Advertisement

Surface Modifications in WPC with Pre-Treatment Methods

  • Jin Kuk KimEmail author
  • Kaushik Pal
Chapter
Part of the Engineering Materials book series (ENG.MAT., volume 32)

Abstract

Compared with conventional and mineral filler reinforced thermoplastic products, wood–polymer composites (WPC) have many advantages such as high specific strength and modulus, low cost, low density, and low friction during compounding. Unlike wood, WPC have excellent dimensional stability under moisture exposure [1, 2] and better fungi and termite resistance [3, 4]. For WPC, one of the most attractive features is that it can help recycle thermoplastic and wood wastes. Therefore, WPC have developed quickly in the last three decades [5]. However, polar wood fiber and non-polar thermoplastics and commodity plastics like PE, PP are not compatible, thus resulting in poor adhesion resulting in weak interface. [6, 7, 8].

Keywords

Plasma Treatment Coupling Agent Natural Fiber Maleic Anhydride Wood Fiber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Klason, C., Kubát, J., Strömvall, H.-E.: “The efficiency of cellulosic fillers in common thermoplastics, part I. Filling without processing aids or coupling agents”. Int. J. Polym. Mater. 10, 159–187 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maldas, D., Kokta, B.V.: Surface modification of wood fibers using maleic anhydride and isocyanate as coating components and their performance in polystyrene composites. J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 5(9), 727–740 (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mankowski, M., Morrell, J.J.: Patterns of fungal attack in wood–plastic composites following exposure in a soil block test. Wood Fiber Sci. 32(3), 340–345 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verhey, S.A., Laks, P.E., Richter, D.L.: Laboratory decay resistance of woodfiber/thermoplastic composites. For. Prod. J. 51(9), 44–49Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Youngquist, J.A.: Unlikely partners? The marriage of wood and nonwood materials. For. Prod. J. 45(10), 25–30 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaylord, N.G.: Compatibilization of hydroxyl containing materials and thermoplastic polymers. United States Patent Office no 3,645,939 (1972)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coran, A.Y., Patel, R.: US Patent 4,323,625 (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geottler, L.A.: US Patent 4,376,144 (1983)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyer, J.A.: Crosslinking affects sanding properties of wood–plastic. For. Prod. J. 18(5), 89 (1968)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nakamura, T., Okamura, M., Moriguchi, Y., Hayase, T.: US Patent 4,404,437 (1983)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Woodhams, R.T., Thomas, G., Rodgers, D.K.: Wood fibers as reinforcing fillers for polyolefins. Polym. Eng. Sci. 24(15), 1166–1171 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xanthos, M.: Processing conditions and coupling agent effects in polypropylene/wood flour composites. Plast. Rubber Process. Appl. 3(3), 223–228 (1983)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schneider, M.H., Brebner, K.I.: Wood–polymer combinations: the chemical modification of wood by alkoxysilane coupling agents. Wood Sci. Technol. 19(1), 67–73 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Polymer Science and Engineering, School of Nano and Advanced MaterialsGyeongsang National UniversityJinjuRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations