4.6 Article

Sustainable self-curing epoxy adhesives from Chios natural Mastic (Pistacia lentiscus L.)

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 140, 期 33, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/app.54296

关键词

bio-based; Chios Mastic; epoxy; natural resin; self-curing; sustainable

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a method for the epoxidation of poly-beta-myrcene, a biopolymer extracted from the natural resin. The resulting products, called MASTEP, exhibit self-curing properties and have a high green carbon content. One specific product (MASTEP A) showed superior strength as an adhesive compared to commonly used epoxy adhesives. Another product (MASTEP B) demonstrated the ability to transform into a semi-crystalline form through thermal conversion. Overall, this research represents a significant advancement in developing environmentally friendly epoxies and opens up possibilities for further exploration.
This study outlines a method for the epoxidation of poly-beta-myrcene, a biopolymer that can be easily extracted from the natural resin of the Chios Mastic tree (Pistacia lentiscus L.). The resulting epoxidation products are self-curing, and have a nearly 100% green carbon content. These Mastic Epoxide products (MASTEP) have the potential to be useful thermosetting resins. One specific product (MASTEP A), was used as an adhesive to create Single Lap Joints, which were then subjected to tensile shear stress tests. MASTEP A was found to be 25%-83% stronger than three commonly used conventional or semi-green epoxy adhesives. Another specific product (MASTEP B), was found able to be thermally converted into a semi-crystalline form. In order to clarify the 3D chemical structure of MASTEP, IR, and DSC investigations were conducted. The entire production process was designed to be environmentally friendly. The results of this research represent a significant advancement in the development of environmentally friendly epoxies and pave the way to a wide range of potential further research.

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