Toward a deep understanding of the difference between isotactic and syndiotactic polypropylene on the fire performance and degradation behavior.

• The flame retardancy and thermal degradation behavior of iPP and sPP has been investigated. • IPP can achieve better flame retardancy with the equal amounts of IFR compared with sPP. • The reason for the difference of iPP and sPP in flame retardancy was discussed through viscosity, melt point, crystallization and thermal degradation. This work investigated the difference in flame retardancy and degradation behavior of polypropylene (PP) composites with different configurations. The piperazine pyrophosphate (PAPP) was combined with melamine polyphosphate (MPP) to construct an intumescent flame retardant system, before incorporating into the PP system by melt blending. It showed that by the introduction of equal amounts of flame retardant, isotactic polypropylene composites (iPP-IFR) can achieve better flame retardancy with a desirable UL-94 V-0 rating, whereas syndiotactic polypropylene (sPP-IFR) shows poor fire performance. Melt index tests show that sPP-IFR sample is easy to flow and prone to melt drops. Differential scanning calorimetry results show that iPP-IFR has a higher degree of crystallinity. The thermogravimetric infrared coupling results show that sPP-IFR produces more small molecule hydrocarbon gases during combustion, making the system more difficult to achieve satisfied flame retardancy. The burning properties of iPP-IFR have been proven to be somewhat better compared to that of sPP-IFR, and sPP is more difficult for flame retardant modification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]