Search for simulants of sulfur mustard through sorption studies in elastomers

Abstract

With an aim to probe some of the safe and commercially available nonsulfur chemicals as simulants of sulfur mustard for testing of protective materials, the sorption of bis(2‐chloroethyl) ether (2‐CEE), 1,6‐dichlorohexane, bis(4‐chlorobutyl) ether, n‐octane (OCT), dimethyl methylphosphonate, and ethylene glycol through butyl rubber (IIR) and polyisoprene (PI) rubber was studied at 30 ± 2°C using gravimetric method. Among these compounds, sorption of OCT was maximum while bis(4‐chlorobutyl) ether was sorbed least. The sorption of dimethyl methylphosphonate was intermediate between 2‐CEE and 1,6‐dichlorohexane. With the exception of OCT/IIR, OCT/PI, and 2‐CEE/PI, all other simulant/elastomer systems showed non‐Fickian behavior, implying the potential of OCT as a model compound. The diffusivity of OCT was investigated in IIR and PI; the diffusion coefficient values for OCT/IIR and OCT/PI systems differed by one order of magnitude, being 6.95 × 10−15 m2/s and 3.74 × 10−14 m2/s, respectively, indicating the relative impermeability of IIR. The magnitude and dynamics of sorption in OCT/IIR as a function of its concentration and the amount of filler were further studied using the automated gravimetric analyzer. Incorporation of carbon black in IIR further reduced the extent of sorption, thereby implying an improvement in barrier performance. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 104: 1801–1806, 2007

Thiocompounds as simulants of sulphur mustard for testing of protective barriers

“…The mean of three readings was reported; the standard deviation ranged from 1.8 to 6.9. The mole % vapor sorption Q t obtained from the gain in weight of the specimen was related to equilibrium sorption uptake, Q ∞ , through an empirical relation2–4, 15–17: where K is a constant characteristic of the polymer‐permeant interaction, t is the time of exposure, and n is the transport coefficient that describes the nature of sorption. For n ≤ 0.5, diffusion is Fickian, while for n > 0.5, it is non‐Fickian.…”

“…The mean of three readings was reported; the standard deviation ranged from 1.8 to 6.9. The mole % vapor sorption Q t obtained from the gain in weight of the specimen was related to equilibrium sorption uptake, Q 1 , through an empirical relation [2][3][4][15][16][17] :…”