3.8 Proceedings Paper

Poly(Butylene Succinate) Molar Mass Calculation by GPC and 1H-NMR

期刊

MACROMOLECULAR SYMPOSIA
卷 398, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/masy.202000216

关键词

GPC; modeling; molar mass; NMR; poly(butylene succinate)

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico [CNPq-304500/2019-4]
  2. CoordenacAo de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) [001]
  3. FundacAo Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper discusses the determination of molar mass of polymers, highlighting limitations of current techniques and proposing the use of NMR with an external standard to improve accuracy of results.
The determination of the molar mass of a polymer is a fundamental characterization. One of the most common techniques used for this purpose is gel permeation chromatography (GPC). However, the most used columns are not appropriate for low molar mass polymers, presenting results that are different from reality. For these cases, it is possible to use the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) technique to obtain molar mass values (based on calculations associated with spectra signals and the quantity of the polymer used in the analysis). However, in some cases, the resultant signals of different chain portions can be presented in the same spectral region, hampering calculations. Thus, this paper proposes the use of an external standard. This way, it can correlate to the molar mass of four different samples of poly(butylene succinate) (PBS) with different molar mass values. The results based on NMR spectra were different from those found using GPC, but both increased in the same proportion (R-2 = 0.8828). Since NMR presents an absolute result, it seems to be the most accurate result. This analysis method also allows us to quantify the experimental percentage of unsaturation, which was lower than the theoretical one due to losses during the PBS synthesis.

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

3.8
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