4.6 Article

Catalytic effect of rGO-CuO nanocomposite on performance of fire extinguishing aerosol forming composite

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE
卷 58, 期 11, 页码 4766-4779

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10853-023-08338-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A facile synthesis of rGO-CuO nanocomposite was successfully achieved using hydrothermal method. The synthesized nanocomposites were characterized using various techniques, such as XRD, FTIR, Raman spectroscopy, SEM, EDX, and TEM. The addition of rGO-CuO to the base AFC significantly improved its performance, including increased combustion efficiency, decreased combustion temperature and MEC, and increased burn rate, leading to faster fire extinguishment. The developed AFC shows promise in meeting the requirement for faster fire suppression in the future.
A facile synthesis of rGO-CuO nanocomposite was carried out using hydrothermal method. rGO-CuO nanocomposite was incorporated in aerosol forming composite (AFC) for the first time in order to develop the fast fire extinguishant materials. Synthesized nanocomposites were characterized using X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), Raman spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive Xray spectroscopy (EDX) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Catalytic activity of rGO-CuO was analysed considering the parameters such as combustion temperature, activation energy, burn rate, combustion efficiency, minimum fire extinguishing concentration (MEC) and fire extinguishing time. Addition of rGO-CuO to base AFC remarkably enhanced the performance of AFC by increasing the combustion efficiency (11.36%) and decreasing the combustion temperature (16.14%) and MEC (19.78%). A tremendous increase in burn rate (47.1%) boosted the fast extinguishment of fire by reducing the fire extinguishment time 78.2%. Developed AFC found promising to meet the faster fire extinguishment requirement of futuristic fire suppression systems. [GRAPHICS] .

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