Talk:Emulsion polymerization

Improvements

This page was nicely done, but incomplete. I added a lot of detail. I also added the most important advantage of emulsion polymerization: the ability to get high molecular weights at fast polymerization rates. More to come. The emphasis in the theory section on starve-fed, while not incorrect, is only applicable to part of the field of emulsion polymerization.Delmlsfan 04:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued my upgrade. Not finished yet and I need to add references.Delmlsfan 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of the R. Gilbert and RAFT links in the "See also" section. This gives these links co-equal status with the article. Instead, how about linking Gilbert at the reference, and also linking the living polymerization article under process. Although a new development, RAFT is ultimately not very important in the greater scheme of emulsion polymerization.Delmlsfan 03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Placed these references in the text Delmlsfan 18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FF6?

So what is FF6, the "new reducing agent"? Delmlsfan 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It turns out this is advertising for a sulfinate-based reducing agent. The precise chemical identity is not available on the company's website. I will remove the reference. Delmlsfan 01:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be the SO2-adduct of glycolic acid. Delmlsfan 00:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Polyethylene

Is there any evidence that polyethylene dispersions can be made by emulsion polymerization? Without a reference this should be removed. Delmlsfan 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed the mention of polyethylene dispersions in the article. Will return it if a literature of patent reference can be found. Delmlsfan 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Soap Free Emulsion

Doesn't seem to be much on here about soap free. maybe this is not as industrial important but I think this should be addressed. If I gain enough confidence in my writing skills I might give it a try. (also i believe styrene can undergo heterogenius nucleation as it is made water soluble by the charge initiator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddycolver (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy?

I think emulsion polymerisation is generally but not solely a radical polymerization method. It can be used for ionic polymerization. Badgerbating (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that there are some systems known in which an organometallic catalyst (for example) is dispersed in water with a surfactant, and a high polymer dispersion is formed, the term "emulsion polymerization" is almost always applied to the radical process. For example, the peculiar kinetics of that obtain in "free radical emulsion polymerization" do not occur when an organometallic catalyst is used. If you'd like to add a section to this article discussing non-radical heterogeneous polymerization, go ahead. But I would not want to leave the impression that non-radical processes are numerous or of great importance. Delmlsfan (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Smith-Ewart Theory

Dengzhekai added a section on Smith-Ewart theory to this page. I wonder whether it would be best as a separate page. My reasoning is that as understanding of emulsion polymerization developed in the 2nd half of the 20th century, fewer and fewer systems were shown to actually follow those kinetics. For example, a lot of diene polymerizations - possibly all of them - display limited particle agglomeration throughout the nominal S-E stage 2, not the unchanging particle number that the theory predicts. Another example is Gilbert's prediction that the rate acceleration characteristic of emulsion polymerization is due to thehigh internal viscosity of the monomer-swollen particles and not necessarily due to zero-one kinetics. So it would be best to keep a general description of S-E theory here and then refer the reader to a new page with S-E (don't forget Harkins!) theory. Thoughts?

If we do keep it here, I will move it to integrate into the existing theory section. Delmlsfan (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Delmlsfan . I agree with you. I think it might be better to integrate into the existing theory section. Dengzhekai (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)