Determination of the degree of crystallinity of polyphenyl­ene sulfide composited with crystalline and non-crystalline fillers by applying the direct derivation method. Corrigendum

Toraya, H.

doi:10.1107/S1600576724010811

addenda and errata

JOURNAL OF
APPLIED
CRYSTALLOGRAPHY

ISSN: 1600-5767

Volume 57| Part 6| December 2024|

https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576724010811

Determination of the degree of crystallinity of polyphenylene sulfide composited with crystalline and non-crystalline fillers by applying the direct derivation method. Corrigendum

Hideo Toraya ^a ^*

^aRigaku Holdings Corporation, Matsubara 3-9-12, Akishima, Tokyo 196-8666, Japan
^*Correspondence e-mail: toraya@rigaku.co.jp

(Received 7 November 2024; accepted 7 November 2024; online 17 November 2024)

An erroneous equation and some values of related parameters in the paper by Toraya [J. Appl. Cryst. (2024), 57, 1115–1126] are corrected.

Keywords: degree of crystallinity; direct derivation method; polyphenylene sulfide; PPS; non-crystalline fillers; engineering plastics; quantitative phase analysis.

Similar articles

In the paper by Toraya (2024 ), the first equation in equations (17) on page 1118 was erroneously given. The disorder factor D, defined by $[D = \exp\left [{ - d{{\left({2\sin\theta /\lambda } \right)}^2}} \right]]$ , should not be a multiplier but a divider. The correct equation is given by

$[Y_{{\rm{P}}\_{\rm{C}}}^{{\rm{T}}\_n}\left(d \right) = \int \limits_{2{\theta _{\rm{L}}}}^{2{\theta _{{\rm{T}}\_n}}} y\left({2\theta } \right)_{{\rm{P}}\_{\rm{C}}}^{{\rm{obs}}} {\left\{ {\exp \left [{ - d{{\left({{{2\sin \theta } \over \lambda }} \right)}^2}} \right]} \right\}^{ - 1}}G\left({2\theta } \right)\,{\rm{d}}\left({2\theta } \right).]$

Since $[{\left [{\exp\left({ - d{x^2}} \right)} \right]^{ - 1}} = \exp\left({d{x^2}} \right)]$ and d is optimized together with the degree of crystallinity, D₀, during the minimization of the cost function S [equation (18)], the influences on the derived D₀ values were considered to be small. The D₀ and d parameters were recalculated with the correct equation, and they are given in Table 1. The differences in d values between the two calculations were, in this case, very small. Actually, the individual $[\overline {{D_0}}]$ values were almost unchanged, and their differences from the previous ones were within $[ \pm 0.1]$ %.

Table 1
Corrected D₀ and d values

Sample	Ranges	PPS_100	PPS_110	PPS_130	PPS_250
$[\overline {{D_0}}]$ (%)	R1	22.2	28.6	30.9	43.4
	R2	22.1	28.5	30.8	43.3
	R3	22.0	28.3	30.6	43.2

$[\bar d\ ({ \times 100} )]$	R1	0.2023	−0.1466	−0.0494	0.3778
	R2	0.1995	−0.1530	−0.0503	0.3781
	R3	0.2027	−0.1270	−0.0568	0.3907

References

Toraya, H. (2024). J. Appl. Cryst. 57, 1115–1126. CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar

This article is published by the International Union of Crystallography. Prior permission is not required to reproduce short quotations, tables and figures from this article, provided the original authors and source are cited. For more information, click here.