STRUCTURE COMPATIBILITY OF GRAPHITE AND PHASES FORMED FROM ALUMINUM OR MAGNESIUM PHYLLOSILICATES

1 MOLEK Jonáš
Co-authors:
1 TOKARSKÝ Jonáš
Institution:
1 VSB - Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic, EU, jonas.molek.st@vsb.cz, jonas.tokarsky@vsb.cz
Conference:
16th International Conference on Nanomaterials - Research & Application, OREA Congress Hotel Brno, Czech Republic, EU, October 16 - 18, 2024
Proceedings:
Proceedings 16th International Conference on Nanomaterials - Research & Application
Pages:
297-302
ISBN:
978-80-88365-24-2
ISSN:
2694-930X
Published:
28th February 2025
Metrics:
34 views / 12 downloads
Abstract

Calcination of phyllosilicate/organics nanocomposites in inert atmosphere leads to in situ formation of graphitic carbon layers on silicate phases. Electrically conductive material (ceramics) is thus obtained. Despite an intensive research in this area, attention has not yet been paid to carbon/silicate interfaces in these systems. This study is focused on structure compatibility of graphitic carbon and the most abundant phases formed by transformation of aluminum phyllosilicates or magnesium phyllosilicates, i.e. cristobalite, mullite, forsterite, and protoenstatite. The aim is to find whether the phases can or cannot have a significant influence on the graphitic structure formation, and if the type of phyllosilicate (aluminum or magnesium) must be taken into account. Structure compatibility is determined by original method calculating the overlaps of atomic pairs carbon/another element. Carbon atoms lie in graphite(001) plane, atoms of another element lie in the given phase(hkl) plane. Different crystallographic planes of phases formed from the original phyllosilicates exhibit various structure compatibility with the graphite. The average number of overlaps of individual graphite(001)/phase(hkl) systems revealed the highest structure compatibility for mullite (M) followed by forsterite (F), protoenstatite (P) and cristobalite (C), namely M(102) > F(001) > P(100) > C(100). This sequence suggests that aluminum phyllosilicates, from which M is formed, could be a more suitable input component compared to magnesium phyllosilicates, from which F and P are formed. The lower number of overlaps for C compared to other phases indicates its small contribution to the overall structure compatibility.

Keywords: Structure compatibility, graphitic carbon, silicate, aluminosilicate, magnesium silicate

© This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Scroll to Top