Dynamics of Degradation of Polylactide-Natural Rubber Compositions under the Influence of UV Irradiation

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The effect of ultraviolet radiation of various wavelengths (254 nm and 365 nm) on compositions based on polylactide with the addition of natural rubber was studied. It was found that the effect of the wavelength of 254 nm on the studied samples is much more active than 365 nm, which is characterized by a decrease in the melting temperature and the degree of crystallinity of polylactide in the compositions, as well as a deterioration in physical and mechanical properties. The IR spectroscopy method confirms the photodegradation process by changing the intensities of structurally sensitive polylactide and natural rubber bands.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

M. V. Podzorova

Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences; Plekhanov Russian University of Economics

Author for correspondence.
Email: mariapdz@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

Yu. V. Tertyshnaya

Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences; Plekhanov Russian University of Economics

Email: mariapdz@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

References

  1. Ates B., Koytepe S., Ulu A., Gurs-es C., Thakur V.K. // Chem. Rev. 2020. V. 120. № 17. Р. 9304; https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00553
  2. Hamad K., Kaseem M., Ayyoob M., Joo J., Deri F. // Prog. Polym. Sci. 2018. V. 85 P. 83; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2018.07.001
  3. Podzorova M.V., Tertyshnaya Yu.V. // Russ. J. Appl. Chem. 2019. V. 92(6). P. 767; https://doi.org/10.1134/S1070427219060065
  4. Tertyshnaya Yu.V., Shibryaeva L.S., Levina N.S. // Fibre Chem. 2019. V. 52(1). P. 43; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10692-020-10148-z
  5. Popov A.A., Zykova A.K., Mastalygina E.E. // Rus. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2020. V. 14(3). P. 533; https://doi.org/10.1134/S1990793120030239
  6. Li Y., Qiu Sh., Sun J. et al. // Chem. Eng. J. 2022. V. 428. P. 131979; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.131979
  7. Yeo J.C.C., Muiruri J.K., Koh J.J. et al. // Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020. V. 30. № 30. P. 2001565; https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.v30.3010.1002/adfm.202001
  8. Tertyshnaya Y.V., Karpova S.G., Popov A.A. // Rus. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2017. V. 11. P. 531; https://doi.org/10.1134/S1990793117030241
  9. Huang Y., Zhang C., Pan Y., et al. // Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2013. V. 9. P. 943; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.02.018
  10. Tertyshnaya Y.V., Khvatov A.V., Popov A.A. // Rus. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2022. V. 16(1). P. 162; https://doi.org/10.1134/S1990793122010304
  11. Olewnik-Kruszkowska E., Koter I., Skopin-ska-Wisniewskab J., Richert J. // J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem. 2015. № 311. P. 144; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2015.06.029
  12. Tertyshnaya Y.V., Podzorova M.V. // Rus. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2020. V. 14. P. 167; https://doi.org/10.1134/S1990793120010170
  13. Ikada E. // J. Photopolym. Sci. Technol. 1997. V. 10. P. 265.
  14. Tsuji H., Echizen Y., Nishimura Y. // Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2006. V. 91. Is. 5. P. 1128; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2005.07.007
  15. Marek A.A., Verney V. // Eur. Polym. J. 2016. V. 81. P. 239.
  16. Bao Q., Wong W., Liu S., Tao X. // Polymers. 2022. V. 14. P. 1216; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14061216
  17. Kaynak C., Sarı B. // Appl. Clay Sci. 2016. V. 121–122. P. 86; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.12.025
  18. Janorkar A.V., Metters A.T., Hirt D.E. // J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2007. V. 106. P. 1042; https://doi.org/10.1002/app.24692
  19. Lim L.-T., Auras R., Rubino M. // Prog. Polym. Sci. 2008. V. 33. P. 820; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2008.05.004
  20. Li S., McCarthy S. // Macromolecules. 1999. V. 32. P. 4454; https://doi.org/10.1021/ma990117b.
  21. Jeon H.J., Kim M.N. // Intern. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2013. V. 85. P. 289; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2013.08.013
  22. Pan F., Chen L., Jiang Y.et al. // Intern. J. Biol. acromol. 2018. V.119. P. 582; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ij biomac.2018.07.189
  23. Bocchini S., Fukushima K., Di Blasio A., Fina A., Geobaldo F.F. // Biomacromolecules. 2010. V. 11. P. 2919; https://doi.org/10.1021/bm1006773
  24. Tertyshnaya Y., Podzorova M., Moskovskiy M. // Polymers. 2021. V. 13. P. 461; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13030461
  25. Moura I., Botelho G., Machado A.V. // J. Polym. Environ. 2014. V. 22. P. 148; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-013-0614-y
  26. Zhang C., Man C., Wang W., Jiang L., Dan Y. // Polym. Plast. Technol. 2011. V. 50. P. 810; https://doi.org/10.1080/03602559.2011.551970
  27. Yang W., Dominici F., Fortunati E., Kenny J.M., Puglia D. // Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015. V. 77. P. 833; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.09.057

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of polylactide degradation under the influence of ultraviolet radiation.

Download (57KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Variation of tactical characteristics (tensile strength (a) and relative elongation (b)) of PLA/NK samples before (1) and after (2) exposure to UV radiation with λ = 365 nm for 300 h.

Download (184KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. Infrared spectra (MNPHE) of the 85PLA/15NA sample before (1) and after (2) exposure to UV radiation with λ = 254 nm for 100 h.

Download (106KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. Infrared spectra (MNPHE) of 85PLA/15NA sample before (1) and after (2) exposure to UV radiation with λ = 365 nm for 300 h.

Download (113KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. Microphotographs of 85PLA/15NA sample before (a) and after (b) exposure to UV radiation with λ = 254 nm) for 100 h.

Download (288KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences