Innovation in Fire Retardant Fillers

for Carpet Backing

C. E. WESTBROOK, III
Franklin Industrial Minerals
821 Tilton Bridge Road, SE
Dalton, GA 30721

ABSTRACT: The discussion of calcium sulfate in SBR latex for carpet backing
describes the difficulty of this application, performance comparison of calcium
sulfate dihydrate (gypsum) to that of ATH (currently used as a fire retardant filler),
and the economic advantage of gypsum over ATH. The stabilizing technology of
LCG (Latex Compatible Gypsum) is a patent-pending development of Franklin In-
dustrial Minerals.

INTRODUCTION

using gypsum as a fire retardant in SBR adhesive com-

HE
pounds IDEA OF
is not novel; it has been the subject of several patents. These pa-
tents address the compound coagulation problem resulting from dissolved

gypsum. The objectives of this project work have been to develop a supenor
solution to this problem, thoroughly evaluate the strength and fire retardant
properties, and then mtroduce this system commercially. The first two ob-
Jectmes have been accomplished; at this writing, preparation is being made
for a commercial trial in early 1992.

BACKGROUND

The flammability of textile floor coverings is regulated by federal law

under the Flammable Fabrics Act. This law is enforced by the Consumer

*Presented at the Fire Retardant Chemicals Association meetmg in Orlando, FL, March
29-April 1, 1992

JOURNAL OF COATED FABRICS, Volume 22-October 1992 143

0093-4658/92/02 0143-07 $0600/0
©1992 Technomic Publishmg Co , Inc

Downloaded from jit.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

144

Products Safety Commlssion to assure mimmum flammability compliance

of textile floor coverings. Compliance is verified through standardized flam-
mability performance tests, such as ASTM Test Method E-648, &dquo;Critical Ra-
diant Flux of Floor-Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source&dquo;
[1]. Flammabihty regulations dictate the degree of flame resistance for dif-
ferent applications (residential, commercial business, hospitals, etc.).
Much of the United States carpet production is tufted carpeting. Tufted
carpet consists of yarn that is woven through a backing material (the pri-
mary backing) to produce a face and a back. The tufted yarn is secured to the
primary backing with an adhesive compound applied to the carpet back.
The adhesive compound is also used to bond a secondary backing to the
carpet back for dimensional stability and back wear protection. These com-
ponents become a single unit when the adhesive compound is cured by pass-
ing the carpet through an oven.
Flammabihty performance requirements may prevent the use of materials
in some markets that perform adequately in others. Consideration must be

given to material selection of yarn, backing, and adhesive for a combination

that achieves igmtion resistance, satisfies design or style criteria, and proves
to be cost effective.
The adhesive is typically a styrene/butadiene rubber (SBR) latex com-
pound extended with ground limestone or marble, which utilizes small
amounts of surfactants and thickemng agents required to meet compound

rheology requirements. The flammability resistance of the compound can be

enhanced by the replacement of some or all of the ground calcite with flame
retardant fillers, such as alumina trihydrate (ATH). A flame retardant filler
such as ATH contains molecular water, which provides a heat sink effect
during endothermic dehydration of this water. Secondarily, the released
water vapor dilutes the gaseous reactants of the igmtion [2]. ATH, in partic-
ular, is used in carpet backing adhesive compound when necessary to pro-
mde additional igmtion resistance for adequate flammability compliance.
The total filler ratio is typically three to six parts per part of dry latex
(300-600 phr); the ATH portion of the filler may range from one-half to
two parts (50-200 phr). Because ATH has a unit cost up to ten times that of

ground calcite, ATH use is limited to what is required. Cost has motivated
examination of more cost effective fillers to provide flammability resistance,
one of which has been calcium sulfate dihydrate, or simply gypsum. This

form of gypsum contains two moles of water, approximately twenty percent

by weight, but poses great difficulty for use with aqueous SBR systems.
As a filler, gypsum is highly soluble; the reaction between dissolved gyp-
sum and SBR latex is a rheological disaster. The adhesive compound, which
is required to remain stable for extended periods, becomes viscous even to
the point of solidification with the introduction of gypsum. Accidental

Downloaded from jit.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

 145

introduction of gypsum mto compound tanks has resulted in burned

mix

out mixing motors and compound that be removed with jackhammers.

must

Despite this, the potential for cost savings has spawned several attempts to
solve the problem and replace ATH with gypsum. Such efforts have spec-
ified the use of surfactants [3] or anticoagulants [4] to prevent coagulation of
the latex, but applications of these methods are not in commercial use.

EXPERIMENTAL

The chemical incompatibility problem appears to have been overcome,

but as this mformation is the subject of a patent currently under review,
results rather than the solution itself will be discussed.
The question of flame resistance effectiveness was eventually addressed
with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (MVSS) 302, &dquo;Flammability of Interior
Materials&dquo; [1]. This test measures the burn rate of materials and provides the
most meaningful performance comparison between compounds with dif-
ferent fillers. Imtially, this testing was done on thin (0.020 inch) films that
contained only filler, latex, and additive to provide a direct comparison of
the different filler blends. This testing procedure was then repeated with
finished carpet samples.
The two functions of the adhesive compound are to secure the tufted yarn
and to bond the secondary backmg. Test Methods ASTM D-3936 &dquo;Delam-
mation Strength of Secondary Backing&dquo; and ASTM-1335 &dquo;Tuft Bind of Pile
Floor Coverings&dquo; [1] were conducted to evaluate these properties.
The finished carpet samples used in this testing were produced on a sam-
ple coater with a froth machine and drum dryer. The thin films were cast
with a 0.020 inch drawbar on a Teflon-coated plate in our laboratory. All
physical and burn test work was done by an outside certified laboratory. The
filler blends tested were 100% limestone, 33% ATH-67% limestone, and
55% gypsum-45% limestone. A 55% gypsum blend provides the equiva-
lent molecular water of the 33% ATH blend. (Note: The gypsum blend is
designated LCG (Latex Compatible Gypsum.)

RESULTS

Chart 1 shows the relative burn rates for the three filler blends in thm
films: the ATH blend burned 35% faster than the LCG blend. Chart 2
shows the same testing with the fimshed carpet samples: the ATH blend
burned 62% faster than the LCG blend.
Charts 3 and 4 show that the ATH and LCG blends were essentially
equivalent in the strength tests. Neither fire retardant blend was as good as
the 100% limestone blend in either test.

Downloaded from jit.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

146

Downloaded from jit.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

 147

Downloaded from jit.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

148

CHART 5.

After verification that LCG appeared to be a reasonable filler substitution

for ATH with the proper stabilizing system, limited cooperative work with
SBR latex compames was imtiated. Technical personnel from these compa-
nies evaluated the LCG system in their battery of rheological testing. Of ut-
most concern however, was the compound viscosity buildup over time.
Chart 5 shows viscosity buildups of an actual ATH compound formulation
compared to an equivalent LCG compound.

DISCUSSION

Calcium sulfate dihydrate (gypsum) can be successfully used in SBR latex

compounds; this success has been shown with several latexes currently used
for carpet backing adhesive. The confidential stability system employed in
this work has enabled extensive evaluation of rheology, igmtion resistance,
and final product strength.
1. Adhesive compound samples extended with high loadings of gypsum
can be rheologically stable for time periods exceeding seven days. In the
laboratory, gypsum as a filler appears not to impair compound perfor-
mance with regard to
handling and application. Ultimately, the commer-
cial trial phase of this project will define these aspects of compound per-
formance.

Downloaded from jit.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

 149

2. Gypsum has approximately 60% of the molecular water content of

ATH; however, results indicate that, on a water equivalent basis,
our

gypsum exhibits superior flame inhibition. A possible explanation for

this superiority is the lower dehydration temperature; gypsum loses both
moles of water at 325°F [5] whereas dehydration for ATH is only 80%
complete at 300°C [2]. The earlier imtiation of the flame retardant
mechanism may be the reason for the slower burn rates. Suggested re-
placement of ATH with gypsum by weight is at least 150%.
3. This work has shown no sigmficant difference between compounds filled
with ATH versus gypsum with regard to physical attributes of the
fimshed product, namely delamination strength and tuft bind strength.
4. Despite the need to use 50% more gypsum when replacing ATH, the
total replacement cost of the LCG system (filler and stabilizer) represents
a cost savings of approximately $50/ton. For a 500 ton/month user, the

yearly filler cost reduction is $300,000.

REFERENCES

1. Jackson, J 1991 "Textile Flammability Testing," in Fire Retardant Blends, Alloys and
Thermoplastic Elastomers, Spring Conference, pp. 191-197
2 Sobolev, I and E. A. Woycheshin. 1974. "Alumina Hydrate as a Flame Retardant
Filler For Thermoplastics," reprinted from JFF/Fire Retardant Chemistry
, 1
(February).
3. U S Patent No 3,951,900 (Bath).
4 U S Patent No 4,251,416 (Palmer).
5. Adams, R. W "Characterization of Calcium Sulfate Extended Polyester Resins,"
technical paper (Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation).

Downloaded from jit.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016