PP-PEP

FIGURE 13.10 HRR curves of PP-PEP/OMM and PP-PEP/OSEP composites compared to the reference curves. 

The best result, 60% and 40% decrease of the HRR and total heat release (THR), respectively, was achieved by PP-PEP/OMMT the P content of which is only 0.5 wt%. 

The influence of the applied PIL is even more obvious if the residues of the combusted materials are compared (Figure 13.11). Pristine PP is burned out completely, while the largest amount of char remained after the combustion of PP-PEP/OMM. This residue has an almost continuous compact surface. 

While the spinodal ciuves [82] depicted in Fig. 8 refer to ECT calculations for compressible blends of semiflexible polymers at a pressme of 1 atm, similar behavior emerges [83] from the SECT where the pressure is infinite. Thus, we analyze the molecular features contributing to this remarkable difference in miscibihties within the framework of the SECT because of its analytical tractability. In order to elucidate the contributing featiues to the observed miscibihty difference, it is convenient to assume first that both blend components are completely flexible. Then, the partial entropic structural parameters rpp and rhhpp are identical (Sect. 3.1), so that all of the calculated miscibility differences between PP/PEP and hhPP/PEP blends emerge from the differ-... 

Fig. 8 LCT spinodal curves for PP/PEP and hhPP/PEP blends at P = 1 atm. The site occupancy indices Mpp = 1560 and Mpep =4275 used in the calculations correspond to one of the blends studied by Graessley et al. [31], and Mhhpp = 1560 is selected to ensure the same molecular weights for the PP and hhPP components. Both blends are assumed to have the same interaction energies e,j in order to illustrate the sole influence of monomer structure and chain semiflexibility on the blend miscibilities. The self-interaction energies en = (l/2)(epp pp + ehhpp-hhpp) = 205.40 K and tri = cpep-pep = 207.49 K are obtained from our earlier fits to PVT data for the pure melts. The bending energies = 219 K, = 277 K, and = 460 K are taken form [80], while the heterocontact energy is an adjustable parameter...

Singh, R. (1989). Carbon dioxide fixation by PEP carboxylase in pod-walls of chickpea. In Photosynthesis, Molecular Biology and Bioenergetics, ed. G.S. Singhal et al., pp. 315-29. New Delhi Narosa Publishing House. 

Winter, K. (1982). Regulation of PEP Carboxylase in CAM plants. In Crassulacean Acid Metabolism, ed. I.P. Ting M. Gibbs, pp. 153-69. Rockville, MD American Society of Plant Physiologists. 

Thermogravimetric analysis (Figure 13.9) of the formed systems confirmed the catalytic activity of both clay types as the delayed mass loss of PEP containing PP is accelerated again when the clays are introduced. 

FIGURE 13.9 TG and dTG curves of PP composites containing PEP-coated OMM and OSEP. 

J. Podlech, Carbodiimides. In M. Goodman, F. Arthur, L. Mo-roder, and C. Toniolo (eds.). Synthesis of Peptides and Pep-tidomimetics, Houben-Weyl Methods of Organic Chemistry, E 22a. Stuttgart George Thieme Verlag, 2002, pp. 517-533. 

P. Grieco, E. Novellino, A Lavecchia, D. Weinberg, T. MacNeil, and V. J. Hruby, Peptides 2000, Proceedings of the 26th European Pep-tide Symposium, Editions EDK, Paris, 2001, pp. 643-644. 

Figure 6. Calculated Water Desorption vs time for symmetrical LEP and PEP structures (10 mil PP/2 EvOH/10 PP or PC Retort 90 minutes, 120°C).

---