Technical noteAn electrical conductivity translator for carbons
Introduction
Electrical conductivity (i.e. the ability of a material to conduct electric current), is a very important property, especially in materials used for energy storage [1], [2], metal–polymer composites manufacture [3], electronic devices, etc. For this reason, it is essential to employ a simple and reliable method to determine the electrical conductivity as a control property of many solid materials after their production. However, as yet, there is no worldwide accepted method for carrying out such control, as there is for other properties. The disparities between the methodologies employed to determine electrical conductivity (i.e. impedance spectroscopy [4], the Van der Pauw method [5], the measurement of conductivity by compression [6]) make it necessary to find values that can be used to compare different materials. Although all of these methods provide electrical conductivity data, the procedure, the measuring device, the operating conditions, etc. are different, and so the so-called “conductivity” value of the material needs to be treated differently in each case.
In this study, the electrical conductivity of various carbonaceous materials was determined using the two most common methods that can be found in the literature, four-point probe technique and measure under compression [5], [6], [7], [8], with the aim of finding out whether they can be correlated. The first method consists in preparing disk-shaped pellets and measuring their sheet resistivity by means of the four-point probe (FPP) technique (based on the Van der Pauw equation), whereas the second involves monitoring the electrical conductivity of powdery samples under compression (COM) in a specific pressure range. The results are compared and various aspects related to the operating conditions are evaluated taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
The following commercial carbons were selected for this research: 7 activated carbons applied in electrochemical systems (Supra 30, Super 30 and Supra 50 from NORIT, YEC-8A and YEC-8B from Fuzhou Yihuan Carbon, SO-15A from TDA Research and YP-50F from Kuraray); 2 generic carbon xerogels (XER-HMV and XER-HSA supplied by Xerolutions); carbon fibers (AS4C-3K from Hexcel Core); a graphite (TIMREX SLP50) and a carbon black (Super P-Li from Timcal). Some in-lab samples obtained from anthracites by
Results
The electrical conductivities of the materials measured by FPP and COM are presented in Table 1. As can be seen, the values determined by these two methods are very different in all cases. The COM method provides values that are much higher than the corresponding data obtained by the FPP method, except for the graphite. The reason for these higher conductivity measurements is that the COM method determines the electrical conductivity through a column of sample, whilst the FPP method measures
Conclusions
The results discussed have highlighted some of the advantages of each method. Thus, FPP has the great advantage that it is very rapid and simple to perform under ambient conditions, and only a small amount of sample is needed to evaluate the electrical conductivity of the carbon materials, while the COM method is particularly useful for either non-compact or graphitic materials with a high degree of anisotropy.
In summary, it has been demonstrated that by applying the correlations defined in
Acknowledgements
Financial support from the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad of Spain MINECO (under Projects MAT2011-23733, IPT-2012-0689-420000 and ENE2011-28318) is greatly acknowledged. NRR is also grateful to MINECO for her predoctoral research grant.
References (10)
- et al.
Development of carbon conductive additives for advanced lithium ion batteries
J. Power Sources
(2011) High conductivity in polymer matrix–metal particles composites
Compos. A Appl. Sci. Manuf.
(2006)- et al.
Measurements of PEM conductivity by impedance spectroscopy
Solid State Ionics
(2008) - et al.
Electrical conductivity of compacts of grapheme, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, carbon black and graphite powder
Powder Technol.
(2012) - et al.
Electrical conductivity of carbonaceous powders
Carbon
(2002)
Cited by (25)
Carbon-based materials boost the anaerobic treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater
2023, Journal of Water Process EngineeringThe conductivity dilemma: How biochar grain's chemical composition and morphology hinder the direct measurement of its electrical conductivity
2023, Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement ConfederationCarbon coated In<inf>2</inf>O<inf>3</inf> hollow tubes embedded with ultra-low content ZnO quantum dots as catalysts for CO<inf>2</inf> hydrogenation to methanol
2023, Journal of Colloid and Interface ScienceEnergy-efficient catalytic removal of formaldehyde enabled by precisely Joule-heated Ag/Co<inf>3</inf>O<inf>4</inf>@mesoporous-carbon monoliths
2020, CarbonCitation Excerpt :The effect of porosity can also be validated by the lower thermal conductivity of graphene aerogel, despite the high intrinsic thermal conductivity of graphene. Although the porosity may lower the electrical conductivity, the electrical conductivity of 3DCM is superior to the conventional carbon materials, e.g. activated carbons, which is usually within the range from 0.1 to 1 S m−1 [52] because of the large inter-particle contact resistance. For a Joule heating material, high electrical conductivity and low thermal conductivity are preferred for the generation and accumulation of heat inside the material at low voltages.