Next Article in Journal
A MediaPipe Holistic Behavior Classification Model as a Potential Model for Predicting Aggressive Behavior in Individuals with Dementia
Previous Article in Journal
Tracking Control and Backlash Compensation in an Inverted Pendulum with Switched-Mode PID Controllers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/app142210264
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of the Compounding Method on the Development of High-Performance Binary and Ternary Blends Based on PPE

by
Erika Ivonne López-Martínez
,
Erasto Armando Zaragoza-Contreras
,
Alejandro Vega-Rios
* and
Sergio Gabriel Flores-Gallardo
*
Centro de Investigación en Materiales Avanzados, S.C. (CIMAV), Miguel de Cervantes 120, Complejo Industrial Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31136, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(22), 10264; https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210264
Submission received: 24 September 2024 / Revised: 21 October 2024 / Accepted: 1 November 2024 / Published: 7 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Polymer Materials: Design, Fabrication and Mechanical Properties)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Featured Application

The strategy used in this study allows for high-performance PPE base blends, improving their processability and reducing costs, which could be used in the automotive industry, e.g., in bumpers. Due to the versatility that these mixtures may present, the impact resistance assessment is based on the polyphenylene ether (PPE), high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), and styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) ratio.

Abstract

The polymer blends are an effective strategy for materials design with new properties in the plastic industry; such features may depend on the blend components and the processing method. This study aimed to understand the effect of styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) content and its architecture on blends based on polyphenylene ether (PPE), high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), and SBS. In addition, this research compared and analyzed the blends formulated by different processing methods: twin-screw extrusion (TSE) and internal mixing (IM). Furthermore, three SBS copolymers, two radial and one linear (with different molecular weights), were used to produce PPE/HIPS/SBS blends, analyzing which SBS copolymer feature provides excellent viscoelasticity, thermomechanical properties, and impact resistance. The findings revealed that the melt processing method played a crucial role in Izod impact resistance of the PPE/HIPS/SBS blends, as well as the molecular architecture, molecular weight, and SBS content. The findings also demonstrated that the TSE process is more effective than the IM. Since the PPE/HIPS/SBS blends displayed higher Izod impact resistance than the PPE/HIPS or PPE/SBS binary blends, a synergistic effect of SBS and HIPS is suggested.

1. Introduction

Poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene ether) (PPE) is an engineered plastic with excellent advantages in its chemical, thermal, and mechanical properties. Nonetheless, PPE also has disadvantages such as high cost, fragility, high-notch sensitivity, and difficulty processing, typically 60 °C above its glass transition temperature (Tg), so industrial application is limited [1].
Consequently, the polymer blend incorporating a rubber phase is a strategy to improve the elongation at break, ultimate strength, and Izod impact resistance. However, the mechanical behavior of the toughened plastic depends on particle size, phase interaction, content, and architecture of the elastomer [2,3,4]. It is well known that the materials performance is highly dependent on the blend morphology, which in turn depends on the rheological and physical characteristics of the components, relative compatibility, and composition [5,6,7]. For instance, the addition of styrene-b-butadiene-b-styrene (SBS) or hydrogenated block copolymers (styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene), enhances PPE toughness, nevertheless, produces two-phase systems owing to polybutadiene (PB) content [4,8,9,10].
Moreover, Chiu et al. [11] studied three different SBS ratios for PPE/SBS blends, including 70/30 (SBS1), 60/40 (SBS2), and 30/70 (SBS3). They established that when the SBS contains a larger PB block, the miscibility decreases in PPE/SBS blends, exhibiting phase separation and deterioration of the tensile strength; in contrast, SBS with higher polystyrene (PS) content improves miscibility. Consequently, when the miscibility of the PPE/SBS blend is appropriate, the block of PB is an effective toughener [11]. Nevertheless, a systematic understanding of the effect of structure, molecular weight (Mw), and SBS content contributes to the physicochemical properties, especially the toughness of PPE, using high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) as a compatibilizer agent, is still lacking.
Nonetheless, employing different mixers, varying the processing parameters (mixing, time, and temperature), or both, allows for control phase morphology and, consequently, improves blend performance [5,11,12,13]. Gallego et al. [14] prepared blends of polyamide 6 by extrusion and internal mixing (IM), with metallocene rubber as the dispersed phase. Their findings from the rheological and morphological analyses showed that the compounding process had more influence on the mechanical properties than the blend composition. In the same way, Goharpey et al. [15] compared the viscoelasticity and microstructure of thermoplastic vulcanizate samples prepared by IM and twin-screw extrusion (TSE). Although there was a slight decrease in the extent of cured rubber agglomerates, the samples obtained with TSE revealed a more uniform agglomerate size distribution, which was attributed to a higher stress state in the extruder. Finally, Shahbikian et al. [16] reported the morphology and viscoelasticity of uncross-linked and cross-linked EPDM/PP-based thermoplastic elastomers prepared by IM and a co-rotating TSE. Despite similar average apparent shear rates in both mixing equipment, the intensive flow field in the TSE resulted in a finer morphology. Likewise, despite the shorter residence time in the TSE, compared to the IM, the crosslinking reaction proceeded faster, resulting in more extensive and heterogeneous crosslinked EPDM domains dispersed in the thermoplastic phase.
On the other hand, a synergistic toughening effect has been reported by combining two different impact modifiers or through a rigid-toughening (a combination of an elastomer with a rigid polymer) [2,3,4].
In this study, an IM and a TSE were employed to produce PPE/HIPS/SBS blends with three SBS block copolymers, specifically, two radial architecture (SBS411R and SBS416R) and one linear architecture (SBS4301L) as impact modifiers. Furthermore, the key to this research aims to compare the rheological, thermo-mechanical, and impact resistance properties of the PPE/HIPS/SBS polymer blend depending on the type (architecture and Mw), the content of SBS (from 6 to 24 wt%) and processing method (IM vs. TSE). Equally important was to demonstrate the role of HIPS as a compatibilizer agent, specifically between PPE and SBS, and evaluate the influence of the SBS:HIPS ratio in the PPE/HIPS/SBS blends. The PPE/HIPS blends were used as the reference to evaluate toughening by including SBS. That will allow for the preparation of technologically superior blends, improving processability and lowering cost by blending a high-performance polymer with low-cost materials.

2. Materials and Methods

Poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene ether) (PPE) (Vestoran 1900, Evonik Degussa, Marl, Germany); high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) (Resirene 2210, Xicohtzinco, Tlaxcala, Mexico); styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS, Altamira, Tamaulipas, Mexico): Solprene 4301 (SBS4301L) is a linear triblock copolymer with 33 wt% of styrene content and Mw = 154,000 g/mol, Solprene 411 (SBS411R) is a radial block copolymer with 30 wt% styrene content and Mw = 299,000 g/mol, and Solprene 416 (SBS416R) is a radial block copolymer with 28 wt% styrene and 2% random and Mw = 192,000 g/mol.

2.1. Blends Preparation with a Twin-Screw Extruder

PPE/HIPS/SBS blends were prepared utilizing a Rondol Microlab (Nancy, France) twin-screw extruder. PPE, HIPS, and SBS or PPE and HIPS or PPE and SBS were collocated simultaneously to the twin-screw extruder. The screw speed was set at 100 rpm, and the melting temperatures from hopper to die were 230/250/260/270/280 °C, respectively. The blend was extruded as filaments (about 2 mm in diameter), then air-cooled and ground with a rotary knife grinder (Nancy, France) in cylindrical pellets close to 2 mm × 2 mm. Afterward, the pellets were injection-molded (Model AB-100-4, AB Machinery, Montreal, QC, Canada) at 130 Psi and 310 °C to obtain specimens for impact assay and thermo-mechanical characterization.

2.2. Blends Preparation with Internal Mixing

The internal mixing (IM) (Plasti-corder DDRV752, Brabender, Hackensack, NJ, USA) blending conditions were: 100 rpm rotor speed, a temperature of 280 °C, and cam-type blades. PPE and HIPS were premixed and added to the IM simultaneously, allowing them to soften for 15 min. Then, the SBS was added and mixed for 3 min. The blend was recovered for further grinding (particle diameter close to 3 mm diameter). Likewise, the PPE/HIPS and PPE/SBS blends were formulated.

2.3. Formulations

Table 1 displays the formulations of PPE/HIPS/SBS, PPE/HIPS, and PPE/SBS blends according to content ratio and processing methods. For PPE/HIPS/SBS blends prepared in equal or different SBS ratios, the acronyms are PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-Z, where X = 411R, 416R, or 4301L; Y = different (6, 12, 18, 24) or equal PPE:HIPS:SBS (1:1:1) ratio; and Z = internal mixing (IM) or twin-screw extrusion (TSE). Regarding neat PPE/HIPS-22-IM, PPE/HIPS-22-TSE, PPE/HIPS-40, PPE/SBS411R-40, PPE/SBS416R-40, and PPE/SBS4301L-40 were compared to PPE/HIPS/SBS.

2.4. Characterization

Viscoelasticity was accomplished by small-amplitude oscillatory shear (SAOS) at 265 °C, using a rotational rheometer model Physica MCR 501 (Anton Paar, Graz, Austria) with 25 mm diameter plates and a 1 mm gap. Dynamic frequency sweep tests were achieved between 0.01 and 100 Hz and 0.1% strain, i.e., linear viscoelastic regime. Each measurement was repeated at least three times to minimize the experimental error.
The thermomechanical stability and Tg of the blends were performed employing a dynamical mechanical analyzer (RSA III, TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA) in the temperature sweep mode at a frequency of 1 Hz, 0.1% strain, a heating rate of 5 °C/min, and three-point bending geometry. The elastic modulus (E′) was taken at 25 °C, and the peak of the viscous modulus (or loss modulus) (E″) curve was referred to as the Tg of the blends.
Notched Izod impact strength was measured according to ASTM D256 [17] using a pendulum machine (XJF Multilmpact, Physical Test Solutions, Culver, CA, USA). In addition, the pendulum capacity and velocity were 5.5 J and 3.5 m/s, respectively. Five samples were tested at 25 °C for each blend, and the average values were reported.
For data analysis, the software Statgraphics Centurion XV version 15.1.02 was employed, where a Pearson correlation matrix was performed to identify the correlation coefficients or association forces of storage modulus and Izod impact resistance.

3. Results and Discussion

The PPE/HIPS and PPE/SBS blends were prepared as references to evaluate the effect of the processing method and type of SBS (SBS411R, SBS416R, and SBS4301L) on the toughening and thermomechanical properties of the PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-TSE and PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-IM blends, where X = 411R, 416R, and 4301L; Y = SBS content (6, 12, 18, and 24%); Z = processed by twin-screw extrusion (TSE) and internal mixing (IM).

3.1. Effect of SBS Architecture, Content, and Molecular Weight

Rheological analysis of polymer blends and composites is an efficient method to provide insight into their microstructures, interfacial interactions, and processing behaviors [18,19]. The storage modulus (G′) and loss modulus (G″) represent the elastic portion and viscous component of the characteristic viscoelastic behavior as a function of time, respectively. Nevertheless, in some cases, the G′ is more sensitive to changes in the micro- or nano-structure of viscoelastic systems in frequency sweep tests, whereby a significant change in its rheological behavior provides information about the transition from viscous to elastic behavior [20]. A comparison of the G′ and G″ magnitude, the rheological behavior can be defined as viscoelastic, solid, or liquid. When G′ > G″, the system is dominated by viscoelastic solid-like behavior; in contrast, if G′ < G″ (at low frequencies), it has viscoelastic liquid-like behavior [21].
Figure 1 displays the viscoelastic behavior of all PPE/HIPS/SBS blends. For example, the PPE/HIPS/S416R-6-TSE, Figure 1a, presents a viscoelastic liquid-like behavior (G″ > G′ at low frequencies). However, the transition from liquid to viscoelastic solid occurs for PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-12-TSE, see Figure 1b. Finally, a viscoelastic solid-like behavior (G′ > G″) at higher concentrations (18 and 24 wt%) of the S416R copolymer was observed, seen in Figure 1c,d, respectively. Notably, the increase in G′ and G″ modules occurred at low frequencies, suggesting the presence of the slow relaxations inherent to a vast portion of a macromolecular network [22]. In summary, the dynamic rheological measurements revealed that all the PPE/HIPS/SBS blends have identical viscoelastic behavior to the PPE/HIPS/SBS416R blends, see Figure 1. Figures S1 and S2 compares the PPE/HIPS-22 (0 wt% SBS) and PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-6 blends processed by IM and TSE, respectively, which have similar behavior, where, at low frequencies, the viscous component dominates. Compared to PPE/SBS416R-40-IM, the PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-24-IM blend has a similar behavior specifically as viscoelastic solid, notwithstanding it has a lower G′. In contrast, PPE/HIPS-40-IM (0 wt% SBS416R) exhibits behavior such as a viscoelastic liquid due to the significant difference in PB content, see Figure S3.
Moreover, the relaxation time is calculated from the inverse of the crossover frequency, i.e., when G′ and G″ are equal [23], indicating the relaxation time after applying deformation or stress. Likewise, crossover frequency and zero shear viscosity are important viscoelastic properties of the polymer related to the degree of entanglement. A higher crossover frequency with increased SBS content indicates lower entanglements among the molecules and a lower characteristic relaxation time [24]. In contrast, the shifts towards lower frequencies indicate a higher relaxation time of the polymer chains. This relaxation delay could be attributed to more entanglements and weaker mobility of the chain segments in the PPE/HIPS/SBS blends. In other words, SBS acts as a physical barrier to the relaxation process, restricting the chain mobility of the PPE/HIPS matrix [25,26].
Additionally, the PPE/HIPS/SBSX-6 and PPE/HIPS/SBSX-12 display relaxation time, namely as tr, Figure 1a,b,e,f. For PPE/HIPS/SBS blends with 18 and 24 wt% of SBS content, G′ is always higher than G″ (Figure 1c,d,g,h), i.e., the transition of solid behavior to liquid behavior is absent with increasing frequency, indicating an enormous elasticity [23]. Similarly, behavior is observed for PPE/SBS416R-40-IM blends, see Figure S3.
On the other hand, the complex viscosity |η*| and G′ are two sensitive parameters reflecting the composite structural phase [26], with changes in interfacial interactions and dispersion state of the components usually manifest at low-frequency regions [27]. In particular, G′ represents microstructure elasticity; therefore, the increase in G′ indicates elastic strength enhancement of the melt ascribed to a form relaxation process [28,29].
Figure 2 shows the effect of SBS content on G′ of the PPE/HIPS/SBS blends processed by TSE and IM. The SBS411R (radial architecture and the highest molecular weight (Mw)) blends processed by TSE presented a slightly higher G′ than those with SBS416R (radial architecture and medium Mw); in contrast, the blends with SBS4301L (linear structure and the lowest Mw) are different, resulting in lower G′ values, see Figure 2a–c. The PPE/HIPS/SBS blends processed by IM exhibit a similar behavior, see Figure 2d–f. Hence, the higher G′ modulus is due to the radial architecture and the high or medium Mw of SBS411 and SBS416, respectively. These findings confirm that the mechanical and micromechanical properties of the block copolymer are directly influenced by the architecture and Mw, even when their nanostructures are equivalent. For instance, styrene/isoprene graft copolymers with four branch points showed acceptable mechanical performance depending on the enhanced degree of physical cross-linking sites, e.g., star block copolymer systems, versus linear copolymers [30,31]. In the present study, radial SBS (411R and 416R) possesses superior mechanical properties than linear SBS (4301L) [32,33,34].
The viscoelastic behavior of PPE can be influenced by interactions between SBS and HIPS. In addition, a significant quantity of dispersed rubbery phase (PB) and hard PS blocks that serve as entanglement points to make a network structure, resisting the motion of macromolecular chains, are responsible for the plateau in the curve [25]. These factors induce the increment of blend elasticity, interfacial interactions, and, accordingly, an increase in relaxation time due to the increase of the total interfacial area of the components and interfacial energy [27,35,36].
Figure 3 illustrates the G′ at 0.01 Hz of PPE/HIPS/SBS411R blends processed by TSE and IM. Compared to all PPE/HIPS/SBS blends (PPE/HIPS/SBS411R, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L) formulated, both methods exhibited similar behavior. Nevertheless, the blends processed by TSE have a higher elasticity. For example, PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-18-TSE and PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-18-IM G′ were 19,280 Pa and 16,950 Pa, respectively. Consider as another example, PPE/HIPS-TSE and PPE/HIPS-IM, G′ was 2700 Pa and 1830 Pa, respectively. The difference was related to significant dispersive action with rupture and distribution of the soft phase within the matrix using TSE [12,37]. The PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-24-TSE blend presented higher G′ than the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-24-TSE blend; therefore, S411R was not adequately distributed by the TSE process at 24 wt% owing to the combination of its high content and higher Mw.
Table S1 illustrates the correlations of the Pearson time-product matrix for PPE/HIPS/SBS blends. These correlation coefficients range from −1 to +1 and measure the strength of the linear relationship between variables. The values of p below 0.05 indicate statistically significant non-zero correlations with a confidence level of 95.0%. In this study, all values exhibit values close to 1, i.e., they share sturdy positive correlation forces between each experiment, and therefore, all model variables are interrelated. This finding could be explained by the principle of measuring G′, which is determined in a molten state.

3.2. Viscosity

The viscosity of a polymer blend depends on the components, composition, and interfacial interactions [38]. Figure 4 illustrates an overall increase |η*| with SBS content of any type and processing method at the low-frequency region, which affects the viscosity of all blends [8]. A higher viscous phase, SBS411R, SBS416R, and SBS4301L, attached to a less viscous phase, PPE > HIPS, hinders flowability and increases overall system viscosity, see Figure S4 [8]. For all PPE/HIPS/SBS blends, |η*| obeys throughout the frequency range, a shear-thinning response, as evidenced by the viscosity decrease with increasing frequency, representing the typical characteristic of a pseudoplastic fluid. Although PPE and PS are completely miscible [39], PPE and PB are immiscible [32]; as a result, the blends were expected to be phase-separated. According to Ashtana et al. [40], in poly(phenylene ether)/polydivinylbenzene(polyisobutylene-b-polystyrene) blends, melt viscosity reduction with increasing frequency was expected because of a progressively disrupted phase segregation in the melt. At low frequencies, phase separation prevailed, and the degree of entanglement of polymeric chains dominated the flow, whereas, at increasing frequencies, phase separation became increasingly disturbed, and the alignment in flow direction dominated, facilitating the flow, causing a sudden decrease in melt viscosity [25]. Compared with PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-24-IM, the improved flow behavior (lower viscosity) of PPE/HIPS-40-IM was due to a higher content of HIPS, because PS derivatives, i.e., HIPS, improves the PPE processability and toughness, see Figure S5 [41].
Moreover, TSE could imply a significant dispersive action, with rupture and distribution of the soft phase into the matrix compared to IM [12,37]. Therefore, the increase in |η*| is due to sturdy interfacial adhesion between PB and PPE, and consequently, the stress can be transferred from one phase to another upon applying shear forces, hindering flowability and enhancing the system viscosity [8].
Han’s plot, Cole-Cole, and Van Gurp-Palmer help examine the miscibility and morphology of blends from linear viscoelastic data [38]. In the rheological criterion established by Han et al., the plot of log G′ vs. log G″ is used to determine the rheological miscibility of polymer blends. There are distinctive differences between the Han’s plot of homogeneous polymers and multiphase systems. Han’s plot must be independent of temperature and composition. Additionally, the terminal region slope of 2 must indicate that a mixture is truly homogeneous or molecularly compatible. Otherwise, the blend is deemed to be immiscible or phase-separated [42,43,44]. The difference in the slope suggested differences in morphology [38].
Figure 5 shows Han’s plot for all PPE/HIPS/SBS blends, varying SBS content and method processing. As observed, the G′-G″ curve of all blends showed a clear dependence on the composition, exhibiting a nonlinear correlation and an upturning shape at low frequencies, indicating the existence of phase separation or immiscibility [45]. In addition, the slope deviated from 2. However, when the SBS content increased at 18 wt%, a considerable enhancement of G′ at low frequencies arose, revealing poorer compatibility and high interfacial tension between the PPE-PS phase and PB with a significant change in blend microstructure [38,46]. Finally, the findings reveal insignificant changes in the behavior of Han’s plot when comparing both processing methods.

3.3. Thermomechanical Stability

Measurement of the Tg is a criterion used to determine the phase behavior of a polymer blend. The main change for PPE/HIPS/SBS blends occurs in soft phase glass transition temperature (TgSP) and rigid phase glass transition temperature (TgRP) due to phase rich of PB (HIPS + SBS) and phase rich of PS/PPE (SBS, HIPS and PPE), respectively [38,47,48]. It is well known that three phases are identified for SBS block copolymers: PB in the pure PB phase (Tg1), PB in the mixed PB-PS phase rich in PB (Tg2), and PS only present in a mixed PB-PS phase rich in PS (Tg3) [49,50].
Figure 6a displays the TgSP of the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-TSE, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-TSE blends. Compared with PPE/HIPS-22-TSE, the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-TSE and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-TSE blends show lower values. Meanwhile, the PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-TSE blend exhibits superior values except for the PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-24-TSE blend.
Figure 6b illustrates the TgSP of the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-IM, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-IM, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-IM blends. The PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-IM, PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-IM, and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-IM blends diminished their TgSP than the TgSP of PPE/HIPS-22-IM, forming a PB-PS phase more abundant in PB. In contrast, the PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-6-IM blend exhibited a higher TgSP than the PPE/HIPS-22-IM. Therefore, the soft domains formed in the PPE/HIPS/S416R-IM and PPE/HIPS/S4301-IM blends could be due to the PB-PS phase richest in PB and the poorest in PB (or abundant in PS), respectively, Figure 6b.
Note that in PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-24-IM, a substantial reduction in the TgSP occurred, suggesting a diminished PS content in the rubbery block and, therefore, a soft phase richer in PB than present in PPEHIPS-40%-IM and PPE/S416R-40%-IM, see Figure 6c. Furthermore, PPE/S416R-40%-IM contains 12 wt% of PS, making PPE only a little miscible with SBS. Due to PB and PPE were not miscible at the higher PB content, this will cause a significant phase separation [32]. Consequently, the blocks of PS and PB will interact, and a more considerable amount of PS will be present in the rubbery block, promoting the shift of TgSP to a higher temperature [42,51].
Regarding TgRP, which corresponds to the Tg of the PPE-PS rigid phase. In addition, the Tg shift depends on the component interactions, i.e., PPE and PS with the rubbery block [47,48,52]. Hence, the PB content significantly affects the shift of Tg PS, suggesting an additional interaction between the PS phase, from HIPS or SBS, with the phase of PB [10,53,54].
As SBS content increases, the TgRP is shifted towards lower temperatures concerning the TgRP of P/H-22%, regardless of the processing method (IM or TSE), see Figure 6d,e. However, a reduced content of PPE led to a reduction of the Tg of the PPE-PS TgRP. It is important to note the incorporation of PS into the PPE.
The TgRP of PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-TSE blends exhibits lower values than the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-TSE and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-TSE blends (both with radial architecture), see Figure 6d. A similar behavior is observed for mixtures processed by IM, see Figure 6e. This finding can be explained by the fact that S4301L has significant PS content and moderate viscosity. Therefore, the incorporation of the PB from S4301L into the PPE is more favorable than for the other SBS416R and SBS411R copolymers, regardless of the processing method. Comparing PPE/HIPS/SBS411R prepared by both methods, it is evident that the blends compounded by TSE presented lower TgRP. That indicated that a PB-PS soft domain, plentiful in PB, was formed by TSE, and a high concentration of PS into the PPE was achieved. Figure 6f compares the TgRP of PPE/HIPS-40%, PPE/SBS416R-40% concerning PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-24%. Note that as the SBS content increased, the TgRP rose; thus, there was a lesser amount of PS in the blend, and consequently, a hard phase poorer in PS promoted the shift of the TgRP to higher temperatures.
Regarding thermomechanical stability, the storage modulus (E′) of all PPE/HIPS/SBS blends, depending on SBS content and type of processing, reveals higher E’ for TSE in comparison to IM at 25 °C, see Figure 7a,b [55,56,57].
When SBS content increases for the PPE/HIPS/SBS blends, E′ decreases for both methods. However, a significant loss of E′ occurs at the first concentrations, suggesting that a loss of stiffness does not accompany an increase in SBS above 12 wt%. This behavior was related to a higher number of physical cross-linking sites in radial copolymers than in linear copolymers, which triggered enhanced mechanical properties in the PPE/HIPS/SBS with radial copolymers than in those with linear blocks [32,33,34]. For this reason, the PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-TSE blends exhibited higher E′ and TgSP, suggesting that the dissolution of the microdomains of the PS blocks in PB was significant. Therefore, lesser incorporation of the PS blocks in the PPE phase occurred concerning the other blends [56]. The E′ at 0 wt% SBS (corresponding to PPE/HIPS-22 and regardless of the processing method) was the highest, as expected since the stiffness reduction upon the incorporation of a soft block in a hard phase has been extensively reported (Figure 7a,b).
Figure 7c illustrates the E′ of the blends with 60 wt% PPE processed by IM. Because all blends showed similar behavior, only the comparison of E′ of PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-IM 60/40-X/X blends is illustrated. As observed, for the S416R increment from 0 to 40 wt%, the contents of PS and PB diminished and raised, respectively. Thus, for lesser incorporations of the PS blocks in the PPE phase, the stiffness of the rigid domain increased since PS has a lower stiffness than PPE, causing the increment in E′.
Comparing processing methods, Figure 7d, E′ of PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-12, by TSE and IM, was 1.47 GPa and 1.20 GPa, respectively. In contrast, E’ of PPE/HIPS-22, processed by TSE and IM, was 1.78 GPa and 1.74 GPa, respectively. These findings suggest that the TSE causes an improved distribution of components in the blend matrix [4,30]. In addition, the higher E′ might be related to the lower interfacial tensions between phases and, accordingly, with enhanced interfacial adhesion. With a major dispersive action compared to the IM, the TSE intensifies the breakage of the PB domain, improving its dispersion and suppressing the coalescence in the melt, which improves the mechanical properties [12,58].

3.4. Toughening

The most common method to enhance rigid polymers’ toughness is by melt blending with elastomers or block copolymers. In addition, the toughening effect depends on the phase morphology, elastomer-block copolymer content, and interfacial adhesion, just like the evaluated properties [59,60]. As observed in Figure 8, the processing method, content of SBS, and copolymer architecture were decisive in increasing or decreasing the impact resistance of the PPE/HIPS/SBS blends.
Comparing processing methods, all blends compounded by TSE (except PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-24-TSE) exhibited higher impact resistance due to superior dispersive action, see Figure 8, as mentioned before [12,37]. The impact resistance of the PPE/HIPS/SBS processed by TSE was higher for the blends prepared with SBS411R, the radial block copolymer with the highest Mw. However, the blends made by IM, especially SBS416R with radial copolymer with medium Mw, produced the highest impact resistance. For example, PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-18-TSE showed the highest impact resistance with 44.2 kJ m−2. In contrast, the exact blend prepared by IM presented only 24.68 kJ m−2. Thus, the TSE distributes the soft phase more homogeneously; consequently, the blocks of PB behaved as a more effective toughener or in situ reinforcing agent [61,62]. Nevertheless, the decrease in the impact resistance for PPE/HIPS/SBS411-24-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS416-24-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-18-TSE and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-24-TSE blends was due to poor miscibility between the blocks of PPE and PB as the content of SBS increased, suggesting that the increment of PB caused PS (at some concentration) not to support or be compatible with PB. Compared to PPE/HIPS/SBS blends, PPE/HIPS-40, the PPE/SBS416R-40 or PPE/SBS4301L-40 blend exhibits a negative effect on the impact resistance resulted, despite the rise at 40 wt% SBS and regardless of the architecture (radial or linear), Figure S6 [32]. Therefore, the causes of the negative effect of the impact resistance were the lack of compatibility and poor interfacial adhesion between the two components since PB and PPE are not miscible.
Moreover, PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-TSE and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-TSE blends (except PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-24%-TSE) exhibited excellent impact resistance compared to those with the SBS linear block copolymer. Due to the presence of an extensive number of physical cross-linking sites in the radial than in the linear copolymers triggered improved mechanical properties in the ternary blends [32,33,34].
As known, the size and substructure of the dispersed rubber modifier play a crucial role in determining the ultimate toughening effect and the deformation mechanism [63,64]. In addition, surface homogeneity improves impact resistance because of a similar shape, particle size, and acceptable rubber particle dispersion [65]. The evidence indicated that the IM could not distribute the SBS411R properly due to its high Mw and viscosity. In contrast, it was possible by TSE, which involves a significant dispersive action. Since SBS416R has a medium Mw, IM was able to distribute it properly; therefore, it behaved as an adequate toughener by this method.
The PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-24-TSE blend presented the lowest impact resistance of all the blends, including those prepared by IM. Meanwhile, for the PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-TSE blends, the impact resistance started to diminish at 18 wt%. Despite the rise of PB in the PPE/PS matrix and the independence of the SBS architecture, a negative effect on the impact resistance arose. Thus, the compatibilization must be within the optimal range to achieve the super-toughness of a polymer blend [59,66]. As reported, several polymer blends exhibit unsatisfactory toughening effects due to poor compatibility and weak interfacial bonding, ascribed to inefficient chain entanglement density at the interface [63,67,68]. For example, for PPE/SBS blends, the miscibility with the PPE is weaker if the SBS contains more PB, leading to weak interfacial adhesion and severe phase separation [11]. Additionally, the impact strength of PVC/ASA/SBS blends decreased suddenly for SBS contents above 5 phr due to poor miscibility, leading to terrible interfacial adhesion between SBS and PVC [32].
Table S2 displays the results of a multiple comparison procedure to determine which means are significantly different from others for PPE/HIPS/SBS blends analyzing Izod impact resistance. Values with asterisk (Sig.) have been placed next to 6 pairs, indicating that these pairs show statistically significant differences at the 95.0% confidence level. The method used to discriminate against the means is Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) procedure, which has a 5.0% risk of identifying each pair of means that are significantly different when the actual difference is 0. The results reveal that the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-IM–PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-TSE blend and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-IM–PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-TSE pairs have significant differences statistically. Unlike the measurement of G′, the Izod impact resistance is measured at a temperature of 25 °C. This finding suggests that the processing method influences Izod impact resistance when utilizing SBS with radial architecture. In contrast, the PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-IM–PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-TSE pair exhibits a correlation between its dates.

3.5. Impact Resistance in PPE/HIPS/SBS Blends at 1:1:1 Ratio

The PS content in the blends is essential for a notable performance in the impact resistance, according to the discussed results. For this reason, the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-IM, PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-IM, and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-TSE blends with a weight ratio 1:1:1, i.e., PPE/HIPS/SBS (33.33 wt%/33.3 wt%/33.33 wt%) were evaluated. At this ratio, the PS content exceeded the rest of the components. Only PPE/HIPS/SBS blends with SBS radial copolymers were evaluated due to excellent impact resistance behavior.
Figure 9 displays the Izod impact resistance of PPE/HIPS/SBS blends at 18, 24, and 33.33 wt% of SBS. It is important to note that PPE content was superior to the other components, in particular for the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-18-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-24-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-18-TSE, and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-24-TSE blends.
The PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-TSE blend at a 1:1:1 ratio displays an impact resistance increase concerning the blend at 24 wt% SBS411R, from 16.75 kJ m−2 to 27.83 kJ m−2. However, the value is still lower than the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-18-TSE (44.2 kJ m−2). Therefore, the limited ability of the TSE to distribute the highly viscous (highest Mw) SBS411 continues to dominate even when the PS content increases.
The PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-TSE (1:1:1) and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-IM (1:1:1) blends exhibited excellent impact resistance with values close to 49.2 kJ m−2 and 50 kJ m−2, respectively. These results are attributed to the fact that S416R has a lower Mw than S411R, and its distribution was more appropriate by IM.
In summary, the methodology employed in melt blending was substantially influenced by the blend composition rather than the blending process (TSE or IM) with an appropriate distribution of components. In addition, for an appropriate copolymer distribution, the PS content is the critical factor to an improved impact resistance performance. As mentioned, the higher the disruption and distribution of the PB phase, the higher the PS content required to support it, which hampers increasing immiscibility with PPE, allowing the SBS to behave as an adequate toughener.

4. Conclusions

In this study, PPE/HIPS/SBS blends were prepared, investigating the processed method (twin-screw extrusion (TSE) and internal mixing (IM)), the composition of SBS and its type (radial architecture, e.g., 416 and 411, and linear, e.g., 4301). For the PPE/HIPS/SBS blends, the extent of interaction between components was decisive for miscibility (HIPS:SBS) and rheological, thermo-mechanical, and impact resistance performance. The extent of interaction depended not only on the SBS architecture and content in the blend, but also on the processing method. Furthermore, an increment in the SBS content led to an enhancement in blend elasticity and impact resistance. The larger number of physical cross-linking sites in the radial copolymer chains than in the linear triblock triggered improved mechanical properties in the PPE/HIPS/SBS blends.
The substantial impact resistance of the PPE/HIPS/SBS suggested a HIPS-SBS synergistic effect, which made the toughening of PPE possible. For the blends prepared with PPE in excess, significant impact resistance was achieved for PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-18-TSE, with radial architecture and the highest molecular weight (Mw). Likewise, a certain amount of PS in the mixture restricts the increase in immiscibility between PPE and SBS and allows SBS to behave as an excellent toughener. The influence of the PB:PS ratio was also analyzed since a high content of PB in the matrix combined with a low content of PS (PPE/HIPS-22) or low content of PB in the matrix combined with a high content of PS (PPE/HIPS-40) lead to lower impact resistance, compared with PPE/HIPS/SBS blends, at 24 wt% of SBS content.
For the PPE/HIPS/SBS blend with a ratio 1:1:1, where the PS content was more significant than the other components and with an adequate component distribution. The toughening was more influenced by the blend composition than the blending process since the PPE/HIPS/SBS416 blends formulated by both methods presented similar values. Therefore, an appropriate distribution of the block copolymer is crucial to excellent impact resistance performance.
Consequently, the control of phase separation between PPE and PB allows adequate interfacial adhesion and outstanding impact resistance. The PPE/HIPS/SBS blends are fascinating because of the combination of the high chemical, thermal, and mechanical properties of PPE with the elastomeric behavior of SBS and the excellent processability of HIPS. These blends are also of scientific and technological interest from the performance and cost viewpoints because they allow the custom formulation of compositions having predetermined properties ranging between those of SBS/HIPS and PPE by controlling the ratio of the components. The tactic employed in this contribution enables the tailoring of high-performance polymer blends, improving processability and reducing cost, where the blends with excellent performance could be used in the automotive industry, for example, in bumpers. Due to the versatility of these blends, the evaluation of the impact resistance varying the PPE:HIPS:SBS ratios is pending for future work.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app142210264/s1, Figure S1. Storage modulus (G′) and viscous modulus (G″) as a function of SBS content of the poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene ether) (P)/high-impact polystyrene (H)/styrene-butadiene-styrene (S) solprene 411 radial copolymer (S411R) P/H/S411R blends formulated by internal mixing (IM) versus P/H-22-IM. Figure S2. Storage modulus (G′) and viscous modulus (G″) as a function of SBS content of the P/H/S solprene 411 radial copolymer (S411R) P/H/S411R blends formulated by twin-screw extrusor (E) versus P/H-22-E; Figure S3. Storage modulus (G′) and viscous modulus (G″) of P/S416R-40%-IM, P/H/S416R-24%-IM blend and P/H-40%-IM blend; Figure S4. Complex viscosity (|η*|) of HIPS, PPE, SBS411R, SBS416R, and SBS4301L; Figure S5. Complex viscosity (|η*|): (a) P/H-40%-IM, P/H/S411R-24%-IM, and P/S411R-40%-IM blends; (b) P/H-40%-IM, P/H/S4301L-24%-IM, and P/S4301L-40%-IM blends; Figure S6. The Izod impact resistance of the blends with 60 wt% PPE: (a) S416R (radial structure) and (b) S4301L (linear structure); Table S1. Correlations of the Pearson time-product matrix for PPE/HIPS/SBS blends; Table S2. Multiple Comparisons for GMPA.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.I.L.-M., A.V.-R. and S.G.F.-G.; methodology, E.I.L.-M. and S.G.F.-G.; validation, A.V.-R., E.A.Z.-C. and S.G.F.-G.; formal analysis, A.V.-R., E.A.Z.-C. and S.G.F.-G.; investigation, E.I.L.-M., E.A.Z.-C., A.V.-R. and S.G.F.-G.; resources, E.I.L.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.I.L.-M., E.A.Z.-C., A.V.-R. and S.G.F.-G.; writing—review and editing, A.V.-R. and S.G.F.-G.; visualization, E.I.L.-M. and A.V.-R.; supervision, S.G.F.-G.; project administration, A.V.-R.; funding acquisition, S.G.F.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Centro de Investigación en Materiales Avanzados, S.C., grant number 26020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Oscar E. Vega Becerra, Daniel Lardizábal-Gutiérrez, Monica Elvira Mendoza-Duarte and Alberto Castro-Quevedo for their valuable support during this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hay, A.S. Polymerization by Oxidative Coupling: Discovery and Commercialization of PPO® and Noryl® Resins. J. Polym. Sci. Part Polym. Chem. 1998, 36, 505–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. L’Abee, R.M.A.; Duin, M.V.; Spoelstra, A.B.; Goossens, J.G.P. The Rubber Particle Size to Control the Properties-Processing Balance of Thermoplastic/Cross-Linked Elastomer Blends. Soft Matter 2010, 6, 1758–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ribeiro, V.F.; Domingues, N.S.; Riegel, I.C. Estudo Da Recuperação Das Propriedades de Poliestireno de Alto Impacto (HIPS) Através Da Incorporação de Borracha Termoplástica Tipo Estireno-Butadieno-Estireno (SBS). Polimeros 2012, 22, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, X.; Feng, W.; Li, H.; Ruckenstein, E. Optimum Toughening via a Bicontinuous Blending: Toughening of PPO with SEBS and SEBS-g-Maleic Anhydride. Polymer 2002, 43, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Salehiyan, R.; Ray, S.S.; Stadler, F.J.; Ojijo, V. Rheology-Microstructure Relationships in Melt-Processed Polylactide/Poly(Vinylidene Fluoride) Blends. Materials 2018, 11, 2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nofar, M.; Salehiyan, R.; Ciftci, U.; Jalali, A.; Durmuş, A. Ductility Improvements of PLA-Based Binary and Ternary Blends with Controlled Morphology Using PBAT, PBSA, and Nanoclay. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020, 182, 107661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ajitha, A.R.; Thomas, S. Chapter 1—Introduction: Polymer Blends, Thermodynamics, Miscibility, Phase Separation, and Compatibilization. In Compatibilization of Polymer Blends; Ajitha, A.R., Thomas, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–29. ISBN 978-0-12-816006-0. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bahrami, R.; Löbling, T.I.; Schmalz, H.; Müller, A.H.E.; Altstädt, V. Micromechanics of “Raspberry” Morphology in PPE/SAN Polymer Blends Compatibilized with Linear ABC Triblock Terpolymers. Polymer 2015, 80, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gupta, S.; Krishnamurthy, R.; Preschilla, N.; Biswas, A.; Bhowmick, A.K. Development and Properties of Novel Thermoplastic Elastomer Based on Poly (Phenylene Ether). Rubber Chem. Technol. 2007, 80, 642–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Puskas, J.E.; Kwon, Y.; Altstädt, V.; Kontopoulou, M. Blends of Poly(2,6-Dimethyl-1,4-Phenylene Oxide) (PPO) with Polystyrene-Based Thermoplastic Rubbers: A Comparative Study. Polymer 2007, 48, 590–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chiu, H.-T.; Hwung, D.-S. Miscibility Study on Polyphenylene Oxide and SBS Triblock Copolymer Blends. Eur. Polym. J. 1994, 30, 1191–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shokoohi, S.; Arefazar, A.; Naderi, G. Compatibilized Polypropylene/Ethylene–Propylene–Diene-Monomer/Polyamide6 Ternary Blends: Effect of Twin Screw Extruder Processing Parameters. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 1697–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Canto, L.B. On the Coarsening of the Phase Morphology of PP/EVA Blends during Compounding in a Twin Screw Extruder. Polym. Test. 2014, 34, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gallego, R.; García-López, D.; López-Quintana, S.; Gobernado-Mitre, I.; Merino, J.C.; Pastor, J.M. Toughening of PA6/mEPDM Blends by Two Methods of Compounding, Extruder and Internal Mixer: Rheological, Morphological and Mechanical Characterization. Polym. Bull. 2008, 60, 665–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Goharpey, F.; Foudazi, R.; Nazockdast, H.; Katbab, A.A. Determination of Twin-Screw Extruder Operational Conditions for the Preparation of Thermoplastic Vulcanizates on the Basis of Batch-Mixer Results. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2008, 107, 3840–3847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shahbikian, S.; Carreau, P.J.; Heuzey, M.-C.; Ellul, M.D.; Cheng, J.; Shirodkar, P.; Nadella, H.P. Morphology Development of EPDM/PP Uncross-linked/Dynamically Cross-linked Blends. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2012, 52, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. ASTM 256; Standard Test Methods for Determining the Izod Pendulum Impact Resistance of Plastics. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA. [CrossRef]
  18. Zou, Z.M.; Sun, Z.Y.; An, L.J. Effect of Fumed Silica Nanoparticles on the Morphology and Rheology of Immiscible Polymer Blends. Rheol. Acta 2014, 53, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nakayama, D.; Wu, F.; Mohanty, A.K.; Hirai, S.; Misra, M. Biodegradable Composites Developed from PBAT/PLA Binary Blends and Silk Powder: Compatibilization and Performance Evaluation. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 12412–12421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Jyoti, J.; Dhakate, S.R.; Singh, B.P. Phase Transition and Anomalous Rheological Properties of Graphene Oxide-Carbon Nanotube Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Hybrid Composites. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 154, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mezger, T.G. The Rheology Handbook: 4th Edition; Vincentz Network: Hanover, Germany, 2019; ISBN 978-3-7486-0036-7. [Google Scholar]
  22. Arrigo, R.; Mascia, L.; Clarke, J.; Malucelli, G. Structure Evolution of Epoxidized Natural Rubber (Enr) in the Melt State by Time-Resolved Mechanical Spectroscopy. Materials 2020, 13, 946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liew, C.W.; Durairaj, R.; Ramesh, S. Rheological Studies of PMMA-PVC Based Polymer Blend Electrolytes with LiTFSI as Doping Salt. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hernández-Alamilla, M.; Valadez-Gonzalez, A. The Effect of Two Commercial Melt Strength Enhancer Additives on the Thermal, Rheological and Morphological Properties of Polylactide. J. Polym. Eng. 2016, 36, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rinawa, K.; Maiti, S.N.; Sonnier, R.; Cuesta, J.-M.L. Non-Isothermal Crystallization Kinetics and Thermal Behaviour of PA12/SEBS-g-MA Blends. Bull. Mater. Sci. 2015, 38, 1315–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lafranche, E.; Krawczak, P. Toughness Improvement of Novel Biobased Aromatic Polyamide/SEBS/Organoclay Ternary Hybrids. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2020, 137, 48888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hu, X.; Li, Y.; Li, M.; Kang, H.; Zhang, L. Renewable and Supertoughened Polylactide-Based Composites: Morphology, Interfacial Compatibilization, and Toughening Mechanism. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 9195–9204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, W.; Qiu, J.; Fei, M.; Qiu, R.; Sakai, E. Manufacturing of Thermally Remoldable Blends from Epoxidized Soybean Oil and Poly(Lactic Acid) via Dynamic Cross-Linking in a Twin-Screw Extruder. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57, 7516–7524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, Z.; Wang, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, W.; Tian, T. Remarkably Improved Toughness and Thermal Stability of Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC)/Poly (α-Methylstyrene-Acrylonitrile) (α-MSAN) Blend with the Assistance of Two Impact Modifiers. Polym. Test. 2016, 51, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Adhikari, R.; Michler, G.H. Influence of Molecular Architecture on Morphology and Micromechanical Behavior of Styrene/Butadiene Block Copolymer Systems. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2004, 29, 949–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Weidisch, R.; Laatsch, J.; Michler, G.H.; Arnold, M.; Schade, B.; Fischer, H. Transition from Crazing to Shear Deformation in Star Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 2002, 35, 6585–6591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, X.; Mao, Z.; Zhang, J. Study of the Phase Morphology and Toughness in Poly (Vinyl Chloride)/Acrylonitrile–Styrene-acrylic/Styrene–Butadiene–Styrene Ternary Blends Influenced by Interfacial/Surface Tension. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2019, 136, 47721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Meng, X.; Liu, X.; Li, Z.; Zhou, Q. Positron Annihilation Lifetime Spectroscopy for Miscibility Investigations of Styrene–Butadiene–Styrene Copolymer/Polystyrene Blends. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2014, 54, 785–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Adhikari, R. Influence of Uncoupled Diblock Molecules on Mechanical Properties of Styerene/Butadiene/Styrene Triblock Copolymers. Nepal J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 12, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xie, L.; Xu, H.; Niu, B.; Ji, X.; Chen, J.; Li, Z.-M.; Hsiao, B.S.; Zhong, G.-J. Unprecedented Access to Strong and Ductile Poly(Lactic Acid) by Introducing In Situ Nanofibrillar Poly(Butylene Succinate) for Green Packaging. Biomacromolecules 2014, 15, 4054–4064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Li, R.; Yu, W.; Zhou, C. Rheological Characterization of Droplet-Matrix versus Co-Continuous Morphology. J. Macromol. Sci. Part B 2006, 45, 889–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Martin, C. Twin Screw Extruders as Continuous Mixers for Thermal Processing: A Technical and Historical Perspective. AAPS PharmSciTech 2016, 17, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Gupta, A.; Simmons, W.; Schueneman, G.T.; Hylton, D.; Mintz, E.A. Rheological and Thermo-Mechanical Properties of Poly(Lactic Acid)/Lignin-Coated Cellulose Nanocrystal Composites. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 1711–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bair, H.E. Quantitative Thermal Analysis of Polyblends. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1970, 10, 247–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Asthana, S.; Kennedy, J.P. Novel Polyisobutylene Stars. XXIII. Thermal, Mechanical, and Processing Characteristics of Poly(Phenylene Ether)/Polydivinylbenzene(Polyisobutylene-b-Polystyrene)37 Blends. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2002, 86, 2866–2872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Saron, C.; Sanchez, E.M.S.; Isabel Felisberti, M. Thermal and Photochemical Degradation of PPO/HIPS Blends. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2007, 104, 3269–3276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dae Han, C.; Kim, J.K. On the Use of Time-Temperature Superposition in Multicomponent/Multiphase Polymer Systems. Polymer 1993, 34, 2533–2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shen, H.; Luan, T.; Xie, B.; Yang, W.; Yang, M. Rheological Behaviors and Molecular Weight Distribution Characteristics of Bimodal High-density Polyethylene. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2011, 121, 1543–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Walha, F.; Lamnawar, K.; Maazouz, A.; Jaziri, M. Rheological, Morphological and Mechanical Studies of Sustainably Sourced Polymer Blends Based on Poly(Lactic Acid) and Polyamide 11. Polymers 2016, 8, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Hoseini, M.; Haghtalab, A.; Famili, N. Influence on Compounding Methods on Rheology and Morphology of Linear Low Density Polyethylene/Poly(Lactic Acid). Appl. Rheol. 2016, 26, 64746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Maroufkhani, M.; Katbab, A.; Liu, W.; Zhang, J. Polylactide (PLA) and Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) Blends: The Effect of ACN Content on Morphology, Compatibility and Mechanical Properties. Polymer 2017, 115, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Thirtha, V.; Lehman, R.; Nosker, T. Morphological Effects on Glass Transition Behavior in Selected Immiscible Blends of Amorphous and Semicrystalline Polymers. Polymer 2006, 47, 5392–5401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhao, Y.; Qiu, J.; Feng, H.; Zhang, M.; Lei, L.; Wu, X. Improvement of Tensile and Thermal Properties of Poly(Lactic Acid) Composites with Admicellar-Treated Rice Straw Fiber. Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 173, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Adhikari, R.; Huy, T.A.; Buschnakowski, M.; Michler, G.H.; Knoll, K. Asymmetric PS- Block -(PS-Co-PB)- Block -PS Block Copolymers: Morphology Formation and Deformation Behaviour. New J. Phys. 2004, 6, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Masson, J.F.; Bundalo-Perc, S.; Delgado, A. Glass Transitions and Mixed Phases in Block SBS. J. Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys. 2005, 43, 276–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Picchioni, F.; Casentini, E.; Passaglia, E.; Ruggeri, G. Blends of SBS Triblock Copolymer with Poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene Oxide)/Polystyrene Mixture. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2003, 88, 2698–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Boudenne, A.; Ibos, L.; Candau, Y.; Thomas, S. Handbook of Multiphase Polymer Systems, Volume 1, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-470-71420-1. [Google Scholar]
  53. Saengow, C.; Giacomin, A.J. Review of Nonlinear Oscillatory Shear Flow Notations and Presentations: Polymeric Liquids. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2019, 43, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Abramova, A.V.; Abramov, V.O.; Bayazitov, V.M.; Voitov, Y.; Straumal, E.A.; Lermontov, S.A.; Cherdyntseva, T.A.; Braeutigam, P.; Weiße, M.; Günther, K. A Sol-Gel Method for Applying Nanosized Antibacterial Particles to the Surface of Textile Materials in an Ultrasonic Field. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2020, 60, 104788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Choi, S.H.; Cho, I.; Kim, K.U. Toughening of Syndiotactic Polystyrene and Poly(2,6-Dimethyl-1,4-Diphenylene Oxide) Blends. I. Influence of Mixing Protocol and Blend Conditions. Polym. J. 1999, 31, 828–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ruckdäschel, H.; Sandler, J.K.W.; Altstädt, V.; Schmalz, H.; Abetz, V.; Müller, A.H.E. Toughening of Immiscible PPE/SAN Blends by Triblock Terpolymers. Polymer 2007, 48, 2700–2719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Li, R.; Wu, L.; Li, B.-G. Poly(l-Lactide) Materials with Balanced Mechanical Properties Prepared by Blending with PEG-Mb-PPA Multiblock Copolymers. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 2773–2782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lee, J.K.; Han, C.D. Evolution of Polymer Blend Morphology during Compounding in an Internal Mixer. Polymer 1999, 40, 6277–6296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Shang, M.; Wu, Y.; Shentu, B.; Weng, Z. Toughening of PBT by POE/POE- g -GMA Elastomer through Regulating Interfacial Adhesion and Toughening Mechanism. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 12650–12663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yang, Z.; Peng, H.; Wang, W.; Liu, T. Crystallization Behavior of Poly(ε-Caprolactone)/Layered Double Hydroxide Nanocomposites. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2010, 116, 2658–2667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tjong, S.C.; Xu, S.A.; Mai, Y.W. Impact-Specific Essential Work of Fracture of Maleic Anhydride-Compatibilized Polypropylene/Elastomer Blends and Their Composites. J. Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys. 2002, 40, 1881–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jelcic, Z.; Holjevac-Grguric, T.; Rek, V. Mechanical Properties and Fractal Morphology of High-Impact Polystyrene/Poly(Styrene-b-Butadiene-b-Styrene) Blends. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2005, 90, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, H.; Song, W.; Chen, F.; Guo, L.; Zhang, J. Interaction of Microstructure and Interfacial Adhesion on Impact Performance of Polylactide (PLA) Ternary Blends. Macromolecules 2011, 44, 1513–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bucknall, C.B.; Paul, D.R. Notched Impact Behavior of Polymer Blends: Part 1: New Model for Particle Size Dependence. Polymer 2009, 50, 5539–5548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Martínez-barrera, G.; Menchaca, C.; Pietkiewicz, D.; Brostow, W. Polystyrene + Styrene-Butadiene Blends: Mechanical and Morphological Properties. Mater. Sci. Medžiagotyra 2004, 10, 166–173. [Google Scholar]
  66. Mehrabi Mazidi, M.; Edalat, A.; Berahman, R.; Hosseini, F.S. Highly-Toughened Polylactide-(PLA-) Based Ternary Blends with Significantly Enhanced Glass Transition and Melt Strength: Tailoring the Interfacial Interactions, Phase Morphology, and Performance. Macromolecules 2018, 51, 4298–4314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ge, T.; Grest, G.S.; Robbins, M.O. Structure and Strength at Immiscible Polymer Interfaces. ACS Macro Lett. 2013, 2, 882–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wu, B.; Zeng, Q.; Niu, D.; Yang, W.; Dong, W.; Chen, M.; Ma, P. Design of Supertoughened and Heat-Resistant PLLA/Elastomer Blends by Controlling the Distribution of Stereocomplex Crystallites and the Morphology. Macromolecules 2019, 52, 1092–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 10264 g001
Figure 1. Storage modulus (G′) and viscous modulus (G″) as a function of SBS content (Y = 6, 12, 18, and 24 wt%) of the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L formulated by twin-screw extrusion (Z = TSE) (a–d) and internal mixing (Z = IM) (e–h). Relaxation time (tr).
Figure 1. Storage modulus (G′) and viscous modulus (G″) as a function of SBS content (Y = 6, 12, 18, and 24 wt%) of the PPE/HIPS/SBS411R, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L formulated by twin-screw extrusion (Z = TSE) (a–d) and internal mixing (Z = IM) (e–h). Relaxation time (tr).
Applsci 14 10264 g001
Applsci 14 10264 g002
Figure 2. Storage modulus (G′) as a function of SBS content (Y = 6, 12, 18, and 24 wt%) in the blends versus PPE/HIPS-22-TSE or PPE/HIPS-22-IM: (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE; (c) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE; (d) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-IM; (e) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-IM; (f) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-IM.
Figure 2. Storage modulus (G′) as a function of SBS content (Y = 6, 12, 18, and 24 wt%) in the blends versus PPE/HIPS-22-TSE or PPE/HIPS-22-IM: (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE; (c) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE; (d) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-IM; (e) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-IM; (f) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-IM.
Applsci 14 10264 g002
Applsci 14 10264 g003
Figure 3. Storage modulus at 0.01Hz (G′ 0.01Hz) as a function of type of SBS (X = 411R, 416R, and 4301L) and its content (Y = 6, 12, 18, and 24 wt%) for PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-Z. (a) Z = IM; (b) Z = TSE.
Figure 3. Storage modulus at 0.01Hz (G′ 0.01Hz) as a function of type of SBS (X = 411R, 416R, and 4301L) and its content (Y = 6, 12, 18, and 24 wt%) for PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-Z. (a) Z = IM; (b) Z = TSE.
Applsci 14 10264 g003
Applsci 14 10264 g004
Figure 4. Complex viscosity (|η*|) as a function of SBS content (Y = 6, 12, 18, and 24 wt%) and processing method (TSE and IM): (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE; (c) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE; (d) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-IM; (e) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-IM; (f) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-IM.
Figure 4. Complex viscosity (|η*|) as a function of SBS content (Y = 6, 12, 18, and 24 wt%) and processing method (TSE and IM): (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE; (c) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE; (d) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-IM; (e) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-IM; (f) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-IM.
Applsci 14 10264 g004
Applsci 14 10264 g005
Figure 5. Han plots of PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-Z blends: (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE; (c) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE; (d) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-IM; (e) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-IM; (f) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-IM.
Figure 5. Han plots of PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-Z blends: (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE; (c) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE; (d) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-IM; (e) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-IM; (f) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-IM.
Applsci 14 10264 g005
Applsci 14 10264 g006
Figure 6. Soft phase glass transition temperature (TgSP) (a–c) and rigid phase glass transition temperature (TgRP) (d–f) of PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-Z blends (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-IM, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-IM, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-IM; (c) PPE/HIPS-40%-IM, PPE/SBS416R-24%-IM, and PPE/SBS416R-40%-IM; (d) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE; (e) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-IM, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-IM, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-IM; (f) PPE/HIPS-40%-IM, PPE/SBS416R-24%-IM, and PPE/SBS416R-40%-IM.
Figure 6. Soft phase glass transition temperature (TgSP) (a–c) and rigid phase glass transition temperature (TgRP) (d–f) of PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-Z blends (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-IM, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-IM, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-IM; (c) PPE/HIPS-40%-IM, PPE/SBS416R-24%-IM, and PPE/SBS416R-40%-IM; (d) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE; (e) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-IM, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-IM, and PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-IM; (f) PPE/HIPS-40%-IM, PPE/SBS416R-24%-IM, and PPE/SBS416R-40%-IM.
Applsci 14 10264 g006
Applsci 14 10264 g007
Figure 7. (a) Storage modulus (E′) of PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-IM, X = 411R, 416R, 4301L, Y = 6, 12, 18 and 24% vs. PPE/HIPS-22-IM; (b) E′ of PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-TSE vs. PPE/HIPS-22-TSE; (c) E′ of PPE/HIPS-40-IM, PPE/SBS416R-40, and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-24-IM; and (d) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-Z (TSE and IM) vs. PPE/HIPS-22-TSE and PPE/HIPS-22-IM.
Figure 7. (a) Storage modulus (E′) of PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-IM, X = 411R, 416R, 4301L, Y = 6, 12, 18 and 24% vs. PPE/HIPS-22-IM; (b) E′ of PPE/HIPS/SBSX-Y-TSE vs. PPE/HIPS-22-TSE; (c) E′ of PPE/HIPS-40-IM, PPE/SBS416R-40, and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-24-IM; and (d) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-Z (TSE and IM) vs. PPE/HIPS-22-TSE and PPE/HIPS-22-IM.
Applsci 14 10264 g007
Applsci 14 10264 g008
Figure 8. Izod impact resistance of PPE/HIPS/SBS-X-Y-Z blends vs. PPE/HIPS-22-IM or PPE/HIPS-22-TSE: (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE or IM; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE or IM; and (c) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE or IM.
Figure 8. Izod impact resistance of PPE/HIPS/SBS-X-Y-Z blends vs. PPE/HIPS-22-IM or PPE/HIPS-22-TSE: (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-Y-TSE or IM; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-Y-TSE or IM; and (c) PPE/HIPS/SBS4301L-Y-TSE or IM.
Applsci 14 10264 g008
Applsci 14 10264 g009
Figure 9. Effect of PPE/HIPS/SBS ratio on the Izod impact resistance. (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-18-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-24-TSE against PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-TSE (1:1:1) blends; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-18-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-24-TSE against PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-TSE (1:1:1) and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-IM (1:1:1) blends.
Figure 9. Effect of PPE/HIPS/SBS ratio on the Izod impact resistance. (a) PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-18-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-24-TSE against PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-TSE (1:1:1) blends; (b) PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-18-TSE, PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-24-TSE against PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-TSE (1:1:1) and PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-IM (1:1:1) blends.
Applsci 14 10264 g009
Table 1. Formulations of the poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene ether) (PPE)/high-impact polystyrene (HIPS)/styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) blends.
Table 1. Formulations of the poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene ether) (PPE)/high-impact polystyrene (HIPS)/styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) blends.
SamplePPE (wt%)HIPS (wt%)SBS (wt%)
PPE/HIPS-22-IM77.822.20
PPE/HIPS/SBSX-6-IM73.120.96
PPE/HIPS/SBSX-12-IM68.519.512
PPE/HIPS/SBSX-18-IM63.818.218
PPE/HIPS/SBSX-24-IM601624
PPE/HIPS-40-IM60400
PPE/SBS416-40-IM60040
PPE/HIPS-22-TSE77.822.20
PPE/HIPS/SBSX-6-TSE73.120.96
PPE/HIPS/SBSX-12-TSE68.519.512
PPE/HIPS/SBSX-18-TSE63.818.218
PPE/HIPS/SBSX-24-TSE601624
PPE/HIPS/SBS411R-TSE (1:1:1)33.3333.3333.33
PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-TSE (1:1:1)33.3333.3333.33
PPE/HIPS/SBS416R-IM (1:1:1)33.3333.3333.33
X = 411R, 416R, or 4301L; IM = Internal mixing; TSE = twin-screw extruder.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

López-Martínez, E.I.; Zaragoza-Contreras, E.A.; Vega-Rios, A.; Flores-Gallardo, S.G. Effect of the Compounding Method on the Development of High-Performance Binary and Ternary Blends Based on PPE. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 10264. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210264

AMA Style

López-Martínez EI, Zaragoza-Contreras EA, Vega-Rios A, Flores-Gallardo SG. Effect of the Compounding Method on the Development of High-Performance Binary and Ternary Blends Based on PPE. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(22):10264. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210264

Chicago/Turabian Style

López-Martínez, Erika Ivonne, Erasto Armando Zaragoza-Contreras, Alejandro Vega-Rios, and Sergio Gabriel Flores-Gallardo. 2024. "Effect of the Compounding Method on the Development of High-Performance Binary and Ternary Blends Based on PPE" Applied Sciences 14, no. 22: 10264. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210264

APA Style

López-Martínez, E. I., Zaragoza-Contreras, E. A., Vega-Rios, A., & Flores-Gallardo, S. G. (2024). Effect of the Compounding Method on the Development of High-Performance Binary and Ternary Blends Based on PPE. Applied Sciences, 14(22), 10264. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210264

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop