Effect of various added compatibilizers on the crystalline structure of polypropylene homopolymer/polybutylene terephthalate and polypropylene copolymer/polybutylene terephthalate polymer blends

Blends of semicrystalline isotactic polypropylene homopolymer and polypropylene copolymer with polybutylene terephthalate with different compatibilizers [i.e., styrene acrylonitrile, Surlyn, styrene–ethylene–butadiene styrene (SEBS), block copolymer and SEBS block copolymer grafted with maleic anhydride] were prepared by melt blending. Wide angle‐X‐ray scattering patterns of injection moldings were obtained. The crystallinity index and d‐spacing were calculated with different concentrations of different compatibilizers. X‐ray results in the structural investigation of the compatibilized blends correlated well with the different compatibilizer concentrations. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 87: 1190–1193, 2003     

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

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. © 2006 Society of Plastics Engineers.     

Effect of compatibilizer in acrylonitrile‐butadiene‐styrene toughened nylon 6 blends: Ductile–brittle transition temperature

The ductile–brittle transition temperatures were determined for compatibilized nylon 6/acrylonitrile‐butadiene‐styrene (PA6/ABS) copolymer blends. The compatibilizers used for those blends were methyl methacrylate‐co‐maleic anhydride (MMA‐MAH) and MMA‐co‐glycidyl methacrylate (MMA‐GMA). The ductile–brittle transition temperatures were found to be lower for blends compatibilized through maleate modified acrylic polymers. At room temperature, the PA6/ABS binary blend was essentially brittle whereas the ternary blends with MMA‐MAH compatibilizer were supertough and showed a ductile–brittle transition temperature at ?10°C. The blends compatibilized with maleated copolymer exhibited impact strengths of up to 800 J/m. However, the blends compatibilized with MMA‐GMA showed poor toughness at room temperature and failed in a brittle manner at subambient temperatures. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 90: 2643–2647, 2003     

Polymer blends of PET–PS compatibilized by SMA and epoxy dual compatibilizers

Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) and polystyrene (PS) are immiscible and incompatible and have been well recognized. In this study, styrene maleic anhydride random copolymer (SMA–8 wt % MA) and tetra-glycidyl ether of diphenyl diamino methane (TGDDM) are employed as reactive dual compatibilizers in the blends of PET–PS. The epoxy functional groups of the TGDDM can react with PET terminal groups ( OH and  COOH) and anhydride groups of SMA at the interface to produce PET-co-TGDDM-co-SMA copolymers. SMA with low MA content is miscible with PS, whereas the PET segments are structurally identical with PET phase. Therefore, these in-situ-formed copolymers tend to anchor at the interface and act as effective compatibilizers of the blends. The compatibilized blends, depending on the amounts of TGDDM and SMA addition, result in smaller phase domain, higher viscosity, and improved mechanical properties. This study demonstrates that SMA and TGDDM dual compatibilizer can be utilized effectively in compatibilizing polymer blends of PET and PS. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 73: 2029–2040, 1999     

Comparison of olefin copolymers as compatibilizers for polypropylene and high‐density polyethylene

Some polyolefin elastomers were compared as compatibilizers for blends of polypropylene (PP) with 30 wt % high‐density polyethylene (HDPE). The compatibilizers included a multiblock ethylene–octene copolymer (OBC), two statistical ethylene–octene copolymers (EO), two propylene–ethylene copolymers (P/E), and a styrenic block copolymer (SBC). Examination of the blend morphology by AFM showed that the compatibilizer was preferentially located at the interface between the PP matrix and the dispersed HDPE particles. The brittle‐to‐ductile (BD) transition was determined from the temperature dependence of the blend toughness, which was taken as the area under the stress–strain curve. All the compatibilized blends had lower BD temperature than PP. However, the blend compatibilized with OBC had the best combination of low BD temperature and high toughness. Examination of the deformed blends by scanning electron microscopy revealed that in the best blends, the compatibilizer provided sufficient interfacial adhesion so that the HDPE domains were able to yield and draw along with the PP matrix. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2009     

Effect of copolymers containing glycidyl methacrylate functional groups on the rheological,mechanical, and morphological properties of poly(ethylene terephthalate)

The aim of this work was to investigate the effect of ethylene‐glycidyl methacrylate (EGMA) and ethylene‐methyl acrylate‐glycidyl methacrylate (EMAGMA) copolymers on the rheological, mechanical, and morphological properties of Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET). The results of torque rheometry showed an increase in the torque of PET with the addition of EGMA and EMAGMA copolymers due to the reactions between the GMA groups present in the copolymers and the carboxyl and hydroxyl groups present in PET. The torque of PET/copolymer blends increased with the increase in the copolymer content and was more pronounced for the blends containing EGMA copolymer. X‐ray diffraction and differential scanning calorimetry analyzes showed that neat PET and the PET in PET/copolymer blends are amorphous. The addition of EGMA and EMAGMA copolymers delayed the crystallization of PET. Rheological measurements showed an increase in the viscosity at low frequencies with the addition of EGMA and EMAGMA copolymers to PET. This increase was more pronounced for PET/copolymer blends containing higher amount of copolymers and for the blends containing EGMA, corroborating the results obtained by torque rheometry. The impact strength of PET/EMAGMA blends was higher than that of PET/EGMA blends. Morphology analysis by SEM showed that PET/EMAGMA blends presented higher average dispersed phase domains size than PET/EGMA blends. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 59:683–693, 2019. © 2018 Society of Plastics Engineers     

Preparation and properties of styrene–ethylene–butylene–styrene block copolymer/clay nanocomposites: I. Effect of clay content and compatibilizer types

BACKGROUND: Polymer/clay (silicate) systems exhibit great promise for industrial applications due to their ability to display synergistically advanced properties with relatively small amounts of clay loads. The effects of various compatibilizers on styrene–ethylene–butylene–styrene block copolymer (SEBS)/clay nanocomposites with various amounts of clay using a melt mixing process are investigated. RESULTS: SEBS/clay nanocomposites were prepared via melt mixing. Two types of maleated compatibilizers, styrene–ethylene–butylene–styrene block copolymer grafted maleic anhydride (SEBS‐g‐MA) and polypropylene grafted maleic anhydride (PP‐g‐MA), were incorporated to improve the dispersion of various amounts of commercial organoclay (denoted as 20A). Experimental samples were analyzed using X‐ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy. Thermal stability was enhanced through the addition of clay with or without compatibilizers. The dynamic mechanical properties and rheological properties indicated enhanced interaction for the compatibilized nanocomposites. In particular, the PP‐g‐MA compatibilized system conferred higher tensile strength or Young's modulus than the SEBS‐g‐MA compatibilized system, although SEBS‐g‐MA seemed to further expand the interlayer spacing of the clay compared with PP‐g‐MA. CONCLUSION: These unusual results suggest that the matrix properties and compatibilizer types are crucial factors in attaining the best mechanical property performance at a specific clay content. Copyright © 2007 Society of Chemical Industry     

Effect of styrene–isoprene–styrene,styrene–butadiene–styrene,and styrene–butadiene–rubber on the mechanical,thermal, rheological,and morphological properties of polypropylene/polystyrene blends

The mechanical, thermal, rheological, and morphological properties of polypropylene (PP)/polystyrene (PS) blends compatibilized with styrene–isoprene–styrene (SIS), styrene–butadiene–styrene (SBS), and styrene–butadiene–rubber (SBR) were studied. The incompatible PP and PS phases were effectively dispersed by the addition of SIS, SBS, and SBR as compatibilizers. The PP/PS blends were mechanically evaluated in terms of the impact strength, ductility, and tensile yield stress to determine the influence of the compatibilizers on the performance properties of these materials. SIS‐ and SBS‐compatibilized blends showed significantly improved impact strength and ductility in comparison with SBR‐compatibilized blends over the entire range of compatibilizer concentrations. Differential scanning calorimetry indicated compatibility between the components upon the addition of SIS, SBS, and SBR by the appearance of shifts in the melt peak of PP toward the melting range of PS. The melt viscosity and storage modulus of the blends depended on the composition, type, and amount of compatibilizer. Scanning electron microscopy images confirmed the compatibility between the PP and PS components in the presence of SIS, SBS, and SBR by showing finer phase domains. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 88: 266–277, 2003     

Interface modification of compatibilized polyethylene terephthalate/polypropylene blends: Effect of compatibilization on thermomechanical properties and thermal stability

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene (PP) are incompatible thermoplastics because of differences in chemical structure and polarity, hence their blends possess inferior mechanical and thermal properties. Compatibilization with a suitable block/graft copolymer is one way to improve the mechanical and thermal properties of the PET/PP blend. In this study, the toughness, dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of PET/PP blends were investigated as a function of different content of styrene‐ethylene‐butylene‐styrene‐g‐maleic anhydride (SEBS‐g‐MAH) compatibilizer. PET, PP, and SEBS‐g‐MAH were melt‐blended in a single step using the counter rotating twin screw extruder with compatibilizer concentrations of 0, 5, 10, and 15 phr, respectively. The impact strength of compatibilized blend with 10 phr SEBS‐g‐MAH increased by 300% compared to the uncompatibilized blend. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) micrographs show that the addition of 10 phr SEBS‐g‐MAH compatibilizer into the PET/PP blends decreased the particle size of the dispersed PP phase to the minimum level. The improvement of the storage modulus and the decrease in the glass transition temperature of the PET phase indicated an interaction among the blend components. Thermal stability of the PET/PP blends was significantly improved because of the addition of SEBS‐g‐MAH. J. VINYL ADDIT. TECHNOL., 23:45–54, 2017. © 2015 Society of Plastics Engineers     

Relationship between interfacial tension and dispersed‐phase particle size in polymer blends. II. PP/PA6

Simple blends with different viscosity ratios of the components as well as compatibilized blends varying both in type and content of the compatibilizers were used to study the relation between the interfacial tension and the dispersed‐phase particle size for PP/PA6 (80/20 wt %) blends in this work. Four compatibilizing systems including poly(ethylene‐co‐methacrylic acid) ionomers, a maleic anhydride‐grafted propylene copolymer, maleic anhydride‐grafted polypropylene, and a maleic anhydride‐grafted styrene ethylene butylene copolymer were used. For blends prepared in an internal mixer, a power‐law relation was found between the capillary number and the torque ratio of the blends' components. This relation was used to estimate the interfacial tension for the compatibilized blends. The relation between the steady‐state torque of the blends as a measure of viscosity and the estimated values of interfacial tension were also investigated. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 88: 54–63, 2003     

Compatibilization of polyethylene terephthalate/polypropylene blends with styrene–ethylene/butylene–styrene (SEBS) block copolymers

Blends of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene (PP) at compositions 20/80 and 80/20 were modified with three different styrene–ethylene/butyl–ene-styrene (SEBS) triblock copolymers with the aim of improving the compatibility and in particular the toughness of the blends. The compatibilizers involved an unfunctionalized SEBS and two functionalized grades containing either maleic anhydride (SEBS-g-MAH) or glycidyl methacrylate (SEBS-g-GMA) grafted to the midblock. The effects of the compatibilizers were evaluated by studies on morphology and mechanical, thermal and rheological properties of the blends. The additon of 5 wt % of a SEBS copolymer was found to stabilize the blend morphology and to improve the impact strength. The effect was, however, far more pronounced with the functionalized copolymers. Particularly high toughness combined with rather high stiffness was achieved with SEBS-g-GMA for the PET-rich composition. Addition of the functionalized SEBS copolymers resulted in a finer dispersion of the minor phase and clearly improved interfacial adhesion. Shifts in the glass transition temperature of the PET phase and increase in the melt viscosity of the compatibilized blends indicated enhanced interactions between the discrete PET and PP phases induced by the functionalized compatibilizer, in particular SEBS-g-GMA. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 65:241–249, 1997     

Melt rheology and properties of compatibilized recycled poly(ethylene terephthalate)/(styrene‐ethylene‐ethylene‐propylene‐styrene) block copolymer blends

Blends of recycled poly(ethylene terephthalate) (R‐PET) and (styrene‐ethylene‐ethylene‐propylene‐styrene) block copolymer (SEEPS) compatibilized with (maleic anhydride)‐grafted‐styrene‐ethylene‐butylene‐styrene (SEBS‐g‐MAH) were prepared by melt blending. The compatibilizing effects of SEBS‐g‐MAH were investigated systematically by study of the morphology, linear viscoelastic behavior, and thermal and mechanical properties of the blends. The results show that there is good agreement between the results obtained by rheological measurement and morphological analysis. The rheological test shows that the melt elasticity and melt strength of the blends increase with the addition of SEBS‐g‐MAH. The Cole‐Cole plots and van Gurp‐Palmen plots confirm the compatibilizing effect of SEBS‐g‐MAH. However, the Palierne model fails to predict the linear viscoelastic properties of the blends. The morphology observation shows that all blends exhibit a droplet‐matrix morphology. In addition, the SEEPS particle size in the (R‐PET)/SEEPS blends is significantly decreased and dispersed uniformly by the addition of SEBS‐g‐MAH. Differential scanning calorimeter analysis shows that the crystallization behavior of R‐PET is restricted by the incorporation of SEEPS, whereas the addition of SEBS‐g‐MAH improves the crystallization behavior of R‐PET compared with that of uncompatibilized (R‐PET)/SEEPS blends. The Charpy impact strength of the blends shows the highest value at SEBS‐g‐MAH content of 10%, which is about 210% higher than that of pure R‐PET. J. VINYL ADDIT. TECHNOL., 22:342–349, 2016. © 2014 Society of Plastics Engineers     

Phase structure and properties of poly(ethylene terephthalate)/high‐density polyethylene based on recycled materials

Blends based on recycled high density polyethylene (R‐HDPE) and recycled poly(ethylene terephthalate) (R‐PET) were made through reactive extrusion. The effects of maleated polyethylene (PE‐g‐MA), triblock copolymer of styrene and ethylene/butylene (SEBS), and 4,4′‐methylenedi(phenyl isocyanate) (MDI) on blend properties were studied. The 2% PE‐g‐MA improved the compatibility of R‐HDPE and R‐PET in all blends toughened by SEBS. For the R‐HDPE/R‐PET (70/30 w/w) blend toughened by SEBS, the dispersed PET domain size was significantly reduced with use of 2% PE‐g‐MA, and the impact strength of the resultant blend doubled. For blends with R‐PET matrix, all strengths were improved by adding MDI through extending the PET molecular chains. The crystalline behaviors of R‐HDPE and R‐PET in one‐phase rich systems influenced each other. The addition of PE‐g‐MA and SEBS consistently reduced the crystalline level (χ_c) of either the R‐PET or the R‐HDPE phase and lowered the crystallization peak temperature (T_c) of R‐PET. Further addition of MDI did not influence R‐HDPE crystallization behavior but lowered the χ_c of R‐PET in R‐PET rich blends. The thermal stability of R‐HDPE/R‐PET 70/30 and 50/50 (w/w) blends were improved by chain‐extension when 0.5% MDI was added. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2009     

Mechanical and fracture characterization of 50:50 HDPE/PET blends presenting different phase morphologies

Uncompatibilized and compatibilized blends of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) and high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) (50:50 PET/HDPE) have been prepared and characterized. A commercial grade of ethylene/methacrylic acid copolymer was used as compatibilizing agent and added to the blends in two different proportions, 1% and 7%. Compounded blends were processed following three different procedures: compression molding, extrusion, and extrusion followed by annealing. In every case, there is evidence that suggests that HDPE constitutes the matrix and PET is the dispersed phase. The PET phase shape was related to the processing procedure of the blends. PET adopted a globular morphology in the compression molded samples but it took the form of microfibers (microfibrillar‐like reinforced composites) in extruded samples, which were flattened during the postextrusion annealing process. According to the results obtained in tensile and fracture tests, extruded blends having 7% of ethylene/methacrylic acid copolymer appeared as the optimum combination of processing method and compatibilizer content. POLYM. ENG. Sci., 45:354–363, 2005. © 2005 Society of Plastics Engineers     

Comparison of the influence of different compatibilizers on the structure and properties of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer/modified clay nanocomposites

Nanocomposites of an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer and clay were prepared by melt blending and extrusion. Two different compatibilizers, ethylene glycidyl methacrylate (EGMA) and maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene (MAPP), were used in these nanocomposites. The structural properties of the composites were characterized with X‐ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy. The surface morphology was characterized with polarized optical microscopy. The tensile and permeability properties were studied. The thermal stability of the nanocomposites was characterized through thermogravimetric analysis. MAPP‐compatibilized nanocomposites had intercalated and partially exfoliated structures, whereas EGMA‐compatibilized nanocomposites had completely exfoliated structures. The EGMA‐compatibilized nanocomposites were thermally more stable than the MAPP‐compatibilized nanocomposites. The mechanical and permeability properties of the EGMA‐compatibilized nanocomposites were better than those of the MAPP‐compatibilized nanocomposites. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2007     

Study of compatibilization of HDPE–PET blends by adding grafted or statistical copolymers

The reactive compatibilization of blends of HDPE–PET [high‐density polyethylene–poly(ethylene terephthalate)] was investigated in this study. The compatibilizers used were two grafted copolymers prepared by reactive extrusion containing 1.20–2.30 wt % GMA such as HDPE‐g‐GMA and one statistical copolymer containing 1 wt % GMA such as Lotader AX8920. HDPE was successfully functionalized using a melt free‐radical grafting technique. Grafting was initiated in two ways: adding an initiator in the polymer–monomer mixture or activation by ozone of polymer. Ozonization of HDPE by the introduction of a peroxide lead to a better grafting yield and to better grafting efficiency of the samples. The effects of the three compatibilizers were evaluated by studying the morphology and the thermal and mechanical properties of HDPE–PET (70/30 wt %) blends. Significant improvements were observed, especially in morphology, elongation at break, and Charpy impact strength of the compatibilized blends. A more pronounced compatibilizing effect was obtained with the statistical copolymer, for which the elongation at break and the impact strength were increased by 100%, while the uncompatibilized blends showed a 60% decrease in the Young's modulus and the strength at break. We also were able to show that the grafting yield increase of 1.20–2.30 wt % of GMA did not affect the properties of the blends because the grafted copolymers possess very similar chemical structures. However, compatibilization of blends with grafted copolymers is an interesting method, particularly for recycled blends, because the synthesis of these compatibilizers is easy and cheap in comparison to statistical copolymer. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 81: 2377–2386, 2001     

Impact strength and elongation‐to‐break of compatibilized ternary blends of polypropylene,nylon 66, and polystyrene

The Izod impact strength and tensile elongation‐to‐break were measured for blends 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 copolymer (for polystyrene). With 20% nylon 66 and 20% polystyrene, about 5% of each compatibilizer was optimal. When used together for the ternary blend, there seemed to be little gross interference (or synergism) between the compatibilizers. A comparison between binary blends suggests that what interaction does exists may be synergistic. Polym. Eng. Sci. 44:1800–1809, 2004. © 2004 Society of Plastics Engineers.     

Preparation and properties of polyethylene terephthalate/polyethylene/near infrared reflective pigment composites

Polyethylene terephthalate/high density polyethylene (PET/HDPE) composites containing a near infrared reflective (NIR, nickel antimony titanium yellow rutile) pigment was prepared using ethylene‐glycidyl methacrylate‐vinyl acetate (EGMA‐VA) as a compatibilizer to increase the infrared reflection of PET/HDPE and limit the thermal heat accumulation in light of environmental and energy conservation concerns. HDPE was premixed with NIR to form N‐HDPE masterbatch. A good interfacial bonding between PET matrix and HDPE dispersed phase with the help of compatibilizer was confirmed through Fourier transform‐infrared spectra, scanning electron microscopy, and torque rheometer. For PET/N‐HDPE composites, the major X‐ray diffraction peaks and melting behaviors remained unchanged, indicating the limited alternation of crystalline structure for the composite systems with or without compatibilizer. The observed increment in the crystallization temperature of PET for the investigated PET/N‐HDPE composites was mainly due to the nucleation role of both inorganic NIR and HDPE. Tensile strength and elongation at break for compatibilized cases at various N‐HDPE contents conferred higher values than those of the corresponding counterparts without compatibilizer. Yet, Young's modulus for compatibilized systems was about 40% lower than that for systems without compatibilizer, attributed to the rubbery nature of EGMA‐VA. With the inclusion of NIR into HDPE to form PET/N‐HDPE composites with or without EGMA‐VA compatibilizer, the values of reflectance increased to a great degree. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014 , 131, 40830.     

Poly(ethylene‐graft‐ethylene oxide) (PE‐PEO) and poly(ethylene‐co‐acrylic acid) (PEAA) as compatibilizers in blends of LDPE and polyamide‐6

In a blend of two immiscible polymers a controlled morphology can be obtained by adding a block or graft copolymer as compatibilizer. In the present work blends of low‐density polyethylene (PE) and polyamide‐6 (PA‐6) were prepared by melt mixing the polymers in a co‐rotating, intermeshing twin‐screw extruder. Poly(ethylene‐graft‐polyethylene oxide) (PE‐PEO), synthesized from poly(ethylene‐co‐acrylic acid) (PEAA) (backbone) and poly(ethylene oxide) monomethyl ether (MPEO) (grafts), was added as compatibilizer. As a comparison, the unmodified backbone polymer, PEAA, was used. The morphology of the blends was studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Melting and crystallization behavior of the blends was investigated by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and mechanical properties by tensile testing. The compatibilizing mechanisms were different for the two copolymers, and generated two different blend morphologies. Addition of PE‐PEO gave a material with small, well‐dispersed PA‐spheres having good adhesion to the PE matrix, whereas PEAA generated a morphology characterized by small PA‐spheres agglomerated to larger structures. Both compatibilized PE/PA blends had much improved mechanical properties compared with the uncompatibilized blend, with elongation at break (ε_b) increasing up to 200%. Addition of compatibilizer to the PE/PA blends stabilized the morphology towards coalescence and significantly reduced the size of the dispersed phase domains, from an average diameter of 20 μm in the unmodified PE/PA blend to approximately 1 μm in the compatibilized blends. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 78: 2416–2424, 2000     

Recycled poly(ethylene terephthalate)/linear low‐density polyethylene blends through physical processing

Poly(styrene‐ethylene/butylene‐styrene) (SEBS) was used as a compatibilizer to improve the thermal and mechanical properties of recycled poly(ethylene terephthalate)/linear low‐density polyethylene (R‐PET/LLDPE) blends. The blends compatibilized with 0–20 wt % SEBS were prepared by low‐temperature solid‐state extrusion. The effect of SEBS content was investigated using scanning electron microscope, differential scanning calorimeter, dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), and mechanical property testing. Morphology observation showed that the addition of 10 wt % SEBS led to the deformation of dispersed phase from spherical to fibrous structure, and microfibrils were formed at the interface between two phases in the compatibilized blends. Both differential scanning calorimeter and DMA results revealed that the blend with 20 wt % SEBS showed better compatibility between PET and LLDPE than other blends studied. The addition of 20 wt % of SEBS obviously improved the crystallizibility of PET as well as the modulus of the blends. DMA analysis also showed that the interaction between SEBS and two other components enhanced at high temperature above 130°C. The impact strength of the blend with 20 wt % SEBS increased of 93.2% with respect to the blend without SEBS, accompanied by only a 28.7% tensile strength decrease. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2009