Polymers particulate filled

Kozlov, G. V, Novikov, V. U. The Physical Principles of Polymer. Particulate-Filled Composites Brittlenes Enhancement. Prikladnaya Fizika, 1, 94-100. 

Hancock M Filled Thermoplastics. In Rothon R (ed) Particulate filled polymer composites. Longman Scientific Technical, Harlow (UK), p 279... 

The growth rate of the use of particulate filled polymers is very fast in all fields of application [ 1 ]. Household articles and automotive parts are equally prepared from them. In the early stages, the sole reason for the introduction of fillers was to decrease the price of the polymer. However, as a result of filling all properties of the polymer change, a new polymer is in fact created. Some characteristics improve, while others deteriorate, and properties must be optimized to utilize all potentials of particulate filling. Optimization must include all aspects of the composites from component properties, through structure and especially interactions. 

The characteristics of particulate filled polymers are determined by the properties of their components, composition, structure and interactions [2]. These four factors are equally important and their effects are interconnected. The specific surface area of the filler, for example, determines the size of the contact surface between the filler and the polymer, thus the amount of the interphase formed. Surface energetics influence structure, and also the effect of composition on properties, as well as the mode of deformation. A relevant discussion of adhesion and interaction in particulate filled polymers cannot be carried out without defining the role of all factors which influence the properties of the composite and the interrelation among them. 

This chapter focuses its attention on the discussion of the most relevant questions of interfacial adhesion and its modification in particulate filled polymers. However, because of the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the four factors determining the properties of particulate filled polymers will be discussed in the first section. Interactions can be divided into two groups, parti-cle/particle and matrix/filler interactions. The first is often neglected although it may determine the properties of the composite and often the only reason for surface modification is to hinder its occurrence. Similarly important, but a very contradictory question is the formation and properties of the interphase a separate section will address this question. The importance of interfacial adhesion... 

Factors Determining the Properties of Particulate Filled Polymers... 

As was mentioned above, four main factors determine the properties of particulate filled polymers characteristics of the components, composition, structure and component interactions. All four are equally important and must be adjusted to achieve optimum properties and economics. 

The structure of particulate filled polymers seems to be simple, homogeneous distribution of particles is assumed in most cases. This, however, rarely occurs and often special, particle related structures develop in the composites. The... 

As was mentioned in the previous section two types of interactions must be considered in particulate filled polymers particle/particle and matrix/filler interaction. The first is often neglected even by compounders, in spite of the fact that its presence may cause composite properties to deteriorate significantly especially under the effect of dynamic loading conditions [18]. Many attempts have been made to change both interactions by the surface treatment of the filler, but the desired effect is often not achieved due to improper use of incorrect ideas. 

Derjaugin [29] explains the significant interaction which sometimes is created between polymers and metals by electrostatic interaction. According to his reasoning the polymer and the thin metallic film layer correspond to an electric double layer, which forms by charge transfer between the surfaces. The significance of this theory in particulate filled polymers is very limited. 

Adhesion is created by primary and secondary forces according to the theory of adsorption interaction. This theory is applied the most widely for the description of interaction in particulate filled or reinforced polymers [30]. The approach is based on the theory of contact wetting and focuses its attention mainly on the influence of secondary forces. Accordingly, the strength of the adhesive bond is assumed to be proportional to the reversible work of adhesion (W ), which is necessary to separate two phases with the creation of two new surfaces. 

In spite of the imperfections of the approach, the reversible work of adhesion can be used for the characterization of matrix/filler interactions in particulate filled polymers. Debonding is one of the dominating micromechanical processes in these materials. Stress analysis has shown that debonding stress (a ) depends on the reversible work of adhesion [8], i.e. ... 

The thickness of the interphase is a similarly intriguing and contradictory question. It depends on the type and strength of the interaction and values from 10 Ato several microns have been reported in the hterature for the most diverse systems [47,49,52,58-60]. Since interphase thickness is calculated or deduced indirectly from some measured quantities, it depends also on the method of determination. Table 3 presents some data for different particulate filled systems. The data indicate that interphase thicknesses determined from some mechanical properties are usually larger than those deduced from theoretical calculations or from extraction of filled polymers [49,52,59-63]. The data supply further proof for the adsorption of polymer molecules onto the filler surface and for the decreased mobility of the chains. Thermodynamic considerations and extraction experiments yield data which are not influenced by the extent of deformation. In mechanical measurements, however, deformation of the material takes place in all cases. The specimen is deformed even during the determination of modulus. With increasing deformations the role and effect of the immobilized chain ends increase and the determined interphase thickness also increases (see Table 3) [61]. 

Table 3. Interphase Thickness in niques Particulate Filled Polymers Determined by Different Tech- ...

The interaction of two substrates, the bond strength of adhesives are frequently measured by the peel test [76]. The results can often be related to the reversible work of adhesion. Due to its physical nature such a measurement is impossible to carry out for particulate filled polymers. Even interfacial shear strength widely applied for the characterization of matrix/fiber adhesion cannot be used in particulate filled polymers. Interfacial adhesion of the components is usually deduced indirectly from the mechanical properties of composites with the help of models describing composition dependence. Such models must also take into account interfacial interactions. 

Rothon R (1995) Particulate-filled polymer composites. Longman, Harlow Schlumpf HP (1983) Kunststoffe 73 511... 

Structure Development in Melt Processed Particulate-Filled Polymer Composites 207... 

Shear yield behaviour of polymer melts containing plate-like filler particles is also prevalent and is clearly shown in Fig. 8 for talc-filled polystyrene. In this system an estimate was made of shear yield values, which were found to increase with increasing particle loading and decreasing particle size. These results are compared with reported yield values for other particulate-filled polymers in Table 2. It is evident that shear yield values also depend on the particle type and thermoplastic matrix used. 

PE-PEP diblock were similar to each other at high PE content (50-90%). This was because the mechanical properties were determined predominantly by the behaviour of the more continuous PE phase. For lower PE contents (7-29%) there were major differences in the mechanical properties of polymers with different architectures, all of which formed a cubic-packed sphere phase. PE-PEP-PE triblocks were found to be thermoplastic elastomers, whereas PEP-PE-PEP triblocks behaved like particulate filled rubber.The difference was proposed to result from bridging of PE domains across spheres in PE-PEP-PE triblocks, which acted as physical cross-links due to anchorage of the PE blocks in the semicrystalline domains. No such arrangement is possible for the PEP-PE-PEP or PE-PEP copolymers (Mohajer et al. 1982). 

---