4.7 Article

Variations of tunneling properties in poly (lactic acid) (PLA)/poly (ethylene oxide) (PEO)/carbon nanotubes (CNT) nanocomposites during hydrolytic degradation

期刊

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS A-PHYSICAL
卷 274, 期 -, 页码 28-36

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.sna.2018.03.004

关键词

PLA/PEO/CNT Nanocomposites; Hydrolytic degradation; Conductivity; Tunneling properties

资金

  1. Ministry of Trade, Industry Energy (MOTIE)
  2. Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT)
  3. Ulsan Institute For Regional Program Evaluation (IRPE) through the Encouragement Program for The Industries of Economic Cooperation Region

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The combination of poly (lactic acid) (PLA) with water-soluble poly (ethylene oxide) (PEO) and carbon nanotubes (CNT) presents interesting results during hydrolytic degradation. This paper investigates the conductivity of PLA/PEO/CNT nanocomposites during degradation in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution. A simple model is suggested to express the conductivity of samples during degradation by CNT properties, degradation fraction, interphase thickness and tunneling properties. The calculations of developed model are compared to the experimental data and the variations of tunneling resistivity and tunneling distance are explained. Moreover, the parametric examinations are applied to confirm the developed model. The predictions of conductivity acceptably agree with the experimental data during degradation. The degradation reduces the tunneling resistivity and tunneling distance between neighboring CNT, due to the exclusion of polymer matrix. The results demonstrate the positive effects of high degradation fraction, thick interphase, large tunneling diameter, slight tunneling resistivity and short tunneling distance between adjacent CNT on the conductivity of degraded nanocomposites. The current study can provide useful guidelines for analysis of conductivity in nanocomposites during degradation. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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