What Is the Optimal MDH Loading to Reach UL94 V-0?

What You'll Learn

For engineers and product designers working with thermoplastic materials, the quest to achieve UL94 V-0 certification while maintaining acceptable mechanical properties represents one of the most significant challenges in materials development.

Magnesium dihydroxide (MDH), also known as magnesium hydroxide, has emerged as the leading halogen-free flame retardant for high-temperature applications, offering an effective path to V-0 compliance without the environmental and health concerns associated with brominated alternatives.

Key Factors for Optimal MDH Loading:

Polymer type and combustion characteristics
Processing conditions and temperatures
Particle size and surface treatment
Specific performance requirements of the end application

1. Understanding Magnesium Dihydroxide as a Flame Retardant

Magnesium dihydroxide operates through a dual-mechanism approach that makes it highly effective for flame retardancy in polymer applications:

Endothermic Decomposition

Mg(OH)₂ → MgO + H₂O at ~330°C

Absorbs 1.3–1.4 kJ/g, effectively cooling the material surface.

Water Vapor Release

Releases approximately 31% of mass as water vapor.

Dilutes flammable gases in combustion zone

Char Layer Formation

Forms protective MgO residue

Insulates underlying polymer from thermal degradation

MDH vs ATH: Key Advantages

The thermal stability of MDH represents its primary advantage over aluminum trihydroxide (ATH):

Property	MDH	ATH
Decomposition Temperature	~330°C	200-220°C
Decomposition Energy	1.316 kJ/g	1.051 kJ/g
Heat Capacity	17% higher	Baseline
Char Layer	MgO - more robust	Al₂O₃

Key Insight: This higher decomposition temperature enables MDH to be compounded into engineering polymers that require processing temperatures exceeding 220°C, including polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), and various polyamide formulations. MDH's decomposition energy is approximately 25% higher than ATH, translating to superior flame quenching capability.

2. UL94 V-0 Testing Requirements and Performance Criteria

The UL94 vertical burn test, administered by Underwriters Laboratories, represents the industry standard for evaluating the flammability of plastic materials used in device enclosures and parts.

UL94 Classification Levels

Rating	Extinguishing Time	Flaming Drips	Glowing Combustion
V-0	≤10 seconds	Not permitted	≤30 seconds
V-1	≤30 seconds	Not permitted	≤60 seconds
V-2	≤30 seconds	Permitted	≤60 seconds

Key V-0 Requirements

Self-extinguish within 10 seconds after each of two 10-second flame applications
No flaming drips permitted that could ignite the underlying cotton indicator
No glowing combustion persisting for more than 30 seconds after second flame removal
Minimum 5 specimens must meet all criteria

Important: V-0 certification is essential for applications in electronics enclosures, telecommunications equipment, data center infrastructure, and other safety-critical environments where rapid self-extinguishing behavior is mandated.

3. Optimal MDH Loading Percentages by Polymer Type

The MDH loading required to achieve UL94 V-0 certification varies significantly depending on the base polymer matrix, with typical loadings ranging from 45% to 65% by weight.

Polymer-Specific Loading Requirements

Polymer Type	MDH Loading (MDH Alone)	Reduced with Synergists	Key Considerations
Polypropylene (PP)	60-65 wt%	20-30 wt% (with IFR)	High loading impacts impact strength; synergists essential
Polyethylene (PE)	55-60 wt%	30-40 wt%	Lower processing temps allow standard MDH grades
Polyamide (PA/Nylon)	50-60 wt%	35-45 wt%	Surface treatment critical for compatibility
EVA	50-55 wt%	30-40 wt%	Excellent MDH compatibility; good processability

Key Insights by Polymer

Polypropylene

Most challenging due to low LOI (17-18%) and low char-forming tendency.

MDH alone: 60-65%

With IFR systems: 20-25%

Polyethylene

Requires 55-60% MDH alone.

Lower processing temperatures allow standard MDH grades.

Polyamide (Nylon)

Requires 50-60% MDH.

High processing temps (>250°C) necessitate MDH.

Surface-treated grades critical.

EVA

Most compatible with MDH due to polar nature.

Excellent processability and balanced properties.

4. Critical Factors Affecting MDH Effectiveness

While loading percentage represents the primary determinant of flame retardancy, the effectiveness of MDH in achieving UL94 V-0 depends heavily on several secondary factors.

4.1 Particle Size and Distribution

The particle size distribution of MDH fundamentally affects flame retardant efficiency, dispersion quality, and mechanical properties. Finer particle sizes provide better flame retardancy performance due to increased surface area for heat absorption.

D50 < 1.0 μm

Ultra-fine

Superior efficiency; lower loading needed

Best for high-performance applications

D50 1.0 - 2.0 μm

Fine

Balanced performance and processability

Most common applications

D50 > 2.0 μm

Standard

Lower viscosity; higher loading needed

Cost-sensitive applications

Featured Product:

P1 (Ultra-Fine Grade): Our premium ultra-fine MDH with a controlled particle size of 0.8–1.2 μm, designed for high-end flame retardant systems.
PM5S (Super Fine Grade): A high-performance MDH exemplifying modern super fine technology. With a D₅₀ of 1.4–1.7 μm and specialized silane surface coating, it ensures excellent dispersion and prevents agglomeration during storage and processing.

4.2 Surface Treatment and Compatibility

Surface treatment of MDH particles is one of the most critical factors for successful formulation of high-loading flame retardant systems. Untreated MDH exhibits poor compatibility with most polymer matrices.

Silane (Amino)

Best for: Polyamide, Epoxy

Provides strong chemical bonding

Silane (Vinyl)

Best for: Polyolefins (PP, PE)

Provides good compatibility

Silane (Epoxy)

Best for: Epoxy, Thermosets

Provides crosslinking capability

Titanate

Best for: Various polymers

Provides up to 56.8% strength enhancement

Pro Tip: Surface treatments create chemical bonds between the mineral filler and polymer matrix, dramatically improving stress transfer and overall composite properties. Titanate-treated MDH can achieve up to 56.8% enhancement of mechanical strength compared to untreated MDH.

4.3 Synergistic Additives

The incorporation of synergistic additives offers a powerful strategy for reducing the total MDH loading required to achieve UL94 V-0 certification.

Synergist	Loading Level	Mechanism	MDH Loading Reduction
Zinc Borate (ZB)	3-8 wt%	Enhanced char formation, smoke suppression	5-10 percentage points
Nanoclay (MMT)	1-5 wt%	Physical barrier, reinforced char	3-8 percentage points
APP (Intumescent)	10-20 wt%	Char expansion, gas phase action	30-40 percentage points (with PE/PP)

Most Effective Synergist: Zinc borate promotes a more robust protective char layer while providing smoke suppression benefits. Nanoclay additives create a physical barrier that slows heat and mass transfer during combustion.

5. Processing Considerations and Mechanical Property Trade-offs

The high loading levels required for MDH-based flame retardant systems inevitably impact processing characteristics and mechanical properties.

5.1 Processing Challenges

Increased Viscosity

Impact: Difficult injection molding, extrusion

Solution: Twin-screw extruder with optimized screw design

Shear Heating

Impact: Risk of polymer degradation

Solution: Careful temperature control

Filler Distribution

Impact: Non-uniform flame retardancy

Solution: Ultra-fine, surface-treated MDH grades

5.2 Mechanical Property Trade-offs

Tensile Strength

Improves at moderate loading; degrades at high loading (>60%)

Mitigation: Surface treatment, optimal loading level

Flexural Modulus

Generally improves (reinforcing effect)

Mitigation: Fine particle size for better dispersion

Impact Strength

Decreases progressively

Mitigation: Surface treatment, impact modifiers, titanate coupling

Elongation at Break

Decreases with loading

Mitigation: Balanced formulation, compatibilizers

Key Trade-off: The key trade-off is between flame retardancy and impact strength. At MDH loadings above 50%, impact strength typically decreases significantly. The use of surface-treated MDH grades and impact modification additives can partially offset these losses.

5.3 Cost Considerations

MDH Cost Advantage

Generally less expensive than synthetic halogenated flame retardants

Loading Impact

High loadings (50-65%) can increase overall formulation volume and cost

Regulatory Trend

Increasing restrictions on halogenated flame retardants favor MDH solutions

Total Cost of Ownership

Environmental compliance and reduced regulatory risk offset higher loading costs

6. Comparison with Alternative Flame Retardant Systems

MDH offers several significant advantages over alternative flame retardant technologies. The higher decomposition temperature of MDH (330°C versus 200-220°C for ATH) enables processing of engineering polymers that require elevated temperatures during compounding and molding.

		 
			MDH Advantages
		
				  Higher decomposition temperature (330°C) enables processing of engineering polymers

				  Superior flame quenching due to higher decomposition energy and heat capacity

				  More robust char formation (MgO) compared to ATH (Al₂O₃)

				  Environmental advantages - fully halogen-free and non-toxic

				  Smoke suppression properties valuable for enclosed applications

Halogenated Concerns

Environmental and health concerns
Increasing regulatory restrictions
Restrictions on decaBDE and other brominated compounds
Driving adoption of halogen-free alternatives like MDH

7. Practical Recommendations for Formulating MDH-Based V-0 Systems

Step-by-Step Formulation Guide

Select MDH Grade

Choose based on polymer and processing temperature

Use MDH for polymers >220°C; select D50 < 2 μm for best efficiency

Verify Surface Treatment

Ensure compatibility with polymer matrix

Silane for polyamides; vinyl for polyolefins; titanate for impact strength

Add Synergists

Incorporate zinc borate or nanoclay

3-8% zinc borate for char enhancement; 1-5% nanoclay for barrier effect

Optimize Compounding

Use twin-screw extruder with proper screw design

Control temperature to avoid polymer degradation

Test and Validate

Conduct UL94 testing and mechanical testing

Test actual parts or molded test bars per UL94 requirements

Quick Reference: Key Decision Points

For PP/PE processed below 220°C

Consider ATH for cost savings; use MDH for higher thermal stability requirements

For engineering polymers (>220°C)

MDH is essential - ATH will decompose prematurely

For critical impact strength

Use titanate-treated MDH; consider impact modification additives

For cost optimization

Add 3-8% zinc borate synergist to reduce MDH requirements

For maximum efficiency

Use intumescent systems (APP-based) for PP/PE to achieve V-0 at 20-30% total loading

8. Conclusion

Achieving UL94 V-0 Requires Attention To:

Loading levels: 50-65% for MDH alone; can be reduced to 20-40% with synergists
Particle characteristics: Super fine grades (D50 < 2.0 μm) for best efficiency
Surface treatments: Silane or titanate coupling for compatibility
Synergistic combinations: Zinc borate, nanoclay, or intumescent systems

MDH's higher decomposition temperature (330°C) compared to ATH makes it the essential choice for engineering polymers processed above 220°C, while its environmental advantages position it favorably as regulatory restrictions on halogenated alternatives continue to expand.

The key to successful formulation lies in balancing the trade-offs between flame retardancy, mechanical properties, processing characteristics, and cost. By understanding the fundamental mechanisms of MDH flame retardancy, the specific requirements of UL94 V-0 testing, and the practical considerations for each polymer system, engineers can develop MDH-based formulations that reliably achieve V-0 certification while meeting all other application requirements.

As the demand for halogen-free flame retardant solutions continues to grow across electronics, construction, and transportation applications, MDH technology will remain at the forefront of safe and effective flame retardancy solutions.

Ready to achieve UL94 V-0 in your formulations?

Contact KMT Industrial's technical team to discuss your specific application requirements and explore how our premium magnesium hydroxide products can help you achieve V-0 certification in your flame retardant formulations.

Contact: KMT Industrial - Your trusted partner for halogen-free flame retardant solutions.

Comments

Frank Chen

Technical Director

Magnesium Hydroxide Division

10+ Years Exp. R&D Lead Halogen-Free Expert

Frank specializes in formulation optimization and product performance improvement for various polymer systems.

With a practical, application-driven approach, he supports customers in achieving reliable, high-performance halogen-free flame retardant solutions.

Need More Help?

Give us a e-mail and chat with our team today!

Get Started