| Literature DB >> 35890657 |
Ewa Kijeńska-Gawrońska1,2, Katarzyna Wiercińska2, Monika Bil1.
Abstract
Plastic materials are one of the significant components of construction materials omnipresent in all areas of the industry and everyday life. One of these plastics is polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Due to its processing properties, with a simultaneous low production cost, PET has been used in many industrial applications, including the production of various types of bottles. Moreover, the high consumption of PET bottles causes the accumulation of large amounts of their waste and necessitates finding an effective way to recycle them. Electrospinning is a well-known non-complicated method for the fabrication of nonwovens from polymers and composites, which can be utilized in many fields due to their outstanding properties. In addition, it might be a promising technique for the recycling of plastic materials. Therefore, in this study, the electrospinning approach for the recycling of two types of PET bottle wastes-bottles made of virgin PET and bottles made of recycled PET (PET bottles) has been utilized, and a comparison of the properties of the obtained materials have been performed. The fibers with diameters of 1.62 ± 0.22, 1.64 ± 0.18, and 1.89 ± 0.19 have been produced from solutions made of virgin PET granulate, PET bottles, and PET bottles made of recycled bottles, respectively. Obtained fibers underwent morphological observation using a scanning electron microscope. Physico-chemical properties using FTIR, gel chromatography, and differential scanning calorimetry have been evaluated, and mechanical properties of obtained mats have been investigated. Cytotoxicity tests using the L929 mouse fibroblast cell line revealed no cytotoxicity for all tested materials.Entities:
Keywords: electrospinning; fibers; polyethylene terephthalate (PET); recycling
Year: 2022 PMID: 35890657 PMCID: PMC9322509 DOI: 10.3390/polym14142881
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Parameters for three types of PET optimization.
| PET Granulate | PET Bottles | Bottles from Recycled PET | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 15 | 20 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 10 | 15 | 20 | |
| 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | |
| 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | |
Properties of unprocessed virgin PET granulate, PET bottles, and PET bottles made of recycled PET.
|
| PET Granulate | PET Bottles | Bottles from Recycled PET |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61,800 | 56,600 | 58,200 | |
| 16,300 | 17,400 | 13,400 | |
|
| 3.784 | 3.250 | 4.091 |
| 12 | 22 | 21.6 | |
| 79.74 | 82.88 | 82.23 | |
| 246.91 | 247.10 | 246.68 | |
| 69 ± 7 | 81 ± 3 | 79 ± 7 |
Figure 1Morphology of obtained fibers during the optimization of electrospinning of PET granulate (gPET), PET bottle flakes (PET), and flakes from bottles made of recycled PET (rPET); histograms obtained for the samples made of 20% PET solutions.
Properties of gPET, PET, and rPET mats.
|
| gPET | PET | rPET |
|---|---|---|---|
| 49,000 | 57,300 | 57,900 | |
| 17,900 | 21,000 | 13,100 | |
|
| 2.747 | 2.718 | 4.415 |
| - | 22.2 | 22.4 | |
| 77.17 | 80.36 | 79.03 | |
| - | 195.6 | 196.18 | |
| - | 247.62 | 246.7 | |
| Δ | - | 31.1 | 31.39 |
| 138 ± 6 | 131 ± 3 | 132 ± 7 |
Figure 2(A) Comparison of DSC curves and (B) comparison of FTIR spectra for mats made of different types of PET.
Figure 3Comparison of (A) tensile strength and (B) strain at break values for investigated mats. Statistical difference is indicated with * p ≤ 0.05, *** p < 0.001, “ns” indicates no statistical difference.
Figure 4Cytotoxicity (% viability) of L929 fibroblast cell line treated with gPET, PET or rPET mats solute aliquots [1× (undiluted), 2.5, 5, and 10× indicate dilution factor of the solutes]. Red line indicates 70% of the control value. Statistical difference is indicated with * p ≤ 0.05 and “ns” indicates no statistical difference.