Studies of latex blends of natural rubber/poly(methyl methacrylate-co-2-ethylhexyl methacrylate) and their comparison with incompatible natural rubber/poly(methyl methacrylate)

Abstract

Poly(methyl methacrylate co 2 ethylhexyl methacrylate) copolymers with 0.6-49.2 mol% of 2 ethylhexyl methacrylate were synthesized and blended with natural rubber at three different blend ratios (i.e. 5/95, 10/90, 15/85) on the latex stage. Chemical structure of the copolymer was confirmed by FTIR and 1 H NMR spectroscopy. Mechanical strength of the blend (rubber/copolymer) containing 7.76 mol% of 2 ethylhexyl methacrylate showed the higher values than the incompatible blend natural rubber/PMMA. According to water absorption and ATR FTIR measurements, the amount of dispersed particles of obtained blends on the surface decreases sharply compared to rubber/PMMA blend. Scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy also showed that surface and cross section morphologies of the studied were more homogeneous than those of incompatible blend. The miscibility of studied blend was further reflected by DSC analysis.

Emulsion Polymerization of PMMA onto Natural Rubber

“…In addition, the mechanical properties of the NR are also crucial for the industry to broaden the commercial applications. 3 In the previous literatures, modification of NR with vinyl monomers such as acrylonitrile, 4,5 methyl methacrylate (MMA), 6−8 maleic anhydride, 9,10 and styrene 11−13 was commonly studied.…”

“…Nevertheless, the existence of the carbon–carbon double bonds in the NR has weakened the heat resistance and antioxidant properties of the materials. In addition, the mechanical properties of the NR are also crucial for the industry to broaden the commercial applications . In the previous literatures, modification of NR with vinyl monomers such as acrylonitrile, , methyl methacrylate (MMA), − maleic anhydride, , and styrene − was commonly studied.…”

Graft Copolymerization Of Fluorinated Acrylate Monomer Onto Natural Rubber Latex

“…respectively. These results indicated that the accumulation of hard phase was decreased due to the high interfacial adhesion between PTFEMA and GNR phases (Zheng et al 2015). However, the excessive content of GNR in the blend film promoted the incompatibility of the polymeric constituents in the films resulted in agglomeration of white zone resulting in the larger R a again as seen in Figure 4.11f.…”

“…respectively. The dark zone and white zone represented the hole and hill, respectively (Zheng et al 2015). The large holes and numerous hills may from the accumulation of hard phase due to the mismatch of polymeric components in the blend film (Zheng et al 2015).…”

“…The dark zone and white zone represented the hole and hill, respectively (Zheng et al 2015). The large holes and numerous hills may from the accumulation of hard phase due to the mismatch of polymeric components in the blend film (Zheng et al 2015). However, the PTFEMA/NR film at the blend ratio of 50/50 (w/w) showed the smoother surface with R a as 81.9 nm due to the less content of PTFEMA and the large NR area that could not be well dispersed in the blend film.…”