R all FM4-64 MedChemExpress samples at indicated was additional the isothermal MAC-VC-PABC-ST7612AA1 In Vitro crystallization heterogeneous
R all samples at indicated was additional the isothermal crystallization heterogeneous nucleating agent. versely, withby the classical Avrami process astime steadily prolonged for each and every sample, analyzed the improve in Tc, crystallization follows: irrespective of CNC content material, indicative of a slow crystallization price. From a polymer crys100 100 n 1 (b) tallization viewpoint, such a result is (a) – Xt = exp(-kt driving force steadily decreases (1) affordable, as the ) because of 80 increased Tc, thereby creating the nucleation and crystal development more challenging the 80 where degree of supercooling. However, in the very same n crystallization time at a smallXt is relative crystallinity formed at crystallization time (t),Tc,will be the Avrami exponent, and60 is was shorter within the composites [369]. 60 k Figure five depicts the that CNC accelremarkablythe crystallization rate continuous than in PHS, indicating againAvrami plots for all samples, from which thePHS as a heterogeneous nucleating agent. the Avrami equation experimental Xt information had been well fitted by erated the crystallization of 40 40 with various Avrami parameters.20 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 41 43 45 47 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 41 43 45 (a) 47 20 one hundred 80 60 40 20 0 0 ten 20 30 40 50 60 70 41 43 45 47 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 41 43 45 (b) 47Relative crystallinity Crystallization time (min)Relative crystallinity Crystallization time (min)Crystallization time (min)Crystallization time (min)Figure four. Cont.Relative crystallinit60 40 20 0 0 ten 20 30 40 50Relative crystallinit60 40 20Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER Critique Polymers 2021, 13,41 43 45 476 of 12 6 of0 10 20 30 4041 43 45 47 60Crystallization time (min)100 (c)Crystallization time (min)(d)Relative crystallinity 60 40 20Relative crystallinity Figure 4. Plots of relative crystallinity versus crystallization time of (a) PHS, (b) PHS/CNC0.25 80 PHS/CNC0.five, and (d) PHS/CNC1.The isothermal crystallization kinetics of PHS and PHS/CNC composites was fur analyzed by the classical Avrami process as follows:41 43 45 471 – Xt = exp(-ktn)exactly where Xt is relative crystallinity formed at crystallization time (t), n may be the Avrami e 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 20 nent,30 40k is50 60 70 and the crystallization price 0constant [369]. Figure 5 depicts the Avrami p Crystallization time (min) for all samples, from which the experimentalCrystallization time (min) fitted by the Avrami e Xt data had been nicely tion with different Avrami parameters. Figure 4. Plots of relative crystallinity versus crystallization time of (a) PHS, (b) PHS/CNC0.25, Figure four. Plots of relative crystallinity versus crystallization time of (a) PHS, (b) PHS/CNC0.25, (c)041 43 45 47(c) PHS/CNC0.five, PHS/CNC1. PHS/CNC0.5, and (d)and (d) PHS/CNC1.(a) The isothermal crystallization kinetics of PHS and PHS/CNC composites was(b) further analyzed by the classical Avrami system as follows: 0.2 0.two log(-ln(1-Xt))-0.2 0.six 0.where Xt is relative crystallinity formed at crystallization time (t), n would be the Avrami expo-0.6 -0.6 nent, and k is the crystallization rate constant [369]. Figure five depicts the Avrami plots 41 41 43 43 for all-1.0 samples, from which the experimental Xt data had been effectively fitted by the Avrami equa-1.0 45 45 47 47 tion with diverse Avrami parameters.-1.four -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.four 0.six 0.eight 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.six 1.eight 2.0 2.two -1.four -0.two 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 two.log t0.6 0.0.log(-ln(1-Xt))1 – Xt = exp(-ktn) -0.(1)log t0.6 0.0.(a)(b)log(-ln(1-Xt))-0.0.log(-ln(1-Xt))(c) -0.(d)0.log(-ln(1-Xt))log(.