Premium
Compatibility, morphology, and crystallization behavior of compatibilized β‐nucleated polypropylene/poly(trimethylene terephthalate) blends
Author(s) -
Lin Zhidan,
Chen Chao,
Li Baicheng,
Guan Zixian,
Huang Zhuoyao,
Zhang Meng,
Li Xue,
Zhang Xiuju
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of applied polymer science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.575
H-Index - 166
eISSN - 1097-4628
pISSN - 0021-8995
DOI - 10.1002/app.35635
Subject(s) - materials science , compatibilization , polypropylene , crystallization , maleic anhydride , copolymer , composite material , compatibility (geochemistry) , plastics extrusion , polymer chemistry , polymer blend , chemical engineering , polymer , engineering
β‐Nucleated polypropylene (PP), uncompatibilized β‐nucleated PP/poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT), β‐nucleated PP/PTT blends compatibilized with maleic anhydride (MA)‐grafted PP (PP‐ g ‐MA), and styrene–ethylene–propylene copolymer were prepared with a twin‐screw extruder. The morphology, compatibility, crystallization characteristic, melting behavior, and crystallization kinetics were investigated. The result shows that β‐nucleated PP was incompatible with PTT, and the addition of the two compatibilizers decreased the interfacial tension between β‐nucleated PP and PTT; this led to improved dispersion and strengthened interfacial bonding in the blends. PP‐ g ‐MA had a better compatibilization effect. All of the researched β‐nucleated PP/PTT blends contained β crystals of PP, and the compatibilizers exhibited synergistic effects with the β‐nucleating agent to further increase the content of β crystals. Nonisothermal kinetic analysis indicated that Mo's method described the nonisothermal crystallization behavior of the β‐nucleated PP/PTT blends satisfactorily, and the Avrami approach could only describe the early stage of the crystallization appropriately, whereas the Ozawa method failed to have the same effect. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2012