Effect of migration of layered nanoparticles during melt blending on the phase morphology of poly (ethylene terephthalate)/polyamide 6/montmorillonite ternary nanocomposites

Abstract

To study the effect of migration and selective localization of layered nanoparticles during melt compounding on the phase morphology of polymer blends, poly (ethylene terephthalate) (PET)/ polyamide 6 (PA6)/organic montmorillonite (OMMT) ternary nanocomposites were prepared. Three different blending sequences were adopted either by pre-compounding OMMT into PET or into PA6 or by mixing all three components together. The morphology and tensile properties of PET/PA6/OMMT nanocomposites were investigated. TEM observation showed that OMMT platelets exclusively localized within the PA6 phase independent of the blending sequences, suggesting OMMT platelets migrated from PET into the PA6 phase during both the one-step and two-step compounding processes with pre-mixed PET/OMMT, and this migration was attributed to interfacial effects. SEM results revealed that the migration and selective localization of OMMT platelets had great influence on the size of the dispersed phase due to the conjunct action of the migration cutting effect and viscosity effect. The morphology determines the final properties of the nanocomposites as indicated by tensile test. It is believed that this work provides a way to tune the morphology and performance of immiscible blends.

Influence of different compatibilizers on the morphology and properties of PA6/PET/glass fiber composites

“…Therefore, blending of PA6 with PET offers an interesting way to obtain a new material with promising property and low cost. Essentially, blends of PA6 and PET are immiscible and exhibit poor interfacial adhesion and low mechanical properties . In order to improve compatibility and mechanical properties of PA6 blends, effective compatibilizers including EPR‐ g ‐MA, ethylene‐propylene‐diene monomer (EPDM), glycidyl methacrylate (GMA)‐grafted poly(ethylene‐octene) (POE‐ g ‐GMA), and their derivatives (e.g., SEBS‐ g ‐maleic acid anhydride and EPDM‐ g ‐maleic acid anhydride) are often applied for PA6 blends.…”

Enhancing distributive mixing of immiscible polyethylene/thermoplastic starch blend through zeolite ZSM-5 compounding sequence

“…This could be explained by (i) the higher affinity (Elias et al, 2007 andJarnthong et al, 2012) between PE and ZSM5 compared to that of TPS and ZSM5 and (ii) the decrease in viscosity of TPS dispersed phase (Xu, Qin, Yu, Huang, Zhang, & Ruan, 2015) after incorporation of ZSM5.…”

“…It was found that compounding with ZSM5 decreased the viscosity of TPS while increased the viscosity of PE. The decrease in viscosity of TPS facilitates 16 the breakup of TPS/ZSM5 droplets (Xu et al, 2015) during mixing with PE in a twin-screw extruder. During this step, migration of ZSM5 from TPS dispersed phase to PE matrix also occurred due to the affinity between ZSM5 and PE, further leading to smaller TPS dispersed domains obtained in SII composites (Figs.…”

Effect of carbon nanotubes on morphology evolution of polypropylene/polystyrene blends: understanding molecular interactions and carbon nanotube migration mechanisms

“…10,14,15 In some cases, the increase of domain size has been correlated to the selective localization of the nanollers in the minor phase and the increase of the viscosity of this phase with respect to the major phase. 10,[25][26][27] Kong et al noted that when nanosilica lled domains of polyamide 6 (PA6) are sheared inside a polystyrene (PS) matrix at high shear rates, there is a morphology renement; however, when the PA6/ nanosilica domains are subjected to low shear rate, coarsening of the domains is observed. This was attributed to the bridging effect of the nanosilica particles localized at the interface of the blends, and to the breakup suppression due to the increase of viscoelasticity and yield stress of the PA6/ nanosilica domains.…”