It is estimated that in excess of 400,000 tons of flame retardant additives are used worldwide per year in polymer formulations. The main classes of additives are aluminium hydroxide, bromine and chlorine compounds, halogenated and non-halogenated phosphorus compounds, antimony oxides, and boron compounds. The most widely used of these additives, aluminium hydroxide, acts by decomposing endothermical ly giving off water vapour which cools the burning polymer and restricts oxygen flow to the flame. But aluminium hydroxide is only effective when used at high loadings, so high that the physical and other properties of the polymer may be adversely affected. There is a need for flame retardant combinations which would enable the loading of aluminium hydroxide to be reduced.

The flame-retardant action of chlorine and bromine compounds, either as physically incorporated additives to an organic polymer or as part of the polymer structure itself, is well established. Indeed, halogenated compounds find extensive commercial use as flame retardants, and these are often used in conjunction with synergists such as antimony trioxide and phosphorus derivatives.

However, halogen containing polymers generally evolve large amounts of smoke and corrosive gases during combustion, and there is a need for fire retardant formulations which are also smoke-suppressant. The International Tin Research Institute has been promoting the use of tin compounds as flame retardants. In a recent paper entitled "Investigations into tin-based flame retardants and smoke suppressants", P. A. Cusack and P. I. Fontaine of ITRI reported experiments in which tin compounds replaced antimony trioxide as a

synergist in halogenated polyester resin formulations. The results showed that the stannates were superior to antimony trioxide, both as flame retardants and as smoke suppressants. In another section, the authors claim that flame-retardant synergism exists between tin compounds and aluminium trihydroxide in (non- halogenated) ethylene-acryl ic rubber, but do not provide data to make good their claim.

This invention is based on the discovery that aluminium or magnesium hydroxide and tin oxide or a metal stannate or hydroxystannate form a synergistic flame retardant combination in halogenated polymer formulations. The invention is applicable to all organic polymer formulations, including particularly polyolefins and polyvinylchloride. Where the polymer itself is not halogenated, it is standard practice to include a chlorine or bromine compound, in an amount of from 1 to 30% by weight on the weight of the total formulation. For example, halogenated paraffin waxes are sold for this purpose under the Trademark CERECLOR.

The term aluminium hydroxide is here used to cover various compounds containing different proportions of Al , 0 and H, including alpha-aluminium trihydroxide, and alumina hydrate, often wrongly referred to as hydrated aluminium oxides. This component, or alternatively magnesium hydroxide, is used in the formulation at a concentration of 10 to 400 phr (parts per hundred of rubber or parts by weight per hundred parts by weight of the polymer) preferably 50 to 200 phr.

The other component of the flame retardant combination is an oxygen containing tin IV compound. This definition comprises tin oxide or a metal stannate or hydroxystannate. Metal stannates or hydroxystannates of a divalent metal such as Ca, Ba,

Mg , Bi or particularly Zn , generally have the formula Snθ3, M2Snθ4 or MSn(0H)6- Tin oxide has the formula Snθ2, this includes the mono and dihydrated forms. This component is used at a concentration of 0.5 to 80 phr preferably 1 to 25 phr.

As demonstrated below, synergistic effects between the two flame retardant components are observed at a wide range of ratios. In order to keep a desired balance of flame retardant properties, cost and mechanical and other properties of the polymer formulation, it is preferred to use the tin oxide or metal stannate or hydroxystannate in a proportion of 3 to 50% by weight of the aluminium or magnesium hydroxide,

The flame retardant effect of an additive in a polymer formulation can be assessed by measuring the critical oxygen index (COI) by the method of BS 2782: Part 1 , Method 1; 1986 (equivalent to ISO 4589-1984). If a combination of additives is used, then it may be predicted that, at a given additive combination loading the COI of the formulation will vary in linear dependence on the relative proportions of the flame retardants in the combination.

Reference is directed to the accompanying drawing, which is a graph of COI against % stannate in a fire retardant additive combination. The polymer is flexible PVC. The additive combination is aluminium hydroxide/zinc stannate (circles) or aluminium hydroxide/zinc hydroxystannate (squares). By comparison of the solid _^ lines (observed) with the dotted lines (predicted on the basis of the above paragraph), a synergistic effect is clearly demonstrated.

The polymer formulations of this invention may contain other conventional ingredients including stabilisers and lubricants and other fire retardants/ smoke suppressants. They may be thermoplastic or thermoset. They may be cast, moulded, extruded,

foamed or treated in any other way which is conventional for polymer formulations. The following example illustrates the invention.

A standard PVC formulation was tested both with and without 50 phr aluminium hydroxide. To the filled polymer formulation were added various concentrations of zinc stannate, zinc hydroxystannate and antimony trioxide.

The critical oxygen index of each formulation

10 was tested using the above standard procedures. Smoke production was measured in an NBS smoke chamber according to BS 6401: 1983, modified with half inch wire mesh placed in front of the sample to prevent molten sample fouling the furnace. 0.8mm samples were

15 used. Tabulated values indicate "Maximum Specific

Optical Density Dm Flaming" .

Carbon monoxide CO was measured during combustion in the NBS smoke chamber, using a Telegon continuous carbon monoxide monitor. Results were 0 recorded in p.p.m. 2 minutes after the start of the test.

Example 1

5 The PVC formulation was

100 phr PVC VY110/51 Hydro Polymers

(K value 66)

50 phr Plasticizer Reomol DOP Ciba Geigy

~- ° 4 phr Stabilizer Irgastab BC26 Ciba Geigy

0.7 phr Lubricant Irgawax 371 Ciba Geigy

Results are set out in the Table below.

35

Composition COI Smoke CO

D P.P.M.

No Filler

50phr Aluminium hydroxide 50phr + 6phr ZnSn(OH) ₆ 50phr + 8phr ZnSn(OH) ₆ 50phr + 10phr ZnSn(OH) ₆

50phr + 6phr ZnSnO, 50phr + 8phr ZnSnO.- 50phr + 10phr ZnSn0 ₃

50phr + 6phr S ₂ 0 ₃ 50phr + 8phr S ₂ 0 ₃ 50phr + 10phr Sb_0 ₃

6phr ZnSn(OH) ₆

8phr ZnSn(OH) ₆

10phr ZnSn(OH) ₆

6phr ZnSn0 ₃

8phr ZnSn0 ₃

10phr ZnSn0 ₃

6phr Sb_0 ₃

8phr Sb_0 ₃

10phr Sb 0.

In conjunction with aluminium hydroxide, the zinc stannate and zinc hydroxystannate are seen to have several effects:

- they significantly further increase the COI of the formulation.

- unlike antimony trioxide, they reduce rather than increase smoke generation.

- they result in production of considerably less carbon monoxide than when antimony trioxide is used.

Example 2

Aluminium trihydroxide/calcium hydroxy stannate in flexible PVC.

Formulation

100 phr PVC VY110/51 Hydro Polymers 50 phr Plasticizer Reomol DOP Ciba Geigy

4 phr Stabilizer Irgastab BC26 Ciba Geigy

0.7 phr Lubricant Irgawax 371 Ciba Geigy

Results are set out in the table below.

CaSn(OH) _g Critical Oxygen Index

25.6 29.5 30.4 33.4 35.6

Exampl e 3

Magnesium hydroxide/zinc hydroxy stannate in flexible PVC.

Formulation

As Example 2 but instead of ATH and calcium hydroxy stnnate:-

0-100 phr Magnesium Hydroxide. Flamtard M7 B.A. Chemical

0-100 phr ZnSn(0H) ₆ .

Results

Phr Mg(OH)„ Phr ZnSn(OH), Critical Oxygen Index

100 0 27.6

95 5 34.3

90 10 35.5

50 50 38.7

0 100 41.4

Example 4

Mixtures of aluminium trihydroxide and tin oxide in flexible PVC.

Formulation

As Example 2 but instead of ATH and calcium hydroxy stannate:-

Phr ATH Phr Sn0 ₂ Critical Oxygen Index

5

° Example 5

Mixtures of aluminium trihydroxide and zinc hydroxy stannate in chlorinated rubber.

5

Formulation

100 phr Chlorinated Rubber Neoprene W Du Pont 4 phr Magnesium Oxide 'Light' BDH

0.5 phr Stearic Acid

5 phr Zinc Oxide '200' Durham Chemic

2 phr Curing Agent Multisperse E-ETV75P Croxton and G 0-50 phr ATH SF7 B A Chemicals 0-50 phr ZnSn(OH).

Results

Phr ATH Phr ZnSn(OH) Critical Oxygen Index

50 0 50.6 45 5 52.5 40 10 55.0 25 25 58.0 10 40 55.6 0 50 51.0

Example 6

Mixtures of aluminium hydroxide and zinc hydroxy stannate in unsaturated polyester.

Formulation

Unsaturated polyester resin. Synolite R557/44. DSM Resins UK Limited. This resin contains 27% wt of bromine. This was added to the resin as dibromo neopentyl glycol .

100 phr Synolite R557/44

2 phr SA11 f Curing Agent

1 phr SC17 !

0-50 phr ATH FRF60 B A Chemicals 0-50 phr ZnSn(0H)5.

Results

Phr ATH Phr ZnSn(0H) ₆ Critical Oxygen Index

40.5 50.1 54.8 56.8 53.3

If the results for Examples 2 to 5 are plotted as a graph of tin oxide or metal stannate/hydroxystannate content of the flame retardant additive v COI (as in Figure 1) then an upwardly convex cure is obtained rather than the straight line expected, indicating a synergistic relationship.