Using the method of dissipative particle dynamics (DPD) simulations, we investigated the interfacial properties of PEO/PEO-PPO-PEO/PPO ternary blends composed of the Pluronics L64(EO13PO30EO13), F68(EO76PO29EO76), F88(EO104PO39EO104), or F127(EO106PO70EO106) triblock copolymers. Our simulations show that: (i) The interfacial tensions (γ) of the ternary blends obey the relationship γF68 < γL64 < γF88 < γF127, which indicates that triblock copolymer F68 is most effective in reducing the interfacial tension, compared to L64, F88, and F127; (ii) For the blends of PEO/L64/PPO and the F64 copolymer concentration ranging from ccp = 0.2 to 0.4, the interface exhibits a saturation state, which results in the aggregation and micelle formation of F64 copolymers added to the blends, and a lowered efficiency of the L64 copolymers as a compatibilizer, thus, the interfacial tension decreases slightly; (iii) For the blends of PEO/F68/PPO, elevating the Pluronic copolymer concentration can promote Pluronic copolymer enrichment at the interfaces without forming the micelles, which reduces the interfacial tension significantly. The interfacial properties of the blends contained the PEO-PPO-PEO triblock copolymer compatibilizers are, thus, controlled by the triblock copolymer structure and the concentration. This work provides important insights into the use of the PEO-PPO-PEO triblock copolymer as compatibilizers in the PEO and PPO homopolymer blend systems.

A spatial assessment is important to explore appropriate heating schemes for rural residences in China. Taking rural residences in six typical cities of China as the focus, four heating solutions, namely, coal-fired boiler heating systems (CBHS), wall-hung gas-fired boiler heating systems (GBHS), direct electric heating systems (DEHS), and air source heat pump systems (ASHPS), are compared and analyzed from the perspectives of primary energy consumption, environmental impact and heating costs. The results show that the primary energy consumption and the environmental impact can be significantly reduced by using solutions of GBHS and ASHPS in comparison with CBHS. DEHS has the most significant primary energy consumption and environmental impact and is less economical. The weighted environmental impact of GBHS is reduced by over 94% compared with that of CBHS, the weighted environmental impact of ASHPS is reduced by 8–23%, 35–39%, and 43–44% compared with that of CBHS for severe cold regions, cold regions, and hot-summer and cold-winter regions, respectively. The life cycle cost of GBHS is about 33% higher than that of CBHS for the six typical cities. The life cycle cost of ASHPS is about 33–57% higher than CBHS for severe cold regions, but not much difference or even less than CBHS for cold regions and hot-summer and cold-winter regions.

No abstract