Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T06:57:55.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Modeling of Toluene Diffusion and Swelling Behavior in EEA-CNP Conductive Polymer NanoComposite (CPC)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Sylvain Thevenot
Affiliation:
[email protected], European University of Brittany, LIMATB, Lorient, France
P. Salagnac
Affiliation:
[email protected], European University of Brittany, LIMATB, Lorient, France
P. Glouannec
Affiliation:
[email protected], European University of Brittany, LIMATB, Lorient, France
Jean-François Feller
Affiliation:
[email protected], European University of Brittany, LIMATB, Lorient, France
Get access

Abstract

Electrically Conductive Polymer nanocomposites have attracted lots of attention in the last years, especially for their sensitivities to external solicitations, like temperature or pressure variation. This work concerns the modelling of toluene diffusion behaviour in poly(ethylene-co-ethyl acrylate) (EEA)-carbon nanoparticles (CNP) CPC. One of the main objective of our work was to control and model the physical mechanisms involved in this type of material during sorption and desorption phases in the presence of solvent vapour. Two approaches was explore, thin layer to study quick electrical response and thick layer to look after swelling effect induces by toluene. The thick layer mass measurement was compare with our diffusion model.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Krasteva, N., Besnard, I., Guse, B., Bauer, R. E., Mullen, K., Yasuda, A., Vossmeyer, T., Nano Lett 5. 2 (2002).Google Scholar
2. Feller, J.F., Langevin, D. and Marais, S., Synthetic Metals 144, 8188 (2004).Google Scholar
3. Koscho, M.E., Grubbs, R.H. and Lewis, N.S.. Anal. Chem, 74, 13071315 (2002).Google Scholar
4. Feller, J.F., Grohens, Y., Synthetic Metals 154. 193196 (2005).Google Scholar
5. Dong, X.M., Luo, Y., Xie, L.N., Fub, R.W., Zhang, M.Q.. Thin Solid Films 516, 78867890 (2008)Google Scholar
6. Zhou, J.F., Song, Y.H., Zheng, Q., Wu, Q., et M.Q., Carbon 46, 4, 679691 (2008).Google Scholar
7. Detallante, V., Langevin, D., Chappey, C., Métayer, M., Mercier, R., Pineri, M.. Journal of Membrane Science, 190, 227241 (2001).Google Scholar
8. Feller, J.F. and Grohens, Y.. Sensors and Actuators B 97 2–3, 231242 (2004).Google Scholar
9. Grujicic, M., Cao, G., Roy, W.N., Journal of Materials Science 39, 44414449 (2004).Google Scholar
10. Mihoubi, D. and Bellagi, A.. Applied Mathematical Modelling 32, 3, 303314. (2008).Google Scholar
11. Doumenc, F., Guerrier, B. and Allain, C.. Polymer 46, 11, 37083719 (2005).Google Scholar
12. Carrillo, A., Martin-Dominguez, I.R. and Marquez-Lucero, A.. Sensors and Actuators, B 113, 1, 477486 (2006).Google Scholar
13. Azaar, K., Rosca, I. D. and Vergnaud, J. M.. Polymer 43, 15, 42614267 (2002).Google Scholar