Summarization of EG production

Polyol > 3000 mol

EG ~ 25 *picture see at the end of this document*
MC ~ 5 - using T80/20 only 1.5 – 2.0
FR max. 20ppm Fe content
FR max. 0,1 ppm Mo
FR tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (FYROL CEF, ANTIBLAZE 79,
DISFLAMOLL TCEP)
FR tris(1-chloro-2-propyl)phosphate (FYROL PCF, ANTIBLAZE 80), reactive AP
(ammonium phosphate) the best Exolit AP – Levaguard PP - Firemaster 600
EG GrafTech 373 pH < 6
EG Carbofil PU 200 pH < 6
EG CGT Cg-HP03 pH < 6
EG Ashbury 3721 pH < 6

All expansion rates must be > 250

All pH values must be < 6 best pH 4

All pH values must be controlled as during storage the value will increase.
Fixing must be done best with sulphuric acid as the intercalated moiety, as expansion of
the graphite is increased by partial oxidation of the carbon structure of the polymer by
the oxidizing acid which also produces gases ostensibly acting as a blowing agent.

All normally have a good shelf life in the formulations.

Unit parameter:
Stirrer 5.000 – 5.300 (verification at the trough)
To low speed will generate non uniform cell size problems.
To high speed will destroy the laminar structure of EG (so less expansion).
Sink back a must because of homogeneous density.
Reactant tanks must be without dispersed air.

Formulation parameter:
Expansion temperature must be higher than the inside temperature during the foaming
reaction – otherwise the EG starts expanding during foaming.
Surface flames don’t have such high temperatures so the material still burns as EG is
in that range only like a filler. So we’ve to add FR agents to the formulation.
If the tests are based on radiant heat the EG is working alone.

The higher the isocyanurate index, the less the required flame retardant level to meet
a standard.

Non ozone-depleting blowing agents containing halogen can allow for less flame
retardant or with a high enough isocyanurate content, no flame retardant at all.
Example is 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane, available as ENOVATE 3000 (HFC-245fa) or
Solvay’s HFC-365mfc.
Don’t use hydrated alumina (ATH) as high loadings are needed, thus ATH tends to
have problems of density, serious effects on mechanical properties, and settling prior
to and during the foaming process.

Silicone surfactants have a complex action on flammability by virtue of their effect in

controlling cell opening and cell size. Besides their effects during foaming, the
surfactants can affect melt rheology under flame exposure conditions.
The silicone surfactants can actually increase flammability, or in other words, may
require that more FR be added to obtain a desired level of flame retardancy. One of
the ways a surfactant can affect flammability is by its effect on cell opening and air
flow, a complex and concentration dependent effect.
A substantial minimizing of the requisite level of flame retardant is made possible by
the use of a silicone surfactant of a type like L-5740 and L-5750, DABCO DC5980, or
from Byk Chemie SILBYK family of silicone surfactants.
All producers which have to make foams passing the horizontal burn classification
UL 94 HF1 often prefers to avoid silicone surfactants.
Two explanations bear upon the question of the deleterious effect on flammability seen
with less optimum silicones:
One is that degradation products of the silicone reduce melt viscosity, make more drips
of smaller diameter, with more surface to have air access and to.
Another explanation, rather different, is that the silicone burns to silica which acts as a
wick, stabilizing the flame; this effect can be demonstrated by applying powdered silica
(or almost any other infusible powder) to a test specimen of flexible foam flame
retarded with a chloroalkyl phosphate.