Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep 24;3(9):11759-11769.
doi: 10.1021/acsomega.8b01353. eCollection 2018 Sep 30.

Biobased Poly(ethylene terephthalate)/Poly(lactic acid) Blends Tailored with Epoxide Compatibilizers

Xiangyu You  1   2 , Michael R Snowdon  1   3 , Manjusri Misra  1   3 , Amar K Mohanty  1   3
Affiliations

Biobased Poly(ethylene terephthalate)/Poly(lactic acid) Blends Tailored with Epoxide Compatibilizers

Xiangyu You et al. ACS Omega. .

Abstract

To increase the biobased content of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), up to 30 wt % poly(lactic acid) (PLA) was blended with PET using twin-screw compounding and injection molding processes. Multifunctional epoxide compatibilizers including a chain extender and an impact toughening agent were used as blend modifiers to improve the poor mechanical properties of PET/PLA blends. The mechanical and thermodynamic performances were investigated along with the morphological features through scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, and interfacial tension determination. From rheological and differential scanning calorimetry results, it was observed that the molecular weight of both PET and PLA increased with compatibilizers because of epoxide reactions. The toughening agent, poly(ethylene-n-butylene-acrylate-co-glycidyl methacrylate) (EBA-GMA), provided a 292% increase in impact strength over the blend but reduced modulus by 25%. In contrast, 0.7 phr addition of the chain extender, poly(styrene-acrylic-co-glycidyl methacrylate) (SA-GMA), yielded comparable performance to that of neat PET without sacrificing the tensile and flexural properties. When both compatibilizers were present in the blend, the mechanical properties remained relatively unaltered or decreased with increasing EBA-GMA content. The differences in mechanical performance observed were considered in relation to the strengthening mechanism of the two differing compatibilizers and their effects on the miscibility of the blend.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Chemical structures of (a) EBA–GMA and (b) SA–GMA, and (c) their reactions with PET and PLA.−
Figure 2
Figure 2
SEM images of the (a, b) neat PET, (c, d) T90, (e, f) T80, (g, h) T70, and (i, j) neat PLA at different magnifications.
Figure 3
Figure 3
SEM images of (a, b) T66.5-E3.5, (c, d) T63-E7, (e, f) T59.5-E10.5, and (g, h) T56-E14 at different magnifications.
Figure 4
Figure 4
SEM images of (a, b) T70-J0.3, (c, d) T70-J0.5, (e, f) T70-J0.7, and (g, h) T70-J1.0 at different magnifications.
Figure 5
Figure 5
SEM images of (a, b) T66.5-E3.5-J0.7, (c, d) T63-E7-J0.7, (e, f) T59.5-E10.5-J0.7, and (g, h) T56-E14-J0.7 at different magnifications.
Figure 6
Figure 6
AFM topography images of microtome surfaces for (a) T70, (b) T70-J0.7, (c) T59.5-E10.5, and (d) T59.5-E10.5-J0.7.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Tensile strength and modulus of PET/PLA blends.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Notched Izod impact strength and tensile elongation at break of PET/PLA blends.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Rheological characteristics of PET/PLA blends with/without EBA–GMA: (a) complex viscosity, (b) storage modulus, (c) loss modulus, and (d) tan δ at different angular frequencies.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Rheological characteristics of PET/PLA blends with/without SA–GMA: (a) complex viscosity, (b) storage modulus, (c) loss modulus, and (d) tan δ at different angular frequencies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Carus M. Biobased Economy and Climate Change—Important Links, Pitfalls, and Opportunities. Ind. Biotechnol. 2017, 13, 41–51. 10.1089/ind.2017.29073.mca. - DOI
    1. Awaja F.; Pavel D. Recycling of PET. Eur. Polym. J. 2005, 41, 1453–1477. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2005.02.005. - DOI
    1. Li K.; Mao B.; Cebe P. Electrospun Fibers of Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) Blended with Poly(Lactic Acid). J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2014, 116, 1351–1359. 10.1007/s10973-013-3583-4. - DOI
    1. Malik N.; Kumar P.; Shrivastava S.; Ghosh S. B. An Overview on PET Waste Recycling for Application in Packaging. Int. J. Plast. Technol. 2017, 21, 1–24. 10.1007/s12588-016-9164-1. - DOI
    1. Aeschelmann F.; Carus M. Biobased Building Blocks and Polymers in the World: Capacities, Production, and Applications—Status Quo and Trends Towards 2020. Ind. Biotechnol. 2015, 11, 154–159. 10.1089/ind.2015.28999.fae. - DOI