4.6 Article

Preparation and characterization of composites based on poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-chlorotrifluoroethylene) and carbon nanofillers: a comparative study of exfoliated graphite nanoplates and multi-walled carbon nanotubes

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 2256-2270

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10853-018-3005-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Guangdong Province Natural Science Foundation, China [2017A030313268, 2017A030313080]
  2. Guangdong Province Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scientists, China [S2013050014139]
  3. Hong Kong Polytechnic University [1-ZVGH, G-YBLM, G-YBPN]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, the crystal structure, thermal conductivity, as well as dielectric and electrical properties of poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-chlorotrifluoroethylene) [P(VDF-CTFE)] filled with two different carbon nanofillers including exfoliated graphite nanoplates (xGNPs) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) have been compared. The xGNPs and the MWCNTs were well dispersed in the P(VDF-CTFE) matrix using a simple solution-blending process. The xGNPs have the ability to induce the large amount of useful polar and crystal phases for P(VDF-CTFE) via the relatively strong interfacial interaction between their functional groups and the dipoles of P(VDF-CTFE), while the MWCNTs only produce the relatively low amount of crystal phases for P(VDF-CTFE) due to their weak -dipole interactions with P(VDF-CTFE). It was found that both the electrical conductivity and dielectric properties of xGNPs/P(VDF-CTFE) composite were better than those of MWCNTs/P(VDF-CTFE) composite. The thermal conductivities of xGNPs/P(VDF-CTFE) composites were much higher when compared with those of MWCNTs/P(VDF-CTFE) composites at the same filler content, which is probably owing to the better compatibility between xGNPs and P(VDF-CTFE). For example, the thermal conductivities of xGNPs (5wt%)/P(VDF-CTFE) composite and MWCNTs (5wt%)/P(VDF-CTFE) composite were 0.83W/mK and 0.43W/mK, respectively.

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