Document 5kGQbJ3NmxpZ36bBJ63rzqG44

Monsanto )FROM (NAME ft location G. D. Bias - St. Louis Organic Research DATE SUBJECT REFERENCE TO : June 5, 1969 United Resins Amorphous Polypropylene Work Request 69-20 Cumming Paton CPAT0 CC; M. W. Farrar Res. 1 J. R. Darby Res. 1 W. F. Waychoff WWAYC J. K. Lilly JLILL C. P. Farley/P. R. Graham CFAI W. E. Schalk WSCHA J. A. Cannon Res. 3 A. W. M. Coaker Res. 3 R. H. Mills Res. 3 N. W. Touchette Res. 3 We have checked the compatibility of Montars 1, 5 and 9 in Eastman*s amorphous polypropylene. Montar 5 appears to be immiscible in the P.P. at the three concentrations we tried: 10, 20 and 50$. Montar 1 seems to be somewhat misdible; we got fairly decent films with 10 and 20$ Montar 1, but there appears to be discrete particles of Montar 1 which did not go into solution. Montar 9 is more miscible with the Eastman P.P. than Montar 1, but not at the 50$ level, which was clearly immiscible. A simple adhesion test was used to rate the adhesives. We coated a piece of kraft paper with the hot melt, rolled on another piece of kraft paper, and, after several minutes pulled the paper apart. Eastman P.P. alone gave only light sticking, little pressure to pull apart and about 20$ paper tear. With 10$ Montar 1, sticking was ' better, more pressure required for tearing, and more tearing (about 35$ paper tear). 20$ Montar 1 was much better, 100$ paper tear. Montar 9, at both 10 and 20$ was inferior to P.P. per se. We cut dumbbells from the films and ran tensile properties on the Instrom. All samples were very weak, tensile measurements being so low that the values are really meaningless. V Overall, I would say that the outlook for Montars in EastmanSs polypropylene does not look very promising, unless some compatibilizing additional component can be found. . 'JS^rD DSW 586714 STLCOPCB4092048