4.6 Article

Strong and Heat-Resistant SiC-Coated Carbonized Natural Loofah Sponge for Electromagnetic Interference Shielding

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 435-444

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b05723

关键词

electromagnetic interference shielding; SiC/loofah sponge; electrical conductivity; flexural strength; thermal insulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Renewable, processable, and efficient electromagnetic shielding materials have received great attention with the urgent requirement of alleviating the depletion of fossil resources and the harm of electromagnetic pollution. Biomaterials (natural loofah sponges) have long been considered to be good candidates because of their unique texture and environmental friendliness. However, these natural fibrous structures are usually required to be electrically conductive by carbonization treatment, which leads to lose their original flexibility and strength. Here, we have successfully prepared a SiC-coated carbonized loofah sponge (SCLS) electromagnetic shielding material together with high flexural strength and good thermal insulation properties. A 2.5 mm thick SCLS achieves an electromagnetic shielding effectiveness of 68.4 dB, which is extremely competitive among those reported porous shielding materials at the same thickness. This outstanding property originates from the formation of a continuous three-dimensional conductive network constructed by the carbonized loofah sponge (CLS) coated with SiC and tailorable porosity. The electrical conductivity of SCLS reaches 22.3 S/m. More importantly, the flexural strength of 8.4 MPa offered by the SCLSs enables them to be directly applied to the practical environment. Moreover, the CLS exhibits a polymer-like thermal insulation, achieving a thermal conductivity of only 0.226 W m(-1) K-1 at 300 degrees C. Therefore, the multifunctional CLS has great potential to be widely used in electromagnetic shielding materials with good heat and fire resistance.

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