Fluid dynamics: An experimental approach to the percolation of sticky nanotubes

Science

Volumn 309, Issue 5736, 2005, Pages 920-923

  Vigolo, B ^a   Coulon, C ^a   Maugey, M ^a   Zakri, C ^a   Poulin, P ^a  

^a CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADHESIVES; COATINGS; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; FLUID DYNAMICS; PERCOLATION (FLUIDS); STATISTICAL METHODS; SURFACE ACTIVE AGENTS;

CHARGE DISSIPATION; INSULATING MATRIX; PERCOLATION THRESHOLD;

NANOTUBES;

CARBON NANOTUBE; NANOTUBE; PAINT; SURFACTANT;

FLUID DYNAMICS;

ANALYTIC METHOD; AQUEOUS SOLUTION; ARTICLE; COMPOSITE MATERIAL; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; FILM; HYPOTHESIS; MATERIAL COATING; MEASUREMENT; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; PARAMETER; PERCOLATION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 23244454067     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1112835     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. J. P. Clerc et al., Ann. Phys. 8, 3 (1983).
2. I. Balberg, N. Binenbaum, N. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1465 (1984).
3. F. Carmona, P. Prudhon, F. Barreau, Solid State Commun. 51, 255 (1984).
4. S. A. Curran et al., Adv. Mater. 10, 1091 (1998).
5. J. N. Coleman et al., Phys. Rev. E 58, R7492 (1998).
6. J. Sandler et al., Polymer 40, 5967 (1999).
7. M. S. P. Shaffer, A. H. Windle, Adv. Mater. 11, 937 (1999).
8. P. Potschke, S. M. Dudkin, I. Alig, Polymer 44, 5023 (2003).
9. J. M. Benoit, B. Corraze, O. Chauvet, Phys. Rev. B 65, 241405 (2003).
10. S. Barrau, P. Demont, A. Peigney, C. Laurent, C. Lacabanne, Macromolecules 36, 5187 (2003).
11. O. Breuer, U. Sundararaj, Polym. Compos. 25, 630 (2004).
12. L. A. Hough et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 168102 (2004).
13. Y. C. Chiew, E. D. Glandt, J. Phys. A Math. Nucl. Gen. 16, 2599 (1983).
14. S. Safran, I. Webman, G. S. Crest, Phys. Rev. A 32, 506 (1985).
15. A. L. R. Bug et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1896 (1985).
16. X. Wang, A. Chatterjee, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 10787 (2003).
17. P. Nikolaev et al., Chem. Phys. Lett. 313, 91 (1999).
18. 3, the CNT bundle density. All the samples are homogenized in the same conditions by using a sonicator probe operating at 40 W.
19. S. Badaire, P. Poulin, M. Maugey, C. Zakri, Langmuir 20, 10367 (2004).
20. M. F. Islam, E. Rojas, D. M. Bergey, A. T. Johnson, A. C. Yodh, Nano Lett. 3, 269 (2003).
21. J. M. Bonard et al., Adv. Mater. 9, 827 (1997).
22. B. Vigolo et al., Science 290, 1331 (2000).
23. D. Strout, D. J. Bergman, Phys. Rev. B 25, 2061 (1982).
24. 3 Hz. The measurements are repeated until the response is stable and reproducible. Equilibrium is typically reached 10 min after the sample cell is filled. At longer times, the measurements are reproducible, confirming thereby the absence of coarsening.
25. C. Vinches, C. Coulon, D. Roux, J. Phys. II 4, 1165 (1994).
26. Optical micrographs of dispersions with the same CNT fraction and increasing SDS concentration are shown in fig. 51. When the surfactant concentration is increased, the aggregates become larger and more evident. In fig. 51b, small clusters actually seem to be disconnected from each other. In contrast, in fig. 51, c and d, the systems exhibit interconnected structures.
27. J. Bibette, T. G. Mason, H. Gang, D. A. Weitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 981 (1992).
28. SDS is the micelle weight fraction. It corresponds to the total surfactant weight fraction minus the fraction of monomers, which is equal to the critical micellar weight fraction. For the surfactant used, the critical micellar fraction is 0.23 wt%.
29. A. Coniglio, U. De Angelis, A. Forlani, J. Phys. A Math. Nucl. Gen. 10, 1123 (1977).
30. T. L Hill, J. Chem. Phys. 23, 617 (1955).
31. A. Y. Grosberg, A. R. Khokhlov, Adv. Potym. Sci. 41, 53 (1981).
32. P. van der School T. Odijk, J. Chem. Phys. 97, 515 (1992).
33. This work has been done in the framework of the Groupement de Recherche-Européen no. 2756.