# A Simple Direct Method to Obtain Kinetic Parameters for Polymer Thermal Decomposition
## 4 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Material**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Proposed Method**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Lyon Method**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**GDM**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **E** & **(k) mol\({}^{-1}\)** & **n** & **(k) mol\({}^{-1}\)** & **A (s\({}^{-1}\))** & **n** & **E** & **(k) mol\({}^{-1}\)** & **A (s\({}^{-1}\))** & **n** \\ \hline ABS & 347 & \(7.52\times 10^{23}\) & 2.01 & 241 & \(7.98\times 10^{15}\) & 1 & 248 & \(1.96\times 10^{16}\) & 1.76 \\ LLDPE & 352 & \(2.05\times 10^{22}\) & 0.76 & 444 & \(4.82\times 10^{28}\) & 1 & 440 & \(3.12\times 10^{28}\) & 0.96 \\ PMMA & 188 & \(9.19\times 10^{12}\) & 0.92 & 289 & \(2.66\times 10^{21}\) & 1 & 197 & \(5.28\times 10^{13}\) & 1.06 \\ \hline NOMEX & R1 & 275 & \(4.15\times 10^{17}\) & 1.76 & 184 & \(1.04\times 10^{11}\) & 1 & 314 & \(1.71\times 10^{20}\) & 1.76 \\ R2 & R2 & 125 & \(3.38\times 10^{5}\) & 2.73 & 125 & \(4.73\times 10^{5}\) & 1 & 126 & \(2.93\times 10^{5}\) & 4.96 \\ \hline PVC & R1 & 197 & \(1.62\times 10^{16}\) & 1 & 301 & \(2.80\times 10^{26}\) & 1 & 314 & \(2.33\times 10^{27}\) & 1 \\ R2 & R2 & 295 & \(7.97\times 10^{18}\) & 2.45 & 97 & \(2.29\times 10^{4}\) & 1 & 280 & \(4.19\times 10^{17}\) & 1.19 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of kinetic decomposition parameters for five materials at a heating rate of 10 K min\({}^{-1}\). Figure 10: A comparison of the (**a**) activation energies, (**b**) pre-exponential factors, and (**c**) reaction orders of polymer materials at 10 K min\({}^{-1}\) obtained by different kinetic methods. Table 6 lists the mean absolute error of the mass-\(T\) and \(dm/dT\)-\(T\) responses versus experimental results for five polymer materials obtained by different methodologies. Table 7 shows a comparison of the calculated values of the \(dm/dT\) maximum and its temperature with experimental results for five polymer materials. The proposed method provides a good approximation of the experimental values in all cases. Figures 11-15 provide comparisons of the predicted and experimental TGA and \(dm/dT\) results using the proposed, Lyon, and GDM methods. The GDM method provides the best fit to the ABS response at temperatures below 690 K. However, the proposed method fits the mass and \(dm/dT\) results better than the other methods from this point until the end of the reaction. The proposed method provides the best fit to the experimental mass loss results of LLDPE throughout the reaction. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Curve** & **Method** & **ABS** & **LLDPE** & **PMMA** & **NOMEX** & **PVC** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Mass} & PM & 1.234 & 0.303 & 2.507 & 0.613 & 0.982 \\  & Lyon & 3.030 & 1.688 & 3.640 & 3.475 & 2.357 \\  & GDM & 2.404 & 0.725 & 2.700 & 2.663 & 1.190 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(dm/dT\)} & PM & 0.044 & 0.027 & 0.050 & 0.010 & 0.084 \\  & Lyon & 0.115 & 0.077 & 0.147 & 0.037 & 0.116 \\ \cline{1-1}  & GDM & 0.104 & 0.034 & 0.051 & 0.032 & 0.070 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Mean absolute error of mass-\(T\) and \(dm/dT\)-\(T\) responses versus experimental results for five polymer materials obtained by different methodologies.