Hydrogenation of Styrene-Butadiene Rubber Catalyzed by Tris(triisopropylphosphine)hydridorhodium(I)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hydrogenation of C=C bonds in styrene−butadiene rubber (SBR), catalyzed by RhH(P(i-Pr)3)3, was experimentally investigated. Tris(triisopropylphosphine)hydridorhodium(I), RhH(P(i-Pr)3)3 (i-Pr=CH(CH3)2) was prepared by using rhodium chloride (RhCl3), tetrahydrofuran (THF), triisopropylphosphine (P(i-Pr)3) and a sodium mercury amalgam. The effect of catalyst/polymer ratio, reaction temperature, and hydrogen pressure on the reactivity of the catalytic system has been studied. The optimal experimental condition was obtained. The hydrogenated styrene-butadiene rubber (HSBR) was analyzed by FT-IR and 1H-NMR. In the absence of any additives, the conversion of C=C bonds in SBR could easily reach 95% in a short period of time, and no obvious cross-linking was observed. The dynamic properties of SBR did not change after the hydrogenation of the unsaturated C=C bonds. A preliminary reaction mechanism was also proposed. This study provides a new route, not only for the chemical modification of SBR by using a rhodium complex but also for the hydrogenation of other unsaturated polymers, such as diene-based rubbers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".