Cellular Technology offers equivalents to FYROL PNX and PNX-LE

October 17, 2020

For customers experiencing difficulties sourcing ICL’s FYROL PNX and PNX-LE non-halogenated flame retardants, Cellular Technology offers our exact equivalents CELLTECH 50 (= PNX) and CELLTECH 52 (= PNX-LE) as readily available replacements.

For customers using ICL flame retardant blends based on PNX or PNX-LE, CTII can blend and formulate any specific products you require.

Contact Denny Spicher at or


FYROL PNX and PNX-LE are registered trademarks of ICL Industrial Products. CELLTECH is a registered trademark of Cellular Technology International, Inc.

Posted on

Cellular Technology offers Imidazole Catalysts and Epoxy Curatives

Cellular Technology International is now offering a range of imidazole catalysts and epoxy curatives, including:

  • Imidazole
  • 1-Methyl imidazole
  • 2-Methyl imidazole
  • 4-Methyl imidazole
  • 1-Ethyl imidazole
  • 2-Ethyl imidazole
  • 2-Propyl imidazole
  • 2-Isopropyl imidazole
  • 2-Phenyl imidazole
  • 1,2-Dimethyl imidazole
  • 1,2-Dimethyl imidazole 70% in ethylene glycol
  • 2-Ethyl-4-Methyl imidazole
  • 1-Isobutyl-2-Methyl imidazole

Our imidazole products can be solubilized in the customer’s solvent of choice upon demand.

For additional information, contact Cellular Technology International at +1 770-514-8610 or email

Posted on

New aldehyde scavenger offered by Cellular Technology

CELLTECH®ALS Aldehyde Scavenger is a unique product designed to reduce and remove aldehydes from flexible molded and slabstock polyurethane foams. CELLTECH®ALS is very effective in complexing aldehydes such as formaldehyde (b.p. -21°C) and acetaldehyde (b.p. 20°C) which are classified as Very Volatile Organic Compounds (VVOCs) by the World Health Organization. C1-C4aldehydes can be generated during polyol production, and/or created during the foaming reaction. CELLTECH®ALS forms a non-toxic, non-reversible covalently bound complex with aldehydes and prevents their emission to the automobile cabin.

The recommended test protocol for aldehyde detection is the GS-97014-3 BMW which utilizes headspace sampling to measure real VOC levels in the final foam. GS-97014-2 BMW is recognized as accurate and reproducible in detecting aldehydes down to μg/m3 (ppb) levels, and is highly selective in terms of both qualification and quantification of individual VOC components.

Key Benefits of CELLTECH®ALS Aldehyde Scavenger

  • Effective at very low use levels (0.25-0.75 pphp)
  • Reduces free aldehydes to very low levels (ppb) or non-detectable
  • Non-toxic
  • Low viscosity


Posted on

Cellular Technology offers two new HR silicone surfactants

Cellular Technology is now offering two new silicone surfactants for High Resilience (HR) PU foam:

STRUKSILON 8204 is a highly efficient cell regulator for both TDI and MDI-based HR foams. The high efficiency of 8204 provides dramatic cost savings versus competitive HR surfactants. For example, 1 pphp of Evonik TEGOSTAB 8707-LF2 can be replaced by 0.2 pphp of STRUKSILON 8204, an 80% reduction in use level. Thus, STRUKSILON 8204 offers significantly reduced formulation costs over other HR surfactants. STRUKSILON 8204 is effective in HR formulations which incorporate copolymer polyols such as SAN, PHD and PIPA polyols, as well as ULTRACEL formulations.

CELLSTAB 8204-LE is a diluted version of STRUKSILON 8204 for foamers whose pumps and metering systems cannot handle the much reduced throughput of STRUKSILON 8204 itself. CELLSTAB 8204-LE is a 1:1 replacement for TEGOSTAB 8707-LF2.

Both surfactants provide wide processing latitude and a very high open cell content.



TEGOSTAB is a registered trademark of Evonik Industries AG, Essen, Germany

STRUKSILON is a registered trademark of Schill+Seilacher GmbH, Hamburg, Germany

CELLSTAB is a registered trademark of Cellular Technology Int’l Inc, Kennesaw, GA, USA

Posted on

Cellular Technology Offers New Diamine Scavenger for Viscoelastic Foams

Cellular Technology International now offers a new product called CELLTECH DAS®, which is a liquid additive designed to scavenge carcinogenic diamines such as TDA (toluene diamine) and MDA (methylene dianiline) in under-indexed foams. In viscoelastic foams manufactured at index below 89, these carcinogenic products can form in significant amounts and present a hazard to the end consumer.

CERTIPUR®, the polyurethane foam quality standard currently limits 2,4-TDA, 4,4’-MDA and the sum of 2,4-TDA and 4,4’-MDA to a maximum level of 5.0 ppm (mg/l) with respect to migration and extraction. CELLTECH DAS is effective in scavenging TDA and MDA to below this level when used at 0.6-1.0 pphp use levels, depending on formulation.

CELLTECH DAS is low in VOCs (<33 ppm as measure on the product alone) and when used at recommended levels of 0.6-1.0 pphp in viscoelastic foams, contributes a (calculated) maximum of 0.8-1.0 ppm of VOCs to the final foam. (Actual VOCs from CELLTECH DAS are considerably less than this calculated value because the reaction product of DAS and TDA/MDA is a non-VOC.)

For additional information, contact Cellular Technology International at +1 770-514-8610 or email

Posted on

Study Slams Flame Retardants for Impact on Human Fertility

A recent article on the United Kingdom’s DailyMail website publicized a recent study by Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School which implicates organophosphate flame retardants in lower human fertility rates. The methodology and findings of the study appear sound, but the recommendations by the authors are naive and ignore the advances in new flame retardant technology that eliminate these negative impacts while providing fire safety in the home, in hotels and in the workplace.

These findings suggest that exposure to organophosphate flame retardants may be one of many risk factors for lower reproductive success,” said Courtney Carignan, the study’s lead author, formerly a research fellow in Harvard’s Department of Environmental Health, now at Michigan State University. “They also add to the body of evidence indicating a need to reduce the use of these flame retardants and identify safer alternatives.

“Studies have shown that people who wash their hands more frequently have lower levels of these flame retardant chemicals in their bodies. This is because flame retardants used in furniture foam migrate into the air and dust of our indoor environments, and enter our bodies primarily through accidental dust ingestion as small amounts of dust stick to our hands throughout the day.”

It has been know for years that additive, non-reactive flame retardants are environmentally persistent and are released to the environment (including homes and offices) when flexible polyurethane foam reaches the end of its life cycle. These flame retardants have been found in human blood, urine and breast milk for years. This is not news. What IS news is that the “safer alternatives” suggested above do exist at the present moment- research has demonstrated that reactive flame retardants, products which chemically react into the foam structure and are permanently bound provide enhanced fire resistance for PU foam and do not exit the foam at the end of the life cycle. If the deleterious effects on human fertility are because flame retardants used in furniture foam migrate into the air and dust of our indoor environments, and enter our bodies primarily through accidental dust ingestion”, why not eliminate the problem through the use of reactive FRs?

It is not surprising that the DailyMail, a U.K.-based website, raised the alarm on this problem. The United Kingdom has strict regulations on flame retardancy in furniture and bedding known as British Standard 5852. To pass the difficult requirements of BS-5852 in flexible foam, PU foam producers use massive quantities of TCPP, an additive, non-reactive FR and one of the worst FR products for environmental accumulation.

Why does TCPP remain the FR of choice for BS-5852 foams despite the now proven effects on human fertility? You can guess the answer: the newer, safer reactive FRs are more expensive than the cheap TCPP now used. Should all FRs be taken out of PU foam to reduce the health risks? Well, this ignores the reason for FRs in the first place- to render furnishings more fire resistant and save human lives.

Do we need to balance human health with fire safety, and choose the lesser of the two evils? No. The new reactive FR products are readily available, easily processed and require much lower use levels than TCPP to achieve excellent flame retardant results. The industry will change only when the consuming public demands BOTH safer FR alternatives AND increased fire safety. It is possible to “have the cake and eat it too.”

For more information on environmentally acceptable reactive flame retardants, please contact Cellular Technology International at (in Europe, or call +1 800-733-7374.


Read the entire Daily Mail article here:

Posted on

Cellular Technology International introduces replacement for DMMP (dimethyl methyl phosphonate) and DEEP (diethyl ethyl phosphonate)

Cellular Technology International has introduced CELLTECH® D-44, a functional replacement for DMMP (dimethyl methyl phosphonate) and DEEP (diethyl ethyl phosphonate). DMMP and DEEP were widely used for flame retardancy in polyurethane systems because of their high phosphorus content and non-halogenated nature. Unfortunately, DMMP and DEEP are listed on Schedule 2 of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and are restricted for production and distribution.

CELLTECH D-44 is a liquid, non-halogenated replacement for DMMP and DEEP which offers excellent flame retardancy based on its 12.4% phosphorus content. CELLTECH D-44 is a water insoluble, low odor, low viscosity (3 cPs at 40 deg C), colorless and environmentally friendly additive for polyurethane systems. Additionally, CELLTECH D-44 is not listed under the CWC.

For more information about CELLTECH D-44, contact Cellular Technology International at +1 800-733-7374  (+1 678-766-0725) or

Posted on

CTII introduces CELLCURE® N2C Epoxy Curative Additive

CTII has introduced a new epoxy curative additive designated CELLCURE N2C, an elevated temperature curing agent for adhesives, electronic encapsulation and pre-preg composites. CELLCURE N2C is a low viscosity liquid, soluble in water and polar organic solvents and can be used at low loading levels (1-4 phr) in both liquid and solid epoxy resins. CELLCURE N2C acts as an accelerator for dicyandiamide, phenolic and anhydride curing agents and gives high Tg (>150º C) in heat-cured epoxy systems. Average curing times using N2C in electronic encapsulation epoxies at 150º C are: 6 seconds (10 wt%, 1.47 mole/kg), 10 seconds (7 wt%, 1.03 mole/kg) and 18 seconds (5 wt%, 0.734 mole/kg). N2C-cured epoxies are black in color.

CELLCURE N2C can be used as a replacement for similar products such as IMICURE® AMI-1 currently available on the market. (IMICURE is a registered trademark of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, PA)

For more information, contact CTII at

Posted on

Our comments: Toxic smoke in fatal TCH fire came from polyurethane foam; Victims died of smoke inhalation, Toronto Fire says (Feb 24, 2016)

Following the State of California’s watering down of Technical Bulletin 117 in 2013, it was only a matter of time until we heard about another fire with fatalities being blamed on polyurethane foam. In the below CBC news release, it is not revealed whether the PU foam in the chairs was made since TB-117-2013 went into effect (meaning it only had to pass the cigarette smolder test) or if the foam was older and might have contained older generation FR additives which were used to comply with the original Cal-117 (vertical burn and smolder). In either case, it is painfully evident that had newer generation FR technology been used (which is environmentally safe, readily available and economically feasible), this tragedy might have been avoided. In the case of this fire, we may never know since the evidence, and tragically three human lives have gone up in smoke…


CBC News Posted: Feb 24, 2016

Toxic smoke in fatal TCH fire came from polyurethane chairs; Victims died of smoke inhalation, Toronto Fire says
Toronto fire officials say they have pinpointed the source of the smoke that killed three people during a fire earlier this month at a Toronto Community Housing building in Scarborough.

They say the toxic smoke came from two polyurethane chairs that caught fire in a hallway on the fifth floor of the apartment building on Neilson Road near Finch Avenue.

Toronto Fire has charged TCH with having combustible material in a means of egress, a violation of the Ontario Fire Code that comes with a maximum fine of $100,000.

“This charge specifically relates to the polyurethane furniture located in the fifth floor hallway,” Toronto Fire Chief Jim Sales said.

Sales said the cause of the fire at 1315 Neilson Road on Feb. 5 is still under investigation. The building is not a seniors residence but it is predominantly occupied by older tenants.

TCH has indicated it plans to fight the charge, which is not criminal, because it says it was in compliance with fire safety standards.

In addition to the fatalities, 15 people were injured. Some residents were forced to jump out of windows to escape the flames.


‘People are responsible for their own actions’

A resident told CBC News smoking in common areas is a problem in the building, and other residents claim cigarettes were the cause of the fire.

But TCH CEO Greg Spearn said the housing agency has a non-smoking policy in its buildings.

“People are responsible for their own actions. It’s very hard to control them but we do our very best,” he said.

When a resident is in violation of the policy, that person will receive a verbal warning, then a written warning. If the behaviour continues, the resident could face eviction.

Toronto Fire Services says it will increase its fire prevention efforts at TCHC buildings, which includes 200 high-rises and 69 seniors residences.

The plan is to re-educate superintendents, staff and residents and to conduct drills and fire safety inspections at all TCHC buildings by the end of this year.


Posted on

PU Magazine editorial on changes to the Cal-117 flammability standard

The following editorial by Denny Spicher appears in PU Magazine’s Oct-Nov 2014 issue:

FRankly baffling… 

       Over the past year, the flexible PU foam and furniture industries have struggled to make sense of California’s relatively rapid 2013 change to the Cal-117 flammability standard (the old Cal-117 had been in place for 38 years). The new Cal-117-2013 removed the open flame testing requirement in favor of a smoulder-only test, in a move to eliminate the need for flame retardants and safeguard public health against these nasty chemicals. Taking a page from Chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward, albeit in the opposite direction, California Governor Jerry Brown rammed through these changes, assisted by such undeniable FR experts as the Chicago Tribune, HBO, TV’s Dr. Oz and talk show host Katie Couric. While we all can applaud efforts to reduce unnecessary human exposure to chemicals, the new Cal-117-2013 unfortunately ignores and abandons the future victims of open-flame ignition fires, generally estimated to be the cause of 15% of fire deaths. And while a barrier fabric over foam may be effective in a glowing cigarette smoulder test, there are few if any barrier fabrics that will stand up against a concentrated open flame source; once the open flame hits the non-flame retardant foam underneath, it’s game over.

Furniture sold in California will now also have to carry a label indicating if the product contains flame retardant, presumably to allow the consumer to make an informed decision. But as we all know, the actual outcome will be the demise of almost all flame-retardant containing furniture not just in California, but likely everywhere the Cal-117-2013 test is used. Can anyone convince their spouse to let their child cavort on a “flame retardant saturated” piece of furniture? I certainly don’t have such persuasive skills. Sadly, the new Cal-117-2013 test ignores the fact that the industry possesses the technology to modify the PU polymer to enhance ignition resistance, without the use of additive and toxic chemicals. Do these methods cost more? Yes. Would they require formulation and processing adjustments? Yes. Would saving lives justify the added cost and work? Only the marketplace can answer that.

As a parting thought, let’s consider a country with an equally baffling and opposite approach: the United Kingdom. Since the introduction of the BS5852 Crib 5 standard, the Brits can cite excellent statistics showing a dramatic decline in fire deaths. Crib 5 foams are generally produced using high levels of TCPP (an additive chlorophosphate ester, and structural analog of TCEP and TDCPP, two compounds on the carcinogen list of almost every country) in conjunction with melamine. In some cases, Crib 5 foams contain between 5-7% by weight of TCPP alone! Conservative estimates are that about 5,000 tonnes per year of TCPP are used in Crib 5 foams, presumably most of this entering the U.K. Since TCPP is not chemically bound into the polymer, where do these 5,000 tonnes go? One answer is that TCPP volatilizes out of the foam with time, and surprise!, renders the furniture piece less and less likely to pass BS5852 over months and years (if BS5852 had a humid aging test requirement, the use of TCPP would a non-starter). At the end of the foam life cycle, the remainder of that TCPP enters the environment, our food and our bodies. There are those who say, “Sure, TCPP has been detected in the blood assays of adults and children, but there is no evidence it is causing any harm.” Really? Do you wish to gamble your heath and your child’s health on such a position? Your call.

It’s time for TCPP to go in favor of newer technology and more creative approaches. Our industry is technically capable of achieving a proper balance between fire safety and health concerns. Now is the time.

Denny Spicher

Denny Spicher is President of Cellular Technology International, based in Atlanta, GA, USA. He is grateful to have the chance to write this guest editorial for PU Magazine. The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily endorsed or shared by PU Magazine.

Posted on