4.7 Article

Outdoor and accelerated laboratory weathering of polypropylene: A comparison and correlation study

期刊

POLYMER DEGRADATION AND STABILITY
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 145-159

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2014.12.023

关键词

Outdoor; Accelerated laboratory; Weathering; Polypropylene; Correlation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51133005, 51121001]
  2. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20110181110029, 20120181130013]
  3. Innovation Team Program of Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province [2013TD0013]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Polymer Materials Engineering [skIpme2014-3-07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The degradation behaviors under outdoor and accelerated laboratory weathering conditions of isotactic polypropylene (iPP) were compared, aiming to establish a correlation between both weathering types. Outdoor weathering experiments were performed at six national standard natural exposure stations which represent six typical climate types in China. The evolutions in the chemical/molecular structure, surface morphologies, mechanical and crystalline properties were compared and the results suggested that the accelerated weathering experiment is substantially capable to mimic the main outdoor weathering behaviors. The degradation mechanism for all weathering conditions is consistent according to the similarity in the species and proportions of the carbonyl products. An improved Arrhenius equation, which considered the multiple effects of temperature, irradiation and oxygen pressure, was proposed to correlate the outdoor weathering behavior of iPP with that of accelerated laboratory weathering. The predictions for the outdoor weathering behavior of iPP based on this approach were satisfactory compared with the experimental results. Depending on the outdoor exposure locations, the acceleration of laboratory weathering was found to range from 8 to 30 times in comparison to outdoor weathering. (C) 2014 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