Interfacial structure and properties of isotactic polybutene-1/polyethylene blends

Xiu Niu; Shuai Wen; Lili Sun; Yongjia Liu; Aihua He; Huarong Nie

doi:10.1515/epoly-2022-0039

Article Open Access

Interfacial structure and properties of isotactic polybutene-1/polyethylene blends

Xiu Niu , Shuai Wen , Lili Sun , Yongjia Liu , Aihua He and Huarong Nie

Published/Copyright: May 23, 2022

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal e-Polymers Volume 22 Issue 1

Abstract

Polymer blending is one of the most economical and effective techniques for achieving products with high comprehensive performances. However, the immiscibility between polymers results in a weak interface, which is typically the position where material failure starts when an external force is applied. Therefore, understanding and controlling the interfacial structure are important for controlling the failure behavior of polymer blends and achieving advanced materials. In this study, the related work was performed on a crystal/crystal blend of isotactic polybutene-1 and polyethylene (iPB-1/PE). The results indicated that iPB-1 and PE were partially miscible in a wide temperature window (140–220°C), and the phase separation of iPB-1/PE blends was retarded at 180°C, resulting in an increase in the interfacial thickness and interfacial adhesive strength when iPB-1/PE crystallized at a low temperature. In addition, the iPB-1/high-density PE (HDPE) samples exhibited higher interfacial adhesive strength than the iPB-1/linear low-density PE, which was attributed to the relative streamline chain structure and the wide molecular weight distribution of HDPE and improved the interpenetration, crystallization, and miscibility of iPB-1 and HDPE at the interface. During storage at room temperature, the interfacial adhesive strength of iPB-1/PE decreased because of the spontaneous crystal transition of iPB-1.

Keywords: isotactic polybutene-1; polyethylene; blending modification; interfacial structure and properties

1 Introduction

Polymer mixing is one of the simplest, most economical, and most effective methods for obtaining products with excellent comprehensive properties. However, the immiscibility between polymers leads to weak interfaces between two-phase domains (1). Similar to the old adage, “A chain is as strong as its weakest link,” the failure of polymer blends typically starts from two-phase interfaces when an external force is applied. The worse the miscibility of the blend system, the lower the interfacial adhesive strength. This leads to the premature damage occurring with the fissure of the weak interface and causes the mixture to have decreased mechanical properties. Therefore, when blending is performed to improve the properties of polymer materials, adjusting and evaluating the interfacial structure between two polymer phases are significantly important to control the failure behavior for the achievement of advanced polymer materials (2,3,4,5,6).

To date, many techniques have been reported to record the interfacial structure and properties, such as atomic force microscopy (7,8,9,10,11,12) and transmission electron microscopy (13,14,15). However, these methods require elaborate ultra-thin sections and a differential staining of samples or skilled researchers with experience in instrument operation. Therefore, a simple method referred to as the direct measurement of interfacial strength has been increasingly used in the evaluation of interfacial structures (16,17). Sakaki et al. (18) sandwiched polyethylene (PE) slices into two isotactic polypropylene (iPP) films and tore them after melting and hot-pressing. The interfacial structure was analyzed based on the measured interfacial adhesive strength and the morphology of the tearing surface. Jordan et al. (19) studied the hot-pressed bilayer film of PE and iPP and observed that peel strength decreased with an increase in the oligomer content of PE. A wider molecular weight distribution of the polymer enables a larger amount of polymers with low molecular weight assembly at the interface with reduced interpenetration and crystallization, leading to a decreased peeling strength.

Isotactic polybutene-1 (iPB-1) shows polymorphism in crystallization and has attracted considerable attention owing to its relatively soft texture, adequate creep resistance, environmental stress cracking resistance, heat resistance, chemical corrosion resistance, and so on. The iPB-1 products have been widely used in applications such as cold and hot water pipes and films (20,21). However, owing to its high cost and difficulty in obtaining the monomer, the production of iPB-1 is reduced compared to other polyolefins. Moreover, iPB-1 products exhibit a slow crystal–crystal transition from form II to I during the processing or storage (22), which causes property instability and limits the application of iPB-1.

Blending iPB-1 with other commodity plastics, such as iPP or PE, is a common method to reduce the cost of iPB-1 products and achieve desirable comprehensive properties (23). The mixtures of low-density PE (LDPE) and iPB-1 produced using a single-screw extruder exhibit improved toughness because of the refined crystal structure of iPB-1. Moreover, the elongation at break of the mixtures increased with LDPE content (24), and the iPB-1/PE mixture showed promising for use in sealed and tearing films, wrappage materials of food, and medical equipment (25,26,27,28). However, the mixtures of iPB-1 and PE exhibited undesirable mechanical properties because of the poor miscibility between the components of iPB-1 and PE (29,30,31). The performance of iPB-1/PE mixtures is closely associated with the components, crystal structure, morphology, and interfacial structure (32,33). However, the most current research has focused on the crystallization behavior, crystal–crystal transition, and mechanical behavior of iPB-1 and/or its mixtures, and the examination of the interfacial structure based on the mixture of iPB-1 and other polymers has been rarely considered. In this study, the bilayer films of iPB-1 and PE, including high-density PE (HDPE) and linear LDPE (LLDPE), were prepared to analyze the tearing behavior of interfaces fabricated under different conditions. In addition, the miscibility between iPB-1 and PE was evaluated.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Materials

iPB-1 (PB-1-ET042, M _w = 8.21 × 10⁵ g·mol⁻¹, and the dispersity is 6.05) was obtained from Shandong Dongfang Hongye Chemical Co., Ltd, PE refers to LLDPE and HDPE. LLDPE (M _w = 5.79 × 10⁵ g·mol⁻¹, and the dispersity is 4.62) was purchased from Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd. HDPE (M _w = 5.45 × 10⁵ g·mol⁻¹, and the dispersity is 26.96) was obtained from LG Chem Co., Ltd.

2.2 Sample preparation

The blend of iPB-1/PE (50/50 wt%) was dissolved in xylene at 130°C (2 wt/vol%) with 1 wt% of 264 antiaging agent (Vulkanox BHT) in the solid recipe and precipitated in ethanol at room temperature before being dried in a vacuum oven at 45°C for 72 h.

The iPB-1/PE bilayer films were prepared in two steps. First, the iPB-1 and PE were hot-pressed into films with a thickness of 0.2 mm. Second, the iPB-1 and PE films were fused together under the pressure of 10 MPa. As shown in Figure 1, an aluminum foil with a thickness of 0.1 mm was inserted at one end of the bilayer film to separate the two films at a specific location. It is noted that the obtained bilayer films were placed on a hot stage (Linkam, LNP95) to undergo different thermal treatments for creating different interfacial structures. The temperature profile of the thermal treatment was shown in Figure 1b. Obviously, the samples were heated at 50°C·min⁻¹ to a selected temperature in the range of 140–220°C and annealed at this temperature for 5 min before quenching to 60°C at 50°C·min⁻¹ for the completed crystallization of iPB-1 and PE. Before the tearing experiment, the bilayer films that experienced different thermal treatments were cut into 1 cm × 8 cm rectangular samples and kept at 60°C.

Figure 1

(a) Schematic of iPB-1/PE bilayer film and (b) temperature profiles underwent by the samples to create different interfacial structures.

2.3 Characterization

The tearing experiments of the iPB-1/PE bilayer films were performed using a testing machine (Zwick/Z005TE). As shown in Figure 2, the iPB-1 film and PE were separated from the ends where the aluminum foil was marked and fixed at the isolated end in the T-stripping mode. Thereafter, the iPB-1 and PE films were torn at the rate of 10 mm·min⁻¹. The interfacial adhesive strengths of the iPB-1/PE bilayer films prepared under different conditions were recorded. Each sample was measured at least three times, and the recorded interfacial adhesive strength was averaged. The morphologies of the tearing surface were observed using a scanning electron microscopy (JSM7500F).

Figure 2

(a) Schematic of the T-stripping mode. (b and c) Tearing process of iPB-1/PE bilayer films.

Phase-contrast optical microscopy (PCOM) was performed using an Olympus optical microscope (BX-51). The iPB-1/PE blend samples were heated on a hot stage that was circulated with fresh nitrogen gas. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) analysis was performed using a calorimeter (DSC-8500, Perkin Elmer) to examine the melting recrystallization behavior of iPB-1/PE blend samples. Around 5–10 mg of iPB-1/PE blend samples were heated at 50°C·min⁻¹ to a selected temperature ranging from 140°C to 220°C and maintained at the temperature for 5 min. Subsequently, the blend samples were quenched to 120°C at a rate of 50°C·min⁻¹ for isothermal crystallization. The molecular weight and dispersity of iPB-1 were measured by high-temperature gel permeation chromatography (GPC).

3 Results and discussion

The two components in iPB-1/PE blends were immiscible. The separated phase structure could have an effect on the subsequent crystallization and the formed interfacial structure. Figure 3 shows the phase morphology of the iPB-1/LLDPE. It was observed that the iPB-1/PE blends had a distinct two-phase structure within the observed melting temperature window (140–220°C). By comparison, the samples showed a relatively larger phase size when they were annealed at 160°C, 200°C, and 220°C. This could be attributed to the rapid phase separation of the iPB-1/LLDPE blend at the corresponding temperatures. The phase domain was small for the iPB-1/LLDPE blend annealed at 140°C and 180°C. The temperature dependence of the phase morphology of iPB-1/HDPE blend was similar to that of the phase morphology of the iPB-1/LLDPE blend.

Figure 3

PCOM images of the iPB-1/LLDPE blend (50/50 wt%) annealed at different melting temperatures for 25 min: (a) 140°C, (b) 160°C, (c) 180°C, (d) 200°C, and (e) 220°C.

The small phase domain of the samples annealed at 140°C may be attributed to the temperature being significantly close to the melting temperature of iPB-1 (∼130°C) and PE. iPB-1 crystals were slowly melted, which retarded the coarsening process of phase separation. As shown in Figure 4, the iPB-1/LLDPE blend exhibited rapid crystallization when the samples were melted at 140°C for 5 min before recrystallization at 120°C. The blends annealed at other temperatures for 5 min exhibited the same crystallization process, which demonstrates that the ordered crystal structure in the iPB-1/LLDPE blend could not dissipate like those in the samples annealed at 140°C for 5 min, resulting in the subsequent rapid crystallization. Therefore, iPB-1/PE blends were annealed at 160°C or above before the crystallization at 60°C to create different interfacial structures.

Figure 4

DSC curves of the iPB-1/LLDPE blend (50/50 wt%) annealed at different temperatures for 5 min before being quenched to 120°C for isothermal crystallization.

Figure 5a shows the interfacial adhesive strength of iPB-1/LLDPE bilayer films that underwent melting at 180°C for 5 min and then quenched to 60°C for crystallization before tearing at room temperature. Although the interfacial adhesive strengths fluctuated, they were typically stable if the three samples had the same thermal history. The recorded interfacial adhesive strength was the average value of at least three measurements, as shown in Figure 5b and c. As observed, the interfacial adhesive strength of iPB-1/PE bilayer films reached the highest value as the samples were annealed at 180°C before quenching to 60°C for crystallization. This may be related to the relatively slow phase separation of the blends at 180°C as shown in Figure 3, which resulted in a better affinity between iPB-1 and PE at the interface and higher interfacial adhesive strength. In addition, the iPB-1/HDPE bilayer films exhibited higher interfacial adhesive strength than the iPB-1/LLDPE bilayer films, given that they were annealed at the same temperatures before crystallization at 60°C. The reason for this may be that the different chain structure of HDPE and LLDPE, with that of HDPE characterized by more streamlined manner with a wider molecular weight distribution, enabled a large amount of HDPE with a low molecular weight concentration at the interface to improve the interfacial thickness between iPB-1 and HDPE.

Figure 5

(a) Fluctuation of interfacial adhesive strength in iPB-1/LLDPE bilayer films annealed at 180°C for 5 min before quenching to 60°C for isothermal crystallization and peeling at room temperature. (b and c) Interfacial adhesive strength of iPB-1/LLDPE and iPB-1/HDPE bilayer films annealed at different temperatures before quenching to 60°C for isothermal crystallization.

Figure 6 shows the tearing surface morphology of iPB-1/PE bilayer films. After the tearing experiment, the surfaces of HDPE and iPB-1 in the iPB-1/HDPE bilayer films were rougher than those of LLDPE and iPB-1 in the iPB-1/LLDPE bilayer films. This demonstrates that the iPB-1/HDPE bilayer films had a thicker interfacial area. In addition, the tearing surface of iPB-1 appears to have a shrub-kind morphology, which indicates that the iPB-1 molecular chains interpenetrated the HDPE chains at the interface, and both HDPE and iPB-1 molecular chains crystallized at the interface in an interpenetration manner. On the HDPE surface, gaps could be observed on the left of the iPB-1 chains. For the iPB-1/LLDPE bilayer films, owing to the branched chains of LLDPE, the interpenetration and crystallization of molecular chains at the interface was not significant, and a few silks that appeared to be pulled out from the LLDPE domains could be observed on the surface of iPB-1. This means that the interfacial thickness in the iPB-1/LLDPE bilayer films was low because of the relatively poor crystallization ability of LLDPE molecular chains; however, a few iPB-1 chains were entangled with LLDPE chains in the amorphous region at the interface. Regardless of the matrix, both iPB-1 and PE exhibited the roughest surfaces when the iPB-1/PE bilayer films were annealed at 180°C before crystallization at 60°C. This is in agreement with the previous results wherein the iPB-1/PE bilayer films exhibited the highest interfacial adhesive strength because of the slowest phase separation when they were annealed at 180°C.

Figure 6

Tearing surface morphology of iPB-1/PE bilayer films annealed at different temperatures followed by isothermal crystallization at 60°C and peeling at room temperature: (a and c) iPB-1, (b) LLDPE, (d) HDPE; (1) 160°C, (2) 180°C, (3) 200°C, and (4) 220°C.

iPB-1 is characterized by its polymorphic nature. When iPB-1 was cooled from the melt, the kinetically feasible crystal form II is preferentially formed; in sequence, it spontaneously but slowly transformed into thermodynamically stable crystal form I when stored at room temperature. It is reported that the transformation from Form II to Ⅰ reached a steady state after 7 days at room temperature (22). During the transformation process, the molecular chains of iPB-1 were locally adjusted and rearranged, resulting in changes in the product structure and properties. It is reasonable to assume that the transformation could change the interfacial structure in blends comprising the iPB-1 component. As shown in Figure 7, the interfacial adhesive strength of the iPB-1/LLDPE bilayer films was lower than 0.05 N·mm⁻¹, indicating a sharp decrease in interfacial adhesive strength during storage at room temperature for 7 days. It was found that iPB-1 underwent significant shrinkage during storage, which caused the generation of internal stress at the interface of iPB-1/PE composite sample, inducing the further phase separation between iPB-1 and PE. As a result, the interpenetration of molecular chains decreases at the interface, which results in a continuous decrease in interfacial adhesive strength. Figure 7b and c shows the tearing surface morphology of iPB-1 and PE, which became smoother after they were stored at room temperature for 7 days.

Figure 7

(a) Interfacial adhesive strength and (b and c) tearing surface morphology of iPB-1 and LLDPE in iPB-1/LLDPE bilayer films annealed at different temperatures: (1) 160°C, (2) 180°C, (3) 200°C, and (4) 220°C, before isothermal crystallized at 60°C and stored at room temperature for 7 days.

4 Conclusion

In this study, a blending system of iPB-1/PE, which is often used to improve the performance of iPB-1, was studied in terms of miscibility, interfacial structure, and properties. It was found that iPB-1 and PE are partially miscible within the observed temperature window (140–220°C), and the phase separation between iPB-1 and PE blend was comparatively slow at 180°C; this resulted in the highest interfacial adhesive strength of iPB-1/PE bilayer films when they were annealed at a high temperature in the range of 160–200°C before crystallization at 60°C. In addition, the iPB-1/HDPE bilayer films showed a higher interfacial adhesive strength than the iPB-1/LLDPE bilayer films when both underwent the same heat treatment. The surface morphology of iPB-1 after the tearing experiment demonstrated a thicker interfacial area in the iPB-1/HDPE bilayer films than that in the iPB-1/LLDPE bilayer films. This can be attributed to the more streamlined chain structure of HDPE; thus, the interpenetration and crystallization of HDPE and iPB-1 at the interface were significant. Moreover, a wide molecular weight distribution of HDPE could improve the miscibility of HDPE and iPB-1. For iPB-1/LLDPE, the surface of iPB-1 exhibited some silks pulled out from the LLDPE matrix, indicating a thin interfacial area. Owing to the crystallization transition of iPB-1, both interfacial adhesive strength and the interfacial area gradually decreased with storage at room temperature for 7 days.

Funding information: This research was funded by the Major Scientific and Technological Innovation Project of Shandong Province (project No 2019JZZY010352), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (project No 51973101), the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (project No ZR2020KE014, ZR2019MB072, ZR2020ME079), and the Taishan Scholar Program.
Author contributions: Xiu Niu: writing – original draft, data curation, methodology; Shuai Wen: writing – original draft, formal analysis; Lili Sun: writing – review and editing, Yongjia Liu: formal analysis; Aihua He: resources; Huarong Nie: resources, methodology, writing – review and editing.
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

References

(1) Paul DR. Chapter 12-Interfacial agents (“compatibilizers”) for polymer blends. Polymer Blends. 1978;35–62. 10.1016/B978-0-12-546802-2.50008-7.Search in Google Scholar

(2) Fenouillot F, Cassagnau P, Majesté J. Uneven distribution of nanoparticles in immiscible fluids: morphology development in polymer blends. Polymer. 2009;50(6):1333–50. 10.1016/j.polymer.2008.12.029.Search in Google Scholar

(3) Kimura T, Neki K, Tamura N, Horii F, Nakagawa M, Odani H. High-resolution solid-state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance study of the combined process of 1H spin diffusion and 1H spin-lattice relaxation in semicrystalline polymers. Polymer. 1992;33(3):493–7. 10.1016/0032-3861(92)90724-B.Search in Google Scholar

(4) Brown HR. Adhesion between polymers. Acta Polym. 1983;34(2):379–89. 10.1002/actp.1983.010340210.Search in Google Scholar

(5) Gholami F, Pakzad L, Behzadfar E. Morphological, interfacial and rheological properties in multilayer polymers: a review. Polymer. 2020;208:122950. 10.1016/j.polymer.2020.122950.Search in Google Scholar

(6) Schnell R, Stamm M. Direct correlation between interfacial width and adhesion in glassy polymers. Macromolecules. 1998;31(7):2284–92. 10.1021/ma971020x.Search in Google Scholar

(7) Gao SL, Mäder E. Characterisation of interphase nanoscale property variations in glass fibre reinforced polypropylene and epoxy resin composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2002;33(4):559–76. 10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00134-8.Search in Google Scholar

(8) Paradkar RP, Jing L, Bar G, Pham H, Bosnyak C, Weinhold J. Measuring the relative interface thickness of multilayer polyolefin films with atomic force microscopy. J Appl Polym Sci. 2010;106(3):1507–17. 10.1002/app.26550.Search in Google Scholar

(9) Bresson B, Portigliatti M, Salvant B, Fretigny C. Measuring interdiffusion at an interface between two elastomers with tapping-mode and contact-resonance atomic force microscopy imaging. J Appl Polym Sci. 2008;109(1):602–7. 10.1002/app.27914.Search in Google Scholar

(10) Wang D, Russell TP, Nishi T, Nakajima K. Atomic force microscopy nanomechanics visualizes molecular diffusion and microstructure at an interface. ACS Macro Lett. 2013;2(8):757–60. 10.1021/mz400281f.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

(11) Wang D, Liang X, Russell TP, Nakajima K. Visualization and quantification of the chemical and physical properties at a diffusion-induced interface using AFM nanomechanical mapping. Macromolecules. 2014;47(11):3761–5. 10.1021/ma500099b.Search in Google Scholar

(12) Liao YG, Peng MJ, Liu FZ, Xie XL. Interdiffusion kinetics of miscible polymer/polymer laminates investigated by atomic force microscopy. Chinese J Polym Sci. 2013;31:870–8. 10.1007/s10118-013-1268-x.Search in Google Scholar

(13) Eagan JM, Xu J, Girolamo RD, Thurber CM, Coates GW. Combining polyethylene and polypropylene: enhanced performance with PE/iPP multiblock polymers. Science. 2017;355(6327):814–6. 10.1126/science.aah5744.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

(14) Kressler J, Higashida N, Inoue T, Heckmann W, Seitz F. Study of polymer-polymer interfaces: a comparison of ellipsometric and TEM data of PMMA/polystyrene and PMMA/SAN systems. Macromolecules. 1993;26:2090–4. 10.1021/ma00060a043.Search in Google Scholar

(15) Chaffin KA, Knutsen JS, Brant P, Bates SF. High-strength welds in metallocene polypropylene/polyethylene laminates. Science. 2000;288(5474):2187–90. 10.1126/science.288.5474.2187.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

(16) He M, Wang J, Wang Z, Mo J, Li Y. Effects of side chains in compatibilizers on interfacial adhesion of immiscible PLLA/ABS blends. Mater Chem Phys. 2021;262:124219. 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2021.124219.Search in Google Scholar

(17) Creton C, Kramer EJ, Hui CY, Brown HR. Failure mechanisms of polymer interfaces reinforced with block copolymers. Macromolecules. 1992;25(12):3075–88. 10.1021/ma00038a010.Search in Google Scholar

(18) Sakaki H, Nakagiri M, Matsuda S, Toyoda N, Kishi H. Peel adhesive properties of polymer laminates composed of polyethylenes and polypropylenes. Int Polym Proc. 2012;27(2):252–8. 10.3139/217.2531.Search in Google Scholar

(19) Jordan AM, Kim K, Soetrisno D, Hannah J, Bates FS, Jaffer SA, et al. Role of crystallization on polyolefin interfaces: an improved outlook for polyolefin blends. Macromolecules. 2018;51(7):2506–16. 10.1021/acs.macromol.8b00206.Search in Google Scholar

(20) Gedde UW, Viebke J, Leijström H, Ifwarson M. Long-term properties of hotwater polyolefin pipes—a review. Polym Eng Sci. 1994;34(24):1773–87. 10.1002/pen.760342402.Search in Google Scholar

(21) Takehiro F, Yuichi M, Hideo H, Kazuhisa I, Saori O, Hidekazu H, et al. Influence of residual chlorine and pressure on degradation of polybutylene pipe – ScienceDirect. Polym Degrad Stab. 2019;167:1–9. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2019.06.012.Search in Google Scholar

(22) Ma YP, Zheng WP, Liu CG, Shao HF, Nie HR, He AH. Differential polymorphic transformation behavior of polybutene-1 with multiple isotactic sequences. Chinese J Polym Sci. 2020;38(3):164–73. CNKI:SUN:GFZK.0.2020-02-008.Search in Google Scholar

(23) Nie HR, Xiao WJ, Ma YP, Liu CG, He AH. High performance isotactic poly(1-butene)/isotactic polypropylene alloys with in-situ-synthesized poly(propylene-co-butene). Ind Eng Chem Res. 2019;58(16):6919–24. 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b00178.Search in Google Scholar

(24) Chen SL, Li SC, Shang C, Liu N. Structure and properties of extruded PB-1/LDPE blends. Plastics. 2015;3:42–4. CNKI:SUN:SULA.0.2015-03-014.Search in Google Scholar

(25) Nase M, Langer B, Grellmann W. Fracture mechanics on polyethylene/polybutene-1 peel films. Polym Test. 2008;27(8):1017–25. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2008.09.002.Search in Google Scholar

(26) Nase M, Langer B, Baumann HJ, Grellmann W, GeiLer G, Kaliske M. Evaluation and simulation of the peel behavior of polyethylene/polybutene‐1 peel systems. J Appl Polym Sci. 2010;111(1):363–70. 10.1002/app.28999.Search in Google Scholar

(27) Nase M, Funari SS, Michler GH, Langer B, Androsch R. Structure of blown films of polyethylene/polybutene-1 blends. Polym Eng Sci. 2010;50(2):249–56. 10.1002/pen.21526.Search in Google Scholar

(28) Nase M, Bach S, Zankel A, Majschak JP, Grellmann W. Ultrasonic sealing versus heat conductive sealing of polyethylene/polybutene-1 peel films. J Appl Polym Sci. 2013;130(1):383–93. 10.1002/app.39171.Search in Google Scholar

(29) Kishore K, Vasanthakumari R. Crystallization behaviour of polyethylene and i-polybutene-1 blends. Polymer. 1986;27(3):337–43. 10.1016/0032-3861(86)90146-1.Search in Google Scholar

(30) Wang YT, Liu PR, Lu Y, Men YF. Mechanism of polymorph selection during crystallization of random butene-1/ethylene copolymer. Chinese J Polym Sci. 2016;34(8):1014–20. CNKI:SUN:GFZK.0.2016-08-009.Search in Google Scholar

(31) Robertson GL. Food packaging: principles and practice. Packag Technol Sci. 1993;2:1–550. espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:191546.Search in Google Scholar

(32) Sngerlaub S, Reichert K, Sterr J, Rodler N, Schreib I, Stramm C. Identification of polybutene-1 (PB-1) in easy peel polymer structures. Polym Test. 2018;65(2):142–9.10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.11.007Search in Google Scholar

(33) Jiang G, Hong W, Guo S. Reinforcement of adhesion and development of morphology at polymer–polymer interface via reactive compatibilization: a review. Polym Eng Sci. 2010;50:2273–86. 10.1002/pen.21686.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-03-01

Revised: 2022-03-21

Accepted: 2022-03-25

Published Online: 2022-05-23

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/epoly-2022-0039

Keywords for this article

isotactic polybutene-1; polyethylene; blending modification; interfacial structure and properties

Creative Commons

BY 4.0