| Literature DB >> 35480213 |
Zhaohua Liu1, Jiye Sun1, Haijun Song1, Yicheng Pan1, Yufei Song1, Yuehong Zhu1, Yuanyuan Yao2, Fengli Huang1, Chuncheng Zuo1.
Abstract
Conducting polymer thermoelectric (TE) materials have received great attention due to their unique properties. In this work, polypyrrole (PPy)/single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) composite films with improved TE performance have been prepared by chemical interfacial polymerization at the cyclohexane/water interface under a controlled temperature. Attributed to the smooth surface, higher conjugation length and more ordered molecular structure of the interfacial polymerized PPy film, the electrical conductivity can be as high as ∼500 S cm-1. To further enhance the TE properties of PPy, SWCNT was added to construct a PPy/SWCNTs composite. Due to the synergistic effect between the two phases and the energy filtering effect at the interfaces between PPy and SWCNTs, the Seebeck coefficient of the composite enhanced significantly with the increase SWCNTs content. The composite shows an optimal power factor of 37.6 ± 2.3 μW mK-2 when the content of SWCNTs is 0.8 mg. This value is one of the largest values among the reported PPy based composites fabricated by the chemical polymerization method. The results indicate that interfacial polymerization under a controlled temperature is a promising way to improve the TE performance of conducting polymer based composite materials. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35480213 PMCID: PMC9033191 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra02733f
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Schematic illustration of the procedure to prepare PPy/SWCNTs composite film.
Fig. 2FE-SEM images of the prepared samples: in situ polymerized PPy powder (A); interfacial polymerized PPy film (B); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.3 mg) composite film (C); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.5 mg) composite film (D); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.8 mg) composite film (E).
Fig. 3FTIR spectra of the prepared samples: in situ polymerized PPy powder (A); interfacial polymerized PPy film (B); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.3 mg) composite film (C); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.5 mg) composite film (D); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.8 mg) composite film (E).
Fig. 4Raman spectra of the prepared samples: in situ polymerized PPy powder (A); interfacial polymerized PPy film (B); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.3 mg) composite film (C); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.5 mg) composite film (D); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.8 mg) composite film (E).
Fig. 5Electrical conductivity (a), Seebeck coefficient (b) and power factor (c) of the prepared samples: in situ polymerized PPy powder (A); interfacial polymerized PPy film (B); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.3 mg) composite film (C); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.5 mg) composite film (D); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (0.8 mg) composite film (E); interfacial polymerized PPy/SWCNTs (1 mg) composite film (F).
Comparison of the TE performance of PPy based materials
| Materials | Methods | Electrical conductivity (S m−1) | Seebeck coefficient (μV K−1) | Power factor (μW mK−2) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPy nanowires | Chemical oxidation polymerization | 221.7 ± 30.2 | 10.1 ± 0.1 | (22.6 ± 3.6) × 10−3 |
|
| Free-standing PPy films | Interfacial chemical polymerization | 162.7 × 102 | 4–8 | 0.45 |
|
| PPy nanotube | Chemical oxidation polymerization | 3382 | 12.76 | 0.55 |
|
| PPy nanowire/rGO | Interfacial adsorption-soft template polymerization | 75.1 × 102 | 33.8 | 8.56 ± 0.76 |
|
| PPy/SWCNT | Physical mixing and vacuum filtration | ∼300 × 102 | ∼25 | 21.7 ± 0.8 |
|
| PPy/rGO | Template-directed | 41.6 × 102 | 26.9 | 3.01 |
|
| PPy/silver nanocomposite | Photo-polymerization | 11.87 × 102 | 6.85 | 0.056 |
|
| PPy/MWCNTs (68 wt%) |
| 35–40 × 102 | 24.4 | 2.2 |
|
| PPy/SWCNTs | Interfacial polymerization | 341.6 ± 4.7 × 102 | 33.2 ± 0.7 | 37.6 ± 2.3 | This work |