Polymer00053 - compatibility and interfacial bonding...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
42 The glass transition temperature ( T g ) of each sample is listed in Table 2.2. All the nanocomposites showed increased T g due to the restricted mobility of the elastomer chain segments. There could be two reasons for the restricted chain segment movements. First, the elastomer chains physically attached to nanofiller surface led to reduced mobility. Second, the nanofillers which took part in the crosslinking reactions increased crosslink density of the elastomer and hence decreased the elastomer chain mobility. Among all the nanofillers, FS-clay and T-SiO 2 caused the most significant increase in the elastomer T g (Table 2.2). For FS-clay, the fluorosurfactant on FS-clay surface increased the
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: compatibility and interfacial bonding between clay and elastomer, which in turn increased the restriction to elastomer chain mobility. For T-SiO 2 , the elastomer chains were chemically bonded to the nanofiller and the crosslink density of the elastomer was also increased. Therefore, T-SiO 2 showed even higher restriction to the chain mobility than FS-clay. As a result, T-SiO 2 led to a larger increase in elastomer T g compared to FS-clay. The other nanofillers, i.e. S-clay, T-G, and UT-SiO 2 , caused smaller increase in T g due to their lack of strong interactions with the elastomer. (a)...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online