It’s hard to think about the plastics industry without acknowledging how safety standards have changed over the decades. Back in the old days, most folks didn’t give much thought to the risk of fire in consumer products, at least not until flame-related accidents started making headlines. As thermoplastic elastomers (TPEs) took off in the seventies and eighties, the idea of using a masterbatch packed with flame retardants felt like an answer to the questions no one could ignore any longer. Stories passed on factory floors would cover stubborn attempts to blend powders directly into TPEs, leading to dusty messes and poor results. FR masterbatch, as a neat mixture of carefully-dosed flame retardant additives in a polymer carrier, let processors feed the extruder in one shot and get reliable performance. Demand picked up in wire, cable, automotive interiors, and anything needing a flexible touch that didn’t go up in flames. With every adjustment in safety laws, companies scrambled to source masterbatches that kept up. Taking a look at packaging from the nineties usually meant seeing warning labels, but today’s standards demand action long before a product hits the market.
Years ago, I remember seeing a processing line stop dead because the wrong masterbatch got dumped into the hopper. Nobody enjoyed scooping out half-melted globs, but the need for a masterbatch designed for TPE became painfully obvious. Typical FR masterbatch for TPE comes in pellet form, offering the dosing flexibility for batch or continuous production. These pellets contain a tailored blend of flame retardant chemicals—some halogenated, some halogen-free—dispersed through a compatible polymer matrix. The goal always stays the same: stop or slow down ignition, give people more time to act, and save property from running up in flames. Credit goes to those who tweaked the dispersion process and chemical recipe, making sure that the additive meets both fire standards and the end-use performance expected of TPEs, whether it’s for vehicle dashboards or medical tubing.
Physical properties rarely stay exciting to talk about, but they make all the difference in manufacturing. FR masterbatch pellets have a density a notch higher than base TPE resins, and they tend to show a consistent diameter—typically in the range of 2-5 millimeters—to ensure they feed cleanly into most extruders. Moisture content and dusting can ruin downstream results, so keeping water pick-up low through good storage and robust carrier chemistry is a must. Chemically, the big players have shifted away from the highly toxic halogenated retardants, opting for phosphorous, nitrogen, or mineral-based compounds that are less hazardous. That switch didn’t only happen because of regulation; nobody in the industry likes fielding calls about smoke and toxic after-burn. Today, most masterbatches need to keep their active ingredient loading above 10% for effective flame retardancy, and they also need to stay compatible with the base TPE grade—whether it’s SEBS, TPU, or TPV. Low migration into surrounding components keeps the masterbatch doing its job without side effects, but it’s always worth speaking to suppliers about the stability profile before ordering.
In the real world, technical datasheets often hide behind marketing speak. Yet, what matters most on the factory floor and in the lab is the actual test results—LOI (Limiting Oxygen Index), UL-94 rating, and ease of blending at conventional processing temperatures (usually 160-200°C for TPEs). A proper FR masterbatch should have its loading (by weight percent), carrier polymer type, recommended dosage, and compliance marks right up front on its label. No engineer wants to be stuck mid-production, guessing if a bag of pellets will cause flow lines or affect tensile strength. Most labels now list any RoHS, REACH, or proprietary standards passed. For those who’ve been burned (sometimes literally) by underperformers, reading the fine print on the technical sheet or audit certificate can make the difference between product approval and scrapping an entire shipment.
Some folks might think there’s a secret sauce behind these masterbatches, but it comes down to experience and a bit of trial and error honed over the years. Take a twin-screw compounding line, set up with a tight feeding profile, and meter in the flame retardant powder—it could be phosphinate, melamine cyanurate, or another agent—alongside the TPE carrier resin. The art comes in controlling screw speed, temperature zone profiles, and kneading intensity, all without decomposing either component or clumping the active ingredient. Mixers have modified vent ports and filtration screens to keep the batch pure and avoid carryover from previous runs. Those who don’t flush out the line risk cross-contamination, sending off-grade pellets into batches meant for kids’ toys or critical automotive systems. Pelletizing the finished compound rounds off the process, with cooling baths or air-cooling belts used to lock in properties before bagging.
Additives inside these masterbatches don’t simply sit there; when exposed to enough heat, flame retardants undergo chemical changes that fight ignition. For example, phosphorus-based retardants encourage charring at the surface, forming a protective layer that shields the underlying TPE. Nitrogen compounds release inert gases that dilute combustible volatiles. Some developments blend synergists—like antimony trioxide with halogen sources—to interrupt the chain reactions driving combustion. Modifying the surface chemistry of the carrier, through grafting or partial crosslinking, helps lock the active ingredients in place so they stay inert during processing but kick in when exposed to flame. Stability under processing temperatures sets apart the tried-and-tested masterbatches from experimental blends that lose their punch before even hitting the product stage.
Across different markets and suppliers, these masterbatches go by an assortment of names: flame retardant masterbatch, fire-resistant pellet concentrate, FR additive for TPE, or even brand labels like Exolit or Saboflam. It’s not uncommon to find datasheets full of phrases like ‘halogen-free FR masterbatch’ or ‘antimony-oxide free concentrate’—key for buyers trying to avoid flagged chemicals under new green regulations. Sometimes, contract manufacturers produce “private label” FR batches for downstream converters, masking the true formulation under a custom code or series number. No matter the name, the demand stays strong for a masterbatch easy to integrate, with predictable results, and backed by up-to-date certification.
Nobody working with masterbatch wants a safety incident on their watch. Newer FR concentrates skip the worst offenders found in the past—years back, antimony compounds and decabromodiphenyl ether left handlers with nasty headaches. Modern producers focus on dust-free pellets, lowered emissions during processing, and rigorous internal protocols for handling and cleanup. Fire risk must always be kept in check, not only in end-product use but also throughout storage and production; keeping materials cool and dry sounds simple but staving off accidental decomposition saves more than money. Safety data sheets have grown thicker due to evolving workplace standards, with rules on ventilation, respirator use, and spill response posted in every blending hall. Regulatory bodies continue to clamp down, so it falls to shop-floor leaders and plant managers to keep up with local and international moves and make sure downstream users get clear guidance on handling and waste management.
FR masterbatch for TPE heads everywhere—sometimes you see it in soft electrical cabling, automotive side panels, handles and grips, kids’ toys, and medical gear. My own run-ins with faulty fridges and scorched wires show the fallout from missing or subpar fire resistance. Original equipment manufacturers, especially in consumer electronics and transport, call for masterbatches that pass not only basic burn tests but ongoing smoke toxicity and drip resistance checks. Medical device makers look for grades meeting biocompatibility and sterilization resistance, while building product suppliers want masterbatch that won’t leach or lose effectiveness during outdoor exposure or recycling. Every sector runs into its own issues—sometimes it’s keeping up flexibility, other times it’s cost or matching color, but rarely does anyone regret adding an insurance policy that could save lives and property.
Development teams in this field work at the intersection of polymer chemistry and practical performance. Research doesn’t limit itself to just swapping one chemical for another; it explores new combinations of flame retardants, explores nano-scale additives, and reevaluates the carrier polymer to increase both loading levels and end-use safety. Some efforts target better processability at lower melt temperatures so that smaller shops with less sophisticated equipment get in on the new safety benchmarks. Collaboration runs deep—raw material suppliers, masterbatch blenders, and end-users often test process changes together, running material through real production lines and adjusting the formula for better dispersion or reduced volatility. Regulatory hurdles keep shifting, so the R&D departments need to keep several future-proofed blends waiting in the wings.
Workers and consumers both take interest in toxicity not just for compliance, but for long-term health and peace of mind. Nobody wants to hear years down the road that a supposedly ‘eco-friendly’ masterbatch released hazardous breakdown products with age or heat. Past disasters taught the hard lesson that some halogenated additives, for all their performance, stuck around too long in the environment or leached out into living spaces. More studies now track both acute inhalation risks and the fate of flame retardants after disposal, especially under the pressures of mechanical recycling. Analytical labs team up with producers to trace migration under simulated life cycles, test under UV and high humidity, and map out the risk profile for both handlers and downstream users. Most modern masterbatches that qualify for new eco-labels show low migration and negligible toxicity across a wide age and exposure range, yet it’s worth staying skeptical and demanding robust, published data.
Big changes are coming down the pipeline. Green chemistry pushes ever harder on the industry, not just in Europe but globally, forcing a rethink of old approaches. Halogen-free and renewable-resource-based masterbatches stand as the new frontier—rice-husk-derived silicates, bio-based phosphates, and next-gen nanoclays all promise better long-term safety and sustainability. Industry players know recyclability matters; tomorrow’s FR masterbatch won’t just prevent fire, it’ll need to survive the recycling process and remain active in the next product cycle. I’ve already seen smaller companies land sizable contracts by proving their formulations meet ‘zero hazardous emission’ targets during both processing and end use. Changing regulations, tighter global supply chains, and more demanding end users will keep everyone on their toes. Those able to combine bulletproof safety, processing ease, and environmental stewardship will likely shape the next chapter in flame retardant innovation for TPE.
You see plastics everywhere—car interiors, phone cases, power tools, and shoe soles. Now, every so often, safety steps in and puts new demands on the plastics that shape our routines. Flammability often draws the line between a safe product and a hazard. That’s where FR masterbatch comes into play—it's the fire-resistance booster for TPE, or thermoplastic elastomers. This combo helps plastics resist catching fire, which is something people often overlook until there’s a close call.
The world has grown tired of products turning into fire hazards. Regulations and customer expectations both push for smart choices behind the scenes. I’ve worked on projects where a single overlooked wire sleeve resulted in thousands of recalled appliances. A small addition of FR masterbatch in the TPE would have saved money, stress, and possibly a few homes. In sectors like automotive, consumer electronics, and building materials, nobody cuts corners on this ingredient—lives literally depend on it.
TPE makes items flexible, soft, yet tough enough to take a hit. Throw in an FR masterbatch, and that phone charging cord can sit on your bed without becoming a risk. In offices, power strips and those thick printer cables carry a load of electricity but won’t catch fire easily, thanks to that extra layer of protection. Stroller wheels and children’s grips on toys are safer, especially in homes where curious pets or kids can get inventive.
A big reason companies rely on FR masterbatch is that it lets them pass strict safety standards with peace of mind. Imagine making a batch of headphones for schools. One news story about a spark can ruin your name. By using FR masterbatch, every engineer or manufacturer takes some weight off their shoulders. It’s the difference between wondering about “what ifs” and working with some confidence.
Small manufacturers face a tradeoff between cost and compliance. It’s tempting to shave cents off each product, but as I’ve seen, shortcuts open the door to disaster. FR masterbatch doesn’t add much to the bill. Still, it pays off the moment a product sits in someone’s living room or car. Quality doesn’t have to break the bank, and FR masterbatch is a solid example.
Chemists and product designers keep searching for less toxic, more environmentally friendly fire retardants, since not every additive ages well inside our homes. Some older types of FR chemicals raised questions about environmental impact and health. There’s progress, though. More workplaces switch to halogen-free options, balancing safer use with the reliability we all expect.
Buyers with a sharp eye for safety keep brands honest. People ask more questions about what goes into their stuff, and they deserve straight answers. The more transparent companies get, the easier it becomes for everyone to spot good choices over risky ones.
The bottom line—FR masterbatch serves a clear purpose for TPE. Kids, pets, families, and workers all benefit from plastics that hold their shape and keep their cool if things go wrong. It’s one of those behind-the-scenes decisions that rarely earns the spotlight, but it sticks around in every product you trust.
Mixing TPE and flame retardant (FR) masterbatch sounds simple enough if all you look at are the brochures. In practice, it’s a little trickier. I’ve learned that just because a manufacturer says “TPE” doesn’t mean every type will work equally well with every masterbatch out there. The trial-and-error approach wastes time and money. Instead, let’s dig into what actually makes these combinations work—or not work—on the production floor.
Thermoplastic elastomers aren’t all cut from the same cloth. You’ve got your SEBS, TPV, TPO, TPU, and probably a few acronyms cooked up last year. My own first experience mixing FR masterbatch with TPE happened with a basic SEBS, and things went smoothly. But once I tried it with TPV, the game changed: dispersion got patchy, surface texture roughened, and mechanical properties took a hit. The chemical backdrop of each TPE really dictates the compatibility here.
SEBS-based TPEs generally welcome FR masterbatches that use brominated, phosphorous, or mineral fillers. That’s come from more afternoons at the compounding line than I can count. SEBS offers a non-polar, flexible backbone where many halogen-free or halogenated additives melt right in, so you see stable flammability ratings and the process flows without much fuss. Most cable sheathing or soft-touch grips using SEBS in commercial products pull this off without trouble.
Once you move into TPV, the story shifts. Vulcanized EPDM rubber in a polypropylene matrix doesn’t always take kindly to every FR masterbatch. Some phosphorus systems just won’t bond the same way. Mechanical strength can drop, or appearance takes a nosedive. TPU brings its own headaches: it’s got polar groups bouncing around, so only phosphorus-based or nitrogen-based FR masterbatches typically blend. If you feed brominated types into a TPU, you can watch haze and phase separation show up fast. Once, I tried to push a bromine-loaded batch into TPU shoe soles—the end product literally creased and snapped in quality testing. Nobody was thrilled with that outcome.
Lining up masterbatch chemistry with TPE structure heads off these issues. Styrenic bases love halogenated and mineral FR additives, but polar elastomers (like TPU) want tailored halogen-free systems. The experience taught me to avoid a one-size-fits-all mindset; you can’t just trust a supplier’s “universal” blend. Sometimes that means going back to core materials and checking datasheets for migration, toxicity, and compatibility with processing temperature.
Producers get better outcomes by running small-batch trials before scaling up. Even with established combinations, changing one supplier can throw off the final product if their mix isn’t tightly controlled. Clear labelling of masterbatch carrier resins saves headaches down the line. Open lines with technical support teams can prevent wasted runs. I once solved a recurring problem by getting both TPE and masterbatch reps on a call together; turns out, the molecular weight of the carrier played a bigger role than we expected.
Success with TPE and FR masterbatch comes from knowing the chemistry and not trusting “good enough” until the first batch runs clean. The effort pays back in fewer rejected parts, a smoother flow at the extruder, and safer products at the end of the day.
People in plastics often juggle performance, cost, and safety in every project. Fire protection fits right into that balancing act. FR Masterbatch offers a straightforward way to boost flame resistance, but the question always comes up: how much should go in? Too little and the plastics won’t keep a fire from spreading. Too much and you can throw off strength, color, and most likely your budget.
Looking at real projects, the target usually falls between 10 and 25 percent FR Masterbatch by weight, depending on what the carrier resin and fire rating demand. Polypropylene, for example, might manage with less than 15 percent for a basic glow-wire test in an appliance casing. ABS or HIPS, sometimes used in electronics housings, often need higher loads, sometimes pushing close to 25 percent to meet something like UL94 V-0.
It is tempting to chase a one-size-fits-all answer for dosage. Each polymer handles additives differently. Some pigments or fillers already in a blend can limit how much masterbatch gets absorbed before you start seeing new headaches—brittle parts, color streaking, or even plates warping. In one case, a shop switched masterbatch suppliers and watched perfectly smooth panels start showing flow marks after raising FR dosage by even 5 percent. That led the team into trouble-shooting, realizing that the carrier resin in the masterbatch wasn’t well-matched to their base polymer, so compatibility dropped off and process stability got shaky.
Cutting corners on dosage might save pennies up front but invites wild cards. Think about the real-world: electrical panels inside offices, plastic casings in homes with small kids, car interiors. If the material can’t slow flame spread, safety is simply not negotiable. Insurers, product certifiers, and good old common sense are stacked up on the side of using enough FR material for the job.
Ratcheting dosage up past recommended levels isn’t safe either. Some flame retardant systems—especially halogenated ones—can generate smoke and toxic byproducts if overused, which defeats the point of fire safety. In one manufacturer’s test run, a heavy loading not only dinged mechanical strength but actually made mold release and finishing worse, because so much FR agent migrated to the surface.
Solid data beats guesswork every time. The only way I’ve seen projects nail the target is comparison testing: start with the FR supplier’s datasheet suggestion, then run burn tests at stepped dosages across actual parts, not just plaques or chips. The right load often emerges where fire rating is met and part quality holds up. Investing in small-scale production runs up front dodges huge costs later from product recalls, failed audits, or in the worst case, fire damage.
Open communication with masterbatch producers also pays off. They usually have data from similar applications, and many will tweak formulations for customers who are pushing the boundaries with color, regrind, or blended additives. Clear samples, thorough records, and brutal honesty in reporting fire results keep things moving in the right direction.
Adding flame retardant (FR) masterbatch to thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) hits home for plenty of manufacturers aiming to meet safety requirements. FR masterbatch blends in fire-resistant additives, trying to make plastic parts less likely to catch or spread flames. That sounds great on paper, but performance outside of fire tests brings another challenge: mechanical properties often take the brunt.
With TPE, the appeal lies in its flexibility, soft touch, and occasional bounce-back toughness. Mixing in FR ingredients often means trading some of those advantages. I remember walking factory floors, running samples with and without FR compounds. Hardness and elasticity take the first hit. Turn up the loading of the masterbatch, and the TPE doesn’t stretch like before. Shore A drops, and tensile strength shows less muscle. More than once, operators ended up tweaking designs to avoid cracks or breakage during assembly, especially when high FR percentages came into play.
Data from hands-on trials tell the real story. A flame retardant-filled TPE compound can lose up to 40% of its elongation at break, according to industry testing. Tear strength dips as much as 20%. Lower FR loadings soften the blow but sometimes fail flammability standards. Each extra percent of masterbatch walks a tightrope between safety and usability. Not just a lab issue—real world products like power tool grips or automotive seals risk becoming stiffer or less durable. Achieving a V-0 or V-2 UL 94 rating in cable coatings, for instance, often means rethinking fit and finish since cracking and flow issues show up right at the molding machine.
FR masterbatches depend on fillers or chemical agents—sometimes minerals, sometimes halogenated compounds. Those particles do not blend the same as base resin and rubber. They block the easy slide of polymer chains. You sense the difference just by bending a test piece before and after adding FR. Older halogenated versions, found in legacy cable installations, left parts sticky and brittle. Non-halogen types—liked for cleaner burning—work better but rarely fix the underlying drop in flexibility. Vendors now tout improved blends, but even those bring side effects at higher loadings.
Tough as it sounds, you can manage some of the downside. Blending softer TPE grades sometimes offsets lost flexibility, but thickening the part isn’t always practical. Design tweaks—thicker hinge points, gentler curves—keep some parts from failing where stiffness shows up fastest. I’ve seen teams run smaller lots with just enough FR to pass a test, then dial down recipe for other regions. Compensating with plasticizers brought mixed results; some only made surface finish problems worse, especially on textured grips. Switching to newer phosphorus-based FR chemistries lowered impact on mechanicals a bit, but at a price premium.
Demand for safe, flexible, flame-resistant plastics only grows. Finding the right mix calls for transparency between material makers and product designers. Every project starts with test data, and a willingness to shuffle between recipes. As I learned from burnt fingers and failed drop tests, there’s seldom a perfect, one-size-fits-all solution. Simple substitution brings tradeoffs, but careful tweaks, frequent test runs, and honest data sharing move teams closer to robust, fire-safe TPE parts.
Anyone working with thermoplastic elastomers (TPEs) will bump into the topic of fire safety. FR (flame retardant) masterbatch isn’t just a technical term—it changes how safe and marketable a product can be. No matter if you’re developing power tool grips or new automotive parts, you have to make sure fire doesn’t get the upper hand. Products in consumer goods, transport, construction, and electronics all have different expectations for fire resistance. One reason this is such a big deal is because recalls from unsafe plastics make the news more than you’d like. Companies want to avoid that headline at all costs.
Over the years, certifications have turned into the backbone for judging what’s good enough. With TPEs, the conversation usually drifts toward a handful of big-name standards. The most common one anyone in plastics hears about is UL 94. This vertical and horizontal burn test isn’t some optional stamp—it’s so widespread that buyers basically demand it. For plastic parts used inside devices or car interiors, companies often ask for a V-0, V-1, or HB rating as a minimum benchmark. V-0 means a flame won’t keep burning for even ten seconds after you remove the source, and nobody wants to go lower if possible. Once I worked on a project where the team chased a V-1 to V-0 upgrade for six months, just to meet a new automotive client’s requirement. That little extra testing cost was nothing next to the value of landing the contract.
Understanding the strictness of these standards gives some perspective. UL 94 isn’t the only one people talk about. In the EU, EN 60695 has similar testing for plastics. If someone aims to sell cables or appliance housings, they need to show passes from tests like ISO 4589-2 (oxygen index), and RoHS. RoHS might feel like just a paperwork exercise for some, but it actually pushes producers to cut out toxic flame retardants completely. Customers, especially in Europe, treat this as a non-negotiable rule rather than just a box-ticking exercise. Some of my contacts in electronics factories talk about RoHS refusal as an immediate deal-breaker for big retail buyers.
REACH is another regulatory hoop that keeps showing up. It controls chemicals allowed in products all over Europe—listed substances can lead to rejections at customs. A project I worked on with medical tooling showed me how much attention buyers pay to REACH, UL blue cards, and even ISO 9001 in the plant’s paperwork trail. Any gaps mean big orders get frozen, and everybody scrambles.
Suppliers who know the drill start their formulations by hunting through flame retardants that pass muster, not just in terms of how well they stop flames, but in how they match up against health and safety restrictions. With halogen-free trends growing, phosphorous or nitrogen-based solutions often land at the top of the list because the days of cheap, brominated additives are coming to an end for many regions and buyers. I’ve watched procurement teams refuse whole shipments if certification papers weren’t current, or if test samples couldn’t meet newly-updated versions of old standards.
Companies with tight quality programs keep spare samples on hand for surprise audits. Third-party labs sometimes retest batches for key certifications if buyers get nervous. Past experience tells me that skipping a single certificate can end in lost trust, and those relationships take ages to rebuild. Companies new to this field often learn hard lessons, but veterans have made testing, traceability, and up-to-date audit logs part of daily operations.
Some folks try to bypass paperwork or rely on older approvals, hoping nobody will notice. That never ends well. Getting familiar with the key standards—UL 94, EN 60695, RoHS, REACH, and ISO 4589—and staying current with updates isn’t glamorous work, but it is profitable. Going this route opens more doors and lowers the risk of product recalls, delays, or regulatory headaches. It turns out, fire safety in plastics is a detail buyers actually do read, and they don’t like surprises.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Poly[ethene-co-(2-methylprop-1-ene)] |
| Other names |
FR MB Flame Retardant Masterbatch for TPE TPE Flame Retardant MB Fire Retardant Masterbatch for TPE |
| Pronunciation | /ɛf ɑː ˈmɑːstərbætʃ fɔː tiː piː iː/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 1195978-93-8 |
| Beilstein Reference | '4-06-00-02637' |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:59944 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2103839 |
| DrugBank | DB11445 |
| ECHA InfoCard | ECHA InfoCard: 100% Filler |
| EC Number | EC 500-234-8 |
| Gmelin Reference | 3618778 |
| KEGG | KEGG: C18407 |
| MeSH | Flame Retardants |
| PubChem CID | 24804257 |
| RTECS number | WK4895764 |
| UNII | 2W3SX8G99X |
| UN number | UN3161 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID70811863 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C17H12Br4O4 |
| Appearance | Pellet, uniform color |
| Odor | Faint characteristic |
| Density | 1.35 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | 6.64 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 7.0~9.0 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | < 1.0 x 10^-5 |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.53 |
| Viscosity | 9000-16000 cps |
| Dipole moment | 0.112 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 1.10 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | 0 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | 43.2 MJ/kg |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | 38123900 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause eye and skin irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07 |
| Pictograms | anti-drop", "recycling", "halogen-free", "rohs", "reach", "pbde-free", "phthalate-free |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H317, H319 |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P271, P280, P273, P304+P340, P312, P501 |
| Flash point | >180°C |
| Autoignition temperature | Autoignition temperature: >400°C |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible): 3 mg/m³ |
| REL (Recommended) | 1-5% |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
FR Masterbatch for TPU FR Masterbatch for EVA FR Masterbatch for PE FR Masterbatch for PP FR Masterbatch for PA |
