Composite stretch film for agricultural use

Abstract

A composite stretch film for agricultural use is formed by bonding two stretch films together with an adhesive through hot rolling or UV curing such that primary stretch directions thereof cross each other. The composite stretch film of the present invention is significantly improved not only in transverse and longitudinal tensile strength but also in transverse and longitudinal tear strength. Therefore, it is able to meet the requirements for use in agriculture with a lesser thickness and hence reduce the use cost. In particular, in case of the composite stretch film being made of a polyester material, it further offers the advantages such as high-light transmittance which changes mildly with time, better thermal insulation properties and better humidity-regulating capabilities. In particular, in case of it being made of a degradable polyester materials, it will further offer profoundly significant benefits in terms of energy saving and environmental protection.

Claims

1. A composite stretch film for agricultural use, formed by bonding two stretch films together with an adhesive through hot rolling or UV curing such that primary stretch directions thereof cross each other.

2. The composite stretch film for agricultural use of claim 1, wherein the primary stretch directions of the two stretch films form an angle of 30-150°.

3. The composite stretch film for agricultural use of claim 2, wherein the primary stretch directions of the two stretch films form an angle of 60-120°.

4. The composite stretch film for agricultural use of claim 3, wherein the primary stretch directions of the two stretch films form an angle of 90°.

5. The composite stretch film for agricultural use of claim 1, wherein the stretch films are asymmetrically stretched films comprising uniaxially stretched films and asymmetrically biaxially stretched films.

6. The composite stretch film for agricultural use of claim 5, wherein ratios of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio of the asymmetrically stretched films range from (1.2:1) to (4:1).

7. The composite stretch film for agricultural use of claim 5, wherein the asymmetrically stretched films are formed using a flat-film method.

8. The composite stretch film for agricultural use of claim 1, wherein the stretch films are made of a polyethylene, polypropylene or polyester material.

9. The composite stretch film for agricultural use of claim 8, wherein the stretch films are made of a PET or modified PET material.

10. The composite stretch film for agricultural use of claim 9, wherein the stretch films are made of a degradable modified PET material.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0022] The subject matter of the present invention will be described in further detail below with reference to several embodiment examples so that it can be fully understood.

[0023] In the examples, each PET stretch film sample was prepared using a flat-film method including: making a cast sheet with a thickness of about 140-560 mm from a PET resin by a multi-layer extruder (Nanjing Chuangbo Machinery Co., Ltd.); placing the cast sheet on a film stretcher (Brückner Maschinen bau GmbH), clamping it with clips, heating it to 115° C. and stretching it according to a preset program (stretch ratios); and finishing the PET film by rapid cooling in the air.

[0024] In the examples, tests related to tensile properties were carried out using a CH-9002A-20 multi-functional tensile tester (Suzhou Baoyuntong Testing Equipment Co., Ltd.). In each test, the sample was cut into a piece with a standard size for tensile testing, i.e., with a width of 1.0-2.6 cm and a length of 15-25 cm. Both ends of the piece was clamped with clips spaced apart from each other by a distance of 100 mm (so that the distance between the ends was also 100 mm), and the test was initiated under the control of an automatic program according to preset conditions, followed by data collection.

[0025] In the examples, tests related to tear resistance were carried out using a CH-9002A-20 multi-functional tensile tester (Suzhou Baoyuntong Testing Equipment Co., Ltd.). In each test, an approximately 20-mm-long slit was made in the film sample along a tear direction under test, and both ends of the slit were then clamped with clips. Afterward, the test was initiated under the control of an automatic program, followed by data collection.

Example 1

[0026] An adhesive (e.g., an TS9002A, TS9002B or TS9002C adhesive manufactured by Yantai) was uniformly applied to one side of a PET stretch film, and another PET stretch film was then bonded thereto after the evaporation of a solvent contained in the adhesive such that a primary stretch direction (with a greater stretch ratio) of the second stretch film crossed that of the first stretch film at angles of 90°). The composite film was then subjected to hot rolling performed on a 60-85° C. roller (the hot rolling temperature might depend on the adhesive used) and then placed at room temperature until it completely cured.

[0027] Table 1 shows a tear resistance comparison among composite films formed from respective PET stretch films with different ratios of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio using the method according to this Example.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Sample Slit Tear Resistance Primary Secondary Single Layer Sample Tear Stretch Stretch Thickness Thickness Tear Force Strength ratio ratio (μm) (μm) (kg) (N/mm) 3.9 3.8 100 100 0.07 7.18 3.6 3.1 150 150 0.30 19.86 4 1 75 150 1.03 67.49 3.5 1 50 100 3.00 294.00 2.7 1 50 100 3.44 337.27 4 2.8 70 140 3.47 242.94

[0028] As can be seen from Table 1, the composite PET stretch films obtained from the inventive method all had significantly increased tear strength over those of the biaxially stretched single-layer PET films having the same thicknesses. Although tear strength increased with sample thickness, compared to the 150-μm-thick biaxially stretched single-layer PET film whose tear strength was only 19.86 N/mm, the tear strength of the inventive 100-μm-thick composite PET film (with a ratio of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio of 2.7) was up to 337.27 N/mm. That is, a significant increase in tear resistance was obtained. In addition, the higher the asymmetry, the greater the slit tear strength. Ratios of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio of (1.4:1)-(3.5:1) corresponded to slit tear strength of 240-340 N/mm. However, at a ratio of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio of 4, tear strength tended to decrease even when the thickness was increased to 150 μm.

Example 2

[0029] An adhesive (e.g., a 6062A or 7725B adhesive produced by Henkel) was uniformly applied to one side of a PET stretch film, and another stretch PET film was then bonded thereto such that a primary stretch direction (with a greater stretch ratio) of the second stretch film crossed that of the first stretch film at angles of 90°. The composite film was subjected to hot rolling performed on a 60-85° C. roller (the hot rolling temperature might depend on the adhesive used) and then placed at room temperature until it completely cured.

[0030] Table 2 shows a tear resistance comparison among composite films formed from respective PET stretch films with different ratios of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio using the method according to this Example.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Sample Slit Tear Resistance Primary Secondary Single Layer Sample Tear Stretch Stretch Thickness Thickness TearForce Strength ratio ratio (μm) (μm) (kg) (N/mm) 3.9 3.8 100 100 0.07 7.18 3.6 3.1 150 150 0.30 19.86 4 1 75 150 1.48 96.45 3.5 1 50 100 6.22 609.79 4 2 50 140 3.57 349.86

[0031] As can be seen from Table 2, the composite PET stretch films obtained from the inventive method all had significantly increased tear strength over that of the biaxially stretched single-layer PET films having the same thicknesses. Although tear strength increased with sample thickness, compared to the 150-μm-thick biaxially stretched single-layer PET film whose tear strength was only 19.86 N/mm, the tear strength of the inventive 100-μm-thick composite PET stretch film (with a ratio of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio of 3.5) was up to 609.79 N/mm. That is, a significant increase in tear resistance was obtained. In addition, the higher the asymmetry, the greater the slit tear strength. Ratios of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio of (2:1)-(3.5:1) corresponded to slit tear strength of 340-610 N/mm. However, at a ratio of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio of 4, tear strength tended to decrease even when the thickness was increased to 150 μm.

[0032] It is revealed from a comparison between Tables 1 and 2 that when an adhesive containing a solvent is used in the bonding by hot rolling, the solvent may cause loose molecular orientation in the stretch films and hence lower tear strength.

Example 3

[0033] With reference to Example 2, a tear resistance comparison was made between a composite film resulting from asymmetrically biaxially stretched PET films obtained by simultaneous stretching and a composite film resulting from asymmetrically biaxially stretched PET films obtained by successive stretching.

[0034] The test results are presented in Table 3.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Sample Slit Tear Resistance Primary Secondary Single Layer Sample Tear Stretch Stretch Thickness Thickness TearForce Strength ratio ratio (μm) (μm) (kg) (N/mm) 4 2.8 70 (simultaneous 140 0.78 54.81 stretching) 4 2.8 70 (successive 140 0.61 42.95 stretching)

[0035] As can be seen from the results in Table 3, the slit tear strength of the composite film made from the simultaneously biaxially stretched films was slightly higher than that of the composite film made from the successively biaxially stretched films, although the difference was not significant.

Example 4: Tensile Resistance Comparison

[0036] Tests for comparing the maximum tensile forces, tensile strengths and elongations at break under transverse and longitudinal stretching conditions of existing 100-μm-thick single-layer agricultural EVA, PE and PO films and a composite film obtained from two 50-μm-thick PET films each having a primary stretch ratio of 3 according to the present invention (the aggregate thickness was also 100 μm) were carried out, and the results are shown in detail in Table 4.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Data on Tensile Resistance Comparison Transverse stretching Longitudinal stretching Max. Max. Tensile Tensile Elongations Tensile Tensile Thickness Force strength at Break Force strength Elongations No. Film (μm) (N) (Mpa) (%) (N) (Mpa) at Break (%) 1 Single-layer 100 28.02 18.68 800.46 31.39 20.93 560.43 EVA Film 2 Single-layer 100 29.02 19.34 820.72 34.98 23.32 918.75 PE Film 3 Single-layer 100 41.49 27.66 859.20 36.50 24.33 668.96 PO Film 4 Inventive 50 + 50 207.11 138.07 97.60 248.69 165.79 139.52 composite Film

[0037] As can be seen from the results shown in Table 4, the composite stretch film for agricultural use according to the present invention was significantly improved in terms of both transverse and longitudinal tensile resistance compared to the existing single-layer agricultural films (e.g., EVA, PE and PO films) having the same thickness.

Example 5: Tear Resistance Comparison

[0038] Tests for comparing the maximum tear forces and tear strengths under transverse and longitudinal stretching conditions of existing 100-μm-thick single-layer agricultural EVA, PE and PO films, an existing 100-μm-thick biaxially stretched single-layer PET film and a composite film obtained from two 50-μm-thick PET films each having a primary stretch ratio of 3 according to the present invention (the aggregate thickness was also 100 μm) were carried out, and the results are shown in detail in Table 5.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Data on Tear Resistance Comparison Transverse Longitudinal Stretching Stretching Tear Tear Tear Thickness Force Strength Tear Strength No. Film (μm) (N) (N/mm) Force (N) (N/mm) 1 Single-layer 100 16.73 167.30 14.15 141.49 EVA Film 2 Single-layer 100 22.49 244.97 17.35 173.50 PE Film 3 Single-layer 100 19.46 194.65 14.49 144.99 PO Film 4 Biaxially 100 1.18 11.87 1.57 15.71 Stretched Single-layer PET Film 5 Inventive 100 43.25 432.55 27.01 270.14 Composite Film

[0039] As can be seen from the results shown in Table 5, the composite stretch film for agricultural use according to the present invention was significantly improved in terms of both transverse and longitudinal tear resistance compared to the existing single-layer agricultural films (e.g., EVA, PE and PO films) and biaxially stretched single-layer PET film, having the same thickness.

Example 6: Light Transmittance Comparison

[0040] Test sample: a 100-μm-thick composite PET stretch film (with a ratio of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio of 3.5) obtained from Example 2.

[0041] Control sample: an existing 90-μm-thick single-layer EVA film for use in greenhouses.

[0042] A spectrophotometer (a UV-3150 spectrophotometer with a measuring wave length range of 190-3200 nm, Shimadzu Corporation, Japan) was employed to measure test and control samples' the initial light transmittance, light transmittance after use for 3 months and light transmittance after washing with water in the visible light range of 380 to 760 nm, and the results are shown in Table 6.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Light Transmit- Initial Light Transmit- Light Transmit- tance After Light tance After tance After Thorough Transmit- Use for 3 Washing Once Washing with Sample tance (%) Months (%) with Water (%) Water (%) Control 83.3 75.3 79.0 83.3 EVA Sample Test PET 92.0 87.8 89.4 92.0 Sample

[0043] As can be seen from the results shown in Table 6, despite a larger thickness of the inventive composite PET stretch film than that of the existing single-layer EVA film, it still exhibited higher light transmittance and there was a less amount of dust attaching to it during use, given the fact that the main cause for the decreases in light transmittance during the use (within 3 months) was the attachment of dust.

Example 7: Comparison of Thermal Insulation Properties

[0044] A test greenhouse (using a 100-μm-thick composite PET stretch film with a ratio of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio of 3.5 obtained from Example 2) and a control greenhouse (using an existing 90-μm-thick single-layer EVA film) were constructed, and a hygrothermograph was placed in each of the greenhouses for collecting data on their internal temperatures within different periods of time (according to the phenomenon that daytime is shorter than nighttime in winter, the 24 hour of each day was divided into the following four periods: I) 17:00 in the afternoon to 0:00 in the midnight; II) 0:00 in the midnight to 7:00 in the next morning; III) 7:00 in the morning to 11:00 in the noon; and IV) 11:00 in the noon to 17:00 in the afternoon) under different weather conditions (categorized into the following four types: sunny, cloudy, overcast/foggy and rainy/snowy). Differences between thermal insulation properties of the inventive composite PET stretch film and the existing single-layer EVA film were evaluated by means of statistical analysis (using the JMP 10 software, SAS, the U.S.) of the collected temperature data.

[0045] The results of a comparison based on single-factor analysis of internal temperature differences between the test and control greenhouses within the periods under sunny conditions are shown below.

TABLE-US-00007 Lower 95% Upper95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit I 329 0.3027 0.18542 −0.061 0.667 II 335 0.8696 0.18375 0.509 1.230 III 139 3.8265 0.24463 3.346 4.306 IV 282 −3.7035 0.20027 −4.096 −3.311

[0046] As can be seen from these results, when it was sunny, the temperature in the test greenhouse was higher within Periods I, II and III and lower within Period IV than that in the control greenhouse.

[0047] The results of a comparison based on single-factor analysis of internal temperature differences between the test and control greenhouses within the periods when the weather was cloudy are shown below.

TABLE-US-00008 Lower 95% Upper 95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit I 231 0.5857 0.17643 0.239 0.932 II 231 1.0429 0.17643 0.697 1.389 III 132 2.7621 0.23339 2.304 3.220 IV 198 −1.4096 0.19056 −1.784 −1.036

[0048] As can be seen from these results, when it was cloudy, the temperature in the test greenhouse was also higher within Periods I, II and III and lower within Period IV than that in the control greenhouse.

[0049] The results of a comparison based on single-factor analysis of internal temperature differences between the test and control greenhouses within the periods when the weather was overcast/foggy are shown below.

TABLE-US-00009 Lower 95% Upper 95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit I 42 0.0619 0.34688 −0.624 0.748 II 42 0.7857 0.34688 0.100 1.472 III 24 2.9000 0.45887 1.993 3.807 IV 36 −1.6083 0.37467 −2.349 −0.868

[0050] As can be seen from these results, when it was overcast/foggy, the temperature in the test greenhouse was also higher within Periods I, II and III and lower within Period IV than that in the control greenhouse.

[0051] The results of a comparison based on single-factor analysis of internal temperature differences between the test and control greenhouses within the periods when the weather was rainy/snowy are shown below.

TABLE-US-00010 Lower 95% Upper 95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit I 42 0.32143 0.27982 −0.232 0.8744 II 42 0.84524 0.27982 0.292 1.3982 III 27 2.07778 0.34900 1.388 2.7674 IV 41 0.68049 0.28321 0.121 1.2401

[0052] As can be seen from these results, when it was rainy/snowy, the temperature in the test greenhouse was higher than that in the control green house within any of the four periods.

[0053] The results of a comparison based on single-factor analysis of internal temperature differences between the test and control green houses in the morning period under different weather conditions are shown below.

TABLE-US-00011 Lower 95% Upper 95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit Cloudy 132 2.76212 0.28507 2.2015 3.3227 Sunny 189 3.82646 0.23824 3.3580 4.2949 Overcast/ 24 2.90000 0.66855 1.5853 4.2147 Foggy Rainy/ 27 2.07778 0.63032 0.8383 3.3173 Snowy

[0054] As can be seen from these results, within the morning period, no matter what the weather was like, the temperature in the test greenhouse was 2-4° C. (3.8° C. on average when the weather was sunny) higher than that in the control greenhouse.

[0055] The results of a comparison based on single-factor analysis of internal temperature differences between the test and control greenhouses in the afternoon period under the various weather conditions are shown below.

TABLE-US-00012 Lower 95% Upper 95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit Cloudy 198 −1.4096 0.36222 −2.121 −0.698 Sunny 282 −3.7035 0.30352 −4.300 −3.107 Overcast/ 36 −1.6083 0.84949 −3.277 0.060 Foggy Rainy/ 41 0.6805 0.79601 −0.883 2.244 Snowy

[0056] As can be seen from these results, within the afternoon period, under any of the weather conditions except for rain/snow, the temperature in the test greenhouse was lower than that in the control greenhouse, and the difference was most significant when it was sunny. On the contrary, when the weather was rainy/snowy, the temperature in the test greenhouse was higher than that in the control greenhouse.

[0057] The results of statistically-based comparison between internal temperatures of the test and control greenhouses on sunny afternoons are shown below.

TABLE-US-00013 Lower 95% Upper 95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit Control 282 22.9085 0.40262 22.118 23.699 Green- house Test 232 19.2050 0.40262 18.414 19.996 Green- house

[0058] As can be seen from these results, on sunny afternoons, the temperature in the test greenhouse was on average approximately 3.7° C. lower than that in the control greenhouse. However, since the average temperature in the test greenhouse under such conditions was about 20° C., plant growth therein would not be affected, and required actions to open the greenhouse to dissipate heat therein would be reduced instead.

[0059] It is revealed from a summarization of the above test results that, within the 24 hours on each day except for those in the afternoon period, the temperature in the test greenhouse using the inventive composite PET stretch film was always higher than that in the control greenhouse using the existing single-layer EVA film, and the difference was particularly significant in the morning and averaged at 4° C. In the afternoon period spanning about 4-5 hours, the temperature in the control greenhouse using the existing single-layer EVA film was averagely about 3-4° C., maximum up to about a dozen ° C., higher than that in the test greenhouse, causing overheating and necessitating opening of the greenhouse for heat dissipation. In contrast, such significant temperature rises did not occur in the test greenhouse. In addition, such phenomena occurred more often under sunny conditions, and did not happen when it was rainy/snowy. However, at any time when the weather was rainy/snowy, the internal temperature of the test greenhouse was always higher than that of the control greenhouse using the existing single-layer EVA film. This further demonstrates that the inventive composite PET stretch film has better thermal insulation properties over the single-layer EVA film and is very suitable for use as an agricultural film.

Example 8: Comparison of Humidity-Regulating Properties

[0060] A test greenhouse (using a 100-μm-thick composite PET stretch film with a ratio of primary stretch ratio to secondary stretch ratio of 3.5 obtained from Example 2) and a control greenhouse (using an existing 90-μm-thick single-layer EVA film) were constructed, and a hygrothermograph was placed in each of the greenhouses for collecting data on their internal humidity under different weather conditions (categorized into the following four types: sunny, cloudy, overcast/foggy and rainy/snowy). Differences between humidity-regulating properties of the inventive composite PET stretch film and the existing single-layer EV film were evaluated by means of statistical analysis (using the JMP 10 software, SAS, the U.S.) of the collected humidity data.

[0061] The results of statistically-based internal humidity comparison between the test and control greenhouses under rainy/snowy weather conditions are shown below.

TABLE-US-00014 Lower 95% Upper 95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit Control 138 85.4601 2.0694 81.386 89.534 Green- house Test 138 82.7435 2.0694 78.670 86.817 Green- house

[0062] As can be seen from these results, when the weather is rainy/snowy, there was no significant difference between internal humidity of the test and control greenhouses.

[0063] The results of statistically-based internal humidity comparison between the test and control greenhouses under overcast/foggy weather conditions are shown below.

TABLE-US-00015 Lower 95% Upper 95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit Control 186 81.3124 2.0311 77.318 85.306 Green- house Test 186 78.3457 2.0311 74.352 82.340 Green- house

[0064] As can be seen from these results, when the weather is overcast/foggy, there was also no significant difference between internal humidity of the test and control greenhouses.

[0065] The results of statistically-based internal humidity comparison between the test and control greenhouses under cloudy weather conditions are shown below.

TABLE-US-00016 Lower 95% Upper 95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit Control 904 80.4306 0.89559 78.674 82.187 Green- house Test 904 74.6483 0.89559 72.892 76.405 Green- house

[0066] As can be seen from these results, when the weather is cloudy, the humidity within the test greenhouse was averagely 6% lower than that within the control greenhouse.

[0067] The results of statistically-based internal humidity comparison between the test and control greenhouses under sunny weather conditions are shown below.

TABLE-US-00017 Lower 95% Upper 95% Standard Confidence Confidence Level Quantity Mean Error Limit Limit Control 995 71.0040 1.0366 68.971 73.037 Green- house Test 995 63.1274 1.0366 61.095 65.160 Green- house

[0068] As can be seen from these results, when the weather is sunny, the humidity within the test greenhouse was averagely 8% lower than that within the control greenhouse.

[0069] It is revealed from a summarization of the above test results that, under sunny and cloudy conditions, the internal humidity of the test greenhouse was obviously lower than that of the control greenhouse. However, when the weather was overcast, foggy, rainy or snowy, there was no significant difference between internal humidity of the test and control greenhouses. This further demonstrates that the inventive composite PET stretch film has better humidity-regulating properties over the single-layer EVA film and is very suitable for use as an agricultural film.

[0070] It is noted here that, the above embodiments are presented merely to describe the subject matter of the present invention in further detail and are not to be construed as limiting the scope of the invention. Non-substantive improvements and modifications made by those skilled in the art in accordance with the above disclosure all fall within the scope of the present invention.