| Literature DB >> 28362331 |
Kerstin Müller1, Elodie Bugnicourt2, Marcos Latorre3, Maria Jorda4, Yolanda Echegoyen Sanz5,6, José M Lagaron7, Oliver Miesbauer8, Alvise Bianchin9, Steve Hankin10, Uwe Bölz11, Germán Pérez12, Marius Jesdinszki13, Martina Lindner14, Zuzana Scheuerer15, Sara Castelló16, Markus Schmid17,18.
Abstract
For the last decades, nanocomposites materials have been widely studied in the scientific literature as they provide substantial properties enhancements, even at low nanoparticles content. Their performance depends on a number of parameters but the nanoparticles dispersion and distribution state remains the key challenge in order to obtain the full nanocomposites' potential in terms of, e.g., flame retardance, mechanical, barrier and thermal properties, etc., that would allow extending their use in the industry. While the amount of existing research and indeed review papers regarding the formulation of nanocomposites is already significant, after listing the most common applications, this review focuses more in-depth on the properties and materials of relevance in three target sectors: packaging, solar energy and automotive. In terms of advances in the processing of nanocomposites, this review discusses various enhancement technologies such as the use of ultrasounds for in-process nanoparticles dispersion. In the case of nanocoatings, it describes the different conventionally used processes as well as nanoparticles deposition by electro-hydrodynamic processing. All in all, this review gives the basics both in terms of composition and of processing aspects to reach optimal properties for using nanocomposites in the selected applications. As an outlook, up-to-date nanosafety issues are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: barrier improvement; electrospraying; light-weight materials; nanocomposite; nanodeposit; self-cleaning surfaces
Year: 2017 PMID: 28362331 PMCID: PMC5408166 DOI: 10.3390/nano7040074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Different types of composites arising from the interaction of layered silicates and polymer. (I) Phase separated microcomposite, (II) intercalated nanocomposites and (III) exfoliated nanocomposites. Adapted from [31].
Figure 2Melt intercalation synthesis of polymer/clay nanocomposite. Adapted from [27].
Figure 3Mechanism of clay dispersion and exfoliation during melt processing. Adapted from [48,50].
Figure 4Surface of a polyethylene terephthalate film with particle, partially covered by a SiO layer (Source: Fraunhofer IVV) [80].
Figure 5Comparison of oxygen permeability (OP) and water vapour transmission rate (WVTR) properties for different polymers normalized to 100 µm thickness. Source: Fraunhofer IVV [55].
Figure 6“Tortuous pathway” created by incorporation of exfoliated clay nanoplatelets into a polymer matrix film. In a film composed only of polymer (I), diffusing gas molecules on average migrate via a pathway that is perpendicular to the film orientation in a nanocomposite (II), diffusing molecules must navigate around impenetrable particles/platelets and through interfacial zones which have different permeability characteristics than those of the virgin polymer. Adapted from [133].
Models for predicting barrier properties of platelet filled nanocomposites [8].
| Model | Filler Type | Particle Geometry | Formulas | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nielsen | Ribbon a | ( | [ | |
| Cussler (Regular array) | Ribbon a | ( | [ | |
| Cussler (Random array) | Ribbon a | ( | [ | |
| Gusev and Lusti | Disk b | ( | [ | |
| Fredrickson and Bicerano | Disk b | ( | [ | |
| Bharadwaj | Disk b | ( | [ |
a For ribbons, length is infinite, width, w; thickness, t; aspect ratio, a = w/h; b For disks, circular shape of diameter d and thickness t; aspect ratio, a = d/h.
Figure 7Comparison of modulus reinforcement (relative to matrix polymer) for nanocomposites based on montmorillonite (MMT) versus glass fibre for a PA 6 matrix [141].
Glass transition changes with nano-filler incorporation. SWCNT = single-walled carbon nanotubes; MMT = montmorillonite; MWCNT = multi-walled carbon nanotubes.
| Polymer | Nanofiller | References | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWCNT | 3 | [ | |
| SiC (0.5–1.5 wt %) (20–60 nm particles) | No change | [ | |
| Exfoliated clay (MMT) (<10 wt %) | 1 to 3 | [ | |
| Silica (2–3 nm) | 10 | [ | |
| Nanoclay (4 wt %) | 13 | [ | |
| Nanoclay (2.5–15.1 wt %) | 4–13 | [ | |
| MWCNT (0.25–6.98 wt %) | 4 to 8 | [ | |
| Nanoclay (5 wt %) | 6.7 | [ | |
| Nanoclay (5 wt %) | 3 | [ | |
| Mica (3 wt %) | 6 | [ | |
| Nanoclay (3 wt %) | 1 to 4 | [ |
Figure 8Structure of montmorillonite (phyllosilicate clay). Adapted from [133].
Examples of polymer-clay nanocomposites and their barrier improvements. Permeabilities are expressed as improvement ratios: the ratio of the gas permeability or transmission rate of the virgin polymer to the gas permeability or transmission rate of the polymer-clay composite, measured at the same conditions [133].
| Polymer Matrix | Filler | Clay (wt %) | References | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modified montmorillonite | 16.7 | 2.8 | [ | ||
| Modified montmorillonite | 5 | 15.6 | 1.2 | [ | |
| Modified montmorillonite | 5 | 2.23 | 1.15 | [ | |
| Kaolinite | 5 | 3–4 | 1.2 | [ | |
| Montmorillonite | 5 | 1.16 | 1.21 | [ | |
| Modified montmorillonite | 5 | 1.2–1.9 | 1.7–2 | [ | |
| Mica | 4 | 2.8 | [ | ||
| Kaolinite | 5 | 1.26 | 1.06 | [ | |
| Modified montmorillonite | 4 | 1.2–1.7 | [ | ||
| Modified montmorillonite | 5 | 2.8–2.9 | 1.8–2.4 | [ | |
| Modified montmorillonite | 4.76 | 2.2 | [ |
Representative examples of graphene-based nanocomposites targeting to improve gas barrier properties [276].
| Polymer Matrix | Type of Graphene | Preparation Method | Maximum Fraction | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GO | Melting | 2.27 vol % | [ | |
| Functionalized graphene | Solution mixing | 5 wt % | [ | |
| Functionalized GO | Solution mixing | 3 wt% | [ | |
| Reduced GO | Melting | 1.5 wt% | [ | |
| GO, graphene | Solution mixing | 0.6 wt% | [ | |
| Reduced GO | Melting | 1 wt % | [ |