Research Article

Received: 30 June 2008, Revised: 26 August 2008, Accepted: 28 August 2008, Published online in Wiley InterScience: 17 November 2008

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pat.1298

Improvements of physical and mechanical

properties of electron beam irradiation—
crosslinked EVA foams
Iraj Rezaeian a *, Seyed Hassan Jafari a, Payam Zahedi a, Mehdi Ghaffari b
and Shirin Afradiana
In this work, ethylene–vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer foams were prepared and crosslinked by using high-energy
electron beam (e-beam) radiation (10 MeV). The effect of parameters such as irradiation dose, the contents of foaming
agent, radiation activator, and radiation sensitizer on improvement of physical and mechanical properties of the EVA
foamed samples were investigated. The foams were obtained through a four-step process of melt mixing, forming,
crosslinking, and foaming. During the melt mixing process EVA was compounded with different amounts of
azodicarbonamide (ADCA) as a blowing agent, zinc oxide (ZnO) as a radiation activator, and trimethylol propane-
trimethacrylate (TMPTMA) as a radiation sensitizer. The samples were compression molded into flat sheets at low
temperature (110-C) and were then radiation-crosslinked by 20–80 kGy e-beam. Finally, the crosslinked samples were
converted to foams by a high temperature (210-C) compression molding process. The foamed samples were analyzed
in terms of gel content, density, compression molding set, tensile properties, and micro-structural features. It was
found that an increase in absorbed radiation dosage increases crosslink density, elasticity, percentage recovery,
tensile strength, and compression properties of the EVA foams. Due to the increased recovery the percentage of
compression set was reduced. Similarly increasing the TMPTMA content in the formulation increased the crosslink
density and the resulting mechanical properties. Contrary to these findings, addition of ADCA led to the formation of
extra gases which in turn reduced the crosslink density, and resulted in the deterioration of the mechanical properties
and hence an increase in the compression set. However, addition of ZnO and TMPTMA led to the formation of smaller
and more uniform cell size with improved mechanical properties. Copyright ß 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: foams; (ethylene-vinyl acetate) copolymer; crosslinking; electron beam irradiation; mechanical properties

INTRODUCTION excellent mechanical properties, and suitable thermal and

In today’s life, mankind is in continuous contact with polymeric
and non-polymeric (ceramic and metallic) foams. Today, with
much progress made in the processing and production of these
materials, polymeric foams with different properties and vast
applications are among one of the most important materials in
the economy of industrial countries. On the other hand, there is a
continuous demand for limiting environmentally hazardous
compounds. Also, increased efforts are being made for the use of
recyclable materials. Polymeric foams are lightweight materials
which are capable of providing mechanical and physical
properties for many structural materials.[1] Due to their very
low density, the foams have very high specific properties
(properties to weight ratio) which make them a suitable choice
for many industrial applications such as construction materials,
thermal and sound insulators, packaging, and light weight
materials for transportation industries. Their floating properties,
ability to damp unwanted sounds or noises, and physical impact
as well as their recyclability are among their additional
advantages over other types of materials. Among many
polymeric foams the polyolefin foams, especially polyethylene
(PE) foams, have a good combination of properties such as easy
accessibility and processability, good chemical resistance,
electrical properties. They have found many uses in car
manufacturing processes, transportation, construction, marine
industries, sports, medical, and educational accessories.[2,3]
In order to achieve higher mechanical and thermal properties,
usually PE foams are crosslinked by different methods. Moreover
crosslinking normally leads to a better control over nucleation
and formation of cells with uniform size. One of the best and
simplest methods for crosslinking PE foams is the use of e-beam
radiation. In recent years, there has been a considerable increase
in crosslinking PE foams by using an e-beam radiation. The
advantages of using this method are high rate of crosslinking,
environmental compatibility, easy processing and molding,
* Correspondence to: I. Rezaeian, School of Chemical Engineering, University of
Tehran, P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran
E-mail: rezaeian@ut.ac.ir
a I. Rezaeian, S. H. Jafari, P. Zahedi, S. Afradian
School of Chemical Engineering, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 11155-4563,
Tehran, Iran
b M. Ghaffari
Department of Polymer Processing, Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute
(IPPI), Tehran, Iran
487

Polym. Adv. Technol. 2009, 20 487–492 Copyright ß 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 I. REZAEIAN ET AL.

smooth and uniform surfaces, improved printability and
adhesion, and easy control of the process.
A great deal of research has been devoted to different
production methods, processing, and properties of PE foams.
Adem and his coworkers[4] compared two PE foams crosslinked
with a Cobalt-60 gamma ray and e-beam radiation. They found
that the crosslinking level is higher for the PE foams radiated with
gamma ray as compared to e-beam. They also reported that there
is a thickness limitation of up to 1 cm or less for the PE foams
while using the e-beam radiation method but there is no such
restriction for the gamma ray radiation. In spite of this advantage
the gamma ray radiation must be carried out in a vacuum or in an
inert atmosphere which makes this method more expensive than
the e-beam. In addition, even at a very low dose the gamma ray
may lead to a more oxidative degradation.
Cardoso and Lugao[5] made some crosslinked PE foams with
different formulations using different amounts of absorbed doses
of e-beam irradiation in an electrically heated oven. They
measured the surface roughness and mechanical properties of
the crosslinked PE foams.
Dalai and Wenxiu[6] studied foams made from low-density
polyethylene (LDPE)/ethylene–vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA)
blends crosslinked by gamma rays. They reported the relation-
ship between gel content and the extent of foaming, apparent
density, mean diameter of cells, and tensile properties of
crosslinked foamed samples.
Rodriguez-Perez and Duijsens[7] studied the effect of EVA
content in LDPE/EVA crosslinked foamed samples. They con-
cluded that both static and dynamic modulus and thermal
stability of the samples were decreased with the increasing EVA
content, while thermal expansion, loss factors at low tempera-
tures, and percentage of immediate elastic recovery increased.
In addition, there are many articles on the production methods
and the properties of crosslinked EVA and its blends.[8–12]
However, the reports on e-beam crosslinked EVA foams are
relatively rare.
The most significant shortcoming of EVA foams is their low
heat resistance. This problem can be solved by crosslinking. In
this work, e-beam radiation was used for crosslinking. The
properties of the materials used and process conditions were
optimized in order to get the crosslinked EVA foams with
optimum mechanical properties. It should be mentioned that
high-energy e-beam radiation (10 MeV) was used in this work to
solve the problem of penetration depth of radiation.
Table 1. A hot press, Dr. Collin Company, Germany, was used to
produce smooth sheets from the above mixture and also for the
foaming process. An electron accelerator, Rodotron type (IBA
Belgium Co.), was used for electron irradiation and crosslinking
process. A tensometer, Instron 6655 type, was used to measure
mechanical properties of the samples. Perkin Elmer DSC, DSC-50
(Shimadzu Co., Japan), and scanning electron microscopy, SEM,
(Philips–XL 30) were also used.
Sample preparation
On the basis of the formulation presented in Table 1, EVA and
other additives at different ratios were melt mixed in the
Brabender at a screw speed of 50 rpm, a temperature of 1108C,
and a mixing time of 10 min. A hot press was used to produce
smooth sheets with dimensions 12.8 cm  12.8 cm  0.2 cm from
the above mixtures. At this stage, the mixtures were preheated
for 180 sec at 1108C and then maintained under defined
pressures and times, i.e. 25 bar for 40 sec, 65 bar for 65 sec,
and 100 bar for 100 sec. Finally, the samples were cooled with
ambient water.
E-beam irradiation process
Radiation of the samples was carried out in repeated cycles at an
absorption dose rate of 20 kGy in each cycle and in this way the
samples were irradiated with doses of 40, 60, and 80 kGy. Smooth
sheets prepared in the previous step were placed on aluminum
pallets and passed from 10 MeV e-beam field by a conveyor.
According to a previous study,[13] the levels of imposed doses
were regulated by the changes in conveyor rate and con-
sequently residence time changes of sheets under the radiation
field. For the measurements of radiation absorption dose for each
sheet, cellulose triacetate (CTA) dosimeters were used which was
calibrated with a calorimetric system in a dosimetric laboratory.
Foaming process
An important step for sample foaming depends on the
decomposition of ADCA. To determine decomposition tempera-
ture, DSC-50 (Shimadzu Co. Japan) was used. The rate of heating
was 5 K/min and the temperature range was 25–2508C according
to ASTM D3418. The foaming process was carried out on a hot
press at ADCA decomposition temperature and a pressure of
125 bar.

EXPERIMENTAL
Table 1. Formulation for preparation of EVA foams
Materials
In this work, EVA grade ES430 from Hyundai Co. was used as the EVA ADCA ZnO TMPTMA
base polymer. It has VA content of 18 wt%, MFI of 2.1 g/10 min, Sample (wt%) (wt%) (wt%) (wt%)
and density of 0.93 g/cm3. Azodicarbonamide (ADCA) was used
as a blowing agent (degradation temperature range was A1 98 2 — —
200–2208C) and zinc oxide (ZnO) was used as an activator A2 95 5 — —
(Merck Co.). Trimethylol propane–trimethacrylate (Aldrich Co.) A3 92 8 — —
was used as a radiation sensitizer. These materials were used B1 94 5 1 —
without prior treatments. B2 93 5 2 —
B3 92 5 3 —
Instruments C1 93.75 5 1 0.25
C2 93.5 5 1 0.5
An internal mixer, Brabender Lab station type with 350 cm3 C3 93.25 5 1 0.75
capacity, was used to mix EVA with other additives according to
488

www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/pat Copyright ß 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2009, 20 487–492
IMPROVEMENTS OF PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Measurements
Gel content
The gel percentages of the samples according to ASTM D-2765
were measured with the extraction of radiated samples in boiling
xylene for 12 hr, stabilized by an antioxidant (Irganox1010). The
residuals of insoluble parts were dried in an oven at 1508C. The
gel content was calculated from the difference in sample weights
before and after the extraction.
Mechanical properties
Tensile tests were carried out by a tensometer with a speed of
50 mm/min according to ASTM D-3575 (suffix T). Tensile strength
and elongation at break were calculated from the stress–strain
curves. The average of at least five measurements with standard
deviation of less than 5% was reported.
Density measurements
The density of each sample was measured according to standard
ASTM D-3575 (suffix W). Measurements of weight and volume for
each sample were carried out and then the density was
calculated.
Compression set measurements
Compression set test is defined as the measurement of
permanent deformation of a sample with a defined shape and
dimensions at a defined time and temperature according to
ASTM D-3575 (suffix B). The primary thickness of the samples was
25 mm, after compression thickness of the sample decreased by
50% (12.5 mm). After 22 hr, the samples were taken out and
thickness reduction after 24 hr shows the percentage of
permanent deformation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
An investigation of the effects of blowing agents on the
foamed samples
At this stage, gel content tests were carried out for the radiated
EVA sheet sample formulations A1–A3 in Table 1, before foaming.
The results are presented in Table 2. On the basis of these results
it is seen that increasing the absorption dosage leads to an
increase in crosslinking and network phase formation which
increases the gel content. It is also seen that the gel content
changes with an increase in the blowing agent percentage (see
Table 1 and compare series A1–A3 samples). However, these
changes are more obvious in the low dosage (40 kGy). It is seen
that by increasing the blowing agent from 2 to 8 wt% the
gel content changes from 42% to 30 wt%. The decrease in the gel
content (crosslink density) with increase in the blowing agent
content is due to two reasons: the negative effect of the blowing
agent on the crosslinking process and the decrease in the
concentration of the EVA polymer, which is the crosslinkable
fraction of the formulation. In order to determine the contribution
of each fraction, the gel content values were normalized with
respect to the total part of formulation. The same decreasing
trend of gel content with increase in the blowing agent was seen
for the normalized values too. The normalized gel contents for
samples irradiated with 40 kGy having 2, 5, and 8 wt% blowing
agent (ADCA) were 42.86, 38.95, and 32.61%, respectively. A
comparison of these values with unnormalized gel content values
(i.e. 42, 37, and 30 for A1, A2, and A3, respectively) reveals the
contribution of each fraction in decreasing the gel content.
This contribution is about 9.45% for the blowing agent and the
rest is from reduction in the EVA content which is about 2.55%.
These results confirm the strong negative effect of the blowing
agent on the crosslinking process. Obviously this strong
effect will be seen in samples irradiated with low irradiation
dose in which the gel content has not reached to its maximum
level.
On the other hand, the gel content for samples irradiated with
higher dose shows only a little dependence on the blowing agent
content. The small dependence of the gel content on the blowing
agent content for samples irradiated with 80 kGy can be due to
reaching a maximum amount of gel content in these samples. In
fact the gel contents in samples irradiated with different dose
levels finally level off and reach an ultimate value. In the case of a
neat EVA sample irradiated with 0–300 kGy, the gel content
leveled off at 80–100 kGy and reached 70%.[14] This is in good
agreement with our results in which, in the presence of different
amounts of the blowing agents, the gel content of about 68%
was obtained for samples irradiated with 80 kGy. This confirms
the argument that the gel content in samples irradiated with
80 kGy has reached its maximum level and therefore the blowing
agent has no significant effect on it.
From data presented in Table 2 it is deduced that the tensile
strength of the foamed samples (A1–A3) increases with increase
in the irradiation doses. The reason is an increase in the
crosslinked content similar to the gel formations discussed

Table 2. Physical and mechanical properties of EVA foams in terms of variation in the blowing agent (ADCA)

Sample A1 Sample A2 Sample A3

Dosage (kGy) 40 60 80 40 60 80 40 60 80

Density (g/cm3) 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.08 0.1 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.08
Gel content (%) 42 59 68 37 60 68 30 57 68
Compression set (%) 6 4.3 4 10.5 8.5 5.8 15 9.9 8
Tensile strength (MPa) 3.3 4 5.3 1.4 2 2.4 0.9 1.2 1.4
Elongation at break (%) 510 410 380 430 320 240 400 290 170
489

Polym. Adv. Technol. 2009, 20 487–492 Copyright ß 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/pat

above. Moreover, the tensile strength of samples shows the same
dependence on the blowing agent content as that of the gel
content. It means that with an increase in the blowing agent
there is a reduction in the tensile properties at all the irradiation
dosages. For example, for samples irradiated with 40 kGy, the
tensile strength drops from 3.3 to 1.4 and finally reaches 0.9 MPa
for samples containing 2, 5, and 8 wt% blowing agent,
respectively. Similar trend is observed for samples irradiated
with 60 or 80 kGy.
This reduction in the tensile properties with increase in the
blowing agent can be attributed to the increase in cell size which
will be discussed later. As compared with the tensile properties,
opposite trends are seen for the variation of elongation at break
with the irradiation dose and blowing agent. It is predictable that
with an increase in irradiation dosage, crosslinking between
polymeric chains increases which inhibits polymeric chains
mobility and as a result leads to a decrease in the flexibility of
polymeric foamed samples. Consequently, an increase in the
irradiation dosage leads to a decrease in the percentage of
elongation of the foamed samples.
The compression set data reported in Table 2 are used as
additional supporting data for confirming the tensile properties.
As expected there is an inverse proportionality between the
tensile strength and compression set results. An increase in
crosslink density leads to the formation of stronger cells which
can withstand the mechanical stresses and hence results in a
lower compression set or a higher tensile strength.
With an increase in the irradiation dosage due to increased
crosslinking of the sample which leads to cell walls with higher
strength, there will be a greater prevention of the degassing
process and in consequently compression set will be reduced. On
the other hand, with an increase of the blowing agent content,
because of an increase in the gas phase as well as a reduction in
polymer contribution and as a result the cell wall thickness
reduction, the probability of gas exit from the cells is increased. As
it can be seen from Table 2, the compression set increases by
more than 100% by an increase of the blowing agent content
from 2 to 8 wt%. As discussed earlier in the gel content section
this increase is more pronounced at the low irradiation dosage
(40 kGy).
Both from economical and environmental points of view, the
main purpose of using polymer foams is a decrease in the use of
polymeric base material or a reduction in the weight. Therefore,
the densities of these materials are important. The trends of
density variations for polymeric foamed sample formulations
A1–A3 are shown in Table 2. As it is seen for A1 and A2 series of
samples, an increase in absorbed dosage leads to an increase of
crosslink density (higher gel content), which in turn prevents the
foaming process and results in an increase in the density of the
final foam. For these series of samples the variations in the foam
densities versus irradiation dose are nearly 100%. A similar trend
of variation is seen for the A3 series of samples but with a much
lower dependence. The A3 series of samples have the highest
blowing agent content and hence generate foams with the
lowest densities. Therefore the differences between densities are
not so significant. The trend of these changes in 80 kGy dosage
for different samples is more obvious (i.e. variation is from 0.4 to
0.08 g/cm3) and the reasons for these changes can be attributed
to the weaker cell formation with increased size which leads to a
reduced density at the higher blowing agent content. Moreover,
the formation of weaker cells can increase the possibility for the
formation of a greater number of open cells at higher blowing
490
www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/pat Copyright ß 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
I. REZAEIAN ET AL.
agent content. On the basis of the foam density as the main
criterion and mechanical properties, the foamed sample A2 was
selected as the best formulation for use in the next step. These
series of samples have a suitable density range with satisfactory
mechanical properties as compared to the samples.
The effect of an activator on the foamed samples
The use of a foaming activator in the formulation reduces the
process temperature, increases the amount of the gas formation,
and gives a better distribution of the cells. Figure 1 (a and b)
shows the DSC results for the EVA foamed samples in the
presence and absence of a foaming activator. As it can be seen
from Fig. 1, the ADCA decomposition temperature is at about
2058C which drops to 1808C in presence of the activator. In this
work ZnO was used as a foaming activator which has a higher
efficiency compared with other activators.[15] Therefore, 1, 2, and
3 wt% of ZnO were used in the optimum formulation A2 and
smooth sheets prepared from these formulations were cross-
linked by 40–80 kGy e-beam irradiation.
In order to investigate the effect of ZnO in these formulations,
mechanical, physical, chemical tests, and SEM investigations
were carried out on the foamed samples. A significant increase in
the amount of gel formed was seen as a result of an increase
in the e-beam dosage. However, the increase in gel formation for
all the samples was almost similar and there is no significant
difference between samples B1 and B3 from this point of view.
Since the addition of ZnO in these samples leads to an increase in
the efficiency of the foaming agent due to the dropping of the
decomposition temperature of ADCA, the foaming process for
these samples compared with those without ZnO is more
effective. The better efficiency of the foaming process in presence
of the activator is clearly seen if one compares the amount of gel
formation for samples irradiated with 40 kGy in the presence and
absence of the activator (see Tables 2 and 3). On the other hand,
by using the same amount of a foaming agent in the presence of
ZnO more gases are produced in the presence of the activator
Figure 1. DSC thermograms of the foam samples showing the
decomposition temperature of the blowing agent: (a) in the absence
of activator (A2), (b) in the presence activator (B1).
Polym. Adv. Technol. 2009, 20 487–492
IMPROVEMENTS OF PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Table 3. Physical and mechanical properties of EVA foams in terms of variation in the activator content (ZnO)

Sample B1 Sample B2 Sample B3

Dosage (kGy) 40 60 80 40 60 80 40 60 80

Density (g/cm3) 0.075 0.095 0.135 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.115
Gel content (%) 51 67 69 50 63 70 50 59 68
Compression set (%) 11 9.5 6.3 12 10 7.3 13 11 7.5
Tensile strength (MPa) 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.2 1.35 1.36 1.1 1.2 1.5
Elongation at break (%) 400 300 280 375 300 260 350 220 170

and as a result, the produced foams have lower densities
(Table 3).
By increasing the amount of the activator ZnO, and because of
the increase in the gas phase in the foamed samples, formulation
B shows a reduction in tensile strength and elongation at break
compared with samples without the activator (formulation A).
Also, these reductions in properties with respect to an increase in
the ZnO content in the formulations can be clearly observed. As
expected the compression sets should increase with increase in
the activator content due to a faster gas formation process.
However, the effect of the activator on increase in the
compression set is much lower than the blowing agent effect
as the activator affects the decomposition temperature only, but
the blowing agent has a direct influence on the amount of gas
formation.
Other reasons for the use of ZnO in the foam formulations are
its nucleating properties and its effect on uniform cell size
distribution. In order to find out the effect of ZnO on cell size and
cell size distribution SEM investigations were carried out for
formulations A2 and B1 and the results are presented in Fig. 2
(a and b). Comparing the morphologies in Fig. 2 (a) and (b), it can
be concluded that the incorporation of the activator in the foam
formulation produces smaller cells with a better size distribution.
Figure 2. SEM micrographs of foam samples: (a) in the absence of
activator (A2), (b) in the presence activator (B1).
On the basis of the results presented in Table 3, for the next
series of investigation the B1 formulation with 1 wt% activator,
having a suitable density range with the highest desirable
mechanical properties, was selected as the optimum activator
content.
The effect of using a radiation sensitizer on
the foaming process of the samples
An important part of the final cost of foams produced by
radiation depends on the cost of e-beam radiation. Using a
suitable radiation sensitizer can reduce the e-beam dosage to a
minimum level. A study was carried out on the effect of the
amount of the radiation sensitizer, trimethylol propane-
trimethacrylate (TMPTMA), on the efficiency of the foaming
process. The effect of addition of 0.25–0.75 wt% of TMPTMA to
formulation B1 irradiated with a lower dosage (20–60 kGy) on the
foam properties was investigated and the results are summarized
in Table 4. As a result of TMPTMA, break up and radical formation
crosslinking starts at lower energy levels and there will be a
saving on the energy consumption. Table 4 shows that the use of
TMPTMA reduces e-beam dosage necessary for the crosslinking
process. This means that even at low dosage (e.g. 20 kGy) the
amount of gel formation for the C1 sample is considerable
(ca. 50%) and it is comparable with the B1 formulation which was
irradiated with 40 kGy. Therefore, increasing TMPTMA amount in
the formulation increases the crosslinking content and gel
formation percentages in the samples. Looking at the other
properties of the resulting foams it is seen that increase in
TMPTMA amounts in the formulation leads to an increase in
density and mechanical properties of the foams.
Figure 3 (a, b, and c) shows SEM micrographs for foamed
samples having different amounts of the radiation sensitizer.
These SEM micrographs reveal that the incorporation of TMPTMA
and increasing its content in the formulation results in the
formation of large number of small sized cells. The presence of
TMPTMA in the foam formulation leads to an increase of network
formation which strengthens the structure and prevents break up
of the small cells. Therefore, a large number of small cells with a
more uniform size distribution are formed. This leads to an
increase in foam density, tensile strength, and reduction in
compression set and percentage elongation at break values.
However, comparing these values for formulations C1–C3 shows
that samples C2 and C3 have almost similar properties which are
much better than C1 series. This can be explained on the basis of
the similarity in the gel content values for C2 and C3 series of
samples. The gel content reaches its maximum level of about 70%
491

Polym. Adv. Technol. 2009, 20 487–492 Copyright ß 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/pat
 I. REZAEIAN ET AL.

Table 4. Physical and mechanical properties of EVA foams in terms of variation in the irradiation sensitizer content (TMPTMA)

Sample C1 Sample C2 Sample C3

Dosage (kGy) 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60

Density (g/cm3) 0.075 0.075 0.13 0.08 0.1 0.19 0.07 0.11 0.2
Gel content (%) 51 67 69 50 63 70 50 59 68
Compression set (%) 21 21 14 20 15 12 20 14 12
Tensile strength (MPa) 0.8 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.25 1.5 1.9
Elongation at break (%) 400 300 200 390 285 170 340 220 170

for these two series of samples at the highest irradiation dosage.
Therefore the C2 series of samples, having almost comparable
mechanical properties to that of C3, but with a lower TMPTMA
content is found to be the best formulation as far as the optimum
concentration of the TMPTMA is concerned.
CONCLUSION
In this work the optimum processing conditions and formulation
were determined for the preparation of EVA foams. The foams
were crosslinked through exposure to high-energy electron
irradiation with different doses. It was found that increasing the
irradiation dose led to the formation of stronger foams with
increased tensile strength and reduced compression set values.
These improved mechanical properties could be explained on
the basis of increased network formation which was quantified by
gel content measurements. Addition of an optimum amount of a
blowing agent (ADCA) was necessary for the formation of foams
with a balance of properties. However, with the aid of an activator
(ZnO) and a radiation sensitizer (TMPTMA) it was possible to
further optimize the formulation and the irradiation dosage. The
foams with optimum balance of properties, i.e. having low
density, low compression set, and elongation at break values, as
well as high tensile strength and crosslink density could be
obtained with the incorporation of 5 wt% ADCA, 1 wt% ZnO, and
0.5 wt% TMPTMA. The micro-structural features of the foams
were also analyzed through SEM investigation. It was found that
by incorporating the optimum amount of the activator and the
radiation sensitizer, foams with smaller cell size and uniform size
distribution were formed. The TMPTMA had an influential role in
controlling the micro-structural features of the foams.

Figure 3. SEM micrographs of foam samples: (a) in the absence of
TMPTMA (B1), (b) in the presence of 0.25 wt% TMPTMA (C1), (c) in the
presence of 0.5 wt% TMPTMA (C2).
492
REFERENCES
[1] N. C. Hilyard, A. Cunningham, Low Density Cellular Plastics: Physical
Basis of Behavior, Chapman & Hall, New York, 1994.
[2] Y. Zhang, D. J. Rodriguez, Appl. Polym. Sci. 2003, 90, 2111–2119. DOI:
10.1002/app. 12821
[3] O. Almanza, M. A. Rodriguez-Perez, Eur. Polym. J. 2005, 41, 599–609.
DOI: 10.1016/j.europolymj.2004.10.028
[4] E. Adem, G. Burrillo, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 1995, 46, 937–940. DOI:
10.1016/0969-806X (95)00296-A
[5] E. C. L. Cardoso, B. Lugao, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 1998, 52, 197–200. DOI:
1016/S0969-806X (98)00139-X
[6] S. Dalai, C. Wenxiu, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1996, 62, 75–80. DOI: 10.1002/
(sici) 1097-4628 (19961003)62:1<75:: AID-APP10>3.0.CO;2-7
[7] M. A. Rodriguez-Perez, A. Duijsens, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1998, 68,
1237–1244. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19980523)68:8<1237::AID-
APP5>3.0.CO;2-E
[8] S. M. A. Salehi, G. Mirjalili, J. Amrollahi, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2004, 92,
1049–1052. DOI: 10.1002/app.20079
[9] J. A. Reyes-Labarta, M. M. Olaya, A. Marcilla, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2006,
102, 2015–2025. DOI: 10.1002/app. 23969
[10] G. Spadaro, C. Dispenza, M. A. Visco, A. Valenza, Macromol. Symp.
2002, 180, 33–42. DOI: 10.1002/1521-3900 (200203)180:1<33::AID-
MASY33>3.0.CO;2-0
[11] P. Budrugeac, T. Zaharescu, M. Marcuta, G. Marin, J. Appl. Polym. Sci.
2005, 96, 613–617. DOI: 10.1002/app. 21371
[12] H. A. Khonakdar, U. Wagenknecht, S. H. Jafari, R. Hässler, H. Eslami,
Adv. Polym. Tech. 2004, 23, 307–315. DOI: 10.1002/adv.20019
[13] F. Ziaie, H. Afarideh, M. Hadji- Saeid, S. A. Durrani, Radiat. Meas. 2002,
34, 609–613. DOI: 10.1016/S1350-4487 (01)00239-6
[14] S. K. Datta, T. K. Chaki, D. Khastgir, Angew. Makromol. Chem. 1996, 238,
105–117. DOI: 10.1002/apmc.1996.052380110
[15] D. Klempner, K. C. Frish, Handbook of Polymeric Foams and Foams
Technology, Hanser, New York, 1991.

www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/pat Copyright ß 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2009, 20 487–492