Rheology and morphology of high impact polystyrene/ polyethylene blends and the effect of compatibilization on their properties

Abstract

Attempts were made to study rheology and morphology of high impact polystyrene/polyethylene (HIPS/PE) blends. The Effect of compatibilization using styrene-butadiene-styrene copolymer (SBS) and styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene copolymer (SEBS) on their properties was also studied. The results of linear viscoelastic properties showed negative deviation of viscosity and elasticity from the mixing rules in low HIPS content blends, while positive deviation was observed for high HIPS content blends. The former was related to weak interface and the latter was attributed to the hydrodynamic interaction of PE and PB particles. A wide range of co-continuity was observed for HIPS/PE blends which decreased using compatibilization. It was found that SEBS had better efficiency of compatibilization than SBS due to lower molecular weight and the presence of ethylene block in SEBS structure. The fracture behavior of low and high HIPS content blends showed different mechanism because of higher volume contraction of PE than HIPS in solidification process and also different mechanical properties of HIPS and PE.

Strain Hardening of Polyethylene/Polypropylene Blends via Interfacial Reinforcement with Poly(ethylene-cb-propylene) Comb Block Copolymers

“…This increase is mainly due to the increase in interfacial elasticity resulting from the decrease in droplet size (or increase in interfacial area). As discussed in the Introduction, similar behavior has been observed in blends compatibilized with diblock or graft copolymers. − However, an additional feature is evident in our blends compatibilized with CB, namely, a plateau in G ′ appears at very low frequencies (ω < 0.05 rad/s) which suggests an additional relaxation (with relaxation time larger than 30 min). A possible source for this additional relaxation may come from the interfacial CB network established by interfacial stitching with the PE backbone of the CB being entangled within the PE phase and its PP combs entangled, or hooked, in the PP phases across many interfacial points (see cartoon in Figure ).…”

“…In general, rheological behavior of noncompatibilized immiscible blends is characterized by an extra contribution to the elastic modulus at low frequencies, resulting from interfacial relaxation. − This interfacial relaxation process is manifested in the plot of the elastic modulus ( G ′) versus frequency (ω) as a shoulder for blends with droplet-matrix morphologies and as a power law for blends with cocontinuous structures . The addition of a BC compatibilizer further raises the elasticity in the terminal relaxation region − due to an increase in interfacial area (or a reduction in domain size). Furthermore, addition of a BC compatibilizer reduces the coarsening rate, characterized by the time evolutions of both the elastic modulus and the specific interfacial area .…”

“…Furthermore, addition of a BC compatibilizer reduces the coarsening rate, characterized by the time evolutions of both the elastic modulus and the specific interfacial area . Rheological studies of compatibilized blends with both droplet-matrix ,,− and co-continuous morphologies ,, concentrated mainly on the linear viscoelastic response. To our knowledge, the effect of interfacial compatibilization on the extensional rheology of immiscible blends has not been systematically studied to date.…”

Studies on the effect of low density polyethylene on ethylene vinyl acetate/styrene butadiene styrene blends for yoga mat applications

“…[ 9–11 ] Styrene‐butadiene‐styrene (SBS) terpolymer is most frequently used as compatibilizer for PE with other polymers like PS. [ 12,13 ] Deanin and Chang [ 14 ] investigated that blending SBS with HDPE improved impact strength of the HDPE. However, blending small amount of LDPE in SBS increased hardness, strength without affecting the flexible rubbery properties of SBS.…”

Essential work of fracture analysis for surface modified carbon fiber/polypropylene composites with different interfacial adhesion

“…Reactive compatibilization generates graft or block copolymers in situ during processing, such as maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene (PP‐g‐MAH), [ 10 ] maleic anhydride grafted acrylonitrile‐butadiene‐styrene copolymer (ABS‐g‐MAH), [ 11 ] and so on. On the other hand, nonreactive compatibilization relies on physical entanglement with the substrate, such as polystyrene‐polyethylene(PS‐g‐PE), [ 12 ] polypropylene‐ethylene‐butylene/styrene (PP‐g‐EBS), [ 13 ] and so on. For instance, not only the mechanical performances, [ 14 ] but also the interlaminar shear strength [ 15 ] was efficiently enhanced due to the interface strengthening between CF and resin matrix.…”