| Literature DB >> 35162946 |
Mohamed S A Darwish1, Mohamed H Mostafa1, Laila M Al-Harbi2.
Abstract
Polymeric nanocomposites (PNC) have an outstanding potential for various applications as the integrated structure of the PNCs exhibits properties that none of its component materials individually possess. Moreover, it is possible to fabricate PNCs into desired shapes and sizes, which would enable controlling their properties, such as their surface area, magnetic behavior, optical properties, and catalytic activity. The low cost and light weight of PNCs have further contributed to their potential in various environmental and industrial applications. Stimuli-responsive nanocomposites are a subgroup of PNCs having a minimum of one promising chemical and physical property that may be controlled by or follow a stimulus response. Such outstanding properties and behaviors have extended the scope of application of these nanocomposites. The present review discusses the various methods of preparation available for PNCs, including in situ synthesis, solution mixing, melt blending, and electrospinning. In addition, various environmental and industrial applications of PNCs, including those in the fields of water treatment, electromagnetic shielding in aerospace applications, sensor devices, and food packaging, are outlined.Entities:
Keywords: electromagnetic shielding; food packaging; polymeric nanocomposites; sensing; water treatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35162946 PMCID: PMC8835668 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23031023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Schematic illustration for the in situ polymerization method (taken from [27]).
Figure 2Schematic illustration for the solution mixing method (taken from [27]).
Figure 3Schematic representation for preparing polymer nanocomposites by melt blending (taken from [37]).
Figure 4The set-up of electrospinning technique (taken from [45]).
Figure 5Complexation reaction between chitosan functional groups and Zn+2 ions of ZnO nanoparticles (taken from [46]).
Figure 6Classification of the responsive nanocomposite (taken from [9]).
Figure 7Reversible phase transition of thermo-responsive polymers (taken from [9]).
Figure 8Artificially induced hyperthermia (taken from [77]).
Performance of some polymer nanocomposites in dye removal.
| Polymer Nanocomposite | Dye | Results | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chitosan/CuO | Congo red (CR) | A total of 97% of dyes were removed within 2 h. Maximum adsorption capacity of CR and EBT were 119.70 and 235.70 mgg−1 | [ |
| Molecularly imprinted | Rose Bengal (RB) | The adsorption capacity for RB was 79.365 mg/g and enthalpy was 62.279 kJ mol−1 | [ |
| Chitosan/ZnO | Methylene blue (MB) | 96.7% of MB dye was removed | [ |
| ZnO/Cellulose | Methylene blue (MB) | 93.55% and 99.02% of MB and MG were removed within 5 min. The absorption capacity was 46.77 and 49.51 mg/g for MB and MG | [ |
| ZnO/Poly(methyl methacrylate) nanocomposite membrane | Methylene blue (MB) | About 100% of MB was removed within 80 min | [ |
| Poly(methyl methacrylate)/Multiwall carbon nanotube | Methyl green (MG) | The Langmuir adsorption capacity for MG was 6.85 mmol/g at 25 °C | [ |
| Polyacrylic acid/Fe3O4/Carboxylated cellulose nanocrystals nanocomposite | MB | The maximum adsorption capacity for MB was 332 mg g−1 | [ |
| Fe3O4/Starch/Poly (acrylic acid) nanocomposite hydrogel | Methylene violet (MV) | A maximum of 93.83% and 99.32% CR and MV dyes with maximum adsorption of 96.7% and 97.5% | [ |
| Polylactic acid/Graphene oxide/Chitosan | Crystal violet (CV) | 97.8 ± 0.5% of CV was removed | [ |
| Polypyrrole/Zeolite | Reactive blue (RB) | A total of 86.2% of RB and 88.3% of RR were adsorbed from synthetic solution | [ |
Figure 9Schematic representation of the adsorption mechanisms by polyaniline/TiO2 nanocomposite (taken from [89]).
Performance of some polymer nanocomposites in metal ion removal.
| Polymer Nanocomposite | Metal Ion | Results | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polyaniline/Reduced graphene oxide nanocomposite | Hg(II) | The adsorption capacity was 1000.00 mg/g | [ |
| Fe3O4/starch/Poly(acrylic acid) nanocomposite hydrogel | Cu(II) | 95.4% of Cu(II) and 88.4% of Pb(II) were removed at pH of 6.0 and 5.5 | [ |
| Graphene oxide/Chitosan/ | Cr (VI) | The adsorption capacity for Cr(VI) was 270.27 mg g−1 at pH of 2.0. | [ |
| Magnetic chitosan/Functionalized 3D graphene nanocomposite | Pb (II) | The efficiency of Pb(II) removal is 100% at pH of 8.5 within 18 min | [ |
| Bacterial cellulose/Amorphous TiO2 nanocomposite | Pb(II) | A total of 90% of Pb(II) was removed in 120 min at pH 7 | [ |
| Cellulose/TiO2 nanocomposite | Zn(II) | Maximum adsorption capacity for Zn(II), Cd(II) and Pb(II) was 102.04, 102.05 and 120.48 mg/g | [ |
| Polyacrylamide/Sodium | Ni (II) | A total of 99.3% of Ni(II) and 98.7% of Co (II) was removed at pH 6. | [ |
| Polyacrylamide/Bentonite hydrogel nanocomposite | Pb (II) | More than 95% of Pb (II) and Cd (II) were removed within first 20 min. Maximum adsorption capacity for Pb (II) and Cd (II) was 138.33 and 200.41 mg/g. | [ |
| Modified mesoporous silica/Poly(methyl methacrylate) nanocomposites | Cu (II) | Maximum adsorption capacity for Cu (II) was 41.5 mg/g at pH 4 and 140 min | [ |
| Xanthan gum grafted | Cr(VI) | Maximum adsorption capacity was 346.18 mg g–1 for Cr(VI) | [ |
Figure 10Schematic representation of metal ion adsorption by nanocomposite (Taken from [114]).
Performance of some polymer nanocomposites in sensors.
| Polymer | Type of Sensor | Target | Results | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NiO– chitosan/ZnO/Zinc hexacyanoferrate nanocomposite film | Biosensor | Triolein | Optimum response: within 4 s | [ |
| GOx/MWCNTs-polyaniline | Biosensor | Glucose | Electrical conductivity: 3.78 × 10−1 Scm−1 | [ |
| Polyaniline/MWCNTs/Au NPs nanocomposite modified glass carbon electrode | Biosensor | Glucose | Detection limit: 0.19 mM | [ |
| Polypyrrole/MWCNTs/GOx nanocomposite | Biosensor | Glucose | The linear range: up to 4 mM | [ |
| Polypyrrole/MWCNTs/Au NPs/ChOx | Biosensor | Cholesterol | Linear response: (2 × 10−3 to 8 × 10−3 M) Detection limit: 0.1 × 10−3 M | [ |
| Polyaniline/ | Gas | Ammonia Vapor | High sensitivity (92% for100 ppm) | [ |
| Polypyrrole/Nitrogen-doped MWCNTs film | Gas | NO2 gas | The sensor possessed high response of 24.82% (Rg − Ra)/Ra × 100%) under 5 ppm of NO2. The sensor had outstanding selectivity, repeatability and stability | [ |
| Ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid/Polyaniline/MWCNTs. with carbon electrode | Metal ion sensor | Pb+2 | Detection limit: 22 pM | [ |
| Polypyrrole/MWCNTs deposited on electrode | Metal ion sensor | Pb+2 ions | Detection limit: 2.9 × 10−9 mol/L (S/N = 3) | [ |
| Polyaniline/MWCNTs -3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane casted on glassy carbon electrode | Metal ion sensor | Cd+2 ions | Detection limit: 0.015 µM | [ |
| Modified glassy carbon electrode with polythiophene/COOH -MWCNTs/reduced graphene oxide | Metal ion sensor | Hg+2 ions | Linear range: (0.1 to 25 µM) | [ |
Figure 11Schematic representation of biosensor (taken from [132]).
Figure 12Fabrication of nanocomposite electrode (taken from [138]).
Figure 13Schematic representation of EMI shielding (taken from [164]).
Shielding performance of some lightweight polymer nanocomposites.
| Polymer Nanocomposites | Thickness | Shielding | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poly (methyl methacrylate)/Multi-walled carbon nanotubes | 0.06 | 27 | [ |
| Nitrile butadiene rubber/Fe3O4 | 2 | 80–90 | [ |
| Poly(vinyl alcohol)/Fe3O4 | 4.5 | 6 | [ |
| Polyurethane/Multi-walled | 0.1–0.2 | 20–29 | [ |
| Polyacrylate/Multi-walled carbon nanotubes | 1.5 | 25 | [ |
| Polypropylene/Carbon black | 2.8 | 40 | [ |
| Polysulfone/Carbon nofiber | 1 | 45 | [ |
| Polylactide/Graphene | 1.5 | 15 | [ |
| Polyaniline/Grahene | 2.5 | 45.1 | [ |
| Polyetherimide/Graphene | 2.3 | 44 | [ |
| Poly (methyl methacrylate)/Single-walled carbon nanotubes | 4.5 | 40 | [ |
Figure 14Functions of active packaging to improve self-life of packaged food (taken from [189]).