Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect
ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Delaminating Metal–Polymer Composites through CO2 Bubble Nucleation and Crystallization for Material Recycle in Electric Vehicles
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Article

Delaminating Metal–Polymer Composites through CO2 Bubble Nucleation and Crystallization for Material Recycle in Electric Vehicles
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Rajesh Kumar Sharma
    Rajesh Kumar Sharma
    School of Frontier Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan
  • Yuto Mori
    Yuto Mori
    School of Mechanical Science, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan
    More by Yuto Mori
  • Soichiro Kishimoto
    Soichiro Kishimoto
    School of Mechanical Science, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan
  • Ryotaro Okuda
    Ryotaro Okuda
    Graduate School of Organic Material Science, Yamagata University, Yonezawa, Yamagata 992-8510, Japan
  • Hiroshi Ito
    Hiroshi Ito
    Graduate School of Organic Material Science, Yamagata University, Yonezawa, Yamagata 992-8510, Japan
    More by Hiroshi Ito
  • Kentaro Taki*
    Kentaro Taki
    School of Frontier Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan
    *Email: [email protected]
    More by Kentaro Taki
Open PDF

ACS Applied Polymer Materials

Cite this: ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2024, 6, 16, 9627–9634
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.4c01463
Published August 12, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Recycling metal–polymer composites in electric vehicles (EVs) is a complex but crucial aspect of achieving sustainability in the automotive industry. To enable effective recycling of multimaterials in EVs, it is essential to ensure the thorough separation of all constituent materials. In this study, we demonstrated the effectiveness of bubble nucleation at higher saturation pressure, followed by subsequent heating, in achieving nearly complete delamination of the metal–polymer interface. A lap-shear assembly comprising aluminum alloy (Al) and 40 wt % glass fiber-reinforced polycarbonate (PCGF40) with a joined strength of 20 MPa as a test piece of EV part were impregnated with CO2 at a saturation pressure of 12.5 MPa and a temperature of 80 °C for 24 h. Subsequently, the impregnated samples were heated at different temperatures (110–150 °C) for 3 min to induce bubble nucleation at atmospheric pressure. The presence of crystallinity in the impregnated samples due to high saturation pressure was confirmed through differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) data. Tensile lap-shear strength tests were conducted on all samples to determine the maximum separation load, as per ISO19095-3 fixture standards. The results indicated a decrease in the maximum separation load with increasing the heating temperature, attributed to the presence of bubbles at the interface and fractures in the polymer matrix, as clarified by X-ray computed tomography (X-ray CT). Cohesive failure was observed at the temperature of 150 °C. The smallest maximum separation load and polymer residue were achieved for the sample heated at 140 °C. Through the crystallization of polycarbonate and bubble nucleation processes, the findings of this study demonstrate a successful reduction of approximately 95% in the maximum separation load compared to the control sample, showcasing an effective strategy for achieving nearly complete delamination of metal/semicrystalline polymers.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
  • nc licence
  • nd licence
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

As the global community seeks greener and more affordable transportation solutions, the demand for electric vehicles (EVs) continues to rise. (1) A key focus in the development of EVs is the need to keep them lightweight and energy-efficient, enhancing their range and performance. To achieve these goals, many components in EVs, including batteries and structural parts, are manufactured from composite materials. (1−3) Multimaterials are indeed valuable across various industries (e.g., automobile, electronics, aerospace) due to their ability to combine different materials with complementary properties to achieve enhanced performance and functionality. (1,4−7) These composites offer a unique balance of strength, weight, and versatility, making them invaluable in the design and manufacturing of EVs. Certain metal–polymer composites exhibit excellent thermal conductivity and heat dissipation, which is vital for managing the heat generated by EV batteries and electric motors. (1) The ability to join metals and polymers in innovative ways is a versatile and increasingly important process in materials engineering and manufacturing. A notable method for achieving this is metal–polymer direct joining (MPDJ) technology, which uses an injection molding machine for adhesive-free bonding of metal and polymer materials. (8−12) This technique is significant in the automotive industry, particularly in EVs, where there is a high demand for lightweight yet strong materials and efficient manufacturing processes. (11) Although MPDJ technology joins metals and polymers firmly due to the anchoring effect, (8) the ability to recycle materials at the end of their life cycle remains a unique and challenging requirement in engineering and manufacturing.
The development of effective recycling methods for metal–polymer composites is a crucial area of research as the industry seeks to maintain sustainability throughout the life cycle of EVs. Earlier, various methods were employed to recycle multimaterials such as chemical (13,14) and mechanical recycling (e.g., milling, shredding, or grinding) (15−17) processes. Nevertheless, these methods are not without their drawbacks. Chemical recycling, while effective in some respects, often leads to the production of considerable waste byproducts, which require additional treatment and disposal. The use of harsh chemicals and high-energy processes results in substantial greenhouse gas emissions and environmental pollution. (17) Furthermore, mechanical recycling methods demand high energy consumption and expensive machinery, adding to the overall cost of the recycling process. (15) Additionally, these recycling approaches often struggle to preserve the integrity of the original materials. The interfacial separation of multimaterials is indeed a significant consideration in recycling processes, especially when dealing with products or materials that are made from a combination of metals and polymers. The interfacial strength between these two materials can present challenges when it comes to efficiently and effectively recycling them.
Recently, Mori et al. (18) have developed a method for metal–polymer interfacial separation using microcellular foaming technology where CO2 gas is impregnated through the polymer and bubbles are nucleated at the interface with subsequent heating. This method not only enhances the feasibility of recycling of metal–polymer composites but also lowers the overall energy consumption. The reduction in energy consumption contributes to cost savings, making the process economically viable for large-scale industrial applications. They have successfully reduced the metal–polymer interfacial separation load by 50% at a saturation pressure of 10 MPa and a heating temperature of 130 °C. Achieving a 50% reduction in the separation load indicates a promising step forward in the efficiency of the separation process of the multimaterials. However, if the goal is to achieve complete separation of the multimaterials, further reductions in the interfacial separation load are necessary.
In our current research, which builds upon our previous work, (18) we have effectively reduced the interfacial separation load between the metal and polymer, allowing for easier delamination, by implementing a microcellular foaming technique. (19−22) The glass fiber-reinforced polycarbonate (PCGF40) was joined with a laser-engraved microstructured aluminum (Al) alloy through an injection molding process employed in this study. The CO2 gas was impregnated through the PCGF40 resin of the specimen at a high saturation pressure at constant temperature. CO2 is a preferred choice because it is nontoxic, nonflammable, cost-effective, naturally abundant, and environmentally friendly; has a moderate critical temperature (31.1 °C) and pressure (7.38 MPa); and exhibits high solubility in polymers. (23−25) The Al/PCGF40 specimen was subsequently subjected to high temperatures for a specific duration to induce the nucleation of CO2 gas bubbles at the interface of the Al/PCGF40. The high saturation pressure-induced crystallinity in the polymer matrix was confirmed by the DSC measurement. Afterward, lap-shear tensile strength measurements were conducted to determine the maximum interfacial separation load between PCGF40 and Al. The X-ray CT imaging technique was utilized to visualize voids at the interface. The outcomes of this study have significant implications for the automotive industry, particularly EVs, where lightweight yet strong materials and efficient recycling processes are paramount.

2. Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Materials

Polycarbonate, a thermoplastic polymer reinforced with 40 wt % glass fiber (PCGF40; Panlite G-3440LIBK, Teijin), was directly bonded with a 5 mm-long laser-engraved area of Al alloy through an injection molding process. The specimens were acquired from Daicel Miraizu Ltd., Japan. The Al substrate possessed dimensions of 45 mm in length, 10 mm in width, and 1.5 mm in thickness. The PCGF40 had dimensions of 45 mm in length, 10 mm in width, and 3 mm in thickness. The total surface area of the joint was measured to be 50 mm2. The specimen’s geometry adhered to the ISO 19095-2:2015, 4.2 standard. All specimens were utilized in their original state for further experimentation.

2.2. CO2 Gas Impregnation

The CO2 gas impregnation process in this study was executed in accordance with the procedure outlined in our earlier research. (18) The impregnation process was conducted at a saturation pressure of 12.5 MPa while maintaining a constant temperature of 80 °C for 24 h. After the sorption time, the pressure was released within 5 min. Subsequently, the CO2 bubbles were induced to nucleate by heating the samples on a heating plate at a high temperature for 3 min. The CO2 gas concentration was calculated as per our previous study, (18) determining the weight difference of the specimen before and after CO2 gas impregnation prior to the 3 min heating process. The foaming magnification (X), indicating the volume expansion or density reduction of the resin, was also calculated as per our previous study based on Archimedes' principle. (18)

2.3. Tensile Lap-Shear Strength

We utilized a mechanical tensile test machine (AGS-5kNX, Shimadzu Corporation, Japan) to determine the maximum separation load between Al and PCGF40 after CO2 bubble nucleation occurred at the interface. The sample was securely clamped in accordance with the ISO 19095-3:2015, 5.2 standard fixture, enabling the measurement of tensile lap-shear strength. The displacement rate for all measurements remained constant at 1 mm/s. All measurements were conducted under room temperature (23 °C) conditions and were repeated a minimum of three times to calculate the average value.

2.4. Residual Resin Area Ratio Measurement

After measuring the tensile strength, microscopic images of the engraved area on the Al substrate were captured using a digital microscope (VHX-7000, Keyence, Japan) to assess the residual PCGF40 resin. The residual PCGF40 resin area ratio on the engraved surface of the aluminum substrate was calculated using ImageJ software, following the methodology outlined in our previous study. (18)

2.5. X-ray Computed Tomography (X-ray CT)

The morphological investigation of CO2 bubble nucleation at the interface between Al and PCGF40 was conducted utilizing the X-ray CT imaging technique. The X-ray CT imaging was carried out at the BL8S2 beamline of the Aichi Synchrotron Radiation Center in Nagoya, Japan. Prior to the X-ray CT imaging, all specimens were cut into 2 mm squares to capture high-resolution images (with a voxel size of 1.33 μm). When the specimen demonstrated high joint strength, a grinder was employed for cutting; however, in cases of low strength, a diamond wire saw was utilized for the cutting process. The sample, heated at 130 °C, was cut into dimensions of 1 × 1 × 10 mm3. White X-rays with 5× magnification and an exposure time of 20 ms were employed to capture all the images.

2.6. Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)

The thermal behavior of the control and sample impregnated at 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5 MPa at a constant temperature of 80 °C was analyzed by using a DSC (PerkinElmer, DSC 8000) under a nitrogen environment at the rate of 10 °C/min. The calibration was performed with the Indium standard.

3. Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

3.1. CO2 Gas Dissolution in the PCGF40 Resin under a Pressure of 12.5 MPa Followed by Subsequent Heating

The foaming magnification (X) and CO2 gas concentration in the PCGF40 under a pressure of 12.5 MPa were plotted in Figure 1, with a comparison to our earlier study. (18) The CO2 gas concentration in the PCGF40 resin was measured at different pressures while maintaining a constant temperature of 80 °C for 24 h, as depicted in Figure 1a. Mori et al. (18) previously demonstrated a linear increase in gas concentration with pressure (5 < 7.5 < 10 MPa).

Figure 1

Figure 1. (a) CO2 gas concentration under pressures of 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5 MPa at a saturation temperature of 80 °C. (b) Foaming magnification (X) under pressures of 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5 MPa at a saturation temperature of 80 °C followed by subsequent heating at various temperatures (110–150 °C).

However, in this study, the gas concentration at 12.5 MPa was observed to be lower than that obtained at 10 MPa. This reduction in the gas concentration at 12.5 MPa pressure can be attributed to the crystallization of PCGF40 resin at high pressure. (26−28) The solubility of CO2 in amorphous polycarbonate increases linearly with saturation pressure and decreases with rising temperature, accompanied by an increase in the diffusivity. (26) Nevertheless, beyond a certain threshold pressure, solubility decreases, leading to crystallization due to the plasticization effect imposed by CO2 molecules. Consequently, CO2 molecules are expelled from the crystalline area of PCGF40 resin (26−28) and the CO2 concentration dropped. Furthermore, it was noted that the foaming magnification exhibited a slight increase with temperature, as shown in Figure 1b. Specifically, for samples impregnated at 12.5 MPa, the foaming magnification was slightly higher up to 130 °C compared to those observed at 10 MPa, with a subsequent slight decrease beyond 130 °C. As the heating temperature rises, there is a slight increase in foaming magnification due to the rapid nucleation of CO2 gas in the amorphous regions. However, the presence of crystalline regions continues to impose a restriction on cell growth.

3.2. CO2 Gas Bubble Visualization Using X-ray CT

After CO2 saturation at 12.5 MPa and the heating process, the specimens underwent X-ray CT imaging to visualize bubbles at the interface as well as within the PCGF40 resin, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2a shows the X-ray CT images of the control sample, revealing no evidence of gas bubbles at the interface and no cracking in the PCGF40 matrix, and the sample impregnated at 12.5 MPa with subsequent heating at 140 °C shows numerous gas bubbles at the interface, accompanied by cracking in the matrix. Samples impregnated at 12.5 MPa, both without and with subsequent heating at various temperatures (110–150 °C), are shown in Figure 2b. We observed that the specimen impregnated under a pressure of 12.5 MPa at a temperature of 80 °C, without subsequent heating, exhibited bubbles at the Al/PCGF40 interface, along with observable fracture in the resin. Additionally, small amounts or negligible bubbles were observed within the polymer resin. This observation can be attributed to the presence of the crystalline phase in the polymer matrix, where the polymer chains fold and more closely align to form highly ordered regions, consequently reducing the available free volume for the dissolution of gas molecules, as depicted schematically in Figure 4. As a result of this, CO2 gas migrates from the crystalline region to the amorphous region of the polymer matrix. The X-ray CT images reveal the existence of an amorphous region at the interface, characterized by a large number of bubbles. Furthermore, upon heating the Al/PCGF40 samples, bubble nucleation at the interface was observed, as discussed in our previous study. (18) However, the fracture area of the PCGF40 matrix increased with higher heating temperatures. Numerous small bubbles were observed at the interface in the sample heated at 110 °C. Conversely, large and numerous bubbles were evident at the interface in the sample heated at 140 °C. Samples heated at 120 and 150 °C exhibit large fractures in the polymer matrix near the interface, which might be the cause of the lower separation load. The fracture in the polymer at the interface might be due to the increasing bubble nucleation, resulting in the coalescence of the bubbles.

Figure 2

Figure 2. X-ray CT images of (a) the control sample and impregnated sample under 12.5 MPa pressure, followed by heating at 140 °C, and (b) the lap-shear specimen impregnated at 12.5 MPa without subsequent heating and heating at 110–150 °C (bubbles at the interface indicated by white triangles and the cracking indicated by red arrows).

3.3. Crystallinity in the PCGF40 at Various Saturation Pressures and a Constant Temperature of 80 °C

The DSC curves for the control sample and samples impregnated at 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5 MPa saturation pressures, at a constant temperature of 80 °C, were depicted in Figure 3. No melting peaks were observed for the control sample, as well as for samples saturated at 5 and 7.5 MPa; instead, only a glass transition temperature (Tg) pattern at around 140 °C was evident. For the sample saturated under 10 MPa pressure at 80 °C, a small endothermic melting (Tm1) peak at approximately 169.4 °C along with Tg, was observed, indicating the presence of confined secondary crystallization in the sample. Two distinct melting temperature peaks were observed for the sample saturated at a higher pressure of 12.5 MPa, at a constant temperature of 80 °C, without subsequent heating, suggesting increased mobility of polymer molecular chains and more stable crystallization in the PCGF40 resin. The higher temperature peak, Tm2 (224.3 °C), is associated with primary crystals, while the lower temperature peak, Tm1 (166.6 °C), is associated with secondary crystals. The higher temperature peak appeared slightly broader than the lower temperature peak, indicating a higher fraction of primary crystals. A subtle effect of subsequent heating on the crystallization of the impregnated samples was observed. The lower endothermic melting (Tm1) peaks were observed at 169.6, 169.5, 167.3, 171.4, 171.1, and 171.9 °C, while the higher endothermic melting (Tm2) peaks were recorded at 220.6, 221.3, 222.1, 223.0, 224.7, and 223.7 °C for the samples heated at 100–150 °C, respectively. The lower endothermic melting peaks observed in the heated samples were sharp and slightly shifted toward higher temperatures compared to the sample without heating, indicating the presence of stable secondary crystals. However, the higher endothermic melting peaks in the heated samples were broader and appeared at slightly lower temperatures than those of the sample without heating, suggesting that the sample without heating possesses stable primary crystals compared to the heated samples. A slight shift toward higher temperatures was observed in both the lower endothermic melting (Tm1) and higher endothermic melting (Tm2) peaks with subsequent heating of the impregnated samples, indicating a subtle increase in crystallization. The degree of crystallinity (χ) of each sample was calculated using eq 1 and is listed in Table 1.
χ(%)=ΔHfΔHf°×100
(1)
where ΔHf and ΔHf° are the enthalpy of fusion of the samples and pure crystalline polycarbonate (ΔHf° = 109.7 J/g), respectively. (28,29) ΔHf was determined from the DSC thermogram by calculating the peak area corresponding to each Tm.

Figure 3

Figure 3. DSC thermogram for the control sample and samples impregnated under saturation pressures of 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5 MPa (with and without subsequent heating), at a constant temperature of 80 °C.

Table 1. Crystallization Behavior of PCGF40 Impregnated at 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5 MPa at a Constant Saturation Temperature of 80 °C
     enthalpy of fusion% crystallinitytotal crystallinity
saturation pressure Psat (MPa)heating temperature (°C)glass transition temperature Tg (°C)Tm1 (°C)Tm2 (°C)ΔHf1 (J/g)ΔHf2 (J/g)χ1χ2χ (%)
control 140       
5 135       
7.5 139       
10 140169.4 1.9 1.7 1.7
12.5  166.6224.36.613.76.012.518.5
12.5100 169.6220.612.07.511.06.817.8
12.5110 169.5221.37.89.27.28.415.6
12.5120 167.3222.18.614.17.912.920.8
12.5130 171.422310.39.59.48.618.0
12.5140 171.1224.76.811.66.210.616.8
12.5150 171.9223.79.111.38.310.318.6
Analysis of the crystallinity data reveals that the sample impregnated at 10 MPa exhibited a lower degree of crystallinity (1.7%), primarily attributable to secondary crystals. Conversely, samples impregnated at 12.5 MPa demonstrated enhanced crystallinity compared to the 10 MPa counterparts, indicative of the presence of both primary and secondary crystals. The sample impregnated at 12.5 MPa without subsequent heating exhibits a degree of crystallinity of 18.5%, nearly 10 times higher than that of the sample impregnated at 10 MPa. Furthermore, upon subsequent heating at temperatures ranging from 100 to 150 °C, the degree of crystallinity ranged from 15.5 to 20.7%, indicating slight differences.

3.4. Mechanism of Crystallization and Cracking in PCGF40

The process of crystallization and cracking, attributed to the plasticization effect due to CO2 molecules, is elucidated in Figure 4. Initially, under high pressure, the saturation process occurs, leading to the dissolution of CO2 molecules within the PCGF40 resin. This initiates a series of molecular rearrangements within the polymer chains, which in turn triggers the formation of a crystalline structure. Concurrently, as the polymer chains undergo rearrangement, CO2 gas molecules begin to migrate toward the amorphous regions within the PCGF40 matrix, as shown in Figure 4a. (26−28,30) However, it is notable that the saturation temperature exerts a greater influence on inducing crystallization compared to saturation pressure. (28) Due to the migration of CO2 gas molecules toward the amorphous regions, a significant portion of these molecules tends to accumulate between the spherulites─the spherical crystalline structures that form during the crystallization process. The interface between spherulites and the amorphous region functions as a heterogeneous nucleation site with a low Gibbs free energy barrier, promoting cell nucleation. (25,31) Furthermore, not only do the spherulites serve as nucleation sites but also the surfaces of the glass fibers within the matrix act as heterogeneous nucleation sites, facilitating cell nucleation. As the saturation process progresses, additional CO2 gas continues to diffuse into the amorphous regions situated between the spherulites and the glass fibers of the PCGF40 matrix. This influx of CO2 exerts extensional forces toward the spherulites and glass fibers, which results in stress accumulation within the amorphous regions. Eventually, this stress surpasses the material’s threshold, leading to cracking within the amorphous area as shown in Figure 4b.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Mechanisms of (a) crystallization and (b) cracking in PCGF40 resin under high-pressure CO2 dissolution.

3.5. Tensile Lap-Shear Strength

The maximum separation load [N] for the Al/PCGF40 sample, impregnated under a saturation pressure of 12.5 MPa and subsequently heated at various temperatures (110–150 °C), was determined through a tensile lap-shear strength test, as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5a displays the load–displacement curves for the control and the samples impregnated at 12.5 MPa without subsequent heating and with heating at 140 °C. It is evident that the maximum separation load was reduced by approximately half (∼511 N) for the sample only impregnated without further heating, whereas an extensive reduction (∼58 N) was observed for the sample impregnated under a pressure of 12.5 MPa subsequently heated at 140 °C, as compared to the control sample (1250 N).

Figure 5

Figure 5. (a) Load (N)–displacement (mm) curves of control and impregnated (12.5 MPa without heating and with heating at 140 °C) samples. (b) Maximum separation load (N) of the control (*), samples only impregnated (**), and samples impregnated with subsequent heating at 110–150 °C.

Figure 5b illustrates the maximum separation load (N) for the control and the samples impregnated at 12.5 MPa without subsequent heating and with heating at various temperatures (110–150 °C). The maximum separation load was observed to decrease when impregnating the Al/PCGF40 sample at a saturation pressure of 12.5 MPa, attributed to the presence of bubbles at the interface and the fracture of polymer matrix induced by crystallization at high saturation pressure, as depicted in the X-ray CT images (Figure 2). Upon heating the impregnated samples at temperatures ranging from 110 to 150 °C, a significant decline in the maximum separation load was noted. This reduction can be attributed to bubble nucleation at the interface and the widening of the fractured area in the polymer matrix. The substantial decrease in the maximum separation load of the lap-shear Al/PCGF40 specimen under a saturation pressure of 12.5 MPa with subsequent heating can prove to be highly advantageous for the effortless separation of multilayered materials.

3.6. Remaining Residual Resin at the Aluminum Surface

Measuring the remaining residual polymer on the engraved surface of the Al after the tensile lap-shear strength test can serve as evidence of the complete separation of the multimaterials. The remaining residue of the PCGF40 on the Al surface is depicted in Figure 6. Microscopic images (Figure 6a) of the engraved area of the Al for the samples impregnated with subsequent heating clearly indicate that the maximum residue of the PCGF40 was observed for the sample heated at 150 °C compared to those obtained at lower temperatures (120–140 °C). In Figure 6b, the residual resin area ratio for the control and the samples impregnated at 12.5 MPa without further heating and with heating at 110–150 °C clearly demonstrates a decrease in the residual resin area ratio on heating from 110 to 140 °C, followed by an increase at 150 °C, consistent with the microscopic images. As the heating temperature increases, bubbles nucleate at the interface and between the spherulites. Consequently, at high temperatures, cohesive failure in PCGF40 resin becomes predominant. (18) The sample only impregnated without further heating exhibits slightly higher residue than the control sample. Samples heated at 120 and 150 °C show high residue but demonstrate a small maximum separation load, which might be attributed to cohesive failure resulting from the fracture in the polymer matrix. The smallest residue is observed for the sample heated at 140 °C.

Figure 6

Figure 6. (a) Microscopic images of engraved surface of aluminum substrate after a tensile lap-shear strength measurement for 12.5 MPa with subsequent heating at 120–150 °C. (b) Residual resin area ratio on aluminum substrate for the control (*), samples only impregnated at 12.5 MPa (**), and samples impregnated with subsequent heating at 110–150 °C.

3.7. Relationship between Residual Resin Area and Relative Maximum Separation Load

The relationship between residual resin and relative maximum separation load is illustrated in Figure 7. A significant reduction in the maximum separation load of 12.5 MPa is evident across all samples compared to those obtained for the control sample. A sample only impregnated without further heating exhibits the highest maximum load, with residual resin even surpassing that of the control sample. Samples subjected to heating after impregnation show reduction in both maximum load and residual resin. The lowest maximum separation load, accompanied by the lowest residual resin, is observed for the sample heated at 140 °C.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Relative maximum load (N) and residual resin area ratio for the control (intersection point of black lines), and samples impregnated at 12.5 MPa with subsequent heating at 110–150 °C and without heating.

In our previous study, we achieved the smallest maximum load and residue at a saturation pressure of 10 MPa with subsequent heating at 130 °C, amounting to just half (∼600 N) of the control sample. (18) We have achieved a remarkable reduction of approximately 95% (∼58 N) in the maximum separation load at a saturation pressure of 12.5 MPa with subsequent heating at 140 °C, in comparison to the control sample.

4. Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

An extensive reduction in the maximum separation load for the easy delamination of Al/PCGF40 was successfully achieved by impregnating CO2 gas at a saturation pressure of 12.5 MPa and a constant temperature of 80 °C, followed by subsequent heating at 140 °C. We observed that at a pressure of 12.5 MPa, there was a decrease in gas concentration in the PCGF40 resin during the saturation process. This reduction was attributed to crystallinity occurring at high saturation pressure due to the plasticization effect, as confirmed by the DSC data. The crystallization led to the fracture of the polymer matrix, causing CO2 bubbles to expel into the amorphous region, particularly at the interface side, as confirmed by X-ray CT images. With an increase in heating temperature, the bubbles started to nucleate, resulting in a small maximum separation load, as confirmed by the tensile lap-shear strength data. The smallest maximum separation load (∼58 N) and residue were obtained for the sample impregnated with subsequent heating at 140 °C. We achieved a substantial reduction of approximately 95% in the maximum separation load compared to the control sample, which could significantly improve the recyclability of EVs. Although this method achieves nearly complete delamination of metal–polymer composites, there are still a few challenges. Long saturation time and high saturation pressure could pose significant issues for industrial applications.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Rajesh Kumar Sharma - School of Frontier Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-1192, JapanOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6285-4317
    • Yuto Mori - School of Mechanical Science, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan
    • Soichiro Kishimoto - School of Mechanical Science, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan
    • Ryotaro Okuda - Graduate School of Organic Material Science, Yamagata University, Yonezawa, Yamagata 992-8510, Japan
    • Hiroshi Ito - Graduate School of Organic Material Science, Yamagata University, Yonezawa, Yamagata 992-8510, JapanOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8432-8457
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The current study received support through a grant (JPMJCR21L3) from JST-CREST, Japan. The authors express gratitude to the Aichi Synchrotron Radiation Center, Nagoya, Japan, for providing access to their X-ray CT facility at the BL8S2 beamline. The authors are also very grateful to Professor Katsuhisa Tokumitsu and Dr. Takumitsu Kida for generously allowing the use of the DSC facility at the University of Shiga Prefecture, Japan.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 31 other publications.

  1. 1
    Wazeer, A.; Das, A.; Abeykoon, C.; Sinha, A.; Karmakar, A. Composites for Electric Vehicles and Automotive Sector: A Review. Green Energy Intell. Transp. 2023, 2, 100043  DOI: 10.1016/j.geits.2022.100043
  2. 2
    Azzopardi, B.; Hapid, A.; Kaleg, S.; Sudirja; Onggo, D.; Budiman, A. C. Recent Advances in Battery Pack Polymer Composites. Energies. 2023, 16, 6223,  DOI: 10.3390/en16176223
  3. 3
    Delogu, M.; Zanchi, L.; Dattilo, C. A.; Pierini, M. Innovative Composites and Hybrid Materials for Electric Vehicles Lightweight Design in a Sustainability Perspective. Mater. Today Commun. 2017, 13, 192209,  DOI: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2017.09.012
  4. 4
    Melentiev, R.; Yudhanto, A.; Tao, R.; Vuchkov, T.; Lubineau, G. Metallization of Polymers and Composites: State-of-the-Art Approaches. Mater. Des. 2022, 221, 110958  DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110958
  5. 5
    Nazir, A.; Gokcekaya, O.; Md Masum Billah, K.; Ertugrul, O.; Jiang, J.; Sun, J.; Hussain, S. Multi-Material Additive Manufacturing: A Systematic Review of Design, Properties, Applications, Challenges, and 3D Printing of Materials and Cellular Metamaterials. Mater. Des. 2023, 226, 111661  DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2023.111661
  6. 6
    Blanco, D.; Rubio, E. M.; Marín, M. M.; Davim, J. P. Advanced Materials and Multi-Materials Applied in Aeronautical and Automotive Fields: A Systematic Review Approach. Procedia CIRP. 2021, 99, 196201,  DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2021.03.027
  7. 7
    Huang, Y.; Gao, X.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, B. Laser Joining Technology of Polymer-Metal Hybrid Structures - A Review. J. Manuf. Process. 2022, 79, 934961,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.05.026
  8. 8
    Kajihara, Y.; Tamura, Y.; Kimura, F.; Suzuki, G.; Nakura, N.; Yamaguchi, E. Joining Strength Dependence on Molding Conditions and Surface Textures in Blast-Assisted Metal-Polymer Direct Joining. CIRP Ann. 2018, 67 (1), 591594,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cirp.2018.04.112
  9. 9
    Taki, K.; Nakamura, S.; Takayama, T.; Nemoto, A.; Ito, H. Direct Joining of a Laser-Ablated Metal Surface and Polymers by Precise Injection Molding. Microsyst. Technol. 2016, 22 (1), 3138,  DOI: 10.1007/s00542-015-2640-2
  10. 10
    Ramani, K.; Moriarty, B. Thermoplastic Bonding to Metals via Injection Molding for Macro-Composite Manufacture. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1998, 38 (5), 870877,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.10253
  11. 11
    Grujicic, M.; Sellappan, V.; Omar, M. A.; Seyr, N.; Obieglo, A.; Erdmann, M.; Holzleitner, J. An Overview of the Polymer-to-Metal Direct-Adhesion Hybrid Technologies for Load-Bearing Automotive Components. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2008, 197 (1–3), 363373,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.06.058
  12. 12
    Zhao, S.; Kimura, F.; Kadoya, S.; Kajihara, Y. Experimental Analysis on Mechanical Interlocking of Metal-Polymer Direct Joining. Precis. Eng. 2020, 61, 120125,  DOI: 10.1016/j.precisioneng.2019.10.009
  13. 13
    Samorì, C.; Cespi, D.; Blair, P.; Galletti, P.; Malferrari, D.; Passarini, F.; Vassura, I.; Tagliavini, E. Application of Switchable Hydrophilicity Solvents for Recycling Multilayer Packaging Materials. Green Chem. 2017, 19, 17141720,  DOI: 10.1039/C6GC03535C
  14. 14
    Zhang, S.; Luo, K.; Zhang, L.; Mei, X.; Cao, S.; Wang, B. Interfacial Separation and Characterization of Al-PE Composites During Delamination of Post-Consumer Tetra Pak Materials. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2015, 90 (6), 11521159,  DOI: 10.1002/jctb.4573
  15. 15
    Yang, Y.; Boom, R.; Irion, B.; van Heerden, D. J.; Kuiper, P.; de Wit, H. Recycling of Composite Materials. Chem. Eng. Process. 2012, 51, 5368,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cep.2011.09.007
  16. 16
    Knappich, F.; Schlummer, M.; Mäurer, A.; Prestel, H. A New Approach to Metal- and Polymer-Recovery from Metallized Plastic Waste using Mechanical Treatment and Subcritical Solvents. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018, 20, 15411552,  DOI: 10.1007/s10163-018-0717-6
  17. 17
    Krauklis, A. E.; Karl, C. W.; Gagani, A. I.; Jørgensen, J. K. Composite Material Recycling Technology─State-of-the-Art and Sustainable Development for the 2020s. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 28,  DOI: 10.3390/jcs5010028
  18. 18
    Mori, Y.; Kishimoto, S.; Sharma, R. K.; Taki, K. Bubble Nucleation-Induced Interfacial Delamination of a Lap-Shear Aluminum/Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polycarbonate Specimen by CO2 Gas Impregnation and Subsequent Heating. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62 (39), 1591915927,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02107
  19. 19
    Taki, K.; Yanagimoto, T.; Funami, E.; Okamoto, M.; Ohshima, M. Visual Observation of CO2 Foaming of Polypropylene-Clay Nanocomposites. Polym, Eng. Sci. 2004, 44 (6), 10041011,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.20093
  20. 20
    Ito, A.; Semba, T.; Taki, K.; Ohshima, M. Effect of the Molecular Weight Between Crosslinks of Thermally Cured Epoxy Resins on the CO2-Bubble Nucleation in a Batch Physical Foaming Process. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131 (12), 40407,  DOI: 10.1002/app.40407
  21. 21
    Taki, K.; Kitano, D.; Ohshima, M. Effect of Growing Crystalline Phase on Bubble Nucleation in Poly(L-Lactide)/CO2 Batch Foaming. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50 (6), 32473252,  DOI: 10.1021/ie101637f
  22. 22
    Chai, J.; Wang, G.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, A.; Shi, Z.; Wei, C.; Zhao, G. Microcellular PLA/PMMA Foam Fabricated by CO2 foaming with Outstanding Shape-Memory Performance. J. CO2 Util. 2021, 49, 101553  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2021.101553
  23. 23
    Liao, X.; Wang, J.; Li, G.; He, J. Effect of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide on the Crystallization and Melting Behavior of Linear Bisphenol A Polycarbonate. J. Polym. Sci. B Polym. Phys. 2004, 42 (2), 280285,  DOI: 10.1002/polb.10597
  24. 24
    Cooper, A. I. Polymer Synthesis and Processing using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide. J. Mater. Chem. 2000, 10, 207234,  DOI: 10.1039/a906486i
  25. 25
    Yang, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, Q.; Xia, C.; Chen, C.; Chen, X.; Yu, P. Foaming of Poly(Lactic Acid) with Supercritical CO2: The Combined Effect of Crystallinity and Crystalline Morphology on Cellular Structure. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2019, 145, 122132,  DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2018.12.006
  26. 26
    Lan, Q.; Yu, J.; Zhang, J.; He, J. Enhanced Crystallization of Bisphenol A Polycarbonate in Thin and Ultrathin Films by Supercritical Carbon Dioxide. Macromolecules 2011, 44 (14), 57435749,  DOI: 10.1021/ma102797r
  27. 27
    Sun, Y.; Matsumoto, M.; Kitashima, K.; Haruki, M.; Kihara, S.; Takishima, S. Solubility and Diffusion Coefficient of Supercritical-CO2 in Polycarbonate and CO2 Induced Crystallization of Polycarbonate. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2014, 95, 3543,  DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2014.07.018
  28. 28
    Li, G.; Park, C. B. A New Crystallization Kinetics Study of Polycarbonate under High-Pressure Carbon Dioxide and Various Crystallinization Temperatures by using Magnetic Suspension Balance. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2010, 18 (5), 28982903,  DOI: 10.1002/app.32697
  29. 29
    Monnereau, L.; Urbanczyk, L.; Thomassin, J.-M.; Alexandre, M.; Jérôme, C.; Huynen, I.; Bailly, C.; Detrembleur, C. Supercritical CO2 and Polycarbonate Based Nanocomposites: A Critical Issue for Foaming. Polymer 2014, 55 (10), 24222431,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2014.03.035
  30. 30
    Reignier, J.; Tatibouet, J.; Gendron, R. Batch Foaming of Poly(ε-Caprolactone) using Carbon Dioxide: Impact of Crystallization on Cell Nucleation as Probed by Ultrasonic Measurements. Polymer 2006, 47 (14), 50125024,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2006.05.040
  31. 31
    Sarver, J. A.; Kiran, E. Foaming of Polymers with Carbon Dioxide–The Year-in-Review– 2019. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2021, 173, 105166  DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2021.105166

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Open PDF

ACS Applied Polymer Materials

Cite this: ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2024, 6, 16, 9627–9634
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.4c01463
Published August 12, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Article Views

198

Altmetric

-

Citations

-
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. (a) CO2 gas concentration under pressures of 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5 MPa at a saturation temperature of 80 °C. (b) Foaming magnification (X) under pressures of 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5 MPa at a saturation temperature of 80 °C followed by subsequent heating at various temperatures (110–150 °C).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. X-ray CT images of (a) the control sample and impregnated sample under 12.5 MPa pressure, followed by heating at 140 °C, and (b) the lap-shear specimen impregnated at 12.5 MPa without subsequent heating and heating at 110–150 °C (bubbles at the interface indicated by white triangles and the cracking indicated by red arrows).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. DSC thermogram for the control sample and samples impregnated under saturation pressures of 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5 MPa (with and without subsequent heating), at a constant temperature of 80 °C.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Mechanisms of (a) crystallization and (b) cracking in PCGF40 resin under high-pressure CO2 dissolution.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. (a) Load (N)–displacement (mm) curves of control and impregnated (12.5 MPa without heating and with heating at 140 °C) samples. (b) Maximum separation load (N) of the control (*), samples only impregnated (**), and samples impregnated with subsequent heating at 110–150 °C.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. (a) Microscopic images of engraved surface of aluminum substrate after a tensile lap-shear strength measurement for 12.5 MPa with subsequent heating at 120–150 °C. (b) Residual resin area ratio on aluminum substrate for the control (*), samples only impregnated at 12.5 MPa (**), and samples impregnated with subsequent heating at 110–150 °C.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Relative maximum load (N) and residual resin area ratio for the control (intersection point of black lines), and samples impregnated at 12.5 MPa with subsequent heating at 110–150 °C and without heating.

  • References


    This article references 31 other publications.

    1. 1
      Wazeer, A.; Das, A.; Abeykoon, C.; Sinha, A.; Karmakar, A. Composites for Electric Vehicles and Automotive Sector: A Review. Green Energy Intell. Transp. 2023, 2, 100043  DOI: 10.1016/j.geits.2022.100043
    2. 2
      Azzopardi, B.; Hapid, A.; Kaleg, S.; Sudirja; Onggo, D.; Budiman, A. C. Recent Advances in Battery Pack Polymer Composites. Energies. 2023, 16, 6223,  DOI: 10.3390/en16176223
    3. 3
      Delogu, M.; Zanchi, L.; Dattilo, C. A.; Pierini, M. Innovative Composites and Hybrid Materials for Electric Vehicles Lightweight Design in a Sustainability Perspective. Mater. Today Commun. 2017, 13, 192209,  DOI: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2017.09.012
    4. 4
      Melentiev, R.; Yudhanto, A.; Tao, R.; Vuchkov, T.; Lubineau, G. Metallization of Polymers and Composites: State-of-the-Art Approaches. Mater. Des. 2022, 221, 110958  DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110958
    5. 5
      Nazir, A.; Gokcekaya, O.; Md Masum Billah, K.; Ertugrul, O.; Jiang, J.; Sun, J.; Hussain, S. Multi-Material Additive Manufacturing: A Systematic Review of Design, Properties, Applications, Challenges, and 3D Printing of Materials and Cellular Metamaterials. Mater. Des. 2023, 226, 111661  DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2023.111661
    6. 6
      Blanco, D.; Rubio, E. M.; Marín, M. M.; Davim, J. P. Advanced Materials and Multi-Materials Applied in Aeronautical and Automotive Fields: A Systematic Review Approach. Procedia CIRP. 2021, 99, 196201,  DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2021.03.027
    7. 7
      Huang, Y.; Gao, X.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, B. Laser Joining Technology of Polymer-Metal Hybrid Structures - A Review. J. Manuf. Process. 2022, 79, 934961,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.05.026
    8. 8
      Kajihara, Y.; Tamura, Y.; Kimura, F.; Suzuki, G.; Nakura, N.; Yamaguchi, E. Joining Strength Dependence on Molding Conditions and Surface Textures in Blast-Assisted Metal-Polymer Direct Joining. CIRP Ann. 2018, 67 (1), 591594,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cirp.2018.04.112
    9. 9
      Taki, K.; Nakamura, S.; Takayama, T.; Nemoto, A.; Ito, H. Direct Joining of a Laser-Ablated Metal Surface and Polymers by Precise Injection Molding. Microsyst. Technol. 2016, 22 (1), 3138,  DOI: 10.1007/s00542-015-2640-2
    10. 10
      Ramani, K.; Moriarty, B. Thermoplastic Bonding to Metals via Injection Molding for Macro-Composite Manufacture. Polym. Eng. Sci. 1998, 38 (5), 870877,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.10253
    11. 11
      Grujicic, M.; Sellappan, V.; Omar, M. A.; Seyr, N.; Obieglo, A.; Erdmann, M.; Holzleitner, J. An Overview of the Polymer-to-Metal Direct-Adhesion Hybrid Technologies for Load-Bearing Automotive Components. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2008, 197 (1–3), 363373,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.06.058
    12. 12
      Zhao, S.; Kimura, F.; Kadoya, S.; Kajihara, Y. Experimental Analysis on Mechanical Interlocking of Metal-Polymer Direct Joining. Precis. Eng. 2020, 61, 120125,  DOI: 10.1016/j.precisioneng.2019.10.009
    13. 13
      Samorì, C.; Cespi, D.; Blair, P.; Galletti, P.; Malferrari, D.; Passarini, F.; Vassura, I.; Tagliavini, E. Application of Switchable Hydrophilicity Solvents for Recycling Multilayer Packaging Materials. Green Chem. 2017, 19, 17141720,  DOI: 10.1039/C6GC03535C
    14. 14
      Zhang, S.; Luo, K.; Zhang, L.; Mei, X.; Cao, S.; Wang, B. Interfacial Separation and Characterization of Al-PE Composites During Delamination of Post-Consumer Tetra Pak Materials. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2015, 90 (6), 11521159,  DOI: 10.1002/jctb.4573
    15. 15
      Yang, Y.; Boom, R.; Irion, B.; van Heerden, D. J.; Kuiper, P.; de Wit, H. Recycling of Composite Materials. Chem. Eng. Process. 2012, 51, 5368,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cep.2011.09.007
    16. 16
      Knappich, F.; Schlummer, M.; Mäurer, A.; Prestel, H. A New Approach to Metal- and Polymer-Recovery from Metallized Plastic Waste using Mechanical Treatment and Subcritical Solvents. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018, 20, 15411552,  DOI: 10.1007/s10163-018-0717-6
    17. 17
      Krauklis, A. E.; Karl, C. W.; Gagani, A. I.; Jørgensen, J. K. Composite Material Recycling Technology─State-of-the-Art and Sustainable Development for the 2020s. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 28,  DOI: 10.3390/jcs5010028
    18. 18
      Mori, Y.; Kishimoto, S.; Sharma, R. K.; Taki, K. Bubble Nucleation-Induced Interfacial Delamination of a Lap-Shear Aluminum/Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polycarbonate Specimen by CO2 Gas Impregnation and Subsequent Heating. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62 (39), 1591915927,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02107
    19. 19
      Taki, K.; Yanagimoto, T.; Funami, E.; Okamoto, M.; Ohshima, M. Visual Observation of CO2 Foaming of Polypropylene-Clay Nanocomposites. Polym, Eng. Sci. 2004, 44 (6), 10041011,  DOI: 10.1002/pen.20093
    20. 20
      Ito, A.; Semba, T.; Taki, K.; Ohshima, M. Effect of the Molecular Weight Between Crosslinks of Thermally Cured Epoxy Resins on the CO2-Bubble Nucleation in a Batch Physical Foaming Process. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131 (12), 40407,  DOI: 10.1002/app.40407
    21. 21
      Taki, K.; Kitano, D.; Ohshima, M. Effect of Growing Crystalline Phase on Bubble Nucleation in Poly(L-Lactide)/CO2 Batch Foaming. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50 (6), 32473252,  DOI: 10.1021/ie101637f
    22. 22
      Chai, J.; Wang, G.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, A.; Shi, Z.; Wei, C.; Zhao, G. Microcellular PLA/PMMA Foam Fabricated by CO2 foaming with Outstanding Shape-Memory Performance. J. CO2 Util. 2021, 49, 101553  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2021.101553
    23. 23
      Liao, X.; Wang, J.; Li, G.; He, J. Effect of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide on the Crystallization and Melting Behavior of Linear Bisphenol A Polycarbonate. J. Polym. Sci. B Polym. Phys. 2004, 42 (2), 280285,  DOI: 10.1002/polb.10597
    24. 24
      Cooper, A. I. Polymer Synthesis and Processing using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide. J. Mater. Chem. 2000, 10, 207234,  DOI: 10.1039/a906486i
    25. 25
      Yang, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, Q.; Xia, C.; Chen, C.; Chen, X.; Yu, P. Foaming of Poly(Lactic Acid) with Supercritical CO2: The Combined Effect of Crystallinity and Crystalline Morphology on Cellular Structure. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2019, 145, 122132,  DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2018.12.006
    26. 26
      Lan, Q.; Yu, J.; Zhang, J.; He, J. Enhanced Crystallization of Bisphenol A Polycarbonate in Thin and Ultrathin Films by Supercritical Carbon Dioxide. Macromolecules 2011, 44 (14), 57435749,  DOI: 10.1021/ma102797r
    27. 27
      Sun, Y.; Matsumoto, M.; Kitashima, K.; Haruki, M.; Kihara, S.; Takishima, S. Solubility and Diffusion Coefficient of Supercritical-CO2 in Polycarbonate and CO2 Induced Crystallization of Polycarbonate. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2014, 95, 3543,  DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2014.07.018
    28. 28
      Li, G.; Park, C. B. A New Crystallization Kinetics Study of Polycarbonate under High-Pressure Carbon Dioxide and Various Crystallinization Temperatures by using Magnetic Suspension Balance. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2010, 18 (5), 28982903,  DOI: 10.1002/app.32697
    29. 29
      Monnereau, L.; Urbanczyk, L.; Thomassin, J.-M.; Alexandre, M.; Jérôme, C.; Huynen, I.; Bailly, C.; Detrembleur, C. Supercritical CO2 and Polycarbonate Based Nanocomposites: A Critical Issue for Foaming. Polymer 2014, 55 (10), 24222431,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2014.03.035
    30. 30
      Reignier, J.; Tatibouet, J.; Gendron, R. Batch Foaming of Poly(ε-Caprolactone) using Carbon Dioxide: Impact of Crystallization on Cell Nucleation as Probed by Ultrasonic Measurements. Polymer 2006, 47 (14), 50125024,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2006.05.040
    31. 31
      Sarver, J. A.; Kiran, E. Foaming of Polymers with Carbon Dioxide–The Year-in-Review– 2019. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2021, 173, 105166  DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2021.105166