on interaction characteristics of polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane containing ... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
ORIGINAL PAPER
On Interaction Characteristics of PolyhedralOligomeric Silsesquioxane Containing PolymerNanohybrids
Sang-Kyun Lim1• Jae Yun Lee1 • Hyoung Jin Choi1 •
In-Joo Chin1
Received: 1 November 2014 / Revised: 20 April 2015 /Accepted: 24 May 2015 /
Published online: 3 June 2015
� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Abstracts A generalized functional group of polyhedral oligomeric silsesquiox-
ane (POSS) suitable for various polymer systems, e.g., polyolefins, polyesters and
polyamides, is presented using theoretical and experimental approaches to examine
thermodynamic interaction between a polymer and POSS. Both Flory–Huggins
interaction parameter and maximum difference of the solubility parameter are uti-
lized to study theoretically specific interaction between polymers and POSS
nanoparticles. Flory–Huggins interaction parameter was estimated by the melting
point depression method determined by DSC, while maximum difference of the
solubility parameter was predicted using the method of Hoftyzer and van Krevelen.
The interaction characteristics of the polymer/POSS nanohybrids are further tested
by measuring the activation energy with the Kissinger method, in which the acti-
vation energy was calculated using the temperature at the maximum degradation
rate observed TGA. Viscoelastic, dynamic mechanical, thermal and mechanical
properties of the polymer/POSS nanohybrids were also examined to correlate the
theoretical and experimental results, finding that the isobutyl group was the most
suitable functional group of POSS for polyethylene, poly(ethylene terephthalate),
and Nylon 6.
Keywords Polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane � Thermodynamic interaction �Interaction parameter � Solubility parameter � Activation energy
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00289-015-1405-5)
contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
& Hyoung Jin Choi
1 Department of Polymer Science and Engineering, Inha University, Incheon 402-751, Korea
123
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
DOI 10.1007/s00289-015-1405-5
Introduction
For the last decade, the number of investigations on polymer-based nanohybrids,
derived from the hybridization of inorganic materials and organic polymers at
molecular scale, has been increased dramatically with the rapid growth of nanoscale
technologies [1, 2]. Nanohybrids, combining the important properties of inorganic
materials and organic polymers in general, can show improved properties, such as
high gas barrier characteristics, solvent resistance, and reduced flammability [3–6].
Among the various nanoreinforcements, polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane
(POSS) is particularly interesting. The properties of POSS are unique, since one or
more of the organic groups can be functionalized for polymerization, while the
remaining unreactive groups can solubilize the inorganic core and at the same time
control the interfacial interactions occurring between POSS and the polymer matrix
[7, 8]. Generally, POSS can be incorporated into all types of polymers either by
chemical tethering to the polymer chains (e.g., grafting and copolymerization
reactions) [9–16] or physical blending (e.g., solution blending and melt mixing)
[17–27], which would result in the enhancement of the polymer properties including
the increase of thermal stability and reduction in flammability and dielectric
constant [28–32]. Because of their advantageous performance relative to their
nonhybrid counterparts, POSS-containing nanohybrids can be made with the many
of the representative polymers such as polyolefins [33–35], polyesters [36–38],
polyamides [39, 40], styrenics [41–43], acrylates [44–47], polyurethanes [48–51],
thermosetting polymers [52] and others [53–56].
While considerable effort has been focused on the thermal properties [2, 26, 29,
57–61], morphology [13, 23, 62], mechanical properties [63–66] and self-assembly
of new POSS-containing nanohybrids [67, 68], there were a few studies that dealt
with the interrelationship between the polymer and POSS by analyzing the
miscibility and physical properties. However, there have been no studies which
directly examined the thermodynamic interaction between the polymer and POSS.
Huang et al. [2] investigated the miscibility and specific interaction behavior of
the poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)–POSS systems by differential scanning
calorimetry (DSC) and fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) where
POSS was substituted with the isobutyltrisilanol group and PMMA with phenolic
resin. They found that the phenolic/PMMA–POSS blends with a positive q value
had single glass transition temperatures (Tgs), which were higher than those of the
phenolic/PMMA blends with a negative q value. The positive deviation of the
phenolic/PMMA–POSS blends revealed that a strong interassociation interaction
existed between the POSS siloxane and phenolic hydroxyl groups. FT-IR analysis
indicated that the PMMA chain of the low molecular weight PMMA (LPMMA,
Mn = 9800 g/mol)–POSS could not form entanglements with the lower hydrogen
bonding interaction between the LPMMA and phenolic resin. Furthermore, they
found a ‘‘screening effect’’ in these phenolic/LPMMA–POSS blends caused by the
POSS chain end tethered, which has the greater interassociation equilibrium
constant between hydroxyl and POSS than the interassociations equilibrium
constant between hydroxyl and carbonyl. On the contrary, the molecular weight
2332 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123
of the high molecular weight PMMA (HPMMA, Mn = 28,900 g/mol)–POSS is
above its entanglement molecular weight, that is, the hydrogen bonding between
POSS and the hydroxyl groups becomes less than that between PMMA and the
hydroxyl groups.
The structure–property relationships in organic–inorganic nanomaterials based
on methacryl-POSS and dimethacrylate networks were reported by Bizet et al. [14]
POSS molecules, acting as the pendant unit on the network backbone, showed
strong tendency toward aggregation and crystallization, depending on the nature of
the organic ligands. The POSS–POSS interaction was found to be the main
parameter governing the network morphology. However, the dynamic mechanical
properties remained nearly at the same level as those of the neat matrix.
Multifunctional POSS showed higher miscibility with the dimethacrylate monomer
and they were dispersed very well in the cured network. As expected, the rubbery
modulus increased with increasing amount of POSS due to the high functionality of
these additional cross-links, whereas Tg remained constant. Finally, methacrylate-
functionalized POSS can be expected to improve the properties of dimethacrylate-
based networks in the field of surface properties, optical properties and shrinkage,
rather than in the field of mechanical properties.
The miscibility behavior and interaction mechanism of PMMA, poly(vinyl
pyrrolidone) (PVP), and PMMA-co-PVP blends with octa(phenol)octa-silsesquiox-
ane (OP-POSS) were investigated using the DSC and FT-IR spectroscopy
techniques [69]. For the OP-POSS/PMMA blends, the value of the association
constant (KA = 29) was smaller than that in the poly(vinyl phenol) (PVPh)/PMMA
(KA = 37.4) and in the ethyl phenol (EPh)/PMMA (KA = 101) blend system,
implying that the spacing between the phenol groups attached to the POSS
nanoparticles was smaller than those of the other two blend systems, resulting in a
decrease in the ratio of the interassociation and self-association equilibrium
constants. In addition, the intermolecular hydrogen bonding became stronger than
the intramolecular hydrogen bonding after copolymerization with vinyl pyrrolidone
(VP), because the OH groups preferred to interact with the VP segments.
Liu and coworkers [70] studied the hydrogen bonding interaction in three
different types of incompletely condensed silsesquioxanes (POSS-mono-ol, POSS-
diol and POSS-triol) [70], finding that POSS-diol and POSS-mono-ol could not
form a dimer in solution and there existed a dynamic equilibrium between the single
molecule and hydrogen-bonded dimer for POSS-triol.
Thermal and rheological behavior of polystyrene (PS)-based random copolymers
were studied, in which POSS was incorporated with three kinds of vertex groups,
viz. isobutyl (iBu), cyclopentyl (Cp) and cyclohexyl (Cy) [71]. The weak iBuPOSS-
PS segment interaction resulted in the Tg that monotonically decreased with
increasing iBuPOSS content. Conversely, the strong CpPOSS/CyPOSS-PS segment
interaction resulted in the increase of the Tg, through with complex dependence in
the case of CyPOSS. Wu et al. [71] asserted that the dependence of the Tg of the
copolymers on the vertex group results from the competing effects between the
addition of free volume and intermolecular interactions. They also found through
dynamic mechanical analysis that the effect of the vertex group played only a minor
role in the rubbery plateau. More specifically, the rubbery plateau modulus
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352 2333
123
decreased with increasing POSS content and in proportion to the size of the POSS,
in the order of iBuPOSS[CpPOSS[CyPOSS.
On the other hand, Tanaka and coworkers [72, 73] studied the structure–property
relationship of octa-substituted aliphatic and aromatic POSS with the conventional
polymer regarding asymmetry effect, finding that the longer alkyl chains and
unsaturated bond in the side chain of POSS are efficient to improve the thermal
stability and the elasticity of the polymer matrix. In addition, phenyl-POSS also
showed superior ability to improve the thermal and mechanical properties of
polymers.
Furthermore, the influence of symmetry/asymmetry of POSS structure on the
thermal stability of POSS/PS nanocomposites of formula R8(SiO1.5)8 POSS/PS and
R01R7(SiO1.5)8POSS/PS (where R0 = phenyl and R = cyclopentyl) was investi-
gated [74]. The initial decomposition temperature (Ti), the temperature at 5 % mass
loss (T5 %), and the activation energy of degradation of nanocomposites measured
using thermal gravimetric analyzer (TGA) were higher than those of neat PS. Thus,
they indicated that the nanocomposites have a better heat resistance and lower
degradation rate, and then a better overall thermal stability as compared to the neat
polymer. The use of POSS with a symmetric structure, in the nanocomposite,
showed a decrease of Tg not only in respect to asymmetric POSS/PS nanocomposite
but also in respect to neat polymer, thus suggesting an influence of filler structure in
the thermal properties of the materials.
Recently, we reported the Flory–Huggins interaction parameter of exfoliated
poly(acrylonitrile-co-butadiene-styrene) (ABS) nanohybrids with three different
organoclays, Cloisite10A� (C10A), Cloisite25A� (C25A) and Cloisite30B� (C30B)
using the solubility parameter [5]. The Flory–Huggins interaction parameter
between ABS and C30B was calculated to be 0.54, which was smaller than that for
ABS/C10A (0.74) and ABS/C25A (0.67), suggesting that the interaction between
ABS and C30B would be more thermodynamically favorable than that between
ABS and C10A or C25A. We also reported the interaction characteristics of
organically modified montmorillonite (OMMT) nanohybrids with a miscible
polymer blend of poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) and poly(methyl methacrylate)
(PMMA) [75]. The interaction parameter value for the PMMA/OMMT pair was
estimated to be smaller than that measured for the PEO/OMMT pair, showing that
PMMA had better affinity for OMMT than PEO.
In this study, we attempted to establish a generalized functional group for POSS
suitable for the representative polymer systems, i.e., polyethylene (PE) for
polyolefins, poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) for polyesters and Nylon 6 for
polyamides, using theoretical and experimental approaches for the first time. For the
theoretical considerations, the Flory–Huggins interaction parameter, the maximum
difference of the solubility parameter, and the activation energy were used to study
the specific thermodynamic interaction between the polymers and functionalized
POSS nanoparticles. The Flory–Huggins interaction parameter was determined by
the melting point depression method using DSC, based on the classical Flory–
Huggins theory. The solubility parameters of the polymers and functionalized POSS
nanoparticles were calculated using the method of Hoftyzer and van Krevelen. The
thermodynamic interaction characteristics of the nanohybrids were further
2334 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123
characterized by measuring the activation energy with the Kissinger method.
Thermal, mechanical, rheological and morphological analyses of the nanohybrids
were also performed to correlate the theoretical and experimental results. The
polymer nanohybrids containing the various functionalized POSS were prepared by
the melt mixing method.
Experimental section
Reactants and preparation method
PE (Mw = 35,000 g/mol), poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET,Mw = 50,000 g/mol),
and Nylon 6 (Mw = 65,000 g/mol), used as the polymer matrix, were purchased from
Aldrich Chemical Co. The POSS nanoparticles employed in this study are octaphenyl-
POSS (OP-POSS, C48H40O12Si8, Fw = 1033.53), aminopropylphenyl-POSS (AP-
POSS, C45H43NO12Si8, Fw = 1014.52)), octamethyl-POSS (OM-POSS, C8H24O12-
Si8, Fw = 536.96), octaisobutyl-POSS (OB-POSS, C32H72O12Si8, Fw = 873.60),
aminopropylisobutyl-POSS (AB-POSS, C31H71NO12Si8, Fw = 874.58), and amino-
propylisooctyl-POSS (AO-POSS, C59H127NO12Si8, Fw = 1267.32). All the POSS
nanoparticles were purchased from Hybrid Plastics Inc.
Nanohybrids of the polymer and POSS nanoparticles were prepared by the melt
mixing method. Initially, the polymer was introduced into a torque rheometer
(Plastograph EC, Brabender, Germany) and melted at its melting point for 10 min
with a rotary speed of 60 rpm. POSS was then added to the melted polymer and
compounded for 15 min to concentrations of 0.5, 1 and 2 wt%. OM-POSS, OB-
POSS and OP-POSS were used for the preparation of PE and PET nanohybrids. In
the case of the Nylon 6 nanohybrids, AB-POSS, AO-POSS and AP-POSS were used
as the POSS nanoparticles.
Characterization
The nanostructures of the dispersed POSS nanoparticles in the polymer matrix were
examined by field-emission transmission electron microscopy (FE-TEM, JEM
2100F, JEOL, Japan) at an accelerated voltage of 100 kV. All ultrathin sections
(less than 3 lm) were microtomed using an ultramicrotome (RMC-MTX, USA)
with a diamond knife and observed by FE-TEM without staining. To measure the
mechanical properties, the nanohybrid films were subjected to uniaxial elongation
using a universal test machine (UTM, Houndfield Test Equipment, UK), with a
typical sample dimension of 10 mm width 9 50 mm length 9 0.1 mm thickness.
Mechanical tests were performed at room temperature and a crosshead speed of
5 mm/min. The rheological characteristics were also measured using a rotational
rheometer (HCR 300, Physica, Germany) equipped with a parallel plate geometry
(25 mm diameter) and TEK 350 temperature controller. All samples were measured
in the melt state with a gap distance of 1 mm.
The thermal stability of the samples was measured with thermogravimetric
analysis (TGA, Q50, TA Instruments, USA) by heating them from room
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352 2335
123
temperature up to 750 �C at a heating rate of 10 �C min-1 with air flowing. The
samples were also heated to 750 �C at heating rates of 20 �C min-1 and 40 �Cmin-1 with air flowing to calculate the activation energy. Differential scanning
calorimetry (DSC, Pyris Diamond DSC, Perkin-Elmer, USA) was employed to
determine the Flory–Huggins interaction parameter between the polymer and POSS
by monitoring the change in the melting point. To determine the equilibrium
melting temperature (Tm0 ), samples were heated 10 �C above their melting
temperatures (Tm) and maintained for 5 min for the complete melting of crystals.
Subsequently samples were cooled down to their crystallization temperatures (Tc)
and kept 30 min before heating to Tm ? 10 �C with a rate of 20 �C min21.
Results and discussion
Flory–Huggins interaction and solubility parameters
The Flory–Huggins interaction parameter is an important measure that can
determine the solubility of polymers in solvents or the compatibility between pairs
of chemical species such as polymer/polymer and polymer/nanoparticle combina-
tions, and can be obtained experimentally using several methods such as the melting
point depression [75, 76], solubility parameter [77, 78], vapor sorption [79, 80],
inverse-phase gas chromatography [81, 82], small-angle neutron scattering [83, 84],
and small-angle X-ray scattering [85, 86].
Nishi and Wang [76], in their analysis of the reduction of the melting temperature
of a crystalline polymer in the presence of an amorphous one, derived a simple
equation which related the melting point depression directly to the Flory–Huggins
interaction parameter. The relation between the melting point depression and the
Flory–Huggins interaction parameter of the mixture can be described by the
following equation.
T0m � T0
mix ¼ �BV
DHT0mð1� /iÞ2 ð1Þ
where Tm0 and Tmix
0 are the equilibrium melting temperature of the crystalline
polymer and the mixture, respectively, DH/V is the heat of fusion of the crystalline
polymer per unit volume, /i is the weight fraction of the crystalline polymer, and
B is the Flory–Huggins interaction parameter between the two components. The
Flory–Huggins interaction parameter B can be obtained from the slope of the plot of
(Tm0 - Tmix
0 ) vs (1 - /i)2. A negative value of B for the binary system indicates that
the two chemical species form a thermodynamically stable and compatible mixture.
As shown in Fig. 1, the equilibrium melting temperatures of the pure PE and the PE/
POSS nanohybrids were obtained using Hoffman–Weeks plots.
Figure 2 represents the melting point depression of PE in the PE/POSS
nanohybrids as a function of the PE content. According to Eq. (1), the B values
for the PE/POSS nanohybrids were determined from the slope of the straight line of
Fig. 2. When values of 30.9 cm3 mol-1 and 970.1 cal mol-1 were used for Viu and
DHiu, respectively, the estimated Flory–Huggins interaction parameters were
2336 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123
-1.95 cal cm-3, -3.39 cal cm-3 and -0.93 cal cm-3 for BPE/OM-POSS, BPE/OB-POSSand BPE/OP-POSS, respectively, indicating that the PE with OB-POSS is thermodynam-
ically most favorable hybrid.
Fig. 1 Hoffman–Weeks plotsof a PE, b PE/OM-POSS, c PE/OB-POSS, and d PE/OP-POSSnanohybrids
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352 2337
123
By following the same experimental procedures, the Flory–Huggins interaction
parameter between PET and OB-POSS was determined to be -1.11 cal cm-3,
which was smaller than that for PET/OM-POSS (-0.29 cal cm-3) and PET/OP-
POSS (-0.10 cal cm-3) (Fig. S1 and S2 in the Supporting Information). Likewise,
the Flory–Huggins interaction parameters of Nylon 6/AB-POSS, Nylon 6/AO-POSS
and Nylon 6/AP-POSS were -0.42 cal cm-3, -0.35 cal cm-3 and
-0.23 cal cm-3, respectively. Therefore, the interaction of the PET/OB-POSS
and Nylon 6/AB-POSS nanohybrids were found to be thermodynamically more
favorable than those of the other combinations.
The solubility parameter, d, which is the square root of the cohesive energy
density (the energy of vaporization per unit volume), was also used to predict the
thermodynamic interaction between the polymer and POSS nanoparticles. Since it is
not possible to obtain the molar vaporization energies for polymers, calculations
Fig. 2 Plots of the equilibriummelting points of PE in the a PE/OM-POSS, b PE/OB-POSS, andc PE/OP-POSS nanohybrids
2338 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123
based on the group contributions are used to determine the solubility parameters of
the polymers. The Small and Hoy method is generally used to compute the
solubility parameter, due to its simplicity. However, no specific forces, such as the
dispersion force, polar force and hydrogen bonding, are assumed to be active
between the structural units of the substances involved. Therefore, the Small and
Hoy method is considered to be unsuitable for crystalline polymers. In this study,
the solubility parameters of the polymers and POSS nanoparticles were calculated
according to the Hoftyzer and van Krevelen method using the following equations
[78].
dd ¼P
Fdi
V; dp ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiPF2pi
q
V; dh ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiPEhi
V
r
ð2Þ
d2t ¼ d2d þ d2p þ d2h ð3Þ
where dd, dp and dh are the dispersion, polar and hydrogen bonding components of
the solubility parameter, respectively. Fdi and Fpi are the dispersion and polar
portions of the molar attraction constant, respectively. The F-method is not appli-
cable to the calculation of dh. Hansen previously stated that the hydrogen bonding
energy, Ehi, per structural group is relatively constant, which led to Eq. (2). For
molecules with several planes of symmetry, dh = 0. A assumption was made to
calculate the solubility parameters of the polymers and POSS using the Hoftyzer
and van Krevelen method.
POSS is inherently an organic/inorganic hybrid, and the inorganic part of POSS,
mainly –Si–O–Si–, does not react completely in an organic material. The distance
between Si and O of the –Si–O–Si– is 1.64 A, and it is shorter than the sum of the
covalent radii of POSS, 1.76 A, meaning that there exists a partial double bond
character of –Si–O– [87]. Nonetheless, the barrier of rotation around the –Si–O–
axis, ca. 2.5 kJ mol-1 as well as the barrier of linearization of the –Si–O–Si– angle,
ca. 1.3 kJ mol-1, is very low. Thus, the siloxane chain is rigid, so much that the
–Si–O–Si– angle, 140�–180�, is much wider than the tetrahedral angle, the silicon
atom has a relatively large size and the substituents appear only at every second
atom in the chain [87]. These features also account for the relatively high steric
hindrance effect, which indicates the siloxane group is highly stable. Therefore, it
was assumed that the functional groups in the outer surface of POSS dominate the
solubility parameter, and the inorganic part with the siloxane bonding of POSS was
excluded from the calculation of the solubility parameter.
Table 1 lists the calculated solubility parameters for all the polymers and POSS
nanoparticles. Themaximum difference in the solubility parameter showed the lowest
value in the POSS functionalized with the isobutyl group. Themaximum difference of
the solubility parameter between PE andOB-POSSwas calculated to be 0.09 J1/2 cm-3/2,
which was significantly smaller than those for PE/OM-POSS (2.13 J1/2 cm-3/2)
and PE/OP-POSS (1.89 J1/2 cm-3/2). The maximum difference in the solubility
parameters of PET/OM-POSS, PET/OB-POSS and PET/OP-POSS were calculated
to be 1.58 , 0.46 and 1.34 J1/2 cm-3/2, respectively. Also, the maximum difference
in the solubility parameter of Nylon 6/AB-POSS (0.56 J1/2 cm-3/2) was the lowest
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352 2339
123
among the Nylon 6/POSS nanohybrids. The variation of the maximum difference in
the solubility parameter can be explained by Eq. (4), which interrelates the
thermodynamic terms [77, 78].
vAB¼Vr
RTðdA � dBÞ2 ð4Þ
where vAB is the Flory–Huggins interaction parameter of polymer A and POSS B,
R and T are the gas constant and temperature, respectively, and Vr is a reference
volume which is the molar volume of the smallest repeat unit. Therefore, it was
expected that the interactions between the three polymers, viz., PE, PET and Nylon
6, and POSS functionalized with the isobutyl group, would be more thermody-
namically favorable than those of the others. These results correspond well with the
result obtained based on the melting point depression method.
Activation energy
The activation energy of the polymer/POSS nanohybrids can be determined by
employing the Kissinger’s equation shown below [88].
lnb
T2max
¼ lnAR
Eþ ln nð1� amaxÞn�1
h i� �
� E
RTmax
ð5Þ
where b is the heating rate (K min-1), Tmax is the temperature at the maximum
degradation rate, A is the pre-exponential factor, amax is the maximum conversion,
and n is the reaction order. Tmax was determined from the differential TGA curves.
Figure 3 shows the plots of ln(bTmax-2 ) versus Tmax
-1 according to the Kissinger’s
method for the PE/POSS and PET/POSS nanohybrids containing 0.5 wt% of POSS.
Tables 2 and 3 list the values of ln(bTmax-2 ), Tmax
-1 and calculated activation energy for
all of the neat polymers and polymer/POSS nanohybrids. The activation energies of
the PE, PE/OM-POSS, PE/OB-POSS and PE/OP-POSS nanohybrids, which were
Table 1 Solubility parameters of polymers and POSS derivatives
Fda Fp
a Eh
(J mol-1)
V
(cm3 mol-1)
dd (J1/2
cm-3/2)
dp (J1/2
cm-3/2)
dh (J1/2
cm-3/2)
d (J1/2
cm-3/2)
Polymers
–CH2– 270 0 0 15.55 17.36 0 0 17.36
–COO– 390 490 7000 23.70 16.46 20.68 17.19 17.91
–CONH– 450 980 5100 28.30 15.90 34.63 13.42 18.01
POSS derivatives
–CH3 420 0 0 21.55 19.49 0 0 19.49
–C(CH3)3 1190 0 0 68.21 17.45 0 0 17.45
–C(CH3)7 2870 0 0 154.41 18.59 0 0 18.59
–Phenyl 1430 110 0 74.52 19.19 1.48 0 19.25
a J1/2 cm-3/2 mol-1
2340 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123
calculated from the slope of the straight line in Fig. 3a, were 17.3, 27.1, 33.3 and
24.4 kJ mol-1, respectively. In the case of the PET/POSS nanohybrids, the acti-
vation energies of PET, PET/OM-POSS, PET/OB-POSS and PET/OP-POSS were
9.53, 11.43, 24.54 and 7.12, respectively (Fig. 3b). Likewise, the highest energy was
obtained for the Nylon 6/AB-POSS nanohybrids. The polymer nanohybrids with the
POSS functionalized with isobutyl group showed the highest energy, which means
that isobutyl-POSS was dispersed most uniformly throughout the polymer matrix
due to the increased interaction between the polymer and isobutyl-POSS.
Fig. 3 Determination of theactivation energies for the a PE/POSS and b PET/POSSnanohybrids. The POSS contentwas fixed at 0.5 wt%
Table 2 Activation energy data for the neat PE and PE nanohybrids
PE PE/OM-POSS
b (K min-1) 283.13 293.13 313.13 283.13 293.13 313.13
1000 Tmax-1 (K-1) 1.558 1.483 1.435 1.519 1.463 1.408
ln(b Tmax-2 ) -7.431 -7.344 -7.182 -7.724 -7.533 -7.375
Ea (kJ mol-1) 17.3 27.1
PE/OB-POSS PE/OP-POSS
b (K min-1) 283.13 293.13 313.13 283.13 293.13 313.13
1000 Tmax-1 (K-1) 1.512 1.453 1.388 1.531 1.473 1.423
ln(b Tmax-2 ) -7.962 -7.677 -7.451 -7.583 -7.454 -7.275
Ea (kJ mol-1) 33.3 24.4
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352 2341
123
POSS dispersion in the nanohybrids
The nanostructure formation of the polymer/POSS nanohybrids was examined by
FE-TEM. The FE-TEM micrographs of the POSS-filled nanohybrids show dark
zones that correspond to POSS-rich zones, because of their higher electron density
due to the presence of the silicon atoms [14]. Figure 4 shows the FE-TEM
micrographs of the PE nanohybrids containing 0.5 wt% of OM-POSS, OB-POSS
and OP-POSS. In Fig. 4b, the PE nanohybrid containing 0.5 wt% of OB-POSS
shows relatively uniform dispersion of OB-POSS, with sizes ranging from 20 to
25 nm. In contrast to the results obtained for the PE/OB-POSS nanohybrids, the
dispersion of the OM-POSS and OP-POSS domains is not uniform and somewhat
aggregated, as shown in Fig. 4a and c. Most of the aggregates have a size of about
100 nm and their structure is not well defined. Two factors may explain this
behavior; (1) the low solubility of OM-POSS and OP-POSS in the PE matrix and (2)
the strong tendency of these POSS molecules to aggregate because of the very
favorable OM-POSS/OM-POSS and OP-POSS/OP-POSS interactions [14]. The FE-
TEM results obtained for the PET/POSS and Nylon 6/POSS nanohybrids were very
similar to those obtained for the PE/POSS nanohybrids (Fig. S3 and S4 in the
Supporting Information). It is clearly shown that the OB-POSS nanoparticles were
more well dispersed in the PET matrix than the OM-POSS and OP-POSS
nanoparticles. Also, the Nylon 6/0.5 wt% AB-POSS nanohybrid contains individual
POSS particles that are well dispersed in the Nylon 6 matrix, while aggregations of
AO-POSS and AP-POSS could be seen in the FE-TEM images.
Viscoelastic and dynamic mechanical properties
Viscoelastic properties of the PE/POSS nanohybrids were characterized by
measuring their rheological properties under oscillatory shear. Figure 5 shows the
dynamic moduli (storage modulus, G0 in Fig. 5a and loss moduli, G00 in Fig. 5b) of
the PE/POSS nanohybrids as a function of the angular frequency by keeping the
Table 3 Activation energy data for the neat PET and PET nanohybrids
PET PET/OM-POSS
b (K min-1) 283.13 293.13 313.13 283.13 293.13 313.13
1000 Tmax-1 (K-1) 1.412 1.39 1.374 1.418 1.397 1.384
ln(b Tmax-2 ) -7.479 -7.476 -7.433 -7.47 -7.466 -7.419
Ea (kJ mol-1) 9.53 11.43
PET/OB-POSS PET/OP-POSS
b (K min-1) 283.13 293.13 313.13 283.13 293.13 313.13
1000 Tmax-1 (K-1) 1.415 1.401 1.391 1.415 1.39 1.373
ln(b Tmax-2 ) -7.479 -7.437 -7.408 -7.475 -7.476 -7.436
Ea (kJ mol-1) 24.54 7.12
2342 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123
oscillation within the linear region of 1 % strain amplitude. The storage and loss
moduli increased with increasing POSS content compared to those of the neat PE
throughout the applied frequency range. The slope of the change in the storage
modulus decreased with increasing POSS content, exhibiting a monotonic increase
of G0 for all frequencies, as shown in Fig. 5a. The fact that G0 became less
dependent on the frequency may be due to the formation of a network structure of
the POSS, indicating that the PE/POSS nanohybrids possessed solid-like charac-
teristics [88, 89]. In fact, the PE/OB-POSS nanohybrid shows more solid-like
behavior than the PE/OM-POSS and PE/OP-POSS nanohybrids. Moreover, the PE/
OB-POSS nanohybrids exhibited a greater increase of their storage modulus than
Fig. 4 FE-TEM images ofa PE/OM-POSS, b PE/OB-POSS, and c PE/OP-POSSnanohybrids. The POSS contentwas fixed at 0.5 wt%
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352 2343
123
the PE/OM-POSS and PE/OP-POSS nanohybrids throughout the frequency range,
which means that the interaction between PE and OB-POSS was more favorable.
Solid-like behavior can also be observed in the complex viscosity curve in Fig. 5c.
As shown in Fig. 5c, the complex viscosity of the PE/POSS nanohybrids was higher
than that of the neat PE in the whole frequency range. The PE/OB-POSS
nanohybrid, in particular, showed more rapid shear thinning behavior, suggesting
that the interaction between PE and OB-POSS, which exhibited solid-like
characteristics, was higher than that of the other samples. These results
corresponded well with those obtained based on the Flory–Huggins interaction
parameter and the solubility parameter.
The storage modulus describes the stiffness of a material. The storage moduli for
the PE/POSS nanohybrids, measured at 1 Hz using DMA, are shown in Fig. 6 as a
function of temperature. Below Tg, the G0 is high because the polymer is in the
glassy state. However, above Tg, the G0 decreases because the polymer chains
Fig. 5 Rheological propertiesof the PE/POSS nanohybrids:a storage modulus, b lossmodulus, and c complexviscosity. The POSS content wasfixed at 0.5 wt%
2344 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123
become mobile and the polymer is in the rubbery state. The G0 of the PE/OB-POSSnanohybrids increases with increasing OB-POSS content below and above their Tg(Fig. 6a). The same trend is observed for the PE/OP-POSS nanohybrids, as shown in
Fig. 6b. It is because POSS particles are rigid and, thus, the addition of POSS would
increase the rigidity of the nanohybrid system [90]. In Fig. 6a, the a-transitiontemperature decreases monotonically for all the PE nanohybrids, suggesting that the
free volume in the PE increases upon the addition of the POSS nanoparticles. The b-transition temperature also shifts to a lower temperature, and the b-peak lowers and
broadens when POSS is added. Therefore, POSS has a plasticizing effect on the b-transition as well as on the a-transition due to the free volume on the local motions
[63–66]. The viscoelastic and dynamic mechanical behavior of the PET/POSS
nanohybrids were very similar to those of the PE/POSS nanohybrids (Fig. S5 and S6
in the Supporting Information).
Fig. 6 Dynamic mechanicalproperties of the PE/POSSnanohybrids
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352 2345
123
However, the Nylon 6/POSS nanohybrids exhibit a significantly higher Tg than
pure Nylon 6, as shown in Fig. 7. The reason for the increase of Tg upon the
incorporation of POSS could be twofold. First, the incorporation of POSS increases
the cross-linking density of the resulting nanohybrids. The increase in the cross-
linking density leads to a higher Tg, broader tan d peak and higher storage modulus.
Second, POSS is a rigid body, that is, the addition of POSS would increase the
rigidity of the nanohybrid system [91, 92]. Although the incorporation of POSS
increases the free volume in the Nylon 6/POSS nanohybrids, this effect can be
compensated by the increase in the cross-linking density.
Thermal and mechanical properties
POSS has been proved to be effective in improving the thermal stability of polymers
[2, 26, 28, 29, 57, 60, 61]. The decomposition temperatures (Td) based on the 5 wt%
loss of the neat polymers and polymer/POSS nanohybrids are listed in Table 4.
Table 4 indicates that as the chain length of the functional group of POSS is
increased, there is a distinct shift in the onset of weight loss to a higher temperature.
Interestingly, the Td recorded for the PE/OB-POSS nanohybrid (99.5/0.5 by weight)
shows that the onset of degradation is higher by about 30 �C. The Tds of the PET/
OB-POSS (99.5/0.5) and Nylon 6/AB-POSS (99.5/0.5) nanohybrids are about 10 �Chigher than those of the neat PET and Nylon 6, respectively. This may be due to the
fact that the oxidation of the alkyl-substituted POSS in air takes place on the organic
chains and leads to the cross-linking of the cage, producing a ceramic silica-like
phase [93, 94]. On the other hand, the long alkyl-substituted POSS, that is, AO-
Fig. 7 Tan d of a Nylon 6/AB-POSS and b Nylon 6/AP-POSSnanohybrids
2346 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123
POSS (composed of eight hydrocarbon chains), induces a reduction in the thermal
stability in comparison with AB-POSS.
The highest values of the tensile strength and elongation at break were observed
for the PE/OB-POSS nanohybrid (99.5/0.5), which were 92 and 36 % above those
of the neat PE, respectively. However, the mechanical properties decrease as the
amount of the POSS nanoparticles increases to 1 and 2 wt%. With respect to the
corresponding value of the neat PET, the addition of 0.5 wt% OB-POSS to PET
causes an increase in the tensile strength of about 30 %, while a more pronounced
increase in the elongation at break (300 %) is observed for the PET/OB-POSS
nanohybrid (99.5/0.5). In addition, the maximum tensile strength and elongation at
break are obtained in the Nylon 6/AB-POSS nanohybrid (95.5/0.5). These results
suggest that the interaction between the polymer and isobutyl-substituted POSS is
more favorable than that of the other samples. The thermal and mechanical results
are also in good agreement with the theoretical considerations based on the Flory–
Huggins interaction parameter, solubility parameter, and activation energy.
Conclusions
The Flory–Huggins interaction parameters between the polymers and POSS
nanoparticles were determined using the melting point depression method. In the
case of the PE nanohybrids, PE with OB-POSS was thermodynamically most
favorable. The thermodynamic interactions of both the PET/OB-POSS and Nylon
6/AB-POSS pairs were also found to be highly favorable according to the Flory–
Huggins interaction parameters. The maximum difference of the solubility
parameter between PE and OB-POSS was much smaller than those for PE/OM-
POSS and PE/OP-POSS, indicating that the interaction between PE and OB-POSS
was more favorable than that of the others. In the PET nanohybrids, the maximum
solubility parameter difference of PET/OB-POSS pairs was less than the others,
suggesting that the thermodynamic interaction of the PET/OB-POSS pair is most
Table 4 TGA results for the neat polymers and polymer nanohybrids
PE PE/OM-POSS PE/OB-POSS PE/OP-POSS
Content (wt%) 100 0.5 1 2 0.5 1 2 0.5 1 2
Td (�C)a 277.6 283.1 280.4 278.5 306.4 301.8 297.8 294.3 293.1 291.7
PET PET/OM-POSS PET/OB-POSS PET/OP-POSS
Content (wt%) 100 0.5 1 2 0.5 1 2 0.5 1 2
Td (�C) 377.5 378.3 370.0 359.7 384.4 383.6 381.9 376.8 377.9 375.7
Nylon 6 Nylon 6/AB-POSS Nylon 6/AO-POSS Nylon 6/AP-POSS
Content (wt%) 100 0.5 1 2 0.5 1 2 0.5 1 2
Td (�C) 374.8 385.4 382.1 380.8 381.2 380.4 379.5 380.9 380.4 378.4
a 5 wt% loss
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352 2347
123
favorable. Nylon 6 and AB-POSS were highly compatible based on the calculated
values of the solubility parameters, whereas the Nylon 6/AO-POSS and Nylon
6/AP-POSS pairs were less compatible.
The activation energies of the PE, PE/OM-POSS, PE/OB-POSS and PE/OP-
POSS pairs were predicted by the Kissinger method. The highest activation energies
were also obtained for the PET/OB-POSS and Nylon 6/AB-POSS pairs. The fact
that the highest activation energy was obtained for the polymer nanohybrids with
isobutyl-substituted POSS means that the nanoparticles were dispersed most
uniformly throughout the polymer matrix due to their increased interaction with the
polymer. It was concluded from the theoretical approaches that the isobutyl group
was the most suitable functional group for POSS for PE, PET, and Nylon 6. The
viscoelastic, morphological, thermal and mechanical results also supported the
predictions based on the theoretical studies, while thermal and mechanical
properties of the polymer nanohybrids with isobutyl-substituted POSS were
superior to those of the other polymer nanohybrids.
Acknowledgments One of the authors (S. K. Lim) thanks Service Engineer Se-Hoon Byun at Perkin-
Elmer Ltd., Korea for generously providing the usage of the DSC.
References
1. Novak BM (1993) Hybrid nanocomposite materials between inorganic glasses and organic polymers.
Adv Mater 5:422–433
2. Huang CF, Kuo SW, Lin FJ, Huang WJ, Wang CF, Chen YW, Chang FC (2006) Influence of
PMMA-chain-end tethered polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes on the miscibility and specific
interaction with phenolic blends. Macromolecules 39:300–308
3. Tamaki R, Chujo Y, Kuraoka K, Yazawa T (1999) Application of organic-inorganic polymer hybrids
as selective gas permeation membranes. J Mater Chem 9:1741–1746
4. Lim SK, Lee EH, Chin IJ (2008) Specific interaction characteristics in organoclay nanocomposite of
miscible poly(styrene-co-acrylonitrile) and poly(vinyl chloride) blend. J Mater Res 23:1168–1174
5. Lim SK, Hong EP, Song YH, Park BJ, Choi HJ, Chin I (2010) Preparation and interaction charac-
teristics of exfoliated ABS/organoclay nanocomposite. Polym Eng Sci 50:504–512
6. Lim SK, Hong EP, Song YH, Choi HJ, Chin I (2010) Ternary poly(styrene-co-acrylonitrile)/poly
(vinyl chloride) blend composites with multi-walled carbon nanotubes and enhanced physical
characteristics. Macromol Mater Eng 295:329–335
7. Provatas A, Matisons JG (1997) Silsesquioxanes: synthesis and applications. Trends Polym Sci
5:327–332
8. Li GZ, Wang LC, Ni HK, Pittman CU (2011) Polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS) polymers
and copolymers: A review J Inorg Organomet Polym Mater 11:123–154
9. Choi JW, Harcup J, Yee AF, Zhu Q, Laine RM (2001) Organic/inorganic hybrid composites from
cubic silsesquioxanes. J Am Chem Soc 123:11420–11430
10. Choi JW, Tamaki R, Kim SG, Laine RM (2003) Organic/inorganic imide nanocomposites from
aminophenylsilsesquioxane. Chem Mater 15:3365–3375
11. Choi JW, Kim SG, Laine RM (2004) Organic/inorganic hybrid epoxy nanocomposites from
aminophenylsilsesquioxanes. Macromolecules 37:99–109
12. Liu H, Zheng S, Nie K (2005) Morphology and thermomechanical properties of organic-inorganic
hybrid composites involving epoxy resin and an incompletely condensed polyhedral oligomeric
silsesquioxane. Macromolecules 38:5088–5097
13. Liang K, Li G, Toghiani H, Koo JH, Pittman CU (2006) Cyanate ester/polyhedral oligomeric
silsesqioxane (POSS) nanocomposites: synthesis and characterization. Chem Mater 18:301–312
2348 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123
14. Bizet S, Galy J, Gerard JF (2006) Structure-property relationships in organic-inorganic nanomaterials
based on methacryl-POSS and dimethacrylate networks. Macromolecules 39:2574–2583
15. Zhang WC, Li XM, Yang RJ (2011) Pyrolysis and fire behaviour of epoxy resin composites based on
a phosphorus-containing polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (DOPO-POSS). Polym Degra Stab
96:1821–1832
16. Niu MS, Li T, Xu RW, Gu XY, Yu DS, Wu YX (2014) Synthesis of PS-g-POSS hybrid graft
copolymer by click coupling via ‘‘Graft Onto’’ strategy. J Appl Polym Sci 129:1833–1844
17. Haddad TS, Lichtenhan JD (1996) Hybrid organic-inorganic thermoplastics: styryl-based polyhedral
oligomeric silsesquioxane polymers. Macromolecules 29:7302–7304
18. Mather PT, Jeon HG, RomoUribe A, Haddad TS, Lichtenhan JD (1999) Mechanical relaxation and
microstructure of poly(norbornyl-POSS) copolymers. Macromolecules 32:1194–1203
19. Zheng L, Farris RJ, Coughlin EB (2001) Novel polyolefin nanocomposites: synthesis and charac-
terizations of metallocene-catalyzed polyolefin polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane copolymers.
Macromolecules 34:8034–8039
20. Zhang W, Fu BX, Seo Y, Schrag E, Hsiao B, Mather PT, Yang NL, Xu D, Ade H, Rafailovich M,
Sokolov J (2002) Effect of methyl methacrylate/polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane random
copolymers in compatibilization of polystyrene and poly(methyl methacrylate) blends. Macro-
molecules 35:8029–8038
21. Xu HY, Kuo SW, Lee JS, Chang FC (2002) Preparations, thermal properties, and Tg increase
mechanism of inorganic/organic hybrid polymers based on polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes.
Macromolecules 35:8788–8793
22. Fu BX, Gelfer MY, Hsiao BS, Phillips S, Viers B, Blanski R, Ruth P (2003) Physical gelation in
ethylene–propylene copolymer melts induced by polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS)
molecules. Polymer 44(1499):1506
23. Kopesky ET, Haddad TS, Cohen RE, McKinley GH (2004) Thermomechanical properties of
poly(methyl methacrylate)s containing tethered and untethered polyhedral oligomeric silsesquiox-
anes. Macromolecules 37:8992–9004
24. Capaldi FM, Rutledge GC, Boyce MC (2005) Structure and dynamics of blends of polyhedral
oligomeric silsesquioxanes and polyethylene by atomistic simulation. Macromolecules
38:6700–6709
25. Joshi M, Butola BS, Simon G, Kukaleva N (2006) Rheological and viscoelastic behavior of HDPE/
octamethyl-POSS nanocomposites. Macromolecules 39:1839–1849
26. Lim SK, Hong EP, Choi HJ, Chin IJ (2010) Polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane and polyethylene
nanocomposites and their physical characteristics. J Ind Eng Chem 16:189–192
27. Lim SK, Hong EP, Song YH, Choi HJ, Chin IJ (2012) Thermodynamic interaction and mechanical
characteristics of Nylon 6 and polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane nanohybrids. J Mater Sci
47:308–314
28. Strachota A, Kroutilova T, Kovarova J, Matejka L (2004) Epoxy networks reinforced with polyhedral
oligomeric silsesquioxanes (POSS). thermomechanical properties. Macromolecules 37:9457–9464
29. Fina A, Tabuani D, Camino G (2010) Polypropylene-polysilsesquioxane blends. Eur Polym J
46:14–23
30. Ke FY, Zhang C, Guang SY, Xu HY (2012) POSS core star-shape molecular hybrid materials: effect
of the chain length and POSS content on dielectric properties. J Appl Polym Sci 127:2628–2634
31. Geng Z, Huo MX, Mu JX, Zhang SL, Lu YN, Luan JS, Huo PF, Du YL, Wang GB (2014) Ultra low
dielectric constant soluble polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS)-poly(aryl ether ketone)
nanocomposites with excellent thermal and mechanical properties. J Mater Chem C 2:1094–1103
32. Zhang WC, Li XM, Yang RJ (2014) Study on flame retardancy of TGDDM epoxy resins loaded with
DOPO-POSS compound and OPS/DOPO mixture. Polym Degra Stab 99:118–126
33. Joshi M, Butola BS (2004) Studies on nonisothermal crystallization of HDPE/POSS nanocomposites.
Polymer 45:4953–4968
34. Hato MJ, Ray SS, Luyt AS (2008) Nanocomposites based on polyethylene and polyhedral oligomeric
silsesquioxanes, 1—microstructure, thermal and thermomechanical properties. Macromol Mater Eng
293:752–762
35. Heeley EL, Hughes DJ, El Aziz Y, Taylor PG, Bassindale AR (2014) Morphology and crystallization
kinetics of polyethylene/long alkyl-chain substituted polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (POSS)
nanocomposite blends: a SAXS/WAXS study. Eur Polym J 51:45–56
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352 2349
123
36. Zeng J, Kumar S, Lyer S, Schiraldi DA, Gonzalez RI (2005) Reinforcement of poly(ethylene
terephthalate) fibers with polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (POSS). High Perform Polym
17:403–424
37. Yoon KH, Polk MB, Park JH, Min BG, Schiraldi DA (2005) Properties of poly(ethylene tereph-
thalate) containing epoxy-functionalized polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane. Polym Int 54:47–53
38. Cozza ES, Ma Q, Monticelli O, Cebe P (2013) Nanostructured nanofibers based on PBT and POSS:
effect of POSS on the alignment and macromolecular orientation of the nanofibers. Eur Polym J
49:33–40
39. Ricco L, Russo S, Monticelli O, Bordo A, Bellucci F (2005) e-Caprolactam polymerization in
presence of polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (POSS). Polymer 46:6810–6819
40. Milliman HW, Ishida H, Schiraldi DA (2012) Structure property relationships and the role of pro-
cessing in the reinforcement of nylon 6-POSS blends. Macromolecules 45:4650–4657
41. Carroll JB, Waddon AJ, Nakade H, Rotello VM (2003) ‘‘Plug and play’’ polymers. Thermal and
X-ray characterizations of noncovalently grafted polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS)-
polystyrene nanocomposites. Macromolecules 36:6289–6291
42. Guo X, Wang W, Liu L (2010) A novel strategy to synthesized POSS/PS composite and study on its
thermal properties. Polym Bull 64:15–25
43. Bianchi O, Barbosa LG, Machado G, Canto LB, Mauler, RS, Oliveira RVB (2013) Reactive melt
blending of PS-POSS hybrid nanocomposites. J Appl Polym Sci 128:911–827
44. Sellinger A, Laine RM (1996) Silsesquioxanes as synthetic platforms. thermally curable and pho-
tocurable inorganic/organic hybrids. Macromolecules 29:2327–2330
45. Costa ROR, Vasconcelos WL, Tamaki R, Laine RM (2001) Organic/inorganic nanocomposite star
polymers via atom transfer radical polymerization of methyl methacrylate Using octafunctional
silsesquioxane cores. Macromolecules 34:5398–5407
46. Tegou E, Bellas V, Gogolides E, Argitis P (2004) Polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS)
acrylate copolymers for microfabrication: properties and formulation of resist materials. Micro-
electron Eng 73:238–243
47. Zhao C, Yang X, Wu X, Liu X, Wang X, Lu L (2008) Preparation and characterization of poly
(methyl methacrylate) nanocomposites containing octavinyl polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane.
Polym Bull 60:495–505
48. Fu BX, Hsiao BS, Pagola S, Stephens P, White H, Rafailovich M, Sokolov J, Mather PT, Jeon HG,
Phillips S, Lichtenhan J, Schwab J (2001) Structural development during deformation of poly-
urethane containing polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (POSS) molecules. Polymer 42:599–611
49. Hoflund GB, Gonzalez RI, Phillips SH (2001) In situ oxygen atom erosion study of a polyhedral
oligomeric silsesquioxane polyurethane copolymer. J Adhes Sci Technol 15:1199–1211
50. Przadka D, Jeczalik J, Andrzejewska E, Dutkiewicz M (2013) Synthesis and properties of hybrid
urethane polymers containing polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane crosslinker. J Appl Polym Sci
130:2023–2030
51. Pan R, Shanks R, Kong I, Wang L (2014) Trislanolisobutyl POSS/polyurethane hybrid composites:
preparation WAXS and thermal properties. Polym Bull 71:2453–2464
52. Pittman CU, Li GZ, Ni HL (2003) Hybrid inorganic/organic crosslinked resins containing polyhedral
oligomeric silsesquioxanes. Macromol Symp 196:301–325
53. Gilman JW, Schlitzer DS, Lichtenhan JD (1998) Low earth orbit resistant siloxane copolymers.
J Appl Polym Sci 60:591–596
54. Leu CM, Chang YT, Wei KH (2003) Synthesis and dielectric properties of polyimide-tethered
polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS) nanocomposites via POSS-diamine. Macromolecules
36:9122–9127
55. Hato MJ, Ray SS, Luyt AS (2010) Thermal and rheological properties of POSS-containing poly
(methyl methacrylate) nanocomposites. Adv Sci Lett 3:123–129
56. Wu Y, Li L, Feng S (2013) Hybrid nanocomposites based on novolac resin and octa(phenethyl)
polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS): miscibility, specific interaction and thermaomechan-
ical properties Polym Bull 70:3261–3277
57. Song L, He Q, Hu Y, Chen H, Liu L (2008) Study on thermal degradation and combustion behaviors
of PC/POSS hybrids. Polym Degrad Stab 93:627–639
58. Hao N, Bohning M, Goering H, Schonhals A (2007) Nanocomposites of polyhedral oligomeric
phenethylsilsesquioxanes and poly(bisphenol A carbonate) as investigated by dielectric spectroscopy.
Macromolecules 40:2955–2964
2350 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123
59. Kang JM, Cho HJ, Lee J, Lee JI, Lee SK, Cho NS, Hwang DH, Shim HK (2006) Highly bright and
efficient electroluminescence of new PPV derivatives containing polyhedral oligomeric
silsesquioxanes (POSSs) and their blends. Macromolecules 39:4999–5008
60. Iyer S, Schiraldi DA (2007) Role of specific interactions and solubility in the reinforcement of
bisphenol A polymers with polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes. Macromolecules 40:4942–4952
61. Liu YF, Shi YH, Zhang D, Li JL, Huang GS (2013) Preparation and thermal degradation behavior of
room temperature vulcanized silicone rubber-g-polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes. Polymer
54:6140–6149
62. Zheng L, Hong S, Cardoen G, Burgaz E, Gido SP, Coughlin EB (2004) Polymer nanocomposites
through controlled self-assembly of cubic silsesquioxane scaffolds. Macromolecules 37:8606–8611
63. Kopesky ET, Haddad TS, Mckinley GH, Cohen RE (2005) Miscibility and viscoelastic properties of
acrylic polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane–poly(methyl methacrylate) blends. Polymer
46:4743–4752
64. Kopesky ET, Mckinley GH, Cohen RE (2006) Toughened poly(methyl methacrylate) nanocom-
posites by incorporating polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes. Polymer 47:299–309
65. Baldi F, Bignotti F, Fina A, Tabuani D, Ricco T (2007) Mechanical characterization of polyhedral
oligomeric silsesquioxane/polypropylene blends. J Appl Polym Sci 105:935–943
66. Soong SY, Cohen RE, Boyce MC, Mulliken AD (2006) Rate-dependent deformation behavior POSS-
filled and plasticized poly(vinyl chloride). Macromolecules 39:2900–2908
67. Carroll JB, Frankamp BL, Rotello VM (2002) Self-assembly of gold nanoparticles through tandem
hydrogen bonding and polyoligosilsequioxane (POSS)–POSS recognition processes. Chem Commun
17:1892–1893
68. Naka K, Itoh H, Chujo Y (2002) Self-organization of spherical aggregates of palladium nanoparticles
with a cubic silsesquioxane. Nano Lett 2:1183–1186
69. Yen YC, Kuo SW, Huang CF, Chen JK, Chang FC (2008) Miscibility and hydrogen-bonding
behavior in organic/inorganic polymer hybrids containing octaphenol polyhedral oligomeric
silsesquioxane. J Phys Chem B 112:10821–10829
70. Liu H, Kondo S, Tanaka R, Oku H, Unno M (2008) A spectroscopic investigation of incompletely
condensed polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (POSS-mono-ol, POSS-diol and POSS-triol):
hydrogen-bonded interaction and host–guest complex. J Organomet Chem 693:1301–1308
71. Wu J, Haddad TS, Mather PT (2009) Vertex group effects in entangled polystyrene-polyhedral
oligosilsesquioxane (POSS) copolymers. Macromolecules 42:1142–1152
72. Tanaka K, Adachi S, Chujo Y (2009) Structure–property relationship of octa-substituted POSS in
thermal and mechanical reinforcements of conventional polymers. J Polym Sci, Part A: Polym Chem
47:5690–5697
73. Tanaka K, Adachi S, Chujo Y (2010) Side-chain effect of octa-substituted POSS fillers on refraction
in polymer composites. J Polym Sci, Part A: Polym Chem 48:5712–5717
74. Blanco I, Bottino FA, Bottino P (2012) Influence of symmetry/asymmetry of the nanoparticles
structure on the thermal stability of polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane/polystyrene nanocom-
posites. Polym Comp 33:1903–1910
75. Lim SK, Kim JW, Chin I, Kwon YK, Choi HJ (2002) Preparation and interaction characteristics of
organically modified montmorillonite nanocomposite with miscible polymer blend of poly(ethylene
oxide) and poly(methyl methacrylate). Chem Mater 14:1989–1994
76. Nishi T, Wang TT (1975) Melting point depression and kinetic effects of cooling on crystallization in
poly(viny1idene fluoride)-poly(methyl methacrylate) mixtures. Macromolecules 8:909–915
77. Jang BN, Wang D, Wilkie CA (2005) Relationship between the solubility parameter of polymers and
the clay dispersion in polymer/clay nanocomposites and the role of the surfactant. Macromolecules
38:6533–6543
78. Van Krevelen DW (1990) Properties of Polymers, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 200
79. Newman RD, Prausnitz JM (1972) Polymer-solvent interactions from gas-liquid partition chro-
matography. J Phys Chem 76:1492
80. Smidsrod O, Guillet JE (1969) Study of polymer-solute interaction by gas chromatography.
Macromolecules 2:272–277
81. Dashpande DD, Patterson D, Schreiber HP, Su CS (1974) Thermodynamic interactions in polymer
systems by gas-liquid chromatography. IV. interactions between components in a mixed stationary
phase. Macromolecules 7:530–535
82. Olabisi O (1975) Polymer compatibility by gas-liquid chromatography. Macromolecules 8:316–322
Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352 2351
123
83. Ballard DGH, Rayner MG, Schelten J (1976) Structure of a compatible mixture of two polymers as
revealed by low-angle neutron scattering. Polymer 17:640–641
84. Wignall GD, Child HR, Li-Aravena F (1980) Small-angle neutron scattering studies of a compatible
polymer blend, atactic polystyrene-poly(2,6 dimethyl phenylene oxide). Polymer 21:131–132
85. Wendorff JH (1980) Concentration fluctuations in poly(vinylidene fluoride)-poly(methyl methacry-
late) mixtures. J Polym Sci Polym Lett 18:439–445
86. Wendorff JH (1982) The structure of amorphous polymers. Polymer 23:543–557
87. Chojnowski J, Cypryk M. In: Jones RG, Ando W, Chojnowski J (eds) Silicon-containing polymers,
1st edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 3
88. Hyun YH, Lim ST, Choi HJ, Jhon MS (2001) Rheology of poly(ethylene oxide)/organoclay
nanocomposites. Macromolecules 34:8084–8093
89. Gupta RK, Pasanovic-Zujo V, Bhattacharya SN (2005) Shear and extensional rheology of EVA/
layered silicate-nanocomposites. J Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech 128:116–125
90. Menard HP (2008) Dynamic mechanical analysis, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 106
91. Huang JC, Zhu ZK, Yin J, Zhang DM, Qian XF (2001) Preparation and properties of rigid-rod
polyimide/silica hybrid materials by sol–gel process. J Appl Polym Sci 79(794):800
92. Huang JC, He C, Xian Y, Mya KY, Dai J, Siow YP (2003) Polyimide/POSS nanocomposites:
interfacial interaction, thermal properties and mechanical properties. Polymer 44:4491–4499
93. Fina A, Tabuani D, Carniato F, Frache A, Boccaleri E, Camino G (2006) Polyhedral oligomeric
silsesquioxanes (POSS) thermal degradation. Thermochim Acta 440:36–42
94. Markovic E, Clarke S, Matisons J, Simon GP (2006) Synthesis of POSS-methyl methacrylate-based
cross-linked hybrid materials. Macromolecules 41:1685–1692
2352 Polym. Bull. (2015) 72:2331–2352
123