ArticleACS omega2026
Graphene-Enhanced Fluoroelastomer Composites for Advanced Applications.
Article in ACS omega, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluoroelastomers are widely used in applications requiring resistance to high temperatures, aggressive chemicals, and elevated pressure conditions, enabling efficient applications in harsh environments. The incorporation of graphene has shown potential to enhance the mechanical and thermal performance, resulting in more efficient composites. However, graphene incorporation remains a challenge due to the difficulty of dispersing graphene sheets within the rubber matrix. This research developed fluoroelastomer composites with 1, 2, and 3 phr of graphene using both the melt blending method and the solvent-assisted method with acetonitrile to incorporate graphene. The composites were characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), as well as Shore A hardness and tensile testing. FT-IR indicated the complete removal of acetonitrile and similar spectra among all of the composites, indicating that the solvent method does not chemically modify the samples. SEM and EDS analyses revealed overall similar morphologies among the samples; however, composites containing 2 and 3 phr of graphene processed via the solvent-assisted method exhibited a more pronounced surface roughness. TGA indicated up to a 38% increase in initial degradation resistance in composites with 2 and 3 phr incorporated via the solvent method. In dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) tests, samples with 3 phr exhibited higher energy dissipation at -30 °C and a higher
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.