| Literature DB >> 33564464 |
Richard Zepp1, Emmanuel Ruggiero2, Brad Acrey1,3, Mary J B Davis1,4, Changseok Han3,5,6, Hsin-Se Hsieh1,4, Klaus Vilsmeier2, Wendel Wohlleben2, Endalkachew Sahle-Demessie5.
Abstract
In recent years, an increasing number of polymeric composites incorporating engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) have reached the market. Such nano-enabled products (Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33564464 PMCID: PMC7869489 DOI: 10.1039/c9en01360a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Nano
Supplier and material specifications of nanocomposites
| Nano-composite | Polymer matrix | Polymer supplier | ENM filler | ENM supplier and grade | Filler size specifications | Filler loading (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diameter/thickness (nm) | Length (µm) | Surface area (m2 g−1) | w/w | v/v | |||||
| Epoxy–MWCNT | Epoxy | University Kaiserslautern | MWCNT | Nanocyl; NC7000 | 10 | 1.5 | 250–300 | 0.38 | 0.22 |
| Epoxy–GP | Epoxy | University Kaiserslautern | GP | ACS material | 10 | — | 40 | 1 | 0.6 |
| Epoxy–CB | Epoxy | University Kaiserslautern | CB | Ensaco; conductive grade | 46 | — | 65 | 3.4 | 2 |
| Epoxy–WS2 | Epoxy | University Kaiserslautern | WS2 | ApNano | 30–150 | 1–20 | — | 1.5 | 0.22 |
| Epoxy–SiO2 | Epoxy | University Kaiserslautern | SiO2 | Evonik; Aerosil | 13 | — | 200 | 3 | 1.5 |
| PA–kaolin | Polyamide (PA) | BASF SE | Kaolin | BASF SE | 280 | — | 24 | 25 | — |
| CB | BASF SE | 80 | — | 30 | ∼2 | — | |||
| PP–Fe2O3 | Poly-propylene (PP) | Borealis | Fe2O3 | Borealis | 12 | — | 107 | 1 | — |
| PP–Cu-phthalocyanine | Poly-propylene (PP) | Borealis | Cu-Phthalocyanine | BASF SE | 19 | — | 53 | 0.5 | — |
Fig. 1ATR-FTIR spectra of (a) neat epoxy, (b) epoxy–CB, (c) epoxy–CNT, and (d) epoxy–GP composites, after 0, 500, 1000, and 2500 h of wet weathering (arrows show absorption peaks used to calculate the CI).
Fig. 2Optical images (250×) of surfaces of: (A) unfilled epoxy, (B) epoxy–carbon black composite, (C) epoxy–graphene composite, (D) epoxy– MWCNT composite, (E) epoxy–SiO2 composite, (F) unfilled polypropylene, (G) PP–Fe2O3. The left half of each image shows un-weathered sample and the right half shows samples weathered for 2500 h in an accelerated wet weathering chamber. Scale bar is 250 µm for all images.
Fig. 3Scanning electron microscope (1000×) images of the surface of un-degraded (0 h) and degraded (2500 h wet aging) samples (A) epoxy, (B) epoxy–MWCNT composite, (C) epoxy–carbon black composite, (D) epoxy–graphene composite, (E) epoxy–SiO2 composite. The leftmost column shows un-degraded samples, the center column shows degraded samples, and the rightmost column shows insets of the center images with 20 000× to 40 000× magnification. Scale bar for the for two left column images are 10 µm, and for the right column image 0.5 µm.
Fig. 4Changes in the contact angle of unfilled and filled epoxy after selected amounts of weathering under wet conditions.
Fig. 5Absorption coefficient measurements at 275 nm (α275) of leaching fluids from (A) epoxy and (B) PA samples, resulting from different aging (time, wet/dry) and fractionation (fractionated/non-fractionated) protocols. Wet-aged samples were averaged between laboratories. Dry-aged samples were aged and analyzed by BASF only.
Fig. 6Transmission electron microscope images of released polymer fragments and nanofillers from 1000 h aged wafers of unfilled epoxy under dry (A and B) and wet (C and D) conditions, epoxy–CNT under dry (E and F) and wet (G and H) conditions, epoxy–graphene under dry (I and J) and wet (K and L) conditions, epoxy–CB under wet (M and N) conditions and epoxy–SiO2 under wet (O and P) conditions.
Fig. 7A selection of TEM pictures of debris present in the leachates of PA wafers. In the first row, PA wafers were aged (A and B) 0 h and (C and D) 2500 h in the second row, PA–kaolin wafers were weathered (E and F) 0 h and (G and H) 1000 h.