Morphology of compatibilized ternary blends of polypropylene, nylon 66, and polystyrene

Abstract

The morphologies of a ternary blend of nylon 66 and polystyrene in a polypropylene matrix with and without compatibilization by an ionomer resin (for nylon 66) and a styrene-block-ethylene-co-butylene-block-styrene (SEBS) copolymer (for polystyrene) were investigated by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of stained thin sections. The morphology found with the two compatibilizers (a five-component mixture) was essentially that of the binary blends of nylon 66/polypropylene and of polystyrene/polypropylene with their respective compatibilizers, indicating no gross interference between the two compatibilization systems. However, several interactions were discerned: 1) an association of the polystyrene with the nylon in the compatibilized blends (partial wetting), 2) a presence of larger particles when both compatibilizers were added to the binary blends, and 3) a possible synergism, in which less of each compatibilizer was needed when they were both present. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 46:385-398, 2006.

Extension‐dominated improved dispersive mixing in single‐screw extrusion. Part 1: Computational and experimental validation

“…The other critical parameter for droplet breakup that was investigated was the viscosity ratio, η r , between the major and dispersed phases of the mixture, defined as η r = η d /η m , where η d is the viscosity of the dispersed phase and η m is the viscosity of the major/continuous phase. [19][20][21][22] The summary of Grace's experimental results is shown in Figure 1, which plots Ca crit versus η r for both pure shear and pure extensional flows. Independent of flow type, the minimum Ca crit for droplet breakup is found to be around a viscosity ratio of 1.…”

Morphology study of immiscible polymer blends in a vane extruder

“…Because of the great potential and advantages, the polymer blending has been attracting more and more attention. 1,2 However, the properties of the polymer blends barely meet the expectation for the incompatibility of the polymers. It is known that morphology development during processing is one of the critical factors to determine the performance of immiscible polymer blends.…”

Compatibilization and toughening of immiscible ternary blends of polyamide 6, polypropylene (or a propylene—Ethylene copolymer), and polystyrene

“…However, the separation of plastics is a very hard process. The development of an effective multifunctionalized compatibilizer for multiple‐component polymer systems is crucial for the recycling and reuse of plastics 1–16…”

“…So far, although great progress has been made in polymer blending compatibilization, most studies have been limited to binary polymer blends. Very few researchers have focused on multicomponent polymer blending (not including compatibilizers)10, 12, 17–23 because compatibilizers for multicomponent polymer blends are rarely effective. Some researchers have tried to study the compatibilization of ternary polymer blends with complex compatibilizers.…”

“…Some researchers have tried to study the compatibilization of ternary polymer blends with complex compatibilizers. DeBolt and Robertson10, 12 reported an improvement in the compatibility of ternary polymer blends of nylon 66, polystyrene (PS), and polypropylene (PP) with a mixture of an ionomer resin and a styrene‐ block ‐ethylene‐ co ‐butylene‐ block ‐styrene copolymer as a compatibilizer for the system. Groeninckx and coworkers20, 21 reported A/(B/C) ternary polymer blends in which B and C had good compatibility but A and C had some interaction or strong physical effect.…”