4.3 Article

Magnetic graphene nanocomposites: electron conduction, giant magnetoresistance and tunable negative permittivity

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 835-844

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c1jm14172d

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF-National Science Foundation-Chemical and Biological Separation [CBET 11-37441]
  2. National Science Foundation-Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team and Materials Processing and Manufacturing [CMMI 10-30755]
  3. NSF [DMR 10-05764]
  4. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1030755] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetic graphene nanocomposites (MGNCs) with surface-adhered magnetic nanoparticles (NPs) are synthesized by a facile thermal-decomposition method. Two different sized graphenes (Gra-10 and Gra-40) are used. The stacking of a few layers of NPs is revealed by the AFM observation in the nanocomposites, especially with a higher particle loading. The TEM observations show that the average particle size increases from 12.1 to 17.4 nm with increasing particle loading from 2 to 10% on Gra-10 substrate. The NPs exhibit a core@shell structure with an iron core and iron oxide shell, confirmed by high resolution TEM, selected area electron diffraction and X-ray diffraction analysis. The graphene size and particle loading dependent behavior such as dielectric permittivity, electrical conductivity, magnetization and giant magnetoresistance (GMR) are observed. The electrical conductivity has been significantly changed in the different sized graphenes after coating with NPs (conductivity: Gra-10 > NPs/Gra-10; Gra-40 < NPs/Gra-40). The MR is observed to vary from 38 to 64% at 130 K, and even higher MR of about 46-72% is observed at 290 K. More interestingly, the dielectric permittivity can be tuned from negative to positive at high frequency with increasing particle loading. All the results indicate that graphene with smaller size obtains superior properties than the one with larger size.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据