View Article Online / Journal Homepage / Table of Contents for this issue

Journal of Dynamic Article Links < C

Materials Chemistry
Cite this: J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 23057
www.rsc.org/materials PAPER
Functionalized graphene oxide for fire safety applications of polymers: a
Published on 12 September 2012. Downloaded by University of California - San Diego on 27/04/2017 15:02:00.

combination of condensed phase flame retardant strategies†

Chenlu Bao, Yuqiang Guo, Bihe Yuan, Yuan Hu* and Lei Song*
Received 27th July 2012, Accepted 12th September 2012
DOI: 10.1039/c2jm35001g

Graphene is promising for the fire safety applications of polymers, but the ease of burn out limits
further developments. A novel strategy based on functionalized graphene oxide (FGO) is developed to
overcome this challenge. Graphene oxide is functionalized with char-catalyzing agents and reactive
compounds and incorporated into polystyrene. When FGO–polystyrene composites are degraded or
burned, FGO catalyzes the char formation from polystyrene (Char A). Char A protects FGO from
burning out and then FGO acts as a graphitic char (Char B). Because of the combination of Char
A, Char B, the physical barrier effects of FGO, and the strong interfacial interactions of FGO
and polymers, the fire safety properties of the FGO–polystyrene composites are improved,
including decreased peak CO release rate (66% decrease), decreased peak CO2 release rate (54%
decrease), decreased peak heat release rate (53% decrease), decreased thermal degradation rate (30%
decrease), decreased total heat release (38% decrease), and increased char formation (7 times), etc. This
strategy combines several condensed phase flame retardant strategies such as the nanocomposite
technique, intumescent flame retardant systems and phosphorus–nitrogen synergism systems, and
hence results in more significant improvements as compared with prior work.

1. Introduction
Graphene, a one-atom-thick monolayer of sp2-hybridised
carbon, has gained increasing interest since it was reported by
Geim et al. in 2004.1 Graphene has many unique properties such
as quantum effects, high electron mobility, superior mechanical
properties, and large specific area, etc., and is promising in
many applications including energy and electronic devices,
transparent conductive materials, sensors, catalysts, quantum
dots, and high-performance graphene–polymer composites
(GPCs), etc.2–8
Recently graphene has shown great potential for fire safety
applications of polymers.9–16 Polymers are usually easily ignited
and burned, so improved fire safety properties are highly desir-
able due to the expanding applications of polymers. With a small
additive amount of graphene (usually <2%), the thermal stability
of GPCs is improved, and the release of heat and toxic gases
during the combustion of GPCs is reduced.9–11,14,15 The physical
barrier effect of graphene which slows down the diffusion of
gases and degradation products, and the interfacial interactions
among graphene and polymers, are the main reasons for the
improvements.9,10,17 However, graphene is usually burned out
State Key Laboratory of Fire Science, University of Science and
Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, P. R. China. E-mail:
yuanhu@ustc.edu.cn; Fax: +86-551-3601664; Tel: +86-551-3601664;
leisong@ustc.edu.cn; +86-551-3601642; +86-551-3601642
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: See DOI:
10.1039/c2jm35001g
when GPCs are burned (see the ESI†).9,10 Therefore, further
improvements are inhibited.
The fire safety properties of polymers can be improved by
flame retardants mainly by three strategies: (1) vapor phase
strategies where flame retardants stop or reduce the combustion
reaction in the vapor phase; (2) condensed phase strategies where
flame retardants inhibit the degradation of the polymer and the
diffusion of heat, degradation products and gases; and (3) flame
retardants reduce the heat fed back to the polymers from
combustion zones or remove heat from the polymers.18–23 There
has been great interest in condensed phase strategies because of
the high efficiency and environmental friendliness, and layered-
nanofiller–polymer (nano)composites (LNPCs) and intumescent
flame retardants (IFRs) are the most promising ones in this
family. In LNPCs, layered-nanofillers, e.g. clays, act as physical
barriers in the polymeric matrix to inhibit the diffusion of heat,
gases and thermal degradation products at low loading levels
(usually <5% by weight).24–26 In IFR systems, char, a mixture of
amorphous and graphitic carbon, is formed on the surface of the
polymers during combustion, which inhibits the exchange of
heat, combustible gases and oxygen between the polymers and
combustion zone.19,27
As a 2-dimensional layered nano-material with high thermal
stability and large specific area, graphene is appropriate for the
LNPCs technique; and as a graphitic carbon, graphene may act
as a graphitic char just like the char in IFR systems. Therefore,
graphene is likely to combine the LNPCs technique and IFR
systems together. However, the ease of burn out of graphene

This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012 J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 23057–23063 | 23057

makes the combination unavailable. As is well known, graphene
is more stable in an anoxic atmosphere than in an oxygen-rich
atmosphere. Graphene is degraded in air below 600
C28 but is
highly stable in a nitrogen atmosphere up to 800
C.12 Thus, if an
anoxic environment is formed around graphene when the GPCs
are burned, there is a strong possibility to prevent graphene from
Published on 12 September 2012. Downloaded by University of California - San Diego on 27/04/2017 15:02:00.
burning out, and then the graphene may act as a graphitic char to
protect the underlying polymers. To achieve this objective,
herein, a novel strategy based on functionalized graphene oxide
(FGO) was developed. Graphene oxide (GO) was functionalized
with hexachlorocyclotriphosphazene (HCCP, molecular
formula: P3N3Cl6) and hydroxyethyl acrylate (HEA). As a
phosphorus–nitrogen compound, HCCP efficiently catalyzes the
char formation from polymers (defined as Char A).29–32 FGO is
protected from oxygen by Char A, so it does not burn out and
can then act as a graphitic char (defined as Char B). HEA
introduces C]C groups to FGO which can be polymerized with
monomers, so strong covalent interfacial interactions are avail-
able among the FGO and polymers. As a result, several plus
factors are combined in this strategy: (1) Char A protects the
underlying polymers; (2) FGO, which is protected by Char A,
protects the underlying polymers; (3) FGO acts as a physical
barrier in the polymeric matrix, which is beneficial to improving
the fire safety properties;9,10 and (4) the strong interfacial inter-
actions among the FGO and the polymers may also improve the
fire safety properties.9
Polystyrene (PS) was chosen as the polymeric matrix. Neat
PS forms little char during combustion, and the new strategy
may pioneer a route to solve this problem. GO was covalently
functionalized with HCCP and HEA. FGO–PS composites
were prepared by in situ polymerization (Fig. 1). The compo-
nent, structure and fire safety properties of the FGO and
FGO–PS composites were investigated and compared with
prior work.
2. Experimental
2.1 Raw materials
Expandible graphite was supplied by Qingdao Tianhe Graphite
Co., Ltd., China (purity >98%). Sulfuric acid (H2SO4, 98%),
sodium nitrate (NaNO3, AP), potassium permanganate
(KMnO4, AP), hydrazine hydrate (85% aq.), hydrochloric acid
(HCl, 37% aq.), styrene, benzoyl peroxide (BPO, AP), and
tetrahydrofuran (THF, AP) were obtained from Sinopharm
Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd., China. Triethylamine (TEA, AP)
was obtained from Shanghai Chemical Reagents Company of
Fig. 1 Preparation and characterization of FGO: (a) preparation routes of FGO and FGO–PS composites; (b) AFM profiles of GO; (c) TEM
photograph of GO; (d) TEM photograph of FGO.
23058 | J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 23057–23063
View Article Online
 molecular sieves before use. HCCP was
China and dried over 4 A
obtained from Zibo Lanyin Chemical Co. Ltd (China).
2.2 Preparation of GO and FGO
GO was prepared by a modified Hummers’ method and washed
with THF to remove water.17 GO (about 2 g) was dispersed in
THF (400 mL) in a 1000 mL three-necked flask equipped with a
mechanical stirrer and nitrogen inlet. HCCP (36 g) and TEA
(60 g) were dispersed in THF (100 mL), respectively. The HCCP–
THF and TEA–THF mixtures were dripped into the GO–THF
blend with stirring. The reaction was carried out at 15–20
C for
12 h. HEA (70 g) was dispersed in THF (100 mL) and then
dripped into the mixture. After 24 h of reaction, the obtained
FGO was washed with deionized water and THF. A small
portion of GO and FGO was dried at 80
C for 24 h for
characterization.
2.3 Preparation of FGO–PS composites
FGO–PS composites were prepared by in situ polymerization.
FGO was dispersed in styrene (total amount: 25 g) in a three-
necked flask by magnetic stirring. The flask was heated at 70
C
in an oil bath. After 30 min of stirring, BPO (1 wt% compared to
styrene) was added to the mixture and further stirred until the
mixture turned highly viscous. The blend was poured into a mold
(basal dimension 100  100 cm2) and heated at 80
C for 24 h.
Samples are entitled PS/x% FGO, where x (1, 2 and 3) is the mass
ratio of the FGO in the composites.
2.4 Characterization
Atomic force microscopy (AFM, Veeco DI Multimode V) was
employed to investigate the morphology of the GO. Samples
were dispersed in water with 20 min of ultrasonication and dip-
coated onto freshly cleaved mica surfaces before observation.
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM, JEM-2011, Japan
Electron Optics Laboratory) was employed to investigate the
morphology of GO and FGO and the dispersion of FGO in
FGO–PS composites. GO and FGO were dispersed in water with
20 min of ultrasonication and dripped onto copper grids; FGO–
PS composites were microtomed to ultrathin sections for obser-
vation, using a Du Pont MT-6000 Ultratome.
X-Ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS, VG ESCALB MK-
II electron spectrometer) was employed to investigate the
elemental composition of GO and FGO. The excitation source
was an Al Ka line at 1486.6 eV.
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012
 View Article Online

Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectra of GO and FGO

were obtained on a Nicolet 6700 FTIR instrument. Samples were
mixed with KBr powder and pressed into tablets.
X-Ray diffraction (XRD) of GO and FGO were performed
with a Rigaku D ¼ Max-Ra rotating anode X-ray diffractometer
equipped with a Cu-Ka tube and a Ni filter (l ¼ 0.1542 nm).
Published on 12 September 2012. Downloaded by University of California - San Diego on 27/04/2017 15:02:00.

The thermal properties of the GO, FGO and PS–FGO

composites were investigated by a TA Q5000 thermo-analyzer.
Samples were heated at a linear rate of 20
C min1 from room
temperature to 700
C in a nitrogen atmosphere.
The fire safety properties of the FGO–PS composites were
investigated on a Stanton Redcroft cone calorimeter according
to ISO 5660-1 standard, with a heat flux of 35 kW m2. The
dimensions of the samples were 100  100  2 mm3.
The char obtained in the cone test was studied by scanning
electron microscopy (SEM, AMRAY 1000B, Beijing R&D
center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China).

3. Results and discussion

The morphology of the GO and FGO was studied by AFM
(Fig. 1b) and TEM (Fig. 1c and d). The thickness of the GO was
1.0 nm, which is typical for single-layer GO.33 The GO presented
a clean morphology (Fig. 1c) but the FGO was a little fuzzy
(Fig. 1d) due to the bonding of functionalization agents.
The chemical components of the GO and FGO were studied
by XPS and FTIR, as shown in Fig. 2. The XPS curves (Fig. 2a)
indicate the presence of three kinds of carbon in the GO and
FGO: C]O, C–O and C]C in the graphitic domain, and a peak
of C–O–P appears in the curve of the FGO. In the FTIR spectra
(Fig. 2b), GO presents the typical spectra of oxygen-based
functional groups: –OH at 3420 cm1, C]O at 1728 cm1, C]C
and the hydroxyl in the adsorbed water at 1625 cm1, and C–O at
1000–1300 cm1.34–38 Several new peaks are observed in the curve
of FGO due to the bonding of HCCP and HEA, and the peak at
about 980 cm1 is attributed to C–O–P.39–41
In the XRD curves (Fig. 8), a typical (001) diffraction of GO is
located at 2q ¼ 11.4
and it is shifted to 2q ¼ 8.9
in FGO,
implying that the d-spacing is increased from 0.77 nm (GO) to
1.00 nm (FGO) due to the binding of HCCP and HEA.
Based on the information above, it is reasonable that GO has
been modified by HCCP and HEA.
The dispersion of graphene-based nanofillers and the interfa-
cial interactions between graphene-based nanofillers and the
polymeric matrix are two key factors for GPCs.42 The dispersion
is influenced by the compatibility of the nanofillers as well as the
interfacial interactions between the nanofillers and polymers.
The compatibility of FGO in styrene was compared with that of
GO and graphene (Fig. 3a). Graphene (10% oxygen and 90%
carbon) was prepared by an ammonia–hydrazine multiplex
reduction.10 GO, graphene and FGO were washed with THF to
remove water, dispersed in styrene, sonicated for 10 min, and
then kept standing for 2 h. As shown in Fig. 3a, GO and gra-
phene precipitate while FGO remains well-dispersed in styrene,
so the compatibility of FGO is improved as compared with GO
and graphene. The interfacial interactions between FGO and PS
not only affect the dispersion of FGO but also influence the
properties of the composites. The direct measurement of inter-
facial interactions is not easy. Herein, TEM studies offer
Fig. 2 XPS (a) and FTIR (b) curves.
circumstantial evidence. PS/1% FGO and PS/3% FGO were cut
in ultrathin sections and investigated by TEM (Fig. 3b and c).
FGO layers are well dispersed in the composites due to the good
compatibility of FGO and the strong covalent interaction
between FGO and PS. In earlier work, the ultrathin sections of
GPCs were usually smooth,9,43–51 but the ultrathin sections in
Fig. 3 are obviously rougher, especially around the FGO layers,
implying that FGO has formed strong interfacial interactions
with PS due to the functionalization.
Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was employed to evaluate
the thermal stability of the GO, FGO and FGO–PS composites
(Fig. 4). The mass loss occurring below 100
C is attributed to the
adsorbed water in GO and FGO. The main mass loss in GO
occurs at about 200
C, due to the decomposition of oxygen-
containing groups.52,53 FGO is more stable than GO because
FGO is partially reduced by amines.54,55 The degradation of PS
occurs at 400–450
C. FGO–PS composites have two mass loss
stages. The first stage is at 180–400
C, probably due to the
release of monomers and oligomers. The second stage, which is
the main mass-loss stage, occurs between 400 and 470
C. FGO–
PS composites present higher thermal stability than neat PS in
the second stage because of the good physical barrier effect of the
FGO layers and the strong interfacial interactions between FGO
and PS.9 The char formed during thermal degradation and

This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012 J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 23057–23063 | 23059
Published on 12 September 2012. Downloaded by University of California - San Diego on 27/04/2017 15:02:00.
Fig. 3 Dispersion of FGO: (a) photograph of GO, graphene and FGO in styrene after standing for 2 h; and (b) and (c) TEM photographs of the
ultrathin section of PS/1% FGO and PS/3% FGO, respectively.
Fig. 4 TGA (a) and DTG (b) curves.
combustion is important for fire safety applications. The char
yield of PS is 0.6% at 700
C, and the char yield of the FGO–PS
composites is increased, e.g. 6.2% in PS/3% FGO. The residue
amount of FGO is about 54.1%. So in the char of PS/3% FGO
(6.2%), 1.6% (3%  54.1%) is from FGO and the rest, 4.6%, is
from PS. Therefore, the true char yield of the PS in PS/3% FGO
is about 4.7% (4.6%/97%), which is a 7 times increase (4.7%/
0.6%) as compared with neat PS. In earlier work, the char yield of
graphene–PS composites was very little, and the presence of
graphene did not improve the char formation. For example, the
residue yield of PS–graphene-2 (2 wt% graphene) was 1.7%, and
the residual weight of graphene was about 87%,9 so the char yield
23060 | J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 23057–23063
View Article Online
was actually entirely from the incorporated graphene and no
char was formed from the PS in the composite. From these
comparisons, it is clear that FGO catalyzes the char formation of
PS due to HCCP. Because of the physical barrier effect of FGO
and improved char, differential thermogravimetric (DTG) peaks
of the FGO–PS composites, which indicate thermal degradation
rates, are visibly decreased (Fig. 4b). The maximum decrease is
about 30% (PS/2% FGO and PS/3% FGO), which is also a better
improvement as compared with prior work.9,48,56
The char formation and fire safety properties of FGO–PS
composites were investigated by cone calorimetry. Samples were
heated and ignited under a strong heat flux (35 kW m2). After
burning, neat PS does not form char while the FGO–PS
composites form visible char, and the char is increased when the
FGO level is increased (Fig. 5a). The morphology of the char is
studied by SEM, as shown in Fig. 5b. When the level of FGO
increases, the char surface becomes more compact and tight.
The char of PS/1% FGO is bumpy and porous; the char of
PS/2% FGO is more compact; and the char of PS/3% FGO is
continuous and highly compact (Fig. 5b). The inner structure
of the char of PS/3% FGO is bumpy and porous, and many
layers are observed, implying that FGO is not burned out. The
char contains at least two portions: Char A (from PS) and Char
B (FGO layers). In our prior work, no char was formed in
graphene–PS and GO–PS composites, because GO and gra-
phene burn out in air (Fig. 10, see the ESI†).9 In FGO–PS
composites, Char A is formed around FGO and hence protects
FGO from burning out. As shown in Fig. 5b, many layered
structures are visible which could be attributed to the protec-
tive FGO layers. When the FGO level is 3%, so much Char A is
formed that it not only protects the FGO but also constructs a
continuous and compact char surface, and the protected FGO
layers construct a porous framework under the surface
(Fig. 5b). The FGO layers and the continuous and compact
char surface are good barriers to protect the underlying poly-
mers and inhibit the exchange of degradation products,
combustible gases and oxygen.
Fire safety properties, including heat release rate (HRR), total
heat release (THR), CO2 yield and CO yield, are shown in Fig. 6
and Table 1. The HRR, THR, peak heat release rate (PHRR),
CO2 yield and CO yield are all decreased. The maximum
decreases are 53% in PHRR (PS/3% FGO), 38% in THR (PS/1%
FGO), 54% in CO2 (PS/3% FGO), and 66% in CO yield (PS/3%
FGO). As compared to graphene, GO and metal-loaded
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012
Published on 12 September 2012. Downloaded by University of California - San Diego on 27/04/2017 15:02:00. View Article Online

Fig. 5 Observations of char: (a) digital photographs; and (b) SEM profiles.

graphene,9 FGO performs much better in improving the fire
safety properties of PS. It is attributed to the combination of
Char A, Char B, the physical barrier effect of FGO and the
strong interfacial interactions between FGO and PS.
The specific extinction area (SEA) is employed to evaluate the
smoke yield during the combustion of the composites. As shown
in Fig. 7, the SEA curves fluctuated, so direct comparison among
the different curves is unavailable, and the average SEA is
employed as shown in Table 1 and Fig. 8. The average SEA
values are increased when the FGO loading level is increased,
indicating that FGO increases the smoke yield during combus-
tion. It is probably because of two reasons. First, FGO catalyzes

Fig. 6 Cone calorimeter test results: (a) HRR curves; (b) THR curves; (c) CO2 yield; and (d) CO yield.

This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012 J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 23057–23063 | 23061
 View Article Online

Table 1 Data collected from the cone test

PHRR
Samples ITT (s) (kW m2) THR (MJ m2) P-COa (g s1) P-CO2a (g s1) Av-SEAb (m2 kg1)

PS 50 1703 139 0.021 0.552 887

PS/0.5% FGO 30 1127 96 0.012 0.391 888
PS/1% FGO 25 1058 86 0.010 0.338 894
Published on 12 September 2012. Downloaded by University of California - San Diego on 27/04/2017 15:02:00.

PS/2% FGO 20 908 92 0.008 0.287 1000

PS/3% FGO 20 805 93 0.007 0.226 1086
a
The peak values of the CO release rate and CO2 release rate, respectively. b The average values the SEA.

speed up the diffusion of heat from the surface into the body of
GPCs. When samples are heated in a cone calorimeter, GPCs are
more easily able to increase their temperature as compared with
neat polymer samples because of the high thermal conductivity
of graphene-based materials, and thus, the ignition of GPCs is
facilitated. Such facilitation is still a challenge to be overcome
because it makes burning easy.
Table 1 and Fig. 8 show the data obtained from the cone test.
Most of the data are decreased when increasing the loading level
of FGO, and the average SEA is increased, indicating increased
smoke yield. This strategy combines several condensed phase
strategies such as the intumescent flame retardant system,
phosphorus-nitrogen synergism system and polymer nano-
composite technique, and causes further improvements in the fire
safety properties of PS as compared with GO or graphene.9 The
Fig. 7 SEA curves. functionalization of char-catalyzing agents, which protect gra-
phene from oxygen when burned, is the key factor for the
combination. This strategy can also be applied in other polymers,
and the results here indicate a promising future of functionalized
graphene in fire safety applications of polymers.

Fig. 8 Trends of the data obtained in the cone test.
the char formation of FGO–PS composites; and second, FGO
itself is a part of smoke since it is a graphite-based compound.
When FGO–PS composites are burned, the char and FGO are
both released in air, and, as a result, increase the smoke yield as
compared with neat PS.
As reported in our earlier works, graphene-based materials
usually facilitate the ignition of GPCs.9,10 Fig. 6 indicates that the
ignition time (ITT) is decreased when increasing the FGO
loading level, and Fig. 7 indicates that the onset time of smoke
release is also decreased. Such a decrease is attributed to the high
thermal conductivity of graphene-based materials, 60–63 which
4. Conclusions
GO is functionalized with HCCP and HEA and incorporated
into polystyrene by in situ polymerization. The functionaliza-
tion improves the formation of Char A. Char A protected FGO
from oxygen, so FGO does not burn out and then acts as Char
B. The combination of Char A and Char B resulted in
continuous and compact char on the surface of the composites
to protect the underlying polymers. Due to the improved char,
the physical barrier effect of the FGO, and the strong interfa-
cial interactions among FGO and the polymeric matrix, the fire
safety properties of the composites are improved, including the
peak CO release rate (66% decrease), peak CO2 release rate
(54% decrease), peak heat release rate (53% decrease), thermal
degradation rate (30% decrease) and total heat release (38%
decrease), etc.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the supported from the National Basic
Research Program of China (973 Program, no. 2012CB719701),
the joint fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of
China and Guangdong Province (no. U1074001), and the joint
fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China and
Civil Aviation Administration of China (no. 61079015).

23062 | J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 23057–23063 This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012

References
1 K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang,
S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva and A. A. Firsov, Science, 2004,
306, 666–669.
2 A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Mater., 2007, 6, 183–191.
3 Y. W. Zhu, S. Murali, W. W. Cai, X. S. Li, J. W. Suk, J. R. Potts and
R. S. Ruoff, Adv. Mater., 2010, 22, 3906–3924.
Published on 12 September 2012. Downloaded by University of California - San Diego on 27/04/2017 15:02:00.
4 M. Pumera, Energy Environ. Sci., 2011, 4, 668–674.
5 V. Singh, D. Joung, L. Zhai, S. Das, S. I. Khondaker and S. Seal,
Prog. Mater. Sci., 2011, 56, 1178–1271.
6 Y. Barlas, K. Yang and A. H. MacDonald, Nanotechnology, 2012, 23,
052001.
7 X. Huang, X. Y. Qi, F. Boey and H. Zhang, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2012,
41, 666–686.
8 R. Verdejo, M. M. Bernal, L. J. Romasanta and M. A. Lopez-
Manchado, J. Mater. Chem., 2011, 21, 3301–3310.
9 C. L. Bao, L. Song, C. A. Wilkie, B. H. Yuan, Y. Q. Guo, Y. Hu and
X. L. Gong, J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 16399–16406.
10 C. L. Bao, L. Song, W. Y. Xing, B. H. Yuan, C. A. Wilkie,
J. L. Huang, Y. Q. Guo and Y. Hu, J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22,
6088–6096.
11 X. Wang, L. Song, H. Y. Yang, W. Y. Xing, H. D. Lu and Y. Hu,
J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 3426–3431.
12 Y. Q. Guo, C. L. Bao, L. Song, B. H. Yuan and Y. Hu, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res., 2011, 50, 7772–7783.
13 Z. Wang, X. Z. Tang, Z. Z. Yu, P. Guo, H. H. Song and X. S. Du,
Chin. J. Polym. Sci., 2011, 29, 368–376.
14 G. B. Huang, H. D. Liang, Y. Wang, X. Wang, J. R. Gao and
Z. D. Fei, Mater. Chem. Phys., 2012, 132, 520–528.
15 G. B. Huang, J. R. Gao, X. Wang, H. D. Liang and C. H. Ge, Mater.
Lett., 2012, 66, 187–189.
16 S. H. Liao, P. L. Liu, M. C. Hsiao, C. C. Teng, C. A. Wang,
M. D. Ger and C. L. Chiang, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2012, 51, 4573–
4581.
17 C. L. Bao, Y. Q. Guo, L. Song and Y. Hu, J. Mater. Chem., 2011, 21,
13942–13950.
18 L. Chen and Y. Z. Wang, Polym. Adv. Technol., 2010, 21, 1–26.
19 H. D. Lu, L. Song and Y. A. Hu, Polym. Adv. Technol., 2011, 22, 379–
394.
20 B. Biswas and B. K. Kandola, Polym. Adv. Technol., 2011, 22, 1192–
1204.
21 U. Braun and B. Schartel, Macromol. Chem. Phys., 2004, 205, 2185–
2196.
22 J. W. Gilman, R. H. Harris, J. R. Shields, T. Kashiwagi and
A. B. Morgan, Polym. Adv. Technol., 2006, 17, 263–271.
23 E. D. Weil and S. Levchik, J. Fire Sci., 2004, 22, 25–40.
24 P. Kiliaris and C. D. Papaspyrides, Prog. Polym. Sci., 2010, 35, 902–
958.
25 A. Leszczynska, J. Njuguna, K. Pielichowski and J. R. Banerjee,
Thermochim. Acta, 2007, 453, 75–96.
26 S. Pavlidou and C. D. Papaspyrides, Prog. Polym. Sci., 2008, 33,
1119–1198.
27 F. Laoutid, L. Bonnaud, M. Alexandre, J. M. Lopez-Cuesta and
P. Dubois, Mater. Sci. Eng., R, 2009, 63, 100–125.
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012
View Article Online
28 X. G. Mei and J. Y. Ouyang, Carbon, 2011, 49, 5389–5397.
29 D. H. Chen, Y. J. Cui, X. L. Wang and X. Z. Tang, J. Appl. Polym.
Sci., 2002, 86, 709–714.
30 F. Gao, L. F. Tong and Z. P. Fang, Polym. Degrad. Stab., 2006, 91,
1295–1299.
31 Q. Li, P. K. Jiang, Z. P. Su, P. Wei, G. L. Wang and X. Z. Tang,
J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2005, 96, 854–860.
32 T. S. Leu and C. S. Wang, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2004, 92, 410–417.
33 S. Stankovich, D. A. Dikin, R. D. Piner, K. A. Kohlhaas,
A. Kleinhammes, Y. Jia, Y. Wu, S. T. Nguyen and R. S. Ruoff,
Carbon, 2007, 45, 1558–1565.
34 A. Bagri, C. Mattevi, M. Acik, Y. J. Chabal, M. Chhowalla and
V. B. Shenoy, Nat. Chem., 2010, 2, 581–587.
35 T. A. Pham, B. C. Choi and Y. T. Jeong, Nanotechnology, 2010, 21,
465603.
36 G. Srinivas, J. W. Burress, J. Ford and T. Yildirim, J. Mater. Chem.,
2011, 21, 11323–11329.
37 H. L. Guo, X. F. Wang, Q. Y. Qian, F. B. Wang and X. H. Xia, ACS
Nano, 2009, 3, 2653–2659.
38 Z. P. Li, Y. J. Mi, X. H. Liu, S. Liu, S. R. Yang and J. Q. Wang,
J. Mater. Chem., 2011, 21, 14706–14711.
39 J. W. Fu, X. B. Huang, Y. Zhu, Y. W. Huang and X. Z. Tang, Appl.
Surf. Sci., 2009, 255, 5088–5091.
40 Y. W. ChenYang, J. J. Hwang and F. H. Chang, Macromolecules,
1997, 30, 3825–3831.
41 Y. W. Chen-Yang, J. J. Hwang and A. Y. Huang, Macromolecules,
2000, 33, 1237–1244.
42 D. Y. Cai and M. Song, J. Mater. Chem., 2010, 20, 7906–7915.
43 M. Fang, K. G. Wang, H. B. Lu, Y. L. Yang and S. Nutt, J. Mater.
Chem., 2009, 19, 7098–7105.
44 A. S. Patole, S. P. Patole, H. Kang, J. B. Yoo, T. H. Kim and
J. H. Ahn, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2010, 350, 530–537.
45 W. J. Li, X. Z. Tang, H. B. Zhang, Z. G. Jiang, Z. Z. Yu, X. S. Du and
Y. W. Mai, Carbon, 2011, 49, 4724–4730.
46 H. A. Pang, C. Chen, Y. C. Zhang, P. G. Ren, D. X. Yan and
Z. M. Li, Carbon, 2011, 49, 1980–1988.
47 X. Y. Qi, D. Yan, Z. G. Jiang, Y. K. Cao, Z. Z. Yu, F. Yavari and
N. Koratkar, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2011, 3, 3130–3133.
48 P. G. Ren, D. X. Yan, T. Chen, B. Q. Zeng and Z. M. Li, J. Appl.
Polym. Sci., 2011, 121, 3167–3174.
49 B. Shen, W. T. Zhai, C. Chen, D. D. Lu, J. Wang and W. G. Zheng,
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2011, 3, 3103–3109.
50 J. T. Yang, M. J. Wu, F. Chen, Z. D. Fei and M. Q. Zhong,
J. Supercrit. Fluids, 2011, 56, 201–207.
51 W. L. Zhang, Y. D. Liu and H. J. Choi, J. Mater. Chem., 2011, 21,
6916–6921.
52 X. Z. Tang, W. J. Li, Z. Z. Yu, M. A. Rafiee, J. Rafiee, F. Yavari and
N. Koratkar, Carbon, 2011, 49, 1258–1265.
53 H. F. Yang, F. H. Li, C. S. Shan, D. X. Han, Q. X. Zhang, L. Niu and
A. Ivaska, J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 4632–4638.
54 S. Mao, K. H. Yu, S. M. Cui, Z. Bo, G. H. Lu and J. H. Chen,
Nanoscale, 2011, 3, 2849–2853.
55 S. Pei and H.-M. Cheng, Carbon, 2012, 50, 3210–3228.
56 Y. Li, Z. Q. Wang, L. Yang, H. Gu and G. Xue, Chem. Commun.,
2011, 47, 10722–10724.
J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 23057–23063 | 23063