4.3 Article

Increase in water resistance of paperboard by coating with poly(lactide)

期刊

PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 393-402

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/pts.767

关键词

paperboard; water resistance; PLA; coating

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science & Technology (MoST), Republic of Korea [E070200] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [R01-2003-000-10389-0, mostR01-2002-000-00154-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poly(lactide) (PLA)-coated paperboards (PB) were prepared, and the effect of coating for improving water resistance of paperboard used for corrugated box liners was tested. Surface of paperboards became smoother through PLA coating, and their thickness and weight of coating increased depending on the concentration of the coating solution. Tensile strength of paperboard decreased, while elongation at break (E) increased after PLA coating. All water barrier properties tested, such as water vapour permeability (WVP), water absorptiveness (WA) and contact angle (CA) of water drop, indicated that water resistance of paperboard was improved through surface coating with PLA. WVP decreased from 4.8 to 25.5 times, and WA decreased from 11.9 to 17.9 times depending on the PLA concentration. The increase in water resistance of PLA-coated paperboards was due to the hydrophobicity of PLA, which was proven through CA measurement. CA determined by both static and dynamic methods demonstrated the increase in initial CA of PLA-coated paperboards, indicating an increased hydrophobicity of surface. All test results indicated that the optimum concentration of coating solution for improving water resistance of paperboard was 3 w/v % of PLA soulution. Copyright (C) 2007 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

4.3
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