Composites Science and Technology 92 (2014) 126–133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech

Graphene oxide-integrated high-temperature durable fluoroelastomer

for petroleum oil sealing
Junhua Wei, Steven Jacob, Jingjing Qiu ⇑
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, TX 79409, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Two-dimensional one-atom thick graphene inspires intensive studies due to its great potentials in
Received 21 August 2013 enhancing polymer’s mechanical, gas/liquid barrier, and thermal properties. However, its poor dispersion
Received in revised form 15 November 2013 within highly viscous rubber elastomers by conventional mill mixing posed significant technical chal-
Accepted 11 December 2013
lenges and hindered its vast applications. In this paper, graphene oxide (GO) enhanced fluoroelastomer
Available online 23 December 2013
(FKM) was solution-processed to enhance the mechanical and liquid barrier properties of FKM for the
first time. Due to the chemical bonding, the GO/FKM performed 1.5-fold increment tensile strength com-
Keywords:
pared with pure FKM and 1.2-fold increment tensile strength compared with Reduced Graphene Oxide/
A. Particle-reinforce composites
B. Curing
FKM at 150 °C. The reduced permeability of GO/FKM to organic solvent (such as methyl ethyl ketone)
C. Mechanical properties indicated the improved liquid barrier properties. This research provides a cost-effective solution process
D. Nano composites to efficiently enhance the thermal mechanical and liquid barrier properties of FKM with the addition of
E. Sol–gel method GO sheets through excellent dispersion techniques and strong GO-matrix bonding.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
During petroleum exploration and production, rubber-elasto-
mer based oil seals are used widespread in assembling pipes and
machinery to prevent oil leakage and gas infiltration. These rubber
elastomers are required to exhibit excellent hardness, strength,
chemical/water resistance, good elasticity and structural stability
under both high and low temperatures and high pressures. Fluoro-
elastomer (FKM) has been widely used in those harsh environ-
ments due to their excellent heat and solvent resistance
properties. Although the service life of most FKMs are theoretically
up to thousands of hours even at 200 °C, they may still lose 30% of
the tensile strength and 10% of the volume swell after exposure to
oil for 70 h at 200 °C [1]. Water vapor and other gas adsorption
could make them worse. Hence, new products of FKMs with en-
hanced performance is in needed.
In the recent years, different reinforcements, such as carbon
black [2], silica [3], clays [4–6], and carbon nanotubes (CNTs)
[5–7], have been added to enhance the mechanical, thermal, and
electrical properties of FKMs. The reinforcement for FKM requires
a high loading of the conventional filler, which introduced many
side-effects in processing, curing, and applications. In contrast, sig-
nificant enhancement of mechanical, and thermal properties can
be achieved by adding novel nanomaterials at a small loading
[7–10]. CNT-reinforced rubber elastomers as sealing materials in
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 8067423563x284; fax: +1 8067423540.
E-mail address: jenny.qiu@ttu.edu (J. Qiu).
the oil industry have also been studied in the recent years and
near-commercial products are currently available [7]. However,
the low modulus and the prohibitively high processing cost of
chemical vapor deposition (CVD) produced CNTs limits its applica-
tion for mass consumption.
Graphene, a flexible one-atom-thick two dimensional graphite
carbon nanostructure, has drawn a lot of attention due to its excep-
tional mechanical properties [8], electrical properties, and large
surface area [9]. The recent research of mixing a small amount of
graphene into natural rubber [10–12] proved that graphene is an
excellent filler to improve the strength of rubber-elastomers. In
comparison with other fillers, graphene offers the mechanical per-
formance as high as CNTs at the price of clay fillers. Moreover,
graphene demonstrates outstanding gas/liquid barrier properties
[13]. Therefore, graphene is a very promising reinforcement mate-
rial for novel elastomers with improved mechanical properties,
thermal stability and gas/liquid barrier properties.
In order to reinforce the high-temperature mechanical proper-
ties of rubber elastomers [14], further functionalization on the
plain 2D structure of graphene is commonly carried out to improve
the dispersion and interfacial bonding. As the mechanical proper-
ties of vulcanized elastomer are mainly dependent on the crosslink
density [15], the functional groups enable graphene to crosslink
with different elastomers. Graphene oxide (GO) is a single-layer
graphene with oxygen groups attached onto it. Different from the
reduced graphene oxide (RGO), the allyl alcohol groups on
the GO offer reactive sites with elastomers during vulcanization
[16–18] and further provide a higher modulus and fracture

0266-3538/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2013.12.010
 J. Wei et al. / Composites Science and Technology 92 (2014) 126–133
strength in elastomer nanocomposites. Ultrasonic and subsequent
co-coagulation approach has been proved to provide better dis-
persed fillers in silicate/rubber system [19], nanoclay/rubber com-
posites [12,20] and graphene/natural rubber composite [11,21]. In
this paper, different concentrations of graphene and GO nanoparti-
cles were used to reinforce FKM. To the authors’ knowledge, this is
the first attempt to reinforce FKM by graphene or GO using the co-
coagulation method. The effects of graphene or GO as fillers on the
high-temperature mechanical properties and liquid barrier proper-
ties were investigated.
2. Experimental
2.1. Preparation of rubber nanocomposites
2.1.1. Preparation of graphene
The graphene oxide (GO) was produced by the modified Bro-
die’s method, which is reported elsewhere [22]. In order to obtain
reduced graphene oxide (RGO) powder, in which most of the oxy-
gen groups were removed by reduction, the GO powder was first
dispersed in pH 10.5 ammonia/water solution, then this solution
was mixed with 50 lL hydrazine and stirred overnight. The resul-
tant solution was dried at 70 °C to obtain RGO powder.
2.1.2. Solvent selection
Five different organic solvents (DMF: dimethylformamide, ace-
tonitrile, Ethanol, DMSO: dimethyl sulfoxide, and NMP: N-methyl-
2-pyrrolidone) were used for the solubility tests for both FKM and
GO (or RGO). 1 g of FKM was dispersed in 30 ml of each organic sol-
vent by stirring for 3 days. 1 mg of GO powder and RGO powder
were dispersed into 30 ml of each organic solvent by 1 h tip-soni-
cation, respectively. The theoretical analysis of the solubility was
carried out according to the Hansen solubility parameter [23].
2.1.3. Mixing rubber nanocomposites
10 g of the FKM (FC 2260; Dyneon, 3M. Composition: di-poly-
mer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene, plus cure site
monomer. Fluorine content: 65.5%. Mooney Viscosity ML
1 + 10@121 °C: 60 MV. Specific gravity: 1.80) and 1 g of GO
(or RGO) was dispersed into acetonitrile separately. The GO (or
RGO) suspension was prepared by tip-sonication for 1 h and the
FKM suspension was prepared by stirring the suspension for
3 days. The FKM suspension was slowly poured into the GO (or
RGO) suspension. After stirring for 4 h, the mixture was co-coagu-
lated by pouring into large amount of DI water under strong
mechanical stirring. In order to obtain the well-dispersed compos-
ites, the solids was collected by filtration and dried in an oven at
70 °C for 24 h. These composites were named as GO masterbatch
or RGO masterbatch.
In order to achieve a better dispersion, the above-mentioned
masterbatch were processed in a rheometer mixer (Haake Polylab
with Rheomix Compounder, 450C). Different amounts of the
GO/RGO masterbatch was mixed with neat FKM, 3 wt% Ca(OH)2
and 2.5 wt% peroxide curatives (LuperoxÒ 101XL45) to produce
control (no master piece), 1 wt% GO/FKM, 2 wt% GO/FKM, 1 wt%
RGO/FKM and 2 wt% RGO/FKM by weight fraction.
The commercial FKM, peroxide, and the masterbatch were
mixed for 12 min at 80 °C and 80 rpm. Subsequently, the mixed
pastes were compression molded and cured by hot press machine
according to the ASTM D3182. The pastes were pre-cured on a hot-
pressing machine at 177 °C, 5 MPa for 7 min. After that, the pre-
cured pastes were post-cured at 235 °C for 24 h.
During pre-curing, the decomposition of the peroxide agency
and crosslinking were initiated. Because the crosslinking is a diffu-
sion-controlled process, it is not possible to achieve completed
127
crosslinking at one temperature due at short curing period (nor-
mally less than 30 min). Because the increasing crosslinked net-
work rising the glass transition temperature gradually and
reducing the mobility of chains, the vulcanization slows down even
if there are still non-reacted groups. In that case, the post-curing
with elevated temperature and longer curing period (normally
16–25 h) is needed. During post-curing, the crosslink density fur-
ther increased because polymer chains are re-activated to reach
and react with the non-reacted groups.
2.2. Characterization
2.2.1. Characterization of GO and RGO
GO and RGO were characterized by Transmission Electron
Microscopy (TEM, HITACHI T8100), Fourier-Transform Infrared
(FT-IR, Nicolet iS10) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
(XPS, PHI5000 Versa Probe). The vulcanization was analyzed with
an oscillating disc rheometer (ODR, Akron Rubber Development
Laboratory, Inc.) at 177 °C according to ASTM D2084.
2.2.2. Measurement of crosslink density and barrier properties
The crosslinking densities of the vulcanized composites were
measured by the swelling tests in MEK (methyl ethyl ketone).
The mole percent uptake Qt for solvent after t min immersion
was determined using:
ðMt  M0 Þ=MW
Qt ¼  100 ð1Þ
M0
where Mt is the mass of the sample after t min of immersion, M0 is
the initial mass of the sample, and MW is the molecular weight of
the solvent. The sorption was plotted as the Qt vs. t1/2 and the diffu-
sion and permeability coefficients were calculated according to the
plot [24–26]. The crosslink density was calculated according to
ASTM D6814 [27]. The polymer solvent interaction parameter (v)
was calculated to be 1.31 at 25 °C [28,29].
2.2.3. Measurement of mechanical properties
The tensile tests were performed on a Universal Tester (AGS-X,
SHIMADZU) at room temperature (25 °C), 75 °C and 150 °C in a
temperature control chamber. Five ASTM D412 type D specimens
were measured to obtain the average value of tensile strength,
elongation, and stress at 100%, 200%, and 300% strain (M100,
M200, and M300) at 250 mm/min stretch rate until breakage. Each
sample was kept in the constant temperature-controlled chamber
before tests (for 20 min) and during tests (till breakage). The mor-
phology and the element analysis of their rupture cross-section
was also investigated using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM,
HITACHI S4300).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of GO and RGO
As-synthesized GO and RGO were characterized by TEM, FT-IR,
and XPS. As shown in the TEM images in Fig. 1(a) and (b), the GO
and RGO were mostly single-layer graphene based nanoribbons
with the size of about 100 nm  600 nm. The chemical structures
of the GO and RGO were investigated by FT-IR. As shown in
Fig. 1(c), epoxy groups (1390 cm1, 1060 cm1 and 946 cm1), car-
boxyl group (1260 cm1, 1720 cm1 and 3400 cm1), and aromat-
ics (1560 cm1) exist in the as-prepared GO [30,31]. Compared
with the GO, the intensity of above-mentioned oxygen functional
groups were significantly reduced in the RGO. The similar situation
was also confirmed by the XPS spectra. As seen in the survey
(d) and the C1 of GO (e) and RGO (f). The C/O ratio of atomic
128 J. Wei et al. / Composites Science and Technology 92 (2014) 126–133

Fig. 1. The TEM images of the GO (a) and RGO (b). The FT-IR spectra (c) and the survey of XPS spectra (d) and high resolution C1 spectra (e) of GO and RGO.

concentration drops from 2.37 for GO to 20.7 for RGO after reduc-
tion by hydrazine. In the high resolution C1 spectra, the binding
energy at 284.8 eV, 286.1 eV, 287.5 eV and 289.2 eV indicates the
CAC, CAO, C@O, and C(O)OH bonding [32,33]. The C1 spectra
shows that most of the oxygen groups have been removed from
RGO compared with GO. This result demonstrated that the GO
and RGO used as the fillers in FKM composite have similar mor-
phologies, but quite different chemical structures owing to the
reduction of the oxygen functional groups.
(RED), which indicates the solubility, was calculated by Eq. (3).
When RED is less than 1, the molecules are alike and can dissolve
in the corresponding solvent. In Table 1, the Hansen Solubility
Parameters of the FKM and different solvents are listed. Only the
RED of acetonitrile is less than 1. Therefore, acetonitrile is consid-
ered to be the best solvent for FKM, GO, and RGO.
ðRa Þ2 ¼ 4ðddsolv ent  ddFKM Þ2 þ ðdpsolv ent  dpFKM Þ2
þ ðdhsolv ent  dhFKM Þ2 ð2Þ

RED ¼ Ra =R0 ð3Þ

3.2. Solvent selection
In order to obtain a good dispersion FKM GO/RGO composite,
ultrasonic-assisted latex mixing was used. Five common organic
solvents for GO/RGO [34,35] were used to test the mutual solubil-
ity for GO, RGO, and FKM. The Hansen solubility parameter was
used to evaluate the solubility. In Hansen solubility parameters,
dd, dp and dh represent the energy from dispersion forces, energy
from dipolar intermolecular force, and energy from hydrogen
bonds, respectively. As the graphene can be dissolved in most
of the solvents that have a value of (dd + dh) in the range of
13–29 MPa1/2 [36,37], the five selected solvents have the values
in the range as seen in Table 1. In order to estimate the solubility
of polymer in a specific solvent, the distances (Ra) between Hansen
parameters in Hansen space were calculated by Eq. (2). The R0 in
Eq. (2)represents the interaction radius of the polymer. For FKM,
the dd, dp, dh, and R0 are 10.9 MPa1/2, 14.5 MPa1/2, 3.1 MPa1/2, and
14.1 MPa1/2, respectively [36]. The relative energy difference
where the subscripts solvent and FKM indicate the parameters from
different solvents and FKM, respectively. The solubility was con-
firmed by the comparison test. The FKM, GO powder, and RGO pow-
der were dispersed in different solvents, as shown in Fig. 2. The GO
and RGO dissolved well in all of these organic solvent, but only ace-
tonitrile can dissolve FKM. Therefore, acetonitrile was selected as
testing solvent.
3.3. Mechanism of reaction between GO and FKM
In order to synthesize high-performance FKM nanocomposite
with improved mechanical properties, it is crucial to ensure a good
dispersion of the nanofiller and a strong chemical bonding be-
tween the nanofiller and the FKM matrix. In this case, the single-
layer GO with plenty of oxidized groups can provide electron-rich
hydrocarbon groups at the edge is the ideal reinforcement mate-
rial. In this paper, the ultrasonic and co-coagulation technique

Table 1
The hansen solubility parameters for different solvents.

Sample dd (MPa1/2) dp (MPa1/2) dh (MPa1/2) dp + dh (MPa1/2) Ra (MPa1/2) RED

NMP 18.0 12.3 7.2 19.5 15.0 1.1
Acetonitrile 15.3 18.0 6.1 24.1 9.8 0.7
DMSO 18.4 16.4 10.2 26.6 16.7 1.2
DMF 17.4 13.7 11.3 25.0 15.4 1.1
Ethanol 15.8 8.8 19.4 28.2 19.9 1.4

Note: The Ra of each solvent was calculated in Eq. (2) [38] by using the parameters of each solvent and parameters of FKM. The RED was calculated by dividing Ra of each
solvent by R0 of FKM as shown in Eq. (3).
 J. Wei et al. / Composites Science and Technology 92 (2014) 126–133 129

Fig. 2. The pristine FKM, GO, and RGO dispersed in NMP (a), acetonitrile (b), DMSO (c), DMF (d), and ethanol (e).

was employed to achieve a uniform dispersion of the single-layer
GO within the FKM matrix. The oxygen groups, especially the allyl
alcohol group at the edge of the GO, were exploited as the reactive
sites with FKM. After the co-coagulation, the single-layer GO was
well-dispersed and confined in the FKM matrix. During the vulca-
nization, the allyl alcohol groups on the GO reacted with peroxide
to provide the initial free radicals and to further assist GO to par-
ticipate in the crosslinking reaction. The reaction mechanism is
illustrated in Fig. 3. The peroxide provides free radicals during
thermal decomposition. The free radicals abstract bromine from
FKM chain (Br atoms are attached onto FKM chain to achieve better
vulcanization in the peroxide system [39]) or transfer to GO to give
stable radicals. The driving force for such a chain reaction is the
transfer of Br atom from the electron-poor FKM to the electron-rich
hydrocarbon radical on the GO [40,41].
In order to confirm that GO is involved in the crosslinking reac-
tion, vulcanization behaviors of control, 2 wt% RGO/FKM and 2 wt%
GO/FKM were investigated by curemeter. The Cure Rate Index
(CRI = 100/Tc90  Ts2) indicated the vulcanization rate. As seen in
Table 2, the CRI of the 2 wt% RGO/FKM is lower than control’s be-
cause the RGO particle hindered the vulcanization process. As the
oxygen groups of GO reacted with FKM during the vulcanization,

Fig. 3. The proposed (a) peroxide decomposition, (b) crosslinking mechanism, and (c) schematic of brominated FKM vulcanized with GO.
130 J. Wei et al. / Composites Science and Technology 92 (2014) 126–133
Fig. 4. The curing curves of Control, 2 wt% RGO/FKM, and 2 wt% GO/FKM by ODR.
the CRI of 2 wt% GO/FKM is higher than 2 wt% RGO/FKM’s. The ODR
results indicate that RGO particles with little oxygen groups hin-
dered the radical diffusion during the vulcanization. On the other
hand, the oxygen groups on the GO particles involved in the vulca-
nization and formed strong interaction between GO and FKM (see
Table 3).
The function of GO in the crosslinking reaction was further con-
firmed by calculating the crosslink density. The crosslink densities
for control, 2 wt% GO/FKM, and 2 wt% RGO/FKM were calculated
and summarized in Table 2. Compared with the control (9.1 
105 mol/cm3  105), the crosslink density of 2 wt% GO/FKM in-
creased by 20.8% and the crosslink density of 2 wt% RGO/FKM de-
creased by 8.8%. As crosslink density is strongly influenced by the
final state of vulcanization, the different crosslink densities indi-
cate GO was crosslinked onto FKM during vulcanization [42] while
RGO impedes the crosslinking of FKM due to the hindrance effect
[42]. In a summary, the experiments at study demonstrated that
the crosslinking reaction of FKM using peroxide catalyst was sig-
nificantly enhanced by the allyl groups from GO. Moreover, the
strong GO/FKM interaction improves the mechanical properties
of FKM nanocomposites.
3.4. Liquid barrier property
As the GO/RGO has the 2D structure, their composites are sup-
posed to have good solvent barrier property. The effects of GO/RGO
as fillers on the diffusion, sorption, and permeation of MEK through
FKM nanocomposites were studied. The barrier property of com-
posites relied on the geometry of the filler (property, size, shape,
concentration, and orientation), matrix, temperature, interaction
between the filler and the matrix, etc. [24,25]. The study of the sol-
vent transport process through composites can be used as an effec-
Table 2
Vulcanization characteristics of the FKM composites.
Samples Maximum torque (N * m)
Control 27.26
2 wt% RGO/FKM 28.13
2 wt% GO/FKM 26.54
Table 3
The crosslink densities and transport properties of control, 2 wt% GO/FKM and 2 wt% RGO/FKM.
Sample Crosslink density Diffusion coefficient
(mol/cm3  105) (m2/s  106)
Control 9.1 20.6
2 wt% GO/FKM 11.0 15.5
2 wt% RGO/FKM 8.3 19.2
Fig. 5. Sorption for control, 2 wt% GO/FKM, and 2 wt% RGO/FKM.
tive tool to understand the interfacial interaction and morphology
of the system [26].
Fig. 5 exhibited the sorption for control, 2 wt% GO/FKM, and
2 wt% RGO/FKM samples at room temperature. The slight reduc-
tion after the maximum sorption represents the un-vulcanized
FKM molecules dissolved in MEK solvent. The diffusion, sorption,
and permeability coefficients of FKM, 2 wt% GO/FKM, and 2 wt%
RGO/FKM at room temperature are summarized in Table 2. The dif-
fusion and permeation coefficients of the 2 wt% GO/FKM and 2 wt%
RGO/FKM were measured to be lower than control, indicating the
liquid barrier properties of graphene and their derivatives. The dif-
fusion depends on the concentration of free space available in the
matrix which accommodates the penetration of solvent molecule
[43,44]. The addition of the GO and RGO reduced the available free
space and restricted segmental mobility of the rubber matrix. The
2 wt% GO/FKM demonstrated the lowest permeability among all
the samples, possibly due to the synergistic effect of the better dis-
persion within the nanocomposite system and the crosslinking be-
tween the GO and the FKM.
3.5. Mechanical properties
As GO crosslinked with the FKM, the GO/FKM composite is sup-
posed to have better mechanical properties at room or higher
temperature [46,47]. The mechanical properties of control, 1 wt%
GO/FKM, 2 wt% GO/FKM, 1 wt% RGO/FKM and 2 wt% RGO/FKM
were measured on a tensile test machine at room temperature
(25 °C) and elevated temperature (75 °C and 150 °C). Fig. 6(a) pre-
sents the Strain vs. Stress plots of different samples. Compared
with control, the M300 of 1 wt% GO/FKM and 2 wt% GO/FKM in-
creased by 22% and 35%. In contrast, M300 of 1 wt% RGO/FKM
Ts2 (min) Tc90 (min) CRI (min1)
2.94 9.24 15.87
3.34 10.35 14.27
3.30 8.81 18.15
Sorption coefficient Permeability coefficient
(g/g) (barrier) (m2/s  105)
4.02 8.28
3.83 5.94
3.85 7.41
 J. Wei et al. / Composites Science and Technology 92 (2014) 126–133 131

and 2 wt% RGO/FKM increased by only 6% and 11%. The RGO/FKM
performed better in the mechanical property than the control sam-
ples because: (1) the large aspect ratio of RGO provides the
mechanical interlocking and adhesion; (2) the outstanding
mechanical properties of RGO. The RGO provide a base for the
FKM to physically graft on as seen in Fig. 7(a). After the tensile test,
there are a lot of the pores on the rupture cross section, as seen in
Fig. 7(b). This phenomenon indicates the poor interface between
RGO and FKM because RGO is not involved in the vulcanization
confirmed by ODR test in Fig. 4 and the crosslink density test in Ta-
ble 1. Meanwhile, the elongation of RGO/FKM nanocomposites was
much smaller than the control’s possibly due to the poor interface

Fig. 6. The strain vs. stress plots of different FKM composites (a) at room temperature (25 °C), (b) at 75 °C and (c) at 150 °C. (d) The summary of the stresses at 100%
elongation of different FKM composites at different working temperature.

Fig. 7. The SEM images of rupture cross section of the 2 wt% RGO/FKM (a and b) and 2 wt% GO/FKM (c and d).
132 J. Wei et al. / Composites Science and Technology 92 (2014) 126–133
and the aggregation induced defect in the composite. During the
tensile test, the moduli of the GO/FKM nanocomposites and RGO/
FKM nanocomposites were both improved since the GO and RGO
have significantly high aspect ratio (in the order of 1000 [45])
and modulus (more than 50-fold higher than FKM). With the
chemical bonding between GO and FKM, the modulus and strength
of GO/FKM was enhanced because the improved interface between
GO and FKM increased the extrusion resistant and prevented
defection formed around GO during the tensile test.
In the elevated temperature tensile tests, the elongation and the
tensile strength of all the samples decreased as the temperature in-
creased. This phenomenon is a result of the elastomer softening at
elevated temperatures. Fig. 6(d) shows the comparison M100 of
different samples at different working temperatures. The M100
2 wt% GO/FKM is 1.4 folds of the control at 150 °C and it is as high
as 79% M100 of Control at 25 °C. These results indicated that the
crosslinked GO/FKM composites enhanced the service temperature
and high-temperature performance of the FKM.
4. Conclusion
This paper studied the effect of GO as a reinforcement phase in
fluoroelastomer. By ultrasonication and co-coagulation method,
the allyl groups in the GO was exploited and facilitated GO to
crosslink with FKM during curing process. Due to the large aspect
ratio, 2 wt% RGO/FKM exhibited lower permeability coefficient
than the control. With the chemical bonding between GO and
FKM, 2 wt% GO/FKM shew the lowest permeability coefficient
of all. The elevated-temperature tensile tests indicated that the
GO/FKM demonstrated an increment of 28.3% for stress at 300%
strain at room temperature, and an increment of 49.2% for stress
at 100% strain at 150 °C. As the chemical synthesis of GO is much
cheaper than the CVD synthesis of carbon nanotube, this research
proved that GO effectively improved the barrier and thermal–
mechanical properties of FKM simultaneously with a greater po-
tential for economical mass-production in the industry.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the supporting from
ACS PRF#52308-DNI10 grant. The authors also appreciate the help
from Nanoridge material Inc. at Houston for the rheometer mixing
processes.
References
[1] Moore AL. Fluoroelastomers handbook: the definitive user’s guide. Norwich
(NY): William Andrew Publishing; 2006.
[2] Aminabhavi TM, Harlapur SF. Effect of carbon black loading on
fluoroelastomer–solvent interactions. J Appl Polym Sci 1998;68:815–25.
[3] Shiono M, Ide S, Taira Y. US20120310001 A1, US; 2012.
[4] Lakshminarayanan S, Lin B, Gelves GA, Sundararaj U. Effect of clay surfactant
type and clay content on the rheology and morphology of uncured
fluoroelastomer/clay nanocomposites prepared by melt-mixing. J Appl Polym
Sci 2009;112:3597–604.
[5] Maiti M, Bhowmick AK. Dynamic viscoelastic properties of fluoroelastomer/
clay nanocomposites. Polym Eng Sci 2007;47:1777–87.
[6] Kader MA, Nah C. Influence of clay on the vulcanization kinetics of
fluoroelastomer nanocomposites. Polymer 2004;45:2237–47.
[7] Endo M, Noguchi T, Ito M, Takeuchi K, Hayashi T, Kim YA, et al. Extreme-
performance rubber nanocomposites for and probing excavating deep oil
resources using multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Adv Funct Mater
2008;18:3403–9.
[8] Paci JT, Belytschko T, Schatz GC. Computational studies of the structure,
behavior upon heating, and mechanical properties of graphite oxide. J Phys
Chem C 2007;111:18099–111.
[9] Bai H, Li C, Shi G. Functional composite materials based on chemically
converted graphene. Adv Mater 2011;23:1089–115.
[10] Potts JR, Shankar O, Murali S, Du L, Ruoff RS. Latex and two-roll mill processing
of thermally-exfoliated graphite oxide/natural rubber nanocomposites.
Compos Sci Technol 2013;74:166–72.
[11] Potts JR, Shankar O, Du L, Ruoff RS. Processing–morphology–property
relationships and composite theory analysis of reduced graphene oxide/
natural rubber nanocomposites. Macromolecules 2012;45:6045–55.
[12] Pojanavaraphan T, Magaraphan R. Prevulcanized natural rubber latex/clay
aerogel nanocomposites. Eur Polym J 2008;44:1968–77.
[13] Yang UH, Bolling L, Priolo MA, Grunlan JC. Super gas barrier and selectivity of
graphene oxide–polymer multilayer thin films. Adv Mater 2013;25:503–8.
[14] Gong L, Kinloch LA, Young RJ, Riaz L, Jalil R, Novoselov KS. Interfacial stress
transfer in a graphene monolayer nanocomposite. Adv Mater 2010;22:2694–7.
[15] DiGiulio E, Bellini G, Giandinoto GV. Elongation at break as a measure of
cross-link density in vulcanized elastomers. Rubber Chem Technol
1966;39:726–39.
[16] Yang K, Gu M, Jin Y, Mu G, Pan X. Influence of surface treated multi-walled
carbon nanotubes on cure behavior of epoxy nanocomposites. Manufacturing
2008;39:1670–8.
[17] Qu Z, Wang G. A comparative study on the properties of the different amino-
functionalized multiwall carbon nanotubes reinforced epoxy resin composites.
J Appl Polym Sci 2012;124:403–11.
[18] Montazeri A, Pourshamsian K, Riazian M. Viscoelastic properties and
determination of free volume fraction of multi-walled carbon nanotube/
epoxy composite using dynamic mechanical thermal analysis. Mater Des
2012;36:408–14.
[19] Galimberti M. Rubber–clay nanocomposites: science, technology, and
applications. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2011.
[20] Valadares LF, Leite CAP, Galembeck F. Preparation of natural rubber-
montmorillonite nanocomposite in aqueous medium: evidence for polymer-
platelet adhesion. Polymer 2006;2:672–8.
[21] Zhan Y, Wu J, Xia H, Yan N, Fei G, Yuan G. Dispersion and exfoliation of
graphene in rubber by an ultrasonically-assisted latex mixing and in situ
reduction process. Macromol Mater Eng 2011;296:590–602.
[22] Wei J, Qiu J, Li L, Ren L, Zhang X, Chaudhuri J, et al. A reduced graphene oxide
based electrochemical biosensor for tyrosine detection. Nanotechnology
2012;23:335707.
[23] Kim DH, Yun YS, Jin HJ. Difference of dispersion behavior between graphene
oxide and oxidized carbon nanotubes in polar organic solvents. Curr Appl Phys
2012;12:637–42.
[24] Balachandra M, Bhagawan SS. Mechanical, thermal and transport properties of
nitrile rubber (NBR)–nanoclay composites. J Polym Res 2012;19:9809.
[25] Balachandra M, Bhagawan SS. Mechanical, thermal, and transport properties of
nitrile rubber–nanocalcium carbonate composites. J Appl Polym Sci
2012;126:1983–92.
[26] Maiti M, Bhowmick AK. Effect of polymer–clay interaction on solvent transport
behavior of fluoroelastomer–clay nanocomposites and prediction of aspect
ratio of nanoclay. J Appl Polym Sci 2007;105:435–45.
[27] Flory PJ, Rehner J. Statistical mechanics of cross-linked polymer networks 1.
Rubberlike ealsticity. J Chem Phys 1943;11:512.
[28] Thomas PC, Jose ET, Thomas PS, Thomas S, Joseph K. High-performance
nanocomposites based on arcylonitrile-butadiene rubber with fillers of
different particle size: mechanical and morphological studies. Polym
Compos 2010;31:1515–24.
[29] Bhowmick AK. Current Topics in Elastomers Research. Boca Raton (FL): CRC
Press LLC; 2008.
[30] Galande C, Mohite AD, Naumov AV, Gao W, Ci L, Ajayan A, et al. Quasi-
molecular fluorescence from graphene oxide. Sci Rep 2011;1:00085.
[31] Hilder M, Winther-Jensen O, Winther-Jensen B, McFarlane DR. Graphene/zinc
nano-composites by electrochemical co-deposition. Phys Chem Chem Phys
2012;14:14034–40.
[32] Shang J, Ma L, Li J, Ai W, Yu T, Gurzadyan GG. The origin of fluorescence from
graphene oxide. Sci Rep 2012;2:792.
[33] Li Y, Hu Y, Zhao Y, Shi G, Deng L, Hou Y, et al. Electrochemical avenue to green-
luminescent graphene quantum dots as potential electron-acceptors for
photovoltaics. Adv Mater 2010;23:776–80.
[34] Park S, An J, Jung I, Piner RD, An SJ, Li X, et al. Colloidal suspensions of highly
reduced graphene oxide in a wide variety of organic solvents. Nano Lett
2009;9:1593–7.
[35] Mahmoud WE. Morphology and physical properties of poly(ethylene oxide)
loaded graphene nanocomposites prepared by two different techniques. Eur
Polym J 2011;47:1534–40.
[36] Park S, An J, Jung I, Piner RD, An SJ, Li X, et al. Colloidal suspensions of highly
reduced graphene oxide in a wide variety of organic solvents. Nano Lett
2009;9:1593–7.
[37] Graphene in composite materials: synthesis, characterization and
applications. DEStch Publications, Inc. Lancaster (PA); 2013.
[38] Hansen CM. Hansen solubility parameters: a user’s handbook. Boca Raton
(FL): CRC Press LLC; 2007.
[39] Duchesne D, Ferguson CN, Fukushi T, Grootaert WMA, Last LA, Moua Y, et al.
WO2009036131 A2, US; 2009.
[40] Ameduri B, Boutevin B, Kostov G. Fluoroelastomers: synthesis, properties and
applications. Prog Polym Sci 2001;26:105–87.
[41] Uschold RE. Fluoroelastomers – todays technology and tomorrows polymers.
Polym J 1985;17:253.
[42] Xin W. Development of fluorothermoplastic elastomer nanocomposites by
dynamic vulcanization. Washington State University (Washington), 08; 2010.
[43] Collin WR, Lewandowski W, Schmois E, Walish J, Swager TM. Claisen
rearrangement of graphite oxide: a route to covalently functionalized
graphenes. Angew Chem Int Ed 2011;50:8848–52.
 J. Wei et al. / Composites Science and Technology 92 (2014) 126–133 133

[44] Stephen R, Varghese S, Joseph K, Oommen Z, Thomas S. Diffusion and
transport through nanocomposites of natural rubber (NR), carboxylated
styrene butadiene rubber (XSBR) and their blends. J Membr Sci
2006;282:162–70.
[45] Corcione CE, Freuli F. The aspect ratio of epoxy matrix nanocomposites
reinforced with graphene stacks. Polym Eng Sci 2012;53:531–9.
[46] Shen B, Zhai W, Tao M, Lu D, Zheng W. Enhanced interfacial interaction
between polycarbonate and thermally reduced graphene induced by melt
blending. Compos Sci Technol 2013;86:109–16.
[47] Shen B, Zhai W, Tao M, Lu D, Zheng W. Chemical functionalization of graphene
oxide toward the tailoring of the interface in polymer composite. Compos Sci
Technol 2013;77:87–94.