3.8 Article

Investigation of Electrical Conductivity of Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) Nanofibers/Nano Particul (Ag, Cu, CNT and GNR)

期刊

NANO HYBRIDS AND COMPOSITES
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 20-25

出版社

TRANS TECH PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/NHC.16.20

关键词

Metallic nanoparticles; graphene nanoribbon; carbon nanotube; Polyacrylonitrile

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study 1% Ag (silver), Cu (copper), CNT (carbon nanotube) and graphene nanoribbon (GNR) nanoparticle reinforced PAN fibers were prepared and the effects of nanoparticle reinforcements upon electrical conductivity were investigated. In experimental study, graphene nanoribbon powders were produced from multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) through using the chemical approach of Hummers method. Fiber layer was dissolved at room temperature in magnetic mixer with Polyacrylonitrile(PAN) and Dimethil Formamide (DMF) which was at the rate of 10 % by mass. Thus, a viscou gel solution was obtained then nanoparticles were added to the PAN/DMF solution and the solution was vigorously stirred for one hour at room temperature. After stirring that solution was continued for 15 m in ultrasonic bath. The polymeric solution was first transferred to a 5 mL syringe, which was connected to a capillary needle with an inside diameter of 0,8 mm. A copper electrode was attached to the needle, a DC power supply produces 25 kV against a grounded collector screen distant 15cm. With the syringe pump set at 2 mL/h, the electric force overcomes the surface tension of the solution at the capillary tip, and a jet emerges. Produced fibers were collected on the rotary collector which spins at 250 rpm. Nanofiber was dried at 60 degrees C for 12 h in vacuum oven. Eventually, nanofiber of polyacrylonitrile (PAN) reinforced by metallic nanoparticles and graphene nanoribbon (GNR) were prepared by electro spinning process. Electrical conductivity of the obtained nanofiber were studied by measuring the electrical resistance thanks to home-made plate electrodes.

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

3.8
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