Efficiency of castor oil–based polyurethane foams for oil sorption S10 and S500: Influence of porous size and statistical analysis
Source abstract
Abstract
This study evaluates the efficiency of castor oil–based polyurethane foams for oil sorption S10 and S500, focusing on the influence of the pores’ size. Different foams were produced by varying the polyol: isocyanate ratio (1:0.3; 1:0.5; 1:1.0; 1:1.5; and 1:2.0). The physicochemical properties, morphology, density, and Hg porosity were determined. The sorption capacity was influenced by exposure time, oil viscosity, and concentration of the reagents, considering variations in the hydrophobicity, void content, and morphology. The results showed that the foam produced at an in the same mass proportion (PU C ) has a higher sorption capacity in exposure time from 25 to 40 h due to higher void content and larger pore diameter size. It was observed that the lower viscosity of S10 diesel contributes to the higher sorption efficiency compared to S500 one. The Taguchi method corroborated the mentioned results, indicating a higher sorption trend by varying the reagent concentration and exposure times.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Polymer composites and self-healing · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Surface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Materials and Technology, School of Engineering (FEG) – CEP, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Guaratinguetá, Brazil
Department of Energy, School of Engineering (FEG) – CEP, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Guaratinguetá, Brazil
Federal University for Latin American Integration (UNILA), Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil
Araraquara University – UNIARA, Araraquara, Brazil
Department of Mechanics and Energy, UERJ, Resende, Brazil
References (64)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.01.06510.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.01.065 ↗
2. 10.1016/S0014-3057(02)00215-X10.1016/S0014-3057(02)00215-X ↗
3. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2005.04.02810.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2005.04.028 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.03410.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.034 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.jcis.2020.07.09110.1016/j.jcis.2020.07.091 ↗
6. 10.1016/J.CJCHE.2018.09.00110.1016/J.CJCHE.2018.09.001 ↗
7. 10.1023/A:102748411706510.1023/A:1027484117065 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.05.00510.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.05.005 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.12484210.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124842 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2006.01.00110.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2006.01.001 ↗
11. Ferreirade EMM · 2003
12. 10.1016/j.rinma.2020.10014310.1016/j.rinma.2020.100143 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.molliq.2018.08.11310.1016/j.molliq.2018.08.113 ↗
14. 10.1007/s10965-015-0832-110.1007/s10965-015-0832-1 ↗
15. 10.47749/T/UNICAMP.2007.41370110.47749/T/UNICAMP.2007.413701 ↗
16. Da Silva SA · 2014
17. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2016.12.00910.1016/j.progpolymsci.2016.12.009 ↗
18. 10.1515/epoly-2019-004210.1515/epoly-2019-0042 ↗
19. 10.1002/fam.275110.1002/fam.2751 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2017.08.02210.1016/j.eurpolymj.2017.08.022 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2016.11.01010.1016/j.polymertesting.2016.11.010 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2014.11.01710.1016/j.porgcoat.2014.11.017 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.11337710.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113377 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2021.10615610.1016/j.porgcoat.2021.106156 ↗
25. 10.1002/adv.2163710.1002/adv.21637 ↗
26. Hamester LS, Santana RMC, Madalena M, et al. Pré-polímeros de pu de alta funcionalidade a partir de poliéter diol. In: 10° Congresso Brasileiro de Polímeros, Foz do Iguacu-PR, Brazil, 13–17 October 2009.
27. 10.1590/S0100-4042200600040003110.1590/S0100-40422006000400031 ↗
28. 10.1515/epoly-2017-007210.1515/epoly-2017-0072 ↗
29. 10.1515/polyeng-2013-008310.1515/polyeng-2013-0083 ↗
30. Das A · Adv Ind Eng Polym Res · 2020 · 3 · 93
31. 10.1007/s00289-009-0242-910.1007/s00289-009-0242-9 ↗
32. 10.1002/app.1984.07029040110.1002/app.1984.070290401 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2016.10.01210.1016/j.eurpolymj.2016.10.012 ↗
34. 10.1002/pat.421910.1002/pat.4219 ↗
35. 10.1002/pen.2453710.1002/pen.24537 ↗
36. 10.1002/app.2918010.1002/app.29180 ↗
37. 10.1007/s10570-018-2111-x10.1007/s10570-018-2111-x ↗
38. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.09.03310.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.09.033 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.proenv.2013.04.07110.1016/j.proenv.2013.04.071 ↗
40. 10.1002/app.4825010.1002/app.48250 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.measurement.2015.09.01110.1016/j.measurement.2015.09.011 ↗
42. Canevarolo SV · 2004
43. Fenner BR, Zimmermann MVG, Da Silva MP, et al. Avaliação morfológica de epumas de poliuretano com diferentes densidades para utilização como adsorvente de óleos. In: 22° congresso brasileiro de engenharia e ciência dos materiais, Natal, RN, 6–10 November 2016, p. 12.
44. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2016.06.00610.1016/j.eurpolymj.2016.06.006 ↗
45. 10.1002/app.2027810.1002/app.20278 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2004.01.02510.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2004.01.025 ↗
47. 10.1007/s10904-020-01645-z10.1007/s10904-020-01645-z ↗
48. 10.1002/ppsc.20060100910.1002/ppsc.200601009 ↗
49. 10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00042-010.1016/S0025-326X(03)00042-0 ↗
50. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b0033810.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b00338 ↗
51. 10.2118/187176-PA10.2118/187176-PA ↗
52. 10.1016/S0001-8686(98)00052-910.1016/S0001-8686(98)00052-9 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.03210.1016/j.rser.2015.02.032 ↗
54. 10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b0157810.1021/acssuschemeng.6b01578 ↗
55. 10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b0109410.1021/acssuschemeng.5b01094 ↗
56. 10.1002/047001114910.1002/0470011149 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.04.00410.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.04.004 ↗
58. 10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b0038910.1021/acssuschemeng.5b00389 ↗
59. 10.1021/sc300175610.1021/sc3001756 ↗
60. Wang FC · J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys · 1994 · 32 · 1305
61. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2016.05.02410.1016/j.eurpolymj.2016.05.024 ↗
62. 10.1002/jctb.464610.1002/jctb.4646 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.07110.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.071 ↗
64. Lusi N · ARPN J Eng Appl Sci · 2016 · 11 · 945