Improvement mechanical and antibacterial properties of epoxy by polyethylene glycol and Ag/CuO nanoparticles
Source abstract
Abstract
In this study, effect of the polyethylene glycol (PEG), temperature and time of curing on mechanical properties of epoxy resin were optimized using response surface methodology method. With increasing PEG, elongation increased but yield, ultimate strength, and Young modulus decreased. In the next step Ag/CuO (molar ratio: 1/5) nanoparticles (NPs) were synthesized by ultrasonic route, then was added to optimized epoxy/PEG, which led to significant enhancement of antibacterial activity and mechanical properties of optimized epoxy/PEG. Comparing yield and ultimate strength of the epoxy/PEG/(Ag/CuO) with pure epoxy showed amplification of the 70.17 and 81.41%, respectively. Optimized epoxy/PEG and Ag/CuO NPs were characterized by FT‐IR, XRD, SEM, EDX, TGA, and DRS. POLYM. COMPOS., 40:3393–3401, 2019. © 2019 Society of Plastics Engineers
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Epoxy Resin Curing Processes · Polymer Nanocomposites and Properties · Polymer composites and self-healing
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology University of Kashan Kashan Iran
Department of Physical Chemistry Faculty of Chemistry, University of Kashan Kashan Iran
Department of Solid Mechanics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Kashan Kashan Iran
Biotechnology Division, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Faculty of Chemistry University of Kashan Kashan Iran
References (62)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1039/C5RA05124J10.1039/C5RA05124J ↗
2. Hamerton I. · 1996
3. Flick E.W. · 2012
4. 10.1016/j.polymer.2012.12.06410.1016/j.polymer.2012.12.064 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.09.05010.1016/j.compositesb.2013.09.050 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2013.02.01810.1016/j.compscitech.2013.02.018 ↗
7. 10.3144/expresspolymlett.2013.9010.3144/expresspolymlett.2013.90 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2012.09.01610.1016/j.porgcoat.2012.09.016 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.polymer.2007.11.03010.1016/j.polymer.2007.11.030 ↗
10. 10.1007/s10853-005-1862-610.1007/s10853-005-1862-6 ↗
11. 10.1080/1558372090304822710.1080/15583720903048227 ↗
12. Di Liello V. · Macromol. Mater. Eng. · 1993 · 213 · 93
13. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19970919)65:12<2433::AID-APP15>3.0.CO;2-110.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19970919)65:12<2433::AID-APP15>3.0.CO;2-1 ↗
14. 10.1002/pola.2240910.1002/pola.22409 ↗
15. 10.1007/s10853-006-0294-210.1007/s10853-006-0294-2 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.polymer.2005.10.10310.1016/j.polymer.2005.10.103 ↗
17. 10.1016/S0032-3861(00)00491-210.1016/S0032-3861(00)00491-2 ↗
18. 10.1016/0032-3861(93)90399-U10.1016/0032-3861(93)90399-U ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.04.01210.1016/j.compositesb.2012.04.012 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.12.01010.1016/j.matdes.2014.12.010 ↗
21. 10.1039/C5NR01354B10.1039/C5NR01354B ↗
22. 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2017.07.04010.1016/j.ultsonch.2017.07.040 ↗
23. 10.1002/pc.2473110.1002/pc.24731 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.03.04710.1016/j.compositesb.2017.03.047 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.07.01710.1016/j.compscitech.2014.07.017 ↗
26. 10.1021/cm030441s10.1021/cm030441s ↗
27. 10.1016/j.polymer.2017.05.04310.1016/j.polymer.2017.05.043 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.apt.2017.02.01610.1016/j.apt.2017.02.016 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.clay.2014.01.00210.1016/j.clay.2014.01.002 ↗
30. 10.1002/pc.2393710.1002/pc.23937 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.clay.2017.08.01710.1016/j.clay.2017.08.017 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.mser.2005.04.00210.1016/j.mser.2005.04.002 ↗
33. 10.1002/pc.2462210.1002/pc.24622 ↗
34. 10.1080/03602559.2015.107087410.1080/03602559.2015.1070874 ↗
35. 10.1002/pc.2472910.1002/pc.24729 ↗
36. 10.3390/polym601009310.3390/polym6010093 ↗
37. 10.3390/ijms1208487210.3390/ijms12084872 ↗
38. Wypych G. · 2004
39. Wojciechowska P. · 2012
40. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.05510.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.055 ↗
41. 10.1007/s10853-005-1716-210.1007/s10853-005-1716-2 ↗
42. 10.1080/0360255060088728510.1080/03602550600887285 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.07.00210.1016/j.jconrel.2011.07.002 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.msec.2014.08.03110.1016/j.msec.2014.08.031 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.05.04610.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.05.046 ↗
46. 10.1007/s00204-013-1079-410.1007/s00204-013-1079-4 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.matlet.2017.02.11110.1016/j.matlet.2017.02.111 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.04.04110.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.04.041 ↗
49. 10.1007/s10876-013-0605-010.1007/s10876-013-0605-0 ↗
50. 10.1002/352760054X10.1002/352760054X ↗
51. CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Twenty‐Fifth Informational Supplement. CLSI document M100‐S25. Wayne PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (2015).
52. 10.1016/j.seppur.2016.11.02110.1016/j.seppur.2016.11.021 ↗
53. 10.1007/978-3-319-52250-0_1610.1007/978-3-319-52250-0_16 ↗
54. Hahnand H.T. · 1980
55. 10.1201/b1710610.1201/b17106 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2007.09.02910.1016/j.matchemphys.2007.09.029 ↗
57. 10.1007/s11814-013-0152-210.1007/s11814-013-0152-2 ↗
58. 10.1002/pen.2373310.1002/pen.23733 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.enconman.2010.06.01210.1016/j.enconman.2010.06.012 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.mssp.2015.06.08510.1016/j.mssp.2015.06.085 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2017.05.01610.1016/j.compositesa.2017.05.016 ↗
62. 10.1039/C6RA27062J10.1039/C6RA27062J ↗