European Polymer Journal 44 (2008) 18341842

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Polymer Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/europolj

Rheology, morphology and mechanical properties of polyethylene/ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (PE/EVA) blends
M. Faker a,b,c, M.K. Razavi Aghjeh a,*, M. Ghaffari b,c, S.A. Seyyedi a
a b c

Institute of Polymeric Materials, Chemical Engineering Department, Sahand University of Technology, Sahand New Town, Tabriz, P.O. Box 51335-1996, Iran Yazd Radiation Processing Center, P.O. Box 89175/389, Yazd, Iran Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute, P.O. Box 14965/115, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Rheology, morphology and mechanical properties of binary PE and EVA blends together with their thermal behavior were studied. The results of rheological studies showed that, for given PE and EVA, the interfacial interaction in PE-rich blends is higher than EVA-rich blends, which in turn led to ner and well-distributed morphology in PE-rich blends. Using two different models, the phase inversion composition was predicted to be in 45 and 47 wt% of the PE phase. This was justied by morphological studies, where a clear co-continuous morphology for 50/50 blend was observed. The tensile strength for PE-rich blends showed positive deviation from mixing rule, whereas the 50/50 blend and EVA-rich blends displayed negative deviation. These results were in a good agreement with the results of viscoelastic behavior of the blends. The elongation at break was found to follow the same trend as tensile strength except for 90/10 PE/EVA blend. The latter was explained in terms of the effect of higher co-crystallization in 90/10 composition, which increased the tensile strength and decreased the elongation at break in this composition. The results of thermal behavior of the blends indicated that the melting temperatures of PE and EVA decrease and increase, respectively, due to the dilution effect of EVA on PE and nucleation effect of PE on EVA. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 26 December 2007 Received in revised form 13 March 2008 Accepted 2 April 2008 Available online 15 April 2008

Keywords: Rheology Morphology PE/EVA blends Interfacial tension

1. Introduction During the last few decades, increasing activities have been directed towards modication of existing polymers to produce new materials with desirable properties. Due to the possibility of attaining a wide range of properties through blending of two or more polymers, it has been known as one of the most applicable methods for modication of polymers [1,2]. There are a few couple of polymers, the mixing of which results in a miscible blend [3]. Mechanical properties of miscible blends obey linear mixing rules or show positive deviation from mixing rules. Because of the small combinatorial entropy and positive

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 4123459085; fax: +98 4123444355. E-mail address: karimrazavi@sut.ac.ir (M.K. Razavi Aghjeh). 0014-3057/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2008.04.002

enthalpy of mixing, most of the polymer blends are immiscible and therefore they display multiphase morphology [4]. Mechanical properties of such blends can strongly be affected by the phase morphology and interface properties [5]. Moreover, the morphology is inuenced by the thermodynamical and rheological parameters and also process conditions. Therefore, the mechanical behavior of immiscible blends becomes more complicated. It has clearly been understood that rheological parameters such as viscosity and elasticity ratio of the blend components have a remarkable inuence on the phase structure of the blends [2,3]. On the other hand, the rheological behavior of the blends is dependent on the type of morphology as well as interfacial interaction between phases [6]. So, the information obtained from the rheological studies can be used in the prediction of morphology and therefore mechanical properties of the blends.

M. Faker et al. / European Polymer Journal 44 (2008) 18341842

1835

PE/EVA blends are widely used in many applications such as shrinkable lms, multilayer packaging and wire and cable coating [710]. Addition of EVA onto different grades of PE improves their toughness, transparency, environmental stress cracking resistance (ESCR) and the capacity of the ller carrying. Takidis et al. [10] studied the compatibility of PE/EVA blends and reported that the blend composition and process temperature play signicant roles in determination of the compatibility. They suggested higher than 180 C mixing temperature for achieving effective improvement in mechanical properties. Khonakdar et al. [11,12] applied the dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) in conjunction with the morphological and rheological studies for clarifying the miscibility of both HDPE/EVA and LDPE/EVA blends. They realized that using only the DMA results cannot lead to understand the state of miscibility or immiscibility of these blends. However, using other techniques they resulted that the LDPE/EVA blends are more compatible than HDPE/EVA blends. Ray and Khastgir [13] reported the existence of miscibility in amorphous regions and the presence of individual crystalline zones, for LDPE and EVA by using DMA and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) results. Using DSC technique Li et al. [14] observed the depression in melting temperature of LLDPE by the addition of EVA. These observations were related to the partial miscibility between LLDPE and EVA, which could in turn lead to their co-crystallization during solidication process. Recently, Peon et al. [15] carried out an interesting research work on the viscoelastic properties of the PE/EVA blends. They evaluated the phase structure of the blends using linear viscoelastic data and predicted co-continuity in 60 wt% of PE. Although a considerable number of research works have been published on the different aspects of PE/EVA blends, there is a little work in the relationship between rheology, morphology and mechanical properties of these blends. The main objective of the present work was to study the rheology, morphology and mechanical properties of PE/EVA blends and their relationship. By considering that the solid state morphology of semicrystalline polymer blends, such as PE/EVA blends, can be affected by their crystallization behavior, the effect of thermal behavior on mechanical properties was also taken into account. 2. Experimental 2.1. Materials LDPE 0030 (MFI = 0.4 g/10 min; 190 C, 2.16 kg) from Bandar Imam Petrochemical Company, Iran, and EVA 8430 (MFI = 2.2 g/10 min; 190 C, 2.160 kg, vinyl acetate content = 18 wt%) from Hyundai Company, South Korea, were used as received. 2.2. Sample preparation The melt compounding of the blends containing various amounts of EVA was carried out in a laboratory batch internal mixer (Brabender W350 EHT) at a temperature

of 180 C and with a rotor speed of 60 rpm. A small amount of the prepared blend samples was rapidly quenched in liquid nitrogen for morphological studies and the remaining was compression molded into sheets with a thickness of 2 mm in a DR Collin (25 MPa) laboratory hot press at a temperature of 165 C for 5 min under 10 MPa pressure. Then, the sheet samples were cooled by cast under 10 MPa pressure for 1.5 min. 2.3. Rheological studies Rheological properties of the neat PE, neat EVA and PE/ EVA blends were investigated by using a rheometric mechanical spectrometer (RMS) equipped with parallel plate geometry (diameter = 25 mm, gap = 1 mm). The frequency sweep tests were performed in the range of 0.1 500 s1 at temperature of 180 C and with an amplitude of 1% in order to maintain the response of materials in the linear viscoelastic regime. 2.4. Morphological studies Morphology of the blends was examined using scanning electron microscopy method (SEM LEO 440 I, UK). Only the cryofractured surfaces of the PE-rich blends and also 50/50 blend were etched with xylene for 6 h at 50 C for the removal of EVA phase. Then, surfaces were gold sputtered for good conductivity of the electron beam and microphotographs were taken within a magnication of 5000. SEM images were analyzed using Image Processing software to measure the number-average diameter (Dn), weight-average diameter (Dw), volume-average diameter (Dv), polydispersity of the particles (PD) and interparticle distance (ID) in matrix-dispersed morphologies, using Eqs. (1)(5), respectively [1618]. At least 200 particles were used to calculate the parameters P ni :Di Dn P 1 ni P ni :D2 i 2 Dw P ni :Di P ni :D4 i 3 Dv P ni :D3 i Dv PD 4 Dn " # 1=3 p 1 5 ID Dw 6/ where ni is the number of particles with diameter, Di, and u is the volume fraction of the dispersed phase. The co-continuity index of the EVA phase was determined using selective extraction method [19,20]. Samples of specied weight of each blend were stirred in xylene for 72 h at a constant temperature of 50 C to selectively extract the EVA phase. The co-continuity index of the EVA phase (CIEVA) was quantied using Eq. (6) CIEVA mini mext 100% mini 6

where mini is the weight of the EVA phase initially present in the blend and mext the weight of the EVA phase in the

1836

M. Faker et al. / European Polymer Journal 44 (2008) 18341842

blend after extraction. In the case where the sample is not disintegrated, the PE phase is considered as continuous phase, and the continuity of PS is quantied from Eq. (6). If the sample disintegrates completely, then PE is considered as fully dispersed in the EVA matrix and EVA is considered as continuous phase. 2.5. Mechanical properties An Instron 4411 was used to carry out the tensile tests for all samples according to ASTM D-638 at crosshead speed of 50mm/min. Five trials were performed per each sample and the mean values were reported. 2.6. Thermal analysis Thermal behavior of PE and EVA as well as PE/EVA blends was studied by using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC-50, Ta1300, Shimadzu, Japan) in a nitrogen atmosphere at a heating rate of 10 C/min and with scanning temperature range from 25 C to 150 C. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Rheology The results of complex viscosity (g*) and storage modulus (G0 ) as functions of angular frequency (x) obtained for PE and EVA are shown in Fig. 1. These results show that PE exhibits a power-low type ow behavior similar to EVA, with a higher viscosity and elasticity in comparison to EVA in all frequency ranges. Figs. 2 and 3 show the results of complex viscosity and storage modulus versus

angular frequency for blend samples having different compositions. These results clearly indicate that all the blends behave as shear thinning materials similar to the blend components, and show almost an intermediate behavior between PE and EVA. The results of linear viscoelastic studies, applied in small amplitudes, can provide reliable information on microstructure of the blends [15]. The viscoelastic response of the blends in low frequencies (low shear rates) can be used for evaluating of the interfacial interaction between phases. Because at low shear rates, the effect of ow induced molecular orientation on viscosity and elasticity becomes more less. The complex viscosity and storage modulus versus blend composition together with the same results calculated using mixing rule at angular frequency of 0.1 s1 are presented in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. It can clearly be seen that while the complex viscosity and in particular storage modulus show a remarkable positive deviation from mixing rule for PE-rich blends, they show negative deviation for EVA-rich blends. On the basis of Utrackis studies [21], this type of behavior (PNDB) can be observed for the blends in which the interfacial interaction between phases is affected by the blend composition. In other words, from these results it can be concluded that for PE-rich blends the presence of strong interfacial interaction increases the viscosity and elasticity. On the other hand, negative deviation of the viscosity and elasticity observed for EVA-rich blends can be attributed to the presence of weak interfacial interaction between phases in these blends. The reason for higher interfacial interaction for PE-rich blends compared to EVA-rich blends which in turn led to positive deviation of viscosity and elasticity for PE-rich

1.E+05
PE EVA

1.E+06

1.E+05

Complex Viscosity (Pa.Sec)

1.E+04

1.E+04

1.E+03 1.E+03

1.E+02 0.1 1 10 100

1.E+02 1000

Angular Frequency (1/sec)

Fig. 1. Complex viscosity (g*) and storage modulus (G0 ) versus angular frequency (x) for neat PE and neat EVA.

Storage Modulus (Pa)

M. Faker et al. / European Polymer Journal 44 (2008) 18341842

1.E+05
PE PE/EVA = 90/10 PE/EVA = 75/25 PE/EVA = 50/50

1837

Complex Viscosity (Pa.Sec)

PE/EVA = 25/75

1.E+04

PE/EVA = 10/90 EVA

1.E+03

1.E+02 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Angular Frequency (1/sec)

Fig. 2. Complex viscosity versus angular frequency for different blend compositions.

1.E+06

1.E+05

Storage Modulus (Pa)

1.E+04
PE PE/EVA = 90/10 PE/EVA = 75/25

1.E+03

PE/EVA = 50/50 PE/EVA = 25/75 PE/EVA = 10/90 EVA

1.E+02

0.1

10

100

1000

Angular Frequency (1/sec)

Fig. 3. Storage modulus versus angular frequency for different blend compositions.

blends and negative deviation of viscosity and elasticity for EVA-rich blends can be discussed as follows. As it can be seen from the results of rheological studies, the used PE exhibits higher elasticity than the used EVA. Therefore, according to Van Oene [22] equation (Eq. (7)), during the mixing process, the induced second normal stress difference of PE phase will be higher than that of EVA phase, resulting to lower dynamic interfacial tension

of PE-rich blends (EVA dispersed blends) compared to EVA-rich blends (PE dispersed blends) c12 c
12 o

D N 2:d N 2:m 12
o

In this equation c12 and c12 are the dynamic and static interfacial tensions, respectively. D is the particle diameter, N2.d and N2.m are the second normal stress differences for

1838
4.E+04

M. Faker et al. / European Polymer Journal 44 (2008) 18341842

Experimental Mixing Rule

Complex Viscosity (Pa.Sec)

3.E+04

3.E+04

2.E+04

6.E+03 0 25 50 75 100

EVA (wt.%)
Fig. 4. Complex viscosity versus blend composition obtained from experimental and calculated using mixing rule at angular frequency of 0.1 s1. Fig. 6. SEM micrograph of the PE/EVA 90/10 blend.

2.E+03
Experimental Mixing Rule

Strorage Modulus (Pa)

2.E+03

8.E+02

1.E+02 0 25 50 75 100

EVA (Wt.%)
Fig. 5. Storage modulus versus blend composition obtained from experimental and calculated using mixing rule at angular frequency of 0.1 s1.

Fig. 7. SEM micrograph of the PE/EVA 75/25 blend.

dispersed and matrix phases, respectively. The second term of the right-hand side of the equation is negative for PE-rich blends and positive for EVA-rich blends. This means that the dynamic interfacial tension of PE-rich blends is lower than static interfacial tension, and dynamic interfacial tension of EVA-rich blends is higher than static interfacial tension. 3.2. Morphology By knowing that there is no selective extraction method for PE phase near the EVA phase from one side, and in order to be able to observe the real morphology of EVA-rich blends, the SEM micrographs for EVA-rich blends were taken from cryofructured surfaces without any extraction. Selective extraction of EVA phase was applied only for PE-rich blends and 50/50 blend. Figs. 610 show the obtained SEM micrographs for blends containing various amounts of EVA. The values of the number-average diameter, weight-average diameter, volume-average diameter, polydispersity and interparticle

Fig. 8. SEM micrograph of the PE/EVA 50/50 blend.

distance of the dispersed particles in matrix-dispersed morphologies are taken in Table 1. SEM micrographs clearly indicate that all the blends with different compositions have a two-phase morphol-

M. Faker et al. / European Polymer Journal 44 (2008) 18341842

1839

Table 1 The number-average diameter, weight-average diameter, volume-average diameter, polydispersity, interparticle distance and interfacial tension values for different blend compositions Blend PE/EVA = 90/10 PE/EVA = 75/25 PE/EVA = 25/75 PE/EVA = 10/90 Dn (lm) 0.223 0.524 0.609 0.514 Dw (lm) 0.224 0.546 0.726 0.602 Dv (lm) 0.253 0.624 0.921 0.785 PD (lm) 1.134 1.190 1.512 1.527 ID (lm) 0.186 0.174 0.279 0.736 Interfacial tension (mN/m) 0.60.7 0.60.7 1.41.5 1.41.5

ogy, showing the immiscibility of the used PE and EVA, in whole composition ranges. SEM micrograph of PE/EVA 90/ 10 blend shows the uniform distribution of submicron EVA particles in the PE matrix (Fig. 6). Increasing EVA content from 10% to 25% increases the average diameter of the dispersed EVA domains from 0.22 to 0.52 lm (Figs. 6 and 7). The matrix-dispersed morphology can also be observed for EVA-rich blends similar to PE-rich blends (Figs. 9 and 10). Comparison made between the SEM micrographs of PE-rich and EVA-rich blends reveals that, in the same dispersed phase content, the dispersed particle size for EVArich blends is larger with broad size distribution than those observed for PE-rich blends. These differences can also be concluded by comparing the determined average diameter and polydispersity of the dispersed particles in different blend compositions (Table 1). These results evidence the results of rheological studies, where it was shown that, in addition to higher viscosity and elasticity of PE than EVA, the interfacial interaction for PE-rich blends is stronger than EVA-rich blends. This can lead to better interfacial adhesion and effective stress transmits from matrix to dispersed phase and therefore ner and well-distributed morphology in PE-rich blends. Using Paliernes emulsion model [23], the complex modulus of a blend can be predicted as a function of dispersed particle size, the interfacial tension and the complex modulus of the blend components. Using the curve tting method, Paliernes model can also be used for estimation of the interfacial tension, if the viscoelastic properties of the blend and its components as well as the blend morphology are accessible. Although application of Paliernes model is more reliable for the blends in which the

Fig. 10. SEM micrograph of the PE/EVA 10/90 blend.

viscosity ratio (viscosity of dispersed phase/viscosity of matrix phase) is below the unity, in some experiments [2426] it has been applied for a wide range of viscosity ratios. The interfacial tension values for different blend compositions estimated using Paliernes model are summarized in Table 1. Also the experimental complex modulus for 90/10 and 10/90 blends together with the same results obtained using Paliernes model and curve tting method is shown in Fig. 11. These results show that the interfacial

1.E+06
Experimental data Palierne model

Complex Modulus (Pa)

1.E+05
PE/EVA=90/10

1.E+04

PE/EVA=10/90

1.E+03 0.1

10

100

1000

Angular Frequency (1/sec)

Fig. 11. Experimental complex modulus for PE/EVA 90/10 and PE/EVA 10/ 90 blends together with the same results obtained using Paliernes model and curve tting method.

Fig. 9. SEM micrograph of the PE/EVA 25/75 blend.

1840

M. Faker et al. / European Polymer Journal 44 (2008) 18341842

tension of PE-rich blends is lower than EVA-rich blends. These results are in a good agreement with the results obtained from rheological and morphological studies. Recently, Kontopoulou et al. [24,25] have studied the interrelationship between rheology and morphology of EVA and polyolen plastomer blends, and showed the effect of viscosity and elasticity ratios on the blend morphology development. They reported the positive deviation for viscosity and elasticity at low frequency ranges in some blend compositions. Also they showed that the interfacial tension values for polyolen plastomer-rich blends are lower than that of EVA-rich blends. Our results are in a good agreement with their results. The blend with the same amount of PE and EVA (50/50 blend) has a clear co-continuous morphology and it seams to be near the phase inversion composition range (Fig. 8). In this composition both PE and EVA phases create a three-dimensional canales, running through each other and form IPN-like morphology. This type of morphology (co-continuous morphology) has previously been reported by Ray and Khastgir [13] and Khonakdar et al. [11,12], but in the different blend compositions compared to our results. These differences are due to the use of different grades of PE and EVA in different experiments. Using Krieger and Doughertys model [27], Utracki [21] proposed a criterion for prediction of the phase inversion composition (Eq. (8))   .  1 log g1 g g2 /2 ; g 1:9 8 2 Steinman et al. [28] have introduced another equation (Eq. (9)) for phase inversion prediction   g /2 0:12 log 1 0:48 9 g2 In our experiments, using Utrackis and Steinmans equations and considering the viscosity ratio in the processing conditions (60 rpm and 180 C) the phase inversion composition was found to be in 45 and 47 wt% of EVA, respectively. These results show one more time the reality of the observed co-continuity in 50/50 composition. The co-continuity index of EVA phase versus EVA content, determined using solvent extraction experiments, is presented in Fig. 12. It is clear from the results that the compositions at which the different blends exhibit full co-continuous phase morphology cover the range approximately between 40 and 80 wt% of EVA. The reason behind the fact that the co-continuous morphology is not observed for PE/EVA 25/75 blend (Fig. 9) in contrary the obtained results using solvent extraction method may be due to the two-dimensional scanning in SEM experiment, whereas solvent extraction already acts in different directions. 3.3. Thermal properties DSC heating curves obtained for PE, EVA and their blends are presented in Fig. 13. PE shows a single endothermic peak (Tm = 118 C), as well as EVA (Tm = 97 C) representative of the melting temperature of their crystalline

100

EVA Co-continuity Index (%)

75

50

25

0 0 25 50 75 100

EVA Content (wt%)

Fig. 12. The co-continuity index of EVA phase versus EVA content, determined using solvent extraction method.

6
EVA PE/EVA = 10/90

3.5

PE/EVA = 25/75 PE/EVA = 50/50 PE/EVA = 75/25 PE/EVA = 90/10 PE

Heat Flow (mW)

-1.5

-4 60

80

100

120

140

T(C)
Fig. 13. DSC endotherms for PE, EVA and PE/EVA blends.

phase. The presence of two peaks for all the blends, except 90/10 PE/EVA blend, corresponding to the melting point of different crystalline type, veries the immiscibility of the PE and EVA crystalline phases. For all the blends, the depression of melting temperature for PE crystalline phase to lower temperatures is due to the dilution effect of EVA and/or co-crystallization of PE with part of EVA. On the other hand, nucleation effect of PE crystallites and some part of PE chains in the amorphous phase can be responsible for increasing the crystallization temperature and therefore melting temperature of EVA crystalline phase. These results show that PE/EVA blends are not completely immiscible and there is a partial miscibility between PE and EVA in the melt state, which could in turn lead to partial miscibility in the amorphous region in the solid state. On the other hand, partial miscibility in the melt state from one side and nearness of PE and EVA melting temperatures and also their structural similarity from the other side can lead to their co-crystallization. A single peak near the PE phase melting temperature and a week shoulder near the EVA melting temperature, observed for 90/10 blend, verify the high extent of co-crystallization in this blend composi-

M. Faker et al. / European Polymer Journal 44 (2008) 18341842

1841

Elongation at Break (%)

tion with respect to EVA content. As mentioned before in rheological section, there is a high compatibility between PE and EVA in this blend composition at the melt state. This allows the PE and EVA chains to diffuse to each other, in particular, near the interface and causes a higher degree of co-crystallization during solidication process. 3.4. Mechanical properties The tensile strength for different blend compositions together with the same results calculated using mixing rule is depicted in Fig. 14. The results show that while for PErich blends the tensile strength shows positive deviation from mixing rule (synergistic effect), it shows negative deviation for 50/50 and EVA-rich blends. As discussed in Section 1, the mechanical behavior of polymer blends can strongly be affected by the extent of interfacial interaction between phases. It is well known that, for incompatible polymer blends such as PE/PS blends, due to the presence of high interfacial tension, the mechanical behavior follows a negative deviation from the mixing rule in all blend compositions [29,30]. But for compatible polymer blends, the variation trend of mechanical properties can inuentially be affected by the degree of compatibility and therefore the variation of the blend composition. Higher compatibility can lead to enhanced mechanical properties even positive deviation (synergistic effect) and vice versa. As it was concluded from the rheological and morphological studies, the extent of compatibility and interfacial interaction for PE-rich blends is higher than EVA-rich blends. Also the results of particle size distribution measurements (Table 1) showed that PE-rich blends contain smaller and well-distributed particles compared to EVA-rich blends. These can be responsible for the observed mechanical behavior. An appreciable negative deviation has been appeared in 50/50 blend. It should be noted that the blends with cocontinuous morphology show almost near iso-strain behavior whereas the blends having matrix-dispersed morphology obey near iso-stress behavior in tensile test. For these morphologies (co-continuous morphologies) the mechanical behavior is critically controlled by the interface properties. Using rheological studies it can be concluded
20

Experimental Mixing Rule

900

750

600 0 25 50 75 100

EVA (Wt.%)
Fig. 15. The results of elongation at break for different blend samples together with the same results calculated using mixing rule.

that the interfacial interaction in 50/50 blend is low. Isostrain behavior in tensile test from one side, and low interfacial interaction from the other side, can be reasonable for the inferior mechanical properties of this blend composition. For PE/EVA blends, this minimum in mechanical properties has been reported in different blend compositions [10,13]. These differences are due to the use of different PE and EVA grades (MFI values and vinyl acetate content of EVA) in different experiments. Fig. 15 shows the results of elongation at break for different blend compositions together with the same results calculated using mixing rule. The elongation at break follows near the same trend as tensile strength, except in 90/10 composition. This complication can be explained in terms of the effect of co-crystallization on mechanical properties. With reference to the results of thermal properties, co-crystallization can widely occur in 90/10 blend with respect to EVA content. Although the co-crystallization can increase the interlocking between phases and therefore increase the interfacial adhesion between phases in the solid state, which results in an increase in tensile strength and elastic modulus, it reduces the mobility of the chains in particular at the blend interface and therefore reduces the elongation at break in tensile test. 4. Conclusion

Tensile Strength (MPa)

17.5

Tensile(Exp) Mixing Rule

15 0 25 50 75 100

EVA (Wt.%)
Fig. 14. The results of tensile strength for different blend samples together with the same results calculated using mixing rule.

Rheology, morphology and thermo-mechanical properties of PE/EVA blends were studied. From the results of ow behavior and melt linear viscoelastic properties of the blends, it was found that PE- rich blends had a good compatibility compared to EVA-rich blends, which in turn led to strong interfacial interaction between phases and therefore to the formation of a ner dispersed phase consisting of narrow size distribution for PE-rich blends. These results were justied by estimation of the interfacial tension values for PE-rich and EVA-rich blends using Palierne model. It was also found that although the interfacial interaction in the melt state have an inuential effect on the mechanical properties of the blends, the mechanical behavior of the semicrystalline

1842

M. Faker et al. / European Polymer Journal 44 (2008) 18341842 [12] Khonakdar HA, Jaferi SH, Yavari A, Asadinezhad A, Wagenknecht U. Rheology, morphology and estimation of interfacial tension of LDPE/ EVA and HDPE/EVA blends. Polym Bull 2005;54(4):7584. [13] Ray I, Khastgir D. Correlation between morphology with dynamic mechanical, thermal, physicomechanical properties and electrical conductivity for EVALDPE blends. Polymer 1993;34(10):20307. [14] Li C, Kong Q, Zhao J, Zhao D, Fan Q, Xia Y. Crystallization of partially miscible linear low-density polyethylene/poly(ethylene-covinylacetate) blends. Mater Lett 2004;58(27):36137. [15] Peon J, Vega JF, Amo BD, Salazar JM. Phase morphology and melt viscoelastic properties in blends of ethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer and metallocene-catalysed linear polyethylene. Polymer 2003;44(10):29118. [16] Carone EJr, Kopcak U, Goncalves MC, Nunes SP. In situ compatibilization of polyamide 6/natural rubber blends with maleic anhydride. Polymer 2000;41(15):592935. [17] Lin B, Sundararaj U. Effect of mixing protocol on compatibilized polymer blend morphology. Polym Eng Sci 2006;46(5):691702. [18] Stary Z, Mnstedt H. Morphology development in PS/LLDPE blend during and after elongational deformation. J Polym Sci, Part B: Polym Phys 2008;46(1):1627. [19] Omonov TS, Harrats C, Moldenaers P, Groeninckx G. Phase continuity detection and phase inversion phenomena in immiscible polypropylene/polystyrene blends with different viscosity ratios. Polymer 2007;48(20):591727. [20] Omonov TS, Harrats C, Groeninckx G, Moldenaers P. Anisotropy and instability of the co-continuous phase morphology in uncompatibilized and reactively compatibilized polypropylene/ polystyrene blends. Polymer 2007;48(20):5289302. [21] Utracki LA. On the viscosity-concentration dependence of immiscible polymer blends. J Rheol 1991;35(8):161537. [22] Van Oene HJ. J Colloid Interface Sci 1972;40:448. [23] Palierne JF. Linear rheology of viscoelastic emulsions with interfacial tension. Rheol Acta 1990;29(3):20414. [24] Kontopoulou M, Huang Leo C, Lee Jennifer A. Binary blends of EVA and metallocene-catalyzed ethylene- a-olen copolymers and their lm properties. J Adv Polym Tech 2003;22(3):20917. [25] Kontopoulou M, Huang cLeo C. Rheology, structure and properties of ethylene-vinyl acetate/metallocene-catalyzed ethylene-a-olen copolymer blends. J Appl Polym Sci 2004;94(3):8819. [26] Goharpey F, Nazockdast H, Katbab AA. Relationship between the rheology and morphology of dynamically vulcanized thermoplastic elastomers based on EPDM/PP. Polym Eng Sci 2005;45(3):8494. [27] Krieger IM, Dougherty TJ. A mechanism for non-Newtonian ow in suspensions of rigid spheres. Trans Soc Rheol 1995;3(1):13752. [28] Steinmann S, Gronski W, Friedrich C. Cocontinuous polymer blends: inuence of viscosity and elasticity ratios of the constituent polymers on phase inversion. Polymer 2001;42(15):661929. [29] Lovinger AJ, Williams ML. Tensile properties and morphology of blends of polyethylene and polypropylene. J Appl Polym Sci 1980;25(8):170313. [30] Robertson RE, Paul DR. Stressstrain behavior of polyolen blends. J Appl Polym Sci 1973;17(8):257995.

polymer blends such as PE/EVA blends can also be affected by the crystallization process. From the results of thermal properties it was concluded that the blending of PE and EVA decreases the PE phase melting temperature and increases the EVA phase melting temperature. These results were explained in terms of the dilution effect of EVA chains for PE phase and nucleation effect of PE chains and PE crystallites for EVA phase. It was demonstrated that the rheological behavior and viscoelastic properties have a reliable sensitivity for evaluating the interfacial interaction between phases in the blends. So, the information obtained from these studies in conjunction with the behavior of the blend components during the solidication process can be used for prediction of the morphology and therefore mechanical properties of the blends. References
[1] Utracki LA. Commercial polymer blends. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1998. p. 8394. [2] Folkes MJ, Hope PS. Polymer blends and alloys. London: Chapman and Hall; 1993. [3] Utracki LA. Polymer alloys and blends. Munich Vienna Munich, Vienna, New York: Hanser; 1989. [4] Olabisi O, Robertson LM, Shaw MT. Polymerpolymer miscibility. New York: Academic Press; 1979. pp. 117. [5] Paul DR, Bucknall CB. Polymer blends, vol. 2. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1999. p. 118. [6] Ajji A, Utracki LA. Interphase and compatibilization of polymer blends. Polym Eng Sci 1996;36(12):157485. [7] Datta SK, Bhowmick AK, Mukunda PG, Chaki TK. Thermal degradation studies of electron beam cured ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer. Polym Degrad Stab 1995;50(1):7582. [8] Oshima A, Ikeda S, Seguchi T, Tabata Y. Improvement of radiation resistance for polytetrauoroethylene (PTFE) by radiation crosslinking. Radiat Phys Chem 1997;49(2):27984. [9] Borsova B, Kressler J. Environmental stress-cracking resistance of LDPE/EVA blends. Macromol Mater Eng 2003;288(6):50915. [10] Takidis G, Bikiaris DN, Papageorgiou GZ, Achilias DS, Sideridou I. Compatibility of low-density polyethylene/poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate) binary blends prepared by melt mixing. J Apply Polym Sci 2003;90(3):84152. [11] Khonakdar HA, Wagenknecht U, Jaferi SH, Hassler R, Eslami H. Dynamic mechanical properties and morphology of polyethylene/ ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer blends. J Adv Polym Tech 2004;23(4):30715.