Biocontainer Material Properties & Utility
1 like659 views
Jake Behrens presented on biocontainer materials made from renewable polymers and fillers. Various polymer matrices like PLA and PHA were evaluated along with fillers such as soy polymer, lignin, and DDGS to increase degradation and strength properties. Formulations were processed via extrusion and injection molding, which presented difficulties due to lack of shear thinning and high injection pressures. Results from tensile and crush tests showed that filler content inversely affected strength, and adding 1% colorant improved appearance and strength. The conclusions were to avoid moisture during processing, decrease temperatures with a plasticizer, and that colorant aided properties.
Biocontainer Material Properties & Utility
- 1. National Science Foundation Industry & University Cooperative Research Center Biocontainer Material Properties & Utility Presented by: Jake Behrens
- 2. Overview • Materials – Matrices – Fillers – Plasticizer • Formulations • Processing – Extrusion – Injection Molding 2 • Difficulties • Results – Tensile – Crush – Colorant
- 3. Polymer Matrices • Must be: – Renewable/bio-based – Preferably degradable – Attainable • PLA • PHA 3
- 4. PLA - Overview • Post-process recycled PLA – NatureWorks 3001D 4
- 5. PHA • Metabolix Mirel PHA 5 *Image courtesy of Hydal BioTech
- 6. Matrix Comparison PLA • Hydrolysis • Cost competitive • Can become brittle • Compostable • Ease of processing 6 PHA • Water insoluble • Expensive/hard to obtain • More durable • Faster degradation • Long crystallization time
- 7. Filler Materials • Must be: – Renewable/Bio-based – Increase degradation or strength properties – Easily attainable 7
- 8. Filler Materials • Soy Polymer – Developed at ISU – Pre-extruded – High nutrient content • Lignin – Readily available – Many side chemistries • Varies by feedstock 8
- 9. Filler Materials • DDGS (Distillers Grains) – Abundant – Inexpensive – Large particle size • BioRes – Modified DDGS (Laurel Biocomposites) – Superior blending to DDGS 9
- 10. Plasticizer • Polyethylene glycol – PEG 8000 @ 10% • Decrease process temps – Less denaturing of filler (SPA, BioRes) • Increase flow and process-ability • Co-product of biodiesel production 10
- 11. Formulations • PHA-DDGS (80/20) • PLA-Lignin (90/10) • PLA-Soy (60/40) • PLA-BioRes (80/20) • PLA-Soy-BioRes (50/30/20) • PLA-Soy-BioRes (55/35/10) 11
- 13. Processing – Injection Molding • Arburg 470C – 165 ton clamping force – 1.5” screw, 8.2 oz shot 13 • Keep residence time short • Fillers can impede flow
- 14. NPE 14
- 15. Difficulties Overcome • Lack of shear thinning • High injection pressure • PLA + Water • Residence times 15
- 16. Results – Tensile Tests • Instron load frame – ASTM D638 tensile test – Type I dogbone 16
- 17. Results – Crush Tests • Instron load frame – Compressive mode – Two steel plates compress pots – Horizontal (left) and vertical (right) 17
- 18. Results – Effect of Colorant • Effect of 1% petroleum- based green colorant 18
- 19. Conclusions • Avoid moisture • Decrease process temps (plasticizer) • Colorant aids appearance & strength • Filler content & strength inversely proportional – Affects growth 19