4.7 Article

Influence of residual chlorine and pressure on the degradation of water pipes of polyethylene of raised temperature

期刊

POLYMER DEGRADATION AND STABILITY
卷 194, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2021.109760

关键词

Residual chlorine; Accelerated degradation test; Polyethylene at raised temperature; Water pressure; Fluorescence spectroscopy

资金

  1. Kyoto Institute of Technology Scholarship Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The degradation of PE-RT pipes was studied, revealing that water pressure accelerates the degradation process. Three-dimensional fluorescence spectral studies show similar results to traditional I-OIT measurements. This fluorescence-based method is simple, does not require sample pretreatment, and can be completed within a few minutes.
A simple and accurate evaluation of the degradation of polymeric products, which are indispensable parts of our daily life, is important for the safe and long-term use of these products. Herein, we present a novel evaluation method for the pipes of polyethylene of raised temperature (PE-RT), a non-cross-linked polyethylene. In this method, we conducted accelerated degradation tests using a custom-designed small pressure vessel. Although it is known that residual chlorine in tap water accelerates the degradation of plastic pipes, this method reveals that the water pressure further accelerates the degradation of the pipes. We demonstrate for the first time that the results of three-dimensional fluorescence spectral studies exhibit a similar trend as those of the conventional isothermal oxidation induction time (I-OIT) measurement. This fluorescence-based method can contribute to the development of new evaluation methods to study plastic degradation, because it is very simple, does not require sample pretreatment, unlike I-OIT and other degradation evaluation methods, and the measurement can be performed directly within a few minutes. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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