The Testing of a Natural, Environmentally Friendly Flame Retardant

Corbin Holtz and Bradley Pairgin

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Chemistry / IDS

12

Mr. Hilliard / Mrs. Gravel

13 December 2022
 The Testing of a Natural, Environmentally Friendly Flame Retardant

This research was conducted for the sake of finding a more environmentally

benign flame retardant to serve as an alternative to the pre-established standard

industrial-grade flame retardants. These industrial-grade flame retardants cause many

problems for the environment and for people, as they produce harmful chemicals when

burned as well as when simply existing nearby. The effects of these chemicals include;

immune system damage, disruption of developmental and mental functions, and a

chance of developing cancer, among other effects.

A solution of phytic acid, derived from rice, and urea was created. A layering

technique was used to create a solution that was nearly as effective as industrial-grade

flame retardants. Solutions of bilayer, distilled water, and flame retardant were applied

to 6-inch x 1-inch cotton strips by soaking them in a beaker. Bilayering was done by

coating in phytic acid, distilled water, urea, and then distilled water in that order and

repeating several times. Testing was conducted using vertical flame testing, and data

collection consisted of various measures of resistance to flames, such as time to

ignition, change in mass, and a number of self-extinguished.

Through a two-sample t test, it was concluded that, when compared to a control

treatment of water, the bilayer prolonged the time to ignition by a statistically significant

amount. Unfortunately, when compared to industrial flame retardant, the bilayer solution

was not nearly as effective. This was concluded due to the fact the data sets were quite

far apart and different. The flame retardant strips charred slightly but failed to fully burn

in testing, whereas the bilayer solution burned nearly every time.

 Table of Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………1

Review of Literature ….…………………………………………………………………………………3

Problem Statement……………………………………………………………………………………...7

Experimental Design.…………………………………………………………………………………...9

Data and Observations………………………………………………………………………………..12

Data and Analysis…….………………………………………………………………………………..27

Conclusion …………….………………………………………………………………………………..36

Acknowledgments …...………………………………………………………………………………..40

Appendices …...………………………………………………………………………………………...41

Works Cited ...………………………...………………………………………………………………...49

 Holtz - Pairgin 1

Introduction

Most people are dismally unaware that they are constantly being subjected to

harmful chemicals in their homes, cars, and even schools. These chemicals come from

flame retardants. Such chemicals bioaccumulate inside the lungs of the inhaler and over

time can have a dearth of negative effects. These effects range anywhere from immune

system damage, and disruption of developmental and mental functions, all the way to

an increased chance of developing cancer (“Flame Retardants.” National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences).

The research was conducted in the hopes of finding an environmentally safe

equivalent to the commonplace flame retardants. As research furthered, this idea

shifted to more of a comparison against distilled water. Testing was using cotton fabric

strips (coated in individual solutions) to model the texture and qualities of everyday

clothing. To try to produce a flame-retardant coating that could be put into clothing to

provide a slight amount of extra protection, to those in need while not causing negative

health effects in the long run.

A solution of phytic acid, derived from rice, and urea was made employing the

use of a layering technique in attempts to create a solution that was nearly as effective

as an industrial flame retardant. Solutions were applied to 6-inch x 1-inch cotton strips

by soaking them in a beaker. Bilayering was created by coating back and forth between

multiple solutions in multiple beakers. Testing was conducted using vertical flame

testing, and data collection consisted of various measures of resistance to flame.

Trials were conducted utilizing vertical flame testing, a process in which something — in

this case a cotton strip — is hung over an open flame to test the properties of the object.
 Holtz - Pairgin 2

A setup of a bunsen burner beneath a cotton strip held up by a clamp attached to a ring

stand is hung over an open flame to test the properties of said object. Prior to burning,

strips were prepared by soaking groups of cotton strips in two of the four different

solutions allowing them to dry overnight. The remainder of the two solutions were used

in tandem to create a bilayer.

 Holtz - Pairgin 3

Review of Literature

This research is trying to discover an environmentally friendly, alternative flame

retardant. Currently, commonly used flame retardants are highly damaging to the

environment and people, as they are bioaccumulative (“Flame Retardants.” National

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). This means that they build up in human

systems and the environment, making correctly disposing of them a challenging issue.

The alternative that is being tested is phytic acid and urea. This experiment aims to

determine whether a natural flame retardant of phytic acid and urea can compare in

terms of flame prevention when put up against an industrial flame retardant. A control

group of strips treated in distilled water was also tested.

Most of the common flame retardants are incredibly toxic. They are in many

household items, ranging from furniture to televisions and all the way to baby

mattresses (“Flame Retardants.” Flame Retardants). A majority of the time dangerous

chemicals like organohalogens and organophosphates are carbon-based compounds

found in the majority of industrial flame retardants. Inhaling these chemicals can

increase the risk of cancer, as well as the possibility of damage to the nervous,

reproductive, and skeletal systems (“Flame Retardants.” National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences). Not only are these flame retardants dangerous

through inhalation but there are other ways that they can enter the body. These are by

getting ingested by landing on food that will be consumed, polluting the water, or

through skin contact. The group that is most at risk is young children, as their frequent

hand-to-mouth behavior is very good at spreading germs. One of the key issues is that

once the product has the flame retardant on it, it can not just be thrown into a junkyard
 Holtz - Pairgin 4

or burned, as both of those actions will result in the chemicals entering the environment

anyways.

There are various terms and procedures which may be fairly confusing without a

decent amount of research into the topic. There are a few key terms that one needs to

know to comprehend this subject. In terms of procedures, there is the layer-by-layer

technique which is a technique used for coating the fabric strips. The process involves

taking a cotton strip from one solution and allowing it to sit very briefly, before coating it

in another type of solution, repeating this process multiple times (see figure 1). Typically

this is done in with an acid-base pair of solutions (goes from an acid to a base or vice

versa), in order to get multiple layers of a type of coating. This technique is shown in a

research paper “Environmentally-Benign Phytic Acid-Based Multilayer Coating for

Flame Retardant Cotton” conducted and written by Eva Magovac, Igor Jordanov, Jaime

Grunlan, and Sandra Bischof. The effectiveness of a flame retardant consisting of urea

and phytic acid, which they prepared using a layer-by-layer technique, was examined.

The team also employed a technique called vertical flame testing when testing to see

how well the crafted flame retardant held up over an open flame. The process involved

hanging the coated fabric strip over an open flame (using a specific device called a

vertical flame test chamber) allowing it to burn through and melt the flame retardant and

eventually the fabric strip. Many values can be derived from this type of procedure such

as time to ignition, burn time, the weight of residue left over, the texture of residue, and

more.

This experiment aims to find an equal or better-functioning alternative to

industrial flame retardants, that is less likely to cause environmental contamination.

 Holtz - Pairgin 5

Through thorough analysis of various articles and sources, two solutions in specific

shone above the rest: phytic acid, and urea. But more specifically the interaction effect

between the two when layered one on top of another (Magovac, Eva). The reason that

this bilayer technique was used in the first place as well as the somewhat unique choice

for chemicals lies in the interaction between the two chemicals. Put simply when placed

on top of one another the chemicals create a sort of barrier. This is due to the fact that

they have opposite charges with one another, which leads them to attract and link

together on a molecular level. This source is the one that spawned most of the designs

and setups in the current experiment. The group tested how different bilayers compared

to each other when applied to cotton fabric. They also used a mixture of chitosan and

urea; due to much of the same reason they had used phytic acid, which was positively

charged, and urea, which was negatively charged. Their experiment used different

bilayers as well as a wider variety of them, with half of their amounts of bilayers being

double what is used for this experiment. Lastly, one of the key differences between this

research and its predecessor is the tests. After running tests, they measured results

such as the weight gain percentage of the strip after applying the solution, as well as the

limiting oxygen Index (LOI) (the minimum concentration of oxygen in a mixture of

oxygen and nitrogen, needed to support combustion of a given material)

(ScienceDirect). The group also measured the char length of the cotton fabric strips

after running the test and the afterglow duration of the strips (glow of embers after the

strip extinguishes). The researchers of this paper followed a process of vertical flame

testing, then massing the residue, and recording what type of residue it was (char or

ash).
 Holtz - Pairgin 6

Contrary to popular belief flame retardants do not actually stop a fire, they just

delay it. They often do this by either hindering the chemical processes that create fire or

directly blocking the fire from reaching the fabric. The flame retardants that are being

used are ones that are coated onto the material and then proceed to block out the fire

from getting to the material. This only inhibits the fire though, as once the flame

retardant melts, the flames are able to burn the material.

Figure 1. Phytic Acid and Urea Bilayering Diagram

 Holtz - Pairgin 7

Problem Statement

Problem:

Is there a environmentally benign flame retardant that will prevent ignition for a

longer period of time is seconds compared to the commonly used industrial and

environmentally damaging flame retardants?

Hypothesis:

The phytic acid and urea bilayer strips will last an almost equal amount of time in

seconds before they ignite compared to the flame retardant ones, the control group of

distilled water will provide approximately zero ignition prevention, and the flame

retardant will completely prevent the ignition of the cotton strip.

Data Measured:

The independent variables are the different treatments, those being whether the

cotton strip (6 x 1 in) was soaked in distilled water (the control) for a minute, soaked in

flame retardant for a minute, or soaked in phytic acid and urea using bilayering. The

dependent variables that are being measured are the change in mass of the cotton

strips (g), the change in time from ignition to extinction (s), and the duration of the

glowing embers after the flame is extinguished (s). Lastly the percentage of the color

change of the cotton based on the location of the black char. (on the cotton strip

post-exposure to the open flame) This is taken by finding the ratio of the length of the

char to the original length of the cotton strip.

The tests that were run for this experiment were two-sample t test and

descriptive tests. The earlier is because there are two masses and two measurable

times require a mean difference to be found, in both variables. There are many results
 Holtz - Pairgin 8

in this experiment that can only be measured in observational data, as there are not any

definite numerical values that can be applied to them. For that same reason, a scale

had to be made for the descriptive statistics in order to have a consistent measuring

system and to minimize bias. For measuring the char, the scale in Appendix E was

used.
 Holtz - Pairgin 9

Experimental Design

Materials:

Bunsen Burner Cotton Fabric of 44 x 36 in

Metal Tray (17.25 x 13 x 1 in) 22 oz, Force Field Fire Guard
Precise Scale (0.0001 g) 100 ml Graduated cylinder
Fireproof Gloves Cooling racks
Clamp Metal tongs
Ring Stand 500 ml Beaker (7)
Fire Blanket Striker
20 g, Urea Rice (3 cups)
Graduated Cylinder (100 ml) Lemon Juice (6 tsp)
Distilled Water (approx 1 gallon)

Procedure:

1. Randomize and assign each trial a number 1-60.

2. Position the bunsen burner directly under the end of the clamp, where the
cotton (see Appendix A for the treatment protocol) will hang, and adjust
The first clamp so that the center of the screw is 18.5 inches above the ring stand
base, and the second 12.5 in from the base.

3. Adjust the bunsen burner to almost no air flow and about 6-7 inches in
height (see Figure 2 for full set-up).

4. Take the cotton strip from the needed trial, weigh it, and record it in the data
table.

5. Hang it above the inactive bunsen burner using clamps- one clamp at the
top of the strip and one at the bottom.

6. Start the bunsen burner and start a timer for 2 minutes.

7. Record when the cotton shows signs of charring (see Appendix F for
protocol), when there is no flame present on the cotton, and how long the
afterglow lasts, if any.

8. After the 2 minutes, remove the flame and cotton and weigh the cotton.

9. Record the reaction that the cotton had to the flame, the smell, the burn
behavior, and the properties of the cotton residue (texture, color, etc) all in
the table in the observations section of the table.
 Holtz - Pairgin 10

10. Repeat steps 2-9 for the rest of the trials.

Diagrams:

Figure 2. Experimental Set up

The dried flame-retardant-soaked cotton strip is hung over the fire the burner is

turned on (using a gas valve) until the strip becomes ash or char. The time the strip

remained over the fire and how long it took to catch fire are to be recorded.
 Holtz - Pairgin 11

Figure 3. Materials

Materials list with all components used in the experiment labeled (with exception

of urea, which is not pictured)

 Holtz - Pairgin 12

Data and Observations

Table 1
Distilled Water Quantitative Results
T-Test Variables

Trial # Mass Change

Time at Time at Time
Mass Before (g) After In Mass
Ignition (s) Extinguish (s) Aflame (s)
(g) (g)
7 0.5230 0.0254 0.4976 13.25 24.11 10.86
9 0.5149 0.0173 0.4976 56.13 67.97 11.84
12 0.4978 0.1210 0.3768 31.58 43.90 12.32
14 0.5026 0.0173 0.4853 25.63 32.45 6.82
16 0.5312 0.1285 0.4027 14.26 27.71 13.45
18 0.5142 0.0198 0.4944 13.21 24.96 11.75
21 0.5067 0.0120 0.4947 7.41 16.55 9.14
22 0.5082 0.0103 0.4979 15.83 27.43 11.60
23 0.5114 0.0145 0.4969 18.58 31.00 12.42
30 0.5291 0.0282 0.5009 3.11 15.93 12.82
31 0.5221 0.0463 0.4758 3.01 14.86 11.85
33 0.5175 0.0250 0.4925 6.81 18.86 12.05
36 0.5231 0.0426 0.4805 21.04 40.80 19.76
37 0.5231 0.0257 0.4974 8.48 23.11 14.63
38 0.5354 0.0260 0.5094 5.58 18.00 12.42
39 0.5117 0.0381 0.4736 15.68 26.50 10.82
41 0.5377 0.0294 0.5083 2.38 13.23 10.85
43 0.4983 0.0093 0.4890 3.01 14.73 11.72
49 0.5203 0.0193 0.5010 5.10 18.65 13.55
60 0.5259 0.0192 0.5067 9.80 23.18 13.38
66 0.5131 0.0182 0.4949 1.46 12.25 10.79
67 0.5234 0.0162 0.5072 2.56 13.96 11.40
68 0.5259 0.0218 0.5041 1.61 17.06 15.45
71 0.5267 0.0161 0.5106 28.90 39.48 10.58
73 0.5134 0.0162 0.4972 2.36 15.55 13.19
79 0.5262 0.0166 0.5096 29.55 40.86 11.31
81 0.5337 0.0205 0.5132 22.15 34.58 12.43
83 0.5298 0.0205 0.5093 20.16 31.38 11.22
 Holtz - Pairgin 13

87 0.5274 0.0141 0.5133 3.60 15.18 11.58

88 0.5388 0.0187 0.5201 2.15 13.66 11.51
Average 0.5204 0.0285 0.4920 13.15 25.26 12.12

Table 1 displays the quantitative results in mass as well as time, of all 30 distilled

water trials. Most of the distilled water trials went smoothly. The cotton strips soaked in

distilled water had an average change in mass that was higher than the other two

treatments, coming in at 0.4920 g. They also had a slightly shorter burn duration

compared to the bilayer strips, as well as a quicker time to ignition.

Table 2
Distilled Water Qualitative Results
Quantifiable Descriptives Descriptive

Trial # Length of
Afterglow Color of # of Self
Color Change
duration (s) Char Extinguishes
% whole (in)
7 4 100% (6) 10 1
9 4 100% (6) 10 3
12 0 100% (6) 10 3
14 0 100% (6) 10 0
16 3 100% (6) 10 3
18 2 100% (6) 10 3
21 0 100% (6) 10 0
22 3 100% (6) 10 3
23 3 100% (6) 10 2
30 1 100% (6) 10 0
31 2 100% (6) 10 1
33 2 100% (6) 10 1
36 3 100% (6) 10 0
37 2 100% (6) 10 1
38 1 100% (6) 10 0
39 2 100% (6) 10 2
41 4 100% (6) 10 1
43 3 100% (6) 10 0
 Holtz - Pairgin 14

Length of
Afterglow Color of # of Self
Trial # Color Change
duration (s) Char Extinguishes
% whole (in)
49 4 100% (6) 10 1
60 3 100% (6) 10 0
66 3 100% (6) 10 0
67 2 100% (6) 10 1
68 4 100% (6) 10 0
71 3 100% (6) 10 2
73 3 100% (6) 10 0
79 3 100% (6) 10 1
81 1 100% (6) 10 0
83 3 100% (6) 10 2
87 4 100% (6) 10 0
88 3 100% (6) 10 0
Average 2.50 100% (6) 10.00 1.03

Table 2 shows the quantitative results of all 30 distilled water trials. All of the

distilled water trials burned entirely. They also had the highest average afterglow

duration, and the lowest amount of self extinguishes.

Table 3
Flame Retardant Quantitative Results
t-Test Variables
Trial # Mass Mass Change In Time at Time
Time at Ignition (s)
Before (g) After (g) Mass (g) Extinguish (s) Aflame (s)

N/A (first burn marks at

3 0.7390 0.6480 0.0910 ~20 s) N/A 0.00

0.44.68 (short flame (never burned

4 0.6960 0.6090 0.0870 self extiguished) fully, 48.29s) 0.00

N/A first signs of burn,

6 0.6300 0.5230 0.1070 ~15s N/A 0.00

N/A first signs of burn,

8 0.6375 0.5650 0.0725 ~20s N/A 0.00
 Holtz - Pairgin 15

Mass Mass Change In Time at Time

Trial # Time at Ignition (s)
Before (g) After (g) Mass (g) Extinguish (s) Aflame (s)

11 0.5285 0.0197 0.5088 26.65 37.53 10.88

N/A first signs of burn,

13 0.6562 0.6216 0.0346 ~10s N/A 0.00

N/A first signs of burn,

19 0.6481 0.4705 0.1776 ~10s N/A 0.00

N/A (caugth alight

biriefly at 1:51.38) first
24 0.6814 0.6590 0.0224 signs at ~30s N/A 0.00

N/A (caught alight

briefly at34.63 and
1:57.07) first burn signs
25 0.6713 0.5361 0.1352 ~10s N/A 0.00

N/A (caught alight

briefly at 36.43,
1:05.94, and 1:33.65,
and ) first burn signs
28 0.6047 0.3880 0.2167 ~15s N/A 0.00

N/A first burn signs

34 0.6105 0.5649 0.0456 ~15s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

29.34) first burn signs
35 0.6048 0.5136 0.0912 ~10s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

1:07.43 and 1:22.34)
40 0.5984 0.4604 0.1380 first burn signs ~10s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

16.03s) first burn signs
45 0.6337 0.4419 0.1918 ~10s N/A 0.00
 Holtz - Pairgin 16

Mass Mass Change In Time at Time

Trial # Time at Ignition (s)
Before (g) After (g) Mass (g) Extinguish (s) Aflame (s)

N/A (light and SE at

59.21s) first burn signs
46 0.5917 0.5292 0.0625 ~10s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

35.36s and 1:51.34)
47 0.6619 0.4867 0.1752 first burn signs ~15s N/A 0.00

N/A first burn signs

53 0.6071 0.4444 0.1627 ~15s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

3.16 and 41.57) first
55 0.6103 0.5040 0.1063 burn signs ~5s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

34.86) first burn signs
56 0.6030 0.5461 0.0569 ~10s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

24.18) first burn signs
58 0.6201 0.5289 0.0912 ~5s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

15.76 and 58.01) first
61 0.5896 0.4676 0.1220 burn signs ~5s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

26.68) first burn signs
62 0.6165 0.4734 0.1431 ~5s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

10.98 and 1:48.76) first
63 0.5991 0.4478 0.1513 burn signs ~5s N/A 0.00
 Holtz - Pairgin 17

Mass Mass Change In Time at Time

Trial # Time at Ignition (s)
Before (g) After (g) Mass (g) Extinguish (s) Aflame (s)

N/A (light and SE at

9.53, 53.01, and
1:05.77 ) first burn
64 0.5928 0.4500 0.1428 signs ~5s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

4.20, 45.98, and
1:24.69) first burn signs
65 0.6074 0.5128 0.0946 ~5s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

26.28) first burn signs
70 0.6057 0.4902 0.1155 ~5s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

4.98) first burn signs
72 0.6147 0.5139 0.1008 ~3s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

10.20 and 50.06 ) first
75 0.6139 0.5464 0.0675 burn signs ~7.5s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

42.95) first burn signs
78 0.6124 0.5189 0.0935 ~5s N/A 0.00

N/A (light and SE at

34.73) first burn signs
85 0.6228 0.5255 0.0973 ~10s N/A 0.00
Average 0.6236 0.5002 0.1234 N/A N/A 0.36

Table 3 displays all of the qualitative results in mass as well as time of all 30

flame retardant trials. In these trials, all but one of the flame retardant trials successfully
 Holtz - Pairgin 18

did not burn. They had the smallest average change in mass because they did not fully

burn. The flame retardant trials sport the highest time to ignition.

Table 4
Flame Retardant Qualitative Results
Quantifiable Descriptives Descriptive

Trial # Length of Color of

Afterglow # of Self
Color Change Char
duration (s) Extinguishes
% whole (in) (in): (#)

0-1.5: 10,
3
2-2.5: 7,
0 66.7% (4) 2.5-3.5 : 1 6

0-2: 10,
4 2-2.5: 8,
0 58.3% (3.5) 2.5-3.5 :3 4

0-2: 10,
6 2-2.5: 7,
0 58.3% (3.5) 2.5-3.25: 2 6
0-1.25: 10,
8 1.25-1.5: 7,
0 58.3% (3.5) 1.5-2: 2 2
11 1 100% (6) 10 2
0-1.25: 10,
13 1.25-2: 7,
0 41.7%(2.5) 2-2.5: 1 2
0-2.25: 10,
2.25-:2.75
19
5, 2.75-3.5:
0 58.3% (3.5) 1 4
0-0.5 (only
24 on side of
0 8.3% (0.5) strip): 8 1
0-2.25: 10,
2.25-:2.75
25
5, 2.75-3.5:
0 58.3% (3.5) 2 2
0-2.5: 10,
2.5-2.75 8,
28
2.75-3.25:
0 66.67% (4) 4, 3.25-4: 1 4
 Holtz - Pairgin 19

Length of Color of
Afterglow # of Self
Trial # Color Change Char
duration (s) Extinguishes
% whole (in) (in): (#)
0-0.75: 10,
34 0.75-1: 4,
0 25% (1.5) 1-1.5: 2 1
0-1.5: 10,
35 1.5-2.25: 7,
0 50% (3) 2.25-3: 2 1
0-2: 10,
2-2.5: 8,
40
2.5-3.25: 3,
0 66.67% (4) 3.25-4: 1 2
0-2.5: 10,
2.5-3: 8,
45 3-3.5: 7,
3.5-4: 4,
0 83.33% (5) 4-6:2, 5-6:1 1
0-1: 10,
1-1.5: 7,
1.5-2: 4,
46
2-2.5: 2,
2.5-3:1,
0 50% (3) 3-6:0 1
0-2.5: 10,
2.5-3: 8,
3-3.5: 6,
47
3.5-4: 3,
4-4.5:2,
0 75% (4.5) 4.5-6:0 2
0-2.5: 10,
2.5-3: 8,
53 3-3.5: 6,
3.5-4: 3,
0 75% (4.5) 4-4-5: 1 1
0-1.5: 10,
1.5-2: 9,
2-2.5: 7,
55
2.5-3: 4,
3-4:1, 4-6:
0 66.67% (4) 0 2
 Holtz - Pairgin 20

Length of Color of
Afterglow # of Self
Trial # Color Change Char
duration (s) Extinguishes
% whole (in) (in): (#)

0-0.75: 10,
0.75-1: 8,
56 1-1.5: 4,
1.5-2: 2,
0 33.33% (2) 2-6: 0 1
0-1.5: 10,
1.5-2: 9,
2-2.5: 7,
58
2.5-3: 4,
3-3.5:2,
0 58.33% (3.5) 3.5-6: 0 0
0-2: 10,
2-2.5: 8,
2.5-3: 5,
61
3-3.5: 2,
3.5-4:1,
0 66.67% (4) 4-6: 0 2
0-2: 10,
2-2.5: 9,
2.5-3: 7,
62
3-3.5: 3,
3.5-4:1,
0 66.67% (4) 4-6: 0 2
0-2.5: 10,
2.5-3: 9,
3-3.5: 7,
63
3.5-4: 5,
4-4.5:1,
0 75% (4.5) 4-6: 0 2
0-2.5: 10,
2.5-3: 8,
64
3-3.5: 2,
0 58.33% (3.5) 3.5-6: 0 3
0-2: 10,
2-2.5: 8,
65 2.5-3: 4,
3-3.5: 1,
0 58.33% (3.5) 3.5-6: 0 3
 Holtz - Pairgin 21

Length of Color of
Afterglow # of Self
Trial # Color Change Char
duration (s) Extinguishes
% whole (in) (in): (#)

0-2: 10,
2-2.5: 8,
70 2.5-3: 4,
3-3.5: 1,
0 58.33% (3.5) 3.5-6: 0 2
0-1.5: 10,
1.5-2: 8,
72 2-2.5: 3,
2.5-3: 1,
0 50% (3) 3-6: 0 2
0-1: 10,
1-1.5: 8,
75 1.5-2: 4,
2-2.5: 1,
0 41.67% (2.5) 2.5-6: 0 2
0-1.5: 10,
1.5-2: 8,
78 2-2.5: 4,
2.5-3: 1,
0 50% (3) 3-6: 0 2
0-1: 10,
1-1.5: 9,
1.5-2: 7,
85 2-2.5: 5,
2.5-3: 3,
3-3.5: 1,
0 58.33% (3.5) 3.5-6: 0 1
Average 0.03 58.05% (3.5) N/A 2.20

Table 4 shows the qualitative results of all 30 flame retardant trials. The flame

retardant trials had the smallest average burn percentage at 58.05, as shown in Table 4.

They also had the shortest average duration of afterglow and the largest number of

average self-extinguishes.
 Holtz - Pairgin 22

Table 5
Bilayer (Phytic Acid and Urea) Quantitative Results
T-Test Variables
Trial # Change In Time at Time at Time
Mass Before (g) Mass After (g)
Mass (g) Ignition (s) Extinguish (s) Aflame (s)

1 0.5180 0.1370 0.3810 20.27 30.09 9.82

2 0.6217 0.1370 0.4847 44.60 55.50 10.90
5 0.6380 0.0239 0.6141 21.40 33.61 12.21
10 0.5354 0.0216 0.5138 4.80 17.88 13.08
15 0.5064 0.1354 0.3710 7.41 18.25 10.84
17 0.5135 0.0333 0.4802 36.14 46.75 10.61
20 0.5132 0.0810 0.4322 72.43 83.68 11.25
26 0.4631 0.0364 0.4267 10.71 26.78 16.07
27 0.5130 0.0312 0.4818 92.85 103.62 10.77
29 0.5291 0.0235 0.5056 40.71 53.31 12.60
32 0.5282 0.3090 0.2192 8.91 22.13 13.22
42 0.5120 0.0212 0.4908 46.36 57.27 10.91
44 0.5435 0.0257 0.5178 17.88 29.46 11.58
48 0.5079 0.0266 0.4813 73.01 84.62 11.61
50 0.5123 0.0338 0.4785 8.86 19.93 11.07
51 0.5514 0.0290 0.5224 11.13 22.78 11.65
52 0.5415 0.0258 0.5157 5.18 18.21 13.03
54 0.5335 0.0255 0.5080 7.66 21.35 13.69
57 0.5323 0.0355 0.4968 12.16 24.86 12.70
59 0.5479 0.0364 0.5115 17.21 29.31 12.10
69 0.5530 0.0373 0.5157 9.38 22.01 12.63
74 0.5616 0.0306 0.5310 21.56 35.78 14.22
76 0.5636 0.0378 0.5258 19.93 32.31 12.38
77 0.5210 0.0290 0.4920 12.41 25.66 13.25
80 0.5305 0.0305 0.5000 24.81 35.66 10.85
82 0.5144 0.0313 0.4831 48.68 59.78 11.10
84 0.5835 0.0412 0.5423 12.53 25.28 12.75
86 0.5835 0.0266 0.5569 37.76 48.39 10.63
89 0.5279 0.0340 0.4939 4.15 17.05 12.90
90 0.5144 0.0295 0.4849 23.18 35.48 12.30
 Holtz - Pairgin 23

Average 0.5372 0.0519 0.4853 25.80 37.89 12.09

Table 5 displays the qualitative results in mass as well as time of all 30 of the

phytic acid and urea bilayer trials. These trials showed a noticeable improvement

(increase in) time to ignite as well as time to extinguish when compared to water trials.

Although the change in mass and the time alight seem to be roughly the same for these

trials and the distilled water trials.

Table 6
Bilayer (Phytic Acid and Urea) Quantifiable Descriptive Results
Quantifiable Descriptives Descriptive

Trial # Length of Color of

Afterglow # of Self
Color Change Char
duration (s) Extinguishes
% whole (in) (scale #)
1 0 100% (6) 10 2
2 0 100% (6) 10 2
5 0 100% (6) 10 4
10 0 100% (6) 10 0
15 1 100% (6) 10 2
17 0 100% (6) 10 3
20 0 100% (6) 10 4
26 1 100% (6) 10 1
27 1 100% (6) 10 3
29 0 100% (6) 10 0
32 0 100% (6) 10 0
42 0 100% (6) 10 2
44 0 100% (6) 10 1
48 1 100% (6) 10 4
50 1 100% (6) 10 1
51 0 100% (6) 10 2
52 0 100% (6) 10 2
54 0 100% (6) 10 1
57 0 100% (6) 10 1
59 1 100% (6) 10 1
 Holtz - Pairgin 24

Length of Color of
Afterglow # of Self
Trial # Color Change Char
duration (s) Extinguishes
% whole (in) (scale #)
69 1 100% (6) 10 3
74 0 100% (6) 10 3
76 1 100% (6) 10 2
77 1 100% (6) 10 1
80 0 100% (6) 10 1
82 0 100% (6) 10 3
84 0 100% (6) 10 2
86 1 100% (6) 10 2
89 0 100% (6) 10 0
90 0 100% (6) 10 2
Average 0.33 100% (6) 10.00 1.83

Table 6 showcases the quantifiable descriptive data generated by the phytic acid

and urea bilayer data trials. Phytic and urea trials had almost double the amount of self

extinguishes as the distilled water trials, but under the amount of self extinguishes of the

flame retardant trials.

 Holtz - Pairgin 25

Table 7
Table of Observation
Trial # Treatment Unique Burn Properties

Distilled
7 Water Caught alight due to loose cotton wisp
Distilled
9 Water Flame not perfectly centered
Distilled
31 Water Did Not release from clamps, seemed elongated
Distilled
36 Water Long burn time (from light to ex)
Distilled
39 Water Strip did not release from bottom vice, strung out.

Distilled
41 Water Strip did not release from bottom vice, strung out, split in half)
Distilled
68 Water Flame stuck around at the top of strip
Distilled
71 Water Flame burned at the bottom but SE, taking a while to relight
Flame
3 Retardant ceased to catch alight fully,
Flame
4 Retardant Caught alight briefly but self-extinguished.
Flame
6 Retardant ceased to catch alight fully,
Flame
8 Retardant Cotton broke loose pf bottom clamp
Flame
11 Retardant First FR to burn fully
Flame
13 Retardant Never fully burned
Flame
19 Retardant Caught alight for ~3 seconds at 40 seconds but self extinguished
Flame
24 Retardant Strip not centered under flame barely charred
Flame
28 Retardant Strip light and self extinguished multiple times
Flame
40 Retardant Strip readjusted to be centered
 Holtz - Pairgin 26

Trial # Treatment Unique Burn Properties

Flame
45 Retardant Strip showed color strange throughout
Flame
53 Retardant Broke free of bottom vice, blew around
Flame
58 Retardant Strip burnt on about 3/4 ish, on one side

10 Bilayer none, burned faster than expected

20 Bilayer (took longer than expected)

26 Bilayer Strip lit from loose end and spread from the middle

27 Bilayer Strip not centered under flame took longer to catch alight.

44 Bilayer Strip did not release from bottom vice, strung out, did not split in half

48 Bilayer Strip not fully centered

52 Bilayer Wisp caught on fire, but extinguished

57 Bilayer Wisps on bottom lit and spread up strip

80 Bilayer Oxygen window in bunsen burner open, had to be fixed

Table 7 encapsulates all observations of inconsistencies or odd occurrences that

happened during data collection. For the most part, trials were mostly consistent,

despite the fact that fire itself is chaotic in nature. For a few select distilled water and

phytic acid, parts of the strip that were strung out (wisps) caught on fire resulting in the

strip to start burning from closer to the center. Some trials started with the strip not

placed flush with the flame beneath (due to how trials were conducted) this meant that

they needed to be readjusted to better sit above the flame. Some flame retardant strips

released themselves from the bottom vice (metal clamp) during trials as a result of

shrinking from flame exposure.

 Holtz - Pairgin 27

Data and Analysis

In this experiment, the burning of the strips and collecting of the data were

randomized and controlled. The ninety trials were split into three blocks of thirty trials,

with ten for each treatment. Then, each trial in each block was given a random number,

one through thirty, which decided the order that they would be burnt. To eliminate any

confounding variables, all of the trials had to be standardized. Every strip was the same

size and was cut from the same cloth. All of the trials were massed in the same plastic

weighing tray (weigh boat) using the same scale. All of the strips in each treatment were

soaked the same way. The control treatment was the one soaked in distilled water

because it was guaranteed to burn fully.

Figure 4. Change in Mass Box Plot

 Holtz - Pairgin 28

Figure 4 shows the distributions of the trials in the box plot. The flame retardant

trials were the most diverse and had the highest range. They did, however, have the

smallest amount of outliers. The other two treatments had a fairly tight spread. This

could mean that there were some inconsistencies in the flame retardant treatments. In

Figure 4 it is shown that, while the distributions for distilled water and bilayer overlap,

the flame retardant was clearly far from the others meaning that it is statistically

different. Because the distilled water and bilayer distributions overlap, a two-sample t

test needs to be performed.

Figure 5. Time to Ignition Box Plot

Figure 5 shows the distributions of the time to ignition of the bilayer and distilled

water trials. The flame retardant trials are not depicted because they never fully ignited,
 Holtz - Pairgin 29

therefore there was no time for ignition. The two distributions shown in Figure 5 overlap,

leading to the need for a two-sample t test to be run to see if they are statistically

different.

Figure 6. Afterglow Duration Box Plot

The duration of the afterglow was measured and plotted, as seen in Figure 6.

This shows that the bilayer and distilled water distributions do not overlap. It also shows

that almost none of the flame retardant strips had afterglow. This overlaps with the

bilayer distribution, but because every flame retardant point except one is at zero, no

test was done on this variable.

 Holtz - Pairgin 30

Figure 7. Box Plot of the Number of Self-Extinguishes

Figure 7 depicts the box plots showing the distribution of the number of

self-extinguishes for each treatment. As one can see, all three overlap, meaning that

two two-sample t tests will most likely have to be run, one comparing bilayer to distilled

water and one comparing bilayer to flame retardant.

 Holtz - Pairgin 31

Figure 8. Char Length Box Plot

All of the bilayer and distilled water trials fully burned, meaning that one hundred

percent, of six inches, of the strip, was charred. But, the flame retardant treatments did

not fully burn. Figure 8 shows the distribution of these. Because only the flame retardant

trials did not fully burn and there is no overlap with the flame retardant, no tests will be

run on this variable.

The tests that are being performed are multiple two-sample t tests as well as one

ANOVA test. Two-sample t test are used to compare means from two populations.

These will be checked to see if there is a statistical difference in the change in mass of

the distilled water trials and the bilayer trials, the time to ignition of the distilled water

trials, and the bilayer trials. The ANOVA test is used to determine whether the difference
 Holtz - Pairgin 32

in means between two or more variables is statistically significant. This type of test will

be used to see if the mean number of self-extinguishes for the distilled water, bilayer,

and flame retardant trials are significantly different.

As for the conditions that must be met in order to run a two-sample t test, they

were all met for all three of the tests. First, all of the samples had a size of 30 so they

did not need to be normal. Second, all of the trials were performed in a randomized

order. Lastly, the sample size must be less than 10% of the sample population. This one

does not have to be met due to the fact that this was an experiment.

For the ANOVA test, there are four conditions to be met in order to run the test,

all of which were met in the data. First, the data must be normal or consist of 30 or more

points, which is true of the data. Second, samples must be independent of one another,

this is true as the results of one trial had no impact on another. Thirdly, the distribution of

individual groups must have the same level of variance. Lastly, all groups must have the

same sample size.

𝐻𝑜: µ𝑏𝑖 = µ𝑑𝑖

𝐻𝑎: µ𝑏𝑖 < µ𝑑𝑖

Figure 9. Null and Alternative Hypotheses for Change in Mass

The first test was run on the change in mass of the bilayer trials and the distilled

water trials. The null hypothesis, shown in Figure 9, μbi=μdi, while the alternative

hypothesis, also shown in Figure 9, was μbi<μdi, where μbi is equal to the mean change

in mass of the bilayer trials and μdi is equal to the mean change in mass of the distilled

water trials. What this means is that it will be testing to see if the mean change in mass
 Holtz - Pairgin 33

of the bilayer trials is less than as opposed to equal to the mean change in mass of the

distilled water trials. The formula for the two-sample t test used can be found in

Appendix A.

Change in Mass t test

Hypothesis μ1<μ2
T value -0.486
P-value 0.315

Figure 10. Change in Mass Two-Sample t Test

As shown in Figure 10, the results showed the test statistic as -0.486, which gave

the corresponding P-value of 0.315. This means that Ho is not rejected because the

P-value of 0.315 is greater than the alpha level of 0.05. There is no significant statistical

evidence that the change in mass of bilayer-treated cotton strips is greater than the

change in mass of distilled water-treated cotton strips. There is a 31.5% chance of

getting this sample mean by chance alone, given that Ho is true.

𝐻𝑜: µ𝑏𝑖 = µ𝑑𝑖

𝐻𝑎: µ𝑏𝑖 > µ𝑑𝑖

Figure 11. Null and Alternative Hypotheses for Time to Ignition

The second test was run to compare the mean time to ignition of the bilayer trials

to the mean time to ignition of the distilled water trials. The null hypothesis, shown in

Figure 11, was μbi=μdi, while the alternative hypothesis, also shown in Figure 11 was

μbi>μdi, where μbi is equal to the mean time to ignition of the bilayer trials and μdi is equal
 Holtz - Pairgin 34

to the mean time to ignition of the distilled water trials. What this means is that it will be

testing to see if the meantime to ignition of the bilayer trials is greater than as opposed

to equal to the mean time to ignition of the distilled water trials. The formula for the

two-sample t test used can be found in Appendix A.

Time to Ignition t test

Hypothesis μ1>μ2
T value 2.694
P-value 0.005

Figure 12. Time to Ignition Two-Sample t Test

As shown in figure 12, the results showed the test statistic as 2.694, which gave

the corresponding P-value of 0.005. This means that Ho is rejected because the P-value

of 0.005 is less than the alpha level of 0.05. There is significant statistical evidence that

the time to ignition of bilayer-treated cotton strips is greater than the time to ignition of

distilled water-treated cotton strips. There is a 0.5% chance of getting this sample mean

by chance alone, given that Ho is true.

𝐻𝑜: µ𝑏𝑖 = µ𝑑𝑖 = µ𝑓𝑟

𝐻𝑎: µ𝑏𝑖 ≠ µ𝑑𝑖 ≠ µ𝑓𝑟

Figure 13. Null and Alternative Hypotheses for ANOVA

The third test was run to determine whether there was a statistically significant

difference in the mean number of self-extinguishes between the bilayer, distilled, and

flame retardant trials. The null hypothesis, shown in Figure 13, is that there is no
 Holtz - Pairgin 35

difference in means amongst all three treatments (μbi=μdi=μfr). The alternate hypothesis,

also shown in Figure 13 is that not all means of the sample are equivalent (μbi≠μdi≠μfr).

Where μbi is the mean number of self-extinguishes for bilayer trials, μdi is the mean

number of self-extinguishes for distilled water trials, μfr is the mean number of

self-extinguishes for flame retardant.

# of Extinguishes ANOVA test

Hypothesis μbi≠μdi≠μfr
F statistic 6.964
P-value 0.002

Figure 14. Number of Extinguishes ANOVA Test

As shown in Figure 14, the results showed the test statistic as 6.936, which gave

the corresponding P-value of 0.001. This means that Ho is rejected because the P-value

of 0.001 is less than the alpha level of 0.05. There is significant statistical evidence that

the number of self-extinguishes of bilayer-treated cotton strips, distilled water-treated

cotton strips, and flame-retardant-treated cotton strips is not equal. There is a 0.1%

chance of getting this sample mean by chance alone, given that Ho is true.

In conclusion, the change in mass of the distilled water trials was not statistically

different than the change in mass of the bilayer trials. The bilayer treatment had no

effect on the change in mass. On the other hand, there was a statistically significant

difference in the time to ignition for the bilayer-treated strips as compared to the distilled

water-treated strips. The bilayer treatment helped to prevent fire for a significant amount

of time. The ANOVA test shows that the mean number of self-extinguishes for each

treatment type all different from one another.

 Holtz - Pairgin 36

Conclusion

This experiment aimed to compare the flame retardant capabilities of a bilayer

consisting of phytic acid and urea when compared to an industrial-grade flame

retardant. Trials were completed by coating cotton strips in three different solutions and

then putting them through vertical flame testing, to compare burning properties. The

measured quantities were changes in mass, time to ignite, number of self-extinguishes,

and afterglow duration, as well as additional observations that were more qualitative.

The results were as follows: A phytic acid and urea bilayer was not a suitable

replacement for flame retardant when attempting to protect the cotton from fire. The

bilayer did help increase the amount of time before the cotton actually caught on fire,

but it did not fully prevent it like how the flame retardant did. This is proven to be a

statistically significant increase due to the two-sample t test that was performed. The

bilayer had no effect on the change in mass of the cotton from before it was burned to

after, as seen in the high p-value from the two sample t test performed on the data.

Lastly, for the results, the ANOVA test performed shows that, because of the low

p-value of 0.002 , the number of self-extinguishes is different for distilled water, bilayer,

and flame retardant.

The industrial flame retardant was deemed to be far superior to the phytic acid

and urea bilayer in preventing the burning of the cotton. This was somewhat expected,

but it happened to such an extent that it exceeded the other treatments that were not

accounted for. Many of the categories set up to measure the flame retardancy of each

solution were under the assumption that the strips would catch aflame and burn at least

partially, outside of one outlier, none of the flame retardant trials did. The most
 Holtz - Pairgin 37

noticeable change that occurred was charing of the strips, slightly changing color

towards a darker brown and black. This made data collection far more difficult and far

more subjective, so many of the variables that were originally planned to be measured

and tested were thrown to the back burner and turned into observations. Some of the

general variations can be explained due to the inconsistency in the position of the strip

above the flame, which can be attributed to how the trials were conducted.

There are many understandable reasons as to why the bilayer did not work too

well. When the cotton strips were treated, it was not done exactly the same as the

previous research this was based on. Some of the desired materials were not available

as well as not having the time required. The correct preparations were to use ionized

water instead of distilled water, as well as drying the strips in an oven after getting

soaked. In reality, what happened was the strips were just put from one solution to the

other with only a few seconds in between. The flame retardant that was used is a known

brand and was expected to perform well at preventing fire. The flame retardant creates

a layer between the fire and the cotton. The cotton only begins to burn once the flame

has melted through this barrier, thereby increasing the time that it takes for the strips to

catch on fire. The distilled water was expected to fully burn due to the fact that water

should provide the cotton no protection.

This data disagrees with other findings on the subject. The majority of work on

the idea of environmentally friendly flame retardant alternatives finds that this solution is

effective (Magovac). These results show otherwise. While there was one result that

agreed with previous research on the topic, the majority of the aquired data showed the
 Holtz - Pairgin 38

bilayer solution to be ineffective. It did, however, significantly increase the time to

ignition. This might be an indicator that it works, if only barely.

An impactful improvement that could have been made, given more time was

available, is more bilayers could have been utilized with the phytic urea solution. For

these trials, 12 bilayers of phytic and urea were done, but there is a real possibility that

doing more of the bilayers, say for instance 15 or 20, could have caused a greater fire

resilience due to there being more layers to melt through. A higher molarity of phytic

acid and a higher molarity of urea could have also yielded better results.

While conclusions drawn from an analysis of change in mass showed no

statistical significance, there was a significant difference in time to ignite between

water-treated strips and phytic-urea bilayer-treated strips. This could be the biggest

indicator that the crafted solution works as an economically safe albeit far weaker

substitute for standard flame retardant. This finding alone could serve as a basis for

future research and could be further explored by other researchers with access to a

larger amount of the appropriate equipment and chemicals. Access to a vertical flame

tester would allow for more consistent trials and data collection, and a higher

concentration of pure phytic acid (not removed from rice) may be more effective. Other

bi-layering combinations of acids and bases should be looked into as well to see if there

is another set of chemicals that would produce even greater results. The manufacturers

of the standard grade flame retardants can also look into ways to incorporate more

environmentally safe equivalent ingredients into the products they produce.

The application of phytic acid and urea as flame retardants could have

widespread applications given that further experimentation and refinement would be

carried out. With enough research, the possibility of replacing environmentally harming
 Holtz - Pairgin 39

flame retardants with safer cleaner alternative ones such as phytic acid and urea could

happen relatively soon.

 Holtz - Pairgin 40

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Ms. Gravel for her help in making sure that the

paper was typed correctly. She helped us with corrections to make sure that each part

was up to standard.

We would like to acknowledge Mrs. Hilliard for helping us get some of the

materials for our research. She also helped us solve some of the issues that we were

confronting as we conducted our research. Mrs. Hilliard gave us suggestions to rework

and improve our experimental process because of our initial difficulties.

We would like to acknowledge Mr. Acre for revising the flaws in the first design.

He redesigned the process for us and cleared it up to make it simpler and easier.

We would like to acknowledge Nick Sage, the Deputy Fire Chief at Eastpointe

Fire & Rescue for taking the time to answer some of our questions.

We would like to acknowledge Ms. Cybulski for her assistance with the statistical

tests. She helped guide us through the process as we were slightly unfamiliar with how

to run the tests.

Lastly, we would like to acknowledge our parents, who helped us with some of

the preparations. They are also supportive and helpful throughout the process.
 Holtz - Pairgin 41

Appendices

Appendix A: Creating the Phytic Acid

Materials:

20 g, Urea 1 gal, Distilled Water

100 ml, Graduated Cylinder 3 c, Rice
500 ml, Beaker 6 tsp, Lemon Juice
11’’x11’’x5’’ Large Pot Strainer

Procedure:

1. Measure out just under 300 ml of distilled water and pour into a beaker.

2. Dissolve 30 g of Urea in the beaker. This is the urea solution.

3. Pour three cups of rice, six teaspoons of lemon juice, and six cups in a
large pot and let sit for 24 hours.

4. After 24 hrs, separate the liquid from the rice. This creates the phytic acid
solution.
 Holtz - Pairgin 42

Appendix B: Creating the Cotton Strips and Soaking in Flame Retardant

Materials:

Cotton Fabric of 44’’ x 36’’ Metal Tongs

22 oz Force Field Fire Guard 500 ml Beaker
4 Cooling Racks

Procedure:

1. Cut the cotton into 120 strips, 6’’ x 1’’.

2. Fill a beaker with 300 ml of the Force Field Fire Guard.

3. Using the tongs, soak fifteen of the strips in the solution at a time.

4. After 60 seconds, use the tongs to grab the strips out of the solution and
transfer them to one of the drying racks to dry overnight.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are 30 strips soaked in the Force Field
Fire Guard.
 Holtz - Pairgin 43

Appendix C: Soaking using Bilayer

Materials:

500 ml Beaker 300 ml, Urea

Metal Tongs 300 ml, Phytic Acid
Cooling Racks 600 ml, Distilled Water
6’’ x 1’’ Cotton Strips (30)

Procedure:

1. Fill a beaker with 300 ml of the phytic acid solution, fill another with 300 ml
of urea solution, and two more beakers with 300 ml of distilled water.

2. Using the tongs, soak fifteen of the strips in the phytic acid for 5 minutes,
pull out and allow to drip over the beaker for 2-3 seconds

3. After soaking, dunk the fifteen strips into one of the beakers of distilled
water using tongs for 60 seconds and then allow to drip over the
beaker for about 2-3 seconds.

4. Soak the same set of strips in the beaker containing urea for 5 minutes,
once complete allow to drip over the beaker for 2-3 seconds then dip in
the second beaker containing distilled water for 60 seconds.

5. Repeat steps 2-4, eleven times, except changing the duration to 1 minute for
each subsequent repeat after the first (1 minute of phytic, 60 seconds of
H2O, 1-minute urea, 60 seconds H2O… repeat).

6. Repeat steps 2-5, one time with a new set of strips, then allow to dry
overnight.
 Holtz - Pairgin 44

Appendix D: Soaking in Distilled Water

Materials:

500 ml Beaker 6’’ x 1’’ Cotton Strips (30)

Metal Tongs 400 ml, Distilled Water
4 Cooling Racks

Procedure:

1. Fill a beaker with 300 ml of the distilled water.

2. Using the tongs, soak fifteen strips in the solution at a time.

3. After 60 seconds, use the tongs to grab the strips out of the solution and
transfer them to one of the drying racks to dry overnight.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until there are 30 strips soaked in the distilled
water.
 Holtz - Pairgin 45

Appendix E: Char Scale

Figure 15. Char Gradient Chart

Figure 15 is the gradient that was used in order to judge the color progression of

each individual strip after being exposed to the flame. In this procedure, the flame

retardant strips were held up to a physical copy of the gradient, and the color was

judged in segments (in inches). These data points are found in the color of the char

section in the observational data table. All other strips that fully charred (every strip

outside of the flame retardants) were ruled to be a ten on the gradient all the way

through.
 Holtz - Pairgin 46

Appendix F: Equations

(𝑥1−𝑥2)−(μ1−μ2 )
𝑡= 2 2
𝑠1 𝑠2
𝑛1
+𝑛
2

(20−12)−(15−9)
𝑡= 8 10
= 2. 58
30
+ 30

Figure 16. Two-Sample t Test Formula and Sample Equation

This equation calculates the value t which represents how many standard

deviations above or below the mean the average data lies in a t distribution. The mean

of the first sample is represented by x̄1. The mean of the second sample is represented

by x̄2. The mean of the first population is represented by µ1. The mean of the second

population is represented by µ2. n1 represents the size of the first sample, and n2

represents the size of the second sample. s1 is the standard deviation of the first

sample, and s2 is the standard deviation of the second sample.

𝑀𝑆𝐺 13.7
𝐹= 𝑀𝑆𝐸
𝐹= 2.9
= 4. 72

Figure 17. Anova T Statistic Formula and Sample Equation

This equation calculate the F statistic which is a measure of the difference in

sample means of the context of sample variation. It was found by dividing MSG, the
 Holtz - Pairgin 47

variation among the sample means between each population, by MSE, the variation

among individual points in all samples for each population (the mean square error).

2
𝑛1(𝑥1−𝑥)+𝑛2(𝑥2−𝑥)+...𝑛1(𝑥1−𝑥)
𝑀𝑆𝐺 = 𝐼−1

30(2.1−1.7)+30(1.9−1.7)+30(1.1−1.7)
𝑀𝑆𝐺 = 3−1

2 2 2
(𝑛1−1)𝑠1 +(𝑛2−1)𝑠2 +...(𝑛𝐼−1)𝑠𝐼
𝑀𝑆𝐸 = 𝑁−𝐼

2 2 2
(30−1)1.2 +(30−1)2.1 +(30−1).9
𝑀𝑆𝐸 = 90−3

𝑛1𝑥1+𝑛2𝑥2+...𝑛𝐼𝑥𝐼
𝑥= 𝑁

30(2.1)+30(1.9)+30(1.1)
𝑥= 90

Figure 18. MSG and MSE Components Of ANOVA and Sample Equations

The equations above are of the MSG, the mean square group of the population,

the MSE, the mean square error of the population, and x̄. the first sample is represented

by x̄1. The mean of the second sample is represented by x̄2. The weighted mean of all

samples is represented by x̄. n1 represents the size of the first sample, and n2

represents the size of the second sample. The combined size of all samples is shown
 Holtz - Pairgin 48

as N. The total number of populations is represented by I. s1 is the standard deviation of

the first sample, and s2 is the standard deviation of the second sample.
 Holtz - Pairgin 49

Works Cited

“Flame Retardants.” Flame Retardants - Green Science Policy Institute,

greensciencepolicy.org/harmful-chemicals/flame-retardants/.

“Flame Retardants.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. National

Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2016,

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/flame_retardants_508.pdf

Magovac, Eva, et al. “Environmentally-Benign Phytic Acid-Based Multilayer Coating for

Flame Retardant Cotton.” MDPI, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2

Dec. 2020, www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/13/23/5492/htm.

Speight, James G. “Sources and Types of Organic Pollutants.” Environmental Organic

Chemistry for Engineers, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2 Dec. 2016,

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128044926000046.