Showdown in Yonkers
While the quality difficulties were corrected, the flammability issue remained. A number of firms were negatively
impacted by the introduction (and potential) of hydrocarbon propellants. For example, firms in Brooklyn, NY and
Chicago, IL were not permitted to use hydrocarbon propellants by local ordinances. In one instance, a “pro-CFC
group” contacted the Chief of the City of New York Fire Dept., arguing that the storage of “highly flammable” aerosol
shave creams in New York loft warehouses could pose a potentially disastrous fire hazard.
Upon learning of this, another industry group from the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA,
now the Household & Commercial Products Association), known as the “the CSMA contingent,” contacted the
Chief offering contradictory information. Ultimately it was decided that the two factions would provide demonstrations
to the Fire Dept. A Precision Valve aerosol valve warehouse in Yonkers, NY was selected as the testing site.
On the designated day around 40 people gathered. The Yonkers Fire Dept. trucks were drawn up outside. Perhaps
15 fire department officials were present for the demonstrations. The “pro-CFC group” had engaged fire experts at
Brown University to conduct the tests.
Testing began when a punch perforated the valve cup of an unshaken 12-ounce can of shave cream. The hydrocarbon
propellant rushed out and was ignited by a small flame. The yellow fire plume was fairly large and persistent.
The test was repeated using a CFC shave cream. There was no flame.
The next test was a “nefarious” version of the CSMA Closed Drum Flammability Test. In the standard procedure,
a 55-gallon (204 liter) steel drum is laid sideways, fitted with a lit candle, and the open end covered with a sheet of
polyethylene film containing a pressure relieving slit. The test aerosol is sprayed into the drum from a small opening.
If the lower explosive limit (LEL) is reached, there is a gentle “whoosh” sound and a moderately-sized flame is
emitted through the slit and melted film barrier. Roughly 8.5 grams of hydrocarbon (as A-46) is required to reach the
LEL concentration.
The Brown University engineer modified the test by replacing the candle with a 20,000 volt sparking device. With
the machine turned off, he sprayed the stoichiometric amount of hydrocarbon propellant into the drum. This is the
exact amount to combust all the available oxygen in the drum, converting all the hydrocarbon and oxygen molecules
into CO2, water vapor and heat. The polyethylene barrier was extra thick and unslitted. When the sparking unit was
turned on, combustion was immediate. The drum fell off its support framework. The plastic film held the internal
pressure for a moment, then burst, releasing a fire cloud that nearly reached the ceiling of the warehouse. Fortunately,
the momentary burst of heat was not sufficient to set off the sprinkler system.
When order was restored the test was repeated with a can of CFC propellant. There was no ignition. The engineer
then used the industry Flame Propagation Test to demonstrate hydrocarbon flammability, but in this case using pure
hydrocarbon propellant and a high delivery rate valve. The flame plume was quite large. Satisfied that they had suitably
impressed the fire department officials with the results of their bizarre test results, the “pro-CFC” group yielded
the floor to the CSMA contingent.
A few foam tests were shown, demonstrating the quenching effect of the 85+% of water on about 4% A-46. By
touching a match to the spread out foam, there was either no effect or a momentary, tiny, almost unnoticeable flame
halo. Perhaps the most persuasive testimony came when CSMA lawyers stitched together the two pro-CFC flammability
tests, asserting that they were totally unrelated to aerosol shave creams and merely designed to demonstrate
that pure hydrocarbons were flammable. The contrived test conditions were totally unrealistic and meant to impress,
rather than educate, an audience. Several days later, the New York Fire Dept. issued a rule-making memorandum
permitting aerosol shave creams to be stored in the city without restrictions (the nature of the propellants was not
mentioned).
Hydrocarbons gain momentum
Hydrocarbon propellants gained marketing momentum when Walter Beards, Jr. (Risdon Mfg.) developed the first
mechanical break-up (MBU) valve actuator in 1954. This made Bon Ami Window Cleaner possible in aerosol form.
About 4% of iso-butane floated on top of the water-based product, pressurizing it and allowing it to be dispensed
effortlessly as a coarse spray (the CFC propellants, which sank in water-based solutions, could not be used since they
would be quickly dispensed through the dip tube). In succeeding years, numerous water-based cleaners, starches and
similar products used this technology.
Another major advance for hydrocarbon propellants took place in 1960. Air fresheners had typically been formulated
to:
• 1.0% Fragrance
• 24.0% Odorles Mineral Spirits (OMS)
• 75.0% Propellant A
❍ 45% CFC-12
❍ 45% CFC-11
❍ 10% Iso-butane (A-31)
To use fewer CFCs would cause the product to become “flammable,” according to industry flammability test methods
and those by the ICC (now the U.S. Dept of Transportation). In early 1959, a contract filler approached a major
marketer with a much less costly formula, shown as:
34 Spray December 2018