Compares mechanical, thermal, and gas-barrier properties in EVOH/HDPE blends, suggesting implications for composite materials.
Nonexchangeable and exchange-capable reactive compatibilization offer distinct routes to engineer interfacial connectivity in immiscible semicrystalline polymer blends, yet their consequences for crystallization, relaxation, and transport remain incompletely understood. Here we establish a controlled comparison of nonexchangeable reactive compatibilization and exchange-capable reactive compatibilization in ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH)/high-density polyethylene (HDPE) blends formed by reactive compatibilization. The nonexchangeable network is generated by anhydride–hydroxyl coupling at the interface, whereas the exchange-capable network is constructed by incorporating an epoxy component to create exchangeable β-hydroxy-ester linkages that enable transesterification-assisted topology rearrangement. Despite similarly refined morphologies and strengthened interfacial adhesion, the two reactive compatibilization produce sharply different thermomechanical signatures: the epoxy-assisted exchange-capable system exhibits higher gel fractions and more pronounced rubbery modulus retention, together with faster stress relaxation. These exchange-enabled interfaces fundamentally rebalance strength and ductility, raising elongation at break from 9.6% to 81.4% while maintaining original high modulus. In contrast, nonexchangeable reactive compatibilization more effectively suppresses gas transport, significantly reducing the O 2 permeability of the EVOH/HDPE blend relative to the uncompatibilized blend. This work clarifies how nonexchangeable versus exchange-capable interfacial chemistry governs crystallization kinetics, viscoelastic relaxation, and barrier–toughness trade-offs in semicrystalline blend networks, offering guidance for designing advanced packaging materials that combine high barrier, high toughness, and reprocessing tolerance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: