4.6 Article

Development of PLA/EPDM/SiO2 blended polymer for biodegradable packaging

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 139, 期 48, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/app.53239

关键词

applications; biodegradable; compatibilization; degradation; packaging

资金

  1. Program Management Unit for National Competitiveness Enhancement (PMU-C), Thailand [C10F630169]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a blended polymer of PLA and EPDM was developed for cosmetic packaging. The compatibility between PLA and EPDM was improved using modified nanosilica. The results showed that the modified nanosilica decreased the domain sizes of EPDM within the polymer matrix, leading to an increase in tensile strength and elongation at break of the polymer.
Herein, we developed a blended polymer of polylactic acid (PLA) and ethylene propylene diene (EPDM) for cosmetic packaging using dihydrogenated tallow-treated nanosilica to improve the compatibility between PLA and EPDM, which are immiscible. The PLA/EPDM ratio was maintained at 95/5, and the loading rates of the modified nanosilica powder were set at 0, 3, and 5 phr. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy demonstrated that the nanosilica particles adsorbed the cationic surfactant solution onto their surfaces. Scanning electron microscopy showed that the EPDM domain sizes within the PLA matrix reduced with increasing modified nanosilica amounts. Moreover, the modified nanosilica improved the compatibility between the PLA and EPDM phases. The tensile strength and elongation at break of the PLA/EPDM/SiO2 (95/5/5) polymer were 50.39 MPa and 32.8%, respectively. The degradation behavior of the polymer in water and a sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SLES) solution was evaluated. The decomposition rate of the polymer was higher in SLES with low polarity and was determined to be approximately 3.4 x 10(-8) s(-1). Moreover, during a disintegration test (ISO 16929:2019), the polymer exhibited a disintegration rate of 100%, degrading completely in 28 days.

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

4.6
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