4.8 Article

Determination of the surface chemistry of ozone-treated carbon fibers by highly consistent evaluation of X-ray photoelectron spectra

期刊

CARBON
卷 146, 期 -, 页码 97-105

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2019.01.081

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund (EFRE)
  2. province of Upper Austria through the program IWB 2014-2020
  3. Austrian Government
  4. province of Upper Austria within the COMET Programme
  5. province of Lower Austria within the COMET Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Room-temperature ozone treatment is a promising technique for functionalization of carbon materials: it is fast, well controllable, and leads to oxygen uptakes of up to 15 at.% on carbon fiber surfaces. We investigated the surface chemistry of untreated and room-temperature ozone-treated polyacrylonitrilebased carbon fibers using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). By identifying two different nitrogen species (graphitic and pyridine-like) we developed a new constraint for fitting the C 1s spectra. This approach ensured high consistency between measured elemental concentrations and elemental concentrations calculated from fitted functional group peaks. It also revealed a different relative ordering of functional group concentrations than previously reported for ozone-treated carbons. The results of this new fitting procedure were cross-checked with chemical derivatization XPS measurements, resulting in a good correlation for hydroxyl and carbonyl groups. Examination of single fiber cross-sections using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy in a transmission electron microscope showed that even after intense treatments oxygen can mainly be found in the topmost 40 nm-50 nm, stressing the importance of surface sensitive techniques such as XPS. Furthermore, XPS results suggested only a minor surface degradation caused by the ozone treatment. This was corroborated by atomic force microscopy results. (c) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据