1-1. Non-halogen plastics as an alternative material to PVC.

Market growing attention to non-halogen flame retardants is connected with the ascending tendency to change a plastic material from PVC to an alternative plastic, for example to Polyolefin and Polypropylene.

The reasons why market will replace PVC with an alternative plastics are following,

(1).About  70% of PVC is chlorine and it may occur Dioxin by its incineration.

(2).DEPH, which is widely used as a plasticiser for PVC, is regarded as a environmental contaminants and substances which are harmful to human health. It is reported DEPH is an endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC).

(3).At the waste deposit, from PVC containing substances are leaching out and its causes a long term emission of soil.

(4).Although there is a argument that under severe incineration control of PVC, the generation of Dioxin can be prevented. But the residue after incineration is much more voluminously than before. It means, PVC shortens a lifetime of a waste deposit facility.

(5).To recycle as the thermal energy, PVC can be burned in the blase furnace and cement kiln, but before PVC put into its burning process, hydrogen chloride must be removed, because hydrogen chloride gas may give a damage to the brick at the furnace wall. This process costs very high and the user of this by-product must be found out.

1-2. The problem of halogenated additives.

To similar to the problem, what is mentioned before, some halogenated flame retardants (brominated flame retardants) has the same problem, which is harmful to human health and furthermore, brominated flame retardant is supposed to create a brominated Dioxin by the fire.

And by the fire some brominated flame retardants generate a toxic gas and a corrosion gas, which can cause to the electronic equipment a fatal result, and can oppose a rapid escape action by emergency.

1-3. Conventional flame retardant and its problematics.

 The commonly used flame retardants for plastics are brominated flame  retardants, Antimon dioxide und Phosphoric flame retardants. But these  flame retardants can generate also toxic and corrosive gas by the fire.

  As an alternative materials for PVC , non-halogen plastics, for example, Polypropylene and Polyethylene, have a weak point, that they can easy catch a fire to compare with a PVC, which is intrinsic hardly inflammable.

 To amend this materialistic behavior, as non-halogenated flame retardant, magnesium hydroxide comes to a place. Magnesium Hydroxide is a environmentally friendly and according to some official documentations no hazard to human health is reported.

2.      Non-halogen flame retardant

 It is widely known that aluminum hydroxide is the most used non-halogen flame retardant. But aluminum hydroxide can be not used for polypropylene and ethylene-vinyl acetate etc, because the decomposition of aluminum hydroxide starts at about 200 deg. By a temperature of over 200 deg. , it means aluminum hydroxide begins to decompose, during the production of plastics, such as thermo-plastic like polypropylene, which has higher processing temperature than 200 deg. For the  polyolefin plastic magnesium hydroxide, that has the decomposition temperature of over 330 deg., is the right choice.

This is why, that the magnesium hydroxide is the best flame retardant for the alternative plastic in stead of PVC.

3.      The market of magnesium hydroxide

There are two types of magnesium hydroxide in the market.

Type 1. :From sea-water synthetic produced.
Type 2. :From natural mineral produced.

Type 1 is most conventionally used as flame retardant for polyolefin.

4.The estimated demand of magnesium hydroxide as a flame retardant.

4-1. The reason, why the type 2. could not be recognized by the flame retardant market, are following,

(1). The diameter of the type 2. was too much bigger than type 1 and its particle distribution can not be enough controlled.

(2). In the market, because Type 1. was already dominated, a compounding technology for a polyolefin plastics has been developed on the assumption of using Type 1. At that time the judgment of flame retardant has been carried out, whether the tested flame retardant could alternate with Type 1 under the Type 1 compounding technology.

(3). From the commercial view point, it was much easier and more profitable for a compounding maker to use a expensive material Type 1, because they could sell their consumers higher value added products. At that time the end products, which was produced with highly qualified materials, have been only for a special products, such as a special cables for the fire protection systems. The market has been forced to accept its high cost.

(4). The problem of “Dioxin”