A novel melt-blending process produces a polymer blend in which one polymer is miscible in at least one other polymer having a different chemical structure, that is of a different genus, or, a first polymer of the same genus as a second polymer but of so different a molecular weight that the two structurally similar polymers normally form a blend containing more than one phase.
The difficulty of preparing a miscible blend, or alloy of two polymers having substantially different physical characteristics known to make one polymer incompatible with another, is well known. A miscible blend or alloy is defined as a blend in which the polymer components are present in a single phase.
Typically, where chemically similar polymers, that is polymers having the same structural formula, and having relatively close molecular weights, e.g. one more than about one-half (50%) the molecular weight of the other, are melt-blended, they form a single phase blend. However, when the molecular weight of such polymers are widely divergent, the result is a blend which is not a single phase, therefore not uniform or homogenous. This is usually readily evident if the resulting blend is opaque or only translucent though each of the polymers in the blend is normally transparent, that is, essentially completely permeable to visible light.
The Problem:
Even when the solubility parameters of two polymers are relatively close, and the melt flow indices (“MFIs”) are not widely separated, two structurally similar polymers may nevertheless fail to provide a single phase blend when one is present in a substantial amount relative to another, that is sufficient to be normally immiscible in the blend. By “normally immiscible” is meant that the polymer components of the blend, in the respective proportions present, when melt-blended in a conventional melt-processing or mixing means such as a single-screw extruder, twin-screw extruder, Banbury mixer, or the like, results in a blend having more than one phase. As little as 5% by weight of one may result in a blend in which it is not miscible. Since the purpose of making a polymer blend is to inculcate properties absent in either of its components, a typical blend contains more than 5% of each component. Moreover, even if one can make a single phase blend, using a co-solvent for two or more polymers at least one of which is normally immiscible with another, it is impractical to do so. Therefore, a process is required to melt-process at least two normally immiscible polymers and produce a single phase blend.
Formation of an opaque or translucent blend, atypical of a single phase or alloy, is exemplified by an attempt to make a single phase blend of two common polycarbonates (“PCs”), one having a weight average molecular weight Mw of 14,600 with a melt flow index of 73.0 (300° C./1.2 Kg) (referred to as an injection-molding grade PC), and another having a Mw of 28,300 with a melt flow index of 4.8 (300° C./1.2 Kg) (referred to as an extrusion-grade PC).
One would expect that, even with polymers having widely divergent molecular weights, a small proportion (say 10% by weight) of one should be miscible in a very large proportion (say 90% by wt) of the other. It is not. Therefore, as the proportions of each approach each other, the difficulty of making a miscible blend would be expected to increase—and it does.
When the polymers are from different chemical genus, for example one is a PC and the other polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the likelihood of forming a single phase blend diminishes, so that one skilled in the art must rely on trial and error to determine at what ratio of the respective components, a single phase can be formed, if at all. This is found to be generally true even with a small proportion (e.g. 10% by wt) of one polymer in a very large proportion (e.g. 90% by wt) of the other.
In the particular instance of one seeking to prepare a polymer having a molecular weight intermediate the molecular weights of two readily available “like” polymers, that is, one chemically similar to the other and having similar physical characteristics taking into account their respective divergent molecular weights, a simple but impractical method is typically employed. Both polymers are dissolved in a common solvent at a temperature below which the more thermally sensitive polymer is degradable, and the solvent is then driven off. Often the resulting polymer is a single phase and has approximately the desired molecular weight.
As will readily be evident, this method of recovering a single phase blend from a co-solvent for two or more polymers is impractical.
How to modify the physical and physico-chemical characteristics of a polymer, and how to make a “stress-fatigued” melt which is fluidizable at a temperature below the virgin polymer's conventional fluidization temperature, is disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,469,649; 5,306,129; 5,494,426; 5,885,495; and 6,210,030 issued to Ibar. In the '495 process, virgin polymer, that is, polymer conventionally manufactured and purchased in the market place, is extruded to form a melt which is then led into an apparatus referred to as a TekFlow® processor, available from Stratek Plastic Ltd. (Dublin, Ireland) and SPRL Inc.(Wallingford, Conn., USA). The melt is mechanically vibrated and fatigued until the state of entanglement between the molecules has been modified to a desired level of disentanglement as measured by a decrease of at least 10% in the viscosity and melt modulus of elasticity relative to that of the virgin melt. The resulting polymer, referred to herein as being “disentangled”, “extensively shear-thinned”, or “stress-fatigued” is referred to herein as “modified” polymer melt (for brevity), and is characterized by having a fluidization temperature at least 10° C. lower than the fluidization temperature of the same virgin polymer had it not been extensively shear-thinned and stress-fatigued.
The '495 patent states: “Yet, in another embodiment of the present invention, the vibrated melt per the present invention is extruded or co-extruded with other melts and additives, and pelletized just after the vibration treatment is performed to obtain solid granules or pellets of the treated melt. The extrusion is done in a way which minimizes the recovery process to take place, for example, under minimum pressure in the case the vibration treatment reduced the viscosity of the melt by extensional shear to reduce the entanglements, and conversely, under minimum shear in the case the vibration treatment increased the elasticity of the melt by favoring the interpenetration of the macro-molecules and increasing the entanglements.” (see '495, col 6, lines 12-24).
Nevertheless, it is not known that in a step-wise, non-continuous process, two immiscible polymers may (i) each be extensively shear-thinned in a processor; (ii) each separately recovered as polymers with disentangled polymer chains; then, (iii) melt-blended without a plasticizer or processing aid, in a conventional mixing means such as a co-rotating twin-screw extruder to yield a single phase blend.
Effective as such a step-wise process may be, it is impractical because it is usually uneconomical.
A continuous process is disclosed for melt-blending polymers which normally produce a multi-phase blend (“immiscible polymers”) when melt-processed in a conventional process in the absence of a plasticizer or compatibilizing agent.
It has been discovered that when immiscible polymers are combined in a known melt-processing means, referred to as a “processor” or “stress-fatiguing means”, having mechanical vibration in which the polymers are extensively shear-thinned and melt-fatigued so as to substantially disentangle the polymer chains, the resulting blend is unexpectedly found to be a single phase, that is, a miscible blend. By “substantially disentangled” is meant that the viscosity of the virgin polymer is reduced at least 10%, measured under the same conditions. The “melt” of polymers processed herein refers either to a single polymer or a miscible blend of two or more polymers at or above the fluidization temperature of the polymer or blend, and each polymer may be crystalline, partially crystalline or amorphous.
In one embodiment of the invention, a first processor is adapted to substantially disentangle the polymer chains of virgin (unmodified) first polymer to yield a modified first polymer and feed it to a mixing station; the modified first polymer is then continuously mixed with a virgin second polymer fed from a conventional melt-processing means at the mixing station; and the polymers are together continuously fed from the mixing station to a second processor where the polymer chains of the second polymer are disentangled sufficiently to blend with the first polymer and form a single phase blend.
In a second embodiment of the invention, a first processor is adapted to substantially disentangle the polymer chains of virgin first polymer to yield a modified first polymer and feed it to a mixing station; a second processor is adapted to substantially disentangle the polymer chains of virgin second polymer to yield a modified first polymer and feed it to the mixing station; and the polymers are together continuously fed from the mixing station to a conventional melt-processing means where substantially disentangled polymer chains of both first and second modified polymers are blended to form a single phase blend.
In each process, blending requires a pair of cooperating processors, each substantially disentangling molecules of one or both polymers so as to lower the temperature of fluidized unmodified polymer entering a processor by at least 10° C., preferably in the range from about 20° C. to 50° C., at the discharge-end of the processor.
This invention makes it even possible to make a single phase blend of a substantially crystalline polymer and an amorphous one; e.g. PET/PC blends (alloys) which have flexural properties better than those of either of its unmodified polymer components; more unexpectedly, the MFI of the blend is almost 50% higher than that of the PET component, making this blend a novel PET/PC alloy particularly well-adapted for injection molding parts out of both recycled and virgin resins, and in each case, providing improved mechanical properties.
The work or power input per unit volume of melt, for making the single phase blend by the continuous process of this invention is substantially less, typically from 10% to 50% less than would be required if each component of the blend is separately modified, the disentangled melt recovered, cooled and pelletized; and pellets of each polymer are combined in the desired proportions to produce a blend. The actual power input required is a function of the rheological properties of the melt at the mixing temperature, the relative concentration of the polymer components, the condition of fluidized melt flowing from a particular conventional melt-processing means into the processor, and the desired throughput of blend. A typical power input for a TekFlow® processor to make a 50/50 blend of a high flow polycarbonate (PC) having a melt flow index (MFI) in the range from about 40-100, with a low flow PC having a melt flow index (MFI) in the range from about 1-20, is in the range from about 100-1000 Joules/ml.
Referring to
In operation, virgin polymers (not shown) are fed to and extruded from the extruders 20 and 22 at a temperature in the range from about 20° C.-100° C. above the melting temperature of the respective virgin polymers; extrudate 30 from extruder 20 is flowed continuously to the stress-fatiguing means 21. After being shear-thinned, the melt-fatigued effluent 31 is led to the mixing station 23 where the second polymer 22 is continuously metered into mixing station 23 through conduit 32 for further melt-processing, though poorly, to form a mixed blend with the stress-fatigued first and disentangled polymer 31. This blend 33 is led into the feed inlet of the second processor 24 where the blend is further blended and the polymers further disentangled. Each stress-fatiguing means 21 and 24 supplies a sufficiently high power input per unit volume of melt to obtain the extent of shear-thinning desired. Stress-fatigued blend 34 is recovered and cooled. The cooled solid is tested and found to be a single phase blend.
Referring to
It will be appreciated that the power input per unit volume of material in the processors will vary depending upon a host of variables including the physical characteristics of the polymer, those of the additive, the concentration of the additive, the temperature range in which the processors (21) and (24) are operated, the design parameters of each shear-thinning apparatus, and most importantly, the degree of disentanglement until a single phase blend is obtained.
For each processor (21) and (24), the power requirements will vary in the range from 0.5 HP/(kg/hr) to 75 HP/(kg/hr), depending upon the rheological properties of each polymer and the blends to be produced. Typically the polymer having a lower requirement will typically operate in the range from about 2 HP/(kg/hr) to 10 HP/(kg/hr), and one having a higher will typically operate in the range from about 10 HP/(kg/hr) to 30 HP/(kg/hr). It will be realized that it is not essential that one processor or conventional extruder be operated with a lower power requirement than the other.
It will now be evident that after feeding a virgin first polymer melt from a conventional first melt-processing means, e.g an extruder, to a first stress-fatiguing means, e.g. a processor, and removing modified polymer from it, one may choose to feed a virgin second polymer either directly from a conventional second melt-processing means, e.g. an extruder, to a mixing station; or, to feed the second polymer melt to a second processor, and then to the mixing station.
In either case the polymers are mixed in the desired proportion prior to being fed to the mixing station, though mixed poorly, before being further processed. If the polymer chains in each polymer have been disentangled, then only a conventional third melt-processing means, e.g. a third extruder, is necessary to finish blending the polymers and produce a single phase blend. On the other hand, if the second virgin polymer is mixed with modified first polymer at the mixing station, then it is essential that one choose to use a second processor. The effluent blend from the second processor contains enough substantially disentangled polymer chains of each polymer to form a single phase blend which is then recovered and cooled.
The range within which a fluidization temperature is chosen for melt-processing each of several common polymers to be additive-enriched, is presented in Table 1 below, it being recognized that the chosen fluidization temperature for operation is at or above a fluidization temperature in the range, and operation at a temperature above the range is usually unnecessary and uneconomical even if the polymer is not thermally sensitive.
In one preferred embodiment, pellets of an extrusion grade PC are mixed with an injection molding grade PET. The PET has an IV of 0.84. The PC/PET blend is pre-mixed in a 50/50 proportion using a tumbler and loaded in a Novatech drier for drying overnight at 120° C. Adequate drying is important, particularly in the case of the PC/PET mixture because PET is sensitive to hydrolysis and requires aggressive drying such that moisture content is below 0.003%.The PET is blended with a low flow PC (molecular weight of 28,300 and a melt flow index of 4.8) and the blend alloyed in a TekFlow® processor using either embodiments shown in
A similar procedure is employed using two grades of PC. In each case, whether PET/PC or PC/PC, the melt is processed at low temperature, low pressure, and under high throughput conditions, made possible by the action of shear-thinning and disentanglement produced by cross-lamination under extensional flow and mechanical shear vibration in the TekFlow® processors. The melt exiting the TekFlow® processor is transparent and homogenous, indicative of a single phase. Analytical testing indicates that the PC/PET alloys present all the characteristics of a molecularly fused new material, exhibiting a single Tg, no cold crystallization, no crystallization at all, and high fluidity. It is shown that the single phase PC/PET blends have better flow characteristics than PET. As shown below, the PC/PC alloy has the same mechanical characteristics as its reference counterparts, at same Mw.
Melt Flow Rate Measurement:
The melt flow rate measurements are performed as described in ASTM D1238. A Laboratory Melt Indexer model LMI 4000 by Dynisco was used.
The procedure used to test the MFI of the materials as been refined to prevent moisture pick up at every step. The samples are dried in unsealed bags in a vacuum oven at 120° C. overnight. The vacuum is broken using N2. Then the bags are taken out and immediately sealed. As for the MFI test itself, the bottom of the barrel of the MFI machine is blocked, then the barrel is filled with N2 using a glass pipette. Feeding of the material into the barrel (about 5 g) is also performed under N2. After 3 min of pre-heating at 300° C., a 1.2 Kg weight is loaded on the piston to extrude the material through the die. Melt flow rate measurements are performed twice on each sample.
Molecular Meight Measurement:
Molecular weight measurements are performed using a Waters 150CV+automated GPC apparatus. For PC, a 2% w/v of PC sample is dissolved in THF @ 55° C. for five hours, shaking all the way. After cooling, a 0.2% w/v solution is prepared from the 2% solution and injected @ 30° C. (column and pump are also set @ 30° C.) at a flow rate of 1 ml/min with a pressure of 120-124 bars. RI is the measured parameter for the molecular weight distribution of PC.
For the PC/PET blend, only the PC component was studied by GPC. CHCl3 was used to extract the PC. In this case, chloroform is a good solvent to extract the PC because it swells the PET and facilitates the PC extraction. About 80 mg of sample is put into a 4 ml vial along with 4 ml of CHCl3 to dissolve the PC. The vial is heated at 50° C. for 5 hr with shaking frequently, followed by rotating at room temperature overnight. Then the liquid is filtered into another 4 ml vial. The remaining solid is washed with 0.5 ml of chloroform and filtered again. Then, the solutions are combined and evaporated overnight to recuperate the PC. The PC is then prepared for GPC analysis following the procedure described above for the PC/PC blends.
The column is phenogel having pore sizes 105, 104, 500 Å. Reference samples (Virgin PC) are included in each carrousel (carrying 16 samples at a time) to provide a reference. For the PC blends, the references were made in the laboratory for each PC(1)/PC(2) proportion and their molecular weight were compared with the processed blends. Molecular weights are determined with respect to PS standards. The values of Mn, Mw and Mz are corrected for PC using published values for the Mark-Hawking constants at 25° C.
Thermal Mechanical Analysis:
Thermal mechanical analysis (TMA) is used to compare the softening temperature of the PC/PET blend with those of the virgin PC and PET resins. The tests are performed under N2 using a TMA-80 from Mettler with a flat probe and a 0.1N force. The samples were heated up to 320° C. at a heating rate of 20° C./min, then cooled back to room temperature at 10° C./min.
Tensile Properties:
Dog bones and flexural bars are injection molded on a 150 ton Van Dorn machine for the blends and also for the virgin PC and virgin PET. For each, tensile tests were performed following ASTM D639 at a crosshead speed of 50 mm/min. The reported values are the average properties measured on five different tensile tests.
Flexural Tests:
The properties for Virgin PET and PC were taken from the literature. The flexural properties of the PC/PET blend and virgin resins are determined using a three-point loading system. The tests are performed following ASTM D790. The reported values are the average properties measured on five different flexural tests.
The MFIs and molecular weights Mw of the virgin PC and virgin PET used to make the blends herein are as follows:
It is evident that the MFI of the blend is higher than that of either component, evidently due to the combination of disentangled polymer chains from each polymer and just as evidently wholly unexpected. Longer molecular weight PC chains are entangled with PET sections creating a gel which cannot be dissolved nor analyzed by GPC.
The tensile properties of the single phase blend are found to be as follows:
The flexural properties of the 50/50 PC/PET are measured to compare them to those of the individual virgin polymers, as follows:
Several blends are prepared by mixing various proportions of a low flow PC(1) and a high flow PC(2) having the molecular weights given below, and the molecular weights of the single phase blends of disentangled polymers is compared to the molecular weights of blends, in the same proportions, of virgin polymers which were together dissolved in a co-solvent and then recovered from the solvent.
The tensile properties of a single phase blend of 50/50, low and high flow PCs PC(1) and PC(2), is found to have a Mw of 20,680. The tensile properties of each virgin PC are compared to those of the single phase blend.
Separately, a virgin PC(3) polymer is made having a Mw of 20,680, to match that of the single phase blend. The tensile properties of this PC(3) are also measured to compare them to those of the single phase blend having the same Mw. The values are found to be as follows:
It is evident from the foregoing that the properties of the single phase blend closely match those of the virgin PC(3).
Referring to
It is evident from the data presented in curves 1 and 2 in
The mechanical properties of a virgin polymer PC(2) having a specified Mw=20,680 are compared to those of a blend made by the process of this invention, which blend is made from two PC polymers PC(1) Mw=28,300 and PC(3) Mw=14,600 to yield a blend having the same Mw=20,680 as the virgin polymer PC(2).
Referring to
It is evident from the data presented in curves 1 and 2 in
Referring to
The curve (3) is obtained on a blend which has been heated twice. Typically, a blend heated only once may generate a curve based on the instability of the blend. Obtaining a DSC curve after a second heating ensures against that being the case. An examination of the curve (3) indicates that the blend has a single Tg, evidence that there is only a single phase present. Moreover, the Tg is at 109° C., which is exactly the theoretical value for a perfect blend of two polymers with Tg=71° C. and Tg=153° C., and the relatively flat curve (3) is evidence that the blend has lost essentially all its crystallinity and behaves as an amorphous polymer. The blend is more readily flowable than either of its components affording an unexpected processing advantage in any melt-processing apparatus.
Referring to
Referring to
It is evident that the curves for the blends have sharp, uncluttered peaks similar to the peaks for the virgin polymers with no visible trace of a bimodal distribution. Moreover, the shape of the molecular weight distribution of the segments has remained essentially unchanged.
Referring to
Referring to
In a manner analogous to that described for making blends of amorphous polymers (PCs) having widely divergent MFIs, and a blend of an amorphous polymer (PC) with a crystalline polymer (PET), single phase blends may be made with normally immiscible polymers in any combination of the categories. In particular, normally immiscible blends of a polyamide, polyimide, polyurethane, polyolefin, and polyester, may now be blended in heterogeneous relative order. Commonly used polymers which may now be blended to yield a single phase blend include high-density (HDPE) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polystyrene, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylonitrile, polyarylsulfone, polybutylene, polyisobutylene, polycarbonate, polyacrylonitrile, polycaprolactone, polyoxymethylene (polyacetal), polyphenylene ether, polyphenylene oxide, polyphenylene sulfide, polyetherketone, polyethylene sulfone, ethylene propylene copolymer, polyamide-imide, polybutadiene acrylonitrile, polybutadiene styrene, polybutadiene terephthalate, polyethyl acrylate, cellulose acetate, polyethylene terephthalate glycol, polymethyl acrylate, polymethyl ethyl acrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polypropylene terephthalate, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinylidene chloride, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinyl methyl ether, polyvinyl methyl ketone, styrene butadiene, styrene butadiene rubber, cellulose acetate butyrate, cellulose acetate propionate, cellulose nitrate (celluloid), chlorinated polyethylene, chlorotrifluoroethlylene, ethylene acrylic acid, ethylene butyl acrylate, ethyl cellulose, acrylonitrile, chlorinated PE and styrene, acrylonitrile methyl methacrylate, acrylonitrile styrene, butadiene acrylonitrile, and ethylene propylene diene monomer.
Blends may be made with the foregoing polymers, one with another, even when the molecular weight of one is less than 50% that of the other. By “relative heterogeneous order” is meant that each polymer or copolymer may be independently chosen and blended with another.
The fluidization temperature, as used hereinabove, is defined as that temperature at which the normally solid polymer is conventionally melt-processed without any processing aid to reduce viscosity, this melt-processing temperature being in the range from about 10° C. to 100° C. above the measured melt temperature (at ambient temperature of 25° C. and atmospheric pressure) for a crystalline polymer, or the glass transition temperature of an amorphous polymer, at which the polymer begins to flow. The fluidization temperature and melt-controlling temperature are properties of any polymer whether homopolymer or copolymers, whether of a branched or unbranched monomer (that is, having one or more substituents on the backbone), and as used hereinabove, the term “polymer” refers to each of the foregoing.
As indicated above, novel single phase blends may now be made by the process of this invention, with polymers whether crystalline, partially crystalline or amorphous, irrespective of the category in which each component polymer is placed, provided the polymer chains are sufficiently disentangled, that is, each component is sufficiently modified so as together to form a single phase blend.
To make a blend with two or more polymers, at least one of which has polymer chains which are difficult to disentangle sufficiently in a single processing means, it may be desirable to use more than one processor, the effluent from one being fed to the intake of the other. For example, in
In each embodiment, the single phase blend is made essentially free of a plasticizer or compatibilizer. As will be evident, the presence of a plasticizer, or the addition of an adjuvant will typically will typically provide a multi-phase blend, but may be present, particularly in recycled polymer, in an amount which does not adversely affect the desired physical properties of the blend, typically in the range from about 1 to 5% by wt of the plasticized blend.. The term “adjuvant” refers to an emulsifier, perfume, coloring dye, surfactant, processing aid, bactericide, opacifier and the like, commonly added to polymers. In those instances where a plasticizer does not form a separate phase, it may be added in an even larger amount, further to tailor the the desired physical properties of the blend.
As one skilled in the art will appreciate, the difficulty of disentangling polymer chains of any particular polymer is not readily estimated, and typically requires a degree of trial and error one skilled in the art will expected to provide even after acquiring a familiarity with the operation of processors.
Having thus provided a general discussion, described the overall process in detail and illustrated the invention with specific illustrations of the best mode of making and using it, it will be evident that the invention has provided an effective solution to a difficult problem. It is therefore to be understood that no undue restrictions are to be imposed by reason of the specific embodiments illustrated and discussed, and particularly that the invention is not restricted to a slavish adherence to the details set forth herein.
This application is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 10/759,769 filed 17 Jan. 2004 and Ser. No. 10/758,892 filed 16 Jan. 2004.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10759769 | Jan 2004 | US |
Child | 11036502 | Jan 2005 | US |
Parent | 10758892 | Jan 2004 | US |
Child | 11036502 | Jan 2005 | US |