Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The nonisothermal crystallization kinetics of polyoxymethylene (POM), polyoxymethylene/Na–montmorillonite (POM/Na–MMT), and polyoxymethylene/organic–montmorillonite (POM/organ–MMT) nanocomposites were investigated by differential scanning calorimetry at various cooling rates. The Avrami analysis modified by Jeziorny and a method developed by Mo were employed to describe the nonisothermal crystallization process of POM/Na–MMT and POM/organ–MMT nanocomposites. The difference in the values of the exponent n between POM and POM/montmorillonite nanocomposites suggests that the nonisothermal crystallization of POM/Na–MMT and POM/organ–MMT nanocomposites corresponds to a tridimensional growth with heterogeneous nucleation. The values of half‐time and the parameter Zc, which characterizes the kinetics of nonisothermal crystallization, show that the crystallization rate of either POM/Na–MMT or POM/organ–MMT nanocomposite is faster than that of virgin POM at a given cooling rate. The activation energies were evaluated by the Kissinger method and were 387.0, 330.3, and 328.6 kJ/mol for the nonisothermal crystallization of POM, POM/Na–MMT nanocomposite, and POM/organ–MMT nanocomposite, respectively. POM/montmorillonite nanocomposite can be as easily fabricated as the original polyoxymethylene, considering that the addition of montmorillonite, either Na–montmorillonite or organ–montmorillonite, may accelerate the overall nonisothermal crystallization process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: