Abstract
The adhesion between rubber and the reinforcing textile plays an important role in ensuring the serviceability of composites. The present study aims to develop an enzyme based surface roughening process for nylon 6,6 fabric to improve its adhesion strength to rubber. Polyamide (nylon 6,6) fabric was micro-roughened through catalysed hydrolytic degradation of the surface chains, using a protease enzyme treatment. The concentration of the enzyme was optimized in terms of surface roughness measured by a KES-FB4 surface tester. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the protease treated fabric showed a heterogeneous rough appearance with cracks and pits. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analysis confirmed the surface hydrolysis of polyamide-6,6 due to the enzymatic treatment. Protease enzyme treated fabrics were then subjected to resorcinol formaldehyde latex (RFL) treatment, followed by a rubber moulding. Micro-roughening of nylon 6,6 fibre with an optimum surface roughness (SMD) of 20.3 μm was obtained for 3% enzyme concentration. Physicochemical mechanisms of the optimum effect and enzyme assisted hydrolysis were proposed. In line with surface roughness, peel strength also increased up to an enzyme concentration of 3% and then it decreased, however, the enzyme treated fabric showed higher peel strength than the control fabric.
References
[1] Durairaj RB. Resorcinol: Chemistry, Technology and Applications, Springer: Berlin, 2005.Search in Google Scholar
[2] Pethrick RA. In Plasma Surface Modification of Polymers: Relevance to Adhesion, Strobel, M, Lyons, CS, Mittal, KL, Eds., VSP: Zeist, Netherlands, 1994.Search in Google Scholar
[3] Osman GA, Burçak KK, Hale CK, Fatma SG. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2013, 3, 96–101.Search in Google Scholar
[4] Maher RR, Wardman Rh. The Chemistry of Textile Fibres, 2nd ed., Royal Society of Chemistry: UK, 2015.10.1039/9781782626534Search in Google Scholar
[5] Pandiyaraj KN, Selvarajan V, Deshmukh RR, Changyou G. Vacuum 2008, 83, 332–339.10.1016/j.vacuum.2008.05.032Search in Google Scholar
[6] Zhengmao Z, Kelleya MJ. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2005, 252, 303–310.10.1016/j.apsusc.2004.12.056Search in Google Scholar
[7] Dierk K, Wolfgang K, Eckhard S. Polym. Int. 1997, 43, 231–239.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0126(199707)43:3<231::AID-PI797>3.0.CO;2-ESearch in Google Scholar
[8] Heumann S, Eberl A, Pobeheim H, Liebminger S, Fischer-Colbrie G, Almansa E, Cavaco-Paulo A, Gübitz GM. J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 2006, 69, 89–99.10.1016/j.jbbm.2006.02.005Search in Google Scholar
[9] Morton WE, Hearle JWS. Physical Properties of Textile Fibres, 4th ed., Woodhead Publishing Limited: England, 2008.10.1533/9781845694425Search in Google Scholar
[10] El-Bendary MA, Abo El-Ola SM, Moharam ME. Indian J. Fibre Tex. Res. 2012, 37, 273–279.Search in Google Scholar
[11] Aashrita R, Wolfgang K. Mater Today 2011, 14, 144–152.10.1016/S1369-7021(11)70086-4Search in Google Scholar
[12] Gashti MP, Assefipour R, Kiumarsi A, Gashti MP. Prep. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2013, 43, 798–814.10.1080/10826068.2013.805623Search in Google Scholar
[13] Amir K, Mazeyar PG. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2010, 116, 3140–3147.Search in Google Scholar
[14] Saville BP. Physical Testing of Textiles, Woodhead in Association with The Textile Institute: England, Cambridge, 2000.Search in Google Scholar
[15] Periyasamy S, Deepti G, Gulrajani ML. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2007, 103, 4102–4106.10.1002/app.25558Search in Google Scholar
[16] Silva C, Araujo R, Casal M, Gubitz GM, Artur CP. Enzyme Microbiol. Technol. 2007, 40, 1678–1685.10.1016/j.enzmictec.2006.09.001Search in Google Scholar
[17] Georg MG, Artur CP. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2003, 14, 577–582.10.1016/j.copbio.2003.09.010Search in Google Scholar
[18] Urša K, Jožica F, Andrej K. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2003, 79, 99–104.10.1016/S0141-3910(02)00260-4Search in Google Scholar
[19] Carla S, Artur CP. Biocatal. Biotransform. 2004, 22, 357–360.10.1080/10242420400025828Search in Google Scholar
©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
