Abstract
Summary: The effects of various nucleating agents [e.g. 1,3:2,4‐dibenzylidene sorbitol (DBS), 1,3:2,4‐di‐p‐methyldibenzilidene sorbitol (MDBS), 1,3:2,4‐di‐m,p‐methylbenzylidene sorbitol (DMDBS), kaolin, talcum, marl, titanium dioxide (TiO~2~) and silica (SiO~2~)] on non‐isothermal melt crystallization and the subsequent melting behavior and mechanical properties of nucleated syndiotactic poly(propylene) (sPP) in comparison with those of the neat sample were investigated. Analysis of the non‐isothermal melt‐crystallization exotherms revealed that the ability of these fillers to nucleate sPP could be ranked from the best to the worst as follows: DBS > talcum > MDBS > kaolin > SiO~2~ > DMDBS > marl > TiO~2~. The subsequent melting endotherms for most of the sPP compounds exhibited double melting peaks, while that for the marl‐filled sPP exhibited triple melting peaks. Wide‐angle X‐ray diffraction analysis showed that addition of these fillers did not affect the crystal modification of the sPP matrix. Mechanical property measurements revealed that both the tensile strength and the percentage of elongation at yield for the sPP compounds investigated were not much different from those of the neat sPP. After natural weathering for 1 month, the tensile strength at yield for the sPP compounds investigated increased, at the expense of the percentage of elongation at yield, but, after natural weathering for 3 months, both the tensile strength and the percentage of elongation at yield were found to decrease.
Effects of various organic and inorganic nucleating agents on non‐isothermal melt‐crystallization of syndiotactic poly(propylene) (recorded at a cooling rate of 10 °C · min^−1^).
magnified imageEffects of various organic and inorganic nucleating agents on non‐isothermal melt‐crystallization of syndiotactic poly(propylene) (recorded at a cooling rate of 10 °C · min^−1^).