4.7 Article

Effect of Tea Polyphenols on the Melt Grafting of Glycidyl Methacrylate onto Polypropylene

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 14, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym14235253

关键词

polypropylene; melt grafting; glycidyl methacrylate; tea polyphenols (C); co-grafting

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. Major Project of Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province of China
  3. [52103026]
  4. [51890872]
  5. [LD19E030001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tea polyphenols (C) can promote the grafting of GMA onto PP chains, but also lead to degradation of the PP backbone. Co-grafting of GMA and tea polyphenols (C) improves the properties of the PP matrix.
It is considered to be one of the most effective strategies to prepare functionalized polypropylene (PP) materials via the melt grafting of polar monomers onto PP chains. However, the grafting efficiency of functional monomers is generally low. To achieve a high grafting efficiency, we explored the effect of tea polyphenols (C), which are good free radical scavengers, on the melt grafting of glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) onto PP chains initiated by dicumyl peroxide (DCP). Specifically, 0.5 similar to 3 wt% of tea polyphenols (C) were introduced to the PP/DCP/GMA melt blending system. The morphology, melt flow rate (MFR), thermal and mechanical properties of tea polyphenols (C) incorporated PP/DCP/GMA blends were investigated systematically. The results showed that the proper amount of tea polyphenols (C) (0.5 similar to 2 wt%) promoted the grafting of GMA. Unexpectedly, the PP backbone suffered from more severe degradation with the addition of tea polyphenols (C). The phenomena were ascribed to the reaction between phenolic hydroxyl groups of tea polyphenols (C) and epoxy groups of grafted GMA, which was revealed by the FTIR results. In addition, according to DSC and the tensile test, the co-grafting of GMA and tea polyphenols (C) improved the crystallization ability, yield strength and Young's modulus of the PP matrix.

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

4.7
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