Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Ilyin, S.O.; Melekhina, V.Y.;
Kostyuk, A.V.; Smirnova, N.M.
Hot-Melt and Pressure-Sensitive
Adhesives Based on Styrene-
Isoprene-Styrene Triblock Copolymer,
Asphaltene/Resin Blend and
Naphthenic Oil. Polymers 2022,14,
4296. https://doi.org/10.3390/
polym14204296
Academic Editor: Hong Chi
Received: 17 September 2022
Accepted: 10 October 2022
Published: 13 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
polymers
Article
Hot-Melt and Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives Based on
Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene Triblock Copolymer,
Asphaltene/Resin Blend and Naphthenic Oil
Sergey O. Ilyin * , Viktoria Y. Melekhina, Anna V. Kostyuk and Nina M. Smirnova
A.V. Topchiev Institute of Petrochemical Synthesis, Russian Academy of Sciences, 29 Leninsky Prospect,
119991 Moscow, Russia
*Correspondence: s.o.ilyin@gmail.com; Tel.: +7(916)8276852
Abstract:
Asphaltene/resin blend (ARB) extracted from heavy crude oil was used to modify poly(styrene-
block-isoprene-block-styrene) (SIS) to make it an adhesive. There were prepared double and triple
mixtures containing 10–60% SIS, 10–40% ARB, and 10–50% naphthenic oil used as an additional
plasticizer. The viscoelasticity of the mixtures at 25
◦
C and 120
◦
C was studied, their flow curves
were obtained, and the temperature dependences of the loss tangent and the components of the
complex modulus were measured. In addition, the mixtures were used as hot-melt adhesives (HMAs)
and pressure-sensitive adhesives (PSAs) in the shear, peel, and pull-off tests of the adhesive bonds
that they formed with steel. Both naphthenic oil and ARB act as plasticizers for SIS and make it
sticky. However, only the combined use of ARB and the oil allows for achieving the best set of
adhesive properties of the SIS-based mixture. High-quality HMA requires low oil content (optimal
SIS/ARB/oil ratio is 50/40/10, pull-off adhesion strength (
τt
) of 1990 kPa), whereas a lot of the oil is
needed to give SIS characteristics of a PSA (SIS/ARB/oil is 20/40/40,
τt
of 100 kPa). At the same
time, the resulting PSA can be used as a hot-melt pressure-sensitive adhesive (HMPSA) that has
many times lower viscosity than HMA (13.9 Pa
·
s versus 2640 Pa
·
s at 120
◦
C and 1 s
−1
) but provides a
less strong adhesive bond (τtof 960 kPa).
Keywords:
pressure-sensitive adhesives; hot-melt adhesives; block copolymer; asphaltenes; rheology;
adhesion
1. Introduction
Polymer adhesives can be divided into two types depending on how they form the
adhesive bond: due to the change in chemical composition or during the course of physical
processes. The first of them forms a permanent adhesive bond by means of procedures
such as solvent evaporation [
1
,
2
] or chemical curing [
3
,
4
], which can be initiated by the
influence of ultraviolet radiation [
5
,
6
] or a high temperature [
7
,
8
]. The second type of
adhesive forms a bond in two cases: due to the application of pressure to the adhesive,
which leads to wetting and filling the surface roughness of the glued bodies with it, or
because of the temperature increase causing a reversible transition of the adhesive in the
molten state. These adhesives are more environmentally friendly due to the absence of
volatile components, residual reagents, and by-products in their composition.
Pressure-sensitive adhesives (PSAs) are a special class of materials that form adhesion
joints with substrates under the action of small loads [
9
,
10
]. PSAs do not harden over time,
do not dry out, have long-term vitality, and demonstrate adhesive properties when a small
pressure is applied. They are widely used in everyday life, industry, and medicine [
11
,
12
].
To be a PSA, a polymer should combine sufficient (1) fluidity for the formation of an
adhesive joint with high levels of cohesion strength and (2) elasticity [
13
], providing
the strength of the joint. Thereby, viscoelasticity is the most important feature of PSAs,
determining their properties [14–16].
Polymers 2022,14, 4296. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14204296 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 2 of 21
Hot-melt adhesives (HMAs) are solvent-free fusible compositions based on ther-
moplastic polymers [
17
]. They form strong adhesive bonds between a wide range of
materials at an elevated temperature and maintain the formed bonds after cooling [
18
,
19
].
HMAs are widely used in various fields, in particular, in the packaging, woodworking,
footwear, and furniture industries [
20
–
23
]. They have a number of advantages, such as
fast setting, environmental friendliness, economical usage, reduced fire hazard, the broad
scope of application, resistance to moisture, long shelf life, good strength, and excellent
adhesion characteristics.
Both PSAs and HMAs consist of a polymer base, a plasticizer, and a component
that makes the system sticky (so-called tackifier) [
24
–
27
]. In terms of composition, the
difference between PSAs and HMAs is quite arbitrary. Moreover, hot-melt pressure-
sensitive adhesives (HMPSAs) have found application [
12
,
28
–
32
]. They differ from ordinary
PSAs in both lower fluidity at high temperatures and greater rigidity at low ones. In
addition, a feature of HMPSAs is the ability to form an adhesive bond under light pressure
at room temperature, in contrast to conventional HMAs [33].
Many polymers are used as bases, the most common being ethylene-vinyl acetate,
ethylene-acrylate, or ethylene-acrylic acid copolymers [
34
–
37
], different
polyacrylates [38,39],
polyisoprene [
40
], polyisobutylene [
41
], polyethylene [
42
], polyvinyl acetate [
43
], poly-
lactide [
44
], polyamide [
45
], polyurethane [
46
–
48
], and polyester [
49
]. The polymer base
represents more than half of the composition of adhesives and is responsible for their
strength, elasticity, viscosity, and adhesion.
The second component in the composition of adhesives (about 30% of their volume)
is resins, both natural (rosins, terpenes, and their derivatives) [
50
,
51
] and synthetic (hy-
drocarbon, terpene-phenol, and indene-coumarone) [
52
–
56
]. They are used to increase
the adhesion of the compositions, improve the wetting of the glued surfaces, and lower
viscosity [30].
The remaining about 20% of the adhesive compositions are various additives, such as
waxes [
18
,
57
–
60
], plasticizers [
61
], pigments, fillers [
62
], and antioxidants [
63
]. Plasticizers
are the most frequently used. They are introduced into polymer materials to improve plas-
ticity during processing, increase the elasticity in the operation, and make the formulations
cheaper. In addition, plasticizers facilitate the dispersion of the ingredients, reduce the
forming temperature of the adhesive compositions, and improve their impact resistance
under low temperatures; however, they sometimes decrease the softening point. Some
plasticizers can enhance the flame, light, and heat resistance of polymers [
64
]. The most
widely used plasticizers are esters, such as dibutyl phthalate, dioctyl phthalate, dioctyl
sebacate, dioctyl adipate, trioctyl phosphate, and different trimellitates [
65
,
66
]. Chlorinated
paraffins [
67
], mineral and vegetable oils [
68
], epoxidized oils [
69
,
70
], glycols [
71
], and
other liquids are also used [72].
The polymer base for obtaining adhesives with an increased service life of adhesion
joints is usually prepared from block copolymers, which are capable of forming adhesive
joints due to soft fragments and are resistant to external loads because of microphase
segregation and formation of a spatial structure from segregated hard blocks [
73
,
74
]. The
most widely used block copolymers for producing adhesive compositions are triblock
copolymers of styrene with either isoprene or butadiene [
10
,
15
,
26
,
29
,
30
,
75
]. However,
these copolymers are characterized by relatively low energy of intermolecular interaction
compared to the commonly used tackifiers, while the structure of the tackifier affects its
miscibility with the copolymer blocks and, consequently, the properties of the resulting
adhesive [28]. For obtaining improved adhesives based on styrene triblock copolymers, it
is advisable to use hydrogenated resins (in particular hydrocarbon ones [
76
]) which are
characterized by lower rigidity and softening points as compared with original resins [
77
].
Hydrocarbon (also known as petroleum) resins are obtained by polymerization of var-
ious fractions of crude oil and therefore they possess a wide molecular weight distribution
and do not have a specific chemical structure [
78
,
79
]. However, natural compounds that
are close in physical–chemical properties to hydrocarbon resins are present in heavy crude
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 3 of 21
oil and bitumen. Such compounds are called asphaltenes [
80
], whose rheology is similar to
that of conventional tackifiers and which, like them, can form miscible (at least partially)
blends with certain polymers [81,82].
Nowadays, the problem of heavy crude oil transportation and refining has attracted
global interest. A simple way to radically reduce the viscosity of heavy crude oil is by
removing its highest molecular weight constituents, asphaltenes [
83
,
84
], but there arises
the problem of their rational utilization. The use of asphaltenes for filling polymers is a new
and promising method that is increasingly attracting the attention of researchers [
85
–
91
]. At
the same time, due to the similarity of the properties of hydrocarbon resins and asphaltenes,
the latter can act as a tackifier for polymer adhesive production. Moreover, asphaltenes do
not need to be hydrogenated, since some methods of heavy crude oil deasphalting allow
extracting resins (crude oil consists of saturates, aromatics, resins, and asphaltenes [
92
])
along with asphaltenes [93–95].
Resins are natural crude oil surfactants [
96
–
99
] that stabilize asphaltenes [
100
] and
improve their interaction with various media, including polymer matrices [
81
]. However,
the viscosity of resins and asphaltenes is quite high even in the molten state [
95
], so
a plasticizer may still be required to create a polymer adhesive. Naphthenic oil is a
rational choice, taking into account the miscibility of asphaltenes with cycloaliphatic
compounds and their insolubility in linear alkanes [
83
,
101
]. However, neither the amount of
asphaltene/resin blend required to make a polymer base sticky nor the necessary plasticizer
content is known. On this basis, the present study was carried out using the typical styrene-
isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer (SIS) as a polymer base to prepare multifunctional
adhesives [
102
–
104
] based on its blends with asphaltenes, resins, and naphthenic oil. The
microphase separation of styrene and isoprene blocks of this copolymer should act as
physical cross-links. This eliminates the need for chemical curing of adhesives, which is
an advantage because the formed adhesive bond can be destroyed, if necessary, and then
restored from scratch. In the first step, we will examine how oil and asphaltenes with
resins affect the rheological and adhesion properties of SIS separately. In the second step,
we will determine the optimal concentration of asphaltenes and resins to achieve the best
properties of the resulting adhesive, while in the third step we will do the same with the
SIS/oil ratio. In all cases, we will consider the adhesives for their application both as HMAs
and as PSAs.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
Styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer Vector 4411A (Dexco, San Diego, CA,
USA) containing 44 wt% styrene units and having a number-average molecular weight
of 82,000 g/mol, a dispersity of 1.05, and a melt flow index of 40 g/10 min (200
◦
C, 5 kg
load) was used as a polymer base. It was plasticized by refined naphthenic oil Shellflex 371
(Equilon Enterprises LLC, Houston, TX, USA) with a glass transition temperature of
−64 ◦C,
a pour point of
−
34
◦
C, and a density of 0.901 g/mL. Asphaltene/resin blend (ARB) was
obtained by adding a 15-fold excess of hexamethyldisiloxane (ECOS-1, Moscow, Russia)
to heavy crude oil (Ashalchinskaya oilfield [
105
,
106
], Almetyevsk, Russia) as described
earlier [
107
]. The weight average molecular weight, dispersity, and softening point of ARB
were 828 g/mol, 1.14, and 71
◦
C, respectively. ARB consisted of 19.3% heptane-insoluble
asphaltenes and 49.7% resins, while the rest were admixtures of heavy aromatic compounds
and crystallizing saturates [95].
2.2. Blend Preparation
Two series of triple SIS/ARB/oil mixtures were considered. In the first series, the
ratios between SIS and naphthenic oil were equal (50/50, 45/45, 40/40, 35/35, and
30/30 wt%/wt%),
while the ARB content was varied (from 0 to 40 wt%, i.e., to the maxi-
mum tackifier concentration commonly used in practice [
76
,
108
]). In the second series, the
ratio between SIS and oil was changed (10/50, 20/40, 30/30, 40/20, and 50/10 wt%/wt%),
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 4 of 21
while the ARB concentration was 40 wt% (the concentration appeared to be the best from
the test results of the first series). In addition, binary SIS blends containing 40% of naph-
thenic oil or ARB were prepared for comparison of their role on SIS properties. In all
cases, the components were compounded using a PolyDrive twin-rotor laboratory mixer
(HAAKE, Vreden, Germany) equipped with sigma-shaped rotors at 120
◦
C for 20 min
under a rotor rotation speed of 60 rpm. The films for studying the adhesive and strength
properties were shaped with an HLCL-1000 laminator (ChemInstruments, West Chester
Township, OH, USA) between two siliconized polyethylene terephthalate films at 120
◦
C.
The thickness of the adhesive films being formed was 160
±
20
µ
m. There was not any
curing of the samples.
2.3. Methods
The rheological properties were studied at 25
◦
C and 120
◦
C with a Discovery HR-
2 rotary stress-controlled rheometer (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA) using a
cone-plate working unit with a cone diameter of 25 mm and an angle between the cone
generatrix and the plate of 2
◦
. The flow curves were obtained in steady-state mode by
stepwise increasing the shear rate from 0.001 s
−1
to 100 s
−1
and plotting the viscosity (
η
)
versus shear stress (
σ
) dependences. The frequency dependences of storage (G
0
) and loss
(G”) moduli were determined in the linear viscoelasticity region by varying the angular
frequency (
ω
) in the range 0.0628–628 rad
·
s
–1
. The temperature dependences of the storage
and loss moduli were measured at an angular frequency of 6.28 rad
·
s
–1
, a strain amplitude
of 0.1%, and a temperature decrease rate of 5
◦
C/min. The equations for calculating the
rheological characteristics can be found elsewhere [
109
,
110
], the relative error of their
determination did not exceed 5%.
The obtained SIS/ARB/oil mixtures were evaluated in terms of their use as both hot
melts and pressure-sensitive adhesives. The adhesion properties for HMAs were studied
by the tensile and lap shear tests, while for PSAs: by the peel test at an angle of 90
◦
and the
probe tack method.
The tensile adhesion tests for HMAs were performed with a TA.XT plus device (Stable
Microsystems, Goulford, CT, USA). A steel cylindrical rod (4 mm in diameter, mean surface
roughness of 500 nm) was lowered to contact with the adhesive layer at a velocity of
0.5 mm·s−1
and was pressed against the sample with a force of 500 g for 900 s at 120
◦
C.
Then, the temperature was reduced to 25
◦
C and after keeping for 900 s, the rod was
withdrawn at a velocity of 0.1 mm
·
s
–1
; the force arising in the process was determined, and
the pull-off strength (τt,HMA) was calculated.
The lap shear adhesion strength for HMAs (
τs,HMA
) was evaluated using a TT-1100
tensile tester (ChemInstruments, West Chester Township, OH, USA) at a crosshead motion
velocity of 0.63 mm
·
s
−1
and a temperature of 25
◦
C. Two galvanized steel plates with a
width of 10 mm and a thickness of 250
µ
m were glued together by the mixture under study
at 120
◦
C with the formation of an overlap; the gluing area was 10 mm
×
5 mm. The
plates were pressed to each other with a force of 1600 g for 1 min, then cooled, unloaded,
and tested.
The resistance to peel at an angle of 90
◦
for PSAs (
τp,PSA
) was evaluated in accordance
with FINAT FTM 2 standard using a TT-1100 tensile tester at a pulling velocity of 5.1 mm
·
s
–1
and a temperature of 25
◦
C. Prior to testing, the adhesive specimen 10 cm long and
12.5 mm
wide was glued to polished steel plate and rolled two times with a standard 2 kg roller.
Then, the mean peel force was determined.
Adhesion probing studies of PSAs were performed with a TA.XT plus device at
25 ◦C.
A film being tested was transferred onto a glass support, and a steel cylindrical
rod (
9.94 mm
in diameter, mean surface roughness of 500 nm) came down to contact with
the sample at a velocity of 0.5 mm
·
s
−1
and pressed on the adhesive with a force of 500 g
for
10 s.
Then, the rod was withdrawn at a velocity of 0.1 mm
·
s
–1
, the force arising in the
process was determined, and the pull-off strength (τt,PSA) was estimated.
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 5 of 21
The mechanical strength at break of the adhesive films (
τc
) with a width of 5 mm, a
length of 30 mm, and a thickness of 160
µ
m were measured using a TT-1100 tensile machine
at a temperature of 25
◦
C and a crosshead motion velocity of 0.63 mm
·
s
–1
. In all cases of
adhesion and strength tests, at least 7 specimens in a series were used.
3. Results
3.1. The Effect of Naphthenic Oil and ARB on SIS Properties
At an adhesive mixing temperature of 120
◦
C, SIS and ARB melts are non-Newtonian
fluids (Figure 1a). Their viscosity decreases with increasing shear stress, and the ARB
viscosity is 3–3.5 decimal orders less than the SIS viscosity. The oil viscosity does not
depend on the shear stress and is 8.5 decimal orders less than the SIS viscosity. The
combination of the block copolymer with oil or ARB (in such a way that there is more than
half of the polymer base) expectably leads to a decrease in the viscosity, and the oil reduces
the viscosity more efficiently.
Polymers2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW5of22
AdhesionprobingstudiesofPSAswereperformedwithaTA.XTplusdeviceat25
°C.Afilmbeingtestedwastransferredontoaglasssupport,andasteelcylindricalrod
(9.94mmindiameter,meansurfaceroughnessof500nm)camedowntocontactwiththe
sampleatavelocityof0.5mm∙s
−1
andpressedontheadhesivewithaforceof500gfor10
s.Then,therodwaswithdrawnatavelocityof0.1mm∙s
–1
,theforcearisingintheprocess
wasdetermined,andthepull‐offstrength(τ
t,PSA
)wasestimated.
Themechanicalstrengthatbreakoftheadhesivefilms(τ
c
)withawidthof5mm,a
lengthof30mm,andathicknessof160μmweremeasuredusingaTT‐1100tensilema‐
chineatatemperatureof25°Candacrossheadmotionvelocityof0.63mm∙s
–1
.Inallcases
ofadhesionandstrengthtests,atleast7specimensinaserieswereused.
3.Results
3.1.TheEffectofNaphthenicOilandARBonSISProperties
Atanadhesivemixingtemperatureof120°C,SISandARBmeltsarenon‐Newtonian
fluids(Figure1a).Theirviscositydecreaseswithincreasingshearstress,andtheARBvis‐
cosityis3–3.5decimalorderslessthantheSISviscosity.Theoilviscositydoesnotdepend
ontheshearstressandis8.5decimalorderslessthantheSISviscosity.Thecombination
oftheblockcopolymerwithoilorARB(insuchawaythatthereismorethanhalfofthe
polymerbase)expectablyleadstoadecreaseintheviscosity,andtheoilreducesthevis‐
cositymoreefficiently.
(a)(b)
Figure1.Flowcurves(a)andfrequencydependences(b)ofstorage(filledsymbols)andloss(hollow
symbols)moduliforstyrene‐isoprene‐styrenetriblockcopolymer(SIS),asphaltene/resinblend
(ARB),naphthenicoil,andtheirbinarymixturesat120°C.Figure1bshowsnodatafortheoilbe‐
causeitdoesnotexhibitviscoelasticity.
Whenmixingtwoliquids,theblendviscosityoftenobeysthelogarithmicadditivity
rule,accordingtowhichthelogarithmoftheblendviscosityistheweightedaverageof
thelogarithmsofthecomponentviscosities[111,112]:
logη
12
=φ
1
logη
1
+φ
2
logη
2
,(1)
whereφ
1
andφ
2
arethevolumefractionsofthecomponents,whileη
12
,η
1
,andη
2
arethe
viscositiesofabinarymixtureanditsfirstandsecondcomponents,respectively.Inthe
caseofblendingpolymers,thisrelationmaynotbeperformedifthecomponentsareimmis‐
cible,ortherheologicalpropertiesofthemixturedependonitsmorphology[113,114].
Figure 1.
Flow curves (
a
) and frequency dependences (
b
) of storage (filled symbols) and loss (hollow
symbols) moduli for styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer (SIS), asphaltene/resin blend (ARB),
naphthenic oil, and their binary mixtures at 120
◦
C. Figure 1b shows no data for the oil because it
does not exhibit viscoelasticity.
When mixing two liquids, the blend viscosity often obeys the logarithmic additivity
rule, according to which the logarithm of the blend viscosity is the weighted average of the
logarithms of the component viscosities [111,112]:
logη12 =ϕ1logη1+ϕ2logη2, (1)
where
ϕ1
and
ϕ2
are the volume fractions of the components, while
η12
,
η1
, and
η2
are the
viscosities of a binary mixture and its first and second components, respectively. In the case
of blending polymers, this relation may not be performed if the components are immiscible,
or the rheological properties of the mixture depend on its morphology [113,114].
The measured low-shear viscosity of SIS blended with 40 wt% of ARB is 10
5.37
Pa
·
s
(at 10
−3
s
−1
and 120
◦
C), while the calculated viscosity for this blend is 10
4.74
Pa
·
s. In
turn, the experimental and calculated viscosities of SIS containing 40 wt% of naphthenic
oil are 10
4.22
Pa
·
s and 10
2.69
Pa
·
s, respectively. Thus, the mixture viscosity does not obey
the logarithmic additivity rule, which is probably due to the microphase separation of the
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 6 of 21
block copolymer and the concentration of the introduced oil, asphaltenes, and resins in one
of the microphases.
Since the melt viscosity of a microphase-separated block copolymer is determined
mainly by its rigid blocks [
115
] and there is a positive deviation from the logarithmic
additivity rule (the viscosity decreases weakly), it can be assumed that the oil and ARB
resins are to some extent more strongly concentrated in the microphase of isoprene blocks.
This is also confirmed by changes in the SIS viscoelastic properties (Figure 1b), which are
important since they determine the adhesion performance of PSAs [116].
There can be distinguished two regions in the frequency dependences of the storage
and loss moduli of the SIS melt. In the region of low frequencies (
ω
< 1 rad/s), the loss
modulus exceeds the storage one, i.e., SIS behaves more like a liquid and is able to function
as a hot melt adhesive at sufficiently long observation times. In the high frequency region,
SIS pass into the glassy state (due to the proximity of the test temperature to the glass
transition temperature of polystyrene blocks, which is 75
◦
C [
81
]) and loses its ability to
spread and stick under short-term exposure (less than 1 s).
Naphthenic oil does not exhibit viscoelasticity and its addition to SIS qualitatively
changes the nature of the melt viscoelastic properties. Firstly, there is an increase in the
frequency dependence of the storage and loss moduli in the high frequency region,
i.e., the
region of transition to the glassy state becomes less pronounced and more extended in
frequency. This is due to the expansion of the relaxation time spectrum of polystyrene
segments, which may be associated with partial plasticization of polystyrene blocks and an
increase in their miscibility with polyisoprene blocks under the influence of oil. Secondly,
the storage and loss moduli are comparable in magnitude in the low frequency region and
practically do not depend on the frequency. Such behavior in the low frequency region
is associated with the structuring of systems [
117
–
119
], in this case with the microphase
segregation of polystyrene blocks that are in a highly elastic (rubbery-like) state. In other
words, the introduction of oil into the SIS does not lead to the disappearance of the
microphase separation, but it becomes more noticeable due to the shift of the glass transition
region towards higher frequencies and lower temperatures.
The ARB melt behaves more like a liquid (G” > G’) in a wide frequency range. How-
ever, it is not an ordinary viscoelastic liquid, because its behavior in the low-frequency
region does not correspond to the Maxwell model when G’ ~
ω2
and G” ~
ω
[
109
]. The
dependences of the storage and loss moduli have lower slopes, which can be associated
with the structuring of asphaltenes, e.g., lower slopes of G’(
ω
) and G”(
ω
) are characteristic
of heavy crude oils and bitumen containing a high concentration of asphaltenes [
120
,
121
].
The addition of ARB into the SIS melt does not change the viscoelastic properties as much
as it did in the case of the addition of naphthenic oil. In fact, there is only a moderate
quantitative decrease in the storage and loss moduli: a shift of their frequency dependences
to the high-frequency region. In other words, asphaltenes and resins slightly plasticize
the microphase of polystyrene blocks, leading to an increase in the angular frequency
(and consequently a decrease in temperature) at which glass transition occurs (e.g., when
G’ = G”).
Meanwhile, the introduction of ARB does not reduce the SIS cohesive strength but
rather slightly increases it (
τc
, Table 1, a note to the table contains statistical analysis data).
This can be related to the fact that resins and asphaltenes pass into a glassy state upon
cooling down to 25
◦
C and no longer plasticize the block copolymer; moreover, asphaltenes
start to play the role of reinforcing particles [
81
,
82
]. In contrast, the addition of the same
amount of oil (40%) to SIS expectably reduces its tensile strength by three times.
Actually, SIS is able to act as a hot melt adhesive and forms a relatively strong bond
to the steel surface (Table 1). The introduction of asphaltenes and resins to the SIS does
not noticeably change the adhesive properties of the hot melt adhesive during shear bank
(
τs,HMA
) and pull-off (
τt,HMA
) tests of the adhesive joints (p> 0.1, see the note to Table 1).
However, the adhesive shear strength is reduced by three times in the case of adding oil
(p< 0.01), which indicates the cohesive nature of the adhesive joint destruction under this
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 7 of 21
character of the load. The latter is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the addition of oil to
the SIS does not affect the adhesive strength during the pull-off test (p> 0.1).
Table 1.
Strength and adhesion characteristics of styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer and its
binary mixtures containing 40 wt% of naphthenic oil or asphaltene/resin blend (ARB).
Modifier τc, MPa τs,HMA, kPa τt,HMA, kPa τp,PSA,Nm−1τt,PSA, kPa
- 4.2 ±0.8 1300 ±80 890 ±350 0 0
ARB 6.5 ±1.4 1,b 1350 ±230 d720 ±340 d52 ±11 b8±13 d
Oil 1.4 ±0.1 a490 ±55 a1100 ±120 d3.5 ±3.0 d35 ±10 b
1
The letter after the experimental data shows the p-value—the probability that adding a modifier did not
actually affect this parameter:
a
p< 0.01 (good evidence that it does not),
b
0.01 < p< 0.05 (moderate evidence),
c0.05 < p< 0.1 (weak evidence), dp> 0.1 (no evidence) [122].
The pure SIS is not sticky at 25
◦
C and is unable to function as a PSA. The addition of
asphaltenes or oil to SIS makes it slightly sticky because of plasticization, but the strength of
the resulting joints is rather low. In this case, the mixture with asphaltenes works better at
high rates of application and detachment of the adhesive (i.e., during peel tests,
τp,PSA
) but
badly at slow rates (during tensile tests,
τt,PSA
). This can be explained by the viscoelasticity
of this mixture: its storage modulus is higher than the loss modulus at high frequencies,
while at low frequencies the ratio between the moduli is reversed (see Figure 1b). In turn,
the mixture with oil has lower storage and loss moduli, which leads to poorer adhesion
characteristics at high detachment rates of this adhesive when it peels off. However, this
mixture performs better at slow detachment rates of probe tack tests than the mixture with
asphaltenes, which is due to the comparability of its storage and loss moduli to each other
even at low frequencies.
Thus, neither SIS nor oil improves adhesion of the SIS melt (more precisely, its ability
to wet the surface). However, they slightly enhance SIS adhesion at normal temperature.
In the latter case, the oil improves adhesion due to plasticization of the SIS, changing its
viscoelastic properties and imparting stickiness. ARB does not noticeably plasticize the SIS
at normal temperature and therefore leads to very limited improvement in stickiness. In
any case, ARB and oil separately do not significantly improve the adhesion characteristics
of the block copolymer. Let us see if they can make SIS a better adhesive by acting together.
3.2. The Effect of the ARB Concentration on the Adhesive Properties
The flow curves of the melted mixtures with different concentrations of asphal-
tene/resin blend and an equal ratio between SIS and naphthenic oil are shown in Figure 2a.
The high oil content in the block copolymer leads to an increase in its non-Newtonian
behavior. As a result, a vertical section of constant shear stress of about 560 Pa can be
identified on the flow curve of the SIS/oil mixture. This section can be interpreted as the
yield stress of the mixture, i.e., stress causing the destruction of the spatial structure that
gives the sample its solid-like properties [
123
]. In our case, this structure is formed by a
continuous microphase from the rigid polystyrene blocks.
The addition of 10% of ARB to the binary SIS/oil mixture reduces the effective vis-
cosity in the entire range of shear stresses, so that the viscosity of the mixture at high
stresses becomes comparable to that of ARB. Thus, ARB plasticizes at least the polystyrene
microphase, which determines the value of the copolymer effective viscosity at low shear
stresses. In addition, ARB possibly improves the compatibility between polystyrene and
polyisoprene microphases, resulting in lower yield stress. Nevertheless, a higher ARB
content of about 20–30% does not lead to a further decrease in viscosity but conversely
increases it in the region of low shear stresses. The increase in effective viscosity becomes
even more pronounced with the addition of 40% ARB, although the viscosity still does not
reach the level characteristic of the original SIS/oil mixture.
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 8 of 21
Polymers2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW8of22
(a)(b)
Figure2.Flowcurves(a)andfrequencydependencesofstorageandlossmoduli(b)fortriplemix‐
turescontainingdifferentconcentrationofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)andanequalratiobetween
styrene‐isoprene‐styrenetriblockcopolymer(SIS)andnaphthenicoilat120°C.Theinsertshows
theCole–Coleplots.
Theadditionof10%ofARBtothebinarySIS/oilmixturereducestheeffectiveviscos‐
ityintheentirerangeofshearstresses,sothattheviscosityofthemixtureathighstresses
becomescomparabletothatofARB.Thus,ARBplasticizesatleastthepolystyrenemi‐
crophase,whichdeterminesthevalueofthecopolymereffectiveviscosityatlowshear
stresses.Inaddition,ARBpossiblyimprovesthecompatibilitybetweenpolystyreneand
polyisoprenemicrophases,resultinginloweryieldstress.Nevertheless,ahigherARB
contentofabout20–30%doesnotleadtoafurtherdecreaseinviscositybutconversely
increasesitintheregionoflowshearstresses.Theincreaseineffectiveviscositybecomes
evenmorepronouncedwiththeadditionof40%ARB,althoughtheviscositystilldoesnot
reachthelevelcharacteristicoftheoriginalSIS/oilmixture.
Thus,ARBactsasaSISplasticizerbutisonlyeffectiveatlowconcentrations.The
effectofplasticizationcanalsobefoundinthestudyofthemeltviscoelasticproperties
(Figure2b).Thestoragemodulusexceedsthelossmodulusintheentirefrequencyregion
fortheSIS/oilmixture,buttheadditionof10%ofARBreversesthesituation(makingG”
>G’)andsignificantlyreducesbothmoduliby1–2decimalorders.HigherARBconcen‐
trationsincreasethemodulibutdonotfundamentallychangethepatternoftheviscoe‐
lasticityofthesystems.ThelatterbecomesapparentwhenplottingCole–Coleplots(the
insertinFigure2b).AllplotsformixturescontainingARBaresuperimposedoneach
other,whichmeanstheiridenticalmicrostructure[124,125].
Themixturesundergostructuraltransformationswithvaryingtemperature,which
isreflectedinthevaluesoftheirstorageandlossmoduli(Figure3a).Thetransitionfrom
liquid‐tosolid‐likebehavior(whenG’=G”)canbedistinguishedfortheSIS/oilmixture
at157°C.Thetransitioncanbeassociatedwiththemicrophaseseparationofthismixture
duringitscooling,becauseofwhichrigidblocksofpolystyreneformacontinuousphase.
Withtheintroductionof10%ofARB,thesharptransitionfromliquid‐liketosolid‐like
behaviordisappears,andthepointofequalityofthestorageandlossmodulishiftsto‐
wardslowertemperatures.Thereby,ARBsuppressesmicrophaseseparationtosomeex‐
tent,aswellasplasticizingthemixture,sinceitsmoduliarereduced.
Figure 2.
Flow curves (
a
) and frequency dependences of storage and loss moduli (
b
) for triple
mixtures containing different concentration of asphaltene/resin blend (ARB) and an equal ratio
between styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer (SIS) and naphthenic oil at 120
◦
C. The insert
shows the Cole–Cole plots.
Thus, ARB acts as a SIS plasticizer but is only effective at low concentrations. The
effect of plasticization can also be found in the study of the melt viscoelastic properties
(Figure 2b). The storage modulus exceeds the loss modulus in the entire frequency region
for the SIS/oil mixture, but the addition of 10% of ARB reverses the situation (making
G” > G’) and significantly reduces both moduli by 1–2 decimal orders. Higher ARB
concentrations increase the moduli but do not fundamentally change the pattern of the
viscoelasticity of the systems. The latter becomes apparent when plotting Cole–Cole plots
(the insert in Figure 2b). All plots for mixtures containing ARB are superimposed on each
other, which means their identical microstructure [124,125].
The mixtures undergo structural transformations with varying temperature, which
is reflected in the values of their storage and loss moduli (Figure 3a). The transition from
liquid- to solid-like behavior (when G’ = G”) can be distinguished for the SIS/oil mixture
at 157
◦
C. The transition can be associated with the microphase separation of this mixture
during its cooling, because of which rigid blocks of polystyrene form a continuous phase.
With the introduction of 10% of ARB, the sharp transition from liquid-like to solid-like
behavior disappears, and the point of equality of the storage and loss moduli shifts towards
lower temperatures. Thereby, ARB suppresses microphase separation to some extent, as
well as plasticizing the mixture, since its moduli are reduced.
The plasticization of the mixture is also confirmed by a decrease in the glass transition
temperature of polystyrene blocks, which can be determined from the position of the local
maximum of the loss tangent (Figure 3b). With the introduction of 10% of ARB to the
SIS/oil mixture, the glass transition temperature decreases from 101.9
◦
C to 94.2
◦
C. At the
same time, a higher ARB concentration slightly increases the glass transition temperature
but enhances the absolute value of the loss tangent, so that it becomes greater than 1.0
at the ARB content of 40%. This means that at a high concentration of ARB, the mixture
is able to retain its liquid-like behavior down to lower temperatures and act better as a
pressure-sensitive adhesive.
The liquid–solid transition temperature (when G’ = G”) determines the temperature
at which the mixture can be used as HMA. This temperature decreases significantly with
increasing ARB concentration, despite the fact that at the same time the glass transition
temperature passes through a local minimum and then increases (Figure 4). Thereby, these
two temperatures are not directly related. The liquid–solid transition is connected not
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 9 of 21
only with the glass transition of the polystyrene microphase but also with the microphase
separation itself, which is suppressed by ARB.
Polymers2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW9of22
(a)(b)
Figure3.Temperaturedependencesof(a)storageandlossmoduliand(b)losstangentfortriple
mixturescontainingdifferentconcentrationofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)andanequalratiobe‐
tweenstyrene‐isoprene‐styrenetriblockcopolymer(SIS)andnaphthenicoil.
Theplasticizationofthemixtureisalsoconfirmedbyadecreaseintheglasstransi‐
tiontemperatureofpolystyreneblocks,whichcanbedeterminedfromthepositionofthe
localmaximumofthelosstangent(Figure3b).Withtheintroductionof10%ofARBtothe
SIS/oilmixture,theglasstransitiontemperaturedecreasesfrom101.9°Cto94.2°C.Atthe
sametime,ahigherARBconcentrationslightlyincreasestheglasstransitiontemperature
butenhancestheabsolutevalueofthelosstangent,sothatitbecomesgreaterthan1.0at
theARBcontentof40%.ThismeansthatatahighconcentrationofARB,themixtureis
abletoretainitsliquid‐likebehaviordowntolowertemperaturesandactbetterasapres‐
sure‐sensitiveadhesive.
Theliquid–solidtransitiontemperature(whenG’=G”)determinesthetemperature
atwhichthemixturecanbeusedasHMA.Thistemperaturedecreasessignificantlywith
increasingARBconcentration,despitethefactthatatthesametimetheglasstransition
temperaturepassesthroughalocalminimumandthenincreases(Figure4).Thereby,
thesetwotemperaturesarenotdirectlyrelated.Theliquid–solidtransitionisconnected
notonlywiththeglasstransitionofthepolystyrenemicrophasebutalsowiththemi‐
crophaseseparationitself,whichissuppressedbyARB.
Figure4.Concentrationdependencesofglasstransitiontemperatureandliquid–solidtransition
pointformixtureswithdifferentconcentrationsofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)andanequalratio
betweenstyrene‐isoprene‐styrenetriblockcopolymerandnaphthenicoil.
Figure 3.
Temperature dependences of (
a
) storage and loss moduli and (
b
) loss tangent for triple
mixtures containing different concentration of asphaltene/resin blend (ARB) and an equal ratio
between styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer (SIS) and naphthenic oil.
Polymers2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW9of22
(a)(b)
Figure3.Temperaturedependencesof(a)storageandlossmoduliand(b)losstangentfortriple
mixturescontainingdifferentconcentrationofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)andanequalratiobe‐
tweenstyrene‐isoprene‐styrenetriblockcopolymer(SIS)andnaphthenicoil.
Theplasticizationofthemixtureisalsoconfirmedbyadecreaseintheglasstransi‐
tiontemperatureofpolystyreneblocks,whichcanbedeterminedfromthepositionofthe
localmaximumofthelosstangent(Figure3b).Withtheintroductionof10%ofARBtothe
SIS/oilmixture,theglasstransitiontemperaturedecreasesfrom101.9°Cto94.2°C.Atthe
sametime,ahigherARBconcentrationslightlyincreasestheglasstransitiontemperature
butenhancestheabsolutevalueofthelosstangent,sothatitbecomesgreaterthan1.0at
theARBcontentof40%.ThismeansthatatahighconcentrationofARB,themixtureis
abletoretainitsliquid‐likebehaviordowntolowertemperaturesandactbetterasapres‐
sure‐sensitiveadhesive.
Theliquid–solidtransitiontemperature(whenG’=G”)determinesthetemperature
atwhichthemixturecanbeusedasHMA.Thistemperaturedecreasessignificantlywith
increasingARBconcentration,despitethefactthatatthesametimetheglasstransition
temperaturepassesthroughalocalminimumandthenincreases(Figure4).Thereby,
thesetwotemperaturesarenotdirectlyrelated.Theliquid–solidtransitionisconnected
notonlywiththeglasstransitionofthepolystyrenemicrophasebutalsowiththemi‐
crophaseseparationitself,whichissuppressedbyARB.
Figure4.Concentrationdependencesofglasstransitiontemperatureandliquid–solidtransition
pointformixtureswithdifferentconcentrationsofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)andanequalratio
betweenstyrene‐isoprene‐styrenetriblockcopolymerandnaphthenicoil.
Figure 4.
Concentration dependences of glass transition temperature and liquid–solid transition
point for mixtures with different concentrations of asphaltene/resin blend (ARB) and an equal ratio
between styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer and naphthenic oil.
It is interesting to note that the temperature dependence of the loss tangent shows
a local maximum at 47
◦
C for the mixture containing 40% of ARB (Figure 3b). This
temperature is close to the glass transition temperature of ARB, which is 50–70
◦
C [
95
]. This
may mean that a part of the ARB in the mixture is present as a separate phase. The latter
is confirmed by considering the frequency dependences of the storage and loss moduli of
the mixtures at 25
◦
C in the coordinates of the Cole–Cole plot (the insert in Figure 5). The
mixtures containing 10–20% and 30–40% of ARB have different microstructures because
their Cole–Cole plots do not overlap each other. At the same time, there was no such
mismatch in Cole–Cole plots at high temperatures (see the insert in Figure 2b). Thus, the
structure of all ternary blends at high temperatures is the same and ARB acts as an SIS
plasticizer. However, when mixtures containing 30–40% ARB are cooled, phase separation
occurs with the release of an ARB part into a separate phase. Because of the ARB release,
the plasticization of the SIS is reduced, and the ARB particles act as reinforcing ones. As a
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 10 of 21
result, the mixture containing 40% ARB is more rigid than the original ARB-free mixture
(Figure 5).
Polymers2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW10of22
Itisinterestingtonotethatthetemperaturedependenceofthelosstangentshowsa
localmaximumat47°Cforthemixturecontaining40%ofARB(Figure3b).Thistemper‐
atureisclosetotheglasstransitiontemperatureofARB,whichis50–70°C[95].Thismay
meanthatapartoftheARBinthemixtureispresentasaseparatephase.Thelatteris
confirmedbyconsideringthefrequencydependencesofthestorageandlossmoduliof
themixturesat25°CinthecoordinatesoftheCole–Coleplot(theinsertinFigure5).The
mixturescontaining10–20%and30–40%ofARBhavedifferentmicrostructuresbecause
theirCole–Coleplotsdonotoverlapeachother.Atthesametime,therewasnosuchmis‐
matchinCole–Coleplotsathightemperatures(seetheinsertinFigure2b).Thus,the
structureofallternaryblendsathightemperaturesisthesameandARBactsasanSIS
plasticizer.However,whenmixturescontaining30–40%ARBarecooled,phasesepara‐
tionoccurswiththereleaseofanARBpartintoaseparatephase.BecauseoftheARB
release,theplasticizationoftheSISisreduced,andtheARBparticlesactasreinforcing
ones.Asaresult,themixturecontaining40%ARBismorerigidthantheoriginalARB‐
freemixture(Figure5).
Figure5.Frequencydependencesofstorageandlossmodulifortriplemixturescontainingdifferent
concentrationofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)andanequalratiobetweenstyrene‐isoprene‐styrene
triblockcopolymer(SIS)andnaphthenicoilat25°C.TheinsertshowstheCole–Coleplots.
WiththeintroductionofARB,thecohesivestrengthofthemixturepassesthrougha
minimumcorrespondingtothecompositionwith20–30%ofARB(Table2).Thestrength
reductionisprobablyrelatedtotheplasticizationofthemixture,whichoccursduetothe
dissolutionofthelowmolecularweightresinsofARBintheSIS.InthecaseofahighARB
content,thestrengthofthemixtureconverselyincreases,whichcanbeassociatedwith
thereinforcingeffectofasphaltenesthatdonotdissolveinthepolymermediumattheir
highcontentandactasareinforcingphase.Asimilarsituationwasobservedwithepoxy
resin,whenthestrengthofthecuredcompositealsopassedthroughaminimumwith
increasingARBcontent[82].
Table2.Strengthandadhesioncharacteristicsofthemixtureswithdifferentconcentrationofas‐
phaltene/resinblend(ARB)andanequalratiobetweenstyrene‐isoprene‐styrenetriblockcopolymer
(SIS)andnaphthenicoil.
SIS/ARB/Oilτc,MPaτs,HMA,kPaτt,HMA,kPaτp,PSA,Nm−1τt,PSA,kPa
50/0/501.0±0.22±5260±300.1±0.242±5
45/10/451.0±0.11,d9±4a700±660d240±10a50±30d
40/20/400.6±0.1b420±180b700±400d490±40a60±20d
35/30/350.7±0.1b590±150b600±100b710±20a52±6a
30/40/301.0±0.1d750±200b1200±300b660±150a24±11b
Figure 5.
Frequency dependences of storage and loss moduli for triple mixtures containing different
concentration of asphaltene/resin blend (ARB) and an equal ratio between styrene-isoprene-styrene
triblock copolymer (SIS) and naphthenic oil at 25 ◦C. The insert shows the Cole–Cole plots.
With the introduction of ARB, the cohesive strength of the mixture passes through a
minimum corresponding to the composition with 20–30% of ARB (Table 2). The strength
reduction is probably related to the plasticization of the mixture, which occurs due to the
dissolution of the low molecular weight resins of ARB in the SIS. In the case of a high ARB
content, the strength of the mixture conversely increases, which can be associated with the
reinforcing effect of asphaltenes that do not dissolve in the polymer medium at their high
content and act as a reinforcing phase. A similar situation was observed with epoxy resin,
when the strength of the cured composite also passed through a minimum with increasing
ARB content [82].
Table 2.
Strength and adhesion characteristics of the mixtures with different concentration of asphal-
tene/resin blend (ARB) and an equal ratio between styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer (SIS)
and naphthenic oil.
SIS/ARB/Oil τc, MPa τs,HMA, kPa τt,HMA, kPa τp,PSA,Nm−1τt,PSA , kPa
50/0/50 1.0 ±0.2 2 ±5 260 ±30 0.1 ±0.2 42 ±5
45/10/45 1.0 ±0.1 1,d 9±4a700 ±660 d240 ±10 a50 ±30 d
40/20/40 0.6 ±0.1 b420 ±180 b700 ±400 d490 ±40 a60 ±20 d
35/30/35 0.7 ±0.1 b590 ±150 b600 ±100 b710 ±20 a52 ±6a
30/40/30 1.0 ±0.1 d750 ±200 b1200 ±300 b660 ±150 a24 ±11 b
1
The letter after the experimental data shows the p-value—the probability that adding ARB did not actually affect
this parameter:
a
p< 0.01 (good evidence that it does not),
b
0.01 < p< 0.05 (moderate evidence),
c
0.05 < p< 0.1
(weak evidence), dp> 0.1 (no evidence).
The addition of ARB significantly improves the adhesive characteristics of the SIS/oil
mixture. The original mixture containing SIS and oil in the ratio of 1:1 is not able to play
either the role of HMA or the role of PSA (Table 2). This is probably due to the too-high oil
content, since at its lower concentration (40%, see Table 1) the binary mixture could at least
act as a hot melt adhesive.
The addition of 10% ARB makes it possible to use the mixture as PSA: the peel
strength of the adhesive joints takes a non-zero value (Table 2). The ability to act as a PSA
is apparently associated with the plasticizing action of the ARB resins, which leads to a
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 11 of 21
decrease in the glass and liquid–solid transition temperatures of the mixture (see Figure 4).
At the same time, the addition of 10% ARB is not enough to give the mixture the role of
HMA. The situation changes with the introduction of a larger content of ARB. Moreover,
the more the ARB content, the higher the shear and pull-off strength of the adhesive joints
of the hot melt adhesive (and the data are becoming more statistically significant, see the
note to Table 2). This may be due to both an increase in the cohesive strength of the mixture
and an improvement in the wetting of the substrate by the adhesive when ARB is added
to it [
81
]. However, the nature of the joint destruction is adhesive and the increase in the
cohesive strength of the adhesive cannot be the main reason for improving its adhesive
properties.
When the content of ARB is 40%, the strength of the adhesive joints is maximal,
especially when the mixture is used as HMA (p< 0.05). Therefore, it is reasonable to take
this concentration as the optimal one. Lower ARB concentrations reduce adhesion, while
higher ARB contents are impossible to introduce into the SIS due to poor mixing of the
components and the inhomogeneous composition of the resulting blends. The latter is
probably due to the immiscibility of the components in such blends and the formation of a
continuous phase from ARB, the viscosity of which is much lower than the viscosity of the
SIS. At the same time, the strength of the joints formed at 25
◦
C when using the mixture as
PSA is not maximal in the case of 40% ARB concentration. It is reasonable to assume that
an improvement in the adhesive characteristics of this mixture can be achieved by varying
the ratio between the block copolymer and oil, leaving the ARB content unchanged.
3.3. The Effect of the Block Copolymer and Naphthenic Oil Ratio on the Properties of Adhesives
The introduction of oil reduces the melt viscosity of the SIS/ARB mixture and makes
its yield stress behavior more obvious (Figure 6a). The yield stress and viscosity decrease
with increasing oil concentration, until the yield stress disappears at the oil content of
40%. However, as the oil concentration grows further up to 50%, the yield stress reappears,
although the viscosity at high shear stresses remains almost equal to the viscosity of
the mixture containing 40% of oil. In this case, the absence of yield stress at higher SIS
concentration (20%) and lower oil content (40%) means better solubility of ARB in SIS rather
than in the oil. Thus, the yield stress behavior at the high oil content can be associated with
a decrease in the solubility of ARB and the appearance of the dispersed phase, which forms
a spatial microstructure.
Polymers2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW12of22
(a)(b)
Figure6.Flowcurves(a)andfrequencydependencesofstorageandlossmoduli(b)fortriplemix‐
turescontainingthesameconcentrationofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)anddifferentratiosbe‐
tweenstyrene‐isoprene‐styrenetriblockcopolymer(SIS)andnaphthenicoilat120°C.Theinsert
showstheCole–Coleplots.
Theviscoelasticityofthemeltchangeswithincreasingoilconcentrationinasimilar
way(Figure6b).ThebehavioroftheSIS/ARBmixturecorrespondstothebehaviorofthe
polymermelt:aterminalzoneisobservedinthelow‐frequencyregion(G”>G’),whichis
replacedbyarubber‐likestateregion(G’>G”)asthefrequencyincreasesabove4rad/s.
Theadditionof10–20%ofoilreducesthevaluesofbothmoduli,andthelossmodulus
decreasesmoreintensively.Asaresult,thestoragemodulusexceedsthelossoneinthe
entirefrequencyregion,i.e.,themixtureexhibitsasolid‐likebehavior.Itcanbeassumed
thattheoilpenetratesmainlyintothepolyisoprenemicrophase,sinceotherwiseiftheoil
penetratedsignificantlyintothepolystyreneblocks,itwouldleadtotheformationofan
ordinarypolymersolutionwithoutyieldstressandsolid‐likebehavior.Inturn,thesatu‐
rationofpolyisopreneblockswiththeoilleadstoasignificantdecreaseinthelossmodu‐
lusandviscosity.Inthiscase,thepolystyrenemicrophaseislesssusceptibletoplasticiza‐
tionbyoil,andthereforethestoragemodulusandtheyieldstressofthemixturearere‐
ducedlessstrongly.
Theintroductionof30–40%ofoilfurtherreducesthemoduli,andaliquid‐likebe‐
haviorintheentirefrequencyregionbecomescharacteristicofthemixture.Moreover,
whenthecontentoftheoilis40%,themixturehasnoyieldstress.Itcanbeconcludedthat
thereiseithersuppressionofmicrophaseseparationormicrophaseinversionatthisoil
content,becauseofwhichthepolyisoprenemicrophasebecomesacontinuousphase.The
lattercanoccuriftheoilpredominantlypenetratesintothepolyisoprenemicrophase,
causingitsvolumefractiontoincreaseandstarttoexceedthevolumefractionoftherigid
polystyrenemicrophase.Inanycase,theyieldstressandsolid‐likebehavioratlowfre‐
quenciesreturnwhentheoilcontentis50%,indicatingtheappearanceofanewstructural
networkinthesamplevolumeatthisoilcontent.SincetheSIScontentisaslowas10%,it
canbeassumedthatthisnetworkdoesnotconsistofpolystyrenemicrophasebutrather
ofasphalteneparticlesremainingintheundissolvedstateduetothesignificantlyhigher
ARBcontentcomparedtotheSIScontent.
Asforthetemperaturedependenciesofrheologicalproperties,theadditionof10–
30%ofoilreducesthestorageandlossmoduliintheentiretemperaturerangeandshifts
theliquid–solidtransitionpointtowardslowertemperatures(Figure7a).Moreover,an
extendedtemperatureregionappearsonthetemperaturedependencesofthestorageand
lossmoduli,wherebothmodulitakeverysimilarvalues.Thiscanberelatedtotheexpan‐
Figure 6.
Flow curves (
a
) and frequency dependences of storage and loss moduli (
b
) for triple
mixtures containing the same concentration of asphaltene/resin blend (ARB) and different ratios
between styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer (SIS) and naphthenic oil at 120
◦
C. The insert
shows the Cole–Cole plots.
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 12 of 21
The viscoelasticity of the melt changes with increasing oil concentration in a similar
way (Figure 6b). The behavior of the SIS/ARB mixture corresponds to the behavior of the
polymer melt: a terminal zone is observed in the low-frequency region (G” > G’), which is
replaced by a rubber-like state region (G’ > G”) as the frequency increases above 4 rad/s.
The addition of 10–20% of oil reduces the values of both moduli, and the loss modulus
decreases more intensively. As a result, the storage modulus exceeds the loss one in the
entire frequency region, i.e., the mixture exhibits a solid-like behavior. It can be assumed
that the oil penetrates mainly into the polyisoprene microphase, since otherwise if the
oil penetrated significantly into the polystyrene blocks, it would lead to the formation of
an ordinary polymer solution without yield stress and solid-like behavior. In turn, the
saturation of polyisoprene blocks with the oil leads to a significant decrease in the loss
modulus and viscosity. In this case, the polystyrene microphase is less susceptible to
plasticization by oil, and therefore the storage modulus and the yield stress of the mixture
are reduced less strongly.
The introduction of 30–40% of oil further reduces the moduli, and a liquid-like behavior
in the entire frequency region becomes characteristic of the mixture. Moreover, when the
content of the oil is 40%, the mixture has no yield stress. It can be concluded that there is
either suppression of microphase separation or microphase inversion at this oil content,
because of which the polyisoprene microphase becomes a continuous phase. The latter
can occur if the oil predominantly penetrates into the polyisoprene microphase, causing its
volume fraction to increase and start to exceed the volume fraction of the rigid polystyrene
microphase. In any case, the yield stress and solid-like behavior at low frequencies return
when the oil content is 50%, indicating the appearance of a new structural network in the
sample volume at this oil content. Since the SIS content is as low as 10%, it can be assumed
that this network does not consist of polystyrene microphase but rather of asphaltene
particles remaining in the undissolved state due to the significantly higher ARB content
compared to the SIS content.
As for the temperature dependencies of rheological properties, the addition of
10–30%
of
oil reduces the storage and loss moduli in the entire temperature range and shifts the liquid–
solid transition point towards lower temperatures (Figure 7a). Moreover, an extended
temperature region appears on the temperature dependences of the storage and loss moduli,
where both moduli take very similar values. This can be related to the expansion of the
relaxation time spectrum of the mixture, which can be due to the partial miscibility of the
polystyrene and polyisoprene blocks, i.e., suppression of microphase separation of the
mixture by oil.
The introduction of 40% of oil leads to an even greater drop of the moduli, which start
to depend more strongly on frequency even at low temperatures. This could be due to a
decrease in the glass transition temperature of the polystyrene blocks, but this is not the case.
When the oil is added, the shift of the loss tangent maximum towards higher temperatures
can be found on the temperature dependences of the loss tangent (Figure 7b). It turns
out that the introduction of oil does not plasticize the polystyrene blocks but reduces the
plasticization, possibly due to the extraction of ARB from the polystyrene microphase. In
addition, it can be assumed that the oil does not plasticize the rigid blocks of polystyrene
but reduces their content because of suppression of microphase separation. The latter
is supported by sharp multiple growths in the absolute value of the loss tangent when
the content of the oil is 40%. As a result, the mixture exhibits liquid-like behavior down
to lower temperatures and should be more suitable for the role of PSA. Meanwhile, the
introduction of 50% of oil does not cause an increase in the loss tangent, but conversely G’
and G” become comparable in a very wide temperature range, i.e., some microstructure is
formed in the mixture again. Most likely, this microstructure is generated by ARB, which
forms a dispersed phase structured in the continuous medium of low-concentrated SIS
solution in the oil.
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 13 of 21
Polymers2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW13of22
sionoftherelaxationtimespectrumofthemixture,whichcanbeduetothepartialmisci‐
bilityofthepolystyreneandpolyisopreneblocks,i.e.,suppressionofmicrophasesepara‐
tionofthemixturebyoil.
(a)(b)
Figure7.Temperaturedependencesof(a)storageandlossmoduliand(b)losstangentfortriple
mixturescontainingthesameconcentrationofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)anddifferentratiobe‐
tweenstyrene‐isoprene‐styrenetriblockcopolymer(SIS)andnaphthenicoil.
Theintroductionof40%ofoilleadstoanevengreaterdropofthemoduli,which
starttodependmorestronglyonfrequencyevenatlowtemperatures.Thiscouldbedue
toadecreaseintheglasstransitiontemperatureofthepolystyreneblocks,butthisisnot
thecase.Whentheoilisadded,theshiftofthelosstangentmaximumtowardshigher
temperaturescanbefoundonthetemperaturedependencesofthelosstangent(Figure
7b).Itturnsoutthattheintroductionofoildoesnotplasticizethepolystyreneblocksbut
reducestheplasticization,possiblyduetotheextractionofARBfromthepolystyrenemi‐
crophase.Inaddition,itcanbeassumedthattheoildoesnotplasticizetherigidblocksof
polystyrenebutreducestheircontentbecauseofsuppressionofmicrophaseseparation.
Thelatterissupportedbysharpmultiplegrowthsintheabsolutevalueofthelosstangent
whenthecontentoftheoilis40%.Asaresult,themixtureexhibitsliquid‐likebehavior
downtolowertemperaturesandshouldbemoresuitablefortheroleofPSA.Meanwhile,
theintroductionof50%ofoildoesnotcauseanincreaseinthelosstangent,butconversely
G’andG”becomecomparableinaverywidetemperaturerange,i.e.,somemicrostructure
isformedinthemixtureagain.Mostlikely,thismicrostructureisgeneratedbyARB,
whichformsadispersedphasestructuredinthecontinuousmediumoflow‐concentrated
SISsolutionintheoil.
Thechangeintheglassandliquid–solidtransitiontemperatureswithvaryingthe
SIS/oilratioisshowninFigure8.Uptoits40%content,theoileffectivelyandmonoto‐
nouslyreducesthetemperatureoftheappearanceofsolid‐likebehavior.Incontrast,the
glasstransitiontemperaturepassesthroughamaximumcorrespondingto10%oilcontent
andreachesaconstantvalueathigheroilconcentrations.Thus,theoilcausesaredistri‐
butionofARBbetweenthemicrophasesofpolystyreneandpolyisopreneinthedirection
ofsaturationofpolyisoprenewithARBandreducesthevolumefractionoftherigidpol‐
ystyreneblocks.Inotherwords,theoilpredominantlydissolvesinthepolyisoprenemi‐
crophase,increasesitsvolumefraction,andtherebycausesevengreateroverallsolubility
ofARBinthismicrophaseduetoitslargervolume.
Figure 7.
Temperature dependences of (
a
) storage and loss moduli and (
b
) loss tangent for triple
mixtures containing the same concentration of asphaltene/resin blend (ARB) and different ratio
between styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer (SIS) and naphthenic oil.
The change in the glass and liquid–solid transition temperatures with varying the
SIS/oil ratio is shown in Figure 8. Up to its 40% content, the oil effectively and monotonously
reduces the temperature of the appearance of solid-like behavior. In contrast, the glass
transition temperature passes through a maximum corresponding to 10% oil content and
reaches a constant value at higher oil concentrations. Thus, the oil causes a redistribution
of ARB between the microphases of polystyrene and polyisoprene in the direction of satu-
ration of polyisoprene with ARB and reduces the volume fraction of the rigid polystyrene
blocks. In other words, the oil predominantly dissolves in the polyisoprene microphase,
increases its volume fraction, and thereby causes even greater overall solubility of ARB in
this microphase due to its larger volume.
Polymers2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW14of22
Figure8.Concentrationdependencesofglasstransitiontemperatureandliquid–solidtransition
pointformixtureswithdifferentconcentrationsofnaphthenicoilandstyrene‐isoprene‐styrene
triblockcopolymer,whiletheconcentrationofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)remainsunchanged
andequalto40%.
Asaresult,therigidityofthemixtureat25°Cdecreasesuniformlywithincreasing
oilconcentration,butthesamplesretaintheirsolid‐likebehaviorevenatconcentrations
ofSISandoilequalto10%and50%,respectively(Figure9).Interestingly,allmixtures
havethesamemicrostructureat25°CaccordingtotheCole–Coleplots,sincetheyall
approximatelylieonasingleline(theinsertinFigure9).Atthesametime,thiswasnot
thecaseat120°C:theCole–Coleplotsdidnotoverlap(theinsertinFigure6b).Theexpla‐
nationmaybethatthesampleswereindifferentstagesofmicrophaseseparationand
glasstransitionat120°C,whereasat25°Cthemicrophaseseparationwascompletedand
sowastheglasstransitionofthepolystyreneblocks.
Figure9.Frequencydependencesofstorageandlossmodulifortriplemixturescontainingthesame
concentrationofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)anddifferentratiosbetweenstyrene‐isoprene‐sty‐
renetriblockcopolymer(SIS)andnaphthenicoilat25°C.TheinsertshowstheCole–Coleplots.
TheadditionofoiltothebinarySIS/ARBblendmonotonicallyreducesthecohesive
strengthoftheblendandsimultaneouslytheshearstrengthoftheadhesivejointswhen
theblendisusedasHMA(Table3anditsnotecontainingthestatisticalanalysis).Alt‐
houghthegluedsurfacesremainedcleanafterthedestructionoftheadhesivejoints,this
indicatesamixedcohesive‐adhesivenatureoftheirfailure.Atthesametime,thepull‐off
Figure 8.
Concentration dependences of glass transition temperature and liquid–solid transition point
for mixtures with different concentrations of naphthenic oil and styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock
copolymer, while the concentration of asphaltene/resin blend (ARB) remains unchanged and equal
to 40%.
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 14 of 21
As a result, the rigidity of the mixture at 25
◦
C decreases uniformly with increasing oil
concentration, but the samples retain their solid-like behavior even at concentrations of SIS
and oil equal to 10% and 50%, respectively (Figure 9). Interestingly, all mixtures have the
same microstructure at 25
◦
C according to the Cole–Cole plots, since they all approximately
lie on a single line (the insert in Figure 9). At the same time, this was not the case at
120 ◦C
:
the Cole–Cole plots did not overlap (the insert in Figure 6b). The explanation may be that
the samples were in different stages of microphase separation and glass transition at 120
◦
C,
whereas at 25
◦
C the microphase separation was completed and so was the glass transition
of the polystyrene blocks.
Polymers2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW14of22
Figure8.Concentrationdependencesofglasstransitiontemperatureandliquid–solidtransition
pointformixtureswithdifferentconcentrationsofnaphthenicoilandstyrene‐isoprene‐styrene
triblockcopolymer,whiletheconcentrationofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)remainsunchanged
andequalto40%.
Asaresult,therigidityofthemixtureat25°Cdecreasesuniformlywithincreasing
oilconcentration,butthesamplesretaintheirsolid‐likebehaviorevenatconcentrations
ofSISandoilequalto10%and50%,respectively(Figure9).Interestingly,allmixtures
havethesamemicrostructureat25°CaccordingtotheCole–Coleplots,sincetheyall
approximatelylieonasingleline(theinsertinFigure9).Atthesametime,thiswasnot
thecaseat120°C:theCole–Coleplotsdidnotoverlap(theinsertinFigure6b).Theexpla‐
nationmaybethatthesampleswereindifferentstagesofmicrophaseseparationand
glasstransitionat120°C,whereasat25°Cthemicrophaseseparationwascompletedand
sowastheglasstransitionofthepolystyreneblocks.
Figure9.Frequencydependencesofstorageandlossmodulifortriplemixturescontainingthesame
concentrationofasphaltene/resinblend(ARB)anddifferentratiosbetweenstyrene‐isoprene‐sty‐
renetriblockcopolymer(SIS)andnaphthenicoilat25°C.TheinsertshowstheCole–Coleplots.
TheadditionofoiltothebinarySIS/ARBblendmonotonicallyreducesthecohesive
strengthoftheblendandsimultaneouslytheshearstrengthoftheadhesivejointswhen
theblendisusedasHMA(Table3anditsnotecontainingthestatisticalanalysis).Alt‐
houghthegluedsurfacesremainedcleanafterthedestructionoftheadhesivejoints,this
indicatesamixedcohesive‐adhesivenatureoftheirfailure.Atthesametime,thepull‐off
Figure 9.
Frequency dependences of storage and loss moduli for triple mixtures containing the same
concentration of asphaltene/resin blend (ARB) and different ratios between styrene-isoprene-styrene
triblock copolymer (SIS) and naphthenic oil at 25 ◦C. The insert shows the Cole–Cole plots.
The addition of oil to the binary SIS/ARB blend monotonically reduces the cohesive
strength of the blend and simultaneously the shear strength of the adhesive joints when the
blend is used as HMA (Table 3and its note containing the statistical analysis). Although
the glued surfaces remained clean after the destruction of the adhesive joints, this indicates
a mixed cohesive-adhesive nature of their failure. At the same time, the pull-off strength
of the HMA joints passes through a maximum corresponding to the compositions with
10–20% of oil (p< 0.01). It is possible that the improvement in the apparent adhesive
strength is associated with the decrease in the viscosity of the melt when oil is introduced
into it (see Figure 6a), which allows HMA to better fill surface roughness. However, a
further increase in the oil content causes a drop in cohesive strength (p< 0.01), a transition
from adhesive to adhesive-cohesive nature of the destruction of adhesive joints, and a
decrease in the apparent adhesive strength (p< 0.05).
If we are to consider the mixtures as PSA (Table 3), then this function appears in
full when the content of oil is at least 40%. According to the Dahlquist criterion, the
storage modulus of PSA should be below 3
×
10
5
Pa in order to form a good adhesive
joint [
126
,
127
]. This is the case when the oil content is more than 30%: the storage modulus
is below the specified value (see Figure 9) and the apparent adhesive strength is high. At
the same time, the mixture with 40% of oil demonstrates the best performance, having the
most pronounced maximum of loss tangent (Figure 7b). Although the maximum of loss
tangent occurs at a temperature of 112
◦
C, it has a high absolute value and an extended
temperature width. In addition, the glass transition is a relaxation process. In other words,
the maximum loss tangent at 112
◦
C is observed at a high angular frequency of deformation,
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 15 of 21
at which these temperature dependences of loss tangent were obtained: at 6.28 rad/s which
corresponds to an exposure time of 0.16 s. In the case of longer exposure times (such as
when forming an adhesive joint for 10 s), the maximum loss tangent shifts towards lower
temperatures. This means that an adhesive that does not stick well in a short exposure time
can still stick if pressed for a longer time.
Table 3.
Strength and adhesion characteristics of the mixtures with different ratios between styrene-
isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer (SIS) and naphthenic oil and the same concentration of asphal-
tene/resin blend (ARB).
SIS/ARB/Oil τc, MPa τs,HMA, kPa τt,HMA, kPa τp,PSA,Nm−1τt,PSA , kPa
60/40/0 4.2 ±0.4 1,a 1350 ±230 a720 ±340 a52 ±11 b8±13 a
50/40/10 2.0 ±0.3 b980 ±140 a1990 ±270 a12 ±1b11 ±4c
40/40/20 1.70 ±0.02 a780 ±210 b2220 ±280 a53 ±3b20 ±11 d
35/40/25 1.1 ±0.4 d820 ±90 d1710 ±260 a160 ±20 b22 ±2d
30/40/30 1.0 ±0.1 750 ±200 1200 ±300 660 ±150 24 ±11
20/40/40 0.40 ±0.05 a250 ±50 b960 ±170 c600 ±60 d103 ±12 a
10/40/50 0.20 ±0.03 a110 ±40 b900 ±240 b440 ±100 b94 ±22 a
1
The letter after the experimental data shows the p-value—the probability that the variation of the SIS/oil ratio
did not actually affect this parameter as compared to the mixture containing the equal concentrations of SIS
and oil:
a
p< 0.01 (good evidence that it does not),
b
0.01 < p< 0.05 (moderate evidence),
c
0.05 < p< 0.1 (weak
evidence), dp> 0.1 (no evidence).
Thus, if considering the mixture containing 40% of ARB along with equal amounts
of oil and SIS as a base, it is necessary to increase the SIS content to 50% and reduce the
oil content to 10% in order to obtain a pure HMA that is not tacky at 25
◦
C. However, if
it is desired to make a PSA, then the SIS content should conversely be reduced to 20%,
increasing the oil concentration to 40%. Moreover, the resulting mixture can act as HMPSA.
When using this mixture at high temperatures, the adhesive joint is an order of magnitude
stronger (960 kPa vs. 103 kPa, see Table 3), although it does not reach the strength of the
joints formed by HMAs (up to 2220 kPa). At the same time, the viscosity of this mixture in
the melt is about 300 times lower than the viscosity of HMAs. This opens up completely
different possibilities for using the mixture at elevated temperatures, for example, for
easy impregnation of porous or dispersed objects or simple application to wide substrates
without the use of special equipment operating at high pressures.
4. Discussion
Asphaltene/resin blend can be used as a modifier for poly(styrene-block-isoprene-
block-styrene) triblock copolymer in order to turn it into an adhesive. In this case, the
resins act as plasticizers of the block copolymer, partially suppressing its microphase
separation and giving it tackiness. Plasticization is most effective when the ARB content is
low, which leads to a significant decrease in the effective viscosity of the SIS melt. At the
same time, asphaltenes act more like reinforcing particles, which are most effective when
the ARB content is high. The nonlinearity of the change in the SIS properties when the
ARB concentration is varied leads to the fact that as the ARB content increases, there is a
transition from plasticization of the SIS to its hardening. This effect can be attributed to
the limited miscibility of ARB with the block copolymer, which results in the formation of
a separate microphase at high ARB concentrations. Meanwhile, ARB does not plasticize
SIS sufficiently strongly, and the additional introduction of naphthenic oil is necessary
to achieve better adhesion performance. In this case, it is reasonable to use ARB in high
concentration to provide the effect of reinforcing the polymer with asphaltenes. In turn,
the oil allows for more fine-tuning of the adhesive properties of the mixture, enabling the
transition from conventional hot-melt adhesives to hot-melt pressure-sensitive adhesives
as their concentration increases.
A practical question is how effective the ARB is as a tackifier. The standard tackifiers
for SIS are hydrocarbon resins, which differ in chemical structure and molecular weight [
10
].
The use of commercial hydrocarbon resins (Regalite R9100, Escorez 5380) to modify the
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 16 of 21
same SIS yields a hot melt adhesive with
τs,HMA
= 2070 kPa and
τt,HMA = 390 kPa
as the
highest adhesive indicators [
81
]. The alternative use of indene-coumarone resin to produce
HMA from SIS also results in comparable pull-off adhesion strength (
τt,HMA
= 370 kPa).
In our case, the best HMA in terms of combined adhesive indicators is achieved at an
SIS/ARB/oil ratio of 50/40/10, which gives
τs,HMA
= 980 kPa and
τt,HMA
= 1990 kPa
(Table 3). In this regard, ARB stands behind conventional resins in terms of improving
the shear strength of adhesive bonds but is several times superior in terms of improv-
ing the adhesion strength upon pull-off. As for pressure sensitivity, PSAs based on SIS
and commercial hydrocarbon resin (Regalite R9100) under comparable conditions show
τp,PSA = 650 N/m
and
τt,PSA
= 400 kPa [
128
,
129
]. In our case, the best set of pressure-
sensitive adhesive properties results from an SIS/ARB/oil ratio of 20/40/40, leading to
τp,PSA
= 600 N/m, and
τt,PSA
= 103 kPa. In this way, ARB provides less tackiness than
hydrocarbon resin, but still maintains the formed adhesion bond well upon peeling. In
other words, ARB is better suited to obtaining HMAs rather than PSAs. On this basis,
ARB can generally be considered a low-cost alternative to commercial resins for adhesives
designed for non-critical applications that do not require high specific adhesive strength.
By way of example, this can be the bonding of wood chips for furniture production, which
would allow the useful disposal of asphaltenes and resins remaining after deasphalting or
distillation of heavy crude oils.
5. Conclusions
The investigation of rheological and adhesive properties of triple mixtures containing
styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer (SIS), asphaltene/resin blend (ARB), and
naphthenic oil has revealed the following:
−
Both ARB and the oil do not disturb the microphase separation of the block copolymer
and dissolve predominantly in the microphase of the polyisoprene blocks.
−
The oil seems to be unlimitedly soluble in the block copolymer, whereas ARB dissolves
up to a concentration of about 20% and then forms a separate phase. In addition, ARB
and the oil are not fully miscible, which becomes apparent when the SIS content in the
mixture is less than 20%.
−
Dissolution of ARB and the oil increases the volume fraction of the polyisoprene
microphase, which leads to a decrease in the viscosity of SIS and gives it the ability of
irreversible deformation at very low frequencies (long observation times), thus causing
stickiness. At the same time, the preservation of microphase separation ensures the
dominance of elasticity at normal observation times, thus providing the strength of
the formed adhesive joints.
−
An increase in ARB concentration improves the cohesive and adhesive characteristics
of the mixture, while an increase in the oil content gradually shifts the mixture from
being a hot melt to being a pressure-sensitive adhesive with a simultaneous decline in
the cohesive and adhesive performance. In this respect, the role of ARB is as both a
tackifier and a filler, while the role of the oil is to be a plasticizer.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, S.O.I.; methodology, S.O.I.; validation, V.Y.M. and S.O.I.;
formal analysis, S.O.I. and V.Y.M.; investigation, V.Y.M., A.V.K. and N.M.S.; writing—original
draft preparation, V.Y.M. and S.O.I.; writing—review and editing, S.O.I.; visualization, V.Y.M. and
S.O.I.; project administration, S.O.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 17 of 21
Acknowledgments:
This research was carried out within the State Program of A.V. Topchiev Institute
of Petrochemical Synthesis.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Manso, A.P.; Marquezini, L., Jr.; Silva, S.M.; Pashley, D.H.; Tay, F.R.; Carvalho, R.M. Stability of wet versus dry bonding with
different solvent-based adhesives. Dent. Mater. 2008,24, 476–482. [CrossRef]
2.
Awad, M.M.; Alrahlah, A.; Matinlinna, J.P.; Hamama, H.H. Effect of adhesive air-drying time on bond strength to dentin: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2019,90, 154–162. [CrossRef]
3. Dodiuk, H.; Kenig, S. Low temperature curing epoxies for structural repair. Prog. Polym. Sci. 1994,19, 439–467. [CrossRef]
4. Ahmadi, Z. Nanostructured epoxy adhesives: A review. Prog. Org. Coat. 2019,135, 449–453. [CrossRef]
5.
Åkesson, D.; Skrifvars, M.; Lv, S.; Shi, W.; Adekunle, K.; Seppälä, J.; Turunen, M. Preparation of nanocomposites from biobased
thermoset resins by UV-curing. Prog. Org. Coat. 2010,67, 281–286. [CrossRef]
6.
Vitale, A.; Trusiano, G.; Bongiovanni, R. UV-Curing of Adhesives: A Critical Review. In Progress in Adhesion and Adhesives;
Mittal, K.L., Ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA; Scrivener: Beverly, MA, USA, 2018; Volume 3, pp. 101–154. [CrossRef]
7.
St John, N.A.; George, G.A. Diglycidyl amine-epoxy resin networks: Kinetics and mechanisms of cure. Prog. Polym. Sci.
1994
,
19, 755–795. [CrossRef]
8.
Ignatenko, V.Y.; Ilyin, S.O.; Kostyuk, A.V.; Bondarenko, G.N.; Antonov, S.V. Acceleration of epoxy resin curing by using a
combination of aliphatic and aromatic amines. Polym. Bull. 2019,77, 1519–1540. [CrossRef]
9.
Mapari, S.; Mestry, S.; Mhaske, S.T. Developments in pressure-sensitive adhesives: A review. Polym. Bull.
2021
,78, 4075–4108.
[CrossRef]
10. Deng, X. Progress on rubber-based pressure-sensitive adhesives. J. Adhes. 2018,94, 77–96. [CrossRef]
11.
Benedek, I.; Feldstein, M.M. Application of pressure-sensitive products. In Handbook of Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives and Products,
1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008. [CrossRef]
12.
Pinnaratip, R.; Bhuiyan, M.S.A.; Meyers, K.; Rajachar, R.M.; Lee, B.P. Multifunctional Biomedical Adhesives. Adv. Healthc. Mater.
2019,8, 1801568. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Barton, A.F.M. Handbook of Solubility Parameters and Other Cohesion Parameters, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013.
[CrossRef]
14. Chang, E.P. Viscoelastic properties of pressure-sensitive adhesives. J. Adhes. 1997,60, 233–248. [CrossRef]
15.
Gibert, F.X.; Allal, A.; Marin, G.; Derail, C. Effect of the rheological properties of industrial hot-melt and pressure-sensitive
adhesives on the peel behavior. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 1999,13, 1029–1044. [CrossRef]
16.
Yamaguchi, T.; Creton, C.; Doi, M. Simple Model on Debonding of Soft Adhesives. Soft Matter
2018
,14, 6206–6213. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
17.
Gharde, S.; Sharma, G.; Kandasubramanian, B. Hot-Melt Adhesives: Fundamentals, Formulations, and Applications: A Critical
Review. In Progress in Adhesion and Adhesives; Mittal, K.L., Ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021. [CrossRef]
18.
Tse, M.F. Hot melt adhesive model: Interfacial adhesion and polymer/tackifier/wax interactions. J. Adhes.
1998
,66, 61–88.
[CrossRef]
19.
Li, W.; Bouzidi, L.; Narine, S.S. Current research and development status and prospect of hot-melt adhesives: A review. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 2008,47, 7524–7532. [CrossRef]
20. Tout, R. A review of adhesives for furniture. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2000,20, 269–272. [CrossRef]
21.
Aristri, M.A.; Lubis, M.A.R.; Yadav, S.M.; Antov, P.; Papadopoulos, A.N.; Pizzi, A.; Fatriasari, W.; Ismayati, M.; Iswanto, A.H.
Recent Developments in Lignin- and Tannin-Based Non-Isocyanate Polyurethane Resins for Wood Adhesives—A Review. Appl.
Sci. 2021,11, 4242. [CrossRef]
22.
Orgilés-Calpena, E.; Arán-Aís, F.; Torró-Palau, A.M.; Sánchez, M.A.M. Adhesives in the Footwear Industry: A Critical Review.
Rev. Adhes. Adhes. 2019,7, 69–91. [CrossRef]
23.
Blasco, M.P.C.; Limiñana, M.Á.P.; Silvestre, C.R.; Calpena, E.O.; Aís, F.A. Sustainable Reactive Polyurethane Hot Melt Adhesives
Based on Vegetable Polyols for Footwear Industry. Polymers 2022,14, 284. [CrossRef]
24. Benedek, I. Pressure-Sensitive Design, Theoretical Aspects, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006. [CrossRef]
25.
Kalish, J.P.; Ramalingam, S.; Wamuo, O.; Vyavahare, O.; Wu, Y.; Hsu, S.L.; Paul, C.W.; Eodice, A. Role of n-alkane-based additives
in hot melt adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2014,55, 82–88. [CrossRef]
26. Paul, C.W. Hot-melt adhesives. MRS Bull. 2003,28, 440–444. [CrossRef]
27.
Einsla, M.; Griffith, W.; Himmelberger, D.; Zolynski, S.; Zhang, S.; Powell, T.; Malotky, D. Heat-Activated Pressure Sensitive
Adhesives for Linerless Labels. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2019,136, 47048. [CrossRef]
28.
O’Brien, E.P.; Germinario, L.T.; Robe, G.R.; Williams, T.; Atkins, D.G.; Moroney, D.A.; Peters, M.A. Fundamentals of hot-melt
pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes: The effect of tackifier aromaticity. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2007,21, 637–661. [CrossRef]
29.
Gibert, F.X.; Marin, G.; Derail, C.; Allal, A.; Lechat, J. Rheological properties of hot melt pressure-sensitive adhesives based on
styrene–isoprene copolymers. Part 1: A rheological model for [SIS-SI] formulations. J. Adhes. 2003,79, 825–852. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 18 of 21
30.
da Silva, S.A.; Marques, C.L.; Cardozo, N.S.M. Composition and performance of styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS) and styrene-
butadiene-styrene (SBS) hot melt pressure sensitive adhesives. J. Adhes. 2012,88, 187–199. [CrossRef]
31.
Zhao, Z.; Liu, P.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, X.; Liu, W.; Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; Meng, F. Hot-Melt Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives Based on SIS-g-PB
Copolymer for Transdermal Delivery of Hydrophilic Drugs. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2019,91, 72–76. [CrossRef]
32.
Xue, J.; Wang, J.; Huang, H.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L. Feasibility of Processing Hot-Melt Pressure-Sensitive Adhesive
(HMPSA) with Solvent in the Lab. Processes 2021,9, 1608. [CrossRef]
33.
Velloso, I.; Bastos, J.B.V.; Luz, R.; Candido, L.F.; Mello, B.; Cazumbá, A. Synthesis and Characterization of Polyester Derived from
Renewable Source and Its Application as Tackifiers Resins in Hot Melt Pressure Sensitive Adhesives (HMPSA). Macromol. Symp.
2020,394, 2000114. [CrossRef]
34.
Takemoto, M.; Kajiyama, M.; Mizumachi, H.; Takemura, A.; Ono, H. Miscibility and adhesive properties of ethylene vinyl acetate
copolymer (EVA)-based hot-melt adhesives. I. Adhesive tensile strength. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2002,83, 719–725. [CrossRef]
35.
Shcherbina, A.A.; Gladkikh, Y.Y.; Chalykh, A.E. Kinetics and mechanism of formation of adhesive joints based on ethylene-vinyl
acetate copolymers. Polym. Sci. Ser. A. 2012,54, 375–384. [CrossRef]
36.
Moyano, M.A.; París, R.; Martín-Martínez, J.M. Viscoelastic and adhesion properties of hot-melts made with blends of ethylene-
co-n-butyl acrylate (EBA) and ethylene-co-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymers. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2019,88, 34–42. [CrossRef]
37.
Chu, H.H.; Huang, W.H.; Chuang, K.S.; Shen, B.H. Adhesion and viscoelastic property of poly (ethylene-co-vinyl acetate) based
hot melt adhesives-effects of tackifier and wax. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2020,99, 102586. [CrossRef]
38.
Fang, C.; Zhu, K.; Zhu, X.; Lin, Z. Preparation and characterization of self-crosslinking fluorinated polyacrylate latexes and their
pressure sensitive adhesive applications. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2019,95, 102417. [CrossRef]
39.
Fang, C.; Zhou, F.; Zhu, X. The application research of benzyl methacrylate (BzMA) in acrylate latex pressure sensitive adhesives.
Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2021,107, 102861. [CrossRef]
40.
Febrianto, F.; Karliati, T.; Sahri, M.H.; Syafii, W. Trans-1,4-isoprene rubber as hot melt adhesive. J. Biol. Sci.
2006
,6, 490–500.
[CrossRef]
41.
Kostyuk, A.; Ignatenko, V.; Smirnova, N.; Brantseva, T.; Ilyin, S.; Antonov, S. Rheology and adhesive properties of filled PIB-based
pressure-sensitive adhesives. I. Rheology and shear resistance. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2015,29, 1831–1848. [CrossRef]
42.
Gaspar, A.S.; Cordeiro, J.B.; Simões, P.A.; Gameiro, D.; Rocha, F.A.; Serra, A.C.; Coelho, J.F.J.; Fonseca, A.C. Poly(
β
-Pinene) as an
Efficient Biobased Tackifier for Metallocene Poly(Ethylene) Based Hotmelt Adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes.
2022
,114, 103111.
[CrossRef]
43.
Park, Y.J.; Joo, H.S.; Kim, H.J.; Lee, Y.K. Adhesion and rheological properties of EVA-based hot-melt adhesives. Int. J. Adhes.
Adhes. 2006,26, 571–576. [CrossRef]
44.
Stolt, M.; Viljanmaa, M.; Södergård, A.; Törmälä, P. Blends of poly (
ε
-caprolactone-b-lactic acid) and poly (lactic acid) for hot-melt
applications. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2004,91, 196–204. [CrossRef]
45.
Chen, X.; Zhong, H.; Jia, L.; Ling, J.; Tang, R.; Qiao, J.; Zhang, Z. Polyesteramides used for hot melt adhesives: Synthesis and
effect of inherent viscosity on properties. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2001,81, 2696–2701. [CrossRef]
46.
Cui, Y.; Hong, L.; Wang, X.; Tang, X. Evaluation of the cure kinetics of isocyanate reactive hot-melt adhesives with differential
scanning calorimetry. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2003,89, 2708–2713. [CrossRef]
47.
Wongsamut, C.; Suwanpreedee, R.; Manuspiya, H. Thermoplastic polyurethane-based polycarbonate diol hot melt adhesives:
The effect of hard-soft segment ratio on adhesion properties. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2020,102, 102677. [CrossRef]
48.
Fuensanta, M.; Martín-Martínez, J.M. Thermoplastic polyurethane pressure sensitive adhesives made with mixtures of polypropy-
lene glycols of different molecular weights. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2019,88, 81–90. [CrossRef]
49.
Yu, X.; Dong, C.; Zhuang, W.; Shi, D.; Dong, W.; Chen, M.; Kaneko, D. Bio-Based Hotmelt Adhesives with Well-Adhesion in Water.
Polymers 2021,13, 666. [CrossRef]
50. Mahendra, V. Rosin product review. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2019,890, 77–91. [CrossRef]
51.
Destephen, A.; González de San Román, E.; Martínez-Tong, D.E.; Ballard, N. Cationic Polymerization of
β
-Pinene Using B(C
6
F
5
)
3
as a Lewis Acid for the Synthesis of Tackifiers in Pressure Sensitive Adhesives. Macromol. Mater. Eng.
2021
,306, 2100194.
[CrossRef]
52.
Fernandes, E.G.; Lombardi, A.; Solaro, R.; Chiellini, E. Thermal characterization of three-component blends for hot-melt adhesives.
J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2001,80, 2889–2901. [CrossRef]
53.
Pocius, A.V.; Dillard, D.A. Adhesion Science and Engineering: Surfaces, Chemistry and Applications, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2002.
54. Creton, C.; Papon, E. Materials science of adhesives: How to bond things together. MRS Bull. 2003,28, 419–423. [CrossRef]
55.
Ilyin, S.O.; Petrukhina, N.N.; Kostyuk, A.V.; Dzhabarov, E.G.; Filatova, M.P.; Antonov, S.V.; Maksimov, A.L. Hydrogenation of
indene–coumarone resin on palladium catalysts for use in polymer adhesives. Russ. J. Appl. Chem.
2019
,92, 1143–1152. [CrossRef]
56.
Kishi, H.; Nomura, Y.; Hamano, R.; Yamada, R.; Matsuda, S.; Kakibe, T.; Oka, Y.; Urahama, Y. Impact Energy Absorption of
Block Copolymer/Tackifier Blends: Effect of Compatibility, Viscoelasticity, and Laminate Structures. J. Appl. Polym. Sci.
2022
,
139, e52654. [CrossRef]
57.
Kalish, J.P.; Ramalingam, S.; Bao, H.; Hall, D.; Wamuo, O.; Hsu, S.L.; Paul, C.W.; Eodice, A.; Low, Y.G. An analysis of the role of
wax in hot melt adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2015,60, 63–68. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 19 of 21
58.
Kostyuk, A.V.; Ignatenko, V.Y.; Makarova, V.V.; Antonov, S.V.; Ilyin, S.O. Polyethylene wax as an alternative to mineral fillers for
preparation of reinforced pressure-sensitive adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2020,102, 102689. [CrossRef]
59.
Robertson, D.; van Reenen, A.; Duveskog, H. A comprehensive investigation into the structure-property relationship of wax and
how it influences the properties of hot melt adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2020,99, 102559. [CrossRef]
60.
Robertson, D.; van Reenen, A.; Duveskog, H.; Brady, F. A comparative study of the application-based properties of hot melt
adhesives (HMAs) formulated with different waxes. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2021,111, 102974. [CrossRef]
61.
Dana, S.F.; Nguyen, D.V.; Kochhar, J.S.; Liu, X.Y.; Kang, L. UV-curable pressure sensitive adhesive films: Effects of biocompatible
plasticizers on mechanical and adhesion properties. Soft Matter 2013,9, 6270–6281. [CrossRef]
62.
Brantseva, T.; Antonov, S.; Kostyuk, A.; Ignatenko, V.; Smirnova, N.; Korolev, Y.; Tereshin, A.; Ilyin, S. Rheological and adhesive
properties of PIB-based pressure-sensitive adhesives with montmorillonite-type nanofillers. Eur. Polym. J.
2016
,76, 228–244.
[CrossRef]
63.
Fomina, E.V. Hot-melt adhesives based on polyamides of dimerized fatty acids and adhesive compositions from oligoamidoamines
and epoxy resins. Polym. Sci. Ser. D 2012,5, 164–174. [CrossRef]
64.
Kunanopparat, T.; Menut, P.; Morel, M.H.; Guilbert, S. Plasticized wheat gluten reinforcement with natural fibers: Effect of
thermal treatment on the fiber/matrix adhesion. Compos. Part A 2008,39, 1787–1792. [CrossRef]
65.
Semsarzadeh, M.A.; Mehrabzadeh, M.; Arabshahi, S.S. Dynamic mechanical behavior of the dioctyl phthalate plasticized
polyvinyl chloride–epoxidized soya bean oil. Eur. Polym. J. 2002,38, 351–358. [CrossRef]
66.
Cadogan, D.F.; Howick, C.J. Plasticizers. In Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 5th ed.; Othmer, K., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY,
USA, 2000. [CrossRef]
67.
Xu, C.; Gao, L.; Zheng, M.; Qiao, L.; Cui, L.; Wang, K.; Huang, D. Short-and medium-chain chlorinated paraffins in commercial
rubber track products and raw materials. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019,380, 120854. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68.
Kostyuk, A.V.; Ignatenko, V.Y.; Antonov, S.V.; Ilyin, S.O. Effect of surface contamination on the durability and strength of stainless
steel–polyisobutylene pressure-sensitive adhesive bonds. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2019,95, 102434. [CrossRef]
69.
Lei, Y.F.; Wang, X.L.; Liu, B.W.; Ding, X.M.; Chen, L.; Wang, Y.Z. Fully bio-based pressure-sensitive adhesives with high adhesivity
derived from epoxidized soybean oil and rosin acid. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2020,8, 13261–13270. [CrossRef]
70.
Singh, M.; Sethi, S.K.; Manik, G. Pressure-sensitive adhesives based on acrylated epoxidized linseed oil: A computational
approach. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2022,112, 103031. [CrossRef]
71.
Borodulina, T.; Bermesheva, E.; Smirnova, N.; Ilyin, S.; Brantseva, T.; Antonov, S. Adhesive properties of liquid crystalline
hydroxypropyl cellulose–propylene glycol blends. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2014,28, 1629–1643. [CrossRef]
72.
Bocqué, M.; Voirin, C.; Lapinte, V.; Caillol, S.; Robin, J.J. Petro-based and bio-based plasticizers: Chemical structures to plasticizing
properties. J. Polym. Sci. Part A Polym. Chem. 2016,54, 11–33. [CrossRef]
73.
Castelletto, V.; Hamley, I.W. Morphologies of block copolymer melts. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci.
2004
,8, 426–438. [CrossRef]
74.
Pakula, T.; Koynov, K.; Boerner, H.; Huang, J.; Lee, H.I.; Pietrasik, J.; Sumerlin, B.; Matyjaszewski, K. Effect of chain topology on
the self-organization and the mechanical properties of poly (n-butyl acrylate)-b-polystyrene block copolymers. Polymer
2011
,
52, 2576–2583. [CrossRef]
75.
Tse, M.F.; Jacob, L. Pressure sensitive adhesives based on vector
R
SIS polymers I. Rheological model and adhesive design
pathways. J. Adhes. 1996,56, 79–95. [CrossRef]
76.
Kostyuk, A.V.; Smirnova, N.M.; Antonov, S.V.; Ilyin, S.O. Rheological and adhesion properties of hot-melt adhesives based on
hydrocarbon resins and poly (ethylene-vinyl acetate). Polym. Sci. Ser. A 2021,63, 283–295. [CrossRef]
77.
Ilyin, S.O.; Kostyuk, A.V.; Ignatenko, V.Y.; Smirnova, N.M.; Alekseeva, O.A.; Petrukhina, N.N.; Antonov, S.V. The effect of
tackifier on the properties of pressure-sensitive adhesives based on styrene-butadiene-styrene rubber. Russ. J. Appl. Chem. 2018,
91, 1945–1956. [CrossRef]
78. Zohuriaan-Mehr, M.J.; Omidian, H. Petroleum resins: An overview. J. Macromol. Sci., Polym. Rev. 2000,40, 23–49. [CrossRef]
79. Mildenberg, R.; Zander, M.; Collin, G. Hydrocarbon Resins, 1st ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2008.
80. Mullins, O.C. The asphaltenes. Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2011,4, 393–418. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81.
Ignatenko, V.Y.; Kostyuk, A.V.; Smirnova, N.M.; Antonov, S.V.; Ilyin, S.O. Asphaltenes as a tackifier for hot-melt adhesives based
on the styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymer. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2020,60, 2224–2234. [CrossRef]
82.
Ignatenko, V.Y.; Kostyuk, A.V.; Kostina, J.V.; Bakhtin, D.S.; Makarova, V.V.; Antonov, S.V.; Ilyin, S.O. Heavy crude oil asphaltenes
as a nanofiller for epoxy resin. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2020,60, 1530–1545. [CrossRef]
83.
Ilyin, S.; Arinina, M.; Polyakova, M.; Bondarenko, G.; Konstantinov, I.; Kulichikhin, V.; Malkin, A. Asphaltenes in heavy crude oil:
Designation, precipitation, solutions, and effects on viscosity. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2016,147, 211–217. [CrossRef]
84.
Ilyin, S.O.; Pakhmanova, O.A.; Kostyuk, A.V.; Antonov, S.V. Effect of the asphaltene, resin, and wax contents on the physicochem-
ical properties and quality parameters of crude oils. Pet. Chem. 2017,57, 1141–1143. [CrossRef]
85.
Siddiqui, M.N. Studies of different properties of polystyrene-asphaltene composites. Macromol. Symp.
2015
,354, 184–190.
[CrossRef]
86.
Siddiqui, M.N. Preparation and properties of polypropylene-asphaltene composites. Polym. Compos.
2017
,38, 1957–1963.
[CrossRef]
87.
Wu, H.; Thakur, V.K.; Kessler, M.R. Novel low-cost hybrid composites from asphaltene/SBS tri-block copolymer with improved
thermal and mechanical properties. J. Mater. Sci. 2016,51, 2394–2403. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 20 of 21
88.
Wu, H.; Kessler, M.R. Asphaltene: Structural characterization, molecular functionalization, and application as a low-cost filler in
epoxy composites. RSC Adv. 2015,5, 24264–24273. [CrossRef]
89.
Ignatenko, V.Y.; Antonov, S.V.; Kostyuk, A.V.; Smirnova, N.M.; Makarova, V.V.; Ilyin, S.O. Composites based on polystyrene and
asphaltenes. Russ. J. Appl. Chem. 2019,92, 1712–1717. [CrossRef]
90. Kamkar, M.; Natale, G. A review on novel applications of asphaltenes: A valuable waste. Fuel 2021,285, 119272. [CrossRef]
91.
Eshraghian, A.; Kamkar, M.; Sundararaj, U. Asphaltene/Polymer Composites: Morphology, Compatibility, and Rheological
Properties. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2022; early view. [CrossRef]
92. Speight, J.G. The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006. [CrossRef]
93.
Dini, Y.; Becerra, M.; Shaw, J.M. Phase behavior and thermophysical properties of Peace River bitumen+propane mixtures from
303 K to 393 K. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2016,61, 2659–2668. [CrossRef]
94.
Perez Claro, Y.A.; Schoeggl, F.F.; Taylor, S.D.; Yarranton, H.W. Phase behavior of mixtures of bitumen and n-butane. Energy Fuels
2019,33, 8530–8543. [CrossRef]
95.
Ilyin, S.O.; Ignatenko, V.Y.; Kostyuk, A.V.; Levin, I.S.; Bondarenko, G.N. Deasphalting of heavy crude oil by hexamethyldisiloxane:
The effect of a solvent/oil ratio on the structure, composition, and properties of precipitated asphaltenes. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
2022
,
208, 109329. [CrossRef]
96.
Acevedo, S.; Borges, B.; Quintero, F.; Piscitelly, V.; Gutierrez, L.B. Asphaltenes and other natural surfactants from Cerro Negro
crude oil. Stepwise adsorption at the water/toluene interface: Film formation and hydrophobic effects. Energy Fuels
2005
,
19, 1948–1953. [CrossRef]
97.
Fan, Y.; Simon, S.; Sjoblom, J. Interfacial shear rheology of asphaltenes at oil–water interface and its relation to emulsion stability:
Influence of concentration, solvent aromaticity and nonionic surfactant. Colloids Surf. A 2010,366, 120–128. [CrossRef]
98.
Qiao, P.; Harbottle, D.; Tchoukov, P.; Masliyah, J.; Sjoblom, J.; Liu, Q.; Xu, Z. Fractionation of asphaltenes in understanding their
role in petroleum emulsion stability and fouling. Energy Fuels 2017,31, 3330–3337. [CrossRef]
99.
Gorbacheva, S.N.; Ilyin, S.O. Structure, rheology and possible application of water-in-oil emulsions stabilized by asphaltenes.
Colloids Surf. A 2021,618, 126442. [CrossRef]
100.
Andersen, S.I.; Speight, J.G. Petroleum resins: Separation, character, and role in petroleum. Pet. Sci. Technol.
2001
,19, 1–34.
[CrossRef]
101.
Wiehe, I.A.; Yarranton, H.W.; Akbarzadeh, K.; Rahimi, P.M.; Teclemariam, A. The paradox of asphaltene precipitation with
normal paraffins. Energy Fuels 2005,19, 1261–1267. [CrossRef]
102.
Lee, J.-H.; Shim, G.-S.; Park, J.-W.; Kim, H.-J.; Kim, Y. Adhesion Performance and Recovery of Acrylic Pressure-Sensitive
Adhesives Thermally Crosslinked with Styrene–Isoprene–Styrene Elastomer Blends for Flexible Display Applications. J. Ind. Eng.
Chem. 2019,78, 461–467. [CrossRef]
103.
Pandey, V.; Fleury, A.; Villey, R.; Creton, C.; Ciccotti, M. Linking Peel and Tack Performances of Pressure Sensitive Adhesives. Soft
Matter 2020,16, 3267–3275. [CrossRef]
104.
Scherbina, A.A.; Chalykh, A.E. Adhesive Compositions Based on Styrene–Isoprene–Styrene Three-Block Copolymer with
Different Modifiers. Polym. Sci. Ser. D 2018,11, 140–146. [CrossRef]
105.
Ilyin, S.O.; Strelets, L.A. Basic fundamentals of petroleum rheology and their application for the investigation of crude oils of
different natures. Energy Fuels 2018,32, 268–278. [CrossRef]
106.
Ilyin, S.O.; Arinina, M.P.; Polyakova, M.Y.; Kulichikhin, V.G.; Malkin, A.Y. Rheological comparison of light and heavy crude oils.
Fuel 2016,186, 157–167. [CrossRef]
107. Ignatenko, V.Y.; Kostina, Y.V.; Antonov, S.V.; Ilyin, S.O. Oxidative functionalization of asphaltenes from heavy crude oil. Russ. J.
Appl. Chem. 2018,91, 1835–1840. [CrossRef]
108.
Kostyuk, A.V.; Smirnova, N.M.; Ilyin, S.O. Two-Functional Phase-Change Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives Based on Polyisobutylene
Matrix Filled with Paraffin Wax. J. Energy Storage 2022,52, 104797. [CrossRef]
109. Schramm, G. A Practical Approach to Rheology and Rheometry, 2nd ed.; Gebrueder HAAKE: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2000.
110.
Yadykova, A.Y.; Ilyin, S.O. Rheological and adhesive properties of nanocomposite bitumen binders based on hydrophilic or
hydrophobic silica and modified with bio-oil. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022,342, 127946. [CrossRef]
111.
Utracki, L.A. On the viscosity-concentration dependence of immiscible polymer blends. J. Rheol.
1991
,35, 1615–1637. [CrossRef]
112.
Ilyin, S.O.; Makarova, V.V.; Polyakova, M.Y.; Kulichikhin, V.G. Phase state and rheology of polyisobutylene blends with silicone
resin. Rheol. Acta 2020,59, 375–386. [CrossRef]
113.
Acierno, D.; Collyer, A.A. Rheology and Processing of Liquid Crystal Polymers, 1st ed.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 2013; Volume
2.
114.
Ilyin, S.O.; Makarova, V.V.; Polyakova, M.Y.; Kulichikhin, V.G. Phase behavior and rheology of miscible and immiscible blends of
linear and hyperbranched siloxane macromolecules. Mater. Today Commun. 2020,22, 100833. [CrossRef]
115.
Velankar, S.; Cooper, S.L. Microphase separation and rheological properties of polyurethane melts. 3. Effect of block incompatibil-
ity on the viscoelastic properties. Macromolecules 2000,33, 395–403. [CrossRef]
116.
Sun, S.; Li, M.; Liu, A. A review on mechanical properties of pressure sensitive adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes.
2013
,41, 98–106.
[CrossRef]
117.
Ilyin, S.O.; Kulichikhin, V.G.; Malkin, A.Y. Unusual rheological effects observed in polyacrylonitrile solutions. Polym. Sci. Ser. A
2013,55, 503–509. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022,14, 4296 21 of 21
118.
Malkin, A.Y.; Ilyin, S.O.; Arinina, M.P.; Kulichikhin, V.G. The rheological state of suspensions in varying the surface area of
nano-silica particles and molecular weight of the poly (ethylene oxide) matrix. Colloid. Polym. Sci.
2017
,295, 555–563. [CrossRef]
119.
Ilyin, S.O.; Malkin, A.Y.; Kulichikhin, V.G.; Shaulov, A.Y.; Stegno, E.V.; Berlin, A.A.; Patlazhan, S.A. Rheological properties of
polyethylene/metaboric acid thermoplastic blends. Rheol. Acta 2014,53, 467–475. [CrossRef]
120. Ilyin, S.O.; Arinina, M.P.; Mamulat, Y.S.; Malkin, A.Y.; Kulichikhin, V.G. Rheological properties of road bitumens modified with
polymer and solid nanosized additives. Colloid J. 2014,76, 425–434. [CrossRef]
121.
Yadykova, A.Y.; Ilyin, S.O. Compatibility and rheology of bio-oil blends with light and heavy crude oils. Fuel
2022
,314, 122761.
[CrossRef]
122. Kirkwood, B.R.; Sterne, J.A.C. Essential Medical Statistics, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2003.
123. Malkin, A.; Kulichikhin, V.; Ilyin, S. A modern look on yield stress fluids. Rheol. Acta 2017,56, 177–188. [CrossRef]
124. Chuang, H.K.; Han, C.D. Rheological behavior of polymer blends. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1984,29, 2205–2229. [CrossRef]
125.
Han, C.D.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.K. Determination of the order-disorder transition temperature of block copolymers. Macromolecules
1989,22, 383–394. [CrossRef]
126.
Eisenhaure, J.; Kim, S. A Review of the State of Dry Adhesives: Biomimetic Structures and the Alternative Designs They Inspire.
Micromachines 2017,8, 125. [CrossRef]
127.
Feldstein, M.M.; Dormidontova, E.E.; Khokhlov, A.R. Pressure Sensitive Adhesives Based on Interpolymer Complexes. Prog.
Polym. Sci. 2015,42, 79–153. [CrossRef]
128.
Novikov, M.B.; Borodulina, T.A.; Kotomin, S.V.; Kulichikhin, V.G.; Feldstein, M.M. Relaxation Properties of Pressure-Sensitive
Adhesives upon Withdrawal of Bonding Pressure. J. Adhes. 2005,81, 77–107. [CrossRef]
129.
Gdalin, B.E.; Bermesheva, E.V.; Shandryuk, G.A.; Feldstein, M.M. Effect of Temperature on Probe Tack Adhesion: Extension of
the Dahlquist Criterion of Tack. J. Adhes. 2011,87, 111–138. [CrossRef]
