Anyone using UFO CA glue?

[David Skolnik]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
At 05:18 PM 10/4/2005 -0700, Mark Potter wrote:
>David Skolnik <davidskolnik@optonline.net> wrote:
>Just to clarify, UFO is Satellite City's odorless formulation, i.e, same
>brand. There are other manufacturers, such as Loctite, who also make an
>odorless version. (408 Prism Instant Adhesive Low Odor).
>
>David -
>
>A quick query... does the "odorless" feature of these CA glues necessarily 
>mean that the toxicity is lower?  Better safe than sorry...
>
>Mark Potter

Mark -
The short answer is - NO.  For the longer version, I'll beg the indulgence 
of any dual subscribers (pianotech & CAUT) and copy here my earlier post on 
the matter from the CAUT list -


>Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:59:56 -0400
>From: David Skolnik <davidskolnik@optonline.net>
>Subject: Re: [CAUT] Anyone using UFO CA glue?
>
>Ken & all -
>As explained to me by two technical people from Loctite, which 
>manufactures a wide variety of CA and other adhesives, their Odorless 
>formulation (408 Prism brand Instant Adhesive) accomplishes its 
>odorlessness through a fornulation that has a heavier molecular weight 
>than the odor-ful versions.  This weight keeps any fumes from rising to 
>nose level.  This is measured as Vapor Pressure.  The exposure limit for 
>this formulation is set at the same level as the regular product, which is 
>0.2ppm TWA.   The odor is perceptible at 1-2ppm and irritation occurs at 
>3-4ppm.  Which means, if you can smell it, you're already over the 
>threshold limit.  We discussed the difference between allergic response 
>and irritant response, the later being the issue in most cases.  Allergic 
>response is found more in skin contact than respiration.
>
>While the MSDS advises use of approved respirator, the document's author 
>indicated that such dependance is strongly discouraged for a number of 
>reasons.  OSHA regulations require that:
>
>- Any respirator, apart from its appropriateness, must be properly fitted, 
>(sorry, no beards allowed :()
>- Worker must pass physical to confirm ability to tolerate respiratory 
>strain associated with pulling air through filter device
>- Ambient atmospheric moisture will cause fumes to polymerize on the 
>mask's surface, rapidly restricting the available air flow
>
>Bottom line...respirators are not a desirable solution to CA fumes.
>
>Only truly advisable method is to generate air exchange.  Simple air 
>circulation, as with a fan is NOT advised, since it will distribute the 
>fumes, though, if the space is large enough, and the elapsed time is not 
>prolonged, a fan might work to displace the fumes from the immediate area 
>of deployment.
>
>As to the post from Dorothy Bell, I can't address the chemistry, per se, 
>however, the issue of respiratory irritation and the ensuing reactions 
>seems to present itself at lower dosage than would be required to cause 
>any symptoms of cyanide poisoning.  The MSDS indicates a concern for the 
>material as an irritant, not as a toxin.
>
>Bottom bottom line - Fumeless is better, fresh air is best.
>
>Last bottom line - MSDS for Accelerator indicates central nervous system 
>irritant.  The residue left after solvent dissolves is, in a word, 
>nasty.  I've been way to cavalier in my use of this stuff.
>
>David Skolnik
>Of course, I could be wrong

I hope that helps, Mark.

D. Skolnik

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/98/c3/c3/e9/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--