Flame and Smoke Retardants in Vinyl Chloride Polymers - Commercial Usage and Current Developments
Flame and Smoke Retardants in Vinyl Chloride Polymers - Commercial Usage and Current Developments
Flame and Smoke Retardants in Vinyl Chloride Polymers - Commercial Usage and Current Developments
INTRODUCTION
Polyvinyl chloride does not exist as the pure substance other than
at a polymerization site. Neat PVC, i.e., rigid or unplasticized PVC,
is difficult to ignite, and will cease burning as soon as the source of heat
or flame is removed. Neat PVC has 56.8% chlorine content and an
oxygen index of about 47, compared to most non-halogen polymers,
which have oxygen indices ranging from 17.4 (polypropylene or
polymethyl methacrylate) to 26 (polycarbonate). Even in dry powder
form, PVC is ignition-resistant, relatively safe to air-convey without
serious risk of dust explosions unless admixed with more combustible
powders. The fire behavior of PVC has been extensively studied.
When PVC is thermally decomposed or exposed to flames, it
dehydrochlorinates and the chlorine content gets converted to hydrogen
chloride gas, which can be emitted into the vapor space or retained in
the condensed phase if a base such as calcium carbonate is present
to produce calcium chloride. However, unlike carbon monoxide,
the hydrogen chloride concentration quickly declines as it is absorbed
on surfaces, and it usually does not travel far [2].
Unplasticized PVC softens as it is heated and as it burns. Generally, it is
difficult to ignite and it readily self-extinguishes. The net heat of
combustion is 16.9 kJ/g, whereas most other plastics are in the range of
24–43 kJ/g. The minimum radiant flux for ignition is about 21 kW/m2.
The self-ignition temperature is 507 C. Hydrogen chloride gas begins
to be evolved at the 227–277 C range for pure PVC; but this temperature
is greatly affected by stabilizing or destabilizing additives. Because of its
high content of chlorine, which is a non-contributor to the heat of
combustion, the heat release characteristic of unplasticized PVC is the
lowest of all commodity plastics. Also, the flame spread rates of rigid PVC
formulations are much lower than wood and most other polymers, for
example as measured by the ASTM E 162 or E 84 test methods [2].
Formulation 1 2 3 4 5
CHLORINATED PARAFFINS
These are old products with recently improved stability. They are
used as secondary plasticizers and as sources of supplemental chlorine
content. They are also relatively low in cost compared to the flame
This additive is part of the flame retardant system of many rigid and
semi-rigid vinyl formulations. It is inexpensive on a per-pound basis
but rather high loadings must be used, and its density causes the
formulation to be less favorable in cost on a volume basis. Wire, cable,
and flooring formulations are its largest uses. The power cable segment
is growing rapidly particularly in Asia, the telecom segment less so.
Aluminum hydroxide acts as a heat sink when the formulation is
exposed to flame, by virtue of its endothermic release of water starting
at about 204 C, and consuming 1051 J/g of ATH. The released water
also dilutes the organic fuel released from the formulation, reduces the
oxygen concentration in the flame zone, and has a cooling effect on the
flame. The layer of dehydrated alumina offers a barrier to heat and
mass transfer. Frequently, this barrier is bolstered by the presence of
carbonized material, and may also be improved by the presence of fluxes
and sintering components, such as zinc borate.
Plasticized PVC containing typical phthalate plasticizers generally
produces dense smoke, although this can be alleviated by further
additives, as discussed below. The smoke emission is aggravated,
particularly under flaming conditions, by the presence of antimony
oxide but alleviated by the addition of ATH. Various other smoke-
reducing additives will be discussed below. Data from Albemarle show
substantial reduction of smoke levels from PVC containing ATH,
in comparison to antimony oxide formulations at the same level of
flame retardancy. Obviously, to reach the same flame retardancy,
the ATH percentage must be much higher than the antimony oxide
percentage.
Typical PVC cable formulations are presented in Table 2. Some other
useful starting-point formulations are as follows: for thin rigid vinyl
protective films: 100 phr PVC, 15 phr ATH or 8 phr ATH plus
2 phr Sb2O3 plus 2 phr ONGARD 2. For flooring: 100 phr PVC, 100 phr
ATH plus 80 phr phthalate plasticizer plus stabilizer as needed.
For wall covering to meet LOI of 27%, DIN 4102: 100 phr PVC, 34 phr
ATH, 20 phr phosphate plasticizer, 3 phr epoxidized soy bean oil, 1 phr
Sb2O3, and 2 phr stabilizer. For carpet backing (PVC foam coatings):
100 phr PVC, 60 phr ATH, 80 phr plasticizer (presumably a phthalate)
and up to 5 phr stabilizer. For conveyer belts: 100 phr PVC, 40 phr ATH,
10 phr calcium carbonate, 50 phr phosphate plasticizer, 4 phr Sb2O3, and
stabilizer as required. For coated fabrics such as awnings, tarpaulins,
inflatable structures: 100 phr PVC, 40 phr ATH, 45 phr phosphate
plasticizer, 18 phr dioctyl phthalate, and stabilizer as required.
A major challenge is to incorporate enough ATH to achieve the
desired flame retardancy while retaining useful flow properties and
mechanical properties (especially flexibility). Plasticized PVC is rather
‘forgiving’ and ground ATH can be used as well as the precipitated
grades. However, the selection of ATH is more demanding in rigid
and semi-rigid formulations. A variety of particle sizes, surface
treatments, and particle morphologies is available. Both reprecipitated
(from commodity grade ATH) and milled products are available.
As a rough guide to the selection, the larger particle size range is
preferred when rapid mixing and melt flow is required. The finer
particle sizes are generally slower to disperse but may be found to have
somewhat higher flame retardant effect, somewhat better tensile, and
somewhat better tear strength [6].
Fatty acid surface-treated grades, such as MARTINAL OL-104C and
OL-107C are more dispersible, give lower viscosity and increased
flexibility in PVC. Surface treatment with silanes is available also, and
may provide even better mechanical properties, especially in PVC alloys,
such as GE’s CYCOVIN alloy of PVC with ABS. In highly filled PVC,
where lubricity and melt flow must be maintained, some proprietary
coated ATH grades are available from Albemarle and Huber.
Aluminum hydroxide can somewhat compromise the heat stability
of rigid PVC [7]. Adjustments in stabilizer content may be helpful.
Molybdenum-containing Additives
Copper Compounds
and anti-afterglow action. The most widely used zinc borate is Luzenac’s
(formerly U. S. Borax’s) FIREBRAKE ZB, which is 2ZnO 3B2O3 3.5H2O
and a more finely divided version of the same compound, FIREBRAKE
ZBXF. Other zinc borates which are on the market and said to be
useful in PVC (higher activity claimed due to higher ZnO ratio) are ZnO
B2O3 2H2O and 2ZnO 2B2O3 3H2O (Anzon). The action of all of these
zinc borates is generally believed to be the promotion of cross-linking
and charring, plus the formation of low melting glass, which together
with other inorganic fillers can form a barrier. There is also a small
endothermic and fuel dilution effect as the water of hydration is lost.
Additionally, zinc borate can suppress glowing combustion (smolder-
ing) because it alters the surface morphology of the char. Boron is
known to be an inhibitor of carbon combustion, according to one
hypothesis, by occupying active sites on the graphite lattice [17].
By itself, zinc borate is a less effective flame retardant in PVC than
antimony oxide, but their combinations are very effective (Figure 1).
There are a number of products that can be suitable as low-smoke
additives and/or partial replacement for antimony oxide. Care must
be exercised with these zinc-based materials as they can destabilize
PVC if not properly formulated, and long-term heat stability can be
compromised.
Zinc Stannates
Zinc Sulfide
Calcium Carbonate
have conveniently high plastisol fusion rates, but somewhat slower than
tricresyl phosphates. In coating fabric, this property is advantageous in
allowing more time for effective coating and penetration. They also have
smaller increases in viscosity in storage, thus better storage stability of
the plastisol [27].
A related product is tertiary-butylphenyl diphenyl phosphate made
from tertiary-butylphenol produced from phenol and isobutylene. This
was originally introduced in the 1970s as a functional fluid (hydraulic
applications) but has also been found useful in PVC. It is available from
Akzo Nobel (now from Supresta) as PHOSFLEX 61B and 71B. By itself,
it has inferior plasticizing activity compared to the isopropylphenyl
homolog, but when diluted with a phthalate plasticizer, its activity is
adequate, and it has some advantages of thermooxidative stability [28].
It has good flame retardant activity and imparts rapid gelation
characteristics to PVC plastisol formulations as well as good resistance
to microbial damage.
The triaryl phosphates are more costly and somewhat less effective as
plasticizers than the common dialkyl phthalate plasticizers. Plasticized
PVC usually is under price constraints, so compounders of plasticized
PVC will typically use mostly the dialkyl phthalate, mixed with no more
of the triaryl phosphate than is needed to comfortably pass whatever
flammability requirements must be met. In general, the more highly
plasticized the formulation, the higher the ratio of phosphate to
phthalate to meet a given flame retardancy; in an unfilled plastisol
system with 80 parts of plasticizer per 100 parts of resin, 25% of the
triaryl phosphate in the plasticizer mix (20 phr) is suggested as a
minimum.
Calendered Vinyls
Component phr
PVC 100
Diisodecyl phthalate 26
Phosphate ester 20
Sb2O3 2–4
Zinc borate 5–10
ATH 10–15
CaCO3 40
Stearic acid 0.3
Stabilizer 3–5
Component phr
PVC 100
Diisodecyl phthalate 70–80
CaCO3 25–50
Epoxidized soybean oil 5
Stabilizer 3
Sb2O3 1.5–2.0
Zinc borate 1.5–2.0
Component phr
Table 8. PVC plenum wire formulation for low flammability and low smoke.
Vinyl Flooring
Vinyl sheet flooring usually has two vinyl layers on a fibrous backing,
the lower layer being plasticized usually with a phosphate (triaryl or
alkyl diphenyl) plus butyl benzyl phthalate. The top (wear layer) usually
has a low level of flammable plasticizer so that it does not need a flame
retardant phosphate. Vinyl tile flooring usually does not need a flame
retardant because of the usually high filler level (calcium carbonate
and/or clay) and low level of plasticizer (such as butyl benzyl phthalate).
An acrylic or urethane topcoat is sometimes used but may be somewhat
adverse to flame retardancy.
CONCLUSIONS
German cities which banned its use in construction have for the most
part returned to its use. Green organizations continue to agitate against
PVC and halogenated products in general, largely based on obsolete
information regarding incineration and emissions, but the industry has
had some success in educating the public and government regarding the
safety of PVC. The objectionable cadmium stabilizers have been phased
out, and lead stabilizers which have caused some concern are being
gradually replaced.
Frequently updated data resources in support of PVC are available
on the Internet [38,40]. PVC in wire and cable has held its position
versus non-halogen alternatives except in situations where smoke and
combustion product corrosivity are dominant considerations, or where
‘green’ marketing strategies prevail. Large new manufacturing facilities
for PVC in the US are being planned [41]. New PVC facilities are also
being built or planned in Europe and Asia. Efforts are being made by
the vinyl industry, particularly in Europe where the challenge is most
intense, to lower the usage of lead-based stabilizers and to develop better
means for recycling of PVC [42]. These incompletely solved problems
have not prevented growth in the usage of PVC [43].
REFERENCES
1. Nass, L.I. and Heiberger, C.A. (1997). Encyclopedia of PVC, 2nd edn, Marcel
Dekker, New York.
2. Hirschler, M. (2005). Flammability and Fire Performance, In: Wilkes, C.E.,
Summers, J.W. and Daniels, C.A. (eds), PVC Handbook, Chapter 13,
pp. 419–482, Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich.
3. Paul, D.H. (1993). Flame Retardants and Smoke Suppressants for Flexible
Vinyl Compounds, J. Vinyl Technol., 15(3): 153–158.
4. Weil, E.D. and Lewin, M. (2000). Synergists, Adjuvants and Antagonists
in Flame Retardant Systems, In: Grand, A. and Wilkie, C. (eds), Fire
Retardancy of Polymeric Materials, pp. 116–137, Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
New York.
5. Jakupca, M.R., Harr, M.E. and Jennings, T. (2000). Improved Chlorinated
Paraffin Secondary Plasticizer Compositions, In: Annual Tech. Conf.,
ANTEC Conf. Proceedings, Vol. 3, pp. 3083–3086.
6. Chen, T. (Huber Corp.) (2003). Comparison of Ground vs. Precipitated Fine
Alumina Trihydrate for Flame Retardant Wire and Cable Applications,
In: 52nd International Wire & Cable Symposium/Focus, Philadelphia,
Nov. 17–20.
7. Thomas, N.L. and Harvey, R.J. (1999). Formulating Rigid PVC to Optimize
Flame Retardancy and Smoke Suppression, Polymers & Polymer Composites,
7(8): 545–553.
8. Mathis, T.C. and Morgan, A.W. (to Monsanto) (1975). US Patent 3,869,420.
9. Briggs, C.C., Hollingbery, L.A., Day, R.C. and Gilbert, M. (1997).
Optimizing Fire Properties of Plasticized Poly(vinyl chloride) Compounds,
Plastics, Rubber and Composites Processing and Applications, 26(2):
66–77.
10. Wickson, E.J. (1993). Handbook of Polyvinyl Chloride Formulating, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
11. Walker, J.K. (2001). Influence of Molybdates on Char Formation and Smoke
Suppression in PVC, In: Presented at Additives 2001, Hilton Head, SC,
March 18–21.
12. Innes, J. and Innes, A. (2004). Smoke Suppression in PVC Systems,
In: Vinyltec 2004 (SPE Conference), Iselin, NJ, Oct. 11–13.
13. Li, B. and Wang, J. (1997). Cone Calorimetric Study of Flame Retardance
and Smoke Emission of PVC, J. Fire Sci., 15(5): 341–357.
14. Li, B. (2002). A Study of the Thermal Decomposition and Smoke
Suppression of Poly(vinyl chloride) Treated with Metal Oxides using a
Cone Calorimeter at a High Incident Heat Flux, Polymer Degradation and
Stability, 78(2): 349–356.
15. McRowe, A.W. and Kroenke, W.J. (to B.F. Goodrich Co.) (1977). US Patent
4,053,453.
16. Starnes, Jr., W.H., Pike, R.D., Adams, C.W., Bunge, S.D., Kang, Y.M.,
Kim, A.S. and Kim, J.H. (1998). Smoke Suppression of PVC by Reductive
Crosslinking, In: Additives ’98 Conference, Orlando, FL, Feb.
17. McKee, D.W. (1986). Borate Treatment of Carbon Fibers and Carbon-Carbon
Composites for Improved Oxidation Resistance, Carbon, 24(6): 737–741.
18. Cusack, P., Cross, M. and Hornsby, P. (2002). Environmentally-friendly
Tin-based Fire Retardants, Flame Retardants 2002, London, Feb. 5–6,
83–88.
19. Thomas, N.L. (2003). Zinc Compounds as Flame Retardants and Smoke
Suppressants for Rigid PVC, Plastics, Rubber and Composites, 32(8–9):
413–419.
20. Herbert, M.J. (1996). Flame and Smoke Suppressants for PVC, British
Plastics and Rubber, June, 26–30.
21. Schartel, B., Kunze, R., Neubert, D. and Tidjani, A. (2002). ZnS as Fire
Retardant in Plasticized PVC, Polymer International, 51(3): 213–222.
22. Innes, J.D. (1996). Interaction of Smoke Suppressants with Other FR
Polymer System Components, In: Addcon ’96 Conference Proceedings,
Brussels, Paper 14.
23. Weil, E.D. (2004). Flame Retardants – Health, Safety and Environmental
Aspects, In: Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, 3rd edn,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY.
24. Moy, P. (2004). Flame Retardant Options for Vinyl Applications, In: Paper
given at Vinyltec Conference, Iselin, NJ.
25. Duke, A.J. (1978). The Significance of Isomerism and Complexity
of Composition on the Performance of Triaryl Phosphate Plasticizers
in PVC, Chimia, 32(12): 457–463.