4.7 Article

Mechanically robust and flame-retardant polylactide composites based on molecularly-engineered polyphosphoramides

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2021.106317

关键词

Polylactide; Phosphoramides; Mechanical property; Flame retardancy

资金

  1. Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province [SJKY19_0463]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2019B66414]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51873196, 21671146, 51573169]
  4. Australian Research Council [DP190102992, FT190100188]
  5. Key Research and Development Projects of Zhejiang Province, China [2018C01051, 2019C01098, 2020C04004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study designs a series of polyphosphoramides with tunable structures and compositions. By balancing hydrogen bonding and interfacial tension, it increases the tensile strength and toughness of PLA, leading to a desirable UL-94V-0 rating and a high limited oxygen index (LOI).
Intrinsic flammability significantly impedes practical applications of polylactide (PLA), despite many merits. Phosphoramides have shown exceptional flame retardancy efficiency in PLA, but to date it remains a grand challenge to create strong, tough and flame-retardant PLA based on phosphoramides due to lack of fundamental understanding of structure-property correlation. Herein, we design a series of polyphosphoramides (PPDA-x) with tunable structures and compositions. With 1.0 wt% of PPDA-8, tensile strength and toughness of PLA are increased by 11% and 44%, respectively, because of balanced hydrogen-bonding and interfacial tension. Meanwhile, the final PLA achieves a desirable UL-94V-0 rating and a high limited oxygen index (LOI) of similar to 26.8% because phosphorus contents and interfacial tension govern flame retardancy. This work offers a general methodology for creating robust and flame-retardant polymers by molecularly tailoring flame retardants and shedding light on their structure-property relationship.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据