4.6 Article

Biobased Poly(ethylene terephthalate)/Poly(lactic acid) Blends Tailored with Epoxide Compatibilizers

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 3, 期 9, 页码 11759-11769

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.8b01353

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ontario Research Fund, Research Excellence Program
  2. Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science (MRIS) [ORF-RE07, 052644, 052665, 052850]
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Canada Discovery Grants [401111, 400320]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To increase the biobased content of polyethylene terephthalate) (PET), up to 30 wt % poly(lactic acid) (PLA) was blended with PET using twin-screw compounding and injection molding processes. Multiftinctional epoxide compatibilizers including a chain extender and an impact toughening agent were used as blend modifiers to improve the poor mechanical properties of PET/PLA blends. The mechanical and thermodynamic performances were investigated along with the morphologicg features through scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, and interfacial tension determination. From Theological and differential scanning calorimetry results, it was observed that the molecular weight of both PET and PLA increased with compatibilizers because of epoxide reactions. The toughening agent, poly(ethylene-n-butylene-aaylate-co-glycidyl methacrylate) (EBA GMA), provided a 292% increase in impact strength over the blend but reduced modulus by 25%. In contrast, 0.7 phr addition of the chain e tende, poly(styrene-acrylic co 1 cid 1 methacrylate) (SA GMA)yielded comparable performance to that of neat PET without sacrificing the tensile and flexural properties. When both compatibilizers were present in the blend, the mechanical properties remained relatively unaltered or decreased with increasing EBA GMA content. The differences in mechanical performance observed were considered in relation to the strengthening mechanism of the 00 differing comPatibilizers and their effects on the miscibility of the blend.

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