4.5 Article

A comparative study on the graft copolymerization of acrylic acid onto rayon fiber by a ceric ion redox system and a γ-radiation method

Journal

CARBOHYDRATE RESEARCH
Volume 345, Issue 15, Pages 2164-2173

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carres.2010.06.018

Keywords

Rayon fiber; Graft copolymerization; Acrylic acid (AAc); Ceric ions; gamma-Radiation; Swelling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Functionalization of rayon fibre has been carried out by grafting acrylic acid (AAC) both by a chemical method using a Ce(4+)-HNO(3) redox initiator and by a mutual irradiation (gamma-rays) method. The reaction conditions affecting the grafting percentage have been optimized for both methods, and the results are compared. The maximum percentage of grafting (50%) by the chemical method was obtained utilizing 18.24 x 10(-3) moles/L of ceric ammonium nitrate (CAN), 39.68 x 10(-2) moles/L of HNO(3), and 104.08 x 10(-2) moles/L of AAc in 20 mL of water at 45 degrees C for 120 min. For the radiation method, the maximum grafting percentage (60%) was higher, and the product was obtained under milder reaction conditions using a lower concentration of AAc (69.38 x 10(-2) moles/L) in 10 mL of water at an optimum total dose of 0.932 kGy. Swelling studies showed higher swelling for the grafted rayon fibre in water (854.54%) as compared to the pristine fibre (407%), while dye uptake studies revealed poor uptake of the dye (crystal violet) by the grafted fibre in comparison with the pristine fibre. The graft copolymers were characterized by IR. TGA, and scanning electron micrographic methods. Grafted fibre, prepared by the radiation-induced method, showed better thermal behaviour. Comparison of the two methods revealed that the radiation method of grafting of acrylic acid onto rayon fibre is a better method of grafting in comparison with the chemical method. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available