4.6 Article

Wide concentration liquid crystallinity of graphene oxide aqueous suspensions with interacting polymers

期刊

MATERIALS HORIZONS
卷 4, 期 6, 页码 1157-1164

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7mh00624a

关键词

-

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2014R1A1A2056774]
  2. Nano Material Technology Development Program through NRF - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [NRF-2016M3A7B4905624]
  3. National Creative Research Initiative (CRI) Center for Multi-Dimensional Directed Nanoscale Assembly [2015R1A3A2033061]
  4. UCRF
  5. MSIIP
  6. POSTECH
  7. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1A3A2033061, 2016M3A7B4905613, 2014R1A1A2056774] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Graphene oxides (GOs), an oxygenated derivative of graphene, spontaneously undergo monolayer exfoliation in water, and thus, form liquid crystalline (LC) suspensions. Unfortunately, the resultant suspensions vitrify at around a 1 wt% composition, which commonly acts as an obstacle for GO-basedmaterial fabrication, while degrading the molecular ordering and relevant material properties. Here, we systematically investigate the phase behaviour and structural evolution of GO LC suspensions under various experimental conditions and disclose how the glass transition of GO dispersions is affected particularly in the presence of strongly interacting polymers. The supplementary polymer additives can effectively retard the 'glass transition' of a GO suspension, broaden the concentration range for a nematic LC phase toward lower and higher concentration ranges and dramatically decrease the viscosity of the suspension down to the 1/100-1/1000 level. Extensive small-angle X-ray scattering and rheological measurements are employed to characterize the molecular level GO structures in LC suspensions.

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