4.1 Article

Thermodynamic behavior of non-ionic tri-block copolymers in water at three temperatures

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOLUTION CHEMISTRY
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 659-678

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10953-006-9036-y

关键词

density; viscosity; apparent molar volumes; copolymers; Gibbs energy of micellization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Apparent molar volumes (VD) of some copolymers, based on ethylene oxide (EO) and propylene oxide (PO) units, in aqueous solutions were determined as functions of concentration at three temperatures. Viscosity measurements were also carried out on some of these systems. The effects studied include how the molecular architecture and the molecular weight, keeping constant the EO/PO ratio, affect the aggregation of the copolymer. Modeling of the volumetric data yielded the partial molar volume of the copolymer in the standard (V-o) and the aggregated (V-M) states, as well as the equilibrium constant for micellization and the aggregation number. Analysis of the viscosity data supported the insights obtained by modeling the volumetric data. At a given temperature, both V-o and V-M, normalized for the number of the EO and the PO units, are linearly related to the fraction of the EO in the copolymer, regardless of the copolymer nature. These correlations are powerful tools for predicting values of both V-o and V-M for copolymers not yet investigated. For macromolecules having the same molecular architecture, the standard Gibbs energies of micellization (Delta G(m)(o)) are slightly negative within the errors of their determination and are hardly affected by temperature changes. Also, their aggregation numbers are small. From the quantitative analysis of the viscosity data, insights were obtained that corroborated the thermodynamic findings. Finally, values of Delta G(m)(o), normalized for the EO and the PO units, show that the same driving forces control the self-assembling processes for copolymers having different molecular weight but the same EO/PO ratio.

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

4.1
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