ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Linear, Graft, and Beyond: Multiblock Copolymers as Next-Generation Compatibilizers
My Activity
  • Open Access
Perspective

Linear, Graft, and Beyond: Multiblock Copolymers as Next-Generation Compatibilizers
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDF

JACS Au

Cite this: JACS Au 2022, 2, 2, 310–321
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.1c00500
Published January 31, 2022

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Properly addressing the global issue of unsustainable plastic waste generation and accumulation will require a confluence of technological breakthroughs on various fronts. Mechanical recycling of plastic waste into polymer blends is one method expected to contribute to a solution. Due to phase separation of individual components, mechanical recycling of mixed polymer waste streams generally results in an unsuitable material with substantially reduced performance. However, when an appropriately designed compatibilizer is used, the recycled blend can have competitive properties to virgin materials. In its current state, polymer blend compatibilization is usually not cost-effective compared to traditional waste management, but further technical development and optimization will be essential for driving future cost competitiveness. Historically, effective compatibilizers have been diblock copolymers or in situ generated graft copolymers, but recent progress shows there is great potential for multiblock copolymer compatibilizers. In this perspective, we lay out recent advances in synthesis and understanding for two types of multiblock copolymers currently being developed as blend compatibilizers: linear and graft. Importantly, studies of appropriately designed copolymers have shown them to efficiently compatibilize model binary blends at concentrations as low as ∼0.2 wt %. These investigations pave the way for studies on more complex (ternary or higher) mixed waste streams that will require novel compatibilizer architectures. Given the progress outlined here, we believe that multiblock copolymers offer a practical and promising solution to help close the loop on plastic waste. While a complete discussion of the implementation of this technology would entail infrastructural, policy, and social developments, they are outside the scope of this perspective which instead focuses on material design considerations and the technical advancements of block copolymer compatibilizers.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
  • nc licence
  • nd licence
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

1.1. Motivation

In 1908, Jacques E. Brandenberger invented “cellophane” as the first clear polymer film and unknowingly launched what would soon become a multibillion-dollar industry. (1,2) Today, single-use plastic packaging is ubiquitously found in everything from sterile medical supplies to individually wrapped fruits at the market. Thermoplastics─a class of polymers named for their ability to flow when sufficiently heated─have provided a low-cost solution to meet this growing demand for packaging. Unfortunately, less than 10% of all consumer generated plastic waste is recycled in the United States (3) leading to an unsustainable accumulation of plastic waste in landfills and ecosystems. (4) Not surprisingly, a wide variety of polymers comprise this plastic waste with the most common commercial polymers being highlighted in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Structures, names, and recycling codes for common polymers discussed in this perspective.

Each of the polymers presented in Figure 1 differs in structure and/or chemical composition, resulting in a range of thermal and mechanical properties. Even polymers with the same repeat unit can have different properties depending on the molecular architecture, molar mass, and crystallinity, such as for high-density PE and low-density PE. While single polymers may be perfectly suited for a particular application and processing method, the performance demands of many products often require combinations. A prominant example is multicomponent products such as multilayer packaging where different polymers, and other materials like paper and foil, are combined to achieve the aggregate desired performance. For example, meeting food packaging requirements, including good containment, security, processability, durability, and low water/oxygen permeability, often necessitates between three and seven distinct layers. (5) Films with nonpolymeric materials present an entirely separate set of challenges to recycling, but for simplicity the following discussions will only focus on purely polymeric multilayer packaging materials. Such packaging also typically introduces adhesives and other additives between and within different polymer layers. (6) Whether combined before or after consumer use, the majority of thermoplastics end up as mixed plastic waste streams, and recovering valuable materials from this mixed waste stream has proven challenging.
Given that thermoplastics flow when heated, it would be convenient if mixed plastic waste streams could be simply mechanically recycled (i.e., melted and reprocessed) into a multicomponent plastic resin for use in other applications. However, due to the small entropy change upon mixing molecules of high molar mass, most polymers are thermodynamically immiscible. (7) This is even true for some polymers with similar chemical structures; for example, PE and PP are both comprised entirely of hydrogen and aliphatic carbons, yet they are immiscible. (8) For this reason, mechanical recycling typically does not result in a homogeneous material but instead produces large phase-separated domains of each component. The interfaces between these domains are typically weak due to sharp compositional gradients that preclude polymer chain entanglements and cocrystallization across the interface, compromising the mechanical performance. There is strong motivation to develop methods to “compatibilize” polymer blends to valorize the enormous quantities of otherwise unusable plastic waste. While “compatible” is sometimes used interchangeably with “miscible”, herein compatibilization refers specifically to a reduction of interfacial tension and domain size, and an increase in interfacial adhesion that leads to an improvement in polymer blend mechanical performance. (9) Compatibilized blends, due to their distinct domains, retain thermal properties of each individual component, instead of amalgamation of thermal transitions often observed in miscible blends. Many research efforts have sought to address these issues by developing additives and processing approaches that not only strengthen interfaces by compatibilizing two or more disparate polymers, but also fit easily into existing infrastructure for mechanical recycling. In the following sections, we will briefly review the use of block copolymers (BCPs) for compatibilizing polymer blends before discussing recent investigations leveraging multiblock copolymers (MBCPs).

1.2. Conventional Approaches to Compatibilization

A conventional approach for compatibilizing a binary blend of polymers is to introduce an interfacially active polymer, termed a “compatibilizer”, that is often comprised of two polymer blocks, each miscible with one polymer blend component. The blocks can be chemically identical to or structurally similar to a blend component or can possess functionalities that enable chemical interactions with specific blend components, all promoting miscibility of one block into each polymer blend component. (10,11) This can be realized via two distinct routes: (1) incorporating preformed BCP into the blend and (2) inducing reactions at polymer–polymer interfaces to form BCP in situ. Regardless of how they are generated, BCP compatibilizers are effective only by localizing at interfaces where they can interact with both homopolymer domains, thereby forming a “tether” across the interface. (12) This idea is shown schematically in Figure 2. The mechanism of the BCP increasing interfacial adhesion between the homopolymers generally consists of entanglement formation or cocrystallization of the BCP with each homopolymer domain. The absence of these two mechanisms generally produces relatively weak interfacial adhesion where the interface fails by chain pullout. (13)

Figure 2

Figure 2. Illustration of a polymer–polymer interface being stabilized with a (i) diblock copolymer, (ii) triblock copolymer, and (iii) grafted copolymer.

The idea of using BCPs, both preformed and formed in situ, to compatibilize binary polymer blends has been actively studied since the 1970s. (14−17) Compared to forming copolymers in situ, the use of premade diblock copolymers can afford more well-defined systems in terms of molecular structure and composition which allow for more methodical investigations of the structure–property relationships of BCP compatibilizers. For example, reactive formation of the PE-iPP diblock in situ is challenging because it requires installation of complementary functional groups on each block precursor; on the other hand, synthesizing a premade PE-iPP diblock can be readily achieved with good control of molecular architecture. (18) While early reports suggested there might exist an optimal block length for compatibilization, (19) later investigations revealed a more nuanced trade-off in molecular weight. (15) Lower molecular weight copolymers show enhanced diffusivity and can more easily localize at the interface, but they do not provide the same stabilizing effect as higher molecular weight analogues. (20) The reduced performance of lower molecular weight blocks has been attributed to being less capable of spanning the interface and less effective “anchoring” in the homopolymer domains by cocrystallization and/or entanglements. However, at higher BCP molecular weights, the critical micelle concentration (CMC) is substantially reduced for the BCP in each homopolymer and BCP micelles diffuse to the interface more slowly, all promoting a less effective compatibilizer. (15,21−23) Therefore, while the concept of an “optimal” molecular weight is enticing, the reality is that compatibilizer design requires consideration of the specific material system. Beyond these material considerations, there is also the added complexity of differences in processing that can dictate system performance (e.g., stage mixing before compounding often improves localization to the interface). (24,25)
Similar questions have been posed regarding the necessity of a BCP architecture for stabilizing interfaces. Using a PS-PMMA system, Lee et al. demonstrated that, while random copolymers can localize to the blend interface, they do not achieve similar stabilizing effects supporting the notion that sufficiently large blocks are required in order to achieve compatibilization. (26) It should be noted that many copolymers (including random copolymers) can reduce the dispersed particle size in polymer blends but do not necessarily stabilize the disperse phase from coalescing during subsequent processing. (27) Efficient compatibilization is only realized when both domain size reduction and stabilization occur. Interestingly, Fayt et al. showed that a “tapered” transition between the blocks of a copolymer could further improve compatibilization relative to analogues with two distinct blocks. (28) Other investigations in the area, both experimentally (29) and computationally, (30,31) have confirmed that interfacial activity and phase separation are strongly effected by subtle differences in block structure (e.g., degree of tapering). These encouraging results suggest that developing architectural complexity beyond a simple diblock could have significant impact on blend performance and is still an active area of investigation. (32,33)
The emphasis on diblock compatibilizers stems from both synthetic convenience and by analogy to traditional surfactants as well as early assertions that the diblock architecture outperformed other polymer architectures (i.e., graft copolymers and linear triblock copolymers). (11,28,34) Early studies made claims that increasing the number of blocks had little, even detrimental, impact on interfacial adhesion of incompatible polymers; however, the polymers used in these studies were limited to triblocks. (28) More recent studies investigating MBCP compatibilizers with four or more blocks─enabled by synthetic advancements─have revealed that MBCPs actually outperform traditional diblocks. (18,35−37) These and other recent advances are discussed in depth in later sections of this perspective.
The other main strategy for introducing compatibilizers is to form them in situ via coupling reactions at the blend interface. (38) This can be achieved in a variety of ways but typically includes a homopolymer with reactive handles which can couple with complementary functionalities of another homopolymer. All of the polymer architectures given in Figure 2 could be generated in situ if the polymer precursors are appropriately designed to participate in a coupling reaction. Fortuitously, compounding supplies the required heat and mixing to drive the chemical reaction, while mixing also disperses the phases during the mechanical recycling process, allowing for copolymer formation and blend compatibilization to occur in a single step. Therefore, unlike premade BCP compatibilizers which require additional synthesis and isolation prior to addition, reactive graft copolymers can often be implemented more readily. Intuitively, optimal copolymer formation can be achieved if the homopolymers being blended intrinsically contain complementary functional groups, but this approach must be implemented during the original production of the virgin materials and is therefore not generally applicable to the compatibilization of mixed waste streams.
Compatibilizers formed in situ have several other influences on the kinetics of compatibilization compared to premade compatibilizers. Since premade compatibilizers must localize to the blend interface─with no chemical reaction necessary for their formation─the primary influence on how fast the system can compatibilize is the diffusivity of the compatibilizer to the blend interface. For in situ formed compatibilizers, the transport of the reactive precursors and rate of formation at the interface both influence the rate at which the system can compatibilize. For example, if the reactive groups can form the compatibilizer significantly faster than the rate of droplet breakup during processing, then the result is less efficient dispersion of the minority phase. (39) The predominant lesson being that the reaction rate must be balanced with the rate of growth of interfacial area (i.e., reduction in droplet size) during processing to optimize in situ blend compatibilization.
Leveraging functional groups inherent to the polymer (e.g., amine end-groups on nylons) to drive reactions with a complementary functionalized additive (e.g., maleic anhydride-grafted polymers) has been demonstrated to effectively compatibilize polymer blends. (17,40) The most prevalent of these coupling chemistries is the amine-anhydride reaction due to its high reactivity and well-established synthetic methods for generating polymers with the required functionalities. (38,41) Reactive compatibilization has been implemented industrially to compatibilize recycled mixed plastic at concentrations between 5 to 20 wt % of reactive resin. (42−44) Extensive efforts have been made to quantify the reactivity of various other reactive handles by monitoring the coupling reactions as graft or block compatibilizers are formed, (45) as well as quantifying the difference in reactivity of end-functionalized versus pendant-functionalized polymers. (46) Because reactive compatibilization can result in various types of copolymers, developing a more rigorous understanding of the consequences and performance of copolymer architecture (i.e., graft vs linear) is necessary. Similarly, graft copolymers have structural parameters such as grafting density, graft distribution, and molecular weight of grafted chains that all influence their performance as compatibilizers, and more work is necessary to elucidate the underlying structure-performance relationships. (46−48)

2. Synthetic Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The discovery of living polymerizations by Szwarc et al. enabled access to well-defined block and graft copolymers that catalyzed decades of innovation. (49) The further development and refinement of these methods led to various technological advances, including thermoplastic elastomers (50) and, later on, BCP compatibilizers. (6) In the time since, the combined contribution of many researchers have expanded the range of accessible polymer architectures enormously, (51) but our understanding of the effect of architecture on compatibilizer performance has lagged behind. In Figure 3, a series of increasingly complex architectures that can be formed with only two distinct blocks is shown to illustrate the immense variety within this space. The discrepancy between our extensive synthetic capability and physical understanding poses an exciting opportunity to investigate and potentially implement new polymer architectures as novel compatibilizers.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Diverse range of possible copolymer architectures using only two distinct blocks.

Several reviews exist that thoroughly discuss recent innovations in living polymerization chemistry, (52−54) MBCP synthesis, (55) and coupling reactions, (56,57) so herein we will only highlight several key examples of how synthetic developments have enabled advancements in the field of blend compatibilization. Early studies largely focused on amorphous polymer compatibilizers (as those polymers could be directly attained from anionic polymerization), but the development of improved catalysts and chemistries have enabled the study of semicrystalline blends which are far more industrially relevant. For example, a synthetic strategy developed by Lee et al. to generate multiblock PLA-PB copolymers via a condensation polymerization of two hydroxy-terminated macromonomers with a diacyl chloride (58) inspired a recent method by Nomura et al. that generated PET-PE MBCP compatibilizers. (36) While PET-PE MBCPs have previously been generated in situ, (59−61) the establishment of a robust synthetic method for their ex situ synthesis allows for a more methodical study of the structure–property relationship of these materials. (36) Similarly, Wang et al. demonstrated the first synthesis of well-defined PE-g-aPP copolymers (with molar mass dispersities, Đ < 2). (62) This advancement was made possible by the synthesis of a cyclooctene (COE)-terminated aPP macromonomer, which allowed for a grafting-through copolymerization with COE; a subsequent hydrogenation step transformed the PCOE-g-aPP into the desired PE-g-aPP. (62) While similar syntheses have been demonstrated, (63,64) the use of a COE-terminated macromonomer allowed for a graft-through approach that gave researchers unprecedented control over side chain length and grafting density in a well-defined PE-g-aPP copolymer. (62) Beyond these academic developments, ongoing efforts at Dow have developed a method for generating olefinic BCPs using a known metallocene catalyst combined with an innovative “chain shuttling agent” (65) to be used as compatibilizers (66) and tie layers. (67) From these examples, it is clear that synthetic innovations do not necessarily stem from a dramatic or singular discovery but instead usually arise from the refinement and creative application of previous syntheses.
Because of the incredible diversity in structure, number, and connectivity of blocks in BCPs, investigation in this field is guided primarily by (1) available synthetic routes for achieving the desired molecular architecture and (2) predictive theoretical models that enable rational molecular design. (27) With the increased accessibility of polymer architectures, questions arise regarding how to make appropriate comparisons between them. For example, what would be the appropriate diblock copolymer comparison for a multiblock grafted copolymer? How can performance metrics between structurally dissimilar architectures be standardized to allow for relevant comparison? Seemingly small structural changes, like the addition of a block or a difference in block connectivity or sequence, can have repercussions on properties. While it has been shown that molecular weight dispersity can drive large changes in bulk self-assembly, (68−70) only recently has polydispersity been investigated in the context of blend compatibilization. (71) Similar investigations are now taking place around the use of MBCP compatibilizers and the results show great promise. (18,35,36,58)

3. Linear Multiblock Copolymer Compatibilizers

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

When considering systems beyond the conventional diblock, an immediately evident possibility is the MBCP architecture. The simplest MBCP architecture is an extension of the conventional diblock copolymer, where blocks are connected linearly to generate a linear multiblock copolymer (lMBCP). One can imagine that lMBCPs could similarly segregate to an interface to span and reinforce two homopolymer domains; rather than crossing the interface a single time as with a diblock copolymer, lMBCPs can cross the interface multiple times, effectively “stitching” the domains together. Assuming localization to the interface and appropriate segregation of the multiblock components to their respective homopolymer domains, the number of interface crossings scales with number of blocks (n) in the copolymer. This is shown schematically in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Depiction of several MBCPs (n > 2) stabilizing a polymer–polymer interface, highlighting the increased number of interface crossings per molecule with an increased number of blocks.

Eagan and Xu et al. synthesized both tetrablock and hexablock PE-iPP copolymers directly from ethylene and propylene monomers using a hafnium-based living catalyst. (18,35) To simulate recycling, HDPE/iPP blends were prepared by melt blending with lMBCP additives in a single microcompounding step. As shown in Figure 5, the blends achieved a strain-at-break of ∼500% with only 1 wt % of the lMBCP compatibilizer, a significant improvement from the ∼10% strain-at-break for neat blends prepared without compatibilizer. (18) Also, the interfacial adhesion between HDPE and iPP films was significantly strengthened when a PE-iPP lMBCP was employed as a tie layer in multilayer laminates (peel strength > 6 vs < 0.5 N/mm for HDPE/iPP films). In the same work, researchers found that a traditional diblock copolymer with comparable block length performs worse as both a compatibilizer (Figure 5, strain at break 90% vs 500% for lMBCP) and a tie layer (peel strength ∼ 1 vs > 6 N/mm for lMBCP). For these diblock copolymers to show comparable performance they must be higher in molecular weight and concentration (ca. 5 wt %) than analogous MBCPs. Similarly, Nomura et al. synthesized PET-PE MBCPs for compatibilizing a PET/LLDPE system. They found that 2 wt % addition of lMBCP could convert brittle 80/20 PET/LLDPE blends (strain at break ∼10%) to ductile compatibilized blends (strain at break ∼400%). In contrast, analogous blends containing triblock copolymer with comparable block length exhibited strain at break of only ∼13%. In addition, as an interfacial tie layer, lMBCP increased the interfacial adhesion between PET and LLDPE over two orders of magnitude, while the triblock copolymer counterpart only increased adhesion by four times, compared to without a tie layer. These results also indicate that lMBCPs outperform triblock copolymers at comparable block length. (36) It is clear from these findings that lMBCPs compatibilizers pose a competitive alternative to traditional diblock copolymers, but more work remains to understand the underlying mechanisms of their enhanced performance as well as the limits of the architectural advantage (e.g., the trade-off between anchoring ability and diffusivity when increasing block number and molecular weight).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Uniaxial tensile elongation of PE/iPP materials and blends. Materials were melt-blended at 190 °C without BCPs (black) or with 1 wt % diblock (green), 1 wt % tetrablock (orange), or 5 wt % tetrablock copolymers (purple). These materials were then compression molded into tensile specimens at 180 °C and tensile tested at a rate of 100%/min (Adapted with permission from the work of Eagan et al. (35) Copyright 2017 AAAS).

3.1. Mechanisms of Enhanced Compatibilizer Performance

In diblock copolymers, the performance is determined largely by two factors: areal density (which scales with localization at the interface) and molecular weight (which dictates the polymer–polymer interaction in the homopolymer domains). (19,72) As shown in Figure 4, lMBCPs can cross the interface between two homopolymers multiple times. In a conventional diblock copolymer, a sufficiently high block length can result in entanglement of the blocks with the homopolymer domains, thereby strengthening the interface and reducing the possibility of failure by chain pullout. Based on theories concerning chain entanglements in homopolymers, a critical molecular weight (Mc), determined to be two to three times the molecular weight between entanglements (Me), is often required to observe the effects of entanglement. (73) When considering entanglement across an interface, a shift in interfacial failure mechanism can be observed at four to five times the molecular weight of entanglement. (72) In the case of lMBCP, entanglements can also be formed with midblocks which results in the possibility of “trapped entanglements”, instead of only end-blocks as for diblock copolymers, shown schematically in Figure 6. Eastwood et al. experimentally probed this question of midblock entanglement in lMBCP compatibilizers using diblocks and pentablocks and found that the failure mechanism changed at much lower molecular weights for midblocks than for chain ends (100 kg/mol for diblocks vs 30 kg/mol for pentablocks), suggesting that the conformational constraints imposed by molecular self-assembly characteristics at the interface improve midblock entanglement. (73) This phenomenon has been predicted by Monte Carlo simulations of MBCP systems. (74) While it is well understood that the chain ends of BCPs can fail by chain-pullout, the behavior of entangled midblocks (e.g., relaxation time and failure mechanism) and the molecular weight dependence of these phenomena remain opportunities for further investigation. (73) Quantifying how entanglements scale with lMBCP structure will prove key to designing optimized MBCP to compatibilize complex polymer blends.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Schematics of lMBCP forming trapped entanglements and cocrystallizing with homopolymers.

For semicrystalline polymers (e.g., PE, iPP, PET), another anchoring mechanism is available between the lMBCP and the homopolymers: cocrystallization (Figure 6). The block molecular weight necessary for cocrystallization to occur is typically higher than that for trapped entanglements because (1) polymer chains must fold into the crystal structure and (2) the BCP needs to be long enough to span the amorphous interfacial width to colocate with the crystalline homopolymer domains. (18) When using a PE-iPP lMBCP with sufficiently large blocks as a tie layer between iPP and HDPE films, Xu et al. observed crystal formation near the interfaces between lMBCP and the homopolymers and proposed cocrystallization as contributing to the observed toughening. (18) However, further experimentation is needed to definitively confirm that the lMBCP is incorporated into the crystalline domains of the homopolymers, possibly through polymer labeling and high spatial-resolution analytical techniques. With cocrystallization, it has been shown for polyethylene and its copolymers containing small amounts of acetate or ethyl branches that the temperature at which the crystallite melts can become intermediary to that of the two individual components. (75) This effect, while small, in compatibilized blends where the vast majority of crystallites are usually composed of homopolymer, could provide an interesting property to study further in the presence of cocrystallizable MBCPs. Further, when crystallization occurs near an interface between two polymer domains with sufficient differences in crystallization rates, the volume contraction associated with crystallization can effectively pull material across the interface (a process known an “local crystallization”). (76) This process can presumably occur concurrent to cocrystallization but has only been demonstrated at noncompatibilized polymer interfaces. Investigating this phenomenon with lMBCP compatibilized interfaces could give insight into toughening mechanisms.
MBCPs have achieved successful compatibilization at impressively low concentrations (ca. 0.5 wt % or lower) (36) relative to the current industrially utilized reactive compatibilizers (5–20 wt %). (42−44) This is a very encouraging indication that this technology could be realized industrially as it would reduce the amount of required additive and therefore lower the cost of implementation. A possible explanation for the increased efficiency of lMBCPs is that they can more easily localize to the interface (thereby outcompeting micellization). Micellization of diblock copolymers in homopolymers has been rigorously investigated. It has been observed that diblock copolymers readily form micelles in the major blend components─a feature that reduces compatibilization─and the tendency of micelle formation further increases with higher molecular weight. In contrast, there have been few studies on the micellization behavior of lMBCP in homopolymers. To help bridge this gap in our understanding, more systematic investigations on micellization as a function of MBCP physical parameters (e.g., block asymmetry, block molecular weight, number of blocks) are needed. A clear understanding of the design space of MBCPs will help understand the apparent high efficiency displayed by many MBCP compatibilizers and translate this technology to recycling solutions.

3.2. Future Work and Challenges

With the recently demonstrated successes of lMBCP as polymer blend compatibilizers, these materials are quickly gaining interest as a research area rife with opportunity. As discussed previously, trapped entanglements and cocrystallization of an lMBCP with a homopolymer can occur simultaneously to synergistically strengthen interfaces, but future experiments could work toward isolating either mechanism to better understand its contribution to overall performance. For example, polymer crystallinity is strongly process- and molecular architecture-dependent; therefore, with strategic material design and clever manipulation of processing conditions, the two mechanisms may be decoupled. This would enable a great opportunity for investigating their interplay in defining blend performance. Studies in this direction have revealed the limitations of current characterization techniques (e.g., peel tests) (18) suggesting that development in both the materials of study and methods of study will be necessary to elucidate a clearer understanding of the system. Further, the use of amorphous model blends entirely eliminates the possibility of cocrystallization, thereby isolating the contribution of trapped entanglements. Strategic investigation of an amorphous system could yield many insights into the nature of trapped entanglements in MBCP-compatibilized blends.
Beyond these opportunities, many challenges still exist to further develop a theoretical framework for guiding material design of lMBCP compatibilizers. In blend compatibilization, vigorous melt mixing aids transport and migration of compatibilizer to the interface. Preliminary work seems to suggest that lMBCPs are more effective than diblock copolymers at localizing to the interface, but direct observation of the relative transport through homopolymers to interfaces has not yet been realized. Further, a complete physical understanding of factors driving the difference in localization is lacking yet would be incredibly beneficial for molecular (re)design of optimal compatibilizers. For example, factors like micelle formation and segregation strength affect the ability to localize to an interface but are strongly coupled and require careful study to deconvolute. (77) Importantly, there is a wealth of theory and simulation studies aimed at understanding the behavior of diblock copolymers in homopolymers blends, (32,74,78−81) but fewer have extended these investigations to lMBCPs. (82−84) Some simulation work has been done on MBCPs in solution, (85,86) highlighting some of their interesting assembly behavior, and applying similar efforts to MBCPs in homopolymer could be highly informative in the field for guiding experimental work.
Translating a mechanistic understanding into an efficient processing technique is also critical for further developing this technology. For example, if lMBCPs segregate efficiently to polymer–polymer interfaces, should they be incorporated directly into homopolymers as latent compatibilizers for ready to recycle opportunities after their initial use? Alternatively, given their competitive performance as adhesive tie layers, should lMBCPs be incorporated into products as tie layers in place of conventional adhesives such that they can readily compatibilize the resulting mixed polymer waste stream after use? Already there are innovative commercial products exploring these ideas with olefinic BCPs, but numerous opportunities for industrial and academic study still remain.

4. Grafted Multiblock Copolymer Compatibilizers

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Another polymer architecture that has garnered interest for its potential use as a compatibilizer is the grafted multiblock copolymer (gMBCP). Recalling Figure 2iii, these molecules consist of a polymer backbone that is miscible with one phase of the blend and has grafted side chain polymers that are miscible with the other polymer in the blend. While these polymers can also be considered MBCPs owing to the multiple blocks that comprise them, they differ from lMBCP in their block interconnectivity. In contrast to lMBCP compatibilizers that cross back and forth across the interface, gMBCP compatibilizers have multiple grafted chains which can only cross the interface once, with the chain-ends of one block type located in one of the blend components. As a result of this architectural difference, only the backbone of gMBCP compatibilizers can form trapped entanglements, as opposed to both block types in lMBCPs. However, because gMBCPs have multiple grafted blocks, a single gMBCP may stitch the interface more than once. (87) This effect seems to be supported by other studies that have shown increased compatibilization with increasing grafting density, paralleling the argument of increased blocks in lMBCPs. (64) Another important consideration in the case of gMBCPs is the choice of which polymer should compose the backbone block versus grafted blocks because of the difference in their interactions with the homopolymer. The backbone of a gMBCP is constrained nearer to the interface and presents the opportunity for trapped entanglements, whereas the gMBCP grafted blocks consist of a single chain-end with more conformational freedom (shown in Figure 7). As a result of this asymmetry, differences arise when the backbones are included in the major phase versus the minor phase of a blend that should be considered when designing gMBCP. Though the aforementioned studies focused on preformed gMBCPs, these molecules are often generated in situ. While it is certainly more convenient for processing to form gMBCPs in situ, it also makes it more challenging to elucidate structure–performance relationships because the compatibilizers are not being isolated and rigorously characterized. For this reason, many investigations use polymer syntheses that allow for precise architectural control to help probe the variable space thereby informing future design of reactive systems.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Schematic of reactively formed graft copolymers. Reactive groups must both be present at the interface to form the compatibilizer.

4.1. Premade Versus Reactive Graft Multiblock Copolymer Compatibilizers

Like linear copolymers, graft copolymer compatibilizers can either be premade prior to melt mixing or formed in situ through reactions between functional groups on each polymer (Figure 7). Premade graft copolymers can be synthesized through a variety of methods such as graft-to (i.e., reacting an end-functionalized chain with dispersed functionalities on a backbone) (46) or by graft-from (i.e., using functional groups along the backbone to initiate the growth of the pendant chains). (88) With recent advances in catalyst technology, it is now also possible to synthesize macromonomers containing the desired graft chain, and copolymerize these macromonomers with a graft-through approach. (55) Premade graft copolymers and the controlled polymerization techniques used to make them provide the framework for systematic studies of the variables that affect compatibilization (e.g., backbone/side chain length and grafting density/spacing). Recent work in this field has shown that the addition of PE-g-iPP (gMBCP) to a 70/30 blend of HDPE/iPP increased strain at break from 18 to ∼900% and more than halved the average minority component droplet size. (64) Moreover, it was shown that increasing the number and length of grafted chains─thereby increasing the number and strength of “anchors” afforded by entanglements and/or cocrystallization on each side of the interface─led to improved mechanical performance. Studies like this have started to explore the structural parameter space that can be accessed through new synthetic methods and are crucial for developing the necessary understanding to allow for rational design of compatibilizers in the future.
The insight gained from these investigations on premade gMBCPs can be applied to systems that reactively form gMBCPs. The precursors to these reactively formed copolymers are typically functionalized versions of an unreactive phase (often a polyolefin like PE) which has had functional groups incorporated into the backbone by either copolymerization or grafting techniques. (6) One advantage of using these functionalized polymers to form graft copolymers in situ is that there is already a library of these functional polymers to choose from due to their use as tie layers in multilayer films. (6) Moreover, we believe that forward-thinking design of multilayer systems to incorporate these functionalized polymers as tie layers that can function downstream as compatibilizers can open up new and exciting recycling pathways. This idea of integrating compatibilizers into tie layers is already being employed industrially to allow multilayer packaging films to enter recycling streams. (67,89)
Along with the design factors associated with premade graft copolymers, reactive systems bring an added layer of complexity in the form of reaction rates for generating in situ gMBCPs. In a 2001 study, Orr et al. characterized a wide array of functional pairs commonly used for in situ compatibilization. (45) They found that an amine/anhydride had by far the fastest reaction rate, with the next fastest reaction measured (acid/epoxy) being almost two orders of magnitude slower. These results explain why anhydride functionalized polymers are utilized in most multilayer materials. However, we believe that by understanding the other underlying factors controlling reactivity, compatibilizers derived from slower coupling chemistries may become more viable. Functional groups with reduced reactivity tend to be more shelf-stable and less expensive, making them more attractive. The intrinsic reactivity of a functional group pair is thermodynamically driven, but the apparent reaction rate is largely governed by kinetic factors. Therefore, less reactive pairs can be accelerated by increasing the availability of functional groups at the interface. It has been found that droplet size distributions decrease when a reactive backbone is mixed directly with its complementary phase (i.e., mixing it in the phase with complementary reactive groups) as compared to premixing it with the phase it matches (i.e., putting it in the miscible phase and hoping it finds its way to the interface to react). (43) Likewise, aggressive mixing can help mitigate slow intrinsic reaction rates, having been shown to increase effective reaction rates by almost two orders of magnitude compared with static annealing. (46) These results suggest that reactive gMBCP performance is determined not just by the final polymer structure but by the processing conditions used to drive the copolymer formation. These preliminary findings indicate that gMBCPs could offer competitive performance to lMBCPs, but further investigations are necessary to understand and optimize the design of these compounds.

4.2. Future Work and Challenges

Despite their prevalence as compatibilizers and tie layers, a systematic understanding of the factors surrounding the compatibilization efficiency of gMBCPs has not yet been established. Current studies with tightly controlled graft architecture have had the copolymer backbone miscible with the majority component of the blend, but could similar improvements in performance be gained with the backbone in the minority phase and grafted side chains extending into the matrix? Similarly, how would performance be affected if both variants of the grafted copolymers (backbone in majority phase and backbone in minority phase) were concurrently introduced to a blend? It has been shown that, when the grafted side chains are miscible with the dispersed phase (and the backbone with the matrix), compatibilization decreases due to chain pullout of the grafts, (90) so more deeply exploring the effects of this asymmetry is imperative for understanding gMBCP function. This asymmetry can be taken a step further by introducing grafted chains that are copolymers themselves. Leveraging insights gained from investigations of BCP compatibilizers, random copolymer grafted side chains could be introduced to increase the width of the interfacial region; tapered copolymer grafted side chains could also be studied for their previously demonstrated improvements to compatibilization.
More questions arise as to how transport of these graft polymers can be manipulated to maximize the amount of polymer that localizes to the interface. Specifically, it would be interesting to explore the effect of polymer miscibility (of both the backbone and the side chains) on localization behavior as well as differences in micellization behavior of gMBCPs formed in situ versus ex situ. In reactive systems requiring small molecule catalysts, it was seen that the most effective catalysts were those with solubility parameters in between the two polymers being compatibilized, causing them to localize at the interface (an analogous trend to what has been observed with diblock copolymers). (91) Could strategies for tethering catalysts be used to improve reaction rates and circumvent solubility issues? Similarly, it has been observed that higher molecular weight polymer backbones can improve segregation to the interface and toughening of the interface (through previously described entanglement/cocrystallization mechanisms) but can hinder diffusion through the bulk. While it is known that higher molecular weight can promote micellization in diblock copolymers, it is not yet clear if the same is true for gMBCPs nor how limiting micellization of gMBCPs might be for compatibilization. Is there an optimal backbone length and/or grafting density to maximize localization to the interface? Or is it a nuanced relationship that must consider the identity of the backbone and the immiscible phase? Encouraged by preliminary studies, we believe the opportunities for gMBCP compatibilizers are plenty, but to achieve them we must first take a step back and closely consider the roles of the building blocks of the system.

5. Beyond Binary Blends

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

As the value of BCPs becomes more and more apparent for use as compatibilizers in mixed waste stream recycling, questions arise as to future directions and commercial implementation of these materials. To this point, the majority of studies have focused mostly on two phase systems (often some mixture of a polyolefin and either another polyolefin, (18,35,92) a polyurethane, (93−95) a polyester, (36,96,97) or a polyamide (24,98,99)). However, a simple examination of the contents of any recycling bin reveals a wide array of materials that may at some point end up in a solid plastic waste stream together. Though current separation techniques (e.g., flotation, physical sorting, etc.) can enrich streams toward a single material, remaining impurities are highly variable in time and by source and difficult to predict. The net result of these difficulties is a highly inefficient process. This dilemma highlights a major need for advancing recycling technology. To date, significant advances have been made with model, virgin polymers, and their blends, but it is as of yet unclear how these will translate to real waste streams. The establishment of a series of models for more realistic plastic waste stream standards would allow researchers to study more relevant systems while enabling comparisons across laboratories. However, this is a formidable task as it is difficult to imagine what a prototypical realistic model waste stream might look like. Is it majority polyolefin? Are ternary blends or higher order mixtures most appropriate? These are complex questions from a materials standpoint that are necessarily intertwined with societal behaviors, industrial practices, and waste collection infrastructure which complicate an already convoluted problem. (100)
Importantly, strategies are emerging to address blends that are beyond binary. Recent work has demonstrated gMBCP compatibilizers can be effective for ternary PP/PA6/PS (101) (as shown in Figure 8) and PP/PA6/SEBS (102) blends. These blend compositions were specifically chosen to contain three mutually immiscible components because if any two components were miscible then it could be approximated as a binary blend and not a true ternary blend. Further, the blend choice encompasses the three major divisions of commercial consumer plastics: polyolefins, engineering plastics, and styrene-based polymers. This work represents an ambitious new direction in the field of using highly tailored MBCP compatibilizers to address more complex multicomponent blends that better simulate real-life waste streams. The compatibilizer precursor that is dispersed into the ternary blend is a polypropylene backbone grafted with side chains of maleic anhydride-styrene copolymers (PP-g-(MAH-co-PS)); the maleic anhydride can react in situ with amine groups on PA6 to generate the final gMBCP structure (PP-g-((MAH-g-PA6)-co-PS)). This synthetic approach of having reactive grafting groups within a grafted side chain shows great promise and could theoretically be extended to blends with even more than three components. As shown in Figure 8, when compatibilizing ternary systems there are many more interactions that must be taken into consideration. While this inherently complicates the design of compatibilizers, MBCPs offer an efficient materials platform for encoding various interactions and parameters into a single molecule.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Interplay between phases and compatibilizer in preliminary ternary system studies (Adapted with permission from ref (101). Copyright 2011 Elsevier Ltd.).

Considering the aforementioned demonstrations of reactive gMBCP compatibilizers for ternary blends, the question naturally arises about whether a premade MBCP compatibilizer (linear or graft) with three or more distinct polymer chemistries could also be effective for multicomponent blends. As shown in Figure 3, there exists a wide range of potential connectivity for diblock copolymers, but for MBCPs the potential connectivity and order of the blocks expands exponentially. (51) For example, moving from a diblock to a triblock expands the potential unique connectivities from one to three (i.e., while a linear diblock will always be an AB copolymer, a linear triblock can exist as ABC, ACB, and CAB copolymers). Moving from a linear polymer to more complex architectures (e.g., grafted copolymer and star copolymer) further confounds the possibilities. Given the enormity of possible polymer and architecture combinations, discovering effective compatibilizers will require strategic and targeted investigations. One particularly interesting architecture is the miktoarm star copolymer (where mikto means “mixed”). One can imagine a single star copolymer with a separate arm for each of several major recyclable polymer classes working as a “one-size-fits-all” compatibilizer. Similarly, a graft copolymer system with various arms of distinct polymer types (i.e., a “mikto”-grafted MBCP) could be developed to address multicomponent blends. And there is no reason to limit these systems to homopolymer side chains; a star or grafted MBCP could be composed of diblock, gradient, or even random copolymer side chains to improve interactions with specific interfaces. While it is unknown whether these molecular designs could outperform conventional compatibilizers, they illustrate the numerous opportunities for impactful investigation on polymer architecture in this field. With the many developments in polymer synthesis, newly accessible structures could bring us closer to a “universal compatibilizer”, but first, the basic principles surrounding the effectiveness of these new and exciting architectures must be understood.

6. Outlook

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In recent years, lMBCP and gMBCP architectures have been used to compatibilize polymer blends and multilayer films. In the absence of compatibilizers, polymer blends have poor mechanical performance due to poor stress transfer across the interface. However, MBCP compatibilizers have been shown to effectively mitigate this issue by improving interfacial adhesion, at concentrations lower than those necessary for diblock copolymer compatibilizers. These results demonstrate the great potential of MBCPs for opening new pathways to recycle mixed plastic waste. Mechanical mixing has historically been viewed as “downcycling” because the resulting blends generally had inadequate properties due to degradation, additives, and molecular weight variability. With the development and optimization of modern compatibilizers, this old paradigm is quickly shifting. Properly compatibilized blends can have properties intermediate to their constituent parts and well within range of some commercial materials. Just like any other materials selection process in product design, we need to recognize that compatibilizers are not a one-size-fits all solution for all mixtures, rather successful outcomes require strategic implementation derived from leaning on knowledge of polymer chemistry, physics, and processing. Ultimately, the combination of compatibilization techniques and appropriate choice of application could valorize much of the solid plastic waste that is currently being lost to the environment, burned for energy, or deposited in landfills.
This is an area rich with many fundamental questions that need to be answered. For both lMBCPs and gMBCPs, we need to develop a better understanding of their diffusion, micellization, and localization behavior, both in homopolymer and in mixed blends, as well as the underlying mechanisms of their stabilization. Simultaneously, we must develop effective methods for incorporating compatibilizers into real life waste streams. In the same vein, extending fundamental research efforts from binary blends into the reality of multicomponent waste streams will be crucial to their successful implementation. Not only will these streams have multiple plastic components, but also various additives, such as pigments, dyes, stabilizers, nucleating agents, and particulates, that will complicate compatibilization. MBCPs offer a potentially exciting material solution to these issues, but our nascent understanding of their use as compatibilizers requires further development. With the multitudinous synthetic advancements of recent years, researchers are granted enormous freedom and flexibility in the design of these molecules which greatly enables new studies. Overall, progress in the field of BCP compatibilizers is guiding us toward a path for bringing plastic waste into a circular economy, but many exciting challenges lie ahead before we can close the loop.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Jeffrey L. Self - Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9394-4582
    • Aristotle J. Zervoudakis - Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4758-1784
    • Xiayu Peng - Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6216-7493
    • William R. Lenart - Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3660-256X
    • Christopher W. Macosko - Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2892-3267
  • Author Contributions

    J.L.S., A.J.Z., X.P., and W.R.L. made equal contributions. The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We acknowledge our principal funding source, the National Science Foundation Center for Sustainable Polymers at the University of Minnesota, which is a National Science Foundation supported Center for Chemical Innovation (CHE-1901635).

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 102 other publications.

  1. 1
    Wagner, J. R. J.; Mark, S. B. Chapter 1–Introduction. In Multilayer Flexible Packaging; William Andrew, 2009; pp 311.
  2. 2
    Alexander, H. Tullo. The Cost of Plastic Packaging. C&EN Glob. Enterp. 2016, 94 (41), 3237,  DOI: 10.1021/cen-09441-cover
  3. 3
    Environmental Protection Agency. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet ; 2020.
  4. 4
    Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J. R.; Law, K. L. Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3 (7), e1700782  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782
  5. 5
    Anukiruthika, T.; Sethupathy, P.; Wilson, A.; Kashampur, K.; Moses, J. A.; Anandharamakrishnan, C. Multilayer Packaging: Advances in Preparation Techniques and Emerging Food Applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19 (3), 11561186,  DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12556
  6. 6
    Morris, B. A. Adhesion. In The Science and Technology of Flexible Packaging; Elsevier, 2017; pp 351400.  DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-24273-8.00010-1 .
  7. 7
    Higgins, J. S.; Lipson, J. E. G.; White, R. P. A Simple Approach to Polymer Mixture Miscibility. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2010, 368 (1914), 1009,  DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2009.0215
  8. 8
    Teh, J. W.; Rudin, A.; Keung, J. C. A Review of Polyethylene–Polypropylene Blends and Their Compatibilization. Adv. Polym. Technol. 1994, 13 (1), 123,  DOI: 10.1002/adv.1994.060130101
  9. 9
    Paul, D. R. Interfacial Agents (“Compatibilizers”) for Polymer Blends. Polym. Blends 1978, 3562,  DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-546802-2.50008-7
  10. 10
    Traugott, T. D.; Barlow, J. W.; Paul, D. R. Mechanical Compatibilization of High Density Polyethylene–Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) Blends. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1983, 28 (9), 29472959,  DOI: 10.1002/app.1983.070280922
  11. 11
    Fayt, R.; Jérôme, R.; Teyssié, P. Molecular Design of Multicomponent Polymer Systems. I. Emulsifying Effect of Poly(Hydrogenated Butadiene-b-Styrene) Copolymers in LDPE/PS Blends. J. Polym. Sci. Polym. Lett. Ed. 1981, 19 (2), 7984,  DOI: 10.1002/pol.1981.130190207
  12. 12
    Creton, C.; Kramer, E. J.; Hui, C. Y.; Brown, H. R. Failure Mechanisms of Polymer Interfaces Reinforced with Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 1992, 25 (12), 30753088,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00038a010
  13. 13
    Creton, C.; Kramer, E. J.; Brown, H. R.; Hui, C.-Y. Adhesion and Fracture of Interfaces Between Immiscible Polymers: From the Molecular to the Continuum Scale. Adv. Polym. Sci. 2001, 156, 53136,  DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45141-2_2
  14. 14
    Barentsen, W. M.; Heikens, D.; Piet, P. Effect of Addition of Graft Copolymer on the Microstructure and Impact Strength of PS/LDPE Blends. Polymer 1974, 15 (2), 119122,  DOI: 10.1016/0032-3861(74)90012-3
  15. 15
    Riess, G.; Jolivet, Y. Rubber-Modified Polymers. Location of Block Copolymers in Two-Phase Materials. Advances in Chemistry 1975, 142, 243256,  DOI: 10.1021/ba-1975-0142.ch022
  16. 16
    Barentsen, W. M.; Heikens, D. Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Polystyrene/Low Density Polyethylene Blends. Polymer 1973, 14 (11), 579583,  DOI: 10.1016/0032-3861(73)90143-2
  17. 17
    Ide, F.; Hasegawa, A. Studies on Polymer Blend of Nylon 6 and Polypropylene or Nylon 6 and Polystyrene Using the Reaction of Polymer. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1974, 18 (4), 963974,  DOI: 10.1002/app.1974.070180402
  18. 18
    Xu, J.; Eagan, J. M.; Kim, S.-S.; Pan, S.; Lee, B.; Klimovica, K.; Jin, K.; Lin, T.-W.; Howard, M. J.; Ellison, C. J.; LaPointe, A. M.; Coates, G. W.; Bates, F. S. Compatibilization of Isotactic Polypropylene (iPP) and High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) with iPP–PE Multiblock Copolymers. Macromolecules 2018, 51 (21), 85858596,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.8b01907
  19. 19
    Gaylord, N. G. Compatibilization Concepts in Polymer Applications. Advances in Chemistry 1975, 142, 7684,  DOI: 10.1021/ba-1975-0142.ch007
  20. 20
    Macosko, C. W.; Guégan, P.; Khandpur, A. K.; Nakayama, A.; Marechal, P.; Inoue, T. Compatibilizers for Melt Blending: Premade Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 1996, 29 (17), 55905598,  DOI: 10.1021/ma9602482
  21. 21
    Noolandi, J.; Hong, K. M. Interfacial Properties of Immiscible Homopolymer Blends in the Presence of Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 1982, 15 (2), 482492,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00230a054
  22. 22
    Galloway, J. A.; Jeon, H. K.; Bell, J. R.; Macosko, C. W. Block Copolymer Compatibilization of Cocontinuous Polymer Blends. Polymer 2005, 46 (1), 183191,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2004.10.061
  23. 23
    Chang, K.; Macosko, C. W.; Morse, D. C. Interfacial Tension Measurement and Micellization in a Polymer Blend with Copolymer Surfactant: A False Critical Micelle Concentration. Macromolecules 2015, 48 (22), 81548168,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.5b01268
  24. 24
    Willis, J. M.; Favis, B. D. Processing-morphology Relationships of Compatibilized Polyolefin/Polyamide Blends. Part I: The Effect of an Lonomer Compatibilizer on Blend Morphology. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1988, 28 (21), 14161426,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.760282111
  25. 25
    Zhang, C. L.; Feng, L. F.; Gu, X. P.; Hoppe, S.; Hu, G. H. Efficiency of Graft Copolymers as Compatibilizers for Immiscible Polymer Blends. Polymer 2007, 48 (20), 59405949,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2007.07.042
  26. 26
    Lee, M. S.; Lodge, T. P.; Macosko, C. W. Can Random Copolymers Serve as Effective Polymeric Compatibilizers?. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 1997, 35 (17), 28352842,  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0488(199712)35:17<2835::AID-POLB8>3.0.CO;2-P
  27. 27
    Sundararaj, U.; Macosko, C. W. Drop Breakup and Coalescence in Polymer Blends: The Effects of Concentration and Compatibilization. Macromolecules 1995, 28 (8), 26472657,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00112a009
  28. 28
    Fayt, R.; Jerome, R.; Teyssié, P. Molecular Design of Multicomponent Polymer Systems, 13. Control of the Morphology of Polyethylene/Polystyrene Blends by Block Copolymers. Die Makromol. Chemie 1986, 187 (4), 837852,  DOI: 10.1002/macp.1986.021870414
  29. 29
    Lefebvre, M. D.; Dettmer, C. M.; McSwain, R. L.; Xu, C.; Davila, J. R.; Composto, R. J.; Nguyen, S. T.; Shull, K. R. Effect of Sequence Distribution on Copolymer Interfacial Activity. Macromolecules 2005, 38 (25), 1049410502,  DOI: 10.1021/ma0509762
  30. 30
    Lefebvre, M. D.; Olvera de la Cruz, M.; Shull, K. R. Phase Segregation in Gradient Copolymer Melts. Macromolecules 2004, 37 (3), 11181123,  DOI: 10.1021/ma035141a
  31. 31
    Shull, K. R. Interfacial Activity of Gradient Copolymers. Macromolecules 2002, 35 (22), 86318639,  DOI: 10.1021/ma020698w
  32. 32
    Levine, W. G.; Seo, Y.; Brown, J. R.; Hall, L. M. Effect of Sequence Dispersity on Morphology of Tapered Diblock Copolymers from Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 145 (23), 234907,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4972141
  33. 33
    Von Tiedemann, P.; Blankenburg, J.; Maciol, K.; Johann, T.; Müller, A. H. E.; Frey, H. Copolymerization of Isoprene with P-Alkylstyrene Monomers: Disparate Reactivity Ratios and the Shape of the Gradient. Macromolecules 2019, 52 (3), 796806,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.8b02280
  34. 34
    Fayt, R.; Jérôme, R.; Teyssié, P. Interface Modification in Polymer Blends. Multiphase Polymers: Blends and Ionomers 1989, 58, 3866,  DOI: 10.1021/bk-1989-0395.ch002
  35. 35
    Eagan, J. M.; Xu, J.; Di Girolamo, R.; Thurber, C. M.; Macosko, C. W.; LaPointe, A. M.; Bates, F. S.; Coates, G. W. Combining Polyethylene and Polypropylene: Enhanced Performance with PE/ i PP Multiblock Polymers. Science 2017, 355 (6327), 814816,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aah5744
  36. 36
    Nomura, K.; Peng, X.; Kim, H.; Jin, K.; Kim, H. J.; Bratton, A. F.; Bond, C. R.; Broman, A. E.; Miller, K. M.; Ellison, C. J. Multiblock Copolymers for Recycling Polyethylene-Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) Mixed Waste. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12 (8), 97269735,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b20242
  37. 37
    Klimovica, K.; Pan, S.; Lin, T. W.; Peng, X.; Ellison, C. J.; Lapointe, A. M.; Bates, F. S.; Coates, G. W. Compatibilization of iPP/HDPE Blends with PE-g-iPP Graft Copolymers. ACS Macro Lett. 2020, 9 (8), 11611166,  DOI: 10.1021/acsmacrolett.0c00339
  38. 38
    Macosko, C. W.; Jeon, H. K.; Hoye, T. R. Reactions at Polymer-Polymer Interfaces for Blend Compatibilization. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2005, 30 (8–9), 939947,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2005.06.003
  39. 39
    Majumdar, B.; Keskkula, H.; Paul, D. R. Effect of the Nature of the Polyamide on the Properties and Morphology of Compatibilized Nylon/Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Blends. Polymer 1994, 35 (25), 54685477,  DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(05)80010-2
  40. 40
    Borggreve, R. J. M.; Gaymans, R. J. Impact Behaviour of Nylon-Rubber Blends: 4. Effect of the Coupling Agent, Maleic Anhydride. Polymer 1989, 30 (1), 6370,  DOI: 10.1016/0032-3861(89)90384-4
  41. 41
    Xanthos, M.; Dagli, S. S. Compatibilization of Polymer Blends by Reactive Processing. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1991, 31 (13), 929935,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.760311302
  42. 42
    DOW. Polymer Compatibilizer for Recycling. https://corporate.dow.com/en-us/news/press-releases/polymer-compatibilizer-for-recycling.html (accessed Jan 4, 2022).
  43. 43
    Utracki, L. A. Reactive Compatibilization. In Comercial Polymer Blends; Chapman & Hall, 1998; pp 9497.
  44. 44
    Quirk, R. P. Compatibilization of Polymer Blends. US Patent 5264491, November 23, 1993.
  45. 45
    Orr, C. A.; Cernohous, J. J.; Guegan, P.; Hirao, A.; Jeon, H. K.; Macosko, C. W. Homogeneous Reactive Coupling of Terminally Functional Polymers. Polymer 2001, 42 (19), 81718178,  DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(01)00329-9
  46. 46
    Jeon, H. K.; Macosko, C. W.; Moon, B.; Hoye, T. R.; Yin, Z. Coupling Reactions of End- vs Mid-Functional Polymers. Macromolecules 2004, 37 (7), 25632571,  DOI: 10.1021/ma030581n
  47. 47
    Kim, S.; Kim, J. K.; Park, C. E. Effect of Molecular Architecture of in situ Reactive Compatibilizer on the Morphology and Interfacial Activity of an Immiscible. Polyolefin/Polystyrene Blend 1997, 38 (8), 18091815,  DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(96)00714-8
  48. 48
    Yin, Z.; Koulic, C.; Pagnoulle, C.; Jé Rô Me, R. Reactive Blending of Functional PS and PMMA: Interfacial Behavior of in situ Formed Graft Copolymers. Macromolecules 2001, 34, 51325139,  DOI: 10.1021/ma001798+
  49. 49
    Szwarc, M. ‘Living’ Polymers. Nature 1956, 178 (4543), 11681169,  DOI: 10.1038/1781168a0
  50. 50
    Whelan, D. Thermoplastic Elastomers. In Brydson’s Plastics Materials; Elsevier, 2017; Vol. 26, pp 653703.  DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-35824-8.00024-4 .
  51. 51
    Bates, F. S.; Hillmyer, M. A.; Lodge, T. P.; Bates, C. M.; Delaney, K. T.; Fredrickson, G. H. Multiblock Polymers: Panacea or Pandora’s Box?. Science 2012, 336 (6080), 434440,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1215368
  52. 52
    Wang, W.; Lu, W.; Goodwin, A.; Wang, H.; Yin, P.; Kang, N.-G.; Hong, K.; Mays, J. W. Recent Advances in Thermoplastic Elastomers from Living Polymerizations: Macromolecular Architectures and Supramolecular Chemistry. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2019, 95, 131,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2019.04.002
  53. 53
    Chen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Jin, Y.; Lin, X.; Chen, M. Recent Advances in Living Cationic Polymerization with Emerging Initiation/Controlling Systems. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2021, 42 (13), 2100148,  DOI: 10.1002/marc.202100148
  54. 54
    Grubbs, R. B.; Grubbs, R. H. 50th Anniversary Perspective: Living Polymerization - Emphasizing the Molecule in Macromolecules. Macromolecules 2017, 50 (18), 69796997,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b01440
  55. 55
    Beyer, V. P.; Kim, J.; Remzi Becer, C. Synthetic Approaches for Multiblock Copolymers. Polymer Chemistry 2020, 11, 12711291,  DOI: 10.1039/C9PY01571J
  56. 56
    Hu, L.; Vuillaume, P. Y. Reactive Compatibilization of Polymer Blends by Coupling Agents and Interchange Catalysts. Compat. Polym. Blends Micro Nano Scale Phase Morphol. Interphase Charact. Prop. 2020, 205248,  DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816006-0.00007-4
  57. 57
    Geng, Z.; Shin, J. J.; Xi, Y.; Hawker, C. J. Click Chemistry Strategies for the Accelerated Synthesis of Functional Macromolecules. J. Polym. Sci. 2021, 59, 9631042,  DOI: 10.1002/pol.20210126
  58. 58
    Lee, I.; Panthani, T. R.; Bates, F. S. Sustainable Poly(Lactide- b -Butadiene) Multiblock Copolymers with Enhanced Mechanical Properties. Macromolecules 2013, 46 (18), 73877398,  DOI: 10.1021/ma401508b
  59. 59
    Pawlak, A.; Morawiec, J.; Pazzagli, F.; Pracella, M.; Galeski, A. Recycling of Postconsumer Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) and High-Density Polyethylene by Compatibilized Blending. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2002, 86 (6), 14731485,  DOI: 10.1002/app.11307
  60. 60
    Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Guo, W.; Wu, C. Effects of Different Types of Polyethylene on the Morphology and Properties of Recycled Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate)/Polyethylene Compatibilized Blends. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2011, 22 (12), 18511858,  DOI: 10.1002/pat.1683
  61. 61
    Todd, A. D.; McEneany, R. J.; Topolkaraev, V. A.; Macosko, C. W.; Hillmyer, M. A. Reactive Compatibilization of Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) and High-Density Polyethylene Using Amino-Telechelic Polyethylene. Macromolecules 2016, 49 (23), 89888994,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.6b02080
  62. 62
    Wang, H.; Onbulak, S.; Weigand, S.; Bates, F. S.; Hillmyer, M. A. Polyolefin Graft Copolymers through a Ring-Opening Metathesis Grafting through Approach. Polym. Chem. 2021, 12 (14), 20752083,  DOI: 10.1039/D0PY01728K
  63. 63
    Rose, J. M.; Mourey, T. H.; Slater, L. A.; Keresztes, I.; Fetters, L. J.; Coates, G. W. Poly(Ethylene-Co-Propylene Macromonomer)s: Synthesis and Evidence for Starlike Conformations in Dilute Solution. Macromolecules 2008, 41 (3), 559567,  DOI: 10.1021/ma702190c
  64. 64
    Klimovica, K.; Pan, S.; Lin, T. W.; Peng, X.; Ellison, C. J.; Lapointe, A. M.; Bates, F. S.; Coates, G. W. Compatibilization of iPP/HDPE Blends with PE-g-iPP Graft Copolymers. ACS Macro Lett. 2020, 9 (8), 11611166,  DOI: 10.1021/acsmacrolett.0c00339
  65. 65
    Arriola, D. J.; Carnahan, E. M.; Hustad, P. D.; Kuhlman, R. L.; Wenzel, T. T. Catalytic Production of Olefin Block Copolymers via Chain Shuttling Polymerization. Science 2006, 312 (5774), 714719,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1125268
  66. 66
    Shan, C. L. P.; Walton, K. L.; Marchand, G. R.; Carnahan, E. M.; Karjala, T. Crystalline Block Composites as Compatibilizers. US Patent US8822599B2, 2014.
  67. 67
    Hu, Y.; Conley, B.; Walton, K. L.; Shan, C. L. P.; Marchand, G. R.; Patel, R. M.; Kupsch, E.-M.; Walther, B. W. Multilayered Polyolefin-Based Films. US Patent US9511567B2, 2013.
  68. 68
    Listak, J.; Jakubowski, W.; Mueller, L.; Plichta, A.; Matyjaszewski, K.; Bockstaller, M. R. Effect of Symmetry of Molecular Weight Distribution in Block Copolymers on Formation of “Metastable” Morphologies. Macromolecules 2008, 41 (15), 59195927,  DOI: 10.1021/ma800816j
  69. 69
    Lynd, N. A.; Meuler, A. J.; Hillmyer, M. A. Polydispersity and Block Copolymer Self-Assembly. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2008, 33 (9), 875893,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2008.07.003
  70. 70
    Hillmyer, M. A. Polydisperse Block Copolymers: Don’t Throw Them Away. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 2007, 45 (24), 32493251,  DOI: 10.1002/polb.21323
  71. 71
    Chen, H.; Ginzburg, V. Reaction: Size Distribution in Olefin Block Copolymers: Not Bad at All. Chem. 2019, 5 (3), 491492,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chempr.2019.02.018
  72. 72
    Creton, C.; Kramer, E. J.; Brown, H. R.; Hui, C.-Y. Adhesion and Fracture of Interfaces Between Immiscible Polymers: From the Molecular to the Continuum Scal. Adv. Polym. Sci. 2001, 156, 53136,  DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45141-2_2
  73. 73
    Eastwood, E. A.; Dadmun, M. D. Multiblock Copolymers in the Compatibilization of Polystyrene and Poly(Methyl Methacrylate) Blends: Role of Polymer Architecture. Macromolecules 2002, 35 (13), 50695077,  DOI: 10.1021/ma011701z
  74. 74
    Gersappe, D.; Harm, P. K.; Irvine, D.; Balazs, A. C. Contrasting the Compatibilizing Activity of Comb and Linear Copolymers. Macromolecules 1994, 27 (3), 720724,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00081a015
  75. 75
    Alamo, R. G.; Glaser, R. H.; Mandelkern, L. The Cocrystallization of Polymers: Polyethylene and Its Copolymers. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 1988, 26 (10), 21692195,  DOI: 10.1002/polb.1988.090261011
  76. 76
    Yuan, B.-L.; Wool, R. P. Strength Development at Incompatible Semicrystalline Polymer Interfaces. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1990, 30 (22), 14541464,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.760302206
  77. 77
    Schnell, R.; Stamm, M.; Rauch, F. Segregation of Diblock Copolymers to the Interface between Weakly Incompatible Polymers. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 1999, 200 (7), 18061812,  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3935(19990701)200:7<1806::AID-MACP1806>3.0.CO;2-9
  78. 78
    Shull, K. R.; Kramer, E. J.; Hadziioannou, G.; Tang, W. Segregation of Block Copolymers to Interfaces between Immiscible Homopolymers. Macromolecules 1990, 23 (22), 47804787,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00224a006
  79. 79
    Semenov, A. N. Theory of Diblock-Copolymer Segregation to the Interface and Free Surface of a Homopolymer Layer. Macromolecules 1992, 25 (19), 49674977,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00045a024
  80. 80
    Kim, S. H.; Jo, W. H. A Monte Carlo Simulation of Polymer/Polymer Interface in the Presence of Block Copolymer. I. Effects of the Chain Length of Block Copolymer and Interaction Energy. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 110 (24), 1219312201,  DOI: 10.1063/1.479156
  81. 81
    Cho, D.; Hu, W.; Koberstein, J. T.; Lingelser, J. P.; Gallot, Y. Segregation Dynamics of Block Copolymers to Immiscible Polymer Blend Interfaces. Macromolecules 2000, 33 (14), 52455251,  DOI: 10.1021/ma981699k
  82. 82
    Balazs, A. C.; Siemasko, C. P.; Lantman, C. W. Monte Carlo Simulations for the Behavior of Multiblock Copolymers at a Penetrable Interface. J. Chem. Phys. 1991, 94 (2), 16531663,  DOI: 10.1063/1.460715
  83. 83
    Liu, D.; Gong, K.; Lin, Y.; Bo, H.; Liu, T.; Duan, X. Effects of Repulsion Parameter and Chain Length of Homopolymers on Interfacial Properties of An/Ax/2BxAx/2/Bm Blends: A DPD Simulation Study. Polymers (Basel) 2021, 13 (14), 2333,  DOI: 10.3390/polym13142333
  84. 84
    Liu, D.; Gong, K.; Lin, Y.; Liu, T.; Liu, Y.; Duan, X. Dissipative Particle Dynamics Study on Interfacial Properties of Symmetric Ternary Polymeric Blends. Polymers (Basel) 2021, 13 (9), 1516,  DOI: 10.3390/polym13091516
  85. 85
    Gindy, M. E.; Prud’homme, R. K.; Panagiotopoulos, A. Z. Phase Behavior and Structure Formation in Linear Multiblock Copolymer Solutions by Monte Carlo Simulation. J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 128, 164906,  DOI: 10.1063/1.2905231
  86. 86
    Halperin, A. On the Collapse of Multiblock Copolymers. Macromolecules 1991, 24 (6), 14181419,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00006a033
  87. 87
    López-Barrón, C. R.; Tsou, A. H. Strain Hardening of Polyethylene/Polypropylene Blends via Interfacial Reinforcement with Poly(Ethylene- Cb -Propylene) Comb Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 2017, 50 (7), 29862995,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b00264
  88. 88
    Datta, S.; Lohse, D. J. Graft Copolymer Compatibilizers for Blends of Isotactic Polypropylene and Ethene-Propene Copolymers. 2. Functional Polymers Approach. Macromolecules 1993, 26 (8), 20642076,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00060a040
  89. 89
    Embree, K. DOW’s Breakthrough Barrier Film Technology Makes Stand-Up Pouches Recyclable. Plastics Today , June 21, 2016; https://www.plasticstoday.com/packaging/dows-breakthrough-barrier-film-technology-makes-stand-pouches-recyclable.
  90. 90
    Charoensirisomboon, P.; Inoue, T.; Weber, M. Pull-out of Copolymer in situ-Formed during Reactive Blending: Effect of the Copolymer Architecture. Polymer 2000, 41 (18), 69076912,  DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(00)00025-2
  91. 91
    Thurber, C. M.; Xu, Y.; Myers, J. C.; Lodge, T. P.; Macosko, C. W. Accelerating Reactive Compatibilization of PE/PLA Blends by an Interfacially Localized Catalyst. ACS Macro Lett. 2015, 4 (1), 3033,  DOI: 10.1021/mz500770y
  92. 92
    Graziano, A.; Jaffer, S.; Sain, M. Review on Modification Strategies of Polyethylene/Polypropylene Immiscible Thermoplastic Polymer Blends for Enhancing Their Mechanical Behavior. J. Elastomers Plast. 2019, 51 (4), 291336,  DOI: 10.1177/0095244318783806
  93. 93
    Song, J.; Ewoldt, R. H.; Hu, W.; Craig Silvis, H.; Macosko, C. W. Flow Accelerates Adhesion between Functional Polyethylene and Polyurethane. AIChE J. 2011, 57 (12), 34963506,  DOI: 10.1002/aic.12551
  94. 94
    Dogan, S. K.; Reyes, E. A.; Rastogi, S.; Ozkoc, G. Reactive Compatibilization of PLA/TPU Blends with a Diisocyanate. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131 (10), 40251,  DOI: 10.1002/app.40251
  95. 95
    Lu, Q.-W.; Hoye, T. R.; Macosko, C. W. Reactivity of Common Functional Groups with Urethanes: Models for Reactive Compatibilization of Thermoplastic Polyurethane Blends. J. Polym. Sci. Part A Polym. Chem. 2002, 40 (14), 23102328,  DOI: 10.1002/pola.10310
  96. 96
    Abdul Razak, N. C.; Inuwa, I. M.; Hassan, A.; Samsudin, S. A. Effects of Compatibilizers on Mechanical Properties of PET/PP Blend. Compos. Interfaces 2013, 20 (7), 507515,  DOI: 10.1080/15685543.2013.811176
  97. 97
    Papadopoulou, C. P.; Kalfoglou, N. K. Comparison of Compatibilizer Effectiveness for PET/PP Blends: Their Mechanical, Thermal and Morphology Characterization. Polymer 2000, 41 (7), 25432555,  DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(99)00442-5
  98. 98
    Holsti-Miettinen, R.; Seppälä, J.; Ikkala, O. T. Effects of Compatibilizers on the Properties of Polyamide/Polypropylene Blends. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1992, 32 (13), 868877,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.760321306
  99. 99
    Shi, D.; Ke, Z.; Yang, J.; Gao, Y.; Wu, J.; Yin, J. Rheology and Morphology of Reactively Compatibilized PP/PA6 Blends. Macromolecules 2002, 35 (21), 80058012,  DOI: 10.1021/ma020595d
  100. 100
    Eriksen, M. K.; Pivnenko, K.; Faraca, G.; Boldrin, A.; Astrup, T. F. Dynamic Material Flow Analysis of PET, PE, and PP Flows in Europe: Evaluation of the Potential for Circular Economy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (24), 1616616175,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03435
  101. 101
    Wang, D.; Li, Y.; Xie, X. M.; Guo, B. H. Compatibilization and Morphology Development of Immiscible Ternary Polymer Blends. Polymer 2011, 52 (1), 191200,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2010.11.019
  102. 102
    Li, H.; Xie, X. M. Morphology Development and Superior Mechanical Properties of PP/PA6/SEBS Ternary Blends Compatibilized by Using a Highly Efficient Multi-Phase Compatibilizer. Polymer 2017, 108, 110,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2016.11.044

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 97 publications.

  1. Moritz Kränzlein, Shilin Cui, Jenny Hu, Anne M. LaPointe, Brett P. Fors, Geoffrey W. Coates. One-Step Radical-Induced Synthesis of Graft Copolymers for Effective Compatibilization of Polyethylene and Polypropylene. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2025, Article ASAP.
  2. Ashutosh K. Nehete, Frank S. Bates, Kevin D. Dorfman. Interfacial Tension of Graft Block Copolymers at Immiscible Homopolymer Interfaces. Macromolecules 2025, 58 (9) , 4875-4887. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.5c00306
  3. Daniel M. Krajovic, Margaret S. Kumler, Marc A. Hillmyer. PLA Block Polymers: Versatile Materials for a Sustainable Future. Biomacromolecules 2025, 26 (5) , 2761-2783. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.5c00161
  4. Yunjia Zhang, Wenlin Zhang. Effects of Block Copolymer Compatibilizers and Interfacial Entanglements on Strengthening Immiscible Glassy Polymer Blends. Macromolecules 2025, 58 (5) , 2484-2493. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.4c02848
  5. Chen Ling, Ryan W. Clarke, Gloria Rosetto, Shu Xu, Robin M. Cywar, Dong Hyun Kim, Levi J. Hamernik, Stefan J. Haugen, William E. Michener, Sean P. Woodworth, Torrey M. Lind, Kelsey J. Ramirez, Meltem Urgun-Demirtas, Davinia Salvachúa, Christopher W. Johnson, Nicholas A. Rorrer, Gregg T. Beckham. Tunable and Degradable Dynamic Thermosets from Compatibilized Polyhydroxyalkanoate Blends. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2025, 13 (9) , 3817-3829. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5c00943
  6. Huidi Sun, Thomas Vialon, Clément Guibert, Sandra Casale, Renaud Nicolaÿ, Nathan J. Van Zee. Reactive Processing of Polyethylene with Azidotriazine: From Modified Thermoplastics to Injection Moldable Covalent Adaptable Networks. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2025, 7 (3) , 2123-2133. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.4c04096
  7. Anubhav Sarmah, Aristotle J. Zervoudakis, Michaela R. Pfau-Cloud, Marc A. Hillmyer, Christopher J. Ellison. Chemical Recycling of Polycaprolactones via Reactive Melt Processing. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2025, 7 (3) , 1763-1770. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.4c03575
  8. Fabio Giampaolo, Roberta Cipullo, Salvatore Cuomo, Francesco Piccialli, Vincenzo Busico. Automated Ultra-Fast 13C NMR Analysis of Polyolefin Materials. Analytical Chemistry 2025, 97 (4) , 2503-2510. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.4c06290
  9. Xiuzhe Yin, Qingliang Song, Wangmeng Hou, Yingqing Zhou, Zhijia Liu, Weihua Li, Jianzhong Du, Yi Shi, Yongming Chen. Realignment of Bottlebrush Segments Induces the Contraction of Individual Polymer Vesicles. Macromolecules 2025, 58 (2) , 989-999. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.4c02097
  10. Jesna Ashraf, Maicon Bertin, Casparus Johannes Reinhard Verbeek. Plasma-Induced Reactive Compatibilization of Polypropylene/Polyamide 6 Blends. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2025, 7 (2) , 641-653. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.4c02896
  11. Erin M. Maines, Aristotelis Zografos, Caitlin S. Sample, Aristotle J. Zervoudakis, Theresa M. Reineke, Christopher J. Ellison. Pendant Hydroxy Polyethylene Reactive Additives for Improved Mechanical Properties and Melt Processability of Poly(ethylene terephthalate)/Polyethylene Blends. Macromolecules 2024, 57 (23) , 11042-11054. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.4c01329
  12. Gabriela Díaz Gorbea, Liyang Shen, Kendra Flanigan, Christopher J. Ellison, Frank S. Bates. Enhancing Toughness of Post-Consumer Recycled Polyolefins with Polybutadiene-Derived Block Copolymers. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2024, 6 (20) , 12691-12699. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.4c02270
  13. Suman Debnath, Mahesh Parit, Aidan P. Brown, Jayden Pearson, Basudeb Saha, Bryan W. Boudouris. Renewable PET from Recovered Plastic Waste. Chemistry of Materials 2024, 36 (20) , 10259-10266. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c02041
  14. Dietrich Gloger, Gerhard Hubner, Andreas Albrecht, Lukas Sobczak, Jan-Hendrik Arndt, Davide Tranchida, Wolfgang H. Binder, Markus Gahleitner. Combining the Incompatible: Melt State Grafting between High-Density Polyethylene and Isotactic Polypropylene without a Coupling Agent. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2024, 6 (17) , 10824-10841. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.4c01938
  15. Ting-Wei Lin, Omar Padilla-Vélez, Parin Kaewdeewong, Anne M. LaPointe, Geoffrey W. Coates, James M. Eagan. Advances in Nonreactive Polymer Compatibilizers for Commodity Polyolefin Blends. Chemical Reviews 2024, 124 (16) , 9609-9632. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00047
  16. Jared A. Nettles, Saleh Alfarhan, Cameron A. Pascoe, Clarissa Westover, Margaret D. Madsen, Jose I. Sintas, Aadhi Subbiah, Timothy E. Long, Kailong Jin. Functional Upcycling of Polyurethane Thermosets into Value-Added Thermoplastics via Small-Molecule Carbamate-Assisted Decross-Linking Extrusion. JACS Au 2024, 4 (8) , 3058-3069. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.4c00403
  17. Hao-Jia Guo, Xiaodong Qiao, Ben-Xiang Hu, Shuangquan Liao, Ming-Chao Luo. Aliphatic C–H Insertion Strategies Enhancing Interactions among Waste Rubbers for Recycling. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2024, 6 (15) , 9306-9311. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.4c01743
  18. Daniel F. Sunday, Lee J. Richter, Lucas Q. Flagg, Ruipeng Li, Julia G. Murphy, Peter A. Beaucage, Eliot Gann. Role of Bottlebrush Additives on the Structure of Block Copolymers in the Bulk and Thin Films. Macromolecules 2024, 57 (14) , 6616-6624. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.4c00637
  19. Chen Zou, Jiawei Chen, Muhammad Asadullah Khan, Guifu Si, Changle Chen. Stapler Strategies for Upcycling Mixed Plastics. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2024, 146 (28) , 19449-19459. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.4c05828
  20. Aristotelis Zografos, Erin M. Maines, Joseph F. Hassler, Frank S. Bates, Marc A. Hillmyer. Preparation and Characterization of H-Shaped Polylactide. ACS Macro Letters 2024, 13 (6) , 695-702. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmacrolett.4c00217
  21. Wang Liao, Manping Pan, Jun Zhou, Xinglin Liu, Yurou Tang. Ternary Single-Use Packaging Plastic Alloy. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2024, 12 (22) , 8391-8401. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c00858
  22. Tianhang Zhou, Xiaoqi Ning, Zhenghao Wu, Xingying Lan, Chunming Xu. Understanding the Interfacial and Self-Assembly Behavior of Multiblock Copolymers for Developing Compatibilizers toward Mechanical Recycling of Polymer Blends. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2024, 63 (15) , 6766-6773. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c03944
  23. Puntira Kao-ian, Shib Shankar Banerjee, Salprima Yudha S, Subhan Salaeh. Strengthened Poly(vinylidene fluoride)/Epoxidized Natural Rubber Blend by a Reactive Compatibilizer Based on an Amino Acid-Modified Fluorocarbon Elastomer. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2024, 63 (15) , 6615-6631. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c04672
  24. Alessandra Cicolella, Fabio De Stefano, Miriam Scoti, Giovanni Talarico, James M. Eagan, Geoffrey W. Coates, Rocco Di Girolamo, Claudio De Rosa. Phase Separation and Crystallization in Monodisperse Block Copolymers of Linear Low-Density Polyethylene and Isotactic Polypropylene. Macromolecules 2024, 57 (5) , 2230-2245. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.3c02470
  25. Satoshi Katsuhara, Yuki Tsuji, Naoki Sunagawa, Kiyohiko Igarashi, Kenji Takahashi, Takuya Yamamoto, Feng Li, Kenji Tajima, Takuya Isono, Toshifumi Satoh. Acetyl Cellooligosaccharide-Based Block Copolymers for Toughening Cellulose Triacetate/Poly(ε-caprolactone) Biodegradable Blends. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2024, 12 (8) , 3025-3033. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c06411
  26. Ryan W. Clarke, Maria Rosaria Caputo, Lucas Polo Fonseca, Michael L. McGraw, Liam T. Reilly, Kevin A. Franklin, Alejandro J. Müller, Eugene Y.-X. Chen. Cyclic and Linear Tetrablock Copolymers Synthesized at Speed and Scale by Lewis Pair Polymerization of a One-Pot (Meth)acrylic Mixture and Characterized at Multiple Levels. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2024, 146 (7) , 4930-4941. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.3c14136
  27. Seung-Ju Hong, Gyu Ri Kim, Nam-Kyun Kim, Jihoon Shin, Young-Wun Kim. Poly(amide11)-Incorporated Block Copolymers as Compatibilizers to Toughen a Poly(lactide)/Polyamide 11 Blend. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2024, 6 (2) , 1224-1235. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.3c02147
  28. Zhan Chen, Christian Steinmetz, Mingqiu Hu, E. Bryan Coughlin, Hanyu Wang, William T. Heller, Wim Bras, Thomas P. Russell. Star Block Copolymers at Homopolymer Interfaces: Conformation and Compatibilization. Macromolecules 2023, 56 (20) , 8308-8322. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.3c01139
  29. Scott P. O. Danielsen. Chemical Compatibilization, Macro-, and Microphase Separation of Heteroassociative Polymers. Macromolecules 2023, 56 (16) , 6527-6542. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.3c00864
  30. Pengfei Tang, Zhiqiang Wang, Chao Wen, Chuantao Yin, Yuxian Xing, Haoming Tai, Feng Jiang. Sustainable Multiblock Copolymer Elastomers Derived from Lignin with Tunable Performance toward Strong Adhesives and UV-Shielding Materials. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2023, 11 (32) , 11790-11798. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c01168
  31. Sung Kyu Kim, Hyun Wook Jung, Dasom Son, Jae Hyeok Han, DongHo Kang, Sang In Kang, Junhyuk Lee, Jin Kie Shim. In Situ Reactive Compatibilization of Thermoplastic Starch/Poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) Blends with Robust Water Resistance Performance. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2023, 5 (7) , 5445-5453. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.3c00774
  32. Liang Zhai, You-Liang Zhu, Gang Wang, Haibo He, Feiran Wang, Fengjing Jiang, Shengchao Chai, Xiang Li, Haikun Guo, Lixin Wu, Haolong Li. Ionic-Nanophase Hybridization of Nafion by Supramolecular Patching for Enhanced Proton Selectivity in Redox Flow Batteries. Nano Letters 2023, 23 (9) , 3887-3896. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c00518
  33. Yoshihiko Shiraki, Masayuki Saito, Norifumi L. Yamada, Kohzo Ito, Hideaki Yokoyama. Adhesion to Untreated Polyethylene and Polypropylene by Needle-like Polyolefin Crystals. Macromolecules 2023, 56 (6) , 2429-2436. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.2c02503
  34. Aristotle J. Zervoudakis, Caitlin S. Sample, Xiayu Peng, Davis Lake, Marc A. Hillmyer, Christopher J. Ellison. Dihydroxy Polyethylene Additives for Compatibilization and Mechanical Recycling of Polyethylene Terephthalate/Polyethylene Mixed Plastic Waste. ACS Macro Letters 2022, 11 (12) , 1396-1402. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmacrolett.2c00601
  35. Glenn H. Fredrickson, Shuyi Xie, Jerrick Edmund, My Linh Le, Dan Sun, Douglas J. Grzetic, Daniel L. Vigil, Kris T. Delaney, Michael L. Chabinyc, Rachel A. Segalman. Ionic Compatibilization of Polymers. ACS Polymers Au 2022, 2 (5) , 299-312. https://doi.org/10.1021/acspolymersau.2c00026
  36. Jeremy L. Swartz, Benjamin R. Elling, Ioannina Castano, Matthew P. Thompson, Daylan T. Sheppard, Nathan C. Gianneschi, William R. Dichtel. Copolymers Prepared by Exchange Reactions Enhance the Properties of Miscible Polymer Blends. Macromolecules 2022, 55 (19) , 8548-8555. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.2c01268
  37. Zahra Balzade, Farhad Sharif, Seyed Reza Ghaffarian Anbaran. Tailor-Made Functional Polyolefins of Complex Architectures: Recent Advances, Applications, and Prospects. Macromolecules 2022, 55 (16) , 6938-6972. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.2c00594
  38. Patrick Wolff, André Dickert, Winfried P. Kretschmer, Rhett Kempe. iPP/PE Multiblock Copolymers for Plastic Blend Recycling Synthesized by Coordinative Chain Transfer Polymerization. Macromolecules 2022, 55 (15) , 6435-6442. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.2c00709
  39. Xiang-Yu Fu, Tian-Jun Yue, Xiao-Hui Guo, Xiao-Bing Lu, Wei-Min Ren. Synthesis of highly effective polyester/polyacrylate compatibilizers using switchable polymerization. Nature Communications 2025, 16 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-57449-7
  40. Ran Cong, Nan Nie, Changle Chen, Guifu Si. Tandem ADMET and CAMMP to Access Degradable Thermosets and Multiblock Copolymers. Chemistry – A European Journal 2025, 11 https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202500399
  41. Yang Ma, Xinyao Jiang, Xinyue Xiang, Ping Qu, Maiyong Zhu. Recent developments in recycling of post-consumer polyethylene waste. Green Chemistry 2025, 27 (16) , 4040-4093. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4GC06566B
  42. Yu Chen, Yuxin Ding, Pei Li, Wanlu Tian, Yu Wang, Fuzhou Wang, Chen Tan. Synthesis of Graft‐Modified Polyolefin Compatibilizers for Compatibilizing Mixed Plastics. Chinese Journal of Chemistry 2025, 355 https://doi.org/10.1002/cjoc.202401258
  43. Yucheng Zi, Dong Chen, Guochen Wang, Yuhong Ma, Wantai Yang. Highly Selective, Catalyst‐Free, and Low Temperature Depolymerizable Styrene Copolymer With Incorporated α ‐Methylstyrene Structural Units. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2025, 142 (13) https://doi.org/10.1002/app.56663
  44. Nima Rashidi Mehrabadi, Gholamreza Pircheraghi, Ali Ghasemkhani, Parsa Hosseinpour Sanati, Alireza Shahidizadeh, Alireza Kaviani, Suprakas Sinha Ray. A review on material extrusion additive manufacturing of polycarbonate‐based blends and composites: Process‐structure–property relationships. SPE Polymers 2025, 6 (2) https://doi.org/10.1002/pls2.10174
  45. Bangdong Ge, Zongsheng Liu, Yi Zheng, Shiyang Zhu, Meng Ma, Si Chen, Yanqin Shi, Huiwen He, Yulu Zhu, Xu Wang. Highly enhanced the toughness and fatigue resistance of PC/ABS blends by constructing a double-comb compatibilizer. Polymer 2025, 323 , 128170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2025.128170
  46. Yudian Jiang, Kun Cao, Qi Wang. Linear Radical Additions-Coupling Polymerization (LRAsCP): Model, Experiment and Application. Polymers 2025, 17 (6) , 741. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17060741
  47. Michael Czuczola, Munshi Sahid Hossain, Declan P. Shannon, Parker T. Morris, Patrick T. Getty, Christopher M. Bates, Javier Read de Alaniz, Craig J. Hawker. Telechelic Dithiol Copolymers as Tunable Building Blocks for Synthesizing Multiblock Materials. Journal of Polymer Science 2025, 63 (3) , 759-765. https://doi.org/10.1002/pol.20240876
  48. Thi Hanh Tien Nguyen, Nguyen Thanh Cong, Christian Zurbrügg, Trinh Thi Tuyet Dung, Quang Viet Ly, Ngo Thi Thuy Huong, Thanh Thao Le, Dang Viet Quang. Household Post‐Consumer Flexible Plastic Recycling–The Significance of Compatibilizers and Reinforcing Fillers. ChemistrySelect 2025, 10 (6) https://doi.org/10.1002/slct.202404166
  49. Yishayah Bension, Andrew Wijesekera, Coby S. Collins, Siteng Zhang, Juncheng Zheng, Hai Zhao, Shiwang Cheng, Morgan Stefik, Ting Ge, Chuanbing Tang. Transformation of semicrystalline polymer mechanics by cyclic polymers. Polymer Chemistry 2025, 16 (5) , 526-537. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4PY01269K
  50. Xiangyu Miao, Rui Han, Juan Tian, Yuanchi Ma, Alejandro J. Müller, Zhibo Li. Building Ultrastrong, Tough and Biodegradable Thermoplastic Elastomers from Multiblock Copolyesters Via a “Reserve‐Release” Crystallization Strategy. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2025, 64 (5) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202417627
  51. Xiangyu Miao, Rui Han, Juan Tian, Yuanchi Ma, Alejandro J. Müller, Zhibo Li. Building Ultrastrong, Tough and Biodegradable Thermoplastic Elastomers from Multiblock Copolyesters Via a “Reserve‐Release” Crystallization Strategy. Angewandte Chemie 2025, 137 (5) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202417627
  52. Princess Claire D. Ochigue, Maricar A. Aguilos, Arnold A. Lubguban, Hernando P. Bacosa. Circular Economy Solutions: The Role of Thermoplastic Waste in Material Innovation. Sustainability 2025, 17 (2) , 764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020764
  53. Matias Menossi, Manjusri Misra, Amar K. Mohanty. Biodegradable cellulose ester blends: Studies, compatibilization, biodegradable behavior, and applications. A review. Progress in Polymer Science 2025, 160 , 101919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2024.101919
  54. Jin Qian, Zhe Qiang. Synthesis of butadiene-derived polyolefin graft copolymers and their crystallization behaviors. Polymer Chemistry 2025, 43 https://doi.org/10.1039/D5PY00243E
  55. Ergül Meyvacı, Temel Öztürk, Efkan Çatıker, Bedrettin Savaş. Synthesis and characterization of a series of novel graft copolymers by using “grafting through” method. Essential Chem 2024, 1 (1) , 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/28378083.2024.2354166
  56. Mengnan Hu, Lizhe He, Robert J. Comito. Simple amination of polystyrene via radical sp 3 C–H imination. Polymer Chemistry 2024, 15 (48) , 4947-4951. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4PY01021C
  57. Joost J. B. van der Tol, Shahzad Hafeez, Andy P. G. Bänziger, Hao Su, Johan P. A. Heuts, E. W. Meijer, Ghislaine Vantomme. Supramolecular Polymer Additives as Repairable Reinforcements for Dynamic Covalent Networks. Advanced Materials 2024, 36 (49) https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202410723
  58. Shuyue Wei, Yan Zhang, Xinyue Zhang, Yutao Sang, Zhihong Nie. Copolymer-tethered nanoparticles as compatibilizers of immiscible PS/PMMA blends. Colloid and Polymer Science 2024, 302 (12) , 1857-1865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00396-024-05311-5
  59. Manuel Trömer, Arash Nikoubashman, André H. Gröschel. Multicompartment microparticles of SBM triblock terpolymers: Morphological transitions through homopolymer blending. Colloid and Polymer Science 2024, 302 (12) , 1957-1966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00396-024-05320-4
  60. V. S. Kravchenko, R. A. Gumerov, I. I. Potemkin. Recent Advances in Diblock and Gradient Copolymers Self-Assembly in Solutions and at the Interfaces. Reviews and Advances in Chemistry 2024, 14 (4) , 320-338. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2634827624600397
  61. Wu Li, Daohong Liao, Yougui Li, Guifu Si, Changle Chen. Polyolefin containing multi-block polymers and upcycling of mixed plastics. Science China Chemistry 2024, 373 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11426-024-2405-5
  62. Yong-Ho Chung, Jung Kwon Oh. Research Trends in the Development of Block Copolymer-Based Biosensing Platforms. Biosensors 2024, 14 (11) , 542. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios14110542
  63. Xiaoxia Jiang, Zhiqing Zhang, Xiaoxia Jin, Xiaojie Wang, Yangang Bi, Sukyoung Choi, Fan Dou. Investigation of the bulk and solution properties for multiblock polyethers. Colloid and Polymer Science 2024, 302 (9) , 1385-1393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00396-024-05271-w
  64. Moeka Sasazawa, Dylan T. Tomares, W. Seth Childers, Saumya Saurabh, . Biomolecular condensates as stress sensors and modulators of bacterial signaling. PLOS Pathogens 2024, 20 (8) , e1012413. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1012413
  65. Yoshihiko Shiraki, Kohzo Ito, Hideaki Yokoyama. Direct observation of the fracture mechanism at polyurethane/polyolefin adhesive interfaces involving needle-like polyolefin crystals. Polymer 2024, 308 , 127380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2024.127380
  66. Sung Kyu Kim, Junhyuk Lee, Dasom Son, DongHo Kang, Hyun Wook Jung, Jin Kie Shim. Controlling grafting density of compatibilizer to enhance performance of thermoplastic Starch/Poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) blends. Polymer 2024, 307 , 127242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2024.127242
  67. Ryan P. Collanton, Kevin D. Dorfman. Deformation and failure of glassy polymer-polymer interfaces compatibilized by linear multiblock copolymers. Physical Review Materials 2024, 8 (7) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.8.075604
  68. Robert J. S. Ivancic, Debra J. Audus. Predicting compatibilized polymer blend toughness. Science Advances 2024, 10 (25) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adk6165
  69. Juan J. Freire, Costas Vlahos. Enhancing Polymer Blend Compatibility with Linear and Complex Star Copolymer Architectures: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study with the Bond Fluctuation Model. Polymers 2024, 16 (12) , 1626. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16121626
  70. Jeffrey E. Thompson, Kevin J. Edgar. Regioselective and controlled-density branching in amylose esters. Carbohydrate Polymers 2024, 332 , 121885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2024.121885
  71. Yoshihiko Shiraki, Norifumi L. Yamada, Kohzo Ito, Hideaki Yokoyama. Adhesion to untreated polyethylene by diffusion: Effect of polyurethane adhesive molecular weight on polyethylene penetration. Polymer 2024, 302 , 127073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2024.127073
  72. Cong Wu, Mengmeng Li, Dongshuai Hou, Bing Yin, Binmeng Chen, Zongjin Li. Topologically optimized polystyrene acrylate-polysiloxane copolymer coatings toward superior durability of cementitious materials. Construction and Building Materials 2024, 427 , 136106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136106
  73. I. Belyamani, S. Bourdon, J.-M. Brossard, L. Cauret, L. Fontaine, V. Montembault, J. Maris. A sustainable approach toward mechanical recycling unsortable post-consumer WEEE: Reactive and non-reactive compatibilization. Waste Management 2024, 178 , 301-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2024.02.016
  74. Zhan Chen, Hong-Gyu Seong, Mingqiu Hu, Xuchen Gan, Alexander E. Ribbe, Jaechul Ju, Hanyu Wang, Mathieu Doucet, Todd Emrick, Thomas P. Russell. Janus bottlebrush compatibilizers. Soft Matter 2024, 20 (7) , 1554-1564. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3SM01484C
  75. Jonathan G. Coldstream, Philip J. Camp, Daniel J. Phillips, Peter J. Dowding. Polymeric surfactants at liquid–liquid interfaces: Dependence of structural and thermodynamic properties on copolymer architecture. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2024, 160 (5) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0189156
  76. Colton A. D'Ambra, Michael Czuczola, Patrick T. Getty, Elizabeth A. Murphy, Allison Abdilla, Souvagya Biswas, Jodi M. Mecca, Thomas D. Bekemeier, Steven Swier, Craig J. Hawker, Christopher M. Bates. Versatile synthesis of siloxane‐based graft copolymers with tunable grafting density. Journal of Polymer Science 2024, 62 (1) , 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/pol.20230615
  77. Guifu Si, Chao Li, Min Chen, Changle Chen. Polymer Multi‐Block and Multi‐Block + Strategies for the Upcycling of Mixed Polyolefins and Other Plastics. Angewandte Chemie 2023, 135 (49) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202311733
  78. Guifu Si, Chao Li, Min Chen, Changle Chen. Polymer Multi‐Block and Multi‐Block + Strategies for the Upcycling of Mixed Polyolefins and Other Plastics. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2023, 62 (49) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202311733
  79. Jin Qian, Carmen B. Dunn, Zhe Qiang. Design of Copolymer‐Based Blend Compatibilizers for Mixed Plastic Recycling. Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics 2023, 224 (24) https://doi.org/10.1002/macp.202300291
  80. Annum Afzal, Qiaojiao Wang, Wanyu Wang, Zhigang Wang. Necessity of interfacial interaction on toughness improvement for iPP/mSEBS blends. Polymer 2023, 288 , 126449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2023.126449
  81. Xiao-Hui Guo, Ge-Ge Gu, Tian-Jun Yue, Wei-Min Ren. Orthogonal polymerization of aziridine with cyclic carbonates for constructing amphiphilic block copolymers. Polymer Chemistry 2023, 14 (45) , 5034-5039. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3PY01045G
  82. Ryan P. Collanton, Christopher J. Ellison, Kevin D. Dorfman. Thermodynamics and morphology of linear multiblock copolymers at homopolymer interfaces. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2023, 159 (19) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0170650
  83. Xia Housheng, Jiang Zhen, Zhou Jianpin, Yang Zize, Cao Yongjun, Wan Zeqi, Niu Junfeng. Green synthesis of reactive copolymers in molten ε‐caprolactam solvent and their compatibilizing effects in PA10T / PPO blends. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2023, 140 (44) https://doi.org/10.1002/app.54604
  84. Hongyuan Bai, Li Han, Xuefei Wang, Hong Yan, Siwen Chen, Haitao Leng, Zijing Yao, Hongwei Ma. Thermal control of multiblock sequence using anion-migrated ring-opening polymerization. Polymer Chemistry 2023, 14 (41) , 4754-4764. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3PY00714F
  85. Tsuneaki Sakurai, Kenichi Kato, Masaki Shimizu. Side-Chain Labeling Strategy for Forming Self-Sorted Columnar Liquid Crystals from Binary Discotic Systems. Crystals 2023, 13 (10) , 1473. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst13101473
  86. Ali Kassab, Dawood Al Nabhani, Pravansu Mohanty, Christopher Pannier, Georges Y. Ayoub. Advancing Plastic Recycling: Challenges and Opportunities in the Integration of 3D Printing and Distributed Recycling for a Circular Economy. Polymers 2023, 15 (19) , 3881. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15193881
  87. Liyang Shen, Gabriela Diaz Gorbea, Evan Danielson, Shuquan Cui, Christopher J. Ellison, Frank S. Bates. Threading-the-Needle: Compatibilization of HDPE/ i PP blends with butadiene-derived polyolefin block copolymers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2023, 120 (34) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301352120
  88. M. E. Juárez‐Méndez, D. Palma‐Ramírez, S. B. Brachetti‐Sibaja, A. M. Torres‐Huerta, M. A. Domínguez‐Crespo, D. S. García Zaleta, H. J. Dorantes‐Rosales, F. Gutiérrez‐Galicia. CNCs extraction from single‐use cups: effects of grafting it onto MMA monomer. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 2023, 98 (8) , 1847-1862. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.7360
  89. Xiao-Yan Wang, Yanshan Gao, Yong Tang. Sustainable developments in polyolefin chemistry: Progress, challenges, and outlook. Progress in Polymer Science 2023, 143 , 101713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2023.101713
  90. Hyeongkeon Yoon, Qingshu Dong, Weihua Li, Jin Kon Kim. Tetragonally and Rectangularly Packed Hierarchical Cylinders from A 1 BA 2 C Tetrablock Terpolymer. Macromolecular Rapid Communications 2023, 5 https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.202300312
  91. Ryan W. Clarke, Tobias Sandmeier, Kevin A. Franklin, Dominik Reich, Xiao Zhang, Nayan Vengallur, Tarak K. Patra, Robert J. Tannenbaum, Sabin Adhikari, Sanat K. Kumar, Tomislav Rovis, Eugene Y.-X. Chen. Dynamic crosslinking compatibilizes immiscible mixed plastics. Nature 2023, 616 (7958) , 731-739. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05858-3
  92. Wang Liao, Jie Wang, Manping Pan, . Fused Deposition Modeling of Single-Use Plastic Alloy. Advances in Polymer Technology 2023, 2023 , 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9313467
  93. Parag Bhayana, Priya Bhat, Rupshee Jain, Neha Raina, Atul Jain, Teenu Sharma. Block Co-polymers: Vital Aspects and Applications in Drug Delivery. 2023, 355-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6917-3_15
  94. Han Wu, Chunyu Wang, Zhenbo Ning, Ni Jiang, Zhihua Gan. Ultra-toughened poly(glycolic acid)-based blends with controllable hydrolysis behavior fabricated via reactive compatibilization. European Polymer Journal 2022, 181 , 111661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2022.111661
  95. Zhanshan Ma, Minghang Ji, Wenmin Pang, Guifu Si, Min Chen. The synthesis and properties research of functionalized polyolefins. New Journal of Chemistry 2022, 46 (44) , 21458-21463. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2NJ04335A
  96. Jacob Fischer, Kevin Cable, Mark Dadmun. Identifying optimal dispersant aids for flame retardant additives in tetramethyl cyclobutanediol‐based copolyesters. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2022, 139 (34) https://doi.org/10.1002/app.52811
  97. Yang Yang, Bosen Chai, Miao Miao. Research on Educational Reform of Versatile Diblock Copolymers Confined on the Face Centered Cubic Crystal. 2022, 503-506. https://doi.org/10.1109/3M-NANO56083.2022.9941587

JACS Au

Cite this: JACS Au 2022, 2, 2, 310–321
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.1c00500
Published January 31, 2022

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Article Views

11k

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Structures, names, and recycling codes for common polymers discussed in this perspective.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Illustration of a polymer–polymer interface being stabilized with a (i) diblock copolymer, (ii) triblock copolymer, and (iii) grafted copolymer.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Diverse range of possible copolymer architectures using only two distinct blocks.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Depiction of several MBCPs (n > 2) stabilizing a polymer–polymer interface, highlighting the increased number of interface crossings per molecule with an increased number of blocks.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Uniaxial tensile elongation of PE/iPP materials and blends. Materials were melt-blended at 190 °C without BCPs (black) or with 1 wt % diblock (green), 1 wt % tetrablock (orange), or 5 wt % tetrablock copolymers (purple). These materials were then compression molded into tensile specimens at 180 °C and tensile tested at a rate of 100%/min (Adapted with permission from the work of Eagan et al. (35) Copyright 2017 AAAS).

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Schematics of lMBCP forming trapped entanglements and cocrystallizing with homopolymers.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Schematic of reactively formed graft copolymers. Reactive groups must both be present at the interface to form the compatibilizer.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. Interplay between phases and compatibilizer in preliminary ternary system studies (Adapted with permission from ref (101). Copyright 2011 Elsevier Ltd.).

  • References


    This article references 102 other publications.

    1. 1
      Wagner, J. R. J.; Mark, S. B. Chapter 1–Introduction. In Multilayer Flexible Packaging; William Andrew, 2009; pp 311.
    2. 2
      Alexander, H. Tullo. The Cost of Plastic Packaging. C&EN Glob. Enterp. 2016, 94 (41), 3237,  DOI: 10.1021/cen-09441-cover
    3. 3
      Environmental Protection Agency. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet ; 2020.
    4. 4
      Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J. R.; Law, K. L. Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3 (7), e1700782  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782
    5. 5
      Anukiruthika, T.; Sethupathy, P.; Wilson, A.; Kashampur, K.; Moses, J. A.; Anandharamakrishnan, C. Multilayer Packaging: Advances in Preparation Techniques and Emerging Food Applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19 (3), 11561186,  DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12556
    6. 6
      Morris, B. A. Adhesion. In The Science and Technology of Flexible Packaging; Elsevier, 2017; pp 351400.  DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-24273-8.00010-1 .
    7. 7
      Higgins, J. S.; Lipson, J. E. G.; White, R. P. A Simple Approach to Polymer Mixture Miscibility. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2010, 368 (1914), 1009,  DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2009.0215
    8. 8
      Teh, J. W.; Rudin, A.; Keung, J. C. A Review of Polyethylene–Polypropylene Blends and Their Compatibilization. Adv. Polym. Technol. 1994, 13 (1), 123,  DOI: 10.1002/adv.1994.060130101
    9. 9
      Paul, D. R. Interfacial Agents (“Compatibilizers”) for Polymer Blends. Polym. Blends 1978, 3562,  DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-546802-2.50008-7
    10. 10
      Traugott, T. D.; Barlow, J. W.; Paul, D. R. Mechanical Compatibilization of High Density Polyethylene–Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) Blends. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1983, 28 (9), 29472959,  DOI: 10.1002/app.1983.070280922
    11. 11
      Fayt, R.; Jérôme, R.; Teyssié, P. Molecular Design of Multicomponent Polymer Systems. I. Emulsifying Effect of Poly(Hydrogenated Butadiene-b-Styrene) Copolymers in LDPE/PS Blends. J. Polym. Sci. Polym. Lett. Ed. 1981, 19 (2), 7984,  DOI: 10.1002/pol.1981.130190207
    12. 12
      Creton, C.; Kramer, E. J.; Hui, C. Y.; Brown, H. R. Failure Mechanisms of Polymer Interfaces Reinforced with Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 1992, 25 (12), 30753088,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00038a010
    13. 13
      Creton, C.; Kramer, E. J.; Brown, H. R.; Hui, C.-Y. Adhesion and Fracture of Interfaces Between Immiscible Polymers: From the Molecular to the Continuum Scale. Adv. Polym. Sci. 2001, 156, 53136,  DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45141-2_2
    14. 14
      Barentsen, W. M.; Heikens, D.; Piet, P. Effect of Addition of Graft Copolymer on the Microstructure and Impact Strength of PS/LDPE Blends. Polymer 1974, 15 (2), 119122,  DOI: 10.1016/0032-3861(74)90012-3
    15. 15
      Riess, G.; Jolivet, Y. Rubber-Modified Polymers. Location of Block Copolymers in Two-Phase Materials. Advances in Chemistry 1975, 142, 243256,  DOI: 10.1021/ba-1975-0142.ch022
    16. 16
      Barentsen, W. M.; Heikens, D. Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Polystyrene/Low Density Polyethylene Blends. Polymer 1973, 14 (11), 579583,  DOI: 10.1016/0032-3861(73)90143-2
    17. 17
      Ide, F.; Hasegawa, A. Studies on Polymer Blend of Nylon 6 and Polypropylene or Nylon 6 and Polystyrene Using the Reaction of Polymer. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1974, 18 (4), 963974,  DOI: 10.1002/app.1974.070180402
    18. 18
      Xu, J.; Eagan, J. M.; Kim, S.-S.; Pan, S.; Lee, B.; Klimovica, K.; Jin, K.; Lin, T.-W.; Howard, M. J.; Ellison, C. J.; LaPointe, A. M.; Coates, G. W.; Bates, F. S. Compatibilization of Isotactic Polypropylene (iPP) and High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) with iPP–PE Multiblock Copolymers. Macromolecules 2018, 51 (21), 85858596,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.8b01907
    19. 19
      Gaylord, N. G. Compatibilization Concepts in Polymer Applications. Advances in Chemistry 1975, 142, 7684,  DOI: 10.1021/ba-1975-0142.ch007
    20. 20
      Macosko, C. W.; Guégan, P.; Khandpur, A. K.; Nakayama, A.; Marechal, P.; Inoue, T. Compatibilizers for Melt Blending: Premade Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 1996, 29 (17), 55905598,  DOI: 10.1021/ma9602482
    21. 21
      Noolandi, J.; Hong, K. M. Interfacial Properties of Immiscible Homopolymer Blends in the Presence of Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 1982, 15 (2), 482492,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00230a054
    22. 22
      Galloway, J. A.; Jeon, H. K.; Bell, J. R.; Macosko, C. W. Block Copolymer Compatibilization of Cocontinuous Polymer Blends. Polymer 2005, 46 (1), 183191,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2004.10.061
    23. 23
      Chang, K.; Macosko, C. W.; Morse, D. C. Interfacial Tension Measurement and Micellization in a Polymer Blend with Copolymer Surfactant: A False Critical Micelle Concentration. Macromolecules 2015, 48 (22), 81548168,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.5b01268
    24. 24
      Willis, J. M.; Favis, B. D. Processing-morphology Relationships of Compatibilized Polyolefin/Polyamide Blends. Part I: The Effect of an Lonomer Compatibilizer on Blend Morphology. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1988, 28 (21), 14161426,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.760282111
    25. 25
      Zhang, C. L.; Feng, L. F.; Gu, X. P.; Hoppe, S.; Hu, G. H. Efficiency of Graft Copolymers as Compatibilizers for Immiscible Polymer Blends. Polymer 2007, 48 (20), 59405949,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2007.07.042
    26. 26
      Lee, M. S.; Lodge, T. P.; Macosko, C. W. Can Random Copolymers Serve as Effective Polymeric Compatibilizers?. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 1997, 35 (17), 28352842,  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0488(199712)35:17<2835::AID-POLB8>3.0.CO;2-P
    27. 27
      Sundararaj, U.; Macosko, C. W. Drop Breakup and Coalescence in Polymer Blends: The Effects of Concentration and Compatibilization. Macromolecules 1995, 28 (8), 26472657,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00112a009
    28. 28
      Fayt, R.; Jerome, R.; Teyssié, P. Molecular Design of Multicomponent Polymer Systems, 13. Control of the Morphology of Polyethylene/Polystyrene Blends by Block Copolymers. Die Makromol. Chemie 1986, 187 (4), 837852,  DOI: 10.1002/macp.1986.021870414
    29. 29
      Lefebvre, M. D.; Dettmer, C. M.; McSwain, R. L.; Xu, C.; Davila, J. R.; Composto, R. J.; Nguyen, S. T.; Shull, K. R. Effect of Sequence Distribution on Copolymer Interfacial Activity. Macromolecules 2005, 38 (25), 1049410502,  DOI: 10.1021/ma0509762
    30. 30
      Lefebvre, M. D.; Olvera de la Cruz, M.; Shull, K. R. Phase Segregation in Gradient Copolymer Melts. Macromolecules 2004, 37 (3), 11181123,  DOI: 10.1021/ma035141a
    31. 31
      Shull, K. R. Interfacial Activity of Gradient Copolymers. Macromolecules 2002, 35 (22), 86318639,  DOI: 10.1021/ma020698w
    32. 32
      Levine, W. G.; Seo, Y.; Brown, J. R.; Hall, L. M. Effect of Sequence Dispersity on Morphology of Tapered Diblock Copolymers from Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 145 (23), 234907,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4972141
    33. 33
      Von Tiedemann, P.; Blankenburg, J.; Maciol, K.; Johann, T.; Müller, A. H. E.; Frey, H. Copolymerization of Isoprene with P-Alkylstyrene Monomers: Disparate Reactivity Ratios and the Shape of the Gradient. Macromolecules 2019, 52 (3), 796806,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.8b02280
    34. 34
      Fayt, R.; Jérôme, R.; Teyssié, P. Interface Modification in Polymer Blends. Multiphase Polymers: Blends and Ionomers 1989, 58, 3866,  DOI: 10.1021/bk-1989-0395.ch002
    35. 35
      Eagan, J. M.; Xu, J.; Di Girolamo, R.; Thurber, C. M.; Macosko, C. W.; LaPointe, A. M.; Bates, F. S.; Coates, G. W. Combining Polyethylene and Polypropylene: Enhanced Performance with PE/ i PP Multiblock Polymers. Science 2017, 355 (6327), 814816,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aah5744
    36. 36
      Nomura, K.; Peng, X.; Kim, H.; Jin, K.; Kim, H. J.; Bratton, A. F.; Bond, C. R.; Broman, A. E.; Miller, K. M.; Ellison, C. J. Multiblock Copolymers for Recycling Polyethylene-Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) Mixed Waste. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12 (8), 97269735,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b20242
    37. 37
      Klimovica, K.; Pan, S.; Lin, T. W.; Peng, X.; Ellison, C. J.; Lapointe, A. M.; Bates, F. S.; Coates, G. W. Compatibilization of iPP/HDPE Blends with PE-g-iPP Graft Copolymers. ACS Macro Lett. 2020, 9 (8), 11611166,  DOI: 10.1021/acsmacrolett.0c00339
    38. 38
      Macosko, C. W.; Jeon, H. K.; Hoye, T. R. Reactions at Polymer-Polymer Interfaces for Blend Compatibilization. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2005, 30 (8–9), 939947,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2005.06.003
    39. 39
      Majumdar, B.; Keskkula, H.; Paul, D. R. Effect of the Nature of the Polyamide on the Properties and Morphology of Compatibilized Nylon/Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Blends. Polymer 1994, 35 (25), 54685477,  DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(05)80010-2
    40. 40
      Borggreve, R. J. M.; Gaymans, R. J. Impact Behaviour of Nylon-Rubber Blends: 4. Effect of the Coupling Agent, Maleic Anhydride. Polymer 1989, 30 (1), 6370,  DOI: 10.1016/0032-3861(89)90384-4
    41. 41
      Xanthos, M.; Dagli, S. S. Compatibilization of Polymer Blends by Reactive Processing. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1991, 31 (13), 929935,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.760311302
    42. 42
      DOW. Polymer Compatibilizer for Recycling. https://corporate.dow.com/en-us/news/press-releases/polymer-compatibilizer-for-recycling.html (accessed Jan 4, 2022).
    43. 43
      Utracki, L. A. Reactive Compatibilization. In Comercial Polymer Blends; Chapman & Hall, 1998; pp 9497.
    44. 44
      Quirk, R. P. Compatibilization of Polymer Blends. US Patent 5264491, November 23, 1993.
    45. 45
      Orr, C. A.; Cernohous, J. J.; Guegan, P.; Hirao, A.; Jeon, H. K.; Macosko, C. W. Homogeneous Reactive Coupling of Terminally Functional Polymers. Polymer 2001, 42 (19), 81718178,  DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(01)00329-9
    46. 46
      Jeon, H. K.; Macosko, C. W.; Moon, B.; Hoye, T. R.; Yin, Z. Coupling Reactions of End- vs Mid-Functional Polymers. Macromolecules 2004, 37 (7), 25632571,  DOI: 10.1021/ma030581n
    47. 47
      Kim, S.; Kim, J. K.; Park, C. E. Effect of Molecular Architecture of in situ Reactive Compatibilizer on the Morphology and Interfacial Activity of an Immiscible. Polyolefin/Polystyrene Blend 1997, 38 (8), 18091815,  DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(96)00714-8
    48. 48
      Yin, Z.; Koulic, C.; Pagnoulle, C.; Jé Rô Me, R. Reactive Blending of Functional PS and PMMA: Interfacial Behavior of in situ Formed Graft Copolymers. Macromolecules 2001, 34, 51325139,  DOI: 10.1021/ma001798+
    49. 49
      Szwarc, M. ‘Living’ Polymers. Nature 1956, 178 (4543), 11681169,  DOI: 10.1038/1781168a0
    50. 50
      Whelan, D. Thermoplastic Elastomers. In Brydson’s Plastics Materials; Elsevier, 2017; Vol. 26, pp 653703.  DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-35824-8.00024-4 .
    51. 51
      Bates, F. S.; Hillmyer, M. A.; Lodge, T. P.; Bates, C. M.; Delaney, K. T.; Fredrickson, G. H. Multiblock Polymers: Panacea or Pandora’s Box?. Science 2012, 336 (6080), 434440,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1215368
    52. 52
      Wang, W.; Lu, W.; Goodwin, A.; Wang, H.; Yin, P.; Kang, N.-G.; Hong, K.; Mays, J. W. Recent Advances in Thermoplastic Elastomers from Living Polymerizations: Macromolecular Architectures and Supramolecular Chemistry. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2019, 95, 131,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2019.04.002
    53. 53
      Chen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Jin, Y.; Lin, X.; Chen, M. Recent Advances in Living Cationic Polymerization with Emerging Initiation/Controlling Systems. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2021, 42 (13), 2100148,  DOI: 10.1002/marc.202100148
    54. 54
      Grubbs, R. B.; Grubbs, R. H. 50th Anniversary Perspective: Living Polymerization - Emphasizing the Molecule in Macromolecules. Macromolecules 2017, 50 (18), 69796997,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b01440
    55. 55
      Beyer, V. P.; Kim, J.; Remzi Becer, C. Synthetic Approaches for Multiblock Copolymers. Polymer Chemistry 2020, 11, 12711291,  DOI: 10.1039/C9PY01571J
    56. 56
      Hu, L.; Vuillaume, P. Y. Reactive Compatibilization of Polymer Blends by Coupling Agents and Interchange Catalysts. Compat. Polym. Blends Micro Nano Scale Phase Morphol. Interphase Charact. Prop. 2020, 205248,  DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816006-0.00007-4
    57. 57
      Geng, Z.; Shin, J. J.; Xi, Y.; Hawker, C. J. Click Chemistry Strategies for the Accelerated Synthesis of Functional Macromolecules. J. Polym. Sci. 2021, 59, 9631042,  DOI: 10.1002/pol.20210126
    58. 58
      Lee, I.; Panthani, T. R.; Bates, F. S. Sustainable Poly(Lactide- b -Butadiene) Multiblock Copolymers with Enhanced Mechanical Properties. Macromolecules 2013, 46 (18), 73877398,  DOI: 10.1021/ma401508b
    59. 59
      Pawlak, A.; Morawiec, J.; Pazzagli, F.; Pracella, M.; Galeski, A. Recycling of Postconsumer Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) and High-Density Polyethylene by Compatibilized Blending. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2002, 86 (6), 14731485,  DOI: 10.1002/app.11307
    60. 60
      Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Guo, W.; Wu, C. Effects of Different Types of Polyethylene on the Morphology and Properties of Recycled Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate)/Polyethylene Compatibilized Blends. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2011, 22 (12), 18511858,  DOI: 10.1002/pat.1683
    61. 61
      Todd, A. D.; McEneany, R. J.; Topolkaraev, V. A.; Macosko, C. W.; Hillmyer, M. A. Reactive Compatibilization of Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) and High-Density Polyethylene Using Amino-Telechelic Polyethylene. Macromolecules 2016, 49 (23), 89888994,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.6b02080
    62. 62
      Wang, H.; Onbulak, S.; Weigand, S.; Bates, F. S.; Hillmyer, M. A. Polyolefin Graft Copolymers through a Ring-Opening Metathesis Grafting through Approach. Polym. Chem. 2021, 12 (14), 20752083,  DOI: 10.1039/D0PY01728K
    63. 63
      Rose, J. M.; Mourey, T. H.; Slater, L. A.; Keresztes, I.; Fetters, L. J.; Coates, G. W. Poly(Ethylene-Co-Propylene Macromonomer)s: Synthesis and Evidence for Starlike Conformations in Dilute Solution. Macromolecules 2008, 41 (3), 559567,  DOI: 10.1021/ma702190c
    64. 64
      Klimovica, K.; Pan, S.; Lin, T. W.; Peng, X.; Ellison, C. J.; Lapointe, A. M.; Bates, F. S.; Coates, G. W. Compatibilization of iPP/HDPE Blends with PE-g-iPP Graft Copolymers. ACS Macro Lett. 2020, 9 (8), 11611166,  DOI: 10.1021/acsmacrolett.0c00339
    65. 65
      Arriola, D. J.; Carnahan, E. M.; Hustad, P. D.; Kuhlman, R. L.; Wenzel, T. T. Catalytic Production of Olefin Block Copolymers via Chain Shuttling Polymerization. Science 2006, 312 (5774), 714719,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1125268
    66. 66
      Shan, C. L. P.; Walton, K. L.; Marchand, G. R.; Carnahan, E. M.; Karjala, T. Crystalline Block Composites as Compatibilizers. US Patent US8822599B2, 2014.
    67. 67
      Hu, Y.; Conley, B.; Walton, K. L.; Shan, C. L. P.; Marchand, G. R.; Patel, R. M.; Kupsch, E.-M.; Walther, B. W. Multilayered Polyolefin-Based Films. US Patent US9511567B2, 2013.
    68. 68
      Listak, J.; Jakubowski, W.; Mueller, L.; Plichta, A.; Matyjaszewski, K.; Bockstaller, M. R. Effect of Symmetry of Molecular Weight Distribution in Block Copolymers on Formation of “Metastable” Morphologies. Macromolecules 2008, 41 (15), 59195927,  DOI: 10.1021/ma800816j
    69. 69
      Lynd, N. A.; Meuler, A. J.; Hillmyer, M. A. Polydispersity and Block Copolymer Self-Assembly. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2008, 33 (9), 875893,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2008.07.003
    70. 70
      Hillmyer, M. A. Polydisperse Block Copolymers: Don’t Throw Them Away. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 2007, 45 (24), 32493251,  DOI: 10.1002/polb.21323
    71. 71
      Chen, H.; Ginzburg, V. Reaction: Size Distribution in Olefin Block Copolymers: Not Bad at All. Chem. 2019, 5 (3), 491492,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chempr.2019.02.018
    72. 72
      Creton, C.; Kramer, E. J.; Brown, H. R.; Hui, C.-Y. Adhesion and Fracture of Interfaces Between Immiscible Polymers: From the Molecular to the Continuum Scal. Adv. Polym. Sci. 2001, 156, 53136,  DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45141-2_2
    73. 73
      Eastwood, E. A.; Dadmun, M. D. Multiblock Copolymers in the Compatibilization of Polystyrene and Poly(Methyl Methacrylate) Blends: Role of Polymer Architecture. Macromolecules 2002, 35 (13), 50695077,  DOI: 10.1021/ma011701z
    74. 74
      Gersappe, D.; Harm, P. K.; Irvine, D.; Balazs, A. C. Contrasting the Compatibilizing Activity of Comb and Linear Copolymers. Macromolecules 1994, 27 (3), 720724,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00081a015
    75. 75
      Alamo, R. G.; Glaser, R. H.; Mandelkern, L. The Cocrystallization of Polymers: Polyethylene and Its Copolymers. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 1988, 26 (10), 21692195,  DOI: 10.1002/polb.1988.090261011
    76. 76
      Yuan, B.-L.; Wool, R. P. Strength Development at Incompatible Semicrystalline Polymer Interfaces. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1990, 30 (22), 14541464,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.760302206
    77. 77
      Schnell, R.; Stamm, M.; Rauch, F. Segregation of Diblock Copolymers to the Interface between Weakly Incompatible Polymers. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 1999, 200 (7), 18061812,  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3935(19990701)200:7<1806::AID-MACP1806>3.0.CO;2-9
    78. 78
      Shull, K. R.; Kramer, E. J.; Hadziioannou, G.; Tang, W. Segregation of Block Copolymers to Interfaces between Immiscible Homopolymers. Macromolecules 1990, 23 (22), 47804787,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00224a006
    79. 79
      Semenov, A. N. Theory of Diblock-Copolymer Segregation to the Interface and Free Surface of a Homopolymer Layer. Macromolecules 1992, 25 (19), 49674977,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00045a024
    80. 80
      Kim, S. H.; Jo, W. H. A Monte Carlo Simulation of Polymer/Polymer Interface in the Presence of Block Copolymer. I. Effects of the Chain Length of Block Copolymer and Interaction Energy. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 110 (24), 1219312201,  DOI: 10.1063/1.479156
    81. 81
      Cho, D.; Hu, W.; Koberstein, J. T.; Lingelser, J. P.; Gallot, Y. Segregation Dynamics of Block Copolymers to Immiscible Polymer Blend Interfaces. Macromolecules 2000, 33 (14), 52455251,  DOI: 10.1021/ma981699k
    82. 82
      Balazs, A. C.; Siemasko, C. P.; Lantman, C. W. Monte Carlo Simulations for the Behavior of Multiblock Copolymers at a Penetrable Interface. J. Chem. Phys. 1991, 94 (2), 16531663,  DOI: 10.1063/1.460715
    83. 83
      Liu, D.; Gong, K.; Lin, Y.; Bo, H.; Liu, T.; Duan, X. Effects of Repulsion Parameter and Chain Length of Homopolymers on Interfacial Properties of An/Ax/2BxAx/2/Bm Blends: A DPD Simulation Study. Polymers (Basel) 2021, 13 (14), 2333,  DOI: 10.3390/polym13142333
    84. 84
      Liu, D.; Gong, K.; Lin, Y.; Liu, T.; Liu, Y.; Duan, X. Dissipative Particle Dynamics Study on Interfacial Properties of Symmetric Ternary Polymeric Blends. Polymers (Basel) 2021, 13 (9), 1516,  DOI: 10.3390/polym13091516
    85. 85
      Gindy, M. E.; Prud’homme, R. K.; Panagiotopoulos, A. Z. Phase Behavior and Structure Formation in Linear Multiblock Copolymer Solutions by Monte Carlo Simulation. J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 128, 164906,  DOI: 10.1063/1.2905231
    86. 86
      Halperin, A. On the Collapse of Multiblock Copolymers. Macromolecules 1991, 24 (6), 14181419,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00006a033
    87. 87
      López-Barrón, C. R.; Tsou, A. H. Strain Hardening of Polyethylene/Polypropylene Blends via Interfacial Reinforcement with Poly(Ethylene- Cb -Propylene) Comb Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 2017, 50 (7), 29862995,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b00264
    88. 88
      Datta, S.; Lohse, D. J. Graft Copolymer Compatibilizers for Blends of Isotactic Polypropylene and Ethene-Propene Copolymers. 2. Functional Polymers Approach. Macromolecules 1993, 26 (8), 20642076,  DOI: 10.1021/ma00060a040
    89. 89
      Embree, K. DOW’s Breakthrough Barrier Film Technology Makes Stand-Up Pouches Recyclable. Plastics Today , June 21, 2016; https://www.plasticstoday.com/packaging/dows-breakthrough-barrier-film-technology-makes-stand-pouches-recyclable.
    90. 90
      Charoensirisomboon, P.; Inoue, T.; Weber, M. Pull-out of Copolymer in situ-Formed during Reactive Blending: Effect of the Copolymer Architecture. Polymer 2000, 41 (18), 69076912,  DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(00)00025-2
    91. 91
      Thurber, C. M.; Xu, Y.; Myers, J. C.; Lodge, T. P.; Macosko, C. W. Accelerating Reactive Compatibilization of PE/PLA Blends by an Interfacially Localized Catalyst. ACS Macro Lett. 2015, 4 (1), 3033,  DOI: 10.1021/mz500770y
    92. 92
      Graziano, A.; Jaffer, S.; Sain, M. Review on Modification Strategies of Polyethylene/Polypropylene Immiscible Thermoplastic Polymer Blends for Enhancing Their Mechanical Behavior. J. Elastomers Plast. 2019, 51 (4), 291336,  DOI: 10.1177/0095244318783806
    93. 93
      Song, J.; Ewoldt, R. H.; Hu, W.; Craig Silvis, H.; Macosko, C. W. Flow Accelerates Adhesion between Functional Polyethylene and Polyurethane. AIChE J. 2011, 57 (12), 34963506,  DOI: 10.1002/aic.12551
    94. 94
      Dogan, S. K.; Reyes, E. A.; Rastogi, S.; Ozkoc, G. Reactive Compatibilization of PLA/TPU Blends with a Diisocyanate. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131 (10), 40251,  DOI: 10.1002/app.40251
    95. 95
      Lu, Q.-W.; Hoye, T. R.; Macosko, C. W. Reactivity of Common Functional Groups with Urethanes: Models for Reactive Compatibilization of Thermoplastic Polyurethane Blends. J. Polym. Sci. Part A Polym. Chem. 2002, 40 (14), 23102328,  DOI: 10.1002/pola.10310
    96. 96
      Abdul Razak, N. C.; Inuwa, I. M.; Hassan, A.; Samsudin, S. A. Effects of Compatibilizers on Mechanical Properties of PET/PP Blend. Compos. Interfaces 2013, 20 (7), 507515,  DOI: 10.1080/15685543.2013.811176
    97. 97
      Papadopoulou, C. P.; Kalfoglou, N. K. Comparison of Compatibilizer Effectiveness for PET/PP Blends: Their Mechanical, Thermal and Morphology Characterization. Polymer 2000, 41 (7), 25432555,  DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(99)00442-5
    98. 98
      Holsti-Miettinen, R.; Seppälä, J.; Ikkala, O. T. Effects of Compatibilizers on the Properties of Polyamide/Polypropylene Blends. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1992, 32 (13), 868877,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.760321306
    99. 99
      Shi, D.; Ke, Z.; Yang, J.; Gao, Y.; Wu, J.; Yin, J. Rheology and Morphology of Reactively Compatibilized PP/PA6 Blends. Macromolecules 2002, 35 (21), 80058012,  DOI: 10.1021/ma020595d
    100. 100
      Eriksen, M. K.; Pivnenko, K.; Faraca, G.; Boldrin, A.; Astrup, T. F. Dynamic Material Flow Analysis of PET, PE, and PP Flows in Europe: Evaluation of the Potential for Circular Economy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (24), 1616616175,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03435
    101. 101
      Wang, D.; Li, Y.; Xie, X. M.; Guo, B. H. Compatibilization and Morphology Development of Immiscible Ternary Polymer Blends. Polymer 2011, 52 (1), 191200,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2010.11.019
    102. 102
      Li, H.; Xie, X. M. Morphology Development and Superior Mechanical Properties of PP/PA6/SEBS Ternary Blends Compatibilized by Using a Highly Efficient Multi-Phase Compatibilizer. Polymer 2017, 108, 110,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2016.11.044