JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
46(10) 1139–1150
! The Author(s) 2012
Effect of modified clay on mechanical Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
and morphological properties of ethylene DOI: 10.1177/0021998311413686
jcm.sagepub.com
octane copolymer–polypropylene
nanocomposites

SK Sharma1, Ajay K Nema2 and SK Nayak1

Abstract
Ethylene octane copolymer–polypropylene (PP) blend was optimized at 30 wt% of ethylene octane copolymer with PP
and the same ratio was kept constant for preparing ethylene octane copolymer–PP nanocomposites (70/30). The
nanocomposites were prepared with commercially modified organoclays (C20A and C30B) and laboratory-modified
organoclays (OMMT-I and OMMT-II) in the ratio of 3, 5, and 7 wt%. The compatibilizer polypropylene-grafted maleic
anhydride (PP-g-MA) was used to get the exfoliated nanocomposites in the ratio of 5, 10, and 15 wt% for C20A, C30B,
OMMT-I, and OMMT-II nanocomposites. X-ray diffraction (XRD) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) results
indicated the formation of well-exfoliated morphology at 5 wt% of organoclay and 5 wt% of PP-g-MA compatibilizer. The
increase in tensile properties due to the reinforcing effect imparted by organoclays along with high aspect ratio of the clay
pallets allowed a greater degree of stress transfer at the interface.

Keywords
Montmorillonite (MMT), polypropylene maleic anhydride (PP-g-MA)

Introduction filler are widely used to produce automotive exterior

The use of layered silicates as fillers in polymers has
gained considerable amount of attention due to the
ability to achieve exceptional property enhancements
at very low loading levels.1–4 In recent years, a con-
certed effort has been made to disperse layered silicates
in low-cost polyolefins, like polypropylene (PP).5–15 PP
has many desirable properties, such as low density, high
thermal stability, and good solvent resistance; however,
its modulus relative to engineering polymers, for exam-
ple, nylon 6, polycarbonate, is low.16 This issue is often
addressed by adding conventional fillers, for example,
talc or glass fibers.17–20 Unfortunately, due to the size
(or aspect ratio) of such fillers, large loadings are
required to significantly increase stiffness, which can
result in poor processability, lower ductility, and a
rough surface finish. The latter has been a major issue
for some applications in which an optimum balance of
stiffness and toughness is desired; to address this, an
elastomer component has been incorporated into
PP–filler composites, producing ternary-phase polymer
composites.21–25 Elastomer-toughened PP or thermo-
plastic olefine (TPO) materials containing talc as a
and interior parts; however, the use of large amounts
of filler, for example, 20 wt%, which is required to
achieve desirable properties, results in some processing
and performance compromises as described earlier. In
addition, it has been reported that the morphology of
the dispersed phases plus elastomer, filler contents as
well as processing conditions play an important role in
determining the stiffness and toughening behavior of
PP–elastomer–filler composites.23,25,26 In this article,
ethylene octane copolymer–PP blend was optimized at
30 wt% of ethylene octane copolymer with PP and the
1
Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology, Chennai, India
2
Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology, Bhopal India
Corresponding authors:
SK Nayak, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032, India
Email: drsknayak@yahoo.com
SK Sharma, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032, India
Ajay K Nema, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology,
Bhopal – 462 023, India

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
1140
same ratio was kept constant for preparing ethylene
octane copolymer–PP nanocomposites. The nanocom-
posites were prepared with organically modified nano-
clay (C20A, C30B, OMMT-I, and OMMT-II) in the
ratio of 3, 5, and 7 wt%. The compatibilizer polypro-
pylene-grafted maleic anhydride (PP-g-MA) was used
to get the exfoliated nanocomposites in the ratio of 5,
10, and 15 wt% for C20A, C30B, OMMT-I, and
OMMT-II nanocomposites. The objective of the article
is to get the optimum level of desired mechanical prop-
erties with highest degree of exfoliation of organoclay
with high impact properties.
Experimental
Materials and sample preparation
(a) The PP injection molding grade (RepolÕ H110MA)
was obtained from M/s Reliance Industries
Ltd, Mumbai, India. The melt flow index (MFI)
(at 230 C/2.16 kg) was 11 g/10 min and density
0.92 g/cc. The TPO (ethylene octane copolymer)
was procured from ExxonMobil Chemical,
Singapore under trade name EXACTÕ
Plastomers, unreinforced, high flow, medium
impact general-purpose grade, and had MFI 1.1.
PP-g-MA was procured in the form of granules
from M/s ExxonMobil Chemical, Singapore under
the trade name EXXELORÕ 1015. The grafting per-
centage reported as 0.5 wt% with MFI of 150 g/
10 min and specific gravity 0.882 g/cc.
(b) Three types of commercially produced clays,
untreated (Na-MMT), treated (Cloisite 20A and
Cloisite 30B) were procured from M/s Southern
Clay Products, USA. The other two types of orga-
noclays, OMMT-I and OMMT-II, were modified in
the laboratory using Na-MMT nanoclay. Nanoclay
Na-MMT had specific gravity 2.86 g/cc and base
spacing (d001) 11.7 Å with modifier concentration
of 92.6 meq/100 g clay having less than 2% of mois-
ture content. The treated clay C20A had specific
gravity of 1.77 g/cc and base spacing (d001) 24.2 Å
with modifier concentration of 95 meq/100 g clay
having less than 2% moisture content. The other
treated clay C30B had specific gravity of 1.98 g/cc
and base spacing (d001) 18.5 Å with modifier concen-
tration of 95 meq/100 g clay having less than 2%
moisture content. The C20A and C30B clays were
used with 3, 5, and 7 wt%; and PP-g-MA compati-
bilizer was used with 5, 10, and 15 wt%.
(c) Na-MMT was modified using p-amino benzoic
acid employing a method reported by Zhu.27 One
hundred and eighty grams of Na-MMT with
cation exchange capacity (CEC) 92.6 meq/100 g
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
Journal of Composite Materials 46(10)
was dispersed in 4500 mL of distilled water with
vigorous stirring at 80 C in a glass vessel to pre-
pare Na-MMT dispersion. Excessive amount of
p-amino benzoic acid with molar ratio of 1:0.17
acidified by appropriate amount of concentrated
HCl was dispersed into 600 mL of distilled water
to prepare p-amino benzoic acid acidified solution.
Subsequently, the solution was added to Na-MMT
dispersion and resultant suspension was vigorously
stirred at 80 C for 4 h. On titration of the filtrate
with 0.1 N AgNO3, the treated Na-MMT was
washed thoroughly with water until no AgCl pre-
cipitate occurred at room temperature. Finally, the
filtrates were dried at 80 C for 12 h in vacuum,
ground, and screened with a 325-mesh sieve to
obtain p-amino benzoic acid treated clay
(OMMT-I).
(d) Na-MMT was modified using octadecylamine
employing a method reported by Han et al.28 One
hundred and eighty grams of Na-MMT with CEC
92.6 meq/100 g was dispersed in 2500 mL of distilled
water with vigorous stirring at 80 C in a glass vessel
to prepare Na-MMT dispersion. Excessive amount
of octadecylamine with molar ratio of 1:0.4 acidified
by appropriate amount of concentrated HCl was
dispersed into 500 mL of distilled water to prepare
octadecylamine acidified solution. Subsequently,
the solution was added to Na-MMT dispersion
and resultant suspension was vigorously stirred at
80 C for 8 h. On titration of the filtrate with 0.1 N
AgNO3, the treated Na-MMT was washed thor-
oughly with water until no AgCl precipitate
occurred at room temperature. Finally, the filtrates
were dried at 80 C for 12 h in vacuum, ground, and
screened with a 325-mesh sieve to obtain octadecy-
lamine-treated clay (OMMT-II).
Preparation of ethylene octane copolymer–PP blend
and their nanocomposites
The blends of iPP with TPO (ethylene octane copoly-
mer) thermoplastic elastomer were prepared using
twin-screw extruder in the ratio of 75/30 wt% of
iPP–TPO. Melt-processing conditions play a key role
in achieving high levels of exfoliation. Indeed, polymer
nanocomposites have been formed using a variety of
shear devices (e.g., extruders, mixers, ultrasonicators),
among which twin-screw extruders have proven to be
most effective for the exfoliation and dispersion of sil-
icate layers.29 Study on melt blending of iPP–TPO/
5wt%Na-MMT was carried out using Berstorff, ZE
25 (Germany) having the L/D ratio 48:1, which is a
self-wiping co-rotating twin-screw extruder, and tem-
perature profile used was 180–240 C (feed zone to die
Sharma et al. 1141

zone) with various rotor speeds, 100, 150, and 200 rota-
tion per minute (rpm). The resultant iPP–TPO nano-
composites were evaluated for tensile strength, tensile
modulus, flexural strength, flexural modulus, and Izod
impact strength.
Compositions
The compositions prepared for the iPP–TPO nanocom-
posites are given in Table 1.
Testing and analytical instrumentation
(a) The tensile properties were measured as per ASTM
D 638 standard with specimen size 165  13 
3 mm, a gage length of 50 mm, and cross-head
speed of 50 mm/min and then the properties were
studied using LR 100K, Lloyds Instrument Ltd,
UK.
(b) Flexural properties were measured as per the
ASTM D 790 with specimen size 127  12.7 
6 mm, a gage length of 50 mm, and cross-head
speed of 1.3 mm/min and then the properties were
studied using Universal Tester (LR 100K, Lloyds
Instrument Ltd, UK).
(c) The notched Izod impact strength of specimen was
measured using impactometer (Ceast, Italy) with
2.54 mm notch, 45 notch angle as per ASTM D
256 with the specimen size of 6.23  12.7  3 mm.
(d) The morphological properties of the nanocompo-
sites were observed by scanning electron microscope
(SEM) and transmission electron microscope
(TEM). The state of dispersion of the filler in the
polymer blends was assessed by TEM imaging using
Philips CM 20 instrument, Canada. The ultra-thin
sections (~50 nm) were cut from the central part of
the injection molded bars in the direction of the
flow under cryogenic condition; the samples were
stained with 4 wt% lead citrate to enhance the
phase contrast between the PP and elastomer
phase. The phase morphology of impact fracture
specimen of nanocomposites was studied using
SEM (JEOL-6360). It is used to determine the
shape and the size of in-situ formed nanoparticles.
A distribution was obtained from micrographs. The
high-electron voltage of 1 eV was used and sample
was coated with copper to avoid charging.
(e) X-ray diffraction (XRD) was carried out to exam-
ine the basal spacing (d001) of the pure clay as well
as nanocomposites using Scifert 2002, Japan, at
operating voltage 45 kV, current 40 mA, and wave-
length 0.154 nm. The samples were scanned over
the range 2 ¼ 2 –10 and measurements were
recorded at every 0.03 interval and basal (d001)
spacing was calculated using n ¼ 2d sin .

Table 1. iPP–TPO nanocomposite compositions and designations

S. no. Designations Type of nanoclay phr of nanoclay phr of compatibilizer

1 iPP–TPO virgin – – –
2 iPP–TPO/3wt%Na-MMT Na-MMT 3 –
3 iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT Na-MMT 5 –
4 iPP–TPO/7wt%Na-MMT Na-MMT 7 –
5 iPP–TPO/3wt%C20A C20A 3 –
6 iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A C20A 5 –
7 iPP–TPO/7wt%C20A C20A 7 –
8 iPP–TPO/3wt%C30B C30B 3 –
9 iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B C30B 5 –
10 iPP–TPO/7wt%C30B C30B 7 –
11 iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA C20A 5 5
12 iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/10wt%PP-g-MA C20A 5 10
13 iPP–TPO/5wt%/C20A/15wt%PP-g-MA C20A 5 15
14 iPP–TPO/5wt%/C30B/5wt%PP-g-MA C30B 5 5
15 iPP–TPO/5wt%/C30B/10wt%PP-g-MA C30B 5 10
16 iPP–TPO/5wt%/C30B/15wt%PP-g-MA C30B 5 15
17 iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I OMMT-I 5 –
18 iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II OMMT-II 5 –
19 iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA OMMT-I 5 5
20 iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA OMMT-II 5 5

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
1142
Results and discussion
Mechanical properties of iPP–TPO/Na-MMT
nanocomposites
The mechanical properties, that is, tensile strength, ten-
sile modulus, flexural strength, flexural modulus of
iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT nanocomposites prepared
at 100 rpm are comparatively higher than those pre-
pared at 150 rpm and 200 rpm. Probably at higher rota-
tion of twin-screw extruder beyond 100 rpm (i.e.,
150 rpm and 200 rpm) the residence time reduces and
shear rate increases, which have resulted in poor mixing
and dispersion. As reported by Verghese et al.,29 twin
screw at appropriate shear rate and residence time
appears to provide the best mixing in terms of disper-
sion and exfoliation. The mechanical properties of
iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT prepared in twin-screw
extruder at 100 rpm is optimum due to moderate
shear rate and residence time in twin-screw extruder.
Three compositions of Na-MMT (3, 5, and 7 wt%)
with iPP–TPO were evaluated for mechanical proper-
ties using Universal Testing Machine (UTM, Lloyd LR
100K and Impact testing machine of ATS FAAR). The
results obtained are given in Table 2.
Tensile properties of virgin iPP–TPO and its nano-
composites with Na-MMT as a function of clay load-
ing in weight percentage, given in Table 1, were
evaluated for the reinforcing benefits of nanoclay in
the iPP–TPO matrix. The tensile strength and its
modulus, flexural strength and its modulus are increas-
ing with Na-MMT clay loading from 3 to 5 wt%.
The iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT nanocomposites have
optimum values from 3 to 7 wt% iPP–TPO/Na-MMT
nanocomposites. The iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT show-
ing tensile strength 26.5 MPa, tensile modulus 202.1
MPa, flexural strength 24 MPa, and flexural modulus
871.5 MPa. There is an increase of 10.2% in tensile
strength, 13.4% in tensile modulus, 20.6% in flexural
strength, and 31.6% in flexural modulus in comparison
with that of virgin iPP–TPO (Table 2). By examining
the mechanical properties’ dependence on clay loading,
it is revealed that the increase in tensile strength and its
modulus, flexural strength and its modulus attributed
Table 2. Mechanical properties of various compositions of iPP–TPO/Na-MMT
Tensile strength
S. no. Specimen designation (MPa)
1 iPP–TPO virgin 24.4  0.48
2 iPP–TPO/3wt%Na-MMT 25.1  0.54
3 iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT 26.5  0.48
4 iPP–TPO/7wt%Na-MMT 24.7  0.48
Note:  indicates the standard deviation.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
Journal of Composite Materials 46(10)
to the reinforcing characteristics of dispersed Na-MMT
nanoclay with high aspect ratio. However, the tensile
strength and its modulus, flexural strength and its mod-
ulus are lower for 7 wt%/Na-MMT clay loading in
comparison with that of 5 wt% Na-MMT. Decrease
in tensile strength and its modulus, flexural strength
and its modulus of the nanocomposites beyond 5 wt%
Na-MMT clay loading is due to filler–filler interaction.
This interaction results in the formation of agglomer-
ates and induced local stress concentration in the nano-
composites and leads to the reduction in the clay aspect
ratio, thereby reducing the contact surface area
between the clay and the iPP–TPO matrix.30
Mechanical properties of iPP–TPO nanocomposites
Tensile properties. Although iPP–TPO matrix has
shown reduction in tensile strength, tensile modulus,
flexural strength, and flexural modulus (Table 3) in
comparison with that of iPP virgin matrix, it has sig-
nificantly gained in impact strength. The decrease in the
tensile strength and modulus is 24.4% and 72.9% and
in the flexural strength and modulus it is 54.7% and
54.9%, respectively; the improvement in the impact
strength is 207%. This development makes iPP–TPO
material of choice to have very good impact strength
with the little compromise in other mechanical proper-
ties. The study on nanocomposites of iPP–TPO will
certainly be useful to see how the reinforcement effect
will improve the mechanical properties of nanocompo-
sites keeping the impact properties at same level or
improving further.
Tensile properties of virgin iPP–TPO and its nano-
composites with different commercially modified clay
viz C20A, C30B and laboratory-modified clay viz
OMMT-I, OMMT-II with compatibilizer (PP-g-MA)
were evaluated for the reinforcing benefits of nanoclay
into the iPP–TPO matrix. It is observed that the tensile
strength and modulus increase linearly with loading
3–5 wt% of C20A and C30B clay. There is an increase
of 23.7% in tensile strength and 40.7% in tensile mod-
ulus of iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A nanocomposites in com-
parison with that of virgin iPP–TPO. In case of
Tensile modulus Flexural strength Flexural modulus Impact strength
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (J/m)
178.1  0.48 19.9  0.45 662.2  0.48 81.4  0.58
194.7  0.68 21.5  0.45 681.2  0.21 91.2  0.58
202.1  0.18 24.0  0.65 871.5  0.19 109.7  0.21
187.0  0.12 19.0  0.45 659.5  0.45 82.4  0.45
Sharma et al. 1143

Table 3. Mechanical properties of iPP–TPO nanocomposites

S. Tensile strength Tensile modulus Flexural strength Flexural modulus Impact strength
no. Specimen designation (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (J/m)

1 iPP–TPO virgin 24.4  0.45 178.1  0.28 19.9  0.78 662.2  0.25 81.4  0.45
2 iPP–TPO/3wt%C20A 27.8  0.45 210.4  0.48 25.8  0.48 890.2  0.58 113.7  0.45
3 iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A 30.2  0.78 250.6  0.59 30.0  0.14 1050.0  0.45 124.5  0.21
4 iPP–TPO/7wt%C20A 28.0  0.58 220.5  0.54 27.2  0.51 895.2  0.65 112.0  0.47
5 iPP–TPO/3wt%C30B 27.1  0.57 200.5  0.26 24.0  0.51 895.2  0.12 11.2  0.58
6 iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B 28.4  0.47 215.3  0.58 27.3  0.46 968.0  0.12 118.5  0.58
7 iPP–TPO/7wt%C30B 27.0  0.48 202.5  0.54 25.5  0.45 935.8  0.21 109.8  0.58
8 iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA 38.4  0.24 278.5  0.58 38.1  0.58 1198.0  0.6 321.7  0.34
9 iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/10wt%PP-g-MA 29.6  0.48 259.2  0.14 35.3  0.73 1078.7  0.45 281.5  0.54
10 iPP–TPO/5wt%/C20A/15wt%PP-g-MA 28.3  0.68 250.8  0.58 31.1  0.41 1060.5  0.58 211.6  0.16
11 iPP–TPO/5wt%/C30B/5wt%PP-g-MA 34.2  0.48 230.2  0.98 28.5  0.89 1056.4  0.48 279.5  0.87
12 iPP–TPO/5wt%/C30B/10wt%PP-g-MA 29.1  0.58 205.4  0.48 26.3  0.16 801.4  0.56 210.7  0.58
13 iPP–TPO/5wt%/C30B/15wt%PP-g-MA 25.5  0.89 198.5  0.89 24.6  0.21 745.5  0.58 195.2  0.51
14 iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I 27.9  1.29 244.8  0.48 27.2  0.45 1020.4  0.45 118.7  0.45
15 iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II 26.9  0.47 228.5  0.15 25.2  0.15 967.4  0.43 106.9  0.23
16 iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA 35.1  0.87 270.5  0.35 36.2  0.45 1157.6  0.48 266.8  0.48
17 iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA 30.8  0.28 255.3  0.47 31.4  0.45 1054.5  0.61 249.7  0.48
Note:  indicates the standard deviation.

iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B there is an increase of 16.3% in
tensile strength and 20.8% in tensile modulus in com-
parison with that of virgin iPP–TPO. Whereas the
iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT showed 10.2% increase in
tensile strength and 13.4% in tensile modulus in com-
parison with that of virgin iPP–TPO. This is probably
due to iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A and iPP–TPO/5wt%
C30B nanocomposites having immobilized or partially
mobilized phase as a consequence of interaction of
organic modification of clays and large number of
interacting molecules due to dispersed phase volume
ratio characteristics of largely intercalated/exfoliated
nanocomposites. Further increase in loading of C20A
in iPP–TPO/C20A nanocomposite, that is, 7 wt% is
giving lower values of tensile strength and modulus.
The tensile strength and modulus of iPP–TPO/7wt%
C20A are 28 MPa and 220.5 MPa. The decrease in ten-
sile strength and modulus is due to the filler–filler inter-
action, which results in agglomerates and induced
local stress concentration in the nanocomposites and
leads to reduction in clay aspect ratio thereby reducing
the contact surface between the C20A and iPP–TPO
matrix.
Commercially modified clays C20A and C30B
taken for the reinforcement studies are organically mod-
ified with dimethyl-dehydrogenated tallow quaternary
ammonium chloride and methyl, tallow, bis-2-hydroxy-
ethyl, quaternary ammonium (MT2EtOH), respectively.
The CEC of C20A is 95 meq/100 g and C30B
is 90 meq/100 g. Na-MMT nanoclay was modified
at laboratory using p-amino benzoic acid, designated
as OMMT-I27 and octadecylamine, designated as
OMMT-II.28 Furthermore, the nanocomposites pre-
pared using OMMT-I and OMMT-II showed simi-
lar tensile strength and modulus. The tensile strength
and modulus of iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I are 27.9
MPa and 244.8 MPa and tensile strength and modulus
of iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II are 26.9 MPa and 228.5
MPa. On comparison tensile properties of iPP-TPO/
5wt%OMMT-I with iPP-TPO/5wt%C20A it was
found that both are having similar values indicate the
similar CEC for OMMT-I and C20A respectively that is
95 meq/100g and the similar properties was observed for
iPP-TPO/5wt% OMMT-II with iPP-TPO/5wt% C30B
with CEC of 90 meq/100 g.
While comparing the results obtained for tensile
strength and modulus of iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A nano-
composites with iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B it is established
that the nanocomposites of C20A are giving higher
value for tensile strength and modulus than those of
C30B. The primary cause for such higher values is
attributed to the modifier, which has higher CEC.31,32
Similarly comparing the results obtained for tensile
strength and modulus of iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I
nanocomposites with iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II it is
established that the nanocomposites of OMMT-I are
giving higher value for tensile strength and modulus
than those of OMMT-II. The primary cause for such
higher values is also attributed to the modifier, which
has better CEC.31,32

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
1144
Matrix iPP–TPO is nonpolar therefore synthesis of
well-exfoliated nanocomposites appears to be more dif-
ficult, because this polymer is so hydrophobic and lacks
suitable interactions with the clay surface, even after it
has been organically modified in comparison with polar
polymers, like polyamides, that can effectively exfoliate
organically modified clays using conventional melt-pro-
cessing techniques.
To obtain iPP–TPO/C20A, iPP–TPO/C30B, iPP–
TPO/OMMT-I, and iPP–TPO/OMMT-II nanocompo-
sites well exfoliated by melt blending the modified
oligomer was added. The small amount of a maleic
anhydride grafted PP (PP-g-MA) that is miscible with
the base iPP–TPO matrix was used as a compatibilizer.
The PP-g-MA is used to mediate the polarity between
the clay surface and the iPP–TPO matrix. Morawiec
et al.33 and others established that the polar character
of the anhydride has an affinity for the clay materials,
such that the maleated PP can serve as a ‘compatibi-
lizer’ between the matrix and the filler.34,35
The PP-g-MA compatibilizer was added 5, 10, 15,
and 20 wt% with iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A, iPP–TPO/
5wt%C30B, iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I, and iPP–TPO/
5wt%OMMT-II to obtain fully exfoliated nanocompo-
sites. It is observed that the tensile strength and
modulus increase with the addition of 5 wt% compatibi-
lizer (PP-g-MA). In case of iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/5wt%
PP-g-MA tensile strength and modulus are 38.4 MPa
and 278.5 MPa. The similar trend was observed for
the iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B/5wt%PP-g-MA, iPP–TPO/
5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA, and iPP–TPO/5wt%
OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA nanocomposites. In case
of iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B/5wt%PP-g-MA nanocompo-
sites tensile strength and tensile modulus are 34.2
MPa and 230.2 MPa. The iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I/
5wt%PP-g-MA and iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II/5wt%
PP-g-MA nanocomposites showed tensile strength and
tensile modulus of 35.1 MPa, 270.5 MPa and 30.8 MPa,
255.3 MPa, respectively. It is observed that tensile
strength and modulus are optimum in iPP–TPO/5wt%
C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA, iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B/5wt%PP-
g-MA, iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA, and
iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA among all
the nanocomposites prepared using various composition
of organically modified clay (C20A, C30B, OMMT-I,
OMMT-II) and compatibilizer (PP-g-MA). It indicates
that these nanocomposites have well-exfoliated struc-
ture. The nanoclay is ion exchanged (modified) to
reduce the cohesive force between the clay platelets.
The compatibilizer (PP-g-MA) chemically modifies the
iPP–TPO and improves adhesion between the iPP–TPO
matrix and nanoclay filler, whereas the modified clays
C20A, C30B, OMMT-I, and OMMT-II promote the
ion exchange, which enhances exfoliation and better
dispersion.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
Journal of Composite Materials 46(10)
The compatibilizer PP-g-MA contains 0.5 wt% of
grafted maleic anhydride. Generally PP-g-MA is pre-
pared by the process of free radical maleic anhydride
grafting onto PP backbone chain.36 During this pro-
cess, PP chain scission is accompanied; consequently
the lower molar mass of corresponding PP-g-MA is
produced. High content of such an oligomer in the
composites can adversely affect mechanical perfor-
mance. In other words, a large portion of low molar
mass compatibilizer formed a matrix phase together
with neat iPP–TPO matrix. Moreover, incompatibility
problems between matrix iPP–TPO and PP-g-MA
could arise at this high maleic anhydride content of
compatibilizer. So, moderate maleic anhydride content
and higher compatibilizer molar mass would be
required to improve the toughness/stiffness balance of
such nanocomposites. On further addition of PP-g-MA
beyond 5 wt% there is decrease in tensile properties of
iPP–TPO nanocomposites. This reduction is attributed
to excess quantity of compatibilizer PP-g-MA, which
gives plasticizing effect in nanocomposites. Hence,
there is a reduction in tensile strength and modulus.
Flexural properties. The variation of flexural proper-
ties of iPP–TPO nanocomposites along with virgin
iPP–TPO matrix vs. clay loading is summarized in
Table 3. As observed from Table 2, the flexural strength
and modulus show a similar trend as in the case of tensile
properties. The flexural strength of the nanocomposites
with C20A and C30B nanoclays showed an optimum
value at 5 wt% clay loading, beyond which there is
decline in the strength. This behavior is probably due
to the presence of clay particle that possibly acted as
stress concentration site and caused a reduction in the
flexural strength of the nanocomposites. The flexural
strength and modulus of iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A and
iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B nanocomposite are 30 MPa,
1050 MPa and 27.3 MPa, 968 MPa, respectively. There
is an increase in flexural strength and modulus of
iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A nanocomposites, that is, 50.7%
and 58.56% as compared with that of iPP–TPO virgin.
Similarly, iPP–TPO/5wt%/C30B nanocomposites
showed increase in flexural strength and modulus, that
is, 37.1% and 46.1% as compared with iPP–TPO virgin,
whereas the iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT nanocomposites
showed only 20.6% increase in flexural strength and
31.6% flexural modulus in comparison with that of
virgin iPP–TPO. This is probably due to iPP–TPO/
5wt%C20A and iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B nanocomposites
having immobilized or partially mobilized phase as a
consequence of interaction of organic modification of
clays and large number of interacting molecules due to
dispersed phase volume ratio characteristics of largely
intercalated/exfoliated nanocomposites.
Sharma et al.
Flexural strength and modulus of iPP–TPO/7wt%
C20A and iPP–TPO/7wt%C30B nanocomposites are
27.2 MPa, 895.2 MPa and 27.3 MPa, 968.10 MPa,
respectively. The decrease in flexural strength and mod-
ulus beyond 5 wt% loading of C20A nanoclay is due to
the filler–filler interaction, which results in agglomer-
ates and induced local stress concentration in the nano-
composites and leads to reduction in clay aspect ratio
thereby reducing the contact surface between the C20A
and iPP–TPO matrix.37
Flexural strength and modulus of iPP–TPO/5wt%
OMMT-I nanocomposites and iPP–TPO/5wt%
OMMT-II nanocomposites also showed 36.6%, 54.0%
and 26.6%, 46% increase, respectively, in comparison to
that of iPP–TPO virgin matrix. These results are very
close to the results obtained for iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A
and iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B nanocomposites. An increase
in flexural modulus by up to 5 wt% clay loading is attrib-
uted to the high stiffness of the nanoclay with high aspect
ratio. Beyond 5 wt% loading there is decrease in flexural
modulus similar to the flexural strength. It is probably
due to filler–filler interaction instead of filler–matrix
interaction, which also leads to formation of agglomer-
ates as reported by Rong et al.34
The PP-g-MA compatibilizer was added 5, 10,
and 15 wt% with iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A, iPP–TPO/
5wt%C30B, iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I, and iPP–TPO/
5wt%OMMT-II to obtain fully exfoliated nanocompo-
sites. It is observed that the flexural strength and
modulus increase at 5 wt% with the addition of
compatibilizer (PP-g-MA). In case of iPP–TPO/5wt%
C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA flexural strength and modulus
are 38.1 MPa and 1198 MPa. The similar trend was
observed for the iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B/5wt%PP-g-
MA, iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA, and
iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA nanocom-
posites. In case of iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B/5wt%PP-g-
MA nanocomposites flexural strength and flexural
modulus are 28.5 MPa and 1056.4 MPa. The iPP–TPO/
5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA and iPP–TPO/5wt%
OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA nanocomposites showed
flexural strength and flexural modulus of 36.2 MPa,
1156.6 MPa and 31.4 MPa, 1054.5 MPa, respectively.
It is observed that flexural strength and modulus
are optimum in iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/5wt%PP-g-
MA, iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B/5wt%PP-g-MA, iPP–TPO/
5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA, and iPP–TPO/5wt%
OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA among all the nanocompo-
sites prepared using various composition of organically
modified clay (C20A, C30B, OMMT-I, OMMT-II) and
compatibilizer (PP-g-MA). It indicates that these nano-
composites have well-exfoliated structure. The clay is ion
exchanged (modified) to reduce the cohesive force
between the clay platelets.37 The iPP–TPO matrix is
chemically modified to improve adhesion between the
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
1145
polymer matrix and the clay filler. Compatibilizer (PP-
g-MA) chemically modifies the iPP–TPO and improves
adhesion between the iPP–TPO matrix and clay filler,
whereas the modified clays C20A, C30B, OMMT-I, and
OMMT-II promote the ion exchange, which enhances
exfoliation and better dispersion.
Impact properties. The impact strength of virgin
iPP–TPO and its nanocomposites is also enumerated
in Table 3. It is of iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A increased
from 3 wt% to 5 wt% of C20A loading and decreased
slightly on further addition of 7 wt% C20A. The impact
strength of iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A and iPP–TPO/5wt%
C30B is showing the same values of 124.5 J/m that is
higher than that of iPP–TPO virgin, that is, 81.4 J/m. It
was observed that for C20A there was 53% increase
upto 5wt% and further it was decreases whereas for
C30B the 41.5% increase observed upto 5wt%. The
increase in impact strength is about 53% up to 5 wt%
C20A clay loading. The impact strengths of iPP–TPO/
5wt%OMMT-I and iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II are
118.7 J/m and 106.9 J/m, respectively, which are
higher than that of iPP–TPO virgin, that is, 81.4 J/m.
The increase in impact strength is about 45.7% and
31.3% for iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I and iPP–TPO/
5wt%OMMT-II. On addition of 5–15 wt% PP-g-MA
the optimum value of impact strength of iPP–TPO/
5wt%C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA is 321.7 J/m. The increase
in the impact strength of iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/5wt%
PP-g-MA is about 295%. The similar results are found
for iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B/5wt%PP-g-MA, iPP–TPO/
5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA, and iPP–TPO/5wt%
OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA, that is, 279.5 J/m, 266.8
J/m, and 249.1 J/m, respectively. The iPP–TPO/5wt%
C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA reported the highest impact
strength among all the nanocomposites. There is an
increase in the impact strength with the increase in
organoclay in the presence of PP-g-MA compatibilizer
due to change in behavior from brittle to ductile at
higher TPO content, that is 25 wt%.38 This behavior
is studies by Paul et al.38 and they established the influ-
ence of organoclay and elastomer content on notched
Izod impact strength. For nanocomposites containing
up to 20 wt% elastomer, the addition of organoclay
leads to a decrease in the Izod values for nanocompo-
sites with no elastomer or a slight increase for nano-
composites with elastomer; these materials are
relatively brittle and exhibit complete breakage of the
specimen during the impact test. However, at higher
amounts of elastomer, for example, 25% and 40%,
and as the amount of organoclay exceeds a certain
value, it is generally expected that an increase in filler
content results in the fracture behavior changes from
brittle to ductile. It is generally expected that an
increase in the amount of filler results in a decrease in
1146 Journal of Composite Materials 46(10)

impact strength of composite materials; however, the MA nanocomposites is given in Figure 2(a–e). The
trend is opposite for these nanocomposites, that is, value of diffraction peaks angle and corresponding
the impact strength increases with increasing organo- d-spacing of the nanocomposites is enumerated in
clay content. This unexpected behavior can be Table 5.
explained in terms of morphological changes induced The diffraction peak angle for iPP–TPO/5wt%
by the dispersion of clay particles. A mechanical brit- Na-MMT was obtained at 2 ¼ 6.13 , which corre-
tle–ductile transition generally can be induced either by sponds to interlayer d-spacing of 14.4 Å indicating an
increasing elastomer content or decreasing elastomer interacted nanostructure of iPP–TPO/Na-MMT nano-
particle size. A number of studies on the toughening composites. In this case, iPP–TPO could not have prop-
behavior of PP/rubber composites have suggested that erly intercalated into pristine montmorillonite, which
in addition to dispersed particle size and content, inter- may therefore have resulted in little dispersion of the
particle distance or matrix ligament thickness is also an Na-MMT nanoclay stacks in the iPP–TPO matrix rel-
important morphological parameter that affects the ative to the tightly stacked and much longer range
brittle–ductile transition of these systems.39–41 order in the case of Na-MMT. Whereas the diffraction
peak angle for iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A, iPP–TPO/5wt%
C30B nanocomposites was obtained at 2 ¼ 2.71 ,
Wide angle X-ray diffraction 4.82 , which corresponds to interlayer d-spacing 32.5
Wide angle X-ray diffraction (WAXD) of nanoclays Å and 18.3 Å, respectively, indicating the existence of
Na-MMT, C20A, C30B, OMMT-I and OMMT-II is both intercalated and exfoliated nanomorphologies.
shown in Figure 1(a–e). The value of diffraction
peaks’ angle and corresponding interlayer d001 spacing Table 4. Value of diffraction peaks and corresponding d-spacing
of the nanoclays is enumerated in Table 4. The diffrac- of nanoclay
tion peak angle for Na-MMT was obtained at 2 ¼
Specimen 2 d-Spacing
7.98 , which corresponds to interlayer d-spacing of S. no. Code designation (deg.) (Å)
11.7 Å, whereas the diffraction peak angle for C20A,
C30B, OMMT-I, and OMMT-II was obtained at 2 ¼ 1 A Na-MMT 7.98 11.7
2.94 , 5.61 , 3.71 , and 6.73 , which corresponds to 2 B C30B 5.61 18.5
interlayer d-spacing 24.2 Å, 18.5 Å, 23.7 Å, and 13.1 3 C C20A 2.94 24.2
Å, respectively. 4 D OMMT-I 3.71 23.7
WAXD of iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT, iPP–TPO/ 5 E OMMT-II 6.73 13.1
5wt%C20A, iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B, iPP–TPO/5wt%
C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA, iPP–TPO/C30B/5wt%PP-g-

Figure 2. XRD of (A) iPP-TPO/5wt%Na-MMT, (B) iPP-TPO/

5wt%C20A, (C) iPP-TPO /5wt%C30B, (D) iPP-TPO /5wt%C20A/
Figure 1. XRD of (A) Na-MMT, (B) C20A, (C) C30B, (D) 5wt%PP-g-MA and (E) iPP-TPO /5wt%C30B/5wt.%PP-g-MA
OMMT-I and (E) OMMT-II Nanoclay. Nanocomposites.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
Sharma et al. 1147

Table 5. Values of diffraction peaks and corresponding

d-spacing of iPP-TPO/C20A and C30 B nanocomposites

2y d-Spacing
S. no. Code Specimen designation (deg.) (Å)

1 A iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT 6.13 14.4

2 B iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A 2.71 32.5
3 C iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B 4.82 18.3
4 D iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/ – –
5wt%PP-g-MA
5 E iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B/ – –
5wt%PP-g-MA

However, the absence of diffraction peak of iPP–TPO/

5wt%C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA and iPP–TPO/C30B/
5wt%PP-g-MA nanocomposites clearly indicates exfo-
liated nanomorphology in which maximum amount of
iPP–TPO matrix are entered into interlayers of the
C20A and C30B. The exfoliation of C20A with
PP-g-MA as compared with C30B with PP-g-MA indi- Figure 3. XRD of (A) iPP-TPO/5wt%Na-MMT, (B) iPP-TPO/
cates higher extent of favorable exfoliation. C20A and 5wt%OMMT-I (C) iPP-TPO/5wt%OMMT-II, (D) iPP-TPO/5wt%
C30B have the different organic modifier; grafting den- OMMTI/5wt%PP-g-MA and (E) iPP-TPO/5wt%OMMTII/5wt%
sity (equivalent to CEC) was higher in case of C20A (95 PP-g-MA Nanocomposites.
meq/100 g) than C30B (90 meq/100 g) and grafting
density per unit area of the C20A clay was higher by
factor of 95/90 ¼ 1.05. The peak from XRD studies for Table 6. Values of diffraction peaks and corresponding
all of the intercalated systems was narrow, indicating a d-spacing of iPP-TPO/OMMT-I and OMMT-II nanocomposites
high stacking order of the successive clay layers in the
2y d-Spacing
iPP–TPO matrix. The strong Bragg’s diffraction peaks
S. no. Code Specimen designation (deg.) (Å)
reflected coherent stacking of the clay platelets and,
thus the presence of an order structure in the iPP– 5 A iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT 6.13 14.4
TPO nanocomposites. 2 B iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I 3.10 28.4
WAXD of iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT, iPP–TPO/ 4 C iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II 5.31 16.6
5wt%OMMT-I, iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II, iPP–TPO/ 1 D iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I/ – –
5wt%OMMT-I/15wt%PP-g-MA, and iPP–TPO/5wt% 5wt%PP-g-MA
OMMT-II/15wt%PP-g-MA nanocomposites is given in 3 E iPP–TPO5wt%OMMT-II/ – –
Figure 3(a–e). The values of diffraction peak angle and 5wt%PP-g-MA
corresponding d-spacing of the nanocomposites are
enumerated in Table 6.
The diffraction peak angle for iPP/5wt%Na-MMT higher as compared with OMMT-II and indicates
nanocomposites was obtained at 2 ¼ 6.13 , which cor- favorable exfoliation. This behavior is probably due
responds to interlayer d-spacing of 14.4 Å. Whereas the to the polarity difference of OMMT-I and OMMT-II.
diffraction peak angle for iPP/5wt%OMMT-I and iPP/
5wt%OMMT-I nanocomposites was obtained at 2 ¼
Morphological properties
3.10 , 5.31 , which corresponds to interlayer d-spacing
28.4 Å and 16.6 Å, respectively, indicating the existence Transmission electron microscopy. TEM can further
of both intercalated and exfoliated nanomorphologies. validate and complement the results of WAXD. TEM
However, the absence of diffraction peak of iPP– micrographs of iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT, iPP–TPO/
TPO/5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA and iPP–TPO/ 5wt%C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA iPP–TPO/5wt%C30B/
OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA nanocomposites clearly 5wt%PP-g-MA, iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-
indicates the existence of exfoliated nanomorphology MA, and iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA
in which maximum amount of iPP–TPO matrix entered nanocomposites with 5 wt% of nanoclays are shown
into interlayer of the OMMT-I and OMMT-II. The in Figure 4(a–d), respectively, where the dark area rep-
exfoliation of OMMT-I in presence of PP-g-MA is resents the clay and the gray/white area represent the

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
1148 Journal of Composite Materials 46(10)

iPP–TPO matrix. It is clearly seen that in case of of the clay. The average particle size and their
iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA, iPP–TPO/5wt% corresponding aspect ratio were calculated using TEM
C30B/5wt%PP-g-MA, iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I/5wt% micrograph. The average nanoparticle dimensions in
PP-g-MA, and iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g- nanocomposites are given in Table 7. In case of
MA [Figure 4(b–d)] the organic surfactant has played iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT nanocomposites, the disper-
major role in dispersing the organoclay aggregates. sion of the clay particles was poor and many large
Higher the dispersion of the organoclay aggregates, aggregates of natural clay (in microns) are found to
larger will be the surface area of the silicates layers of bundle together. However, there are also large numbers
organoclay that becomes available for specific interac- of individual clay particles that are smaller than this
tions, that is, maleic anhydride group promoted the agglomerate. This confirms that the poor interaction
H-bonding with hydroxyl group of silicate that reduced between the iPP–TPO matrix polymer and Na-MMT
the interfacial tension. The above interaction between nanoclay would conglomerate to form large aggregate.
the polymer, nanoclay, and compatibilizer was studied
by Nascimento et al.42,43 The compatibilizer reduced
the viscosity and it also helped to reduce an interfacial Table 7. Average nanoparticle dimension in nanocomposites
tension between clay and polymer matrix. This phenom-
enon in turn increases the degree of dispersion (exfolia- Average Average Average
tion) of organoclay aggregates. This well-dispersed length thickness aspect
exfoliated morphology is attributed to the modification Nanoclays (nm), l (nm), t ratio (l/t)
of clay with dimethyl-dehydrogenated tallow quaternary Na-MMT 700  0.32 24  0.26 29  0.20
ammonium chloride (C20A), methyl, tallow, bis-2-hy- C20A 210  0.50 5  0.10 42  0.20
droxyethyl, quaternary ammonium (C30B), p-amino C30B 523  0.67 15  0.10 34  0.80
benzoic acid (OMMT-I), and octadecyalamine
OMMT-I 254  0.45 7  0.45 35  0.20
(OMMT-II), which lowers the electrostatic interaction
OMMT-II 560  0.85 18  0.23 31  0.56
between the clay layers, enlarges their intergallery spac-
ing, thus, facilitating exfoliation and efficient dispersion Note:  indicates the standard deviation.

Figure 4. (a) iPP-TPO/ 5wt%C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA (b) iPP-TPO/ 5wt%C30B/5wt%PP-g-MA (c) iPP-TPO/5wt% OMMT-I /5wt%
PP-g-MA (d) TEM micrographs of iPP-TPO/ 5wt% OMMT-II /5wt%PP-g-MA.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
Sharma et al.
However, in case of iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/5wt%PP-g-
MA nanocomposites, the C20A layers dispersed in the
matrix are about 210 nm in length and 5 nm in thickness
corresponding to a highest aspect ratio of 4244 indicat-
ing an exfoliated nanostructure as compared with iPP–
TPO/5wt%C30B, iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I, and iPP–
TPO/5wt%OMMT-II having particle aspect ratios of
34, 35, and 31, respectively, and result in intercalated
nanomorphology. However, iPP–TPO/C30B/5wt%PP-
g-MA, iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA, and
iPP–TPO/5wt%OMMT-II/5wt%PP-g-MA composites
show the layers of clays well dispersed in the matrix
indicating an exfoliated nanostructure. TEM micro-
graph of iPP–TPO/5wt%C20A/5wt%PP-g-MA, iPP–
TPO/5wt%C30B/5wt%PP-g-MA, iPP–TPO/5wt%
OMMT-I/5wt%PP-g-MA, and iPP–TPO/5wt%
OMMT-II/5wt% PP-g-MA reveals that most of the
dispersed particles are thin tactoids containing several
silicate layers with few single platelets and the exfoli-
ated platelets are well aligned in flow direction.
Conclusions
Ethylene octane copolymer–PP blend was optimized at
30 wt% of ethylene octane copolymer with PP and the
same ratio was kept constant for preparing ethylene
octane copolymer–PP nanocomposites. The nanocom-
posites were prepared with organically modified nano-
clay (C20A, C30B) in the ratio of 3, 5, and 7 wt%. The
compatibilizer PP-g-MA was used to get the exfoliated
nanocomposites in the ratio of 5, 10, and 15 wt% for
C20A and C30B nanocomposites. The mechanical
properties of iPP–TPO/5wt%Na-MMT prepared in
twin-screw extruder at 100 rpm are optimum due to
moderate shear rate and residence time in twin-screw
extruder. For iPP–TPO with C20A and C30B nano-
composites, there is an increase of tensile strength and
tensile modulus at 5 wt% for C20A and C30B in com-
parison with that of iPP–TPO virgin. In case of
OMMT-I and OMMT-II, the optimum properties
were obtained at 5 wt%. On addition of PP-g-MA,
the optimum properties were achieved at 5 wt% for
C20A, C30B, OMMT-I, and OMMT-II nanocompo-
sites. This is probably due to these nanocomposites
having immobilized or partially mobilized phase as a
consequence of interaction of organic modification of
clays and large number of interacting molecules due to
dispersed phase volume ratio characteristics of largely
intercalated/exfoliated nanocomposites. The nanocom-
posites prepared using OMMT-I and OMMT-II
showed similar tensile strength and modulus. The ten-
sile strength and modulus of iPP/5wt%OMMT-I are
43.3 MPa and 948.6 MPa; tensile strength and modulus
of iPP/5wt%OMMT-II are 41.1 MPa and 904.3 MPa.
The XRD and TEM studies also confirm the
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
1149
formation of partially/fully exfoliated structure of
nanocomposites.
References
1. Okada A, Fukushima Y, Kawasumi M, Inagaki S, Usuk A,
Sugiyami S, et al. US Patent No. 4739007; 1988 [assigned to
Toyota Motor Co., Japan].
2. Reichert P, Nitz H, Klinke S, Brandsch R, Thomann R
and Mulhaupt R. Poly (propylene)/organoclay nanocom-
posites formation: Influence of comptabilizer functional-
ity and organoclay modification. Macromol Mater Eng
2000; 275: 8–17.
3. Vaia RA and Giannelis EP. Polymer nanocomposites:
status and opportunities. MRS Bull 2001; 26(5): 394–401.
4. Dennis HR, Hunter DL, Chang D, Kim S, White JL and
Cho JW. Effect of melt processing conditions on the
extent of exfoliation in organoclay-based nanocompo-
sites. Polymer 2001; 42(23): 9513–9522.
5. Kawasumi M, Hasegawa N, Kato M, Usuki A and
Okada A. Preparation and Mechanical Properties of
Polypropylene–Clay Hybrids. Macromolecules 1997;
30(20): 6333–6338.
6. Hasegawa N, Kawasumi M, Kato M, Usuki A and
Okada A. Preparation and mechanical properties of
polypropylene–clay hybrids using a maleic anhydride-
modified polypropylene oligomer. J Appl Polym Sci
1998; 67(1): 87–92.
7. LeBaron PC, Wang Z and Pinnavaia T. Polymer-layered
silicate nanocomposites: an overview. J Appl Clay Sci
1999; 15(1–2): 11–29.
8. Garces JM, Moll DJ, Bicerano J, Fibiger R and
McLeod DG. Polymeric Nanocomposites for
Automotive Applications. Adv Mater 2000; 12(23):
1835–1839.
9. Hasegawa N, Okamoto H, Kawasumi M, Kato M,
Tsukigase A and Usuki A. Polyolefin Clay hybrid based
on modified polyolefin and organoclay. Macromol Mater
Eng 2000; 280/281: 76–79.
10. Ishida H, Campbell S and Blackwell J. General approach
to nanocomposite preparation. J Chem Mater 2000;
12(5): 1260–1267.
11. Liu X and Wu Q. PP/clay nanocomposites prepared by
grafting-melt intercalation. Polymer 2001; 42(25):
10013–10019.
12. Marchant D and Jayaraman K. Strategies for Optimizing
Polypropylene–Clay Nanocomposite Structure. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2002; 41(25): 6402–6408.
13. Garcia-Lopez D, Picazo O, Merino JC and Pastor JM.
Propylene-Clay naocomposites: Effect of compatibilizing
agents on clay dispersion. Eur Polym J 2003; 39(5):
945–950.
14. Hasegawa N and Usuki A. Silicate layer exfoliation in
polyolefin/clay nanocomposites based on maleic anhy-
dride modified polyolefins and organophilic clay. J Appl
Polym Sci 2004; 93(1): 464–470.
15. Ellis TS and D’Angelo JS. Synthesis and Properties of
Nylon-6/clay Hybrids. J Appl Polym Sci 2003; 90(6):
1639–1647.
1150
16. Karger-Kocsis J (ed.) Polypropylene: Structure, blends
and composites. Cambridge: Chapman & Hall, 1995.
17. Garcia-Martinez JM, Laguna O, Areso S and Collar EP.
Polypropylene/mica composites modified by succinic
anhydride-grafted atactic polypropylene: a thermal and
mechanical study under dynamic conditions. J Appl
polym Sci 2001; 81: 625–36.
18. Stamhuis JE. Mechanical properties and morphology of
polypropylene composites. III. Short glass fiber rein-
forced elastomer modified polypropylene. Polym
Compos 1998; 9(4): 280–284.
19. Garcia-Martinez JM, Laguna O, Areso S and Collar EP.
FTIR Quantitative characterization of chemically modi-
fied polypropylene containing succinic acid grafted
group. J Polym Sci, Part B: Polym Phys 2002; 40(13):
1371–1382.
20. Data provided by D.L. Hunter of Southern Clay
Products Inc.
21. Jancar J and Dibenedetto AT. The mechanical properties
of ternary composites of polypropylene with inorganic
fillers and elastomer inclusions. J Mater Sci 1994;
29(17): 4651–4658.
22. Jang BZ, Uhlmann DR and Vander Sande JB.
Rubber-toughening in polypropylene. J Appl Polym Sci
1985; 30(6): 2485–2504.
23. Long Y and Shanks RA. PP/elastomer/filler hybrids. II.
Morphologies and fracture. J Appl Polym Sci 1996; 62(4):
639–646.
24. Premphet-Sirisinha K and Preechachon. Changes in mor-
phology and properties by grafting reaction in PP/EOR/
CaCO3 ternary composites. J Appl Polym Sci 2003;
89(13): 3557–3562.
25. Ou Y-C, Guo T-T, Fang X-P and Yu Z-Z. Toughening
and reinforcing polypropylene with core-shell structured
fillers. J Appl Polym Sci 1999; 74(10): 2397–2403.
26. Li Y, Wei G-X and Sue H-J. Morphology and toughen-
ing mechanisms in clay-modified styrene-butadiene-styr-
ene rubber-toughened polypropylene. J Mater Sci 2002;
37(12): 2447–2459.
27. Zi-Kang Zhu, Yong Yang, Jie Yin, Xin-Yu Wang,
Yang-Chuan Ke and Zong-Neng. Preparation and prop-
erties of organosoluble montmorillonite/polyimide
hybrid materials. J Appl Polym Sci 1999; 73(11):
2063–2068.
28. Bing Han, Gending Ji, Shishan Wu and Jian Shen.
Preparation and characterization of nylon 66/montmoril-
lonite nanocomposites with co-treated montmorillonite.
Euro Polym J 2003; 39(8): 1641–1646.
29. W. Lertwimolnun and B. Vergnes. Influence of compati-
bilizer and processing conditions on the dispersion of
nanoclay in a polypropylene matrix, Polymer, 2005; 46;
3462.
30. Ray SS and Okamoto M. Polymer-layered silicate nano-
composite: a review from preparation to processing. Prog
Polym Sci 2003; 28: 1539–1641.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 16, 2015
Journal of Composite Materials 46(10)
31. Xie W, Gao Z, Liu K, Pan W-P, Vaia R and Hunter D.
Thermal characterization of organically modified mon-
tmorillonite. Thermochim Acta 2001; 367/368: 339–350.
32. Fischer H. Polymer nanocomposites: from fundamental
research to specific applications. Mater Sci Eng C 2003;
23: 763–772.
33. Morawiec J, Pawlak A, Slouf M, Galeski A, Piorkowska E
and Kransnikowa N. Preparation and properties of com-
patibilized LDPE/organo-modified montmorillonite
nanocomposites. Eur Polym J 2005; 41: 1115–1122.
34. Rong MZ, Zhang MQ, Zhang YX, Zeng HM,
Watter R and Fredrich K. Structure-property rela-
tionships of irradiation grafted nano-inorganic particle
filled polypropylene nanocomposites, Polymer, 2001;
42; 167.
35. Alexandre M and Dubois P. Polymer-layered silicate
nanocomposites: preparation, properties and uses of a
new class of materials. Mater Sci Eng 2000; R 28:
1–63.
36. Manias E, Touny A, Wu L, Strawhecker K, Lu B and
Chung TC. Polypropylene/montmorillonite nanocompo-
sites. Review of the synthetic routes and materials proper-
ties. Chem Mater 2001; 13: 3516–3523.
37. Dasari A, Lim SH, Yu ZZ and Mai Y. Aust Toughening,
thermal stability, flame retardancy and scratch/wear
resistance of polymer/clay nanocomposites – a review. J
Chem 2007; 60: 496.
38. Cho JW and Paul DR. Nylon 6 nanocomposites by melt
compounding. Polymer 2001; 42: 1083–1094.
39. Masami Okamoto. In: Nalwa HS (ed.) Encyclopedia of
nanoscience and nanotechnology, pp. 91–843.
40. Rong MZ, Zhang MQ, Zhang YX, Zeng HM, Watter R
and Fredrich K. Structure-property relationships of irra-
diation grafted nano-inorganic particle filled polypropy-
lene nanocomposites. Polymer 2001; 42: 167.
41. Messersmith PB and Giannelis EP. Synthesis and barrier
properties of poly (-caprolactone)-layered silicate nano-
composites. J Polym Sci Part A Polym Chem 1995; 33:
1047–1057.
42. Auriemma E and DeRosa C. Crystallization of
Metallocene-Made Isotactic Polypropylene: Disordered
Modifications Intermediate between the a and g Forms.
Macromolecules 2002; 35: 9057.
43. Jui-Ming Yeh, Shir-Joe Liou, Mei-Chun Lai,
Yu-Wen Chang, Cheng-Yu Huang, Chen-Ping Chen,
Jenn-Huey Jaw, Tsung-Yen Tsai, Yuan-Hsiang Yu.
Comparative Studies of the Properties of Poly(methyl
methacrylate)-Clay Nanocomposite Materials Prepared by
In Situ Emulsion Polymerization and Solution Dispersion.
J. Applied Polymer Science, 2004; 94; 0; 1936–1946.
44. Nayak SK, Smita Mohanty, Samal S, Mechanical and
thermal properties enhancement of polycarbonate nano-
composites prepared by melt compounding. J. Applied
Polymer Science, 2010; 117; 2101–2112.