Table 1 Comparison of the endothermal-hygroscopic properties of the CS/PEG composites synthesized in this work with those of composites reported in recent literature.
Composite material | Freezing point (°C) | Latent heat (J/g) | Water uptake (g/100 g) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
PCM (5.6 wt%)/SiO2/diatomite | 26.8 | 8.3 | 10.2 | [18] |
PCM (11.5 wt%)/SiO2/diatomite | 26.9 | 17.1 | 10.3 | |
PCM (19.1 wt%)/SiO2/diatomite | 27.0 | 28.2 | 10.5 | |
PCM (63.4 wt%)/diatomite | 26.7 | 89.6 | — | [20] |
PCM (12.9 wt%)/diatomite | 26.7 | 18.4 | 2.5 | |
Sepiolite (25.46 wt%)/Na2SO4·10H2O | — | 122.7 | 2.2 | [19] |
Sepiolite (61.66 wt%)/paraffin | — | 145.7 | 1.7 | |
Sepiolite (65.83 wt%)/lauryl alcohol | — | 79.02 | 1.5 | |
CS/PEG 5% | 37.2 | 8.1 | — | present |
CS/PEG 10% | 37.2 | 11.8 | 38.5 | |
44.1 | ||||
CS/PEG 17.5% | 38.7 | 25 | — | |
41.6 | ||||
CS/PEG 20% | 44.7 | 33 | 37.5 | |
CS/PEG 30% | 46.3 | 48.3 | 35.6 |
