4.7 Article

The glass transition and enthalpy recovery of a single polystyrene ultrathin film using Flash DSC

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 146, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4979126

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF DMR [1006972]
  2. Division Of Materials Research
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1006972] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The kinetics of the glass transition are measured for a single polystyrene ultrathin film of 20 nm thickness using Flash differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). T-g is measured over a range of cooling rates from 0.1 to 1000 K/s and is depressed compared to the bulk. The depression decreases with increasing cooling rate, from 12 K lower than the bulk at 0.1 K/s to no significant change at 1000 K/s. Isothermal enthalpy recovery measurements are performed from 50 to 115 degrees C, and from these experiments, the temperature dependence of the induction time along the glass line is obtained, as well as the temperature dependence of the time scale required to reach equilibrium, providing a measure of the shortest effective glassy relaxation time and the longest effective equilibrium relaxation time, respectively. The induction time for the ultrathin film is found to be similar to the bulk at all temperatures presumably because the T-g values are the same due to the use of a cooling rate of 1000 K/s prior to the enthalpy recovery measurements. On the other hand, the times required to reach equilibrium for the ultrathin film and bulk are similar at 100 degrees C, and considerably shorter for the ultrathin film at 90 degrees C, consistent with faster dynamics under nanoconfinement at low temperatures. The magnitude of the T-g depression is smaller when using the equilibrium relaxation time from the structural recovery experiment as a measure of the dynamics than when measuring T-g after a cooling experiment. A relaxation map is developed to summarize the results. Published by AIP Publishing.

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