Particle emission measurements in three scenarios of mechanical degradation of polypropylene-nanoclay nanocomposites
Researchers and legislators have both claimed the necessity to standardize the exposure assessment of polymer nanocomposites throughout their life cycle. In the present study we have developed and compared three different and independent operational protocols to investigate changes in particle emiss...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad del País Vasco |
| Repositorio: | Addi. Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:addi.ehu.eus:10810/49911 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10810/49911 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | polymer nanocomposite nanoclays mechanical degradation particle emission exposure assessment engineered nanomaterials deaggregation phenomena carbon nanotubes release |
| Sumario: | Researchers and legislators have both claimed the necessity to standardize the exposure assessment of polymer nanocomposites throughout their life cycle. In the present study we have developed and compared three different and independent operational protocols to investigate changes in particle emission behavior of mechanically degraded polypropylene (PP) samples containing different fillers, including talc and two types of nanoclays (wollastonite-WO- and montmorillonite-MMT-) relative to not reinforced PP. Our results have shown that the mechanical degradation of PP, PP-Talc, PP-WO and PP-MMT samples causes the release of nano-sized particles. However, the three protocols investigated, simulating industrial milling and drilling and household drilling, have produced different figures for particles generated. Results suggest that it is not possible to describe the effects of adding nano-sized modifiers to PP by a single trend that applies consistently across all different protocols. Differences observed might be attributed to a variety of causes, including the specific operational parameters selected for sample degradation and the instrumentation used for airborne particle release characterization. In particular, a streamlined approach for future assessments providing a measure for released particles as a function of the quantity of removed material would seem useful, which can provide a reference benchmark for the variations in the number of particles emitted across a wider range of different mechanical processes. |
|---|