4.7 Article

Synthesis, characterization and constitutional isomerism study of new aromatic polyamides containing pendant groups based on asymmetrically substituted meta-phenylene diamines

期刊

EUROPEAN POLYMER JOURNAL
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 953-959

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2008.11.034

关键词

Asymmetrically substituted diamines; Pendant groups; Interfacial polycondensation; Constitutional isomerism

资金

  1. Lady Tata Memorial Trust, Mumbai, India
  2. Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four new aromatic polyamides containing pendant groups were synthesized by low temperature interfacial polycondensation of two asymmetrically substituted diamine monomers, namely, 4-[4-(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl) phenoxyl-1,3-diamino benzene and 4-[4-[4-methylphenyl) sulphonyl]phenoxy)-1,3-diamino benzene with two aromatic diacid chlorides, namely isophthaloyl chloride and tereplithaloyl chloride. Inherent viscosities of polyamides were in the range 0.64-0.72 dL/g indicating formation of medium molecular weight polymers. The weight average molecular weights and number average molecular weights, determined by gel permeation chromatography (polystyrene standard), were in the range 54,500-65,000 and 19,750-27,000, respectively. The constitutional isomerism of synthesized polyamides was investigated by H-1 and C-13 NMR spectroscopy, where as the constitutional order was calculated from H-1 NMR spectroscopy and was found to be in the range 0.35-0.37. Polyamides containing pendant groups were essentially amorphous and were soluble in polar aprotic solvents such as N, N-dimethyl acetamide, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, N, N-dimethyl formamide and dimethyl sulfoxide. Polyamides exhibited glass-transition temperature in the range 237-254 degrees C. The initial decomposition temperature, determined by TGA in nitrogen atmosphere, of polyamides was in the range 371-410 degrees C indicating their good thermal stability. (C) 2008 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