Preparation and Properties of Flame-Retardant Polyurethane Pressure Sensitive Adhesive and Its Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

In my opinion this paper needs major revision to be published. Basically, results on fire retardance obtained  (LOI, UL-94) are reasonably good but  the correlation between results and structure  is quite poor and must be improved or  rewritten in a more understandable way.  for example, why DOPO-SF containing samples are so thermally unstable?

More important, it seems from the text (line 160-161) that LOI and UL-94 test were carried out on sample of different formulation in comparison to those on which thermal analysis were carried out (PPG 3000, non-described in the experimental part in which only PPG appears, instead of polyether diol): why? can results be extended to previous samples of table 1 and 2? On samples of which composition Viscosity and peeling test have been performed? This incertitude make hard to discuss results.

Additional comments

In the introduction: It is not clear why it is so important that PSA  be fire retarded, can the authors cite some examples?

In the experimental:  please add the characterization methods used for viscosity determination and for peeling.

In table 1 please specify the ratio OH/NCO for PU-P

fig.1 to which sample the figure is referring?  what is the utility of showing this figure in the context of fire retardance discussion?

line 79 it is not clear if the different temperatures are used for curing different samples, and, if this is the case, why

very often the same sentence is repeated several time to describe similar result in different samples, (eg lines 232 242). This is quite annoying and must be better rewritten.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors synthesized a series of I-FRPU- PSA and evaluate their flame-retardant and adhesive properties. The overall flow of the work is good and, in my opinion, a minor revision is needed before publication.

1.      My biggest concern is the characterization of the samples. Other than TGA and FTIR, I’m also curious about the mechanical strengths of the samples. The authors should perform tests like TGA and tensile.

2.      In the Introduction part, the authors should compare the pros and cons of A-FRPSA and I-FRPSA materials.

 

3.      What’s the reason for choosing DOPO-HQ, FRC-6, and DOPO-SF? The authors should explain that. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After correction I think that this paper can be now published.

Please substitute in scheme 1 in DOPO-HQ formula r with P

reformattting table 3 caption

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the efforts made by the authors to address my questions. I believe the manuscript is in good shape now.