product? Probably; afterall, all insulation materials save more
energy than the use during manufacture. However, SPF remains a plastic. Energy efficiency is
only part of the equation in appropriate environmental design. There is also the issue of material
impact. Off-gassing, VOC emissions, non-degradable waste, and design durability are equally
important. And here, one might suspect that SPF would fail.

When considering recent product developments in the SPF industry, the answer becomes
obvious. To comply with the Montreal Protocol, the spray foam industry was forced to find safer,
environmentally friendly material components. The research and product development is now
complete—at present, SPF materials are a Zero Ozone Depleting Substance (Zero ODP). Further,
the recent introduction of a new generation of blowing agent, Hydrofluoroolefin, has had a

profound impact on the spray foam market. Closed cell, medium density spray foam products
now have minimal Global Warming Potential – an industry-wide GWP of less than five.
The SPF industry has become committed to environmentally responsible products. Spray foam
raw materials are currently produced with a higher content of rapidly renewable substances –
lavender oils, vegetable oils and rainwater. SPF products have significantly reduced the use of
virgin raw materials and replaced those components with elements made from recycled plastics
(PET) and plant-based oils. The commitment to recycled content is significant. The discerning
designer can now readily locate spray foam products that make a contribution to certified ‘Green’
building strategies (especially LEED).

The insulation industry in general, and the foam insulation market in particular, received ‘the
guilt-by-association’ effect of the urea formaldehyde (UFFI) ban. UFFI’s possible ‘off-gassing’ was
determined to create a potential health risk. And even though most of today’s data would
indicate an overreaction occurred, the effects of the UFFI ban linger on for foam insulations(4)
SPF is formaldehyde-free and has never experienced ‘offgassing’. Within 24 hours of site
manufacturer, the SPF is 1/100 of the allowable limit for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
Only during the application process does one need to be concerned about VOCs, and even then,
at distances of greater than ten metres, the effects are negligible. SPF, when installed by
trained, certified and licensed installers,(5) is a safe and environmentally friendly product. In fact,
SPF can be a contributor to LEED’s ‘Low-Emitting Materials’ credit when used as a Sealant
(conforms to SCAQMD Rule #1168).

So, SPF contributes to several LEED credits – Energy & Atmosphere (energy performance),
Materials & Resources (recycled content), and Indoor Environmental Quality (low-emitting
materials). But what about the undeniable fact that SPF is a plastic product and that plastics are
not biodegradable? SPF, when discarded lays inert with other non-biodegradable products for
relative eternity—true and undeniable. However, consider that the SPF application, by definition,
is customized at the jobsite. The actual waste generated is considerably less than factory
manufactured insulation products that are cut to fit at the jobsite. Here is where most
environmentalists agree that choosing the benefits of an energy efficient product that solves a
multitude of efficiency design situations, outweighs the minimal downside of the product.
And the product’s endless longevity is consistent with another cornerstone of environmental
design – durability. For the same reasons that SPF does not deteriorate in the landfill, the
product remains constant in the wall assembly, outlasting even the most ambitious design
projections. SPF’s moisture management is the key. First, the product resists moisture
migration. Second, any moisture that does penetrate the insulation dries within typical
temperature cycles exclusive of any deterioration of SPF’s thermal resistance(6).

In short, SPF can provide the water resistive barrier, the air barrier, the thermal barrier and the
vapour barrier functions all in one easy and single application to the building envelope,
eliminating the need for a multi-layer application

Can a plastic considered a green building product? If the product contributes to elevated energy
conservation, is a zero ozone depleting substance, has a minimal GWP, and is manufactured with
a high recycled content, it is worth considering the benefits. Further, more efficiency in less
space contributes to developmental density. SPF’s superior resistance to vapour diffusion
contributes to combating the effects of making a building tight; and, the multi-faceted properties
of SPF (insulation/air barrier/vapour retarder) produce obvious economies of scale and allow the
design professional the opportunity to participate in elevated energy efficiency design. Today the
public is ‘consumered’ with the idea of ‘going green’— SPF is a real option in making momentum
reality.

Mike Richmond, [email protected]
Mike Richmond is employed by Genyk Polyurethanes as a Building Science Specialist. He is a LEED
Accredited Professional and a Building Science Specialist of Ontario as sanctioned by the Ontario Building Envelope Council.

(1). The most popular air barrier membrane has achieved a rating of 0.005 L/s.m2 air leakage when tested using ASTM E283. Under the same conditions, SPF achieved an average 0.00014 L/s.m2 rating.

(2). SPF Outperforms Fiberglas in Attic Insulation Performance Tests at Oak Ridge National Laboratories,
July 2005.

(3). G.Finch, & Dr. J. Straube, “Field Performance of Spray Polyurethane Foam: The Role of Vapour
Diffusion Control”, April 2007.

(4).Subsequent studies and failed court cases have established the overreaction to UFFI.

(5). Spray foam installers are obligated to conform to the conditions of a stringent Quality Assurance Program.
Obligations include Installer training, inspection and certification as well as random and mandatory 3rd
party inspections.

(6). G.Finch, & Dr. J. Straube, “Field Performance of Spray Polyurethane Foam: The Role of Vapour
Diffusion Control”, April 2007.

WEBSITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Combat Foam spray foam Insulation oakville

Have a remodeling project?

Contact Shawn, he’d love to talk with you about your project!

Get a free Quote

Contact Us For
A free Quote!

(905) 407-1821

 

Our services:

-2lb Closed Cell Spray Foam
-0.5lb Open Cell Spray Foam
-Attic Insulation
-Crawlspace Insulation
-Garage Insulation
-Basement Insulation
-Wall Insulation