Untitled

Hoffmann, John M.; Hoffmann, D.P.; Kroll, EC; Kroll, MJ

doi:10.1023/a:1024137330248

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Flame-retardant chemicals are not the first line of defense against fire; they are the last line of defense, and when they get selected, they are selected because they are the cost-effective solution that makes sense for the fire risk scenario identified. Despite being the last choice, they are an important and useful one, and have been shown to provide good passive fire protection/fire control in a variety of fire risk scenarios (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14). They are, however, not universally appropriate for all fire risk scenarios and again are tailored for each flammable material they are placed into to defend against a specific fire risk scenario.…”

Section: When Flame Retardants Are Used the Use Of Flame Retardants Ismentioning

confidence: 99%

Flame Retardants: Overview

Morgan

Worku

2015

Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flame retardants are a class of chemicals utilized to provide fire safety performance to other materials, structures, and devices used in modern society. These chemicals are highly varied in molecular structure and chemistry and work by one of the following three main mechanisms: vapor‐phase combustion inhibition, endothermic cooling, or condensed‐phase char formation. The chemicals in use today fall into seven main chemical groups including halogenated, phosphorus based, mineral fillers, nitrogen based, intumescent materials, inorganic materials, and polymer nanocomposites. In this article, how flame retardants are used, how they work, and when to use them is discussed. From the article, it will be clear that flame retardants are chemicals employed to provide fire protection for specific materials in specific fire risk scenarios. Specifically, while the term “flame retardant” can cover a wide range of materials and chemicals, not all materials called flame retardants are effective in all materials and against all fire threats. Each flame retardant chemical must be tailored for its end use, and in this article, the criteria for flame retardant selection and use will be discussed in a general manner. This article serves as an overview of flame‐retardant technology from how they are used today, what chemistries are used, and what the future of this technology may be. The article is comprehensive in scope about what this chemical technology is, but cannot provide all of the essential details for proper use of these materials in end‐use fire safety applications. Still, guidance is provided in the article to help the reader to understand the breadth of the technology and where to go to learn more, or how to engage intelligently with fire safety engineers and fire safety scientists to develop fire‐safe materials.

show abstract

Section: When Flame Retardants Are Used the Use Of Flame Retardants Ismentioning

confidence: 99%

Flame Retardants: Overview

Morgan

Worku

2015

Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of the likelihood of flashover in room fires involving a flat screen TV and the effect of flame retardant treatment of the casing

Janssens

Schluneker

2022

Fire and Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study was performed to determine through computer fire modeling up to what extent a room fire in which a flat screen television is the first major item ignited is more likely to result in flashover if the television casing is not treated with flame retardants. This was accomplished by quantifying the risk of flashover in a living room or bedroom due to a fire in which a flat screen television is the first major item ignited, and by calculating the ratio of the risk measures for televisions with untreated casing versus those with flame retardant treated casing. This ratio is an indication of the increased likelihood of flashover should flame retardant treated television casings be replaced with untreated casings. The results of the risk quantification indicate that living room fires initiated with a flat screen television are between 4.2 and 15.2 times more likely to result in flashover when the casing is not treated with flame retardants compared to a flame retardant treated television. For fires in the (master) bedroom, the relative likelihood is between 4.1 and 15.5. The relative likelihood of flashover is slightly lower for apartments than for single family homes.The calculated ratio varies depending on the assumed probability that the ignition source is sufficiently severe to ignite a television with flame retardant treated casing.fire modeling, fire risk assessment, flame retardants, flashover, television fires | INTRODUCTIONComparative furniture calorimeter and room fire testing over the past 35 years has demonstrated that television (TV) sets in the United States are much more difficult to ignite and, when ignited, release heat at a significantly lower rate than European TVs. [1][2][3][4][5] The primary reason for the difference in fire performance is that in the United States, the casing needs to have a UL 94 V-0 rating while a less stringent HB rating is required in Europe. To achieve a V-0 rating, the casing material, typically high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), needs to be treated with flame retardants (FR). FR treatment is generally not needed to meet the HB rating requirements.Table 1 shows some select results from three comparative studies. The peak heat release rate (HRR) is indicative of the hazard associated with a TV fire. Table 1 indicates that total mass loss measurements in the earlier studies, involving then popular cathode-ray tube (CRT) TVs, are comparable to the mass loss measurements from the recent study, which involved now popular flat screen TVs. It should be noted that the TV contents were removed prior to testing

show abstract

Cone calorimeter analysis of UL‐94 V‐rated plastics

Morgan¹,

Bundy²

2006

Fire and Materials

211

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYCone calorimeter analysis was conducted on 18 thermoplastics with different UL-94 vertical burn test (V) ratings. Ratings varied from V-0 to no rating (NR), and the types of thermoplastics included were polycarbonate (PC), acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), PC/ABS blends, high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), polypropylene (PP), and poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC). Our analysis of the cone calorimeter data found that there were correlations between UL-94 V rating and some cone calorimeter measurements (peak heat release rate (HRR) average and HRR at 60 s) and no relationship for other measurements (time to ignition and total heat release). However, no precise correlation was found due to significant differences in flame retardant mechanism and polymer fuel energy values. In this paper, we seek to explain further why a broad quantitative relationship between UL-94 V and cone calorimeter remains elusive, and also to show how the cone calorimeter can be used to understand why a material passes or fails a particular UL-94 V rating.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 10 publications

References 1 publication

Flame Retardants: Overview

Flame Retardants: Overview

Evaluation of the likelihood of flashover in room fires involving a flat screen TV and the effect of flame retardant treatment of the casing

Cone calorimeter analysis of UL‐94 V‐rated plastics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About