Polymer blends structure

Haasen, P. (1984). Physical Metallurgy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hashimoto, T. (1993). Structure of polymer blends. Structure and Properties of Polymers. E. L. Thomas. Weinheim, VCH. 

Willemse et al. (1999) studied the influence of interfacial tension on the composition range within which fully co-continuous polymer blend structures can exist for different blends with selected matrix viscosities and viscosity ratios. The critical composition for full co-continuity was found to increase with increasing interfacial tension, narrowing the composition range. The effect of the interfacial tension on the critical composition was found to be composed of two counteracting effects the stability of the co-continuous morphology and the phase dimensions. The latter effect was smaller than the former. 

I 5 Extrusion Technology for Manufacturing Polymer Blends Structure... 

Kuleznev, V. N. Smesi polimerov. Structura i svoystva (Polymer blends. Structure and properties). M. Himiya, 1980,78-90. 

Ediger MD, Payer MD (1983) New approach to probing polymer and polymer blend structure using electronic excitation transport. Macromolecules 16(12) 1839-1844. doi 10.1021/ ma00246a008... 

In this chapter an overview is presented of the application of EM to morphological studies of polymer blends, with special emphasis on sample preparation and comparative studies using AFM. A brief overview of sample preparation is first provided, followed by some typical characterizations of polymer blends, based on the present author s experience, research data, and information reported elsewhere. It should be noted that only the imaging of polymer blend structures will be described at this point, since the assodated spectroscopic tools and chemical mapping are beyond the scope of the chapter. 

Lipson (1943, 1944), who had examined a copper-nickeMron ternary alloy. A few years ago, on an occasion in honour of Mats Hillert, Cahn (1991) mapped out in masterly fashion the history of the spinodal concept and its establishment as a widespread alternative mechanism to classical nucleation in phase transformations, specially of the solid-solid variety. An excellent, up-to-date account of the present status of the theory of spinodal decomposition and its relation to experiment and to other branches of physics is by Binder (1991). The Hillert/Cahn/Hilliard theory has also proved particularly useful to modern polymer physicists concerned with structure control in polymer blends, since that theory was first applied to these materials in 1979 (see outline by Kyu 1993). 

Flow behavior of the polymer blends is determined by their structure, which is governed by the degree of dispersion of the component and by the mode of their distribution. For blends having identical compositions, it is possible to produce systems in which one and the same component may be either a dispersion medium or a dispersed phase [1]. This behavior of the polyblend systems depends on various parameters, the most important of which is the blending sequence. It is, therefore, difficult to obtain a uniform composition property relationship for the polymer blends even though the composition remains identical. 

Typically IPNs exhibit some degree of phase separation in their structure depending on how miscible the component polymers are. However, because the networks are interconnected such phase separation can occur only to a limited extent, particularly by comparison with conventional polymer blends. Polymer blends necessarily have to be prepared from thermoplastics IPNs may include thermosets in their formulation. 

Chattopadhyay S., Chaki T.K., and Bhowmick A.K., New thermoplastic elastomers from poly(ethyle-neoctene) (engage), poly(ethylene-vinyl acetate) and low-density polyethylene by electron beam technology structural characterization and mechanical properties. Rubber Chem. TechnoL, 74, 815, 2001. Roy Choudhury N. and Dutta N.K., Thermoplastic elastomeric natural rubber-polypropylene blends with reference to interaction between the components. Advances in Polymer Blends and Alloys Technology, Vol. 5 (K. Finlayson, ed.), Technomic Publishers, Pensylvania, 1994, 161. 

Wu S., Interfacial energy, structure and adhesion between polymers. Polymer Blends, Vol. 1 (Paul D.R. and Newman S., eds.). Academic Press, New York, 1978. 

A surface is that part of an object which is in direct contact with its environment and hence, is most affected by it. The surface properties of solid organic polymers have a strong impact on many, if not most, of their apphcations. The properties and structure of these surfaces are, therefore, of utmost importance. The chemical stmcture and thermodynamic state of polymer surfaces are important factors that determine many of their practical characteristics. Examples of properties affected by polymer surface stmcture include adhesion, wettability, friction, coatability, permeability, dyeabil-ity, gloss, corrosion, surface electrostatic charging, cellular recognition, and biocompatibility. Interfacial characteristics of polymer systems control the domain size and the stability of polymer-polymer dispersions, adhesive strength of laminates and composites, cohesive strength of polymer blends, mechanical properties of adhesive joints, etc. 

Power input is going through a minimum. The structure of the blend is crumby and pigeon egg size BR lumps are still visible. y. The polymer blend shows a homogeneous appearance. 

As has already been emphasized in Fig. 1.1, there is the further problem of connecting the mesoscopic scale, where one considers length scales from the size of effective monomers to the scale of the whole coils, to still much larger scales, to describe structures formed by multichain heterophase systems. Examples of such problems are polymer blends, where droplets of the minority phase exist on the background of the majority matrix, etc. The treatment of... 

Usually polymeric substances of appropriate chemical structure and morphology which promote the miscibility of incompatible materials. Block copolymers are especially useful surfactants at the polymer/polymer interface because the two blocks can be made up from molecules of the individual polymers to be mixed. Typical compatibilisers in polymer blends are LDPE-g-PS in PE/PS CPE in PE/PVC acrylic- -PE, -PP, -EPDM in polyolefin/PA and maleic-g-PE, -PP, -EPDM, -SEBS in polyolefin/polyesters. 

Liu, Y. H., and Zumbrunnen, D. A., Toughness enhancement in polymer blends due to the in-situ formation by chaotic mixing of fine-scale extended structures, J. Mater. Sci. 34, 1921-1931 (1999). 

Aliphatic polyesters based on monomers other than a-hydroxyalkanoic acids have also been developed and evaluated as drug delivery matrices. These include the polyhydroxybutyrate and polyhydroxy valerate homo- and copolymers developed by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) from a fermentation process and the polycaprolactones extensively studied by Pitt and Schindler (14,15). The homopolymers in these series of aliphatic polyesters are hydrophobic and crystalline in structure. Because of these properties, these polyesters normally have long degradation times in vivo of 1-2 years. However, the use of copolymers and in the case of polycaprolactone even polymer blends have led to materials with useful degradation times as a result of changes in the crystallinity and hydrophobicity of these polymers. An even larger family of polymers based upon hydroxyaliphatic acids has recently been prepared by bacteria fermentation processes, and it is anticipated that some of these materials may be evaluated for drug delivery as soon as they become commercially available. 

Copolymers (graft or block) made of immiscible sequences give rise to biphasic morphologies depending on the ratio of immiscible sequences (or of their lengths). Such possible microstructures are reported in Figure 33. A minor phase can be dispersed as nodules (spheres) or filaments (cylinders) while, when concentrations of both phases get similar, lamellar (interpenetrated) structures can appear. It should be noted that rather similar morphologies could also be found in (compatibilised) polymer blends. 

A more complex but faster and more sensitive approach is polarization modulation (PM) IRLD. For such experiments, a photoelastic modulator is used to modulate the polarization state of the incident radiation at about 100 kHz. The detected signal is the sum of the low-frequency intensity modulation with a high-frequency modulation that depends on the orientation of the sample. After appropriate signal filtering, demodulation, and calibration [41], a dichroic difference spectrum can be directly obtained in a single scan. This improves the time resolution to 400 ms, prevents artifacts due to relaxation between measurements, and improves sensitivity for weakly oriented samples. However, structural information can be lost since individual polarized spectra are not recorded. Pezolet and coworkers have used this approach to study the deformation and relaxation in various homopolymers, copolymers, and polymer blends [15,42,43]. For instance, Figure 7 shows the relaxation curves determined in situ for miscible blends of PS and PVME [42]. The (P2) values were determined... 

One practical example of demixing that might be attributed to a difference in crystallizability is the incompatibility in blends of polymers with different stereochemical compositions. The stereochemical isomers contain both chemical and geometrical similarities, but differ in the tendency of close packing. In this case, both the mixing energy B and the additional mixing entropy due to structural asymmetry between two kinds of monomers are small. However, the stereochemical differences between two polymers will result in a difference in the value of Ep. Under this consideration, most experimental observations on the compatibility of polymer blends with different stereochemical compositions [89-99] are tractable. For more details, we refer the reader to Ref. [86]. 

---