Mass loss rate flammability properties

To further explore the influence of silica material properties (morphology, surface area, silanol concentration, and surface treatment) on the silica flame-retardant properties, various types of silicas (silica gel, fumed silicas, and fused silica) were investigated.50 51 Material properties of the various silicas are summarized in Table 8.6. These different types of silicas were added to polypropylene and polyethylene oxide to determine their flame-retardant effectiveness and mechanisms. Polypropylene was chosen as a non-char-forming thermoplastic, and polyethylene oxide was chosen as a polar slightly char-forming thermoplastic. Flammability properties were measured in the cone calorimeter and the mass loss rate was measured in the radiative gasification device in nitrogen to exclude any gas phase oxidation reactions. 

Figures 8.13 and 8.14 show the HRR and mass loss rate of the polypropylene samples with each silica additive. The addition of low density, large surface area silica, such as fumed silicas and silica gel, to PP and PEO significantly reduced the HRR and mass loss rate. However, the addition of fused silica did not reduce the flammability properties as much as other silicas.

The RHR plots for PP-MAPP-Cloisite 20A nanocomposite and PP at 35 kW/m heat flux shown in Figure indicate a 60% - decrease of peak of RHR (Fig. 11). Comparison of the Cone calorimeter data PP and PP-MAPP- 7% Cloisite 20A reveals that the specific heat of combustion (He), specific extinction area (SEA), a measure of smoke yield, and carbon monoxide yields are practically unchanged this suggests that the source of the improved flammability properties of these materials is due to differences in condensed-phase decomposition processes and not to a gas-phase effect. The primary parameter responsible for the lower RHR of the nanocomposites is the mass loss rate (MLR) during combustion, which is significantly reduced from the value observed for the pure PP (Fig. 12). It is supposed, that this effect is caused by ability to initiate the formation of char barrier on a surface of burning polymeric nanocomposites that drastically limits the heat and mass transfer in a burning zone. 

A trend that has already begun to arise is the use of multiple types of nanofillers in the same polymer to yield a multicomponent nanocomposite. Some workers have found that some types of nanofillers cannot bring all of the desired properties to the final material, so clays have been combined with multiwall carbon nanotubes to bring enhanced properties.The observation for most polymer additives is that they cannot be used for all applications in all polymers, and the same observation will surely be made about nanocomposites. A clay may be used to enhance the flammability performance, bnt it could also be combined with a conductive nanoflller to impart antistatic aspects or electrical conductivity in the final system. One potential way to look at the use of multiple nanoparticles is that each nanoparticle plays a complementary role in flammability reduction. For example, one could choose a clay for mass loss rate or fuel release reduction, but then use a colloidal particle to flu in the gaps between clay plates as the nanocomposite thermally decomposes. Perhaps even more useful, the colloidal particle could have catalytic or flame retardant properties that encourage... 

Cone calorimetry is another most eflfective bench-scale method for studying the flammability properties of materials. The cone calorimeter measures fire-relevant properties such as HRR, mass loss rate (MLR) and smoke yield, among others. 

The flammability properties of a solid-phase flame retardant can be the result of the formation of carbon residue with silicate layer present in it. The resulting incomplete combustion is reflected in a lower specific heat of combustion and higher CO yield. The primary parameter responsible for the lower HRR of the nanocomposite is the mass loss rate (MLR) during combustion, as shown in Figure 6.9. The MLR of the nanocomposite is significantly reduced from the values observed for the virgin polymer, and also the smoke production rate (SPR), as shown in Figure 6.10. 

A typical heat release rate curve for a neat epoxy system and the respective layered silicate nanocomposite, is shown in Fig. 2.12. Both peak and average heat release rate, as well as mass loss rates, are all significantly improved through the incorporation of the nanopartieles. In addition, no increase in specific extinction area (soot), CO yields or heat of combustion is noticeable. However, the mechanism of improved flame retardation is still not clear and no general agreement exists as to whether the intercalated or exfoliated structure leads to a better outcome. The reduced mass loss rate occurs only after the sample surface is partially covered with char. The major benefits of the use of layered silicates as a flame retardation additive is that the filler is more environmentally-friendly compared to the commonly used flame retardants and often improves other properties of the material at the same time. However, whilst the layered silicate strategy is not sufficient to meet the strict requirements for most of its application in the electrical and transportation industry, the use of layered silicates for improved flammability performance may allow the removal of a significant portion of conventional flame retardants. 

Koo and co-workers [78] attempted to develop polyamides 11 and 12 with enhanced flame retardancy and thermal and mechanical properties by the incorporation of montmorillonite clays, silica and carbon fibre-polymer nanocomposites. Flammability properties of the nanocomposites were compared with those of the virgin polyamides, using cone calorimetry with an external heat flux of 50 kW/m. Cone calorimetry was also used in an evaluation of polyamide 6 - anion modified Mg/Al interlayer formulation [79]. The data from the cone calorimeter shows that the heat production rate (HPR) and mass loss weight of the sample with 5 wt% MgAl(H-DS) decrease considerably to 664 kW/mVs and 0.161 g/mVs from 1064 kW/mVs and 0.252 g/mVs... 

There are usually many candidate solvents for any particular application. Important factors to consider are (1) the affinity of the solute for the solvent (i.e., its distribution coefficient should be large) (2) the affinity of other species in the mixture for the solvent (i.e., their distribution coefficients should be small) (3) solvent safety considerations (e.g., flammability and toxicity) (4) solvent handling properties such as density, viscosity, and vapor pressure (5) solvent solubility in the raffinate phase (high solubilities may translate into high solvent losses unless steps are taken to prevent such losses) and (6) solvent cost. In addition, liquid-liquid interfacial tension affects the interfacial area and the rate of mass transfer between the phases. 

---