| Literature DB >> 28883350 |
Li Chen1, Yu-Zhong Wang2.
Abstract
Aryl polyphosphonates (ArPPN) have been demonstrated to function in wide applications as flame retardants for different polymer materials, including thermosets, polycarbonate, polyesters and polyamides, particularly due to their satisfactory thermal stability compared to aliphatic flame retardants, and to their desirable flow behavior observed during the processing of polymeric materials. This paper provides a brief overview of the main developments in ArPPN and their derivatives for flame-retarding polymeric materials, primarily based on the authors' research work and the literature published over the last two decades. The synthetic chemistry of these compounds is discussed along with their thermal stabilities and flame-retardant properties. The possible mechanisms of ArPPN and their derivatives containing hetero elements, which exhibit a synergistic effect with phosphorus, are also discussed.Entities:
Keywords: aryl polyphosphonates; flame retardant; mechanism; thermal stability
Year: 2010 PMID: 28883350 PMCID: PMC5445785 DOI: 10.3390/ma3104746
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Effect of structural variations on flame-retardant activity of MC-ArPPN in PET and PBT [9].
| No. | R | R' | MC-ArPPN content (wt %) | Properties of the PET blends | Properties of the PBT blends | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P content (wt %) | LOI (vol%) | P content (wt %) | LOI (vol%) | ||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 17.0 | 0 | 16.5 | ||
| 1 | 5 | 0.54 | 18.6 | 0.60 | 18.7 | ||
| 10 | 1.30 | 21.0 | 1.27 | 19.4 | |||
| 2 | 5 | 0.48 | 18.9 | 0.64 | 18.1 | ||
| 10 | 1.53 | 22.0 | 1.17 | 19.4 | |||
| 3 | 10 | 1.09 | 18.8 | 0.83 | 18.3 | ||
Effect of molecular weight of poly(1,3-phenylene phenylphosphonate) (PPP) on flame retardance [9].
| Matrix | PPP content (wt %) | Intrinsic viscosity of PPP (dL/g) | Phosphorus content (wt %) | LOI (vol %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PET | 5 | 0.46 | 0.52 | 18.6 |
| 10 | 0.46 | 1.16 | 19.9 | |
| 5 | 0.17 | 0.54 | 18.6 | |
| 10 | 0.17 | 1.33 | 20.0 | |
| PBT | 5 | 0.46 | 0.58 | 18.7 |
| 10 | 0.46 | 1.19 | 20.4 | |
| 5 | 0.17 | 0.66 | 18.7 | |
| 10 | 0.17 | 1.30 | 20.7 |
Measured heat release capacities of BHDB-PPN and other reference materials.
| Sample | Heat release capacity (J/(g.K)) | Char yield at 800 °C (wt %) |
|---|---|---|
| BHDB-PPN | 81 ± 11 | 52.0 |
| polyethylene | 1676 | 0 |
| polystyrene | 927 | 0 |
| polycarbonate (BPA) | 359 | 21.7 |
| poly(ethylene terephthalate) | 332 | 5.1 |
| poly(vinyl chloride) | 138 | 15.3 |
| poly(2,6-dimethylene 1,4-phenyleneoxide) | 409 | 25.5 |
| poly(phenyl sulfone) | 153 | 38.4 |
| Vectra C LCP a | 164 | 40.6 |
a Vectra C LCP is a commercial liquid crystalline copolyester of hydroxybenzoic and hydroxynapthoic acids from Hoechst Celanese.
Flammability and thermal stability characterization of BHDB-poly(arylate-co-phosphonate) copolymers [15].
| iPC : PPC (molar ratio) | Heat release capacity (J/(g.K)) | Thermal stability parameters a | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 wt % loss temperature (°C) | Char yield at 800 °C (wt %) | ||
| 100:0 | 65 ± 5 | 340 | 45 |
| 77:23 | 48 ± 4 | 346 | 50 |
| 57:43 | 41 ± 3 | 383 | 56 |
| 46:54 | 36 ± 2 | 367 | 54 |
| 39:61 | 40 ± 3 | 390 | 57 |
| 23:77 | 59 ± 5 | 394 | 55 |
| 0:100 | 81 ± 11 | 397 | 52 |
a thermal stability parameters were obtained from TGA.
Flame retardancy of PC/PSPPP/SSK mixtures with different contents of the flame retardants [35].
| PC (wt %) | Flame retardants (wt %) | Flame retardancy | Charyield at 700 °C (wt %) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSPPP | SSK | LOI | UL-94 rating | ||
| 100 | 0 | 0 | 26.3 | V-2 | |
| 95 | 5 | 0 | 31.9 | V-2 | |
| 95 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 36.8 | V-0 | 18.2 |
| 95 | 4 | 1 | 35.2 | V-0 | 20.3 |
| 95 | 2 | 3 | 32.9 | V-0 | 16.5 |
| 95 | 0 | 5 | 33.0 | V-0 | |
Figure 1Activation energy (E) curves of neat PC and flame retardant PCs calculated according to Flynn method [35].
Test results of flammability and melt-dripping behaviors of PET/ArPPN blends during the UL-94 test [53].
| Sample | First ignition | Second ignition | UL-94 rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burning time (s) a | Observed dripping b | Burning time (s) | Observed dripping | ||
| PET/2% PDPTP | 0 | drip | 2 | drip | V-2 |
| PET/5% PDPTP | 0 | heavy | 0 | heavy | V-0 |
| PET/10% PDPTP | 0 | drip | 0 | drip | V-0 |
| PET/2% PDPPP | 0 | drip | 2 | drip | V-2 |
| PET/5% PDPPP | 0 | drip | 0 | drip | V-0 |
| PET/8% PDPPP | 0 | drip | 0 | drip | V-0 |
| PET/5% PDPPP/5% PSTPP | 0 | drip | 0 | drip | V-0 |
| PET/2% PSTPP | >180 | scarcely | none c | none | NR |
| PET/5% PSTPP | >180 | scarcely | none | none | NR |
| PET/10% PSTPP | >180 | no | none | none | NR |
| PET/20% PSTPP | 1 | no | 2 | no | V-0 |
a Average time to self-extinguishing after ignition;
b Indicated that samples did (yes) or did not (no) drip onto the cotton patch underneath the bar during the UL-94 test.
c There is no enough sample left after the first ignition, hence the second ignition cannot be carried out in that case.