DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF HIGH PERFORMANCE, LOW GWP REFRIGERANTS FOR AC AND REFRIGERATION

- 1 - DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF HIGH PERFORMANCE, LOW GWP REFRIGERANTS FOR AC AND REFRIGERATION Thomas J. Leck, PhD, DuPont Fluorochemicals R&D, Wilmington, Delaware, 19880, USA Abstract: The development of reduced GWP refrigerant gases to use in new and existing refrigeration and air conditioning systems is described. The design trade-offs and implications with regards to system performance with these new refrigerants, and regulatory scenarios are discussed. This paper shows that it is possible to develop high performance refrigerant blends that match performance of R- 410A and R-404A if regulations will support GWP weighted refrigerant options and allow refrigerants with substantially reduced GWP that have high capacity and good energy efficiency performance. For some applications it is possible to have non flammable, reduced GWP replacement refrigerants. Key Words: Refrigerants, Regulation, GWP, Trade-offs, Energy Efficiency 1 INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR NEW REFRIGERANT GASES In the face of growing evidence that the earth s climate is undergoing unprecedented changes, many sectors of business and industry, as well as personal aspects of our lives and activities have come under more scrutiny and pressure to find ways to decrease the impact of human activities on our environment. Energy generation and use for transportation, lighting, and climate control are major contributors to carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the earth s atmosphere. In addition, certain fluorinated gases that have been used as refrigerants and for other beneficial purposes have been found to have direct global warming potential that is much larger than that of pure CO 2, if they are released into the atmosphere. The beneficial properties that refrigeration and air conditioning bring to our lives are highly desired, so there have been increased efforts to identify new methods to achieve cooling that do not depend on high GWP working fluid gases, and these efforts are yielding success. Despite the improvements that have been made in the refrigerant fluids, we find that there still does not exist any single perfect or universal refrigerant gas. The field of refrigeration broadly covers many different physical sizes of systems, and a wide range of thermodynamic requirements and operating temperature ranges. There is no single refrigerating or heat pumping fluid that has been found to serve efficiently and safely in all of types of systems. There is still a need for fluids with the appropriate physical and thermodynamic properties to be used most efficiently in each given set of operating conditions, especially if current equipment and equipment designs are to be used in a way that creates minimum environmental impact. If a fluid that does not have the optimal properties is used, it is likely to result in inefficient operation. Much more energy would be used in the operation of the system than if a more nearly optimum fluid can be used(1). This paper describes some novel, reduced GWP, refrigerant candidates and some of their properties. As well it discusses some of the trade offs that result in some refrigerant candidates being better suited to specific applications. Results of refrigeration cycle modeling for several applications are shown and discussed. 2 DEVELOP OF NEW REFRIGERANTS Continuously improving understanding of societal needs and values, along with our ever improving understanding of our planet and its environment have prompted searches for better refrigerants. This process may have been started when Charles Kettering, then Vice President of Research and Development for the General Motors Corporation, recognized that the available refrigerants in 1928

all suffered from one or more drawbacks of toxicity, flammability, or unsatisfactory thermodynamic characteristics (2). This situation was limiting the broad acceptance of home refrigeration and growth of that company s Frigidaire Refrigerator division. Kettering commissioned chemist Thomas Midgley to develop better refrigerant options. As a result the aliphatic chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants that came to be known as FREON were invented and patented in 1930(3). While that effort solved the problem of that day, we know the history of the recognition that chlorine in some CFC molecules contributes to the destruction of stratospheric ozone (4). History is repeating itself as we now are engaged in a search to identify refrigerants and refrigeration technologies that reduce the contribution to global warming that has been attributed to certain non ozone depleting aliphatic hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) compounds (5,6). It can be argued that regardless of what refrigerant is used, environmental and safety impacts can best be minimized by proper stewardship of the refrigerant. Proper management and utilization of refrigerant gas to prevent leakage is critical. This includes equipment designs and manufacturing processes to minimize possibility of leakage. The practices of refrigerant management techniques for recovery, reclaim, and recycle of refrigerant during service or decommissioning of systems can ultimately reduce climate impact from refrigeration. That having been said, it is still important to use refrigerants that allow minimum energy use with a minimum charge size of refrigerant, and that present minimal risk if accidently released. This work is focused on developing refrigerant gases that meet these requirements. No single refrigerant will function optimally in every application, so several refrigerant options are necessary. Several options are compared for different applications. - 2-2.1 New Refrigerant HFO-1234yf. A new class of refrigerant has been developed and proposed initially for use in automobile air conditioning systems. The class is partially fluorinated olefins, and the best known example is hydrofluoroolefin 2,3,3,3,-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene, or HFO-1234yf(7). While this molecule has been found to be a good refrigerant in medium temperature applications, its properties are not optimal for other applications, including domestic air conditioning and low temperature commercial refrigeration. While it has excellent environmental properties(8), it has some less than optimum properties for other applications, including limited volumetric refrigeration capacity and the fact that it can be made to burn, albeit with limited energy release and limited flame propagation rate (9). Systems that require high refrigerating capacity could be redesigned to use a fluid like HFO- 1234yf, but system re-engineering, design, and performance compromises would be required. Larger compressors likely would be necessary to deliver the mass flow rate of refrigerant that will be necessary to create a comparable amount of cooling. The larger compressors and larger piping necessary to move the required volumes of refrigerant without incurring excessive performance losses due to pressure drop will require that more metal be used to fabricate these systems. The production and fabrication of the larger units and the required metal has its own environmental and atmospheric cost in terms of carbon emissions and dealing with the impacts of metal mining and processing. It will be necessary to operate at temperature and pressure ranges that are outside of the thermodynamic optimum conditions for the refrigerant. That would likely lead to more energy consumption during operation of the equipment. Greater energy consumption often results in more CO 2 generation during power generation. The increased physical size of such units could be a limitation to where such re-designed systems could be installed and used. Flammability is a sensitive issue with respect to how any material is used, with consideration being given to safety standards and laws, such as building codes and standards for equipment design. Because it contains fluorine, the burning characteristics of HFO-1234yf are mitigated greatly compared to hydrocarbon compounds(7). However, because it can be made to burn, it

must classified and managed as a flammable material. This is an issue in many public areas, such as supermarkets where many customers can be present, and in residential applications, where safety requirement compliance is mandated. Some non flammable options are therefore discussed. 2.2 New Refrigerant Candidates for Stationary AC and Refrigeration Applications We have developed some improved refrigerant candidates that leverage the environmental benefits of HFO-1234yf, while addressing the issues of volumetric capacity and flammability limitations of the pure compound. Families of candidates have been developed for consideration for various applications, and are described in this presentation to illustrate the benefits that can be realized, and also the compromises, or trade-offs, that need to be considered with some of these candidate refrigerants. Within each family are a range of GWP options and some range of performance properties. It must be emphasized that this is not advocating commercialization of this entire array of refrigerant candidates. Rather, these are examples to illustrate the ranges of improved properties that can be achieved. Similarly, these illustrate some of the trade offs that are involved, and how these improved properties could be impacted by regulatory structures, such as a GWP cap. Some of these candidates are currently being evaluated in commercial and residential systems, and if results are satisfactory this could lead to commercialization in the future. To simplify the discussion, some candidates with similar properties have been grouped into ranges of composition and performance. For now it is important to understand the range of performance benefits that can be achieved, and to consider these potential benefits as regulations are being developed that will impact stationary air conditioning and refrigeration. Ultimately such regulations will determine what refrigerants and also what refrigerant attributes are necessary and acceptable. It is seen in this analysis that some trade offs, such as better energy efficiency for higher GWP rating can be beneficial. 3 DISCUSSION OF CANDIDATE REFRIGERANTS The data tables that follow show examples of some of the illustrative candidates and candidate groups. The tables show performance characteristics that can be attained in four different end use applications: residential air conditioning, heat pump operation, medium temperature refrigeration, and low temperature refrigeration. The candidate groups are labelled A, B, C, D, and E. In each table there are comparisons made to some appropriate incumbent commercial refrigerants that some of the candidates could replace. In addition are performance comparisons to pure HFO-1234yf, due to the low GWP baseline it establishes. We exclude from this discussion some new refrigerants that are more ideally suited for low pressure cooling applications, as in centrifugal chillers. Those will be discussed in other venues. It is relevant, however, to point out that there are developmental refrigerant candidates for these other classes of cooling. What are shown in the tables are theoretical refrigeration cycle model results for the four applications. It is noted that theoretical cycle calculations do not give a complete performance picture for a refrigerant. They lack information about some important transport properties, such as heat transfer coefficients, that will ultimately impact energy performance. Because these refrigerants are based on new molecules and compositions, not all of the necessary properties have been measured, so it is not possible to predict overall system performance with final accuracy. However, there are sufficient measured properties to allow high quality refrigeration cycle modelling to be performed. Sophisticated modelling software - 3 -

and data bases as those contained within REFPROP(11) represent the state of the art in refrigerant thermophysical property modelling. For this work, REFPROP was used to model those refrigerants for which properties are well characterized, e.g. R-134a, R-410A, and R- 404A. For HFO-1234yf and for refrigerant compositions that use HFO-1234yf or other novel molecules it is necessary to employ tools that have been developed internally for the thermodynamic modelling. Proprietary software has been developed that is well suited for evaluation of developmental molecules, including refrigeration cycle modelling(8,12). This software is checked and validated by modelling fully characterized commercial refrigerants and comparing with the results from REFPROP. Model results are also validated by comparing with measured performance of developmental refrigerants in calorimetric and psychrometric chamber measurements. This has verified that the models do give high quality results. In addition to cycle modelling, other laboratory testing has been performed to evaluate properties including flammability. Flammability testing is done using the modified ASTM- 681 procedure outlined by ASHRAE in Standard 34 and by Underwriters Laboratories in Standard 2182. In particular, candidate refrigerants are tested for flammability at the most conservative conditions of temperature (100 ºC) and for blend fractionation, in the case of a multi component refrigerant. Because the global draft standard ISO-817 specifies a flammability test condition of 60 ºC, and because ASHRAE has voted to adopt the 60 ºC flammability test point, some compositions have been developed for this test condition. Please note that some of the refrigerant candidates in each of the tables are listed as non flammable. These non flammable formulations are considered in order to demonstrate the levels of capacity and COP that can be attained at different GWP levels and remain non flammable.. It will be noted that Candidate Group A shows performance that is generally comparable to, or slightly better than, that of neat HFO-1234yf. Candidate B achieves higher refrigeration capacity, but it has some temperature glide in heat exchangers, as well as a higher GWP. The other candidates are all mildly flammable as would be defined by the ASHRAE Standard 34 Category 2 flammability, or ISO-817 category 2L, similar to that of HFO-1234yf. While flammable, some of these compositions yield significantly improved refrigeration capacity or COP, with some showing performance very close to refrigerants R- 410A or R-404A. 3.1 Results from Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Modelling While it is possible to cool or heat living space with equipment designed to use R-134a, or HFO- 1234yf, it is not optimum. The HVAC industry has adopted a higher capacity refrigerant, R-410A, as the non ozone depleting global standard for this application. Significant investment has been made to develop and optimize equipment platforms to use this refrigerant. In discussions with companies that manufacture HVAC systems, requests were made for reduced GWP refrigerant options that still retained as much as possible of the performance offered by R-410A, and with physical and thermophysical properties close to that of R-410A. In response to these requests, a set of refrigerant options have been developed that have refrigeration capacity similar to that of R-410A, but with a range of differing GWP values. It is useful to evaluate options having different GWP levels, because currently there are no regulations limiting the GWP value of refrigerants used in stationary AC. However, we believe it likely that there will be enacted rules and laws that will limit or restrict the GWP value of refrigerant gases. Until there is regulatory clarity on GWP requirements for stationary AC and refrigeration, the approach of evaluating several GWP options is useful to determine the energy efficiency and capacity performance ranges that could exist if a GWP weighted regulatory approach is ultimately accepted. Ideally, any such regulations will allow some sliding GWP scale or GWP weighting so that high capacity and high efficiency compositions could be used. - 4 -

In Table 1 it is shown that pure HFO-1234yf gives cooling capacity that is about 55 % lower than that of R-410A. The non flammable, reduced GWP candidates in group A show performance only slightly better, a 54 % drop in capacity, but with significant increases of around 7 % for COP, vs. R- 410A. Candidate B gives better capacity, but still 37 % less and with a 4.1 % improvement of COP, as compared to R-410A, but with a temperature glide of slightly less than 4 K. It may be useful if flammability concerns over ride other considerations. Heat pump performance data from Table 2 for these candidates is in a similar range, with capacity reduction of 56 % for candidates in group A, but with heating COP improvements of 5 % vs. R- 410A. Group "A" candidates offer the added advantage of having about one third of the GWP of R- 410A, a substantial reduction. There is no clear answer to how much reduction in GWP will be acceptable, even with improved COP, but candidates with only one third of the GWP value should be of interest, especially if the candidate is not flammable. Candidate B is highest capacity non flammable composition that could was developed, but its higher GWP value of near 1500 could be an issue. Candidates C, D, and E on the tables show performance comparisons of these flammable refrigerant categories at stepwise increasing levels of GWP. Some of the candidates show temperature glide, as they are non azeotropic mixtures of refrigerants. Inspection of the data shows that candidates In group E give capacity match with improved COP vs. R-410A, with only 1 K temperature glide and more than 75 % reduction in GWP. For air conditioning and heating, candidates in Category D have less capacity, but significantly lower GWP values, 85 % to 90 % less than that of that of R-410 A for both cooling and for heating. It is possible that some balance of properties that include the reduction in GWP, moderate decreases in cooling and heating capacity, but a slight increase in COP could make these candidates attractive for consideration in particular heating and air conditioning applications or in specific regulatory scenarios. The other candidates on the table are less competitive in terms of performance for cooling and heating, but depending on ultimate regulations, could be interesting options to consider, especially due to their higher COP. Final definition of what will be the ultimate regulatory environment will of course impact the possible candidates that will be available for consideration. System operating conditions that were used in the modeling of the air conditioning cooling cycle are: Evaporator Temperature = 7 ºC Condenser Temperature = 47 ºC Liquid sub cooling = 12 K Suction gas superheat = 3 K Compressor volumetric efficiency = 70 % - 5 - Table 1: Cooling cycle of candidate refrigerants and blends Dischrg Dischrg Capacity COP Refrigerant GWP Glide Pressure Temp % % Flammable Candidate AR-4 K kpa ºC Vs R-410A Vs R-410A? R-22 1810 0 1812 83-31 6.4 No R-407C 1774 4.8 1935 75-30 5.0 No R-410A 2088 0.1 2823 81 0 0.0 No R-134a 1430 0 1222 64-55 +8 No HFO-1234yf 4 0 1209 55-57 +6 Yes A NonFlamm 134a-like 600-700 0 <1300 <60-54 +7 No B NonFlamm Max Capacity 1500 <4 <1600 66-37 4 No C Lowest GWP 75-150 5-7 1500-1900 70-75 -35 to -45 +3 to +6 Yes D Medium GWP 200-300 5-6 2200-2300 70-80 -15 to -25 +1 to +2 Yes E Closest to R-410A 400-500 1-3 2600-2800 80-90 -8 to 0 0 to +1 Yes

- 6 - System operating conditions that were used in the modeling of the heat pump cycle are: Evaporator Temperature = 0 ºC Condenser Temperature = 45 ºC Liquid sub cooling = 12 K Suction gas superheat = 3 K Compressor volumetric efficiency = 70 % Table 2: Heating Cycle Performance of Candidate Refrigerants and Blends Dischrg Dischrg Capacity COP Refrigerant GWP Glide Pressure Temp % % Flammable Candidate K kpa ºC Vs R-410A Vs R-410A R-22 1810 0 1728 86-32 5 No R-410A 2088 0.1 2823 81 0 0 No R-407C 1774 4.9 1843 77-32 3 No R-134a 1430 0 1222 64-55 +8 No HFO-1234yf 4 0 1209 55-57 +6 Yes A NonFlamm 134a-like 600-700 0 <1250 <60-56 +5 No B NonFlamm Max Capacity <1500 4 1700 66-38 2.7 No C Lowest GWP 75-150 5-7 1450-1800 60-70 -35 to -50 +2 to +3 Yes D Medium GWP 200-300 5-6 2050-2250 75-80 -15 to -25 0.5 to 1.5 Yes E Closest to R-410A 400-500 1-3 2400-2650 85-95 -9 to 0 0 to +1 Yes 3.2 Results and Discussion of Refrigeration System Modeling In Tables 3 and 4 are shown, respectively, modeling results for medium temperature (-10 ºC) evaporator, and low temperature (- 35 ºC) evaporator conditions. These are conditions that cover much commercial supermarket and food processing operation. The cycle modeling results obtained for these cases are referenced to an incumbent refrigerant widely used in commercial refrigeration, R- 404A. As for the air conditioning and heating cases, it was possible to develop compositions that come very close in terms of delivering refrigeration capacity and COP to the performance of R-404A. Note for example candidate group D. For both medium and low temperature refrigeration it gives capacity and COP both that are very close to the incumbent R-404A. These candidates have GWP values of less than 7 % of that of R-404A, - a reduction of more than 93 %. While the COP is slightly better than that of R-404A, there are other considerations that could impact energy efficiency performance. For example, the predicted compressor discharge temperature is higher than that of R- 404A. If it were to become necessary to employ compressor head cooling, then overall efficiency would be impacted. This needs to be explored with designers of refrigeration systems to assess possible impact and to optimize the balance of COP, capacity, discharge temperature, and GWP value. Candidates in groups A and B are interesting in that these are non flammable candidates. Group A candidates have the potential to be used in systems where R-134a is currently being used, and could offer a 50 % reduction of the GWP versus R-134a. These gases have similar refrigeration properties, but more capacity than R-134a. The higher capacity could translate to less compressor run time to achieve the desired cooling set point, and hence less energy consumption. Looking further at the refrigeration system data, one sees a much wider range of trade offs in terms of refrigeration capacity and COP, as well as GWP. It may be possible to use candidate in group D, for example, or even Group C, and make only small modifications in refrigeration system design, and yet gain environmental advantages. One could achieve more than 96 % reduction in GWP, with gains in system efficiency, and very little temperature glide, as in the case of some Group C candidates, for example. System operating conditions used in the modeling of the medium temperature refrigeration cycle:

- 7 - Evaporator Temperature = -10 ºC Condenser Temperature = 40 ºC Liquid sub cooling = 6 K Suction gas temperature = 18 ºC Compressor volumetric efficiency = 70 % Table 3: Medium Temperature (- 10 ºC) Refrigeration Cycle Model Comparisons Refrigerant GWP Glide Disch Disch Capacity COP Candidate/ AR4 K Pressure Temp % % Flammable or Group kpa ºC vs R-404A vs. R-404A CO2 1 0 9172 154 378% -38% No R-404A 3922 0.4 1833 85 0% 0% No R-32 675 0 2485 144 45% -3% Yes R-22 1810 0 1532 117-8% 4% No R-134a 1430 0 1017 90-43% 8% No 1234yf 4 0 1016 77-43% 7% Yes A NonFlamm 134a-like 600-700 0 <1100 <85-40% 7% No B NonFlamm Max Capacity <1500 4 1513 88-16% 3% No C Lowest GWP 75-150 5-7 1300-1600 83-92 -13 to -30% +3 to +5% Yes D Med GWP 404A like 200-300 5-6 1800-2000 100-105 +3 to +9% 0 Yes E Close to R-410A 400-500 1-3 2100-2400 115-125 +10 to +35% 0 to -2% Yes System operating conditions used in the modeling of the low temperature refrigeration cycle: Evaporator Temperature = -35 ºC Condenser Temperature = 40 ºC Liquid sub cooling = 6 K Suction gas temperature = 18 ºC Compressor volumetric efficiency = 70 % Table 4: Low Temperature Refrigeration (-35 ºC) Cycle Model Comparisons Refrigerant GWP Glide Disch Disch Capacity COP Candidate AR4 Pressure Temp % vs. % vs. Flammable K kpa ºC R-404A R-404A CO2 1 0 9172 251 355-38 No R-404A 3922 0.37 1833 126 0 0 No R-32 675 0 2485 229 44-6 Yes R-22 1810 0 1532 184-10 2 No R-134a 1430 0 1017 137-50 7 No 1234yf 4 0 1016 114-47 7 Yes A NonFlamm 134a-like 600-700 0 1100-1600 120-125 -45 7 No B NonFlamm Max Capacity <1500 4 1513 133-22 2 No C Low GWP 75-150 5-6 1300-1600 125-140 -15 to -35 +2 to +4 Yes D Med GWP 404A like 250-300 5-6 1800-2000 150-160 0 to 7-1 Yes E Close to R-410A 400-500 1-3 2200-2400 175-195 20 to 35-3 to -4 Yes 3.3 Conclusions This work shows that it is possible to design refrigerants with reduced GWP values. One must consider all of the possibilities, options and trade offs involved in the design of new, reduced GWP refrigerants using HFO-1234yf and other refrigerant molecules in order to find the most appropriate solutions. It may be possible to use existing equipment designs in many cases, while gaining significant reduction in GWP versus incumbent refrigerants such as R-404A and R-410A. More data, including transport property measurements, are necessary to allow full system modeling, and these data are currently being developed in several laboratories. However, as they are, these cycle calculations give high confidence that improved performance, reduced GWP refrigerants are possible.

It should be possible to use some of these new refrigerants in conventional equipment designs. If this is the case, it may be possible to retrofit currently existing equipment to use refrigerant with significantly reduced GWP values. Such an approach could allow users to transition more quickly into the use of reduced GWP refrigerants. Some observations bear reiteration with respect to reducing the ultimate environmental impact of refrigeration. The first is that design, use, and service practices must be focused toward elimination of any loss of refrigerant to the atmosphere. If this can be achieved, the properties of the refrigerant gas are less critical. It is still necessary to use the refrigerant that offers the best energy efficiency and hence the lowest Life-Cycle Climate Performance (LCCP). The energy consumed by the equipment can be minimized by use of high COP refrigerants, and this ultimately does much to reduce the environmental impact. Finally, until a clearly defined regulatory environment is in place there will be uncertainty about which refrigerants and what refrigerant properties are most important or even allowable. It is hoped that this analysis of some options that exist for reduced GWP refrigerants, including capacity and COP performance will he helpful to define some of the possible operating parameters that could be impacted, or could be supported if GWP weighted regulations are developed. 4 REFERENCES - 8 - [1] Downing, R. C., 1988, Fluorocarbon Refrigerants Handbook, Prentice Hall, Inc. [2] Bhatti, Mohinder, A Historical Look at Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerants, ASHRAE Transactions 105, Pt 1, 1-21 (1999) [3] T. Midgley, Jr., A.L. Henne, and R.R. McNary, Improvements in or Relating to Refrigeration. British Patent No. 357,263, February 8, 1930. [4] M.J. Molina and F.S. Rowland, Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluorocarbons: Chlorine- Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone. Nature, Vol. 249, pp. 810-812, 28 June 1974. [5] IPCC Working Group 1: First Assessment Report Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, 1990 [6] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. [Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, 1996 [7] Minor, B.H., and Spatz, MA, Evaluation of HFO-1234yf for Mobile Air Conditioning.: Proceedings of 2008 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI April 14, 2008 [8] Leck, T.J. Evaluation of HFO-1234yf as a Potential Replacement for R-134a in Refrigeration Applications Proceedings. 3 rd Conference on Thermophysical Properties and Transfer Processes of Refrigerants, IIR and NIST, Boulder, Colorado June26, 2009 [9] Nielsen, O.J., Jafadi, M.S., Sulback Andersen M.P., Hurley M.D., Wallington, T.J., Singh, R., 2007 Atmospheric Chemistry of CF3CF=CH2: Kinetics and Mechanisms of gas phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and O3, Chemical Physics Letters 439 (2007) 18-22 [10] Wilson, D.W, and Leck, T.J. Application to ASHRAE Standard 34 for Designation and Safety Classification of HFO-1234yf Honeywell International, Buffalo, New York, and DuPont Fluoroproducts, Wilmington, Delaware, 2008 [11] Lemmon, E.W.,Huber, M.L., and McLinden, M.O. 2007 REFPROP Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties, NIST Standard Reference Database 23, Version 8.0, National Institute of Science and Technology, Boulder, CO, USA. [12] Yokozeki, Akimichi, 2008, Unpublished DuPont Laboratory Data [13] ASHRAE/ANSI Standard 34-2007: Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta GA 2007 [14] UL Standard 2182: UL Standard for Safety of Refrigerants, 2 nd Edition Underwriters Laboratories, Northbrook, IL, 2006 [15] ISO/IEC DIS 817: Refrigerant-Number Designation, Draft International Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

- 9 -