1978
DOI: 10.5254/1.3535782
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Smoke Properties of Highly Filled Ethylene-Propylene-Diene Terpolymer Rubbers

Abstract: The observations made in this work indicate the difficulty in extracting generalizations about how efficiently hydrates serve to control smoke levels in a fire situation which involves periods of pyrolysis and of combustion. In our opinion magnesium hydroxide deserves serious consideration as a smoke retardant for EPDM rubbers. This is based on its superior performance in the flaming smoke test, its moderately good performance in the early part of nonfiaming smoke test, its high LOI, and its reinforcing proper… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Formulations 5, 14 and 15 contained 50 wt.-% MDH and 1 wt.-% o-MMT; their relatively poor performance indicated the importance of factors such as rotor speed and MA-g-PP co-agent. Due to a low level of MDH [4][5][6] and o-MMT combined with poor mixing (low rotor speed and short mixing time) and an absence of MA-g-PP co-agent, Formulation 7 showed an even higher burn rate than the PP control. Interestingly Formulation 11 gave a substantially lower burn rate but was basically the same as Formulation 7.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Formulations 5, 14 and 15 contained 50 wt.-% MDH and 1 wt.-% o-MMT; their relatively poor performance indicated the importance of factors such as rotor speed and MA-g-PP co-agent. Due to a low level of MDH [4][5][6] and o-MMT combined with poor mixing (low rotor speed and short mixing time) and an absence of MA-g-PP co-agent, Formulation 7 showed an even higher burn rate than the PP control. Interestingly Formulation 11 gave a substantially lower burn rate but was basically the same as Formulation 7.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may be due to modification of the burning process in the condensed phase owing to the high decomposition temperature of MDH. [6] The high MDH loading, together with high levels of filler-filler interaction and relatively low filler-matrix interaction, necessitates some form of interfacial modification; this can be via addition of functionalised versions of the matrix polymer. [7,8] However, the latter approach does not always lead to improved processing characteristics; Pre-treatment of the filler is often preferred, non-coupling (dispersant) type surface treatments are often used and result in the filler surface being covered in a carpet of alkyl chains.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This effect has been demonstrated in many polymers including styreneebutadiene copolymer [29], ethyleneepropyleneediene elastomers [30], polypropylene [14], polystyrene [31], modified polyphenylene oxide, polybutylene terephthalate, and ABS [13].…”
Section: Smoke Reductionmentioning
confidence: 98%