Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 20 (2014) 2401–2408

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry

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

Flame retardant and mechanical properties of polyethylene/

magnesium hydroxide/montmorillonite nanocomposites
Sung-Po Liu *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chien Hsin University of Science and Technology, Chung-Li 32097, Taiwan, ROC

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Polyethylene (PE) provides good flexibility at low temperatures, chemical stability, and electrical
Received 19 July 2013 performance that makes it an ideal insulating material for wire and cable, but it has low melting point
Accepted 7 October 2013 and is flammable. In fire events, PE must be modified with additives to enhance its flame retardancy and
Available online 19 October 2013
satisfy the fire safety standards. In this study, we used the LDPE and cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) as
the matrix, added nanoclay montmorillonite (MMT), flame retardant magnesium hydroxide (MH) and
Keywords: compatibilizer LDPE grafted maleic anhydride (LDPE-g-MA). The PE/PE-g-MA/MH/MMT nanocompo-
Montmorillonite
sites were compounded using the twin screw extruder, then were injection molded into the
Polyethylene
Magnesium hydroxide
standardized specimens. The properties of nanocomposites were characterized with XRD, TGA, and DSC
Flame retardancy techniques and LOI, tensile, and impact examinations. The results showed that the interlayer of OMT
Thermal stability (modification of organoclay) modified with dodecylamine expanded to about 4.1 Å and there was no 2u
peaks between 1.58 and 108, indicating that the dispersion of nanocomposites were exfoliation structure
from XRD pattern. The tensile and impact strengths were enhanced with LDPE-g-MA and clay added. The
increase in char residual of nanocomposites indicated that the thermal stability at elevated temperatures
improved. The XLPE nanocomposites achieved the effective level of flame retardancy.
ß 2013 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.

1. Introduction
In accordance with worldwide trends, various industries are
pursuing to use materials that are lighter, thinner, smaller, more
efficient, reliable and durable, thus stimulating people to have a
serious interest in nanotechnology. Polyethylene (PE) has good
performance at low temperature, excellent chemical stability and
electrical properties; making it a favorite insulating material for
coating wire and cable, but it has a low melting temperature and is
flammable. The limiting oxygen index (LOI) of PE typically is only
17–18 and tends to cause melt-drop when burning. Polyethylene
must be modified with flame-retardant additives to enhance its
flame-retardancy properties and satisfy the fire safety standards.
The tighter regulations related to safety standards have encouraged
more studies on flame retardancy of polymers and composites in
basic research and applications development [1–27].
As the industry develops, cables and wires are increasingly used
in buildings and electric devices. Nowadays, more frequent fire
events occur from electrical wirings and devices. There are new
specific fire safety regulations in many countries (high-rise
* Tel.: +886 3 4581196; fax: +886 3 2503872.
E-mail addresses: spliu@uch.edu.tw, splbosi@yahoo.com.tw
buildings and coal mines). For evacuations or rescues in the event
of fire, ensuring the maintenance of power transmission to avoid
interruption in communications is important. In the past,
halogenated flame retardants were usually added to plastic
products to make them flame resistance. But, this might produce
harmful residual products and fumes, like brominated dibenzo-p-
dioxins (PBDD) and furan when burning, which are not easy to
decompose and can cause toxic bioaccumulation. This situation
has also been observed with burning PVC; one of the most
commonly used cable and wire insulation materials that might
produce toxic dioxins. They have serious health concerns and
result in a serious negative impact on the global ecological
environment [28].
Magnesium hydroxide (MH) is flame-retardant additive for
polymers. It makes polymers more flame resistance, especially
polyolefins (PO), for processing and use at elevated temperatures.
Thermal decomposition of MH could produce active magnesium
oxide that has both flame retardancy and smoke suppression
effects [29–32]. Its production, use, and disposal process will not
make any harmful emissions and environmental pollution. It has
also a high decomposition temperature, its alkaline nature could
neutralize the acidic gases (CO2, SO2, NOx), and it can adsorb
corrosive gas during combustion. Magnesium hydroxide is an
environmentally-friendly flame retardant.

1226-086X/$ – see front matter ß 2013 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2013.10.020
2402 S.-P. Liu / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 20 (2014) 2401–2408

Inorganic metal flame retardants – aluminum hydroxide (ATH) Table 1

Compositions of PE nanocomposites.
and MH with loading of more than 40 wt% – can provide effective
flame retardancy [32]. The large filler content increases the young Sample LDPE LDPE-g-MA MH OMT MMT
modulus of polymers, but it would decrease flexibility, tensile LDPE 100 – – – –
strength, impact strength and elongation at break [33,34]. Previous LDPE/MA/MH/OMT 36 12 48 4 –
studies indicated that adding small amounts of nanoclay (less than LDPE/MA/MH/MMT 36 12 48 – 4
10 wt%) in the PE matrix could reduce the heat release rate (phrr) LDPE/MH/OMT 48 – 48 4 –
LDPE/MH/MMT 48 – 48 – 4
peak 15–50%.
LDPE/MH 48 – 52 – –
In their work on fire retardancy of polypropylene layered
Sample XLPE LDPE-g-MA MH OMT MMT
silicate nanocomposites, Zanetti et al. observed that the maximum
heat release rate in cone calorimeter test reduced when the clay XLPE 100 – – – –
was added [35] But, the LOI and vertical burning test (UL94) values XLPE/MA/MH/OMT 36 12 48 4 –
XLPE/MA/MH/MMT 36 12 48 – 4
did not improve when either clay was adding alone or it was XLPE/MH/OMT 48 – 48 4 –
included with inorganic flame retardant. Minkova et al. found that XLPE/MH/MMT 48 – 48 – 4
adding the appropriate compatibilizer would give the nanocom- XLPE/MH 48 – 52 – –
posites a better exfoliation structure, so it provides better Unit: wt%.
improvement of the LOI [36]. Arunvisut et al. showed that addition
of compatibilizer could also improve the dispersion of clay in the
matrix, enhancing the mechanical properties of nanocomposites 2.4. Characterization
[37]. Clay, which was used as a simple flame-retardant, was mainly
limited by its low effectiveness but revealed appropriate syner- The XRD examinations were performed with XRD instrument
gism with the metal hydroxide flame retardants. Therefore, clay (TC-XRD, Rigaku Ultima III) using Cu ka radiation (l = 0.154 nm),
has been getting much more attention [35,38]. scanned from 1.58 to 208 at scan rate of 28/min. Bragg’s equation
In this study, we chose low density polyethylene (LDPE) and 2l = d sin u was used to calculate the interlayer spaces of clay.
cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) as the matrix, which are less The melting temperatures (Tm) of materials were examined
harmful than PVC. Then, MH, as an environment-friendly inorganic with differential scanning calorimetry (DSC, DSC821e, Mettler
flame retardants, and layered silicate–montmorillonite (MMT) Toledo) technique. Temperature range was from 30 to 300 8C, at
were added. Later, they were melt compounded and PE/MH/MMT heating rate of 4 8C/min.
nanocomposites were prepared. The thermal stability properties of samples were investigated
using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA, Perkin Elmer) technique,
2. Experimental performing with Pyris 1 TGA under N2 atmosphere from 30 to
800 8C at heating rate of 10 8C/min.
2.1. Materials The tensile examinations were conducted using universal
testing machine (TH-9102, Hung Ta Instrument Ltd.) at an
Low density polyethylene (LDPE, C7100, Asia Polymer Corpo- extensional speed of 10 mm/min. The tensile specimens were
ration) and cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE, plexlink-125G, Dah prepared according to ASTM D638 standard method with injection
San Electric Wire & Cable Corporation) were used as matrix of molding machine. The impact test was performed using izod
nanocomposites. Compatibilzer of LDPE grafted maleic anhydride impact testing machine (Dynisco BPI); the specimens were
(LDPE-g-MA, GN1703, USI Corporation) was used. Layered silicate– prepared according to ASTM D256 standard method.
montmorillonite (MMT, PK 810, CEC = 104 eq/100 g, PAI KONG The LOI values correspond to the minimum percentage of
Nanotechnology, Ltd.), metal inorganic flame retardant of magne- oxygen needed for combustion. The LOI examinations were
sium hydroxide (MH, extra pure reagent, Choneye Pure Chemicals) performed according to the standard oxygen index test method
and modified 1-dodecylamine (DOA, AF-A15514, Alfa Aesar of ASTM 2863. The LOI value was measured using LOI analyzer
Corporation) were used. instrument (Dynisco LOI) in oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere.
The fracture surfaces of the samples were examined using field
2.2. Modification of organoclay emission scanning electron microscopy (FT-SEM, JEOL JSM-6700F)
from tensile testing specimens.
The MMT clay (20 g) was added to 1000 ml of deionized water
and stirred at room temperature for 6 h to produce a fine aqueous 3. Result and discussion
dispersion (dispersion A). Then, 3.86 g of DOA was dissolved in
50 ml of deionized water and after adding hydrochloric acid (HCl), 3.1. XRD results
it was stirred at room temperature for 3 h (solution B). Later,
dispersion A and solution B were mixed and heated at 80 8C while In this study, we used DOA to treat MMT, producing lipophilic
vigorously stirring for 3 h. The resulting organoclay (DOA–MMT) Na+-MMT from hydrophilic MMT. The interlayer distances of clay
was filter out, washed and dried under vacuum at 80 8C. Finally, it were observed with XRD technique. The XRD patterns of MMT
was milled in a mortar and obtained a fine powder. before and after treatment are presented in Fig. 1. The 2u of OMT
treated with DOA was measures 4.98 while it was 6.358 before
2.3. Preparation of PE nanocomposites treatment. Using Bragg’s equation, the interlayer distances of MMT
and OMT were calculated as 1.39 and 1.8 nm, respectively.
Table 1 presents the weight percentages of matrix (LDPE, XLPE) In the XRD patterns of LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites (Fig. 1),
and additives (LDPE-g-MA, MH, MMT and OMT) in the blends. The there are no obvious (0 0 1) peak at the range of 2u = 1.5–108 for PE
materials were mixed with a twin-screw extruder (ZPT-32HT, nanocomposites. This observation indicates that the silicate layer
Zenix Industrial Ltd.) at 180 8C and speed of 200 rpm. Then, the is stripped and PE nanocomposites have exfoliated structure.
compounds were injected into standard molds using injection Silicate layers do not keep the ordered structure, dispersing
molding machine (CLF-125T, Chuan Lih Fa Machinery Works Ltd.) disorderly in the PE matrix. However, it could be clearly observed
at 180 8C. from the diffraction peaks at near 2u = 18.58, which is the
 S.-P. Liu / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 20 (2014) 2401–2408 2403

Fig. 2. DSC thermograms of LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites examined at a heating

rate of 4 8C/min.

nanocomposites; the related data are presented in Table 3. Neat

Fig. 1. XRD patterns of MMT and OMT, and nanocomposites of LDPE and XLPE.
characteristic diffraction peak for PE. The intensity values and
angles of diffraction peaks were only slightly changed, indicating
that the addition of MH, MMT, and compatibilizer to PE did not
change its crystal structure.
3.2. Thermal properties
The DSC thermograms of LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites are
shown in Fig. 2. The melting behavior of PE composites was
demonstrated as endothermic peaks in the thermograms. The DSC
peaks did not change significantly when MH, MMT, and
compatibilizer were added to PE, indicating that the melting point
of PE composites have no apparent variation. This study also
showed that the influence of compatubilizer on Tm was very small
for [36]. Comparing Tm LDPE and XLPE composites reveals that
cross-linking reaction increases the Tm of PE.
From Table 2, the Tm of LDPE/MA/OMT/MH composite
decreased about 3 8C comparing with Tm of neat PE. We presumed
that this decrease is from the presence of compatibilizer LDPE-g-
LDPE and XLPE revealed the maximum Td; while addition of MH
decreased Td. The Td improved through addition of MMT, but the
thermal stability was still less than that of neat matrix polymers.
Nevertheless, the samples containing OMT had smaller Td;
presuming that it is due to the modifier C12 as dispersed phase
in the polymer matrix. The thermal stability of lipophilic alkyl
chains was less and they can more easily thermally decompose
than neat PE.
The TGA results indicate that temperature of 50% weight loss
(T0.5) of samples increased through adding MMT to both LDPE and
XLPE (Table 3). The T0.5 of samples containing OMT was still
smaller than that of matrix polymer, but the temperature of
samples increased more than that of matrix Td.
The weight loss at 500 8C is the residue weight percentage at
500 8C for materials. Almost no residues were observed in neat
LDPE and XLPE, but more than 35% residues were measured in the
samples containing MH and clay.
The TGA results indicate that thermal stability was better at
elevated temperatures for composite samples containing MH and
clay; OMT provided a better barrier in PE matrix [39]. The char
yield at 800 8C increased 32% when 50 wt% MH was added.
Samples with clay revealed more increase of char yield at 800 8C,
indicating improvement in the flame retardancy of PE nanocom-
posites. The char formed at elevated temperature has better
thermal stability [40].
Table 2
DSC data of polyethylene nanocomposites.

MA with Tm of 103.7 8C, which was smaller than Tm of other Sample Tm (8C) Sample Tm (8C)
composite samples.
LDPE 106.3 XLPE 122.8
LDPE/MA/MH/OMT 103.7 XLPE/MA/MH/OMT 120.2
3.3. Thermal stability analysis LDPE/MA/MH/MMT 106.4 XLPE/MA/MH/MMT 120.1
LDPE/MH/OMT 106.5 XLPE/MH/OMT 120.1
LDPE/MH/MMT 106.4 XLPE/MH/MMT 120.1
Thermal stabilities of materials were evaluated using TGA
LDPE/MH 106.5 XLPE/MH 120.1
technique. Fig. 3 shows the TGA thermograms of LDPE and XLPE
2404 S.-P. Liu / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 20 (2014) 2401–2408

Fig. 4. Tensile strengths of LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites.

Fig. 3. TGA thermograms of LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites examined at a heating

rate of 10 8C/min.

Fig. 5. Tensile moduli of LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites.

3.4. Mechanical properties

3.4.1. Tensile properties results
The trend of tensile strength variation was observed similar for
both LDPE and XLPE composite systems, except for XLPE/MMT/MH
(Fig. 4). When 52 wt% MH was added, the tensile strength of
nanocomposites slightly decreased. Replacing part of MH with
MMT and OMT did not improve tensile strength due to
incompatibility between materials. The tensile strengths of
nanocomposites could be improved and enhanced through adding
compatibilizer LDPE-g-MA.
The tensile examination of XLPE/MH/MMT sample showed
enhancement of tensile strength, while the standard deviation for
this sample was much larger than those of the other samples.
Better dispersion or aggregation of MMT in some locations in
matrix might be the reason behind this effect; therefore, increase
or decrease of tensile strength mainly depends on the quality of
dispersion of the components of composites.
In this study, we assumed the tangent to the stress–strain curve
at 1% strain as the tensile modulus (E1%). The tensile modulus of
LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites are shown in Fig. 5. The results
show that addition of MH enhances the modulus of LDPE and XLPE
nanocomposites. Replacing part of MH with MMT and OMT slightly
increased modulus. This observation was more obvious and
significant with the samples containing MMT. The E1% values of
LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites containing compatibilizer did not
increase.
The elongation values in tensile examination of PE nanocom-
posites containing 52 wt% MH significantly decreased, while the
LDPE/MH/MMT sample exhibited the minimal elongation (see
Fig. 6 and Table 4). The elongation slightly improved when part of
MH in LDPE/MH/OMT composite was replaced with 4 wt% OMT.
The elongations of samples with good compatibility between
components (LDPE/MA/MH/OMT and LDPE/MA/MH/MMT) also

Table 3
TGA data of polyethylene nanocomposites.

Sample Td (8C) T0.5 (8C) Weight loss at 500 8C (%) Char yield
(%)

LDPE 452 467 0 0

LDPE/MA/MH/OMT 410 437 36.8 34.8
LDPE/MA/MH/MMT 451 481 37.6 35.9
LDPE/MH/OMT 409 438 36.7 34.7
LDPE/MH/MMT 442 473 37.6 35.9
LDPE/MH 437 464 34.3 32.86

XLPE 454 473 0.84 0.7

XLPE/MA/MH/OMT 419 448 39.2 37.1
XLPE/MA/MH/MMT 452 478 35.5 33.9
XLPE/MH/OMT 425 469 44.3 42.4
XLPE/MH/MMT 452 489 41.4 36.3
XLPE/MH 451 491 39.8 34.2
 S.-P. Liu / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 20 (2014) 2401–2408 2405

Table 5
Impact properties of PE nanocomposites.

Sample Impact absorbed energy (J) Impact strength (J/m)

LDPE 1.118  0.06 349.4

LDPE/MA/MH/OMT 0.667  0.14 208.4
LDPE/MA/MH/MMT 0.628  0.12 196.3
LDPE/MH/OMT 0.397  0.22 124.1
LDPE/MH/MMT 0.465  0.14 145.3
LDPE/MH 0.535  0.21 167.2

XLPE 1.288  0.13 402.5

XLPE/MA/MH/OMT 0.846  0.1 264.4
XLPE/MA/MH/MMT 0.848  0.05 265
XLPE/MH/OMT 0.28  0.11 87.5
XLPE/MH/MMT 0.326  0.02 101.9
XLPE/MH 0.316  0.06 98.8

Fig. 6. Elongations of LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites.

3.5. Limiting oxygen index results

Table 4
Tensile properties of PE composites.
The LOI of a polymer is an index that presents the
Sample Tensile strength (MPa) E1% (MPa) Elongation (%) combustibility level of polymer. There is almost 21% oxygen in
LDPE 11.6  0.4 104.8  11.4 17.5  4.7 atmosphere. The LOI values of conventional polymers (such as PP,
LDPE/MA/MH/OMT 13.1  0.3 285.7  18.4 2.78  0.7 PE, and PS) are smaller than 20, which mean they are combustible
LDPE/MA/MH/MMT 13.0  0.7 285.4  11.4 2.38  0.8 materials. When the LOI value of polymer is between 22 and 25, it
LDPE/MH/OMT 10.7  0.5 305.4  9.0 2.13  0.7 does not easily burn. When LOI value rises to greater than 26, the
LDPE/MH/MMT 10.5  0.6 315.0  11.2 1.09  0.6
material is considered as non-combustible.
LDPE/MH 10.8  0.3 295.9  9.2 1.63  1
Table 6 presents the LOI data of examined PE nanocomposites.
XLPE 13.5  0.5 141.1  11.1 155.5  1.6 The results reveal that LOI values of LDPE and XLPE nanocompo-
XLPE/MA/MH/OMT 15.1  0.5 339.5  27.8 7.47  1.1
XLPE/MA/MH/MMT 14.8  0.4 312.6  21.8 7.31  0.6
sites containing 52 wt% of MH increased by three values to 25 and
XLPE/MH/OMT 12.3  0.2 350.0  12.2 11.8  2.2 26, respectively. When MMT and OMT were replaced part of
XLPE/MH/MMT 14.2  1.8 363.0  19.3 6.09  2.5 magnesium hydroxide, the LOI values of LDPE nanocomposites did
XLPE/MH 12.8  0.4 346.7  10.5 12.6  1.4 not improve. For XLPE nanocomposites, the 4 wt% of clay to replace
MH could make the LOI increase by two values. This increase may
be due to the better exfoliated structures of LDPE/MA/MH/MMT
and XLPE/MA/MH/MMT nanocomposites that results in larger
improved. For XLPE composites, in the absence and presence of values of LOI compared with the untreated samples.
compatibilizer, the elongations of samples decreased through
replacing part of MH with clay. This observation indicates that 3.6. Morphology results
addition of clay does not improve the elongation of XLPE
composites. The morphologies of the composites were examined with SEM
technique. Fig. 8 shows the SEM micrographs of fracture surface of
3.4.2. Impact examination results neat LDPE and XLPE. We observed that there were still good
In the impact examinations, both systems of LDPE and XLPE bonding strength between macromolecules, resulting in good
revealed similar impact absorption energy (Fig. 7). The larger adhesion, ductility, and excellent elongation. The SEM micrographs
contents of MH decreased impact absorption energy; substituting of LDPE/MH and XLPE/MH composites (Fig. 9) exhibit many holes
MH with clay decreased the impact strength further. At the same and granular MH aggregates at the fracture surface, indicating lack
MH and clay contents, the impact absorption energy of nano- of binding between polymer matrix and MH particles. This weak
composites containing compatibilizer of LDPE-g-MA could be binding and poor compatibility led to debonding of components of
improved. Detailed data of impact examination are presented in composites and decline of tensile strength and elongation.
Table 5. Micrographs of fracture surface for LDPE and XLPE containing
clay are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. The SEM
micrographs of fracture surface of samples containing compati-
bilizer (LDPE/MA/MH/OMT and LDPE/MA/MH/MMT) showed good
adhesion between mineral additives and LDPE matrix. The
morphologies of the fracture surfaces of XLPE composites samples
containing compatibilizer (XLPE/MA/MH/MMT and XLPE/MA/MH/
MMT) showed many small holes and particles, indicating that

Table 6
LOI data of PE nanocomposites.

Sample LOI (%) Sample LOI (%)

LDPE 22 XLPE 23
LDPE/MA/MH/OMT 25 XLPE/MA/MH/OMT 28
LDPE/MA/MH/MMT 26 XLPE/MA/MH/MMT 29
LDPE/MH/OMT 25 XLPE/MH/OMT 28
LDPE/MH/MMT 25 XLPE/MH/MMT 28
LDPE/MH 25 XLPE/MH 26
Fig. 7. Impact absorbed energy of LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites.
2406 S.-P. Liu / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 20 (2014) 2401–2408

Fig. 8. SEM micrographs of fracture surface: (a) LDPE and (b) XLPE. Fig. 9. SEM micrographs of fracture surface: (a) LDPE/MH and (b) XLPE/MH.

Fig. 10. SEM micrographs of fracture surface: (a) LDPE/MA/MH/OMT, (b) LDPE/MA/MH/MMT, (c) LDPE/MH/OMT and (d) LDPE/MH/MMT.
 S.-P. Liu / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 20 (2014) 2401–2408
Fig. 11. SEM micrographs of fracture surface: (a) XLPE/MA/MH/OMT, (b) XLPE/MA/MH/MMT, (c) XLPE/MH/OMT and (d) XLPE/MH/MMT.
those fillers were well embedded in the matrix. Therefore, better
binding between matrix and dispersed mineral particles resulted
in enhancement of the tensile strength in both treated LDPE and
XLPE composites.
4. Conclusions
In this work, we studied the effects of treatment by a
compatibilizer on the combustibility, structures and properties
of LDPE and XLPE composites. The results lead to the following
concluding remarks:
(1) XRD results indicated that when Na+-MMT was modified with
dodecylamine, the interlayer distance of MMT expanded from
1.39 to 1.8 nm.
(2) No obvious diffraction peak in the range 2u = 1.5–108 in the
XRD diffraction patterns of PE nanocomposites were observed,
indicating that dispersed structure of montmorillonite was
exfoliated.
(3) Presence of additives (MH, MMT, OMT and LDPE-g-MA) did not
change the melting temperatures of the nanocomposites,
observed in the DSC examinations.
(4) The TGA results of LDPE and XLPE nanocomposites showed that
addition of OMT would decrease the Td. However, there were
more amounts of residual carbon for PE nanocomposites at
elevated temperature, indicating improvement in flame retar-
dant properties and decrease in combustibility.
(5) In the mechanical examinations, the properties were improved
and reinforced by adding compatibilizer and treating fillers.
Addition of OMT or MMT alone obviously could not improve
mechanical properties.
2407
(6) In the LOI examinations, the LOI values of XLPE composites
enhanced when 4 w% of MH was replaced with clay.
(7) Observation of tensile fracture surfaces with SEM technique
indicated that addition of compatibilizer improves the adhe-
sion between matrix and filler particles in the LDPE composites.
Addition of compatibilizer showed presence of many small
holes and dispersed particles in the SEM micrographs,
indicating that MMT particles embedded better in the XLPE
matrix. As a result, the tensile strengths of compatibilized LDPE
and XLPE nanocomposites samples enhanced.
The mechanical properties and flame retardancy of PE
nanocomposites would enhance when compatibilizer is added.
But, this enhancement effect was weak and the thermal stability
decreased when OMT was used alone. To improve the thermal
stability of nanocomposites, we are planning to use other
substances to modify clay, trying to find the appropriate
surfactants and the optimum amount of clay in the composite
to obtain desired performance.
References
[1] S.-K. Yoon, Bo.-S. Byun, S. Lee, S.-H. Choi, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 14 (2008) 417–422.
[2] M.N. Muralidharana, S.A. Kumarb, S. Thomas, J. Membr. Sci. 315 (2008) 147–154.
[3] J. Moczo, B. Pukanszky, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 14 (2008) 535–563.
[4] Y.Y. Su, S.P. Rwei, W.J. Gou, H.H. Chan, K.C. Cheng, J. Thermoplast. Compos. 25
(2012) 987–1003.
[5] S.S. Ray, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 12 (2006) 811–842.
[6] H. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, L. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 97 (2005) 844–849.
[7] B. Marosföi, Sz. Matko, P.A.Gy. Marosi, Curr. Appl. Phys. 6 (2006) 259–261.
[8] J.W. Gilman, C.L. Jackson, A.B. Morgan, R.H. Harris Jr., E. Manias, E.P. Giannelis, M.
Wuthenow, D. Hilton, S.H. Phillips, Chem. Mater. 12 (2000) 1866–1873.
[9] Z. Jinguo, A.W. Charles, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 80 (2003) 163–169.
2408 S.-P. Liu / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 20 (2014) 2401–2408
[10] C. Zhao, H. Qin, F. Gong, M. Feng, S. Zhang, M. Yang, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 87 (2005)
183–189.
[11] K. Okada, Japanese Patent 11-228748 (1999).
[12] F. Yang, R. Yngard, L.N. Gordon, J. Fire Sci. 23 (2005) 209–226.
[13] J. Alongi, M. Poskovic, A. Frache, F. Trotta, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 95 (2010) 2093–
2100.
[14] M.A. Bahattab, J. Mosnacek, A.A. Basfar, T.M. Shukri, Polym. Bull. 64 (2010) 569–
580.
[15] F. Laoutid, L. Bonnaud, M. Alexandre, Mater. Sci. Eng. R 63 (2009) 100–125.
[16] M.C. Costache, D. Wang, M.J. Heidecker, Polym. Adv. Technol. 17 (2006) 272–280.
[17] L. Clerc, L. Ferry, E. Leroy, J.M. Lopez-Cuesta, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 88 (2005) 504–
511.
[18] G. Beyer, J. Fire Sci. 25 (2007) 65–78.
[19] L. Wang, X. He, C.A. Wilkie, Materials 3 (2010) 4580–4606.
[20] C. Nyambo, C.A. Wilkie, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 94 (2009) 506–512.
[21] J. Yang, J.Z. Liang, C.Y. Tang, Polym. Test. 28 (2009) 907–911.
[22] H. Sturm, B. Schartel, A. Weiß, U. Braun, Polym. Test. 31 (2012) 606–619.
[23] Y. Qian, P. Wei, X. Zhao, P. Jiang, H. Yu, Fire Mater. 37 (2013) 1–16.
[24] W.K. Chow, S.S. Han, Polym. Test. 23 (2004) 685–694.
[25] J.M. Zhao, W.T. Li, Adv. Mater. Res. 631 (2013) 277–280.
[26] J. Lazko, N. Landercy, F. Laoutid, L. Dangreau, M.H. Huguet, O. Talon, Polym.
Degrad. Stab. 98 (2013) 1043–1051.
[27] J.Z. Liang, J. Yang, C.Y. Tang, Polym. Test. 29 (2010) 624–628.
[28] S. Doroudiani, B. Doroudiani, Z. Doroudiani, in: F. Pacheco-Torgal, S. Jalali, A. Fucic
(Eds.), Materials that Release Toxic Fumes during Fire, Woodhead Publishing,
Cambridge, UK, 2012, pp. 266–271.
[29] R.N. Rothon, P.R. Hornsby, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 54 (1996) 383–385.
[30] F. Ren, X. Zhang, Z. Wei, J. Chen, D. Dong, X. Li, L. Zhang, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/app.38960.
[31] S.L. Waaijers, D. Kong, H.S. Hendriks, C.A. de Wit, I.T. Cousins, R.H.S. Westerink,
P.E.G. Leonards, et al., Persistence, Springer, New York, 2013, pp. 1–71.
[32] D.H. Xiang, N.N. Wang, P.S. Mo, Y. Lu, Adv. Mater. Res. 652 (2013) 485–489.
[33] U. Hippi, J. Mattila, M. Korhonen, J. Seppälä, Polymer 44 (2003) 1193–1201.
[34] A.A. Sener, E. Demirhan, Mater. Des. 29 (2008) 1376–1379.
[35] M. Zanetti, G. Camino, D. Canavese, A.B. Morgan, F.J. Lamelas, C.A. Wilkie, Chem.
Mater. 14 (2002) 189–193.
[36] L. Minkova, Y. Peneva, E. Tashev, S. Filippi, M. Pracella, P. Magagnini, Polym. Test.
28 (2009) 528–533.
[37] S. Arunvisut, S. Phummanee, A. Somwangthanaroj, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 106 (2007)
2210–2217.
[38] A.B. Morgan, Polym. Adv. Technol. 17 (2006) 206–217.
[39] C. Jiao, Z. Wang, X. Chen, B. Yu, Y. Hu, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 75 (2006) 557–563.
[40] S. Wang, Y. Hu, Z. Wang, T. Yong, Z. Chen, W. Fan, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 80 (2003)
157–161.