Flammability properties of paper coated with poly (methylenephosphine), an organophosphorus polymer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The flame retardant properties of paper coated with either poly(methylenephosphine) (PMP) or poly(methylenephosphine oxide) (PMP‐O) are evaluated. Paper sheets made from thermomechanical pulp were coated with PMP (Mn = 27,000 g mol−1, polydispersity index (PDI) = 1.47), PMP‐O (Mn = 30,000 g mol−1, PDI = 1.24), or monobasic ammonium phosphate (MAP) to achieve an approximate loading of 0.8 mmol P/g paper. Thermal stability studies by thermogravimetric analysis show that the paper degrades in two main stages, with the second thermo‐oxidative stage having a slower rate of degradation for paper treated with flame retardants. The flame retardancy of the sheets was evaluated by Technical Association of Pulp and Paper Industry Standard Method T461 cm‐00 and by limiting oxygen index (LOI) according to ASTM D2863. After leaching with water, samples coated with PMP or PMP‐O show no loss of flame retardancy, while those coated with MAP lose all flame retardancy. The LOI of paper coated with PMP (23.1%) or PMP‐O (25.9%) is higher than those of uncoated paper (19.6%), but lower than MAP‐coated paper (34.7%). Analysis of the char provided evidence that the flame retardant mechanism of PMP and PMP‐O involves the formation of phosphorus oxides and acids. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".