ArticlePolymers2026
Experimental Study on Thermal Oxidative Aging Effects on the Performance and Compatibility of Different Types of Waterproofing Membranes.
Article in Polymers, 2026. 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.
- Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As urbanization and extreme weather conditions intensify, the comprehensive performance requirements for building waterproofing systems are becoming more demanding. Single-layer waterproof membranes often struggle to meet usage requirements in complex environments, leading to the gradual rise of composite waterproof systems. This paper selects three different types of waterproof membranes, ultra-thin reinforced self-adhesive polymer-modified bitumen waterproof membrane, polymer self-adhesive waterproof membrane, and polymer-modified bitumen root penetration-resistant waterproof membrane, and conducts a systematic study on their compatibility and durability. Through tensile performance, low-temperature flexibility, and peel compatibility tests, combined with thermal oxidative aging experiments at different aging times, the mechanical behavior, low-temperature adaptability, and interfacial bonding characteristics of the membranes were analyzed. The results show that the three membranes differ significantly in tensile performance. The root penetration-resistant membrane has the highest strength but is more brittle, the polymer self-adhesive membrane has lower strength but better stability, and the ultra-thin reinforced membrane performs better initially but lacks durability. In terms of low-temperature flexibility, the root penetration-resistant membrane demonstrates superior crack resistance and aging resistance. These divergent aging responses are closely related to differences in reinforcement structure, polymer modification, and the thermal-oxidative sensitivity of the bituminous adhesive layers. Peel compatibility tests show that the peel strength of the composite membranes of the ultra-thin reinforced and polymer self-adhesive membranes is significantly improved, indicating a good synergistic effect and compatibility. Overall, different waterproof membranes exhibit distinct compatibility mechanisms and aging patterns in composite applications, providing a scientific basis for the design and optimization of composite waterproof 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.