journal article·2021-11-01

Effects of Monomer Compatibility on Sizing Performance of Chitosan- g -P(MA- co -AM)

Manli Li, Shuangshuang Wang, Enqi Jin, Bing Yu, Zhiyong Qiao

AATCC Journal of Research· Volume 8· Issue 6
Publisher page

Abstract

To impart good application performance to chitosan (CS) sizes for high polyester content warp yarns, methyl acrylate (MA) and acrylamide (AM) monomers, with a variation in feed molar ratio from 1:9 to 4:6, were grafted onto the molecular chains of native CS to obtain CS- g-P(MA- co-AM) products, with similar grafting ratios through a K 2 S 2 O 8 -NaHSO 3 redox system. Effects of monomer compatibility of MA and AM on sizing performance of the CS- g-P(MA- co-AM) for high polyester content warp were studied. Grafting MA and AM with rational compatibility onto the molecular chains of CS is an effective method to improve the application performance of CS sizes. In view of the overall performance of the CS- g-P(MA- co-AM) sizes, the appropriate feed molar ratio of MA/AM should be 3:7.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Textile materials and evaluations · Nanocomposite Films for Food Packaging · Dyeing and Modifying Textile Fibers

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Shaoxing University

Changzhou Vocational Institute of Textile and Garment

References (28)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1080/00405000.2015.103493110.1080/00405000.2015.1034931 ↗
2. 10.1126/science.abc476510.1126/science.abc4765 ↗
3. 10.1089/ees.2019.005310.1089/ees.2019.0053 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.05.04710.1016/j.indcrop.2016.05.047 ↗
5. 10.14504/ajr.1.2.110.14504/ajr.1.2.1 ↗
6. 10.1080/00405000.2019.163214010.1080/00405000.2019.1632140 ↗
7. Castro-Lopez C. · Applied Chemistry and Chemical Engineering · 2018 · 5 · 183
8. Parteni O. · Rev. Chim-Bucharest · 2015 · 66 · 1780
9. 10.1007/s12221-015-1098-210.1007/s12221-015-1098-2 ↗
10. Shi J. M.S. Thesis, Hainan University, 2011.
11. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.10137210.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101372 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.15110.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.151 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.03.04710.1016/j.foodcont.2018.03.047 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.15310.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.153 ↗
15. 10.1080/00405000.2017.134821510.1080/00405000.2017.1348215 ↗
16. Li M. L. · Indian Journal of Fibre & Textile Research · 2018 · 43 · 474
17. 10.3390/ijms1404735610.3390/ijms14047356 ↗
18. 10.1007/s12221-019-8800-810.1007/s12221-019-8800-8 ↗
19. Rubinson K. A., Rubinson J. F. In Contemporary Instrumental Analysis; Wang Z. X. Ed. Science Press: Beijing, China, 2003; pp 467–468.
20. 10.1021/jf103951910.1021/jf1039519 ↗
21. Jin E. Q. · Indian Journal of Fibre & Textile Research · 2015 · 40 · 437
22. 10.1080/00218464.2018.145957610.1080/00218464.2018.1459576 ↗
23. Zhu X. H. · Fibers and Polymers
24. 10.1080/00405000.2019.166932110.1080/00405000.2019.1669321 ↗
25. 10.1007/s12221-016-6747-610.1007/s12221-016-6747-6 ↗
26. 10.1007/s40204-017-0069-710.1007/s40204-017-0069-7 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2013.03.00910.1016/j.porgcoat.2013.03.009 ↗
28. Bal T. · Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2020 · 28 · 33