TECHNET Archives

1995

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Date:
Sat, 25 Nov 1995 09:45:32 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Chris

I am not aware of any laminate grades produced in the USA that do not contain
halogenated components (bromine or chlorine) for flame retardancy.  FR-4 does
not have any antimony oxide but does have about 19% by weight bromine as part
of the resin system.  The bromine is an integral part of the polymeric chain
as opposed to nonreactive halogenated flame retardant additives.  The
composite grades have both a halogenated component and antimony oxide which
act in a synergistic fashion to accomplish flame retardancy.  

Based on my conversations with laminators at the IEC meetings in Europe,
several have developed laminate materials without bromine.  However, the cost
of these laminates are prohibitively expensive at this time.  Since future
regulations are unclear, these products will not be marketed at this time.  

The real issue here is why do we need a UL 94 V-0 laminate at all?  The board
after fabrication and the addition of various inks, soldermasks, legends etc.
need only be UL94 V-1.  As long as the final board is still V-1 why not use
laminate materials that are V-1.  All that the V-0 rating does is add cost in
an effort to provide more of a cushion for the end product V-1 rating.

Comments?

Doug Sober
IPC Base Materials General Chairman



ATOM RSS1 RSS2