Polymer Bulletin

, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 1877–1897 | Cite as

Selective cross-linking of carboxylated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber and study of their technological compatibility with poly(ethylene-co-methyl acrlylate) by means of mechanical, thermal, and chemical analysis

  • Poushali Bhawal
  • Tushar Kanti Das
  • Sayan Ganguly
  • Subhadip Mondal
  • Narayan Ch. DasEmail author
Original Paper


Technologically compatible blend becomes an interesting arena of polymer blend industry for their significant properties and fascinating morphologies. This work encompasses the fabrication of technologically compatible blend through melt blending of poly(ethylene-co-methyl acrylate) (EMA) and carboxylated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (XNBR) in five different ratios to study their compatibility by employing various techniques, like Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA). To observe the reinforcing effect of blend specific amount of metal oxide, zinc oxide (ZnO) was incorporated into the system. Curing characterization, FTIR, and morphological analysis confirm that ZnO selectively forms cross-link with XNBR through the coordination complex and does not show any substantial effect on EMA. DMTA reveals high-temperature relaxation of the carboxylic salt of XNBR phase which reinforces the EMA/XNBRZnO-cross-linked blends and also verified by FTIR analysis. Although DSC shows single glass transition temperature (Tg) for all blend systems in between the Tg of pure polymer component, DMTA confirms the presence of two different Tg for plastic and rubber phases with close proximity, specifying technological compatibility in blend compounds. Increasing XNBR improves tensile strength of blends by sacrificing elongation at break. Therefore, our aim is to tune and optimize the blend features by judicial mixing of EMA and XNBR to mitigate the blend failure during service tenure and develop a novel technologically compatible blend.

Graphical abstract


Technological compatibility Ionic cross-link Carboxylated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (XNBR) Poly(ethylene-co-methyl acrylate) (EMA) 



This work was funded by the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Department of Science and Technology (DST), Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt. of India (ECR/2016/000048).


  1. 1.
    Nair MNR, Nair MRG (2012) Studies on impact modification and fractography of solution cast blends of PVC and NR/PU block copolymers. Polym Bull 68:859–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bijarimi M, Ahmad S, Alam AM (2017) Toughening effect of liquid natural rubber on the morphology and thermo-mechanical properties of the poly (lactic acid) ternary blend. Polym Bull 74:3301–3317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chatterjee T, Basu D, Das A, Wiessner S, Naskar K, Heinrich G (2016) Super thermoplastic vulcanizates based on carboxylated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (XNBR) and polyamide (PA12). Eur Polym J 78:235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernandes TMD, Leite MCAM, de Sousa AMF, Furtado CRG, Escócio VA, da Silva ALN (2017) Improvement in toughness of polylactide/poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) blend by adding nitrile rubber. Polym Bull 74:1713–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Isayev AI, Palsule S (2011) Encyclopedia of polymer blends, volume 2: processing. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banerjee SS, Bhowmick AK (2013) Novel nanostructured polyamide 6/fluoroelastomer thermoplastic elastomeric blends: influence of interaction and morphology on physical properties. Polymer 54:6561–6571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Varghese H, Bhagawan S, Thomas S (1999) Effects of blend ratio, crosslinking systems and fillers on the morphology, curing behavior, mechanical properties, and failure mode of acrylonitrile butadiene rubber and poly (ethylene-co–vinyl acetate) blends. J Appl Polym Sci 71:2335–2364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roland C, Ngai K (1991) Dynamical heterogeneity in a miscible polymer blend. Macromolecules 24:2261–2265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gomez CM, Bucknall CB (1993) Blends of poly (methyl methacrylate) with epoxy resin and an aliphatic amine hardener. Polymer 34:2111–2117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhawal P, Ganguly S, Chaki T, Das NC (2016) Synthesis and characterization of graphene oxide filled ethylene methyl acrylate hybrid nanocomposites. RSC Adv 6:20781–20790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhawal P, Ganguly S, Das TK, Mondal S, Das NC (2017) Mechanically robust conductive carbon clusters confined ethylene methyl acrylate–based flexible composites for superior shielding effectiveness. Polym Adv Technol. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meilchen MA, Hasch BM, McHugh MA (1991) Effect of copolymer composition on the phase behavior of mixtures of poly (ethylene-co-methyl acrylate) with propane and chlorodifluoromethane. Macromolecules 24:4874–4882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Santra RN, Roy S, Bhowmick AK, Nando G (1993) Studies on miscibility of blends of ethylene methyl acrylate and polydimethyl siloxane rubber. Polym Eng Sci 33:1352–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Santra RN, Mukunda P, Nando G, Chaki T (1993) Thermogravimetric studies on miscible blends of ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer (EMA) and polydimethylsiloxane rubber (PDMS). Thermochim Acta 219:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Santra R, Samantaray B, Bhowmick A, Nando G (1993) In situ compatibilization of low-density polyethylene and polydimethylsiloxane rubber blends using ethylene–methyl acrylate copolymer as a chemical compatibilizer. J Appl Polym Sci 49:1145–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Byun HS, Hasch B, McHugh M, Mähling FO, Busch M, Buback M (1996) Poly (ethylene-co-butyl acrylate). Phase behavior in ethylene compared to the poly (ethylene-co-methyl acrylate)-Ethylene system and aspects of copolymerization kinetics at high pressures. Macromolecules 29:1625–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bhagabati P, Chaki T (2014) Compatibility study of chlorinated polyethylene/ethylene methacrylate copolymer blends using thermal, mechanical, and chemical analysis. J App Polym Sci 131:40316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ha CS, Lee JK, Cho WJ, Park CK (1994) Compatibilizing effects of copolymers of chloroprene and alkylmethacrylates with different alkyl groups in polychloroprene/poly (alkyl methacrylate) blends. Polymer 35:212–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Allen MA, Fetcko JT (1997) Method of continuously formulating and applying a hot melt adhesive, Google PatentsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Santra RN, Chaki TK, Roy S, Nando GB (1993) Studies on miscibility of blends of thermoplastic polyurethane and poly (ethylene-co-methyl acrylate). Macromol Mater Eng 213:7–13Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Basu D, Das A, Stöckelhuber KW, Jehnichen D, Formanek P, Sarlin E, Vuorinen J, Heinrich G (2014) Evidence for an in situ developed polymer phase in ionic elastomers. Macromolecules 47:3436–3450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thakur V, Das A, Mahaling RN, Rooj S, Gohs U, Wagenknecht U, Heinrich G (2009) Influence of layered double hydroxides on the curing of carboxylated nitrile rubber with zinc oxide. Macromol Mater Eng 294:561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bhawal P, Ganguly S, Das TK, Mondal S, Choudhury S, Das NC (2018) Superior electromagnetic interference shielding effectiveness and electro-mechanical properties of EMA-IRGO nanocomposites through the in situ reduction of GO from melt blended EMA-GO composites. Compos B 134:46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parmer JF, Dickinson LC, Chien J, Porter RS (1989) Miscibility of polymethacrylate/poly (vinyl chloride) blends. Macromolecules 22:1078–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nishi T, Wang T (1975) Melting point depression and kinetic effects of cooling on crystallization in poly (vinylidene fluoride)-poly (methyl methacrylate) mixtures. Macromolecules 8:909–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weiss R, Fitzgerald J, Kim D (1991) Viscoelastic behavior of plasticized sulfonated polystyrene ionomers. Macromolecules 24:1064–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weiss R, Fitzgerald J, Kim D (1991) Viscoelastic behavior of lightly sulfonated polystyrene ionomers. Macromolecules 24:1071–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Radhakrishnan C, Kumari P, Sujith A, Unnikrishnan G (2008) Dynamic mechanical properties of styrene butadiene rubber and poly (ethylene-co-vinyl acetate) blends. J Polym Res 15:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coleman MM, Lee JY, Painter PC (1990) Acid salts and the structure of ionomers. Macromolecules 23:2339–2345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mandal U, Tripathy D, De S (1995) Effect of silica filler on dynamic mechanical properties of lonic elastomer based on carboxylated nitrile rubber. J Appl Polym Sci 55:1185–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mondal U, Tripathy D, De S (1993) Moving die rheometry and dynamic mechanical studies on the effect of reinforcing carbon black filler on ionomer formation during crosslinking of carboxylated nitrile rubber by zinc oxide. Polymer 34:3832–3836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mandal U, Tripathy D, De S (1995) Effect of carbon black fillers on dynamic mechanical properties of ionic elastomer based on carboxylated nitrile rubber. Plast Rubber Compos Process Appl 1:19–25Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ibarra L, Marcos-Fernandez A, Alzorriz M (2002) Mechanistic approach to the curing of carboxylated nitrile rubber (XNBR) by zinc peroxide/zinc oxide. Polymer 43:1649–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Poushali Bhawal
    • 1
  • Tushar Kanti Das
    • 1
  • Sayan Ganguly
    • 1
  • Subhadip Mondal
    • 1
  • Narayan Ch. Das
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Rubber Technology CentreIndian Institute of Technology KharagpurKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations