Polymer Testing 24 (2005) 468473

www.elsevier.com/locate/polytest

Material Properties

Tensile and impact behavior of polypropylene/low density

polyethylene blends
R. Strapasson, S.C. Amico*, M.F.R. Pereira, T.H.D. Sydenstricker
Mechanical Engineering Department, Federal University of Parana (UFPR), P.O. Box 19.011, 81.531-990 Curitiba-PR, Brazil
Received 18 November 2004; accepted 7 January 2005

Abstract
Blends of polypropylene (PP) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) may contribute to make recycling more economically
attractive. The aim of this work was to make PP/LDPE blends (0/100, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25 and 100/0 w/w) via injection molding
carried out under various injection temperatures and to evaluate their tensile and impact properties. The blends yielded tensile
stressstrain curves very dependent on their composition, especially regarding elongation at break and the presence of necking.
An irregular behavior for the 50/50 w/w blend is reported. Nevertheless, a linear variation of the yield strength and elastic
modulus with the blend composition was observed. The behavior of the blend was also very dependent on processing
temperature. Addition of 25% of LDPE to the PP may result in similar degradation of its mechanical properties to that caused by
a 10 8C processing temperature increase. Statistical analyses proved valuable when reporting results concerning blends.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Low-density polyethylene; Polypropylene; Blends; Tensile and impact properties

1. Introduction
As the economy achieves global status, many factors
regarding the competitiveness of a nation come under
investigation. More recently, together with important areas
such as technology advancement and technology transfer,
issues related to sustainable development and environment
preservation are receiving increasing attention from the
world community.
Advantages of the mechanical recycling of polymers
include reduction of oil and energy consumption compared
with the synthesis of virgin polymers, reduced disposal of
plastic waste in municipal garbage and generation of
employment and income. The recycling of industrial scrap
is an ongoing successful practice due to the low level of
contamination. However, recycling of municipal plastic
waste is often an arduous task due to the fact that this
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C55 41 361 3430; fax: C55 41 361
3129.
E-mail address: amico@ufpr.br (S.C. Amico).

0142-9418/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2005.01.001

material is usually a mixture of several polymers, which

makes processing more difficult and also limits the number
of potential applications [1].
The most abundant plastics in Brazilian municipal waste
are polypropylene (PP), poly(ethylene-terephthalate) and
polyethylene (PE), the latter being available in different
grades such as low density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low
density polyethylene (LLDPE) and high density polyethylene (HDPE).
A few methods have been used to classify plastics from
municipal post-consumer waste. With the flotation method,
two fractions are obtained: a lighter fraction, floating on
water, and a heavier fraction. The former is essentially
constituted of LDPE, HDPE and PP [2], polyolefins that
exhibit of similar density. It is uneconomic to separate them
using alcohol solutions in a subsequent stage. Thus, the
usual practice in small recycling units in Brazil is to
indiscriminately mix different amounts of PE and PP during
recycling, leading to incompatible blends of varying and
poor properties.
Aiming at good performance materials, it is important to
consider processing conditions, blend composition and its

R. Strapasson et al. / Polymer Testing 24 (2005) 468473

behavior in the solid state from the melt. While the

crystallization of a homopolymer is controlled by nucleation, spherulite growth, rate of cooling and degree of super
cooling, crystallization behavior of polymer blends is more
complex due to the existence of a second component,
usually resulting in an incompatible mixture. Blends of PP
and LLDPE (20/80 w/w), for instance, are partially miscible
and its crystallization is controlled by nucleation and
diffusion [3].
The incompatibility between LDPE and PP has already
been reported by various authors [4,5], following
microscopy and calorimetric studies. In LDPE rich blends,
a heterogeneous PP dispersion in the LDPE matrix produces
two phases in the melt. The low interfacial adhesion
between the phases is responsible for a decrease in
mechanical properties especially related to its morphology,
including impact strength, strain at break and ductile to
brittle transition. According to Shanks [6], the immiscibility
between the phases makes the rule of mixtures ineffective in
predicting some properties of interest.
To overcome this difficulty, the use of various coupling
agents have been reported. Amongst others [79], Yang [10]
showed that the addition of a commercial ethylene/
propylene block copolymer improved the ductility of
LDPE/PP blends, particularly for PP rich blends. Bertin
[5] studied and characterized virgin and recycled LDPE/PP
blends and the use of compatilizing agents, such as
ethylene-propylene-diene monomer copolymer (EPDM) or
PE-g (2-methyl-1,3-butadiene)graft copolymer, to enhance
their impact strength and elongation at break. Although this
may solve the compatibility problem, the use of compatibilizers adds cost to the recycled product, usually resulting
in loss of interest from the recycling sector.
In this work, the evaluation of tensile and impact
properties of PP/LDPE blends was carried out to investigate
the composition range for better mechanical performance
and also to define the impact of PE addition on PP for
composition adjustment of blends used in a commercial
recycling unit in Almirante Tamandare/PR, Brazil.

469

machine (Model DL10000), in general accordance with

ASTM D638. Data for yield strength, elastic modulus and
elongation at break were obtained in tests carried out at a
crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. For low elongations, an
EMIC extensometer having a gage length of 25 mm was
used. Impact tests were performed on a PANTEC equipment
(model PW-4), in general accordance with ASTM D256.
Between 10 and 20 measurements were taken for each
experimental condition, and the reported results include the
mean values and their standard deviations.
The statistical analysis of variance of tensile and impact
results has been carried out using commercial software. A
one-way ANOVA and a series of Tukey HSD post hoc were
used to check for statistical difference among groups (for
p!0.05).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Tensile tests

2. Materials and methods

The stressstrain curves for the various blends injected at

170, 180, 190 and 200 8C are shown in Figs. 14,
respectively. The 170 and 200 8C curves for the PP0 (pure
LDPE) were not included since there were flow difficulties
relating to the high viscosity of the melt for the former and
severe degradation for the latter, both resulting in nonhomogeneous test specimens.
Analysis of these figures shows the importance of
controlling the injection temperature, for example,
elongation at break for pure polypropylene (PP100)
decreases from 650% to less than 10%, when the
temperature reaches 190 8C, indicating severe degradation.
In fact, Figs. 3 and 4 demonstrate PP degradation with
severe changes on curve profiles and on yielding. Therefore,
the retrieved data for the 190 and 200 8C injection
temperature should not be directly compared to data
obtained for the other injection temperatures.
Observation of these figures also shows for the PP50 a
very distinct behavior. Yielding is not seen for any injection
temperature, and very low yield strength and elongation at
break are found, in comparison to the other blends.

Polypropylene (H301-Braskem) and low density polyethylene (BC 818-Braskem) were used. The specific gravity
of the PP is 0.905 and that of the LDPE is 0.918 g/cm3, with
melt flow index of 10.0 and 7.5 g/10 min, respectively.
Pure PP, pure LDPE and their blends were processed in
an injection-molding machine with various PP/LDPE
weight contents, namely 100/0, 75/25, 50/50, 25/75 and
0/100. These blends are called PP100, PP75, PP50, PP25
and PP0, respectively, throughout the text, and each of them
was processed at several injection temperatures (170, 180,
190 and 200 8C).
For the evaluation of the blend mechanical properties,
tensile tests were performed on an EMIC universal testing

Fig. 1. Stressstrain curves for the different blends injected at

170 8C.

470

R. Strapasson et al. / Polymer Testing 24 (2005) 468473

Fig. 2. Stressstrain curves for the different blends injected at

180 8C.

Fig. 4. Stressstrain curves for the different blends injected at

200 8C.

Surprisingly, further increase in the LDPE content causes a

recovery of elongation at break yielding for the lower
temperatures. Thus, the elongation at break (see Table 1) did
not follow the rule of mixtures and also showed a minimum
for PP50 for the temperatures of interest.
Other observations from Figs. 14 include: (i) The 170
180 8C injection temperature range was shown to be the
most suitable to maintain the PP properties, whereas the
180190 8C temperature range was the most suitable for
pure LDPE processing; (ii) The stressstrain tensile curves
were shown to be very dependent on the composition of the
blends, with very distinct curve shapes regarding yielding,
modulus and elongation at break; (iii) For all compositions,
the stressstrain curves were very dependent on the
temperature and the elongation at break decreased with
the temperature; (iv) Elongation at break evidenced blend
incompatibility, unambiguously seen for the 50% polypropylene content blend, which showed the lowest
elongation at break of all compositions studied. Also, no
yielding was observed for this blend at any temperature; (v)
Figs. 1 and 2 show that a 25% replacement of PP by LDPE
(i.e. the PP75) causes a severe change of elongation at break,
with a decrease in ductility, and (vi) Fig. 2 shows that a 25%
replacement of LDPE by PP (i.e. the PP25) also changes the
stressstrain curve and causes an increase of elastic modulus
and yield strength, as was observed by Bertin [5], with
yielding only for the 170 and 180 8C temperatures.

Table 1 compiles the yield strength and elastic modulus

results for the different blends. The results were in the same
range of those reported by Albano [11] for pure LDPE
values at 180 8C and those by Bertin [5] for their LDPE/PP
(90/10) blends.
From the statistical analysis presented in Table 1, it can
also be concluded that if pure PP is processed at 190 8C,
only 10 8C higher than the optimum temperature, a yield
strength and a elastic modulus reduction similar to that
obtained with the inclusion of 25% of LDPE (PP75) may
result.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the variation of yield strength and
elastic modulus, respectively, for the different materials. Fig.
5 shows a linear variation with the composition for the 170
and 180 8C injection temperatures, with high coefficient of
determination (R-squared) values of 0.98 and 0.95, respectively. This suggests that yield strength varied according to
the rule of mixtures, i.e. the yield strength is basically
dependent on the blend composition. This of course was not
seen for the temperatures at which polymer degradation was
the determinant factor. Further observation of this figure also
reveals that the values for 170 and 180 8C are the highest,
being statistically similar (see Table 1) for all compositions
except for the PP50, again showing that this blend has a
particular behavior, being more prone to degradation.
Every polymer has its optimal processing temperature
profile to maximize a certain property and the same occurs
for the different blends. Furthermore, the PP optimal
temperatures appear to be dominating the blend behavior,
i.e. 170 and 180 8C give the best results for all compositions,
followed respectively by 190 and 200 8C, although for pure
LDPE (PP100), 180 and 190 8C give the best results.
The variation of elastic modulus followed the same
trends as yield strength, namely the modulus varied linearly
with the LDPE weight fraction (R2 of 0.98 for both 170 and
180 8C), suggesting agreement with the rule of mixtures.
The PP50 here again shows a different trend to the other
blends, where the 190 8C result differed from the other
temperatures.
It can be said from the results that a replacement of 25%
of PP with LDPE (PP75), even for the best temperatures,

Fig. 3. Stressstrain curves for the different blends injected at

190 8C.

R. Strapasson et al. / Polymer Testing 24 (2005) 468473

471

Table 1
Influence of the composition and the injection temperature on the tensile properties
Injection
temperature
(8C)

Composition (%)
PP

PE

Mean

170

100
75
50
25
0
100
75
50
25
0
100
75
50
25
0
100
75
50
25
0

0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100

24.8 a
0.9
22.4 b
0.9
16.7 c
0.8
11.5 d
0.8
Irregular injection
25.1 a
0.8
22.8 b
1.1
13.8 e
0.8
11.4 d
0.6
7.6 f
0.2
23.4 b
1.3
19.6 g
1.5
10.9 g
2.4
7.9 f
0.6
7.9 f
0.3
16.9 c
1.1
14.2 e
2.3
7.5 f
0.7
6.9
0.7
Irregular injection

180

190

200

a
b

Yield strength (MPa)

a

SD

Elastic modulus (MPa)

a

Elongation at break (%)

Mean

SD

Mean

SDb

1327 ag
1143 b
731 c
436 d

187
109
95
43

O800
170
17.7
400512

7.1
2.2

1304 ag
1149 b
845 ce
435 d
157 f
1240 ab
1085 b
932 e
404 d
191 fh
1452 g
1209 ab
403 dh
350 dh

172
137
141
54
24
101
153
184
53
32
258
133
36
51

600700
100
3.7
400529
111
5.7
4.9
2.1
4.1
66
1.9
1.9
3.7
25

0.7

13
1.9
1.7
0.9
0.9
24.1
0.4
0.6
0.8
3.2

Different letters mean statistically significant differences at 5% confidence level.

Standard deviation.

causes a statistically significant reduction in yield strength

and elastic modulus, but, from the slope of the linear trends
of Figs. 5 and 6, one may infer that a replacement of around
10% PP with LDPE may not cause significant variations in
these properties. This finding may be of interest to recycling
companies to lower the cost of the product by partial
replacement of PP by LDPE.
The observed results of this work, namely, a linear
variation of elastic modulus and yield strength with the
blend composition and a minimum for the elongation at
break for the PP50 blend, are in agreement with those from
Kolarik [12]. This researcher found that the modulus and the
yield strength upper boundary are monotonic functions of
the blend composition and the yield strength lower limit
shows a minimum near 50/50. However, there are other
reports found in the literature. For instance Liang [13]

reported an increase of elastic modulus with the PP content

according to a logarithm rule of mixture. The yield strength
increased in an irregular way with the PP content, whereas
the elongation at break showed a minimum at 80%PP. The
same author found a distinct behavior for another PP (with a
lower melt flow index) for which the elongation at break
showed two minimums, one for 20%PP and another for
100%PP. Tselios [14] found a minimum for the tensile
strength and elongation at break for 25%PP. Yang [15]
found a monotonic variation of the yield strength and elastic
modulus. The elongation at break and tensile strength,
however, reached a maximum for 3050%PP blends, with
the material behavior changing from ductile to brittle.
Possible explanations for the apparent divergence may
reside in the processing history and in the incompatibility of
these
blends,
and
consequent
morphological

Fig. 5. Variation of yield strength with blend composition.

Fig. 6. Variation of elastic modulus with blend composition.

472

R. Strapasson et al. / Polymer Testing 24 (2005) 468473

Table 2
Influence of the composition and the injection temperature on impact strength
Injection temperature (8C)

Composition (%)
PP

PE

Mean

SDb

170

100
75
50
25
0
100
75
50
25
0
100
75
50
25
0
100
75
50
25
0

0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100

0.12
0.26
0.42
O4.0

0.10
0.26
0.37

O4.0
0.09
0.25
0.28
O4.0

0.05
0.16
0.29
O4.0

0.01
0.10
0.08

0.01
0.10
0.06

0.01
0.09
0.06

0.01
0.11
0.07

180

190

200

a
b

Energy (J)

Impact strength (J/

m)a
12.2 ae
26.1 b
41.7 c
Partial breakage
Irregular injection
10.3 ae
25.8 b
37.3 cd
Partial breakage
No breakage
8.5 ae
25.2 b
28.0 d
Partial breakage
No breakage
4.5 a
16.3 e
28.5 bd
Partial breakage
Irregular injection

Different letters mean statistically significant differences at 5% confidence level.

Standard deviation.

(microstructural) changes that occur upon blending, with the

different phases assuming distinct behavior for different
compositions, as discussed in detail by Tselios [14].
3.2. Impact tests
Table 2 shows the results for the impact tests. The pure
LDPE injected samples did not fracture at the test conditions
used, even for a 4J hammer.
When PP is incorporated in the LDPE, however, there is
a significant impact strength reduction (as in Yang [15] and
Wang [16]), shown by the partial specimen fracture. Higher
PP content causes a further reduction until 10 J/m is
achieved by the pure PP, with the fracture mode changing
from ductile to brittle in the range of 25 to 50%PP (PP25 to
PP50), due to the low interfacial adhesion and, consequently, low stress transfer between the phases. This
behavior was observed for all temperatures, namely, the
higher the PP content, the lower the impact strength, in
agreement with Tselios [14].
For pure PP, degradation is evident only at 200 8C, thus
impact strength was found to be less sensitive to the
injection temperature than the tensile properties, this trend
being followed by the intermediate composition blends.
Similiarly, it can be noticed that the 170 and 180 8C
temperatures appear to be more suitable for the processing
of these blends.

Combining the results of tensile and impact tests it may

be said that, although the addition of LDPE in the PP
improves the impact characteristics, it has a detrimental
effect on the tensile properties. Therefore, it appears that the
only way of improving these two blend properties would be
with the addition of a compatibilizer such as in Hope [17]
and Yang [10]. The latter reported the use of ethylene/
propylene block copolymer to increase the ductility of these
blends by improving the interfacial adhesion without
significant loss in elastic modulus, especially for blends
with high PP content.

4. Conclusions
The widespread presence of polypropylene and lowdensity polyethylene in municipal wastes and their common
combined use by the recycling industry makes the study of
the mechanical behavior of these blends valuable for
practical every-day use.
The stressstrain tensile curves were very dependent
on the composition of the blends, with the curve shapes
being very distinct as regards yielding, modulus and
elongation at break. The linear law of mixtures was
obeyed for all blends regarding elastic modulus and yield
strength, except those in which polymer degradation was
the determinant factor. Elongation at break, however,

R. Strapasson et al. / Polymer Testing 24 (2005) 468473

demonstrated incompatibility for this blend, unambiguously seen for the 50% PP content blend, which showed
the lowest elongation at break of all compositions
studied.
For each composition, the behavior was very dependent on the processing temperature, and the blends
showed an optimum injection temperature around 170
180 8C. The replacing of 25% of PP by LDPE may be as
harmful to the mechanical properties as the use of an
injection temperature 10 8C higher than the optimum
temperature range. For a partial substitution of polypropylene without a statistically significant loss in elastic
modulus or yield strength, an LDPE content of around
10% may be allowed in the mixture.
When polypropylene is added to the polyethylene, there is
a significant reduction in impact strength, with partial sample
fracture for the 25%LDPE content blend. Further PP addition
makes the blend behavior change from ductile to brittle.

References
[1] H.P. Blom, J.W. Teh, A. Rudin, PP/PE blends. IV.
Characterization and compatibilization of blends of postconsumer resin with virgin PP and HDPE, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 70
(11) (1998) 20812095.
[2] N.T. Dintcheva, F.P. La Mantia, F. Trotta, M.P. Luda,
G. Camino, M. Paci, L. Di Maio, D. Acierno, Effects of filler
type and processing apparatus on the properties of the recycled
light fraction from municipal post-consumer plastics, Polym.
Adv. Technol. 12 (9) (2001) 552560.
[3] J. Li, R.A. Shanks, Y. Long, Miscibility and crystallisation of
polypropylene-linear low density polyethylene blends, Polymer 42 (5) (2001) 19411951.
[4] J.W. Teh, A. Rudin, J.C. Keung, A review of polyethylenepolypropylene blends and their compatibilization, Adv.
Polym. Tech. 13 (1) (1994) 123.
[5] S. Bertin, J.J. Robin, Study and characterization of virgin and
recycled LDPE/PP blends, Eur. Polym. J. 38 (11) (2002)
22552264.

473

[6] R.A. Shanks, J. Li, F. Chen, G. Amarasinghe, Timetemperature-miscibility and morphology of polyolefin blends,
Chin. J. Polym. Sci. 18 (3) (2000) 263270.
[7] G. Radonjic, N. Gubeljak, The use of ethylene/propylene
copolymers as compatibilizers for recycled polyolefin blends,
Macromol. Mater. Eng. 287 (2) (2002) 122132.
[8] A.G. Andreopoulos, P.A. Tarantili, P. Anastassakis, Compatibilizers for Low Density Polyethylene/Polypropylene
Blends, J. Macromol. Sci. Pure 36 (9) (1999) 11131122.
[9] E. Vaccaro, A.T. Dibenedetto, S.J. Huang, Yield strength of
low-density polyethylene-polypropylene blends, J. Appl.
Polym. Sci. 63 (3) (1997) 275281.
[10] M.B. Yang, K. Wang, L. Ye, Y.W. Mai, J.S. Wu, Low density
polyethylene-polypropylene blends Part 2strengthening and
toughening with copolymer, Plast. Rubber Compos. 32 (1)
(2003) 2731.
[11] C. Albano, J. Reyes, M. Ichazo, J. Gonzalez, M. Hernandez,
M. Rodriguez, Mechanical, thermal and morphological
behaviour of the polystyrene/polypropylene (80/20) blend,
irradiated with gamma-rays at low doses (070 kGy), Polym.
Degrad. Stabil. 80 (2) (2003) 251261.
[12] J. Kolarik, Simultaneous prediction of the modulus and yield
strength of binary polymer blends, Polym. Eng. Sci. 36 (20)
(1996) 25182524.
[13] J.Z. Liang, C.Y. Tang, H.C. Man, Flow and mechanical
properties of polypropylene low density polyethylene blends,
J. Mater. Process Tech. 66 (1-3) (1997) 158164.
[14] C. Tselios, D. Bikiaris, V. Maslis, C. Panayiotou, In situ
compatibilization of polypropylene-polyethylene blends: a
thermomechanical and spectroscopic study, Polymer 39 (26)
(1998) 68076817.
[15] M.B. Yang, K. Wang, L. Ye, Y.W. Mi, J.S. Wu, Low
density polyethylene-polypropylene blends. Part 1ductility and tensile properties, Plast. Rubber Compos. 32 (1)
(2003) 2126.
[16] Z. Wang, Toughening and reinforcing of polypropylene,
J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 60 (12) (1996) 22392243.
[17] P.S. Hope, J.G. Bonner, A.F. Miles, A study of
compatibilisers for recovering the mechanical-properties of
recycled polyethylenes, Plast. Rubber Compos. 22 (3)
(1994) 147158.