Carbon Letters

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 567–577 | Cite as

Effects of interphase regions and tunneling distance on the electrical conductivity of polymer carbon nanotubes nanocomposites

  • Yasser Zare
  • Vesna Mišković-Stanković
  • Kyong Yop RheeEmail author
Original Article


In this paper, an analytical model is developed for electrical conductivity of nanocomposites, particularly polymer/carbon nanotubes nanocomposites. This model considers the effects of aspect ratio, concentration, waviness, conductivity and percolation threshold of nanoparticles, interphase thickness, wettability between polymer and filler, tunneling distance between nanoparticles and network fraction on the conductivity. The developed model is confirmed by experimental results and parametric studies. The calculations show good agreement with the experimental data of different samples. The concentration and aspect ratio of nanoparticles directly control the conductivity. Moreover, a smaller distance between nanoparticles increases the conductivity based on the tunneling mechanism. A thick interphase also causes an increased conductivity, because the interphase regions participate in the networks and enhance the effectiveness of nanoparticles.


Polymer nanocomposites Electrical conductivity Interphase Aspect ratio Tunneling distance Surface energy 



  1. 1.
    Power AC, Gorey B, Chandra S, Chapman J (2018) Carbon nanomaterials and their application to electrochemical sensors: a review. Nanotechnol Rev 7(1):19–41Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zare Y, Rhee KY (2018) Expression of normal stress difference and relaxation modulus for ternary nanocomposites containing biodegradable polymers and carbon nanotubes by storage and loss modulus data. Compos Part B Eng 158:162–168Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim H-S, Jung Y, Kim S (2017) Capacitance behaviors of conducting polymer-coated graphene nanosheets composite electrodes containing multi-walled carbon nanotubes as additives. Carbon Lett 23:63–68Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim KJ, Huh M-Y, Kim W-S, Song J-H, Lee HS, Kim J-Y et al (2018) The effect of carbon nanotube diameter on the electrical, thermal, and mechanical properties of polymer composites. Carbon Lett 26:95–101Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Noh YJ, Kim HS, Kim SY (2012) Improved electrical conductivity of a carbon nanotube mat composite prepared by in situ polymerization and compression molding with compression pressure. Carbon Lett 13(4):243–247Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu J, Jin B, Meng L-Y, Lee K-H (2018) Synthesis of polypyrrole-based nitrogen-containing porous carbon nanotubes for CO2 adsorption. Carbon Lett 28(1):111–115Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zare Y, Rhee KY (2017) Prediction of tensile modulus in polymer nanocomposites containing carbon nanotubes (CNT) above percolation threshold by modification of conventional model. Curr Appl Phys 17(6):873–879Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zare Y, Garmabi H, Rhee KY (2018) Structural and phase separation characterization of poly (lactic acid)/poly (ethylene oxide)/carbon nanotube nanocomposites by rheological examinations. Compos B Eng 144:1–10Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rostami A, Vahdati M, Alimoradi Y, Karimi M, Nazockdast H (2018) Rheology provides insight into flow induced nano-structural breakdown and its recovery effect on crystallization of single and hybrid carbon nanofiller filled poly (lactic acid). Polymer 134:143–154Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rostami A, Vahdati M, Nazockdast H (2018) Unraveling the localization behavior of MWCNTs in binary polymer blends using thermodynamics and viscoelastic approaches. Polym Compos 39(7):2356–2367Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salahandish R, Ghaffarinejad A, Naghib SM, Niyazi A, Majidzadeh-A K, Janmaleki M et al (2019) Sandwich-structured nanoparticles-grafted functionalized graphene based 3D nanocomposites for high-performance biosensors to detect ascorbic acid biomolecule. Sci Rep 9(1):1226Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gooneh-Farahani S, Naimi-Jamal MR, Naghib SM (2019) Stimuli-responsive graphene-incorporated multifunctional chitosan for drug delivery applications: a review. Exp Opin Drug Deliv 16:79–99Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naghib SM (2019) Two dimensional functionalized methacrylated graphene oxide nanosheets as simple and inexpensive electrodes for biosensing applications. Micro Nano Lett 14:462–465Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roy S, Petrova RS, Mitra S (2018) Effect of carbon nanotube (CNT) functionalization in epoxy-CNT composites. Nanotechnol Rev 7(6):475–485Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang P, Yi W, Xu H, Gao C, Hou J, Jin W et al (2018) Supramolecular interactions of poly [(9,9-dioctylfluorenyl-2, 7-diyl)-co-thiophene] with single-walled carbon nanotubes. Nanotechnol Rev 7:487–495Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salahandish R, Ghaffarinejad A, Omidinia E, Zargartalebi H, Majidzadeh-A K, Naghib SM et al (2018) Label-free ultrasensitive detection of breast cancer miRNA-21 biomarker employing electrochemical nano-genosensor based on sandwiched AgNPs in PANI and N-doped graphene. Biosens Bioelectron 120:129–136Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salahandish R, Ghaffarinejad A, Naghib SM, Majidzadeh-A K, Zargartalebi H, Sanati-Nezhad A (2018) Nano-biosensor for highly sensitive detection of HER2 positive breast cancer. Biosens Bioelectron 117:104–111Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naseer B, Srivastava G, Qadri OS, Faridi SA, Islam R, Younis K (2018) Importance and health hazards of nanoparticles used in the food industry. Nanotechnol Rev 7:623–641Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zha X-J, Li T, Bao R-Y, Bai L, Liu Z-Y, Yang W et al (2017) Constructing a special ‘sosatie’structure to finely dispersing MWCNT for enhanced electrical conductivity, ultra-high dielectric performance and toughness of iPP/OBC/MWCNT nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 139:17–25Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herceg TM, Yoon S-H, Abidin MSZ, Greenhalgh ES, Bismarck A, Shaffer MS (2016) Thermosetting nanocomposites with high carbon nanotube loadings processed by a scalable powder based method. Compos Sci Technol 127:62–70Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pourfayaz F, Khodadadi AA, Jafari S-H, Mortazavi Y, Khonakdar HA (2014) Ultra-low electrical and rheological percolation thresholds in PMMA/plasma-functionalized CNTs nanocomposites. Polym Plast Technol Eng 53:1450–1455Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grunlan JC, Mehrabi AR, Bannon MV, Bahr JL (2004) Water-based single-walled-nanotube-filled polymer composite with an exceptionally low percolation threshold. Adv Mater 16(2):150–153Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Razavi R, Zare Y, Rhee KY (2017) A two-step model for the tunneling conductivity of polymer carbon nanotube nanocomposites assuming the conduction of interphase regions. RSC Adv 7(79):50225–50233Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu Z, Peng W, Zare Y, Hui D, Rhee KY (2018) Predicting the electrical conductivity in polymer carbon nanotube nanocomposites based on the volume fractions and resistances of the nanoparticle, interphase, and tunneling regions in conductive networks. RSC Adv 8(34):19001–19010Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zare Y, Rhee KY (2018) A power model to predict the electrical conductivity of CNT reinforced nanocomposites by considering interphase, networks and tunneling condition. Compos Part B Eng 155:11–18Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pal R (2008) On the Lewis-Nielsen model for thermal/electrical conductivity of composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 39(5):718–726Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krupa I, Novák I, Chodák I (2004) Electrically and thermally conductive polyethylene/graphite composites and their mechanical properties. Synth Met 145(2):245–252Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Feng C, Jiang L (2013) Micromechanics modeling of the electrical conductivity of carbon nanotube (CNT)–polymer nanocomposites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 47:143–149Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taherian R (2016) Experimental and analytical model for the electrical conductivity of polymer-based nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 123:17–31Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clingerman ML, King JA, Schulz KH, Meyers JD (2002) Evaluation of electrical conductivity models for conductive polymer composites. J Appl Polym Sci 83(6):1341–1356Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chang L, Friedrich K, Ye L, Toro P (2009) Evaluation and visualization of the percolating networks in multi-wall carbon nanotube/epoxy composites. J Mater Sci 44(15):4003–4012Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kara S, Arda E, Dolastir F, Pekcan Ö (2010) Electrical and optical percolations of polystyrene latex–multiwalled carbon nanotube composites. J Colloid Interface Sci 344(2):395–401Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Takeda T, Shindo Y, Kuronuma Y, Narita F (2011) Modeling and characterization of the electrical conductivity of carbon nanotube-based polymer composites. Polymer 52(17):3852–3856Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zare Y, Rhee KY (2017) Dependence of Z parameter for tensile strength of multi-layered interphase in polymer nanocomposites to material and interphase properties. Nanoscale Res Lett 12(1):42Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zare Y, Fasihi M, Rhee KY (2017) Efficiency of stress transfer between polymer matrix and nanoplatelets in clay/polymer nanocomposites. Appl Clay Sci 143:265–272Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ma X, Zare Y, Rhee KY (2017) A two-step methodology to study the influence of aggregation/agglomeration of nanoparticles on Young’s Modulus of polymer nanocomposites. Nanoscale Res Lett 12(1):621Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Amraei J, Jam JE, Arab B, Firouz-Abadi RD (2018) Modeling the interphase region in carbon nanotube-reinforced polymer nanocomposites. Polym Compos 40:E1219–E1234Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shokrieh MM, Rafiee R (2010) On the tensile behavior of an embedded carbon nanotube in polymer matrix with non-bonded interphase region. Compos Struct 92(3):647–652Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nikfar N, Zare Y, Rhee KY (2018) Dependence of mechanical performances of polymer/carbon nanotubes nanocomposites on percolation threshold. Phys B Condens Matter 533:69–75Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Razavi R, Zare Y, Rhee KY (2018) A model for tensile strength of polymer/carbon nanotubes nanocomposites assuming the percolation of interphase regions. Colloid Surf A 538:148–154Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zare Y, Rhee KY (2017) Multistep modeling of Young’s modulus in polymer/clay nanocomposites assuming the intercalation/exfoliation of clay layers and the interphase between polymer matrix and nanoparticles. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 102:137–144Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zare Y, Rhee KY (2017) A two-step technique for tensile strength of montmorillonite/polymer nanocomposites assuming filler morphology and interphase properties. Appl Clay Sci 150:42–46Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Qiao R, Brinson LC (2009) Simulation of interphase percolation and gradients in polymer nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 69(3):491–499Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Baxter SC, Robinson CT (2011) Pseudo-percolation: critical volume fractions and mechanical percolation in polymer nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 71(10):1273–1279Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Deng F, Zheng Q-S (2008) An analytical model of effective electrical conductivity of carbon nanotube composites. Appl Phys Lett 92(7):071902Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ryvkina N, Tchmutin I, Vilčáková J, Pelíšková M, Sáha P (2005) The deformation behavior of conductivity in composites where charge carrier transport is by tunneling: theoretical modeling and experimental results. Synth Met 148(2):141–146Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tuovinen R, Perfetto E, Stefanucci G, Van Leeuwen R (2014) Time-dependent Landauer–Büttiker formula: application to transient dynamics in graphene nanoribbons. Phys Rev B. 89(8):085131Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Büttiker M (1986) Four-terminal phase-coherent conductance. Phys Rev Lett 57(14):1761Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Büttiker M (1988) Absence of backscattering in the quantum Hall effect in multiprobe conductors. Phys Rev B 38(14):9375Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Maiti S, Suin S, Shrivastava NK, Khatua B (2013) Low percolation threshold in polycarbonate/multiwalled carbon nanotubes nanocomposites through melt blending with poly (butylene terephthalate). J Appl Polym Sci 130(1):543–553Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rittigstein P, Torkelson JM (2006) Polymer–nanoparticle interfacial interactions in polymer nanocomposites: confinement effects on glass transition temperature and suppression of physical aging. J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys 44(20):2935–2943Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Berhan L, Sastry A (2007) Modeling percolation in high-aspect-ratio fiber systems. I. Soft-core versus hard-core models. Phys Rev E 75(4):041120Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Maiti S, Shrivastava NK, Khatua B (2013) Reduction of percolation threshold through double percolation in melt-blended polycarbonate/acrylonitrile butadiene styrene/multiwall carbon nanotubes elastomer nanocomposites. Polym Compos 34(4):570–579Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zare Y (2017) An approach to study the roles of percolation threshold and interphase in tensile modulus of polymer/clay nanocomposites. J Colloid Interface Sci 486:249–254Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lisunova M, Mamunya YP, Lebovka N, Melezhyk A (2007) Percolation behaviour of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene/multi-walled carbon nanotubes composites. Eur Polym J 43(3):949–958Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kim YJ, Shin TS, Do Choi H, Kwon JH, Chung Y-C, Yoon HG (2005) Electrical conductivity of chemically modified multiwalled carbon nanotube/epoxy composites. Carbon 43(1):23–30Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zare Y, Rhee KY (2017) A simple methodology to predict the tunneling conductivity of polymer/CNT nanocomposites by the roles of tunneling distance, interphase and CNT waviness. RSC Adv 7(55):34912–34921Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Li J, Ma PC, Chow WS, To CK, Tang BZ, Kim JK (2007) Correlations between percolation threshold, dispersion state, and aspect ratio of carbon nanotubes. Adv Funct Mater 17(16):3207–3215Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zare Y, Rhee KY (2019) Simplification and development of McLachlan model for electrical conductivity of polymer carbon nanotubes nanocomposites assuming the networking of interphase regions. Compos B Eng 156:64–71Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hu N, Karube Y, Yan C, Masuda Z, Fukunaga H (2008) Tunneling effect in a polymer/carbon nanotube nanocomposite strain sensor. Acta Mater 56(13):2929–2936Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shin H, Yang S, Choi J, Chang S, Cho M (2015) Effect of interphase percolation on mechanical behavior of nanoparticle-reinforced polymer nanocomposite with filler agglomeration: a multiscale approach. Chem Phys Lett 635:80–85Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Carbon Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasser Zare
    • 1
  • Vesna Mišković-Stanković
    • 1
  • Kyong Yop Rhee
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of EngineeringKyung Hee UniversityGiheung, YonginRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations