Dispersion bonding

After some early uncertainty in the literature about the nature of the pressure sensitive bond, Dahlquist [5,6] related modulus data to tack-temperature studies and observed that the compression modulus of the adhesive had to be less than about 3 X 10 dyne/cm (3 x lO Pa) before any adhesive tack was observed. This was explained as the highest modulus that still allowed the adhesive to be sufficiently compliant to wet out or come into molecular contact with the substrate and form dispersive bonds. As other investigators [7-9] accepted this requirement it was termed the Dahlquist Criterion . 

We now compare the PM3-D method with previous uncorrected DFT calculations on the S22 complexes [130], For the dispersion-bonded complexes the errors in the interaction distances for the PBE, B3LYP and TPSS functionals are reported to be 0.63, 1.16 and 0.69 A which are reduced to 0.17, 0.00 and 0.02 A when appropriate dispersive corrections are included. We see in Table 5-9 that the PM3-D method is capable of predicting the structures of dispersion-bonded complexes with greater accuracy than some uncorrected DFT functionals and with an accuracy comparable to that for the dispersion corrected PBE functional [130],... 

FIGURE 7.4 lonomer structure showing individualized randomly dispersed bonding sites. 

Up to the saturation of the 5-atom ring, the energy gained by each argon atom addition corresponds to the addition of a new IT-like interaction with sodium, plus the formation of an extra weak ArAr dispersion bond (two in NaArs). Beyond this size, the addition of argon atoms mainly involves the formation of ArAr bonds, and the stabilization is found to be weaker. In this respect, the stability of Na(3p)Ars is enhanced with respect to its immediate size neighbors and this cluster can be considered as an excited magic size cluster. 

Fig. 9. Flectronmicrograph (Pt/C replica) showing epitaxial association of poly-L-alanine and R-quartz. Note the lamellar pattern and the insertion of new lamellae due to dispersion bonding forces. A smooth chain-folded surface, as shown in (a) is developed. In contrast a rough-chain-folded surface (b) is developed in Fig. 10. Start and termination of a peptide chain is indicated in (a) and (b) by an x (after Seifert99 10°))...

EHT, iterative EHT, and dispersion bonding calculations, the conformations of prostaglandin E-l were predicted (78). The prominent con-formers were all predicted to have intimate interaction between the side chains, in agreement with crystal studies (79). Finally, predictions of conformation have led to the prediction of a sweet-taste pharmacophore (91). 

Because of this ready adherence to a substrate, molybdenum disulphide films can be produced in a wide variety of different ways, including flotation from the surface of a liquid, spraying, brushing or dipping in a volatile dispersant, bonding with adhesive or polymeric compounds, rubbing with powder, transfer, and vacuum sputtering. The nature of the initial film produced depends on the way in which it is applied, and all the important types will be discussed in subsequent chapters. 

The implication of this work is that the presence of a burnished film on a metal surface should help to improve lubrication by a mineral oil, especially where there might otherwise be some tendency for partial oil starvation. It should be remembered, however, that this film was produced by burnishing molybdenum disulphide powder. Commercial dispersions, bonded films, composites or greases, as well as fully formulated lubricating oils all contain other substances which may significantly affect wetting behaviour. 

In terms of intermolecular interactions, MR is a measure of the ability of a substituent to participate in dispersion interactions. Hence a positive coefficient of MR in a regression equation suggests dispersion bonding with the substituent, and a negative coefficient suggests a steric interference with binding. 

The data presented in Table 1 illustrate the potential disastrous results when relying solely on dispersive bonds across the interface between an epoxy adhesive and metals or ceramics. To illustrate this danger, demonstration specimens can be produced that exhibit good initial strength, but fall apart under their own weight when a drop of water is placed at the crack tip. 

The adherend, adhesive, and interphase between them are major faetors in determining bond durability. For example, the simple disruption of the dispersive forees already described indicates that joints made with eomposite adherends will be inherently more stable than those made with metallie adherends. To inerease durability, most metallie and many polymeric adherends undergo surfaee treatments designed to alter the surfaee ehem-istry or morphology to promote primary eovalent ehemieal bonds and/or physieal bonds (mechanical keying or interlocking) to maximize, supplement, or replaee seeondary dispersive bonds. These treatments are diseussed elsewhere [1,3,12,18 24]. An intent of eaeh treatment is to provide interfacial bonding that is resistant to moisture intrusion. 

The very similar shape of the two curves, especially in the equilibrium and repulsive regions, is very intriguing. It emphasizes a similar balance of Pauli exchange repulsion (EXR) and attractive interactions, however, at very different distances as the covalent bond is shorter by as much as 1.77 A. This comparison also clearly shows that the major difference between covalent and dispersion bonding occurs (not unexpectedly) in the asymptotic regime. While the covalent interaction is chemically negligible already at about -f 1.5 A (and this holds for many other elements), the dispersion interaction remains significant up to -P 3 A. 

So, in summary, up to this point the take-home messages are that dispersion interactions are (a) ubiquitous and always attractive, (b) per atom-pair interaction on the order of a factor 100 weaker than covalent ones, (c) more long-ranged (typical distance range of 3-5 A compared to 1-2 A for covalent bonds), and (d) additive in character. These properties lead to a wide variety of dispersion bonds and by their admixture to other bonding mechanisms overall to a significant impact in chemistry. 

As a benchmark set for the quantitative validation of dispersion corrections, Hobza and coworkers suggested the S22 set (Jurecka et al. 2006), which contains 22 weakly bonded dimers. This S22 benchmark set provides interaction energies of hydrogen-bonded, dispersion-bonded and mixed complexes, which are the calculated results of the CCSD(T) method at the complete basis set (CBS) limit (Riley et al. 2010). Due to its convenience, this benchmark set has been used not only in testing the accuracies of dispersion corrections but also in determining the adjustable parameters of semiempirical dispersion-corrected functionals. Table 6.1 displays the mean absolute deviations (MAD) of various dispersion-corrected DPT calculations for the S22 benchmark set in ascending order. This table shows clearly that, independent of the dispersion corrections combined, the LC-tvdW methods... 

The van der Waals or dispersive bond is the weakest. It accounts for inter-molecular forces, which represent only a small contribution to bonds in materials except for glues and liquid crystals. 

Theoretical approaches Validation technique Singie Disperse bonding... 

Except for the dispersion bond, all bonds are functions of temperature. As a result, variations in temperature for the same polymer lead to different physical states as represented by Fig. 4.1. The relation of these states to mechanical properties will be discussed further in later sections and chapters. Notice that both linear and cross-linked polymers are indicated and temperature can be used to alter the state and or the chemistry of a polymer. 

Thus, as the substrate changes from a hydrocarbon non-reactive surface (ethyl) to a hydrocarbon surface capable of entering into coupling reactions with the elastomer layer (vinyl) the strength of adhesion increases in the ratio of covalent bond strengths relative to dispersion bond strengths, to reach the same level as the cohesive strength of the elastomer. 

---