2016
DOI: 10.1039/c6ra16969d
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microstructural characterization of biobased carbon foam by means of X-ray microtomography and compared to conventional techniques

Abstract: The objective of this work is to compare three techniques for characterizing the morphology of porous bio-based carbon foam, namely mercury intrusion porosimetry, scanning electron microscopy and X-ray microtomography.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Those bias are responsible for the gap between the values obtained by X-ray tomography and MIP. This difference is consistent with characterization results for bio-based carbon foam in Merle et al (2016). Several causes can explain this outcome.…”
Section: Characterization Of the Porositysupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Those bias are responsible for the gap between the values obtained by X-ray tomography and MIP. This difference is consistent with characterization results for bio-based carbon foam in Merle et al (2016). Several causes can explain this outcome.…”
Section: Characterization Of the Porositysupporting
confidence: 91%
“…This distinction between the two techniques explains the underestimation of the total porosity by X-ray tomography. However, as underlined in Merle et al (2016) quantitative pore size analysis obtained by MIP has to be qualified, as accessible voids are detected with sizes ranging only from 0.4 nm to 400 µm. Moreover, the pore structure may be destroyed during the test.…”
Section: Characterization Of the Porositymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The structure of hydrolysable tannins is gallic and ellagic acid-based, taking the form of chains of pentagalloyl glucose and of their degradation products, such as castalagin and castalin. Some authors have stated that they are not recommended for producing foams due to their fragility and friability [8,9]. However, recent work on hydrolysable tannin-based non-isocyanate polyhydroxy urethane foams has shown these conclusions to be incorrect [10,11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These were determined by processing two different foam formulations. The structural characteristics versus the microstructure have been researched extensively for polymer foams [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ], ceramic foams [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ], metal foams [ 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ], and carbon foams [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ], yet, there is no in vitro evidence concerning the relationship between the structural characteristics and microstructure optimisation upon expanding of the one-component PU foams applicable in the building sector, based on the scaffolds of different morphology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%