Chapter Graphene RubberNanocompositesP

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/319634148
Graphene-Rubber Nanocomposites: Preparation, Structure, and Properties
Chapter · September 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-61651-3_9
CITATIONS READS
0 1,638
5 authors, including:
Marino Lavorgna Hesheng Xia

Italian National Research Council Sichuan University
159 PUBLICATIONS 2,111 CITATIONS 167 PUBLICATIONS 4,929 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Materiais Poliméricos com Aplicações Tecnológicas: POLITEC-RS View project
Sorption thermodynamics and mass transport of low m.w. compounds in polymers View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Marino Lavorgna on 08 September 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Graphene-Rubber Nanocomposites:
Preparation, Structure, and Properties
Jian Wang, Kaiye Zhang, Qiang Bu, Marino Lavorgna, and Hesheng Xia
1 Introduction
Graphene is a two-dimensional atomically thick carbon material with a honeycomb

lattice structure, composed of sp2 hybridized carbon atoms. In 2004, Geim and
Novoselov theoretically predicted the existence of a single crystal of graphene and
experimentally isolated the graphene sheets by peeling-off graphite using scotch tape
and thus won the 2010 Nobel Prize in physics. Graphene possesses ultrahigh mechan-
ical strength, high Young’s modulus, structural flexibility, large specific surface area,
excellent thermal and electrical conductivity, and optical transmittance, which out-
perform other ever-reported materials [1–4]. Due to the specific properties, graphene
may bring about a new technological revolution in the twenty-first century [5, 6].
Graphene is currently produced by a variety of approaches, such as chemical vapor
deposition (CVD), epitaxial growth, micromechanical exfoliation, liquid exfoliation,
and oxidation-reduction (i.e., oxidation of graphite to graphene oxide and then reduc-
tion to graphene by chemicals or heat). The large-scale production of graphene by
using the former three approaches remains a challenge due to their high cost, whereas
both the liquid exfoliation and the oxidation-reduction methods exhibit high versatil-
ity and industrial scalability, which possibly are the most promising methods for the
graphene production. It is noted that the several production approaches allow to obtain
graphene with different quality expressed as aspect ratio and amount of defects on the
J. Wang • K. Zhang • Q. Bu • H. Xia (*)

State Key Lab of Polymer Materials Engineering, Polymer Research Institute, Sichuan
University, Chengdu 610065, China
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
M. Lavorgna (*)
Institute of Polymers, Composites and Biomaterials, National Research Council,
c/o ENEA, P.le E. Fermi, 1, Loc. Granatello, Portici, NA 80055, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 175

S. Kaneko et al. (eds.), Carbon-related Materials in Recognition of Nobel
Lectures by Prof. Akira Suzuki in ICCE, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-61651-3_9
176 J. Wang et al.
graphene nanoplatelets. In particular the quality of graphene nanoplatelets is rela-

tively lower due to more defect declines when graphene is produced by oxidation-
reduction method. It is widely accepted that graphene produced by liquid exfoliation
or by oxidation-reduction methods is suitable to be used as filler for the production of
polymer composites. For oxidation-reduction method, except for the low cost and
easily scale-up, the most important advantage is its capability to obtain the water-
dispersive graphene oxide, which can be easily modified to obtain the range of gra-
phene derivatives compatible with different polymer matrix from nonpolar to polar.
In recent years, there have been growing interests toward elastomeric materials
to be used in a multitude of different applications, from automotive to energy sector,
from aerospace to the manufacturing of daily goods sector. The conventional rubber
material could not meet the ever-increasing demand of applications; thus it is very
important to develop innovative multifunctional rubber-based composites. In the
last 10 years, graphene/thermal plastic polymer composites were extensively inves-
tigated; however, surprisingly, almost no studies involved the preparation and
characterization of rubber/graphene composites until 2011, probably due to the dis-
persion and exfoliation problem of graphene in the cross-linked rubber matrix.
Since 2013, the modification of rubber by using graphene nanofillers has become
one of the hot topics in the area of graphene, aiming to the automobile or bicycle tire
application. Graphene combines the conductivity of carbonaceous materials with
the structural characteristics of clay sheets (widely used in the field of elastomeric
materials), thus providing new strategies in the development of high-performance
multifunctional rubber nanocomposites. Graphene rubber materials can be widely
used in tire, high barrier conductive seal, electromagnetic shielding seals, and shock
absorber. Graphene, as a prospective filler in rubber materials, possesses many
advantages: (1) extraordinary modulus of ~1TPa with flexibility and light weight
and thus better mechanical reinforcement effect compared to conventional filler; (2)
high electrical and thermal conductivity; (3) gas barrier properties higher than clay;
(4) higher specific area, leading more interfacial contact and larger effect on molec-
ular chain, and crystallization such as strain-induced crystallization ability com-
pared with clay and carbon nanotubes; and (5) good heat resistance. (6) For graphene
oxide or reduced graphene oxide, there are some polar groups like hydroxyl, car-
boxyl, and epoxide, which make graphene easily functionalized by grafting small
molecules or polymer. Therefore, graphene, as the most powerful 2D materials, may
provide a good opportunity for the revolution of traditional rubber technology.
This chapter will review the state of the art on graphene/rubber nanocomposites
with specific focus on the preparation approaches, structure and properties, and also
the application.
2 Preparation of Graphene/Rubber Nanocomposites
In general, three main approaches were adopted for the preparation of graphene-
rubber composites, i.e., melt mixing, solution mixing, and latex mixing. In order to
produce the valuable composites, or the truly 2D graphene-rubber hybrid, the
Graphene-Rubber Nanocomposites: Preparation, Structure, and Properties 177
methods should solve three important challenges, i.e., the exfoliation and dispersion
of graphene nanoplatelets, the construction of well-defined graphene structures
(i.e., random dispersion, layered structure, or segregated structure), and the improved
interfacial interaction between the 2D graphene and macromolecular chain.
2.1 Latex Mixing Method
Graphene (GE)-filled natural rubber (NR) nanocomposites prepared by latex mix-

ing approach have attracted increasing attention [7, 8]. Latex mixing is the most
popular and recognized method to make the rubber-graphene nanocomposites. The
general process is mixing the aqueous dispersion of graphene or graphene oxide
with rubber latex to get a uniform dispersion. Afterward the mixture is subjected to
coagulation, drying, and vulcanization to obtain the GE/NR composites. When
using the graphene oxide dispersion, the in situ reduction in the latex can be con-
ducted before coagulation to obtain the graphene-rubber nanocomposites. The final
properties of GE/NR composites prepared by latex mixing approach depend on the
compatibility of graphene or its derivatives with polymer and the graphene mor-
phology in the matrix. The latex mixing has two advantages: (1) the well dispersion
of graphene can be realized and (2) the process is relatively easy, low cost, and
environment-friendly without using the organic solvent. There are also some disad-
vantages for latex mixing: (1) due to a low concentration of graphene in aqueous
dispersion, too much water will be used for dispersion and washing and (2) the
graphene dispersion is highly energy consuming, normally using ultrasound equip-
ment. The machine cost is high when production is in a ton scale.
Zhan et al. firstly prepared GE/NR composites by an ultrasonically assisted latex
mixing and in situ reduction (ULMR) method [7]. The innovative method was sche-
matically illustrated as follows: the graphene oxide (GO) prepared from natural
flake graphite according to the Hummers’ method is well dispersed into water by
ultrasonic irradiation due to the presence of oxygen-containing groups in the sur-
face and mixed with NR latex. Then the GO in the latex was in situ reduced by
hydrazine hydrate to reduced graphene oxide (rGO) and followed by latex coagula-
tion to get the well-dispersed and exfoliated rGO/NR masterbatch. Through further
dilution of the masterbatch with normal NR by a twin-roll mixing process, rGO/NR
composites with different GE contents were obtained. This process can make the
graphene nanosheets disperse uniformly with a thickness of 1–3 nm. For the GE/NR
composites prepared by conventional two-roll milling without using latex mixing,
the graphene nanosheets agglomerated in particles with a size ranging from 300 to
800 nm. The results suggested the higher dispersion efficiency of latex mixing com-
pared to the simple two-roll milling of conventional polymeric material. The ULMR
method includes two key steps: latex mixing with sonicated GO dispersion and in
situ reduction of GO to rGO. Two reasons for using GO dispersion not rGO disper-
sion in ULMR process are (1) GO aqueous dispersion with single layer graphene
nanoplatelets can be obtained by sonication without using the surfactant. (2) The
rGO powder is difficult to be dispersed into water down to single layer or few layers
178 J. Wang et al.
Fig. 1 The preparation of GE/NR composites with a conductive segregated network of graphene
by self-assembly in latex and static hot-press. (a) GO layers were uniformly dispersed in NR latex;
(b) graphene nanoplatelets obtained by in situ reduction were self-assembled onto the surface of
the NR latex particle; (c) sulfur and other additives were uniformly dispersed in the graphene/NR
latex; (d) solid mixture of graphene and NR after latex coagulation and drying; (e) graphene/NR
composites with the conductive segregated network; (f) graphene/NR composites with uniform
graphene dispersion (Reproduced with permission [8], 2012, Royal Society of Chemistry)
with a layer thickness of less than 10 nm by sonication with the assistance of surfac-
tant, which is also very difficult to be removed by posttreatment. The in situ reduc-
tion is another core step to change polar GO to nonpolar rGO, which improves the
compatibility with the nonpolar rubber matrix and obtains the good mechanical
properties for the rubber composites.
In order to improve the conductivity of rubber materials, Zhan et al. also pre-
pared vulcanized rGO/NR composites with a conductive segregated network by
self-assembly in latex, coagulation, and static hot-pressing [8]. The Go and the rGO
platelets were self-assembled to form an encapsulated graphene layer on the surface
of the latex particles (Fig. 1a, b). Subsequently, the cross-linked agent sulfur and
other additives were added into the rGO/NR latex (Fig. 1c) and then the latex was
coagulated and filtrated. In the presence of rGO, the NR latex is easily coagulated
with the addition of those additives. The filtrated solids fraction was dried and then
was directly hot-pressed under static pressure and in situ vulcanized to obtain the
cross-linked rGO/NR nanocomposites. During this process, the solid polymer par-
ticles create excluded volume and essentially push the graphene nanoplatelets into
the interstitial space between them to form the conductive networks (Fig. 1d). Due
to the high viscosity of molten rubber particles, the conductive fillers have difficulties
to diffuse inside the rubber, and the segregated network structure along the bound-
ary region will be kept when cooling (Fig. 1e). If the coagulated and dried rubber
mixture is subjected to twin-roll mixing, the segregated network will be destroyed,
and thus the well-dispersed GE/NR composite can be obtained (Fig. 1f).
By using the latex mixing approach, Kim et al. [9] prepared multilayered gra-
phene (MLG)/styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) composites, which show significant
improved thermal stability and electric conductivity. The authors used the surfactant
hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) to promote the graphene disper-

sion; however the graphene aggregation is obvious, suggesting the dispersion of
thermally reduced graphene in aqueous solution is indeed a big challenge. The
mechanical properties of the SBR/GE were not reported; probably the existence of
remained CTAB after repeated washing will significantly degrade the mechanical
properties. The conductivity of the CTAB-stabilized MLG/SBR composite is not so
ideal, ~8 × 10−6 S/cm at a 5 wt% graphene content.
Potts et al. [10] prepared rGO/NR composites using latex mixing with a kineti-
cally stable suspension of rGO in water. The composites were processed by two
different routes: (1) two-roll milling with dicumyl peroxide (DCP) as the curing
agent; (2) “solution treatment” procedure, the solids (in the form of small pellets)
were firstly soaked into a solution of DCP in toluene to swell the rubber and implant
DCP into the matrix and then were subject to hot-pressing to form and cure the
samples. The two processes were similar as Zhan’s post-processing routes [7, 8].
Very interestingly, the authors independently observed the similar phenomenon
reported by Zhan et al.: the processing approach had a tremendous impact on the
composite morphology and thus properties. Solution treatment preserved the segre-
gated filler network morphology produced by the co-coagulation procedure, whereas
the milling process destroyed this network and generated a homogeneous dispersion
of rGO platelets in the NR matrix. The segregated network morphology was shown
to be advantageous for conductivity properties and greatly increased the stiffness but
also significantly reduced the elongation to break. The milled nanocomposites exhib-
ited enhanced stiffness and strength while maintaining a high elongation to break.
Direct latex mixing using graphene oxide and rubber latex is also used to obtain
the GO reinforced rubber nanocomposites. One good example is graphene oxide/
butadiene-styrene-vinyl pyridine rubber (VPR) nanocomposites by Tang et al. [11].
Two interactions can be formed through different flocculants during latex coagula-
tion process. The hydrogen bonding interaction is formed between the hydroxyls of
GO and nitrogen of VPR by using CaCl2 as the flocculant, while the ionic bonding
interface, namely, negatively charged groups in GO sheets strongly attached onto
the protonated N of the VPR chain, is constructed via electrostatic interaction by
using HCl as the flocculant. The mechanical properties and gas permeability of
these hybrids with an ionic bonding interface are obviously superior to those of the
composites with a hydrogen bonding interface. With the ionic interfacial bonding,
inclusion of 3.6 vol% of GO in VPR generates a 21-fold increase in glassy modulus,
7.5-fold increase in rubbery modulus, and 3.5-fold increase in tensile strength. The
very fine dispersion of GO and the strong ionic interface in the hybrids are
responsible for such unprecedented reinforcing efficiency of GO toward VPR. This
work contributes new insights on the preparation of high-performance GO/rubber
composites [11].
Yang et al. [12] synthesized high-performance SBR/graphene nanocomposites
through latex mixing and post in situ reduction by rhodanine during thermal process-
ing. During the in situ reduction, rhodanine was converted into polyrhodanine via
oxidative polymerization initiated by GO, and the rGO was subsequently decorated
with polyrhodanine. Because of the substantially improved interfacial adhesion,
180 J. Wang et al.
combined with the improved dispersion state, the elastomer/rGO composites exhib-
ited significantly improved mechanical properties compared with the elastomer/GO
composites. Compared with neat SBR, the modulus of GO is increased by 2.8-fold,
while that for rGO is drastically increased by 7.7-fold. This indeed provides a new
way to obtain the high-performance elastomer/graphene composites by combining
interfacial chemistry and curing chemistry.
Wu et al. prepared graphene/natural rubber and graphene/styrene-butadiene rub-
ber (SBR) composites by latex mixing method, respectively, and investigated the
vulcanization mechanism [13]. Schopp et al. [14] prepared SBR composites by using
the conventional carbon black and novel carbonaceous fillers (carbon nanotubes and
graphene) and compared the different reinforcing effect. Graphene brings about sig-
nificant improvement in mechanical, electrical, and gas barrier properties of SBR
composites, unrivaled by other carbonaceous counterparts. Cui et al. [15] reported
the preparation of graphene oxide/SBR composites through an emulsion intercala-
tion method and used the composites in tire applications. Results show that both the
storage modulus G’ and Payne effect increase with the increasing amount of gra-
phene, which is due to the cross-link structures originating from the high specific
surface area and high aspect ratio of graphene oxide. Liu et al. [16] prepared the
graphene/carboxylated nitrile rubber (XNBR) composites by using the sodium
hamate-modified graphene oxide. The addition of 1 wt% graphene doubled the frac-
ture energy of the composites, while their modulus remains unchanged. She et al.
[17] introduced hydroxyl groups in NR in order to improve the dispersion of gra-
phene oxide. Compared with pristine deoxidized NR, the incorporation of 0.7 phr of
GO increases the tensile strength by 87%; in particular, the tensile strength at the
strain of 200% increases 8.7-folds. Huang et al. [18] construct sacrificial metal-
ligand bonds elastomer/graphene composites. This interface is composed of pyridine-
Zn2+-catechol coordination motifs, which is strong enough to ensure uniform
graphene dispersion and efficient stress transfer from matrix to fillers. The mechani-
cal properties of the composite are simultaneously and remarkably improved.
2.2 Solution Mixing Method
For solution mixing method, rubber material was initially dissolved in solvent and
then the graphene or surface-modified graphene was dispersed in the rubber solution,
followed by the removal of solvent and vulcanization to get the rubber nanocompos-
ites. This method enables the uniform dispersion of graphene to some degree, and
surface modification can further improve the dispersion quality. Compared to the
latex mixing approach, there are two disadvantages: (1) the dispersion of graphene
down to single layer or a few layers in organic solvent is difficult to realize and (2)
the organic solvents need to be recycled which will increase the production cost.
Bai et al. [19] dispersed graphene oxide in dimethyl formamide (DMF) by using
an ultrasonically assisted solution mixing. The as-received graphene oxide suspen-
sion was added into nitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), pre-dissolved in tetrahydrofuran,
and then the mixture was subjected to ultrasonic dispersion, drying, two-roll milling,
hot-pressing, and vulcanization to obtain the GO/NBR composites. Ozbas et al. [20]
investigated the strain-induced crystallization of GE/NR composites prepared by
solution mixing method. Lian et al. [21] prepared graphene/butyl rubber (IIR) com-
posites by solution mixing method. Butyl rubber with 10 wt% of graphene exhibits
significant increase in mechanical properties, for example, the modulus of GE/IIR
increases 16-folds compared with pristine IIR. Sadasivuni et al. [22] prepared maleic
anhydride grafted butyl rubber (MA-g-IIR) and produced graphene/MA-g-IIR nano-
composites by solution mixing method. The functional groups on the basal plane of
GO allow strong interactions with the carboxyl groups on NBR and lead to a rise in
the glass transmission temperature. Mensah et al. [23] prepared the reduced graphene
oxide/nitrile rubber through solution mixing. By adding 0.1 phr of rGO, the tensile
modulus of nitrile rubber at 50%, 100%, and 200% strains increases by 83%, 114%,
and 116%, respectively, which is attributed to the uniform dispersion of rGO and
improved interfacial interaction between rGO and rubber matrix. Gan et al. [24]
developed graphene nanoribbons, originating from unwrapping multiwalled carbon
nanotubes (CNTs), and used the graphene nanoribbons as fillers in silicone rubber.
The strong oxidants (potassium permanganate, sulfuric acid) allow the decomposi-
tion of CNTs to form graphene nanoribbons, which are dispersed in silicon rubber by
a facile solution mixing method. Thermal gravimetric analysis revealed that silicone
rubber reinforced by graphene nanoribbons exhibits significant improvement of ther-
mal stability. Chen et al. [25] revealed that the use of melt mixing method cannot
achieve the uniform dispersion of graphene in silicon rubber. Instead, they used solu-
tion mixing method to produce silicone rubber/graphene composites, with graphene
content varying from 0 to 2.96%.
2.3 Mechanical Mixing
For mechanical mixing method, graphene nanoplatelets were directly mixed with
polar or nonpolar rubber matrix either in twin-roll mill or alternatively in a batch
mixer (i.e., preblender). The mechanical mixing method has some advantages such
as solvent-free, low cost, and simple technical process. However, the challenge in the
preparation of graphene-rubber composites through mechanical mixing is the diffi-
culty to obtain a uniform dispersion of graphene nanoplatelets in the rubber matrix.
Yaragalla et al. [26] dispersed the thermal reduced graphene oxide (TRGO) in
NR by using a mechanical melt mixing. The modulus of NR filled by 3 phr of TRGO
increases by 182%, while the oxygen barrier properties increase by 175% compared
with neat rubber. Das et al. [27] prepared SBR nanocomposites containing graphene,
expanded graphene (EG), graphene nanoplatelets (GnPs), and multiwalled carbon
nanotubes (MWCNTs) by melt mixing and made a comparative study in their elec-
trical and mechanical properties. At a particular filler loading, the MWCNT and the
GnP showed the better improving performance. Mahmoud et al. [28] prepared gra-
phene/NBR composites by mechanical mixing and investigated the effect of gra-
phene on the fatigue properties of NBR materials. Al-solamy et al. [29] proposed
the microstructure model for the piezoresistive effect of conductive NBR/graphite
182 J. Wang et al.
n anoplatelets (10 nm thickness) nanocomposites. The rubber was initially mixed

with graphene in twin-roll milling and pressed into cylinder with a height of 1 cm
and basal area of 1 cm2. The result shows that the percolation concentration of the
investigated nanocomposites was ~0.5 phr. Of all the composites examined, the
sample, in the region of the percolation transition, was found most sensitive to com-
pressive strain. The electrical conductivity was changed by more than five orders of
magnitude upon a 60% compression. Araby et al. [30] prepared highly filled gra-
phene/ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) nanocomposites by mechanical
mixing with 3.56 nm thick graphene platelets. Most GnPs can be dispersed uni-
formly in EPDM matrix. A high percolation threshold of electrical conductivity of
18 vol% GnPs was observed. The tensile strength, Young’s modulus, and tear
strength of EPDM material increased by 404%, 710%, and 270%, respectively, at a
GE content of 26.7%. Yaragalla et al. [31] prepare epoxidized natural rubber (ENR)
nanocomposites containing the thermally reduced graphene oxide (GR) by conven-
tional mechanical mixing. At a low loadings (2 wt%) of graphene, the barrier and
dielectric properties are significantly enhanced. Song et al. [32] prepared the gra-
phene/silicone rubber composites by mechanical mixing using the Flacktek Speed
Mixer (Fig. 2) and found the mechanical properties and thermal stability of silicone
rubber composites were enhanced.
Fig. 2 Preparation process of the graphene/silicone rubber composites (Reproduced with permis-
sion [32], 2015, Elsevier)
For mechanical mixing, the modification is necessary to improve the compatibil-

ity between graphene and rubber matrix. Lin et al. [33] studied the static and dynamic
mechanical properties of NR filled with zinc oxide-doped graphene (Nano-ZnO-GE)
obtained by twin-roll milling. The presence of nano-ZnO on the surface of graphene
sheets not only suppresses the aggregation of graphene sheets but also acts as a more
efficient cure activator in vulcanization process, with the formation of excellent
cross-linked network at a low nano-ZnO-GE content because the GE sheets in nano-
ZnO-GE composites act as the physical cross-link points. Compared with NR con-
taining 5 phr of ZnO, Nano-ZnO-GE-modified NR shows remarkably enhanced
mechanical properties, due to the inhibitive effect of ZnO on agglomeration of gra-
phene nanoplatelets that promotes the formation of cross-linking network. Suriani
et al. [34] used the sodium 1,4-bis(neopentyloxy)-3-(neopentyloxycarbonyl)-1,4-di-
oxobutane-2-sulfonate (TC14) to assist the dispersion of GO in the NR. TC14 could
adsorb and give triple interactions between the GO and NR. Malas et al. [35] intro-
duced the isocyanate-modified graphene nanosheets and carbon black into butadiene
rubber (BR), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), and SBR/BR blends by mechanical
mixing. Because of the higher basal spacing and exfoliated structure of isocyanate-
modified graphene (i-MG) nanosheets than expanded graphite (EG), i-MG sheets
were uniformly dispersed in the different rubber matrices in the presence of CB,
resulting in an improved storage modulus, lower rolling resistance, and better anti-
skid properties compared to the EG-filled rubber vulcanizates. Song et al. [36] pre-
pared SBR-based nanocomposites with 50 phr carbon black and 5 phr natural
graphite (NG) or acid-graphite (AG) platelets or modified graphite fabricated by the
processes of thermal shock (NGT and AGT), sonication (NGS and AGS), and soni-
cation after thermal shock (NGTS and AGTS). The modulus of the AG composites
increased ~32%, and the tensile strength increased ~18% compared with that of
control. Using acid-graphite platelets, the fatigue crack growth of composites is
decreased, and the thermal and electrical properties of nanocomposites were
enhanced. This is because the acid-graphite is uniformly dispersed in SBR due to the
functional groups and improved both physical and chemical interactions between
graphite and polymer by the coupling agent. Zhang et al. [37] investigated the func-
tional graphene nanoplatelets modified by silane coupling agents and surfactant on
the mechanical and thermal properties of silicone rubber composites. The results
show that functional graphene nanoplatelets improved the mechanical and thermal
stability of silicone rubber. Yin et al. [38] found that polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)
molecules have strong interaction with GO via hydrogen bond; meanwhile, PVP
molecules have a better compatibility with SBR, and as a result, the functional GO
enhances the mechanical and thermal conductivity properties significantly. Tang
et al. [11] investigated the difficulties in compounding styrene-butadiene rubber
(SBR) and reduced graphene oxide and revealed that the optimal compatibility and
interfacial interaction occur for GO filler with O/C ratio equal to 0.2, which allows a
significant improvement on mechanical properties. Wang et al. [39] represented an
improved compatibility between graphene and SBR when graphene oxide was
modified by octadecylamine, as a result, greatly improving the properties of the
composites.
184 J. Wang et al.
Lin et al. [40] prepared the SiO2/rGO mixture by electrostatic assembly
between 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane (GPTMS)-modified graphene oxide
and 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APES)-modified silica and combined a reduc-
tion process with hydrazine hydrate. The SBR composites were fabricated by sim-
ple mechanical blending with the SiO2/rGO mixture in an open two-roll mill. The
SiO2/rGO has a higher reinforcing effect for SBR than the individual SiO2 or rGO
due to the better dispersion and stronger interfacial interaction with the rubber
matrix. The tensile strength, modulus at 300% strain, and tear strength for SBR/
SG30 (SiO2/rGO) are dramatically increased by about 1204%, 170%, and 274% as
compared with those of neat SBR, respectively. The DMA loss factor (tanδ) at 0 °C
and 60 °C, was adopted as measures of wet grip property and rolling resistance.
Compared with SBR/S29.7 (individual SiO2), the wet grip property of SBR/SG30
(SiO2/rGO) is improved by 10.2%, and the rolling resistance is reduced by 10.3%.
3 Performance of Rubber/Graphene Composites
3.1 Mechanical Properties
Mechanical properties of GE/NR nanocomposites could be affected by various fac-

tors, such as the dispersion of graphene, the interfacial interaction between rubber
and graphene, orientation and network structure of graphene, and cross-link density
of composites. Graphene is more effective in improving mechanical properties of
rubber composites compared to other carbonaceous fillers. The reasons are:
1. Graphene, as a flexible and ultrathin two-dimensional nanosheet, possesses
wrinkle structured topologies [41], which allows the higher absorption and adhe-
sion compared to CNTs and CB.
2. Exceptional mechanical properties: graphene is regarded as the strongest mate-
rial yet disclosed [4]. Graphene has theoretical Young’s modulus of 1.05 TPa
[42], while the modulus of CNTs is 450 GPa [41, 43, 44].
3. Graphene has a large specific surface area, ~2600 m2/g, leading to the generation
of physical cross-linking and entanglements in rubber matrix.
4. Cross-link density increases with increasing GE content, resulting in the

enhanced mechanical properties.
5. Graphene facilitates strain-induced crystallization, which plays a key role on
mechanical enhancement of NR.
6. Graphene as a 2D filler is more flexible than a 3D material due to the spatial
degree of freedom. Graphene can be stretched or bent or compressed in-plane to
some degree. Graphene actually forms with ripples/corrugations on a length
scale of tens of nanometers. Therefore, if graphene is dispersed in a single layer
or very few layer, it is possible to improve the modulus and toughness simultane-
ously, or improve the modulus without degrading the materials flexibility, and
also to exhibit excellent dynamic properties, different from the normal rigid 3D
fillers like carbon nanotubes.
Zhan et al. [7] compared the mechanical properties of NR composites with different
nanofillers. The tensile strength of NR/GE composites containing 2 wt% GE
increased by 47% compared with pristine NR. In contrast, the tensile strength of
NR/CB and NR/MWCNT composites was increased by only 6% and 9%, respec-
tively. The stress at 300% strain for NR/(2 wt%) GE composites is two times that of
NR/(2 wt%) MWCNT composites and 2.5 times that of NR/(2 wt%) CB compos-
ites. Compared to pure NR, the incorporation of 2 wt% GE enhanced the tear
strength by 50%. With increasing GE content, the tensile strength of composite
increases, while the elongation at break decreases. This is ascribed to the strong
interfacial interaction between graphene and rubber matrix which immobilizes the
molecule chains [45]. She et al. [17] added epoxy and hydroxyl groups into the NR
that enhance the interfacial interaction between GO and rubber. The results showed
that compared with those of pure ENR, the composite with 0.7 wt% GO loading
shows a 87% increase in tensile strength and a 8.7-fold increase in modulus at 200%
elongation after static in situ vulcanization. Yaragalla et al. [26] reported that with
3 phr of reduced graphene oxide in epoxidized nature rubber composites, the modu-
lus of composite increased by 282% with respect to that of pristine materials.
Schopp et al. [14] investigated the effect of graphene layers on the mechanical
properties of the composites and confirmed the graphene is the ideal fillers of SBR
by comparison. They found that the mechanical properties of SBR/TRGO, SBR/
CRGO, and SBR/MLG350 with graphene layers less than 10 were far superior to
those containing graphene layers more than 60 (EG40) and conventional carbon
fillers such as carbon black and CNTs. The stress at 50% strain for SBR/MLG350
and SBR/TRGO at a filler content of 25 wt% is 8 and 14 times higher than that of
pristine SBR, respectively. The chemical reduced system SBR/CRGO shows simul-
taneously increase in both tensile strength and elongation at break. Mensah et al.
[23] revealed the tensile modulus of NBR at strains of 50%, 100%, and 200%
increased by 83%, 114%, and 116%, respectively, with the addition of 0.1 phr rGO.
The NBR-rGO nanocomposite obtained by solution mixing demonstrated a higher
hardness and higher modulus compared to the NBR gum and NBR-GO compounds.
Gan et al. [24] found that the elongation at break of silicone rubber containing
0.4 wt% of graphene increased by 64%. With increasing graphene content to
2.0 wt%, the tensile strength and Young’s modulus increase by 67% and 93%,
respectively. Bai et al. [46] studied the influence of thermal treatment temperature
of GO. Compared with neat silicone rubber, the tensile strength for the composites
containing the rGO obtained at different treatment temperature 350, 700, and
1050 °C is improved from 0.32 MPa to 0.85, 0.86, and 0.94 MPa, respectively. After
aging, the tensile strength of neat silicone rubber is down to 0.17 MPa, while the
tensile strength of silicone rubber/GE (GO after thermal treatment under 1050 °C)
remained at 0.63 MPa. Luo et al. [47] prepared the graphene/solution-polymerized
styrene-butadiene rubber (SSBR) composites using three types of SSBR with dif-
ferent vinyl contents. The composites were investigated through experimental and
molecular dynamics (MD) simulation approach. The authors found that as the vinyl
content increases in the SSBR matrix, the graphene/SSBR interfacial interaction
increases, and as a consequence, the mechanical properties of SSBR/GE were
improved.
186 J. Wang et al.
Lin et al. [33] substituted conventional ZnO by nano-ZnO to prepare nano-
ZnO-GE/NR composites. NR composite containing 1.5 phr of nano-ZnO-GE
shows a tensile strength of ~31 MPa and tear strength of ~109 kN/m, respectively,
which are increased by 12.7% and 32.3%, respectively, compared to the pristine
NR. Graphene showed a higher reinforcing efficiency than CB and CNTs. Yin
et al. [38] used the polyvinylpyrrolidone to modify GO and found that after adding
5 phr functional GO, the tensile strength and tear strength are enhanced to 517%
and 387%, respectively.
Yan et al. [48] observed two opposite effects of GE on the crack growth resis-
tance of NR: at lower strains, the inclusion of GE accelerates the crack growth; at
higher strains, the crack growth is retarded with the addition of GE. Strain-induced
crystallization at crack tip has been investigated. The GE/NR composite starts to
crystallize near the crack tip at the strain of 30%, while unfilled NR does not. Also
GE/NR has a much higher crystallinity and larger crystalline zone than unfilled NR
at the same strains, which allows the crack branching and more energy dissipation
and prevents the crack growth.
Li et al. [49] found that tensile strength and elongation at break for GE/NR com-
posite increase by about 9% and 3%, respectively, with the addition of 0.07 wt% of
GE. Wang et al. [50] revealed a remarkable mechanical enhancement of SBR with
the addition of CB and rGO. Wu et al. [51] modified graphene oxide with silane
coupling agent, which was used to reinforce the NR. Figure 3 shows that tensile
strength and tensile modulus of NR were increased by 100% and 66%, respectively,
Fig. 3 Representative stress-strain curves of unfilled NR and graphene/NR nanocomposites. The

numbers in the figure indicate the weight fractions of graphene in the nanocomposites. The upper
inset shows the linear fitting to the data below 10% strain (Reproduced with permission [51], 2013,
Elsevier)
with the incorporation of 0.3 wt% graphene, while the ultimate strain remains
unchanged. Sadasivuni et al. [22] reported the Young’s modulus of butyl rubber-
graphene composite was improved from 0.9 to 1.9 MPa, the tensile strength was
enhanced from 0.8 to 2.7 MPa, and the elongation at break was increased from 106
to 220% at a graphene content of 2 wt%. Liu et al. [52] prepared the carboxylated
nitrile-butadiene rubber (XNBR)/graphene hybrid nanocomposites (PEI/XNBR/
PEI/GO)30 (30 is referred to the number of deposition cycles) via layer-by-layer
(LBL) method and showed that the tensile strength was increased by 192% and
elastic modulus was increased by 215%.
There are more reports showing the improved mechanical properties of rubber
composites with graphene [27, 53–55].
3.2 Electrical Properties
The stretchable conductive rubber is one of the most important materials in the
manufacturing of flexible electronic devices [56]. The conductivity of composite
depends on the filler content with a power law relationship (see Eq. 1). When filler
content reaches the percolation threshold, the composite converts to an electrical
conductor. According to the theory of percolation threshold, the conductivity of
composite (σ) is represented as [57, 58]
s = s 0 ( j - j c ) (j > j c )
s
(1)

where φ is the volume fraction of filler, φc is percolation threshold value, and σ0 is
a constant, determined from the conductivity of filler. Exponent s represents the cor-
relation between φ and φc. Table 1 summarized the threshold values for various GE/
NR composites.
Zhan et al. [8] constructed graphene-segregated network in NR matrix, so as to
enhance the conductivity as well as to decrease the percolation threshold value. The
conductivity for the composite prepared by ultrasonic assisted latex mixing and in
situ reduction followed by a static heat press and vulcanization reached ~0.03 S/m,
due to the construction of conductive network in the polymer matrix, while for GE/
NR composite prepared by Haake mixing or by twin-roll milling, it is only
5.7 × 10−7 S/m. The percolation threshold value of GE/NR composite with segre-
gated network is 0.62 vol%, while for the NR composite with well-dispersed gra-
phene, it is 4.62 vol% (Fig. 4). Potts et al. [10] found that the electric conductivity of
GE/NR composites prepared by latex mixing was higher than that of composites
prepared by mechanical mixing. Araby et al. [59] reported that the percolation
threshold of GE/SBR composites prepared by solution mixing is 5.3 vol%, while for
the GE/SBR composites prepared by mechanical blending, the percolation threshold
is 6.5 vol% [60].
He et al. [61] showed that the percolation threshold for ENR-GE compos-
ites depends on the evolution of the GE networks in the composites. At low GE
188 J. Wang et al.
Table 1 Electrical percolation threshold of GE/NR nanocomposites

Elastomer Processing Electrical percolation threshold
NR [8] Emulsion blending 0.62 vol%
Mechanical blending 4.62 vol%
EPDM [30] Mechanical blending 18 vol%
SBR [62] Emulsion blending 0.5–1.0 wt%
NR [64] Mechanical blending 0.1–0.5 wt%
SBR [59] Solution blending 5.3 vol%
SBR [60] Mechanical blending 16.5 vol%
NBR [29] Mechanical blending 0.5 wt%
SR [70] Solution blending 2 wt%
SR [25] Solution blending 0.9 vol%
PDMS [71] Solution blending 3 wt%
SBR [14] Emulsion blending 0.5 wt%
NBR [28] Mechanical blending 0.5 wt
PDMS [63] Solution blending 0.8 wt% (650 m2/g graphene)
1.6 wt% (400 m2/g graphene)
Fig. 4 The electrical conductivity as a function of the graphene content for graphene/NR compos-
ites prepared by the different methods. NRLGES: the cross-linked graphene/NR composites with
the segregated network prepared by self-assembly in latex and direct hot-pressing. NRLGES-TR:
the cross-linked graphene/NR composites without the segregated network prepared by latex mix-
ing and twin-roll mixing. NRLGE: the uncross-linked graphene/NR composites with the segre-
gated network prepared by self-assembly in latex and direct hot-pressing. NRLGE-TR: the
uncross-linked graphene/NR composites without the segregated network prepared by latex mixing
and twin-roll mixing. NRGE-TR: the composites prepared by direct twin-roll mixing of graphene
powders and rubber. NRGE-HM: the composites prepared by direct Haake mixing of graphene
powders and rubber (Reproduced with permission [8], 2012, Royal Society of Chemistry)
concentrations (0.17 vol%), GE existed as individual units, while a “polymer-bridged

GE network” was constructed in the composites when GE concentrations exceeded
0.17 vol%. Finally, a “three-dimensional GE network” with percolation conductive
paths was formed with a GE concentration of 0.23 vol%, where a remarkable increase
in the conductivity of ENR-GE composites was observed.
Graphene has high electrical conductivity, large aspect ratio, and specific area
compared to other conductive filler (i.e., CNTs or carbon black powder). Thus to
attain the same conductivity, the required concentration of graphene is much lower
than that of traditional carbonaceous fillers [14]. Kim et al. [62] evaluated the per-
colation threshold of graphene/SBR composites ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 wt%. The
conductivity of composites increases from 4.52 × 10−13 to 4.56 × 10−7 S/cm as the
graphene concentration increases from 0.5 to 5.0 wt%. Ozbas et al. [63] studied the
effect of graphene with varied specific surface area on the electrical conductivity of
polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and showed that PDMS filled by graphene with spe-
cific surface area of 650 m2/g has a percolation threshold of 0.8 wt%, while for the
PDMS containing graphene with a specific area of 400 m2/g, the percolation thresh-
old value is 1.6 wt%. The electrical conductivity of graphene/EPDM prepared by
mechanical mixing was examined by Araby et al. [30]. They showed that the perco-
lation threshold of graphene/EPDM composite is 18 vol%. After vulcanization, the
volume resistivity of graphene/EPDM composite was increased by seven orders of
magnitude compared to that of the composite before vulcanization. This result indi-
cates that cross-linking rubber promotes the construction of graphene network.
Hernández et al. [64] prepared GE/NR composites with percolation threshold
ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 wt%. The conductivity of composites as a function of fre-
quency of alternate current was also examined. Results showed that conductivity of
composite increases with increasing frequency. Wang et al. [50] studied the conduc-
tivity of SBR/GE composite as a function of graphene content. The conductivity
increases with the increasing concentration of graphene. Specifically, SBR/GE
composite converts into conductor with the addition of 7 phr of graphene. For gra-
phene, the ease of dispersion and construction of the three-dimensional conductive
network of graphene in polymer matrices are the key points for the preparation of
conductive polymer composites (CPCs) and flexible electronic devices. Polyaniline/
graphene nanohybrids were prepared by in situ reduction of graphene oxide using
aniline as both reducing and stabilizing agents. The as-prepared CPCs with 3D con-
ductive network exhibited a very low percolation threshold (threefold lower than
that of the conventional NR/graphene blends), reported by Zhou et al. [65]. Suriani
et al. [39] enhanced the dispersion of GO in NR latex by using 1,4-bis(neopentyloxy)-
3-(neopentyloxycarbonyl)-1,4-dioxobutane-2-sulfonate (TC14), the tri-chain of the
hyper-branched TC14 surfactant that successfully improved the dispersions and the
conductivity of the composites.
Researchers further studied the effect of pressure and temperature on the electri-
cal conductivity of GE/NR composites. The piezoresistance of graphene/NBR com-
posites shows strong dependence on the compressive strain when the content
of conductive filler reaches the percolation threshold. In detail, the resistance of
190 J. Wang et al.
g raphene/NBR composite reduces by five orders of magnitude at the compressive

strain of 60%. On the other side, the resistance increases by two orders of magnitude
under the pressure of 6 MPa. Chen et al. [25] and Hou et al. [66] also studied
the piezoresistance of graphene/polydimethylsilicone composites and showed that
the graphene nanosheets were homogeneously dispersed in the PDMS matrix and an
ultralow percolation threshold (0.63 vol%) of the composites was obtained. The
octadecylamine-modified graphene oxide (G-ODA)/styrene-butadiene rubber com-
posites with 1.19 vol% content of G-ODA show a remarkable positive piezoresistiv-
ity of high sensitivity higher than 400 under the pressure of 1.2 MPa, excellent
repeatability, small hysteresis, and long-term durability. The effect of temperature on
the conductivity of graphene/NBR was reported by Mahmoud et al. [67]. They
showed electrical conductivity increases with increasing temperature. Tian [68] used
the combined strategy of encapsulating of graphene oxide nanosheets (GONS) on
carboxylated nitrile rubber (XNBR) latex particles and the in situ thermal reduction
in GONS at a moderate temperature. The dielectric constant at 100 Hz obviously
increased from 23 for pure XNBR to 2211 and 5542 for the composite with 0.5 vol%
and 0.75 vol% of TRGO, respectively, and it also had the dielectric loss. Araby et al.
[69] prepared a MWCNTs/graphene/EPDM rubber composites in which MWCNTs
worked supplementally with GnPs by forming conductive networks, where
MWCNTs acted as long nanocables to transport electrons and stress, while GnPs
served as interconnection sites between the tubes forming local c onductive. As a
result, it produced a percolation threshold of electrical conductivity at 2.3 vol% for
three-phase composites, 88% lower than that of two-phase composites.
There are more reports on electrical percolation threshold of rubber/graphene
nanocomposites as shown in Table 1.
3.3 Gas Barrier Properties
Rubber materials have a variety of applications, such as automobile tire, outdoor, and
aerospace sealing products. Many rubber products require extremely high standards
in terms of gas barrier properties. There are mainly two kinds of high gas barrier rub-
ber materials, one consists of the special rubber such as butyl rubber, chloroprene
rubber, and functionalized NR, which intrinsically exhibits high barrier properties,
and the other one is the nanofiller-modified rubber or rubber-based composites.
Compared to CNTs, two-dimensional graphene filler exhibits much higher efficiency
in improving the gas barrier properties of rubber composite due to the tortuous path-
ways for the gas molecules diffusing through graphene layers in the rubber matrix.
Zhan et al. [8] reported a more significant enhancement in water vapor barrier
properties of GE/NR composites than that of the clay-based rubber materials [72,
73]. Interestingly, GE/NR composites with segregated network show higher gas bar-
rier properties than that of NR containing uniformly dispersed graphene. For instance,
natural rubber including segregated graphene network has a water transmission rate
(WTR) coefficient of 1.00 × 10−16 g/m.s.Pa at 25 °C at a filler content of 1.78 vol%,

while NR with homogeneously dispersed graphene at the same content has a higher
WTR coefficient of 1.31 × 10−16 g/m.s.Pa. This was ascribed to the graphene-segre-
gated network which makes the diffusion of water vapor more difficult. Wang et al.
[50] found that graphene nanoplatelets dispersed in rubber matrix either in molecular
level and orientated along the surface contributes to increase the tortuosity of gas
diffusing pathway. In particular the gas transmission rate of SBR composites con-
taining 3 and 7 phr of graphene decreases by ~67% and ~88%, respectively, com-
pared with that of pristine SBR. Yaragalla et al. [26] showed that oxygen transmission
rate (OTR) of NR containing 3 phr of graphene decreases by ~75% compared to that
of pristine NR.
Sadasivuni et al. [74] showed graphene-filled butyl rubber has a lower OTR
value than clay-filled rubber composites. The aspect ratios of graphene and clay
determined from experiments are 130 and 108, respectively. The higher aspect ratio
of graphene mainly results in the lower OTR value of IIR composites. Moreover, the
larger specific area and the uniform dispersion of graphene also contribute to the
lower OTR of graphene/IIR composites compared to that of clay/IIR composites.
The oxygen barrier properties of SBR modified by varied carbonaceous fillers have
been investigated by Schopp et al. [14]. Results show that rubber material filled with
TRGO has a lower OTR value than multilayered graphene-filled rubber, while the
rubber material filled by CNTs or CB exhibits a higher OTR value compared to the
graphene-filled rubber materials. The uniform dispersion and the large lateral
dimension of graphene in rubber matrix decrease the area available for the diffusion
of gases and meanwhile lead to the increase of the tortuous pathway for gas and thus
a consequent improvement of the barrier properties.
Graphene, treated by different methods, differs in improving gas barrier proper-
ties of rubber. Wu et al. [51] studied the barrier properties of bis(triethoxysilylpropyl)
tetrasulfide functionalized graphene oxide (SGO)/natural rubber composites and
showed that gas transmission rate decreases by about 48% compared to that of pris-
tine NR with the only 0.3 wt% graphene content. The remarkable improvement in
the gas barrier properties of the composites is attributed to the strong interfacial
interaction and the molecular-level dispersion of SGO in the NR matrix. It is note-
worthy that for clay/NR composite, the same barrier properties can be reached only
at the clay content of 16.7 wt% [5].
Modification of the rubber molecular chain also has an effect on the gas barrier
properties of the material. Yaragalla et al. [31] used the thermal reduced graphene
oxide to mix with epoxidized natural rubber. The composites with high epoxidation
level (50%) showed good impermeability to O2 gas. At 2 wt% graphene, the oxygen
shielding rate is increased by 62% compare to the pure rubber. This is owing to the
homogeneous distribution and the platelet-like morphology of the GR layers in the
ENR matrix and also due to the hydrogen bonds between ENR and GR layers. Guo
et al. [75] prepared the graphene oxide/carboxylated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber
(GO/XNBR) nanocomposites with latex mixing method and found that the gas per-
meability of the nanocomposite is much lower than that of the matrix.
192 J. Wang et al.
3.4 Thermal Properties
Thermal conductive rubber composites have been used in a wide range of applica-
tions, including engines, electric generator, and heat exchanger, as prospective alter-
natives to the metal products. Graphene, with a theoretical thermal conductivity of
5300 W/ (m·K) [76–78], is one of best choices to be used as fillers to improve the
thermal conductivity of rubber composites. Zhan et al. [7] showed that the thermal
conductivity of NR increases by about 12%, i.e., from 0.174 to 0.196 W/(m K), with
the graphene content of 5 wt%. Song et al. [32] revealed that the thermal conductiv-
ity of SBR composites at the graphene content of 5 wt% increases by about 20%
compared to pristine SBR, whereas, for the conventional CB or graphite-filled SBR
at comparable concentration, the thermal conductivity increases by only 2.4% and
10%, respectively. This might be ascribed to the higher specific surface area of gra-
phene which facilitates both more contact possibility and interfacial interaction with
rubber matrix. Potts et al. [79] studied the thermal conductivity of GE/NR prepared
in different methods and showed that composites produced by latex mixing exhibit
higher thermal conductivity than those prepared by mechanical mixing. In detail,
GE/NR composites prepared by latex mixing show thermal conductivity of
0.219 W/m·K, while for the composite prepared by mechanical mixing, the thermal
conductivity is 0.188 W/m·K, which is improved by ~40% and 20%, respectively,
than that of pristine NR. Zhang et al. [37] showed that functional graphene nano-
platelets (GnPs) modified by silane coupling agents and surfactant can improve the
thermal conductivity of silicone rubber (SR) significantly. The neat silicone rubber
has low thermal conductivity of ~0.171 W/m·K; when the graphene loading is 2 phr,
the thermal conductivity for three different kinds of graphene/silicone composites
(aminopropyltriethoxysilane) APTES-GnP/SR, (vinyltrimethoxysilane) VTMS
VTMS-GnP/SR, and Triton-GnP/SR enhanced by ~46.2%, 54.4%, and 57.3%,
respectively.
Thermal stability is a key parameter for rubber material. Rubber material in the
thermal oxygen aging process generally contains three kinds of reactions: pendant
oxidation and scission, main chain scission, and the formation of new cross-links.
The effect of GO and thermal reduced graphene on the thermal stability of silicone
rubber is reported by Li et al. [78]. They showed that the decomposition temperature
of silicone rubber increase with the increasing concentration of graphene. In par-
ticular, the decomposition temperature increased from 356 °C to 417 °C with the
addition of 1 wt% of graphene oxide, and the decomposition temperature can fur-
ther increase up to 489 °C by using TRGO as the filler. Malas et al. [35] showed the
decomposition temperature of BR, SBR, and SBR/BR composites increases with
the addition of graphene. The uniform dispersion of graphene facilitates heat trans-
fer in the rubber matrix, thus preventing the partial oxidative decomposition of the
rubber material. Kim et al. [62] studied the thermal stability of multilayered gra-
phene/SBR composites and revealed the existence of π-π interaction between gra-
phene and phenyl groups, resulting in the improved thermal stability. Wang et al.
[80] found that the incorporation of GO could increase the thermal stability of
XNBR, because of the strong interaction arising from function oxygen-containing

group of GO. They found the addition of 40 phr of CB cannot affect the thermal
stability of XNBR, whereas the simultaneous presence of 40 phr of CB and 1 phr
graphene raised the decomposition temperature of SBR from 318 to 350 °C. This is
because the π-π conjugation between graphene and SBR and the large specific sur-
face area of graphene sheet could inhibit the emission of gaseous small molecule,
resulting in the improved thermal stability. Nevertheless further increasing the
amount of GE does not change the decomposition temperature. On the contrary,
Schopp et al. [14] reported the unaltered thermal stability and glass transition tem-
perature (retaining at −44 °C) of SBR with the addition of 25 phr of thermal reduced
graphene oxide (TRGO). Also, Zhang et al. [81] found that there is not any differ-
ence in the thermal stability of pristine SBR and CB or CB/rGO filled SBR compos-
ites. Therefore, the effect of graphene on thermal stability remains uncertain, and
further studies are needed to gain in-depth understanding. Araby et al. [59] intro-
duced the graphene platelets (GnPs) of 3 nm in thickness to SBR by solution mix-
ing, and as a result, thermal conductivity for graphene/SBR composite enhanced by
300% at a GnPs content of 24 vol%.
Recently, it is found that the graphene has the capability to quench the free radi-
cals and thus improve the antiaging behavior. Qiu et al. [82] reported that multilayer
oxidized graphene has a better the effect of quenching free radicals than single
graphene. Liu et al. [83] showed that after γ irradiation, the rGO/NR composites
have a better tensile strength compared with blank NR, indicating that the graphene
had the effect of quenching free radicals.
3.5 Other Property
There are many other properties for the GE/NR composites. Dong et al. produced
high-concentration rGO solution using gelatin (Gel) as the stabilizer and subreduc-
tant and hydrazine hydrate (HHA) as the main reductant [84]. The Gel-HHA-rGO
nanosheets exhibited excellent colloidal disposability and stability in alkaline con-
dition. Then Gel-HHA-rGO-filled natural rubber composites were prepared by
water-based solution casting. Well-organized interconnected rGO networks were
constructed throughout the NR matrix. The strain-sensing tests revealed that the
rGO/NR composites exhibited outstanding strain sensitivity and repeatability,
which could be used to detect the cyclic movements of human joints. The results are
promising in the rubber industry to guide the fabrication of highly sensitive and
stretchable strain sensors for engineering application. They also fabricate electri-
cally conductive NR-rGO hybrid films for solvent-sensing application [85]. The
materials can exhibit different stimuli-sensing responses for different organic
solvents.
Lin et al. [86] made the binary rubber blend/graphene composites which can be
used for strain sensor. The conductive percolation threshold of this material is
0.3 vol%, 12-fold lower than that of the conventional graphene-based composites
194 J. Wang et al.
Fig. 5 Properties of silica/SBR composite and GO-silica/SBR composite at total filler loading of
20.1 vol%. (a) Stress-strain curves for silica/SBR composite (0 vol.% GO, 20.1 vol.% silica) and
GO-silica/SBR composite (0.6 vol.% GO, 19.5 vol.% silica). (b) Mechanical loss factor (tand) as
a function of temperature for silica/SBR composite and GO-silica/SBR composite. (c–d) Optical
images (403 magnification) of Akron abrasion surface of silica/SBR composite (c) and GO-silica/
SBR composite (d) (Reproduced with permission [87], 2013, Nature Publishing Group)
with a homogeneously dispersed morphology (4.0 vol%). Near the percolation

threshold, the sensors could be stretched in excess of 100% applied strain with a
gauge factor of ~82.5 and good reproducibility with ~300 cycles.
Mao et al. [87] made the graphene oxide/silica/styrene-butadiene rubber (GO-silica/
SBR) composites using SBR latex and a small loading of butadiene-styrene-vinyl
pyridine rubber (VPR) latex, followed by latex co-coagulation. The results showed
that GO-silica/SBR composite exhibited outstanding wear resistance and low-rolling
resistance which make it very competitive for the green tire application and also open
up enormous opportunities to prepare high-performance rubber composites for future
engineering applications. Figure 5c, d showed that a large amount of debris and deep
wear patterns were found on the worn surface of silica/SBR composite (Fig. 5c), indi-
cating a poor wear resistance (Akron wear 0.27 cm3/1.61 km). For GO-silica/SBR
composite, the worn surface became smoother and showed much narrower wear pat-
terns (Fig. 5d), indicating an improved wear resistance (Akron wear 0.19 cm3/1.61 km)
and low-rolling resistance.
Lin et al. [33] measured the dynamic mechanical properties for the nature rubber
composites containing ZnO nanoparticle-doped graphene (Nano-ZnO-GE). The
results showed that NR/Nano-ZnO-GE nanocomposites exhibited higher wet grip
property and lower rolling resistance compared with NR. Boland et al. [88] used the
liquid-exfoliated graphene to prepare the super conducting rubber composites
which have potential application in strain sensors. The strain sensitivity for the com-
posites is reasonably high, with gauge factors of up to 35. Moreover, these sensors
can effectively track dynamic strain, working well at vibration frequencies of at
least 160 Hz. These GE/NR composites can use as bodily motion sensors, especially
in monitoring joint and muscle motion and breathing and pulse.
4 U
nderstanding for Graphene Effects
as a 2D Filler for Rubber
4.1 Reinforcing Mechanism
The mechanical properties are significantly improved even with a low addition of GE
which is not achieved for other conventional fillers. It is necessary to gain insight into
the reinforcing mechanism of NR/GE nanocomposites. Generally, for rubber the most
important factors to affect the mechanical properties are strain-induced crystallization
and vulcanization. Strain-induced crystallization plays a key role in the mechanical
properties of nature rubber. When stretching to a critical strain, rubber molecular
chain starts to crystallize and becomes “self-reinforcing,” and the mechanical proper-
ties increase. The mechanical properties of rubber also depend strongly on the cross-
link density which relates to the vulcanization process and mechanism.
Ozbas et al. [20] firstly investigated the effects of graphene sheets on the strain-
induced crystallization of NR. Through Synchrotron X-ray scattering experiment,
they observed that the onset of crystallization occurs at significantly lower strains
for graphene-filled NR samples compared with carbon black-filled NR. The unfilled
NR exhibits strain-induced crystallization at a strain of ~2.25, while incorporation
of 1 wt% graphene shifts the crystallization to a strain of ~1.25 (Fig. 6). In contrast,
loadings of 16 wt% CB do not significantly shift the critical strain for crystalliza-
tion. Small angle X-ray scattering shows that graphene is aligned in the stretching
direction, whereas carbon black does not show alignment or anisotropy.
Li and Fu et al. [89, 90] investigated the reinforcing mechanism of graphene,
graphene oxide, and carbon nanotubes in rubber through experimental synchrotron
WAXD and theoretical entanglement bound rubber tube (EBT) model. The influ-
ences of GE, GO, and CNTs on the crystallinity of NR during stretching were deter-
mined by synchrotron WAXD. It was found that the incorporation of GE produces
a faster strain-induced crystallization (SIC) rate and a higher crystallinity compared
with GO and CNTs, as shown in Fig. 7. The same change trend in tensile modulus
and crystallinity suggests that SIC plays a crucial role in the NR reinforcement.
To gain insight into the reinforcing effect of graphene on NR on the molecular
level, the EBT model was used to analyze the microstructure of the rubber network.
The EBT model allows a proper separation of cross-links and constraint contribu-
tion to the stress-strain behavior and a reliable determination of cross-link densities.
196 J. Wang et al.
Fig. 6 Coupled WAXD and tensile tests for neat NR and NR filled with 1 and 4 wt% FGS and
16 wt% CB. (a) Engineering stress versus strain. (b) 2D WAXD patterns at strain = 2 (air scattering
is subtracted as background). Stretch direction is vertical. (c) Integrated intensity (open symbols,
left axis) and azimuthal breadth (FWHM, filled symbols, right axis) for the NR 200 reflection
versus strain. Asterisks represent the onset of crystallization, as detected by a visible 200 arc on the
equator. (d) 1D WAXD patterns for unstretched neat NR and all samples shortly before failure in
the tensile test. Small peaks from 22 to 26 nm−1 are from ZnO in the base rubber formulations
(Reproduced with permission [20], 2012, John Wiley and Sons)
The topological constraint was assumed to act on the entire network chains to
restrict them from fluctuating within small length scale by packing effects that result
from the inability of the chains to pass through their neighbors. According to the
EBT model, it is assumed that a number of entanglements are formed in the transi-
tion zones between the tightly adsorbed bound and bulk rubbers far from the filler
surface phases, which are believed to dominate the rubber property. The molecular
network parameters can be calculated according to the equations as summarized in
Table 2. With the addition of the filler, the tube dimension d0 decreases; also the
mean number of Kuhn’s statistic chain segments between two successive entangle-
ments (ne), and the average molecular mass of the chain (Mc) decrease. The EBT
model is schematically represented in Fig. 8 to visualize the effect of the filler on the
rubber chain network structure.
To understand the basic physics for graphene-reinforced rubber nanocomposites,
especially the interfacial bonding characteristics at the molecular level, Luo et al. [47]
investigated the thermodynamics, dynamics, interfacial bonding characteristics, and
Fig. 7 Sequential changes of WAXD patterns from a NR, b 0.7 GO/NR, and c 0.7 GE/
NR. Corresponding strain (α) values are indicated at the left top in each pattern (Reproduced with
permission [89], 2013, John Wiley and Sons)
Table 2 Network molecular parameters of unfilled and filled rubbers

Gc*a (Mpa) Ge*b (MPa) d0 (nm) ne Mc (g/mol) Rc (nm)
NR 0.38 0.51 1.54 3.1 4822 7.43
GO/NR 0.37 0.58 1.46 2.8 4340 7.05
GE/NR 0.45 0.61 1.42 2.6 4089 6.84
Reproduced with permission [89], 2013, John Wiley and Sons
Gc*a and Ge*b can be determined from the slope and y-axis interception of the linear part of the
intermediate deformation in the modified Mooney plot σ* vs ƒ(α), respectively
fractional free volume (FFV) of graphene/solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene

rubber (SSBR) composites through a combined experimental and molecular dynam-
ics (MD) simulation approach. The surface energies of SSBR and the work of adhe-
sion between SSBR and graphene were calculated. MD simulations of the pullout of
the graphene from SSBR matrix were carried out to explore the interfacial bonding
characteristics at the molecular level, which show that the interaction energy, pullout
energy, and shear stress between graphene and SSBR increase with the increase of
the vinyl content in the SSBR molecular structure. The modeling results were in good
agreement with the experimental results. The snapshots of the pullout process are
shown in Fig. 9. ∆Z represents the displacement of graphene during pullout. The
graphene sheets were first fully embedded in the SSBR matrix and then gradually
198 J. Wang et al.
a b c
Bulk rubber
Bulk rubber
Transition zone
Transition zone
Loosely bound rubber
Tightly bound rubber

Graphene Graphene oxide
Physical entanglement Chemical crosslink Random molecular chain
Fig. 8 Schematic representation of the EBT model, (a) GE/NR, (b) GO/NR, and (c) NR
(Reproduced with permission [89], 2013, John Wiley and Sons)
Fig. 9 (Left) Simulated snapshots of pullout of graphene (DZ is defined as the displacement of
graphene during pullout); (right) pullout energy during pullout (Reproduced with permission [47],
2016, Royal Society of Chemistry)
pulled out in the pullout simulation. The energies related to the graphene/SSBR inter-
face during pullout were calculated.
For in-depth understanding of material behavior, Heinrich [91] exploited the
three-dimensional transmission electron microscopy (3D-TEM) to characterize the
complex filler morphology of CB/graphene/SSBR rubber matrix in a qualitative
way. The 3D tomography can provide a useful method to detect and recognize indi-
vidual objects, i.e., to distinguish different filler platelets from each other (Fig. 10).
It was found that the dispersion/exfoliation of the stacked graphene sheets into indi-
vidual single sheets was facilitated by the presence of carbon black in the system.
The existence of oligo-layer graphene sheets was detected by this 3D-TEM, espe-
cially when the rubber matrix exists in a complex morphology arisen from filler-
filler networks in all spatial dimensions.
Fig. 10 (a) Visualization of the 3D reconstruction of SSBR filled with 35 phr CB and 5 phr GnP;
yellow and green regions represent CB and GnP, respectively, (b and c) present the resultant vol-
ume on the left side and a slice in z-direction on the right side (Reproduced with permission [91],
2014, Royal Society of Chemistry)
Yan et al. [48] observed an interesting phenomenon, i.e., GE has an opposite
effect on crack growth resistance of NR, and at lower fatigue strains, the inclusion
of GE accelerates the crack growth, whereas at higher strains, the crack growth is
retarded. This is attributed to a competition between strain-induced crystallization
and cavitation at crack tip. The microfocus hard X-ray diffraction (MF-XRD)
200 J. Wang et al.
Fig. 11 (a) Contour maps of the crack tip for blank NR and GE/NR composite at various stretch
strains (b) Crystallinity χ of NR and GE/NR composite near the crack tip as a function of the dis-
tance r along the crack propagation direction for various stretch strains. (c) Lateral crystallite size
(L200) versus r along y-axis for the samples NR and GE/NR at various stretch strains (Reproduced
with permission [48], 2012, John Wiley and Sons)
b eamline was utilized for the investigation of strain-induced crystallization at the

crack tip, and the correlation of strain-induced crystallization at the crack tip and
fatigue crack growth resistance was investigated. Figure 11 shows that near the
crack tip, the crystallization at different strains is strong and far from the crack tip it
becomes weak. At the strain of 50%, the r values (the distance along the crack
propagation direction) at which crystallization disappears for NR and GE/NR are
0.04 and 0.08 mm, respectively, suggesting that GE/NR has a larger crystalline zone
around the crack tip, approximately twice than that for NR at the same strain. The
MF-XRD experimental data supports the assumption, i.e., GE/NR composite has a
higher crystallinity, a larger crystallization zone, and a smaller lateral crystallite size
at higher strains, and thus it has a more pronounced effect of preventing the crack
growth and initiating the crack bifurcation which allows much more energy dissipa-
tion and improves the crack growth resistance compared to unfilled NR. The result
provides a new insight into the mechanism of fatigue crack growth that was pro-
posed, which will be useful for the design of the advanced anti-fatigue material.
4.2 Vulcanization Mechanism
The mechanical properties of rubbers strongly depend on the cross-link of rubber

molecular chain. The effect of filler on the vulcanization is complicated, and some
conclusions are not consistent [9, 21, 27, 44]. Zhan et al. observed a reduction of
the vulcanization time of rubber with the addition of graphene [7], and later a lot of
work reported the accelerating effect of vulcanization with graphene in rubber [13,
92–94]. Wu et al. investigated the vulcanization kinetics and mechanism of NR and
SBR nanocomposites with graphene [13]. They found that on adding graphene, the
induction period of the vulcanization process is depressed, whereas the vulcaniza-
tion rate is enhanced at low graphene loading and then suppressed. Interestingly
they found that the observed single exothermal peak by DSC during the vulcaniza-
tion process for unfilled nature rubber was split into two peaks at higher graphene-
filled rubber. This is interpreted in terms of two reaction stages, i.e., chemical
reaction controlling stage and diffusion controlling stage. The activation energy of
the former stage decreases with increasing graphene loading, while that of the latter
stage is higher than the former one and increases with graphene loading. For the
mechanism of accelerating effect of graphene, the authors proposed a hypothesis:
the graphene takes part in the vulcanization process as shown in Scheme 1. However,
the authors didn’t provide any evidence about the reaction between graphene and
sulfur.
Wu et al. [92] also found that graphene accelerates the vulcanization process of
SBR with dicumyl peroxide as the curing agent. With increasing graphene content,
the optimum cure time shows a monotonous decrease, and the induction period of
the vulcanization process of SBR decreases and then levels off. As a result, the vul-
canization rate is decreased in the beginning and improved later. The corresponding
activation energy increases slightly at first and then decreases. The cross-linking
density of the nanocomposites remarkably increases, owing to the fact that gra-
phene is involved in the vulcanization process.
Scheme 1 Reaction scheme for CZ-accelerated sulfur vulcanization of GE/NR nanocomposites

(Reproduced with permission [13], 2013, Elsevier)
202 J. Wang et al.
By X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), X-ray-induced Auger spectra

(XAES), small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS), and solid-state 13C NMR analysis,
Yan and Kaciulis et al. found several evidences that graphene took part in the vul-
canization process of NR [93, 94]. XPS results showed that the chemical bond of
sulfur is different in pristine NR and rGO/NR composites: two chemical species of
sulfur at BE = 161.7, S1, and at 163.8 eV, S2, are identified in pristine NR, whereas
only the chemical state of sulfur S2 at 163.8 eV is identified for rGO/NR compos-
ites. The first chemical state is attributed to polysulfide or clusters of sulfur, while
the second one is characteristic for thiolic C-S bond. For the rGO/NR composites,
the polysulfide species disappear with the addition of rGO, and the percentage of
S2 atoms assigned to thiolic C-S bond decreases with increasing rGO content. This
confirms that the rGO interferes with the pathways of vulcanization reaction.
Moreover, there is a greater percentage of S2 atoms assigned to C-S bond in the
segregated sample with graphene network, compared to the ones in not-segregated
sample. This suggests that mainly in the rGO-segregated network, the sulfur spe-
cies react with carbon atoms of rGO platelets, resulting preferentially in the forma-
tion of monosulfidic C-S species connecting graphene platelets and rubber
macromolecules.
Small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) and nuclear magnetic resonance were also
used to investigate the cross-link structure of the graphene-NR composites. A
remarkable difference in scattering signals over the q range of 0.1–2.0 nm−1 in the
SAXS curve was observed between the unfilled NR and graphene/NR. The cross-
link sites, where NR macromolecular chains are attached each other through poly-
sulfidic species (−C-Sx-C-), give rise to a bump in the SAXS curve as shown in
Fig. 12a, b. The higher the number of sulfur atoms involved in the cross-linking
species, the higher becomes the local increase of electron density, and consequently
the higher is the intensity of the scattering peak in the SAXS spectrum. The posi-
tion of the maximum scattering intensity, qmax, systematically shifts to higher val-
ues as the rGO content increases, while maximum scattering intensity I(qmax)qmax 2
exhibits a decreasing trend for the composites both with segregated morphology
and not-segregated morphology. The segregated rGO/NR composites have higher
qmax values than those of the not-segregated samples at the same rGO content. That
is to say, the segregated rGO morphology affords to decrease the distance, d,
between scattering sulfur centers.
The 13C NMR peaks centered at 37 and 51 ppm, assigned to A1 cis polysulfidic
species, show significant differences among the selected pristine NR, segregated,
and not-segregated samples When rGO is added in the composite, the polysulfidic
clusters mainly present in pristine NR split into smaller polysulfidic species with a
limited number of sulfur atoms, i.e., −C-Sx-C- with x≤8. In this case, more sulfide
linkages are formed with a consequent increase of the peak intensity related to poly-
sulfidic linkages, −C-S- as detected in NMR.
These results indicate that rGO platelets both in the segregated and not-segregated
morphology affect the vulcanization process, promoting the formation of sulfur
Fig. 12 Small angle X-ray scattering profiles of the uncured NR without curatives, rGO/NR com-
posites with segregated morphologies (a) and rGO/NR composites with not-segregated morpholo-
gies (b), and the insets are the corresponding Lorentz plots of NR-vulcanized composites. (c)
Schematic representation of the networks of pristine natural rubber (left) and rGO/NR composite
with not-segregated morphology (right). (d) Selected 13C NMR spectra of pristine NR and rGO/
NR composites (Reproduced with permission [93], 2013, Elsevier)
cross-linking species with a limited number of sulfur atoms in place of polysulfidic

clusters with a large number of sulfur atoms.
Kaciulis et al. characterized the diamond-like Auger spectrum of C KVV together
with the standard XPS analysis of composite samples prepared by using two meth-
ods of vulcanization: roll mixing and hot-pressing [94]. The diamond-like feature is
observed only in the spectra excited by X-rays, whereas the Auger spectra excited
by electron beam present a graphitic shape. It was found that the shape of Auger line
C KVV is different in the reference rubber and the samples with graphene. The
values of the D parameter, which is the distance between the most positive maxi-
mum and the most negative minimum of the first derivative, are very low in the case
of the samples with graphene; they are even lower than the typical value for dia-
mond Dx = 13.7 but are characteristic for graphene. The authors concluded that the
thiolic sulfur bonds, which are connecting graphene platelets and rubber macromol-
ecules, were present in the rubber composites.
204 J. Wang et al.
4.3 Barrier Mechanism
Adding graphene into the rubber matrix can greatly increase the barrier proper-
ties of graphene due to the construction of graphene network in rubber matrix
that bring about an increment of tortuous pathways for the gas molecules diffus-
ing through the rubber matrix, with consequent improvement of the barrier
properties.
Scherillo et al. [95] investigated the effect of both the segregated and not-
segregated graphene morphology on the gas permeability of NR/rGO nanocompos-
ites. The gas permeability of NR/rGO nanocomposites with graphene-segregated
structure was compared with those with homogeneously dispersed graphene in a
not-segregated morphology. The significant qualitative and quantitative differences
in the dependence of the relative permeability on the volume fraction of filler were
found for the two morphologies. Samples with uniformly oriented platelets show a
smooth decrease of gas permeability with volume fraction of graphene. To interpret
the results, the permeability data for the GE/NR composites with different
morphologies were fitted by different models (Fig.13). For the not-segregated mor-
phology, it was used an expression for the relative permeability provided by the
theory developed by Bharadwaj, which accounts for the orientation of impermeable
disk platelike particles dispersed in a matrix
1-f
PR = Pnc / Pm =
1 + ( L / 2W )( 2 / 3 ) f ( s + 0.5 )

where Pnc and Pm represent, respectively, the permeability of the nanocomposite
and that of the neat matrix, ϕ represents the volumetric fraction of the filler, and
Fig. 13 (a) Experimental relative permeability of investigated gases for nanocomposite with not-
segregated morphology along with fitting by Bharadwaj model. (b) Experimental relative perme-
ability of investigated gases for nanocomposite with segregated morphology and prediction of
modified Moosavi model (Reproduced with permission [95], 2014, American Society Chemistry)
L/W represents the aspect ratio of the platelike filler, L being the main dimension
of the particles and W their thickness. The order parameter, s, accounts for the ori-
entation of the particles with respect to the normal to the surfaces of the nanocom-
posite sheet.
The samples characterized by a “segregated” morphology display a steeper
decrease of permeability at low graphene concentration, the filler arrangement
being more effective in decreasing the overall permeability of the sample due to
confinement of graphene on the surface of the rubber latex spheres. For the case of
segregated morphology, permeability data were interpreted by a modified model
proposed by Moosavi et al. This model was extended to mass transport under the
following hypothesis: (i) spheres are coated by a single layer of rGO particles and
(ii) simple ideal Fickian constitutive expression for mass flux holds.
He et al. [96] investigated the differences between nanocomposites with a “seg-
regated” structure and those with a “not-segregated” structure for graphene oxide
(GO) nanoplatelets filled bromobutyl rubber (BBR) composites. The significant
quantitative and qualitative differences in the dependence of oxygen and carbon
dioxide permeability were detected comparing the case of such “segregated” nano-
filler structure to the case of a rubber where the nanofiller is homogeneously dis-
persed with a “not-segregated” morphology. It has been found that the segregated
morphology enables a significant enhancement of the barrier properties of pristine
rubber already at low levels of nanofiller loading. The results of mass transport
analysis are confirmed by dielectric measurements that have evidenced how the
electrical percolation threshold, in “segregated” samples, is reached at an exception-
ally small volume fraction of nanofiller.
5 Application of Graphene-Rubber Nanocomposites
For the application of GE/NR materials, the Vorbeck Materials did a pioneering
work in developing the graphene/nitrile rubber conductive rubber plates (Vor-flex™
50). In 2015, Italian company Vittoria developed a graphene-modified mountain
bicycle tire in cooperation with Directa Plus. The tire containing graphene exhibits
numerous advantages such as the improved abrasion resistance, the decreased roll-
ing resistance of tire, etc. In 2015, Chengdu Trustwell Company, in cooperation
with Sichuan University, conducted the pioneering scale-up fabrication of GE/NR
masterbatch and graphene-based NR composites with high barrier and high electri-
cal conductive performances. The as-prepared materials have been used in wide
range of applications including tire, seals, vibration absorbents, and plastic-rubber
composite. In March 2016, Double Star Company in Qingdao developed the gra-
phene tire in cooperation with Chengdu Trustwell Company. In addition, National
Institute of Graphene in University of Manchester is developing the next generation
of condom based on the rubber/graphene nanocomposites under the support of Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation.
206 J. Wang et al.
6 Summary
The graphene-rubber composites have been extensively investigated recently.

Graphene incorporation in the NR has many advantages as follows: (1) the enhance-
ment of the mechanical properties is better than other fillers, (2) excellent electrical
conductivity, (3) the gas barrier properties are better than the other additives such as
clay, (4) the stronger strain-induced crystallization capability compared with carbon
black, clay, and carbon nanotubes, and (5) good thermal conductivity. The disper-
sion of graphene in the rubber and the formation of the network structure can be
controlled by an environment-friendly water-based latex mixing method and post-
processing. Therefore, it is no doubt that the graphene is an ideal filler for high-
performance and multifunctional rubber.
But there are still some challenges in the research and development of rubber/
graphene composites. (1) The defect-free graphene and monolayer-dispersed gra-
phene/NR composites are difficult to prepare in a high efficient way. (2) The
precisely control of the highly ordered structure of graphene such as the formation
of liquid crystal ordered phase structure of graphene, as well as the uniform, con-
trollable network structure of graphene, is still a challenge. (3) The understanding
for the interaction between graphene and rubber in the molecular scale, especially
the modeling on the segregated network of graphene. Presently a lot of work
reported the approaches to form the segregated network of graphene; however it
remains unclear how the segregated network parameters such as the network edge
layer thickness; the graphene arrangement such as dispersion, aggregation, or align-
ment in the network edge; and the stability of the graphene network affect the prop-
erties of rubber materials. (4) The realization of reinforcing effect in a highly filled
rubber composite system. Most research presently focused on the lowly filled rub-
ber system. However in most cases, for industrial engineering rubber articles such
as tire, damper, etc., the carbon black or silica contents are much higher, even more
than 50 wt%. In such cases, how small can graphene content realize the reinforcing
effect to the greatest extent? The process to prepare a high-quality graphene segre-
gation network will affect the interaction between the graphene and rubber molecu-
lar chain. (5) The main problem of graphene-rubber composites in the process of
industrialization is the high cost of graphene. However, we believe that with more
in-depth theoretical study and technology advance, these problems will eventually
be resolved in the future.
References
1. K.S. Novoselov, A.K. Geim, S.V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S.V. Dubonos, I.V. Grigorieva,

A.A. Firsov, Science 306(5696), 666–669 (2004)
2. M.D. Stoller, S. Park, Y. Zhu, J. An, R.S. Ruoff, Nano Lett. 8(10), 3498–3502 (2008)
3. R.R. Nair, P. Blake, A.N. Grigorenko, K.S. Novoselov, T.J. Booth, T. Stauber, N.M.R. Peres,
A.K. Geim, Science 320(5881), 1308–1308 (2008)
4. C. Lee, X. Wei, J.W. Kysar, J. Hone, Science 321(5887), 385–388 (2008)
5. A.A. Balandin, S. Ghosh, W. Bao, I. Calizo, D. Teweldebrhan, F. Miao, C.N. Lau, Nano Lett.

8(3), 902–907 (2008)
6. X. Huang, X. Qi, F. Boey, H. Zhang, Chem. Soc. Rev. 41(2), 666–686 (2012)
7. Y. Zhan, J. Wu, H. Xia, N. Yan, G. Fei, G. Yuan, Macromol. Mater. Eng. 296(7), 590–602 (2011)
8. Y. Zhan, M. Lavorgna, G. Buonocore, H. Xia, J. Mater. Chem. 22(21), 10464–10468 (2012)
9. J.S. Kim, S. Hong, D.W. Park, S.E. Shim, Macromol. Res. 18(6), 558–565 (2010)
10. J.R. Potts, O. Shankar, L. Du, R.S. Ruoff, Macromolecules 45(15), 6045–6055 (2012)
11. Z. Tang, L. Zhang, W. Feng, B. Guo, F. Liu, D. Jia, Macromolecules 47(24), 8663–8673 (2014)
12. Z. Yang, W. Kuang, P. Weng, Z. Tang, B. Guo, RSC Adv. 5(103), 84398–84405 (2015)
13. J. Wu, W. Xing, G. Huang, H. Li, M. Tang, S. Wu, Y. Liu, Polymer 54(13), 3314–3323 (2013)
14. S. Schopp, R. Thomann, K.-F. Ratzsch, S. Kerling, V. Altstädt, R. Mülhaupt, Macromol.
Mater. Eng. 299(3), 319–329 (2014)
15. J. Cui, L. Liu, Y. Mao, S. Wen, L. Zhang, Rubber Ind. 62(8), 453–457 (2015)
16. X. Liu, D. Sun, L. Wang, B. Guo, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52(41), 14592–14600 (2013)
17. X. She, C. He, Z. Peng, L. Kong, Polymer 55(26), 6803–6810 (2014)
18. J. Huang, Z. Tang, Z. Yang, B. Guo, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 37(13), 1040–1045 (2016)
19. X. Bai, C. Wan, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhai, Carbon 49(5), 1608–1613 (2011)
20. B. Ozbas, S. Toki, B.S. Hsiao, B. Chu, R.A. Register, I.A. Aksay, R.K. Prud’homme,

D.H. Adamson, J. Polym. Sci. B Polym. Phys. 50(10), 718–723 (2012)
21. H. Lian, S. Li, K. Liu, L. Xu, K. Wang, W. Guo, Polym. Eng. Sci. 51(11), 2254–2260 (2011)
22. K.K. Sadasivuni, A. Saiter, N. Gautier, S. Thomas, Y. Grohens, Colloid Polym. Sci. 291(7),
1729–1740 (2013)
23. B. Mensah, D. Kumar, D.-K. Lim, S.G. Kim, B.-H. Jeong, C. Nah, J. Appl. Polym. Sci.
132(36), 42457–42460 (2015)
24. L. Gan, S. Shang, C.W.M. Yuen, S.-x. Jiang, N.M. Luo, Compos. Part B 69, 237–242 (2015)
25. L. Chen, L. Lu, D. Wu, G. Chen, Polym. Compos. 28(4), 493–498 (2007)
26. S. Yaragalla, M. A.P, N. Kalarikkal, S. Thomas, Ind. Crop. Prod. 74, 792–802 (2015)
27. A. Das, G.R. Kasaliwal, R. Jurk, R. Boldt, D. Fischer, K.W. Stöckelhuber, G. Heinrich,
Compos. Sci. Technol. 72(16), 1961–1967 (2012)
28. W.E. Mahmoud, A.A. Al-Ghamdi, F.R. Al-Solamy, Polym. Adv. Technol. 23(2), 161–165 (2012)
29. F.R. Al-solamy, A.A. Al-Ghamdi, W.E. Mahmoud, Polym. Adv. Technol. 23(3), 478–482 (2012)
30. A. Sherif, Z. Izzuddin, M. Qingshi, K. Nobuyuki, M. Andrew, K. Hsu-Chiang, M. Peter,
M. Jun, Z. Liqun, Nanotechnology 24(16), 165601 (2013)
31. S. Yaragalla, C.S. Chandran, N. Kalarikkal, R.H.Y. Subban, C.H. Chan, S. Thomas, Polym.
Eng. Sci. 55(11), 2439–2447 (2015)
32. Y. Song, J. Yu, L. Yu, F.E. Alam, W. Dai, C. Li, N. Jiang, Mater. Des. 88, 950–957 (2015)
33. Y. Lin, Y. Chen, Z. Zeng, J. Zhu, Y. Wei, F. Li, L. Liu, Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 70,
35–44 (2015)
34. A.B. Suriani, M.D. Nurhafizah, A. Mohamed, A.K. Masrom, V. Sahajwalla, R.K. Joshi, Mater.
Des. 99, 174–181 (2016)
35. A. Malas, P. Pal, C.K. Das, Mater. Des. 55, 664–673 (2014)
36. S.H. Song, H.K. Jeong, Y.G. Kang, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 16(6), 1059–1065 (2010)
37. G. Zhang, F. Wang, J. Dai, Z. Huang, Materials 9(2), 92 (2016)
38. B. Yin, J. Wang, H. Jia, J. He, X. Zhang, Z. Xu, J. Mater. Sci. 51(12), 5724–5737 (2016)
39. C. Wang, Z. Liu, S. Wang, Y. Zhang, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 133(4), 42907 (2016)
40. Y. Lin, S. Liu, J. Peng, L. Liu, Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 86, 19–30 (2016)
41. RamanathanT, A.A. Abdala, StankovichS, D.A. Dikin, M. Herrera Alonso, R.D. Piner,

D.H. Adamson, H.C. Schniepp, ChenX, R.S. Ruoff, S.T. Nguyen, I.A. Aksay, R.K. Prud'Homme,
L.C. Brinson, Nat. Nano. 3(6), 327–331 (2008)
42. F. Liu, P. Ming, J. Li, Phys. Rev. B 76(6), 064120 (2007)
43. M.A. Rafiee, J. Rafiee, Z. Wang, H. Song, Z.-Z. Yu, N. Koratkar, ACS Nano 3(12), 3884–3890
(2009)
44. M.A. Rafiee, J. Rafiee, I. Srivastava, Z. Wang, H. Song, Z.-Z. Yu, N. Koratkar, Small 6(2),
179–183 (2010)
45. X. Zhao, Q. Zhang, D. Chen, P. Lu, Macromolecules 43(5), 2357–2363 (2010)
208 J. Wang et al.
4 6. Y. Bai, H. Cai, X. Qiu, X. Fang, J. Zheng, High. Perform Polym. 27(8), 997–1006 (2015)
47. Y. Luo, R. Wang, S. Zhao, Y. Chen, H. Su, L. Zhang, T.W. Chan, S. Wu, RSC Adv. 6(63),
58077–58087 (2016)
48. N. Yan, H. Xia, Y. Zhan, G. Fei, Macromol. Mater. Eng. 298(1), 38–44 (2013)
49. C. Li, C. Feng, Z. Peng, W. Gong, L. Kong, Polym. Compos. 34(1), 88–95 (2013)
50. W. Xing, M. Tang, J. Wu, G. Huang, H. Li, Z. Lei, X. Fu, H. Li, Compos. Sci. Technol. 99,
67–74 (2014)
51. J. Wu, G. Huang, H. Li, S. Wu, Y. Liu, J. Zheng, Polymer 54(7), 1930–1937 (2013)
52. L. Wang, W. Wang, Y. Fu, J. Wang, Y. Lvov, J. Liu, Y. Lu, L. Zhang, Compos. Part B 90,
457–464 (2016)
53. Y. Lin, K. Liu, Y. Chen, L. Liu, Polym. Compos. 36(10), 1775–1785 (2015)
54. Y. Lin, Y. Chen, Y. Zhang, D. Jia, Y. Luo, L. Liu, Polym. Adv. Technol. 26(5), 423–431 (2015)
55. Y. Lin, Z. Zeng, J. Zhu, S. Chen, X. Yuan, L. Liu, RSC Adv. 5(71), 57771–57780 (2015)
56. T. Sekitani, Y. Noguchi, K. Hata, T. Fukushima, T. Aida, T. Someya, Science 321(5895), 1468–
1472 (2008)
57. G. Deutscher, A. Kapitulnik, M. Rappaport, Ann. Isr. Phys. Soc. (Israel) 5, 207–228 (1983)
58. A.S. Edelstein, B.N. Das, R.L. Holtz, N.C. Koon, M. Rubinstein, S.A. Wolf, K.E. Kihlstrom,
J. Appl. Phys. 61(8), 3320–3322 (1987)
59. S. Araby, Q. Meng, L. Zhang, H. Kang, P. Majewski, Y. Tang, J. Ma, Polymer 55(1), 201–210
(2014)
60. S. Araby, L. Zhang, H.-C. Kuan, J.-B. Dai, P. Majewski, J. Ma, Polymer 54(14), 3663–3670
(2013)
61. C. He, X. She, Z. Peng, J. Zhong, S. Liao, W. Gong, J. Liao, L. Kong, Phys. Chem. Chem.
Phys. 17(18), 12175–12184 (2015)
62. J.S. Kim, J.H. Yun, I. Kim, S.E. Shim, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 17(2), 325–330 (2011)
63. B. Ozbas, C.D. O’Neill, R.A. Register, I.A. Aksay, R.K. Prud’homme, D.H. Adamson,
J. Polym. Sci. Part B: Polym. Phys. 50(13), 910–916 (2012)
64. M. Hernández, M.d.M. Bernal, R. Verdejo, T.A. Ezquerra, M.A. López-Manchado, Compos.
Sci. Technol. 73, 40–46 (2012)
65. Z. Zhou, X. Zhang, X. Wu, C. Lu, Compos. Sci. Technol. 125, 1–8 (2016)
66. Y. Hou, D. Wang, X.-M. Zhang, H. Zhao, J.-W. Zha, Z.-M. Dang, J. Mater. Chem. C 1(3),
515–521 (2013)
67. W.E. Mahmoud, A.A. Al-Ghamdi, Polym. Int. 61(1), 51–54 (2012)
68. M. Tian, J. Zhang, L. Zhang, S. Liu, X. Zan, T. Nishi, N. Ning, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 430,
249–256 (2014)
69. S. Araby, N. Saber, X. Ma, N. Kawashima, H. Kang, H. Shen, L. Zhang, J. Xu, P. Majewski,
J. Ma, Mater. Des. (1980–2015) 65, 690–699 (2015)
70. H. Hu, L. Zhao, J. Liu, Y. Liu, J. Cheng, J. Luo, Y. Liang, Y. Tao, X. Wang, J. Zhao, Polymer
53(15), 3378–3385 (2012)
71. M. Kujawski, J.D. Pearse, E. Smela, Carbon 48(9), 2409–2417 (2010)
72. J.-T. Kim, T.-S. Oh, D.-H. Lee, Polym. Int. 53(4), 406–411 (2004)
73. Y.-P. Wu, Y.-Q. Wang, H.-F. Zhang, Y.-Z. Wang, D.-S. Yu, L.-Q. Zhang, J. Yang, Compos. Sci.
Technol. 65(7–8), 1195–1202 (2005)
74. S. Wu, Z. Tang, B. Guo, L. Zhang, D. Jia, RSC Adv. 3(34), 14549–14559 (2013)
75. H. Kang, K. Zuo, Z. Wang, L. Zhang, L. Liu, B. Guo, Compos. Sci. Technol. 92, 1–8 (2014)
76. S.T. Huxtable, D.G. Cahill, S. Shenogin, L. Xue, R. Ozisik, P. Barone, M. Usrey, M.S. Strano,
G. Siddons, M. Shim, P. Keblinski, Nat. Mater. 2(11), 731–734 (2003)
77. T. Kashiwagi, E. Grulke, J. Hilding, K. Groth, R. Harris, K. Butler, J. Shields, S. Kharchenko,
J. Douglas, Polymer 45(12), 4227–4239 (2004)
78. W. Ma, J. Li, B. Deng, X. Lin, X. Zhao, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol.-Mater. Sci. Ed. 28(1), 127–
131 (2013)
79. J.R. Potts, O. Shankar, S. Murali, L. Du, R.S. Ruoff, Compos. Sci. Technol. 74, 166–172
(2013)
80. J. Wang, H. Jia, Y. Tang, D. Ji, Y. Sun, X. Gong, L. Ding, J. Mater. Sci. 48(4), 1571–1577
(2013)
81. H. Zhang, C. Wang, Y. Zhang, Journal of Applied Polymer Science 132(3), n/a-n/a (2015)
82. Y. Qiu, Z. Wang, A.C.E. Owens, I. Kulaots, Y. Chen, A.B. Kane, R.H. Hurt, Nanoscale 6(20),
11744–11755 (2014)
83. Y. Liu, Y. Lin, D. Zhang, C. Chen, G. Wu, Y. Zhang, L. Weiling, Chem. J. Chin. Univ. 37(7),
1402–1407 (2016)
84. B. Dong, S. Wu, L. Zhang, Y. Wu, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55(17), 4919–4929 (2016)
85. B. Dong, L. Zhang, Y. Wu, J. Mater. Sci. 51(23), 10561–10573 (2016)
86. Y. Lin, S. Liu, S. Chen, Y. Wei, X. Dong, L. Liu, J. Mater. Chem. C 4(26), 6345–6352 (2016)
87. Y. Mao, S. Wen, Y. Chen, F. Zhang, P. Panine, T.W. Chan, L. Zhang, Y. Liang, L. Liu, Sci.
Rep. 3 (2013)
88. C.S. Boland, U. Khan, C. Backes, A. O’Neill, J. McCauley, S. Duane, R. Shanker, Y. Liu,
I. Jurewicz, A.B. Dalton, J.N. Coleman, ACS Nano 8(9), 8819–8830 (2014)
89. F. Li, N. Yan, Y. Zhan, G. Fei, H. Xia, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 129(4), 2342–2351 (2013)
90. D.H. Fu, Y.H. Zhan, N. Yan, H.S. Xia, Express Polym. Lett. 9(7), 597–607 (2015)
91. A. Das, R. Boldt, R. Jurk, D. Jehnichen, D. Fischer, K.W. Stockelhuber, G. Heinrich, RSC
Adv. 4(18), 9300–9307 (2014)
92. M.-z. Tang, W. Xing, J.-r. Wu, G.-s. Huang, H. Li, S.-d. Wu, Chin. J. Polym. Sci. 32(5), 658–
666 (2014)
93. N. Yan, G. Buonocore, M. Lavorgna, S. Kaciulis, S.K. Balijepalli, Y. Zhan, H. Xia, L. Ambrosio,
Compos. Sci. Technol. 102, 74–81 (2014)
94. S. Kaciulis, A. Mezzi, S.K. Balijepalli, M. Lavorgna, H.S. Xia, Thin Solid Films 581, 80–85
(2015)
95. G. Scherillo, M. Lavorgna, G.G. Buonocore, Y.H. Zhan, H.S. Xia, G. Mensitieri, L. Ambrosio,
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 6(4), 2230–2234 (2014)
96. F. He, G. Mensitieri, M. Lavorgna, M.S. de Luna, G. Filippone, H. Xia, R. Esposito,

G. Scherillo, Compos. Part B 116 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.10.076
View publication stats

Chapter Graphene RubberNanocompositesP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter Graphene RubberNanocompositesP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter Graphene RubberNanocompositesP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Graphene-Rubber Nanocomposites: Preparation, Structure, and Properties

Chapter · September 2017

Marino Lavorgna Hesheng Xia

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Materiais Poliméricos com Aplicações Tecnológicas: POLITEC-RS View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jian Wang, Kaiye Zhang, Qiang Bu, Marino Lavorgna, and Hesheng Xia

Graphene is a two-dimensional atomically thick carbon material with a honeycomb

J. Wang • K. Zhang • Q. Bu • H. Xia (*)

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 175

graphene nanoplatelets. In particular the quality of graphene nanoplatelets is rela-

2 Preparation of Graphene/Rubber Nanocomposites

2.1 Latex Mixing Method

Graphene (GE)-filled natural rubber (NR) nanocomposites prepared by latex mix-

hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) to promote the graphene disper-

2.2 Solution Mixing Method

2.3 Mechanical Mixing

n­ anoplatelets (10 nm thickness) nanocomposites. The rubber was initially mixed

For mechanical mixing, the modification is necessary to improve the compatibil-

3 Performance of Rubber/Graphene Composites

3.1 Mechanical Properties

Mechanical properties of GE/NR nanocomposites could be affected by various fac-

Fig. 3 Representative stress-strain curves of unfilled NR and graphene/NR nanocomposites. The

3.2 Electrical Properties

Table 1 Electrical percolation threshold of GE/NR nanocomposites

concentrations (0.17 vol%), GE existed as individual units, while a “polymer-bridged

g­ raphene/NBR composite reduces by five orders of magnitude at the compressive

3.3 Gas Barrier Properties

(WTR) coefficient of 1.00 × 10−16 g/m.s.Pa at 25 °C at a filler content of 1.78 vol%,

3.4 Thermal Properties

XNBR, because of the strong interaction arising from function oxygen-containing

3.5 Other Property

with a homogeneously dispersed morphology (4.0 vol%). Near the percolation

4.1 Reinforcing Mechanism

Table 2 Network molecular parameters of unfilled and filled rubbers

fractional free volume (FFV) of graphene/solution-polymerized styrene-­butadiene

Tightly bound rubber

Physical entanglement Chemical crosslink Random molecular chain

b­ eamline was utilized for the investigation of strain-induced crystallization at the

4.2 Vulcanization Mechanism

The mechanical properties of rubbers strongly depend on the cross-link of rubber

Scheme 1 Reaction scheme for CZ-accelerated sulfur vulcanization of GE/NR nanocomposites

By X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), X-ray-induced Auger spectra

cross-linking species with a limited number of sulfur atoms in place of polysulfidic

4.3 Barrier Mechanism

5 Application of Graphene-Rubber Nanocomposites

The graphene-rubber composites have been extensively investigated recently.

1. K.S. Novoselov, A.K. Geim, S.V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S.V. Dubonos, I.V. Grigorieva,

5. A.A. Balandin, S. Ghosh, W. Bao, I. Calizo, D. Teweldebrhan, F. Miao, C.N. Lau, Nano Lett.

View publication stats

You might also like

2 Preparation of Graphene/Rubber Nanocomposites

2.1 Latex Mixing Method

2.2 Solution Mixing Method

2.3 Mechanical Mixing

n anoplatelets (10 nm thickness) nanocomposites. The rubber was initially mixed

3 Performance of Rubber/Graphene Composites

3.1 Mechanical Properties

3.2 Electrical Properties

g raphene/NBR composite reduces by five orders of magnitude at the compressive

3.3 Gas Barrier Properties

3.4 Thermal Properties

3.5 Other Property

4.1 Reinforcing Mechanism

fractional free volume (FFV) of graphene/solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene

b eamline was utilized for the investigation of strain-induced crystallization at the

4.2 Vulcanization Mechanism

4.3 Barrier Mechanism

5 Application of Graphene-Rubber Nanocomposites