Improvement of PLLA Ductility by Blending with PVDF: Localization of Compatibilizers at Interface and Its Glycidyl Methacrylate Content Dependency

Abstract

In this work, the localization of reactive compatibilizer (RC, containing poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) backbone with randomly distributed glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) on it) at the polyvinylidene fluoride/poly(l-lactic acid) (PVDF/PLLA) interface has been manipulated by means of GMA contents. At the very beginning of mixing, RC tends to stay in the PVDF phase due to the miscibility between PVDF and PMMA. Upon further shearing, more and more PLLA chains have been grafted on PMMA backbone, producing PLLA–g–PMMA copolymer. The balanced stress on two sides accounts for the localization of compatibilizers at the PVDF/PLLA interface. Finally, the stress of the PLLA side has been enhanced remarkably due to the higher graft density of PLLA, resulting in the enrichment of the copolymer in the PLLA matrix. The migration of RC from the PVDF phase to the immiscible interface and PLLA matrix can be accelerated by employing RC with higher GMA content. Furthermore, the compatibilizer localization produces a significant influence on the morphology and ductility of the PVDF/PLLA blend. Only when the compatibilizers precisely localize at the interface, the blend exhibits the smallest domain and highest elongation at break. Our results are of great significance for not only the fabrication of PLLA with high ductility, but also the precise localization of compatibilizers at the interface of the immiscible blend.

Synergistic toughening of polypropylene by thermoplastic starch acetate andSEBS‐MAH

“…The two each other shifted T g s of polymer blends indicate the molecular chain interpenetrating at the interface 40 . Moreover, the half‐peak‐width of SEBS‐MAH and TPAS increased in PP/TPAS/SEBS‐MAH (70/15/15) blend compared to PP/SEBS‐MAH (70/30) and PP/TPAS (70/30) blend, suggesting that SEBS‐MAH and TPAS in PP/TPAS/SEBS‐MAH (70/15/15) blend exhibited different relaxation behaviors relative to the SEBS‐MAH and TPAS in PP binary blends 41 . The evolution of the half‐peak‐width can be attributed to the influence of the esterification reaction between SEBS‐MAH and TPAS.…”

“…The DMA data of T g and halfpeak-width for some given PP blends are listed in Table 2, it is obvious the peaks attributed to SEBS-MAH, TPAS PP/TPAS/SEBS-MAH (70/15/15) blend exhibited different relaxation behaviors relative to the SEBS-MAH and TPAS in PP binary blends. 41 The evolution of the halfpeak-width can be attributed to the influence of the esterification reaction between SEBS-MAH and TPAS. These results confirmed that the compatibility between PP and TPAS was improved resulting from the esterification reaction between SEBS-MAH and TPAS.…”

Synergistic toughening of poly(lactic acid) by poly(butylene adipate‐co‐terephthalate) and poly(methyl methacrylate)–poly(butyl acrylate)–poly(methyl methacrylate) block copolymer

“…Moreover, the half‐peak‐width of PBAT and PLA increased in PLA/PBAT/MAM (80/10/10) blend comparing to PLA/PBAT (80/20) blend, suggesting that PBAT and PLA in PLA/PBAT/MAM (80/10/10) blend exhibited different relaxation behaviors relative to the PBAT and PLA in PLA/PBAT blends. [ 41 ] The evolution of the half‐peak‐width can be attributed to influence of the molecular chain interpenetrating between PBAT and MAM and PLA and MAM. These results confirmed that the compatibility between PLA and PBAT was improved resulting from the addition of MAM.…”

Ultra-Tough Polylactide/Bromobutyl Rubber-Based Ionomer Blends via Reactive Blending Strategy

“…As mentioned above, the presence of hydroxyl groups plays an important role in improving the compatibility between BIIR and PLA. The improved interfacial adhesion will help the stress transfer among the phases, leading to the high flexibility of the blend ( Zhang et al, 2020 ).…”