4.7 Article

Raman spectroscopy and thermal analysis of gum and silica-filled NR/SBR blends prepared from latex system

期刊

POLYMER TESTING
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 852-861

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2013.04.007

关键词

Rubber blends; Silica; Latex coagulation; Raman spectroscopy; Thermal analysis

资金

  1. Thailand Research Fund through the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program [PHD/0286/2549]
  2. Rubber Technology Research Centre (RTEC), Mahidol University
  3. Institute for Molecules and Materials of Le Mans - UMR CNRS [6283]
  4. Universite du Maine
  5. NETZSCH (Thailand) Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural rubber/styrene-butadiene rubber (NR/SBR) blends, with and without silica, were prepared by co-coagulating the mixture of rubber latices and various amounts of well-dispersed silica suspension. An attempt to predict blend compositions was made using Raman spectroscopy in association with differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). It was found that the intensity of each Raman characteristic peak was strongly dependent on the blend composition, but there was no significant evolution with the presence of silica. Also, TGA results revealed an improvement in thermal stability of NR/SBR blends with increasing both SBR and silica contents due to the dilution effect. Two distinct glass transition temperatures (T-g) were observed in DSC thermograms of all blends, and their Tg values were independent on both blend composition and silica content. This indicated a physical blend formation, which agreed well with no shifts in Raman peaks of the blends in comparison with those of the individual rubbers. Linear regression with R-2 quality factor close to 0.99 was achieved when plotting intensity ratio at 1371/1302 cm(-1) versus blend ratios. On the other hand, the peak height ratio and heat capacity ratio from TGA and DSC analysis, respectively, yielded quadratic equations as a function of blend ratios. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据