This study compares the reinforcing effects of graphene nanoplatelets (GNP), graphene oxide (GO), and halloysite nanotubes (HNTs) in polypropylene (PP) based nanocomposites with PP‐g‐maleic anhydride (MAPP) as compatibilizer. PP/GNP/MAPP, PP/GO/MAPP, and PP/HNTs/MAPP nanocomposites were fabricated at nanofillers contents 1, 2, 3, 4 parts per hundred (phr) and MAPP at 4 phr, to PP matrix, using melt extrusion and injection molding techniques. Results show that at nanofillers optimum content, PP/GNP3/MAPP nanocomposite increased in tensile strength and modulus by 8% and 96%, respectively, compared to pure PP (p ˂ 0.05). PP/GNP3/MAPP nanocomposite also increased in tensile strength and modulus by 2% and 4% respectively, compared to PP/GO2/MAPP (p ˂ 0.05) and 2% and 15% compared to PP/HNTs2/MAPP (p ˂ 0.05) nanocomposites. For impact strength performance, PP/GNP2/MAPP nanocomposite increased in impact strength (notched) by 104% compared to pure PP (p ˂ 0.05). Also, PP/GNP2/MAPP nanocomposite increased in impact strength by 23% compared to PP/GO1/MAPP (p ˂ 0.05) and 13% compared to PP/HNTs1/MAPP (p ˂ 0.05), nanocomposites. In flexural properties, PP/GO4/MAPP nanocomposite increased in flexural strength and modulus by 24% and 28%, respectively, compared to pure PP (p ˂ 0.05). Also, PP/GO4/MAPP nanocomposite increased in flexural strength and modulus by 4% and 9%, respectively, compared to PP/GNP2/MAPP nanocomposite, and 9% and 21% respectively compared to PP/HNTs2/MAPP nanocomposite. PP/GNP2/MAPP nanocomposite increased in thermal stability by 12°C compared to pure PP; 29°C compared to PP/GO2/MAPP; and 15°C compared to PP/HNTs2/MAPP nanocomposites. Overall, PP/GNP/MAPP nanocomposite exhibited superior mechanical properties and thermal stability compared to PP/GO/MAPP and PP/HNTs/MAPP nanocomposites. PP/GO/MAPP was superior for bending properties while PP/HNTs/MAPP was best for ductility.
This study compares the mechanical properties of rice husk (RH) and rice husk ash (RHA) filled polypropylene (PP) composites and the effects of ethylene-acrylic-ester-maleic anhydride (E-AE-MA) and PP-g-maleic anhydride (MAPP) as compatibilizer. In this study, PP/RH and PP/RHA composites were blended at the ratios of 85/15 wt% and compatibilizers at four parts per hundred each, via melt extrusion in a twin-screw extruder prior to injection molding. Mechanical tests were tensile, flexural and impact tests. A morphological study was conducted by scanning electron microscope (SEM). Resultsshow that PP/RHA composite exhibited a 4% significant increase in tensile strength compared to PP/RH composite (р < 0.05) while, PP-RH composite increased significantly by 5 and 3% in flexural and impact strength compared to PP-RHA composite (р < 0.05). MAPP increased significantly the flexural strength of PP-RH and PP-RHA composites by 23 and 21% (р < 0.05) compared to E-AE-MA. PP-RHA-MAPP composite increased significantly the impact strength by 18% compared to PP/RHA/E-AE-MA composite (р < 0.05). There was no significant difference in impact strength between PP/RH/MAPP and PP/RH/E-AE-MA composites (р ≥ 0.05). Overall results indicate that RH imparts better reinforcing effect in PP composite than RHA, while MAPP is a better compatibilizer. SEM study indicates that both compatibilizers improved the filler-matrix interfacial adhesion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.