| Literature DB >> 33810584 |
Norizan Mohd Nurazzi1,2, M R M Asyraf3, Abdan Khalina1, Norli Abdullah2, Fatimah Athiyah Sabaruddin1,4, Siti Hasnah Kamarudin5, So'bah Ahmad5, Annie Maria Mahat6, Chuan Li Lee1, H A Aisyah1, Mohd Nor Faiz Norrrahim7, R A Ilyas8, M M Harussani1, M R Ishak3, S M Sapuan1.
Abstract
A novel class of carbon nanotube (CNT)-based nanomaterials has been surging since 1991 due to their noticeable mechanical and electrical properties, as well as their good electron transport properties. This is evidence that the development of CNT-reinforced polymer composites could contribute in expanding many areas of use, from energy-related devices to structural components. As a promising material with a wide range of applications, their poor solubility in aqueous and organic solvents has hindered the utilizations of CNTs. The current state of research in CNTs-both single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) and multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWCNT)-reinforced polymer composites-was reviewed in the context of the presently employed covalent and non-covalent functionalization. As such, this overview intends to provide a critical assessment of a surging class of composite materials and unveil the successful development associated with CNT-incorporated polymer composites. The mechanisms related to the mechanical, thermal, and electrical performance of CNT-reinforced polymer composites is also discussed. It is vital to understand how the addition of CNTs in a polymer composite alters the microstructure at the micro- and nano-scale, as well as how these modifications influence overall structural behavior, not only in its as fabricated form but also its functionalization techniques. The technological superiority gained with CNT addition to polymer composites may be advantageous, but scientific values are here to be critically explored for reliable, sustainable, and structural reliability in different industrial needs.Entities:
Keywords: CNT nanocomposites; MWCNT; SWCNT; carbon nanotubes; covalent functionalization; non-covalent functionalization; polymer composites
Year: 2021 PMID: 33810584 PMCID: PMC8037012 DOI: 10.3390/polym13071047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
The advantages and limitations on some of the techniques used in the preparation of carbon nanotubes (CNTs). CVD: chemical vapor deposition.
| Technique | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Arc discharge |
Arc discharge was based on a high voltage arc to produce plasma. Produced higher quality CNTs than thermally produced CVD materials. |
Produce limited scale production of CNTs Produced by products such as soot and amorphous carbon and needs to be further purified. Produce random arrangement of CNTs. |
| Laser ablation |
Produce high-quality CNTs in a large amount. Laser ablation utilizes a laser to add radiation energy to the synthesis reaction. |
High-energy consumption Adhering impurities, thus requiring further purification. |
| CVD |
Produce large scale of CNT production and vertical alignment of CNTs. Little impurities compared to arch discharge and laser ablation. Better control of CNT growth. Simple technique, consumes less energy, and is versatile. |
Higher in CNT relative defectiveness. Complex process, difficulty in process controlling. Production of toxic and corrosive gases. |
Figure 1(a) The covalent functionalization phenomena at the side and end-caps of CNT structure (reproduced from [33]) and (b) non-covalent functionalization method for polymer wrapping (adapted from [54]).
Figure 2Distribution of micro- and nano-scale fillers: (a) Al2O3 particle, (b) carbon fiber, (c) graphene nano-platelets (GNPs), and (d) CNTs. Adapted from [82].
Figure 3(a) View of micro-compounder with different valves and channels; (b) the schematic representation of a twin-screw extruder for the melt mixing of CNT-reinforced nanocomposites. Adapted from [81,85].
Figure 4Schematic diagram of the fabrication process for the CNT–epoxy composites: (a) preparation of CNT suspension and (b) preparation of CNT–epoxy composite. Adapted from [96].
Figure 5Schematic of the resin transfer molding process for fabricating CNT/epoxy composites. Adapted from [99].
Figure 6Schematic diagram showing aligned CNT sheet processing: (a) drawing and winding; (b) drawing, winding, and pressing (reproduced from [108]). (c) CNT sheet processing: (1) drawing and winding technique; (2) drawing, winding, and pressing process; (3) non-pressed CNT sheet; and (4–6) pressed CNT sheets under corresponding press load. Reproduced from [107].
Figure 7Schematic diagram for the shear mixing technique. Reproduced from [32].
Figure 8Schematic representation of in situ polymerization process. Reproduced from [90].
Summary of advantages and limitations of fabrication techniques for CNT-reinforced polymer composites.
| Technique | Advantages | Limitations | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Melt mixing |
Able to use for large scales industrial applications Available for all thermoplastic materials |
Mixing processes able to damage the length of nanotubes | [ |
| Solution mixing |
Produces tougher material Low electrical percolation threshold Homogeneous dispersion of CNTs |
Limited to polymers that are soluble in solvents More brittle samples Non-uniform and inferior properties Low surface density of CNTs Limited applications | [ |
| Sonication |
Enhancing the dispersion of CNTs Improves the mechanical properties |
Breakage of CNTs causes the problem of mixing-induced fracture High-power and long sonication time reduce the aspect ratio of CNT Deterioration in properties | [ |
| Resin transfer molding |
Cost-effective High production rate Ideal for the production of complex shapes dissipation. Homogenous dispersion Unable to achieve the high loading and controllable orientation of CNTs Smooth surface on both sides Possibility for gelcoat on both sides Tolerance-stable work pieces |
Effect of edge flow The smoothness and uniformity of the flow pattern can be disrupted Defects during the filling of the mold cavity Resin velocity may vary from point to point due to non-uniformity and rough fiber structure Formation of voids | [ |
| Bucky paper resin infiltration |
Simple way to create polymer nanocomposites with a high loading of CNTs Improves mechanical and electrical properties |
High viscosity causes problems of dispersion Difficult to accomplish the complete impregnation of epoxy resin in bucky paper | [ |
| Aligned CNT sheet processing |
High volume fraction composites with desirable structural characteristics can be produced Effective in creating superior CNT sheets with high alignment and dense, high-performance structural composites |
The mechanical properties of the composites may be degraded by the waviness and poor packing of CNTs in the sheets Hard to handle and to perform mechanical stretching | [ |
| Shear Mixing |
Exhibits better mechanical properties Able to separate the aggregates apart from each other Great technique for dispersion Effectively separates the CNTs without causing filament damage A three-roll mill -prepared epoxy composites have higher electrical conductivity |
Unable to achieve a level of stress matching the density of binding energy Tubes will be broken for the full separation of long CNTs during the process A pulling effect (a tensile force) on the nanotube can be induced Dispersion techniques supplying high energy input may induce CNT fracture Shear mixing for a long time may lead to tube lengths being shortened, thus deteriorating composite properties | [ |
| In-situ polymerization |
Flexible, robust, and large-area membranes can been prepared with vertically aligned arrays of carbon nanotubes Produces pores will prevent nanotube alignment from blocking the pores and disturbing them Flexible, aligned CNT membranes with relatively high CNT density |
Poor CNT alignment Increases viscosity along with progress | [ |
Typical mechanical properties of CNT with other common structural materials. SWCNT: single-walled carbon nanotube; MWCTN: multiwalled carbon nanotube.
| Type of CNT | Young’s Modulus (TPa) | Tensile Strength (GPa) |
|---|---|---|
| SWCNT | 0.65–5.5 | 126 |
| MWCNT | 0.2–1.0 | >63 (300) |
| Stainless steel | 0.186–0.214 | 0.38–1.55 |
| Kevlar | 0.06–0.18 | 3.6–3.8 |
| Diamond | 1.22 | >60 (225) |
| Aluminum | 71 | 0.65 |
| Glass Fibers | 72 | 3 |
| Carbon Fibers | 300 | 3 |
| Silicon Carbide Fibers | 450 | 10 |
Mechanical, electrical, and thermal properties of pure polyimide and a CNT/polyimide composite.
| Sample | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Elastic Modulus (GPa) | Thermal Conductivity (W/mK−1) | Electrical Conductivity (Scm−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pristine polyimide | 227.70 | 4.04 | 0.027 | 10−16 |
| CNT/polyimide | 680 | 53.73 | 18.4 | 183.3 |
Figure 9SEM micrographs of tensile fracture surface of CNT/polyimide composite. Reproduced from [104].
Young’s modulus of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) reinforced with (5, 5) CNTs.
| Aspect Ratio of CNT (L/d) | Young’s Modulus (MPa) |
|---|---|
| 7.23 | 3.90 |
| 14.21 | 4.73 |
| 22.01 | 6.85 |
| ∞ | 46.73 |
Tensile properties of polyimide/SWCNT composites.
| SWCNT Loading (wt.%) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Tensile Modulus (GPa) | Elongation (%) | Toughness (mJ/mm3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 74 | 2.2 | 175 | 123 |
| 0.1 | 86 | 2.6 | 125 | 100 |
| 0.3 | 94 | 2.8 | 110 | 92 |
| 1.0 | 100 | 3.2 | 20 | 6 |
Summary of the mechanical properties of CNT–polymer composites from 2015 to 2020.
| Type of CNT | Filler Content (%) | Matrix | Fabrication | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Tensile Modulus (GPa) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thermoplastic polymer | ||||||
| MWCNTs | 2 wt.% | PC | Grafting extrusion | 61 | 1.45 | [ |
| MWCNTs | 8 wt.% | HDPE | Compression molding and blown film extrusion | 18 | 2.3 | [ |
| MWCNTs | 15 wt.% | PP | Melt mixing and extrusion | 47 | 0.37 | [ |
| Cu MWCNTs | 2 wt.% | PLA/ESO | Mechanical stirring and sonication | 0.8 | 0.97 (33% increase) | [ |
| MWCNTs | 1.5 wt.% | TPU | Sonication and stirring | 63 | 0.095 (280% increase) | [ |
| MWCNTs | 10 wt.% | UHMWPE | Solution mixing and sintering | 22 | 0.25 (20% increase) | [ |
| Amide MWCNTs | 0.5 wt.% | WBPU | Sonication and stirring | 12 | 0.07 (10% increase) | [ |
| Methanol MWCNTs | 35 wt.% | TPU-acetone | Sonication | 41 | 1.27 (950% increase) | [ |
| Iron (III) acetylacetonate MWCNTs | 1.5 wt.% | TPU | Sonication and stirring | 14 (100% increase) | [ | |
| MWCNTs | 5 wt.% | PP | Grinding and injection molding | 36 | 1.8 | [ |
| SWCNTs | 1 wt.% | PS | Ultrasonication | 12.7 | 0.01 | [ |
| Acid MWCNT | 5 wt.% | PMMA | Solution mixing | 30 (200% increase) | 1.3 | [ |
| MWCNTs | 1 wt.% | PP | Ultrasonication and hot-pressing | 25 | 2 | [ |
| Thermosetting polymer | ||||||
| ZnO | 1.7 wt.% | Epoxy | Sonication | 61 | 3.6 | [ |
| MWCNTs | 56 wt.% | Epoxy | CVD, rolling, and hot-pressing | 15.5 | [ | |
| MWCNTs | 1 wt.% | Epoxy | Ultrasonication | 125 (160% increase) | - | [ |
| Gelatin MWCNTs | 0.5 wt.% | Epoxy | Mechanical mixing and sonication | 98 (16% increase) | 2.91 (18% increase) | [ |
| MWCNTs | 3 wt.% | Epoxy | Ultrasonication and sonication | 31.42 (192% increase) | - | [ |
| MWCNTs | 3 wt.% | Epoxy | Ultrasonication and sonication | 339.90 | - | [ |
| MWCNTs | 1 wt.% | Epoxy | Ultrasonication and sonication | 105% increase | - | [ |
| MWCNTs | 3 wt.% | Epoxy | Ultrasonication and sonication | 52.225 (65% increase) | - | [ |
| MWCNTs | 3 wt.% | Epoxy | Ultrasonication | 230.13 (70.6% increase) | - | [ |
| MWCNTs | 3 wt.% | Epoxy | Ultrasonication | 24.83 (127% increase) | - | [ |
| CNTs | 5 wt.% | Epoxy | Extrusion and powder impregnation | 81 | - | [ |
| TA-PEI/MWCNTs | 0.4 wt.% | Epoxy | Ultrasonication | 80.83 (148% increase) | - | [ |
| Straight CNTs | 0.1 wt.% | Epoxy | Sonication and magnetic stirring | 72.91 (13.21% increase) | 25 (25.86% increase) | [ |
| Helical CNTs | 0.05 wt.% | Epoxy | Sonication and magnetic stirring | 72.75 MPa (12.96% increase) | 23.96 (25.24% increase) | [ |
| MWCNTs | 7.5–16 wt.% | Epoxy | Epoxidation and chemical treatment | 203 MPa (50% increase) | 8.4 (144% increase) | [ |
| CNT fiber | 0.1–2 wt.% | Epoxy | Direct spinning | 2.1 N/tex | - | [ |
| Pyrogallol MWCNT | 1.5 wt.% | Epoxy | Mechanical mixing | 76 | - | [ |
| MWCNTs | 0.4 wt.% | Epoxy | Mechanical mixing and hot pressing | 42 | 2 | [ |
Abbreviations: epoxidized soybean oil (ESO), high density polyethylene (HDPE), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene (PE), polylactic acid (PLA), polyethyleneimine (PEI), polypropylene (PP), tannic acid (TA), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), waterborne polyurethane (WBPU).
Transmissions in the thermal properties of various CNT–polymer composite materials based on their application.
| Type of Polymer | Type of CNT | CNT Content (wt.%) | Improvement Properties | Potential Application | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | SWCNT | 100 wt.% | Up to 3500 W/m·K | Heat sinks, connectors, batteries, light-emitting diode devices, automotive electronic control units, printed circuit boards, electronic assembly, and packaging | [ |
| Polyacrylate composites | MWCNT | 50–80 wt.% | ˄ ~0.50 to 1.67 W/m K | Aerospace and aeronautics material | [ |
| PLA | MWCNT | 0.25–2.5 wt.% | 27.5 mW·m−1K−1 | High performance thermal insulator | [ |
| Poly-dimethyl siloxane | MWCNT | ~2 wt.% | ˄ ~1.5 W/m·K | Thermal insulator/high thermal conductivity polymer composites | [ |
| Poly-dimethyl siloxane/Si | MWCNT | ~30% | ˄ ~10% of 3000 W/m·K | ||
| Polymer-based composite | CNTs | 30% | 1000–4000 W/m·K | Light-emitting diodes and thermal dissipation | [ |
| Polystyrene | MWCNT | 1% | ~30.2 mW/m-K without using any insulation gas | Super-thermal insulation properties | [ |
| Poly (vinylidene fluoride) | MWCNT/graphene(1:1) | 10% of (s-MWCNTs)/graphene (GE) | ˄ ~711.1% of 0.19 W/m·K | Heat exchanger | [ |
| PC | MWCNT | 2% | ˄ ~1.27 W/m·K | High performance thermal insulator | [ |
| Resol-type phenolic resin | MWCNT | up to 1% | ˄ ~35 °C of maximum degradation temperature | Strong network char layer without any cracks or opening | [ |
| Carbon prepreg (IM7) composite | SWCNT | 30% | ˄ 30% heat capacity | Pipes and heat exchangers, replacer material for heavy-lift rocket under the Space Launch System (SLS), and promising high performance material for future space vehicles. | [ |
| ˄ 30% thermal diffusivity | |||||
| ˄ ~120–150% thermal conductivity | |||||
| Epoxy | MWCNT | 0.3 wt.% | ˄ 35–42% of critical buckling temperature | Coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and thermal buckling of epoxy-based composites | [ |
| Epoxy | SWCNT | 1 wt.% | ˄ ~125% W/m·K | High performance thermal insulator | [ |
| 3 wt.% | ˄ ~30% W/m·K |
Figure 10Classifications of three different states concerning the percolation theory-based electrical conductance transition for CNT-filled polymer nanocomposites. Reproduced from [204].
Electrical conductance of CNTs and polymers with potential applications.
| Polymer | Types of CNT | CNT Content (wt.%) | Maximum Conductivity, σmax (Sm−1) | Potential Applications | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| PP | MWCNT | ≤3.5 | 21.9 | Conductive adhesive, coating, and resistor | [ |
| PC | SWCNT | ≤3.0 | 1.0 × 102 | Lightning strike protector, shielding, and coating | [ |
| PMMA | MWCNT | ≤3.0 | 2.0 × 10−4 | Electromagnetic interference shielding | [ |
| Ethylene-1-octene | MWCNT | 2.0 | 2.0 × 10−5 | Sensor, shielding | [ |
| Pyridinium salt polymer | SWCNT | 50% (content) | 1.6 × 104 | Thermoelectric materials | [ |
| PP | MWCNT | 3.2 (vol.%) | 1.2 × 107 | Electromagnetic shielding, anti-static cover, and chemical sensing | [ |
| PANI | f-MWCNT | ≤8.0 | 28.6 | Electromagnetic interference shielding | [ |
|
| |||||
| Derived epoxy | Hydroxyl-functionalized SWCNT | ≤5.0 | 101 | Metal replacement, sensor, and shielding | [ |
| Polyamide | MWCNT | 7 | 6 | Shielding, conductive adhesive, and coating | [ |
| Epoxy | MWCNT | 0.73 | 2.5 × 10−2 | Sensor and shielding | [ |
| Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer | SWCNT | - | 5.0 × 105 | Lightning strike protector, shielding, coating, and thermoelectric materials | [ |
| PVDF | MWCNT | 0.5 | 0.8 | Conductive adhesive and coating | [ |
| Vinyl ester | MWCNT | ≤0.5 | 10−1 | Electromagnetic shielding and sensor | [ |
| PPy | MWCNT | ≤0.5 | 8.05 × 102 | Solar cells and Li-ion battery | [ |
Occupational exposure limit values (OELs) for nanomaterial handling.
| Description | Benchmark Exposure Level |
|---|---|
| Fibrous, a high aspect ratio insoluble nanomaterials | 0.01 fibers/mL |
| Any nanomaterial that is already classified in its molecular or in its larger particle form a as carcinogenic, mutagenic, reproductive, and sensitizing (CMRS) toxin | 0.1 × OEL |
| Insoluble or poorly soluble nanomaterials not in the fibrous or CMRS categories | 0.066 × OEL |
| Soluble nanomaterials not in the fibrous or CMRS categories | 0.5 × OEL |
Recent progress of CNT–polymer composites.
| Applications | Types of CNT | Polymers | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biomedical goods, space vehicles, and stations | SWCNT | Poly (4-methyl-1-pentene) | [ |
| Biocatalytic films | SWCNT | PMMA | [ |
| Actuators and sensors for biomedical | MWCNT | Poly (vinyl alcohol) and poly(2-acrylamido-2-methyl-1-propane sulfonic acid) | [ |
| Supercapacitor electrode materials | MWCNT | PPy, | [ |
| External body components of automotive, yarn fiber, conductive plastic, and hot melt adhesives | MWCNT | PE | [ |
| Electronics, electrostatic discharge, and automotive and industrial goods | SWCNT and MWCNT | Polyamide | [ |
| Wind turbine blade and flame retardant | SWCNT and MWCNT | PU | [ |
Figure 11Application of CNT–polymer composites.
Yield strength and Young’s modulus at different strain levels and CNT loading.
| CNTs (wt. %) | σ10% (MPa) | Young’s Modulus (MPa) | Yield Strength (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4 | EO = 118 | 1 |
| 1 | 8 | 236 (2 × EO) | 3 |
| 4 | 10 | 456 (3.9 × EO) | 6 |