4.6 Article

Influence of raw carbon nanotubes diameter for the optimization of the load composition ratio in epoxy amperometric composite sensors

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 652-661

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10853-014-8624-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, it is reported the necessity to characterize the raw carbon materials before their application in composite electrodes based on multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) dispersed in epoxy resin for the development of improved amperometric sensors. These sensors must contain an optimum MWCNT/epoxy ratio for their best electroanalytical response. The main drawback in MWCNTs composite materials resides in the lack of homogeneity of the different commercial nanotubes largely due to different impurities content, as well as dispersion in their diameter/length ratio and state of aggregation. The optimal composite electrode composition takes into account the high electrode sensitivity, low limit of detection, fast response, and electroanalytical reproducibility. These features depend on carbon nanotube physical properties as the diameter. Three different commercial carbon nanotubes with different diameters were characterized by transmission electron microscopy and the results were significantly different from the ones provided by the manufacturers. Then, the three MWCNTs were used for the MWCNT/epoxy sensors construction. After an accurate electrochemical characterization by cyclic voltammetry and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, they were employed as working electrodes using ascorbic acid as a reference analyte. Percolation theory was applied in order to verify the electrochemical results. It is demonstrated that the optimum interval load of raw carbon material in the optimized-composite electrodes closely depends on the MWCNTs diameter, needing 5 % in carbon content for the narrowest MWCNTs containing composite electrodes versus 12 % for the widest MWCNTs.

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

4.6
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