4.7 Article

A rational design of functionalized black phosphorus cooperates with piperazine pyrophosphate to significantly suppress the fire hazards of polypropylene

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 314, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137686

关键词

Fire safety; Piperazine pyrophosphate; Black phosphorus; Substitution; Mechanical properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on the molecular polarity perspective, hyperbranched charring foaming agents (HCFA) modified black phosphorus nanosheets (BP@PPC) were used to solve the fire hazards of polypropylene (PP) through in situ polymerization. The addition of BP@PPC significantly decreases the total heat release (THR) and peak heat release (PHRR) of PP, with almost no impact on the mechanical properties of the material.
The flammability of polypropylene (PP) not only has negative effects on human health but also causes environmental pollution. Herein, from the molecular polarity point of view, rationally designed hyperbranched charring foaming agents (HCFA) modified black phosphorus nanosheets by in situ polymerization to solve the fire hazards of PP. Based on the UL-94 test V-0 rating, the conventional flame retardant of piperazine pyrophosphate (PAPP) is substituted partly by the BP@PPC. Surprisingly, compared with 27 wt% of PAPP/PP, composites consisting of only 2 wt% of BP@PPC and 20 wt% PAPP/PP also passes the V-0 rating. The results of the cone calorimeter test confirmed that adding BP@PPC decreases the total heat release (THR) and peak heat release (PHRR) by a large amount, which are decreased by 23.4%, 85.8% respectively compared with PP. Moreover, it is uncommon for the fire growth index of BP@PPC composites to be 66.7% lower than that of PAPP/PP composites. In addition, the incorporation of BP@PPC has almost no impact on the mechanical characteristics of PP composites. This study offers a reference for combining established flame retardants with novel compounds to modify the burning behaviors of PP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据