4.7 Article

Interaction of sodium alginate thickener with components of architectural water-based coatings

期刊

PROGRESS IN ORGANIC COATINGS
卷 151, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2020.106016

关键词

Waterborne paint; Thickening agent; Sodium alginate; Rheology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the role of anionic polysaccharide, sodium alginate, as a thickener in wall paint formulation, and found that a medium molecular weight alginate at 0.2wt.% concentration is a suitable thickener, capable of interacting with water molecules and extenders.
Non-ionic polysaccharides, mainly cellulose ethers, have been extensively studied as thickeners in paint formulation. Their mechanism of interaction with the surrounding system is well known and, due to their easy dissolution properties and availability on the market, they are the most used thickening agents. On the other hand, ionic polysaccharides, having possible interaction with the components of the formulation, are less used. In this work, the role of an anionic polysaccharide, sodium alginate (SA), as a thickener, was investigated in a typical wall paint formulation by evaluating its interaction with the principal components of the formulation: water, binder, pigment and extender. Rheology and FTIR spectroscopy were used to evaluate the occurrence of chemical bonds between the polysaccharide chains and the surrounding system. Contemplating the results, sodium alginate, depending on its molecular weight, M-w, and concentration, turns out to be a suitable thickener for wall paint formulations. In particular, the possibility of building-up a network due to the presence of entanglements, and the interaction with water molecules and extender, demonstrated that the formulation prepared with 0.2 wt. % of a medium M-w alginate was the most promising one. On the other hand, low M-w alginate exhibited a weaker gel structure and only if present at 0.4 wt. % was appropriate concentration for a ready-to-use product.

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