ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Tribological Performance of EPDM and TPV Elastomers Against Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polyamide 66 Composites.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experimental Comparison of Elastomeric Materials for Hydraulic Seal Durability Under Reciprocating Conditions.Polymers · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the tribological behavior of two elastomeric sealing materials-EPDM and TPV-sliding against 30 wt.% glass fiber-reinforced polyamide 66 (PA66GF30), a composite widely used in structural and guiding components. The application context is low-leakage valve systems in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), particularly on the cathodic (air) side, where dry contact and low-friction sealing are critical. Pin-on-disk tests were conducted under three normal loads (1, 3, and 6 N) and sliding speeds of approximately 0.05, 0.10, and 0.15 m/s (92, 183, and 286 RPM). The coefficient of friction (CoF), mass loss, and wear morphology were analyzed. TPV generally exhibited lower and more stable friction than EPDM, with CoF values exceeding 1.0 at 1 N but falling within 0.32-0.52 under typical operating conditions (≥3 N). EPDM reached a maximum mass loss of 0.060%, while TPV remained below 0.022%. Microscopy revealed more severe wear features in EPDM, including tearing and abrasive deformation, whereas TPV surfaces displayed smoother, more uniform wear consistent with its dual-phase morphology. These findings support the selection of TPV over EPDM in dry-contact sealing interfaces involving composite counterfaces in PEMFC systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.