Scalable Fabrication of Thermally Insulating MechanicallyResilient Hierarchically Porous Polymer Foams

Subscriber access provided by Gothenburg University Library
Applications of Polymer, Composite, and Coating Materials

Scalable Fabrication of Thermally Insulating Mechanically
Resilient Hierarchically Porous Polymer Foams
Ali Rizvi, Raymond K.M. Chu, and Chul B Park
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b11375 • Publication Date (Web): 11 Oct 2018
Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on October 16, 2018
Just Accepted
“Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted
online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical
Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination
of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in
full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully
peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the
Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore,
the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After
a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web
site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes
to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and
ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or
consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W.,

Washington, DC 20036
Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society.
However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works
produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course
of their duties.
Page 1 of 25 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
1
1
2
3 Scalable Fabrication of Thermally Insulating Mechanically Resilient Hierarchically Porous
4
5
6 Polymer Foams
7
8
9 By Ali Rizvi, Raymond K.M. Chu, and Chul B. Park*
10
11 Microcellular Plastics Manufacturing Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Industrial
12 Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King’s College Road, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G8
13 (Canada)
14
15
[*] C. B. Park
16 E-mail: park@mie.utoronto.ca
17
18 Keywords: porous materials, polymers, hierarchical materials, thermal insulation, injection
19 molding
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Page 2 of 25
2
1
2
3 Abstract:
4
5
6 The requirement of energy efficiency demands materials with superior thermal insulation
7
8 properties. Inorganic aerogels are excellent thermal insulators but are difficult to produce on a
9
10 large-scale, are mechanically brittle, and their structural properties depend strongly on their
11
12
13
density. Here, we report the scalable generation of low-density, hierarchically porous,
14
15 polypropylene (PP) foams using industrial-scale foam processing equipment, with thermal
16
17 conductivity lower than commercially available high performance thermal insulators such as
18
19
superinsulating Styrofoam. The reduction in thermal conductivity is attributed to the restriction
20
21
22 of air flow caused by the porous nanostructure in the cell walls of the foam. In contrast to
23
24 inorganic aerogels, the mechanical properties of the foams are less sensitive to density
25
26 suggesting efficient load transfer through the skeletal structure. The scalable fabrication of
27
28
29 hierarchically porous polymer foams opens up new perspectives for the scalable design and
30
31 development of novel superinsulating materials.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
3
1
2
3 Introduction:
4
5 1
6 Thermal insulators are employed in applications such as thermal protective skins,
7
8 building insulation, 2 refrigeration, 3 clothing, 4
and thermoelectrics. 5 Commercially appealing
9
10 thermal insulators exhibit low thermal conductivity, mechanical resilience, and the ability to be
11
12
13
fabricated from various natural and synthetic precursors in a high-throughput, sustainable and
14
15 cost-effective process. Commercial thermal insulators such as expanded polystyrene (EPS)
16
17 foams are noted for their ease of preparation using conventional industrial-scale foaming
18
19
equipment, their mechanical stability, and recyclability. 6 However, these materials exhibit low
20
21
22 thermal insulation performance with thermal conductivities typically > 0.035 W m-1 K-1 for air
23
7
24 under ambient conditions. On the other hand, inorganic aerogels show excellent thermal
25
26 insulation performance 8, 9
with thermal conductivities < 0.02 W m-1 K-1 but are difficult to
27
28 10
29 fabricate, process, and recycle, are highly brittle, and their structural properties depend
30
31 strongly on density. 11
32
33 Tailored biomaterials such as cellulose nanofibers/graphene oxide foams, 12 liquid crystal
34
35
36
nanocellulose aerogels, 13 cellulose nanofiber biocomposite aerogels 14, 15 and nanowood, 16 are
37
38 excellent thermal insulators, and have superior mechanical properties than inorganic aerogels but
39
40 the hydrophilicity of these materials limits their applications to dry environments because
41
42
moisture results in degradation of insulation performance. 17 Doubly crosslinked aerogels 18 show
43
44
45 excellent flexibility, transparency, and superinsulating ability but the crosslinking renders the
46
47 material non-recycle, posing an environmental disposal challenge. Organic-inorganic hybrid
48
49 aerogels such as phenolic-silica aerogels 19
display mechanical resilience, low thermal
50
51
52 conductivities, and high service temperatures. However, fabrication of these materials using
53
54 “top-down” approaches is difficult because inorganic fillers tend to aggregate and degenerate
55
56
57
58
59
4
1
2
3 during dispersion and sintering in organic materials, resulting in poor thermal and structural
4
5 20
6 properties, and fabrication of these materials using “bottom up” strategies is cost- and
7
8 resource-intensive which makes scale-up challenging. 10, 21 The deficiencies of current insulating
9
10 materials call for the need to develop alternative and effective thermal insulators that can be
11
12
13
easily produced in a high-throughput, low-cost, and environmentally sustainable manner.
14
15 Here, we prepare thermally insulating, low-density, hierarchically porous, thermoplastic
16
17 polypropylene (PP) foams with macro-mesoporosity in the cell walls using industrial-scale foam
18
19
injection molding (Fig S1), and a pressure/temperature regulated autoclave conventionally used
20
21
22 for bead foaming. 7 This process allows the foams to be easily sintered into complex shapes of
23
22
24 any dimensionality. The macro-mesopores in the cell walls cause the foams to exhibit an
25
26 overall thermal conductivity of 0.029 W m-1 K-1 for air at a density of 0.074 g cm-3, even when
27
28
29 the average cell diameter is greater than 10 µm. This thermal conductivity value is lower than
30
31 high-performance commercial insulators such as super-thermal insulating Styrofoam, and
32
33 recently reported materials. 23, 24, 25, 26
The low thermal conductivity of these air-filled
34
35
36
hierarchically porous foams is primarily attributed to the reduction in air conductivity which can
37
38 account for up to 70% of the overall thermal conductivity in cellular solids. 27 The nanoconfining
39
40 geometry of the pores in the cell walls with diameters below the mean free path of air, subjects
41
42
air particles to a Knudsen flow where the particles collide more frequently with the confining
43
44
45 walls rather than with each other. By virtue of the insignificant particle-particle collisions, the
46
47 energy conducted through air reduces, decreasing the overall thermal conductivity. The struts
48
49 comprising the cell walls are mechanically connected and when subjected to a macroscopic load,
50
51
52 respond by a linear-elastic bending deformation resulting in an elastic modulus, , which scales
53
54 with density, , as ~ indicating efficient load transfer to the skeletal structure of the
55
56
57
58
59
5
1
2
3 hierarchical foam. 21, 28
In contrast, thermally insulating inorganic aerogels exhibit a steeper
4
5
6 scaling with density, generally following ~ because of inefficient stress transfer between
7
8 structural members. 29, 30
9
10 Recent research has focused on the development of low-density, nanocellular foams 31, 32,
11
12 33
13 with cell diameters below the mean free path of air to minimize the conductivity of air.
14
15 However, scalable fabrication of low-density, nanocellular foams remains a challenge. 34, 35 We
16
17 believe that nanoconfinement through macro-mesoporous cell walls provides a pragmatic and
18
19
scalable route to reducing thermal conductivity in low-density polymer foams.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6
1
2
3 Experimental:
4
5
6 Materials:
7
8 Polypropylene (Novatec-PP FY4) is supplied by Japan Polypropylene.
9
10 Polytetrafluoroethylene (MetablenTM A-3000) is supplied by Mitsubishi Rayon. High purity
11
12
13
carbon dioxide and nitrogen are purchased from Linde Gas. All materials are used as received.
14
15 Foaming process:
16
17 The melt strength of PP is improved by blending 3 wt% PTFE using a literature method.
18
19 36, 37
Foams of PP/PTFE are prepared using a 50-ton injection molding machine (Arburg 270C).
20
21
22 A gas injection system (Trexel Mucell®) is used to deliver 10 wt% CO2 into the injection
23
24 molding machine. The mold cavity temperature is maintained at 85°C. A full shot of the polymer
25
26 + CO2 is injected into the mold cavity at an injection flow rate of 100 cm3 s-1, up to a cavity
27
28
29 packing pressure of 18 MPa. The polymer/gas mixture is allowed to dwell in the cavity for 40 s.
30
31 The mold is then opened at a mold opening rate of 20 mm s-1. The rapid depressurization from
32
33 mold opening causes cell nucleation and growth. The mold opening distance is varied between
34
35
36
1.5 mm and 50 mm. Samples are extracted from the core of the injection molded foam for
37
38 characterization.
39
40 When the mold opening distance is 1.5 mm, the samples extracted from the core of the
41
42
injection molded foam are subjected to a subsequent foaming process in a high pressure/
43
44
45 temperature regulated autoclave using CO2 at various temperatures and pressures for a saturation
46
47 time of 1.5 hours. The foams are collected after rapid depressurization of the chamber for
48
49 characterization.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
7
1
2
3 Measurements:
4
5
6 The thermal conductivity of the foams is measured using a transient plane source hot disk
7
8 thermal constant analyzer (Them Test Inc. TPS 2500). Prior to thermal conductivity
9
10 measurements, the insulating gas in the samples is changed from CO2 to air by placing a foamed
11
12
13
sample in a heated chamber at 80 °C for 24 hours. No change in the foam structure is observed.
14
15 The thermal conductivity of the foams with air as the insulating gas is measured.
16
17 The morphology of the foams is characterized using a scanning electron microscopy
18
19
(JEOL 6060 and Hitachi S-5200). Foamed samples are cryogenically fractured and the exposed
20
21
22 surface is coated with a thin layer of platinum using a sputter coater prior to observation. The
23
24 SEM micrographs are used to estimate i) the cell density with the method described earlier, 36 ii)
25
26 the cell wall porosity using the software Image Pro Plus ® (Fig S3), and iii) the average cross-
27
28
29 sectional diameter of the cells. The foam density is determined using ASTM-D792 and is used to
30
31 calculate the volume expansion ratio and the void fraction.
32
33 The pore volume distribution, the surface area, and the nitrogen sorption for the foams
34
35
36
are characterized using Quantachrome Autosorb. The BJH method is used to estimate the pore
37
38 size distribution. The BET method is used to estimate the specific surface area.
39
40 The multicycle compression tests are conducted on Instron 5848. Ten compressive cycles
41
42
are performed at 60% strain with a crosshead velocity of 1.5 mm min-1.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
8
1
2
3 Results and Discussion:
4
5
6
Preparation of the foams:
7
8 MuCell
®
CO2
9 pump tank
10
11
12
a Mold opening
distance
13 PP/PTFE
14
15
16 injection
17 port
18
19
20
21
22
23 CO2 Injection
24 tank pump
25 Injection Dwelling Mold opening
26
Foam-A
Foam-B
27 Inlet
28
29
c valve b Mold opening distance:
1.5 mm
30
31
32 T and P
33 regulated
34 chamber valve
35
36
37 Mold opening distance:
38
39 d 50 mm
e
40 direction
41 Mold opening
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
9
1
2
3 Figure 1. Foam preparation; a) Schematic of the foam injection molding process. The dwelling
4
5 time is 40 s and the mold opening distance is varied; b) SEM micrograph of the foam obtained
6 when the mold opening distance is 1.5 mm; c) Bead foaming setup used to subject the foam in b)
7 to various temperatures and pressures; d) SEM micrograph of Foam-A; e) SEM micrograph of
8
9 Foam-B produced with a mold opening distance of 50 mm showing anisotropic cells, elongated
10 in the mold opening direction.
11
12
13
14 The polymer is injected into the mold cavity of an industrial-scale injection molding
15
16
17
machine (Fig S1) with CO2 as the foam blowing agent and the process is schematically
18
19 illustrated in Fig 1a. After a dwelling period of 40 s, the mold is quickly opened to a distance of
20
21 1.5 mm, so that foaming can be induced through rapid depressurization (Fig S1g). An electronic
22
23
micrograph of the resultant foam is included in Fig 1b. This foam has an average cell diameter of
24
25
26 650 nm, a cell density of 1012 cells cm-3, an expansion ratio of 1.32 and a bulk density of 0.69 g
27
28 cm-3. These foam characteristics are significantly different from the characteristics of foams
29
30 typically obtained through mold opening injection molding, 38
and is ascribed to the limited
31
32
33 volume available for foam expansion due to the mold opening distance being small, severely
34
35 restraining cell growth (Fig S2). Such geometric confinement favors cell nucleation in the
36
37 competition between cell nucleation and cell growth, increasing the cell nucleation rate. 39
38
39
40
The high density of the foams is reduced in a subsequent batch foaming step using a bead
41
42 foaming autoclave depicted in Fig 1c. Adjustment of the foaming temperature and the CO2
43
44 pressure provides control over the foam density, the cell diameter and the cell wall structure
45
46
(Table S1). When a batch foaming temperature of 152 °C and a CO2 pressure of 1200 psi is
47
48
49 employed, the foam shown in Fig 1d is produced with an average cell diameter of 13.8 µm, a
50
51 cell density of 1010 cells cm-3, an expansion ratio of 12.4, a density of 0.074 g cm-3, and is
52
53 referred to as Foam-A. The higher magnification micrograph reveals the presence of submicron
54
55
56 pores in the cell walls of Foam-A. Pore formation in the cell walls of semicrystalline polymers is
57
58
59
10
1
2
3 attributed to the crystalline growth during the dwelling/saturating stage of the foaming process
4
5
6 leading to the formation of a structurally heterogeneous melt 40, 41, 42 creating stress concentration
7
8 points 43, 44 in the cell walls which become origination points of pores as the cells grow and the
9
10 cell walls become increasingly thinner. 45
11
12
13 For comparison purposes, foams are prepared with the same bulk density and expansion
14
15
16 ratio as Foam-A using mold-opening injection molding where the mold opening distance
17
18 employed is 50 mm. At this mold opening distance, geometric confinement becomes negligible
19
20 and free foam expansion is permitted (Fig S2) resulting in foams with morphological
21
22
23
characteristics commonly seen in previous studies. 38 The resultant foam is shown in Fig 1e and
24
25 is referred to as Foam-B. Foam-B shows an average cross-sectional cell diameter of 60 µm, a
26
27 cell density of 107 cells cm-3, an expansion ratio of 12, and a bulk density of 0.076 g cm-3.
28
29
Further, the cells in Foam-B are elongated in the mold opening direction with average lengths of
30
31
32 800 µm corresponding to an aspect ratio of 13.3. Such anisotropy in cell structure is not observed
33
34 in Foam-A and is expected to result in a higher axial thermal conductivity for Foam-B. 46 While
35
36 both Foam-A and Foam-B have similar densities of about 0.07 g cm-3, the two-stage foaming
37
38
39 process causes Foam-A to have drastically smaller cell diameters, submicron pores in the cell
40
41 walls (Fig S3), and an isotropic cell structure compared to Foam-B which has a larger average
42
43 cross-sectional cell diameter, and a highly anisotropic cell structure.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
11
1
2
3 Pore size analysis:
4
5 150 a Foam-A b Foam-A
0.4
6 Foam-B Foam-B
Volume Adsorbed (cm /g)
7
3
8 100
0.3
dV/ d logD
10 0.2
11
12 50
13 0.1
14
15 0 0.0
16 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 10 100
17 P/P0 D (nm)
18
19
20 Figure 2 Pore size analysis. a) Nitrogen sorption isotherms for Foam-A and Foam-B; b) Pore
21
22 size distribution for Foam-A and Foam-B.
23
24
25
26 Table 1. Physical characteristics of Foam-A and Foam-B.
27
28 Sample
a b c d e f
29
30 (m2 g-1) (cm3 g-1) (nm) (g cm-3) (%) (%)
31
32
33
34 Foam-A 31.7 0.2 25.2 0.074 92 14
35
36
Foam-B 15.6 0.09 - 0.077 91.6 32
37
38 a
39 Specific surface area determined with BET method using the desorption isotherm
40
b
41 Total pore volume determined by maximum nitrogen adsorption volume
42
c
43 Average pore diameter estimated using = 4 /
44
45 d
Foam density determined using ASTM D792
46
47 e
Foam void fraction calculated using = (1 − ! ⁄), where ! is the foam density and
48
49 is the density of the bulk material
50
f
51 Cell wall porosity estimated from electronic micrographs of the cell walls (Fig S3)
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
12
1
2
3 Porous characteristics of Foam-A and Foam-B are determined using nitrogen sorption
4
5
6 analysis and the isotherms are presented in Fig 2a. Both foams show a type II isotherm with a
7
8 hysteresis loop and a rapid nitrogen uptake in the high relative pressure region indicating the
9
10 presence of mesopores and macropores. 47 Fig 2b shows the pore volume distribution calculated
11
12
13
by the BJH model and the properties derived are included in Table 1. The average pore diameter
14
15 in the cell walls of Foam-A is 25.2 nm. However, Foam-B shows an insignificant amount of
16
17 pores with diameters < 100 nm. Thus, unlike Foam-A, most of the pores in the cell walls of
18
19
Foam-B are macropores which are not likely to interfere with the mean-free path of air particles.
20
21
22 This is further substantiated from the higher total pore volume, higher specific surface area, and
23
24 larger maximum nitrogen adsorption capacity of Foam-A than Foam-B. The pore volume
25
26 distribution of Foam-A reveals that some pores are larger than the mean free-path of air where
27
28
29 the Knudsen diffusion of air particles ceases to be significant and results in an increase in the
30
31 air conductivity. We believe that if the frequency of pores with diameters greater than the
32
33 mean-free path of air particles can be reduced, superior thermal insulation performance could
34
35
36
be achieved.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
13
1
2
3 Thermal transport properties:
4
5
6
7 0.212
8 0.210 a 0.07
EPS [54]
Cellulose fiber [55]
Wood fiber board [56]
Foam-A (this work)
Foam-B (this work)
PP foams (this work)
b
9 0.208 Wood wool [56]
Thermal Conductivity (W m K )
Thermal conductivity (W m K )
Foam glass [57] Scalable nanowood [26]
-1
-1
0.06 Polyaniline/Pectin aerogels [24]
10 0.206 Si-aerogels [59] Silk/Silica hybrid aerogels [23]
-1
-1
Organic aerogels [58]
11 0.204
0.05
12 0.202
13 0.200
0.040 0.04
14 0.035
15 0.030
0.025
Air 0.03
16 0.020
0.02
17 0.015
18 0.010
0.01
0.005
19 0.000
20 Foam-A Foam-B Bulk material 1
10 10
2
10
3
21 Density (kg m )
-3
22
23
24 c
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 Figure 3 Thermal transport properties a) Thermal conductivity of Foam-A, Foam-B, and the
50
bulk material; b) Density dependence of thermal conductivity for: i) the prepared foams (Table
51
52 S1), ii) traditional insulation materials, and iii) organic and inorganic aerogels. For comparison,
53 the minimum thermal conductivity of recently reported scalable high performance insulators is
54 also included; c) Mechanisms of thermal conductivity reduction in hierarchically porous foams.
55
56 Black regions correspond to pores in the cell walls.
57
58
59
14
1
2
3 The thermal conductivity for Foam-A, Foam-B, and the bulk material is tested at ambient
4
5
6 conditions and the results are presented in Fig 3a. Foam-A shows a thermal conductivity of
7
8 0.029 W m-1 K-1 for air, and Foam-B exhibits a significantly higher thermal conductivity of 0.04
9
10 W m-1 K-1 which is similar to the thermal conductivity of PP-based foams reported in other
11
12 48, 49, 50
13
studies. The low thermal conductivity of Foam-A is ascribed to the average pore size of
14
15 the nanoporous cell walls (25.2 nm) being smaller than the mean free path of air (ca. 70 nm at
16
17 ambient conditions), effectively reducing air conductivity contributions to the thermal
18
19 27
conductivity which typically account for 60-70% of the thermal conductivity in foams. The
20
21
22 conduction of the gas $% in the walls of the cells can be estimated by 51
23
24
25 &'( )
$% = (1)
26 *+,-.
27
28
29 where is the cell wall porosity (14% for Foam-A), $%/ is the thermal conductivity of gas in
30
31
free space (0.025 W m-1 K-1 for air), 0 ≈ 2 for air in aerogels and Kn is the Knudsen number
32
33
34 defined by Kn = 5/6 where 5 is the mean free path of a gas molecule (70 nm for air) and 6 is the
35
36 pore diameter (25.2 nm for Foam-A). Thus, using eq. (1), the conductivity of air through the
37
38
pores in the cell walls of Foam-A is calculated to be below 0.001 W m-1 K-1. Besides the
39
40
41 conductivity of air, the porous cell walls also reduce the solid conductivity by creating a more
42
43 tortuous path for phonons to transport heat (see Supplementary Discussion S1) resulting in
44
45 scattering and diffusive thermal transport. 52 Further, the large cell density of Foam-A (1010 cells
46
47
48 cm-3) improves reflectance of infrared light with many solid-air interfaces creating a “multiple
49
50 reflective effect”. 53 Figure 3c schematically illustrates these mechanisms of thermal transport in
51
52 hierarchically porous foams.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
15
1
2
3 Plotting the thermal conductivity of various insulation materials 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 against
4
5
6 their bulk density shows that an increase in density first causes the thermal conductivity to
7
8 decrease, reach a minimum, and then increase (Fig 3b). The minima in thermal conductivity at
9
10 an intermediate density occurs due to the competing requirements of radiative transport $7 and
11
12
13 solid conductivity $8 : at low densities, the $7 contribution to thermal conductivity becomes
14
58
15 important because of the inversely proportional relationship between $7 and , and at high
16
17 densities, the $8 contribution to the thermal conductivity becomes important because it scales as
18
19
20 $8 ~ 9 (where is greater than 1.2). 60 The lowest density of the foams prepared in this study is
21
22 0.074 g cm-3 (Foam-A) and approaches the apparent optimum density for traditional insulators.
23
24 Other foams prepared here exhibit higher densities than Foam-A and show a monotonic increase
25
26
27 in conductivity with density. The increase in conductivity at low densities is not observed
28
29 because foams with densities < 0.07 g cm-3 could not be prepared to illustrate the effect of the
30
31 enhanced $7 on thermal conductivity.
32
33
34 The lowest thermal conductivity value of 0.029 W m-1 K-1 is achieved at a density of
35
36
37 0.074 g cm-3 (Foam-A) and compares favorably with the values reported for recent high-
38
39 performance thermal insulators prepared with scalable technologies such as nanowood (0.032 W
40
41 m-1 K-1 at 0.13 g cm-3), 26
silk/silica aerogels (0.033 W m-1 K-1 at 0.17 g cm-3), 23
and
42
43
44 polyaniline/pectin aerogels (0.033 W m-1 K-1 at 0.42 g cm-3) 24 included in Fig 3b.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
16
1
2
3 Mechanical response under cyclic compression:
4
5
6 6
1x10 1.0 0
Young's Modulus (Pa)

7 a 10
Compressive Stress (Pa)
Foam-A (this work)

7 Young's Modulus PP foams (this work)
10
Energy Loss Coefficient Open-cell foam [66]
8 5
8x10 Maximum Stress
0.9 -1
10 Polycarolactone foam [67]
Energy Loss Coefficient

Si Aerogels [68]
Cycle 1
9 0.8 -2
Si Aerogels [11]
CNT aerogel [69]
10
10
5 CNT foam [70]
6x10
11 0.7 2
E/Es=(ρ/ρs)
E/Es
-3
5
10 2
12
4x10
Maximum Stress (Pa)

Cycle 10 10
6 0.6
13
-4
5
10 3
5 9x10
2x10
14 5
8x10
0.5
-5
10 3 3
15 0 5
7x10
b 0.4
E/Es=(ρ/ρs) c
16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10
-2
10
-1 0
10
17 Compressive Strain (%) Cycle Number ρ/ρs
18
19
Figure 4 Mechanical compression of Foam-A a) Stress-strain curves for 10 compression cycles
20
21 at 60% strain; b) Young’s modulus, energy loss coefficient, and maximum stress for each cycle
22 determined from a); c) Comparison of the relative compressive modulus of the prepared foams
23 with select cellular solids.
24
25
26
Multicompression test at 60% strain reveals that Foam-A is mechanically resilient and
27
28 can be subjected to significant compression. In contrast, inorganic aerogels undergo catastrophic
29
30 collapse at such strains. 61 The stress-strain response of Foam-A for ten compression cycles is
31
32
shown in Fig 4a. For the first compression, Foam-A shows a linear elastic response at low
33
34
35 strains. Deviation from elastic behavior begins at about 1.1 x 105 Pa. The transition between the
36
37 elastic behavior and the plastic plateau is not clearly seen, contrary to the classical transition seen
38
39 in cellular solids during uniaxial compression, and the concave shape of the curve suggest a non-
40
41
42 linear elastic behavior. 62 Further compression results in an increase in stress from the increased
43
44 interaction between the cell struts, and stress generated by the air inside the foam. This increase
45
46 in stress should not be confused with densification which is characterized as the impinging of the
47
48
49
opposite sides of the cell, and occurs at higher strains than the maximum strain used here. 63 At
50
51 the maximum compression of 60%, a peak stress of 9.3 x 105 Pa is seen. After unloading, the
52
53 stress decreases rapidly. Foam-A undergoes a 7% residual strain after completion of the first
54
55
56
57
58
59
17
1
2
3 cycle (Fig. S4). In comparison, plastic deformation of 10 to 20% is typical of polymer foams. 64,
4
5 65
6
7
8
9 Foam-A also shows hysteresis during compression cycles. For the first cycle, the work
10
11 done in compression is estimated to be 245 mJ cm-3 and the energy dissipated is estimated to be
12
13 212 mJ cm-3 corresponding to an energy loss coefficient (∆;/;) of 0.86. This large value is
14
15
16 attributed to structural damping from buckling, and breaking of cell walls and through
17
18 mechanical and Coulombic friction between contacting cell walls (Fig S5). Furthermore, the
19
20 formation of an oriented crystalline structure has been reported in the polymeric system,
21
22
23 improving interfacial binding and hence, stress-transfer. 45 Subsequent compressive cycles show
24
25 similar stress-strain curves but the residual strain decreases. Figure 4b shows the change with
26
27 each compressive cycle, in the energy loss coefficient, the maximum stress, and the Young’s
28
29
30
modulus. Both the energy loss coefficient and the maximum stress decrease with each cycle but
31
32 the Young’s modulus shows a tendency to plateau after the third cycle.
33
34
35 Figure 4c plots the relative compressive modulus /< against the relative density /<
36
37 for Foam-A and other fabricated foams over a wide range of densities (Table S1). Select cellular
38
39
40 solids are included in the figure, such as polymer foams, 66, 67 silica (Si) aerogels 68, 11 and carbon
41
42 nanotube (CNT) aerogels. 69, 70 The relative compressive modulus of the foams prepared in this
43
44 work scales with (/< ) which indicates that the deformation mechanism is bending-
45
46
47
dominated. In contrast, highly porous cellular solids such as Si-aerogels and CNT-aerogels show
48
49 a steeper power-law scaling relationship of (/< ) . The larger slope of Si-aeorgels suggests
50
51 inefficient load transfer compared to polymer foams, and is attributed to the fact that highly
52
53
porous Si-aerogels are not completely mechanically connected, so densification causes a
54
55
56 progressively greater portion of the structure to become load bearing. 28
57
58
59
18
1
2
3 Conclusions:
4
5
Conventional industrial-scale foaming equipment is used to prepare recyclable and
6
7
8 robust, thermal insulating foams in a high-throughput, sustainable, and cost-effective process.
9
10 The method can form foams with complex geometries of any arbitrary size. Improvement in
11
12 insulation properties is attributed to the nanoporous cell walls which reduce air conductivity by
13
14
15 restricting the flow of air, reduce solid conductivity by creating a tortuous path for thermal
16
17 phonon propagation, and reduce radiative transport by creating numerous air-solid interfaces.
18
19 The method in principle can be applied to other polymers and their nanocomposites to create
20
21
22 novel foam insulators for innovative applications in thermoelectric power generation, and energy
23
24 conservation.
25
26 Supporting Information:
27
28
Photographs of i) the injection molding machine, ii) the mold, and iii) injection molded sample;
29
30
31 shape and dimensions of the mold cavity; pressure profile during foam injection molding; effect
32
33 of mold opening distance on foam morphology; processing/structure/properties relationship of
34
35 variously prepared foams; effect of cell wall thickness on thermal conductivity of hierarchically
36
37
38 porous foams; method for quantifying the cell wall porosity; residual strain of the foam after
39
40 each compression cycle; SEM micrograph of foam after the first compression cycle. This
41
42 material is available free of charge via the internet at http://pubs.acs.org/.
43
44
45 Acknowledgements:
46
47 The authors would like to thank the members of the Consortium of Cellular and Microcellular
48
49 Plastics (CCMCP) for their financial support of this project. A.R. thanks the NSERC (Canada)
50
51
for providing the CGS-D2 scholarship.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
19
1
2
3 References
4
5 1. Fricke, J.; Emmerling, A. Aerogels. Adv. Mater. 1991, 3, 504-506.
6
7 2. Martinez, R. G.; Goiti, E.; Reichenauer, G.; Zhao, S.; Koebel, M. M.; Barrio, A. Thermal assessment of
8
ambient pressure dried silica aerogel composite boards at laboratory and field scale. Energy
9
10 Buildings 2016, 111-118, 128.
11
12 3. Adekomaya, o.; Huan, z. Minimizing energy consumption in refrigerated vehicles through alternative
13
external wall. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2017, 67, 89-93.
14
15
16 4. Bai, F.; Wu, J.; Gong, G.; Guo, L. A flexible, sandwiched high-performance super-insulation fabric. J.
17 Mater. Chem. A 2015, 3, 13198-13202.
18
19
5. Poudel, B.; Hao, Q.; Ma, Y.; Lan, Y.; Minnich, A.; Yu, B.; Yan, X.; Wang, D.; Muto, A.; Vashaee, D.;
20
21 Chen, X.; Liu, J.; Dresselhaus, M. S.; Chen, G.; Ren, Z. High-Thermoelectric Performance of
22 Nanostructured Bismuth Antimony Telluride Bulk Alloys. Science 2008, 320, 634.
23
24 6. Suh, K. W.; Park, C. P.; Maurer, M. J.; Tusim, M. H.; De Genova, R.; Broos, R.; Sophiea, D. P.
25
26 Lightweight Cellular Plastics. Adv. Mater. 2000, 12, 1779-1789.
27
28 7. Raps, D.; Hossieny, N.; Park, C. B.; Altstädt, V. Past and present developments in bead foams and
29 bead foaming technology. Polymer 2014, 56, 5-9.
30
31
32 8. Lu, X.; Arduini-Schuster, M. C.; Kuhn, J.; Nilsson, N.; Fricke, J.; Pekala, R. W. Thermal Conductivity of
33 Monolithic Organic Aerogels. Science 1992, 255, 971-972.
34
35 9. Hrubesh, L. W.; Pekala, R. W. Thermal properties of organic and inorganic aerogels. J Mater. Res.
36
37 1994, 9, 731-738.
38
39 10. Huber, L.; Zhao, S.; Malfait, W. J.; Vares, S.; Koebel, M. M. Fast and Minimal-Solvent Production of
40 Superinsulating Silica Aerogel Granulate. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 4753 –44756.
41
42
43 11. Tillotson, T. M.; Hrubesh, L. W. Transparent ultralow-density silica aerogels prepared by a two-step
44 sol-gel process.. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 1992, 145, 44-50.
45
46 12. Wicklein, B.; Kocjan, A.; Salazar-Alvarez, G.; Carosio, F.; Camino, G.; Antonietti, M.; Bergström, L.
47
48 Thermally insulating and fire-retardant lightweight anisotropic foams based on nanocellulose and
49 graphene oxide. Nat. Nano. 2015, 10, 277-283.
50
51 13. Kobayashi, Y.; Saito, T.; Isogai, A. Aerogels with 3D Ordered Nanofiber Skeletons of Liquid-Crystalline
52
53
Nanocellulose Derivatives as Tough and Transparent Insulators. Angew. Chem. 2014, 126, 10562 –
54 110565.
55
56
57
58
59
20
1
2
3
14. Hayase, G.; Kanamori, K.; Abe, K.; Yano, H.; Maeno, A.; Kaji, H.; Nakanishi, K.
4
5 Polymethylsilsesquioxane–Cellulose Nanofiber Biocomposite Aerogels with High Thermal Insulation,
6 Bendability, and Superhydrophobicity. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 9466-9471.
7
8 15. Yang, L.; Mukhopadhyay, A.; Jiao, Y.; Yong, Q.; Chen, L.; Xing, Y.; Hamel, J.; Zhu, H. Ultralight, highly
9
10 thermally insulating and fire resistant aerogel by encapsulating cellulose nanofibers with two-
11 dimensional MoS2. Nanoscale 2017, 9, 11452-11462.
12
13 16. Li, T.; Liu, H.; Zhao, X.; Chen, G.; Dai, J.; Pastel, G.; Jia, C.; Chen, C.; Hitz, E.; Siddhartha, D.; Yang, R.;
14
15 Hu, L. Scalable and Highly Efficient Mesoporous Wood-Based Solar Steam Generation Device:
16 Localized Heat, Rapid Water Transport. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2018, 28, 1707134.
17
18 17. Zhao, S.; Malfait, W. J.; Guerrero-Alburquerque, N.; Koebel, M. M.; Nyström, G. Biopolymer Aerogels
19
20
and Foams: Chemistry, Properties, and Applications. Angew.Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 7580 –77608.
21
22 18. Zu, G.; Shimizu, T.; Kanamori, K.; Zhu, Y.; Maeno, A.; Kaji, H.; Shen, J.; Nakanishi, K. Transparent,
23 Superflexible Doubly Cross-Linked Polyvinylpolymethylsiloxane Aerogel Superinsulators via Ambient
24
Pressure Drying. ACS Nano 2018, 12, 521-532.
25
26
27 19. Yu, Z. L.; Yang, N.; Apostolopoulou-Kalkavoura, V.; Qin, B.; Ma, Z. Y.; Xing, W. Y.; Qiao, C.; Bergström,
28 L.; Antonietti, M.; Yu, S. H. Fire-Retardant and Thermally Insulating Phenolic-Silica Aerogels. Angew.
29
Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 4538 –44542.
30
31
32 20. Zhang, Q.; Lin, D.; Deng, B.; Xu, X.; Nian, Q.; Jin, S.; Leedy, K. D.; Li, H.; Cheng, G. J. Flyweight,
33 Superelastic, Electrically Conductive, and Flame-Retardant 3D Multi-Nanolayer Graphene/Ceramic
34 Metamaterial. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1605506.
35
36
37 21. Si, Y.; Yu, J.; Tang, X.; Ge, J.; Ding, B. Ultralight nanofibre-assembled cellular aerogels with
38 superelasticity and multifunctionality. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 5802.
39
40 22. Zhai, W. T.; Kim, Y. W.; Jung, D. W.; Park, C. B. Steam-Chest Molding of Expanded Polypropylene
41
42 Foams. 2. Mechanism of Inter-Bead Bonding. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 5523- 5531.
43
44 23. Maleki, H.; Montes, S.; Hayatii-Roodbari, N.; Putz, F.; Huesing, N. Compressible, Thermally Insulating,
45 and Fire Retardant Aerogels through Self-Assembling Silk Fibroin Biopolymers Inside a Silica
46
47 Structure—An Approach towards 3D Printing of Aerogels. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018.
48
49 24. Zhao, H. B.; Chen, M.; Chen, H. B. Thermally Insulating and Flame-Retardant Polyaniline/Pectin
50 Aerogels. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 7012-7019.
51
52
53 25. Ruckdeschel, P.; Philipp, A.; Retsch, M. Understanding Thermal Insulation in Porous, Particulate
54 Materials. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1702256.
55
56
57
58
59
21
1
2
3
26. Li, T.; Song, J.; Zhao, X.; Yang, Z.; Pastel, G.; Xu, S.; Jia, C.; Dai, J.; Chen, C.; Gong, A.; Jiang, F.; Yao, Y.;
4
5 Fan, T.; Yang, B.; Wagberg, L.; Yang, R.; Hu, L. Anisotropic, lightweight, strong, and super thermally
6 insulating nanowood with naturally aligned nanocellulose. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaar3724.
7
8 27. Vo, V.; Bunge, F.; Duffy, J.; Hood, L. Advances in Thermal Insulation of Extruded Polystyrene Foams.
9
10 Cell. Polym 2011, 30, 137-155.
11
12 28. Fan, H.; Hartshorn, C.; Buchheit, T.; Tallant, D.; Assink, R.; Simpson, R.; Kissel, D. J.; Lacks, D. J.;
13 Torquato, S.; Brinker, C. J. Modulus–density scaling behaviour and framework architecture of
14
15 nanoporous self-assembled silicas. Nat. Mat. 2007, 6, 418–423.
16
17 29. Schaedler, T. A.; Jacobsen, A. J.; Torrents, A.; Sorensen, A. E.; Lian, J.; Greer, J. R.; Valdevit, L.; Carter,
18 W. B. Ultralight Metallic Microlattices. Science 2011, 334, 962-965.
19
20
21 30. Kucheyev, S. O.; Stadermann, M.; Shin, S. J.; Satcher, J. H.; Gammon, S. A.; Letts, S. A.; Van Buuren,
22 T.; Hamza, A. V. Super-Compressibility of Ultralow-Density Nanoporous Silica. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24,
23 776–780.
24
25
26
31. Costeux, S. Nanocellular Foams. In Polymeric Foams: Innovations in Processes, Technologies, and
27 Products; Lee, S. T., Ed.; CRC press, 2016; pp 205-249.
28
29 32. Liu, S.; Duvigneau, J.; Vancso, F. J. Nanocellular polymer foams as promising high performance
30
thermal insulation materials. Eur. Polym. J. 2015, 65, 33-45.
31
32
33 33. Forest, C.; Chaumont, P.; Cassagnau, P.; Swoboda, B.; Sonntag, P. Polymer nano-foams for insulating
34 applications prepared from CO2 foaming. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2015, 41, 122-145.
35
36
37
34. Wang, G.; Wang, C.; Zhao, J.; Wang, G.; Park, C. B.; Zhao, G. Modelling of thermal transport through
38 the nanocellular polymer foam: Toward the generation of a new superinsulating material. Nanoscale
39 2017, 9, 5996-6009.
40
41
35. Notario, B.; Pinto, J.; Solorzano, E.; de Saja, J. A.; Dumon, M.; Rodríguez-Pérez, M. A. Experimental
42
43 validation of the Knudsen effect in nanocellular polymeric foams. Polymer 2015, 56, 57-67.
44
45 36. Rizvi, A.; Tabatabaei, A.; Barzegari, R.; Mahmood, H.; Park, C. B. In-situ fibrillation of CO2-philc
46
polymers: sustainable route to polymeric foams in a continuous process. Polymer 2013, 54, 4645–
47
48 4652.
49
50 37. Rizvi, A.; Chu, R. K. M.; Lee, J. H.; Park, C. B. Superhydrophobic and oleophilic open-cell foams from
51 fibrillar blends of polypropylene and polytetrafluoroethylene. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014,
52
53 21131-21140.
54
55 38. Ishikawa, T.; Ohshima, M. Visual observation and numerical studies of polymer foaming behavior of
56
57
58
59
22
1
2
3
polypropylene/carbon dioxide system in a core-back injection molding process. Polym. Eng. Sci.
4
5 2011, 51, 1617-1625.
6
7 39. Siripurapu, S.; DeSimone, J. M.; Khan, S. A.; Spontak, R. J. Low-Temperature, Surface-Mediated
8 Foaming of Polymer Films. Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 989-994.
9
10
11 40. Lee, P. C.; Wang, J.; Park, C. B. Extruded open-cell foams using two semicrystalline polymers with
12 different crystallization temperatures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 175-181.
13
14 41. Zhang, X. D.; Davis, H. T.; Macosko, C. W. A new cell opening mechanism in flexible polyurethane
15
16 foams. J. Cell. Plast. 1998, 10, 2037-2040.
17
18 42. Taki, K.; Kitano, D.; Ohshima, M. Effect of Growing Crystalline Phase on Bubble Nucleation in Poly(L-
19 Lactide)/CO2 Batch Foaming. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 3247-3252.
20
21
22 43. Wong, A.; Chu, R. K. M.; Leung, S. N.; Park, C. B.; Zong, J. H. A Batch Foaming Visualization System
23 with Extensional Stress-Inducing Ability. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2011, 55-63, 2011.
24
25 44. Leung, S. N.; Wong, A.; Wang, L. C.; Park, C. B. Mechanism of Extensional Stress-Induced Cell
26
27 Formation in Polymeric Foaming Processes with the Presence of Nucleating Agents. J. Supercrit.
28 Fluids 2012, 63, 187-198.
29
30 45. Rizvi, A.; Tabatabaei, A.; Vahedi, P.; Mahmood, S. H.; Park, C. B. Non-crosslinked thermoplastic
31
32 reticulated polymer foams from crystallization-induced structural heterogeneities. Polymer 2018,
33 135, 185-192.
34
35 46. Mateti, S.; Yang, .; Shaoming, X. L.; Jiangting, H.; Li, L. H.; Hodgson, P.; Zhou, M.; He, J.; Chen, Y. Bulk
36
Hexagonal Boron Nitride with a Quasi-Isotropic Thermal Conductivity. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2018,
37
38 1707556.
39
40 47. Thommes, M.; Kaneko, K.; Neimark, A. V.; Olivier, J. P.; Rodriguez-Reinoso, F.; Rouquerol, J.; Sing, K.
41
S. W. Physisorption of gases with speciall reference to the evaluation of surface area and pore size
42
43 distribution. Pure Appl. Chem. 2015, 87, 1051-1069.
44
45 48. Antunes, M.; Realinho, V.; Velasco, J. I.; Solórzano, E.; Rodríguez-Pérez, M. A.; de Saja, J. A. Thermal
46
conductivity anisotropy in polypropylene foams prepared by supercritical CO2 dissolution. Mater.
47
48 Chem. Phys. 2012, 136, 268-276.
49
50 49. Zhao, J.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, C.; Guo, B.; Park, C. B.; Wang, G. High thermal insulation and compressive
51 strength polypropylene foams fabricated by high-pressure foam injection molding and mold opening
52
53 of nano-fibrillar composites. Mater. Des. 2017, 131, 1-11.
54
55 50. Su, L.; Zhang, W.; Xia, R.; Miao, J.; Tang, B.; Qian, J.; Ruan, F.; Zheng, Z. Effects of butyl acrylate
56
57
58
59
23
1
2
3
modified polypropylene on structural and thermal properties of foamed polypropylene. Appl. Polym.
4
5 Sci 2016, 44340.
6
7 51. Knudsen, M. The Kinetic Theory of Gases. Some Modern Aspects; Methuen & Co. Ltd. : London, 1934.
8
9
52. Cahill, D. G.; Watson, S. K.; Pohl, R. O. Lower limit to the thermal conductivity of disordered crystals.
10
11 Phys. Rev. B. 1992, 46, 6131.
12
13 53. Cui, Y.; Gong, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, D.; Bai, H. A Thermally Insulating Textile Inspired by Polar Bear Hair.
14 Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1706807.
15
16
17 54. Gnip, I.; Vėjelis, S.; Vaitkus, S. Thermal conductivity of expanded polystyrene (EPS) at 10 C and its
18 conversion to temperatures within interval from 0 to 50 C. Energ. Buildings 2012, 52, 107-111.
19
20
55. Sekino, N. Density dependence in the thermal conductivity of cellulose fiber mats and wood shavings
21
22 mats: investigation of the apparent thermal conductivity of coarse pores. J. Wood Sci. 2016, 62, 20-
23 26.
24
25 56. Domínguez-Muñoz; F.; Anderson, B.; Cejudo-López, J. M.; Carrillo-Andrés, A. Uncertainty in the
26
27 thermal conductivity of insulation materials. Energ. Buildings 2010, 42, 2159-2168.
28
29 57. König, J.; Petersen, R. R.; Yue, Y. Fabrication of highly insulating foam glass made from CRT panel
30 glass. Ceramics Int. 2015, 41, 9793-9800.
31
32
33 58. Aegerter, M. A.; Leventis, N.; Koebel, M. M. Aerogels Handbook; Springer, 2011.
34
35 59. Fu, Y.; Qu, Z.; Zhou, L. Prediction of the Effective Thermal Conductivity of Aerogel Nano-Porous
36 Materials. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 4769-4775.
37
38
39 60. Lu, X.; Caps, R.; Fricke, J.; Alviso, C.; Pekala, R. Correlation between structure and thermal
40 conductivity of organic aerogels. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 1995, 188, 226-234.
41
42 61. Parmenter, K. E.; Milstein, F. Mechanical properties of silica aerogels. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 1998, 223,
43
44 179-189.
45
46 62. Viot, P. Hydrostatic compression on polypropylene foam. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2009, 36, 975-989.
47
48 63. Ashby, M. F. The properties of foams and lattices. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A 2006, 364, 15-30.
49
50
51 64. Liang, H. W.; Guan, Q. F.; Chen, L. F.; Zhu, Z.; Zhang, W. J.; Yu, S. H. Macroscopic-scale template
52 synthesis of robust carbonaceous nanofiber hydrogels and aerogels and their applications. Angew.
53 Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 5101–5105.
54
55
56
57
58
59
24
1
2
3
65. Gibson, L. J.; Ashby, M. F. Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties; Cambridge Univ. Press , 1997.
4
5
6 66. Gibson, L. J.; Ashby, M. F. The Mechanics of Three-Dimensional Cellular Materials. Proc. R. Soc.
7 London Ser. A 1982, 382, 43-59.
8
9
67. Liu, H.; Han, C.; Dong, L. Study on the cell structure and compressive behavior of biodegradable poly
10
11 (ε-caprolactone) foam. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2008, 48, 2432-2438.
12
13 68. Moner-Girona, M.; Roig, A.; Molins, E.; Martinez, E.; Esteve, J. Micromechanical properties of silica
14 aerogels. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1999, 75, 653-655.
15
16
17 69. Pekala, R. W.; Alviso, C. T.; Lemay, J. D. Organic aerogels-microstructural dependence of mechanical-
18 properties in compression. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 1990, 125, 67–75.
19
20
70. Worsley, M. A.; Kucheyev, S. O.; Satcher Jr., J. H.; Hamza, A. V.; Baumann, T. F. Mechanically robust
21
22 and electrically conductive carbon nanotube foams. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2009, 94, 073115.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
25
1
2
3 Table of Contents Graphic:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59

Scalable Fabrication of Thermally Insulating MechanicallyResilient Hierarchically Porous Polymer Foams

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Scalable Fabrication of Thermally Insulating MechanicallyResilient Hierarchically Porous Polymer Foams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subscriber access provided by Gothenburg University Library

Applications of Polymer, Composite, and Coating Materials

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W.,

Young's Modulus (Pa)

Foam-A (this work)

Energy Loss Coefficient

Maximum Stress (Pa)

17 Compressive Strain (%) Cycle Number ρ/ρs

You might also like