Mixed macrodiol-based siloxane polyurethanes

effect of the comacrodiol structure on properties and morphology

Raju Adhikari, Pathiraja A. Gunatillake, Simon McCarthy, Gordon F. Meijs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

70 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Two series of polyurethanes were prepared to investigate the effect of comacrodiol structure on properties and morphology of polyurethanes based on the siloxane macrodiol, α,ω-bis(6-hydroxyethoxypropyl) polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). All polyurethanes contained a 40 wt% hard segment derived from 4,4′-methylenediphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and 1,4-butanediol (BDO), and were prepared by a two-step, uncatalyzed bulk polymerization. The soft segments were based on an 80/20 mixture of PDMS (MW 967) and a comacrodiol (MW 700), selected from a series of polyethers and polycarbonates. The polyether series included poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), poly(propylene oxide) (PPO), poly(tetramethylene oxide) (PTMO), poly(hexamethylene oxide), and poly(decamethylene oxide) (PDMO), whereas the polycarbonate series included poly(hexamethylene carbonate) diol (PHCD), poly [bis(4-hydroxybutyl)-tetramethyldisiloxy carbonate] diol (PSCD), and poly [hexamethylene-co-bis(4-hydroxybutyl)-tetramethyldisiloxy carbonate] diol (COPD). Polyurethanes were characterized by size exclusion chromatography, tensile testing, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA). The results clearly demonstrated that the structure of the comacrodiol influenced the properties and morphology of siloxane-based polyurethanes. All comacrodiols, except PEO, improved the UTS of the polyurethane; PHMO and PTMO were the best polyether comacrodiols, while PSCD was the best polycarbonate comacrodiol. Incorporation of the comacrodiol made polyurethanes more elastomeric with low modulus, but the effect was less significant with polycarbonate comacrodiols. DSC and DMTA results strongly supported that the major morphological change associated with incorporation of a comacrodiol was the significant increase in the interfacial regions, largely through the compatibilization with the hard segment. The extent of compatibilization varied with the comacrodiol structure; hydrophilic polyethers such as PEO were the most compatible, and consequently, had poor mechanical strength. Among the polyethers, PHMO was the best, having an appropriate level of compatibility with the hard segment for substantial improvement in mechanical properties. Siloxy carbonate comacrodiol PSCD was the best among the polycarbonates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1071-1082
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Applied Polymer Science
Volume78
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

polycarbonate
Siloxanes
Polyurethanes
Polyethers
Polycarbonates
Carbonates
Polyethylene oxides
Oxides
Compatibilizers
Polydimethylsiloxane
Thermoanalysis
Differential scanning calorimetry
Polypropylene oxides
Polyphenylene oxides
Size exclusion chromatography
Tensile testing
Strength of materials
Polymerization
Mechanical properties

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Polymers and Plastics

Cite this

Mixed macrodiol-based siloxane polyurethanes : effect of the comacrodiol structure on properties and morphology. / Adhikari, Raju; Gunatillake, Pathiraja A.; McCarthy, Simon; Meijs, Gordon F.

In: Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 78, No. 5, 10.2000, p. 1071-1082.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Adhikari, Raju ; Gunatillake, Pathiraja A. ; McCarthy, Simon ; Meijs, Gordon F. / Mixed macrodiol-based siloxane polyurethanes : effect of the comacrodiol structure on properties and morphology. In: Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 2000 ; Vol. 78, No. 5. pp. 1071-1082.
@article{42e82f693ae743fc8e47f7acb86588fe,
title = "Mixed macrodiol-based siloxane polyurethanes: effect of the comacrodiol structure on properties and morphology",
abstract = "Two series of polyurethanes were prepared to investigate the effect of comacrodiol structure on properties and morphology of polyurethanes based on the siloxane macrodiol, α,ω-bis(6-hydroxyethoxypropyl) polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). All polyurethanes contained a 40 wt{\%} hard segment derived from 4,4′-methylenediphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and 1,4-butanediol (BDO), and were prepared by a two-step, uncatalyzed bulk polymerization. The soft segments were based on an 80/20 mixture of PDMS (MW 967) and a comacrodiol (MW 700), selected from a series of polyethers and polycarbonates. The polyether series included poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), poly(propylene oxide) (PPO), poly(tetramethylene oxide) (PTMO), poly(hexamethylene oxide), and poly(decamethylene oxide) (PDMO), whereas the polycarbonate series included poly(hexamethylene carbonate) diol (PHCD), poly [bis(4-hydroxybutyl)-tetramethyldisiloxy carbonate] diol (PSCD), and poly [hexamethylene-co-bis(4-hydroxybutyl)-tetramethyldisiloxy carbonate] diol (COPD). Polyurethanes were characterized by size exclusion chromatography, tensile testing, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA). The results clearly demonstrated that the structure of the comacrodiol influenced the properties and morphology of siloxane-based polyurethanes. All comacrodiols, except PEO, improved the UTS of the polyurethane; PHMO and PTMO were the best polyether comacrodiols, while PSCD was the best polycarbonate comacrodiol. Incorporation of the comacrodiol made polyurethanes more elastomeric with low modulus, but the effect was less significant with polycarbonate comacrodiols. DSC and DMTA results strongly supported that the major morphological change associated with incorporation of a comacrodiol was the significant increase in the interfacial regions, largely through the compatibilization with the hard segment. The extent of compatibilization varied with the comacrodiol structure; hydrophilic polyethers such as PEO were the most compatible, and consequently, had poor mechanical strength. Among the polyethers, PHMO was the best, having an appropriate level of compatibility with the hard segment for substantial improvement in mechanical properties. Siloxy carbonate comacrodiol PSCD was the best among the polycarbonates.",
author = "Raju Adhikari and Gunatillake, {Pathiraja A.} and Simon McCarthy and Meijs, {Gordon F.}",
year = "2000",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1002/1097-4628(20001031)78:5<1071::AID-APP160>3.0.CO;2-D",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "78",
pages = "1071--1082",
journal = "Journal of Applied Polymer Science",
issn = "0021-8995",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mixed macrodiol-based siloxane polyurethanes

T2 - effect of the comacrodiol structure on properties and morphology

AU - Adhikari, Raju

AU - Gunatillake, Pathiraja A.

AU - McCarthy, Simon

AU - Meijs, Gordon F.

PY - 2000/10

Y1 - 2000/10

N2 - Two series of polyurethanes were prepared to investigate the effect of comacrodiol structure on properties and morphology of polyurethanes based on the siloxane macrodiol, α,ω-bis(6-hydroxyethoxypropyl) polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). All polyurethanes contained a 40 wt% hard segment derived from 4,4′-methylenediphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and 1,4-butanediol (BDO), and were prepared by a two-step, uncatalyzed bulk polymerization. The soft segments were based on an 80/20 mixture of PDMS (MW 967) and a comacrodiol (MW 700), selected from a series of polyethers and polycarbonates. The polyether series included poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), poly(propylene oxide) (PPO), poly(tetramethylene oxide) (PTMO), poly(hexamethylene oxide), and poly(decamethylene oxide) (PDMO), whereas the polycarbonate series included poly(hexamethylene carbonate) diol (PHCD), poly [bis(4-hydroxybutyl)-tetramethyldisiloxy carbonate] diol (PSCD), and poly [hexamethylene-co-bis(4-hydroxybutyl)-tetramethyldisiloxy carbonate] diol (COPD). Polyurethanes were characterized by size exclusion chromatography, tensile testing, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA). The results clearly demonstrated that the structure of the comacrodiol influenced the properties and morphology of siloxane-based polyurethanes. All comacrodiols, except PEO, improved the UTS of the polyurethane; PHMO and PTMO were the best polyether comacrodiols, while PSCD was the best polycarbonate comacrodiol. Incorporation of the comacrodiol made polyurethanes more elastomeric with low modulus, but the effect was less significant with polycarbonate comacrodiols. DSC and DMTA results strongly supported that the major morphological change associated with incorporation of a comacrodiol was the significant increase in the interfacial regions, largely through the compatibilization with the hard segment. The extent of compatibilization varied with the comacrodiol structure; hydrophilic polyethers such as PEO were the most compatible, and consequently, had poor mechanical strength. Among the polyethers, PHMO was the best, having an appropriate level of compatibility with the hard segment for substantial improvement in mechanical properties. Siloxy carbonate comacrodiol PSCD was the best among the polycarbonates.

AB - Two series of polyurethanes were prepared to investigate the effect of comacrodiol structure on properties and morphology of polyurethanes based on the siloxane macrodiol, α,ω-bis(6-hydroxyethoxypropyl) polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). All polyurethanes contained a 40 wt% hard segment derived from 4,4′-methylenediphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and 1,4-butanediol (BDO), and were prepared by a two-step, uncatalyzed bulk polymerization. The soft segments were based on an 80/20 mixture of PDMS (MW 967) and a comacrodiol (MW 700), selected from a series of polyethers and polycarbonates. The polyether series included poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), poly(propylene oxide) (PPO), poly(tetramethylene oxide) (PTMO), poly(hexamethylene oxide), and poly(decamethylene oxide) (PDMO), whereas the polycarbonate series included poly(hexamethylene carbonate) diol (PHCD), poly [bis(4-hydroxybutyl)-tetramethyldisiloxy carbonate] diol (PSCD), and poly [hexamethylene-co-bis(4-hydroxybutyl)-tetramethyldisiloxy carbonate] diol (COPD). Polyurethanes were characterized by size exclusion chromatography, tensile testing, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA). The results clearly demonstrated that the structure of the comacrodiol influenced the properties and morphology of siloxane-based polyurethanes. All comacrodiols, except PEO, improved the UTS of the polyurethane; PHMO and PTMO were the best polyether comacrodiols, while PSCD was the best polycarbonate comacrodiol. Incorporation of the comacrodiol made polyurethanes more elastomeric with low modulus, but the effect was less significant with polycarbonate comacrodiols. DSC and DMTA results strongly supported that the major morphological change associated with incorporation of a comacrodiol was the significant increase in the interfacial regions, largely through the compatibilization with the hard segment. The extent of compatibilization varied with the comacrodiol structure; hydrophilic polyethers such as PEO were the most compatible, and consequently, had poor mechanical strength. Among the polyethers, PHMO was the best, having an appropriate level of compatibility with the hard segment for substantial improvement in mechanical properties. Siloxy carbonate comacrodiol PSCD was the best among the polycarbonates.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034300732&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034300732&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/1097-4628(20001031)78:5<1071::AID-APP160>3.0.CO;2-D

DO - 10.1002/1097-4628(20001031)78:5<1071::AID-APP160>3.0.CO;2-D

M3 - Article

VL - 78

SP - 1071

EP - 1082

JO - Journal of Applied Polymer Science

JF - Journal of Applied Polymer Science

SN - 0021-8995

IS - 5

ER -