4.7 Article

Steady and Oscillatory Shear Flow Behavior of Different Polysaccharides with Laponite(R)

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym13060966

关键词

Laponite(®); polysaccharides; levan

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science [PID2019-108994RBI00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studied the rheological behavior of Laponite(R) with different polysaccharides in salt-free solutions, showing that higher polymer concentration affects viscosity, strain rate, elastic and viscous moduli, indicating a significant impact of Laponite(R) on shear flow behavior.
The rheological behavior, in terms of steady and oscillatory shear flow, of Laponite(R) with different polysaccharides (alginate, chitosan, xanthan gum and levan) in salt-free solutions was studied. Results showed that a higher polymer concentration increased the zero-rate viscosity and decreased the critical strain rate (Cross model fit) as well as increasing the elastic and viscous moduli. Those properties (zero-rate viscosity and critical strain rate) can be a suitable indicator of the effect of the Laponite(R) on the shear flow behavior for the different solutions. Specifically, the effect of the Laponite(R) predominates for solutions with large critical strain rate and low zero-rate viscosity, modifying significantly the previous parameters and even the yield stress (if existing). On the other hand, larger higher polymeric concentration hinders the formation of the platelet structure, and polymer entanglement becomes predominant. Furthermore, the addition of high concentrations of Laponite(R) increases the elastic nature, but without modifying the typical mechanical spectra for polymeric solutions. Finally, Laponite(R) was added to (previously crosslinked) gels of alginate and chitosan, obtaining different results depending on the material. These results highlight the possibility of predicting qualitatively the impact of the Laponite(R) on different polymeric solutions depending on the solutions properties.

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