Adhesion Properties between Microphase-Separated Segmented  Polyurethane and Corona Treated PP Substrate

Teerin Kongpun

Authors

Teerin Kongpun Department of Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rajamangala University of Technology Rattanakosin 96 Phutthamonthon, Nakhon Pathom 73170, THAILAND

Keywords:

Corona treatment, Surface free energy, Segmented polyurethane

Abstract

Segmented polyurethane elastomers (SPUEs) were prepared using two different polymer glycols, namely poly (oxytretamythylene) glycol (PTMG) and poly (butylene adipate) glycol (PBA). In addition, polypropylene substrate (PP-Substrate) act as a non-polar substrate and PP substrates have limitations to their adhesion properties due to their non-polar nature and low surface tension. Corona treatment can make a free radical on the surface. Effect of polyether- and polyester polyols on microphase-separated structure and on adhesion properties of SPU pressed with corona treated PP substrate was evaluated using swelling, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), T-peel testing, single lap shear testing and contact angle measurement. In PTMG-SPU, the crosslink density was largely low whereas the degree of swelling was high. On the other hand, the crosslink density and degree of swelling of PBA-SPU exhibited high and low, respectively. This result means that the crosslink density affects the mobility of hard segment to pack itself correctly to form hard domains. The amount of crosslinks should lead to a structural change in SPU surface as the hard segment structure, thus it also changes in the adhesion properties of SPU based different polymer glycols. It is noteworthy that the carbonyl group in PBA-SPU for adhesion, based T-Peel test and single lap shear test results, have good adhesive properties. The glass transition temperature (T_g), Melting temperature of soft segment (T_m,S) and melting temperature of hard segment (T_m,H) of PBA-SPU was higher than that of PTMG-SPU. The microphase separation of the polyether based SPU (PTMG-SPU) was stronger than that of polyester based SPU (PBA-SPU). It was easily expected that the polar hard segment component can be diffuse to the top surface of PTMG-SPU.

References

Buist, J. M., & Gudgeon, H. (1968). Advances in Polyurethane Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Castell, P., Wouters, M., de With, G., Fischer, H., & Huijs, F. (2004). Surface modification of poly (propylene) by photoinhibitors: improvement of adhesion and wettability. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 92(4), 2341-2350.

Igor, N., Vladimir, P., & Ivan, C. (2006). Study of Surface Properties of Polyolefins Modified by Corona Discharge Plasma. Plasma Process. Polym., 3(3-4), 355-364.

Kongpun, T., Motokucho, S., Kojio, K., & Furukawa, M. (2008). Effect of the ratio of diol to triol as curing agents on the microaggregation structure and adhesion properties of segmented polyurethanes. J. Adhesion Society of Japan, 44(9), 333-340.

Lugscheider, E., & Bobzin, K. (2001). The influence on surface free energy of PVD-coating. Surf. Coat Technol., 142-144, 755-760.

Lugscheider, E., Bobzin, K., & Moller, M. (1999). The effect of PVD layer constitution on surface free energy. Thin Solid Films, 355-356, 367-373.

Malucelli, G., Priola, A., Ferrero, F., Quaglia, A., Frigione, M., & Carfagna, C. (2005). Polyurethane resin-based adhesives: curing reaction and properties of cured systems. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., 25(1), 87-91.

Mark, H. F., Gaylord N. G., & Bikales N. M. (Herausgeber). (1969). Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, vol. 11: Polyester fibers to rayon. New York/London/Sydney/Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.

Martin, D. J., Meijs, G. F., Renwick, G. M., Gunatillake, P. A., & McCarthy, S. J. (1996). Effect of soft-segment CH2/O ratio on morphology and properties of a series of polyurethane elastomers. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 60(4), 557-571.

Mochizuki, A., Senshu, K., Seita, Y., Yamashita, S., & Koshizaki, N. (2000). Studies on surface structures of poly (ethylene oxide)-segment nylon film. J. Polym.ci., Part A: Polym. Chem., 38(7), 1045-1056.

Nakamae, K., Nishino, T., Asaoka, S., & Sudaryanto (1996). Microphase separation and surface properties of segmented polyurethane-Effect of hard segment content. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., 16(4), 233-239.

O’Hare, L. A., Leadley, S., & Parbhoo, B. (2002). Surface physicochemistry of corona discharge-treated polypropylene film. Surface and Interface Analysis. Surf. Interface Anal., 33(4), 335-342.

Oosterom, R., Ahmed, T. J., Poulis, J. A., & Bersee, H. E. N. (2005). Adhesion performance of UHMWPE after different surface modification techniques. Med. Eng, Phys., 28(4), 323-330.

Owens, D. K., & Wendt, R. C. (1969). Estimation of the surface free energy of polymers. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 13(8), 1741-1747.

Petrovic, Z. S., Javni, I., & Divjakovic, V. (1998). The influence of hard segment crosslinking on the morphology and mechanical properties of segmented poly (ester-urethanes). J. Polym. Sci., 36, 221-235.

Sellin, N., & Campos, J. S. C. (2003). Surface Composition Analysis of PP Films Treated by Corona Discharge. Materials Research, 6(2), 163-166.

Takahashi, A., Kita, R., & Kaibara, M. (2002). Effect of thermal annealing of segmented polyurethane on surface properties, structure and antithrombogenicity. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med., 13(3), 259-264.

Xu, W., & Liu, X. (2003). Surface modification of polyester fabric by corona discharge irradiation. Euro. Polym. J., 39, 199-202.