Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Processing of Graphene/Elastomer Nanocomposites: A Minireview

Written By

Mohammed A. Sharaf and Andrzej Kloczkowski

Submitted: 16 March 2022 Reviewed: 07 April 2022 Published: 14 July 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.104849

From the Edited Volume

Nanocomposite Materials for Biomedical and Energy Storage Applications

Edited by Ashutosh Sharma

Chapter metrics overview

144 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Since the isolation and identification of graphene, the academic and industrial communities are utilizing its superior properties. This minireview deals with the processing of graphene-based fillers/elastomer nanocomposites. The incorporation of graphene in an elastomeric matrices has significant effects on the properties of nanocomposites. The dispersion of graphene in elastomers is discussed. The processing of graphene/elastomer nanocomposites is discussed. The mechanical properties of the elastomeric matrix can be enhanced due to the presence of graphene. In this review and due to space limitations, we will present an example of improvements in the mechanical characteristics of graphene/styrene-butadiene (SBR) elastomer nanocomposites.


  • elastomers; graphene-based filers; dispersion
  • interfacial interactions
  • mechanical characteristics
  • mechanical percolation

1. Introduction

1.1 Elastomers

Elastomers exhibit rubber-like behavior [1, 2, 3, 4]. They are characterized by weak intermolecular forces, ease of deformation at ambient temperatures, low modulus of elasticity, and can stretch to high ultimate strains. Also, elastomers manifest good heat resistance. To sum up, elastomers are characterized by: (i) their amorphous high molecular mass molecular chains that are randomly coiled; (ii) bonds in the elastomer molecules freely rotate or extend in response to any applied strain; (iii) glass transition temperature for elastomers ought to be lower than their service temperatures; and (iv) a low degree of vulcanization to control shape [1, 2, 3, 4].

Elastomers have low mechanical, thermal, and electrical conductivity properties. Compounding elastomeric materials with fillers results in composites with an average mix of properties of the original constituents. Owing to their properties and their low cost, they have established their niche in several technological applications that include automotive, aerospace, military, conveyor belts, packaging, healthcare, and numerous others.

Elastomers constitute the polymeric matrix in the production of elastomer-based nanocomposites that possess improved properties [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. On the other hand, elastomeric nanocomposites demand different preparative and processing procedures as compared with polymer-based nanocomposites. The process of their cross-linking is different and requires the use of an activator.

The incorporation of inorganic fillers such as silica nanoparticles, layered silicates (clay), carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and other nanomaterials results in the production of high-performance elastomeric nanocomposites [6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. The final properties of the nanocomposite are affected by the type of filler involved due to differences in their structural and geometrical characteristics.

1.2 Graphene

Graphene (GE) is 2D a carbon allotrope consisting of sp2 hybridized carbons, which are arranged in a honeycomb lattice [19, 20]. It is a single-atom-thick nanostructured sheet that is considered the basic building block for graphene-based fillers [21, 22, 23]. Because of its unique exceptional properties, graphene has emerged as a very promising nanomaterial. It is one of the strongest materials and a good conductor of heat and electricity; it is optically transparent and impermeable to gases [24, 25, 26]. In Figure 1, the graphene hexagonal honeycomb chemical structure is represented [27]. Some notable properties of graphene are listed in Table 1 [28].

Figure 1.

Graphene hexagonal honeycomb chemical structure and its remarkable physical properties. The black dots are carbon atoms [27].

PropertyExperimental valuesRefs.
Elastic modulus∼1 TPa[29]
Tensile strength∼130 GPa
Fatigue resistance109 cycles at mean stress of 71 GPa[30]
Thermal conductivity∼5300 W m−1 K−1[31]
Thermal stability∼2600 K[32]
Electrical conductivity6000 S cm−1[33]

Table 1.

Some notable properties of graphene [28].

Once the mass-produced graphene has qualities comparable to those produced in research laboratories, it will be of greater interest in applications [33, 34, 35]. However, there are still various barriers and risks to overcome [36].

Polymer nanocomposites reinforced by a single- and few-layer graphene have demonstrated significant improvements in various properties [37]. Another encouraging factor in the use of graphene in polymer nanocomposites is that it has been realized that a minute quantity of can leads to significant enhancements in properties, Undoubtedly, graphene is a favorite candidate for the use in nanocomposites. Emphasis will be given here to the techniques used in the preparation of graphene, elastomers, and nanocomposites, along with the physicochemical aspects and attributes reported and the applications of the final materials.

This chapter will be concerned with the processing and properties of graphene/elastomer nanocomposites.


2. Some considerations concerning the processing graphene-based/elastomer nanocomposites

2.1 Filler dispersion

The efficient preparation of an elastomeric nanocomposite requires appropriate dispersion of the filler in the elastomeric matrix. Whence, there is a need for the filler and matrix to be compatible, physically and/or chemically. Most properties of nanocomposites depend on the nanofillers structure in the matrix. Therefore, such intimate nanofiller/elastomeric matrix interactions are dependent on the filler size, morphology, surface treatment, and activity. Undoubtedly, the fine dispersion of nanosized particles would lead to a very large interfacial area. Undoubtedly, the reinforcement changes with the specific interfacial area, for fillers with the same chemical nature [38, 39, 40]. As a result, the filler-matrix interactions and bonding will increase, in the meantime, the filler-filler interactions will decrease, and/or the platelet interlayer distance will increase [41, 42, 43, 44, 45]. They permit lower loadings, weight reduction of the fillers, and allow for the nanoparticles of ≤1 μm size the formation of a sort of colloidal suspensions. In the specific case of graphite-based fillers, because of the positive effect of aromatic rings, they would allow for the establishment of an intimate interaction between the nanofiller and the rubber matrix [40, 46, 47, 48]. One should note that elastomeric polymers possess high viscosity and thus necessitate intensive mixing and blending to achieve an even dispersion and distribution.

During the dispersive step, in the mixing process, large components undergo size reduction through erosion and rupture into smaller fragments that are then separated into the matrix [49, 50, 51]. These two last phases most likely happen rather simultaneously [49, 52]. Ideal dispersion of platelets-like (lamellar) nanofillers requires that all layers should be separated from each other, i.e., complete exfoliation. However, the strong interlayer interactions need to be circumvented, more often through intercalations to facilitate exfoliation [53, 54, 55].

Graphite is like montmorillonite clay (MMT), and researchers applied similar procedures for the dispersion of graphene-based fillers [56, 57, 58]. Intercalated and exfoliated compounds are in common usage. To reduce the strong p-p interactions between graphene platelets, graphene sheets are customarily surface-modified [56, 57, 58]. For the classification of graphene-based fillers, for example, a stack of few-layer graphene is called graphene nanoplatelets (GNP) [27, 59, 60].

Figure 2b is a representation of stacked, expanded, and exfoliated graphite platelets in an elastomeric matrix. Exfoliation of GNPs into an elastomer is desired to enhance the properties of the final material. Most exfoliation processes are performed in suspension rather than during bulk processing, during which, high shear is reported to break the platelets rather than exfoliate them [27, 59, 60].

2.2 Surface functionalization

For surface functionalization of graphene sheets, there is firstly a non-covalent and secondly a covalent approach. Non-covalent functionalization is primarily based on hydrophobic, van der Waals, and electrostatic interactions [61, 62, 63, 64, 65]. Covalent functionalization is dependent on the oxygen functional groups on the graphene surface. They can be utilized to change the surface functionality of graphene. The main functional groups are the carboxylic acid at the edges and epoxy and hydroxyl groups on the basal plane [66, 67, 68, 69].

A comprehensive summary of the functionalization of graphene has been reviewed in the literature [70, 71, 72, 73, 74].

2.3 Graphene-based fillers in the reinforcement of elastomer nanocomposites

Fillers have been employed as reinforcing agents for ages. Fillers, depending on their activity, can be categorized as extenders, which increase the volume of materials. On the one hand, reinforcing fillers leads to improve certain physical and mechanical properties. The reinforcing ability of fillers is dependent on the particle shape, size, agglomeration (dispersion), surface properties, and most importantly, the degree of interaction between the filler and the matrix.

2.3.1 Graphene oxide (GO) as a reinforcing filler

The research community focused attention on the field of polymer nanocomposites on graphene oxide (GO). This could be attributed to the variety of chemical functional groups available on the surface of GO that make it tunable, hydrophilic, and relatively low-cost as compared with pristine graphene. Its interaction with polar polymeric matrices is improved by the presence of such hydrophilic functional groups.

Improving the interfacial adhesion of GO and the host polymers through covalent bonding has been the subject of several studies [75, 76, 77]. Thus, GO becomes intertwined as a single phase with the host chains. In consequence, the superior properties of GO are transferred to the matrix, and thus improvements in the final properties of the composites will ensue. Various approaches have been explored for producing GO-polymer nanocomposites through covalent bonding [78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83]. These methods normally involve the incorporation of thermally reduced GO (TrGO) [84, 85] or in situ chemically reduced GO (CrGO) in the rubber matrix [86, 87]. Homogeneity of TOGO in the rubber matrix is assisted by ultrasonication or high shear mixing. A strong polymer-filler interaction is critical for GO to act as a successful reinforcement agent [88, 89, 90, 91, 92]. For GO, the change in the degree of oxidation may significantly impact the physicochemical structure of the GO surface.

2.3.2 Other reinforcing fillers

Conventionally, the most widely used and effective conventional reinforcing filler for rubber is carbon black (CB). It provides a notable improvement in the properties of elastomers, in general. The drawback, in some cases, is when colored rubber compositions are needed. Due to its high specific surface area, silicon dioxide (SiO2) is known to be the most effective reinforcing non-black fillers. it is reported that about 90% of the worldwide production of CB is employed and applied in the tire industry, enhancing tear strength, modulus, and wear characteristics of the tires [93]. Recently, nanofillers have gained momentum both in fundamental and industrial fields. This is mainly due to the high specific surface area and quite often to their high aspect ratio that can be dispersed in the elastomeric matrix. There exist interactions at the molecular level between the elastomeric matrix and the nanofiller. As a result, extraordinary properties are achieved compared with conventional filler materials. Based on their dimensions in host matrices, nanofillers are classified into three categories: spherical nanoparticle fillers, elongated structure with only two dimensions is in the nanometer scale, and the third is larger, e.g., nanotubes and whiskers, and layered structures with only one dimension of the filler is in the nanometer scale, such as graphene that is the subject of our study. One notes that these nanofillers have a strong tendency to form aggregates and agglomerates, owing to their high surface energies.


3. Mechanical characteristics

3.1 Effects of a covalent interphase

Many graphene-based polymer composites with significantly improved properties have been prepared and tested. Graphene with its possession of remarkable physical properties have been proposed as an efficient reinforcement agent for elastomers [94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100]. To make the best out of graphene in reinforcement, improved dispersion of graphene and higher interfacial interactions are important [101, 102, 103, 104].

Graphene oxide is efficiently reduced by tannin derivatives. At the same time, ortho-quinone derivatives produced during the reduction of graphene oxide are adsorbed on the graphene surface [105, 106]. The quinones are reactive toward thiols via Michael addition [107, 108]. Polythiols are usually produced during the sulfur-cure of an elastomer [108, 109]. The ortho-quinone derivatives are quite suitable for constructing covalent interphase cross-linking between graphene and the rubber matrix.

In a study by Yang et al. [106], graphene/styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) nanocomposites were prepared by latex co-coagulation of SBR latex with a suspension of graphene. They pursued a strategy to construct a strong interface in graphene/SBR nanocomposites. The ortho-quinone covalent interphase was realized in the graphene/rubber system. The main feature was superior dispersion and controlled reinforcement properties with the quinone-modified graphene in the rubber matrix. In this nanocomposites system, the energy loss by a tire was lower compared with those for carbon black-filled elastomers. Figure 2 represents the manufacture of graphene/SBR nanocomposite and the mechanism of formation of covalent interphase between graphene and the SBR Matrix. The developed nanocomposites were applied to a dynamic elastomeric product, the auto tires. The very low rolling resistance coefficient is considered a great advancement in the production of tires.

Figure 2.

Fabrication of graphene/SBR nanocomposites and a schematic illustration of proposed formation mechanism of covalent interface between graphene and rubber matrix [109].

3.2 Mechanical behavior of a graphene/SBR nanocomposite

With the introduction of covalent interphase, the dispersion status of graphene in the rubber matrix and the interfacial interaction between graphene and SBR were remarkably enhanced. The stress-strain isotherms of SBR and SBR nanocomposites are illustrated in Figure 3. The effect of graphene on the mechanical properties of graphene/SBR nanocomposites is apparent. For purposes of comparison, a stress-strain isotherm of 10% graphite-filled SBR composite was also made. The presented results indicate much higher efficiency in the reinforcement of SBR. In Figure 4, the effect of graphene loading on the mechanical properties of the nanocomposites is demonstrated. Compared with the neat SBR, the tensile strength of graphene/SBR nanocomposites with only 1.1 phr of graphene has increased by 223%. With the incorporation of 5.6 phr of graphene, the tensile strength of the nanocomposite can reach 21.5 MPa, which is over ninefold that of the neat SBR. This is a marked enhancement in reinforcement compared with other 2D reinforcing fillers such as clay [110, 111, 112].

Figure 3.

Stress-strain curves of SBR/graphene nanocomposites [107].

Figure 4.

Tensile modulus and strength of graphene/SBR nanocomposites [107].

As an additional confirmation of reinforcement, a percolation phenomenon is observed in Figure 5 in the tensile strength with graphene loading, as has been reported earlier [106, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118]. Although for CNT-filled composites, 0.001 wt% percolation concentrations have been reported. In other studies, 2 wt% concentrations are reported that depend on the processing, alignment, chemistry of the CNTs, and matrix compatibility [116, 117, 118].

Figure 5.

Percolation phenomena of SBR nanocomposites, the intersections of the dash lines represent the percolation point [107].

In what would be considered the first stage, below the percolation threshold volume fraction of graphene, the phenomenon could be explained by the rubber strengthening mechanism that graphite nanofillers induce the formation of straightened polymer chains during the stretching process [119]. In the second stage, when the distance between the fillers decreases to a specific threshold, chains attached to the adjacent fillers will form straightened rubber chains that will enhance and strengthen the rubber [119]. In Figure 5, the tensile stress of the composites could be observed to initially increase slightly and then shows an abrupt increase. The percolation point of graphene/SBR nanocomposite appears surprisingly at as low as 0.42 phr, which is far below that of CB/SBR composite (5.1 phr), as seen in Figure 5. The ultralow percolation threshold of graphene/SBR composites might be ascribed to the excellent dispersion of ultrathin graphene layers and the strong covalent interface. The different result obtained for graphene and carbon black (CB) in the reinforcement of SBR composites is evidence that graphene possesses significantly higher reinforcing efficiency toward SBR [106].

The effect of the presence of the nanostructures on the thermal stability of natural rubber was evaluated using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). The results indicated that the presence of GO does not affect the thermal stability of the rubber [106, 119].


4. Conclusions

Graphene-based fillers have features such as relatively high mechanical properties. They are incorporated as fillers in polymeric materials such as elastomers nanocomposites due to their pronounced differences in properties. Several parameters such as processing conditions that affect these enhancements were highlighted. Morphologies of the corresponding nanocomposites were observed to be affected by processing. One of the major challenges concerning graphene is the industrial-scale production of inexpensive graphene-based nanocomposites. This would require newer processing techniques able to prepare low-thickness stacks with higher specific areas. A crucial aspect that we addressed is the better dispersion of graphene-based fillers in an elastomeric matrix. Covalent functionalization of graphene-based sheets proved to be indeed significant in the improvement of the interfacial filler dispersion and its exfoliation in the matrix. That is why other efforts should be made to exploit graphene-based fillers at the nanoscale by creating a nanostructural organization of graphene sheets that would ensure a lower percolation threshold and consequently more pronounced enhancement in reinforcement.


  1. 1. James HM, Guth E. Statistical thermodynamics of rubber elasticity. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 1953;21(6):1039-1049
  2. 2. Treloar LR. The mechanics of rubber elasticity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 1976;351(1666):301-330
  3. 3. Mark JE. The rubber elastic state. Mark JE, et al. editors. Physical properties of polymers, Am. Chem. Soc. Publications. 1984:1-54
  4. 4. Ogden RW. Recent advances in the phenomenological theory of rubber elasticity. Rubber Chemistry and Technology. 1986;59(3):361-383
  5. 5. Špitalský Z, Kratochvíla J, Csomorová K, Krupa I, Graça MP, Costa LC. Mechanical and electrical properties of styrene-isoprene-styrene copolymer doped with expanded graphite nanoplatelets. Journal of Nanomaterials. 2015;2015:Article ID 168485;
  6. 6. Araby S, Zaman I, Meng Q , Kawashima N, Michelmore A, Kuan H-C, et al. Melt compounding with graphene to develop functional, high-performance elastomers. Nanotechnology. 2013;24(16):165601
  7. 7. Papageorgiou DG, Kinloch IA, Young RJ. Graphene/elastomer nanocomposites. Carbon. 2015;95:460-484
  8. 8. Mazhar S, Lawson BP, Stein BD, Pink M, Carini J, Polezhaev A, et al. Elastomer based nanocomposites with reduced graphene oxide nanofillers allow for enhanced tensile and electrical properties. Journal of Polymer Research. 2020;27(5):1-10
  9. 9. Wang R, Zhang J, Kang H, Zhang L. Design, preparation and properties of bio-based elastomer composites aiming at engineering applications. Composites Science and Technology. 2016;133:136-156
  10. 10. Basu D, Das A, Stöckelhuber KW, Wagenknecht U, Heinrich G. Advances in layered double hydroxide (LDH)-based elastomer composites. Progress in Polymer Science. 2014;39(3):594-626
  11. 11. Yang J, Tian M, Jia Q-X, Shi J-H, Zhang L-Q , Lim S-H, et al. Improved mechanical and functional properties of elastomer/graphite nanocomposites prepared by latex compounding. Acta Materialia. 2007;55(18):6372-6382
  12. 12. Das A, Kasaliwal GR, Jurk R, Boldt R, Fischer D, Stöckelhuber KW, et al. Rubber composites based on graphene nanoplatelets, expanded graphite, carbon nanotubes and their combination: A comparative study. Composites Science and Technology. 2012;72(16):1961-1967
  13. 13. Maiti M, Bhattacharya M, Bhowmick AK. Elastomer nanocomposites. Rubber Chemistry and Technology. 2008;81(3):384-469
  14. 14. Song SH. The effect of clay/multiwall carbon nanotube hybrid fillers on the properties of elastomer nanocomposites. International Journal of Polymer Science. 2018;2018:Article ID 5295973;
  15. 15. Tjong SC. Structural and mechanical properties of polymer nanocomposites. Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports. 2006;53(3-4):73-197
  16. 16. Bokobza L. Mechanical and electrical properties of elastomer nanocomposites based on different carbon nanomaterials. C. 2017;3(2):10
  17. 17. Paul DR, Mark JE. Fillers for polysiloxane (“silicone”) elastomers. Progress in Polymer Science. 2010;35(7):893-901
  18. 18. Chrissafis K, Bikiaris D. Can nanoparticles really enhance thermal stability of polymers? Part I: An overview on thermal decomposition of addition polymers. Thermochimica Acta. 2011;523(1-2):1-24
  19. 19. Zhao J, Wei N, Fan Z, Jiang J-W, Rabczuk T. The mechanical properties of three types of carbon allotropes. Nanotechnology. 2013;24(9):095702
  20. 20. Low I-M, Albetran HM, Degiorgio M. Structural characterization of commercial graphite and graphene materials. Journal of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials. 2020;1(1):23-30
  21. 21. Singh V, Joung D, Zhai L, Das S, Khondaker SI, Seal S. Graphene based materials: Past, present and future. Progress in Materials Science. 2011;56(8):1178-1271
  22. 22. Chen D, Tang L, Li J. Graphene-based materials in electrochemistry. Chemical Society Reviews. 2010;39(8):3157-3180
  23. 23. Yavari F, Koratkar N. Graphene-based chemical sensors. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. 2012;3(13):1746-1753
  24. 24. Edwards RS, Coleman KS. Graphene synthesis: Relationship to applications. Nanoscale. 2013;5(1):38-51
  25. 25. Farooqui U, Ahmad A, Hamid N. Graphene oxide: A promising membrane material for fuel cells. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018;82:714-733
  26. 26. Ray SC. Application and uses of graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide. In Ray SC, Applications of Graphene and Graphene-Oxide Based Nanomaterials, Macro & Nano Technologies Series, Elsevier; 2015. pp. 39-55
  27. 27. Young RJ, Liu M, Kinloch IA, Li S, Zhao X, Vallés C, et al.. The mechanics of reinforcement of polymers by graphene nanoplatelets. Composites Science and Technology. 2018;154:110-116
  28. 28. Nwosu CN, Iliut M, Vijayaraghavan A. Graphene and water-based elastomer nanocomposites–a review. Nanoscale. 2021;13(21):9505-9540
  29. 29. Cui T, Mukherjee S, Sudeep PM, Colas G, Najafi F, Tam J, et al. Fatigue of graphene. Nature Materials. 2020;19(4):405-411
  30. 30. Balandin AA, Ghosh S, Bao W, Calizo I, Teweldebrhan D, Miao F, et al. Superior thermal conductivity of single-layer graphene. Nano Letters. 2008;8(3):902-907
  31. 31. Kim K, Regan W, Geng B, Alemán B, Kessler B, Wang F, et al. High-temperature stability of suspended single-layer graphene. Physica Status Solidi (RRL)–Rapid Research Letters. 2010;4(11):302-304
  32. 32. Du X, Skachko I, Barker A, Andrei EY. Approaching ballistic transport in suspended graphene. Nature Nanotechnology. 2008;3(8):491-495
  33. 33. Novoselov KS, Colombo L, Gellert P, Schwab M, Kim K. A roadmap for graphene. Nature. 2012;490(7419):192-200
  34. 34. Wick P, Louw-Gaume AE, Kucki M, Krug HF, Kostarelos K, Fadeel B, et al. Classification framework for graphene-based materials. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 2014;53(30):7714-7718
  35. 35. Zhang Y, Xu Y. Simultaneous electrochemical dual-electrode exfoliation of graphite toward scalable production of high-quality graphene. Advanced Functional Materials. 2019;29(37):1902171
  36. 36. Johnston H, Pojana G, Zuin S, Jacobsen NR, Møller P, Loft S, et al. Engineered nanomaterial risk. Lessons learnt from completed nanotoxicology studies: Potential solutions to current and future challenges. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 2013;43(1):1-20
  37. 37. Legge EJ, Paton KR, Wywijas M, McMahon G, Pemberton R, Kumar N, et al. Determining the level and location of functional groups on few-layer graphene and their effect on the mechanical properties of nanocomposites. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2020;12(11):13481-13493
  38. 38. Jancar J, Douglas J, Starr FW, Kumar S, Cassagnau P, Lesser A, et al. Current issues in research on structure–property relationships in polymer nanocomposites. Polymer. 2010;51(15):3321-3343
  39. 39. Medalia A. Effect of carbon black on dynamic properties of rubber vulcanizates. Rubber Chemistry and Technology. 1978;51(3):437-523
  40. 40. Galimberti M, Infortuna G, Guerra S, Barbera V, Agnelli S, Pandini S. sp2 carbon allotropes in elastomer matrix: From master curves for the mechanical reinforcement to lightweight materials. Express Polymer Letters. 2018;12(3):265-283
  41. 41. Kango S, Kalia S, Celli A, Njuguna J, Habibi Y, Kumar R. Surface modification of inorganic nanoparticles for development of organic–inorganic nanocomposites—A review. Progress in Polymer Science. 2013;38(8):1232-1261
  42. 42. Zou H, Wu S, Shen J. Polymer/silica nanocomposites: Preparation, characterization, properties, and applications. Chemical Reviews. 2008;108(9):3893-3957
  43. 43. Giovino M, Buenning E, Jimenez A, Kumar SK, Schadler L. Polymer grafted nanoparticle viscosity modifiers. Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics. 2019;220(7):1800543
  44. 44. Singh SK, Singh S, Kumar A, Jain A. Thermo-mechanical behavior of TiO2 dispersed epoxy composites. Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 2017;184:241-248
  45. 45. Rane AV, Kanny K, Abitha V, Thomas S. Methods for synthesis of nanoparticles and fabrication of nanocomposites. In: Synthesis of Inorganic Nanomaterials. Elsevier; 2018. pp. 121-139
  46. 46. Naz A, Kausar A, Siddiq M. Influence of graphite filler on physicochemical characteristics of polymer/graphite composites: A review. Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering. 2016;55(6):604-625
  47. 47. Nasir A, Kausar A, Younus A. Polymer/graphite nanocomposites: Physical features, fabrication and current relevance. Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering. 2015;54(7):750-770
  48. 48. Duan L, D'hooge DR, Cardon L. Recent progress on flexible and stretchable piezoresistive strain sensors: From design to application. Progress in Materials Science. 2020;114:100617
  49. 49. Kasaliwal GR, Pegel S, Göldel A, Pötschke P, Heinrich G. Analysis of agglomerate dispersion mechanisms of multiwalled carbon nanotubes during melt mixing in polycarbonate. Polymer. 2010;51(12):2708-2720
  50. 50. Papageorgiou DG, Li Z, Liu M, Kinloch IA, Young RJ. Mechanisms of mechanical reinforcement by graphene and carbon nanotubes in polymer nanocomposites. Nanoscale. 2020;12(4):2228-2267
  51. 51. Rueda MM, Auscher M-C, Fulchiron R, Perie T, Martin G, Sonntag P, et al. Rheology and applications of highly filled polymers: A review of current understanding. Progress in Polymer Science. 2017;66:22-53
  52. 52. Vasileiou AA, Kontopoulou M, Docoslis A. A noncovalent compatibilization approach to improve the filler dispersion and properties of polyethylene/graphene composites. ACS applied Materials & Interfaces. 2014;6(3):1916-1925
  53. 53. Le TH, Oh Y, Kim H, Yoon H. Exfoliation of 2D materials for energy and environmental applications. Chemistry–a. European Journal. 2020;26(29):6360-6401
  54. 54. Tao H, Zhang Y, Gao Y, Sun Z, Yan C, Texter J. Scalable exfoliation and dispersion of two-dimensional materials–an update. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 2017;19(2):921-960
  55. 55. Wei Y, Sun Z. Liquid-phase exfoliation of graphite for mass production of pristine few-layer graphene. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science. 2015;20(5-6):311-321
  56. 56. Compton OC, Nguyen ST. Graphene oxide, highly reduced graphene oxide, and graphene: Versatile building blocks for carbon-based materials. Small. 2010;6(6):711-723
  57. 57. Kuilla T, Bhadra S, Yao D, Kim NH, Bose S, Lee JH. Recent advances in graphene based polymer composites. Progress in Polymer Science. 2010;35(11):1350-1375
  58. 58. Bokobza L. Natural rubber nanocomposites: A review. Nanomaterials. 2018;9(1):12
  59. 59. Cataldi P, Athanassiou A, Bayer IS. Graphene nanoplatelets-based advanced materials and recent progress in sustainable applications. Applied Sciences. 2018;8(9):1438
  60. 60. Shen J, Hu Y, Li C, Qin C, Shi M, Ye M. Layer-by-layer self-assembly of graphene nanoplatelets. Langmuir. 2009;25(11):6122-6128
  61. 61. Yu W, Sisi L, Haiyan Y, Jie L. Progress in the functional modification of graphene/graphene oxide: A review. RSC Advances. 2020;10(26):15328-15345
  62. 62. Bagherzadeh M, Farahbakhsh A. Surface functionalization of graphene. Tiwari A and Syväjärvi M, Editors. In: Graphene Materials, Scrivener Publishing LLC, Beverly, MA, United States, 2015. p. 25-66
  63. 63. Zheng W, Shen B, Zhai W. Surface functionalization of graphene with polymers for enhanced properties. New Progress on Graphene Research. 2013;10:50490
  64. 64. Ferreira FV, Cividanes LDS, Brito FS, Menezes BRC, Franceschi W, Simonetti EAN, et al. Functionalization of graphene and applications. In: Functionalizing Graphene and Carbon Nanotubes. Springer; 2016. pp. 1-29
  65. 65. Dreyer DR, Park S, Bielawski CW, Ruoff RS. The chemistry of graphene oxide. Chemical Society Reviews. 2010;39(1):228-240
  66. 66. Lee JU, Lee W, Yi JW, Yoon SS, Lee SB, Jung BM, et al. Preparation of highly stacked graphene papers via site-selective functionalization of graphene oxide. Journal of Materials Chemistry A. 2013;1(41):12893-12899
  67. 67. Ramesha G, Kumara AV, Muralidhara H, Sampath S. Graphene and graphene oxide as effective adsorbents toward anionic and cationic dyes. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2011;361(1):270-277
  68. 68. Parviz D, Das S, Ahmed HT, Irin F, Bhattacharia S, Green MJ. Dispersions of non-covalently functionalized graphene with minimal stabilizer. ACS Nano. 2012;6(10):8857-8867
  69. 69. Bartlam C, Morsch S, Heard KW, Quayle P, Yeates SG, Vijayaraghavan A. Nanoscale infrared identification and mapping of chemical functional groups on graphene. Carbon. 2018;139:317-324
  70. 70. Layek RK, Nandi AK. A review on synthesis and properties of polymer functionalized graphene. Polymer. 2013;54(19):5087-5103
  71. 71. Bhuyan S, Uddin N, Bipasha FA, Islam MM, Hossain S. A review of functionalized graphene properties and its application. International Journal of Innovation Science Research. 2015;17(2):303-315
  72. 72. Genorio B, Znidarsic A. Functionalization of graphene nanoribbons. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. 2014;47(9):094012
  73. 73. Acik M, Chabal YJ. Nature of graphene edges: A review. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics. 2011;50(7R):070101
  74. 74. Nanda SS, Papaefthymiou GC, Yi DK. Functionalization of graphene oxide and its biomedical applications. Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences. 2015;40(5):291-315
  75. 75. Huang T, Lu R, Su C, Wang H, Guo Z, Liu P, et al. Chemically modified graphene/polyimide composite films based on utilization of covalent bonding and oriented distribution. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2012;4(5):2699-2708
  76. 76. Yousefi N, Lin X, Zheng Q , Shen X, Pothnis JR, Jia J, et al.. Simultaneous in situ reduction, self-alignment and covalent bonding in graphene oxide/epoxy composites. Carbon. 2013;59:406-417
  77. 77. Vallés C, Papageorgiou DG, Lin F, Li Z, Spencer BF, Young RJ, et al. PMMA-grafted graphene nanoplatelets to reinforce the mechanical and thermal properties of PMMA composites. Carbon. 2020;157:750-760
  78. 78. Potts JR, Dreyer DR, Bielawski CW, Ruoff RS. Graphene-based polymer nanocomposites. Polymer. 2011;52(1):5-25
  79. 79. Zhang M, Li Y, Su Z, Wei G. Recent advances in the synthesis and applications of graphene–polymer nanocomposites. Polymer Chemistry. 2015;6(34):6107-6124
  80. 80. Guan L-Z, Wan Y-J, Gong L-X, Yan D, Tang L-C, Wu L-B, et al. Toward effective and tunable interphases in graphene oxide/epoxy composites by grafting different chain lengths of polyetheramine onto graphene oxide. Journal of Materials Chemistry A. 2014;2(36):15058-15069
  81. 81. Lim LP, Juan JC, Huang NM, Goh LK, Leng FP, Loh YY. Enhanced tensile strength and thermal conductivity of natural rubber graphene composite properties via rubber-graphene interaction. Materials Science and Engineering: B. 2019;246:112-119
  82. 82. Kim H, Abdala AA, Macosko CW. Graphene/polymer nanocomposites. Macromolecules. 2010;43(16):6515-6530
  83. 83. Punetha VD, Rana S, Yoo HJ, Chaurasia A, McLeskey JT Jr, Ramasamy MS, et al. Functionalization of carbon nanomaterials for advanced polymer nanocomposites: A comparison study between CNT and graphene. Progress in Polymer Science. 2017;67:1-47
  84. 84. Strankowski M, Piszczyk Ł, Kosmela P, Korzeniewski P. Morphology and the physical and thermal properties of thermoplastic polyurethane reinforced with thermally reduced graphene oxide. Pol. J. Chem. Tech. 2015;17(4):88-94
  85. 85. Utrera-Barrios S, Hernández Santana M, Verdejo R, López-Manchado MA. Design of rubber composites with autonomous self-healing capability. ACS Omega. 2020;5(4):1902-1910
  86. 86. Liu X, Kuang W, Guo B. Preparation of rubber/graphene oxide composites with in-situ interfacial design. Polymer. 2015;56:553-562
  87. 87. Xing W, Wu J, Huang G, Li H, Tang M, Fu X. Enhanced mechanical properties of graphene/natural rubber nanocomposites at low content. Polymer International. 2014;63(9):1674-1681
  88. 88. Palermo V, Kinloch IA, Ligi S, Pugno NM. Nanoscale mechanics of graphene and graphene oxide in composites: A scientific and technological perspective. Advanced Materials. 2016;28(29):6232-6238
  89. 89. Cano M, Khan U, Sainsbury T, O’Neill A, Wang Z, McGovern IT, et al. Improving the mechanical properties of graphene oxide based materials by covalent attachment of polymer chains. Carbon. 2013;52:363-371
  90. 90. Dong R, Liu L. Preparation and properties of acrylic resin coating modified by functional graphene oxide. Applied Surface Science. 2016;368:378-387
  91. 91. Salavagione HJ, Martínez G. Importance of covalent linkages in the preparation of effective reduced graphene oxide− poly (vinyl chloride) nanocomposites. Macromolecules. 2011;44(8):2685-2692
  92. 92. Vallés C, Beckert F, Burk L, Mülhaupt R, Young RJ, Kinloch IA. Effect of the C/O ratio in graphene oxide materials on the reinforcement of epoxy-based nanocomposites. Journal of Polymer Science Part B: Polymer Physics. 2016;54(2):281-291
  93. 93. Bockstal L, Berchem T, Schmetz Q , Richel A. Devulcanisation and reclaiming of tires and rubber by physical and chemical processes: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;236:117574
  94. 94. Geim AK, Novoselov KS. The rise of graphene. Nanoscience and technology: A collection of reviews from nature journals. World Scientific. 2010:11-19
  95. 95. Zhong B, Jia Z, Dong H, Luo Y, Jia D, Liu F. One-step approach to reduce and modify graphene oxide via vulcanization accelerator and its application for elastomer reinforcement. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2017;317:51-59
  96. 96. Boland CS, Khan U, Backes C, O’Neill A, McCauley J, Duane S, et al. Sensitive, high-strain, high-rate bodily motion sensors based on graphene–rubber composites. ACS Nano. 2014;8(9):8819-8830
  97. 97. Zhong B, Dong H, Luo Y, Zhang D, Jia Z, Jia D, et al. Simultaneous reduction and functionalization of graphene oxide via antioxidant for highly aging resistant and thermal conductive elastomer composites. Composites Science and Technology. 2017;151:156-163
  98. 98. Dong H, Jia Z, Chen Y, Luo Y, Zhong B, Jia D. One-pot method to reduce and functionalize graphene oxide via vulcanization accelerator for robust elastomer composites with high thermal conductivity. Composites Science and Technology. 2018;164:267-273
  99. 99. Hu K, Kulkarni DD, Choi I, Tsukruk VV. Graphene-polymer nanocomposites for structural and functional applications. Progress in Polymer Science. 2014;39(11):1934-1972
  100. 100. Wen Y, Yin Q , Jia H, Yin B, Zhang X, Liu P, et al. Tailoring rubber-filler interfacial interaction and multifunctional rubber nanocomposites by usage of graphene oxide with different oxidation degrees. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2017;124:250-259
  101. 101. Potts JR, Shankar O, Murali S, Du L, Ruoff RS. Latex and two-roll mill processing of thermally-exfoliated graphite oxide/natural rubber nanocomposites. Composites Science and Technology. 2013;74:166-172
  102. 102. Mao Y, Wen S, Chen Y, Zhang F, Panine P, Chan TW, et al. High performance graphene oxide based rubber composites. Scientific Reports. 2013;3(1):1-7
  103. 103. Liu X, Sun D, Wang L, Guo B. Sodium humate functionalized graphene and its unique reinforcement effects for rubber. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. 2013;52(41):14592-14600
  104. 104. Tang Z, Wu X, Guo B, Zhang L, Jia D. Preparation of butadiene–styrene–vinyl pyridine rubber–graphene oxide hybrids through co-coagulation process and in situ interface tailoring. Journal of Materials Chemistry. 2012;22(15):7492-7501
  105. 105. Lei Y, Tang Z, Liao R, Guo B. Hydrolysable tannin as environmentally friendly reducer and stabilizer for graphene oxide. Green chemistry. 2011;13(7):1655-1658
  106. 106. Yang Z, Liu J, Liao R, Yang G, Wu X, Tang Z, et al. Rational design of covalent interfaces for graphene/elastomer nanocomposites. Composites Science and Technology. 2016;132:68-75
  107. 107. Fujimoto A, Masuda T. Chemical interaction between polyphenols and a cysteinyl thiol under radical oxidation conditions. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2012;60(20):5142-5151
  108. 108. Tang Z, Zhang C, Zhu L, Guo B. Low permeability styrene butadiene rubber/boehmite nanocomposites modified with tannic acid. Materials & Design. 2016;103:25-31
  109. 109. Sirqueira AS, Soares BG. The effect of functionalized ethylene propylene diene rubber (EPDM) on the kinetics of sulfur vulcanization of normal rubber/EPDM blends. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering. 2007;292(1):62-69
  110. 110. Kim WS, Yi J, Lee DH, Kim IJ, Son WJ, Bae JW, et al. Effect of 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane and N, N-dimethyldodecylamine as modifiers of Na+−montmorillonite on SBR/organoclay nanocomposites. Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 2010;116(6):3373-3387
  111. 111. He S-J, Wang Y-Q , Wu Y-P, Wu X-H, Lu Y-L, Zhang L-Q. Preparation, structure, performance, industrialisation and application of advanced rubber/clay nanocomposites based on latex compounding method. Plastics, Rubber and Composites. 2010;39(1):33-42
  112. 112. Sadek E, El-Nashar D, Ahmed S. Effect of organoclay reinforcement on the curing characteristics and technological properties of styrene–butadiene rubber. Polymer Composites. 2015;36(7):1293-1302
  113. 113. Wang Z, Liu J, Wu S, Wang W. Zhang L, Novel percolation phenomena and mechanism of strengthening elastomers by nanofillers. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 2010;12(12):3014-3030
  114. 114. Mensah B, Gupta KC, Kim H, Wang W, Jeong K-U, Nah C. Graphene-reinforced elastomeric nanocomposites: A review. Polymer Testing. 2018;68:160-184
  115. 115. Nawaz K, Khan U, Ul-Haq N, May P, O’Neill A, Coleman JN. Observation of mechanical percolation in functionalized graphene oxide/elastomer composites. Carbon. 2012;50(12):4489-4494
  116. 116. Ren PG, Di YY, Zhang Q , Li L, Pang H, Li ZM. Composites of ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene with graphene sheets and/or MWCNTs with segregated network structure: Preparation and properties. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering. 2012;297(5):437-443
  117. 117. Liu K, Ronca S, Andablo-Reyes E, Forte G, Rastogi S. Unique rheological response of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylenes in the presence of reduced graphene oxide. Macromolecules. 2015;48(1):131-139
  118. 118. Paszkiewicz S, Szymczyk A, Pawlikowska D, Subocz J, Zenker M, Masztak R. Electrically and thermally conductive low density polyethylene-based nanocomposites reinforced by MWCNT or hybrid MWCNT/graphene nanoplatelets with improved thermo-oxidative stability. Nanomaterials. 2018;8(4):264
  119. 119. Liu M, Kinloch IA, Young RJ, Papageorgiou DG. Modelling mechanical percolation in graphene-reinforced elastomer nanocomposites. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2019;178:107506

Written By

Mohammed A. Sharaf and Andrzej Kloczkowski

Submitted: 16 March 2022 Reviewed: 07 April 2022 Published: 14 July 2022