Reactive Compatibilization of Poly(trimethylene terephthalate)/Polypropylene Blends by Polypropylene‐graft‐Maleic Anhydride. Part 1. Rheology, Morphology, Melting, and Mechanical Properties

Poly(trimethylene terephthalate)/polypropylene (PTT/PP) blends were prepared by melt blending. The rheology, morphology, melting, and mechanical properties of PTT/PP blends were investigated with and without the addition of polypropylene‐graft‐maleic anhydride (PP‐g‐MAH). The melt viscosity results showed that the fluid behavior of PTT/PP blends exhibited great disparity to that of PTT but similar to that of PP; the dispersed flexible PP phase in the blends served as a “ball bearing effect” under shear stress, which made the fluid resistance markedly reduced; by contrast, the relatively rigid PTT dispersed phase made only a small contribution to the viscosity. With 5 wt.% PP‐g‐MAH addition during melt processing, both the shear viscosity and the non‐Newtonian index of 70/30 PTT/PP blend were increased over that of the corresponding uncompatibilized one, whereas the shear viscosity of the 30/70 PTT/PP melt decreased slightly indicating that a considerable amount of PP‐g‐MAH did not act as compatibilizer but probably served as plasticizer. With the increasing of the other component, the melting temperature of the PTT phase showed a slight decrease while the melting temperature of the PP phase showed a slight increase. 5 wt.% PP‐g‐MAH addition had little influence on the melting temperatures of the two components. When PP≤20 wt.%, the cold crystallization temperature of the PTT phase (Tcc (PTT‐phase)) showed little change with the composition; however, it shifted to higher temperature when PP≥30 wt.%. The variations of the Tcc (PTT‐phase), with and without PP‐g‐MAH, suggested that, when PTT was a minor component, the excess PP‐g‐MAH which did not act as compatibilizer might serve as a plasticizer that made the PTT's cold crystallization process to be easier. The SEM results indicated that, for the uncompatibilized blends, the interfaces from particles pulling‐out are clear and smooth, while, for compatibilized blends, the reactive products are at the interfaces. The mechanical properties suggested that PP‐g‐MAH did not result in significant improvement of the toughness of the blend, but the tensile strength increased markedly.