Film foration and crystallization kinetics of polychloroprene studied by an ultrasonic shear wave reflection method

Competition between Crystallization and Coalescence during the Film Formation of Poly(Chloroprene) Latex and Effects on Mechanical Properties

“…Only a weak amorphous halo is observed (Figure S4, Supporting Information). This result is explained by the presence of cross-links in the high-gel particles preventing crystallization, which is an effect that has been reported previously in the literature for poly­(chloroprene) . In the PC53 polymer, however, there is a sufficient density of non-cross-linked chains to allow crystallization to proceed.…”

“…As a result, the chance of a crystal forming with the critical nucleus size becomes less probable. Alig and Tadjbakhsch estimated that the critical nucleus size in poly­(chloroprene) is 45 nm, which is less than the size of an individual poly­(chloroprene) latex particle. However, the critical nucleus size is usually underestimated in polymers, and so it could reasonably approach the 124 nm particle size.…”

“…Alig and Tadjbakhsch estimated that the critical nucleus size in poly­(chloroprene) is 45 nm, which is less than the size of an individual poly­(chloroprene) latex particle. However, the critical nucleus size is usually underestimated in polymers, and so it could reasonably approach the 124 nm particle size. We propose that over time there could be some phase rearrangement that will allow crystals to nucleate, possibly at the boundary between PC53 particles, reminiscent of a template crystallization process.…”

Crystallization measurements via ultrasonic velocity: Study of poly(lactic acid) parts

“…In the study of the relationship between the modulus and the crystallinity of semi‐crystalline polymers, different mathematic models have been developed to describe the modulus as a function of the crystallinity. While in‐parallel model (crystalline and amorphous phases are connected in parallel) gave the upper bound for the dependence of the modulus on the volume fraction of the crystalline regions, in‐series model (crystalline and amorphous phases are connected in series) set the lower bound . Kenny et al proposed an empirical power law model, which gave the best agreement between the predicted values and the experimental data.…”

“…While in-parallel model (crystalline and amorphous phases are connected in parallel) gave the upper bound for the dependence of the modulus on the volume fraction of the crystalline regions, in-series model (crystalline and amorphous phases are connected in series) set the lower bound. [38][39][40] Kenny et al proposed an empirical power law model, which gave the best agreement between the predicted values and the experimental data. Meanwhile, they stated that the other information associated with the kinetics of the crystallization process might be predicted by the similar models.…”