4.6 Article

Thermal behavior of vinyl ester resin matrix composites reinforced with alkali-treated jute fibers

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 94, 期 1, 页码 123-129

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/app.20754

关键词

composites; differential scanning calorimetry (DSC); fibers; matrix; thermogravimetric analysis (TGA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The thermal behavior of vinyl ester resin matrix composites reinforced with jute fibers treated for 2, 4, 6, and 8 h with 5% NaOH was studied with Thermo-gravimetric analysis and differential scanning calorimetry. The moisture desorption peak shifted to a higher temperature, from 37 to 58.3degreesC, for all the treated-fiber composites because of improved wetting of the fibers by the resin and stronger bonding at the interface. The degradation temperature of the vinyl ester resin in the composites was lowered to 410.3degreesC from that of the neat resin, 418.8degreesC. The X-ray diffraction studies showed increased crystallinity of the treated fibers, which affected the enthalpy of the a-cellulose and hemicellulose degradation. The hemicellulose degradation temperature remained the same (299.7degreesC) in all the treated-fiber composites, but the enthalpy associated with the hemicellulose degradation showed an increasing trend in the treated composites with a small increase in the weight loss. This could be attributed to the increased hydrogen bonding between the more accessible -OH groups of the hemicellulose in the noncrystalline region of the jute fiber and the resin. The degradation temperature of a-cellulose was lowered from 364.2 to 356.8degreesC in the treated composites. The enthalpy of a-cellulose degradation showed a decreasing trend with a lowering of the weight loss. The crystalline regions of the fiber, consisting of closely packed a-cellulose chains, were bonded with the resin mainly on the surface through hydrogen bonds and became more resistant to thermal degradation; this reduced the weight loss. (C) 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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