4.8 Article

Cellulose Whisker/Epoxy Resin Nanocomposites

Journal

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
Volume 2, Issue 4, Pages 1073-1080

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/am900830h

Keywords

epoxy resin; cellulose; whisker; nanocomposite; percolating network; mechanical reinforcement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

New nanocomposites composed of cellulose nanofibers or whiskers and an epoxy resin were prepared. Cellulose whiskers with aspect ratios of similar to 10 and similar to 84 were isolated from cotton and sea animals called tunicates, respectively. Suspensions of these whiskers in dimethylformamide were combined with an oligomeric difunctional diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A with an epoxide equivalent weight of 185-192 and a diethyl toluenediamine-based curing agent. Thin films were produced by casting these mixtures and subsequent curing. The whisker content was systematically varied between 4 and 24% v/v. Electron microscopy studies suggest that the whiskers are evenly dispersed within the epoxy matrix. Dynamic mechanical thermoanalysis revealed that the glass transition temperature (T-g) of the materials was not significantly influenced by the incorporation of the cellulose filler. Between room temperature and 150 degrees C, i.e., below T-g, the tensile storage moduli (E') of the nanocomposites increased modestly, for example from 1.6 GPa for the neat polymer to 4.9 and 3.6 GPa for nanocomposites comprising 16% v/v tunicate or cotton whiskers. The relative reinforcement was more significant at 185 degrees C (i.e., above T-g), where E' was increased from similar to 16 MPa (neat polymer) to similar to 1.6 GPa (tunicate) or similar to 215 MPa (cotton). The mechanical properties of the new materials are well-described by the percolation model and are the result of the formation of a percolating whisker network in which stress transfer is facilitated by strong interactions between the whiskers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available