Research method
Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)
5 studies
Thermogravimetric analysis records mass versus temperature (or time) as a solid is heated, usually under N₂ or air. Mass-loss steps report solvent/hydrate, ligand burnout, polymer decomposition, or how much inorganic residue remains. In this library TGA is often one tick in a materials characterisation suite — beside FTIR, SEM, XRD and XPS — while the numbers the papers actually quote are DSC cure enthalpy, a hydrate formula, catalyst loading via crystal size, BET porosity, or drug entrapment. Those are neighbouring thermal or composition experiments, not substitutes for a published TGA step table.
Polymer and materials chemists reach for TGA when they need to know what burns off and what is left. It answers 'how much mass leaves in this temperature window?' Its main limitation here is that several indexed papers never quote a TGA percentage in the teaching summaries: a characterisation list that includes TGA does not by itself give a decomposition temperature, and DSC of an epoxy cure is heat flow, not mass loss.
Studies
5
Findings
4
5 supporting · 0 challenging · 0 qualifying citations
Open tensions
2
Currently
What we know
- A magnetic Cu-on-pumice catalyst lists TGA among FT-IR, SEM, EDX, XRD, VSM, BET and XPS. The numbers that are actually reported are a working recipe and texture: 0.05 g catalyst at 70 °C reduces nitrobenzenes in 8 min; BET pore volume is 0.5164 cm³ g⁻¹; XPS shows Cu⁰ after reduction; the solid is magnetically recovered with gradual activity loss. TGA is supporting composition/stability characterisation, not the catalytic clock.
- The TGDDM/DICY thermoset paper is indexed with TGA but the quoted thermal numbers are DSC and FTIR, not a mass-loss curve. Epoxy (906 cm⁻¹) is consumed; nitriles become amide (1687 cm⁻¹); two DSC peaks split at α = 0.45 with Kissinger Ea 69.7 then 88.7 kJ mol⁻¹; total enthalpy is 797–867 J g⁻¹ independent of heating rate; diffusion dominates at α > 0.85. Cured plaques: 12.6 MPa shear at 200 °C, εr = 3.26 at 1 MHz, 0.41% water uptake. DSC enthalpy is not a TGA residue.
- A Zn phenanthroline–maleate crystal is a hydrate whose formula matched elemental analysis; DSC and FT-IR/Raman sit beside SC-XRD. Geometry is distorted square pyramidal in P-1; Hirshfeld surfaces are 30.6% H···O/O···H and 9.0% C···C; periodic-DFT gap 3.45 eV; MIC 1000 μg/mL versus S. mutans. A hydrate is exactly the kind of solid TGA often quantifies — the teaching summary still does not quote a TGA water-loss percent.
- Loading that TGA might have reported as residual mass is instead given as a size/photochemistry knob. Immobilised Mn carbonyls in UiO-67-type bpy MOFs change crystal size from 260 nm to 1 mm, which changes loading and photoefficiency of visible-light CO release; cells on a polymer film of the MOF see intracellular CO after irradiation. NIR deep-tissue delivery is not shown. A chitosan–xanthan hydrogel similarly quotes 90.64% acyclovir DEE and 87.57% release at pH 7.4 (FCX8 76.83% DEE) rather than a TGA drug-loading step.
Largest unresolved question
DSC of a curing epoxy and TGA of a filled catalyst are both 'thermal analysis' and are not interchangeable. Kissinger Ea 69.7/88.7 kJ mol⁻¹ and 797–867 J g⁻¹ are heat-flow results on TGDDM/DICY; the pumice paper's TGA is an unquoted mass-loss characterisation beside 0.5164 cm³ g⁻¹ BET and an 8 min nitro reduction. Quoting a cure enthalpy as if it were a TGA ash content is the mix-up.
Common misconceptions
If the experimental section lists TGA, the paper’s main result is a decomposition temperature.
The pumice catalyst’s headline is 8 min nitro reduction at 70 °C with magnetic recovery; TGA is one of eight characterisation methods. The epoxy paper’s thermal headline is DSC Ea(α) and 0.41% water uptake, not a TGA trace quoted in the summary.
Elemental analysis matching a hydrate formula is a TGA measurement.
The Zn paper matches the hydrate by elemental analysis and uses DSC among other methods. TGA could in principle quantify lattice water as a mass-loss step; that percent is not in the teaching summary.
A TGA (or any thermal) characterisation of a drug gel or CO-MOF proves the dose that reaches a patient or a tumour.
FCX6’s 90.64% DEE is a laboratory loading; human PK was not measured. The photoCORM MOF delivers CO into cultured cells under visible light; in vivo inflammation models are proposed, not completed.
Related
Claim ledger
What the evidence shows
Drawn from 5 studies in this library. Mix labels say which citation roles are present; they are not a strength score. Supports means evidence for a finding; Challenges means evidence against a stated position; Qualifies marks scope.
A magnetic Cu-on-pumice catalyst lists TGA among FT-IR, SEM, EDX, XRD, VSM, BET and XPS. The numbers that are actually reported are a working recipe and texture: 0.05 g catalyst at 70 °C reduces nitrobenzenes in 8 min; BET pore volume is 0.5164 cm³ g⁻¹; XPS shows Cu⁰ after reduction; the solid is magnetically recovered with gradual activity loss. TGA is supporting composition/stability characterisation, not the catalytic clock.
The TGDDM/DICY thermoset paper is indexed with TGA but the quoted thermal numbers are DSC and FTIR, not a mass-loss curve. Epoxy (906 cm⁻¹) is consumed; nitriles become amide (1687 cm⁻¹); two DSC peaks split at α = 0.45 with Kissinger Ea 69.7 then 88.7 kJ mol⁻¹; total enthalpy is 797–867 J g⁻¹ independent of heating rate; diffusion dominates at α > 0.85. Cured plaques: 12.6 MPa shear at 200 °C, εr = 3.26 at 1 MHz, 0.41% water uptake. DSC enthalpy is not a TGA residue.
A Zn phenanthroline–maleate crystal is a hydrate whose formula matched elemental analysis; DSC and FT-IR/Raman sit beside SC-XRD. Geometry is distorted square pyramidal in P-1; Hirshfeld surfaces are 30.6% H···O/O···H and 9.0% C···C; periodic-DFT gap 3.45 eV; MIC 1000 μg/mL versus S. mutans. A hydrate is exactly the kind of solid TGA often quantifies — the teaching summary still does not quote a TGA water-loss percent.
Loading that TGA might have reported as residual mass is instead given as a size/photochemistry knob. Immobilised Mn carbonyls in UiO-67-type bpy MOFs change crystal size from 260 nm to 1 mm, which changes loading and photoefficiency of visible-light CO release; cells on a polymer film of the MOF see intracellular CO after irradiation. NIR deep-tissue delivery is not shown. A chitosan–xanthan hydrogel similarly quotes 90.64% acyclovir DEE and 87.57% release at pH 7.4 (FCX8 76.83% DEE) rather than a TGA drug-loading step.
Study Role Design N Population Outcome A MOF that releases CO with visible light Supports Animal / in-vitroPhotoactive Mn carbonyls in UiO-67-type MOFs used as CO-releasing cell-culture platforms Materials plus cell-culture delivery assays — no subject N Cultured cells grown on MOF polymer films releasing CO under light Controllable phototriggered CO release and intracellular delivery pH-swelling chitosan–xanthan gels that hold acyclovir Supports OtherChitosan–xanthan–AMPS hydrogels for acyclovir loading, swelling, and pH-dependent release Formulation study of hydrogel batches (e.g., FCX6/FCX8) — no subject N Acyclovir-loaded chitosan/xanthan graft hydrogels in SGF/SIF media Drug entrapment efficiency and 24 h release at pH 1.2 vs 7.4
Debates
Tensions and limits
Some items are genuine disagreements on the same question. Others mark different assays, populations, or outcomes.
DSC of a curing epoxy and TGA of a filled catalyst are both 'thermal analysis' and are not interchangeable. Kissinger Ea 69.7/88.7 kJ mol⁻¹ and 797–867 J g⁻¹ are heat-flow results on TGDDM/DICY; the pumice paper's TGA is an unquoted mass-loss characterisation beside 0.5164 cm³ g⁻¹ BET and an 8 min nitro reduction. Quoting a cure enthalpy as if it were a TGA ash content is the mix-up.
DSC of a curing epoxy and TGA of a filled catalyst are both 'thermal analysis' and are not interchangeable. Kissinger Ea 69.7/88.7 kJ mol⁻¹ and 797–867 J g⁻¹ are heat-flow results on TGDDM/DICY; the pumice paper's TGA is an unquoted mass-loss characterisation beside 0.5164 cm³ g⁻¹ BET and an 8 min nitro reduction. Quoting a cure enthalpy as if it were a TGA ash content is the mix-up.
Study Role Design N Population Outcome TGDDM/DICY epoxy cure kinetics and properties Supports OtherFTIR/DSC kinetic analysis of TGDDM/DICY epoxy cure and cured-material properties Polymer cure kinetics and materials testing — no sample N TGDDM/DICY epoxy formulations Cure activation energies and high-temperature adhesive/dielectric properties Magnetic Cu-on-pumice catalyst for nitro reductions Supports OtherFe3O4@VPMP/CLS–Cu nanocatalyst for NaBH4 reduction of nitrobenzenes Heterogeneous catalysis optimization — no sample N Nitrobenzene derivatives reduced with the magnetic Cu nanocatalyst Fast nitroarene reduction with magnetic recovery and reuse
PaperFren reads this as a limit on how far one study travels — different assays, populations, or outcomes — not a forced fight between papers.
Composition from TGA-style thinking (how much is inorganic, how much is cargo) is not the function. MOF crystal size 260 nm–1 mm changes CO-photo-loading; hydrogel %DEE is a wet assay; Zn hydrate formula is elemental analysis. None of those papers' headline numbers are a TGA onset, and CO remains a toxic gas if mis-dosed.
Composition from TGA-style thinking (how much is inorganic, how much is cargo) is not the function. MOF crystal size 260 nm–1 mm changes CO-photo-loading; hydrogel %DEE is a wet assay; Zn hydrate formula is elemental analysis. None of those papers' headline numbers are a TGA onset, and CO remains a toxic gas if mis-dosed.
- A MOF that releases CO with visible light
- pH-swelling chitosan–xanthan gels that hold acyclovir
- A new Zn phenanthroline–maleate crystal
Study Role Design N Population Outcome A MOF that releases CO with visible light Supports Animal / in-vitroPhotoactive Mn carbonyls in UiO-67-type MOFs used as CO-releasing cell-culture platforms Materials plus cell-culture delivery assays — no subject N Cultured cells grown on MOF polymer films releasing CO under light Controllable phototriggered CO release and intracellular delivery pH-swelling chitosan–xanthan gels that hold acyclovir Supports OtherChitosan–xanthan–AMPS hydrogels for acyclovir loading, swelling, and pH-dependent release Formulation study of hydrogel batches (e.g., FCX6/FCX8) — no subject N Acyclovir-loaded chitosan/xanthan graft hydrogels in SGF/SIF media Drug entrapment efficiency and 24 h release at pH 1.2 vs 7.4 A new Zn phenanthroline–maleate crystal Supports OtherCrystal structure, periodic DFT, and secondary MIC assays of a Zn–phenanthroline–maleate complex Coordination-chemistry characterization — no cohort N Zn(II) phenanthroline/maleate coordination compound Structure, electronics, and weak antibacterial activity vs S. mutans
PaperFren reads this as a limit on how far one study travels — different assays, populations, or outcomes — not a forced fight between papers.
Timeline
How understanding moved
Study years are when the paper was published. Evidence edits are dated changes to this page's claims. Explanations are when PaperFren added a Discovery — not a claim that the science happened that day.
2026
- A new Zn phenanthroline–maleate crystal
Concept page published
Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)
Change log
What changed
Dated edits to this page's evidence: studies added or removed from a claim, claims added or withdrawn, and new explanations tagged here. Coverage edits are distinct from reviewed research changes and corrections. Dates record PaperFren updates; study publication dates appear in the timeline.
- Coverage updated · Concept page published
Papers
5 studies in this library bear on Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA), ordered by citations.
- pH-swelling chitosan–xanthan gels that hold acyclovir
Free-radical chitosan/xanthan/AMPS networks barely swell in acid but open in intestine-like pH, trapping up to 90.64% acyclovir.
- A MOF that releases CO with visible light
Post-synthetic Mn(CO)3 on a zirconium MOF (CORF-1) liberates carbon monoxide under low-intensity visible light, with crystal size from 260 nm to 1 mm setting the dose.
- TGDDM/DICY epoxy cure kinetics and properties
FTIR and non-isothermal DSC show TGDDM/dicyandiamide cures in two autocatalytic stages, then a stiff, low-water-uptake network.
- Magnetic Cu-on-pumice catalyst for nitro reductions
A cellulose-textured volcanic-pumice magnetite composite bearing copper nanoparticles reduces nitrobenzenes to anilines in eight minutes.
- A new Zn phenanthroline–maleate crystal
Slow evaporation yields [Zn(phen)(maleate)(H2O)]·H2O, a distorted square-pyramidal complex with a 3.45 eV DFT gap and H-bond-dominated packing.
Compare studies
Select 2–10 studies. Design and N are labels, not a ranking.
Nothing selected yet.
Questions
What is still open
DSC of a curing epoxy and TGA of a filled catalyst are both 'thermal analysis' and are not interchangeable. Kissinger Ea 69.7/88.7 kJ mol⁻¹ and 797–867 J g⁻¹ are heat-flow results on TGDDM/DICY; the pumice paper's TGA is an unquoted mass-loss characterisation beside 0.5164 cm³ g⁻¹ BET and an 8 min nitro reduction. Quoting a cure enthalpy as if it were a TGA ash content is the mix-up.
Composition from TGA-style thinking (how much is inorganic, how much is cargo) is not the function. MOF crystal size 260 nm–1 mm changes CO-photo-loading; hydrogel %DEE is a wet assay; Zn hydrate formula is elemental analysis. None of those papers' headline numbers are a TGA onset, and CO remains a toxic gas if mis-dosed.
Ask PaperFren about Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)
Study this conceptflashcards and short-answer questions
A catalyst paper lists TGA next to BET pore volume 0.5164 cm³ g⁻¹ and an 8 min nitro reduction. What question is TGA built to answer that BET and the reaction time do not?
How much mass is lost on heating — solvent, cellulose/organic fraction, or decomposition — and what inorganic residue remains. BET is porosity; 8 min at 70 °C is a catalytic recipe. Without a quoted TGA step, you still cannot report an onset temperature from that summary.
TGDDM/DICY has Kissinger Ea 69.7 then 88.7 kJ mol⁻¹ and 797–867 J g⁻¹ enthalpy. Why must you not call those TGA results?
They come from DSC (heat flow versus temperature) at 5–20 °C min⁻¹, paired with FTIR functional-group changes. TGA would be mass versus temperature. Enthalpy of cure is not a mass-loss percentage; 0.41% water uptake is a separate immersion test.
UiO-67-type crystals from 260 nm to 1 mm change CO-release loading. If TGA had been used to quantify Mn-carbonyl content, what would still be missing for a therapeutic claim?
A mass-loss or residue that tracked loading would still be a materials number. The paper shows intracellular CO after irradiating cells on a polymer film of the MOF under visible light; NIR deep-tissue delivery and in vivo inflammation models are not done, and CO is toxic if mis-dosed.
Why is matching a Zn hydrate formula by elemental analysis a different composition experiment from TGA, even though both can detect water?
Elemental analysis is bulk %C/H/N (etc.) fitted to a formula. TGA would show a temperature-resolved water-loss step and a residue. The Zn summary reports EA plus DSC/XRD, not a TGA water percent, so you cannot quote a dehydration onset from it.