LOW VISCOSE PHOSPHATE POLYOLS

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0001] Polyurethanes and other synthetic and natural polymers are flammable, which poses hazards in practical applications of these materials. Fire retardants are typically required to meet flammability standards for polymeric materials. Many fire retardants contain halogens, but there is a growing interest in more environmentally friendly non-halogenated alternatives. Embodiments of the invention comprise improved halogen-free phosphorus polyol compositions which can be readily incorporated into polymers for use as fire retardants. Other embodiments of the invention also comprise formulations based on the improved phosphate polyols which offer improved fire retardant performance relative to the polyol itself. Yet other embodiments of the invention comprise polyurethane foams made from the improved phosphorus-polyol- containing formulations which show decreased mass loss when exposed to fire and improved char formation.BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0002] The prior art indicates that polyurethane foams made from phosphate polyols have desirable fire properties, but achieving this property requires replacing all of the polyol originally used in the foam formulation with the phosphate polyol. This high level of substitution is uneconomic and may negatively impact foam physical properties. The prior art also indicates that phosphate polyols may be incorporated into aqueous emulsions as components of fire retardant polyurethane coatings. While phosphorus-containing fire retardants are well known in the art of polyurethane foam, a need exists for low-viscosity materials which are effective at use levels comparable to those of current state-of-the-art fire retardants, as well as for low-viscosity non-halogenated materials with both burning and thermal stability performance comparable to that of current halogenated fire retardants.

[0003] While numerous non-halogen phosphorus-containing fire retardants for rigid polyurethane foam are known, the prior art provides essentially no guidance on how to optimize the fire retardant for both fire and char performance while maintaining convenient handling properties and use levels comparable to those of conventional halogenated phosphates.

[0004] The following United States patents provide the background of the invention:

[0005] The addition of propylene oxide to phosphoric acid while controlling temperature below 95 F (35 C) resulted in a phosphate ester (U.S. Patent No.2372244).

[0006] The addition of more than three moles of alkylene oxide on average per phosphate hydroxyl requires boron and tin catalysts (U.S. Patent No.3317638).

[0007] The preparation of phosphate polyols from phosphoric acid containing 12-28% water requires subsequent water removal to be suitable for rigid polyurethane foam applications (U.S. Patent No.3317639).

[0008] The preparation of phosphate polyols from phosphoric acid and halogenated epoxides including epichlorohydrin has been disclosed (U.S. Patent No.3281502). Phosphate polyol use levels are high, from 40-85 wt% of the overall polyol mass.

[0009] The addition of phosphoric acid to alkylene oxides for use as polyurethane flame retardants involves a highly exothermic reaction, which is difficult to manage on an industrial scale (U.S. Patent No.3393254).

[0010] Phosphate polyols can be prepared from phosphoric acid and alkylene oxides in the presence of polyether polyols, but extended reaction times are required and the phosphorus content is very low, less than about 2% (U.S. Patent No.3639543).

[0011] Phosphate polyols derived from the reaction of ethylene oxide with phosphoric acid are known as components of fire retardant rigid polyurethane foams (U.S. Patent No.4051082). The polyurethane foams prepared from the inventive phosphate polyols require high isocyanate index and 15-80 wt% of the phosphate polyol relative to total polyol.

[0012] Phosphate esters lacking hydroxyalkyl functionality will not react readily into polyurethane foams (U.S. Patent No.6512133).

[0013] Phosphate polyols can be incorporated into polyurethane prepolymer-based aqueous emulsions for use as flame retardant coatings (U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2013 / 0203936).

[0014] Polyol compositions comprising phosphorous-based polyols and further phosphorous-containing flame retardants such as alkyl phosphates are also described in the published patent applicantions CN 105 218 782 A, DE 198 53 025 A1, US 3 509 076 A and EP 0 719 807 A2.

[0015] Polyols of the present invention can be combined with phosphorus-based fire retardants. Examples of phosphorus compound used in fire retardants include United States Patent No.9,023,925 to Qi, Phosphorus-Containing Flame Retardants for Polyurethane Foams; United States Patent No.9,718,937 to Dai, Inherent Flame Retardant Rigid Polyurethane Foam; United States Patent No.8,846,967 to Hansel, Process for Preparing Alkyl Phosphates; and United States Patent No.8,703,853 to Kasowski, Flame Retardant and Compositions Containing It.SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0016] The phosphate polyols of the preferred embodiment of the present invention are made from the reaction of phosphoric acid with alkylene oxides, most preferably propylene oxide, with the optional presence of additional alkylene-oxide-based polyols as described in the prior art. The scope of the present invention is as defined by the appended claims.

[0017] The novel phosphate polyol formulations of an aspect of the present invention are made from mixtures of the phosphate polyol with a polyester polyol and a blowing agent, a catalyst, a surfactant, and an aromatic isocyanate, and a fire-retardant non-isocyanate reactive compound comprising trialkyl phosphate, where the weight ratio of phosphate polyol to trialkyl phosphate is 70:30, where the phosphate polyol formulation is halogen-free, and where the blowing agent comprises pentane.

[0018] In another aspect, the present invention comprises a phosphate polyol formulation comprising a modified aromatic polyester, a phosphate polyol, a blowing agent comprising pentane, a catalyst comprising potassium octoate and pentamethyldiethylene triamine, a surfactant comprising silicone polyether, an aromatic isocyanate, and a trialkyl phosphate, where the weight ratio of phosphate polyol to trialkyl phosphate is 70:30, and where the phosphate polyol formulation is halogen-free. In further aspects, the present invention comprises polyurethane foams prepared from the phosphate polyol formulation of the present invention.DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATED EMBODIMENTS

[0019] While the invention may be susceptible to embodiment in different forms, there will be described in detail specific embodiments with the understanding that the present disclosure is to be considered an exemplification of the principles of the invention. The scope of the invention is defined by the appended claims.

[0020] The invention provides phosphate polyols with lower viscosity, high phosphorus content and hydroxyl numbers similar to those of commonly-used polyols. The invention minimizes the impact on foam formulation processing and foam physical properties, which simplifies incorporation into existing formulations. Use levels are comparable to those of existing fire retardants, as are mass and shape retention when exposed to flame.

[0021] The formulated phosphate polyols of the preferred embodiment of the present invention provide acceptable weight loss and improved shape retention for polyurethane foams exposed to fire conditions, thus limiting fire spread. The phosphate polyol compositions also provide improved thermal stability to limit generation of volatile species that can provide additional fuel for a fire.

[0022] The invention is useful for rigid polyurethane foam, with applicability to flexible foams and other synthetic and natural polymers.

[0023] The invention provides low-viscosity phosphate polyol compositions which allow for the simultaneous optimization of rigid foam fire performance and char formation, while minimizing the impact on foam formulation processing. Use levels are comparable to those of existing halogenated fire retardants, as are char formation and mass and shape retention when exposed to flame.

[0024] Phosphate polyol compositions were produced according to the following examples.Example 1:

[0025] Charge 1480 g of phosphoric acid to a 20L reactor, heat to 35-40C with stirring, and heat for 1 hour. Charge 5200 g of propylene oxide and nitrogen sparge to remove unreacted propylene oxide.

[0026] Final polyol product has OH# 362, color Gardner 5.5, viscosity 820 cps and % phosphorus 6.7.

[0027] Optionally, produce a formulation for even more improved fire retardant performance by blending phosphate polyol prepared via prior art methods as indicated above with an appropriate quantity of a non-isocyanate-reactive compound having a fire-retardant property, preferably a phosphate, more preferably a trialkyl phosphate, most preferably triethyl phosphate, to produce the inventive compositions (Table 3, below).Example 2:

[0028] Polyurethane foams were prepared from the formulations in Table 1. Table 1. Rigid Foam Formulations to Evaluate Phosphate PolyolsProduct Chemical PPHP PolyolStepanpol PS-2352Modified aromatic polyester100Flame retardantFyrol PCFTris (1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCPP)VariousFlame retardantInventive phosphate polyolPhosphate polyol compositionVariousBlowing agentWater0.50CatalystPEL-CAT 9540-APotassium octoate in diethylene glycol4.50CatalystPEL-CAT 9749-APentamethyldiethylene triamine (PMDETA)0.19Silicone surfactantPEL-SIL 9920Silicone polyether surfactant1.17Blowing agent2-Me Butanei-Pentane23.20Index Isocyanate (MDI)Mondur 489Aromatic isocyanate280

[0029] Stepanpol PS-2352 polyester polyol OH# 237 available from Stepan.

[0030] Fyrol PCF available from ICL.

[0031] PEL-CAT 9540-A, PEL-CAT 9749-A and PEL-SIL 9920 available from Ele' Corporation.

[0032] Mondur 489 (30.8% NCO) available from Covestro.

[0033] The foams for burn testing were prepared as follows. The polyol, flame retardant(s), water, catalysts and surfactant (B side) were premixed and allowed to incubate at 25C for at least 24 hours prior to foam preparation. The isocyanate and pentane blowing agent (A side) were weighed into a capped jar and incubated for at least one hour prior to foam preparation. The B side mixture was weighed into a tared 32-ounce paperboard cup. The A side mixture was shaken vigorously for 25 seconds and rapidly weighed into the paperboard cup. The cup was mixed at 3000 rpm for six seconds and the foam was allowed to rise freely. The foam was cured at 25C for a minimum of 24 hours before being cut into pieces for burn testing as specified in ASTM D- 635.

[0034] Burn testing was conducted according to a method based on ASTM D-635. The method was modified to use a propane flame (flame temperature in air 1967C) instead of a natural gas flame (methane flame temperature in air 1950C). Three to four foam samples were burned for 30 seconds and the weight loss values averaged. Results are shown in Table 2. All samples were self-extinguishing prior to removal of the flame after 30 seconds. Table 2. Phosphate Polyol Burn TestExp. 1 Control Exp. 2 No FR Exp. 3 Exp. 4 Flame retardant TCPP (pphp)7.50.00.00.0Phosphate polyol (pphp)0.00.07.515.0% Mass Loss 16.554.234.530.0

[0035] Experiment 1 is the TCPP control. Experiment 2 with no flame retardant shows considerably more mass loss as expected. Experiments 3 and 4 show that the phosphate polyol is not as effective as the halogenated control, but is appreciably more effective than no fire retardant (Experiment 2). The phosphate polyol is halogen-free and is incorporated into the polymer network, which helps to maintain physical properties.

[0036] Performance of the phosphate polyol can be further improved by adding a non- isocyanate-reactive compound having a fire-retardant property, such as a phosphorus compound to the Table 1 formulation. The non-isocyanate-reactive compound can be a trialkyl phosphate. The results are shown in Table 3

[0037] Experiments 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in table 3 are not within the scope of the claims. Table 3. Phosphate Polyol / Triethyl Phosphate (TEP) Burn TestFlame retardant Exp. 1 Control Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 Exp. 5 Exp. 6 Exp. 7 Exp. 8 TCPP (pphp)7.500.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Phosphate polyol (pphp)0.006.756.005.250.0013. 5012.0010.50Triethyl phosphate (pphp)0.000.751.502.257.501.503.004.50Weight ratio phosphate polyol: TEP-90:1080:2070:30-90:1080:2070:30Total FR(pphp)7.507.507.507.507.5015.0015.0015.00% Mass Loss 14.533727.818.611.526.119.910.4

[0038] Addition of triethyl phosphate brings weight loss in line with that of the control. All samples were self-extinguishing prior to removal of the flame after 30 seconds.

[0039] Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) is a widely-accepted analytical technique that provides an indication of relative thermal stability for a series of materials. TGA was conducted to better understand thermal stability and char formation without direct flame contact

[0040] In this study, a known mass of foam was heated from 30C - 750C at a steady rate of 20° C / min under nitrogen at 40 ml / min. (Thermal stability is expressed as percent retention of foam weight at a particular temperature relative to the foam's initial weight at 30C. See, for example, United States Patent No.8,916,620, Process for polyurethane-modified polyisocyanurate foam with improved thermal stability.) Table 4. Phosphate Polyol / Triethyl Phosphate Thermogravimetric AnalysisFlame retardant Exp. 1 Control Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 TCPP (pphp)7 500.000.000.00Phosphate polyol (pphp)0.005 250.007.50Triethyl phosphate (pphp)0.002.257.500.00Weight ratio phosphate polyol:TEP-70:30--Total Fit (pphp)7.507.507 507.50% Mass retained 300C95.391.681.094.0% Mass retained 400C66.765.658.963.7% Mass retained 500C58.260.451.157.4% Mass retained 600C47.353.535.052.2% Mass retained 700C30.840.88.744.9% Mass retained 745C23.534.90.041.4

[0041] The TCPP control (Table 4, Experiment 1) displays good mass retention up to 500C but accelerating mass loss above 500C. The TCPP control (Tables 2 and 3, experiment 1) also displays low mass loss when exposed directly to a flame, thus demonstrating a good balance between flame resistance and thermal stability.

[0042] An inventive phosphate polyol / triethyl phosphate composition (Table 4, Experiment 2) shows mass retention comparable to that of the control up to 500C and superior mass retention above 500C. This phosphate polyol / triethyl phosphate composition (Table 3 Experiment 4) shows mass loss close to that of the control when exposed to flame, also demonstrating a good balance between flame resistance and thermal stability.

[0043] Triethyl phosphate alone (Table 4, Experiment 3) shows very poor mass retention, especially above 400C, with complete mass loss by 745C. However, triethyl phosphate (Table 3, Experiment 5) shows low weight loss when exposed directly to flame.

[0044] Phosphate polyol alone (Table 4, Experiment 4) shows good mass retention at all temperatures, but high mass loss (Table 3, Experiments 3 and 4) when exposed directly to flame.

[0045] When formulating a multi-component composition with a desired set of target properties, a common strategy is to utilize individual components with a range of properties, with the hope that the average performance for the composition is acceptable. Given the objective of developing a composition that provides good mass retention under both direct flame and thermal resistance conditions, the observation that triethyl phosphate demonstrates very poor mass retention in the TGA experiment would not motivate one skilled in the art to add increasing levels of triethyl phosphate to improve the overall performance of the phosphate polyol.

[0046] Increasing triethyl phosphate levels to improve mass retention when exposed to fire would be expected to significantly degrade mass retention under thermal stability conditions. Unexpectedly, we find significant positive synergy between triethyl phosphate and the phosphate polyol in terms of thermal stability relative to the performance of the individual components. Given the numerous phosphorus-based fire retardants known, achieving the desired objectives is not a matter of routine optimization, but rather requires inventive insight to identify synergistic behavior.

Claims

1. A phosphate polyol formulation comprising: a polyester polyol; a phosphate polyol; a blowing agent; a catalyst; a surfactant; an aromatic isocyanate; and a fire-retardant non-isocyanate-reactive compound comprising trialkyl phosphate, where the weight ratio of phosphate polyol to trialkyl phosphate is 70:30, where the phosphate polyol formulation is halogen-free, and where the blowing agent comprises pentane.

2. The phosphate polyol formulation of claim 1 wherein trialkyl phosphate comprises triethyl phosphate.

3. The phosphate polyol formulation of claim 1, wherein the phosphate polyol formulation comprises 7.5 parts by weight of the phosphate polyol per hundred parts by weight of the polyester polyol.

4. The phosphate polyol formulation of claim 1 wherein the polyester polyol comprises a modified aromatic polyester polyol.

5. The phosphate polyol formulation of claim 1, wherein the catalyst comprises potassium octoate and pentamethyldiethylene triamine, or wherein the catalyst comprises potassium octoate in diethylene glycol and pentamethyldiethylene triamine.

6. The phosphate polyol formulation of claim 1, wherein the surfactant comprises a silicone polyether.

7. A phosphate polyol formulation comprising: a modified aromatic polyester polyol; a phosphate polyol; a blowing agent comprising pentane; a catalyst comprising potassium octoate and pentamethyldiethylene triamine; a surfactant comprising silicone polyether; an aromatic isocyanate; and a trialkyl phosphate, where the weight ratio of phosphate polyol to trialkyl phosphate is 70:30, and where the phosphate polyol formulation is halogen-free.

8. A polyurethane foam prepared from the phosphate polyol formulation of claim 1, or claim 2.

9. A polyurethane foam prepared from the phosphate polyol formulation of claim 7.