Ĭhung J-S, Choi K-R, Wu J-P, Han C-S, Lee C-H (2011) Effect of poly(butyl acrylate)-poly(methyl methacrylate) rubber particle texture on the toughening behavior of poly(methyl methacrylate). Stenzler JS, Goulbourne NC (2011) The effect of polyacrylate mocrostructure on the impact response of PMMA/PC multi-laminates. (97)00052-9Īn J, Kang B-H, Choi B-H, Kim H-J (2014) Observation and evaluation of scratch characteristics of injection-molded poly(methyl methacrylate) toughened by acrylic rubbers. Ĭho K, Yang J, Park CE (1997) The effect of interfacial adhesion on toughening behaviour of rubber modified poly(methyl methacrylate). Lovell PA, McDonald J, Saunders D, Sherratt M, Young R (1993) Multiple-phase toughening particle morphology: effect on the properties of rubber-toughened poly(methyl methacrylate). Kopesky E, McKinley G, Cohen R (2006) Toughened poly(methyl methacrylate) nanocomposites by incorporating polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes. (02)00485-8īucknalla C, Ayre D, Dijkstrab D (2000) Detection of rubber particle cavitation in toughened plastics using thermal contraction tests. Ramsteiner F, Heckmann W, McKee G, Breulmann M (2002) Influence of void formation on impact toughness in rubber modified styrenic-polymers. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, pp 411–423īucknall C, Rizzieri R, Moore D (2000) Detection of incipient rubber particle cavitation in toughened PMMA using dynamic mechanical tests. (97)10253-1īicerano J (1993) Prediction of polymer properties, 3rd edn. Īyre DS, Bucknall CB (1998) Particle cavitation in rubber-toughened PMMA: experimental testing of energy-balance criterion. Ĭheng S-K, Chen C-Y (2004) Mechanical properties and strain-rate effect of EVA-PMMA in situ polymerization blends. Lalande L, Plummer CJ-G, Manson JAE, Gerard P (2006) Microdeformation mechanisms in rubber toughened PMMA and PMMA-based copolymers. Several toughening mechanisms (rubber cavitation, plastic yielding of the matrix, and partial pull-out of rubber) appeared in the impact test, while the mechanisms for tensile toughening included rubber cavitation and crazing. The elongation at break clearly improved to the maximum at 5 wt% CSNR, and tensile toughness was about 219% higher than for neat PMMA, while elongation was about 91% higher than for neat PMMA. The impact strength of CSNR-PMMA blends increased with CSNR content having the maximum at about 5.85 kJ/m 2, which is 23% higher than neat PMMA (4.58 kJ/m 2). SEM micrographs revealed that the CSNR had excellent compatibility and good interfacial adhesion to the PMMA matrix. The obtained CSNR (containing NR core 70.85 wt% and polymeric shell 29.15 wt%) at 1–10 wt% loading was used to improve toughness and mechanical properties of PMMA. The presence of siloxane crosslinks in the shell was confirmed by FT-IR spectra.

The core–shell structure was clearly observed in TEM micrographs. The results indicated the massive shearing yielding, the cavitation of the CSR and interfacial debonding between the POE-g-GMA and the PP were the principal toughening mechanisms.Core–shell natural rubber (CSNR), or encapsulated NR, was obtained by admicellar polymerization of poly(methyl methacrylate)-co-poly(3-trimethoxy silylpropyl methacrylate) (PMMA-co-PMPS) covering onto the NR particles. Characterizations, including X-ray diffraction (XRD), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), melt rheological tests, and dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) were conducted to study the toughening mechanism. This desirable toughness of biobased PA56 is attributed to the cavitation that occurred in POE-g-GMA shell which can induce shear bands and shear yielding, forming the fibrils.

PA56/CSR composites exhibited a 560% increase in the impact strength, while the tensile performance loss was slight. Core-shell rubber (CSR) particles were used to toughen biobased PA56 by melt blending.

Core-shell structured impact modifiers consisting of a soft glycidyl methacrylate grafted poly(ethylene–octene) (POE-g-GMA) shell and a rigid polypropylene core were synthesized through the differences in interfacial tensions. The inherent drawbacks of biobased polyamide 56 (PA56) such as poor notched impact strength limit its applications. There is great social awareness concerning the use of biobased materials of diminishing the rapid resource depletion and suppressing global warming.

Core shell rubber