Effects of processing and functionalization methods on nylon‐6,6 nanocomposites with Helical‐ribbon carbon nanofibers

Abstract

Helical‐ribbon carbon nanofiber‐based nylon‐6,6 nanocomposites were obtained by three processing methods: in situ polymerization, solvent processing through coagulation, and melt compounding. Composites were produced with pristine carbon nanofibers and four functionalization treatments, HNO3, O3, air/NH3, and ethylenediamine, which form sets of two liquid/gas phase treatments and two acidic/basic treatments. Dispersion was monitored at the microscale by optical microscopy, showing clear differences depending on processing and functionalization methods. The best dispersion was obtained by solvent processing, whereas the most appropriate functionalizations were obtained by air/NH3 and ethylenediamine treatments. It was observed that lower aspect ratio CNFs and stronger CNF‐matrix interaction increased crystallization temperature. Percolation was not detected in the melt‐compounded composites while network formation was observed at concentrations of 2 wt % in the solvent and in situ processing methods, where a high‐aspect ratio was critical for performance. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2012

A Study of Surface Modifications of Carbon Nanotubes on the Properties of Polyamide 66/Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube Composites

“…Therefore modification and reinforcement of PA66 have drawn much attention to improve its physical properties and to introduce new properties. For example, Rodriguez-Pastor et al [12] reported the preparation of helical-ribbon carbon nanofiber-based nylon-6,6 composites by three processing methods and the effect of CNTs modification methods on the properties of composites. Krause et al [13] investigated the influence of CNTs production method and aspect ratio on percolation threshold of melt-mixed PA66.…”

Polyethylene with MoS2 nanoparticles toward antibacterial active packaging

“…In carbon nanoparticles, the mean particle size of the detected agglomerates is around 0.9 μm 2 51 . Well dispersed fillers in a nanocomposite displayed a homogeneous particle distribution through the whole matrix rather than some large agglomerate in a specific area 52 . The composite with 0.5 wt% of MoS 2 showed mostly small agglomerates (smaller than 5 μm) that are well dispersed through the matrix, and the same tendency is observed by increasing the filler concentration to 1.0 wt%, although some larger agglomerates are further observed.…”