4.6 Article

Looking back to interfacial tension prediction in the compatibilized polymer blends: Discrepancies between theories and experiments

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 135, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/app.46144

关键词

blends; mechanical properties; microscopy; polyimides; polyolefins

资金

  1. Leibniz Institute of Polymer Research Dresden (IPF)
  2. National Science Foundation of China [21574086]
  3. Nanshan District Key Lab for Biopolymers and Safety Evaluation [KC2014ZDZJ0001A]
  4. Shenzhen City High Level Talent Program [ZDSYS201507141105130, JCYJ20140509172719311]
  5. Shenzhen Science & Technology research grant [ZDSYS201507141105130, JCYJ20140509172719311]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prediction of interfacial tension of compatibilized polymer blends is a challenging open problem, where experiments and theories hardly support each other. In this work, constitutive models proposed for quantifying the interfacial tension of compatibilized polymer blends were revisited and their limitations/capabilities were discussed. In view of available data in the literature, which could provide with possibility of comparison between interfacial tension values obtained in this work and those published before, high-density polyethylene (HDPE)/polyamide-6 and HDPE/polyethylene-co-vinyl alcohol pairs comprising varying amounts of HDPE-g-maleic anhydride compatibilizer precursor were prepared for obtaining model parameters. The inability of theories in monitoring the interfacial tension was accordingly uncovered. However, outcomes from both theoretical and experimental data provided some insights for elucidating the interplay between interfacial tension and rheological characteristics of the studied compatibilized blends. It was also attempted to uncover the relationships between particle size, particle size distribution, and rheological properties of blends compatibilized with different amounts of HDPE-g-maleic anhydride precursor. (c) 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2018, 135, 46144.

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