| Literature DB >> 32272648 |
Daniel A Villamil Watson1, David A Schiraldi1.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: bio-based; flame retardants; protein; tannins; thermal stability
Year: 2020 PMID: 32272648 PMCID: PMC7240707 DOI: 10.3390/polym12040849
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Thermal energy transfers [8].
Figure 2Thermal stability of chlorine, bromine, and antimony additives [7].
Scheme 1Outline of this review.
Scheme 2Protein additives.
Figure 3TGA analysis of chicken eggshell (CES) [26].
Figure 4Time temperature curves for Eurocode, (a) protected and (b) unprotected steel plates [26].
Figure 5SEM of whey-protein-treated cotton [40].
Figure 6SEM of denatured whey-protein-treated Cotton [41].
Vertical burning results for casein and hydrophobin-treated cotton [36].
| Sample | Total Burning Time (s) | Burning Rate (mm/s) | Residue (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| COT | 72 | 1.5 | - |
| COT_caseins | 100 | 1.0 | 34 |
| COT_hydrophobins | 104 | 1.1 | 19 |
Figure 7CC HRR curves for cotton, casein, and hydrophobin-treated cotton [36].
Figure 8Casein-treated cotton residue SEM [36].
TGA and LOI data for PET–cotton bend treated with caseins [11].
| Residue at 600 °C (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Under Nitrogen | Under Air | LOI | |
| PET | 14 | 0 | 21 |
| PET + 20% Caseins | 22 | 2 | 26 |
| PET-Cotton | 15 | 1 | 19 |
| PET-Cotton + 20% Caseins | 22 | 2 | 21 |
TGA analysis for casein and hydrophobin-treaded cotton [36].
| Residue at 600 °C (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nitrogen | Air | Nitrogen | Air | |
| Cotton | 329 | 324 | 8 | <1 |
| Cotton-Casein | 285 | 275 | 18 | 2 |
| Cotton-Hydrophobin | 295 | 292 | 19 | 4 |
Figure 9Hydrophobin-treated cotton residue SEM [36].
Scheme 3Amino acid and oil additives.
Layer-by-Layer (LbL) inorganic/organic systems [9].
| Positive Counterpart | Negative Counterpart | Main Results | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chitosan | Ammonium polyphosphate (APP) | Suppression of the afterglow phenomenon for cotton-rich (70%)—polyester blend; 20BLs are able to reduce the THR (−22%) and PHRR (−25%), assessed by cone calorimetry | [ |
| Alumina-coated silica nanoparticles | Ammonium polyphosphate (APP) | Suppression of the afterglow phenomenon for cotton-rich (70%)—polyester blend; 10BLs are able to increase the TTI (+40%) and reduce the THR (−15%), assessed by cone calorimetry | [ |
| Poly(allylamine) | Poly(sodium phosphate) | 10BLs induce a significant decrease of the THR and PHRR when deposited on cotton fabrics (−80% and −60%, respectively), assessed by microcombustion calorimetry | [ |
| Chitosan | Phytic acid | 30BLs applied to cotton were able to block the flame propagation on cotton and to reduce PHRR of 50% as assessed by microcone calorimeter | [ |
| An amino derivative of poly(acrylic acid) | Sodium montmorillonite | 20BLs favour an increase of TTI (ca. +40%) and a reduction of THR and PHRR when applied to cotton fabrics (−50% and −18%, respectively) | [ |
| A derivative of polyacrylamide | Graphene oxide | 20BLs favour an increase of TTI (ca. +56%) and a reduction of PHRR when applied to cotton fabrics (−50%) | [ |
Scheme 4Carbohydrates.
Cellulosic fiber compositions [39].
| Fiber Source | Typical (Averaged wt %) Cellulose | Compositions 1 Hemicellulose | Lignin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jute | 66 | 17 | 13 |
| Flax | 71 | 20 | 2 |
| Hemp | 71 | 18 | 7 |
| Kenal 2 | 72 | 21 | 14 |
| Ramie | 72 | 15 | 1 |
| Sisal 3,4 | 69 | 12 | 10 |
| Abaca 3 | 60 | 23 | 10 |
| Pineapple Leaf | 76 | 0 | 9 |
| Date Palm Leaf | 46 | 28 | 20 |
| Curaua | 74 | 10 | 8 |
| Coir 2 | 38 | <1 | 43 |
| Oil Palm | 54 | 25 | 19 |
| Wheat Straw 5 | 44 | 25 | 18 |
| Corn Husk | 41 | 41 | 13 |
| Rice Straw 6 | 64 | 23 | 14 |
| Sugarcane Bagasse | 55 | 17 | 25 |
| Bamboo | 34 | 30 | 26 |
1 <2 wt % wax and <3 wt % pectin unless otherwise noted; 2 3–5 wt % pectin; 3 2–3 wt % wax; 4 10 wt % pectin; 5 8 wt % pectin; 6 8 wt % wax.
Categories of plant-based fibers [40].
| Category | Example Fibers |
|---|---|
| Bast | Flax, help, kenaf, jute, ramie |
| Leaf | Pineapple, banana, sisal, agave, palm |
| Grass | Bamboo, bagasse, reed, wheat, rice |
| Fruit | Luffa, coir |
| Wood | Hardwoods, softwoods (e.g., pine, fir) |
| Seed | Cotton, kapok |
Limiting-oxygen index (LOI) values (vol%) of common commercial polymers [40].
| Polymer | LOI |
|---|---|
| Polyethylene | 17 |
| Polypropylene | 17 |
| Polystyrene | 18 |
| Poly(butylene terephthalate) | 18 |
| Vinyl ester | 22 |
| Epoxy | 25 |
| Poly(ethylene terephthalate) | 26 |
| Nylon 6 | 26 |
| Nylon 6,6 | 26 |
| Polycarbonate | 26 |
| Poly(vinyl chloride) | 29 |
| Polysulfone | 30 |
| Acrylonitrile butacliene-styrene | 32 |
| Poly(ether sulfone) | 35 |
| Polyamide-imide | 46 |
| Polyether-imide | 46 |
| Poly(phenylene sulfide) | 49 |
| Poly(vinyliclene chloride) | 60 |
| Polytetrafluoroethylene | 90 |
Scheme 5Polyphenols & Polyhydroxyphenols.
Figure 10Mimosa tannin extract base units [81].
Mechanical properties of plywood [81].
| Shear Strength (N/mm2) | Modulus of Elasticity (N/mm2) | Modulus of Break (N/mm2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry | Wet | |||
| Uncoated | 3.7 | 2.9 | 885 | 90 |
| Coated | 4.5 | 3.5 | 764 | 100 |
Bending data [84].
| Wood Species | Tannin Solution (%) | Young’s Modulus (MPa) | Maximum Flex (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scots Pine | 0 | 99 | 10 |
| 10 | 112 | 7 | |
| 20 | 121 | 10 | |
| European Beech | 0 | 124 | 11 |
| 10 | 157 | 10 | |
| 20 | 146 | 9 |
Pine and beech flame exposure results [85].
| Treatment | Flame Time (s) | Ember Time (min) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ignition Time (s) | 2 min | 3 min | 2 min | 3 min | ||||||
| Pine | Beech | Pine | Beech | Pine | Beech | Pine | Beech | Pine | Beech | |
| None | 12 | 12 | 140 | 250 | 120 | 310 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 13 |
| 10% Tannin | 75 | 40 | 35 | 60 | 130 | 180 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 11 |
| 20% Tannin | >120 | 75 | 20 | 15 | 80 | 80 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 10 |
| 20% Tannin/1% Boric Acid | >120 | >120 | 25 | 25 | 30 | 90 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 20% Tannin/1% Phosphoric Acid | >120 | >120 | 15 | 22 | 27 | 80 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
Dripping and ignition results [83].
| Treatment | First Ignition Time (s) | No. of Ignitions | Combustion Extent (s) | % Solid Retention |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| None | 23 | 3.3 | 109 | - |
| 10% Tannins + H3BO3 | 25 | 9.5 | 20 | 18 |
| 20% Tannins + H3BO3 | 36 | 14.7 | 12 | 32 |
| 10% Tannins + H3BO3 H3PO4 | 27 | 13.3 | 16 | 16 |
| Disodium Octaborate (4 H2O) | 114 | 12 | 3 | 49 |
Ignition and ember time results [83].
| Treatment | Ignition Time (s) | Flame Time/2 min (s) | Ember Time/2 min (min) |
|---|---|---|---|
| None | 12 | 140 | 4 |
| 20% Tannins + H3BO3 | 110 | 25 | 0.8 |
| 20% Tannins + H3BO3 H3PO4 | 120 | 15 | 0.9 |
| Disodium Octaborate (4 H2O) | none | none | none |
Figure 11Tannin types: profisetinidin (quebracho), prorobinetinidin (mimosa), and prodelphinidin and procyanidin (pine) [80].
Figure 12X-ray μCT imaging of varying concentration foams showing the solid backbone (left) and cells as seen from the solid bodies (right) as a function of % tannins; (a,f) 39%; (b,g) 35%; (c,h) 40%; (d,i) 45%; (e,j) 50% [84].
Figure 13(a): Thermal conductivity; (b) compressive modulus; and (c) stress–strain curves [84].
Figure 14(a): Thermal conductivity, (b) compressive modulus, and (c) stress–strain curves [80].