deodorant spray death

If the <...propellant...> were inside a <...pressurised bladder...> then instead of a spray, there would be a squirt; no atomisation could take place.

Using <...propane...> means that a thinner <...can...> can be used, as <...propane ...> can be stored as a liquid at ambient temperatures and moderate pressures; <...air...> cannot, as it is above its critical point at ambient temperatures, necessitating a much thicker <...can...> to contain it with the attendant risks of it becoming a serious missile if ruptured in the domestic domain.

As a cause of death it is insignificant in comparison with the bed: over 90% of deaths occur in beds for which there is no health and safety protocol and people buy them recklessly.

I don't mean liquefy the air,simply compress it enough to provide pressure for the liquid inside.Sure it could take more volume to do it,but I think it would be worth it.Not much pressure is required to atomize perfume or deodorant in a squeeze bottle but the spray nozzle is designed differently.

There is always propellant left over in most spray cans,so a lower pressure would work.

It sounds like the proposal is best addressed to the <...aerosol...> manufacurers directly.

..."When gas emerges from a can, it emerges at atmospheric pressure. If it is in the form of gas inside the can then, to compress it to 1/10 of the volume, it would have to be at a pressure of 10 atmospheres; to compress it to 1/1,000 of the volume, it would have to be at a pressure of 1,000 atmospheres.

Even for a pressure of 10 atmospheres, the can would have to be a thick-walled pressure vessel, that would be expensive to transport and hard to use. At 1,000 atmospheres, one would need heavy equipment to handle even a small container. The expense of the container would be many times the worth of the contents. Pressure vessels in this range are subject to massive regulation, because of the danger of catastrophic explosion.

Another disadvantage of gas is that, when half of the propellant has been dispensed, the remaining propellant has half the pressure, and so on as the propellant is consumed. For most users, constant pressure, hence constant flow rate, independent of the amount consumed, is preferred.

For these reasons, propellants are mostly used that liquify at pressures slightly above atmospheric pressure, when at room temperature. The transition from liquid to vapor can entail an increase of volume by a factor of 100 to 1,000. As long as liquid and vapor propellant are both present, the pressure in the can is the vapor pressure of the liquid propellant (plus the vapor pressure of the product, which is typically low). The vapor pressure depends only on the temperature.

The choice of propellant then becomes the choice of a substance that has the appropriate vapor pressure at room temperature, which means that at atmospheric pressure it boils at slightly below room temperature. Various such compounds exist, of course, but have certain disadvantages.

• Propane and the isomers of butane have appropriate characteristics, and accordingly are used in lighters and in small-scale heating and cooking systems. As the question correctly states, their flammability is a liability for other uses.
• Compounds of organic chemicals with chlorine were formerly used, for reduced flammability, but are now little used, because of the effect of chlorine, released in their decomposition after use, on the atmosphere’s ozone layer.
• Compounds of organic chemicals with fluorine have appropriate characteristics, but apparently are more expensive, so not universally used.
• Nitrous oxide is sometimes used, but its vapor pressure is rather high, in the range of regulated pressure vessels."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-aerosol-cans-all-use-flammable-gas-as-the-propellant-Why-not-use-an-inert-gas-normal-air

You could invent a small pump that would attach to a container of your product of choice, and spray that way...Then you would just need to refill the bottle with liquid every now and then and recharge the battery driven pump...This seems doable...

I have a yard sprayer that operates that way....I love it...

Make this ⇓ into the above ⇑...

https://www.amazon.com/RYSEAB-Cordless-Inflator-Portable-Compressor/dp/B09C6C6BR1?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=A2IO4PD0LN5UCE

What is the best air pressure for spray painting?

... your HVLP spray gun PSI will likely sit between 25-30 PSI for something like using an air compressor for spraying cars, rising to 40 PSI in some cases where higher atomization is needed.

I am sure the yard sprayer does not generate many atmospheres of pressure,yet it sprays well.

I have seen the sprayers on wheels where the wheels drive a pump and pressure is maintained simply by pulling the sprayer.

I have a non-stick refillable spray bottle that is manually pumped up to spray with your choice of cooking oils.

The small handheld pump cited at the bottom of #3 is capable of 150 psi and airflow of 38L/Min....or 1.34 cu/ft per min...that seems like more than enough to spray 1/2 liter container....

https://sprayers101.com/nozzle-chart-twist/

To add some numbers to this thread, c2000 we used to temperature test spray cans (all sorts of contents) for manufacturers. I recall the burst pressure of good cans to be around 1800kPa (~18 atmospheres). They were tested in water and I'm a bit hazy on the acceptance criteria, but think it may have been to survive 85C. It was surprising how noticeably the shock of a burst can travelled from our downstairs blast chamber through the concrete floor to the offices above, while circular can base imprints scarred the chamber's plywood lining.

One my first jobs was on a high speed aerosol line, we used to test the cans for overcharge by running them through a hot water bath, any can overcharged would deform and expand, we used propane as a propellant in various products...

Exactly,…

a few things here… before reading, thought it may be a ‘Tide Pod Challenge’ issue, I glad it wasn’t, but still tragic, but to the second issue,…

when do the parents take responsibility,

and thirdly, There are so many warnings on labels on so many products, that, that’s now become a great place to hide important information for the masses.

and fourthly,… back to the tide pod challenge, I feel no empathy with stupidity as that.

Consider a perfume sprayer with a squeeze bulb.

Not very much pressure required to atomize the liquid perfume.

High pressure is not required,just the design of the nozzle has to be appropriate for the pressure.

You could also target these families with autistic kids, just have a chemist make up scents that match popular deodorant brands, and use an atomizer that would produce the scent on demand in a safe manner...

Aroma therapy...

I think I'll stick to stick deodorant, not the spray kind!

Use roll-on or stick deodorants. There are also non-spray room scents.

In lieu of reinventing the wheel, how about using the wheel differently?

Propellant is the evil here. Remove the propellant from the environment of the affected individual: Spray the product onto strips of microfiber cloth, bath towel, perhaps mum’s old shirt and provide this aromatherapy token to the affected individual?

This action could be considered as being a responsible caretaker.

I am generally fond of wonderful, complicated, glorious and expensive solutions, but sometimes these simply aren’t necessary.

£1.50GBP retail from Wilko (not an endorsement - other plant sprayer retailers are available).

If it were just a matter of pressure, air would have been the best option as a pressurizing gas since it is cheaper than butane or other gases. The problem with air is that it reacts with a lot of different materials. In the case of deodorant aerosols, butane was probably found to be the gas that reacts the least with the product hence the decision to use it. If they ban the use of butane, or any other dangerous gas, the manufacturers will probably have to reformulate their product or reduce the shelf life.

A pressurized bladder is a good alternative and is an existing method albeit on a larger scale (our safety water tanks use them and the pressurizing gas is nitrogen). It should reduce the deaths to zero if successfully utilized.

regards,

Vulcan

While tragic, a quarter million or so are killed off annually in the US alone due to medical "mistakes". Maybe we should put similar labels on all Doctors offices.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us

While tragic, a quarter million or so are killed off annually in the US alone due to medical "mistakes". Maybe we should put similar labels on all Doctors offices.

Oh my, I just had hernia repair surgery!!!

They spray death on you when you walk into a hospital....

When they should be covering you with 222nm far uv light....