ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img

System Message

The ACS Publications site will be temporarily unavailable for planned maintenance on Friday, Oct. 15 starting at 6:00 pm ET for up to 4 hours. We apologize for this inconvenience.

RETURN TO ISSUEPREVResearch ArticleNEXT

Supertoughened Renewable PLA Reactive Multiphase Blends System: Phase Morphology and Performance

View Author Information
Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre (BDDC), Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Crop Science Building, Guelph, N1G 2W1, Ontario Canada
School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Thornbrough Building, Guelph, N1G 2W1, Ontario Canada
*E-mail: [email protected]. Tel.: +1 519 824 4120, ext. 56664. Fax: +1 519 763 8933.
Cite this: ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 15, 12436–12448
Publication Date (Web):July 16, 2014
https://doi.org/10.1021/am502337u
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society
ACS AuthorChoiceACS AuthorChoice
Article Views
6196
Altmetric
-
Citations
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (2 MB)
Supporting Info (1)»

Abstract

Multiphase blends of poly(lactic acid) (PLA), ethylene-methyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate (EMA-GMA) terpolymer, and a series of renewable poly(ether-b-amide) elastomeric copolymer (PEBA) were fabricated through reactive melt blending in an effort to improve the toughness of the PLA. Supertoughened PLA blend showing impact strength of ∼500 J/m with partial break impact behavior was achieved at an optimized blending ratio of 70 wt % PLA, 20 wt % EMA-GMA, and 10 wt % PEBA. Miscibility and thermal behavior of the binary blends PLA/PEBA and PLA/EMA-GMA, and the multiphase blends were also investigated through differential scanning calorimetric (DSC) and dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA). Phase morphology and fracture surface morphology of the blends were studied through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) to understand the strong corelation between the morphology and its significant effect on imparting tremendous improvement in toughness. A unique “multiple stacked structure” with partial encapsulation of EMA-GMA and PEBA minor phases was observed for the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) revealing the importance of particular blend composition in enhancing the toughness. Toughening mechanism behind the supertoughened PLA blends have been established by studying the impact fractured surface morphology at different zones of fracture. Synergistic effect of good interfacial adhesion and interfacial cavitations followed by massive shear yielding of the matrix was believed to contribute to the enormous toughening effect observed in these multiphase blends.

1 Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Poly(lactic acid) (PLA), being a biodegradable polyester derived completely from renewable resources, has attracted a lot of attention in recent years because of its good biodegradability, biocompatibility, high mechanical strength and excellent processability. (1-4) It has been widely researched for use in biomedical applications, such as surgical suture, and drug delivery system. (4) Recently, owing to its affordable performance and availability in the market at a reasonable price, PLA has been considered as a promising and ideal alternative to petroleum-based plastics in commercial applications, such as packaging and fiber materials. (4-6) However, the inherent deficiencies of PLA significantly limit its use in wide range of applications, such as packaging and automotive industries. (6-8)It is well-known that the poor toughness and low heat defection are the major bottlenecks that hinder the applications of PLA in package and automotive industries. (5) PLA exhibits brittleness with only 5% fracture strain in the tensile test, which results in poor impact and tear resistance. (6) Fabricating PLA-based composites is an effective way to improve the heat resistance of PLA materials. However, incorporation of fiber or filler usually further deteriorates the toughness of the materials, which makes it fall short for the required properties for most of the applications. Excellent toughness and flexibility of PLA are the basic prerequisites for developing the PLA composites with desired properties. Therefore, development of the PLA-based materials with high toughness has attracted significant research attention in recent years. Especially, “super-toughness” performance is highly pursued for PLA application areas, mainly for applications in packaging and automotive interior parts. (7, 8)
Physical performance of PLA can be improved through several methods including copolymerization, plasticization, and physical blending. (6-8) One of the promising approaches to improve the flexibility and toughness of PLA is blending it with other suitable polymers. Until now, binary blends of PLA with other flexible polymers have widely been reported to improve its toughness and flexibility. (9-23) However, most of the polymers used showed poor miscibility with PLA, which resulted in unsatisfactory toughening effects. As a simple and cost-effective method, multicomponent polymer blends, consisting of at least three components, have attracted a lot attention in modifying the base polymer resin to obtain excellent properties. (24-30) In spite of the large number of studies on the reactive compatibilization or adding compatibilizers for biopolymer binary blends, biopolymer based multicomponent blends have not been widely studied and reported. Recently, some noteworthy results have been reported for PLA-based multicomponent blends with significant improvement in properties. Hillmyer et al. systematically studied a multiphase PLA blend with polyethylene (PE) and a series of PLA–PE block copolymers. (10, 11) With the presence of a PLA–PE block copolymer, exceptional toughening of PLA/PE was achieved. Zhang et al. reported super toughened PLA ternary blends from a petroleum-based ethylene/n-butyl acrylate/glycidyl methacrylate terpolymer and a zinc ionomer of ethylene-methyacrylic acid copolymer. (31, 32) It was suggested that the unique “salami”-like phase structure in conjunction with good interfacial adhesion significantly contributed to the excellent toughness. (32) Zhang et al. investigated renewable and biodegradable ternary blends of PLA, poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxy valerate) and poly(butylene succinate) ternary blends, and found that the blends showed good balanced performance. (33) Favis et al. investigated the phase morphology for a series of ternary biopolymer blends. (34, 35) They found that different morphologies could be tuned by changing the components and compositions. These leading works strongly suggest that multicomponent blends are a very effective approach to improve the properties of biopolymers.
Among numerous advantages of PLA, unquestionably, renewable resources based origin is the most attractive feature. Improving the performance of PLA materials without impairing its environmental friendly characteristic is a decisive factor that needs to be considered while selecting materials for PLA modification. From this perspective, suitable elastomeric materials derived from renewable resources will be ideal as modifiers for PLA. Bitinis et al. employed renewable natural rubber (NR) as an effective toughening agent for PLA and its biocomposites. (36-39) It was found that the natural rubber significantly enhanced the tensile toughness of the PLA and the composites. Using in situ X-ray scattering techniques, the deformation mechanism of PLA/NR blend and its composites was studied in detail and analyzed. (37) Poly(ether-block-amide) copolymer (PEBA) is an important class of commercial thermoplastic elastomers with unique physical and processing properties. Recently, Arkema company announced their attempts in making renewable resource based PEBA (Pebax) by combining a biosourced polyol with castor oil chemistry which could reduce fossil-based material consumption and CO2 equivalent emissions. (40) PEBA is a segmented block copolymer consisting of an aliphatic polyamide as the hard block, a polyether as the soft block and a diacid serving as the joint between the two blocks. (41, 42) The unique chemical and segment structure of PEBA offers a wide range of excellent performances including good mechanical properties, biocompatibility and processability, etc. Such excellent properties help PEBA find applications in wide range of fields such as antistatic sheets or belts, food packaging materials and in a variety of medical applications such as short-term implantation in humans and virus-proof surgical sheeting. (41, 42) In particular, low glass transition temperature of the polyether-rich phase makes PEBA highly resistant to impact even at temperature as low as −40 °C, and can therefore be used as an impact modifier for the brittle thermoplastic polymers. In view of all these benefits, renewable PEBA is an ideal blending partner for PLA to prepare new environmentally benign material for uses in both biomedical and commodity applications. It is quite reasonable to expect that the introduction of PEBA into PLA may effectively enhance the flexibility and toughness of PLA. Recently, simple binary blends of petroleum-based PEBA elastomer and PLA had been studied. (43-45) It was however found that PEBA/PLA was immiscible and the weak interfacial adhesion resulted in only limited improvement in the toughness of PLA. (44, 45)
In the present work, we focused on reactive blending of PLA with a series of renewable resources based PEBA and a functionalized copolymer containing epoxy groups to fabricate supertoughened PLA ternary blends. To the best of our knowledge, the study of PLA and renewable elastomer based multiphase blends have not been reported so far. The phase behavior and mechanical performance of multicomponent blend were thoroughly investigated in the present work. Toughening mechanism in these ternary blends is established by analyzing the relationship between the morphology, thermal behavior and impact toughness of the prepared blends.

2 Experimental Section

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

2.1 Materials

PLA (Ingeo 3251D) with a weight-average molecular weight (w) of 5.5 × 104 g/mol and polydispersity index (PI) of 1.62 (GPC analysis) was purchased from Nature Works LLC, U.S.A. PEBA used in this work was purchased from the Arkema Company, having the trade name Pebax Rnew, made of a flexible polyether and a rigid polyamide obtained from renewable resources. Three different grades of PEBA including Pebax Rnew 72R53, Pebax Rnew 55R53, and Pebax Rnew 35R53 were used in the study.
Ethylene-methyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate (EMA-GMA) terpolymer containing 8% of glycidyl methacrylate is a product of the Arkema Company with a trade name Lotader AX 8900, obtained from Quadra Chemicals, Canada. Chemical structures of these polymers used for the blends are illustrated in Scheme 1.

Scheme 1

Scheme 1. Illustration of the Chemical Structure of the Three Polymers Used

2.2 Preparation of the Blends

Prior to blending, all the materials were dried overnight in the oven, the PLA at 80 °C and the PEBA and EMA-GMA at 60 °C, respectively. Blends of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA of varying compositions were melt-processed by a microcompounder (DSM-Xplore, Netherlands). The length and L/D of the screws are of 150 mm and 18, respectively. The barrel volume of the machine is 15 cm3. The extrusion was performed at a barrel temperature of 190 °C in a screw speed at 100 rpm. After processing for total 3 min, a preheated cylinder was used to transfer the molten blend material to a preheated injection molder to prepare various test specimens. Also the neat PLA was subjected to the mixing treatment so as to have the same thermal history as the blends.

2.3 Testing and Characterization

2.3.1 Impact Strength and Elongation

Notched Izod impact strength was measured with the help of Testing Machine Inc. (TMI) instrument according to ASTM D256. Tensile properties of the blends were determined by testing the samples on Instron universal testing machine (model 3382) at room temperature, with a tensile test rate of 50 mm/min as per ASTM standard D 638. At least six notched samples were measured for impact strength and 5 samples for tensile strength and elongation. Average values with standard deviations are reported.

2.3.2 Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA)

DMA was conducted on a DMA Q800 from TA Instruments using a dual-cantilever clamp with a mode of frequency sweep/temperature ramp at the frequency of 1 Hz and oscillating amplitude of 15 μm. The samples (dimensions 12.7 × 63.5 × 3.2 mm) were heated from −50 to 120 °C at a heating rate of 3 °C/min.

2.3.3 Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)

DSC measurements were performed on a TA Q200 DSC instrument under N2 atmosphere. First, the samples were heated to 190 °C with heating rate of 20 °C/min, followed by isothermal step for 3 min before quenching to −100 °C at a rate of 50 °C/min. The second heating scans were monitored between −100 to 190 °C at a heating rate of 10 °C/min to determine glass transition temperature (Tg), cold crystallization temperature (Tcc), crystallization temperature (Tc), and melting temperature (Tm). Then, the samples were cooled to −100 °C again at a rate of 5 °C/min to characterize the crystallization behavior.

2.3.4 Contact Angle Measurements

The contact angle measurements were obtained using a custom-made system. The system was designed using a fluorescent light bulb, adjustable stage (Newport Optics), an analog CCD camera (EHD imaging) and FlashBus Spectrim Lite framegrabber (Integral Technlologies). The images were processed using the contact angle measurements (CAM) module from the Multiskop software (Optrel) to determine the precise contact angle for each sample that was measured.

2.3.5 Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)

The morphology of the blends was observed using SEM XL30 ESEM FEG (FEI Co.). The samples were cryo-fractured using liquid nitrogen. The fractured specimen was mounted on an aluminum stub using a conductive paint and sputter coated with gold prior to fractographic examination. In addition, to study the detailed phase structure of the ternary blends, the cryo-fractured surfaces were also etched by selectively dissolving PEBA phase in a solvent mixture (1-propanol/1-butanol = 3:1). The solvent extraction was performed at 45 °C for over 48 h under vigorous stirring. Different zones of the specimens’ fracture surfaces obtained from notched Izod impact test were also characterized by SEM.

2.3.6 Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM)

AFM instrument, Multimode 8 from Bruker Nano Inc., CA, U.S.A., equipped with a Nanoscope V controller and Nanoscope Software, version 8.15, was used for the AFM measurements. Image processing and data analysis were performed using Nanoscope Analysis software. Imaging at Tapping mode and Peak Force Tapping (PFT) Mode was done with RTESPA Si Cantilevers with spring constant of 40 N/m (Bruker AFM probes, CA, U.S.A.) in air. DMT modulus measurements were done by calibrating the cantilevers with fused silica standard sample. PeakForce Quantitative Nanomechanical Property Mapping (PF-QNM) AFM was done at constant oscillation of the sample at 2 kHz using amplitude of 150 nm. The specimens for AFM imaging were prepared by cryo-microtoming with a tungsten knife to create a perfect plane face using Leica Microtome, Germany equipped with a cryo-chamber.

3 Results and Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

3.1 Tensile and Impact Properties

Figure 1 presents the tensile stress–strain curves of the neat PLA, binary blends and PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (Pebax 55R53) ternary blends. Figure 2 summarizes the tensile strength and modulus of the neat PLA, the binary blends and the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blends at different wt % formulations. The neat PLA is a brittle polymer with poor ductility and high stiffness. Figure 1 showed that the neat PLA deformed in a typical brittle fashion without obvious yielding under tensile stress. The tensile strength of the PLA was above 70 MPa, while the elongation at break was only around 4%. Compared to the neat PLA, the ductility of PLA was improved by the addition of the PEBA and EMA-GMA elastomers with reduction in strength and modulus. All the blends underwent distinct yielding followed by considerable cold drawing during the tensile test, indicating that the brittle fracture of PLA changed to a ductile fracture with the incorporation of the PEBA and EMA-GMA. At the same time, it is shown in Figure 2 that the tensile strength and modulus of the blends also suffered reduction with the addition of PEBA and EMA-GMA elastomers. The decrease of the strength and modulus for the blends shown in Figure 2 are attributed to the presence of soft PEBA and EMA-GMA elastomers.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Tensile stress–strain curves of neat PLA, binary blend, and PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blends.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Tensile properties of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blends as a function of the weight fraction: (A) Neat PLA; (B) PLA/PEBA(80/20); (C) PLA/EMA-GMA(80/20); (D) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/10/20); (E)PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/15/15); (F) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/20/10).

Figure 3 summarizes the impact strength and the elongation at break of neat PLA, PLA/PEBA binary blends and PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blends as a function of the weight fraction. In the binary blends, the PLA/PEBA (80/20) blend showed increased elongation at break up to 26.2%. During the tensile stress progress, debonding will occur at the particle–matrix interface due to the limited compatibility of the components. The interfacial cavitations caused by debonding create a stress state being beneficial for the initiation of multiple matrix shear yielding of PLA matrix. Similar tensile phenomena and mechanism was also suggested by Bitinis et al. in the PLA/NR blends and Han et al. in PLA/Poly(ethylene oxide-b-amide-12) blends. (37, 45) However, as shown in Figure 3, only limited improvement in impact strength was achieved for the PLA/PEBA binary blends. Relatively large size dispersed phases and weak interfacial adhesion of the immiscible PLA/PEBA blend results in the limited improvement in impact strength. Ethylene-acrylic ester-glycidyl methacrylate terpolymers with epoxy group have been widely studied as a single impact modifier for the PLA. (13, 14, 31, 32) While using the EMA-GMA alone as a modifier for the PLA, higher improvement in both elongation and impact strength was achieved compared to the PLA/PEBA (80/20) blend. The improved toughness and ductility can be attributed to the better compatibility of the PLA and EMA-GMA phases, which were also noticed in other works. (13, 14, 31, 32)

Figure 3

Figure 3. Notched Izod impact strength and percent elongation at break of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blends as a function of the weight fraction: (A) Neat PLA; (B) PLA/PEBA(80/20); (C) PLA/EMA-GMA(80/20); (D) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/10/20); (E)PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/15/15); (F) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/20/10).

Excellent tensile toughness was obtained for the ternary PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA blends. As shown in Figure 3, all the ternary blend formulations showed higher elongation compared to the neat PLA and binary blends. The elongation at break increased with the increasing content of EMA-GMA in the ternary blend. The PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend showed the highest elongation of 72.7%, which is almost 20 times higher than that of the neat PLA. Interestingly, it was clearly evident that the impact strength of the ternary blends did not follow the same trend as the elongation. Tremendous increase in the impact strength was achieved in the case of super tough PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend with a value of 410 J/m exhibiting partial impact break behavior. Yet, the impact strength of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20) and PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/15/15) blends was found to be even lower than that of PLA/EMA-GMA (80/20) binary blend. These interesting results indicated the materials exhibit different deformation mechanism under different loading conditions of tensile and impact test. It is well-known that the tensile testing is usually performed at a constant low strain-rate condition. However, the impact testing is carried out at remarkably high speed. (19, 45) Under the high speed, the notched impact test samples will be very sensitive for the interfacial adhesion. In the PLA/EMA-GMA (80/20) binary blend and PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend, the different phases showed better interfacial adhesion compared with other formulations. Consequently, they showed higher impact strength. At the same time, it also implied that the phase morphology of the blend played an important role on the toughness of the blends. As discussed in following results, a unique “multiple stacked structure” with suitable interfacial adhesion of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) played a more effective role in enhancing the impact toughness compared to the other blends.
To develop supertough PLA based blends without greatly sacrificing the stiffness and renewability of PLA, different grades of the PEBA with varying renewable contents and stiffness were also evaluated in two selected ternary blend formulations: the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) and the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20). Three typical grades PEBA (Pebax 72R53, Pebax 55R53, and Pebax 35R53) were selected. As reported by the Arkema, the renewable contents and stiffness of the PEBA decrease in the following order: Pebax 72R53 > Pebax 55R53 > Pebax 35R53. Figure 4 summarizes the mechanical properties of the ternary blends with different grades of PEBA at two selected formulations. In the case of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20) blend with different grades of PEBA, the stiffness of PEBA was found to play a significant role in deciding the toughness and flexibility.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Impact strength and elongation properties of the (a) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20) and (b) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) with different grade PEBA: (A) Neat PLA, (B) Blend with Pebax 72R53, (C) Blend with Pebax 55R53, (D) Blend with Pebax 35R53.

As shown in Figure 4a, the elongation and impact strength increased with the decreasing stiffness of PEBA. However, interestingly, the stiffness of the PEBA showed no big difference in the impact strength for the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) formulation. As shown in Figure 4b, the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA 72R53 (70/20/10) blend showed even higher impact strength compared to the blend with low stiffness grade of PEBA. This result is completely different from the trend observed in the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20) ternary blends. This phenomenon suggested that the phase behavior of the ternary blend played an important role in increasing the toughness of the materials and is explained in the later sections.

3.2 Miscibility of the Blends

The miscibility of the components in the blend determines the phase behavior and interfacial compatibility of the blends, which has great influence on the mechanical properties of the materials. Therefore, dynamic mechanical analysis was carried out to assess the miscibility of the polymer blends. Figure 5a and b shows the Tanδ and storage modulus (E′) curves of the neat polymers and the blends. As shown in Figure 5a, the neat PLA exhibited a Tanδ peak at about 71.8 °C, which was ascribed to its glass transition. The peaks shifted slightly toward each other for the PLA/EMA-GMA binary blend, indicating the partial miscibility between the components. For the PLA/PEBA binary blends, no obvious change in the peak temperature was noticed, suggesting the poor miscibility of the PLA and PEBA. In addition, a huge difference between the peak intensity of the blends was observed. The PLA/EMA-GMA binary blend showed higher peak intensity compared to the PLA/PEBA binary blend with the same amount of PLA content in the blends. This result suggested that the amorphous part of PLA in the PLA/EMA-GMA binary blend was higher than the PLA/PEBA binary blend. It indicated that the presence of the EMA-GMA more effectively confined the crystallization of PLA due to the optimum level of compatibility between the phases.
As for the ternary blends, it was noticed that the Tg values of both the EMA-GMA and PEBA components in the blends shifted to high temperature, especially for the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend. This result indicated the improved miscibility, which could most likely be due to the reaction between the glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) group with the end function group of the PLA and PEBA. During the high temperature melt processing, the chemical reaction between GMA groups on the reactive elastomer and the terminal carboxyl and hydroxyl groups of polymer such as the PLA and PEBA has been clearly identified in the literatures. (15, 16, 31, 32, 46, 47) In the studies of the PLA/EMA-GMA binary blend, Li et al. (46) and Jiang et al. (47) have clearly confirmed reaction between the epoxy group of the EMA-GMA and terminal carboxyl and hydroxyl groups of the PLA through the direct FTIR evidence. As pointed out by Zhang et al. in their studies, (31, 32) the reaction between the terminal carboxyl group of the PLA and the epoxide groups in the EMA-GMA was the major possible compatibilization reaction at the present processing temperature. Compared to the ring-opening synthesized PLA, the carboxylic acid/epoxy reaction has also been well established and widely used for reactive compatibilization for condensation-polymerized polymers such as PEBA. (48) Consequently, in the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blends, the EMA-GMA played unique dual roles as an effective toughening agent and a reactive compatibilizer, which significantly improved the toughness of the PLA blends. The improved compatibility of the EMA-GMA phase with the PLA and PEBA phases was also clearly demonstrated in the following SEM and DSC results.
Figure 5b shows the storage modulus curves of the neat polymer and the blends. The glass transition of the neat PLA started at 50–60 °C, and the storage modulus decreased sharply. The cold crystallization was observed to occur at around 135 °C and as a result of the cold crystallization, the storage modulus increased. In accordance with the tan δ curve, no obvious change in the transition temperature of the PLA was observed in the PLA/PEBA blend due to the immiscibility of the two components. However, the cold crystallization temperature of PLA in PLA/EMA-GMA binary blend and the ternary PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA blends shifted to high temperature, which was consistent with the following DSC results. This result indicated that the crystallization of PLA was confined in these blends. The E′ of the blends decreased at the room temperature due to the soft EMA-GMA and PEBA introduced in the blends.

Figure 5

Figure 5. DMA traces of PLA blended with PEBA (Pebax 55R53) elastomer at various concentrations: (a) tan δ versus temperature; (b) storage modulus versus temperature curves.

3.3 Thermal and Crystallization Behaviors

Both the PLA and PEBA are semicrystalline polymers. The physical properties of the PLA are greatly dependent on the solid-state morphology and its crystallinity. (15, 44) Accordingly, to make clear conclusions on the mechanism involved in improving the toughness, it is important to study the thermal and crystallization behavior of the blends, especially the crystallization behavior of the PLA phase. Figure 6 presents the melting behavior of the neat PLA and blends after quenching. Figure 7 shows the crystallization curve of the neat PLA and ternary blends at cooling rate of 5 °C/min. The detail results of DSC are summarized in Table 1, which mainly shows the thermal behavior of the PLA in the blends.
As shown in Figure 6, the cold crystallization peak of the PLA in the blends was noted to shift toward high temperature, especially for the PLA/EMA-GMA (80/20) and the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blends. At the same time, no clear exothermal peak attributed to crystallization of the PLA was observed in Figure 7 for the PLA/EMA-GMA (80/20) blend, which was consistent with the DMA results. For the ternary blends, it was also found that the crystallization temperature of the PLA shifted to low temperature with the increase of the EMA-GMA contents. These results indicated that the presence of the EMA-GMA decreased the ability of the PLA to crystallize. The confined crystallization behavior of the PLA/EMA-GMA blend may suggest the good compatibility of the two components. As discussed in the previous section, the EMA-GMA and PLA showed partial miscibility due to the reactive processing at high temperature. The interaction between the EMA-GMA and PLA segments will confine the crystallization of PLA because of the dilute effect of the EMA-GMA phase. In contrast, for the PLA/PEBA (80/20) binary blend with poor miscibility, the crystallization of the PLA was not influenced apparently. The thermal behavior of PLA in the blends indicated the different miscibility among the components in the blends. At the same time, it was also noticed that the crystallization of the PEBA was confined in the blends. This result indicated that there was segment interaction among the different phases which changed the thermal behavior of the components. The DSC results in accordance with the DMA and SEM results further verified the miscibility of the EMA-GMA with the PLA or PEBA phases.

Figure 6

Figure 6. DSC heating curves of the neat PLA and the blends after quenched: (a) neat PLA ;(b) PLA/EMA-GMA (80/20); (c) PLA/PEBA (80/20); (d) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20); (e) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10); (f) neat PEBA (Pebax Rnew 55R53).

Figure 7

Figure 7. DSC cooling curves of the neat PLA and the blends: (a) neat PLA; (b) PLA/EMA-GMA(80/20); (c) PLA/PEBA(80/20); (d) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/10/20); (e) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/20/10); (f) neat PEBA(Pebax Rnew 55R53).

Table 1. Thermal Properties of the Neat Polymers, the Binary Blends, and the Ternary Blends
samplesTg(PLA) (°C)Tcc (°C)Tc(PLA) (°C)ΔHc(PLA) (J/g)Tc(PEBA) (°C)ΔHc(PEBA) (J/g)Tm (°C)ΔHm (J/g)
PLA62.098.695.615.8  168.245.3
PLA/EMA-GMA(80/20)61.0109.2    169.528.9
PLA/PEBA(80/20)61.2102.992.13.6146.70.6168.538.0
PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20)61.8108.588.66.0146.40.3169.432.4
PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10)61.3109.388.53.5  169.526.3
PEBA(Pebax 55R53)   30.9151.130.3172.536.8

3.4 Impact Fractured Surface Morphology of the Blends

To further study the toughening effect of the PLA binary and ternary blends, the fracture surface of the impact specimens was investigated under the SEM and the micrographs are shown in Figure 8. The neat PLA showed a smooth and featureless fracture surface without much deformation, indicating a typical brittle fracture behavior. (33) On the fracture surfaces of the binary blend with 20 wt % PEBA, multiple fracture surfaces replaced the single fracture lines, indicating the impact strength was improved. The toughening effect in this case remained moderate due to the poor compatibility between the phases. Some voids due to the pullout of dispersed PEBA particles were clearly observed, which suggested the poor interfacial adhesion of the PLA and the PEBA phases. In comparison to the PLA/PEBA (80/20) blend, the surface of the blend with 20 wt % EMA-GMA showed increased roughness and some fibrils were discernible on the fracture surfaces. No obvious interface between the different phases was observed, indicating the EMA-GMA had better compatibility with the PLA than PEBA. This good compatibility between the PLA and the EMA-GMA phases can be ascribed to the reactive melt blending process at high temperature.
In case of the ternary blends, more and longer fibril threads were noticed, which served as a clear evidence for the ductile fractures. Especially for the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend, significant plastic deformation of the PLA matrix was observed, which was a characteristic of shear yielding. The corresponding amount of plastic deformation was very effectively dissipated the fracture energy, which resulted in greatly improved impact strength at room temperature. The impact fractured surfaces of the ternary blends with 10 and 15 wt % EMA-GMA exhibited morphologies different from that of the blend with 20 wt % EMA-GMA. The dispersed minor PEBA phases were clearly distinguishable from the matrix for the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20) and PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/15/15) blends. The voids resulting from the pullout of dispersed PEBA phases were still clearly observed. The matrix surrounding the voids showed only limited deformation. These results implied that the weak interfacial adhesion between the dispersed PEBA phases at these particular weight ratios of the blending components lead to similar results as that of the PLA/PEBA binary blend. In contrast, the dispersed particles in the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) were not clearly defined from the PLA matrix. The matrix near the dispersed phases underwent large deformations.

Figure 8

Figure 8. SEM images of impact-fracture surface of the binary blend and PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blend with various weight compositions.

3.5 Phase Morphology of the Blend

It is well-known that the phase morphology has significant influence on the properties of the multiphase blend. As mentioned previously, the ternary blends of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA showed improved mechanical properties compared to the neat PLA and the binary blends. Moreover, the toughness and the flexibility of the ternary blends showed a significant dependence on the composition of the blend components. Therefore, the phase morphology of the ternary blends was studied in an attempt to establish the relationship between the morphology and the resulting performance.
To figure out the toughening mechanism responsible for imparting the supertoughness, the phase morphologies of the binary and the ternary blends were thoroughly studied by the SEM. The SEM images of the cryofractured surface of the PLA binary and the ternary blends with various weight compositions are presented in Figure 9. A clear, phase-separated morphology with the PEBA dispersed in the PLA matrix was observed for the PLA/PEBA binary blend from the SEM results, which indicated that the PLA and PEBA were immiscible. Compared to the PLA/PEBA binary blend, a relatively good interfacial adhesion was found for the PLA/EMA-GMA binary blend, which indicated a good compatibility of the two phases. In a nonreactive ternary blend system with two minor components, generally three different morphologies can be expected and usually reported in the literatures: (1) separate dispersion of the minor phases; (2) stack formation/partial encapsulation; (3) core–shell structure. (25-27) In the SEM micrograph of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20) blend, mainly separate dispersion of the minor phases with large size distribution was the major observation, but a small number of simple single-stacked structures were also observed in the image. It is to be noted that the droplets with larger size showed clear interface with the PLA matrix, which was similar to the appearance of the PEBA particles in the PLA/PEBA binary blend. Considering the composition of this formulation and morphological characters, the larger dispersed particles could be attributed to the PEBA domains. Similarly, separate minor phases with relatively uniform size were observed in the case of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/15/15) blend. On the other hand, for the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) ternary blend exhibiting super high toughness, a special “multiple stack formation” structure with two dispersed polymers stuck together was observed to be the dominant morphology. By referring to the blend morphology as “multiple stack formation” we mean to describe that the dispersed particles are distinctly stuck together in PLA matrix but not necessarily like a stack of coins.

Figure 9

Figure 9. SEM images of cryofractured surface of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA blend with various weight compositions.

This distinct morphology of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend noticed from AFM and SEM images is represented in Figure 10. Phase image obtained from AFM is usually used to reveal material contrast in polymer blends as it is a precise method to detect the structures in the materials in a nanometer range. Partial encapsultation or the stack formation was also clearly evident from the AFM, corroborating the SEM observations. Multiple dispersed small particles were found to be stuck together in one larger droplet. The SEM and AFM results clearly indicated the unique “multiple stacked structure” formed by the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) formulation. At the same time, as shown in Figure 10A, the large domains seemed to have good interfacial adhesion with the matrix, while the small size particles were detached from the matrix showing distinct interfaces. As discussed in the binary PLA/EMA-GMA blend, the EMA-GMA showed good compatibility with PLA matrix. Therefore, here the larger particles having good interfacial adhesion with the PLA matrix could be attributed to the EMA-GMA, while the small particles with poor interfacial adhesion could be ascribed to the PEBA phase having low content in this formulation. To further clearly distinguish the minor phases, the morphology of the ethched cryofractured surface of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend was also observed under the SEM and the micrograph is shown in Figure 10 (C). During the etching processing, the PEBA phases were selectively etched by the solvent. From Figure 10 (C), the holes, which were ascribed to the etched PEBA phases, can be clearly observed at the interface of the dispersed EMA-GMA and the PLA matrix. Moreover, some voids stacked with the EMA-GMA phases were also observed at the interfaces in the images. This result further confirmed the unique structure of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend.

Figure 10

Figure 10. Detail structure of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend with the SEM and AFM phase images: (A) SEM images of cryofractured surface (4000×), (B) AFM image, (C) SEM images of cryofractured surface after etched (10000×), and (D) the schematic structure.

Several theoretical models have been used to predict the morphology of the ternary polymer blends. (25, 49, 50) Among these models, spreading coefficient model have been widely used in the literatures. On the basis of the concept of a spreading coefficient, Hobbs et al. successfully predicted the morphology of immiscible polymer ternary blend by rewriting the Harkin’s equation. (45)λij is the spreading coefficient of i over j and αij is the interfacial tension between i and ij. For B to be encapsulated by C, λCB must be positive. In the case when both λCB and λBC are negative, B and C will tend to form separated phases. Here, the morphologies of the ternary blends were predicted using the spreading coefficient theory. Since there is no related interfacial tension data for each pairs of the PLA, EMA-GMA, and PEBA are available from the literatures, we have calculated the interfacial tension values based on the surface tension values measured by the contact angle. The contact angle and surface tension values for all the components of the blend can be referred in Support Information Table S1. Since the melt blending was carried out at essentially higher temperatures, the use of interfacial tension values calculated from surface tension values requires to be extrapolated to the processing temperature. To do that, a temperature coefficient of −0.06 mJ m–2 K–1 was used as adopted in many of the literatures. The interfacial values and spreading coefficient calculated for the polymer pairs are listed in Table 2.
Contrary to our expectation, the theoretical calculations predicted a different morphology that was not consistent with the real morphologies shown in Figure 10. As shown in the table, the spreading coefficient calculated from the extrapolated interfacial tension values reveal complete encapsulation morphology with the PEBA forming the shell and the EMA-GMA forming the core. As these equations are originally proposed for nonreactive blends based on static interfacial tensions, it is important to mention that the predictability is limited in case of the reactive compatibilized blends under shear flowing conditions. It is well-known that the interfacial tensions of polymer pairs can be significantly changed by in situ reaction at the interface during the reactive blending. Fleischer et al. pointed out that the interfacial tension could be reduced up to 70% through the interfacial modification with a end-functionalized interfacial agent. (51)As it can be seen, the interfacial tension values obtained for the PLA/EMA-GMA pair is higher under static nonreactive situation, but in actual fact it would be much lower considering the reaction of the EMA-GMA with the PLA. The same is true for the EMA-GMA/PEBA pair as well. In fact, with the SEM observations, a good interface was found to be present in the PLA/EMA-GMA binary blend in comparison to the PLA/PEBA binary blend, which could be attributed to the reaction of epoxy groups of EMA-GMA with carboxyl groups of the PLA. The DSC and DMA results also suggested that there was improved compatibility between the EMA-GMA and the other components in the blends. The change of interfacial tension and composition under melt processing condition has been widely used to manipulate the morphology of the multiphase blends. In blends of polyamide 6/polycarbonate/poly [styrene-b-(ethylene-co-butylene)-b-styrene], Horiuchi et al. demonstrated that interfacial compatibilization reaction between the components during melt-mixing induces the change of the phase morphology. (27) In a model ternary blend of polyamide, polypropylene and polystyrene, Wang et al. (52) and Omonov et al. (53) both indicated in their respective studies that the morphology of the blend has been changed because of the change of interfacial tension by adding the compatibilizer. Therefore, experimental technique measuring the dynamic interfacial tension existing between the polymer pairs may be more useful for the melt compounded reactive systems due to the changed interfacial tension data and influence of shear flow on the delicate balance of interfacial tensions within the blend. In the present PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA blends, the melt reaction of the EMA-GMA with the PLA and the PEBA will significantly decrease the interfacial tension of the component pairs. Owing to the interfacial reaction, EMA-GMA phases will prefer to be located in the interface between the PLA and the PEBA in the blend. A unique “multiple stack structure” was therefore formed at an appropriate blend ratio of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10).
Table 2. Interfacial Tension Values at Room Temperature and Extrapolated to 190 °C and Spreading Coefficient
 interfacial tension, γij (mN/m)  
polymer pairsusing harmonic mean equationusing geometric mean equationinterfacial tension, γij (mN/m) at 190 C using geometric mean equationspreading coefficient, λij
PLA/EMA-GMA (γab)3.611.845.91λbc = −7.53
PLA/PEBA (γac)1.690.851.40λcb = 1.49
EMA-GMA/PEBA (γbc)1.400.703.01λab = −4.30

3.6 Toughening Mechanism

It has been widely accepted that the effciency of the elastomer in toughening the polymer blend is significantly dependent on the interfacial adhesion and the cavition process. It is well recognized that the interfacial adhesion between the dispersed domians and matrix play a very delicate role in toughening the blend. To achieve high toughening effect, the dispersed particles should have suitable interfacial adhension with the matrix to improve the phase disperson and to inhibit the crack formation. Poor interfacial adhesion will induce phase segregation and can not afford the crack formation. However, a too strong interfical adhesion usually is not benefical for toughness as it does not allow the stress to be relieved via interfacil debonding. Debonding at the interface between the dispersed patrticles and matrix is an important cause for microvoiding, which is a key step for the innitiation of matrix deformation. In polymer/elastomer blends, the dispersed modifer particles act as stress concentrators as they possesss different elastic properties compared to the matrix. A higher hydrostatic or triaxial stress is applied to the particles, which will result in void formation through internal cavition or debonding. Consequently, a suitable phase structure with optimium interfacial adhesion is very important for the toughening of the polymer/elastomer blends.
As discussed previously, the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) formulation with a unique phase structure compared to other formualtions showed superior impact strength. To establish the toughening mechanism of the blends, AFM PeakForce QNM mode was first used to map the relative DMT modulus of different phases in the blend. Figure 11 shows the 10 μm AFM scan of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) displaying DMT modulus, adhesion and deformation. The softer domains of the PEBA and the EMA-GMA appear darker in the DMT modulus image revealing the realtive modulus of the domains to be ∼1.2 GPa and the PLA with ∼2.2 GPa as shown in Figure 11. As expected, the PEBA and the EMA-GMA particles dispersed in the blends deformed at a higher rate compared to the PLA matrix, and appeared brigher on the scale bar with a maximum deformation value of 1.3 nm. This difference in elastic properties will be benefical for the microformation during fracture process. Interfacial debonding will be a key step for the initiation of the microformation in the blend.

Figure 11

Figure 11. AFM images of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) ternary blend obtained under PeakForce QNM mode.

The impact fractured morphologies of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20) and the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/20/10) blends in the vicinity of the notch were further characterized using SEM and are shown in Figure 12. In the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20) blend, it was obvious that strong interfacial debonding occurred due to the weak interfacial adhesion of the PEBA particles with the PLA matrix. Detached particles and large voids belonging to the PEBA phase was clearly observed in the image, which was due to the poor interfacial adhension of the PEBA and the PLA phases. During the impact fracutre process, the presence of poor interfacial adhesion promoted the crack formation, which resulted in very limited improvement in the toughness. However, a different deformation phenomema was observed for the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend. Similar interfacial debonding was also noticed in the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend however a significant difference from the previous PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20) blend was that the dispersed domains were found to be still adhered to the PLA matrix through small oval cavities. These results indicated that although interfacial debonding occurred between the phases, the balanced interfacial adhesion of the dispersed phases were still high enough to inhibit the crack formation. This different deformation phenomema resulted in completely different toughness properties and tremendously enhanced the impact strength.
As shown in Figure 10 and Figure 12, the partial wetting of the PEBA on the EMA-GMA partilces resulted in special structure with mutiple PEBA particles stacked with the EMA-GMA particles between the PLA and EMA-GMA interface. From the previous analysis it was clear that the EMA-GMA had good compatibilty with the PLA matrix due to the reactions occurring at high temperature. The good interfacial adhesion of the EMA-GMA particle with the PLA matrix will effectively faciliate the stress transfer during the fracture process, which can prevent the crack initation and propagation. This will help in considerable matrix deformation and result in substanial energey consumption. (30) On the other hand, the mutiple PEBA particels with poor interfacial adhesion located at the interface will weaken the interfacial adhesion to a certain extent. Consequently, during the development of fracture process, interfacial debonding of PEBA particles from the PLA will result in the mutiple microvoid formation, which will easily trigger the deformation of the surrounding matrix. This delicate balance of interfacial adhesion and debonding was believed to play a very positive role in improving the toughenss of PLA matrix. At the same time, the deceased size of the PEBA particles shown in the micrograph will be also beneficial for improving the impact strength.
In PLA-based toughnening blends, a good cooperation of interfacial debonding and suitable level of interfacical adhesion played an important role to improve the toughenss of PLA matrix. (7-11) In a PLA/hyperbranched poly(ester amide) (HBP) blend, Lin et al. also found that the interplay of moderate interfacial H-bonding allowing interfacial debonding between the HBP and PLA phases resulted in high toughness of the materials. (12) Similar effect was also found in a PLA/poly(ether) urethane/titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanopartiles composites. (54)The selective interfacially localized nano-TiO2 induced moderately weakend interfacial adhesion, which was benifacial for the interfacial debonding. Recently, in the PLA/natural rubber/Clay biocomposites, Bitinis et al. also found the presence of the nanoclay at the interface of the PLA and the natural rubber phases helping in hindering the formation of voids, which significantly improved the toughness of the composites. (37) Kim et al. (55, 56) have proposed that the multiple cavitaion process in the ternary blend systems significantly enhanced the shear flowing in the matrix. Consequently, the complementary role of the PEBA and the EMA-GMA phases in the unique “mutiple stack structure” during the fracture process contributed to superhigh toughenss achieved. This unique phase structures and toughening mechanism also explain the mechancial properteis of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/20/10) blend with different grades of PEBA as shown in Figure 4. During the impact process, the stiffness of PEBA had no obvious effect on the interfacial adhesion and debonding in the unique “mutiple stack structure”. Consequently, the stiffness of PEBA had no significant influence on the toughness. In summary, a unique synergetic effect of the PEBA and the EMA-GMA phases in the “multiple stacked structure” were believed to contribute the excellent toughness of the blend.

Figure 12

Figure 12. Schematic and impact surface graphs of the blends near the notch.

Conclusions

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This Research Article reports on the development of supertough ternary PLA renewable blends with a mixture of morphologies formed by reactive melt blending of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blends. DMA and DSC analysis revealed that the PLA/PEBA were immiscible, while the PLA/EMA-GMA binary blends showed partial miscibility. Significant enhancement of the toughness of the PLA was achieved by the ternary blend of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA. Supertough PLA ternary blend exhibiting the impact strength of ∼500 J/m, with partial break impact behavior was obtained by optimizing the blending ratio at 20 wt % EMA-GMA and 10 wt % PEBA. Different phase morphologies were manipulated by interfacial reaction and composition changing of the ternary blends. A unique “multiple stacked structure” with partial encapsulation of the EMA-GMA and the PEBA minor phases was observed for the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10). Morphological studies showed that synergistic effect of good interfacial adhesion and interfacial cavitations followed by massive shear yielding of the PLA matrix contributed to the enormous toughening effect observed in the ternary blends.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Contact angle and surface tension values calculated for individual blend components are given in the Supporting Information, Table S1. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Authors
    • Manjusri Misra - Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre (BDDC), Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Crop Science Building, Guelph, N1G 2W1, Ontario CanadaSchool of Engineering, University of Guelph, Thornbrough Building, Guelph, N1G 2W1, Ontario Canada Email: [email protected]
    • Amar K. Mohanty - Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre (BDDC), Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Crop Science Building, Guelph, N1G 2W1, Ontario CanadaSchool of Engineering, University of Guelph, Thornbrough Building, Guelph, N1G 2W1, Ontario Canada Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Kunyu Zhang - Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre (BDDC), Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Crop Science Building, Guelph, N1G 2W1, Ontario Canada
    • Vidhya Nagarajan - Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre (BDDC), Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Crop Science Building, Guelph, N1G 2W1, Ontario CanadaSchool of Engineering, University of Guelph, Thornbrough Building, Guelph, N1G 2W1, Ontario Canada
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgment

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The authors are grateful for the financial support from (1) the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)—New Directions and Alternative Renewable Fuels research program; (2) the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation (MEDI), Ontario Research Fund—Research Excellence Round 4 program and (3) the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Canada NCE AUTO21 program.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 56 other publications.

  1. 1
    Yu, L.; Dean, K.; Li, L. Polymer Blends and Composites from Renewable Resources Prog. Polym. Sci. 2006, 36, 576 602
  2. 2
    Williams, C. K.; Hillmyer, M. A. Polymers from Renewable Resources: A Perspective for a Special Issue of Polymer Reviews Polym. Rev. 2008, 48, 1 10
  3. 3
    Lim, L. T.; Auras, R.; Rubino, M. Processing Technologies for Poly(Lactic Acid) Prog. Polym. Sci. 2008, 33, 820 852
  4. 4
    Drumright, R. E.; Gruber, P. R.; Henton, D. E. Polylactic Acid Technology Adv. Mater. 2000, 12, 1841 1846
  5. 5
    Auras, R.; Harte, B.; Selke, S. An Overview of Polylactides as Packaging Materials Macromol. Biosci. 2004, 4, 835 864
  6. 6
    Anderson, K. S.; Schreck, K. M.; Hillmyer, M. A. Toughening Polylactide Polym. Rev. 2008, 48, 85 108
  7. 7
    Liu, H.; J. Zhang, J. Research Progress in Toughening Modification of Poly (lactic acid) J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 2011, 49, 1051 1083
  8. 8
    Kfoury, G.; Raquez, J.; Hassouna, F.; Odent, J.; Toniazzo, V.; Ruch, D.; Dubois, P. Recent Advances in High Performance Poly(Lactide): From “Green” Plasticization to Super-tough Materials via (Reactive) Compounding Front. Chem. 2013, 1, 1 45
  9. 9
    Jiang, L.; Wolcott, M. P.; Zhang, J. Study of Biodegradable Polylactide/Poly(Butylenes Adipate-co-terephthalate) Blends Biomacromolecules 2006, 7, 199 207
  10. 10
    Anderson, K. S.; Lim, S. H.; Hillmyer, M. A. Toughening of Polylactide by Melt Blending with Linear Low-Density Polyethylene J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2003, 89, 3757 3768
  11. 11
    Anderson, K. S.; Hillmyer, M. A. The Influence of Block Copolymer Microstructure on the Toughness of Compatibilized Polylactide/Polyethylene Blends Polymer 2004, 45, 8809 8823
  12. 12
    Lin, Y.; Zhang, K. Y.; Dong, Z. M.; Dong, L. S.; Li, Y. S. Study of Hydrogen-Bonded Blend of Polylactide with Biodegradable Hyperbranched Poly(Ester Amide) Macromolecules 2007, 40, 6257 6267
  13. 13
    Li, Y. J.; Shimizu, H. Toughening of Polylactide by Melt Blending with a Biodegradable Poly(Ether)urethane Elastomer Macromol. Biosci. 2007, 7, 921 928
  14. 14
    Bhardwaj, R.; Mohanty, A. K. Modification of Brittle Polylactide by Novel Hyperbranched Polymer-Based Nanostructures Biomacromolecules 2007, 8, 2476 2484
  15. 15
    Hashima, K.; Nishitsuji, S.; Inoue, T. Structure-Properties of Super-Tough PLA Alloy with Excellent Heat Resistance Polymer 2010, 51, 3934 3939
  16. 16
    Oyama, H. T. Super-Tough Poly(Lactic Acid) Materials: Reactive Blending with Ethylene Copolymer Polymer 2009, 50, 747 751
  17. 17
    Zhang, K.; Ran, X.; Wang, X.; Han, C.; Han, L.; Wen, X.; Zhuang, Y.; Dong, L. Improvement in Toughness and Crystallization of Poly(l-Lactic Acid) by Melt Blending with Poly(Epichlorohydrin-co-ethylene oxide) Polym. Eng. Sci. 2011, 51, 2370 2380
  18. 18
    Broz1, M. E.; VanderHart, D. L.; Washburn, N. R. Structure and Mechanical Properties of Poly(d,l-Lactic Acid)/Poly(ε-Caprolactone) Blends Biomaterials 2003, 24, 4181 4190
  19. 19
    Robertson, M. L.; Chang, K.; Gramlich, W. M.; Hillmyer, M. A. Toughening of Polylactide with Polymerized Soybean Oil Macromolecules 2010, 43, 1807 1814
  20. 20
    Noda, I.; Satkowski, M. M.; Dowrey, A. E.; Marcott, C. Polymer Alloys of Nodax Copolymers and Poly(Lactic Acid) Macromol. Biosci. 2004, 4, 269 275
  21. 21
    Shibata, M.; Inoue, Y.; Miyoshi, M. Mechanical Properties, Morphology, and Crystallization Behavior of Blends of Poly(l-Lactide) with Poly(Butylene Succinate-co-l-lactate) and Poly(butylene succinate) Polymer 2006, 47, 3557 3564
  22. 22
    Lu, J. M.; Qiu, Z. B.; Yang, W. T. Fully Biodegradable Blends of Poly(l-Lactide) and Poly(Ethylene Succinate): Miscibility, Crystallization, and Mechanical properties Polymer 2007, 48, 4196 4204
  23. 23
    Ojijo, V.; Ray, S. S.; Sadiku, R. Toughening of Biodegradable Polylactide/Poly(Butylene Succinate-co-adipate) Blends via in Situ Reactive Compatibilization ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2013, 5, 4266 4276
  24. 24
    Luzinov, I.; Pagnoulle, C.; Jerome, R. Ternary Polymer Blend with Core–Shell Dispersed Phases: Effect of the Core-forming Polymer on Phase Morphology and Mechanical Properties Polymer 2000, 41, 7099 7109
  25. 25
    Ticiane, S. V.; Augusto, T. M.; Nicole, R. D. Study of Morphologies of PMMA/PP/PS Ternary Blends Macromolecules 2006, 39, 2663 2675
  26. 26
    Joe, R.; Basil, D. F. Control of the Subinclusion Microstructure in HDPE/PS/PMMA Ternary Blends Macromolecules 2000, 33, 6998 7008
  27. 27
    Horiuchi, S.; Matchariyakul, N.; Yase, K.; Kitano, T. Morphology Development through an Interfacial Reaction in Ternary Immiscible Polymer Blends Macromolecules 1997, 30, 3664 3670
  28. 28
    Li, Y.; Shimizu, H. Compatibilization by Homopolymer: Significant Improvements in the Modulus and Tensile Strength of PPC/PMMA Blends by the Addition of a Small Amount of PVAc ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2009, 1, 1650 1655
  29. 29
    Li, L.; Yin, B.; Zhou, Y.; Gong, L.; Yang, M.; Xie, B.; Chen, C. Characterization of PA6/EPDM-g-MA/HDPE Ternary Blends: The Role of Core–Shell Structure Polymer 2012, 53, 3043 3051
  30. 30
    Yin, B.; Li, L.; Zhou, Y.; Gong, L.; Yang, M.; Xie, B. Largely Improved Impact Toughness of PA6/EPDM-g-MA/HDPE Ternary Blends: The Role of Core–shell Particles Formed in Melt Processing on Preventing Micro-crack Propagation Polymer 2013, 54, 1938 1947
  31. 31
    Liu, H.; Chen, F.; Liu, B.; Estep, G.; Zhang, J. Super Toughened Poly(Lactic Acid) Ternary Blends by Simultaneous Dynamic Vulcanization and Interfacial Compatibilization Macromolecules 2010, 43, 6058 6066
  32. 32
    Liu, H.; Song, W.; Chen, F.; Guo, L.; Zhang, J. Interaction of Microstructure and Interfacial Adhesion on Impact Performance of Polylactide (PLA) Ternary Blends Macromolecules 2011, 44, 1513 1522
  33. 33
    Zhang, K.; Mohanty, A. K.; Misra, M. Fully Biodegradable and Biorenewable Ternary Blends from Polylactide, Poly(3-Hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate) and Poly(Butylene Succinate) with Balanced Properties ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2012, 4, 3091 3101
  34. 34
    Ravati, S.; Favis, B. D. Tunable Morphologies for Ternary Blends with Poly(Butylene Succinate): Partial and Complete Wetting Phenomena Polymer 2013, 54, 3271 3281
  35. 35
    Ravati, S.; Favis, B. D. Interfacial Coarsening of Ternary Polymer Blends with Partial and Complete Wetting Structures Polymer 2013, 54, 6739 6751
  36. 36
    Bitinis, N.; Verdejo, R.; Cassagnau, P.; Lopez-Manchado, M. A. Structure and properties of polylactide/natural rubber blends Mater. Chem. Phys. 2011, 129, 823 831
  37. 37
    Bitinis, N.; Sanz, A.; Nogales, A.; Verdejo, R.; Lopez-Manchado, M. A.; Ezquerra, T. A. Deformation Mechanisms in Polylactic Acid/Natural Rubber/Organoclay Bionanocomposites as Revealed by Synchrotron X-ray Scattering Soft Matter 2012, 8, 8990 8997
  38. 38
    Bitinis, N.; Verdejo, R.; Maya, E. M.; Espuche, E.; Cassagnau, P.; Lopez-Manchado, M. A. Physicochemical Properties of Organoclay Filled Polylactic Acid/Natural Rubber Blend Bionanocomposites Compos. Sci. Technol. 2012, 72, 305 313
  39. 39
    Bitinis, N.; Fortunati, E.; Verdejo, R.; Bras, Julien; Kenny, J. M.; Torre, L.; Lopez-Manchado, M. A. Poly(Lactic Acid)/Natural Rubber/Cellulose Nanocrystal Bionanocomposites. Part II: Properties Evaluation Carbohydr. Polym. 2013, 96, 621 627
  40. 40
    Arkema Inc. Products Websites: Pebax Rnew. http://www.pebax.com/en/pebax-range/product-viewer/Pebax-Rnew/ (accessed on Apr 16, 2014) .
  41. 41
    Sheth, J. P.; Xu, J. N.; Wilkes, G. L. Solid State Structure–Property Behavior of Semicrystalline Poly(Ether-Block-Amide) PEBAX Thermoplastic Elastomers Polymer 2003, 44, 743 756
  42. 42
    Eustache, R. P. In Handbook of Condensation Thermoplastic Elastomer; Fakirov, S., Eds; Wiley-VCH: Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2005; Chapter 10, pp 263 280.
  43. 43
    Zhang, W.; Chen, L.; Zhang, Y. Surprising Shape-memory Effect of Polylactide Resulted from Toughening by Polyamide Elastomer Polymer 2009, 50, 1311 1315
  44. 44
    Han, L.; Han, C.; Dong, L. Effect of Crystallization on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Poly[(Ethylene Oxide)-block-(amide-12)]-toughened Poly(Lactic Acid) Blend Polym. Int. 2013, 62, 295 303
  45. 45
    Han, L.; Han, C.; Dong, L. Morphology and Properties of the Biosourced Poly(Lactic Acid)/Poly(Ethylene Oxide-b-amide-12) Blends Polym. Compos. 2013, 34, 122 130
  46. 46
    Dong, W.; Jiang, F.; Zhao, L.; You, J.; Cao, X.; Li, Y. PLLA Microalloys Versus PLLA Nanoalloys: Preparation, Morphologies, and Properties ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2012, 4, 3667 3675
  47. 47
    Feng, Y.; Zhao, G.; Yin, J.; Jiang, W. Reactive Compatibilization of High-Impact Poly(Lactic Acid)/Ethylene Copolymer Blends Catalyzed by N,iN-dimethylstearylamine Polym. Int. 2013,  DOI: 10.1002/pi.4632
  48. 48
    Martin, P.; Devaux, L.; Legras, R.; van Gurp, M.; van Duin, M. Competitive Reactions during Compatibilization of Blends of Polybutyleneterephthalate with Epoxide-containing rubber Polymer 2001, 42, 2463 2478
  49. 49
    Hobbs, S. Y.; Dekkers, M. E. J.; Watkins, V. H. Effect of Interfacial Forces on Polymer Blend Morphologies Polymer 1988, 29, 1598 1602
  50. 50
    Guo, H.; Packirisamy, S.; Gvozdic, N. V.; Meier, D. J. Prediction and Manipulation of the Phase Morphologies of Multiphase Polymer Blends: 1. Ternary Systems Polymer 1997, 38, 785 794
  51. 51
    Fleischer, C. A.; Morales, A. R.; Koberstein, J. T. Interfacial Modification through End Group Complexation in Polymer Blends Macromolecules 1994, 27, 379 385
  52. 52
    Wang, D.; Li, Y.; Xie, X.; Guo, B. Compatibilization and Morphology Development of Immiscible Ternary Polymer Blends Polymer 2011, 52, 191 200
  53. 53
    Omonov, T. S.; Harrats, C.; Groeninckx, G. Co-continuous and Encapsulated Three Phase Morphologies in Uncompatibilized and Reactively Compatibilized Polyamide 6/Polypropylene/Polystyrene Ternary Blends Using Two Reactive Precursors Polymer 2005, 46, 12322 12336
  54. 54
    Xiu, H.; Bai, H.; Huang, M.; Xu, C.; Li, X.; Fu, Q. Selective Localization of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles at the Interface and its Effect on the Impact Toughness of Poly(l-Lactide)/Poly(Ether)urethane Blends Express Polym. Lett. 2013, 7, 261 271
  55. 55
    Kim, G.; Michler, G. Micromechanical Deformation Processes in Toughened and Particle Filled Semicrystalline Polymers: Part 2. Model Representation for Micromechanical Deformation Processes Polymer 1998, 39, 5699 5703
  56. 56
    Kim, G.; Michler, G. Micromechanical Deformation Processes in Toughened and Particle-filled Semicrystalline Polymers: Part 1. Characterization of Deformation Processes in Dependence on Phase Morphology Polymer 1998, 39, 5689 5697

Cited By


This article is cited by 159 publications.

  1. Jun Wang, Alejandra Reyna-Valencia, Basil D. Favis. Surface Migration of Conductive PEBA in Ternary Polymer Blend Films with Different Wetting Morphologies. Macromolecules 2021, 54 (12) , 5607-5617. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.1c00696
  2. Dan-Dan Yang, Cong Wu, Gang Wu, Si-Chong Chen, Yu-Zhong Wang. Toughening of Polylactide with High Tensile Strength via Constructing an Integrative Physical Crosslinking Network Based on Ionic Interactions. Macromolecules 2021, 54 (1) , 291-301. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.0c02181
  3. Charles J. McCutcheon, Boran Zhao, Kailong Jin, Frank S. Bates, Christopher J. Ellison. Crazing Mechanism and Physical Aging of Poly(lactide) Toughened with Poly(ethylene oxide)-block-poly(butylene oxide) Diblock Copolymers. Macromolecules 2020, 53 (22) , 10163-10178. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.0c01759
  4. Bingbing Zeng, Lihua Yang, Jingxian Qin, Yu Zheng, Shaoyun Guo. Nacre-Inspired Polymeric Materials with Body Heat-Responsive Shape-Memory Effect, High Optical Transparence, and Balanced Mechanical Properties. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2020, 12 (46) , 52008-52017. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c15871
  5. Seif Eddine Fenni, Francesca Bertella, Orietta Monticelli, Alejandro J. Müller, Nacerddine Hadadoui, Dario Cavallo. Renewable and Tough Poly(l-lactic acid)/Polyurethane Blends Prepared by Dynamic Vulcanization. ACS Omega 2020, 5 (41) , 26421-26430. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c02765
  6. Hai Jiang, Yingli Ding, Juyang Liu, Arun Alagarsamy, Li Pan, Dongpo Song, Kunyu Zhang, Yuesheng Li. Supertough Poly(lactic acid) and Sustainable Elastomer Blends Compatibilized by PLLA-b-PMMA Block Copolymers as Effective A-b-C-Type Compatibilizers. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2020, 59 (31) , 13956-13968. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c00988
  7. Qunli Yu, Cuicui Ye, Xiaoying Gu, Yongjin Li. Simultaneously Grafting Poly(lactic acid) (PLLA) and Polyethylene (PE) Chains onto a Reactive SG Copolymer: Formation of Supertough PLLA/PE Blends by Reactive Processing. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2020, 59 (26) , 12106-12113. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c01556
  8. Zhaoxin Li, Shuwen Shi, Fei Yang, Dafu Cao, Kunyu Zhang, Bin Wang, Zhe Ma, Li Pan, Yuesheng Li. Supertough and Transparent Poly(lactic acid) Nanostructure Blends with Minimal Stiffness Loss. ACS Omega 2020, 5 (22) , 13148-13157. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c01165
  9. Jacek Andrzejewski, Joyce Cheng, Andrew Anstey, Amar K. Mohanty, Manjusri Misra. Development of Toughened Blends of Poly(lactic acid) and Poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) for 3D Printing Applications: Compatibilization Methods and Material Performance Evaluation. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2020, 8 (17) , 6576-6589. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04925
  10. Seif Eddine Fenni, Jun Wang, Nacerddine Haddaoui, Basil D. Favis, Alejandro J. Müller, Dario Cavallo. Nucleation of Poly(lactide) Partially Wet Droplets in Ternary Blends with Poly(butylene succinate) and Poly(ε-caprolactone). Macromolecules 2020, 53 (5) , 1726-1735. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.9b02295
  11. Dong Huang, Yingli Ding, Hai Jiang, Siting Sun, Zhe Ma, Kunyu Zhang, Li Pan, Yuesheng Li. Functionalized Elastomeric Ionomers Used as Effective Toughening Agents for Poly(lactic acid): Enhancement in Interfacial Adhesion and Mechanical Performance. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2020, 8 (1) , 573-585. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b06123
  12. Kuan Hu, Dong Huang, Hai Jiang, Siting Sun, Zhe Ma, Kunyu Zhang, Li Pan, Yuesheng Li. Toughening Biosourced Poly(lactic acid) and Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-4-hydroxybutyrate) Blends by a Renewable Poly(epichlorohydrin-co-ethylene oxide) Elastomer. ACS Omega 2019, 4 (22) , 19777-19786. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b02639
  13. Hao Wu, Aolin Hou, Jin-Ping Qu. Phase Morphology and Performance of Supertough PLA/EMA–GMA/ZrP Nanocomposites Prepared through Reactive Melt-Blending. ACS Omega 2019, 4 (21) , 19046-19053. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b02022
  14. Jihuai Tan, Tingting Lu, Ran Li, Shuai Zhang, Wangcheng Liu, Xinbao Zhu, Jinwen Zhang, Junna Xin. Biodegradable Waste Frying Oil-Based Ethoxylated Esters as Highly Efficient Plasticizers for Poly(lactic acid). ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2019, 7 (19) , 15957-15965. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b02312
  15. Wangyang Lin, Jin-Ping Qu. Enhancing Impact Toughness of Renewable Poly(lactic acid)/Thermoplastic Polyurethane Blends via Constructing Cocontinuous-like Phase Morphology Assisted by Ethylene–Methyl Acrylate–Glycidyl Methacrylate Copolymer. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2019, 58 (25) , 10894-10907. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b01644
  16. Liang Deng, Cui Xu, Shuangshuang Ding, Huagao Fang, Xuehui Wang, Zhigang Wang. Processing a Supertoughened Polylactide Ternary Blend with High Heat Deflection Temperature by Melt Blending with a High Screw Rotation Speed. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2019, 58 (24) , 10618-10628. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b01970
  17. Gabriele Clarizia, Franco Tasselli, Cataldo Simari, Isabella Nicotera, Paola Bernardo. Solution Casting Blending: An Effective Way for Tailoring Gas Transport and Mechanical Properties of Poly(vinyl butyral) and Pebax2533. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2019, 123 (17) , 11264-11272. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.9b01459
  18. Feng Wu, Manjusri Misra, Amar K. Mohanty. Super Toughened Poly(lactic acid)-Based Ternary Blends via Enhancing Interfacial Compatibility. ACS Omega 2019, 4 (1) , 1955-1968. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b02587
  19. Yuji Shibasaki, Toshiki Mori, Atsuhiro Fujimori, Mitsutoshi Jikei, Hideo Sawada, Yoshiyuki Oishi. Poly(amide–ether) Thermoplastic Elastomers Based on Monodisperse Aromatic Amide Hard Segments as Shape-Memory and Moisture-Responsive Materials. Macromolecules 2018, 51 (23) , 9430-9441. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.8b01817
  20. Dan-Dan Yang, Wen Liu, Hong-Mei Zhu, Gang Wu, Si-Chong Chen, Xiu-Li Wang, Yu-Zhong Wang. Toward Super-Tough Poly(l-lactide) via Constructing Pseudo-Cross-link Network in Toughening Phase Anchored by Stereocomplex Crystallites at the Interface. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2018, 10 (31) , 26594-26603. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.8b06343
  21. Majid Mehrabi Mazidi, Arman Edalat, Reyhaneh Berahman, Fatemeh Sadat Hosseini. Highly-Toughened Polylactide- (PLA-) Based Ternary Blends with Significantly Enhanced Glass Transition and Melt Strength: Tailoring the Interfacial Interactions, Phase Morphology, and Performance. Macromolecules 2018, 51 (11) , 4298-4314. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.8b00557
  22. Ali M. Zolali, Basil D. Favis. Toughening of Cocontinuous Polylactide/Polyethylene Blends via an Interfacially Percolated Intermediate Phase. Macromolecules 2018, 51 (10) , 3572-3581. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.8b00464
  23. Elizabeth Brown, Mohamed Abdelwahab, Oscar Valerio, Manjusri Misra, and Amar K. Mohanty . In Situ Cellulose Nanocrystal-Reinforced Glycerol-Based Biopolyester for Enhancing Poly(lactic acid) Biocomposites. ACS Omega 2018, 3 (4) , 3857-3867. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b00056
  24. Liang Deng, Cui Xu, Xuehui Wang, and Zhigang Wang . Supertoughened Polylactide Binary Blend with High Heat Deflection Temperature Achieved by Thermal Annealing above the Glass Transition Temperature. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2018, 6 (1) , 480-490. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b02751
  25. Michael R. Snowdon, Amar K. Mohanty, and Manjusri Misra . Miscibility and Performance Evaluation of Biocomposites Made from Polypropylene/Poly(lactic acid)/Poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate) with a Sustainable Biocarbon Filler. ACS Omega 2017, 2 (10) , 6446-6454. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.7b00983
  26. Shuang Li, Liang Deng, Cui Xu, Qianghua Wu, and Zhigang Wang . Making a Supertough Flame-Retardant Polylactide Composite through Reactive Blending with Ethylene-Acrylic Ester-Glycidyl Methacrylate Terpolymer and Addition of Aluminum Hypophosphite. ACS Omega 2017, 2 (5) , 1886-1895. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.7b00162
  27. Hengti Wang, Zhiang Fu, Xuewen Zhao, Yongjin Li, and Jingye Li . Reactive Nanoparticles Compatibilized Immiscible Polymer Blends: Synthesis of Reactive SiO2 with Long Poly(methyl methacrylate) Chains and the in Situ Formation of Janus SiO2 Nanoparticles Anchored Exclusively at the Interface. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2017, 9 (16) , 14358-14370. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b01728
  28. Sheng-Yang Zhou, Ben Niu, Xu-Long Xie, Xu Ji, Gan-Ji Zhong, Benjamin S. Hsiao, and Zhong-Ming Li . Interfacial Shish-Kebabs Lengthened by Coupling Effect of In Situ Flexible Nanofibrils and Intense Shear Flow: Achieving Hierarchy To Conquer the Conflicts between Strength and Toughness of Polylactide. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2017, 9 (11) , 10148-10159. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b00479
  29. Boniface J. Tiimob, Gregory Mwinyelle, Woubit Abdela, Temesgen Samuel, Shaik Jeelani, and Vijaya K. Rangari . Nanoengineered Eggshell–Silver Tailored Copolyester Polymer Blend Film with Antimicrobial Properties. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2017, 65 (9) , 1967-1976. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b00133
  30. Ali M. Zolali, Vahid Heshmati, and Basil D. Favis . Ultratough Co-Continuous PLA/PA11 by Interfacially Percolated Poly(ether-b-amide). Macromolecules 2017, 50 (1) , 264-274. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.6b02310
  31. Ningjing Wu, Hong Zhang, and Guoliang Fu . Super-tough Poly(lactide) Thermoplastic Vulcanizates Based on Modified Natural Rubber. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2017, 5 (1) , 78-84. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b02197
  32. Jun Wang, Alejandra Reyna-Valencia, Richard Chaigneau, and Basil D. Favis . Controlling the Hierarchical Structuring of Conductive PEBA in Ternary and Quaternary Blends. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2016, 55 (50) , 12848-12859. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b03700
  33. Hengti Wang, Zhiang Fu, Wenyong Dong, Yongjin Li, and Jingye Li . Formation of Interfacial Janus Nanomicelles by Reactive Blending and Their Compatibilization Effects on Immiscible Polymer Blends. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2016, 120 (34) , 9240-9252. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b06761
  34. Xiaoran Hu, Yan Li, Manqiang Li, Hailan Kang, and Liqun Zhang . Renewable and Supertoughened Polylactide-Based Composites: Morphology, Interfacial Compatibilization, and Toughening Mechanism. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2016, 55 (34) , 9195-9204. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b02159
  35. Vidhya Nagarajan, Amar K. Mohanty, and Manjusri Misra . Perspective on Polylactic Acid (PLA) based Sustainable Materials for Durable Applications: Focus on Toughness and Heat Resistance. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2016, 4 (6) , 2899-2916. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b00321
  36. Sheng-Yang Zhou, Hua-Dong Huang, Xu Ji, Ding-Xiang Yan, Gan-Ji Zhong, Benjamin S. Hsiao, and Zhong-Ming Li . Super-Robust Polylactide Barrier Films by Building Densely Oriented Lamellae Incorporated with Ductile in Situ Nanofibrils of Poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate). ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2016, 8 (12) , 8096-8109. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b00451
  37. Vidhya Nagarajan, Kunyu Zhang, Manjusri Misra, and Amar K. Mohanty . Overcoming the Fundamental Challenges in Improving the Impact Strength and Crystallinity of PLA Biocomposites: Influence of Nucleating Agent and Mold Temperature. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2015, 7 (21) , 11203-11214. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b01145
  38. Lizhao Xie, Yunyun Xie, Qianghua Wu, Mozhen Wang, Qichao Wu, Xiao Zhou, and Xuewu Ge . Effect of Poly(acrylic acid)-Modified Poly(ethylene terephthalate) on Improving the Integrated Mechanical Properties of Poly(ethylene terephthalate)/Elastomer Blend. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2015, 54 (17) , 4748-4755. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00091
  39. Lan Xie, Huan Xu, Jing-Bin Chen, Zi-Jing Zhang, Benjamin S. Hsiao, Gan-Ji Zhong, Jun Chen, and Zhong-Ming Li . From Nanofibrillar to Nanolaminar Poly(butylene succinate): Paving the Way to Robust Barrier and Mechanical Properties for Full-Biodegradable Poly(lactic acid) Films. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2015, 7 (15) , 8023-8032. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b00294
  40. Clizia Aversa, Massimiliano Barletta, Annamaria Gisario, Rosa Prati, Silvia Vesco. Injection‐stretch blow molding of poly (lactic acid)/polybutylene succinate blends for the manufacturing of bottles. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2022, 139 (4) , 51557. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.51557
  41. Christopher Ellingford, Paresh Kumar Samantaray, Stefano Farris, Tony McNally, Bowen Tan, Zhaoyang Sun, Weijie Huang, Yang Ji, Chaoying Wan. Reactive extrusion of biodegradable PGA / PBAT blends to enhance flexibility and gas barrier properties. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2021, 7 , 51617. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.51617
  42. Rajendran Muthuraj, Oscar Valerio, Tizazu H. Mekonnen. Recent developments in short- and medium-chain- length Polyhydroxyalkanoates: Production, properties, and applications. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2021, 187 , 422-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.07.143
  43. Yaqiong Zhang, Jiawei Chen, Shuangshuang Ding, Weiming Kong, Mingxin Xing, Mang Wu, Zhigang Wang, Zhongkai Wang. Bio-based polyamide-assisted supertoughening of polylactide through hardening of the EGMA elastomeric domains of much low amount. Applied Surface Science 2021, 556 , 149845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.149845
  44. C. Aversa, M. Barletta, A. Gisario, E. Pizzi, R. Prati, S. Vesco. Design, manufacturing and preliminary assessment of the suitability of bioplastic bottles for wine packaging. Polymer Testing 2021, 100 , 107227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2021.107227
  45. Marta Przybysz-Romatowska, Mateusz Barczewski, Szymon Mania, Agnieszka Tercjak, Józef Haponiuk, Krzysztof Formela. Morphology, Thermo-Mechanical Properties and Biodegradibility of PCL/PLA Blends Reactively Compatibilized by Different Organic Peroxides. Materials 2021, 14 (15) , 4205. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14154205
  46. Hang Wang, Xiangjian Chen, Yingli Ding, Dong Huang, Yilian Ma, Li Pan, Kunyu Zhang, Huaiyuan Wang. Combining novel polyether-based ionomers and polyethylene glycol as effective toughening agents for polylactide. Polymer 2021, 229 , 123964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2021.123964
  47. Juan José Benvenuta-Tapia, Pascale Champagne, José Alfredo Tenorio-López, Eduardo Vivaldo-Lima, Ramiro Guerrero-Santos. Improving Recycled Poly(lactic Acid) Biopolymer Properties by Chain Extension Using Block Copolymers Synthesized by Nitroxide-Mediated Polymerization (NMP). Polymers 2021, 13 (16) , 2791. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13162791
  48. Vikram Singh Raghuwanshi, Antoine Gallos, David Joram Mendoza, Maoqi Lin, Florent Allais, Gil Garnier. Nanocrystallisation and Self-Assembly of Biosourced Ferulic Acid Derivative in Polylactic Acid Elastomeric Blends. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 2021, 107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2021.08.123
  49. Huijie Zuo, Juyang Liu, Dong Huang, Yuanbin Bai, Liang Cui, Li Pan, Kunyu Zhang, Huaiyuan Wang. Sustainable and high‐performance ternary blends from polylactide, CO 2 ‐based polyester and microbial polyesters with different chemical structure. Journal of Polymer Science 2021, 59 (14) , 1578-1595. https://doi.org/10.1002/pol.20210175
  50. Guo Jiang, Huili Li, Feng Wang. Structure of PBAT/PPC blends prepared by in-situ reactive compatibilization and properties of their blowing films. Materials Today Communications 2021, 27 , 102215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102215
  51. Mingtao Sun, Shuang Huang, Muhuo Yu, Keqing Han. Toughening Modification of Polylactic Acid by Thermoplastic Silicone Polyurethane Elastomer. Polymers 2021, 13 (12) , 1953. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13121953
  52. Laura Aliotta, Ilaria Canesi, Andrea Lazzeri. Study on the preferential distribution of acetyl tributyl citrate in poly(lactic) acid-poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) blends. Polymer Testing 2021, 98 , 107163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2021.107163
  53. P. Saiprasit, A. K. Schlarb. The Effect of the Compounding Procedure on the Morphology and Mechanical Properties of PLA/PBAT-Based Nanocomposites. International Polymer Processing 2021, 36 (2) , 219-227. https://doi.org/10.1515/ipp-2020-4032
  54. Massimiliano Barletta, Elisa Pizzi. Optimizing crystallinity of engineered poly(lactic acid)/poly(butylene succinate) blends: The role of single and multiple nucleating agents. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2021, 138 (16) https://doi.org/10.1002/app.50236
  55. Yiwei Xia, Guangxin Wang, Yulin Feng, Yuexin Hu, Guiyan Zhao, Wei Jiang. Highly toughened poly(lactic acid) blends prepared by reactive blending with a renewable poly(ether‐block‐amide) elastomer. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2021, 138 (13) , 50097. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.50097
  56. Xinyi Dong, Zhenggui Wu, Yang Wang, Ting Li, Xuhui Zhang, Hao Yuan, Jie Jiang, Bihua Xia, Piming Ma, Mingqing Chen, Weifu Dong. Strikingly toughening polylactide by using novel core-shell starch-based nanoparticles with double polymer shells. Materials Letters 2021, 289 , 129400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2021.129400
  57. Anna Kowalewska, Agata S. Herc, Joanna Bojda, Maria Nowacka, Mariia Svyntkivska, Ewa Piorkowska, Witold Kaczorowski, Witold Szymański. Phase Structure and Properties of Ternary Polylactide/Poly(methyl methacrylate)/Polysilsesquioxane Blends. Polymers 2021, 13 (7) , 1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13071033
  58. Chin-San Wu, Dung-Yi Wu, Shan-Shue Wang. Preparation, characterization, and performance of bio-based polyester composites derived from renewable distillers grains and shellfish. Journal of Polymer Research 2021, 28 (4) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10965-021-02471-8
  59. Sawitri Srisuwan, Yupaporn Ruksakulpiwat, Pranee Chumsamrong. Effect of triblock copolymers based on liquid natural rubber and low molecular weight poly(lactic acid) on physical properties of poly(lactic acid)/natural rubber blend. Polymer Bulletin 2021, 78 (3) , 1253-1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-020-03158-8
  60. Kehinde Olonisakin, Mizi fan, Zhang Xin-Xiang, Li Ran, WenSheng Lin, Weifeng Zhang, Yang Wenbin. Key Improvements in Interfacial Adhesion and Dispersion of Fibers/Fillers in Polymer Matrix Composites; Focus on PLA Matrix Composites. Composite Interfaces 2021, 10 , 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09276440.2021.1878441
  61. Mohamed A. Abdelwahab, Sinto Jacob, Manjusri Misra, Amar K. Mohanty. Super-tough sustainable biobased composites from polylactide bioplastic and lignin for bio-elastomer application. Polymer 2021, 212 , 123153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2020.123153
  62. Ke Li, Shengzhen Bian, Weijun Zhen, Hao Li, Ling Zhao. Performance, crystallization and rheological behavior of poly(lactic acid)/N-(2-hydroxyl) propyl-3-trimethyl ammonium chitosan chloride intercalated vermiculite grafted poly(acrylamide) nanocomposites. Reactive and Functional Polymers 2021, 158 , 104791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2020.104791
  63. Xinyi Dong, Zhenggui Wu, Yang Wang, Ting Li, Xuhui Zhang, Hao Yuan, Bihua Xia, Piming Ma, Mingqing Chen, Weifu Dong. Toughening polylactide using epoxy-functionalized core-shell starch nanoparticles. Polymer Testing 2021, 93 , 106926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106926
  64. Mohammadreza Nofar. Ternary blends of PLA. 2021,,, 289-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824150-9.00008-X
  65. Si-Ting Sun, Hang Wang, Dong Huang, Ying-Li Ding, Yang Zhang, Dong-Po Song, Kun-Yu Zhang, Li Pan, Yue-Sheng Li. Refractive Index Engineering as a Novel Strategy toward Highly Transparent and Tough Sustainable Polymer Blends. Chinese Journal of Polymer Science 2020, 38 (12) , 1335-1344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10118-020-2439-1
  66. Shuai Zhang, Tuan Liu, Baoming Zhao, Christina Verdi, Wangcheng Liu, Cheng Hao, Jinwen Zhang. Shape memory Poly(lactic acid) binary blends with unusual fluorescence. Polymer 2020, 209 , 122980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2020.122980
  67. Xiaoyi Zhu, Miqiu Kong, Yadong Lv, Yajiang Huang, Guangxian Li. Selective distribution of nanoparticles in immiscible blends: Effects on the morphology evolution and rheology in quiescent annealing, shear and extensional flow. Journal of Rheology 2020, 64 (6) , 1357-1371. https://doi.org/10.1122/8.0000069
  68. Jesús E Bautista‐Del‐Ángel, Ana B Morales‐Cepeda, Paula M Wood‐Adams. Compatibility, crystallinity and mechanical properties of poly(lactic acid)‐poly(ether‐ block ‐amide) based copper nanocomposites. Polymer International 2020, 69 (10) , 1024-1037. https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.6058
  69. Bao-Gou Wu, Wei-Jun Yang, De-Yu Niu, Wei-Fu Dong, Ming-Qing Chen, Tian-Xi Liu, Ming-Liang Du, Pi-Ming Ma. Stereocomplexed Poly(lactide) Composites toward Engineering Plastics with Superior Toughness, Heat Resistance and Anti-hydrolysis. Chinese Journal of Polymer Science 2020, 38 (10) , 1107-1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10118-020-2443-5
  70. Giordano Pierozan Bernardes, Nathália Rosa Luiz, Ruth Marlene Campomanes Santana, Maria Madalena Camargo Forte. Influence of the morphology and viscoelasticity on the thermomechanical properties of poly(lactic acid)/thermoplastic polyurethane blends compatibilized with ethylene‐ester copolymer. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2020, 137 (31) , 48926. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.48926
  71. Tiantang Fan, Jingwen Qin, Shengli Lin, Wuyou Ye, Qing Liu, Zhongyong Fan, Ye Wang. Enhancing crystallization behavior for optimized performances of poly(TMC‐b‐(LLA‐ran‐GA)) by PDLA/PLLA stereocomplex crystallization. Polymers for Advanced Technologies 2020, 31 (8) , 1675-1687. https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.4895
  72. Juan José Benvenuta-Tapia, Eduardo Vivaldo-Lima. Reduction of molar mass loss and enhancement of thermal and rheological properties of recycled poly(lactic acid) by using chain extenders obtained from RAFT chemistry. Reactive and Functional Polymers 2020, 153 , 104628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2020.104628
  73. Hai-Chen Zhang, Jintao Huang, Peng-Fei Zhao, Xiang Lu. Bio-based ethylene-co-vinyl acetate/poly (lactic acid) thermoplastic vulcanizates with enhanced mechanical strength and shape memory behavior. Polymer Testing 2020, 87 , 106537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106537
  74. Heng Ding, Dandan Liu. Preparation and performance of poly(lactic acid)/amidated ammonium citrate intercalated saponite nanocomposites. Polymer-Plastics Technology and Materials 2020, 59 (8) , 809-821. https://doi.org/10.1080/25740881.2019.1695270
  75. Laura Aliotta, Vito Gigante, Oriana Acucella, Francesca Signori, Andrea Lazzeri. Thermal, Mechanical and Micromechanical Analysis of PLA/PBAT/POE-g-GMA Extruded Ternary Blends. Frontiers in Materials 2020, 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2020.00130
  76. Swati Sharma, Anshu Anjali Singh, Abhijit Majumdar, Bhupendra Singh Butola. Harnessing the ductility of polylactic acid/ halloysite nanocomposites by synergistic effects of impact modifier and plasticiser. Composites Part B: Engineering 2020, 188 , 107845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.107845
  77. Sheng Zhang, Qingyu Zhang, Jun Sun, Xiaoyu Gu, Hongfei Li, Xiaodong Liu, Bin Fei. Simultaneously improving the fire performance and toughness of polylactic acid by reactive blending with castor oil-based polyurethane and ammonium polyphosphate. Journal of Fire Sciences 2020, 38 (3) , 253-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734904119886258
  78. Xipo Zhao, Huan Hu, Xin Wang, Xiaolei Yu, Weiyi Zhou, Shaoxian Peng. Super tough poly(lactic acid) blends: a comprehensive review. RSC Advances 2020, 10 (22) , 13316-13368. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RA01801E
  79. Xin Wen, Zhiqi Liu, Zhi Li, Jing Zhang, De-Yi Wang, Karolina Szymańska, Xuecheng Chen, Ewa Mijowska, Tao Tang. Constructing multifunctional nanofiller with reactive interface in PLA/CB-g-DOPO composites for simultaneously improving flame retardancy, electrical conductivity and mechanical properties. Composites Science and Technology 2020, 188 , 107988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.107988
  80. Baogou Wu, Pengwu Xu, Weijun Yang, Martin Hoch, Weifu Dong, Mingqing Chen, Huiyu Bai, Piming Ma. Super‐Toughened Heat‐Resistant Poly(lactic acid) Alloys By Tailoring the Phase Morphology and the Crystallization Behaviors. Journal of Polymer Science 2020, 58 (3) , 500-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/pol.20190090
  81. Jacek Andrzejewski, Katarzyna Skórczewska, Arkadiusz Kloziński. Improving the Toughness and Thermal Resistance of Polyoxymethylene/Poly(lactic acid) Blends: Evaluation of Structure–Properties Correlation for Reactive Processing. Polymers 2020, 12 (2) , 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12020307
  82. Hongwu Wu, Mingyang Hao. Strengthening and Toughening of Polylactide/Sisal Fiber Biocomposites via in-situ Reaction with Epoxy-Functionalized Oligomer and Poly (butylene-adipate-terephthalate). Polymers 2019, 11 (11) , 1747. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11111747
  83. Giordano Pierozan Bernardes, Nathália Rosa Luiz, Ruth Marlene Campomanes Santana, Maria Madalena Camargo Forte. Rheological behavior and morphological and interfacial properties of PLA/TPE blends. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2019, 136 (38) , 47962. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.47962
  84. Bin Xue, He-Zhi He, Zhao-Xia Huang, Zhiwen Zhu, Feng Xue, Shiming Liu, Bida Liu. Fabrication of super-tough ternary blends by melt compounding of poly(lactic acid) with poly(butylene succinate) and ethylene-methyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate. Composites Part B: Engineering 2019, 172 , 743-749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.05.098
  85. Xin Wang, Shaoxian Peng, Hao Chen, Xiaolei Yu, Xipo Zhao. Mechanical properties, rheological behaviors, and phase morphologies of high-toughness PLA/PBAT blends by in-situ reactive compatibilization. Composites Part B: Engineering 2019, 173 , 107028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107028
  86. Zhiming Zhan, Hezhi He, Zhiwen Zhu, Bin Xue, Guozhen Wang, Ming Chen, Chengtian Xiong. Blends of rABS and SEBS: Influence of In-Situ Compatibilization on the Mechanical Properties. Materials 2019, 12 (15) , 2352. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12152352
  87. Qiu Chen, Pengjia Shan, Congcong Tong, Dongguang Yan, Yan Zhang, Hongzhi Liu, Chaowei Hao. Influence of reactive blending temperature on impact toughness and phase morphologies of PLA ternary blend system containing magnesium ionomer. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2019, 136 (25) , 47682. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.47682
  88. Ningjing Wu, Jihang Yu, Wenchao Lang, Xiaobing Ma, Yue Yang. Flame Retardancy and Toughness of Poly(Lactic Acid)/GNR/SiAHP Composites. Polymers 2019, 11 (7) , 1129. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11071129
  89. Wangyang Lin, Yue He, Jin‐Ping Qu. Super‐Tough and Highly‐Ductile Poly( l ‐lactic acid)/Thermoplastic Polyurethane/Epoxide‐Containing Ethylene Copolymer Blends Prepared by Reactive Blending. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering 2019, 304 (6) , 1900020. https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.201900020
  90. Huan Zhang, Shicheng Zhao, Xin Yu, Zhong Xin, Chunlin Ye, Zhi Li, Jincheng Xia. Nascent particle sizes and degrees of entanglement are responsible for the significant differences in impact strength of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. Journal of Polymer Science Part B: Polymer Physics 2019, 57 (10) , 632-641. https://doi.org/10.1002/polb.24819
  91. Ao-Lin Hou, Jin-Ping Qu. Super-Toughened Poly(lactic Acid) with Poly(ε-caprolactone) and Ethylene-Methyl Acrylate-Glycidyl Methacrylate by Reactive Melt Blending. Polymers 2019, 11 (5) , 771. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11050771
  92. Xiaoying Zhao, Varun Venoor, Kurt Koelling, Katrina Cornish, Yael Vodovotz. Bio‐based blends from poly(3‐hydroxybutyrate‐ co ‐3‐hydroxyvalerate) and natural rubber for packaging applications. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2019, 136 (15) , 47334. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.47334
  93. Zhaozhe Yang, Hongjie Bi, Yongbao Bi, Denis Rodrigue, Min Xu, Xinhao Feng. Comparison between polyethylene glycol and tributyl citrate to modify the properties of wood fiber/polylactic acid biocomposites. Polymer Composites 2019, 40 (4) , 1384-1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.24872
  94. Mahsa Nematollahi, Azam Jalali‐Arani, Hamid Modarress. Effect of nanoparticle localization on the rheology, morphology and toughness of nanocomposites based on poly(lactic acid)/natural rubber/nanosilica. Polymer International 2019, 68 (4) , 779-787. https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.5767
  95. Yuan Chen, Wen-Qiang Hua, Zheng-Chi Zhang, Jia-Zhuang Xu, Feng-Gang Bian, Gan-Ji Zhong, Ling Xu, Zhong-Ming Li. An efficient, food contact accelerator for stereocomplexation of high-molecular-weight poly( -lactide)/ poly( -lactide) blend under nonisothermal crystallization. Polymer 2019, 170 , 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2019.03.003
  96. Debanga B Konwar, Bhabani K Satapathy, Josemon Jacob. Influence of aliphatic polycarbonate middle block on mechanical and microstructural behaviour of triblock copolymers based on poly( l -lactide) and polycarbonate. Polymer International 2019, 68 (3) , 400-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.5723
  97. Noor Afizah Rosli, Ishak Ahmad, Farah Hannan Anuar, Ibrahim Abdullah. Effectiveness of cellulosic Agave angustifolia fibres on the performance of compatibilised poly(lactic acid)-natural rubber blends. Cellulose 2019, 26 (5) , 3205-3218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-019-02262-x
  98. Mohammadreza Nofar, Dilara Sacligil, Pierre J. Carreau, Musa R. Kamal, Marie-Claude Heuzey. Poly (lactic acid) blends: Processing, properties and applications. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2019, 125 , 307-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.12.002
  99. Martin Boruvka, Lubos Behalek, Petr Lenfeld, Chakaphan Ngaowthong, Miroslava Pechociakova. Structure-related properties of bionanocomposites based on poly(lactic acid), cellulose nanocrystals and organic impact modifier. Materials Technology 2019, 34 (3) , 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10667857.2018.1540332
  100. Massimiliano Barletta, Clizia Aversa, Elisa Pizzi, Michela Puopolo, Silvia Vesco. Engineered poly(lactic acid)‐talc biocomposites for melt processing: Effects of co‐blending with poly(butylene succinate) and poly(butylene terephthalate) on thermal and mechanical behavior. Polymer Engineering & Science 2019, 59 (2) , 264-273. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.24900
Load all citations
  • Abstract

    Scheme 1

    Scheme 1. Illustration of the Chemical Structure of the Three Polymers Used

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Tensile stress–strain curves of neat PLA, binary blend, and PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blends.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Tensile properties of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blends as a function of the weight fraction: (A) Neat PLA; (B) PLA/PEBA(80/20); (C) PLA/EMA-GMA(80/20); (D) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/10/20); (E)PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/15/15); (F) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/20/10).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Notched Izod impact strength and percent elongation at break of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blends as a function of the weight fraction: (A) Neat PLA; (B) PLA/PEBA(80/20); (C) PLA/EMA-GMA(80/20); (D) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/10/20); (E)PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/15/15); (F) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/20/10).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Impact strength and elongation properties of the (a) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20) and (b) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) with different grade PEBA: (A) Neat PLA, (B) Blend with Pebax 72R53, (C) Blend with Pebax 55R53, (D) Blend with Pebax 35R53.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. DMA traces of PLA blended with PEBA (Pebax 55R53) elastomer at various concentrations: (a) tan δ versus temperature; (b) storage modulus versus temperature curves.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. DSC heating curves of the neat PLA and the blends after quenched: (a) neat PLA ;(b) PLA/EMA-GMA (80/20); (c) PLA/PEBA (80/20); (d) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/10/20); (e) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10); (f) neat PEBA (Pebax Rnew 55R53).

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. DSC cooling curves of the neat PLA and the blends: (a) neat PLA; (b) PLA/EMA-GMA(80/20); (c) PLA/PEBA(80/20); (d) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/10/20); (e) PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA(70/20/10); (f) neat PEBA(Pebax Rnew 55R53).

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. SEM images of impact-fracture surface of the binary blend and PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA ternary blend with various weight compositions.

    Figure 9

    Figure 9. SEM images of cryofractured surface of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA blend with various weight compositions.

    Figure 10

    Figure 10. Detail structure of the PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) blend with the SEM and AFM phase images: (A) SEM images of cryofractured surface (4000×), (B) AFM image, (C) SEM images of cryofractured surface after etched (10000×), and (D) the schematic structure.

    Figure 11

    Figure 11. AFM images of PLA/EMA-GMA/PEBA (70/20/10) ternary blend obtained under PeakForce QNM mode.

    Figure 12

    Figure 12. Schematic and impact surface graphs of the blends near the notch.

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 56 other publications.

    1. 1
      Yu, L.; Dean, K.; Li, L. Polymer Blends and Composites from Renewable Resources Prog. Polym. Sci. 2006, 36, 576 602
    2. 2
      Williams, C. K.; Hillmyer, M. A. Polymers from Renewable Resources: A Perspective for a Special Issue of Polymer Reviews Polym. Rev. 2008, 48, 1 10
    3. 3
      Lim, L. T.; Auras, R.; Rubino, M. Processing Technologies for Poly(Lactic Acid) Prog. Polym. Sci. 2008, 33, 820 852
    4. 4
      Drumright, R. E.; Gruber, P. R.; Henton, D. E. Polylactic Acid Technology Adv. Mater. 2000, 12, 1841 1846
    5. 5
      Auras, R.; Harte, B.; Selke, S. An Overview of Polylactides as Packaging Materials Macromol. Biosci. 2004, 4, 835 864
    6. 6
      Anderson, K. S.; Schreck, K. M.; Hillmyer, M. A. Toughening Polylactide Polym. Rev. 2008, 48, 85 108
    7. 7
      Liu, H.; J. Zhang, J. Research Progress in Toughening Modification of Poly (lactic acid) J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 2011, 49, 1051 1083
    8. 8
      Kfoury, G.; Raquez, J.; Hassouna, F.; Odent, J.; Toniazzo, V.; Ruch, D.; Dubois, P. Recent Advances in High Performance Poly(Lactide): From “Green” Plasticization to Super-tough Materials via (Reactive) Compounding Front. Chem. 2013, 1, 1 45
    9. 9
      Jiang, L.; Wolcott, M. P.; Zhang, J. Study of Biodegradable Polylactide/Poly(Butylenes Adipate-co-terephthalate) Blends Biomacromolecules 2006, 7, 199 207
    10. 10
      Anderson, K. S.; Lim, S. H.; Hillmyer, M. A. Toughening of Polylactide by Melt Blending with Linear Low-Density Polyethylene J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2003, 89, 3757 3768
    11. 11
      Anderson, K. S.; Hillmyer, M. A. The Influence of Block Copolymer Microstructure on the Toughness of Compatibilized Polylactide/Polyethylene Blends Polymer 2004, 45, 8809 8823
    12. 12
      Lin, Y.; Zhang, K. Y.; Dong, Z. M.; Dong, L. S.; Li, Y. S. Study of Hydrogen-Bonded Blend of Polylactide with Biodegradable Hyperbranched Poly(Ester Amide) Macromolecules 2007, 40, 6257 6267
    13. 13
      Li, Y. J.; Shimizu, H. Toughening of Polylactide by Melt Blending with a Biodegradable Poly(Ether)urethane Elastomer Macromol. Biosci. 2007, 7, 921 928
    14. 14
      Bhardwaj, R.; Mohanty, A. K. Modification of Brittle Polylactide by Novel Hyperbranched Polymer-Based Nanostructures Biomacromolecules 2007, 8, 2476 2484
    15. 15
      Hashima, K.; Nishitsuji, S.; Inoue, T. Structure-Properties of Super-Tough PLA Alloy with Excellent Heat Resistance Polymer 2010, 51, 3934 3939
    16. 16
      Oyama, H. T. Super-Tough Poly(Lactic Acid) Materials: Reactive Blending with Ethylene Copolymer Polymer 2009, 50, 747 751
    17. 17
      Zhang, K.; Ran, X.; Wang, X.; Han, C.; Han, L.; Wen, X.; Zhuang, Y.; Dong, L. Improvement in Toughness and Crystallization of Poly(l-Lactic Acid) by Melt Blending with Poly(Epichlorohydrin-co-ethylene oxide) Polym. Eng. Sci. 2011, 51, 2370 2380
    18. 18
      Broz1, M. E.; VanderHart, D. L.; Washburn, N. R. Structure and Mechanical Properties of Poly(d,l-Lactic Acid)/Poly(ε-Caprolactone) Blends Biomaterials 2003, 24, 4181 4190
    19. 19
      Robertson, M. L.; Chang, K.; Gramlich, W. M.; Hillmyer, M. A. Toughening of Polylactide with Polymerized Soybean Oil Macromolecules 2010, 43, 1807 1814
    20. 20
      Noda, I.; Satkowski, M. M.; Dowrey, A. E.; Marcott, C. Polymer Alloys of Nodax Copolymers and Poly(Lactic Acid) Macromol. Biosci. 2004, 4, 269 275
    21. 21
      Shibata, M.; Inoue, Y.; Miyoshi, M. Mechanical Properties, Morphology, and Crystallization Behavior of Blends of Poly(l-Lactide) with Poly(Butylene Succinate-co-l-lactate) and Poly(butylene succinate) Polymer 2006, 47, 3557 3564
    22. 22
      Lu, J. M.; Qiu, Z. B.; Yang, W. T. Fully Biodegradable Blends of Poly(l-Lactide) and Poly(Ethylene Succinate): Miscibility, Crystallization, and Mechanical properties Polymer 2007, 48, 4196 4204
    23. 23
      Ojijo, V.; Ray, S. S.; Sadiku, R. Toughening of Biodegradable Polylactide/Poly(Butylene Succinate-co-adipate) Blends via in Situ Reactive Compatibilization ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2013, 5, 4266 4276
    24. 24
      Luzinov, I.; Pagnoulle, C.; Jerome, R. Ternary Polymer Blend with Core–Shell Dispersed Phases: Effect of the Core-forming Polymer on Phase Morphology and Mechanical Properties Polymer 2000, 41, 7099 7109
    25. 25
      Ticiane, S. V.; Augusto, T. M.; Nicole, R. D. Study of Morphologies of PMMA/PP/PS Ternary Blends Macromolecules 2006, 39, 2663 2675
    26. 26
      Joe, R.; Basil, D. F. Control of the Subinclusion Microstructure in HDPE/PS/PMMA Ternary Blends Macromolecules 2000, 33, 6998 7008
    27. 27
      Horiuchi, S.; Matchariyakul, N.; Yase, K.; Kitano, T. Morphology Development through an Interfacial Reaction in Ternary Immiscible Polymer Blends Macromolecules 1997, 30, 3664 3670
    28. 28
      Li, Y.; Shimizu, H. Compatibilization by Homopolymer: Significant Improvements in the Modulus and Tensile Strength of PPC/PMMA Blends by the Addition of a Small Amount of PVAc ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2009, 1, 1650 1655
    29. 29
      Li, L.; Yin, B.; Zhou, Y.; Gong, L.; Yang, M.; Xie, B.; Chen, C. Characterization of PA6/EPDM-g-MA/HDPE Ternary Blends: The Role of Core–Shell Structure Polymer 2012, 53, 3043 3051
    30. 30
      Yin, B.; Li, L.; Zhou, Y.; Gong, L.; Yang, M.; Xie, B. Largely Improved Impact Toughness of PA6/EPDM-g-MA/HDPE Ternary Blends: The Role of Core–shell Particles Formed in Melt Processing on Preventing Micro-crack Propagation Polymer 2013, 54, 1938 1947
    31. 31
      Liu, H.; Chen, F.; Liu, B.; Estep, G.; Zhang, J. Super Toughened Poly(Lactic Acid) Ternary Blends by Simultaneous Dynamic Vulcanization and Interfacial Compatibilization Macromolecules 2010, 43, 6058 6066
    32. 32
      Liu, H.; Song, W.; Chen, F.; Guo, L.; Zhang, J. Interaction of Microstructure and Interfacial Adhesion on Impact Performance of Polylactide (PLA) Ternary Blends Macromolecules 2011, 44, 1513 1522
    33. 33
      Zhang, K.; Mohanty, A. K.; Misra, M. Fully Biodegradable and Biorenewable Ternary Blends from Polylactide, Poly(3-Hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate) and Poly(Butylene Succinate) with Balanced Properties ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2012, 4, 3091 3101
    34. 34
      Ravati, S.; Favis, B. D. Tunable Morphologies for Ternary Blends with Poly(Butylene Succinate): Partial and Complete Wetting Phenomena Polymer 2013, 54, 3271 3281
    35. 35
      Ravati, S.; Favis, B. D. Interfacial Coarsening of Ternary Polymer Blends with Partial and Complete Wetting Structures Polymer 2013, 54, 6739 6751
    36. 36
      Bitinis, N.; Verdejo, R.; Cassagnau, P.; Lopez-Manchado, M. A. Structure and properties of polylactide/natural rubber blends Mater. Chem. Phys. 2011, 129, 823 831
    37. 37
      Bitinis, N.; Sanz, A.; Nogales, A.; Verdejo, R.; Lopez-Manchado, M. A.; Ezquerra, T. A. Deformation Mechanisms in Polylactic Acid/Natural Rubber/Organoclay Bionanocomposites as Revealed by Synchrotron X-ray Scattering Soft Matter 2012, 8, 8990 8997
    38. 38
      Bitinis, N.; Verdejo, R.; Maya, E. M.; Espuche, E.; Cassagnau, P.; Lopez-Manchado, M. A. Physicochemical Properties of Organoclay Filled Polylactic Acid/Natural Rubber Blend Bionanocomposites Compos. Sci. Technol. 2012, 72, 305 313
    39. 39
      Bitinis, N.; Fortunati, E.; Verdejo, R.; Bras, Julien; Kenny, J. M.; Torre, L.; Lopez-Manchado, M. A. Poly(Lactic Acid)/Natural Rubber/Cellulose Nanocrystal Bionanocomposites. Part II: Properties Evaluation Carbohydr. Polym. 2013, 96, 621 627
    40. 40
      Arkema Inc. Products Websites: Pebax Rnew. http://www.pebax.com/en/pebax-range/product-viewer/Pebax-Rnew/ (accessed on Apr 16, 2014) .
    41. 41
      Sheth, J. P.; Xu, J. N.; Wilkes, G. L. Solid State Structure–Property Behavior of Semicrystalline Poly(Ether-Block-Amide) PEBAX Thermoplastic Elastomers Polymer 2003, 44, 743 756
    42. 42
      Eustache, R. P. In Handbook of Condensation Thermoplastic Elastomer; Fakirov, S., Eds; Wiley-VCH: Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2005; Chapter 10, pp 263 280.
    43. 43
      Zhang, W.; Chen, L.; Zhang, Y. Surprising Shape-memory Effect of Polylactide Resulted from Toughening by Polyamide Elastomer Polymer 2009, 50, 1311 1315
    44. 44
      Han, L.; Han, C.; Dong, L. Effect of Crystallization on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Poly[(Ethylene Oxide)-block-(amide-12)]-toughened Poly(Lactic Acid) Blend Polym. Int. 2013, 62, 295 303
    45. 45
      Han, L.; Han, C.; Dong, L. Morphology and Properties of the Biosourced Poly(Lactic Acid)/Poly(Ethylene Oxide-b-amide-12) Blends Polym. Compos. 2013, 34, 122 130
    46. 46
      Dong, W.; Jiang, F.; Zhao, L.; You, J.; Cao, X.; Li, Y. PLLA Microalloys Versus PLLA Nanoalloys: Preparation, Morphologies, and Properties ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2012, 4, 3667 3675
    47. 47
      Feng, Y.; Zhao, G.; Yin, J.; Jiang, W. Reactive Compatibilization of High-Impact Poly(Lactic Acid)/Ethylene Copolymer Blends Catalyzed by N,iN-dimethylstearylamine Polym. Int. 2013,  DOI: 10.1002/pi.4632
    48. 48
      Martin, P.; Devaux, L.; Legras, R.; van Gurp, M.; van Duin, M. Competitive Reactions during Compatibilization of Blends of Polybutyleneterephthalate with Epoxide-containing rubber Polymer 2001, 42, 2463 2478
    49. 49
      Hobbs, S. Y.; Dekkers, M. E. J.; Watkins, V. H. Effect of Interfacial Forces on Polymer Blend Morphologies Polymer 1988, 29, 1598 1602
    50. 50
      Guo, H.; Packirisamy, S.; Gvozdic, N. V.; Meier, D. J. Prediction and Manipulation of the Phase Morphologies of Multiphase Polymer Blends: 1. Ternary Systems Polymer 1997, 38, 785 794
    51. 51
      Fleischer, C. A.; Morales, A. R.; Koberstein, J. T. Interfacial Modification through End Group Complexation in Polymer Blends Macromolecules 1994, 27, 379 385
    52. 52
      Wang, D.; Li, Y.; Xie, X.; Guo, B. Compatibilization and Morphology Development of Immiscible Ternary Polymer Blends Polymer 2011, 52, 191 200
    53. 53
      Omonov, T. S.; Harrats, C.; Groeninckx, G. Co-continuous and Encapsulated Three Phase Morphologies in Uncompatibilized and Reactively Compatibilized Polyamide 6/Polypropylene/Polystyrene Ternary Blends Using Two Reactive Precursors Polymer 2005, 46, 12322 12336
    54. 54
      Xiu, H.; Bai, H.; Huang, M.; Xu, C.; Li, X.; Fu, Q. Selective Localization of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles at the Interface and its Effect on the Impact Toughness of Poly(l-Lactide)/Poly(Ether)urethane Blends Express Polym. Lett. 2013, 7, 261 271
    55. 55
      Kim, G.; Michler, G. Micromechanical Deformation Processes in Toughened and Particle Filled Semicrystalline Polymers: Part 2. Model Representation for Micromechanical Deformation Processes Polymer 1998, 39, 5699 5703
    56. 56
      Kim, G.; Michler, G. Micromechanical Deformation Processes in Toughened and Particle-filled Semicrystalline Polymers: Part 1. Characterization of Deformation Processes in Dependence on Phase Morphology Polymer 1998, 39, 5689 5697
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    Contact angle and surface tension values calculated for individual blend components are given in the Supporting Information, Table S1. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect

This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By continuing to use the site, you are accepting our use of cookies. Read the ACS privacy policy.

CONTINUE