| Literature DB >> 35267880 |
Qiao Xiao1,2, Changlin Cao2,3,4, Liren Xiao1,2, Longshan Bai1,2, Huibin Cheng2,3,4, Dandan Lei1,2, Xiaoli Sun2,3,4, Lingxing Zeng2,3,4, Baoquan Huang2,3,4, Qingrong Qian2,3,4, Qinghua Chen2.
Abstract
A major challenge in waste rubber (WR) industry is achieving a high sol fraction and high molecular weight of recycled rubber at the same time. Herein, the WR from the shoe industry was thermo-mechanically ground via the torque rheometer. The effect of grinding temperature and filling rate were systematically investigated. The particle size distribution, structure evolution, and morphology of the recycled rubber were explored by laser particle size analyzer, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), sol fraction analysis, gel permeation chromatography (GPC), differential scanning calorimeter (DSC), and scanning electron microscope (SEM). The results indicate that the thermo-mechanical method could reduce the particle size of WR. Moreover, the particle size distribution of WR after being ground can be described by Rosin's equation. The oxidation reaction occurs during thermal-mechanical grinding. With the increase of the grinding temperature and filling rate, the sol fraction of the recycled WR increases. It is also found that a high sol fraction (43.7%) and high molecular weight (35,284 g/mol) of reclaimed rubber could be achieved at 80 °C with a filling rate of 85%. Moreover, the obtained recycled rubber compound with SBR show a similar vulcanization characteristics to pure SBR. Our selective decomposition of waste rubber strategy opens up a new way for upgrading WR in shoe industry.Entities:
Keywords: filling rates; grinding temperature; thermo-mechanical grinding; waste rubber
Year: 2022 PMID: 35267880 PMCID: PMC8914881 DOI: 10.3390/polym14051057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Scheme 1Diagram of the reclaimed waste rubber.
Formulation of SBR/RWR composites (phr).
| SBR | RWR | CB | Zinc Oxide | Stearic Acid | CBS | Sulfur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 0 | 30 | 5 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 |
| 90 | 10 | 30 | 5 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 |
| 80 | 20 | 30 | 5 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 |
| 70 | 30 | 30 | 5 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 |
| 60 | 40 | 30 | 5 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 |
| 50 | 50 | 30 | 5 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 |
Figure 1Torque (M) of the WR samples as a function of the grinding time at different temperature.
Energy consumption of materials at different temperatures.
| Samples | Temperature (°C) | EM (J) |
|---|---|---|
| WR-30 °C | 30 | 44,315.5 |
| WR-80 °C | 80 | 35,165.3 |
| WR-140 °C | 140 | 18,414.4 |
Figure 2Particle size distribution of WR at different temperatures (a) at 30 °C, (b) at 80 °C, (c) at 140 °C, (d) Rosin Rammler Bennet diagram.
Rosin–Rammler–Bennet parameters of WR grinding process at different temperatures.
| 30 °C | 80 °C | 140 °C | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 843.65 | 829.20 | 869.44 |
|
| 4.13 | 2.93 | 3.54 |
| R2 | 99.80 | 99.94 | 99.85 |
Figure 3SEM images of different temperature fractured surface of WR: (a) untreated; (b) at 30 °C; (c) at 80 °C; and (d) at 140 °C.
Figure 4FT-IR spectra of WR at different temperature.
Elemental analysis of WR and reclaimed WR obtained by XPS spectra.
| Element | S2p | C1s | O1s |
|---|---|---|---|
| WR (wt%) | 0.57 | 97.17 | 2.26 |
| WR-80 (wt%) | 0.69 | 86.69 | 12.62 |
| WR-140 (wt%) | 0.39 | 90.4 | 9.21 |
Figure 5(a) Sol fraction of WR as a function of different temperature. (b) Molecular weight of WR at different temperature.
Figure 6DSC curves of WR at different temperature.
Figure 7Torque (M) of the WR samples as a function of the grinding time at different filling rate.
Energy consumption of materials at different filling rates.
| Samples | Percentage (%) | EM (J) |
|---|---|---|
| WR-75% | 70 | 18,006.8 |
| WR-85% | 85 | 35,165.3 |
| WR-100% | 100 | 69,749.4 |
Figure 8Particle size of WR at different filling rates. (a) at 70%, (b) at 85%, (c) at 100%, (d) Rosin Rammler Bennet diagram.
Particle size distribution of WR from different filling rates.
| 70% | 85% | 100% | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 639.82 | 625.48 | 593.48 |
|
| 3.49 | 3.59 | 2.64 |
| R2 | 97.14 | 99.11 | 97.12 |
Figure 9SEM images of different filling rate fractured surface of WR: (a) at 70%; (b) at 85%; and (c) at 100%.
Figure 10FTIR spectra of WR at different filling rate.
Figure 11(a) Sol fraction of WR as a function of different filling rate. (b) Molecular weight of WR at different filing rate.
Figure 12DSC curves of WR at different filling rate.
Figure 13Fracture mechanism of WR during thermo-mechanical grinding.
Figure 14Vulcanization curves of RWR/SBR composites as a function of RWR content.
Vulcanization parameters of RWR/SBR at 160 °C.
| RWR/Phr | t90/min | ts1/min | ts2/min | ML/dN·m | MH/dN·m | ΔM/dN·m |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 10:50 | 3:11 | 3:39 | 1.18 | 12.21 | 11.03 |
| 10 | 8:10 | 2:27 | 2:49 | 1.52 | 12.63 | 11.11 |
| 20 | 7:09 | 1:59 | 2:20 | 1.86 | 13.18 | 11.32 |
| 30 | 5:55 | 1:41 | 1:57 | 2.20 | 13.84 | 11.64 |
| 40 | 5:24 | 1:19 | 1:34 | 2.56 | 14.55 | 11.99 |
Figure 15Mechanical properties of RWR/SBR composites as a function of RWR con-tent. (a) Tensile strength; (b) Elongation at break; (c) Hardness.
Figure 16SEM images of RWR/SBR composites: (a) 100SBR/0RWR; (b) 90SBR/10RWR; (c) 80SBR/20RWR; (d) 70SBR/30RWR; and (e) 60SBR/40RWR.