| Literature DB >> 29329212 |
Anabel Palacios1, Alvaro De Gracia2, Laia Haurie3, Luisa F Cabeza4, A Inés Fernández5, Camila Barreneche6.
Abstract
The implementation of organic phase change materials (PCMs) in several applications such as heating and cooling or building comfort is an important target in thermal energy storage (TES). However, one of the major drawbacks of organic PCMs implementation is flammability. The addition of flame retardants to PCMs or shape-stabilized PCMs is one of the approaches to address this problem and improve their final deployment in the building material sector. In this study, the most common organic PCM, Paraffin RT-21, and fatty acids mixtures of capric acid (CA), myristic acid (MA), and palmitic acid (PA) in bulk, were tested to improve their fire reaction. Several flame retardants, such as ammonium phosphate, melamine phosphate, hydromagnesite, magnesium hydroxide, and aluminum hydroxide, were tested. The properties of the improved PCM with flame retardants were characterized by thermogravimetric analyses (TGA), the dripping test, and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The results for the dripping test show that fire retardancy was considerably enhanced by the addition of hydromagnesite (50 wt %) and magnesium hydroxide (50 wt %) in fatty acids mixtures. This will help the final implementation of these enhanced PCMs in building sector. The influence of the addition of flame retardants on the melting enthalpy and temperatures of PCMs has been evaluated.Entities:
Keywords: differential scanning calorimetry (DSC); dripping test; flame retardants; phase change materials (PCMs); thermal energy storage (TES)
Year: 2018 PMID: 29329212 PMCID: PMC5793615 DOI: 10.3390/ma11010117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1PCM classification adapted from Abhat [8] regarding the PCM type available within the temperature range of 20 to 30 °C.
Properties of PCM used on this study (from literature).
| Compound | Melting Temperature (°C) | Heat of Fusion (kJ/kg) | Thermal Conductivity (W/m·°C) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paraffin RT-21 | 21 [ | 100 [ | 0.2 [ |
| 73.5% Capric acid + 26.5% Myristic acid | 24.1 [ | 152 [ | n.a |
| 75.2% Capric acid + 24.8% Palmitic acid | 22.1 [ | 153 [ | n.a |
Properties of tested flame retardant [24,29].
| Compound | Method | Onset Decomposition Temperature (°C) | Enthalpy of Decomposition (kJ/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aluminum hydroxide | Endothermic decomposition | 180 | 1300 |
| Magnesium hydroxide | Endothermic decomposition | 340 | 1450 |
| Hydromagnesite | Endothermic decomposition | 200 | 800 |
| APP | Char forming | 190 | - |
| IFR | Char forming | 190 | - |
Flame retardant formulations.
| Formulations |
|---|
| PCM + (15%-20%-25%-40%) APP |
| PCM + (40%-50%-60%) Hydromagnesite |
| PCM + (40%-50%-60%) Magnesium hydroxide |
| PCM + (40%-50%-60%) Aluminum hydroxide |
| PCM + (15%-20%-25%) IFR |
Figure 2Derivative thermogravimetric curves of the PCM.
Figure 3Heat released rate curves vs. temperature for organic PCM under study.
Dripping test results for PCM.
| Flame Retardant (wt %) | Ignition Time (s) | N° of Ignitions | Average Combustion Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | 1 | 300 | |
| 60% Paraffin + 40% APP | 20 | 3 | 82 |
| 50% Paraffin + 50% HM | 26 | 1 | 293 |
| 60% Paraffin + 20% IFR | 50 | 2 | 239 |
| 50% Paraffin + 50% Al(OH)3 | 27 | 1 | 288 |
| 50% Paraffin + 50% Mg(OH)2 | 26 | 1 | 286 |
| 19 | 1 | 200 | |
| 80% (CA + MA) + 20% APP | 12 | 2 | 109 |
| 50% (CA + MA) + 50% HM | 14 | 15 | 8 |
| 80% (CA + MA) + 20% IFR | 21 | 2 | 102 |
| 50% (CA + MA) + 50% Al(OH)3 | 19 | 2 | 117 |
| 50% (CA + MA) + 50% Mg(OH)2 | 24 | 17 | 4 |
| 12 | 1 | 224 | |
| 80% (CA + PA) + 20% APP | 10 | 2 | 104 |
| 50% (CA + PA) + 50% HM | 9 | 17 | 7 |
| 80% (CA + PA) + 20% IFR | 16 | 3 | 106 |
| 50% (CA + PA) + 50% Al(OH)3 | 14 | 1 | 322 |
| 50% (CA + PA) + 50% Mg(OH)2 | 32 | 26 | 4 |
Figure 4Legend of the parameters to comprehend the graph (above) and ignition-extinction periods for CA + MA mixture formulation with flame retardants (below). (a) Fire performance of capric and myristic eutectic with 50 wt % magnesium hydroxide; (b) Fire performance of capric and myristic eutectic with 50 wt % hydromagnesite; (c) Fire performance of capric and myristic eutectic with 20 wt % APP; (d) Fire performance of capric and myristic eutectic mixture. t: ignition time; t: extinction time; t: combustion time.
DSC of PCM-fire retardant optimum combination results.
| Compositions | Melting Enthalpy (kJ/kg) | Peak Temperature (°C) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paraffin RT-21 | 118 ± 3 | 22.3 ± 0.2 | |
| 73.5% Capric acid + 26.5% Myristic acid | 143 ± 3 | 24.1 ± 0.2 | |
| 75.2% Capric acid + 24.8% Palmitic acid | 141 ± 3 | 23.3 ± 0.2 | |
| 60% Paraffin RT-21 + 40% APP | 111 ± 4 | 22.6 ± 0.2 | |
| 50% CA + MA + 50% Hydromagnesite | 53 ± 3 | 22.0 ± 0.2 | |
| 50% CA + MA + 50% Magnesium hydroxide | 55 ± 3 | 24.4 ± 0.2 | |
| 50% CA+PA + 50% Hydromagnesite | 56 ± 1 | 19.0 ± 0.6 | |
| 50% CA+PA + 50% Magnesium hydroxide | 55 ± 2 | 23.0 ± 0.2 |