Home Differentiation of non-black fillers in rubber composites using linear discriminant analysis of principal components
Article Open Access

Differentiation of non-black fillers in rubber composites using linear discriminant analysis of principal components

  • Bryan B. Pajarito EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: June 15, 2019

Abstract

In the compounding of rubber composites, different non-black fillers are used to improve the physical properties, reduce the formulation cost, and provide special characteristics. Designing a rubber composite for a specific application needs the careful selection and differentiation of fillers based on its effect on processibility and overall material properties of the vulcanizate. However, fillers are usually classified according to their effect on reinforcement or function without much consideration to other properties such as vulcanization characteristics and heat aging resistance. Analyses of multiple properties are tedious when done in a univariate way. To differentiate non-black fillers with consideration to the various properties of rubber composites, linear discriminant analysis (LDA) of principal components (PCs) was used. This paper examines how vulcanization and mechanical properties can differentiate aluminosilicate, bentonite, and silica fillers in rubber composites.

Aluminosilicate and silica were effectively differentiated frombentonite using the vulcanization characteristics and mechanical properties of rubber composites before heat aging. Better differentiation among the 3 non-black fillers was achieved when the mechanical properties of rubber composites after heat aging were included in the PC analysis. LDA required at least 6 PCs to correctly classify the non-black filler in 30 rubber composites.

1 Introduction

Fillers are mainly used in rubber compounding to enhance the physical properties of rubber composites. They can also be utilized to lower the cost of rubber compounds and impart special properties such as color, impermeability, oil resistance, etc. [1, 2]. The rubber industry employs a wide range of fillers. Carbon black has been the most important filler for rubber composites in terms of reinforcement [1, 2]. However, the dependence of carbon black from petroleum feedstock, its polluting nature, and imposed restriction in color have prompted rubber manufacturers to use non-black fillers [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Among non-black fillers, precipitated silica provides the highest degree of reinforcement [10]. Other non-black fillers include clays, calcium carbonate, silicates, talc, and metal oxides [1, 2, 10, 11, 12]. Silane coupling agents improve the chemical compatibility of non-black fillers with rubber matrices for more efficient reinforcement [1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12]. Recently, rubber nanocomposites demonstrate excellent mechanical properties due to the addition of organoclay at low loadings [13, 14, 15]. The organic modification of clay using quaternary ammonium salts allows intercalation and exfoliation of clay nanoplatelets in the rubber matrix. This translates to improved dispersion of the non-black filler in the rubber matrix and enhanced reinforcement.

Design of rubber composites for a specific application requires the particular selection of the type of filler. With a large number of fillers available in the market, rubber manufacturers must be able to differentiate fillers from one type to another based on its effect on the processibility and the final material properties of the rubber composite. However, fillers are currently classified according to their reinforcing effect or function. Waddell and Evans [10, 11] categorized non-black fillers as non-reinforcing, semi-reinforcing, reinforcing, or highly reinforcing based on the surface area of the filler and the corresponding hardness of the rubber compound. Mouri [2] differentiated non-black fillers according to function: reinforcing, diluent, or those adding special traits like color, electrical conductivity, flame resistance, etc. Aside from physical reinforcement, non-black fillers also affect other important properties of rubber composites such as vulcanization characteristics and heat aging resistance [3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19]. Analysis of material properties is usually performed in a univariate approach, where each property is investigated separately from the others. Such a method of analysis is slow and difficult especially when a large number of properties is involved. On the other hand, a multivariate approach in analyzing the material properties results in the retrieval of global information from all the properties at the same time [20].

In order to examine various material properties simultaneously for the differentiation of non-black fillers in rubber composites, linear discriminant analysis (LDA) was used. LDA classifies an observation into a group if the Mahalanobis squared distance of the observation to the group center is the minimum. Each group has a linear discriminant function. For each observation, the group with the smallest squared distance has the largest discriminant function [21, 22, 23]. In this study, an observation corresponds to a set of material properties measured from a sample of the rubber composite. Meanwhile, a group indicates a known type of filler used to prepare the rubber composite.

In this study, 19 different material properties were measured from a set of 30 experimental rubber composites. The analyzed properties were vulcanization characteristics (minimum and maximum elastic torques, scorch and curing times, cure rate index) and mechanical properties (tensile stress at specified elongations, tensile strength, strain at break, hardness) before and after heat aging. Rubber compounders use these properties to compare and assess different product formulations. A high correlation exists among the analyzed properties (multicollinearity), e.g. maximum elastic torque correlates with tensile properties and hardness of rubber [24]. Multicollinearity decreases the classification ability of LDA [23] with the discriminant function poorly predicting the membership of observation into a group. Following the suggestion of Næs and Mevik [23], the principal components (PCs) were first derived from the data set of properties and used it as input to LDA. PCs are uncorrelated variables that are linear combinations of the observed variables [25], e.g. the measured properties of the rubber composite. A few PCs can represent an appreciable amount of variation present in the original variables [25, 26]. In other fields of research, LDA of PCs has been successfully used to differentiate bricks [27], olive cultivars [28], fishes [29], ballpoint pen inks [30], gasoline [22], olive oils [31], and wines [32].

This paper evaluates how vulcanization characteristics and mechanical properties before and after heat aging of rubber composites differentiate and predict the type of non-black filler using LDA of PCs. This paper also determines which specific set of material properties, e.g. vulcanization characteristics, mechanical properties, or combined, best discriminate between different types of non-black filler in rubber composites.

2 Experimental

2.1 Materials

Three types of non-black fillers were used as received: naturally occurring aluminosilicate surface-treated with trimethylsilane (Silatherm T 1360, HPF The Mineral Engineers Quarzwerke GmbH), natural bentonite (industrial grade, Saile Industries Inc.), and synthetically produced amorphous silica (Silmikron 1171-850, HPF The Mineral Engineers Quarzwerke GmbH). Table 1 shows the chemical composition, loss on ignition, and median particle size of aluminosilicate, bentonite, and silica fillers obtained from the product data sheets. According to the product data given by suppliers, the aluminosilicate improves the thermal conductivity of polymers. Bentonite serves as a diluent and lowers the cost of rubber compounds. Silica has high purity and spherical particle shape with key applications in technical rubber parts.

Table 1

Chemical composition, loss on ignition, and median particle size of aluminosilicate, bentonite, and silica.

Chemical composition (wt%)AluminosilicateBentoniteSilica
SiO243.047.9> 99.0
Al2O355.014.0-
Fe2O30.57.5-
CaO + MgO0.16.4-
Na2O + K2O0.10.8-
Loss on ignition0.312.30.2
Median particle size (μm)5.0131.80.3

Standard Philippine rubber (SPR 10), zinc oxide, stearic acid, sulfur, and N-tert-butyl-2-benzothiazyl sulfonamide (TBBS) were provided by a local compounder (Rhodeco Rubber Processing Services Corp).

2.2 Compounding and vulcanization of rubber composites

Raw natural rubber was first masticated with aluminosilicate, bentonite, or silica at 10 different proportions (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, 15.0, 17.5, 20.0, 22.5, and 25.0 phr) using a laboratory mixing mill at room temperature. After achieving homogenous filler dispersion, the rubber mixture was then compounded with 5 phr zinc oxide, 2 phr stearic acid, 2.5 phr sulfur, and 0.6 phr TBBS. The final weight of the rubber compound was1000 g. Vulcanization of rubber compound was performed using a compression molding press at 160 ∘C. The dimensions of the vulcanized sheets of rubber composite were 300 × 300 × 3 mm.

2.3 Measurement of material properties

Vulcanization characteristics of rubber composites were obtained at 160 ∘C using a moving die rheometer (EKT-

2000S, Ektron Tek Co., Ltd). Seven variables related to vulcanization characteristics were obtained for each sample of rubber composite: minimum (ML) and maximum (MH) elastic torques, scorch times ts1 and ts2, cure times tc50 and tc90, and cure rate index CRI [33].

Dumbbell-shaped specimens were cut from vulcanized sheets of rubber composite and were subjected to tensile testing using a universal testing machine (AGS-5kN, Shimadzu) following ASTM D412. The crosshead speed was 500 mm min−1. Hardness was measured using a Shore A durometer (Kori Seiki) according to ASTM D2240. Six variables related to mechanical properties were determined for each sample of rubber composite: tensile stress at 100, 200, and 300% strain (100%Mod, 200%Mod, and 300%Mod), tensile strength (TS), strain at break (SB), and hardness. At least 5 replicate specimens were tested and the average values were used in data analysis.

The tensile properties and hardness of the rubber composite were also measured after heat aging following ASTMD573. The rubber specimen wasaged in a laboratory oven (FD 53, Binder GmbH) at 70 ∘C for 336 h. The aged specimen was cooled at room temperature before testing. This procedure generated another set of 6 variables (A-100%Mod, A-200%Mod, A-300%Mod, A-TS, A-SB, and A-Hardness) related to the mechanical properties of rubber composite after heat aging.

2.4 Data analysis

Minitab 17 was used to perform PC analysis (PCA) and LDA. Due to the difference in scales of the material properties, the correlation type of matrix was used to calculate the PCs.

Three original sets of material properties were obtained from actual testing of rubber composites: vulcanization characteristics (V; Table A1) and mechanical properties before (M; Table A2) and after (MA; Table A3) heat aging. Additional sets of material properties were generated from the original sets, e.g. V + M, V + MA, M + MA, and V + M + MA. The original and additional sets of material properties were used as inputs in PCA. This was performed to determine which specific set of material properties best differentiate between aluminosilicate, bentonite, or silica filler in rubber composites.

3 Results and discussion

The minimum number of PCs needed to represent the variation in the material properties of rubber composite depends on the type of data input (see Figure 1). Following Kaiser’s rule [25], the first PC (PC1) already captures the variation in the mechanical properties of rubber composite before heat aging (data input M). The variations in vulcanization characteristics (data input V) and mechanical properties after heat aging (data input MA) require at least the first 2 PCs. Combining data inputs does not significantly increase the required number of PCs, e.g. first 2 PCs forV+MandM+ MA; first 3 PCs for V+MAandV+M+ MA. The eigenvalue at PC1 increases with the number of material properties included in the data input. Each material property in the data input has a variation that contributes to the magnitude of PC1’s eigenvalue [25, 26].

Figure 1 Eigenvalue as function of the number of PCs for different data inputs.
Figure 1

Eigenvalue as function of the number of PCs for different data inputs.

The PC1 calculated from data inputs M, MA, and M + MA explains more than 75% of the variation in the material properties (see Figure 2). Meanwhile, the PC1s from the other data inputs only retain 50 - 65% of the initial information. The addition of the second PC (PC2) further increases the amount of retained information by more than 80% in all data inputs. Four PCs allow more than 95% of the relevant information from the different data inputs to be explained.

Figure 2 Cumulative explained variance as function of the number of PCs for different data inputs.
Figure 2

Cumulative explained variance as function of the number of PCs for different data inputs.

Aluminosilicate and silica composites can be differentiated from bentonite composites using vulcanization characteristics as sole input to PCA (see Figure 3A). The difference in elastic torque (ML and MH) and cure rate (CRI)

Figure 3 PCA of data input V. Distribution plots of the rubber composites (A) and material properties (B) on PC1 and PC2.
Figure 3

PCA of data input V. Distribution plots of the rubber composites (A) and material properties (B) on PC1 and PC2.

enables the separation of the 2 non-black fillers from bentonite (see Figure 3B). Both aluminosilicate and silica have surface areas higher than bentonite due to their smaller particle size which contribute to high viscosity and elastic torque of rubber composites [34]. All aluminosilicate composites have negative PC1 values where CRI is positively associated. Silane treatment of the aluminosilicate contributes to the increase in the cure rate [35].

Aluminosilicate and silica composites can also be distinguished from bentonite composites using mechanical properties of unaged samples (see Figure 4A). The clustering of aluminosilicate and silica composites in the positive PC1 axis indicates higher tensile stress at varied strains (100%Mod, 200%Mod, and 300%Mod) and hardness than bentonite composites (see Figure 4B). Similar to elastic torque, the high surface areas of aluminosilicate and silica also increase the tensile stress responses and hardness of rubber composites [34].

Figure 4 PCA of data input M. Distribution plots of the rubber composites (A) and material properties (B) on PC1 and PC2.
Figure 4

PCA of data input M. Distribution plots of the rubber composites (A) and material properties (B) on PC1 and PC2.

The use of mechanical properties of heat-aged samples in PCA results in better discrimination among the 3 non-black fillers (see Figure 5A). Aluminosilicate and silica composites are differentiated from bentonite composites in the PC1 axis due to high tensile stress responses and hardness (see Figure 5B). PC2 separates the aluminosilicate from silica composites through the values of A-TS and A-SB. After heat aging, silica composites have higher TS and SB than aluminosilicate composites.

Figure 5 PCA of data input MA. Distribution plots of the rubber composites (A) and material properties (B) on PC1 and PC2.
Figure 5

PCA of data input MA. Distribution plots of the rubber composites (A) and material properties (B) on PC1 and PC2.

Clustering of rubber composites according to the type of filler also occurs when different material properties are combined as input to PCA (see Figure 6). Aluminosilicate and silica composites are easily distinguished from bentonite composites with data input V + M (see Figure 6A)

Figure 6 Distribution plots of the rubber composites on PC1 and PC2 for the generated data inputs: V + M (A), V + MA (B), M + MA (C), and V + M + MA (D).
Figure 6

Distribution plots of the rubber composites on PC1 and PC2 for the generated data inputs: V + M (A), V + MA (B), M + MA (C), and V + M + MA (D).

where the PC1 axis is heavily influenced by ML, MH, tensile stress at varied strains, TS, SB, and hardness (see Figure 7A). With the addition of mechanical properties of heat-aged rubber composites in the data input, i.e. V + MA (Figure 6B), M + MA (Figure 6C), and V + M + MA (Figure 6D), aluminosilicate is differentiated from silica. In data inputs V + MA and M + MA, aluminosilicate composites have higher PC2 values than silica composites. On this direction, the discrimination is mainly due to the variation in scorch and curing times, TS and SB before and after heat aging of rubber composites (see Figure 7B and 7C). In data input V + M + MA (see Figure 6D), aluminosilicate is separated from silica in the PC2 axis mainly due to differences in scorch and curing times and A-SB (see Figure 7D).

Figure 7 Distribution plots of the material properties on PC1 and PC2 for the generated data inputs: V + M (A), V + MA (B), M + MA (C), and V + M + MA (D).
Figure 7

Distribution plots of the material properties on PC1 and PC2 for the generated data inputs: V + M (A), V + MA (B), M + MA (C), and V + M + MA (D).

The loading plot from data input V + M + MA (see Figure 7D) shows the type of correlation among the 19 material properties of rubber composites. MH strongly correlates with the mechanical properties of unaged and aged samples (positive correlation with tensile stress at varied strains and hardness; negative with SB). This confirms the use of MH as a good indicator of tensile properties and hardness of rubber vulcanizates [24] even after heat aging. At the same time, ML correlates well with the TS of heat-

aged samples. Meanwhile, the negative correlation of CRI with ts2 and tc90 is due to the given inverse relationship between these parameters [33].

LDA reveals that when 2 PCs are used (which explains > 80% of the total variation in the data input), the classification of non-black filler in the rubber composites ranges

from 76.7 - 93.3% correct (see Figure 8). At 2 PCs, data inputs MA and M + MA show the highest percentage of correct classification. Further increasing the number of PCs used in the LDA results to improvement in classification. Data input MA achieves 100% correct classification of non-black fillers with 6 PCs (100% of the total variation in the data input). Among the generated data inputs, V + MA obtains 100% correct classification using 7 PCs. For data inputs containing many material properties as predictors, PCA proves to be beneficial in reducing the dimension of the input data, e.g. from 13 material properties to 7 uncorrelated PCs for V + MA, before usage in LDA.

Figure 8 LDA of data inputs. Percentage of correct classification as function of the number of PCs.
Figure 8

LDA of data inputs. Percentage of correct classification as function of the number of PCs.

4 Conclusion

Aluminosilicate, bentonite, and silica filler in natural rubber composites can be differentiated using LDA of PCs. Pretreatment of material properties with PCA allows visualization of data patterns that are related to the type of non-black filler. PCA also removes the correlation among material properties and reduces the number of predictors for LDA. Among the material properties tested as input data, the mechanical properties of the rubber composite after heat aging effectively differentiate and classify the non-black filler in the samples.

LDA of PCs has already been applied to differentiate and classify important materials. The results of this study demonstrate that the same method can be utilized to identify fillers using the material properties of the rubber composite as input. This multivariate approach has the potential to assist manufacturers in differentiating and selecting other compounding ingredients such as accelerators and process oils in the design of rubber products.

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the Office of the Chancellor of the University of the Philippines Diliman, through the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Development, for funding support through the Outright Research Grant. Special thanks are also given to Andreas Eggert of Quarzwerke GmbH - HPF The Mineral Engineers and Eleanor Olegario of Saile Industries Inc. for the kind donation of non-black fillers, and to Ms. Giselle Lou Leuterio for the material testing and data gathering.

A Appendix

Table 1

Vulcanization characteristics of rubber composites.

SampleFillerProportion (phr)ML × 102 (Nm)MH (Nm)ts1 (s)ts2 (s)tc50 (s)tc90 (s)CRI (s−1)
1Aluminosilicate2.54.860.761301541802870.75
2Aluminosilicate5.06.210.751401651923130.68
3Aluminosilicate7.56.100.731401691933110.70
4Aluminosilicate10.05.880.761441691993190.67
5Aluminosilicate12.56.330.761481722003220.67
6Aluminosilicate15.06.210.821651862143240.72
7Aluminosilicate17.55.990.811401651963130.68
8Aluminosilicate20.06.670.781331621933240.62
9Aluminosilicate22.56.550.821511722023180.68
10Aluminosilicate25.06.100.851481692003150.68
11Bentonite2.54.630.691581862093270.71
12Bentonite5.04.070.621511832003220.72
13Bentonite7.54.520.541582002113690.59
14Bentonite10.03.160.581371721883530.55
15Bentonite12.54.070.451402041883880.54
16Bentonite15.03.840.461301971833950.51
17Bentonite17.54.410.461371961843840.53
18Bentonite20.03.620.481271791753810.50
19Bentonite22.53.950.501091581593680.48
20Bentonite25.07.230.481302071834300.45
21Silica2.57.230.771401722003280.64
22Silica5.07.230.751371651933110.68
23Silica7.57.340.801721932213300.73
24Silica10.06.440.771441721993180.68
25Silica12.57.230.771441722003260.65
26Silica15.07.570.722112562924440.53
27Silica17.56.550.722352743074450.58
28Silica20.07.010.811621862183370.66
29Silica22.58.130.831621862193400.65
30Silica25.07.910.782422813194560.57
Control--6.780.701401691903010.76
Table 2

Mechanical properties of rubber composites before heat aging.

SampleFillerProportion (phr)100%Mod (MPa)200%Mod (MPa)300%Mod (MPa)TS (MPa)SB (%)Hardness
1Aluminosilicate2.50.71.21.818.91076.540.4
2Aluminosilicate5.00.71.21.818.41150.036.6
3Aluminosilicate7.50.71.21.921.11096.837.3
4Aluminosilicate10.00.71.21.919.01061.938.4
5Aluminosilicate12.50.81.32.017.8911.939.6
6Aluminosilicate15.00.81.52.319.6885.840.5
7Aluminosilicate17.50.81.42.118.8957.239.2
8Aluminosilicate20.00.71.42.119.1963.040.7
9Aluminosilicate22.50.81.52.218.6957.339.5
10Aluminosilicate25.00.81.52.218.0975.541.0
11Bentonite2.50.71.11.719.01047.536.0
12Bentonite5.00.61.01.418.31255.034.2
13Bentonite7.50.50.91.215.01200.330.7
14Bentonite10.00.61.01.416.81217.633.6
15Bentonite12.50.50.81.112.61180.429.9
16Bentonite15.00.50.81.211.81119.130.6
17Bentonite17.50.50.81.211.81106.431.0
18Bentonite20.00.50.91.211.01063.131.6
19Bentonite22.50.50.91.210.01069.830.8
20Bentonite25.00.61.01.413.61045.934.1
21Silica2.50.81.42.123.61133.439.4
22Silica5.00.71.31.921.81099.237.8
23Silica7.50.71.32.020.5991.438.3
24Silica10.00.81.42.120.7956.138.3
25Silica12.50.71.32.020.3984.238.5
26Silica15.00.71.21.820.71091.138.4
27Silica17.50.71.21.820.31136.837.0
28Silica20.00.81.52.321.5940.740.1
29Silica22.50.91.62.523.1930.441.3
30Silica25.00.81.52.322.5951.141.1
Control--0.71.21.822.01020.138.2
Table 3

Mechanical properties of rubber composites after heat aging.

SampleFillerProportion (phr)100%Mod (MPa)200%Mod (MPa)300%Mod (MPa)TS (MPa)SB (%)Hardness
1Aluminosilicate2.50.81.42.214.0823.740.6
2Aluminosilicate5.00.81.42.217.7959.939.7
3Aluminosilicate7.50.71.32.012.4869.936.6
4Aluminosilicate10.00.81.42.111.8846.138.7
5Aluminosilicate12.50.81.42.112.0789.440.9
6Aluminosilicate15.00.81.62.311.6776.439.9
7Aluminosilicate17.50.81.52.311.1786.339.3
8Aluminosilicate20.00.81.62.312.8800.240.8
9Aluminosilicate22.50.91.62.411.4752.140.9
10Aluminosilicate25.00.81.52.28.0678.338.4
11Bentonite2.50.71.21.89.6775.335.1
12Bentonite5.00.61.01.410.9961.331.7
13Bentonite7.50.50.91.411.11021.231.0
14Bentonite10.00.61.01.47.7839.132.0
15Bentonite12.50.50.81.26.3854.029.0
16Bentonite15.00.40.81.16.4870.627.7
17Bentonite17.50.50.81.17.3904.128.1
18Bentonite20.00.50.81.26.4851.328.7
19Bentonite22.50.40.81.13.2648.126.0
20Bentonite25.00.40.71.05.7896.626.6
21Silica2.50.81.42.016.11001.036.8
22Silica5.00.81.52.317.1923.237.3
23Silica7.50.81.52.317.0899.838.1
24Silica10.00.81.52.417.1845.739.4
25Silica12.50.91.52.419.5948.239.5
26Silica15.00.81.42.115.7902.837.9
27Silica17.50.81.42.116.8999.236.8
28Silica20.00.91.72.618.6895.441.0
29Silica22.51.01.82.917.5811.042.4
30Silica25.00.91.62.517.0865.240.8
Control--0.71.21.916.5902.638.1

References

[1] Dick, J, Rader, C, Raw Materials Supply Chain for Rubber Products Carl Hanser Verlag: Munich, 2014.10.1007/978-1-56990-538-8Search in Google Scholar

[2] Mouri, H. In Rubber Technologist’s Handbook White, JR, De, SK, Eds., Rapra Technology Limited: United Kingdom, 2001, p 131.Search in Google Scholar

[3] El-Nashar DE, Ahmed NM, Yehia AA, Mater. Design 2012, 34, 137-142.10.1016/j.matdes.2011.07.072Search in Google Scholar

[4] Ismail H, Mathialagan M, Polym. Testing 2012, 31, 199-208.10.1016/j.polymertesting.2011.09.002Search in Google Scholar

[5] Chakraborty S, Kar S, Dasgupta S, Mukhopadhyay R, Bandy-opadhyay S, Joshi M, Ameta SC, Polym. Testing 2010, 29, 679-684.10.1016/j.polymertesting.2010.05.005Search in Google Scholar

[6] Chakraborty S, Sengupta R, Dasgupta S, Mukhopadhyay R, Bandyopadhyay S, Joshi M, Ameta SC, J. Appl. Polym. Science 2009, 113, 1316-1329.10.1002/app.30146Search in Google Scholar

[7] Chakraborty S, Sengupta R, Dasgupta S, Mukhopadhyay R, Bandyopadhyay S, Joshi M, Ameta SC, Polym. Eng. Science 2009, 49, 1279-1290.10.1002/pen.21367Search in Google Scholar

[8] EL-Nashar DE, Gomaa E, Abd-El-Messieh SL, J. Polym. Sci. Part B: Polym. Physics 2009, 47, 1825-1838.10.1002/polb.21765Search in Google Scholar

[9] Sengupta R, Chakraborty S, Bandyopadhyay S, Dasgupta S, Mukhopadhyay R, Auddy K, Deuri AS, Polym. Eng. Science 2007, 47, 1956-1974.10.1002/pen.20921Search in Google Scholar

[10] Waddell, WH, Evans, LR. In Rubber Technology Compounding and Testing for Performance 2nd ed., Dick, JS, Ed., Carl Hanser Verlag: Munich, 2009, p 325.10.3139/9783446439733.013Search in Google Scholar

[11] Waddell WH, Evans LR, Rubber Chem. Technology 1996, 69, 377-423.10.5254/1.3538378Search in Google Scholar

[12] Dannenberg EM, Rubber Chem. Technology 1982, 55, 860-880.10.5254/1.3535905Search in Google Scholar

[13] Zachariah AK, Chandra AK, Mohammed PK, Thomas S, Polym. Testing 2019, 76, 154-165.10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.02.003Search in Google Scholar

[14] Jayaraj S, Egodage SM, Walpalage S, J. Appl. Polym. Science 2018, 135, 46502.10.1002/app.46502Search in Google Scholar

[15] Meera AP, Thomas S, Zachariah AK, Yang W, Polym. Composites 2018, 39, 3110-3118.10.1002/pc.24317Search in Google Scholar

[16] Ismail H, Lotfi MNA, Othman N, Mater. Res. Innovations 2018, 1-6.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Muniyadi M, Ismail H, J. Appl. Polym. Science 2013, 130, 4419-4427.10.1002/app.39565Search in Google Scholar

[18] Albano C, Hernández M, Ichazo MN, González J, DeSousa W, Polym. Bulletin 2011, 67, 653-667.10.1007/s00289-010-0432-5Search in Google Scholar

[19] Pal PK, De SK, Rubber Chem. Technology 1982, 55, 1370-1388.10.5254/1.3535935Search in Google Scholar

[20] Domingo C, Arcis RW, Osorio E, Toledano M. Saurina J, Analyst 2000, 125, 2044-2048.10.1039/b004662kSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Härdle, W, Simar, L, Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Pereira RC, Skrobot VL, Castro EV, Fortes IC, Pasa VM, Energy Fuels 2006, 20, 1097-1102.10.1021/ef050203eSearch in Google Scholar

[23] Næs T, Mevik BH, J. Chemometrics 2001, 15, 413-426.10.1002/cem.676Search in Google Scholar

[24] Pal, K, Pal, SK, Das, CK, Kim, JK. In Recent Advances in Elastomeric Nanocomposites Mittal, V, Kim, JK, Pal, K, Eds., Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2011, p 201.10.1007/978-3-642-15787-5_8Search in Google Scholar

[25] Bro R, Smilde AK, Anal. Methods 2014, 6, 2812-2831.10.1039/C3AY41907JSearch in Google Scholar

[26] Kramer, R, Chemometric Techniques for Quantitative Analysis Marcel Dekker: New York, 1998.10.1201/9780203909805Search in Google Scholar

[27] Vítková G, Prokeš L, Novotný K, Pořízka P, Novotný J, Všianský D, Čelko L, Kaiser J, Spectrochim. Acta, Part B 2014, 101, 191-199.10.1016/j.sab.2014.08.036Search in Google Scholar

[28] De Luca M, Terouzi W, Kzaiber F, Ioele G, Oussama A, Ragno G, Int. J. Food Sci. Technology 2012, 47, 1286-1292.10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.02972.xSearch in Google Scholar

[29] Rezzi S, Giani I, Héberger K, Axelson DE, Moretti VM, Reniero F, Guillou C, J. Agric. Food. Chemistry 2007, 55, 9963-9968.10.1021/jf070736gSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] Kher A, Mulholland M, Green E, Reedy B, Vib. Spectroscopy 2006, 40, 270-277.10.1016/j.vibspec.2005.11.002Search in Google Scholar

[31] Rezzi S, Axelson DE, Héberger K, Reniero F,Mariani C, Guillou C, Anal. Chim. Acta 2005, 552, 13-24.10.1016/j.aca.2005.07.057Search in Google Scholar

[32] Héberger K, Csomós E, Simon-Sarkadi L, J. Agric. Food. Chemistry 2003, 51, 8055-8060.10.1021/jf034851cSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[33] Dick, JS. In Selecting Methods for a Rubber Test Program Dick, JS, Ed., ASTM International: Pennsylvania, 2003, p 17.10.1520/MNL10432MSearch in Google Scholar

[34] Wang M, Morris MD, Kutsovsky Y, Kautsch. Gummi Kunststoffe 2008, 61, 107-117.Search in Google Scholar

[35] Yan H, Sun K, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Fan Y, J. Appl. Polym. Science 2004, 94, 1511–1518.10.1002/app.21071Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-02-15
Accepted: 2019-04-04
Published Online: 2019-06-15
Published in Print: 2019-01-28

© 2019 Bryan B. Pajarito, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Analysis on the impact response of fiber-reinforced composite laminates: an emphasis on the FEM simulation
  2. Artificial neural network for predicting the flexural bond strength of FRP bars in concrete
  3. Cyclic behavior of GFRP strengthened infilled RC frames with low and normal strength concrete
  4. Durability of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer bars in wet-dry cycles alkali-salt corrosion
  5. Effect of B4C particle size on the mechanical properties of B4C reinforced aluminum matrix layered composite
  6. Enhanced dielectric properties of BaTiO3 ceramics with cerium doping, manganese doping and Ce-Mn co-doping
  7. Free and forced vibration analysis of rectangular/circular/annular plates made of carbon fiber-carbon nanotube-polymer hybrid composites
  8. Influence of nano-SiO2 on the bonding strength and wear resistance properties of polyurethane coating
  9. Investigation of wear behavior of nanoalumina and marble dust-reinforced dental composites
  10. Negative effect of clay fillers on the polyvinyl alcohol biodegradation: technical note
  11. Photocatalytic activity of Cu2O/ZnO nanocomposite for the decomposition of methyl orange under visible light irradiation
  12. Sub-surface mechanical properties and sub-surface creep behavior of wood-plastic composites reinforced by organoclay
  13. Surface integrity in wire-EDM tangential turning of in situ hybrid metal matrix composite A359/B4C/Al2O3
  14. The influence of the WC-Co composite microstructure model on stress field heterogeneity at the microstructure level: FEM based study
  15. Vibration-damping characterization of the basalt/epoxy composite laminates containing graphene nanopellets
  16. A review on nanocomposite hydrogels and their biomedical applications
  17. Optimization and simulation analysis of structure parameters of OPCM ultrasonic longitudinal wave actuating element
  18. Research Article
  19. Preparation of POSS-triol/wollastonite composite particles by Liquid phase mechanochemical method and its application in UV curable coatings
  20. Research on preload relaxation for composite pre-tightened tooth connections
  21. Dough moulding compound reinforced silicone rubber insulating composites using polymerized styrene butadiene rubber as a compatibilizer
  22. Hydration And Microstructure Of Astm Type I Cement Paste
  23. Effects of NiO content on the microstructure and mechanical properties of AgSnO2NiO composites
  24. Overall buckling behaviour of laminated CFRP tubes with off-axis ply orientation in axial compression
  25. UV sensing optode for composite materials environment monitoring
  26. On crushing characteristics of hybrid sandwich aluminum-cardboard panels reinforced with glass fiber composite rods
  27. Preparation and characterization of Ni-Cu composite nanoparticles for conductive paints
  28. A research on the preparation of oil-adsorbing hydrophobic porous resins by high internal phase emulsions (HIPEs) template
  29. Material characteristics of random glass-mat-reinforced thermoplastic under cryogenic thermal cycles
  30. Differentiation of non-black fillers in rubber composites using linear discriminant analysis of principal components
  31. Research Article
  32. Efficiency of TiO2 catalyst supported by modified waste fly ash during photodegradation of RR45 dye
  33. Synthesis and performance of polyurethane/silicon oxide nano-composite coatings
  34. Study on preparation of magnesium-rich composite coating and performance enhancement by graft modification of epoxy resin
  35. Research Article
  36. Mechanical and wear properties of polyetheretherketone composites filled with basalt fibres
  37. Mechanical Properties of Al 25 wt.% Cu Functionally Graded Material
  38. Research Article
  39. Weight reduction of a carbon fibre composite wheel
  40. Synthesis, electrical properties, and kinetic thermal analysis of polyaniline/ polyvinyl alcohol - magnetite nanocomposites film
  41. Seismic Behaviour of TRC-Strengthened RC Columns under Different Constraint Conditions
  42. Characterization of neat and modified asphalt binders and mixtures in relation to permanent deformation
  43. Microstructures, interface structure and room temperature tensile properties of magnesium materials reinforced by high content submicron SiCp
  44. Research Article
  45. Effect of Cutting Temperature on Bending Properties of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastics
  46. Mechanical and tribological properties of B-C-N coatings sliding against different wood balls
  47. Thermal conductivity of unidirectional composites consisting of randomly dispersed glass fibers and temperature-dependent polyethylene matrix
  48. Effects of Waste Eggshells addition on Microstructures, Mechanical and Tribological Properties of Green Metal Matrix Composite
  49. Investigation of porosity effect on flexural analysis of doubly curved FGM conoids
  50. Review Article
  51. Utilization of tailings in cement and concrete: A review
  52. Research Article
  53. Equivalent stiffness prediction and global buckling analysis using refined analytical model of composite laminated box beam
  54. Mechanochemical synthesis of zincite doped with cadmium in various amounts
  55. Size-dependent vibration analysis of graphene-PMMA lamina based on non-classical continuum theory
  56. Automated, Quality Assured and High Volume Oriented Production of Fiber Metal Laminates (FML) for the Next Generation of Passenger Aircraft Fuselage Shells
  57. Research Article
  58. An investigation of the stitching effect on single lap shear joints in laminated composites
  59. The low-velocity impact and compression after impact (CAI) behavior of foam core sandwich panels with shape memory alloy hybrid face-sheets
  60. Effect of granulometric distribution on electromagnetic shielding effectiveness for polymeric composite based on natural graphite
  61. The enhancement of filament winding in marine launching rubber gasbag
  62. Research on ELID Grinding Mechanism and Process Parameter Optimization of Aluminum-Based Diamond Composites for Electronic Packaging
Downloaded on 24.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/secm-2019-0010/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button