Properties of Differently Compatibilized Bamboo Fiber Reinforced PE Composites - Natural Polymers, Biopolymers, Biomaterials, and Their Composites, Blends, and IPNs - page 118

Comparison of ----in situ Grafting Polymer with literature Pre-grafting
Polymer technique
The melt grafting (Chen et al., 1996; Jang et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2001)/ radiation-
induced grafting (Choi et al., 1998) of glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) or solution sur-
face grafting (Chen et al., 1998; Heinen et al., 1996; Machado et al., 2001) / UV
pre-irradiation step grafting (Martínez et al., 2004)/ melt grafting (Heinen et al., 1996;
Machado et al., 2001; Shi et al., 2001) /Ball- milling grafting technique (Qiu et al.,
2005) of MA onto PP/PE (various form like powder, fiber and granules) are discussed
in literature. These pre-grafting techniques are very tedious, time taking process and
wastage of money or energy. Therefore, it is good to fabricate composites with ----in
situ grafting techniques. Figure 9 shows the flow chart of making bamboo-fiber com-
posites with p-grafted or ----in situ grafted polymer as a compatibilizer. The ----in situ
grafting revealed a considerable grafted weight of MA or GMA. Finally, ----in situ
MA grafted polymer (≥1.2%) composites showed a good tensile strength comparable
to pre-grafted polymer composites but the thermal stability was little bit poor because
free MA group might be present in the system while in p-grafted system free MA
group was removed by purification technique. Hence, if better optimal control on the
----in situ grafting is maintained in a way so that no free MA/ GMA group are present,
the composites compatibilized with ----in situ grafting can give better properties.
Figure 9. Flow chart of grafting technique to obtained compatibilized composites.