Tailoring properties of styrene butadiene rubber nanocomposite by various nanofillers and their dispersion

Organic–inorganic nanocomposite hybrids of styrene butadiene rubber were prepared with various nanofillers like modified and unmodified montmorillonite, sepiolite (SP), hectorite, carbon nanofiber (F), and expanded graphite. Comparison of the nanocomposites against the gum on the basis of mechanical...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Polymer engineering and science 2009-01, Vol.49 (1), p.81-98
Main Authors: Bhattacharya, Mithun, Maiti, Madhuchhanda, Bhowmick, Anil K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Applied sciences
Chemical properties
Composites
Exact sciences and technology
Forms of application and semi-finished materials
Materials science
Mechanical properties
Nanocomposites
Nanotechnology
Polymer industry, paints, wood
Polymeric composites
Rubber
Styrene
Styrene-butadiene rubber
Tear behavior
Technology of polymers
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Organic–inorganic nanocomposite hybrids of styrene butadiene rubber were prepared with various nanofillers like modified and unmodified montmorillonite, sepiolite (SP), hectorite, carbon nanofiber (F), and expanded graphite. Comparison of the nanocomposites against the gum on the basis of mechanical properties illustrates that Cloisite15A (15A) produced an increment of 230% in the tensile strength (TS), at 8 phr loading. At 6 phr loading, F increased the modulus by 101%, while tear strength increased by 79%. Once optimized for loading, these nanocomposites were subjected to various compatibilization and dispersion techniques to achieve enhanced dispersion of the nanofillers. On modification, 15A registered 146% increase in modulus and 303% in TS, while F illustrated 150% increment in modulus and 113% in TS of the nanocomposite, over the gum control. Thorough dynamic mechanical and swelling studies were also performed. X‐ray diffraction, atomic force microscopy and transmission electron microscopy were used to study the morphology. The London dispersive forces explained the enhanced properties on using carbon nanofiber, while the wider gallery gap and increased compatibility because of high organo‐modifier content explicated the efficacy of 15A. Adsorption followed by shearing as well as intercalation of the rubber into clay layers were suggested as the probable mechanisms. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2009. © 2008 Society of Plastics Engineers
ISSN:0032-3888
1548-2634
DOI:10.1002/pen.21224