Early makers of flame retardant materials stuck with substances like polybrominated diphenyl ethers and other halogen-based additives. These chemicals did the job well enough in keeping plastics like polyamide from catching fire. As years moved on, worries about health and environment started to rise. Regulators and advocacy groups began asking tough questions. Waterways collected halogenated residues; old electronics leaked hazardous substances during disposal. Europe led stricter regulations. In the late ‘90s, Japan raised a series of recalls tied to halogenated flame retardants in consumer electronics. By the late 2000s, many big manufacturers started looking for substitutes because customers wanted products that would not leach dangerous chemicals into the environment. The bulk of modern halogen-free systems took root during the past two decades, blending phosphorous compounds, nitrogen systems, and mineral fillers with plastics. Some would say, relief arrived when these newer flame retardants reached the market without forcing engineers to make big tradeoffs between safety, strength, and processing.
Halogen-free flame retardants for polyamide don’t rely on chlorine or bromine to stop fires. These new materials give manufacturers a smarter toolbox. Most products contain a base of phosphorus (like red phosphorus or organic phosphinates), sometimes mixed with nitrogen compounds or hydrated minerals. When these agents blend into polyamide, they create a physical barrier if exposed to heat, forming what’s called a char layer on the outside. This layer blocks oxygen, so burning slows down or even stops. Some blends promote self-extinguishing behavior. From the user’s view, halogen-free solutions often look similar—powdery or granular—so processing feels familiar to those who dealt with older halogen-based solutions.
As someone who has handled both halogenated and halogen-free systems on a shop floor, there’s a noticeable difference in the way these compounds feel and behave. Halogen-free flame retardants usually have higher thermal stability, meaning they don’t gas off or break down as easily under normal processing temperatures of 250°C or more. Some types, like aluminum diethyl phosphinate or melamine polyphosphate, flow freely and mix straight into polyamide during compounding. They resist moisture a bit better too; halogens sometimes attract water, damaging insulation or lowering electrical ratings. You’ll see halogen-free grades hold onto their insulating power for longer in harsh climates—big plus in things like automotive connectors or circuit housings exposed to humidity. Color stability improves since there’s less yellowing than what older additives brought. Not all grades handle UV or chemicals the same, so smart manufacturers always test their chosen blend under real-life conditions first.
Anyone in the business of polymer compounding or cable manufacturing pays close attention to the datasheets. Common halogen-free flame retardants for polyamide are often labeled as UL94 V-0, V-1, or V-2, which tells users how quickly a plastic burns or self-extinguishes in vertical orientation. Typical loading by weight lands somewhere between 15% and 35% depending on the desired level of fire resistance. Product codes reference chemical content, recommended processing temperatures (often 230–270°C), and compatibility with glass fiber or impact modifiers used in engineering plastics. Technical labeling also notes RoHS and REACH compliance; anything intended for electrical or electronic equipment should include explicit reference to halogen-free performance, with maximum bromine and chlorine content below 900 ppm. Some major brands use eco labels, green dots, or make it crystal clear that the product passed DIN EN 50642 or the IEC 61249-2-21 standard.
Preparation starts at the supplier’s plant. Manufacturers blend fine powders or granulates using extruders, twin-screw mixers, or melt-blending lines. The process involves dispersing the flame retardant agent into the polyamide resin as early in the chain as possible, sometimes right next to colorants or mechanical fillers like glass. Moisture is a concern, especially with phosphorus or nitrogen-based systems, so drying steps keep water away before pelletizing the masterbatch. For specialty products, like glass-fiber reinforced polyamide, mixing temperatures and residence times must remain stable to protect both the fiber’s length and the flame resistance properties. Over-drying or overheating can cause the agent to degrade—something I’ve seen firsthand, which ruins both fire resistance and mechanical durability. The blending process also affects how much the final product drips or sags when exposed to flame, which is key for plastics installed overhead or in wiring ducts.
The heart of a halogen-free flame retardant lies in its behavior during combustion. Phosphorus-based additives, like aluminum diethyl phosphinate, react by forming phosphoric acid at elevated temperatures, which then catalyzes the formation of protective char on the surface of polyamide. That char layer does most of the work by starving the fire of oxygen, slowing the burning process. Nitrogen-based compounds like melamine release inert gases that dilute flammable volatiles, so the fire finds it tough to keep burning. Many suppliers coat their flame retardant powders, making the additives easier to blend with molten polyamide and slowing the loss of performance caused by water uptake or chemical interference from pigments and stabilizers. My time working with finished cable jacketing showed that slight tweaks in the chemistry can shift the balance between strength and fire performance—balancing rigidity and toughness becomes a bit of an art, one that engineers still refine with each new product generation.
A few names keep showing up in industry circles. Additives like Exolit OP (based on aluminum phosphinate), Clariant’s halogen-free flame retardants, and Melapur versions (based on melamine polyphosphate) fill data sheets across compounding houses. Other common synonyms include ammonium polyphosphate, APP, magnesium hydroxide, and sometimes proprietary blends that use trade names like Polyflam or Disflamoll. In the cables and electrical market, look out for labels saying “HFFR” or “LSZH”—short for Halogen-Free Flame Retardant or Low-Smoke Zero Halogen, respectively. These get mentioned alongside more detailed formulas so engineers and buyers spot the difference between old and new technologies, cutting down confusion in procurement and testing.
Safety matters a lot more today than the early years of plastics production. Handling halogen-free flame retardants typically reduces the health risks, both for workers and end-users. These compounds shed less toxic smoke and do not create persistent organic pollutants. Operations rely on MSDS sheets (Material Safety Data Sheets), but seasoned crews learn early that dust control and ventilation should stay high on the list for all compounding steps. Storage protocols want these powders or pellets kept dry and cool, with sealed bags to stop water or cross-contamination. In Europe, REACH and RoHS compliance prove the material won’t add restricted substances to finished goods. Manufacturers pay close attention to IEC and VDE flame tests, making sure their material passes with room to spare. Fire testing labs measure not just ignition but also smoke density and its corrosive content. Products marked “halogen-free” get preference in mass transit and data center projects, since emergency crews face fewer toxins during fires.
Halogen-free flame retardants move into nearly every place where polyamide shows up. Automotive parts under the hood, like connectors, housings, or fuel-line fasteners, need to survive high heat without catching fire or emitting nasty smoke. Railways and subway cars ask for almost nothing but LSZH materials nowadays, since passenger safety and worker exposure come under heavy scrutiny. Power cable makers switched to halogen-free cable insulation and jacketing for office towers, stadiums, and airports because building codes favored safety over cost savings. In electronics assembly, flame-retardant polyamide finds use in terminal blocks, relays, fuse holders, and switch panels—places where a short-circuit or overload could start a fire. Smart device makers want smaller, thinner, less flammable components in chargers, adaptors, battery enclosures, and LAN furniture. The list grows each year as standards continue to move the bar up for fire safety and chemical safety in consumer and industrial goods.
Research never really stands still. Universities, chemical companies, and research consortia try out new blends every quarter. Recent work explores organic-inorganic hybrids, playing around with nano-particles or clay minerals to give traditional flame retardants a boost. Teams have been exploring differences in graphite and boron compounds as smoke suppressants. Another thread in the research community works on intumescent systems, which expand rapidly during fire exposure, creating a thick insulating barrier right where it’s needed. Material scientists spend a lot of time modeling how additives affect polyamide’s impact strength, flexibility, and resistance to weathering. Sometimes, they start from scratch—using non-toxic materials that come straight from natural resources, like plant-based phosphorus compounds, trying to make flame resistance more circular and sustainable. I once sat in on a panel where the bulk of discussion focused on cutting the use of heavy metals or perfluorinated compounds in these blends, answering not only to environmental demands but also to worker safety concerns.
Toxicologists have tracked flame retardants in water, soil, and human bodies for decades. Halogenated systems raised plenty of red flags, but halogen-free products brought down that risk profile in a big way. Most commercial halogen-free flame retardants do not persist in the environment or build up in animal tissues the way older systems did. Phosphinate and polyphosphate-based systems breakdown into common inorganic acids and harmless salts over time—two substances the body already knows how to process. Independent labs run animal exposure studies to check for acute and chronic effects, and open test results keep everyone on their toes. That said, no substance is totally free of concern. Some forms of phosphates can irritate skin or eyes with prolonged exposure, so operators still need gloves and eyewash stations nearby. Careful transport and user awareness limit accidental discharge to water or soil, keeping both environmental and health impacts in check.
Halogen-free flame retardants keep making gains, riding on stricter fire safety codes, push for non-toxic buildings, and growing bans on hazardous chemicals. Demand rises not only among manufacturers who care about environmental labels but also among big technology brands facing global scrutiny. Chemical suppliers invest in next-generation phosphorus and nitrogen agents, aiming for lower loading levels, improved processability, and fewer compromises in strength. Some teams look for recyclable or bio-based versions to break the dependence on oil and mining. As regulations tighten in Asia and North America, halogen-free flame retardants move beyond specialty markets into mass production—what started as a compliance exercise now turns into a selling point. Newer compounds should find their way into smart infrastructure, electric vehicles, 5G enclosures, and personal electronics as each sector races to combine safety, lightweighting, and sustainability. As real-world fires and recalls stay in the news, the pressure grows to build products that protect lives while creating less harm at every stage of their use—from production and installation through to end-of-life disposal.
Polyamide plastics show up almost everywhere—from automotive parts to electrical connectors. In these applications, safety must stack up against performance. Traditional flame retardants, loaded with halogens like bromine or chlorine, have been common for decades. People chose them for reliable flame resistance. But that route comes with a price. On burning, halogenated additives can churn out toxic fumes and corrosive gases. Emergency responders and factory workers carry the health risks of regular exposure to these compounds. As a parent and someone who’s spent years troubleshooting electronic gear, these hazards don’t feel remote to me: I’ve watched cables melt and smelled that harsh smoke that signals trouble no one wants in their home or workplace.
Researchers started digging deeper for answers that don’t put human health or the environment at risk. They’ve developed what’s called halogen free flame retardants for polyamide. These skip brominated and chlorinated compounds entirely. Instead, the focus turns to minerals, phosphorus-based ingredients, or nitrogen-containing chemicals. For example, aluminum diethyl phosphinate and magnesium hydroxide step in to do the job once filled by halogens.
Getting technical, halogen free options work by triggering a protective layer during a fire—either on the polymer surface or as a char barrier, sometimes absorbing heat or diluting flammable gases. That approach slashes the chances of toxic smoke and makes clean-up a lot easier. People near the fire scene breathe more easily, too. Several studies from the past decade back up these claims: lab tests consistently show significant reductions in hazardous emissions after switching to these alternatives.
Governments didn’t wait for the debate to settle—they started tightening up on halogenated flame retardants. The European Union and regions in Asia rolled out tough restrictions to cut persistent organic pollutants. Companies focused on exports scrambled to get compliant, but they soon realized customers actually asked about safety data. In my own shop, clients started pushing questions about product certifications. They wanted gadgets they could trust, especially in spaces where kids or pets might get near plastic parts if something overheated.
From the design side, halogen free compounds bring practical advantages. They don’t corrode contacts or wiring over time. Electronic assemblies last longer and need less maintenance. It’s a win for everyone who hates surprise breakdowns or premature product death—a problem I’ve faced more than once working with older, bromine-filled boards.
Nobody pretends halogen free flame retardants fix everything. The new ingredients ask a bit more from production teams. Some formulas hike up the price or require fresh processing tweaks. Performance can vary from one application to the next, especially under punishing conditions—like the engine compartments that dominate modern cars. Yet research keeps moving, and costs drop as more players jump in. Investment in safer, smarter chemistry in polyamide pays off over time.
On my end, the smartest move involves demanding clear safety data from suppliers and not skimping on certifications. Teams that learn how to mix halogen-free approaches into their processes—and can talk about the benefits without hiding the trade-offs—set themselves up for fewer headaches down the line. People want plastics that beat the heat and keep families, workers, and the planet safer. That vision sits within reach if industry commits to the hard changes now.
Anyone who has spent time around electronics or cars knows polyamide plastics like nylon show up everywhere. They're in cable insulation, connectors, and under-hood parts. The problem comes when these plastics catch fire. Flames in tight spaces can turn a small spark into a disaster. Over the years, manufacturers tried to fight flames by adding halogen-based fire retardants. These chemicals, mostly brominated and chlorinated compounds, worked at stopping fires but left everyone with a new set of problems — toxic smoke and hazardous residues.
Standing near burning plastic loaded with brominated retardants feels suffocating for a reason. Halogens make the smoke much more toxic, causing health problems for firefighters and anyone nearby. Studies link these compounds to respiratory issues and environmental damage. A 2010 report by the U.S. EPA pointed out that halogen-based mixtures not only linger in the environment but can build up in people and wildlife. With growing awareness, the call for something safer got louder.
Most halogen-free options use elements like phosphorus, nitrogen, or minerals such as aluminum hydroxide. These chemicals don't just slow the burning — they go a step further by interfering with the chemical reactions that feed fires. Take phosphorus: it helps form a protective char layer on the surface of polyamide when it heats up. That char shields the rest of the material from oxygen and heat, so the flames struggle to spread. Nitrogen-based additives often release gases that dilute the burning area, making it harder for flames to catch.
This might not sound flashy, but in real-life lab tests, polyamides treated with these retardants show a sharp drop in smoke and heat release compared to halogen-filled versions. The fire slows, emergency crews face less danger, and folks in the area avoid choking on thick, corrosive fumes. The straightforward chemistry here turns out to be a lifesaver.
I've watched companies hesitate to switch additives, worried about cost or mechanical strength. Older halogen-free products sometimes left plastics brittle or difficult to process. Newer blends have closed that gap—engineers have managed to make polyamide just as tough and durable as before. For example, European car makers like BMW phased in halogen-free flame retardants years ago without needing to change part designs.
Additives based on aluminum diethylphosphinate, for instance, let the plastic hold up against fire and still perform in high-heat engine bays. Electrical appliance makers, facing stricter EU rules, also made the leap without raising prices or forcing major redesigns.
In my own home, better fire safety means peace of mind. Knowing a phone charger or kitchen gadget releases far less toxic smoke if something goes wrong makes a difference. Across construction and transportation, halogen-free additives offer a real chance to slow fires without swapping one hazard for another.
Some challenges remain — halogen-free options still cost more, and manufacturers push back on regulation. Still, cities and industries that value safe air and resilient materials keep making the change. By choosing polyamides made with halogen-free technology, we bring protection to people while cutting out the worst chemical risks. That seems like a clear step forward for everyone relying on these everyday plastics.
Whenever I think about plastics and safety, my mind jumps straight to those dramatic factory fires. The reality hits even harder after reading about the ongoing health toll on firefighters and workers. Halogen-based flame retardants—popular since the ‘70s for their efficiency—release some truly nasty substances. Once these materials burn, they give off hydrogen chloride and other toxic gases, creating a cocktail of corrosive smoke and long-term environmental contamination.
With halogen free flame retardants, the story changes. Polyolefins, phosphorous compounds, and metal hydroxides don’t turn into those dangerous dioxins and furans during a blaze. That means firefighters breathe easier, communities stay safer, and there’s less trouble with persistent pollutants in air, water and soil.
Most people don’t realize the number of places you find flame retardants. Couches, TVs, building insulation—these compounds sit silently all around us. Halogenated flame retardants can leach out, ending up in our dust, food, and bodies. There’s research connecting them with thyroid disruption and problems in early childhood development.
Halogen free options—think aluminum trihydrate, ammonium polyphosphate—are much less likely to bioaccumulate or leach into indoor air. They break down into harmless compounds instead of persistent pollutants that eventually find their way into our bodies.
I still remember the fire drills back in high school. If a room filled with thick, toxic smoke, a safe exit would be a pipe dream. Halogen-based products produce dense, corrosive clouds when they burn. People don’t just risk burns—they face suffocating smog that stalls evacuations and damages electrical systems long after the flames die out.
A halogen free system goes easier on both lungs and the building infrastructure. Instead of black, blinding smoke, you get clearer air, less corrosion, and fewer complications in rescue operations. It’s not just about fewer deaths during the event—it’s about less trouble for everyone picking up the pieces after the fire.
Engineers love to debate performance. It’s true, older halogen free formulas sometimes took a back seat in terms of efficiency, but that’s no longer the case. Today’s solutions, like intumescent coatings and expandable graphite, step up to industrial-grade demands. Airlines, electric vehicle makers, and homebuilders now count on these systems to hit safety standards without loading products with poison.
The tech keeps moving forward. Researchers refine particle sizes, improve bonding, and precisely control loading percentages so products hold strong and safe. I’m seeing more industries adopt these new solutions without a drop-off in protection.
Some manufacturers still see price as the main sticking point. Newer flame retardants can seem pricier up front. But hidden costs pile up from hazmat handling, clean-up, and regulatory headaches that come with halogen-based systems. Europe, the US, even China, now push hard for safer alternatives. This shift drives scale, lowers cost, and nudges R&D into high gear.
Making the switch brings opportunity, not just compliance. It means clearer air for workers, fewer cancer risks, cleaner neighborhoods, and a competitive edge for companies that see the writing on the wall. In my experience, those who prepare now set themselves up best for a market hungry for sustainable safety solutions.
Halogen-free flame retardants look like the answer as regulations push industries toward greener chemicals. It’s easy to see why people want to swap out old halogen options for something cleaner and safer. Polyamide resins, especially nylon 6 and nylon 66, show up almost everywhere. Automakers count on them for under-the-hood parts, electronics rely on them for sturdy casings, and even consumer products like power tools and sports gear lean on their toughness. Wouldn’t it be great if one halogen-free flame retardant worked with every grade? Unfortunately, that’s not how things shake out in the plastics world.
Polyamides share some core chemistry, but the fine details of their chains set them apart when you throw additives into the mix. Nylon 6’s slightly different backbone means it absorbs moisture at a different rate than nylon 66, and that shift changes how the material finishes, how strong it stays, and how well it flows inside a mold. If flame retardants mess with those traits, even good intentions go sideways. In my work with plastics processors, the calls about distorted moldings and fuzzy surfaces rocket up each time someone tries a “one size fits all” mix.
Water-absorbing polyamides already like to grab on to bits from their environment. Halogen-free flame retardants, most often based on phosphorous or nitrogen, sometimes break down under heat and moisture in ways designers never expect. Problems sneak up, like brittle parts that snap after cycling through a dishwasher, or chalky exteriors that turn off buyers. In cable jackets, the wrong flame retardant mix with polyamide means watchdogs flag smoke density and toxic fume levels as unsafe. And that turns into a regulatory headache that no manufacturer needs.
Tougher requirements from the EU and China push every factory to pay more attention to certification and traceability. Halogen-based systems cannot clear those tests, so halogen-free materials get stamped as “green”. Still, not every phosphorus compound or mineral blend gets along with every polyamide variant. It comes down to testing—real sample runs—since small shifts in the resin formula tip the balance. In a car’s engine compartment, where heat cycles bake resin parts for years, low-grade compatibility costs companies in warranty claims.
Looking at costs, halogen-free compounds don’t come cheap. Adding flame retardants usually means bumping up filler levels, and that changes stiffness, impact strength, and even color options. If a team picks an incompatible flame retardant, they might have to backtrack—wasting time and blowing up budgets. Plenty of shops I’ve seen fight off expensive recalls this way. Automotive and electronics brands now set up long development timelines just to pin down reliable pairings for every application.
Regulations won’t back off, so finding real-world solutions matters. Supply chains need tighter lines of communication with chemical makers—the whole system needs feedback loops. Material labs run real trials, simulating years of weather and temperature swings before anyone signs off. Some manufacturers look for custom blends by working together with suppliers; instead of gambling on whatever looks good on paper, these joint approaches cut out surprises.
Anyone working in plastics, especially those using polyamide—a staple in automotive parts, electronics, and industrial equipment—hears this question a lot: "Is this flame retardant halogen free? Does it pass the right tests?" For folks on the shop floor and engineers alike, the answer is bigger than a technical detail. It’s about safety, environmental impact, and meeting expectations in places where regulations tighten up every year.
UL 94 stands as the go-to benchmark for flame retardancy in plastics. If a flame retardant for polyamide doesn’t earn at least a V-0 or V-2 rating, good luck getting products spec’d for mass markets. I remember one project where the client demanded nothing less than V-0 for connectors going inside EV batteries. In testing, anything that melted too fast or dripped flaming bits just didn’t cut it.
Halogen free comes up as a buzzword in bids for European clients, but UL takes it further. They don’t just want less smoke—they want clear data that parts won’t burn like kindling. Something that surprises many: V-0 status doesn’t always mean “safe for anywhere.” Device manufacturers still lean on this standard as a baseline.
Most folks first hear about IEC 61249-2-21 through the electronics industry. This standard nails down the halogen content: less than 900 ppm for either chlorine or bromine, and less than 1,500 ppm for the sum. You can find this number on a certificate of analysis—essential when customers in telecom or consumer electronics want to avoid dioxins and corrosive smoke in a fire.
Back in 2018, our team checked every raw material before rolling out parts for a telecom customer in northern Europe. It turned out that without a third-party lab certificate against this IEC standard, they wouldn’t touch our bid. The moment someone finds a cheap flame retardant loaded with bromine, the phone starts ringing with complaints. Getting the paperwork in order beats the risk of a recall.
RoHS started as an EU rule but now affects global supply chains. Restricted substances, especially halogens like PBDE and PBB, can’t go over set thresholds. Customers work with suppliers who keep these substances off their parts. I’ve sat in meetings where someone said, “If it’s not RoHS, we can’t use it.” RoHS isn’t flashy. Still, it’s a hard stop for getting into markets—especially for automotive lighting and consumer goods.
REACH, another EU mainstay, digs deeper, setting rules on many flame retardants flagged as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). I’ve seen ingredient lists scrutinized by legal teams combing for phthalates and other plasticizers, not just flame retardants. Companies that ship worldwide read every line because one flagged chemical adds risk and costs.
Blue Angel certification, born in Germany, pushes for stricter health and environmental criteria, often covering flame retardants in connectors, casings, and cables. TCO Certified likes to see the same diligence, especially for IT hardware. In practice, these eco-labels show up in bids for publicly funded contracts or “green” product lines, helping companies move past just basic compliance.
Nothing replaces conversations with suppliers and customers. Real-world feedback often shapes the next batch of standards and certifications. As companies chase lighter, tougher, and greener materials, dual compliance with flame retardancy and environmental protection shows up everywhere from datasheets to supply contracts. Companies that look for these standards make real progress, sharing the path toward safer products and cleaner processes.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6-triamine |
| Other names |
Halogen Free Flame Retardant for PA Halogen Free Flame Retardant for Nylon Halogen Free Flame Retardant for Polyamide Resin |
| Pronunciation | /ˈhæl.ə.dʒən friː fleɪm rɪˈtɑː.dənt fə ˌpɒl.i.əˈmaɪd/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 119406-16-3 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3963784 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:85190 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2103837 |
| ChemSpider | 11630114 |
| DrugBank | DB11440 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 06eace0b-fd20-41db-aaac-6febe4f1becb |
| EC Number | EC 215-609-9 |
| Gmelin Reference | 88263 |
| KEGG | C21137 |
| MeSH | Flame Retardants |
| PubChem CID | 142497564 |
| RTECS number | VV9275000 |
| UNII | 3PBT25G10F |
| UN number | UN3077 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID6020836 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C17H12N2O2P2 |
| Molar mass | 1200 g/mol |
| Appearance | White powder |
| Odor | Slight characteristic |
| Density | 1.20 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | 2.23 |
| Vapor pressure | <0.01 hPa (20°C) |
| Acidity (pKa) | 7.1 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 6-8 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | No data |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.525 |
| Viscosity | 1200-2500 mPa.s |
| Dipole moment | 2.12 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -4000 kJ/mol |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause respiratory irritation. Causes serious eye irritation. Causes skin irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS09 |
| Pictograms | GHS07, GHS09 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H315, H319, H335 |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P280, P305+P351+P338, P337+P313 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-1-0 |
| Flash point | Flash point: >250°C |
| Autoignition temperature | > 400°C |
| LD50 (median dose) | > 5000 mg/kg (rat) |
| NIOSH | CAS# 25713-60-4 |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 1000 mg/m³ |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Halogen Free Flame Retardant for Polyester Halogen Free Flame Retardant for Polyolefin Halogen Free Flame Retardant for Polycarbonate Halogen Free Flame Retardant for TPU Halogen Free Flame Retardant for Epoxy Resin |
