## 2 Results and Discussion
### Thermogravimetric Analysis  
The weight loss curves of WMS and NR/WMS functionalized at the different loading of the amine group are shown in Figure 3. The weight loss of pure silica WMS had no significant change in the region of 200-600 \({}^{\circ}\)C, indicating that the removal of the DDA template was successful after the extraction process. The weight loss below 150 \({}^{\circ}\)C was ascribed to a loss of physisorbed moisture and residual ethoxy groups owing to the incomplete hydrolysis of TEOS [30]. WMS-0.10N exhibited the decomposition of aminopropyl groups (-7 wt%) at 160-450 \({}^{\circ}\)C, which occurred in two successive steps [21; 23]. The first step was found in the temperature range of 160-300 \({}^{\circ}\)C, corresponding to the decomposition of amino moieties, while the hydrocarbon chain of the aminopropyl groups was decomposed in the latter step (300-450 \({}^{\circ}\)C). A small weight loss (1-3 wt%) was observed at 500-650 \({}^{\circ}\)C, which was attributed to the carbon residue and dehydroxylation of the silicate network [19].  
For the NR/WMS-NH\({}_{2}\) series, the weight gain at 170-230 \({}^{\circ}\)C was related to the thermal oxidation of NR incorporated into the nanocomposite materials (-0.6 wt%) [31; 32]. The decomposition of the hydrocarbon chain of aminopropyl groups and rubber molecules (17-20 wt%) occurred in a similar temperature range (230-450 \({}^{\circ}\)C) [16; 21]. Compared to the pristine NR/WMS, the weight loss in this step was systematically increased with the amine loading level, which indicated the presence of amino-functional groups and rubber in the NR/WMS-NH\({}_{2}\) materials.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample \({}^{\ast}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Amine Concentration (mmol\({}_{\text{N}}\) g\({}^{-1}\))**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\xi_{\text{SET}}\)\({}^{\ast}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\xi_{\text{sat}}\)\({}^{\ast}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(D_{p}\)\({}^{\ast}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(V_{y}\)\({}^{\ast}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(V_{p}\)\({}^{\ast}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(d_{\text{Io}}\)\({}^{\text{h}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(a_{\text{Io}}\)\({}^{\text{i}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(W_{\text{i}}\)\({}^{\text{i}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(V_{p}\)\({}^{\text{h}}\)} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-11}  & **Theoretical** & **Experimental \({}^{\text{h}}\)** & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline WMS & 0.00 & 0.00 & 986 & 469 & 2.80 & 2.41 & 0.52 & 4.51 & 5.21 & 2.41 & 70.4 \\ WMS-0.10 & 1.54 & 1.47 & 420 & 102 & 2.94 & 1.05 & 0.29 & 4.70 & 5.43 & 2.49 & 58.1 \\ NR/WMS & 0.00 & 0.00 & 492 & 241 & 2.90 & 1.34 & 0.23 & 4.91 & 5.67 & 2.77 & 43.7 \\ NR/WMS-0.05 & 0.81 & 0.43 & 378 & 184 & 2.63 & 1.06 & 0.15 & 4.80 & 5.55 & 2.92 & 42.1 \\ NR/WMS-0.10 & 1.54 & 1.23 & 238 & 110 & 2.55 & 0.92 & 0.10 & 4.75 & 5.49 & 2.94 & 36.2 \\ NR/WMS-0.15 & 2.20 & 1.84 & 115 & 21 & 2.48 & 0.14 & 0.08 & 4.73 & 5.46 & 2.98 & 33.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{\text{a}}\) Extracted samples, \({}^{\text{b}}\) Determined by CHNS/O analyzer, \({}^{\text{c}}\) BET surface area, \({}^{\text{d}}\) Extral surface area determined from \(t\)-plot curves, \({}^{\text{e}}\) Pore diameter calculated using the BJH method. \({}^{\text{f}}\) Total pore volume, \({}^{\text{g}}\) Mesopore volume, \({}^{\text{h}}\) Interplanar spacing of (100) plane (\(d_{100}\)) obtained from XRD analysis, \({}^{\text{i}}\) The repeat distance (\(a_{0}\)) between the pore centers of the mesostructure was calculated from \(a_{0}=2d_{100}/3\)\({}^{\text{h}}\), \({}^{\text{j}}\) The framework wall thickness was determined by subtracting the BJH mesopore size from the repeat distance between the pore centers, \({}^{\text{k}}\) Monolayer adsorbed volume of H\({}_{2}\)O.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Physicochemical properties of pure silica WMS, NR/WMS and NR/WMS-NH\({}_{2}\) materials synthesized under various conditions.  
Figure 3: Weight loss curves of the WMS and NR/WMS prepared with different amine loadings.