Study of the phase morphology and toughness in poly (vinyl chloride)/acrylonitrile–styrene‐acrylic/styrene–butadiene–styrene ternary blends influenced by interfacial/surface tension

Abstract

The effect of interfacial interaction on the phase morphology and toughness of poly (vinyl chloride) (PVC)/acrylonitrile–styrene‐acrylic (ASA) terpolymer/styrene–butadiene–styrene (SBS) block copolymer ternary blends has been investigated. Water and diiodomethane liquids were used for static contact angle measurements to get surface tension and calculate interfacial tension. A dispersed phase morphology of ASA and SBS in the PVC matrix was predicted by the spreading coefficient theory, which was calculated through interfacial tensions between different polymer pairs. Extraction experiment and scanning electron microscopy were combined to verify this morphology. When the volume fraction of SBS was small, SBS was dispersed in the matrix as droplets and the strong PVC/styrene–acrylonitrile interfacial interaction made up for the poor interfacial adhesion between SBS and PVC. Herein, SBS showed an effective toughening effect on PVC/ASA blends. With the addition of 2.5‐ and 5‐phr SBS, the blends had the highest impact strength of 88.75 kJ/m2 at 23 °C and 9.98 kJ/m2 at 0 °C, respectively. With the further increase of the SBS content, the diameter of the SBS drops increased largely and the poor interfacial adhesion between SBS and PVC played a leading role, resulting in a sharp decrease in toughness and a sharp ductile–brittle transition. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2019, 136, 47721.

Choosing an Effective Compatibilizer for a Virgin HDPE Rich-HDPE/PP Model Blend

“…The Hobbs spreading coefficient theory describes the relationship between interfacial tension and ternary blend morphology [35]. To predict ternary blend morphology by the interfacial tensions between different blend component pairs, the Hobbs spreading coefficient theory is mostly used [11][12][13][14]. The spreading coefficient (λ) can be calculated using Equations ( 7)-( 9):…”

“…The morphology determines final mechanical properties. According to the literature, ternary blends morphology can be estimated using spreading coefficients calculated by interfacial tensions [11][12][13][14]. Zhang et.al [12] described the hierarchical factors in order of priorities, such as interfacial adhesion, interfacial tension, viscosity ratio and shear stress that affect the final phase morphology of ternary blend.…”

“…According to the literature, ternary blends morphology can be estimated using spreading coefficients calculated by interfacial tensions [11][12][13][14]. Zhang et.al [12] described the hierarchical factors in order of priorities, such as interfacial adhesion, interfacial tension, viscosity ratio and shear stress that affect the final phase morphology of ternary blend. Interfacial adhesion of compatibilizer to polymer blend components accomplished by interfacial interactions, such as interfacial entanglements or co-crystallization with the chains of polymer blend components upon cooling depend on molecular weight of block copolymer [15][16][17][18][19], side chain length of graft copolymer [20,21], the compositional distribution of block copolymer in terms chemical architecture [22,23] and tie layer thickness [22][23][24].…”

Properties of butyl acrylate polymers synthesized by radiation and miniemulsion polymerization techniques as flexible coating for packaging materials

“…The peaks of the tan δ curves are often used to calculate the glass transition temperature, T g , which is defined as the peak of the tan δ curve. [ 26 ] The T g value was −30°C for the P(nBuA‐PEGDA) polymer, 20°C for the P(nBuA‐BPAEDA) polymer, and 54°C for the P(nBuA‐TMPTA) polymer. The results of the present study show that the T g value, as measured by the tan δ peak, is sensitive to changes in the crosslinker.…”

“…The peaks of the tan δ curves are often used to calculate the glass transition temperature, T g , which is defined as the peak of the tan δ curve. [26] The T g value was −30 C for the P(nBuA-PEGDA) polymer, 20 C for the P(nBuA-F I G U R E 6 TGA thermograms of P(nBuA) and P(nBuA) radiation-crosslinked with PEGDA, TMPTA, and BPAEDA at an irradiation dose of 150 kGy. BPAEDA, bisphenol A ethoxylated diacrylate; PEGDA, polyethylene glycol diacrylate; P(nBuA), poly (n-butyl acrylate); TMPTA, trimethylpropane triacrylate; TGA, thermogravimetric analysis T A B L E 2 IDT, FDT and % weight loss at different decomposition temperatures for P(nBuA) and P(nBuA) radiation-crosslinked at a dose of 150 kGy with various crosslinkers BPAEDA) polymer, and 54 C for the P(nBuA-TMPTA) polymer.…”