This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]

On: 17 June 2013, At: 01:36

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Adhesion

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gadh20

Composition and Performance of

Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene (SIS) and
Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene (SBS) Hot
Melt Pressure Sensitive Adhesives
a b
Schana Andréia da Silva , Caroline Lemos Marques & Nilo Sérgio
b
Medeiros Cardozo
a
Fundação Escola Técnica Liberato Salzano Vieira da Cunha, Novo
Hamburgo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
b
Laboratório de Tecnologia de Polímeros (LATEP), Chemical
Engineering Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
(UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Published online: 06 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Schana Andréia da Silva , Caroline Lemos Marques & Nilo Sérgio Medeiros Cardozo
(2012): Composition and Performance of Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene (SIS) and Styrene-Butadiene-
Styrene (SBS) Hot Melt Pressure Sensitive Adhesives, The Journal of Adhesion, 88:2, 187-199

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2012.648873

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 The Journal of Adhesion, 88:187–199, 2012
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0021-8464 print=1545-5823 online
DOI: 10.1080/00218464.2012.648873

Composition and Performance of

Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene (SIS) and
Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene (SBS) Hot Melt
Pressure Sensitive Adhesives

SCHANA ANDRÉIA DA SILVA1, CAROLINE LEMOS MARQUES2, and

NILO SÉRGIO MEDEIROS CARDOZO2
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

1
Fundação Escola Te´cnica Liberato Salzano Vieira da Cunha,
Novo Hamburgo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
2
Laborato´rio de Tecnologia de Polı´meros (LATEP), Chemical Engineering Department,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil,

Styrenic block copolymers are widely used in HMPSA formulations,

with tackifier resins and oil plasticizer. Although most commercial
formulations are based on SIS, mixtures of SIS and SBS are also
used to reduce cost. However, the use of SBS is restricted because
it generally leads to decrease in tack. In this work, pure SIS and
SBS and a SIS=SBS mixture were used in formulations with ali-
phatic, aromatic, aliphatic hydrogenated, and aliphatic-aromatic
copolymer resins, at three different oil contents, according to a 33–1
factorial design. Interaction effects among the components were
evaluated, showing a strong dependence of the HMPSA final
properties on the combination of resin=rubber used. It was found
that a blend of aliphatic and aromatic resins is the best tackifier
for SIS, while for SBS the best choice is an aromatic-aliphatic copo-
lymer. These results were explained in terms of specific compati-
bility, which was correlated to the polarizability of the material.

KEYWORDS Compatibility; Mechanical properties of adhesives;

Pressure-sensitive; Pressure-sensitive adhesives

Received 20 August 2010; in final form 9 August 2011.

Address correspondence to Nilo Sérgio Medeiros Cardozo, Department de Engenharia
QuaimicaEscola de Engenharia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Campus Central
– Predio 12204, Rua Luiz Englert s=n, Centro – Porto Alegre – RS, 90040-040, Brasil. E-mail:
[email protected]

187
 188 S. A. da Silva et al.

1. INTRODUCTION

Pressure-sensitive adhesives (PSA), also known as permanent tack adhesives,

are adhesives capable of developing a measurable adhesion after a brief con-
tact or a slight pressure [1–3]. The main applications of this kind of adhesive
are in the manufacture of disposable diapers, self-adhesive labels, and tapes
[2,4,5].
In a bonding process, two phenomena are important: cohesion and
adhesion. Cohesion is the bulk strength of the adhesive film, while adhesion
is related to the strength of the interface between the adhesive film and the
substrate. The immediate adhesion, usually denominated tack [6], is
especially important for PSA, because the fast bonding between the film
adhesive and the substrate under a slight pressure depends on it. Tack is
the characteristic that differentiates PSA from non-PSA.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

Peel adhesion, tack, and cohesion are critical properties that define the
final characteristics of the adhesives. According to the specific combination
of these properties, PSA can be classified into removable, semi-permanent,
and permanent adhesives. The key issue to achieve the required balance
among peel adhesion, cohesion, and tack for each type of PSA is the compo-
sition of the adhesive [7].
A hot melt pressure-sensitive adhesive (HMPSA) is mainly composed of
four types of components: a thermoplastic elastomer, a tackifier resin, a plas-
ticizer oil, and additives, particularly antioxidants [8]. The elastomer, the
tackifier, and the oil define the main mechanical properties, such as peel
adhesion, cohesion, and tack.
Styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS) and styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) tri-
block copolymers are the main thermoplastic elastomers used in HMPSA.
These polymers have a two-phase morphology, wherein rigid micro-domains
of polystyrene are dispersed in a flexible elastomer matrix of polybutadiene or
polyisoprene [9]. The high glass transition temperature (Tg) styrenic domains
act as physical crosslinks, which ensure the necessary cohesion at room
temperature, while the elastomeric blocks, when adequately mixed with
tackifier and plasticizer oil, are quickly spread on the substrate, providing
bonding features. The referred crosslinking effect is due to the microdomain
structure caused by the incompatibility between rigid and soft segments of the
block copolymer and to the fact that rigid terminal styrenic blocks of a single
chain can be attached to different styrenic microdomains, acting as physical
junction points which lead to a network structure similar to conventional
vulcanized elastomers [10].
Regarding tackifiers, there are many studies that evaluate the
performance of different resins and highlight the influence of some struct-
ural parameters of the tackifier resin on the final properties of the adhesive
[11–16].
 Composition and Performance of SIS and SBS HMPSA 189

Class and Chu [11] evaluated the compatibility of natural rubber and SBR
copolymer with three types of tackifiers: low molecular weight polystyrene,
poly (vinyl cyclohexane), and poly (t-butyl styrene), which are, respectively,
aromatic, cycloaliphatic, and alkyl-aromatic resins. Microscopy, together with
rheological and mechanical properties data, were used in the analysis of the
compatibility in the systems studied. The aromatic resin was shown to be
incompatible with natural rubber, while fully compatible with SBR. On the
other hand, the cycloaliphatic resin was compatible with natural rubber
and incompatible with SBR. The alkyl-aromatic resin was compatible with
both rubbers. All compatible systems showed measurable tack and could
be classified as PSAs, while the incompatible systems were non-PSAs.
The authors attributed compatibility to similar polarizabilities between the
materials.
Galan et al. [12] studied the effect of different resins on the viscoelastic
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

and mechanical properties of SBS-based HMPSA. They used an aliphatic

hydrocarbon resin, a modified aliphatic hydrocarbon resin, and a pentaery-
thritol ester of hydrogenated colophony, being the aliphatic hydrocarbon
resin incompatible with SBS, the modified aliphatic hydrocarbon resin com-
patible with the styrene and the elastomeric blocks and the pentaerythritol
ester of hydrogenated colophony compatible only with the elastomeric
block. The use of an aliphatic hydrocarbon resin adhesive generated two
peaks of tan d, indicating a biphasic system, and showed the lowest values
of peel adhesion and tack and the highest values of viscosity between the
three types of systems studied. The use of the pentaerythritol ester of hydro-
genated colophonyled to intermediate mechanical properties. The best
mechanical properties (peel adhesion and tack) were obtained in the formu-
lation with modified aliphatic hydrocarbon resin. The adhesive performance
was found to be strongly dependent on the compatibility between resin and
elastomer.
Kim et al. [13] have evaluated the effect of the resin type and content on
the peel adhesion of SIS HMPSA compositions. The resins evaluated were
colophony ester, aliphatic hydrocarbon, hydrogenated aromatic hydro-
carbon, modified aliphatic hydrocarbon, and hydrogenated dicyclopenta-
diene. The increase in the resin content led to an initial increase in the
peel adhesion followed by a decrease of this property. The maximum value
of peel adhesion occurred between 40 and 50 w=w% of resin for high soften-
ing point resins and around 60 w=w% for low softening point resins. The best
peel adhesion results were obtained with modified aliphatic hydrocarbon
resin, while the worst peel adhesion results were obtained with hydroge-
nated aromatic hydrocarbon resin. Although the authors based their dis-
cussion in terms of softening point and Tg of the resin, their results also
indicate an effect of the resin structure on the adhesive properties. Also using
SIS elastomer, Akiyama et al. [14] evaluated the influence of polyterpene
 190 S. A. da Silva et al.

resin content on the characteristics of the mixture produced, concluding that

higher contents of tackifier resin generate incompatible systems, with poor
tack and adhesion properties. Phase inversion, change in heterogeneous
domain structure from macroscopic to mesoscopic scale, surface energies,
and viscoelastic properties have been suggested as possible causes of the
complex dependence of tack on the resin content and to the poor tack at
higher resin contents [12–15].
Although the works mentioned above have contributed significantly to
the understanding of HMPSAs and highlighted the importance of the physical
and chemical compatibility between components in the performance of
HMPSAs, they limit their analysis to experiments in which the elastomer is
fixed and the tackifier resin type is the only variable changed. Consequently,
the reliability of their conclusions about the performance of different resins is
restricted to the specific system considered in each case, because HMPSAs
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

are complex mixtures and their properties must be affected not only by
the individual contribution of each component, but also by the interaction
between these components.
Taking these aspects into consideration, the objective of this work was
to study the interaction between the components of a HMPSA formulation
and to establish correlations that show the adhesive composition effects on
its mechanical and rheological properties. The variables considered were
type of elastomers, type of resin, and oil content.

2. EXPERIMENTAL

2.1. Materials and Sample Preparation

Two thermoplastic elastomers and four types of resins were used in the
experiments. Their characteristics are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
A mixture containing 65% of naphthenic oil, 33% of paraffinic oil, and
2% of aromatic oil was used as plasticizer. The antioxidant used was a phe-
nolic =phosphorus antioxidant mixture of commercial materials: lrganox1
1076, (65% by wt) and lrgafos1 168 (35% by wt), both from BASF SE, jurong
lsland, Singapore. All composition data presented along this work are
expressed in w=w basis.

TABLE 1 SIS and SBS Characterization Dataa

Styrene Diblock Molecular

Rubber content (%) content (%) weight Tg Comercial name Supplier

SIS 15 19 222,000
60 C Kraton D-1161 Kraton

SBS 30 17 70,000
85 C Kraton D-1102 Kraton
a
Data supplied by the manufacturer.
 Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

TABLE 2 Tackifier Resins Properties

Softening Commercial
Resin Mw (g=mol)a Mn (g=mol)a Tg ( C)a point ( C)b Viscosity 150 C (mPa  s)c name Supplier

Aliphatic 1650 750 48 100 2575 Hikorez A-1100 Kolon

Aromatic 6040 1670 84 134 30200 Plastolyn 290 Eastman
Hydrogenated aliphaticd 2950 775 56 110 1135 Sukorez SU-200 Kolon

191
Aliphatic-aromatic copolymere 1500 800 48 100 1090 Hikorez H-2200 Kolon
a
Data supplied by the manufacturer.
b
Determined by Ring and Ball Method.
c
Determined by Brookfield Viscosimeter.
d
According to information provided by the supplier, this resin is actually an hydrogenated aliphatic-aromatic copolymer with low content of aromatic (2 to 5%).
e
Content of aromatic: around 30%.
 192 S. A. da Silva et al.

TABLE 3 Levels and Parameters Used on Design of Experiments

Level
Parameter

1 0 1

Rubber SIS SIS=SBS, 1:1 misture SBS

Oil content (%) 10% 15% 20%
Tackifier Aliphatic-aromatic Aliphatic þ aromatic Hydrogenated Aliphatic
copolymer resin mixture þ aromatic resin mixture

The materials were hot-melt blended, in an open mixer (model 713D,

from Fisatom, São Paulo, Brazil) at 150–200 C.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

2.2. Design of Experiments

Three formulation parameters were taken into account to study the effect of
the composition on adhesive properties: rubber type, resin type, and oil
content. Each parameter was evaluated at three different levels using a 33–1
factorial design (Table 3) which was established so that effects with order
higher than three and the quadratic effects of rubber and resin type were
among the confounded effects. This strategy was adopted because rubber
and resin type are qualitative parameters. The values corresponding to the
usual combination used in traditional hot melt PSA formulations were taken
as the zero level for each parameter (rubber type, resin type, and oil content).
The resulting matrix of experiments was obtained with the Statistica1
Software (Statsoft, Tulsa, OK, USA) and is presented in Table 4. The experi-
ments were performed in duplicate. Statistical analysis of the results was also
performed with Statistica, using the methodology of analysis of the variance
(ANOVA) to determine the significant effects. Pure error, calculated from the
replicates for each experimental point, was used as reference for ANOVA.
The rubber=tackifier ratio was the same in all experiments, using a tacki-
fier content of 180 aphr. Oil contents were 10, 15, and 20% on a mass basis.

TABLE 4 Experiments

Formulation Rubber Oil Resin

F1
1
1
1
F2 0
1 1
F3 1
1 0
F4
1 0 1
F5 0 0 0
F6 1 0
1
F7
1 1 0
F8 0 1
1
F9 1 1 1
 Composition and Performance of SIS and SBS HMPSA 193

2.3. Analysis Procedures

The adhesives were characterized to determine adhesion (peel), cohesion
(shear), thermal resistance, and tack. Adhesion was measured by a 180 peel
test according to ASTM D3330M. The cohesion was evaluated by holding
power (shear test), according to ASTM D3654, Method A, with 2 kgf weight.
Thermal resistance was analyzed using the test known as SAFT (shear
adhesive failure temperature), which corresponds to the Shear Test with
the apparatus subjected to a temperature ramp of 0.37 C min, using a
0.5 kgf weight. Tack was measured using two tests: the rolling ball, according
to ASTM D3121, and loop tack by ASTM D6195 Method A, using stainiess
steel panels as substrate and 36–50-mm polyesther film (polyethylene tereph-
talate homopolymer, Terphane 66.10, Cabo de Santo Agostinho, Brazil) as
backing.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

The refractive index (RI) of the resins was also measured to obtain infor-
mation about the polarizability of these resins. The measurements of refrac-
tive index were performed in a refractometer (model 11402, Atago, Bellevao,
WA, USA) by extrapolation of measurements carried out with solutions of
resin in toluene at different concentrations from 10 to 40% to the limit of
100% of resin.
The dynamic viscosity of the prepared adhesive compositions was
determined in a rotational rheometer (ARES, TA Instruments1, New Castle,
DE, USA) using a concentric cylinders geometry with the following
dimensions—cup diameter: 27 mm; bob diameter=height: 25 mm=32 mm.
Frequency sweeps from 0.1 to 500 Hz were performed at 150 C. The strain
to be used in each frequency sweep was previously determined through
deformation sweeps at frequencies of 0.1 and 500 Hz, in order to ensure that
the frequency sweeps would be performed in the linear viscoelastic region.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the adhesive properties tests are presented in Table 5. In

Table 6 the corresponding analysis of variance (ANOVA) is presented, with
the significant effects marked in bold. Effects with positive values indicate
increase of the considered property with the respective parameter, while
negative values indicate the inverse behavior.
In the measurements of peel, adhesion increased with the addition of
SBS in the formulation, while addition of oil caused reduction in this pro-
perty. Although this oil effect has already been reported in the literature
for SBS-based hot-melt PSA [9], no previous studies accounting for the inter-
action between oil and rubber were found. In this sense, the results pre-
sented in Table 6 indicate that this interaction (X1X2) is significant and that
the effect of addition of oil is heavily dependent on the rubber type, being
more pronounced for formulations based on SIS rubber (for example, peel
 194 S. A. da Silva et al.

TABLE 5 Adhesive Properties of the Formulations Prepared

Formulation Peel (N=25 mm) Shear (hours) SAFT ( C) Loop (N=25 mm) Rolling ball (cm)

F1 30.5  3.3 4  0.8 54  5.8 4.9  3.2 >30

F2 25  4.9 81.8  25.8 69.7  6.2 6.8  2.0 >30
F3 – – – 0 >30
F4 21.3  0.6 6.9  0.1 63.6  0.7 15.8  0.5 >30
F5 21.3  2.5 3.9  0.8 68.5  7.8 0.9  0.3 >30
F6 23.1  3.9 26  9.7 59.7  5.2 16.3  2.0 0.9
F7 12.9  2.5 4.3  0.8 82.9  0.2 13.4  2.4 5.33
F8 17.2  0.7 2.6  0.9 54.3  0.5 11.1  2.2 5
F9 17.3  3.3 46.9  2.1 60  2.3 11.7  2.0 14

. The formulation F3 presents no tack, so it was impossible to prepare the sample for peel, shear, and
SAFT tests.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

value changed from 30 N=25 mm for formulation F1, with 10% oil, to
12.9 N=25 mm for formulation F7, with 20% oil). This result could be attribu-
ted to the lower proportion of polystyrene in the SIS used, which can facili-
tate the plasticizer action of the oil, since lower content of polystyrene leads
to smaller polystyrene domains and the oil=(elastomeric domains) compati-
bility is much higher than that of oil=(polystyrene domains).
Shear test results indicate that SIS provides lower cohesion than SBS, as
can be seen by comparing formulations F1, F4, and F7 (using SIS rubber) to
F6 and F9 (with SBS). This is in agreement with results presented in the litera-
ture for other PSA formulations [6] and may also be a consequence of the fact
that, due to production process characteristics, commercial SBS grades
present higher styrenic block content and lower molecular weight than com-
mercial SIS grades, leading to higher density of physical crosslinkings and,
consequently, higher modulus. Regarding the influence of the oil addition
on cohesion, a negative effect was observed, as could be expected from its
plasticizer action. Finally, in relation to the resin type, the formulations
prepared with aliphatic=aromatic and hydrogenated-aliphatic=aromatic resin
combinations presented higher cohesion than the formulation with aliphatic

TABLE 6 Formulation Parameters’ Effects on the Adhesive Properties, Using ANOVA

Peel Shear
(adhesion) (cohesion) Loop tack (tack) Rolling ball
(N=25 mm) (hours) SAFT ( C) (N=25 mm) (Tack )(CM)

X1 – rubber 25.57 52.90 6.76
2.05 –

X2 – oil –36.38 –56.17 –9.16 8.16 –
X22 – oil
12.94
46.29 0.45 –12.07 –
X3 – resin
2.42 46.14 8.46 0.64 –
X1X2 –45.27
4.92 –47.78 12.59 –
X1X3
1.78
25.11 13.67 –30.16 –
X2X3 26.34
19.46 12.03 8.17 –
 Composition and Performance of SIS and SBS HMPSA 195

aromatic copolymer. Although the three resin systems employed contain ali-
phatic and aromatic groups, in the aliphatic=aromatic and in the hydrogenated-
aliphatic=aromatic resin combinations the aliphatic and aromatic groups are
in different molecules, whereas, in the aliphatic aromatic copolymer these
groups are combined as short blocks randomly distributed along the resin
molecules. Taking into account these structural differences, the lower
cohesion provided by the aliphatic aromatic copolymer indicates that this
resin promotes some interaction between styrenic and elastomeric domains
of the thermoplastic elastomer, reducing the physical crosslink density and,
consequently, the cohesion. Conversely, in the binary resin systems, aromatic
and aliphatic resins are expected to act separately in styrenic and elastomeric
domains, respectively, leading to a synergistic effect where tack and cohesion
increase.
According to the SAFT tests, rubber type and oil content are the proper-
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

ties with significant effect on the thermal resistance of the adhesives studied.
Higher oil contents and use of SIS caused decrease of the thermal resistance.
While the oil effect on the thermal resistance can be easily explained by the
plasticizer effect of this component, the rubber type influence is not so
straightforward because the two elastomers used differ both in molecular
weight and in rubber=styrene proportion. In this sense, the results obtained
are important, because they indicate that the rubber styrene proportion
seems to have a greater influence on the adhesive’s thermal resistance than
the elastomer molecular weight. Regarding the influence of the resin type,
the (formulations F5 and F7) and hydrogenated-aliphatic=aromatic resin (for-
mulations F2 and F9) combinations presented higher SAFT than those pre-
pared with the copolymer aliphatic-aromatic resin (formulations F1, F6,
and F8). The factors that may contribute to this result are the lower Tg of ali-
phatic aromatic copolymer resin (Table 2) and the supposed influence of the
copolymer on the physical cross linking density, discussed in the preceding
paragraph.
The results of tack are somewhat surprising in the sense that the rubber
influence does not appear as a first order effect, but only in interaction effects
with oil and resin (Table 6). Additionally, the interaction effect of rub-
ber=resin is much stronger than the interaction of rubber=oil, indicating that
the choice of an appropriate combination of resin=rubber is a critical issue in
the formulation of PSA. In relation to this, it is important to observe that the
mixture of aliphatic and aromatic resins, which is the system most used in
commercial PSAs, despite giving good tack with SIS (formulation F7) does
not confer tack on adhesives prepared with SBS (formulations F3 and F5).
For SBS (formulation F6) and the mixture of SBS and SIS (F8 formulation),
the aromatic aliphatic resin copolymer was the resin which provided higher
values of tack. These results clearly indicate that the option regarding the
most appropriate resin depends on the resin=rubber combination. This
constitutes valuable information in terms of practical application, since SBS
 196 S. A. da Silva et al.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

FIGURE 1 Determination of index of refraction of the resins used in the design of experi-
ments, using toluene as a solvent.

is currently being added to commercial formulations of PSA to reduce cost,

but maintaining the same basic formulation used for the conventional PSAs
based on pure SIS and, therefore, generating a decrease in mechanical
properties as the SBS content is increased.
The differences in rubber-resin interaction found in the studied systems
may be explained in terms of similarity of polarizability between the individ-
ual components, in the same way as proposed by Class and Chu [11] in the
study of the compatibility of natural rubber and SBR copolymer with other
tackifiers. The polarizability is related to the deformation capacity of the elec-
tron cloud and it is directly proportional to the increase of the refractive
index with concentration (dn=dc) [17]. The curves of refractive index versus
concentration and the corresponding values of refractive index and dn=dc
for the resins used are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 7, respectively. The aliphatic
resin presented the lowest dn=dc, which corresponds to the lower polariz-
ability. The resin of highest dn=dc was the aromatic resin, due to the aromatic

TABLE 7 Refractive Index of the Resins Studied, Using Toluene as Solvent

Resin Refractive index dn=dc (dL=g) Correlation index

Aliphatic 1.5212 0.00003 0.9956

Hydrogenated aliphatic 1.5586 0.00007 0.9990
Aliphatic-aromatic copolymer 1.5669 0.00008 0.9991
Aromatic 1.5913 0.00010 0.9989
 Composition and Performance of SIS and SBS HMPSA 197

ring. Therefore, considering that polybutadiene has a higher dn=dc than

polyisoprene [18], the lack of tack presented by the adhesive formulation
containing SBS and aliphatic resin (formulation F3) can be attributed to the
incompatibility in the system, according to the difference of polarizability
between the two materials. Similarly, the higher compatibility of the SBS with
resins of higher polarizability, such as aliphatic-aromatic copolymer, gives to
these formulations high-tack features.
Regarding the effect of the content of oil on tack, it was observed that
for all samples, except those presenting lack of compatibility (F3 and F5),
the highest value of tack was obtained with the intermediate oil content
(15%). This suggests that the increase of the oil content leads initially to an
increase of tack and, subsequently, to a decrease of this property. The initial
increase of tack with the oil content could be attributed to the plasticizing
effect of the oil, which makes the adhesive spread more easily. This plasticiz-
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

ing effect of the oil can be related to its effect on lowering Tg and average
molecular weight of the system. Conversely, the decrease of tack at higher
oil contents could be related to the reduction of the modulus, and, hence,
of the strength of the adhesive provoked by the excess of oil. In this sense,
it is important to take into consideration that the modulus of the adhesive
plays an important role in its response to the stretching process which char-
acterizes the loop tack test.
Another relevant aspect to be addressed is the fact that the effects of
incompatibility between components, described previously, in terms of dif-
ference of polarizability and tack deficiencies seem to be reflected also in
the viscosity curves of the different samples at 150 C (Fig. 2). It can be
observed that the samples with tack deficiencies (formulations F3 and F5),

FIGURE 2 Viscosities of adhesives at 150 C.

 198 S. A. da Silva et al.

presented a quite different rheological behavior, showing high pseudoplas-

ticity, while the other samples showed little variation of the viscosity with
the frequency. Additionally, these two formulations presented higher values
of viscosity at low frequencies than the other samples. These two aspects
may be related directly to the lack of compatibility between the components
(elastomer and resin) in formulations F3 and F5, since it is common to
observe synergistic effects on the viscosity of immiscible blends, which can
increase the viscosity of the mixture with respect to the pure components,
as well as lead to strong pseudoplastic features.

3. CONCLUSION

The use of factorial design allowed the identification of interaction effects

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

among the components of the HMPSA formulation, and it was possible to

determine an optimal resin for each type of rubber used in this study. The
compatibility between the elastomer and the resin was shown to play a
key role in the final characteristics of the adhesive. It was shown that values
of dn=dc of the components can be used to obtain information about their
compatibility. The best resin to produce a rubber HMPSA with SBS is the
aliphatic-aromatic copolymer resin. Also, for the mixture of SIS and SBS
the use of a single resin instead of a blend of resins led to adhesives with bet-
ter properties. For SIS, the mixture of aliphatic and aromatic resins was
shown to be the more adequate option. All these conclusions with relation
to the adequacy of the different combinations were based mainly on the abil-
ity of each formulation to achieve the values of tack required for PSA applica-
tions. Aliphatic aromatic copolymer resin led to reduction of cohesion and
thermal resistance, probably due to the dissolution of the randomly distribu-
ted styrenic block.
Using a more compatible resin, it was possible to prepare pressure
sensitive hot-melt adhesives based on SBS with adhesive properties similar
to those of adhesives prepared with SIS. As SBS has lower cost and greater
commercial availability than SIS, this result may have great industrial
importance.

REFERENCES

[1] Williams, N. R. L., Elastic analysis of the loop tack test for pressure senstive
adhesives, Ph.D. Thesis Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
(2000).
[2] Satas, D., Handbook of Pressure-Sensitive Adhesive Technology, (Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York, 1982).
[3] Dahlquist, C. A., Adhesion – Fundamentals and Practice, Proc. Nottingham
Conf., (MacLaren Sons, London, 1966).
 Composition and Performance of SIS and SBS HMPSA 199

[4] Keyzer, N. R. and Stoner, C. A., Hot melt pressure sensitive positioning
adhesive, US Patent No. 6,657,000 B1, (December 2, 2003).
[5] Phillips, J. P., Deng, X., Stephen, R. R., Fortenberry, E. L., Todd, M. L., McClusky,
D. M., Stevenson, S., Misra, R., Morgan, S., and Long, T. E., Polymer 48, 6773–
6781 (2007).
[6] Skeist, I., Handbook of Adhesives, (Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York,
1977).
[7] Woo, Y., lnelastic analysis of the loop test for pressure senstive adhesive, Ph.D.
Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia,
(2002).
[8] Krutzel, L., Adhes. Age 30 (10), 21–27 (1987).
[9] Creton, C., MRS Bulletin, 434–439 (2003).
[10] Holden, G. and Legge, N. R., Thermoplastic elastomers based on
polystyrene-polydiene block copolymers, in Thermoplastic Elastomers – A Com-
prehensive Review, N. R. Legge, G. Holdenm, and H E. Schroeder (Eds.) (Oxford
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 01:36 17 June 2013

University Press, New York, 1987).

[11] Class, J. B. and Chu, S. G., J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 30, 805–814 (1985).
[12] Galan, C., Sierra, C. A., Fatou, J. M. G., and Delgado, J. A., J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 62,
1263–1275 (1996).
[13] Kim, D. J., Kim, H. J., and Yoon, G. H., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 25, 288–295 (2005).
[14] Akiyama, S., Kobori, Y., Sugisaki, A., Koyama, T., and Akiba, I., Polymer 41,
4021–4027 (2000).
[15] Aubrey, D. W., Rubber Chem. Technol. Rubber Reviews, 61 (3), 448–469 (1988).
[16] Everaerts, A. I. and Clemens, L. M., Pressure sensitive adhesives, in Adhesion
Science and Engeneering, Vol. 2: Surfaces, Chemistry and Application, D. A.
Dillard, A. V. Pocius, and M. Chaudhury (Eds.) (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2002).
[17] Olabisi, O., Robeson, L. M., and Shaw, M. T., Polymer-Polymer Miscibility,
(Academic Press, New York, 1979).
[18] Sharaf, M. A. and Zhang, R., in Polymer Date Handbook, J. E. Mark (Ed.)
(Oxford University Press, New York, 1999), pp. 329–616.