| Literature DB >> 35805934 |
Elena Manaila1, Gabriela Craciun1, Daniel Ighigeanu1, Ion Bogdan Lungu2, Marius Daniel Dumitru Grivei1, Maria Daniela Stelescu3.
Abstract
Composites based on natural rubber reinforced with mineral (precipitated silica and chalk) and organic (sawdust and hemp) fillers in amount of 50 phr were obtained by peroxide cross-linking in the presence of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate and irradiated by electron beam in the dose range of 150 and 450 kGy with the purpose of degradation. The composites mechanical characteristics, gel fraction, cross-linking degree, water uptake and weight loss in water and toluene were evaluated by specific analysis. The changes in structure and morphology were also studied by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy. Based on the results obtained in the structural analysis, possible mechanisms specific to degradation are proposed. The increasing of irradiation dose to 450 kGy produced larger agglomerated structures, cracks and micro voids on the surface, as a result of the degradation process. This is consistent with that the increasing of irradiation dose to 450 kGy leads to a decrease in crosslinking and gel fraction but also drastic changes in mechanical properties specific to the composites' degradation processes. The irradiation of composites reinforced with organic fillers lead to the formation of specific degradation compounds of both natural rubber and cellulose (aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, compounds with small macromolecules). In the case of the composites reinforced with mineral fillers the degradation can occur by the cleavage of hydrogen bonds formed between precipitated silica or chalk particles and polymeric matrix also.Entities:
Keywords: chalk; composites; degradation; electron beam; hemp; irradiation; natural rubber; precipitated silica; sawdust
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805934 PMCID: PMC9266345 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23136925
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Physical and chemical characteristics of raw materials.
| Material | Properties |
|---|---|
| Natural rubber (NR) of Crepe 1X type, from Sangtvon Rubber Ltd., Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand | Mooney viscosity: 67.64 ML1 + 4 at 100 °C, volatile materials content: 0.5%, nitrogen content: 0.4%, ash: 0.25%, impurities content: 0.026% |
| Maleic anhydride for synthesis, produced by Merck KGaA Gernsheim, Germany | Molecular mass: 98.06 g/mol; density 1.48 g/cm3 at 20 °C; melting point/range: 53–58 °C |
| Perkadox 40 dibenzoyl peroxide, from AkzoNobel Chemicals, Deventer, Netherlands | Density: 1.60 g/cm3, active oxygen content: 3.8%, peroxide content: 40%, pH 7 |
| TMPT DL 75 Luvomaxx-trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate, from Lehmann&Voss&Co Hamburg, Germany | Density 1.36 g/cm3, ash: 22%, pH 9.2, active ingredient: 75 ± 3%. |
| IPPD antioxidant (4010 NA) N-isopropyl-N-phenyl—phenylene diamine, from Dalian Richon Chem Co. Ltd., Dalian, China | Molecular mass: 493.6374 g/mol, purity: 98%, |
| Precipitated silica Ultrasil VN3, Evonik Industries, Vienna, Austria | SiO2 content 97%, pH 6.3, melting point/range: 1700 °C, density: 2 g/cm3 at 20 °C; mean particle size > 300 µm (>80%) and <75 µm (<10%) |
| Chalk, Omyacarb 1T-TN, from Tetravion Ltd., Thessaloniki, Greece | Surface treated, very fine calcium carbonate powder with good dispersion properties, 98.6% CaCO3, 1.1% MgCO3, pH 9, mean particle size > 2.1 µm (50%) and <2 μm (47%) |
| Sawdust, from a local sawmill in Romania | Maximum particle size 250–270 nm; composition: 38–51 wt% cellulose, 17–38 wt% hemicellulose, 21–31 wt% lignin, 1.5 wt% wax, 6.7 wt% water, 3.0 wt% others [ |
| Hemp, from a profile store from Buharest, Romania, | Maximum particle size 3 mm; composition: 70.2–74.4 wt% cellulose, 17.9–22.4 wt% hemicellulose, 3.7–5.7 wt% lignin, 0.8 wt% wax, 10.8 wt% water, 7.0 wt% others [ |
The recipes used for the obtaining of elastomeric composites.
| Ingredients | Mixture Symbol and Ingredient Amount (phr) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | NR-U | NR-C | NR-S | NR-H | |
| NR | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 |
| NR-g-AM | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Cross-linking agent (perkadox 40) | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Polyfunctional monomer (TMPT) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Antioxidant (4010 NA) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Precipitated silica (Ultrasil VN3)–filler | - | 50 | - | - | - |
| Chalk–filler | - | - | 50 | - | - |
| Sawdust–filler | - | - | - | 50 | - |
| Hemp–filler | - | - | - | - | 50 |
Scheme 1Possible grafting mechanisms for maleated natural rubber obtaining.
Scheme 2Possible cross-linking mechanism between cellulose and natural rubber by C-O-C (a) and C-C (b) bonds.
Scheme 3Possible interactions between the maleated natural rubber, precipitated silica (a,b) and chalk (c).
The mechanical properties variation as a function of irradiation dose and filler type.
| Irradiation Dose | Mechanical Properties | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | NR-H | NR-S | NR-U | NR-C | |
| Hardness (°ShA) | |||||
| 0 | 45.33 ± 0.58 | 73.33 ± 0.58 | 58.68 ± 1.15 | 63.67 ± 0.58 | 49.67 ± 0.58 |
| 150 | 46.33 ± 1.15 | 82.67 ± 0.58 | 61.00 ± 1.00 | 64.67 ± 0.58 | 50.33 ± 0.58 |
| 300 | 47.00 ± 1.00 | 73.67 ± 0.58 | 66.33 ± 0.58 | 67.00 ± 1.00 | 53.33 ± 1.15 |
| 450 | 48.67 ± 0.58 | 73.33 ± 1.15 | 70.67 ± 1.15 | 67.33 ± 0.58 | 57.33 ± 1.15 |
| Tensile strength (MPa) | |||||
| 0 | 6.23 ± 0.85 | 4.49 ± 0.22 | 1.61 ± 0.08 | 10.60 ± 0.50 | 6.47 ± 0.64 |
| 150 | 2.4 ± 0.39 | 3.28 ± 0.09 | 2.77 ± 0.05 | 14.82 ± 0.77 | 10.20 ± 0.43 |
| 300 | 1.8 ± 0.19 | 3.21 ± 0.49 | 2.01 ± 0.04 | 9.68 ± 0.65 | 6.19 ± 0.32 |
| 450 | 1.77 ± 0.11 | 2.35 ± 0.13 | 1.69 ± 0.07 | 6.46 ± 0.28 | 1.29 ± 0.10 |
| Elongation at break (%) | |||||
| 0 | 89.75 ± 9.78 | 51.00 ± 3.32 | 15.00 ± 1.58 | 114.00 ± 8.94 | 99.00 ± 1.41 |
| 150 | 32.40 ± 4.62 | 64.50 ± 6.24 | 14.20 ± 0.84 | 106.00 ± 5.48 | 85.25 ± 2.50 |
| 300 | 31.50 ± 2.50 | 19.60 ± 5.86 | 14.00 ± 1.41 | 86.67 ± 9.02 | 84.60 ± 3.05 |
| 450 | 17.40 ± 1.34 | 9.53 ± 0.57 | 8.58 ± 0.38 | 68.67 ± 2.89 | 22.20 ± 1.10 |
Figure 1The mechanical properties modification yield of the irradiated versus non-irradiated samples: (a) hardness, (b) tensile strength, (c) elongation at break.
The gel fraction and cross-link density variation as a function of irradiation dose and filler type.
| Irradiation Dose | Control | NR-H | NR-S | NR-U | NR-C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gel fraction (%) | |||||
| 0 | 99.52 ± 0.05 | 98.00 ± 0.16 | 98.44 ± 0.12 | 98.42 ± 0.07 | 99.02 ± 0.01 |
| 150 | 99.56 ± 0.04 | 98.91 ± 0.15 | 99.31 ± 0.13 | 99.86 ± 0.02 | 99.87 ± 0.03 |
| 300 | 99.29 ± 0.05 | 98.50 ± 0.19 | 98.81 ± 0.02 | 98.85 ± 0.23 | 99.37 ± 0.07 |
| 450 | 99.11 ± 0.03 | 98.34 ± 0.03 | 98.72 ± 0.02 | 98.55 ± 0.05 | 99.03 ± 0.04 |
| Cross-link density (×10−4 mol/cm3) | |||||
| 0 | 3.18 ± 0.07 | 8.12 ± 0.13 | 5.87 ± 0.33 | 5.61 ± 0.13 | 4.67 ± 0.05 |
| 150 | 3.43 ± 0.08 | 8.47 ± 0.08 | 8.11 ± 0.41 | 5.90 ± 0.03 | 4.67 ± 0.03 |
| 300 | 3.59 ± 0.10 | 7.33 ± 0.04 | 7.47 ± 0.08 | 6.18 ± 0.18 | 4.94 ± 0.08 |
| 450 | 3.30 ± 0.14 | 6.93 ± 0.10 | 7.28 ± 0.12 | 6.51 ± 0.51 | 5.26 ± 0.25 |
Figure 2The gel fraction (a) and cross-link density (b) variation yield of the irradiated versus non-irradiated samples.
The values of composites V/V ratio determined in toluene.
| Samples | Non-Irradiated | 150 kGy | 300 kGy | 450 kGy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NR-H | 0.777 | 0.795 | 0.828 | 0.805 |
| NR-S | 0.862 | 0.789 | 0.819 | 0.794 |
| NR-U | 0.906 | 1.033 | 0.989 | 0.837 |
| NR-C | 0.995 | 0.979 | 0.989 | 0.916 |
Figure 3Charlesby-Pinner plots of composites.
p0/q0 ratio for composites.
| Filler Type in Composites | |
|---|---|
| Control | 0.1169 |
| NR-H | 0.1603 |
| NR-S | 0.1461 |
| NR-U | 0.1869 |
| NR-C | 0.1411 |
The uptake at equilibrium and weight loss in water and toluene.
| Irradiation Dose (kGy) | Control | NR-H | NR-S | NR-U | NR-C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water uptake at equilibrium (%) | |||||
| 0 | 2.05 ± 0.01 | 12.13 ± 0.53 | 6.64 ± 0.14 | 5.81 ± 0.31 | 2.49 ± 0.15 |
| 150 | 3.56 ± 0.01 | 11.20 ± 0.11 | 8.92 ± 1.45 | 5.54 ± 0.15 | 3.14 ± 0.02 |
| 300 | 3.69 ± 0.19 | 11.12 ± 0.14 | 9.23 ± 1.67 | 5.46 ± 0.04 | 3.28 ± 0.01 |
| 450 | 3.72 ± 0.08 | 11.01 ± 0.77 | 9.83 ± 1.04 | 5.39 ± 0.20 | 3.67 ± 0.25 |
| Toluene uptake at equilibrium (%) | |||||
| 0 | 207.21 ± 2.52 | 117.75 ± 1.41 | 143.85 ± 4.39 | 147.51 ± 1.87 | 165.54 ± 1.06 |
| 150 | 198.78 ± 2.51 | 116.84 ± 1.03 | 120.82 ± 3.40 | 146.80 ± 0.47 | 167.93 ± 0.54 |
| 300 | 193.01 ± 2.94 | 126.38 ± 0.09 | 125.65 ± 0.76 | 140.51 ± 2.66 | 161.18 ± 1.59 |
| 450 | 201.74 ± 4.78 | 130.24 ± 1.12 | 127.39 ± 1.32 | 134.69 ± 5.84 | 154.88 ± 4.26 |
| Weight loss in water (%) | |||||
| 0 | 0.73 ± 0.05 | 1.58 ± 0.05 | 1.10 ± 0.01 | 1.41 ± 0.03 | 0.64 ± 0.06 |
| 150 | 0.20 ± 0.08 | 1.96 ± 0.13 | 1.09 ± 0.13 | 1.36 ± 0.12 | 0.46 ± 0.11 |
| 300 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 2.91 ± 0.12 | 0.98 ± 0.05 | 0.94 ± 0.04 | 0.39 ± 0.05 |
| 450 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 2.73 ± 0.16 | 1.16 ± 0.06 | 0.99 ± 0.06 | 0.36 ± 0.03 |
| Weight loss in toluene (%) | |||||
| 0 | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 2.01 ± 0.16 | 1.56 ± 0.12 | 1.58 ± 0.07 | 0.98 ± 0.01 |
| 150 | 0.44 ± 0.03 | 1.09 ± 0.15 | 0.69 ± 0.13 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.03 |
| 300 | 0.71 ± 0.04 | 1.50 ± 0.19 | 1.19 ± 0.02 | 1.04 ± 0.23 | 0.68 ± 0.09 |
| 450 | 0.89 ± 0.02 | 1.66 ± 0.03 | 1.28 ± 0.02 | 1.45 ± 0.05 | 0.97 ± 0.04 |
Figure 4The weight loss variation yield in water (a) and toluene (b).
Figure 5FTIR spectra for composites before and after irradiation: (a) non-irradiated; (b) 150 kGy; (c) 300 kGy; (d) 450 kGy in the range of 4000–600 cm−1.
Scheme 4Possible mechanisms of natural rubber degradation by irradiation with formation of aldehide, ketone, carboxylic acid (a) and alcohol (b).
Scheme 5Proposed degradation mechanisms for cellulose.
Scheme 6Proposed degradation mechanisms for maleated NR.
Figure 6SEM micrographs at of non-irradiated control sample—natural rubber (a) and irradiated at 150 kGy (b) and 450 kGy (c) (magnification of 500).
Figure 7SEM micrographs of non-irradiated NR-U sample (a) and irradiated at 150 kGy (b) and 450 kGy (c) (magnification of 500).
Figure 8SEM micrographs of non-irradiated NR-C sample (a) and irradiated at 150 kGy (b) and 450 kGy (c) (magnification of 500).
Figure 9SEM micrographs of non-irradiated NR-S sample (a) and irradiated at 150 kGy (b) and 450 kGy (c) (magnification of 500).
Figure 10SEM micrographs of non-irradiated NR-H sample (a) and irradiated at 150 kGy (b) and 450 kGy (c) (magnification of 500).