4.7 Article

Morphology and physical properties of poly(ethylene oxide) loaded graphene nanocomposites prepared by two different techniques

期刊

EUROPEAN POLYMER JOURNAL
卷 47, 期 8, 页码 1534-1540

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2011.05.011

关键词

Nanocomposites; Graphene; Optical microscopy; Mechanical; Electrical; Casting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Organic-inorganic hybrids are artificially created structures presenting novel properties not exhibited by either of the component materials alone. In this contribution one addresses processing, morphology and properties of polymer nanocomposites reinforced graphene. First, synthesis routes to graphite oxide (GO) and foliated graphene sheets (FGS) are illustrated. Physical characterization of these graphene sheets were conducted using atomic force microscopy and X-ray diffraction techniques. Processing, structure and properties of graphene/poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) nanocomposites are discussed. FGS was dispersed into PEO via two different composite manufacturing techniques: melt compounding and solvent mixing. Morphology of dispersed graphene and properties from different blending routes are compared. TEM showed that graphene distributed parallel to the composite surface using solvent method, while distributed randomly in melt blended method. Optical measurements indicated that the transparency of PEO/graphene prepared by solvent method is higher than that of melt blended method in the visible region. Electrical conductivity measurements are employed to evaluate threshold concentration for rigidity and connectivity percolation. The percolation concentration of the composites prepared by solvent method is less than those of melt blended method. The mechanical performance of the composites prepared by solvent method is higher than melt blended. Halpin-Tsai model has been used to confirm the distribution of the graphene into PEO by the two different processing techniques. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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