| Literature DB >> 35808115 |
Marco Rapisarda1, Maria Chiara Mistretta2, Michelangelo Scopelliti3,4,5, Melania Leanza1, Francesco Paolo La Mantia2,4, Paola Rizzarelli1.
Abstract
A polybutyleneadipate-co-butylenetherephthalate (PBAT) sample, commercially known as Ecoflex®, was processed via melt extrusion with CaCO3 nanoparticles coated with a hydrophobic coating. Blown films of PBAT and two composites with nanofiller (2% and 5%wt) were prepared and degradation tests in soil at 30 °C up to 180 days were carried out with weight loss measurements. Furthermore, biodegradation test according to ISO 14851 was carried out at 30 °C. The effect of CaCO3 on soil burial degradation was assessed by surface wettability and SEM. ATR-FTIR and XPS analyses highlighted chemical modifications induced by soil degradation. CaCO3 nanoparticles decreased surface wettability and discouraged the disintegration in soil. Interestingly, SEM images after soil degradation highlighted in the nanocomposite films selective zones of disintegration. XPS showed an increasing peak area C 1s ratio of C-O to C=O with degradation time. Moreover, after the soil burial test, carbonyl index determined by ATR-FTIR increased in both nanocomposites. In fact, the addition of CaCO3 leads to a rise in the carbonyl zone due to the presence of the carbonate group. Remarkably, FTIR data after soil degradation showed an enrichment of the aromatic content, a preferential cleavage and erosion of the aliphatic moiety in PBAT films, amplified by the presence of the CaCO3 nanofiller.Entities:
Keywords: Ecoflex®; biodegradable polymers; calcium carbonate; nanoparticles; poly(butyleneadipate-co-butyleneterephtalate); polymer degradation; soil burial test
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808115 PMCID: PMC9268366 DOI: 10.3390/nano12132275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.719
Figure 1Representative photos of PBAT and nanocomposite film samples, before and after soil burial degradation test.
Figure 2Weight loss percentage vs. degradation time of PBAT polymer samples.
Figure 3Average biodegradation (%) as a function of time of PBAT samples and cellulose (positive reference).
Figure 4Average static contact angle values for the PBAT film samples (180 days).
Figure 5SEM images of PBAT film samples without and with addition of CaCO3, before and after soil burial degradation (180 days).
Melting temperatures (Tm) and crystallinity (Xc) of PBAT and nanocomposite films, before and after soil burial degradation.
| Tm (°C) | Xc | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | t0 | t120 | t0 | t120 |
| PBAT-0% | 127.74 ± 1.15 | 127.42 ± 1.59 | 11.11 ± 2.45 | 14.54 ± 2.91 |
| PBAT-2% | 123.95 ± 0.57 | 123.29 ± 2.08 | 7.83 ± 2.13 | 10.24 ± 3.44 |
| PBAT-5% | 121.32 ± 1.04 | 121.86 ± 2.36 | 8.55 ± 2.34 | 10.32 ± 3.85 |
t0 = virgin film samples; t120 = buried film samples (120 days).
Figure 6Crystallinity (Xc) of PBAT and nanocomposites, before and after degradation (120 days).
Figure 7XPS C 1s area ratio vs. degradation time: (a) O–C=O/C–O–C; (b) O–C=O/C–C.
Figure 8(a) Carbonyl and (b) aromatic index values for PBAT and nanocomposites film samples, before and after soil burial degradation (120 and 180 days).