Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Thermodynamics and kinetics of polymer–clay nanocomposites
- 3 Analytical methods utilized in nanocomposites
- 4 Gas diffusion characteristics of polymer–clay nanocomposites
- 5 Engineering properties of polymer–clay nanocomposites theory and theory validation
- 6 Variables associated with polymer–clay processing in relation to reinforcement theory
- 7 The relationships of polymer type specificity to the production of polymer–clay nanocomposites
- 8 Flame retardancy
- Index
- References
7 - The relationships of polymer type specificity to the production of polymer–clay nanocomposites
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2011
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Thermodynamics and kinetics of polymer–clay nanocomposites
- 3 Analytical methods utilized in nanocomposites
- 4 Gas diffusion characteristics of polymer–clay nanocomposites
- 5 Engineering properties of polymer–clay nanocomposites theory and theory validation
- 6 Variables associated with polymer–clay processing in relation to reinforcement theory
- 7 The relationships of polymer type specificity to the production of polymer–clay nanocomposites
- 8 Flame retardancy
- Index
- References
Summary
Complexity of polyolefin–montmorillonite nanocomposites
Preparing polyolefin–montmorillonite nanocomposites presents another challenge in relation to the preparation of block copolymer–montmorillonite nanocomposites found in Chapter 6. An excellent example of the complexity of exfoliating organomontmorillonite into a pure hydrocarbon polymer is found in the work by Hotta and Paul [1]. Linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE; Dowlex 2032 manufactured by Dow Chemical) was melt blended with two different organomontmorillonites (Cloisite 20A and montmorillonite exchanged with trimethyl hydrogenated tallow quaternary ammonium ion). The importance of blending maleic anhydride grafted LLDPE (LLDPE–g–MA; 0.9 wt. % MA content; Fusabond MB266D produced by DuPont, Canada) with LLDPE as regards achieving exfoliation was determined in this study.
The procedures and equipment that were employed in this work were identical to those utilized by Fornes and Paul in the preparation of melt-blended nylon 6–montmorillonite nanocomposites described in Chapter 5. As one may anticipate from the studies in Chapters 5 and 6, the more hydrophobic Cloisite 20A was more efficient in producing exfoliated composites. The presence of the LLDPE–g–MA in the polymer blend further encouraged the exfoliation of Cloisite 20A. When the weight ratio of LLDPE–g–MA to Cloisite 20A is increased to 4 and subsequently to 11, the WAXS indicated good exfoliation with a loading of 4.6 and 4.9 wt.%, respectively, of montmorillonite (determined by incineration of the polymer composite in an oven). The TEM for the composite with a ratio of 11 at 4.9% montmorillonite indicated good exfoliation.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Fundamentals of Polymer-Clay Nanocomposites , pp. 95 - 155Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011