Premium
A cooperative molecular weight distribution test
Author(s) -
Adams H. E.,
Ahad E.,
Chang M. S.,
Davis D. B.,
French D. M.,
Hyer H. J.,
Law R. D.,
Simkins R. J. J.,
Stuchbury J. E.,
Tremblay M.
Publication year - 1973
Publication title -
journal of applied polymer science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.575
H-Index - 166
eISSN - 1097-4628
pISSN - 0021-8995
DOI - 10.1002/app.1973.070170121
Subject(s) - polybutadiene , molar mass distribution , osmometer , gel permeation chromatography , calibration , coefficient of variation , calibration curve , polystyrene , chromatography , materials science , analytical chemistry (journal) , chemistry , mathematics , statistics , polymer , composite material , detection limit , copolymer
The development of gel permeation chromatography (GPC) has provided a convenient tool for the rapid determination of molecular weight distribution. The question has arisen as to the suitability of the method for specification purposes. The present work, suggested by the Naval Air Systems Command, represents an attempt to assess the precision of the method through a series of tests carried out by a number of laboratories using identical procedures on the same samples. Ten laboratories agreed to take part. Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, worked out standard conditions for operation of the chromatograph, for calibration of the columns, and for analysis of the GPC curves. Two samples of polystyrene were used by the various organizations for calibration of their instruments. Number‐average molecular weight, heterogeneity index, and cumulative molecular weight distribution curves were determined on four samples of carboxyl‐terminated polybutadiene (CTPB) and two samples of hydroxyl‐terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), all unidentified except by letter code. All laboratories used identical directions for setting up CTPB and HTPB calibration curves which were based on curves determined from vapor‐pressure osmometer molecular weights and GPC count numbers of fractionated material. Variation among the different laboratories was 0.15 in heterogeneity index, and a maximum of 1200 in molecular weight provided one aberrant set of values was eliminated. The six samples had heterogeneity indices from 1.15 to 1.54, while molecular weight varied from approximately 3000 to 6000. The average coefficient of variation of the molecular weight values was 6.2 ± 0.7%, which is quite acceptable. Variation in heterogeneity index was too great for specification purposes when considered among the different laboratories, but may be sufficiently good when measured by any one laboratory.