Comparative study of two polymer carbon nanotube composites using electron paramagnetic resonance and transmission electron microscopy

  • Robert Murphy
  • , Jonathan N. Coleman
  • , Sean M. O'Flaherty
  • , Martin Cadek
  • , Brendan McCarthy
  • , Anna Drury
  • , Robert C. Barklie
  • , Werner J. Blau

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

We have fabricated two conjugated organic polymer-multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWNT) composites and measured the MWNT content of these two hosts using electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR). These polymers were poly(m-phenylenevinylene-co-2,5-dioctyloxy-p-phenylenevinylene) (PmPV) and poly(9,9-di-n-octylfluorenyl-2,7′-diyl) (PFO). These polymers both disperse MWNTs efficiently but differ in that PFO also suspends graphitic nanoparticles. The fraction of available MWNTs suspended in PmPV rises with increasing polymer mass before saturating at approximately 50% by mass for an optimum soot to polymer mass ratio of 1:4. The optimum settling time for PFO composites was 96 hrs after which 35% of available MWNTs remained suspended. Finally the host polymers were removed by Buchner filtration and the remaining residues were investigated with transmission electron microscopy (TEM). PFO also suspends graphitic nanoparticles with a maximum diameter of approximately 100 nm, which can be attributed to the structure of the polymer itself.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)659-666
Number of pages8
JournalProceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering
Volume4876
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes
EventOpto-Ireland 2002: Optics and Photonics Technologies and Applications - Galway, Ireland
Duration: 5 Sep 20026 Sep 2002

Keywords

  • Conjugated polymer
  • Electron paramagnetic resonance
  • Multiwalled carbon nanotubes
  • Purification

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparative study of two polymer carbon nanotube composites using electron paramagnetic resonance and transmission electron microscopy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this