Effect of mixing protocol on compatibilized polymer blend morphology

We investigated the effect of mixing protocol on the morphology of compatibilized polymer blends made with premade compatibilizer and reactively formed in‐situ compatibilizer in a custom‐built miniature mixer Alberta Polymer Asymmetric Minimixer (APAM). The compatibilized blends show a finer morphology than uncompatibilized blends if the polymers are mixed together in the dry state and then fed into the mixer. It is found that premelting one polymer, and premixing polymers and compatibilizer, both greatly affect the compatibilized blends' morphology. The effects are complex since the dispersed phase particle size and distribution of the compatibilized blends may be smaller or larger when compared with the uncompatibilized system, depending on the material's physical and chemical properties; for example, diblock molecular weight or the preference of copolymer to migrate to a particular phase can change the final morphology. Good mobility of the copolymer to reach the interface is crucial to obtain a finer morphology. Micelles are observed when a high molecular weight diblock copolymer P(S‐b‐MMA) is used for a PS/PMMA blend. Because of its enhanced mobility, no micelles are found for a low molecular weight diblock copolymer P(S‐b‐MMA) in a PS/PMMA blend. For PS/PE/P(S‐b‐E) blends, finer morphology is obtained when P(S‐b‐E) is first precompounded with PS. Because the block copolymer prefers the PE phase, if the P(S‐b‐E) block copolymer is compounded with PE first, some remains inside the PE phase and does not compatibilize the interface. In the case of reactive blend PSOX/PEMA, premelting and holding the polymers at high temperature for 5 min decreases final dispersed phase particle size; however, premelting and holding for 10 min coarsens the morphology. POLYM. ENG. SCI. 46:691–702, 2006. © 2006 Society of Plastics Engineers.     

Compatibilized blends of PVC/PA12 and PVC/PP containing poly(lauryl lactam‐block‐caprolactone)

Specially designed block copolymers have played a role as compatibilizing agents in the system of immiscible polymer blends. We applied lauryl lactam (LA)–caprolactone (CL) block copolymer [P(LA‐b‐CL)] as a compatibilizing agent for immiscible poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) blends with various polymers. These blends possess high thermal performance and toughness. We investigated the effect of P(LA‐b‐CL) as a compatibilizing agent for immiscible PVC blends with poly(ω‐lauryl lactam) [polyamide 12 (PA12)]. We also described the invention of a new compatibilizing agent system involving P(LA‐b‐CL) for PVC/polypropylene (PP) blends. The mechanical and thermal properties of (1) PVC/PA12 blend compatibilized with P(LA‐b‐CL) and (2) PVC/PP blend compatibilized with P(LA‐b‐CL)/PA12/maleic anhydride–modified PP were both enhanced. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 91: 1983‐1992, 2004     

Effect of the molecular structure of ethene–propene and styrene–butadiene copolymers on their compatibilization efficiency in low‐density polyethylene/polystyrene blends

The effect of the molecular structure of styrene–butadiene (SB) block copolymers and ethene–propene (EPM) random copolymers on the morphology and tensile impact strength of low‐density polyethylene (LDPE)/polystyrene (PS) (75/25) blends has been studied. The molecular characteristics of SB block copolymers markedly influence their distribution in LDPE/PS blends. In all cases, an SB copolymer is present not only at the interface but also in the bulk phases; this depends on its molecular structure. In blends compatibilized with diblock copolymers, compartmentalized PS particles can also be observed. The highest toughness values have been achieved for blends compatibilized with triblock SB copolymers. A study of the compatibilization efficiency of SB copolymers with the same number of blocks has shown that copolymers with shorter PS blocks are more efficient. A comparison of the obtained results with previous results indicates that the compatibilization efficiency of a copolymer strongly depends both on the blend composition and on the properties of the components. The compatibilization efficiency of an EPM/SB mixture is markedly affected by the rheological properties of the copolymers. The addition of an EPM/SB mixture containing EPM with a higher viscosity leads to a higher improvement or at least the same improvement in the tensile impact strength of a compatibilized blend as the same amount of neat SB. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2008     

Compatibilization effects of styrenic/rubber block copolymers in polypropylene/polystyrene blends

Compatibilizing effects of styrene/rubber block copolymers poly(styrene‐b‐butadiene‐b‐styrene) (SBS), poly(styrene‐b‐ethylene‐co‐propylene) (SEP), and two types of poly(styrene‐b‐ethylene‐co‐butylene‐b‐styrene) (SEBS), which differ in their molecular weights on morphology and selected mechanical properties of immiscible polypropylene/polystyrene (PP/PS) 70/30 blend were investigated. Three different concentrations of styrene/rubber block copolymers were used (2.5, 5, and 10 wt %). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) were used to examine the phase morphology of blends. The SEM analysis revealed that the size of the dispersed particles decreases as the content of the compatibilizer increases. Reduction of the dispersed particles sizes of blends compatibilized with SEP, SBS, and low‐molecular weight SEBS agrees well with the theoretical predictions based on interaction energy densities determined by the binary interaction model of Paul and Barlow. The SEM analysis confirmed improved interfacial adhesion between matrix and dispersed phase. The TEM micrographs showed that SBS, SEP, and low‐molecular weight SEBS enveloped and joined pure PS particles into complex dispersed aggregates. Bimodal particle size distribution was observed in the case of SEP and low‐molecular weight SEBS addition. Notched impact strength (a_k), elongation at yield (ε_y), and Young's modulus (E) were measured as a function of weight percent of different types of styrene/rubber block copolymers. The a_k and ε_y were improved whereas E gradually decreased with increasing amount of the compatibilizer. The a_k was improved significantly by the addition of SEP. It was found that the compatibilizing efficiency of block copolymer used is strongly dependent on the chemical structure of rubber block, molecular weight of block copolymer molecule, and its concentration. The SEP diblock copolymer proved to be a superior compatibilizer over SBS and SEBS triblock copolymers. Low‐molecular weight SEBS appeared to be a more efficient compatibilizer in PP/PS blend than high‐molecular weight SEBS. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 72: 291–307, 1999     

Correlation between crystallization kinetics and melt phase behavior of crystalline-amorphous block copolymer/homopolymer blends

We show that the phase behavior of the strongly segregated blend consisting of a crystalline-amorphous diblock copolymer (C-b-A) and an amorphous homopolymer (h-A), which depends on the degree of wetting of A blocks by h-A, can be probed by the crystallization kinetics of the C block. A lamellae-forming poly(ethylene oxide)-block-polybutadiene (PEO-b-PB) was blended with PB homopolymers (h-PB) of different molecular weights to yield the blends exhibiting ‘wet brush’, ‘partially dry brush’, and ‘dry brush’ phase behavior in the melt state. The crystallization rate of the PEO blocks upon subsequent cooling, as manifested by the freezing (crystallization) temperature (T_f), was highly sensitive to the morphology and spatial connectivity of the microdomains governed by the degree of wetting of PB blocks. As the weight fraction of h-PB reached 0.48, for instance, T_f experienced an abrupt rise as the system entered from the wet-brush to the dry-brush regime, because the crystallization in the PEO cylindrical domains in the former required very large undercooling due to a homogeneous nucleation-controlled mechanism while the process could occur at the normal undercooling in the latter since PEO domains retained lamellar identity with extended spatial connectivity. Our results demonstrate that as long as the C block is present as the minor constituent the melt phase behavior of C-b-A/h-A blends can also be probed using a simple cooling experiment operated under differential scanning calorimetry (DSC).     

Rheological investigation of form relaxation and interface relaxation processes in polymer blends

Summary Transmission electron microscopical and rheological investigations have been performed on polymer blend systems of the type A/B, A/A-b-B/B, and A/C-b-B/B, where B is poly(methyl methacrylate) as the continuous and A is polystyrene as the dispersed phase. A-b-B is the corresponding diblock copolymer, and C-b-B is a diblock copolymer with poly(cyclohexyl methacrylate) (C) being thermodynamically miscible with A. The sphere-size distribution was estimated from the TEM data and found to be monomodal for all blends. Smaller sphere sizes in the A/C-b-B/B blends compared with the A/A-b-B/B blends prove the efficiency of the enthalpic acting compatibilizer.The rheological material functions G and G were used to calculate relaxation time spectra and to determine characteristic relaxation times. The form relaxation time ₁ for the relaxation of the ellipsoidally deformed soft PS-particles back to spheres have been verified for all blends no matter whether they where compatibilized or not. An additional relaxation time was found for both types of compatibilized blends. This time is assigned to a non-isotropic interfacial stress, which may arise from relaxation processes of the block copolymers at the interface.     

Compatibilization effects of block copolymers in high density polyethylene/syndiotactic polystyrene blends

Three triblock copolymers of poly[styrene-b-(ethylene-co-butylene)-b-styrene] (SEBS) of different molecular weights and one diblock copolymer of poly[styrene-b-(ethylene-co-butylene)] (SEB) were used to compatibilize high density polyethylene/syndiotactic polystyrene (HDPE/sPS, 80/20) blend. Morphology observation showed that phase size of the dispersed sPS particles was significantly reduced on addition of all the four copolymers and the interfacial adhesion between the two phases was dramatically enhanced. Tensile strength of the blends increased at lower copolymer content but decreased with increasing copolymer content. The elongation at break of the blends improved and sharply increased with increments of the copolymers. Drop in modulus of the blend was observed on addition of the rubbery copolymers. The mechanical performance of the modified blends is strikingly dependent not only on the interfacial activity of the copolymers but also on the mechanical properties of the copolymers, particularly at the high copolymer concentration. Addition of compatibilizers to HDPE/sPS blend resulted in a significant reduction in crystallinity of both HDPE and sPS. Measurements of Vicat softening temperature of the HDPE/sPS blends show that heat resistance of HDPE is greatly improved upon incorporation of 20 wt% sPS.     

Polyamide 6/ethylene‐butylene elastomer blends generated via anionic polymerization of ε‐caprolactam: Phase morphology and dynamic mechanical behavior

This paper reports about the polymerization of ε‐caprolactam monomer in the presence of low molecular weight hydroxyl or isocyanate end‐capped ethylene‐butylene elastomer (EB) elastomers as a new concept for the development of a submicron phase morphology in polyamide 6 (PA6)/EB blends. The phase morphology, viscoelastic behavior, and impact strength of the polymerization‐designed blends are compared to those of similar blends prepared via melt‐extrusion of PA6 homopolymer and EB elastomer. Polyamide 6 and EB elastomer were compatibilized using a premade triblock copolymer PA6‐b‐EB‐b‐PA6 or a pure EB‐b‐PA6 diblock reactively generated during melt‐blending (extrusion‐prepared blends) or built‐up via anionic polymerization of ε‐caprolactam on initiating ? NCO groups attached to EB chain ends (polymerization‐prepared blends). Two compatibilization approaches were considered for the polymerization‐prepared blends: (i) the addition of a premade PA6‐b‐EB‐b‐PA6 triblock copolymer to the ε‐caprolactam monomer containing nonreactive EB? OH elastomer and (ii) generation in situ of a PA6‐b‐EB diblock using EB? NCO precursor on which polyamide 6 blocks are built‐up via anionic polymerization of ε‐caprolactam. The noncompatibilized blends exhibit a coarse phase morphology, either in the extruded or the polymerization prepared blends. Addition of premade triblock copolymer (PA6‐b‐EB‐b‐PA6) to a EB? OH /ε‐caprolactam dispersion led to a fine EB phase (0.14 μm) in the PA6 matrix after ε‐caprolactam polymerization. The average particle size of the in situ reactively compatibilized polymerization‐prepared blend is about 1 μm. The notched Izod impact strength of the blend compatibilized with premade triblock copolymer was much higher than that of the neat PA6, the noncompatibilized, and the in situ reactively compatibilized polymerization blends. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 94: 2538–2544, 2004     

A scheme to predict the morphology of diblock copolymers and their blends

Diblock copolymers of α-methylstyrene and isoprene were synthesized anionically. The morphology of the copolymers and of their blends with the homopolymers was studied by transmission electron microscopy. Based on this, a scheme is proposed to predict the morphological behavior associated with the blending of block copolymers with homopolymers. Two blending systems are discussed. They are (i) copolymer AB with homopolymers A and B and (ii) copolymers AB of two different molecular weights with homopolymer A. Two factors are considered to be the most crucial. One is the morphology of the predominant polymer (50 wt %), and the other is the weight ratio of the blends. The solubilizing effect of the block copolymer AB in the blend must also be taken into account. When the two copolymers are blended, the one with lower molecular weight was emulsified by higher one and restricted around the longer chain. It is shown that the present scheme is successful in predicting the morphology of diblock copolymers and their blends.     

In situ compatibilization of PET/PS blends through reactive copolymers

Polymer blends of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) and polystyrene (PS) are immiscible and incompatible, which has been well recognized. Styrene–glycidyl methacrylate (SG) copolymer has been synthesized by suspension polymerization and employed in this study as an in situ compatibilizer for the polyblends of PET and PS. This copolymer contains reactive epoxy functional groups that are able to react with PET end groups ? OH and ? COOH) under melt conditions to from SG-graft-PET copolymer. The presence of a small amount of phosphonium catalyst (200 ppm) accelerated the graft reaction and results in a better compatibilized blend. The compatibilized PET/PS blend has a smaller phase domain and higher viscosity than does the corresponding noncompatibilized blend. Mechanical properties of the compatibilized blends have also been improved significantly over the corresponding noncompatibilized blends. © 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Temperature-composition phase diagrams of binary blends of block copolymer and homopolymer

The temperature-composition phase diagrams for six pairs of diblock copolymer and homopolymer are presented, putting emphasis on the effects of block copolymer composition and the molecular weight of added homopolymers. For the study, two polystyrene-block-polyisoprene (SI diblock) copolymers having lamellar or spherical microdomains, a polystyrene-block-polybutadiene (SB diblock) copolymer having lamellar microdomains, and a series of polystyrene (PS), polyisoprene (PI), and polybutadiene (PB) were used to prepare SI/PS, SI/PI, SB/PS, and SB/PB binary blends, via solvent casting, over a wide range of compositions. The shape of temperature-composition phase diagram of block copolymer/homopolymer blend is greatly affected by a small change in the ratio of the molecular weight of added homopolymer to the molecular weight of corresponding block (M_H,A/M_C,A or M_H,B/M_C,B) when the block copolymer is highly asymmetric in composition but only moderately even for a large change in M_H,A/M_C,A ratio when the block copolymer is symmetric or nearly symmetric in composition. The boundary between the mesophase (M₁) of block copolymer and the homogeneous phase (H) of block copolymer/homopolymer blend was determined using oscillatory shear rheometry, and the boundary between the homogeneous phase (H) and two-phase liquid mixture (L₁+L₂) with L₁ being disordered block copolymer and L₂ being macrophase-separated homopolymer was determined using cloud point measurement. It is found that the addition of PI to a lamella-forming SI diblock copolymer or the addition of PB to a lamella-forming SB diblock copolymer gives rise to disordered micelles (DM) having no long-range order, while the addition of PS to a lamella-forming SB diblock copolymer retains lamellar microdomain structure until microdomains disappear completely. Thus, the phase diagram of SI/PI or SB/PB blends looks more complicated than that of SI/PS or SB/PS blends.     

Morphology and photophysical properties of luminescent electrospun fibers prepared from diblock and triblock polyfluorene-<Emphasis Type="Italic">block</Emphasis>-Poly(2-vinylpyridine)/PEO blends

We successfully prepared luminescent electrospun (ES) fibers from the polymer blends of diblock poly[2,7-(9,9-dihexylfluorene)]-block-poly(2-vinylpyridine)(di-PFPVP) or triblock P2VP-b-PF-b-P2VP (tri-PFPVP) with polyethylene oxide (PEO) using a single-capillary spinneret. The morphology and photophysical properties of ES fibers were explored via the molecular architecture, solvent selectivity, and different molecular weights of PEO. The ES fibers had diameters around 400–800 nm using solvent of methanol (MeOH)/H₂O while those using CHCl₃ were around 1–3 μm, which was probably due to the difference on the solvent dielectric constant. Furthermore, the PF aggregated size and emission peak maximum in the ES fibers increased with enhancing the block copolymer composition using CHCl₃. However, an insignificant variation was observed using MeOH/H₂O. The larger PF aggregated size of the di-PFPVP/PEO blend ES fibers resulted in the red-shifting and broader emission peak, in comparison with that of the tri-PFPVP/PEO blend ES fibers. The efficient interaction of the PEO with the PVP block in two different block copolymers accounted for the above results. In the ES fibers using the low molecular weight of PEO (Mn~100 K), it exhibited a red-shifting on the PL spectra in comparison with the spin-coated films due to the geometrical confinement. Nevertheless, such confinement was probably significantly reduced using the high molecular weight PEO (Mn~2000 K) and thus an insignificant variation was found on the PL spectra. The present study demonstrated that their aggregate morphology and photophysical properties of ES fibers prepared from conjugated rod-coil block copolymer blends could be significantly tuned through polymer architecture, solvent selectivity, and copolymer composition.     

Bio‐based diblock copolymers prepared from poly(lactic acid) and natural rubber

New bio‐based diblock copolymers were synthesized from poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and natural rubber (NR). NR polymer chains were modified to obtain hydroxyl telechelic natural rubber oligomers (HTNR). Condensation polymerization between PLA and HTNR was performed at 110°C during 24 or 48 h. The molecular weight of PLA and HTNR and the molar ratio PLA : HTNR were varied. The new ester linkage in the diblock copolymers was determined by ¹H‐NMR. The molecular weight of the diblock copolymers determined from SEC agreed with that expected from calculation. The thermal behavior and degradation temperature were determined by DSC and TGA, respectively. The diblock copolymers were used as a toughening agent of PLA and as a compatibilizer of the PLA/NR blend. PLA blended with the diblock copolymer showed higher impact strength, which was comparable to the one of a PLA/NR blend. The former blend showed smaller dispersed particles as showed by SEM images, indicating the increase in miscibility in the blend due to the PLA block. The compatibilization was effective in the blends containing ～10 wt % of rubber. At a higher rubber content (>10 wt %), coalescence of the NR and diblock copolymer was responsible of the larger rubber diameter in the blends, which causes a decrease of the impact strength. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2015 , 132, 41426.     

Compatibilizing effect of poly(styrene)‐block‐poly(isoprene) copolymers in heterogeneous poly(styrene)/natural rubber blends

Compatibility of poly(styrene) (PS)/natural rubber (NR) blend is improved by the addition of diblock copolymer of poly(styrene) and cis‐poly(isoprene) (PS‐b‐PI). The compatibilizing effect has been investigated as a function of block copolymer molecular weight, composition and concentration. The effect of homopolymer molecular weight, processing conditions and mode of addition on the morphology of the dispersed phase have also been investigated by means of optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. A sharp decrease in phase dimensions is observed with the addition of a few percent of block copolymers. The effect levels off at higher concentrations. The leveling off could be an indication of interfacial saturation. For concentrations below the critical value, the particle size reduction is linear with copolymer volume fraction and agrees well with the prediction of Noolandi and Hong. The addition of the block copolymer improves the mechanical properties of the blend. An attempt is made to correlate the mechanical properties with the morphology of the blends. © 2001 Society of Chemical Industry     

Improvement of polyamide/thermoplastic polyurethane blends with polyamide 6-polyurethane copolymer prepared via suspension polymerization as compatibilizer

The polyamide 6-polyurethane copolymer (PA6-b-PU-b-PA6) was synthesized through anionic suspension polymerization and then mixed with polyamide 6/thermoplastic polyurethane (PA6/TPU) and polyamide 6, 6/thermoplastic polyurethane (PA66/TPU) blends using as the compatibilizer. The results show that the PA6-b-PU-b-PA6 copolymers powders several can be obtained through suspension polymerization using dimethicone as disperse medium. The average diameter of PA6-b-PU-b-PA6 copolymer powders decreased with the increasing of PU content. With the addition of PA6-b-PU-b-PA6, the TPU phase dispersed more uniformly in PA6 or PA66 matrix, and the size of TPU dispersed phase decreased obviously. The PA6-b-PU-b-PA6 copolymer with higher PU content shows better compatibilizing effect. Addition of PA6-b-PU-b-PA6 can improve both strength and toughness of the PA/TPU blends. When the amount of PA6-PU25% copolymer was 5 phr, the tensile strength and notched impact strength of PA6/TPU/PA6-PU25% blends increased 29 and 159.4%, respectively, compared to the PA6/TPU blend without compatibilizer.     

Morphology development of LDPE-PS blend compatibilization

LDPE-polystyrene (PS) blends were compatibilized using three PS-hydrogenated polybutadiene-PS and one PS-hydrogenated polybutadiene block copolymers. The blends were prepared by corotating twin-screw extrusion, then were injection-molded. During processing, the morphology evolution of the blends was studied using SEM and image-analyzing techniques. Different screw profiles were used for extrusion. Under the extrusion conditions and when all the blend constituents had melted, the use of one kneading-disc section resulted in a high mixing effect. The addition of other kneading-disc sections did not increase the dispersion. The flow of the blend, through the extruder die or in the injection mold, induced heterogeneous skin-core structures. The analysis of the evolution of the structure of these blends during processing showed that the addition of a compatibilizer increased their stability. Going from LDPE-rich to PS-rich blends, the morphology evolves from a nodular dispersion of PS in LDPE to a cocontinuous structure. With the addition of a copolymer to a 25–75 wt % LDPE-PS blend, the structure changes from a cocontinuous to a nodular one. Comparing the effect of the different copolymers on the blend morphology, the diblock copolymer results in the most homogeneous and finest dispersions. The stabilization of increasing potential values of the interface surface of these blends requires increasing concentrations of the copolymers. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Influence of diblock copolymer on the morphology and properties of polystyrene/poly(dimethylsiloxane) blends

Blends of polystyrene (PS) and poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), with and without diblock copolymers (PS‐b‐PDMS), were prepared by melt mixing. The melt rheology behavior of the blends was studied with a capillary rheometer. The morphology of the blends was examined with scanning electron microscopy. The miscibility of the blends was studied with differential scanning calorimetry. The morphology of PS/PDMS blends was modified by the addition of PS‐b‐PDMS copolymers and investigated as a function of the molar mass of the diblock copolymers, viscosity ratios and the processing conditions. As investigated, the observed morphology of the melt‐blended PS/PDMS pair unambiguously supported the interfacial activity of the diblock copolymers. When a few percent of the diblock copolymers blended together with the PS and PDMS homopolymers, the phase size was reduced and the phase dispersion was firmly stabilized against coalescence. The compatibilizing efficiency of the copolymers was strongly dependent on its molar mass. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 92: 2747–2757, 2004     

Thermal behaviour of polyethylene‐block‐poly(methyl methacrylate) block copolymer: effect of multiple heating and cooling rates versus mathematical artefact

The melting and crystallization behaviours of a polyethylene‐block‐poly(methyl methacrylate) (PE‐b‐PMMA) diblock copolymer and a PE homopolymer were investigated using multiple heating and cooling rate differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) experiments, and modelling of the crystallization kinetics and lamellar thickness distribution. This new model was first validated applying literature and experimental data. The model‐predicted morphology (n = 3.2) closely matched the spherulitic morphology (n = 3), which was determined using polarized optical microscopy. For each experimental cooling rate, the model predicted diblock copolymer crystallinity that well matched the entire DSC crystallinity curve, notably for an Avrami–Erofeev index of n = 2; and apparent crystallization activation energy that hardly varied with the cooling rates used, relative crystallinity (α), and crystallization temperature or time. This disfavours the concept of variable activation energy. The use of the right crystallization model and parameter estimation algorithm is important for addressing the mathematical artefact. Under non‐isothermal cooling, the PE‐b‐PMMA diblock copolymer, as per the model prediction, crystallized without confinement (n ≠ 1), preserving the cylindrical structure. From the characteristic shapes of the crystallization function f(α(T)) versus 1/T and crystallization rate versus α plots, the resulting T_cmax and narrow α_max range can guide the search for an appropriate crystallization model. The overall treatment illustrated in this study is not restricted to a PE homopolymer and a PE‐b‐isotactic PMMA block copolymer. It can be generally applied to crystalline homopolymers and copolymers (alternating, random and block), as well as their blends. The block copolymers and blends can be crystalline–amorphous as well as crystalline–crystalline. © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry     

Changes in the interfacial properties of PC/SAN blends with compatibilizer

Block copolymers of polycarbonate‐b‐poly(methyl methacrylate) (PC‐b‐PMMA) and tetramethyl poly(carbonate)‐b‐poly(methyl methacrylate) (TMPC‐b‐PMMA) were examined as compatibilizers for blends of polycarbonate (PC) with styrene‐co‐acrylonitrile (SAN) copolymer. To explore the effects of block copolymers on the compatibility of PC/SAN blends, the average diameter of the dispersed particles in the blend was measured with an image analyzer, and the interfacial properties of the blends were analyzed with an imbedded fiber retraction (IFR) technique and an asymmetric double cantilever beam fracture test. The average diameter of dispersed particles and interfacial tension of the PC/SAN blends were reduced by adding compatibilizer to the PC/SAN blends. Fracture toughness of the blends was also improved by enhancing interfacial adhesion with compatibilizer. TMPC‐b‐PMMA copolymer was more effective than PC‐b‐PMMA copolymer as a compatibilizer for the PC/SAN blends. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 89: 2649–2656, 2003     

Effect of multiblock copolymers in polymer blends

The use of multiblock copolymers for the compatibilization of immiscible polymer blends is controversially discussed in the literature. Investigations have been carried out to estimate the effect of multiblock copolymers containing segments of a liquid crystalline polyester (LCP) and polysulfone (PSU) segments in blends of the based homopolymers. One goal was to determine whether multiblock copolymers provide an opportunity for compatibilizing PSU/LCP blends. By using PSU/LCP multiblock copolymers with different molecular weights of the blocks in the appropriate binary, solution-casted blends, it was shown that the interpenetration of the polysulfone phase of the block copolymer and the PSU matrix leads to an improved miscibility of the blend. This effect is retained in ternary blends of PSU, LCP, and the multiblock copolymer, assuming a certain critical molecular weight of the multiblock copolymer segments. In addition, some mechanical characteristics of PSU/LCP melt blends such as the E-modulus and fracture strength are improved by adding long-segmented multiblock copolymers. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 66: 2293–2309, 1997