Cargando…
Biobased Poly(ethylene terephthalate)/Poly(lactic acid) Blends Tailored with Epoxide Compatibilizers
[Image: see text] To increase the biobased content of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), up to 30 wt % poly(lactic acid) (PLA) was blended with PET using twin-screw compounding and injection molding processes. Multifunctional epoxide compatibilizers including a chain extender and an impact tougheni...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Chemical Society
2018
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6645286/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31459269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b01353 |
Sumario: | [Image: see text] To increase the biobased content of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), up to 30 wt % poly(lactic acid) (PLA) was blended with PET using twin-screw compounding and injection molding processes. Multifunctional 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 morphological features through scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, and interfacial tension determination. From rheological 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-acrylate-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 extender, poly(styrene-acrylic−co-glycidyl 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 two differing compatibilizers and their effects on the miscibility of the blend. |
---|