2009
DOI: 10.1002/app.30265
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic mechanical and morphological behavior of blends of polystyrene and poly[acrylonitrile‐g‐(ethylene‐co‐propylene‐co‐diene)‐g‐styrene] prepared by in situ polymerization of styrene

Abstract: PS/AES blends were prepared by in situ polymerization of styrene in the presence of AES elastomer, a grafting copolymer of poly(styrene-co-acrylonitrile) -SAN and poly(ethylene-co-propylene-co-diene)-EPDM chains. These blends are immiscible and present complex phase behavior. Selective extraction of the blends' components showed that some fraction of the material is crosslinked and a grafting of PS onto AES is possible. The morphology of the noninjected blends consists of spherical PS domains covered by a thin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

2
2
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The EPDM phases of all blends present a glass transition temperature at lower temperatures than the EPDM phase of AES (Figure 6(b)). This behavior was also observed in earlier work of our research group for polyhydroxybutyrate/AES blends,32 PMMA/AES blends 15, in situ polymerized polystyrene (PS)/AES 33 and PS/EPDM 34. This shift to lower temperatures is attributed to the phase inversion of the EPDM phase of AES due to AES dissolution in methyl methacrylate monomer and its in situ polymerization.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The EPDM phases of all blends present a glass transition temperature at lower temperatures than the EPDM phase of AES (Figure 6(b)). This behavior was also observed in earlier work of our research group for polyhydroxybutyrate/AES blends,32 PMMA/AES blends 15, in situ polymerized polystyrene (PS)/AES 33 and PS/EPDM 34. This shift to lower temperatures is attributed to the phase inversion of the EPDM phase of AES due to AES dissolution in methyl methacrylate monomer and its in situ polymerization.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The shift of the glass transition of the elastomer phase to lower temperatures was also observed in earlier work of our research group for polyhydroxybutyrate/AES blends,37 PMMA/AES blends,38 in situ polymerized polystyrene (PS)/AES39 and PS/EPDM 12. This behavior in blends of a rubbery phase dispersed in glassy material is common and attributed to hydrostatic dilatational thermal stresses generated within the rubber particles because of the differences in the thermal expansion between the rubber and the glass matrix.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Whereas blending PS, in situ during polymerization, with ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer (EPDM) and poly [acrylonitrile-g-(ethylene-co-propylene-co-diene)-g-styrene] (AES) increased the impact strength of PS by 210% and reduced the tensile strength by 30% when the former contains 17 wt.% EPDM, while the latter contains 13.0 wt.% AES, it increases the impact strength by 60% and improves the heat resistance of PS/EPDM. [10][11][12] Melt filling PS with different fractions (3-15 wt.%) of nano-TiO 2 and nano-Ca 3 (PO 4 ) 2 increased the vicat softening temperature (VST) of PS but decreased the tensile strength or impact toughness, 13,14 presumably due to weak PSinorganic interfacial interactions. Similarly, solution filling PS with montmorillonite resulted in an increase of the thermal decomposition temperature by about 10 C. 15 Anžlovar et al 16 filled cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) surface-modified with benzoic anhydride with PS, the addition of 5 wt.% modified CNCs to the PS matrix resulted in a 30% improvement in tensile strength and a 23% increase in Young's modulus because of the strong entanglement of PS chains with the modified CNCs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%