j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l .

2 0 1 9;8(4):3389–3398

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.jmrt.com.br

Original Article

Impact-resistant polypropylene/thermoplastic
polyurethane blends: compatible effects of maleic
anhydride on thermal degradation properties and
crystallization behaviors

Ting An Lin a,b , Bao Limin a , Mei-Chen Lin a,b , Jan-Yi Lin b , Ching-Wen Lou c,d,e,f,g ,
Jia-Horng Lin e,f,g,h,i,j,k,∗
a Department of Science and Technology, Graduate School of Medicine, Science and Technology, Shinshu University, Nagano Prefecture,
390-8621, Japan.
b Laboratory of Fiber Application and Manufacturing, Department of Fiber and Composite Materials, Feng Chia University, Taichung

City, 40724, Taiwan.

c Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
d Department of Bioinformatics and Medical Engineering, Asia University, Taichung, 41354, Taiwan
e Innovation Platform of Intelligent and Energy-Saving Textiles, School of Textiles, Tianjin Polytechnic University, Tianjin, 300387, China
f College of Textile and Clothing, Qingdao University, Shangdong, 266071, China
g Fujian Key Laboratory of Novel Functional Textile Fibers and Materials, Minjiang University, Fuzhou, 350108, China.
h School of Chinese Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung City, 40402, Taiwan.
i Department of Fiber and Composite Materials, Feng Chia University, Taichung City, 40724, Taiwan
j Department of Fashion Design, Asia University, Taichung City, 41354, Taiwan
k Tianjin and Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Advanced Textile Composite Materials, Tianjin Polytechnic University, Tianjin,

300387, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 17 September 2018
Accepted 5 March 2019
Available online 8 June 2019
Keywords:
Impact-resistant polypropylene
Thermoplastic polyurethane
Maleic anhydride
Thermogravimetric analysis
Derivative thermogravimetry
Blends
Crystallization
In this study, impact-resistant polypropylene (MPP), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) and
polypropylene-grafted maleic anhydride (MA) are made into MPP/TPU/MA blends using
melt-compounding and injection methods. The blending morphology, crystallization behav-
ior, and melting and thermal behaviors of the blends are evaluated in terms of the content of
TPU and MA, examining the influences of the parameters. The scanning electron microscope
(SEM) observation shows that 1 wt% of MA can effectively enhance the interfacial adhesion
and compatibility between MPP and TPU. The differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) results
show that the crystallization temperature and melting temperature of the blends are not
dependent on the content of TPU or MA. However, using TPU and MA adversely affect the
crystalline and melting enthalpy of the blends. The thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and
derivative thermogravimetry (DTG) curve both show that the higher the MPP, the greater the
thermal stability of TPU. Likewise, using MA as compatibilizer also has a positive influence
on the thermal stability of the blends. The X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses confirm that the

∗
Corresponding author at: China Medical University
E-mail: jhlin@fcu.edu.tw (J. Lin).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.03.015
2238-7854/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
3390 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(4):3389–3398

addition of TPU decreases the diffraction intensity of MPP, but does not harm the crystalline
structure of MPP. Moreover, the addition of MA improves the compatibility between MPP
and TPU. MA marginally decreases the peak value and does not influence the crystallinity
degree of MPP. It is expected that the results of SEM, DSC, TGA, DTG, and XRD can serve as a
valuable reference for the design of composites with improved thermal and crystallization
behaviors.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction 2. Experimental

Polypropylene (PP) is a semi-crystalline and thermoplastic 2.1. Materials

polymer. It is a compound of repeatedly arranged propylene
units with a higher crystallization due to the well-arranged
molecular chains. PP is characterized with advantages,
including ease of processing, chemical resistance, high rigid-
ity, a light weight and a low cost, as well the disadvantages,
including high shrinkage ratio, high brittleness at lower
temperatures, and low impact resistance [1–5]. The modifi-
cation of adding soft ethylene units to PP reduces the degree
of crystallinity, strengthening the impact resistance of PP.
Likewise, adding thermoplastic elastomer to PP also enhances
the impact resistance of PP [6–8]. Thermoplastic polyurethane
(TPU) is composed of multi-block copolymer where soft
segments and hard segments are crossed. The soft and hard
segments are incompatible, which leads to phase separation.
Namely, the hard segments are separately distributed in soft
segments because hard segments are physical-crosslinking
agglomerates via intramolecular hydrogen bonding. Soft seg-
ments are composed of flexible polyol of ester groups or ether
group, providing the composite with rubber-like elasticity.
Hard segments are composed of urethane that is a result
of reaction between diisocyanate and diols, contributing
mechanical reinforcement to the composites [9,10].
Polymer blending is a well-developed manufacturing pro-
cess with features of efficient production, ease of processing,
and good controllability [11–14]. It can effectively modify and
adjust the properties of polymer in order to have greater
mechanical, thermal, and physical properties, and thus has
been commonly used to make functional polymer materials
[9,15]. However, the differences in polarity as well as poor
interfacial compatibility between PP and TPU provide PP/TPU
blends with less comparable functionalities to that of pure
PP or TPU [16]. PP-g-MA, PE-g-MA, and PP-g-NH2 , are used as
a compatilizer in order to improve the interfacial compati-
bility and difference in polarity between the immiscible and
incompatible polyolefins polymers (PP) and TPU [17–21]. In the
present study, MPP and TPU are blended at different ratios,
after which 0, 1, 3, or 5 wt% MA is added as a compatilizer.
The blending morphology, melting behavior, crystallization
behavior, and thermal properties of the MPP/TPU/MA blends
are evaluated, examining the influence of the content of TPU
on the blending morphology of MPP matrix as well as the
influence of the content of MA on the interfacial compatibility
between MPP and TPU.
Impact-resistant polypropylene (MPP) (Prime Polymer, Tai-
wan) is a copolymer that has good impact resistance, a
melt index of 14 g/10 min (230 ◦ C, 2.16 kg) (ISO1133), and
a density of 0.91 g/cm3 . Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)
(Headway Polyurethane, Taiwan) is an ester-type copoly-
mer that has a melt index of 7.03 g/10 min (175 ◦ C, 2.16 kg)
and a density of 1.23 g/cm3 . Polypropylene grafted maleic
anhydride (MA) (DuPont, US) is a PP pellet that is mod-
ified using maleic anhydride, and has a melt index of
49 g/10 min (190 ◦ C, 1.0 kg) (ISO1133) and a density of
0.903 g/cm3 .
2.2. Manufacturing process of MPP/TPU/MA blends
A single-screw extruder (SEVC-45, Re-Plast Extruder Corp., Tai-
wan) is used for the preparation of MPP/TPU/MA blends. The
melt-compounding method is used to produce MPP/TPU/MA
blends. The ratios of MPP to TPU are 90:10, 80:20, 70:30,
and 60:40. The content of MA is 0, 1, 3, and 5 wt%. The
temperatures of the four processing stages in order are
200, 210, 210, and 210 ◦ C. The rotary speed is 25 rpm.
Fig. 1 shows the manufacturing process of MPP/TPU/MA
blends.
2.3. Tests
2.3.1. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
A scanning electron microscope (SEM, Phenom Pure+, Phe-
nom World, Jing Teng Tech, Taiwan) is used to observe
the fractured cross-section of sixteen types of MPP/TPU/MA
blends. The distribution of TPU in the PP matrix is observed.
Moreover, the blending morphology and particle size are
observed in order to examine the influence of the content of
MA.
2.3.2. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)
A differential scanning calorimeter (DSC, Q20, TA Instruments,
USA) is used to measure the difference in enthalpy. The DSC
analyses show how TPU affects the crystallization behavior
and melting behavior of MPP, the results of which are used
to compare to the crystallization and melting properties of
MPP/TPU/MA blends.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(4):3389–3398
Fig. 1 – Schematic diagram of manufacturing process of MPP/TPU/MA blends.
2.3.3. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and derivative
thermogravimetry (DTG)
TGA is used to investigate the relationship between the
weight of sample and the difference in temperature, examin-
ing the thermal stability of polymer. Samples are placed in the
ceramic plate of the scale, and then heated at increments of
10 ◦ C/min until 600 ◦ C in an oven filled with nitrogen. The TGA
results indicate how the content of TPU influences the thermal
stability of MPP. To further explore the weight of MPP/TPU/MA
blends, the TGA curve is computed with first order of differ-
ential to obtain the DTG curve, and the inflection point of TGA
reflects the highest peak value of DTG curve.
2.3.4. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
Samples are trimmed to be 1 cm × 1 cm, and then scanned at
2◦ /min in a range of 10–30◦ using an XRD tester. The diffrac-
tion peaks of the materials are recorded, thereby determining
whether the amorphous TPU has an impact on the structure
crystalline phase of MPP.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. SEM observation
The fractured samples are collected from the impact test.
The morphology of the fractured site is observed using SEM
images. There are four MMP/TPU ratios (90/10, 80/20, 70/30,
and 60/40 as seen in four rows in Fig. 2) and four MA contents
(0, 1, 3, 5 wt% as seen in four columns in Fig. 2), creating six-
teen types of MMP/TPU/MA blends. With zero MA, increasing
the TPU content provides the blends with a rough surface and
a large TPU granule size (Fig. 2(a, e, i, and m)) [22]. MPP is a
non-polar polymer while TPU is a polar polymer. Due to the
differences in polarity and interfacial tension, MPP and TPU
are two polymers that are incompatible. For the groups with
30 or 40 wt% of TPU (Fig. 2(i and m)), the TPU granules resemble
narrow fibers. This phenomenon is ascribed to the interaction
force under a flow field caused by the single-screw extruder
[2]. Moreover, 30 or 40 wt% TPU also intrigue the apparent
presence of voids, which is evidence that the poor adhesion
triggers TPU granule to detach from the MPP matrix [9,23].
3391
Regardless whether the MA content is 1, 3, or 5 wt% the
blends that are made with MPP/TPU ratios of 90/10 and 80/20
(Fig. 2(b–d, f, g, and h)) display a multi-layer structure and
random cracks, suggesting that using MA as an effective com-
patilizer that improves the surface tension between the TPU
and MPP. Moreover, the absence of intra-layer shadow indi-
cates shortened distance between laminates. As MPP and TPU
do not have jointed chemical bonds, MA is used to improve the
polarity of MPP as well as to react with isocyanate that is the
dissociated urethane bond of TPU during the melt-blending
process, thereby forming grafting copolymer between MPP and
TPU’s interphase, eventually enhancing the diverse function-
alities of the blends.
Fig. 2(i–l) shows images of the MPP/TPU/MA blends with
specified 30 wt% of TPU and 0, 1, 3, and 5 wt% of MA. A high MA
content contributes to the interfacial compatibility between
MPP and TPU. With the content of MA increasing from 0 wt%
to 5 wt%, the size of TPU particles significantly decreases and
the blends have an even morphology, proving that using MA as
a compatilizer improves interfacial bonding between TPU and
MPP. In particular, 3 wt% of MA exhibits the optimal improve-
ment on the interfacial compatibility [24]. However, for 60/40
group (Fig. 2(m–p)), the addition of 1 or 3 wt% of MA can-
not inhibit the large size and detachment of TPU granules
until 5 wt% of MA is used. 5 wt% MA is found to stabilize the
interfacial bonding between MPP/TPU/MA blends composed of
40 wt% of TPU [25]. To sum up, MA is an effective compatilizer
for immiscible and incompatible TPU and MPP, and using MA
is even more crucial when the MPP and TPU are blended with
similar amounts. Moreover, isocyanate that is caused by the
interaction of MA and TPU also contributes to the adhesion of
MPP and TPU as well as better transmission of stresses [26].
3.2. Differential scanning calorimetric (DSC) analyses
Fig. 3 shows the crystalline and melting behavior of
MPP/TPU/MA blends, and Table 1 shows the crystallization
temperatures, crystallization enthalpy, melting temperature,
and melting enthalpy. MPP and TPU are both co-polymers.
When they are melt-blended, the melting and crystallization
properties of the blends are subjected to the influences exerted
by the intrinsic properties. Polypropylene is a compound of
3392 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(4):3389–3398

Fig. 2 – SEM images (500×) of MPP/TPU/MA blends with various compositions.

propylene as monomers and is semi-crystalline polymer with
a high rigidness but low impact resistance. MPP is the modified
polypropylene that is polymerized with a few amount of flex-
ible ethylene unit. MPP thus has improved impact resistance
at low temperatures and reduced arrangement of crystallinity.
The crystalline characterization peak occurs at 62.51 ◦ C for
TPU and 130.02 ◦ C for MPP, and the melting peaks occur at
145.56 ◦ C for TPU and 165.64 ◦ C for MPP. The marginal dif-
ference in enthalpy of TPU causes insignificant peak values.
In addition, the crystalline and melting enthalpy of pure
TPU (100 wt%) are 5.59 and 7.80 J/g, and those for pure MPP
(100 wt%) are 83.70 and 87.22 J/g.
Fig. 3(A) shows that the crystallization temperature of
MPP/TPU/MA blends is not dependent on the content of TPU,
but the crystallization enthalpy decreases when the con-
tent of TPU increases [27]. The phenomenon is ascribed to
the fact that MPP is polypropylene with a low crystallization
level and TPU is non-crystalline polymers. The soft segments
of TPU account for a greater ratio in the system, and their
dynamic flow enter the crystalline phase and disorganized
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(4):3389–3398 3393

Fig. 3 – Crystalline and melting behaviors of MPP/TPU/MA blends, (A) (a) MPP/TPU/MA blends without addition of MA, (B) (b)
MPP90/TPU10 blends, (C) (c) MPP80/TPU20 blends, (D) (d) MPP70/TPU30 blends, and (E) (e) MPP60/TPU40 blends, with
addition of 0, 1, 3 and 5 wt% MA.
3394 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(4):3389–3398

Table 1 – Melting and crystalline behaviors of MPP/TPU/MA blends.

Crystallization Crystallization Melting Melting
temperature (◦ C) enthalpy (J/g) temperature (◦ C) enthalpy (J/g)

TPU100 62.51 5.59 145.56 7.797

MPP100 130.02 83.70 165.64 87.22

PP90/TPU10
MA-0 129.56 83.61 165.77 88.27
MA-1 130.15 77.09 165.61 79.21
MA-3 128.12 71.87 166.21 72.3
MA-5 127.66 84.12 165.19 85.29

PP80/TPU20
MA-0 130.43 70.97 166.05 75.65
MA-1 128.64 76.82 165.33 79.5
MA-3 128.28 72.86 165.39 75.27
MA-5 127.28 77.15 165.14 80.04

PP70/TPU30
MA-0 128.32 70.32 165.07 75.52
MA-1 128.66 73.33 165.37 75.30
MA-3 127.16 77.30 165.09 81.36
MA-5 126.78 70.70 165.18 74.23

PP60/TPU40
MA-0 126.59 56.37 165.07 60.83
MA-1 127.52 58.57 165.12 62.82
MA-3 126.79 58.54 164.68 64.01
MA-5 126.01 67.18 164.93 70.67

structure of MPP. Consequently, the mobility and diffusion
of MPP chains decrease [26]. The crystallization enthalpy of
MPP60/TPU40/MA0 is 56.37 J/g, which is 27.3% lower than that
of pure MPP.
Fig. 3(B–E) shows the crystalline behavior of MPP90/TPU10,
MPP80/TPU20, MPP70/TPU30, and MPP60/TPU40 as related
to different amounts of MA. MA has a marginally negative
influence on the crystalline enthalpy of MPP/TPU/MA blends,
indicating that the crystalline enthalpy of the system primar-
ily depends on MPP, rather than TPU. Based on Table 1 and
Fig. 3(a), increasing TPU only slightly left-shifts the melting
temperature of the MPP/TPU/MA blends, but the reduction
in melting enthalpy makes the melting characterization peak
flatter [9]. Moreover, adding TPU deteriorates the ␣-relaxation
peak of MPP as great amount of TPU adversely affects the
mobility of the crystalline-phase chains and the heat fusion
of MPP [26].
Fig. 3(b–e) shows that the presence of MA does not affect
the melting temperature of the blends, and more TPU renders
the melting enthalpy with a decreasing trend. Being a non-
crystalline polymer, more TPU damages the crystallization
structure of MPP that serves as continuous-phase polypropy-
lene in the blends. Consequently, it requires only a low heat
to break molecular bonding. During the melt-blending pro-
cess, the soft segments of TPU in a dynamic flow enter the
amorphous domain, which damages the molecular interac-
tion of MPP. The enhanced activity and flexibility of MPP
soft segments undermines the overall crystallization ability
[28].
3.3. TGA and DTG
Table 2 shows the thermal degradation temperature with cor-
responding weight loss; Fig. 4 shows the TGA and DTG results
of MPP/TPU/MA blends. The pure TPU and pure MPP have two-
step thermal degradation and one-step thermal degradation,
respectively. Two-step thermal degradation of TPU occurs at
302.6 ◦ C and then 395 ◦ C, which respectively show the degrada-
tion of hard segments and soft segments. The decomposition
of urethane bonds may cause the dissociation of isocyanate,
alcohol, primary amines, olefins, and carbon dioxide [26].
Moreover, MPP reaches the highest thermal decomposition
peak at 445 ◦ C, which starts from the formation of free rad-
icals and ends at chain scission. Given the aforementioned
discussion, MPP has greater thermal stability than TPU [26].
Table 2 and Fig. 4(A) (a) show that except for MPP90/TPU10
blends, the thermal degradation of the remaining
MPP/TPU/MA blends is divided into three stages. MPP90/TPU10
blends exhibit an unclear second-stage thermal decomposi-
tion that is mostly like to be the decomposition of remaining
hard segments in the first-stage thermal decomposition,
which is surmised due to the limited 10 wt% of TPU. Notice-
ably, more TPU retards the occurring of the first- and
third-stage thermal decomposition, but advances the occur-
ring of the second-stage thermal decomposition. The first
stage of thermal decomposition involves the hard segments
and the second stage involves the breakage of molecular
chain of MPP. MPP has relatively higher thermal stability
and helps postpone decomposition of urethane bonds of
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(4):3389–3398 3395

Fig. 4 – TGA and DTG analysis of MPP/TPU/MA blends, (A) (a) MPP/TPU/MA blends without addition of MA, (B) (b)
MPP90/TPU10 blends, (C) (c) MPP80/TPU20 blends, (D) (d) MPP70/TPU30 blends, and (E) (e) MPP60/TPU40 blends, with
addition of 0, 1, 3 and 5 wt% MA.
3396 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(4):3389–3398

Table 2 – Degradation temperatures and weight loss of MPP/TPU/MA blends.

1st Weight loss 2nd Weight loss 3rd Weight loss
degradation (wt%) degradation (wt%) degradation (wt%)
temperature temperature temperature
(◦ C) (◦ C) (◦ C)

TPU100 302.59 14.18 395.29 66.72 –

MPP100 – – – – 441.09 70.82

PP90/TPU10
MA-0 338.77 4.82 – – 456.94 58.82
MA-1 341.64 5.65 – – 456.79 60.46
MA-3 348.78 5.66 – – 456.97 61.15
MA-5 350.67 8.52 – – 456.61 60.18

PP80/TPU20
MA-0 314.28 4.07 352.11 10.84 459.62 58.94
MA-1 317.93 3.76 356.99 11.00 462.49 63.75
MA-3 319.60 4.86 356.60 12.82 460.38 63.80
MA-5 323.68 4.03 357.72 10.39 461.94 62.64

PP70/TPU30
MA-0 321.08 5.62 365.59 16.35 467.06 66.35
MA-1 324.76 5.56 363.13 14.26 467.58 65.25
MA-3 322.81 5.59 364.22 15.25 466.57 65.70
MA-5 326.61 5.02 368.71 13.75 470.58 65.42

PP60/TPU40
MA-0 329.05 6.69 377.45 20.24 470.56 69.38
MA-1 321.53 6.53 382.45 23.26 471.68 71.90
MA-3 324.58 3.81 375.35 11.69 468.79 63.38
MA-5 325.82 4.73 374.71 15.04 468.80 65.99

TPU hard segments. Additionally, the advanced second-stage
decomposition is due to the high crystallization of MPP’s
molecular chains, which damages the molecular chain of
TPU’s soft segments. The temperature of thermal decom-
position thus has an advanced presence, and the thermal
stability of soft segments is reduced. Although MPP and TPU
are incompatible, MPP still distinctively improves the thermal
stability of TPU [26].
Table 2 and Fig. 4(B–E) (b–e) show that it is positive to
use MA to MPP80/TPU20 and MPP70/TPU30 blends in terms
of improving the thermal stability and postponing the ther-
mal decomposition at higher temperature. However, using MA
only slightly decreases the thermal stability of MPP60/TPU40
blends, and does not influence that of MPP90/TPU10 blends.
Namely, the compatilizer can reduce the difference in polar-
ity as well as interfacial interaction, reinforcing the adhesion
of two materials. When MPP and TPU are blended with
a similar amount (i.e. MPP60/TPU40), a limited amount of
compatilizer is unable to adhere the immiscible materials.
Moreover, compared to pure TPU and pure MPP, MPP/TPU/MA
blends composed of more TPU and less MPP have a lower
weight loss, suggesting that MPP’s high thermal stability pos-
itively improve TPU’s low thermal stability.
3.4. XRD analyses
Fig. 5 shows the XRD analyses of MPP/TPU/MA blends, indi-
cating that MPP has high degree of crystallinity and TPU has
low degree of crystallinity. MPP is semi-crystalline isotactic
and has characteristic peaks of a stable monoclinic system
(␣-phase). TPU is amorphous polymer and observed to have
a low peak value that is a result of superimposed amorphous
diffraction halo [7,29]. Fig. 5(A) shows that pure MPP exhibits
the Bragg diffraction peak values of (1 1 0), (0 4 0), (1 3 0), (1 1 1),
and (1 3 1) when 2Â is at 14.1◦ , 16.8◦ , 18.5◦ , 21.3◦ , and 21.8◦ .
By contrast, TPU exhibits a broad diffraction peaks with a
center of 20.7◦ when 2Â is between 16◦ and 26◦ [30]. In addi-
tion, the intensity of characteristic peaks decreases when the
MPP/TPU/MA blends are composed of more TPU. This finding is
attributed to the amorphous TPU: more TPU exerts a negative
influence on the crystalline structure of the semi-crystalline
MPP, decreasing the crystallinity and peak intensity.
Fig. 5(B–E) shows that the control group (i.e. 0 wt% of MA)
and experimental group have similarly slight decrease in char-
acterization peak values. The urethane bond of TPU graft
reacts with MA to form isocyanate, which occurs in amor-
phous phase and does not affect MPP’s crystalline structure.
The purpose of adding MA is only to improve the difference
in polarity and interfacial tension between MPP and TPU. The
positive influence on the diffraction peaks is too marginal to
discuss, making MA an irrelative factor in this case. In sum,
TPU (dispersive phase) and MA (the compatilizer) are both
excluded being a nucleating agent for MPP (continuous phase)
and there are no dominant influences on the crystalline struc-
ture but only marginal improvement on characteristic peak
intensity.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(4):3389–3398 3397

Fig. 5 – XRD analysis of MPP/TPU/MA blends, (A) MPP/TPU/MA blends without addition of MA, (B) MPP90/TPU10 blends, (C)
MPP80/TPU20 blends, (D) MPP70/TPU30 blends, and (E) MPP60/TPU40 blends, with addition of 0, 1, 3 and 5 wt% MA.

temperature. Based on the results of TGA and DTG, the

4. Conclusion thermal stability of TPU is proportional to the content of
MPP. The compatilizer has a positive influence on the struc-
This study manufactures MPP/TPU/MA blends with con-
tural stability, improving the thermal stability. XRD analyses
tinuous phase material (MPP), dispersive phase material
show that though adding TPU helps with the diffraction
(TPU), and a compatilizer (MA) using melt-blending and
intensity of MPP, TPU does not serve as a nucleating agent
injection method. The blending morphology and thermal,
that affects the crystalline structure of MPP. The addition
melting, and crystalline behavior of the blends are investi-
of MA facilitates the poor interfacial compatibility between
gated. SEM results indicate that 1 wt% of MA significantly
the immiscible MPP and TPU, while improving the crys-
improves the adhesion between incompatible TPU and MPP.
tallinity degree and peak intensity. The experimental design
DSC results indicate that TPU and MA only slightly decrease
is adjustable and expected to meet the demands of diverse
the crystalline and melting enthalpy of the blends, but are
applications.
proved not to be correlated with the crystalline and melting
3398 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(4):3389–3398
Acknowledgements
The authors would especially like to thank Ministry of Sci-
ence and Technology, Taiwan, for financially supporting this
research under Contract MOST 107-2632-E-035-001.
references
[1] Cho D, Zhou HJ, Cho Y, Audus D, Joo YL. Polymer
2010;51:6005.
[2] Jeong JO, Lim YM, Park JS. Eur Polym J 2017;94:366.
[3] Xiao JM, Chen YA. Mater Lett 2015;152:210.
[4] Monika, Upadhyaya P, Chand N, Kumar V. Compos Interface
2014;21:133.
[5] Kannan M, Bhagawan SS, Thomas S, Joseph K. Polym
Compos 2014;35:1671.
[6] Tjong SC, Xu SA, Mai YW. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys
2002;40:1881.
[7] Bajsic EG, Smit I, Leskovac M. J Appl Polym Sci 2007;
104:3980.
[8] Guezzout Z, Doufnoune R, Haddaoui N. J Polym Res 2017;24.
[9] Bajsic EG, Pustak A, Smit I, Leskovac M. J Appl Polym Sci
2010;117:1378.
[10] Jia SK, Zhu Y, Wang Z, Chen LG, Fu L. J Polym Res 2015;22.
[11] Zeng N, Bai SL, G’Sell C, Hiver JM, Mai YW. Polym Int
2002;51:1439.
[12] Chen WC, Lai SM, Liao ZC. J Appl Polym Sci 2016;133.
[13] Inuwa IM, Hassan A, Samsudin SA, Haafiz MKM, Jawaid M. J
Vinyl Addit Technol 2017;23:45.
[14] Masa A, Saito H, Sakai T, Kaesaman A, Lopattananon N. J
Appl Polym Sci 2017;134.
[15] Jaso V, Milic J, Divjakovic V, Petrovic ZS. Eur Polym J
2013;49:3947.
[16] Pötschke P, Wallheinke K, Fritsche H, Stutz H. J Appl Polym
Sci 1997;64:749.
[17] Lu QW, Macosko CW, Horrion J. Macromol Symp 2003;198:221.
[18] Bharathi Mariappan VR, Jaisankar SN. Procedia Eng
2014;93:59.
[19] Aranburu N, Eguiazabal JI. Int J Polym Sci 2015.
[20] Parameswaranpillai J, Joseph G, Jose S, Hameed N. J Appl
Polym Sci 2015;132.
[21] Chen ZX, Pei JZ, Li R. Appl Sci (Basel) 2017;7.
[22] Lu YL, Yang Y, Xiao P, Feng YX, Liu L, Tian M, et al. J Appl
Polym Sci 2017;134.
[23] Segal E, Tchoudakov R, Narkis M, Siegmann A. J Polym Sci B
Polym Phys 2003;41:1428.
[24] Song PA, Liu LN, Huang GB, Yu YM, Guo QP. Nanotechnology
2013;24.
[25] Wallheinke PPTK, Stutz H. J Appl Polym Sci 1997;65:2217.
[26] Bulatovic VO, Mihaljevic A, Bajsic EG, Holjevac TG. Int Polym
Proc 2017;32:102.
[27] Jia SK, Qu JP, Liu WF, Wu CR, Chen RY, Zhai SF, et al. Polym
Eng Sci 2014;54:716.
[28] Zhou Y, Lou L, Liu W, Zeng G, Chen Y. Adv Mater Sci Eng
2015;2015:1.
[29] Barick AK, Tripathy DK. J Appl Polym Sci 2010;117:639.
[30] Lan Y, Liu H, Cao XH, Zhao SG, Dai K, Yan XR, et al. Polymer
2016;97:11.