The STLE Compass, Released November 8, 2011
“UEIL Conference”
With Greg Foltz, Cimcool Industrial Products LLC and John Burke, Houghton International
KARA: Hello and welcome to the STLE Compass, brought to you by the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. The STLE Compass is your convenient and reliable resource for the latest developments in the tribology community. I’m Kara Lemar, Education Manager at STLE and in today’s episode, we’ll take a look at the UEIL Metalworking Fluids Symposium that was held recently in Spain. We’ll get an inside perspective from two of the organizers – Greg Foltz, who headed up the Application track of the conference out of Innovation, Application, and Regulation; and John headed up the Innovation track. This was the 4th Symposium on metal removal fluids and it was held in Spain, from September 14 to September 16. Previous symposia were held in Dearborn, MI in 1995, 1997 and recently in 2008. The most recent was organized by UEIL and co-sponsored by ILMA and STLE. So, first we’ll turn and talk to Greg Foltz. Greg is the Engineering and Development Manager for CIMCOOL Industrial Products LLC in Cincinnati, Ohio. He received a BA in Chemistry from Thomas More College and an MBA in Management from Xavier University. He has been involved with metalworking fluids since 1978, is a CMFS (Certified Metalworking Fluid Specialist), and is responsible for the development of CIMCOOL metalworking products. Greg is a past president of ILMA (Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association) and is also an active member of STLE (Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers) where he is currently on the Metalworking Fluid Certificate Education Committee. He has published many papers and given many presentations relating to metalworking fluids.
Greg, welcome to STLE Compass.
GREG: Thank you very much.
KARA: First, how did you get involved in the conference at the beginning or planning stages?
GREG: Well, I was a participant in the last 3 symposiums, the original back in 1995 and then the other two. I am a very active member of both STLE and ILMA. One of our guys, Bert Boomkamp, the product stewardship manager for CIMCOOL metalworking fluids in Europe was the chairman of UEIL’s Health and Safety committee at the time that the symposium was in its early planning stages and he asked me to get involved.
KARA: Any insight into how that developed or fun tidbits about planning the conference?
GREG: Well, Bert knew that Gene White and myself had been very active in the other two and Gene was quite active in the last one, especially in reviewing papers and things like that, so he was quite aware that we had some expertise in putting the symposiums together and knowing how to organize things, the type of papers people were interested in and so forth, so they sought out our help and we were certainly glad to participate because we thought it was good time to have another symposium and it would be a very timely event especially since it was going to be held in Europe, we wanted to make sure we could help out as much as we could since they had never done one there before.
KARA: So, how did the symposium get divided into the 3 tracks?
GREG: Well that was something that the UEIL, their internal planning committee, decided as a way to give some order to the meeting. All the previous meetings had the sessions divided into a lot more tracks and they were all just a variation on health and safety topics. This time, they wanted to segregate it a little differently and they thought that innovation, regulation and application tracks were a good method to do that and go out and solicit the papers they wanted to have for the conference. One thing they did a little differently at this conference that we had not done at previous events was that they invited their speakers. In the past, we put out a call for papers and then the organizing committee chose those that were going to be given at the meeting. I had some reservations as to how this was going to work, but they had a good variety and good quality of papers, so it was quite well presented and very well received.
KARA: I was looking at the program and I think it was representative and a quality program. Can you tell me about your track, the Application of Metal Removal Fluids?
GREG: Yes, the application track that I was session chairman of was the largest of them all. We had 17 presentations in our track, covering fluid testing and qualification, microbial identification, formulation strategies, best use practices for metal removal fluids, health and safety, and waste treatment. It was a very wide variety and many interesting presentations. The speakers came from seven different countries – we had 6 from Germany, 4 from the U.S., 3 from the UK and one each from Sweden, Switzerland, France and Spain. It was certainly a very international group.
KARA: Probably because of the location too – Spain is more central for Europe than a location in the U.S. A lot more might be able to travel.
GREG: I think that was definitely a help in getting a large group from Europe to be represented and that was certainly one of the goals of the Symposium to have more of a European flavor. They were quite well represented, however, at the last Symposium we had in Dearborn in 2008, but we tried to reciprocate with the location.
KARA: What were some of the presentations, given by whom?
GREG: Sure, we had 17 presentations and they were all very good. Here is a brief summary: Brian Hovik from Boeing gave a talk on qualifying metalworking fluids for use at Boeing and Dr. Dragos Axinte from the University of Nottingham gave a similar talk on products for Rolls Royce. Several speakers, Dr. Xi from the University of Michigan, Dr. Kuever from the Bremen Institute, Dr. Hogalund from Sahlgrenska University, and Dr. Reboux from University Hospital Besancon all spoke on microbial effects and how to identify and enumerate these microbes and also some medical research they had done looking into workers who had been working in these plants when they found these microbes. Dr. Baynes from North Carolina State University spoke about skin absorption using artificial and pig skin and the effects that different chemicals in the formulation can have. Michael Rocker from the German Berufsgenossenschaft gave two talks, one on a document that German companies have developed listing various chemical that they have on banned lists or lists of concern and that was quite interesting because many German companies that are represented here in the U.S. use that very similar list to specify chemicals or products that they will or will not use in their plants.
KARA: So it wasn’t much of a surprise.
GREG: No, it wasn’t a surprise, but it was interesting to hear about the origins of the document because a lot of the metalworking fluid formulators in the U.S. are quite familiar with the results of the document because they see it in the form of requests from their customers here that have German roots as to what kind of chemicals are allowed on the products that are used in those particular plants. And then he also gave another talk on some state of the art practices that are used in German plants for monitoring aerosol levels and controlling ventilation. Then there were several other talks: one on chemical management at ZF companies and how they implemented it worldwide, Ted McClure talked on his twist compression testing, something that has been presented quite a bit at the STLE meetings here in the U.S. We had an interesting talk on the use of sunflower seed oil, which is a quite a European type of green chemistry using sunflower seed oil, whereas in the U.S. we tend to see more soy oil and canola oil. Then we had a formulation talk on using HLB method for determining emulsification properties in fluids, another health type talk on the effects of compressed air, when it’s being used in the plant, what it does to mist levels. Another paper addressed analytical methods for testing for amines and triazols in metalworking fluids. And then, probably one of the most interesting ones was given by Dr. Fennrich from University Hospital of Tubingen. This was a new test method for pyrogens or endotoxins in aerosols and metalworking fluids. In place of the Limulus assay which has been used since the 1970s, they have developed a new and more sensitive test using human blood as the test medium. That was interesting to all the attendees there.
KARA: I bet. That runs the gamut as to topical coverage.
GREG: It sure does. The application track had a very wide variety of sessions and it was kind of difficult because there were two sessions running concurrently at the meeting, so the participants had to make a decision as to which to attend and I know quite a few of them came up to me and said it was a real tough decision because both papers given at the same time were of great interest to them.
KARA: Sometimes that happens – you find multiple sessions you want to attend. It’s a good and bad thing. Hopefully you have 2 colleagues/staff members to attend each session and you can divide and conquer.
GREG: Yes it does. Exactly right.
KARA: What are some key take-aways?
GREG: Well I think one of the things that came out of several of the talks and generated a lot of interest from the audience were the talks on identifying and quantifying the microbial population of “in use” metalworking fluids. Speakers basically went through a lot of the methods they had used – DNA, pyrosequencing methods for finding how many microbes and what was there as well, and they came up with estimates that current plate counts or culture methods may only be seeing 10% of the actual microbial population of the fluid. That generated a lot of interest and discussion. As I mentioned, the new Pyrodetect method for measuring endotoxin in metalworking fluids and aerosols was a real highlight. One of the things that wasn’t discussed a lot and was one of the major topics at one of the previous symposiums, was the fact that HP, or hypersensitivity pneumonitis cases that the folks were investigating in various outbreaks and cases in manufacturing plants in the U.S. and the world – there were no new reports or findings on that, so I guess that’s a good sign and perhaps a sign that many of the control methods that were discussed back in the 2008 symposium have now been put in place and are now working. Good information.
KARA: It’s nice that there is some result that you can measure and quantify and see – because we met and had the symposium, there are a lot fewer cases. It may not be direct, but certainly that’s a good thing.
GREG: Exactly right. Maybe people are listening to some of the things that were presented and taking them back to their plants and implementing these concepts in their work practices, so yes, a very good end result.
KARA: So what are the next steps going forward after the conference for you and for the industry?
GREG: Well, I think one of the big things and certainly something we’re doing right now is just getting the information out on what happened in Barcelona. I think there were 182 participants at the conference. There were a lot of folks that weren’t there. Of that group, I think 20 were from the U.S. So, there’s a lot of interest we’ve received from people wanting to know what happened there, what were the topics of the papers and so on. I’ve been interviewed by several magazines and gave a presentation at the recent ILMA annual meeting summarizing each of the presentations. So, I think one of the big things is just getting the word out about what went on and I think the UEIL is working on that right now, getting that information up on their website. So, folks that are interested can check their website to see where things are going. The other big thing is that there was a lot of interest in what was presented at the conference – how all that information will impact suppliers, blenders and end users. Everyone wanted to know what was going on with current developments with raw materials – boron and triazine received a lot of interest because there is a lot of discussion on their future for use in metalworking fluid formulations. There was also interest in talking about greener technology and what raw materials and end use products are available that are much greener that folks can use in their plants and how these same people control and maintain these fluids much better. And then, as we talked about a little bit – there is a need for a better understanding of the microbial population of fluids and what their potential impact is on plant and the workers. I’d say that all the presentations were very good; there was a lot of interest generated especially those on the microbial identifications and health related topics and I think that will motivate these researchers to continue on with their work and expand the knowledge that they’re currently putting together.
KARA: What do you think listeners should take away from today’s discussion?
GREG: I think one of the big things is that there is still a lot more work to be done on metalworking fluids from every aspect. I think from formulating, maintaining, controlling microbial growth, safe use, and I see right now, things are shifting to a lot more positive point of view. Previous symposia have dwelt on more negative aspects – they’re harmful to the workers, etc. and now we’re focusing on a more positive point of view (how to make better fluids and how to improve their performance) and that there are more ways to understand their use and application. I think that’s a good sign for the industry and days to come. I think the folks that are doing all this research – this will motivate them to continue on and hopefully develop more research and topics for future symposia.
KARA: We’ll look forward to the next symposium in the next 3 years and look for updates from you and other researchers. Thank you for sharing your perspective, insight and participation in the symposium.
GREG: Thank you very much. I was happy I could attend and glad to let folks know what went on at the symposium.
KARA: Thank you very much Greg. And now we’ll turn and talk to John Burke. John Burke is the Global Director of Engineering Services for Houghton International. He received his engineering degree from the University of Dayton in Ohio in 1971. He has 40 years of experience in the metalworking industry, and has five U.S. patents. John has been an instructor for STLE’s Metalworking Fluid Education Course for the past 20 years. He received the P. M. Ku Award from STLE in 2006, and he became a Fellow in STLE in 2011. He also served as the Chairman for the Third Symposium for Metal Removal Fluids Symposium in 2008 and most recently served as the Chairman for the Innovation track at the 4th Symposium. He received Governors’ Awards for waste minimization in the States of Ohio and Tennessee for a metalworking fluid recycling system design. John received an award from President George Bush at the White House in 1991 for his advances in waste minimization. So John, welcome to STLE Compass. Now, what I want to do first is to find out how you got involved with the conference at the beginning or planning stages.
JOHN: Well, the first thing that happened is I was active in ILMA as the committee chair of the SHERA Committee and this was planned several years ago while I was still on the committee. Then what happened, there was a pause of about 6 months, the UEIL said they were going ahead with the conference and asked me what level I’d like to participate on. I said I’d like to present a paper as well as maybe chair a session. It started out rather informally but as the conference matured and we got closer, I was asked to present a paper, as suggested and then I chaired the session on Innovation.
KARA: Very good. There were 3 tracks: Innovation, Application and Regulation. Can you talk about your track – Innovation?
JOHN: Innovation was basically new technologies, new chemistries, new equipment or processes that were novel to the European community. It was enjoyable. I learned quite a bit. I had a chance to review the abstracts beforehand and interface with the speakers while I was there. So, the Innovation session was only 11 speakers, but the quality was extremely good and some very in-depth topics.
Kara: So what were some of the topics and presenters in the track?
JOHN: I was the first speaker, so I not only chaired the session but I was one of the presenters in the sessions. I talked about the future of metalworking fluids looking forward ten years. I didn’t want to look any further than that, but I felt I could discuss a ten year window. Then we had Lubrizol doing a presentation on some new advancements in rust preventatives (Frank Kroto). We had Dr. Uwe Landau from Largentec Vertiebs GmbH in Germany talking about a silver catalyst that sterilized metalworking fluids using a unique filter concept. We had Afton Chemical talking about medium chain chlorinated paraffins and how they were going to work around that (Steve Anderson). Quaker Chemical talked about replacing boric acid in coolants, which is a big hot topic in Europe, not so hot in the U.S., but a good talk (John Belein). Another talk on forging using glass as a lubricant, which I’d never heard of in my whole life and I thought that was very intriguing. That would certainly be worthy of an STLE special article – glass lubricants. And then, skipping through some of the other ones, one that was very interesting was the electronic nose. That was done by the Institute of Material Sciences (IWT) in Bremen, Germany (Daniel Meyer). There were actually two papers presented by the folks from Bremen and they were talking about being able to analyze metalworking fluids by looking at the odor characteristics and then running them through a computer and processing them that way. Although it seemed farfetched, their data was intriguing. So, there were some very interesting papers.
KARA: You mentioned boric acid – you said it’s not used in the U.S., but it is in Europe. Why is that?
JOHN: Oh, well boric acid is used everywhere. The thing is it’s not being regulated in the U.S., but it’s highly targeted in Europe. It’s considered to be a reproductive toxin, at least that’s what some of the research in Europe indicates. Usually the way Europe goes, the U.S. will ultimately go. We’ll just say Europe is leading the charge on boric acid and there will be some period of time that it will work through the European communities and then our EPA will eventually pick up on it. That’s my feel on how that will go.
KARA: On those presentations, and you highlighted some already, but what are some key takeaways?
JOHN: The first one, which I thought was very timely, was Lubrizol’s presentation by Frank Kroto. This is as a result of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) new ruling in California; we call it Rule 1144 that will regulate volatile organic compounds in metalworking fluids. One of those metalworking fluid chemistries is going to be rust preventatives and some of the rust preventatives that we are very good with are ones that use solvents, so when you spray or apply the rust preventative onto a surface, it evaporates and leaves a protective film behind. Obviously, if you spray something on a surface and it evaporates, that would be considered a volatile organic compound and highly regulated in this California rule. Lubrizol came up with a water-based chemistry so the evaporative in this case is water and showed that they could evaporate the water very rapidly and provide all the rust inhibiting qualities that we associate with a solvent-based system, which we say is traditional today. What they presented was phenomenal in that this looked like a market that would be regulated out of existence, which would be solvent cut back or solvent reduced rust inhibitors and didn’t look like there was going to be any solution to it and Lubrizol comes in with a paper that says we can do it with water and my response was “Wow.” They had all the data, everything you could imagine if you were evaluating a rust inhibitor, in that respect I rated them the number one paper, even over and above my own paper! And I just thought what they presented was fascinating, backed with data and showed that we could live without the evaporating type solvents we’ve all come to know for 50-60 years.
KARA: Very interesting and going forward it will be interesting to see what comes out of that work.
JOHN: Well, apparently they’re ready to go. What they presented was a finished product, so it looks like its technology that’s available right now. At least, that’s what I took away from it. It’s not R&D at this point. It’s something ready for the real world. So that was a good one.
KARA: Previously you did a webinar for us on the test method you helped develop on VOCs, so you know what you’re talking about. That sounds very interesting and promising. What are some other issues that were resolved based on these presentations?
JOHN: The other one that was intriguing was chlorinated paraffins. Right now, they are under regulatory scrutiny in Canada. Chlorinated paraffins are that magical chemical additive that we use in metalworking fluids – we call it a chemical lubricity additive. It activates at certain temperatures, so if you took chlorinated paraffins and rubbed it between your fingers, you wouldn’t feel any lubricity, but when you apply it in a metalworking fluid environment, it produces a very active lubricant surface. We’ve come to really rely on chlorinated paraffins, they’re cost effective, they’ve been around for 50+ years, and now Canada is basically in a position where it will regulate their use, which will probably regulate their use out of existence. There have been a lot of doomsayers in our industry saying if we don’t have chlorinated paraffins, we’re not going to be able to make certain kinds of parts. The paper that was presented on chlorinated paraffins indicated that that’s not the case. Afton Chemical, the gentlemen who presented was out of the U.K., showed again, with a tremendous amount of data, that they could substitute the chlorinated paraffins with what they called modified esters. Again, it’s like “Great!” We need these solutions in our industry. We can’t live with 50 year old chemistry. That’s why we have these symposia – to express this new information. Again, a great paper, full of data. The boric acid, I mentioned that earlier, that’s under regulatory scrutiny in Europe. Again, there are a lot of people saying we can’t live without boric acid. It’s a magic ingredient that’s been used for 60 years at least in metalworking fluids, very cost effective and if we can’t have it, it will be doom and gloom in our industry. But Quaker Chemical has a paper out showing how they not only replaced boric acid, but in many formulas, to success. The take-away – when you see three papers – one on VOCs, one on chlorinated paraffins, one on boric acid, and even a fourth paper that I haven’t mentioned (the last paper presented), where they used no conventional additives like sulfur, chlorine, phosphorus, ester, and I mentioned ester earlier; one paper said we can do metalworking without any of the traditional additives. The take-away you get from a symposium like this is that people get comfortable in their chemical formulation strategies. When they see government threats, they get all worried and say we’re not going to be able to work our way through these things. The take-away is that at one symposium you had four papers indicate that there are ways around these chemical dilemmas that heretofore, maybe six months earlier, people said there was no answer. The take-away is that innovation is there, it’s present. The scientists have opened up the chemistry books again and have gone back and studied what’s available and that’s great. To me, that was the take-away, is that there’s still invention to be had.
KARA: Definitely. There’s always room for improvement, especially if you’re faced with a difficulty or challenge – in this case a government regulation – you find a work around, you find a way around it.
JOHN: Yes, and it was fun! It’s good to see that. I guess I’ve seen too many papers where people say we can’t do that. And here were four papers out of nine presenters, and they were showing dramatic chemical solutions that maybe a year ago, people were saying couldn’t be done. That’s a nice takeaway and proves that there is plenty of chemical innovation left over and workarounds as you called it.
KARA: And it’s very positive. What are the next steps going forward after the conference for you and for the industry?
JOHN: Well, the first thing is that the regulatory hot buttons – there are two – chlorinated paraffins and VOCs. Recently on October 12 or 13, chlorinated paraffins did finally reach toxic level 1 status in Canada. That’s not quite the death knell to chlorinated paraffins, but it certainly put some restrictions in place that were not there earlier. And then, certainly the VOC issue is right in the forefront. In January 2012, we’ve got the South Coast rule going into full effect, cutting down VOCs on our traditional products where they were never regulated before. So, we have people we can go to now that have answers for us in two key areas. We’ve got some solutions in place. The first action is, if people had attended the conference, they now know who to get in contact with to go forward on some of their chemical solutions. The boric acid is a little farther out. It hasn’t quite hit the regulatory pressures that we see with chlorinated paraffins. It’s not quite as bad as the VOC issue coming up, but it’s still on the forefront. The other one is the electronic nose, which is a cute way of saying they have an electronic analyzer. That is fascinating technology and it goes far beyond metalworking fluids. If you think of the dogs that sniff for drugs or explosives in airports and things like that, here is a company that said, with a relatively simple piece of equipment, and they’re talking $10,000 (not $100,000 or $200,00 USD) they felt they could accurately look at chemical odors and put them in their database and be able to predict chemical reactions, which is beyond what we ask in a drug sniffing dog – he just says yes or no that there is a drug there. Not only would this have application in metalworking, it’s going to have application far beyond our industry. I wished them the best of luck in their research. Again, they’re preliminary, but their data was very promising. Like any symposium, it opens your eyes. You see these things, answers to problems, new innovations and if you have an open imagination you’ll see that these are things that might be worth putting into our own industry, and you can see them going into other industries.
KARA: Given our discussion today, what advice do you want to relay or what thought do you want to leave people with?
JOHN: The thing is, Barcelona is a long way away. It was a beautiful city, but it was in Europe and people are hesitant to send people to these meetings because of the cost. But I just showed, in our brief discussion here, that there were several papers that showed high promise and if people would have gone, they could have left with an idea that would have certainly paid for their travels, instead of trying to do their own research internally. This is why you have these symposia – to share knowledge. My session was not controversial, maybe there were others at the symposium that were, but mine was pretty much black and white – here’s the things we’re working on and here are the answers. So the take-away or what I see as the message: you should go to these meetings, the STLE Annual Meeting, go to local chapters and listen to these papers and presentations and if you come out with one good idea that you can use in your own research, application or industry – it’s worth it. For me, the cost of going to Barcelona and coming back was well worth it to our company and what we’ll gain out of that.
KARA: Definitely, given that it wasn’t just one good idea, and usually it’s not just one good idea – it’s a lot of good ideas.
JOHN: Right. For example, in a week or so, our local STLE chapter is having NASA give a talk on cryogenic lubricants used on the space station and places like that. It might seem too abstract to apply to our daily life but I’m going to go and I’m sure I’ll gain something out of even that talk. My take-away from the symposium is I gained more than one good idea and it certainly paid for every expense that my company paid to send me to it.
KARA: Thanks to both Greg and John for joining us today and for their insight. I’m Kara Lemar. For more news, information and research on metalworking fluids, you can visit our website (www.stle.org). You can also visit UEIL’s website (www.ueil.org) for more information about the symposium. Thank you for joining us today. This has been another episode of The STLE Compass, pointing you in the right direction.