| Literature DB >> 31615046 |
Na Wang1,2,3, Haiwei Teng4, Xinyu Zhang5, Jing Zhang8, Long Li7, Jing Zhang8, Qinghong Fang9,10.
Abstract
A k-carrageenan-iron complex (KC-Fe) was synthesized by complexation between degraded KC and FeCl3. Furthermore, KC-Fe and ammonium polyphosphate (APP) were simultaneously added into waterborne epoxy (EP) to improve its flame retardancy and smoke suppression performance. The structure and properties of KC-Fe were assessed using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), ultraviolet (UV) spectroscopy, thermo gravimetric analysis (TGA), and X-ray powder diffraction analysis (XRD). The analysis showed that KC-Fe was successfully synthesized and exhibited good thermal properties with a 49% char residue at 800 °C. The enhanced flame retardancy and smoke suppression performance of waterborne epoxy were evaluated using a limiting oxygen index (LOI) and UL-94. Moreover, the flame retardancy of waterborne epoxy coated on a steel plate was also investigated using cone calorimetry. The results showed that the flame-retardant waterborne epoxy blend exhibited the best flame retardancy when the mass ratio of APP and KC-Fe was 2:1. The total heat release (THR) and total smoke production (TSP) was decreased by 44% and 45%, respectively, which indicated good fire safety performance and smoke suppression properties. Analysis of the residual char using FTIR, SEM, and elemental analysis (EDS) indicated that the action of KC-Fe was promoted by the presence of APP. The formation of a dense thermal stable char layer from an intumescent coating was essential to protect the underlying materials.Entities:
Keywords: APP; flame retardancy; k-carrageenan; waterborne epoxy
Year: 2019 PMID: 31615046 PMCID: PMC6836092 DOI: 10.3390/polym11101677
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Preparation of the k-carrageenan–iron complex (KC–Fe) sample.
Formulation of coatings.
| Sample | Waterborne Epoxy Resin/g | Curing Agent/g | KC–Fe/g | APP/g |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pure EP | 10.71 | 4.29 | - | - |
| EP/30APP | 7.50 | 3.00 | - | 4.50 |
| EP/30KC–Fe | 7.50 | 3.00 | 4.50 | - |
| EP/30APP–KC–Fe (5:1) | 7.50 | 3.00 | 0.75 | 3.75 |
| EP/30 APP–KC–Fe (2:1) | 7.50 | 3.00 | 1.50 | 3.00 |
| EP/30 APP–KC–Fe (1:1) | 7.50 | 3.00 | 2.25 | 2.25 |
Figure 2(a) Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectra of KC and KC–Fe; the UV spectra of (b) KC, (c) FeCl3, and (d) KC–Fe.
Figure 3Thermogravimetric analysis and DTG curve of KC and KC–Fe under N2. (The top two lines belong to the left y-axis; the bottom two lines belong to the right y-axis).
Figure 4X-ray powder diffraction analysis (XRD) pattern of residual substances after complete combustion of KC–Fe.
Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) and DTG data of FR-EP in an N2 atmosphere.
| Sample | C800 (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| EP | 352 | 389 | 11.3 |
| EP/30APP | 317 | 325 | 30.6 |
| EP/30KC–Fe | 306 | 337 | 28.6 |
| EP/30APP–KC–Fe (1:1) | 304 | 335 | 36.1 |
| EP/30APP–KC–Fe (2:1) | 308 | 327 | 35.1 |
| EP/30APP–P–KC (5:1) | 317 | 326 | 32.1 |
Figure 5Thermogravimetric analysis and DTG curves of FR-EP under N2. (a) The top four lines belong to the left y-axis; the bottom four lines belong to the right y-axis; (b) the top three lines belong to the left y-axis; and the bottom three lines belong to the right y-axis.
Limited oxygen index (LOI) and UL-94 test results of different samples.
| Sample | LOI/% | UL-94 |
|---|---|---|
| EP | 18.6 | No rating |
| EP/30APP | 30.2 | No rating |
| EP/30KC–Fe | 22.8 | No rating |
| EP/30 APP–KC–Fe (1:1) | 24.3 | V-2 |
| EP/30 APP–KC–Fe (2:1) | 29.5 | V-1 |
| EP/30 APP–KC–Fe (5:1) | 27.3 | V-1 |
Figure 6(a) The heat release rate (HRR) curves of the pure waterborne epoxy (EP) and FR-EP; (b) THR curves of the pure waterborne epoxy (EP) and FR-EP; (c) SPR curves of the pure waterborne epoxy (EP) and FR-EP; and (d) TSP curves of the pure waterborne epoxy (EP) and FR-EP.
Cone calorimetry data for the pure EP and FR-EP.
| Sample | pHRR | THR | COP | TSP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP | 434.5 | 19.3 | 0.0146 | 3.7990 |
| EP/30APP | 300.9 | 11.4 | 0.0174 | 2.5270 |
| EP/30KC–Fe | 299.4 | 12.0 | 0.0039 | 1.5406 |
| EP/30APP–KC–Fe (1:1) | 253.8 | 11.4 | 0.0063 | 2.6448 |
| EP/30 APP–KC–Fe (2:1) | 213.2 | 10.9 | 0.0058 | 2.0988 |
| EP/30 APP–KC–Fe (5:1) | 215.4 | 11.1 | 0.0059 | 2.3044 |
Figure 7Fire performance index (FPI) (black columns) and FGI (purple columns) values for the pure waterborne epoxy (EP) and FR-EP at a flux of 50 kW/m2.
Figure 8FTIR spectra of char from EP and FR-EP.
Figure 9Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrographs of chars after LOI test. (a) EP; (b) EP/30APP; (c) EP/30KC–Fe; and (d) EP/30APP–KC–Fe (2:1).