Structural and Mechanical Behavior of Polypropylene/

Maleated Styrene-(ethylene-co-butylene)-styrene/Sisal
Fiber Composites Prepared by Injection Molding
X. L. XIE1,2, K. L. FUNG1, R. K. Y. LI1, S. C. TJONG1, Y.-W. MAI3,4
1
Department of Physics and Materials Science, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

2
Department of Chemistry, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

3
Centre for Advanced Materials Technology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

4
Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong,
Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Received 12 December 2001; revised 26 February 2002; accepted 14 March 2002

Published online 00 Month 2002 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/polb.10175

ABSTRACT: Hybrid composites consisting of isotactic poly(propylene) (PP), sisal fiber (SF),
and maleic anhydride grafted styrene-(ethylene-co-butylene)-styrene copolymer (MA-
SEBS) were prepared by melt compounding, followed by injection molding. The melt-
compounding torque behavior, thermal properties, morphology, crystal structure, and
mechanical behavior of the PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites were systematically investigated.
The torque test, thermogravimetric analysis, differential scanning calorimetric, and scan-
ning electron microscopic results all indicated that MA-SEBS was an effective compatibi-
lizer for the PP/SF composites, and there was a synergism between MA-SEBS and PP/SF
in the thermal stability of the PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites. Wide-angle X-ray diffraction
analysis indicated that the ␣ form and ␤ form of the PP crystals coexisted in the PP/MA-
SEBS/SF composites. With the incorporation of MA-SEBS, the relative amount of ␤-form
PP crystals decreased significantly. Mechanical tests showed that the tensile strength and
impact toughness of the PP/SF composites were generally improved by the incorporation of
MA-SEBS. The instrumented drop-weight dart-impact test was also used to examine the
impact-fracture behavior of these composites. The results revealed that the maximum
impact force (Fmax), impact-fracture energy (ET), total impact duration (tr), crack-initiation
time (tinit), and crack-propagation time (tprop) of the composites all tended to increase with
an increasing MA-SEBS content. From these results, the incorporation of MA-SEBS into
PP/SF composites can retard both the crack initiation and propagation phases of the
impact-fracture process. These prolonged the crack initiation and propagation time and
increased the energy consumption during impact fracture, thereby leading to toughening of
PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys 40:
1214 –1222, 2002
Keywords: poly(propylene) (PP); sisal fibers; composites; maleic anhydride grafted
styrene-(ethylene-co-butylene)-styrene copolymer; compatibilization

INTRODUCTION cently directed toward the potential of natural

With increasing awareness for a sustainable fu-
ture, significant research activities have been re-
Correspondence to: R. K. Y. Li (E-mail: aprkyl@cityu.
edu.hk)
Journal of Polymer Science: Part B: Polymer Physics, Vol. 40, 1214 –1222 (2002)
© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1214
fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Comprehen-
sive reviews on cellulosic fiber-reinforced compos-
ites have been given by Bledzki and Gassan1 and
Saheb and Jog,2 whereas a dedicated review on
sisal fiber (SF) and its composites was recently
published by Li et al.3 Among the various natural
fibers, SF possesses moderately high specific
 COMPOSITES PREPARED BY INJECTION MOLDING
Table 1. Material Composition for the
PP/MA-SEBS/SF Hybrid Composites
Designation in PP MA-SEBS SF
This Work (wt %) (wt %) (wt %)
PP-0 80 0 20
PP-8 72 8 20
PP-16 64 16 20
strength and stiffness and can be used to
strengthen polymeric matrices to make useful
composite materials.
Although some preceding studies on SF compos-
ites have been concerned with thermosetting or rub-
ber matrices,4 –11 recent interests are centered on
sisal fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites,
such as polypropylene (PP)/SF composites.12–17 One
of the main reasons was the possibility of injection
molding of these SF thermoplastic composites.
However, the poor interfacial bonding affected the
reinforcement of SF to the polymer matrices. The
approaches used to improve the interfacial charac-
teristics between SF and the matrices included
chemical treatment, heat treatment, coupling
agent, and ␥ irradiation on the SF surface.4 – 8,12–14
In this work, we have selected maleic anhydride
grafted styrene-(ethylene-co-butylene)-styrene co-
polymer (designated as MA-SEBS) as a compatibi-
lizer to improve the interfacial bonding between PP
and SF. The microstructure and fracture behavior
of the injection-molded PP/MA-SEBS/SF hybrid
composites have been systematically investigated.
EXPERIMENTAL
Isotactic PP, SF, and MA-SEBS were used to pre-
pare the hybrid composites. The PP used (Pro-fax
6501) was supplied by Montell with a melt flow
rate of 4 g/(10 min). The SFs used were obtained
from Guangdong Province in China. The MA-
SEBS (Kraton F1901X) containing 1.84% of
MA18 –20 was supplied by Shell Chemical. The SF
content was fixed at 20 wt %, whereas the rubber
(i.e., MA-SEBS) content was varied from 0 to 16
wt %. A summary of the material composition and
their designation used is given in Table 1. The
SFs were chopped to 10 mm length. Before melt
blending, SF and MA-SEBS were dried in an oven
at 80 °C for 48 h.
In the preparation of the hybrid composites, PP
and MA-SEBS were first melt-blended using the
twin-screw extruder attachment connected to a
1215
Brabender Plasticorder. The extruder tempera-
ture and screw speed were set at 175 °C and 50
rpm, respectively. The precompounded PP/MA-
SEBS blend was subsequently melt-compounded
with SF and PP using the Brabender Plasticorder
internal mixer attachment operated at 175 °C
and 75 rpm for 10 min. The melt-mixing torques
were online measured using a PC. The melt-
blended composites were injection-molded into
plaques with dimensions of 200 ⫻ 80 ⫻ 3.2 mm3
using a Chen Hsong Jetmaster 4 Mark II-C injec-
tion-molding machine. The barrel-zone tempera-
tures of the injection-molding machine were set at
225, 230, and 230 °C. Dog-bone-shaped tensile
bars and notched Izod impact specimens were cut
from the molded plaques with the long dimension
of the specimens parallel to the injection flow
direction.
The thermal-degradation characteristics of the
composites were carried out using a Seiko ther-
mogravimetric analyzer (model SSC/5200). The
weight loss against temperature was measured at
a heating rate of 10 °C/min⫺1 in helium atmo-
sphere from 50 to 600 °C.
Differential scanning calorimetric (DSC) mea-
surements were conducted using a PerkinElmer
DSC-7 instrument at a heating rate of 10 °C
min⫺1 under dry nitrogen atmosphere. Prior to
DSC recording, all samples were heated to 220 °C,
and kept at this temperature for 3 min before
being quenched to ambient temperature to elim-
inate the influence of any previous thermal histo-
ries. For nonisothermal crystallization measure-
ments, the samples were heated to and kept at
220 °C for 3 min, and then cooled at a rate of 10
°C/min.
Fracture-surface morphologies of the hybrid
composites were observed with a scanning elec-
tron microscope (SEM, model JEOL JSM 820). To
observe the MA-SEBS in the composite, the frac-
ture surfaces were etched in toluene at room tem-
perature for 24 h, then washed by alcohol and
dried. All fracture surfaces were coated with a
thin layer of gold prior to SEM examination.
Wide-angle X-ray diffraction (WAXD) patterns
of the composite samples were taken with a dif-
fractometer (Philips model X’Pert). The operating
conditions were Cu K␣ radiation with a Ni filter,
voltage 40 kV, current 50 mA, divergence slit 1°,
receiving slit 0.3 mm, and scattering slit 1°. The
angular scale and recorder reading (2␪) were cal-
ibrated to an accuracy of ⫾0.01°. Scans in the
reflection mode were performed within the 2␪
range of 5– 40°.
1216 XIE ET AL.
Figure 1. Torque curves of PP/MA-SEBS/SF compos-
ites with different MA-SEBS contents.
Both the tensile and impact behaviors of the
hybrid composites were studied in this project.
The tensile behavior was determined using an
Instron tensile tester (model 4206) at room tem-
perature under a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
An Izod impact test was conducted using a Ceast
pendulum impact tester. Notches with a tip ra-
dius of 0.25 mm were introduced to each Izod
specimen. Instrumented drop-weight plate-im-
pact tests were also conducted on injection-
molded plaques. A Ceast Fractovis instrumented
drop-weight impact tester with a hemispherical
tip (tip diameter: 20 mm) was used for the tests.
The samples were fully clamped by an annular
support ring and movable clamp mechanism. The
exposed surface for impact was circular in shape
with a diameter of 38.1 mm. The impact velocity
was 5 m/s. The experimental signals were filtered
by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to
eliminate the influence of noises from the force
oscillations.21 The results presented are the aver-
age from five tests.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Rheological Behavior of Composite Melts
It is well known that the torque of the melting
polymer is associated with the melt viscosity. Fig-
ure 1 depicts the applied torque versus time
curves for PP-0, PP-8, and PP-16 at 175 °C. These
torque curves suggest an apparent maximum
during the time required to melt the PP matrix
and homogenize the composite melts inside the
internal mixer. With increasing mixing time, the
torque-time curves gradually decrease and even-
tually approach their respective steady-state
torque value. Because long-time mixing may
cause thermal and oxidative degradation of PP
and SF, we only analyze the torque value at 10
min to discuss the viscosity of the composite melts
(Fig. 2). From Figure 2, the melt viscosity of PP-0
is 9.3 Nm, whereas the values of PP-8 and PP-16
are 12.6 and 13.5 Nm, respectively. Apparently,
the viscosity of the PP/SF composite increases
with an increasing content of MA-SEBS. This im-
plies that MA-SEBS enhances the intermolecular
interactions between PP and SF. This may be due
to the formation of a chemical reaction between
maleic rings in MA-SEBS and the hydroxyl
groups in SF, and the formation of entanglements
between PP and ethylene or butylene segment
chains in MA-SEBS. These results indicate that
MA-SEBS can compatibilize the blend compo-
nents of PP/SF specimens effectively.
Thermal Properties
Figures 3(a,b) portray the thermogravimetric
(TG) and differential thermogravimetric (DTG)
curves, respectively, for MA-SEBS, PP-0, PP-8,
and PP-16. From the figures, the 5% weight-loss
temperature (T5%) and maximum weight-loss
temperature (Tmax) were determined and are
listed in Table 2. Apparently, the thermal stabil-
ity of MA-SEBS is better than that of the PP/SF
composites. When adding MA-SEBS to the PP/SF
composite, T5% of the PP/MA-SEBS/SF compos-
Figure 2. Relationship between the torque value at
10 min and the MA-SEBS content.
 COMPOSITES PREPARED BY INJECTION MOLDING 1217

Figure 3. TG (a) and DTG (b) curves for MA-SEBS

and PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites.
Figure 4. Heating (a) and cooling (b) DSC curves for
PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites.
ites is higher than that of the PP/SF composite
without MA-SEBS. There are two maximum
weight-loss temperatures designated, respec- With mixing of MA-SEBS and PP/SF composite,
tively, as Tmax1 and Tmax2. They are related to Tmax1 and Tmax2 are all higher than those of MA-
Tmax’s of the PP/SF composite and MA-SEBS. SEBS and PP/SF composite. These results indi-
cate that the incorporation of MA-SEBS improves
the thermal stability of the PP/SF composite, and
Table 2. Thermogravimetric Properties of there is a synergism between MA-SEBS and
MA-SEBS and PP/MA-SEBS/SF Composites PP/SF composite. This may be due to the interac-
tion between PP and MA-SEBS, and SF and MA-
Sample T5%(°C) Tmax1(°C) Tmax2(°C) SEBS, as discussed previously.
Figure 4 illustrates the DSC heating thermo-
PP-0 308.1 363.4 451.1 grams for PP and PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites.
PP-8 320.8 367.1 458.6 The melting and heat of fusion (⌬Hm) of these
PP-16 315.0 365.2 456.5
samples are determined from these curves. The
MA-SEBS 404.7 — 442.3
results are listed in Table 3. In our previous
1218 XIE ET AL.

Table 3. Melting Properties of PP/MA-SEBS/SF SEBS content increases. Thus, the MA-SEBS ad-
Composites dition affects the crystallinity of PP. This obser-
vation is in accordance with the crystallinity be-
Sample Tm(onset, °C) ⌬H(J/g)a Xc(%) havior of compatibilized blends.
PP-0 154.8 95.2 39.6
PP-8 152.1 90.9 37.8 Crystal Structure
PP-16 152.2 83.7 34.8
In our previous study,17 we found that the pre-
a
Corrected for per gram of PP in the composites. dominant crystal structure of PP under previ-
ously processing conditions is the ␣ form with a
monoclinic configuration, and the incorporation of
study,17 we found that Tm of the PP phase in the SF induces the formation of ␤-form PP crystals in
PP/SF composites increases with an increasing the PP/SF composites. The WAXD patterns of
SF content. Now, Tm of the PP phase in the PP/ PP/SF composites with and without MA-SEBS
MA-SEBS/SF composites was slightly decreased are given in Figure 5. The PP/SF composite (i.e.,
with the incorporation of MA-SEBS. From Nishi PP-0) shows strong diffraction peaks at 14.14,
and Wang’s theory,22 the following equation can 16.17, 16.92, and 18.62°. The peaks at 14.14,
be used to determine the Flory–Huggins interac- 16.92, and 18.62° correspond, respectively, to the
tion parameter, ␹12, from the melting point de- (1, 1, 0), (0, 4, 0), and (1, 3, 0) diffraction planes of
pression of PP in the PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites the ␣ form of PP crystals with a monoclinic con-
figuration.24 The peak at 16.17° is the character-

冉 冊
istic (3, 0, 0) diffraction plane of the ␤ form of PP
V2
Tm ⫽ T m
0
⫹Tm
0
B␾12 (1) crystals with a hexagonal configuration. This in-
⌬H2 dicates that the ␣ form and ␤ form of PP crystals
coexist in the PP/SF composite. With the incorpo-
where B (⫽ ␹12RT/V1) is the polymer–polymer ration of MA-SEBS, the two forms of crystals still
0
interaction energy density; T m and Tm are the exist in the PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites. The rel-
melting temperatures of pure PP and PP in the ative amount of the ␤-form PP crystals (K value)
composites, respectively; ⌬H2/V2 is the heat of is determined by the ratio between the intensity
fusion of 100% crystalline PP per unit volume; V1 I␤ of the peak for the (3, 0, 0) diffraction plane and
and ␾1 are the molar volume and volume fraction the sum of the intensity I␣1, I␣2, and I␣3 of the (1,
of MA-SEBS; and ␹12 is the Flory–Huggins inter- 1, 0), (0, 4, 0), and (1, 3, 0) diffraction planes as
action parameter.
According to eq 1, the melting point depression
of PP in the PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites means
that there are some interactions between PP and
MA-SEBS. Moreover, there are also some inter-
actions between SF and MA-SEBS. Thus, the
compatibility between PP and SF is improved
accordingly because of the incorporation of MA-
SEBS.
The degree of crystallinity (Xc) of the PP/MA-
SEBS/SF composites can be determined from
their heat of fusion normalized to that of the PP
homopolymer according to the following equation:

⌬Hm
Xc ⫽ ⫻ 100% (2)
⌬H*

where ⌬Hm and ⌬H* are the melting heats of the

composites and PP with 100% crystallinity, re-
spectively. In the calculations, ⌬H* of 100% crys-
talline PP is estimated to be 240.5 J/g according to
the literature.23 The result is also tabulated in Figure 5. WAXD patterns of PP, SF, and PP/MA-
Table 3. Xc decreases quite noticeably as the MA- SEBS/SF composites.
 COMPOSITES PREPARED BY INJECTION MOLDING 1219

Table 4. WAXD Data for PP and PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites

Sample Diffraction Peak 2␪ (°) d (A) ␤0 (°) I (%) Ihkl (A) K (%)

PP-0 (110)␣ 14.25 6.21 0.53 90.9 151.14 29.4

(300)␤ 16.17 5.48 0.41 98.9 195.81
(040)␣ 16.97 5.22 0.56 100 143.50
(130)␣ 18.70 4.74 1.03 46.59 78.17
PP-8 (110)␣ 14.34 6.17 0.59 76.7 135.78 25.7
(300)␤ 16.26 5.45 0.59 57.6 136.08
(040)␣ 17.07 5.19 0.56 100 143.52
(130)␣ 18.81 4.72 1.09 41.6 73.88
PP-16 (110)␣ 14.40 6.15 0.64 62.3 125.18 20.9
(300)␤ 16.28 5.44 0.41 70.8 140.79
(040)␣ 17.11 5.18 0.49 100 164.04
(130)␣ 18.79 4.72 1.17 42.6 68.82

well as I␤ of the peak for the (3, 0, 0) peak. Math-
ematically, the K value is given by
I␤
K⫽
共I ␣1 ⫹ I ␣2 ⫹ I ␣3 ⫹ I ␤
creasing MA-SEBS content, the amount of ␤-form
PP crystals, K, decreases significantly.
According to the Lauritzen–Hoffman theory,26
the following relation can be established between
(3) Tm and the lamellae thickness:

The interplanar spacing value (d) for the various 2␴e

peaks and apparent crystal size (Lhkl) of PP in the
direction perpendicular to the (hkl) crystal plane
can be determined, respectively, from Bragg’s law
and Scherrer’s equation25
␭ the apparent crystal size (Lhkl). As discussed pre-
d⫽
2 sin ␪
k␭
L hkl ⫽
共 ␤ ⫻ cos␪兲
␤ 0 ⫽ 冑␤ 2 ⫺ b 02
where ␤0 is the half-width of the reflection cor-
rected for the instrumental broadening according
to equation (5); ␤ is the half-width of various
diffraction peaks, b0 is the instrumental broaden-
ing factor (0.15°), ␭ is the wavelength of radiation
used, and k is the instrument constant (0.9).
Table 4 summarizes the structural parameters
determined from the WAXD curves. The interpla-
nar spacing d for various peaks of PP in these
composites show little change, but the apparent
crystal size of several diffraction peaks varies
with the MA-SEBS content. L(110)␣, L (040)␣, L
(130)␣, and L(300)␤ of ␣- and ␤-form crystals in PP/
MA-SEBS/SF composites tend to decrease consid-
erably as MA-SEBS is introduced. With an in-
Tm ⫽ T m
0
⫺Tm
0
(7)
l⌬Hf0
where ␴e is the fold-surface free energy, ⌬H0f is
the equilibrium heat of fusion per unit volume,
and l is the lamellae thickness and is related to
(4) viously, L(110)␣, L(110)␣, L(040)␣, and L(300)␤ of ␣-
and ␤-form crystals in PP/SF composites tend to
decrease considerably as SFs are introduced. It
leads to reductions in the l value, and hence de-
(5)
creases in the PP melting temperature. The result
is in accordance with DSC analysis.
(6)
Morphology
Figure 6 illustrates the SEM fractograph of a
PP-0 specimen. SF has a long pulled-out length
from the PP matrix. The SF surface was clean and
without PP attachment. Furthermore, the inter-
face between SF and PP has been separated. All
these observations indicate that the interfacial
bonding between the SF and PP homopolymer
used is weak. When adding MA-SEBS into the
PP/SF composite, the interfacial adhesion be-
tween SF and PP is clearly improved (Fig. 7). For
the systems containing MA-SEBS, the reinforcing
SFs were fractured along the composite fracture
plane, with the effect that the SF pull-out lengths
all approach zero. In contrast with the PP-0 com-
1220 XIE ET AL.
Figure 6. SEM fractograph of PP-0 composite.
posite (see Fig. 6), the SFs are now well adhered
to the PP matrix for the PP-8 and PP-16 systems,
as shown in Figure 7. Also, in Figure 7 the MA-
SEBS rubber particles are well dispersed in the
PP matrix. After the fracture surface of the PP/
MA-SEBS/SF composite was etched by toluene,
the MA-SEBS particles originally dispersed in the
PP matrix were removed from the fracture sur-
face (Fig. 8). The originally well-bonded SF/PP
interface (see Fig. 7) was now well separated from
the PP matrix (see Fig. 8). It indicates that the
SFs were covered by MA-SEBS in the PP/MA-
SEBS/SF composites. As this MA-SEBS interface
layer was extracted by toluene, a gap was formed
between the SF and PP matrix in Figure 8.
Mechanical Properties
The variations of Young’s modulus and tensile
strength with an increasing MA-SEBS content for
Figure 7. SEM fractograph of PP-16 composite.
Figure 8. SEM fractograph of PP-16 composite after
being etched by toluene.
the composites are displayed in Figures 9 and 10,
respectively. Apparently, the Young’s modulus of
the PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites was reduced
slightly with an increasing MA-SEBS content
(Fig. 9). This is due to the reduction in the matrix
modulus with an increasing MA-SEBS rubber
content. However, the tensile strength of the PP/
MA-SEBS/SF composites (i.e., PP-8 and PP-16) is
higher than that of the PP/SF (i.e., PP-0) compos-
ite (Fig. 10). This is because MA-SEBS improves
the interfacial bonding between the SF and PP
matrix as previously discussed, thereby enhanc-
ing the reinforcement of SF to the MA-SEBS rub-
ber-modified PP matrix.
Figure 11 shows that the Izod specific impact
energy increases significantly with the rubber
Figure 9. Young’s modulus versus MA-SEBS content
for PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites.
 COMPOSITES PREPARED BY INJECTION MOLDING
Figure 10. Tensile strength versus MA-SEBS con-
tent for PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites.
content for the PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites. In
the PP-0 system, which has poor fiber/matrix in-
terfacial bonding (refer to Fig. 6) and hence long
SF pull-out length, the major impact-fracture en-
ergy absorption mechanisms are PP matrix frac-
ture, fiber/matrix debonding, and fiber pull-out.
For the MA-SEBS modified composites, fiber/ma-
trix debonding and fiber pull-out are suppressed
as a result of the compatibilization effect of the
MA-SEBS rubber. The main energy absorption
mechanisms are expected to derive from the de-
formation of the MA-SEBS rubber particles and
MA-SEBS interface between PP and SF as well as
the breakage of the SFs.
Figure 11. Izod specific impact energy versus MA-
SEBS content for PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites.
1221
Figure 12. Impact force-time curves for PP/MA-
SEBS/SF composites.
Instrumented drop-weight plate-impact tests
were also conducted on these composite systems.
Figure 12 demonstrates typical force-time curves
for PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites with and without
MA-SEBS. From the figure, five parameters can
be easily identified. They include maximum force
Fmax, total fracture energy ET, total fracture time
tr, crack-initiation time tinit from zero to peak
force position, and crack-propagation time tprop,
which is from peak force to final fracture. These
parameters for PP and PP/SF composites are
summarized in Table 5. It is apparent that Fmax
and ET increase with an increasing MA-SEBS
content. This is in accordance with the notched
Izod impact-testing results. Moreover, tr, tinit, and
tprop of the PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites increase
with an increasing MA-SEBS content. These re-
sults indicate that the MA-SEBS existed at the
interface of the composite retards the crack initi-
ation and propagation at the same time, thereby
prolonging the crack-initiation and propagation
time as a result of the good interfacial bonding
between the SF and PP matrix improved by MA-
SEBS. It is known that the ␤-form PP crystals are
beneficial to toughening the PP matrix.27 As dis-
Table 5. Impact Fracture Behavior of
PP/MA-SEBS/SF Composites
Sample Fmax (N) ET (J) tr (mS) tinit (mS) tprop (mS)
PP-0 880.6 6.37 3.04 0.61 2.43
PP-8 1068.0 8.23 3.56 0.77 2.79
PP-16 1473.9 12.6 5.00 1.58 3.42
1222 XIE ET AL.
cussed previously, the inclusion of MA-SEBS de-
creases the amount of ␤-form PP crystals in the
PP/SF composites. However, this factor is not sig-
nificant because the toughness ET of the PP/MA-
SEBS/SF hybrid composites is largely derived
from the deformation and failure of the fibers
rather than from the matrix material.
CONCLUSIONS
The PP/SF composites compatibilized by MA-
SEBS were prepared by injection molding. The
torque test, thermogravimetric analytic, DSC,
and SEM results showed that MA-SEBS was an
effective compatibilizer for PP/SF composites, and
there is a synergism between MA-SEBS and
PP/SF composite in the thermal stability of the
PP/MA-SEBS/SF composites. WAXD analysis in-
dicated that the ␣ form and ␤ form of the PP
crystals coexisted in the PP/MA-SEBS/SF com-
posites. With the incorporation of MA-SEBS, the
relative amount of the ␤-form PP crystals de-
creases significantly. The mechanical tests
showed that the tensile strength and impact-frac-
ture toughness of the PP/SF composites are gen-
erally improved by the incorporation of MA-
SEBS. The drop-weight dart-impact test showed
that Fmax, ET, tr, tinit, and tprop of PP/SF compos-
ites increase with an increasing MA-SEBS con-
tent. From these results, the incorporation of MA-
SEBS in PP/SF composites retards the crack ini-
tiation and propagation, prolongs the crack-
initiation and propagation time, and increases
the energy of impact fracture, thereby leading to
toughening of the PP/SF composites.
This work was supported by grants from the Research
Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administra-
tive Region, China (Project No. 9040422), and the Na-
tional Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
50003005).
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Bledzki, A. K.; Gassan, J. Prog Polym Sci 1999, 24,
221–274.
2. Saheb, D. N.; Jog, J. P. Adv Polym Technol 1999,
18, 351–363.
3. Li, Y.; Mai, Y.-W.; Ye, L. Compos Sci Technol 2000,
60, 2037–2055.
4. Bisanda, E. T. N.; Ansell, M. P. Compos Sci Technol
1991, 41, 165–178.
5. Joseph, K.; Varghese, S.; Kalaprasad, G.; Thomas,
S.; Prasannakumari, L.; Koshy, P.; Pavithran, C.
Eur Polym J 1996, 32, 1243–1250.
6. Bai, S. L.; Li, R. K. Y.; Wu, C. M. L.; Zeng, H. M.;
Mai, Y.-W. J Mater Sci Lett 1998, 17, 1805–1807.
7. Bai, S. L.; Wu, C. M. L.; Mai, Y.-W.; Zeng, H. M.; Li,
R. K. Y. Adv Comp Lett 1999, 8, 13–17.
8. Tsang, F. F. Y.; Jin, Y. Z.; Yu, K. N.; Wu, C. M. L.;
Li, R. K. Y. J Mater Sci Lett 2000, 19, 1155–1157.
9. Kumar, R. P.; Nair, K. C. M.; Thomas, S.; Schit,
S. C.; Ramamurthy, K. Compos Sci Technol 2000,
60, 1737–1751.
10. Mothe, C. G.; de Araujo, C. R. Thermochim Acta
2000, 357, 321–325.
11. Varghese, S.; Kuriakose, B.; Thomas, S. Polym De-
grad Stab 1994, 44, 55– 61.
12. Paul, A.; Joseph, K.; Thomas, S. Compos Sci Tech-
nol 1997, 57, 67–79.
13. Joseph, K.; Thomas, S.; Pavithran, C. Polymer
1996, 37, 5139 –5149.
14. Joseph, P. V.; Joseph, K.; Thomas, S. Compos Sci
Technol 1999, 59, 1625–1640.
15. Prasad, S. V.; Pavithran, C.; Rohatgi, P. K. J Mater
Sci 1983, 18, 1443–1454.
16. Valadez-Gonzalez, A.; Cervantes-Uc, J. M.; Olayo,
R.; Herrera-Franco, P. J. Compos B 1999, 30, 309 –
320.
17. Xie, X. L.; Li, R. K. Y.; Tjong, S. C.; Mai, Y.-W.
Polym Compos, in press.
18. Oshinski, A. J.; Keskkula, H.; Paul, D. R. Polymer
1992, 33, 268 –283.
19. Oshinski, A. J.; Keskkula, H.; Paul, D. R. Polymer
1992, 33, 284 –293.
20. Wong, S. C.; Mai, Y.-W. Polymer 1999, 40, 1553–
1566.
21. Tjong, S. C.; Li, R. K. Y.; Xie, X. L. J Appl Polym Sci
2000, 77, 1964 –1974.
22. Olabisi, O.; Robeson, L. M.; Shaw, M. T. Polymer-
Polymer Miscibility; Academic: New York, 1979, pp
31–59.
23. Van Krevelen, D. W. Properties of Polymer, 3rd ed.;
Elsevier Science: New York, 1997, p 120.
24. Karger-Kocsis, J. Polypropylene: Structure, Blends
and Composites; Chapman & Hall: New York,
1995, pp 33–34.
25. Alexander, L. E. X-ray Diffraction Methods in Poly-
mer Science; Wiley Interscience: New York, 1969, p
137.
26. Lauritzen, J. I.; Hoffman, J. D. J. Res NBS 1960,
A64, 73–102.
27. Tjong, S. C.; Shen, J. S.; Li, R. K. Y. Polym Eng Sci
1996, 36, 100 –105.