Method of visualizing specifications of chemical formulations

Abstract

A method for visualizing specifications of chemical formulations comprises acquiring user input of parameters of a prototype chemical formulation. A comparative operation is performed between the parameters of the prototype chemical formulation and a database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters, wherein the comparative operation generates a comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters. A graphical representation of the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters is then generated to allow visualization of the specifications of the chemical formulation.

Description

METHOD OF VISUALIZING SPECIFICATIONS OF CHEMICAL FORMULATIONSTechnical Field

[0001] The present disclosure is directed to a method of visualizing specifications of chemical formulations.Background

[0002] Coating technology is a multifaceted field where the interplay between coating ingredients and formulation recipes significantly impacts performance properties. A typical chemical formulation involves selecting from a wide array of ingredients — often numbering in the tens or twenties — from a pool of hundreds or even thousands of potential choices. A portfolio of ingredients can include binders, solvents, thickeners, dispersants, pigments, fillers, retroreflective materials, extenders, and other additives. Organizations face the dual challenge of meeting the physical demands for coating performance while meeting local, state, and federal specifications for use in specific locations.

[0003] Each location often has specific needs and / or regulations governing coating formulations. For example, traffic paints and coatings are subject to various requirements.Standard specifications for traffic paints and coatings improve road safety, guarantee reliable and satisfactory performance, streamline the application process, and drive innovation to meet everevolving industry demands. Localities often regulate parameters that these formulations must meet. Because each locality maintains its own set of requirements, it is difficult to determine whether a chemical formulation prepared for one locality can be used in other localities.Consequently, it is challenging to develop chemical formulations that may be used in a large number of localities with little or no changes in the formulation. It is necessary to gather and digest a great number of specifications and parameters, many of which may use different descriptors, leading to an exceptionally challenging task to determine if even one chemical formulation can be used in a given locality, let alone a large number of localities.

[0004] There is a great need to provide a simplified manner in which a prototype chemical formulation can be quickly checked against multiple requirements and / or regulations to determine whether the prototype chemical formulation is suitable for use.Summary of the Disclosure

[0005] The present disclosure relates a method of visualizing specifications of chemical formulations comprising the steps of:acquiring user input of parameters of a prototype chemical formulation;performing a comparative operation between the parameters of the prototype chemical formulation and a database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters, wherein the comparative operation generates a comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters; andgenerating a graphical representation of the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters.Brief Description of the Drawings

[0006] Figure 1 illustrates one example of a a graphical representation comprising a color-coded map and chart according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0007] Figure 2 illustrates an example of a graphical representation comprising a table of comparative values for a plurality of sets of defined parameters according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0008] Figure 3 illustrates an example of a table indicating a set of user inputted parameters for a prototype chemical formulation according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0009] Figure 4 illustrates an example of graphical representation comprising a color-coded map and color-coded table according to an embodiment of the present invention.Detailed Description

[0010] The present disclosure relates to methods for visualizing specifications of chemical formulations.

[0011] Examples of the chemical formulations encompassed by the present disclosure include, but are not limited to, paint or coating formulations, and architectural or building formulations, such as coating, sealant or adhesive formulations. Preferably, the chemical formulations include traffic paint or coating formulations and sealant formulations. The chemicalformulations may include, for example, thermoplastics, epoxies, tapes, polyureas, cold plastic, temporary, solventbome, and waterborne paints.

[0012] A first step of the process comprises acquiring user input of one or more parameters of a proposed or prototype chemical formulation. As used herein, the phrase “prototype chemical formulation” refers to a chemical formulation being analyzed or compared by the present method. The prototype chemical formulation may be a theoretical formulation or an existing formulation that is being considered for use.

[0013] The one or more parameters of the prototype chemical formulation may be selected from the group consisting of a percentage of volatile components, a percentage of nonvolatile components, an amount of titanium dioxide, an amount of retroreflective material, type of glass beads, inclusion of a specified compound, dry time, minimum application temperature, maximum application temperature, viscosity, an amount of filler, an amount of dye, an amount of pigment, a flash point, density, no-pick up time, dried opacity, directional reflectance, solids content, color specifications, film thickness, skid resistance, binder identity, binder chemistry, lead content, total solids, volume solids, paint density, pH, color requirements, retroreflectivity, fineness of dispersion, scrub resistance, bleeding ratio, freeze / thaw stability, heat stability, storage stability, flexibility, durability, abrasion resistance, water resistance, settling, rate of application, test methods, and combinations thereof. A user may define a physical parameter of the prototype chemical formulation, a desired property of the prototype chemical formulation, a component of the prototype chemical formulation, or a combination thereof. For example, a user may identify a specific binder that they wish to use in their prototype chemical formulation, as well as the amount of glass beads used as retroreflective materials and an amount of pigment.

[0014] The one or more parameters inputted by the user are then compared to a database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters, i.e., a comparative operation. Preferably, the one or more sets of defined parameters comprises a set of specifications and / or regulations defined or required by a locality, such as local, state, or federal government entity. In an embodiment where the method is used in the United States, the database may comprise a set of defined parameters for each state. More preferably, the one or more sets of defined parameters comprises a set of specifications and / or regulations for a plurality of localities.

[0015] The defined parameters in each set may comprise parameters selected from the group consisting of a percentage of volatile components, a percentage of non-volatilecomponents, an amount of titanium dioxide, an amount of retroreflective material, type of glass beads, inclusion of a specified compound, dry time, minimum application temperature, maximum application temperature, viscosity, an amount of filler, an amount of dye, an amount of pigment, a flash point, density, no-pick up time, dried opacity, directional reflectance, solids content, color specifications, film thickness, skid resistance, binder identity, binder chemistry, lead content, total solids, volume solids, paint density, pH, color requirements, retroreflectivity, fineness of dispersion, scrub resistance, bleeding ratio, freeze / thaw stability, heat stability, storage stability, flexibility, durability, abrasion resistance, water resistance, settling, rate of application, test methods, and combinations thereof. Each set of defined parameters may comprise a different collection of parameters. For example, when each set comprises regulations and / or specifications set by different localities, each locality may define a unique set of parameters. One locality may define a maximum amount of volatile compounds, whereas another locality may define a range for the allowable amount of volatile compounds. Similarly, one locality may specify a required opacity for a traffic paint formulation, whereas another locality may not have any requirements for opacity.

[0016] The database may be compiled by a number of different means. In one embodiment, the database may be compiled manually. A person may review the regulations and / or specifications required by a plurality of different localities and generate a database containing the requirements for each locality. Alternatively, and preferably, the database may be automatically or semi-automatically generated or updated. For example, the database may be compiled by a program that has been designed to identify and / or scrape information from scanned or online text.

[0017] The comparative operation that compares the one or more parameters of the prototype chemical formulation to the database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters generates one or more comparative values for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters. As used herein, the phrase “comparative value” refers to a numerical value derived and / or calculated by comparing a user inputted parameter to a defined parameter in the one or more sets of defined parameters. The comparative value may be a binary value, such as 1 or 0 for a yes / no or pass / fail type comparison; a numerical value for a tabulation or calculation, such as a count of how many user inputted parameters match or satisfy the defined parameters; a percentage score calculated based on how closely the one or more parameters match a set ofdefined parameters, such as a percentage score that indicates a prototype chemical formulation meets 76% of the parameters in a set of defined parameters; and combinations thereof.

[0018] A graphical representation of the one or more comparative values for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters is generated. As used herein, the phrase “graphical representation” refers to an image, chart, table or graph containing visual information. As used herein, the phrase “visual information” can include shapes, colors, words, numbers, etc. to convey information graphically to a user.

[0019] In one embodiment, the one or more sets of defined parameters comprise a set of defined parameters for each of a plurality of geographic locations. The graphical representation generated from the comparative values comprises a map. The map may be color coded to identify geographic locations where the parameters of the prototype chemical formulation most closely match the defined parameters of each geographic location. For example, when the area of interest is the United States of America, each geographic location may be a single state and the generated map may color-code each state (i.e., a pseudocolor map or heat map) based on how closely the parameters of the prototype formulation match the defined set of parameters for each state. For example, when the defined parameters include a quantitative range, a map may be color-coded to show how closely the parameters of the prototype formulation fit within the range. The comparative value(s) may also be included in a chart or table, such as a tabulated number indicating how many of the defined set of parameters match the user inputted parameters of the prototype formulation, a percentage value calculated based on how closely the user inputted parameters match the defined set of parameters, or a binary value (e.g., yes / no or pass / fail) indicating whether the user inputted parameters meet or do not meet the defined parameters for each state. The information included in a chart or table may further be color-coded, such as, for example, green for “pass” comparative values and red for “fail” comparative values. Color-coding may also be used to show how many defined parameters are met by the user inputted parameters of the prototype chemical formulation by indicating higher matches with darker shades and lower matches with lighter shades.

[0020] In an alternative embodiment, the generated graphical representation may comprise a graph. The graph comprise a bar graph, a line graph, a spider graph, or other graph to visualize the one or more comparative values generated by the comparative operation. For example, the graph may comprise a bar graph that shows how many of the user inputtedparameters of the prototype chemical formulation match each set of defined parameters.Alternatively, the graph may comprise a bar graph showing which of the user inputted parameters of the prototype chemical formulation meets the most number of defined parameters, such as, for example, if a user inputs the identify of a binder component in the prototype formulation, the graph may show the number of geographic locations that binder component is acceptable in. Similar color-coding can be used for graphs as described above.

[0021] The graphical representation may comprise more than one type of graphical representation, such as a plurality of charts or graphs, a combination of a map and a table, or any other combination thereof.

[0022] According to at least one embodiment, the one or more parameters of the prototype chemical formulation comprises an identification of a chemical component of the prototype chemical formulation. For example, the user may select a specific compound or component from a list of compounds or components. The database may comprise a reference library that includes one or more parameters, such as physical or chemical properties, of each of the compounds or components in the list. In this manner, the user may select a variety of individual components or compounds without needing to provide a plurality of individual physical or chemical properties. The comparative operation may extract the one or more parameters relating to the identified chemical component from the reference library and include the one or more parameters relating to the identified chemical component in the comparative operation to generate the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters.

[0023] One aspect of the present invention relates to a machine-readable medium, storing machine-readable instructions which, when executed by a process of a device, cause the processor to acquire a user input of parameters of a prototype chemical formulation; perform a comparative operation between the parameters of the prototype chemical formulation and a database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters, wherein the comparative operation generates a comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters; and generate a graphical representation of the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters.

[0024] The machine-readable medium can be communicatively connected to a processor resource by a communication path. In some examples, a communication path can include awired or wireless connection that can allow communication between devices and / or components within a single device. As used herein, the processor resource can include, but is not limited to: a central processing unit (CPU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a metal-programmable cell array (MPCA), a semiconductorbased microprocessor, or other combination of circuitry and / or logic to orchestrate execution of instructions. In a specific example, the processor resource utilizes a non-transitoiy computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor resource to perform corresponding functions.

[0025] The machine-readable medium may be electronic, magnetic, optical, or other physical storage device that stores executable instructions. Thus, a non-transitory machine-readable medium (MRM) (e.g., machine-readable medium) may be, for example, a non-transitory MRM comprising Random-Access Memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), an Electrically Erasable Programmable ROM (EEPROM), a storage drive, an optical disc, and the like. The machine-readable medium may be disposed within a controller and / or computing device. In this example, the executable instructions can be “installed” on the device.Additionally, and / or alternatively, the machine-readable medium can be a portable, external, or remote storage medium, for example, which allows a computing system to download the instructions from the portable / extemal / remote storage medium. In this situation, the executable instructions may be part of an “installation package”.

[0026] The machine-readable medium includes instructions to acquire user input of parameters of a prototype chemical formulation. The machine-readable medium includes instructions to perform a comparative operation between the one or more parameters of the prototype chemical formulation and a database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters. The comparative operation generates one or more comparative values for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters.

[0027] The machine-readable medium includes instructions to generate a graphical representation of the one or more comparative values for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters.Examples

[0028] Specification pages for each state and federal regulations were acquired from the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration website. Each of the available parameters was collected and organized in a structured format in a Python-readable format to generate a database. Each state was labeled with appropriate paint / formulation types, such as standard, high build, low temperature, high solids, semi-durable, and unspecified. The unspecified type was only applied to California, which has the most forgiving set of specifications including the mention of six binder identities for different application conditions. About 70 state / paint type combinations made up the column headers, while noting the specification source and corresponding year. To simplify the ~130 specifications identified, they were categorized into seven main categories, namely 1) binder identity, 2) compositional requirements, 3) performance requirements, 4) color requirements, 5) retroreflectivity requirements, 6) quality assurance requirements, and 7) application requirements. The binders listed included products, such as those available from The Dow Chemical Company (FASTRACK 3427, FASTRACK HD-21A, 5408(A), FASTRACK 2706, and FASTRACK XSR). Specifications underwent post-processing to ensure standardized terminologies and units.

[0029] Using the aggregated data, a custom application was built to display the information. The application was divided into several parts to provide graphical representations of different comparative values.

[0030] In Fig. 1, state specifications are displayed based on the selected paint type, requirement category, and specification. The data are represented as both a choropleth map and a table. The supported data types are numeric, integer, and categories. The federal specifications are displayed in the first row of the table, allowing users to easily access that information.

[0031] In Fig. 2, state specifications for the selected states are displayed side-by-side in a chart comprising numerical and binary comparative values to allow easy comparison. Federal specifications were displayed in the first column by default, and additional states could be added from the dropdown menu. The graphical representation included in the output included the ability to search and filter information to present a customized graphical representation.

[0032] In Fig. 3, a comparison of performance specifications is used as the comparison value. This comparison allows users to quickly identify which states satisfy all user-defined requirements. Users can add targets by selecting the paint type, specification, and target value. The added specifications are displayed in a color-coded table. Based on the user-defined targets,the choropleth map was updated, with colors representing the number of specifications that met the targets. Additionally, the data were presented in a tabular format, where green cells indicated ‘pass,’ and red cells indicated ‘fail.’

[0033] In Fig. 4, a match score was calculated between a reference state and all other states for a given paint type. This feature helps users quickly identify which states have comparable specifications. Paint manufacturers could use this feature to identify states with similar specifications and present similar paint formulations for potential use.

[0034] As seen in the figures, the present invention allows for comparisons to be made quickly between prototype formulations and a large dataset of specifications and / or regulations and presents the comparisons in a graphical representation that allows for easy digestion of a large amount of data.

[0035] Although specific embodiments have been described above, these embodiments are not intended to limit the scope of the present disclosure, even where only a single embodiment is described with respect to a particular feature. Examples of features provided in the disclosure are intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive unless stated otherwise. The above description is intended to cover such alternatives, modifications, and equivalents as would be apparent to a person skilled in the art having the benefit of this disclosure.

[0036] The scope of the present disclosure includes any feature or combination of features disclosed herein (either explicitly or implicitly), or any generalization thereof, whether or not it mitigates any or all of the problems addressed herein. Various advantages of the present disclosure have been described herein, but embodiments may provide some, all, or none of such advantages, or may provide other advantages.

[0037] In the foregoing Detailed Description, some features are grouped together in a single embodiment for the purpose of streamlining the disclosure. This method of disclosure is not to be interpreted as reflecting an intention that the disclosed embodiments of the present disclosure have to use more features than are expressly recited in each claim. Rather, as the following claims reflect, inventive subject matter lies in less than all features of a single disclosed embodiment. Thus, the following claims are hereby incorporated into the Detailed Description, with each claim standing on its own as a separate embodiment.

Claims

ClaimsWhat is claimed is:

1. A method, comprising:acquiring user input of one or more parameters of a prototype chemical formulation; performing a comparative operation between the one or more parameters of the prototype chemical formulation and a database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters, wherein the comparative operation generates one or more comparative values for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters; andgenerating a graphical representation of the one or more comparative values for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the prototype chemical formulation comprises a paint formulation, a coating formulation, a sealant formulation, or an adhesive formulation.

3. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters comprises a set of defined parameters for each of a plurality of geographic locations.

4. The method of claim any one of the preceding claims:wherein the one or more parameters of the prototype chemical formulation comprise an identification of a chemical component of the prototype chemical formulation;wherein the database further comprises a reference library containing one or more parameters relating to a plurality of chemical components; andwherein performing a comparative operation further comprises extracting the one or more parameters relating to the identified chemical component from the reference library, and including the one or more parameters relating to the identified chemical component in the comparative operation to generate the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters.

5. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters comprises performance requirements for a chemical formulation.

6. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters comprises statutory or regulatory parameters.

7. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the parameters of the prototype chemical formulation and the one or more sets of defined parameters in the database comprise at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of a percentage of volatile components, a percentage of non-volatile components, an amount of titanium dioxide, an amount of retroreflective material, type of glass beads, inclusion of a specified compound, dry time, minimum application temperature, maximum application temperature, viscosity, an amount of filler, an amount of dye, an amount of pigment, a flash point, density, no-pick up time, dried opacity, directional reflectance, solids content, color specifications, film thickness, skid resistance, binder identity, binder chemistry, lead content, total solids, volume solids, paint density, pH, color requirements, retroreflectivity, fineness of dispersion, scrub resistance, bleeding ratio, freeze / thaw stability, heat stability, storage stability, flexibility, durability, abrasion resistance, water resistance, settling, rate of application, test methods, and combinations thereof.

8. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the comparative value is selected from a binary yes / no or pass / fail value, a number score based on how many parameters of the prototype chemical formulation match a set of defined parameters, a percentage score based on how closely the parameters of the protype chemical formulation match a set of defined parameters, and combinations thereof.

9. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the graphical representation of the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters is selected from the group consisting of a map, a graph, a chart, a table, and combinations thereof.

10. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the graphical representation of the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters comprises a map and each location on the map is color-coded to the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters.

11. The method of any one of claims 1 to 9, wherein the graphical representation of the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters comprises a chart and the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters is a number score based on how many parameters of the prototype chemical formulation match a set of defined parameters, and the chart contains a tabulation of each number score.

12. A machine-readable medium, storing machine-readable instructions which, when executed by a processor of a device, cause the processor to:acquire a user input of one or more parameters of a prototype chemical formulation; perform a comparative operation between the one or more parameters of the prototype chemical formulation and a database comprising one or more sets of defined parameters, wherein the comparative operation generates one or more comparative values for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters; andgenerate a graphical representation of the one or more comparative values for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters.

13. The machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the prototype chemical formulation comprises a paint formulation, a coating formulation, a sealant formulation, or an adhesive formulation.

14. The machine-readable medium of claim 12 or 13:wherein the parameters of a prototype chemical formulation comprise an identification of a chemical component of the prototype chemical formulation;wherein the database further comprises a reference library containing one or more parameters relating to a plurality of chemical components; andwherein performing a comparative operation further comprises extracting the one or more parameters relating to the identified chemical component from the reference library, and including the one or more parameters relating to the identified chemical component in the comparative operation to generate the comparative value for each of the one or more sets of defined parameters.

Images