			Home About us Contact

Interfacial Morphology (interfacial + morphology)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Polymers and Materials Science	100%

Selected Abstracts

Effect of Perpendicular Shear Force on the Interfacial Morphology of Reactive Polymer Bilayer

MACROMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, Issue 7 2008
Hwang Yong Kim
Abstract We investigated the effect of shear forces perpendicular to the interface on the interfacial morphology of a reactive bilayer. It was observed that the perpendicular shear force greatly enhanced the roughness of the interface compared with parallel shear force. The main role of in situ formed graft copolymers is not to increase greatly the roughness of the interface, but to stabilize the interfacial morphology. We also observed that microemuslsions were observed at both the PMMA and PS layers, which is distinctly different from the situation obtained under parallel shear force (or without shear) that the microemlusions were seen in only the PMMA layer. [source]

Composites formed by glass fibers and PS-modified epoxy matrix.

POLYMER COMPOSITES, Issue 6 2010
Influence of the glass fibers surface on the morphologies, mechanical properties of the interphases generated
In this work, the influence of the nature of the reinforcement surface on the interfacial morphologies developed in E-glass fibers/polystyrene (PS)-modified epoxy composites has been studied. Different surface modifications of the fibers were considered. In a complementary way, morphological analysis and nanoindentation measurements were carried out using atomic force microscopy to subsequently correlate the interfacial structure with the morphologies observed. In every composite, reaction-induced phase separation happened with a morphology composed of PS-rich domains immersed in an epoxy-rich phase. However, depending on the surface modification of the glass fibers, different distributions of PS-rich domains at the interfaces were obtained. The results were interpreted in terms of a gradual phase separation process because of stoichiometric gradients from the glass fibers surface to the matrix bulk caused by specific segregation of one of the components of the reactive epoxy mixture to the fibers occurs. It was concluded that specific and controlled reinforcement modification allows obtaining tailored interfaces formed by a polymer blend and a reinforcement in which the morphology can be previously selected. POLYM. COMPOS., 2010. © 2009 Society of Plastics Engineers [source]

Bonding characteristics of newly developed all-in-one adhesives

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH, Issue 2 2007
S. K. Sidhu
Abstract This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength and the interfacial morphology of newer adhesives. The occlusal surfaces of extracted teeth were ground flat for random allocation to four equal groups. Resin composite was bonded to each surface using either Clearfil SE Bond [SEB], Clearfil Protect Bond [PB], G-Bond [GB], or an experimental adhesive, SSB-200 [SSB]. After storage for 24 h in water at 37°C, they were sectioned into beams (cross-sectional area 1 mm2) for microtensile bond strength testing (,TBS) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load at failure of each was recorded; the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Games Howell tests. The surfaces of the fractured specimens were observed using SEM. For the ultra-morphology of the interface, the occlusal surfaces of four more teeth were prepared as before and a thin layer of flowable resin composite was bonded to each surface using one of the four adhesives. The mean ,TBS ranged from 39.68 MPa (GB) to 64.97 MPa (SEB). There were no statistical differences between SEB and SSB, or between PB and GB (p > 0.05). The ,TBS of SEB and SSB were significantly greater than that of PB and GB (p < 0.05). SEMs of the fractured surfaces revealed a mixed (cohesive/interfacial) failure. TEM examination highlighted differences in the hybrid layer; SEB had a thicker layer than the others. In conclusion, the newer all-in-one adhesives produced a thin hybrid layer but varied in their bond strengths. The 2-step self-etching adhesives do not necessarily produce higher bond strengths than that of the all-in-one systems. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2007 [source]