4.6 Article

Physical aging of polymers of intrinsic microporosity: a SAXS/WAXS study

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 2, 期 30, 页码 11742-11752

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4ta02165g

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DMR-0908781]
  2. EPSRC [EP/G065144/1]
  3. NSF Polymers Program [DMR-1206571]
  4. NSF [DGE-0750756]
  5. Division Of Materials Research
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1310258] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Division Of Materials Research
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1206571] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G065144/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. EPSRC [EP/G065144/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Porosity in polymers of intrinsic microporosity (PIMs) is closely related to free volume: it arises from a chain structure combining rigid segments with sites of contortion, producing a large concentration of interconnected pores smaller than 1 nm. Membranes of these polymers are subject to physical aging, which decreases their permeability and reduces their performance in gas separation. In this work, a robust interpretation of PIM X-ray scattering features is developed with support from molecular dynamics simulations. The sensitivity of scattering patterns to time, temperature and film thickness is shown to be qualitatively consistent with physical aging, demonstrating that these high-free-volume, porous polymeric glasses present a unique opportunity to study structural changes during physical aging using scattering methods. Quantitative modeling of PIM scattering patterns remains challenging, and the time resolution required to capture the initial aging stages of a single film is difficult to achieve with laboratory instruments. However, the spectrum of glassy states accessed by varying film thickness and aging temperature raises the possibility that there may be two distinct mechanisms of aging in PIMs.

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

4.6
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