4.7 Article

Pyrolysis Combustion Flow Calorimetry Studies on Some Reactively Modified Polymers

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 453-467

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/polym7030453

关键词

-

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), UK [EP/F068867/1]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F068867/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. EPSRC [EP/F068867/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As a part of our continuing work to improve the flame retardance of some chain-growth polymers, by employing a reactive route, we have synthesized several unsaturated compounds containing either phosphorus (P), or both phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N), bearing groups in different chemical environments. They included: diethyl(acryloyloxymethyl)phosphonate (DEAMP); diethyl(1-acryloyloxyethyl)phosphonate (DE1AEP); diethyl-2-(acryloyloxy)ethyl phosphate (DEAEP); diethyl-2-(metharyloyloxy)ethyl phosphate (DEMEP); acrylic acid-2-(diethoxyphosphorylamino)ethyl ester (ADEPAE); acrylic acid-2-[(diethoxyphosphoryl)methyl amino]ethyl ester (ADEPMAE). Acrylonitrile (AN), methyl methacrylate (MMA) and styrene (S) were free radically copolymerised with the above mentioned comonomers. The recovered polymers were subjected to routine spectroscopic and thermo-gravimetric analyses. In addition, the combustion behaviours of homopolymers as well as the copolymers containing nominal loadings of P-, or P/N-, groups were, primarily, evaluated using pyrolysis combustion flow calorimetry (PCFC). PCFC has been found to be a very useful screening technique, especially, in establishing the efficacies of the different modifying groups towards flame retarding some base polymeric materials. Values of the heat release capacity (HRC) values normalised to the P contents (wt%) can be considered as useful tool in ranking the various P-containing modifying groups in terms of their efficacies to flame-retard non-halogenated chain-growth polymers considered in the present work.

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