Role of Interface in Optimisation of Polyamide-6/Fe3o4 Nanocomposite Properties Suitable for Induction Heating

Ranjeetkumar Gupta,Ketan Pancholi,Gavin B. G. Stenning,Xiangyan Yu,Pinakin V. Pancholi,L. Gupta,David Bucknall,David Flynn
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4216716
2022-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:Achieving efficient induction heating of polymer magnetic nanocomposites (PMC) is a critical parameter for self-healing applications, such as industrial protective coatings and biomedical applications. Generation of microscopic or macroscopic eddy currents during magnetisation of magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) via applied external magnetic field results in localised heating of MNPs and the surrounding polymer matrix. However, the efficacy is dependent on low coercivity and high polarising PMC. To achieve those properties, the interfacial area can be increased through the dispersion of MNPs in the polymer matrix, however, the application of the hydrophobic coating on the MNPs to aid dispersion can perturb the anticipated magnetic and dielectric properties. In this work, the effect of the interfacial coating and its chemical composition on the magnetic and ferromagnetic properties of PMC was investigated. The variable thickness of oleic acid (OA) (22 w/w% and 55 w/w%) and silica coating (Stöber and tri-phasic reverse emulsion method) was applied to the Fe3O4 MNPs. A comparative analysis between the magnetic and ferromagnetic properties of the PMC prepared with differently coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles showed that the PMC with 22 w/w% OA coated MNPs was found to be most suitable for the structural bonding application in composites considering its effective dispersion, effective dielectric and magnetic properties and degree/size of crystallinity. Widely used silica coating was found to proportionally reduce the magnetic response and electric polarisation of the PMC samples. The dispersion state of MNPs was quantified using the interaction radius (IR). The magnetic moment ratio was found to be 0.38 and 0.24 for 22 w/w% oleic acid coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles at 100K and 400K, compared to 0.28 and 0.12 observed for the uncoated Fe3O4 nanoparticles.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?