A Systematic Investigation on the Influence of Intumescent Flame Retardants on the Properties of Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA)/Liner Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) Blends

Abstract

Because of their high filler loadings, commercial-grade clean flame-retardant materials have unstable mechanical properties. To address this issue, intumescent polymers can be used to develop clean flame retardants with very low levels of smoke and toxicity generation. An intumescent flame retardant (IFR) system composed of red phosphorus (RP), zinc borate (ZB), and a terpolymer of ethylene, butyl acrylate, and maleic anhydride (EBM) was used to prepare EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate) and EVA/LLDPE (linear low-density polyethylene) composites; their mechanical and flammability properties were systematically investigated. The limiting oxygen index (LOI) of the EVA/LLDPE (as base material) composite containing RP and ZB mixed with nonhalogenated flame retardant, mainly magnesium hydroxide (MH) and coadditives, including processing aids and thermal stabilizers, was established. RP was found to have little effect on the tensile properties of EVA/LLDPE 118W/120 phr flame-retardant (MH + RP) composites. There was a minute difference in the effective trend of RP between tensile strength and elongation at break. Following the addition of ZB, the elongation at break of the composites gradually decreased with increasing RP content and then leveled off when the RP content was over 10 phr. Mechanical properties (elongation at break and tensile strength) can be best maintained at below 10 phr content of RP. The mechanical properties decreased with lower amounts of EBM content. In addition, flame retardancy increased when the EBM content decreased. The findings further revealed that MH and RP have poor compatibility, yielding poor mechanical properties. The LOI greatly increased with RP content, even though the total content of flame retardants (main + intumescent flame retardant) was the same in all formulations. Only over 5 phr RP content formulations passed V-0 of the UL-94 test. When under 5 phr, the RP content formulations did not pass V-0 of the UL-94 test.