4.3 Article

Comparative analysis of crystallization behavior induced by different mineral fillers in polypropylene nanocomposites

Journal

NANOMATERIALS AND NANOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1847980420922752

Keywords

Nanocomposites; talc; sepiolite; crystallization behavior; polypropylene

Funding

  1. National Research Council of Argentine (CONICET)
  2. National University of the South (UNS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comparative analysis of crystallization behavior induced by several mineral fillers in polypropylene nanocomposites was performed. Morphological changes and thermal properties of nanocomposites were evaluated, considering the influence of shape, crystalline morphology, and concentration of mineral particles. For this study, hydrated magnesium silicates with different particle morphologies, such as platelets (talc) and fibers (sepiolite), were used for nanocomposites. In addition, to analyze the effect of mineral crystallinity on nanocomposites, talc and sepiolite from different origin and genesis were selected. Nanocomposites were compounded and injection molded, using different filler concentration (0, 1, and 3% w/w) for each mineral particle. To evaluate the particle influence on nanocomposite crystallinity, X-ray diffraction was used to determine crystalline phases and crystal orientation, meanwhile differential scanning calorimetry was performed to obtain thermal properties. Main results revealed that talc has a higher nucleating effect on polypropylene matrix than sepiolite fibers, regardless of their origin and genesis. Meanwhile, a transcrystalline layer that surrounds the fiber surface is observed for nanocomposite containing sepiolite. Moreover, Argentinean talc induces different crystalline phases in nanocomposite with respect to Australian one, which partly influences on mechanical properties.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available