4.5 Article

Preparation of microcellular polypropylene/polystyrene blend foams with tunable cell structure

期刊

POLYMERS FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 822-829

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pat.1584

关键词

microcellular foaming; cell structure; supercritical fluid; PP/PS; blend

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [10672061]
  2. Teaching and Research Award Program for Outstanding Young Teachers in Higher Education Institutions of MOE, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By using supercritical carbon dioxide (sc-CO2) as the physical foaming agent, microcellular foaming was carried out in a batch process from a wide range of immiscible polypropylene/polystyrene (PP/PS) blends with 10-70 wt% PS. The blends were prepared via melt processing in a twin-screw extruder. The cell structure, cell size, and cell density of foamed PP/PS blends were investigated and explained by combining the blend phase morphology and morphological parameters with the foaming principle. It was demonstrated that all PP/PS blends exhibit much dramatically improved foamability than the PP, and significantly decreased cell size and obviously increased cell density than the PS. Moreover, the cell structure can be tunable via changing the blend composition. Foamed PP/PS blends with up to 30 wt% PS exhibit a closed-cell structure. Among them, foamed PP/PS 90: 10 and 80: 20 blends have very small mean cell diameter (0.4 and 0.7 mu m) and high cell density (8.3x10(11) and 6.4x10(11) cells/cm(3)). Both of blends exhibit nonuniform cell structure, in which most of small cells spread as a string of beads. Foamed PP/PS 70: 30 blend shows the most uniform cell structure. Increase in the PS content to 50 wt% and especially 70 wt% transforms it to an irregular open-cell structure. The cell structure of foamed PP/PS blends is strongly related to the blend phase morphology and the solubility of CO2 in PP more than that in PS, which makes the PP serve as a CO2 reservoir. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据