Effect of single‐mineral filler and hybrid‐mineral filler additives on the properties of polypropylene composites

Abstract

The present study was carried out to determine the filler characteristics and to investigate the effects of three types of mineral fillers (CaCO 3 , silica, and mica) and filler loadings (10-40 wt%) on the properties of polypropylene (PP) composites. The characteristics of the particulate fillers, such as mean particle size, particle size distribution, aspect ratio, shape, and degree of crystallinity were identified. In terms of mechanical properties, for all of the filled PP composites, Young's modulus increased, whereas tensile strength and strain at break decreased as the filler loading increased. However, 10 wt% of mica in a PP composite showed a tensile strength comparable with that of unfilled PP. Greater tensile strength of mica/PP composites compared to that of the other composites was observed because of lower percentages of voids and a higher aspect ratio of the filler. Mica/PP also exhibited a lower coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) compared to that of the other composites. This difference was due to a lower degree of crystallinity of the filler and the CTE value of the mica filler. Scanning electron microscopy was used to examine the structure of fracture surfaces, and there was a gradual change in tensile fracture behavior from ductile to brittle as the filler loading increased. The nucleating ability of the fillers was studied with differential scanning calorimetry, and a drop in crystallinity of the composites was observed with the addition of mineral filler. Studies on the hybridization effect of different (silica and mica) filler ratios on the properties of PP hybrid composites showed that the addition of mica to silica-PP composites enhanced their tensile strength and modulus. J. VINYL

Blast furnace slags as functional fillers on rheological, thermal, and mechanical behavior of thermoplastics

“…Accordingly, ultimate strain range of the composites were much narrower than that of neat polymer. Such findings were expected as filler sizes from submicron up to only few microns were reported to yield satisfying mechanical properties in different microsized mineral‐filled thermoplastic systems, as reported by Nurdina et al ., Luo et al ., and Selvin et al . Though such range exists within the current compounds, as previously illustrated via particle size distribution curves, its enhancing effect is believed to be counteracted by: (1) the effect of coarser, i.e., >10 μm, particles of slag and (2) the poor compatibility and debonding of slag particles from polymer matrices.…”

“…In fact, the choice of mineral filler can significantly affect the overall composite behavior. That is, filler composition, size, type, morphology, and surface chemistry are all key factors that influence the performance of the filler within the thermoplastic host matrix . Conventional fillers such as calcium carbonate, talc, mica, alumina, and silica have been successfully incorporated into many thermoplastic matrices because of their low cost compared to polymer carriers.…”

Comparison of the effect of mica and talc and chemical coupling on the rheology, morphology, and mechanical properties of polypropylene composites

“…The processing systems and type of coupling agents significantly affect the interfacial structure and mechanical properties of the composites 15. The study of the mechanical and electrical properties of talc and mica‐filled PP has been the subject of many research works 15, 16. The rheological measurements can be used as a means to evaluate the flow behavior which is vital for processing of the polymer, as well as characterizing the microstructure and polymer‐filler interaction.…”

The comparison of hazelnut shell co-pyrolysis with polyethylene oxide and previous ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene

“…Plastics bear high filler materials (clays, wood dust, carbon black, etc.) and additives (antioxidants, pigments, dopes) other than polymers and the total filling material ratio can reach 70% [26,27]. Therefore, recycling and pyrolysis of plastics can be completely different from pure polymers.…”