4.8 Article

Mussel-Inspired Graphene Film with Enhanced Durability as a Macroscale Solid Lubricant

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 11, 期 34, 页码 31386-31392

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b10404

关键词

graphene; mussel adhesive protein; electrophoretic deposition; lubricity; durability; solid lubricant; tribology

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51775340]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2019M651490]
  3. Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINIT project for Swedish-China collaboration) [CH2017-7255]
  4. SJTU- KTH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Graphene has exhibited massive potential as a macroscale solid lubricant, but its durability is limited due to the weak adhesion between graphene sheets and the substrate. Here, inspired by mussel adhesive protein (MAP), effective reinforcement of the graphene-substrate interaction to attain remarkable enhancement on the durability of the graphene film is presented. The mussel-inspired graphene (mGr) film exhibits a coefficient of friction stabilizing at 0.16 up to 490000 sliding cycles in the friction testing against the silicon nitride ball; in the identical sliding condition, comparatively, the graphene (Gr) film without MAP only lasts 4300 sliding cycles. The analysis of Raman and ATR-FTIR demonstrates that, on the one hand, the MAP film firmly adsorbs onto the substrate via forming metal-catechol coordination bonds with metal atoms; on the other hand, it establishes strong interactions with graphene sheets by hydrogen bonding as well as the pi-pi overlap. As an interlayer, MAP retains graphene sheets within the contact interface in the form of a compact tribo-layer, which results in an over 2 orders of magnitude enhancement of durability for the mGr film. This strategy of improving the graphene-substrate adhesion via MAP offers an avenue for the development of effective and reliable graphene-based solid lubricants for engineering applications.

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

4.8
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