|
USE OF
SUBMICRON INORGANIC FLAME
RETARDANTS IN POLYMERIC SYSTEMS
Edward A. Myszak, Jr.
Market Development Project
Manager
PQ Corporation
P.O. Box 840, Valley Forge,
PA 19482 USA
ABSTRACT
Flame retardants composed of
solid inorganic particles generally have an adverse effect on the
physical and aesthetic properties of polymers and synthetic fibers.
Colloidal sized particles, however, maintain aesthetic and physical
qualities and provide flame retardant properties. This paper discusses
the advantages of antimony oxide flame retardant particles having a
size less than 0.1 micron. Particular attention will be given to
polyolefin systems, the importance of choosing a halogen, and the
effects on antimony oxides on a polymer processing system.
Advances in fine denier
polypropylene fiber processing have opened the carpet face and wall
covering markets to this versatile polymer. Aesthetically pleasing
polypropylene structural products, such as waste baskets and other
containers, have also found a niche in the marketplace.
At the same time, today’s
consumer is demanding flame retardant goods. Manufacturers need a
product that flame retards the polymer and also maintains its physical
and aesthetic properties.
There currently are two
systems that effectively flame retard polymers: halogenated systems and
non-halogenated systems. Many manufacturers would prefer a
non-halogenated system, such as magnesium hydroxide, aluminum
trihydrate, ammonium phosphate, etc. principally because halogenated
systems have received negative publicity. Non-halogenated systems,
however, require loadings of up to 60% of flame retardant, and the
physical and aesthetic properties of the base polymers are negatively
affected as a result. In the case of fine-denier fibers, a usable fiber
could not be produced with these high flame retardant loadings.
Halogenated systems offer
the advantage of lower loadings to achieve the desired levels of flame
retardancy. In fact, several fiber manufacturers have dictated that no
more than 8% active FR ingredients can be used in a finished fine
denier fiber. Most halogenated FR compounds and all non-halogenated
systems, however, cannot meet this criteria.
Antimony oxide and
halogenated organic compounds combine to produce a synergistic action
that flame retards plastics at desirable loading levels. Many
combinations of antimony oxide and halogenated additive systems are
available.
An ideal flame retardant
system would also be easily processed and would safeguard the physical
and aesthetic properties of a polymer. It would incorporate a
melt-blendable halogenated additive with a submicron antimony oxide
particle. This combination should yield an acceptably flame-retarded
product with good tensile strength, impact resistance and elongation.
The finished product should also be untinted/translucent.
An antimony pentoxide powder
that disperses to colloidal size (.03 micron) particles is the only FR
additive that meets all these criteria. A detailed comparison of
colloidal-sized antimony pentoxide versus antimony trioxide (the
smallest particle size commercially available) is given in Table 1.
Table 1 – Physical
Properties of Antimony Pentoxide vs. Trioxide
|
Property
|
Antimony Trioxide
|
Antimony Pentoxide
|
|
Formula
|
Sb2O3
|
Sb2O5
|
|
Solubility
|
Dilute acids and bases
|
Only concentrated, hot acids
|
|
Particle Size
|
0.8 – 1.0 microns
|
0.03 microns
|
|
Surface Area, m2/gm
|
2
|
50
|
|
Specific Gravity
|
5.3
|
4.0
|
|
Refractive Index
|
2.1
|
1.7
|
|
Surface Activity
|
Usually neutral
|
Weakly acidic
|
Figure 1 shows the visual
impact of a submicron antimony pentoxide particle on a 1.5 denier
polypropylene fiber vs. antimony pentoxide particle on a 1.5 denier
polypropylene fiber vs. antimony trioxide. The antimony pentoxide
particle occupies only 0.2% of the cross-sectional area of the fiber
vs. 7% for antimony trioxide.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We tested the desirability
of several potentially acceptable antimony oxide/halogenated additive
systems for polypropylene fiber and translucent products. The antimony
oxides used in this screening study were:
- Nyacolâ ADP480 – a powder which
disperses to colloidal size (.03 micron) particles in nonpolar
hydrocarbons; and
- Antimony trioxide powder.
Both
antimony oxides were individually compounded into a flame retardant
concentrate with each of five halogenated additives:
- Brominated aromatic ester (63%
Br)
- Brominated polystyrene (60% Br)
- Brominated polystyrene (66% Br)
- Brominated aromatic compound
(66% Br)
- Chlorinated paraffin (74% Cl)
We produced
concentrates of each combination to test the complete dispersion of the
ingredients when the product was let-down into the polymer. This is
critical in fine-denier fiber applications.
The concentrates contained
50% active FR ingredients in a carrier of polypropylene. This carrier
was chosen to maintain the physical properties for fine denier fiber
applications.
Table 2 summarizes the flame
tests results of this initial screening of FR compounds. Only one
halogen/antimony oxide compound exhibited flame retardancy according to
the UL-94 vertical flame test. That one system is antimony pentoxide or
trioxide with a brominated aromatic compound.
The antimony pentoxide
compounds were all rated V-2 according to UL-94 with afterflame times
ranging from 0 to 3.8 seconds, depending on FR concentration. The
trioxide compounds were rated V-0 through FAIL depending on FR
concentration. The V-0 ratings achieved by trioxide at high loading levels
(8 and 12%) were probably due to the rheology of the polymer being
changed as a result of trioxides larger particle size, which reduced
the quality of drips as well as reducing their flaming characteristics.
Table 2 – Flame Test Summary
of Polpropylene
|
Additive Material
|
Percent Additive
|
LOI8 Percent
|
Test
Rating
|
UL-949
Afterflame Time (Sec)
|
|
Virgin PP
|
NA
|
17.3
|
Fail
|
NA
|
|
BAE1
|
12.0
|
22.7
|
Fail
|
NA
|
|
BP-602
|
12.0
|
19.3
|
Fail
|
NA
|
|
BAC4
|
8.06
|
23.1
|
Fail
|
NA
|
|
ADP48010/BAE
|
Could not extrude
|
|
Trioxide BAE
|
12.0
|
22.9
|
Fail
|
NA
|
|
ADP480/BP-60
|
12.0
|
18.5
|
Fail
|
NA
|
|
Trioxide/BP-60
|
12.0
|
20.3
|
Fail
|
NA
|
|
ADP480/BP-663
|
12.0
|
18.5
|
Fail
|
NA
|
|
Trioxide/BP-66
|
12.0
|
20.5
|
Fail
|
NA
|
|
ADP480/CP5
|
2.5
|
19.6
|
Fail
|
NA
|
|
ADP480/BAC
|
12.0
|
23.6
|
V-2
|
0.0
|
|
|
8.0
|
28.6
|
V-2
|
0.3
|
|
|
4.0
|
26.9
|
V-2
|
0.4
|
|
|
2.5
|
25.0
|
V-2
|
2.9
|
|
|
1.0
|
20.1
|
V-2
|
3.8
|
|
Trioxide/BAC
|
12.0
|
32.3
|
V-0
|
0.0
|
|
|
8.0
|
32.9
|
V-0
|
0.0
|
|
|
4.0
|
28.9
|
V-2
|
0.0
|
|
|
2.5
|
24.6
|
V-2
|
0.2
|
|
|
1.0
|
21.6
|
Fail
|
NA
|
Table
Notes:
|
1
|
Brominated Aromatic Ester
|
(63% Br)
|
6
|
Could not extrude at 12% loading
|
|
2
|
Brominated Polystyrene
|
(60% Br)
|
7
|
Data for % Additive less than 12 not reported if sample failed
UL-94
|
|
3
|
Brominated Polystyrene
|
(66% Br)
|
8
|
Limiting Oxygen Index (ASTM D2860)
|
|
4
|
Brominated Aromatic Compound
|
(66% Br)
|
9
|
Vertical Burn Test
|
|
5
|
Chlorinated Paraffin
|
(74% Br)
|
10
|
ADP480 is a colloidal-sized antimony pentoxide
|
A summary of the physical
property test results of the UL-94 acceptable materials is given in
Tables 3 and 4. The results with 1/8" thick test pieces show the
antimony pentoxide and trioxide to be reasonably comparable from the
perspectives of elongation and tensile strength. It would be expected
that the larger trioxide particles would have a negative effect on
these characteristics as the thickness of the test piece
decreased.
The Izod impact data,
however, show that the material with pentoxide has a significant
advantage at all loading levels. In fact, the Izod data for
polypropylene processed with antimony pentoxide-based flame retardants
are comparable to the Izod result for virgin PP.
Table 3 – Physical Property
Summary
|
Additive Material
|
Percent Additive
|
Notched2 Izod Impact
(Ft-Lb/In)
|
|
Virgin PP
|
NA
|
0.64
|
|
ADP480/BAC1
|
12.0
|
0.62
|
|
|
8.0
|
0.63
|
|
|
4.0
|
0.58
|
|
|
2.5
|
0.64
|
|
|
1.0
|
0.65
|
|
Trioxide/BAC
|
12.0
|
0.44
|
|
|
8.0
|
0.36
|
|
|
4.0
|
0.35
|
|
|
2.5
|
0.37
|
|
|
1.0
|
0.37
|
Table
Notes:
|
1
|
Brominated Aromatic Ester (63% Br)
|
|
2
|
ASTM D256
|
Table 4 – Physical Property
Summary
|
Additive Material
|
Percent Additive
|
Elongation3
at Yield
Percent
|
Tensile3
Strength
at Yield
(PSI)
|
Elongation2
at Break Percent
|
Tensile2 Strength
at Break
PSI
|
|
Virgin PP
|
NA
|
16.8
|
4937
|
204.0
|
3055
|
|
ADP480/BAC1
|
12.0
|
8.0
|
5168
|
29.4
|
3453
|
|
|
8.0
|
9.9
|
5087
|
29.5
|
3643
|
|
|
4.0
|
11.4
|
5173
|
30.3
|
3862
|
|
|
2.5
|
15.9
|
5144
|
29.9
|
3564
|
|
|
1.0
|
16.1
|
5068
|
49.6
|
3045
|
|
Trioxide/BAC
|
12.0
|
9.9
|
5040
|
32.5
|
3083
|
|
|
8.0
|
11.5
|
4863
|
37.4
|
2841
|
|
|
4.0
|
13.8
|
4892
|
31.9
|
2931
|
|
|
2.5
|
13.7
|
5141
|
33.1
|
3265
|
|
|
1.0
|
14.8
|
5122
|
30.9
|
3365
|
Table
Notes:
|
1
|
Brominated Aromatic Compound (66% Br)
|
|
2
|
ASTM states that tensile strength and elongation at break
value for unreinforced polypropylene plastics generally are highly
variable due to inconsistencies in necking of the center section of
the test bar. Tensile strength and elongation at yield are more
reproducible.
|
|
3
|
ASTM D638
|
Figure 2 shows the advantage
of the smaller antimony pentoxide particles. The Izod data is 38 to 75%
better for the Nyacol ADP480 compounds than for the trioxide-based
compounds. As with elongation and tensile strength data, we strongly
believe that as the test piece thickness decreases, the difference
between pentoxide- and trioxide-based compounds will become even more
exaggerated in favor of pentoxide-based compounds.
The antimony pentoxide- and
trioxide-based flame retardant compounds processed equally well at all
loading levels except at 12%, where the trioxide-based flame retardant
compounds processed more easily. The larger trioxide particles may have
absorbed the halogen material and thereby prevented puddling or
slippage in the throat of the extruder. Ease of processing is probably
a moot issue, however, since the industry standards for FR loading
levels are expected to be no higher than 8%.

Table 5 shows the color
effects of the flame retardant additive on the polymer. This data is
reported as a L’a’b’ total color difference as measured on a Minolta
CR-200 Chroma Meter with virgin polymer as the base standard. The color
is reported in the standard CIE 1976 L’a’b’ notation. Figure 3
graphically shows a dramatic difference between ADP480-based compounds
and those processed with trioxide. ADP480 has less pigmenting or
whitening effect than trioxide on the base polymer.
Table 5 – Color Effect of
Additive on Polymer – Unpigmented
|
Additive
Material
|
Percent
Additive
|
L’a’b’ Total Color Difference
|
Translucency
(Visual)
|
|
Virgin PP
|
NA
|
0.0
|
Translucent
|
|
BAC
|
4.0
|
41.2
|
Opaque
|
|
ADP480
|
4.0
|
34.2
|
Slightly
Translucent
|
|
Trioxide
|
4.0
|
58.7
|
Opaque
|
|
ADP480/BAC
|
12.0
|
51.1
|
Opaque
|
|
|
8.0
|
50.1
|
Opaque
|
|
|
4.0
|
43.7
|
V Slightly
Translucent
|
|
|
2.5
|
37.2
|
Slightly
Translucent
|
|
|
1.0
|
19.4
|
Translucent
|
|
Trioxide/BAC
|
12.0
|
54.4
|
Opaque
|
|
|
8.0
|
53.4
|
Opaque
|
|
|
4.0
|
52.1
|
Opaque
|
|
|
2.5
|
47.1
|
Opaque
|
|
|
1.0
|
35.7
|
V Slightly
Translucent
|
A comparison of antimony
pentoxide versus trioxide reveals a color difference at 4% loading of
34.2 versus 58.7, respectively. At 4% loading the FR additive system
utilizing antimony pentoxide shows that the test piece at 1/8 inch
thickness begins to exhibit some translucency (L’a’b’ delta of 43.7).
The level of translucency for the antimony pentoxide compounds
increases as the loading level drops to 1% (L’a’b’ delta of 19.4). The
antimony trioxide compounds are opaque at all loading levels except at
1% loading, where the test pieces exhibit only slight translucency
(L’a’b’ delta of 35.7), but the material fails UL-94.
One of the curiosities of
physics, which we will not attempt to explain, is that very small and
very large particles have low hiding power, or opacity. There is, on
the other hand, an optimum size for maximum opacity. For antimony
trioxide, the 0.5 – 1 micron particles provide maximum opacity. Figure
4 dramatizes the translucence at 4% loadings of antimony pentoxide vs.
antimony trioxide when compounded with virgin poly-propylene. The
affects of a 2.5% FR compound pent-oxide vs. trioxide are also shown.


Differences in opacity
levels in unpigmented environments help explain why less color
concentrate is required to obtain a given color in an antimony
pentoxide vs. trioxide flame retarded material. Generally a polymer system that
uses antimony trioxide as a flame retardant will require an average of
four times more pigment to achieve a particular shade than a polymer
system that contains antimony pentoxide. Even higher proportions of pigment are needed to
achieve dark red and blue tones when antimony trioxide is involved (see
Figure 5). Dollar savings
for pigments can be significant when antimony pentoxide is used for
flame retardancy.

SUMMARY
Our goal in undertaking this
study was to identify FR systems which could be used to flame retard
fine denier PP fiber and/or "translucent" PP products. Our
results indicate that an FR system based on colloidal sized antimony
pentoxide best achieves this goal. This antimony pentoxide FR systems
achieved good physical properties and translucency (aesthetics) as well
as excellent flame retardancy. Our next step is to take this FR system
and determine its effects in direct fiber production and other areas
requiring translucency or reduced pigment loadings.
|