Polypropylene (PP) took off as a versatile plastic because of how easy it shapes, lasts, and stays light. But early days brought a big problem — this plastic can catch fire and burn quickly. Industry spent years loading standard PP with halogen-based flame retardants: chemicals packed with chlorine or bromine. That method stopped fires well enough, but created a new issue that’s hard to ignore today. Burning halogen-laden plastics pumps out thick smoke and toxic byproducts, making fires more dangerous for firefighters and anyone nearby. By the late 1990s, regulators and people in cities started calling for safer alternatives that wouldn’t poison air when heated or burned. Halogen-free flame retardants entered the scene, built on phosphorus, nitrogen, mineral blends, and even intumescent (swelling, charring) systems. At first, these were expensive and complicated, but science, driven by strict safety rules in Europe and Asia, nudged them toward mainstream use.
Halogen-free flame retardant PP isn’t one single product. Instead, it’s a family of polypropylene plastics, each modified with flame retardant blends that skip bromine, chlorine, and similar chemicals. The additives in these blends may use magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide, red phosphorus, melamine polyphosphate, or proprietary phosphorus-nitrogen systems. These compounds get mixed right into the PP resin, sometimes during polymerization, sometimes through melt compounding, to give better burn resistance. The point is to reduce ignition risk and slow down the spread of fires — all without making toxic smoke or corrosive acids. These plastics take more scientific engineering than early PP. The process tweaks polymer structure, crystal size, and how finely the additive disperses inside the plastic. There’s always a delicate balance: raise flame resistance too much, and you can weaken the plastic, make it harder to mold, or jack up costs.
Once flame retardants go into PP, you start seeing changes in density, melting point, and even how glossy or flexible the plastic feels. Pure PP turns slick, tough, but burns hot if it ever catches. The halogen-free options — say, with magnesium hydroxide — tend to weigh a bit more, since minerals are denser than polymer chains. Some phosphorus agents work by swelling and charring, so the plastic will blister and keep underlying layers from burning. Thermal stability usually drops a bit, so the ideal compound needs to handle commercial molding temps (around 200-250°C) without decomposing the flame retardant before use. Water resistance and electrical properties may dip too, forcing engineers to either coat parts or add more stabilizers. Chemical compatibility becomes a tightrope; some flame retardant systems, if mixed wrong, trigger clumping or even unpredictable chemical reactions, wrecking mechanical performance or aesthetics.
Today’s buyers want details, and major standards like UL94, FMVSS 302, RoHS, and REACH all now call out halogen-free options. Top-performing grades might meet UL94 V-0, meaning they self-extinguish in ten seconds or less without dripping burning fragments. Electrical parts face heat deformation tests, glow-wire ignition tests, and tracking index assessment. EU and Japanese agencies raised the bar with “halogen-free” criteria: the finished product contains under 900 ppm of chlorine/bromine, and total halogens not above 1500 ppm. Labels also show flame retardant classes, toxicity test outcomes, molding instructions, and, for the toughest applications, recycling compatibility. OEMs in automotive, electronics, and even home appliances, have specs right down to acceptable smell, off-gassing, and surface texture.
Making halogen-free flame retardant PP isn’t much like working in your kitchen. The base PP resin gets mixed with powdered or liquid flame retardants in giant twin-screw extruders. Temperature and shear force must hit a sweet spot: hot enough to melt and mix, but not so hot the flame retardant decomposes or boils off. Some additives like magnesium hydroxide need a certain particle size, or pretreatments — think surface modification with silanes — so they blend in cleanly and don’t clump up over time during storage or re-use. Water, dust, and even air in the room can ruin a good blend. Equipment runs tough, high-torque cycles, breaking up agglomerates, and venting off unwanted gases. The final product, usually in pellet or bead form, heads out for testing before ever making its way to injection molding or extrusion machines.
Inside the plastic, the action mostly happens at high heat — like inside a burning car, or when a short circuit hits electrical parts. The flame retardants go to work by sucking up energy, generating water vapor, or breaking down to form glassy coatings and charring. Phosphorus compounds can react, creating viscous layers that glue carbon char to the polymer surface, stopping oxygen from feeding the fire. Nitrogen-rich agents like melamine polyphosphate can bubble up and puff out, keeping heat and gas from reaching the plastic underneath. Some chemists adjust the actual PP chain structure, grafting compatibilizers or using nanoclays so the flame retardant doesn’t sap strength or make the plastic too brittle. This “reactive extrusion” technique takes time but prevents delamination in final parts.
The market calls halogen-free flame retardant PP by a dozen names, depending on supplier and additive chemistry: HFFR PP, NH PP, RoHS-compliant PP, or simply eco-friendly flame retardant polypropylene. Trade names fill catalogs, with companies like Sabic, Borealis, and Clariant marketing specific formulations. Magnesium or aluminum hydroxide blends often show up as “mineral flame-retardant PP.” Some brands throw in code numbers for colors, melt flow, or smoke suppression levels. Rarely do buyers see full recipes, since blends are usually proprietary. Still, if a material passes all the key standards, the specific chemistry doesn’t matter so much to end users — only the safety in real fires.
Safety sits high on everyone’s mind when dealing with flame retardant plastics. Factory workers handle powders and resins under exhaust hoods, avoiding inhalation and skin contact, since even non-halogen flame retardants can irritate lungs or eyes. Finished parts get checked for migration of flame retardant to the surface — since leaching additives can create health hazards in toys, food packaging, or electronics kept close to the skin. Disposal and recycling guidelines often ban open burning or uncontrolled shredding, even though these materials release far fewer toxins than old halogenated plastics. Fire departments now train with these plastics, learning different smoke color and odor, so they aren’t surprised in an emergency. Regulations keep stepping up, and insurance companies demand not just burn-tests but toxicity data before signing off on big contracts.
Manufacturers dive for halogen-free flame retardant PP any time heat, sparks, or flammable liquids threaten plastic components. Automakers use it inside dashboards, HVAC ducts, battery cases, and wire coatings. Electronics designers specify the stuff for television housings, wire management, switch housings, and battery covers in laptops and phones. Every public building in developed countries installs cable trays, light fittings, and conduits molded from flame retarded polypropylene — code demands it. Even power tools, kitchen appliances, and playground equipment manufacturers demand halogen-free blends. Outdoor furniture and construction use these plastics for cladding or insulation, since the residue from halogenated products becomes even more harmful in burning landfills.
The research labs keep busy. Scientists hunt for new blends that hold up in molding, don’t cut strength or fade color, and cost less than old halogenated mixes. They tweak phosphorus and nitrogen compounds, build hybrid flame retardant systems, and bring nanomaterials like nanoclays or carbon nanotubes into the fold. Big questions revolve around drop-in replacements so factories won’t need expensive retooling. Additives must not block recycling streams or hurt renewable content for “green plastic” claims. Some universities tackle the fire chemistry head-on: how char forms, how oxygen diffuses, and how additives can slow toxic gas release. Experience tells me that partnerships between resin manufacturers, academics, and big consumer brands are where real progress shows up — not just in the lab, but on factory floors making real stuff.
Halogen-free doesn’t mean risk-free, and today’s scientists check every new flame retardant for its effect on humans, pets, plants, and aquatic life. A few older phosphorus-based products caused anxiety about chronic toxicity and bioaccumulation, but most new products clear strict testing. Long-term inhalation studies, simulated landfill burning, and even aquatic runoff trials try to predict what happens when a product burns in a house fire or sits in a dump for decades. The industry moved in recent years to ban formaldehyde and aryl phosphates, after animal-data red flags. We’re seeing more data-sharing between governments and companies, and plastic makers welcome stricter toxicological reviews — after all, nobody wants to swap fire risk for cancer risk. My experience with regulatory audits proves you need a check-list mentality and real lab data. No shortcuts work when public health gets on the line.
The road ahead for halogen-free flame retardant PP looks bright, but not without its potholes. Demand for safer, greener materials in cars and homes keeps climbing, and policy in China, the EU, and the US tightens regulations each year. Chemistry advances make modern PP grades cheaper, easier to recycle, and tough enough for high-wear environments. Still, high costs and some technical limits, such as lower heat resilience compared to old halogen blends, slow adoption, especially in price-sensitive markets. Future breakthroughs may come from bio-based flame retardant ingredients or sourced-from-waste additives. Companies face pressures from insurance, customers, and governments alike to show long-term safety without greenwashing. Automation in compounding and testing promises better consistency and less labor cost. Seeing how fast these plastics showed up across industries, I’d bet on halogen-free flame retardant PP playing a key role in both traditional and advanced manufacturing, not just for fire safety but as part of wider sustainability and health efforts. Early skepticism fades as users see real-world fire safety with less health tradeoff, reminding us that sometimes the slow, less glamorous road — rooted in careful chemistry and detailed compliance — can build trust that outlasts the next flashy breakthrough.
Halogen-free flame retardant polypropylene has changed the way many everyday products are made, especially in electrical and electronic industries. Look around your house. Televisions, laptops, washing machines, and power adapters all have plastic parts that keep us insulated from electricity. Regular plastics catch fire easily; most of us have seen or at least heard of housefires starting from a faulty outlet or appliance. Regulations now push for safer material choices, especially as the world turns away from toxic chemicals like halogenated flame retardants. Halogen-free PP fits right in because it reduces toxic smoke and corrosive gas if the material burns. Those fires you see in the news that fill the room with black smoke? Traditional flame retardants can make things worse. And so, manufacturers switch to this alternative for safer home environments.
Modern buildings use miles of cable hidden behind walls, floors, and ceilings. Polypropylene with halogen-free flame retardants coats many of those wires. Once a fire starts in a concealed space, there's little time before it spreads. Imagine an office full of computers and printers, or a hospital with rooms connected by long wires. If a short circuit happens, these coated cables do not support the flames and do not turn into a toxic smoke hazard. In my own experience visiting construction sites, electricians often request halogen-free options. Workers know they'll be safer handling it, but the long-term benefit is for the people living or working there. Fewer toxins in the air, less damage to electronics in a fire — both matter a lot.
Look inside any subway car, airplane, or new car model; the plastic panels, dashboards, and covers are usually made from flame-retardant polypropylene blends. Mass transit puts hundreds of people in close quarters, where escape in a fire becomes tough. Companies in the car and rail industries now design with stricter fire safety rules. Here, halogen-free options make a huge difference. Burning halogens corrode metal and lead to high recovery costs. After a subway accident or small battery fire, the use of non-halogen plastics means less lingering contamination — something often overlooked until there’s an incident.
Even simple kitchen appliances — coffee makers, toasters, blenders — benefit from this material. Heating elements and exposed circuits push manufacturers to be more careful. Instead of risking recall over toxic fumes, companies began moving to halogen-free flame-retardant polypropylene. The price difference gets smaller every year as more suppliers join in. I’ve talked with friends in small appliance repair who find these parts easier to recycle too, since hazardous substances create all sorts of headaches for disposal and sorting.
Think of flooring, wall claddings, or ceiling panels in offices or schools. Polypropylene options lower fire risk while making spaces safer for children or workers. After high-profile fires in apartment towers, building codes changed fast. Demand for safe, cost-effective plastic solutions grew across the construction industry. Companies realized these products cut their liability and insurance costs. Schools, daycares, and hospitals embraced the switch for peace of mind.
Switching over to halogen-free flame retardant PP isn’t always smooth sailing. Costs sometimes jump, and manufacturers struggle with unfamiliar processing quirks or sourcing additive packages. Smaller brands or builders avoid it just to save a bit up front, usually regretting it after serious recalls or incidents. What works is group purchasing and clear incentives, along with transparency about true health and safety costs. Firefighters and building inspectors speak up more now, so more cities are writing this approach directly into their codes. Sooner or later, everyone benefits from breathing cleaner air and keeping flames at bay with smarter, safer materials.
Think back to that cheap plastic toy you bought for your kid a few years ago. Did you give much thought to what made it less likely to catch fire? Probably not. Most folks trust things won’t go up in flames, so they skip reading the sticker on the back. Here’s the reality: traditional flame retardant polypropylene, the kind used in everything from kids’ gadgets to office equipment, usually depends on halogens—chemical elements like bromine or chlorine.
These halogens act as fire suppressants, but there’s a big problem when fire does start. Burning halogens release toxic gases, like dioxins and furans. This isn’t just a chemistry lesson. I’ve stood in factories where the fumes from a small plastic melt drove everyone out. Firefighters say toxic smoke inhalation kills more people in fires than actual burns, and these byproducts stick around, seeping into soil and water.
Halogen-free flame retardant PP flips the script. It stops fires without releasing those dangerous gases. People once doubted that halogen-free mixes could match the performance of brominated ones, but things have changed fast. Walk through a modern electronics plant today and you’ll see circuit boards and casing stamped “halogen-free” that still pass the strictest flammability tests.
Manufacturers blend phosphorus, nitrogen, and other elements into halogen-free polypropylene to shut down flames during a fire. Testing labs confirm these products meet the UL94 V-0 rating—a benchmark for serious flame resistance. The European Union banned many halogenated flame retardants in everything from cars to kitchen blenders, not just to make things safer but also to protect the planet after the products get trashed.
Nobody wants to bring home materials that might poison their family or pollute their neighborhood dump. I’ve seen rural scrap yards with the stench of burnt plastic in the air—kids playing near drums leaking black water. Banning halogens from household plastics covers more than just choking fumes; it’s about not leaving behind toxic dust for the next generation.
Halogen-free flame retardants don’t only shift the safety balance during fires. Disposal becomes easier, too. Incinerators can run without the extra filters needed to catch halogen-based toxins, keeping operating costs and emissions low. Recycling companies in Japan and Germany already separate halogen-free plastics for cleaner recovery, knowing the resale value climbs when there’s no risk of persistent organic pollutants.
Companies held off on switching to halogen-free options for years, mostly because of old habits and price worries. Additives with phosphorus and nitrogen cost more, and the learning curve seemed steep at the start. Yet, real costs of dealing with toxic fires—medical bills, lawsuits, tricky cleanup—outweigh those up-front savings. As demand grows, I’ve watched prices of halogen-free compounds dip. Big retailers now pressure suppliers to drop hazardous additives, since nobody wants their brand linked to cancerous smoke or polluted rivers.
Engineers and designers can ease the switch by looking at their materials lists with fresh eyes. Every cable, fan blade, and children’s chair made from halogen-free flame retardant PP cuts a link in the old toxic chain. School boards, building contractors, and even city councils can demand better choices—because the science is there and so is public backing. In my experience, people rarely resist cleaner, safer options once costs go down and performance stays up. What’s needed now is the push to treat these safer plastics as the new standard, not a special alternative.
Flame retardancy in halogen-free polypropylene draws a lot of attention, mainly because safety rules have gotten a lot tougher. The most common rating you'll run into is UL94. This is an industry test, and people in plastics often mention V-0, V-1, and V-2. Among these, V-0 means the material stops burning within ten seconds without dripping flaming particles, which is the top choice for folks building consumer electronics or automotive parts.
For context, everyday items like laptop chargers or car dashboards need V-0 or at least V-1 to meet regulations and insurance requirements. V-2 allows some flaming drips, so you usually see it in applications where risks are lower. I remember sitting in a plant, watching companies pay close attention to each batch, because failing to hit that V-0 often led to scrapped production runs and wasted money. UL94 is not the only test, but it's usually the first box to check before shipping out a new part.
Another important measure is the Limiting Oxygen Index, or LOI. This percentage tells you how much oxygen the plastic needs in the air to catch fire. Standard polypropylene scores low here, around 18%. With halogen-free flame retardants, that number can rise above 28%, which puts out small fires before they can spread. High LOI opens up opportunities for designers who want safer products, especially for indoor use.
Halogen-free variants do not rely on chlorine or bromine, so they avoid producing toxic fumes if they do catch fire. This is especially relevant if you’ve ever toured cable manufacturing—engineers there worry a lot about smoke toxicity after several high-profile subway fires traced back to toxic emissions from burning cables.
Boosting flame retardancy often means changing other parts of the polymer’s recipe. Additives like phosphorus, melamine, or magnesium hydroxide give plastics the ability to pass the strictest tests, but they can also make materials less ductile. I've seen design teams wrestle with this trade-off. They want thinner, lighter casings, but too much additive can make a product brittle. Every year, labs push for formulations that keep both safety and toughness balanced.
In my experience, automotive suppliers are especially focused on passing both the V-0 rating and keeping the impact resistance that drivers expect. If the plastic in a car interior cracks too easily, customers notice fast. The smartest companies invite material suppliers early during product development, so they avoid surprises just before the launch.
Pressure from regulators isn’t going anywhere. The EU’s RoHS directive and similar rules in Asia and North America keep pushing factories to swap brominated and chlorinated additives for halogen-free ones. Companies want greener solutions too, so they’re testing bio-based flame retardants and exploring new blends with minerals or nanomaterials. Often, it’s the end users—households, schools, hospitals—pushing for clearer labels and safer materials.
As new blends enter the market, testing labs will stay busy. Manufacturers will keep chasing that perfect mix of V-0 flame rating, high LOI, toughness, and cost efficiency. The best ideas usually come from suppliers and designers sharing real-world feedback, not just relying on test data. Watching this play out year after year, I can say the drive toward safer halogen-free flame retardant PPs looks set to continue for a long time.
Plastics get a bad rap for good reasons. We see oceans choked with waste, landfills overflowing, and toxins leaching out of everyday items. Polypropylene, or PP, offers one of the most versatile and widely used plastics around. This stuff forms food containers, furniture, cables, and even cars. The problem starts when we ask it to handle heat or open flame. Historically, halogenated flame retardants get dumped in to keep plastics from turning into fire hazards.
These traditional chemicals, loaded with bromine or chlorine, do their job stopping fires—but the side effects risk lives just as much as the flames do. Halogenated additives release toxic gases when plastics burn, like dioxins and furans. These gases also persist in land and water, creating headaches for regulators, firefighters, and public health experts. Europe, China, and the U.S. have all put restrictions on many halogenated flame retardants. Japan and South Korea cracked down even harder. So industries needed a better answer.
Enter halogen-free flame retardant PP. Manufacturers promote these new additives as safer options. Alternatives such as magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide, and phosphorus-based compounds have climbed into the spotlight. Since I first learned about them, I've watched companies rush to tout their "eco-friendly" credentials. Advertisements trumpet that these replacements don’t spit out toxic dioxin or persistent pollutants if burned. From my experience chatting with engineers and researchers, this sounds promising—and regulations often agree.
The European Union’s RoHS directive cuts out restricted halogens. China’s versions mirror the move. Major electronics brands won’t even consider a supplier still using banned substances. Most halogen-free flame retardant PP can pass these checks, and I've seen labs routinely churn out certs for heavy metals, RoHS, and REACH compliance. This means these plastics pass the smell test in a legal sense.
Here's the catch: labeling something "halogen-free" doesn’t guarantee it won’t hurt the environment. Substituting in phosphate-based or metal hydroxide additives takes care of dioxin problems—sure, but mass-producing these chemicals takes energy and mining. Magnesium and aluminum don’t fall out of the sky. I remember touring a plant where the energy to refine and process minerals left a carbon footprint nobody cared to brag about. Some phosphate flame retardants have come under suspicion for creating their own ecosystem headaches, like leaching and bioaccumulation. Still, compared to the known dangers of halogenated chemicals, most scientists say it’s a lesser evil.
Performance offers another problem. To reach the same safety levels as halogens once did, you often need more of the new additives by weight. That means heavier products, possible drops in strength, and a debate about whether these products really meet the circular economy goals many brands boast about.
Nothing replaces common sense and constant improvement. It makes more sense to design items that last, keep hazardous chemicals away from products used by kids or in the kitchen, and push toward recycling-friendly flame retardants. The industry needs to put just as much effort into reusing plastics as making them safer. Some startups are experimenting with bio-based flame retardants using natural minerals or plant extracts. Researchers work hard to invent polymer blends that need fewer additives.
Most people want plastics safe enough for daily life, but not at the planet’s expense. As a consumer, I read labels and press suppliers for data. Companies shouldn’t stop at halogen-free claims—stakeholders should pressure them for full transparency from mine to landfill. For anyone in plastics, real change happens with eyes open, ears to the ground, and a willingness to rethink what goes into the products we trust.
Halogen-free flame retardant polypropylene (PP) has gained traction in the market as manufacturers and industries make safety and environmental impact a top priority. Many businesses want to move away from traditional halogen-based chemicals due to concerns about toxic smoke and environmental hazards during processing and disposal. I remember a project in a small electronics factory where we switched to this safer PP compound. It quickly became clear that the shift wasn't just about swapping materials—it demanded a rethink in how we handled production.
Injection molding stands out as the most reliable method for making flame-retardant PP parts. Machines require careful temperature control since these flame retardants often alter the melt flow. Running too hot can scorch the material or break down the additives, so it’s important to set temperatures in a moderate range, typically below 240°C. Consistent feeding and avoiding long residence times in the barrel help maintain product quality. Experienced technicians often favor hot runner systems that keep flow smooth and reduce waste. Most automotive, appliance, and electrical housings made from this PP come off injection molding lines because the process delivers fine surface detail and tough, functional parts.
Plastic extrusion comes into play where continuous products, like cable sheaths or flat sheets, are needed. During my time in a wire harness shop, we noticed that using halogen-free compounds meant tuning back screw speeds and closely watching pressure. This is especially true in multi-layer cable production; high shear can cause flame retardants to clump or degrade, leading to defects. Calendering and water cooling help keep dimensions steady without over-stressing the compound. Regular cleaning of die heads saves time lost to build-up caused by these complex additives.
Blow molding shapes tanks and ducts from this PP for construction and automotive uses. Any shop working with halogen-free material soon learns the importance of slow cycle times when blowing and cooling. Pushing too fast leads to uneven walls and weak corners. Smaller runs often require pre-drying pellets to keep moisture from messing with flame retardancy. I’ve seen many setups add mixing stations right before the hoppers, making sure add-on agents don’t settle out and end up producing weak spots or off-color streaks. Quality always tracks back to preparation and patience on the floor.
One big roadblock comes from compatibility between flame retardants and the base resin. Not every grade of PP plays nice with every flame retardant mix. Chasing after high-gloss or thin-wall applications often proves frustrating, as parts can warp or lose impact strength. Partners up and down the supply chain keep close tabs on batch testing and minor formulation tweaks to head off headaches. Investing in twin-screw extruders gives better dispersion of additives, which improves strength and fire performance.
For small-batch runs, like specialty fittings or low-volume prototypes, compression molding offers real flexibility. Tools get set up faster and without costly retooling. Temperature tweaks and slower cooling cycles let operators compensate for odd part shapes or extra-thick walls. We've found in hands-on trials that product performance relies more on patience and observation than expensive sensors or software.
Plenty of hurdles remain, including recyclability and achieving stable color. But by building hands-on experience and fine-tuning equipment, factories can turn halogen-free flame retardant PP into everything from safer plugs to durable outdoor enclosures. Success relies on process know-how, attention to detail, and a commitment to continuous improvement rather than settling for one-size-fits-all answers.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | poly(propene) |
| Other names |
Halogen-free flame retardant polypropylene Halogen-free FR PP Non-halogenated flame retardant PP HF FR PP Halogen-free PP flame retardant |
| Pronunciation | /ˌhæləʤənˈfriː fleɪm rɪˈtrædənt ˌpiːˈpiː/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 1195978-93-8 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3720591 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:85145 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2105969 |
| ChemSpider | 3323797 |
| DrugBank | |
| ECHA InfoCard | EC Number 500-120-6 |
| EC Number | EC01.07010 |
| Gmelin Reference | Gmelin Reference: 55 |
| KEGG | C16266 |
| MeSH | D016220 |
| PubChem CID | 173601 |
| RTECS number | GNKWX9450S |
| UNII | 1Y4C1WELT7 |
| UN number | UN3077 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | CompTox Dashboard (EPA) of product 'Halogen-free flame retardant PP' is "DTXSID30894979 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | (C3H6)n |
| Appearance | White or light yellow granules |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.90-0.92 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | 1.58 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 14.0 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 8.85 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -13.1×10⁻⁶ cm³/g |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.49 |
| Viscosity | 1,800~3,000 mPa·s |
| Dipole moment | 0.40 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | − |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -360 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -46.3 MJ/kg |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | C08KA10 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause respiratory irritation |
| GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | SGHC,FB,MP,MF,DF |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H315, H319, H335 |
| Precautionary statements | If released, this product may cause environmental pollution; please avoid release to the environment. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1/1/0 |
| Flash point | > 350°C |
| Autoignition temperature | 410°C |
| LD50 (median dose) | > 5000 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | HZ22030214001 |
| PEL (Permissible) | 50 mg/m³ |
| REL (Recommended) | UL94 V-2 |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Halogen-free flame retardant PE Halogen-free flame retardant ABS Halogen-free flame retardant PC Halogen-free flame retardant PA Halogen-free flame retardant PBT |
