Blends of polycarbonate with poly(methyl methacrylate): Miscibility, phase continuity, and interfacial adhesion

Kolařı́k, Jan; Lednický, F.; Pukánszky, Béla; Pegoraro, M.

doi:10.1002/pen.760321308

Cited by 52 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Except for the elongation, the superiority of the SBR-2-containing blends is clear over the SBR-1 counterparts. It is noteworthy that these blends show some positive deviation for the tensile strengths at yield and break from the ideal additive behavior which is usually predicted by the so-called mixing rule [22]. A parallel could be drawn between the higher mechanical performances of the SBR-2-containing blends and the higher interfacial strength of the PS/SBR-2/PE three-layer assembly compared to the SBR-1-based systems.…”

Section: Tensile Properties and Impact Strengthmentioning

confidence: 57%

Composition effect on the core–shell morphology and mechanical properties of ternary polystyrene/styrene–butadiene rubber/polyethylene blends

Luzinov

Pagnoulle

et al. 1999

Polymer

106

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The morphology of ternary polystyrene/styrene-butadiene rubber/polyethylene (PS/SBR/PE) blends has been investigated in the limits of a constant content of the major component (PS; 75 wt%) while changing the weight ratio of the two minor constitutive polymers. A core-shell structure for the dispersed phase has been predicted from the spreading coefficients and observed by transmission electron microscopy. Actually, upon increasing the relative content of PE with respect to SBR, the structure of the dispersed phase changes from a multicore structure to a PE/SBR core-shell morphology. The size of the PE subphase in the mixed dispersed phase increases sharply at a PE content that corresponds to phase inversion in the parent SBR/PE binary blends. The ultimate mechanical properties of these blends are sensitive to the strength of the SBR interphase between PS and PE. Some synergism has been observed in the PE/SBR composition dependence of the tensile strengths at yield and break.

show abstract

Section: Tensile Properties and Impact Strengthmentioning

confidence: 57%

Composition effect on the core–shell morphology and mechanical properties of ternary polystyrene/styrene–butadiene rubber/polyethylene blends

Luzinov

Pagnoulle

et al. 1999

Polymer

106

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Figure 4 illustrates the yield stress-composition relationship for the PVDF/PA6 blends and a small negative deviation. Recent studies have suggested that the yield behaviour of polymer blends is affected by the interfacial adhesion [31,[33][34]37]. Pukanszky et al [31][32][33][34][35][36][37] have proposed the upper and lower values for the yield stress, in case of extreme values of interfacial adhesion.…”

Section: Mechanical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies have suggested that the yield behaviour of polymer blends is affected by the interfacial adhesion [31,[33][34]37]. Pukanszky et al [31][32][33][34][35][36][37] have proposed the upper and lower values for the yield stress, in case of extreme values of interfacial adhesion. When the interfacial adhesion is strong enough for the stress transfer to occur between two phases, the yield stress would obey the law of mixtures (the upper value):…”

Section: Mechanical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blends of poly(vinylidene fluoride) with polyamide 6: interfacial adhesion, morphology and mechanical properties

Liu

Maréchal

Jérôme

1998

Polymer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF)/polyamide 6 (PA6) interfacial adhesion has been measured, and morphology and mechanical properties of the binary blends have been investigated. The lap shear strength of the PVDF/PA6 pair indicates a high interfacial adhesion, which is evidence for specific intermolecular interactions between the two polymers. Immiscibility of PVDF and PA6 has clearly been observed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). It reflects the high propensity of each polymer to crystallize on its own and the strong hydrogen bonding that prevails in PA6. This interfacial adhesion can account for the fine phase morphology of the binary blends. Dependence of Young's modulus and yield stress on the blend composition shows a slightly negative deviation with respect to the additivity law, in contrast to elongation at break, ultimate tensile strength and impact toughness that display a positive deviation. These experimental observations have been discussed in reference to the interfacial adhesion and the change in crystallinity of the continuous phase. An optimum interfacial adhesion seems to be required for promoting a synergism in the impact resistance of these polyblends.Keywords: interfacial adhesion; phase morphology; synergism INTRODUCTION Poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) is a very useful thermoplastic that combines an excellent chemical resistance [1] with ferroelectric, piezoelectric and pyroelectric properties [2][3][4] . A high cost is however a limitation for widespread applications. Today, polymer blending is a versatile and widely used method for optimizing the cost-performance balance and increasing the range of potential applications. Miscibility and mechanical properties of PVDF/ poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) blends have been extensively studied [5][6][7][8][9]. These blends are valuable models for miscible semi-crystalline polymer/amorphous polymer blends. Actually, PVDF and PMMA are completely miscible in the melt [5], and phase separation occurs upon cooling as a result of PVDF crystallization in a close relationship with blend composition and cooling conditions [6][7]. These blends are, however, quite brittle, as shown by Mizovic et al. [8] who reported that the impact strength dramatically decreased when the PMMA content was increased. Murff et al. [9] have observed a negative deviation in the ultimate tensile strength composition relationship of the PVDF/PMMA blends. Special attention has also been paid to blends of PVDF with immiscible polymers, and strategies have been devised to improve the detrimental effect of polymer immiscibility on the mechanical properties. A series of blends of PVDF with, e.g. Noryl [10][11] poly(α-methylstyrene) [12] and polyolefins [polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (pp)][13] have been added with diblock copolymers, i.e. poly(styrene-b-methylmethacrylate) [10][11], poly (α-methy lstyrene-b-methylmethacrylate) [12], and poly(hydrogenated diene-b-methylmethacrylate) [13], respectively, that have proved to be very efficient interfacial agents. ...

show abstract

“…8 Good adhesion of PC and PMMA is exploited by use of a PMMA shell on core-shell impact modifiers for PC. Although both PMMA and SAN adhere well to PC, the effect of adhesion on yielding and deformation of PC/PMMA blends and PC/SAN blends has never been directly compared.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of irreversible deformation and yielding in microlayers of polycarbonate with poly(methylmethacrylate) and poly(styrene-co-acrylonitrile)

Kerns

Hsieh

Hiltner

et al. 2000

J. Appl. Polym. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blends of polycarbonate with poly(methyl methacrylate): Miscibility, phase continuity, and interfacial adhesion

Cited by 52 publications

References 23 publications

Composition effect on the core–shell morphology and mechanical properties of ternary polystyrene/styrene–butadiene rubber/polyethylene blends

Composition effect on the core–shell morphology and mechanical properties of ternary polystyrene/styrene–butadiene rubber/polyethylene blends

Blends of poly(vinylidene fluoride) with polyamide 6: interfacial adhesion, morphology and mechanical properties

Comparison of irreversible deformation and yielding in microlayers of polycarbonate with poly(methylmethacrylate) and poly(styrene-co-acrylonitrile)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About