| Literature DB >> 35207860 |
Giulia Fredi1, Mahdi Karimi Jafari1, Andrea Dorigato1, Dimitrios N Bikiaris2, Alessandro Pegoretti1.
Abstract
Polylactide (PLA) is the most widely used biopolymer, but its poor ductility and scarce gas barrier properties limit its applications in the packaging field. In this work, for the first time, the properties of PLA solvent-cast films are improved by the addition of a second biopolymer, i.e., poly(decamethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate) (PDeF), added in a weight fraction of 10 wt%, and a carbon-based nanofiller, i.e., reduced graphene oxide (rGO), added in concentrations of 0.25-2 phr. PLA and PDeF are immiscible, as evidenced by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, with PDeF spheroidal domains showing poor adhesion to PLA. The addition of 0.25 phr of rGO, which preferentially segregates in the PDeF domains, makes them smaller and considerably rougher and improves the interfacial interaction. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) confirms the immiscibility of the two polymer phases and highlights that rGO enhances the crystallinity of both polymer phases (especially of PDeF). Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) highlights the positive impact of rGO and PDeF on the thermal degradation resistance of PLA. Quasi-static tensile tests evidence that adding 10 wt% of PDeF and a small fraction of rGO (0.25 phr) to PLA considerably enhances the strain at break, which raises from 5.3% of neat PLA to 10.0% by adding 10 wt% of PDeF, up to 75.8% by adding also 0.25 phr of rGO, thereby highlighting the compatibilizing role of rGO on this blend. On the other hand, a further increase in rGO concentration decreases the strain at break due to agglomeration but enhances the mechanical stiffness and strength up to an rGO concentration of 1 phr. Overall, these results highlight the positive and synergistic contribution of PDeF and rGO in enhancing the thermomechanical properties of PLA, and the resulting nanocomposites are promising for packaging applications.Entities:
Keywords: compatibilization; furanoate polyesters; nanocomposites; poly(decamethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate); polylactic acid; reduced graphene oxide
Year: 2022 PMID: 35207860 PMCID: PMC8877404 DOI: 10.3390/ma15041316
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Scheme of the sample preparation route.
List of prepared samples with nominal weight composition.
| Sample | PLA (wt%) * | PDeF (wt%) * | rGO (phr) ** |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLA | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| PLA-rGO0.25 | 100 | 0 | 0.25 |
| PLA-rGO2 | 100 | 0 | 2 |
| PLA-PDeF10 | 90 | 10 | 0 |
| PLA-PDeF10-rGO0.25 | 90 | 10 | 0.25 |
| PLA-PDeF10-rGO0.5 | 90 | 10 | 0.5 |
| PLA-PDeF10-rGO1 | 90 | 10 | 1 |
| PLA-PDeF10-rGO2 | 90 | 10 | 2 |
* Weight fractions of PLA and PDeF sum up to 100%; ** phr = parts per hundred resin (grams every 100 g of total polymer mass (PLA + PDeF)).
Figure 2SEM micrographs of the cryofracture surface of the prepared films. (a) PLA-PDeF10; (b) PLA-PDeF10-rGO0.25; (c) PLA-PDeF10-rGO0.5; (d) PLA-PDeF10-rGO1; (e) PLA-PDeF10-rGO2.
Figure 3Representative ATR-FTIR spectra (baseline corrected and vertically translated) of the prepared samples.
Figure 4DSC thermograms of the prepared samples (a) first heating scan; (b) cooling scan; (c) second heating scan.
Main results of the DSC tests on the prepared samples.
| PLA | PLA-rGO0.25 | PLA-rGO2 | PDeF | PLA-PDeF10 | PLA-PDeF10-rGO0.25 | PLA-PDeF10-rGO0.5 | PLA-PDeF10-rGO1 | PLA-PDeF10-rGO2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| h1 | 40.9 | 40.0 | 39.2 | – | 41.5 | 40.8 | 43.3 | 45.8 | 40.6 | |
| – | – | – | 110.2 | 109.1 | 111.8 | 111.9 | 111.9 | 106.9 | ||
| – | – | – | 78.6 | 7.0 | 8.8 | 6.9 | 10.9 | 10.0 | ||
| 169.4 | 168.1 | 168.3 | – | 168.4 | 169.2 | 169.8 | 169.0 | 169.0 | ||
| 38.7 | 36.1 | 33.1 | – | 29.4 | 30.7 | 27.8 | 28.9 | 30.6 | ||
| 41.3 | 38.6 | 36.0 | – | 34.9 | 36.4 | 33.0 | 34.3 | 36.2 | ||
| – | – | – | 51.4 | 45.8 | 57.7 | 45.3 | 72.0 | 66.7 | ||
| c | – | – | – | 68.4 | 80.1 | 90.7 | 91.6 | 96.7 | 98.6 | |
| – | – | – | 50.1 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 4.9 | 5.8 | 4.7 | ||
| h2 | 57.4 | 57.9 | 57.9 | – | 58.5 | 58.5 | 58.1 | 57.9 | 58.1 | |
| – | – | – | 110.4 | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| – | – | – | 49.1 | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| 126.1 | 122.1 | 125.1 | – | 120.9 | 119.9 | 120.2 | 119.1 | 117.1 | ||
| 38.0 | 37.7 | 32.7 | – | 32.1 | 30.4 | 25.6 | 29.5 | 26.7 | ||
| 166.1 | 165.4 | 166.4 | – | 165.5 | 164.5 | 164.6 | 164.8 | 165.1 | ||
| 40.2 | 42.6 | 37.7 | – | 34.1 | 32.1 | 28.9 | 30.5 | 31.2 | ||
| 2.3 | 5.2 | 5.4 | – | 2.4 | 2.0 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 5.3 | ||
| – | – | – | 32.1 | – | – | – | – | – |
h1 = first heating scan; c = cooling scan; h2 = second heating scan; = crystallinity of PLA; = crystallinity of PDeF; = glass transition temperature of PDeF; = glass transition temperature of PLA; = melting temperature of PDeF; = melting enthalpy of PDeF; = melting temperature of PLA; = melting enthalpy of PLA; = crystallization temperature of PDeF; = crystallization enthalpy of PDeF; = cold crystallization temperature of PLA; = cold crystallization enthalpy of PLA; – = not detectable.
Figure 5TGA thermograms of the prepared samples. Residual mass (a) and mass loss derivative (b) as a function of temperature.
Main results of the TGA tests on the prepared samples.
| Sample |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| PLA | 93.9 | 320.5 | 343.9 |
| PLA-rGO0.25 | 95.6 | 329.5 | 362.5 |
| PLA-rGO2 | 94.5 | 331.4 | 360.9 |
| PLA-PDeF10 | 94.8 | 324.9 | 340.8 |
| PLA-PDeF10-rGO0.25 | 95.1 | 322.6 | 346.0 |
| PLA-PDeF10-rGO0.5 | 95.2 | 315.3 | 352.1 |
| PLA-PDeF10-rGO1 | 93.9 | 320.5 | 343.9 |
| PLA-PDeF10-rGO2 | 92.6 | 315.4 | 356.7 |
= residual mass at 150 °C; = onset degradation temperature; = degradation temperature (peak of the mass loss derivative signal).
Figure 6Results of the tensile tests on the prepared samples. (a) Representative stress–strain curves; (b) elastic modulus, maximum stress, and strain at break as a function of the rGO content.
Figure 7Electrical resistivity of the prepared samples (Log scale) as a function of the rGO content.