| Literature DB >> 30960974 |
Yufeng Ma1, Xuanang Gong2, Chuhao Liao3, Xiang Geng4, Chunpeng Wang5, Fuxiang Chu6.
Abstract
In order to improve the performance of phenolic foam, an additive compound of 9,10-dihydro-9-oxa-10-phosphaphenanthrene-10-oxide (DOPO) and Itaconic acid (ITA) were attached on the backbone of ethyl cellulose (EC) and obtained DOPO-ITA modified EC (DIMEC), which was used to modify phenolic resin and composite phenolic foams (CPFs). The structures of DOPO-ITA were verified by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) and nuclear magnetic resonance (¹H NMR). The molecular structure and microstructure were characterized by FT-IR spectra and SEM, respectively. Compared with EC, the crystallinity of DIMEC was dramatically decreased, and the diffraction peak positions were basically unchanged. Additionally, thermal stability was decreased and Ti decreased by 24 °C. The residual carbon (600 °C) was increased by 25.7%. With the dosage of DIMEC/P increased, the Ea values of DIMEC composite phenolic resins were increased gradually. The reaction orders were all non-integers. Compared with PF, the mechanical properties, flame retardancy, and the residual carbon (800 °C) of CPFs were increased. The cell size of CPFs was less and the cell distribution was relatively regular. By comprehensive analysis, the suitable dosage of DIMEC/P was no more than 15%.Entities:
Keywords: DOPO; composites; ethyl cellulose; itaconic acid; phenolic foams
Year: 2018 PMID: 30960974 PMCID: PMC6403791 DOI: 10.3390/polym10101049
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Scheme of DIMEC.
Figure 2FT-IR of DOPO-ITA.
Figure 31H NMR spectra of DOPO-ITA.
Figure 4FT-IR of DIMEC.
Figure 5XRD of DIMEC and EC.
Figure 6SEM micrographs of DIMEC and EC.
Figure 7TG and DTG of DIMEC and EC.
Figure 8DSC curves of DCPRs ((a) 0%; (b) 5%; (c) 10%; (d) 15%; (e) 20%).
Figure 9Linear fitting charts of −ln(β/T2) and −ln(β/T1.8) versus 1/T ((a) 0%; (b) 5%; (c) 10%; (d) 15%; (e) 20%).
Figure 10Linear fitting charts of lnβ versus 1/T ((a) 0%; (b) 5%; (c) 10%; (d) 15%; (e) 20%).
The DSC data of DCPRs.
| Content of DIMEC/P | Kissinger Equation [ | Starink Equation [ | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 5 | 117.64 | 102.00 | 0.970 | 102.66 | 0.9673 | 0.94 |
| 10 | 122.72 | ||||||
| 15 | 127.76 | ||||||
| 20 | 134.29 | ||||||
| 5% | 5 | 119.42 | 118.80 | 08821 | 119.02 | 0.8831 | 0.94 |
| 10 | 119.98 | ||||||
| 15 | 126.29 | ||||||
| 20 | 131.30 | ||||||
| 10% | 5 | 120.06 | 141.28 | 0.6963 | 141.41 | 0.6980 | 0.95 |
| 10 | 119.64 | ||||||
| 15 | 121.00 | ||||||
| 20 | 127.74 | ||||||
| 15% | 5 | 118.72 | 151.35 | 0.8215 | 154.81 | 0.8787 | 0.94 |
| 10 | 119.21 | ||||||
| 15 | 121.73 | ||||||
| 20 | 127.74 | ||||||
| 20% | 5 | 117.54 | 162.56 | 0.9571 | 162.61 | 0.9574 | 0.97 |
| 10 | 120.23 | ||||||
| 15 | 123.72 | ||||||
| 20 | 127.81 | ||||||
Figure 11Compression and bending strength of CPFs.
Figure 12Tensile strength of CPFs.
Figure 13Fragility of CPFs.
Figure 14LOI of CPFs.
Figure 15TG and DTG of CPFs.
Figure 16SEM micrographs of CPFs ((a) 0%; (b) 5%; (c) 10%; (d) 15%; (e) 20%).