| Literature DB >> 30974587 |
Francesco Branda1, Giulio Malucelli2, Massimo Durante3, Alessandro Piccolo4, Pierluigi Mazzei5, Aniello Costantini6, Brigida Silvestri7, Miriam Pennetta8, Aurelio Bifulco9.
Abstract
In this paper, for the first time, inexpensive waterglass solutions are exploited as a new, simple and ecofriendly chemical approach for promoting the formation of a silica-based coating on hemp fabrics, able to act as a thermal shield and to protect the latter from heat sources. Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) and solid-state Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) analysis confirm the formation of ⁻C⁻O⁻Si⁻ covalent bonds between the coating and the cellulosic substrate. The proposed waterglass treatment, which is resistant to washing, seems to be very effective for improving the fire behavior of hemp fabric/epoxy composites, also in combination with ammonium polyphosphate. In particular, the exploitation of hemp surface treatment and Ammonium Polyphosphate (APP) addition to epoxy favors a remarkable decrease of the Heat Release Rate (HRR), Total Heat Release (THR), Total Smoke Release (TSR) and Specific Extinction Area (SEA) (respectively by 83%, 35%, 45% and 44%) as compared to untreated hemp/epoxy composites, favoring the formation of a very stable char, as also assessed by Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA). Because of the low interfacial adhesion between the fabrics and the epoxy matrix, the obtained composites show low strength and stiffness; however, the energy absorbed by the material is higher when using treated hemp. The presence of APP in the epoxy matrix does not affect the mechanical behavior of the composites.Entities:
Keywords: cone calorimetry tests; flame retardancy; hemp/epoxy composites; solid-state NMR; three-point bending tests; vacuum bag molding; waterglass treatments
Year: 2016 PMID: 30974587 PMCID: PMC6431956 DOI: 10.3390/polym8080313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Samples investigated. APP, Ammonium Polyphosphate; H, untreated hemp fabrics; HT, waterglass-treated hemp fabrics.
| Symbol | Hemp fabric and epoxy composite samples | Amount of APP added to the epoxy (wt %) |
|---|---|---|
| H | Hemp fabrics | 0 |
| HT | Hemp fabrics treated with waterglass | 0 |
| H/E | Hemp fabrics/epoxy composite | 0 |
| HT/E | Hemp fabrics treated with waterglass/epoxy composite | 0 |
| H/E-15APP | Hemp fabrics/epoxy composite | 15 |
| HT/E-15APP | Hemp fabrics treated with waterglass/epoxy composite | 15 |
Figure 1Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectra of (a) untreated (black line); (b) after two (red) and (c) five (blue) soaking/drying cycles.
Figure 2Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images of: (a) untreated hemp fabric (scale bar: 10 μm); (b) hemp fabric after the waterglass treatment (scale bar: 3 μm).
Figure 3Solid-state Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectrum of untreated hemp fabric.
Figure 4Solid-state NMR spectra of untreated hemp fabric (blue) and hemp fabric after the waterglass treatment (red).
Figure 529Si NMR spectra of hemp (H, blue) and treated hemp (HT, red) samples acquired at a spin rate 10,000 Hz.
Figure 6Thermogravimetry (TG) (a) and dTG (b) curves in an inert atmosphere for hemp, before (black line) and after (red line) the waterglass treatment.
Thermogravimetry (TG) data obtained in an inert atmosphere.
| Sample | T5% (°C) | T10% (°C) | T50% (°C) | Tpeak (°C) | Residue at Tpeak (%) | Residue at 800 °C (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | 274 | 296 | 338 | 367 | 36 | 22 |
| HT | 264 | 283 | 324 | 342 | 43 | 30 |
| H/E | 221 | 274 | 342 | 357 | 41 | 9.9 |
| HT/E | 248 | 289 | 349 | 357 | 40 | 23 |
| H/E-15APP | 203 | 251 | 364 | 328 | 57 | 35 |
| HT/E-15APP | 264 | 383 | 344 | 319 | 60 | 32 |
Figure 7TG (a) and dTG (b) curves in an inert atmosphere for the investigated composite.
Results from cone calorimetry tests performed on hemp and on the different composites before and after the waterglass treatment. TTI, Time To Ignition; FO, time to Flame Out; HRR, Heat Release Rate; pkHRR, peak of the Heat Release Rate; THR, Total Heat Released.
| Sample | TTI (s) | FO (s) | HRR (kW/m2) | PkHRR (kW/m2) | THR (MJ/m2) | Residue mass (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | 28 ± 7.0 | 56 ± 2.5 | 13.2 ± 0.951 | 57.8 ± 9.77 | 1.80 ± 0.264 | 1 ± 0.6 |
| HT | 21 ± 2.6 | 45 ± 4.5 | 12.3 ± 1.48 | 51.8 ± 10.4 | 1.60 ± 0.252 | 4 ± 0.6 |
| E | 78 ± 6.9 | 166 ± 14.2 | 507 ± 120 | 1937 ± 119.3 | 95.8 ± 8.03 | 3 ± 0.6 |
| H/E | 55 ± 4.0 | 178 ± 11.9 | 402 ± 22.6 | 754 ± 85.7 | 61.3 ± 1.73 | 3 ± 0.6 |
| HT/E | 39 ± 4.0 | 187 ± 6.42 | 260 ± 13.3 | 642 ± 72.6 | 64.2 ± 4.65 | 6.71 ± 0.577 |
| H/E-15APP | 46 ± 8.1 | 336 ± 49.1 | 90 ± 12 | 259 ± 16.5 | 34.4 ± 1.47 | 28.7 ± 0.577 |
| HT/E-15APP | 44 ± 4.2 | 557 ± 97.1 | 68 ± 21 | 232 ± 45.1 | 40.1 ± 7.59 | 30.3 ± 0.577 |
Smoke results from cone calorimetry tests performed on hemp and on the different composites before and after the waterglass treatment. TSR, total smoke release; SEA, specific extinction area; ND, not detectable.
| Sample | TSR (m2/m2) | SEA (m2/kg) | CO yield (kg/kg) | CO2 yield (kg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| HT | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| E | 3,276 ± 449 | 849 ± 55.4 | 5.85 × 10−2 ± 4.91 × 10−3 | 1.96 ± 4.27 × 10−2 |
| H/E | 2,254 ± 77.3 | 735 ± 22.7 | 3.28 × 10−2 ± 1.08 × 10−3 | 1.69 ± 1.01 × 10−2 |
| HT/E | 2,094 ± 229 | 667 ± 43.7 | 4 × 10−2 ± 1 × 10−3 | 1.47 ± 7.37 × 10−2 |
| H/E-15APP | 938 ± 68.2 | 394 ± 33.3 | 5 × 10−2 ± 3 × 10−3 | 0.87 ± 2.6 × 10−1 |
| HT/E-15APP | 1,230 ± 52.6 | 413 ± 16.3 | 5 × 10−2 ± 2 × 10−3 | 1.02 ± 1.94 × 10−1 |
Figure 8Residue of H/E-15APP after cone calorimetry tests.
Figure 9Residue of HT/E-15APP after cone calorimetry tests.
Figure 10Stress-strain curves for the four types of composites: H/E sample, H/E-15APP sample, HT/E sample, HT/E-15APP sample.
Results from the three-point bending tests.
| Sample | Flexural modulus (MPa) | Flexural strength (MPa) | Maximum strain (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| H/E | 4,550 ± 260.1 | 109 ± 5.61 | 7.1 ± 6.7 × 10−1 |
| H/E-15APP | 4,590 ± 324.3 | 110 ± 6.12 | 6.9 ± 7.7 × 10−1 |
| HT/E | 4,340 ± 194.1 | 92 ± 4.8 | 8.5 ± 8.8 × 10−1 |
| HT/E-15APP | 4,460 ± 258.2 | 94 ± 5.2 | 8.2 ± 9.1 × 10−1 |
Figure 11Images of the fracture for the tensile stress in the section (a) (140×) and in the plane (b) (100×) view.