NIST Technical Note 1676 

Fabrication, Characterization, and 

Flammability Testing of Multi-walled 

Carbon Nanotube Layer-by-layer 

Coated Polyurethane Foam 

Rick Davis 

Yeon Seok Kim 
NIST Technical Note 1676 

Fabrication, Characterization, and 

Flammability Testing of Multi-walled 

Carbon Nanotube Layer-by-layer 

Coated Polyurethane Foam 

Rick Davis 

Yeon Seok Kim 

Fire Research Division 

Building and Fire Research Division 

September 2010 

 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Gary Locke, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Director 

ii 
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this 

 document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. 

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the 

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1676 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1676, 31 pages (September 2010) 

CODEN: NTNUE2 

 

iii 
Abstract 

The research presented here is the first report of fabricating multi-walled carbon nanotube 

(MWCNT) based thin coatings on polyurethane foam (PUF) using Layer-by-layer (LbL) 

assembly, and using MWCNTs to reduce the flammability of PUF. The (440 ± 47) nm thick 

four trilayer coatings of polyacrylic acid (anionic layer), polyethyleneimine functionalized 

MWCNTs (MWCNT-PEI, cationic layer), and polyethyleneimine (cationic layer) contained (50 

± 1) mass fraction % MWCNT. These thin film coatings completely and uniformly coated all 

the internal and external surfaces of the PUF. Other then very sparsely populated micron sized 

aggregates of MWCNT and nanometer sized surface cracks, the surfaces appeared smooth at low 

magnifications in the Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). A sea of well dispersed and 

distributed MWCNTs completely embedded in the coating matrix was observed at high 

magnifications in the SEM. The thin MWCNT coatings significantly reduced the flammability 

of PUF; i.e., 55% ± 6% reduction in peak heat release rate and 21% ± 3% reduction in total burn 

time. This reduction from the coatings is comparable to what has been achieved with carbon 

nanofiber (CNF) coated PUF (using LbL) and is 50% better than reported for CNFs embedded 

directly into the PUF and 25% to 60% better than reported for other flame retarding technologies 

currently used in PUF. Critical to successfully fabricating high quality MWCNT coatings using 

LbL, retaining MWCNT during the coating process, and significantly reducing the flammability 

of PUF was first functionalizing the MWCNTs using one of the coating polymers, PEI. 

Keywords 

Layer-by-layer assembly; thin films; multi-walled carbon nanotubes; polyurethane foam; Cone 

Calorimetry; flammability; soft furnishings 

iv 
 

v 
Acknowledgements 

Appreciation is extended to Dr. Alexander Morgan of the University of Dayton Research 

Institute for assisting with Cone Calorimetry and Prof. Jaime Grunlan from Texas A&M for his 

assistance with the Layer-by-layer coatings. 

 

vi 
 

vii 
Contents 

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x

List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... xii

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

2. Experimental ......................................................................................................................... 2

2.1. Materials .................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1.1. Polyelectrolyte stock solutions of PEI (cationic) and PAA (anionic) ........................... 3

2.1.2. MWCNT-PEI cationic suspension ................................................................................ 3

2.2. MWCNT coating methodology ............................................................................................... 3

2.3. CNF coating characterization .................................................................................................. 5

2.3.1. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) .......................................................................... 6

2.3.2. Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA) .......................................................................... 6

2.3.3 Cone Calorimetry (Cone) ....................................................................................................... 6

3. Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 6

3.1. MWCNT coating morphology ................................................................................................. 6

3.2. MWCNT/PUF thermal analysis and fire performance .......................................................... 10

3.2.1. Comparison to CNF/PUF ............................................................................................ 13

3.2.2. Comparison to other flame retarding technologies ...................................................... 13

4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 14

5. Future Research ................................................................................................................... 15

6. References............................................................................................................................. 15

viii 
List of Tables 

Table 1. Provided are the average physical characteristics of MWCNT/PUF. The (50 ± 1) mass 

fraction % MWCNT in the (440 ± 47) nm thick coating resulted in a (3.4 ± 0.4) mass fraction % 

increase in the PUF mass. Total MWCNT loading was (1.8 ± 0.1) mass fraction % of the 

MWCNT/PUF mass. These values are comparable to previously reported CNF coatings on PUF, 

except the CNF coatings were 28% ± 8% thinner.[28] All values are reported with 2σ standard 

uncertainty.......................................................................................................4 

Table 2. Cone Calorimetry data of the PUF and MWCNT/PUF samples. The MWCNT coating 

resulted in a 55% ± 6% reduction in Total Heat Release Rate (THR) and a 51% ± 5% reduction 

in peak Heat Release Rate (PHRR). The MWCNT/PUF only had one PHRR, which was more of 

a plateau than a peak since the HRR was fairly consistent from 23 s ± 2s to 96 s ± 3 s. The 

PHRR and THR values of MWCNT/PUF are comparable to values previously measured for 

CNF/PUF.[28] All values are reported with 2σ standard uncertainty..................................13 

 

ix 
List of Figures 

Figure 1. The MWCNT/polymer coating process was an alternating submersion in an anionic 

(PAA) solution, cationic (MWCNT-PEI) and another cationic (PEI only) solution with washing 

(rinse and wring) between each solution. After creating five trilayers (a PAA layer, MWCNTPEI layers, and PEI layer), the specimen was dried in a convection oven for 12 h at 70 °C ± 1 °C 

to remove excess water........................................................................................4

Figure 2. Experimental layout for the coating process. The PAA (anionic) layer was deposited 

and excess PAA was removed by rinsing in containers 1a to 3a. The MWCNT-PEI (cationic) 

layer was then deposited and excess MWCNT-PEI was removed by rinsing in containers 1c to 

3c. The last layer in the trilayer was PEI (cationic), which was deposited in the PEI container 

and the excess PEI was removed in rinsing containers 1C to 3C. This trilayer deposition process 

was repeated four more times in order to fabricate the five trilayer MWCNT coated PUF..........5 

Figure 3. SEM images of as-received PUF at (a) 1x, (b) 2x, (c) 5x, (d) 10x, (e) 20x, (f) 50x and 

(g) 100x and washed PUF at (h) 5x. The PUF surface contained a significant amount of debris 

(dust, etc.) that was removed upon washing (h). The wall surface was smooth and featureless. 

The edges of some struts are wavy due to recoiling of material from breaking the membrane 

during the PUF manufacturing. ..............................................................................................8 

Figure 4. SEM image of a washed PUF showing that the thin film of polymer forming the cell 

membrane can collapse onto the cell walls when the PUF sets during manufacturing. A 

membrane is still intact on the right side of the image..........................................................9 

Figure 5. SEM images of the inside section of a MWCNT coated foam at (a) 1x, (b) 2x, (c) 5x, 

(d) 10x, (e) 20x (f) 50x, (g) 100x, (h) 200x, and (i) 500x. The box inserts represent the area in 

the next higher magnification image. The MWCNTs were well dispersed and distributed 

throughout the polymer coating. The coating was smooth and featureless except for a few small 

larger aggregates and a few 10 nm ± 5 nm wide cracks. Values are reported with 2σ standard 

uncertainty.....................................................................................................10 

Figure 6. SEM images of the inside section of a MWCNT coated foam at (a) 50x, (b) 100x, (c) 

200x, and (d) 500x. The MWCNT coating was 440 nm ± 47 nm based on 12 measurements of 

seven different MWCNT/foam specimens. The cracks in the coating were significantly larger 

than those observed in the pre-fractured specimens, appeared rougher, and were primarily 

x 
located near the fracture surface; therefore, we assumed the fracture process created these cracks. 

The box inserts represent the area in the next higher magnification image. Values are reported 

with 2σ standard uncertainty..............................................................................11 

Figure 7. Heat release rate (HRR) curves from Cone experiments of the washed standard PUF 

and the MWCNT/PUF. The MWCNT coating resulted in a 55% ± 6% reduction in PHRR, 51% 

± 5% reduction in THR, and a 21% ± 3% reduction in total burn time. The 2σ standard 

uncertainty is ± 5% in HRR and ± 2 s in time. ..........................................................13 

xi 
xii 

List of Acronyms 

ANPR Announced notice of proposed rulemaking 

ASTM American Society for Testing Materials 

BF Barrier fabric 

BL Bilayer 

CNF Carbon nanofibers 

CNF/PUF Carbon nanofiber coated standard polyurethane foam 

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission 

DI Deionized (water) 

LbL Layer-by-layer assembly/coating 

MWCNT Multi-walled carbon nanotubes 

MWCNT/PUF Multi-walled carbon nanotoubes coated standard polyurethane foam 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

PAA Poly(acrylic acid) 

PEI Branched Polyethyleneimine 

PHRR Peak heat release rate 

PUF Standard polyurethane foam 

SEM Scanning Electron Microscopy 

TGA Thermogravimetric analysis 

THR Total heat released 

TL Trilayer 

 
 

xiii 
1. Introduction 

The estimated annual societal cost of soft furnishing (mattresses and upholstered furniture) fires 

to the United States economy is $5 billion [1,2,3,4]. These soft furnishings as the first item 

ignited fires account for 5% of all residential fires annually, but are responsible for a 

disproportionately high portion of the fire losses (33% of the civilian fatalities, 18% of civilian 

injuries, and 11% of the property losses). Over the next decade, federal flammability 

performance regulations are expected to significantly reduce these soft furnishing fire losses 

[5,6,7]. Soft furnishing manufacturers are and will likely continue to comply with these current 

and proposed flammability regulations by using fire blocking barrier fabrics. Despite this 

compliance, engineering and technical options to comply are quickly diminishing because of 

mandated sustainability regulations, such as REACH [8] and EcoLabel [9], for consumer 

products. Using Layer-by-layer assembly to create a fire resistant armor on the components in 

soft furnishings is being evaluated in this project as a novel technology to enable soft furnishings 

to comply with flammability and sustainability regulations. 

Layer-by-layer (LbL) assembly has been extensively studied for the past 20 y as a methodology 

to create multifunctional films generally less than 1μm thick [10,11,12]. The thin film coatings 

were commonly fabricated through alternate deposition of a positively charged layer and 

negatively charge layer (called a bilayer, BL). By taking advantage of electrostatic [13], 

H-bonding [14], covalent bonds [15], and/or donor/acceptor interactions, these bilayers were 

continuously assembled on the surface of substrates. The LbL process is quite flexible and 

robust, which allows it to be tuned for specific coating characteristics and for coating a range of 

substrate types. For example, altering the concentration, pH, and/or temperature of the LbL 

solutions can result in a 1 nm rather than 100 nm thick BL [16,17]. 

LbL thin films have been used in an extensive breadth of applications, such as oxygen barriers 

[18] and sensors [19], and have useful properties, such as antimicrobial [20] and antireflection 

[21]. A more recent application, which is directly aligned with the research presented in this 

manuscript, was LbL clay coatings (sodium exchanged montmorillonite) on cotton fabric to 

improve the fire performance characteristics of this textile [12]. Clay has been extensively 

studied in LbL thin films [18,22,23] and, when used as an additive filler, has been shown to 

simultaneously improve the mechanical and fire performance attributes of polymers [24,25,26]. 

The uniqueness of Li’s research is the concept of improving fire performance by using LbL 

assembly and creating assembled clay coatings on cotton fabric (clay/cotton) [12]. The results 

are exciting in that uniform high quality clay based coatings on cotton were achieved. In 

addition, the clay coatings resulted in a significant retention of fabric like char after conducting 

vertical burn tests and there was no (or less) ember afterglow when the flame was removed. 

These results suggest the coating may better prevent thermal and flame penetration from 

reaching and igniting the polyurethane foam (PUF), and therefore, the clay/cotton may reduce 

fire spread in residential homes if used in soft furnishings. 

Two other recent publications closely connected with this research were using carbon nanofibers 

(CNFs) to reduce the flammability of polyurethane foam (PUF). Zammarano [27] measured a 

35% reduction in peak heat release rate (PHHR) by incorporating 4 mass fraction % CNFs 

1 
directly into the PUF (CNFs included the foam recipe). In comparison, by coating the PUF with 

CNFs using LbL assembly, Davis [28] reported a 55% reduction in PHRR using only 

1.7 mass fraction % CNFs. Although the CNF distribution was not completely uniform, the CNF 

network formed by the LbL deposition was sufficient to significantly reduce the peak heat 

release rate (PHRR), total heat release (THR), and total burn time, as compared to the pure PUF 

and the CNF-PUF nanocomposite. This pioneering work was the first time LbL assemblies 

made with CNFs were shown to improve the fire performance of PUF [28]. 

Compared to CNFs, carbon nanotubes (CNT) are significantly smaller in dimension. Singlewalled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) have 

received a lot of attention in the science community because their inherent characteristics, such 

as small size and high aspect ratio (diameter of 1 nm to 100 nm and length of 1 μm to 100 μm 

for SWCT and MWCNT, respectively) [29,30], high modulus (approximately 1 TPa) [31], high 

intrinsic electrical conductivity (σ > 104 S/cm) [32], and high thermal conductivity 

(k > 1000 W/m·K) [33], are expected to impart electrical conductivity, mechanical strength, and 

thermal conductivity to a polymer when the CNTs are incorporated into the polymer. However, 

CNTs continue to be underutilized partially due to the difficulties in generating stabilized CNT 

suspensions. To improve stability researchers have used noncovalent stabilizing agents (eg. 

surfactants [34,35,36], water-soluble polymers [37,38,39], and inorganic nanoparticles [40,41]) 

and chemically modified CNTs. For electrical conductivity, non-covalent stabilization of CNTs 

is preferred over covalent functionalizing because chemical modification has been shown to 

reduce conductivity [42,43,44]. On the other hand, covalent functionalizing shows better 

solubility due to the strong interfacial interaction between the nanotubes and polymer matrix via 

direct chemical bonding. 

The research presented here is unique in that it is the first report of reducing PUF flammability 

using LBL assemblies fabricated with MWCNTs. Provided are the details of fabricating trilayer 

(TL) MWCNT coatings on polyurethane foam (MWCNT/PUF) using LbL, the physical 

characteristics of the LbL fabricated MWCNT coatings on PUF, the fire performance of PUF 

and MWCNT/PUF, and a comparison of MWCNT/PUF to CNF/PUF. 

2. Experimental [45,46,47] 

2.1. Materials 

All materials were used as-received from the supplier unless otherwise indicated. Branched 

polyethylenimine (PEI, branched, Mw = 25,000 g/mol) and poly(acrylic acid) (PAA, Mw= 

100,000 g/mol) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (Milwaukee, WI). These polymers were 

selected primarily because their behavior in LbL assembly is well documented and understood. 

Baytubes C150HP multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT, average diameter was 14 nm, 

length was 1 μm to 10 μm) were obtained from Bayer MaterialScience AG (Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania). The standard (untreated) polyurethane foam [48] coated in this study was stored 

as-received from the supplier (cardboard box with no packaging material at 25 °C ± 2 °C). On 

the day of coating, nine substrates (length/width//height of (10.2 cm / 10.2 cm / 5.1 cm) 

± 0.1 cm) were cut from a single substrate (length/width//height of (30.6 cm / 30.6 cm / 5.1 cm) 

± 0.1 cm). These smaller substrates were rinsed and wringed out (discussed below in the coating 

2 
process) to remove debris and other extractables (0.6 mass fraction % ± 0.1 mass fraction %). 

After drying, the post-extraction mass of these substrates was 12.7 g ± 0.3 g. 

2.1.1. Polyelectrolyte stock solutions of PEI (cationic) and PAA (anionic) 

The polyelectrolyte (0.10 mass fraction % ± 0.03 mass fraction %) and deionized (DI, < 0.5 μS) 

water solutions were prepared as follows. A 2 L glass container was charged with DI water 

(1300 mL) and PEI (0.10 mass fraction % ± 0.03 mass fraction %, 1.3 g ± 0.4 g). This PEI 

cationic stock solution was slowly agitated for 6 h at room temperature before using. The 

preparation of the PAA anionic stock solution was similar to the PEI cationic solution, except 

PAA (0.10 mass fraction % ± 0.03 mass fraction %, 1.3 g ± 0.4 g) was used instead of PEI. The 

pH value was 10 and 3 for the PEI and PAA solutions, respectively. 

2.1.2. MWCNT-PEI cationic suspension 

The MWCNTs were first functionalized with PEI to facilitate dispersion and distribution in DI 

water and to improve retention of the MWCNTs in the coating. Amination of MWCNTs was 

prepared according to the procedure by Liao et al [49]. A plastic vial (500 mL) was charged 

with N,N-dimethylformamide (200 mL ± 1 mL, DMF), PEI (5.0 mass fraction % ± 0.1 mass 

fraction relative to DMF, 10 g ± 0.1 g), and MWCNT (20.0 mass fraction % ± 0.1 mass fraction 

% relative to PEI, 2.0 g ± 0.1 g), The mixture was sonicated at 40 watts for 1 h then agitated 

with a stir bar for at least 2 d at 50 °C ± 2 °C. The functionalized MWCNT product 

(MWCNT-PEI) was isolated from the suspension by filtering through a 0.20 μm nylon 

membrane and washing four times with alternating methanol and water washes to remove excess 

PEI and DMF. The MWCNT-PEIs were dried in a dessicator with anhydrous calcium sulfate for 

at least 3 d prior to use. The dried product was a powder that appeared to be slightly larger than 

the as-received MWCNTs. 

The MWCNT-PEI in DI water suspension was prepared by charging a plastic bottle (250 mL) 

with DI water (150 mL ± 1 mL) and MWCNT-PEI (0.10 mass fraction % ± 0.03 mass fraction % 

relative to total DI water, 0.60 g ± 0.02 g). The suspension was sonicated at 40 watts for 1 h 

with the temperature never exceeding 70 °C ± 1 °C then was diluted with more DI water 

(450 mL) and shaken by hand for 3 min ± 1 min. The MWCNT-PEI suspension was used 

immediately for coating the PUF. 

2.2. MWCNT coating methodology 

MWCNT/PUF fabrication took approximately 40 min per specimen (20 min for the first TL and 

20 min for the remaining four TL). In general, the fabrication process was alternately depositing 

an anionic layer (PAA), a functionalized MWCNT only cationic layer (MWCNT-PEI), and a 

polymer only cationic layer (PEI) on the surface of the PUF and removing unbound material 

(MWCNT and polymer) by rinsing with DI water and wringing out the excess water several 

times (Figure 1). The process of removing excess water using a convection oven and dessicator 

occurred over a period of 3 d. 

3 
Figure 1. The MWCNT/polymer coating process was an alternating submersion in an anionic 

(PAA), MWCNT cationic (MWCNT-PEI) and polymer cationic (PEI only) solutions with 

washing (rinse and wring) between each solution. After creating five TL (a PAA layer, 

MWCNT-PEI layer, and PEI layer), the specimen was dried in a convection oven for 12 h at 

70 °C ± 1 °C to remove excess water. 

More specifcially, three plastic containers (2 L) were charged with the coating solutions. One 

container (2 L) was charged with the PAA anionic solution (600 mL ± 10 mL), a second with the 

MWCNT-PEI cationic suspension (600 mL ± 10 mL), and a third with the PEI cationic solution 

(600 mL ± 10 mL) (Figure 2). Three rinsing containers (2 L) per coating solution were charged 

with DI water (600 mL ± 10 mL, each). A PUF substrate was submersed into the PAA anionic 

solution and after squeezing and releasing the substrate four times, the substrate was soaked in 

the PAA solution for an additional 5 min. The substrate was removed and the excess solution 

was squeezed back into the anionic dipping container. 

To remove unbound PAA, the substrate was thoroughly rinsed in three separate containers 

(Figure 2). Since most of the PAA was typically removed in the first rinsing container (Figure 2 

#1a), the rinsing water in this container was replaced with fresh deionized water after each 

washing cycle. Excess water was removed by passing the substrate twice through Dyna-Jet 

BL-44 hand wringer (Dyna-Jet Products, Overland Park, KS). 

The MWCNT-PEI cationic layer was then deposited onto the PAA/PUF specimen and the 

unbound MWCNT-PEI was removed using the same procedure described above, except the 

washings were performed using #1c, #2c, and #3c rinsing containers. The polymer only cationic 

layer (PEI only) was then deposited onto the MWCNT-PEI/PAA/PUF specimen and washed 

4 
using the same procedures described above, except using the #1C, #2C, and #3C rinsing 

containers. This deposition of a PAA layer, a MWCNT-PEI layer, and a PEI layered created a 

single TL (PEI/MWCNT-PEI/PAA/PUF). The procedure for depositing the next four TLs was 

the same as the first TL, except the substrate was only soaked in the coating solutions for 1 min 

rather than 5 min. After the coating was complete, the specimen was dried in a convection oven 

(70 °C ± 1 °C, 12 h) and then stored in a dessicator (at least 3 d) with anhydrous calcium sulfate 

before weighing and analyzing. The purpose of using functionalized MWCNTs and a trilayer 

coating will be explained in the Results and Discussion section. 

1a 

2a 

3a 

1c 

2c 

3c 

1C 

2C 

3C 

MWCNT-PEI 

PAA PEI 

Figure 2. Experimental layout for the coating process. The PAA (anionic) layer was deposited 

and excess PAA was removed by rinsing in containers 1a to 3a. The MWCNT-PEI (cationic) 

layer was then deposited and excess MWCNT-PEI was removed by rinsing in containers 1c to 

3c. The last layer in the trilayer was PEI (cationic), which was deposited in the PEI container 

and the excess PEI was removed in rinsing containers 1C to 3C. This trilayer deposition process 

was repeated four more times in order to fabricate the five trilayer MWCNT coated PUF.

2.3. CNF coating characterization 

All measured values are reported with a 2σ uncertainty, unless otherwise indicated. The physical 

characteristics of the MWCNT/PUF are provided in Table 1. The increase in substrate mass due 

to the coating (Mass fraction % coating) was measured using a laboratory microbalance. The 

amount of MWCNTs in the coating (Mass fraction % CNF in coating) was calculated from 

Table 1. Provided are the average physical characteristics of MWCNT/PUF. All values are 

reported with 2σ standard uncertainty. 

Mass (g) Mass fraction 

% coating 

Mass fraction % CNF Coating thickness 

on CNF/PUF in coating (nm) 

13.2 ± 0.3 3.4 ± 0.4 1.8 ± 0.1 50 ± 1 440 ± 47 

5 
2.3.1. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) 

A Zeiss Ultra 60 Field Emission-Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM, Carl Zeiss Inc., 

Thornwood, NY) was used to collect images of the CNF coatings, from which, the coating 

thickness was approximated (Table 1), and the distribution of nanoparticles and overall quality of 

the LbL coating was inspected. All SEM samples were sputter coated with 4 nm of Au/Pd 

(60 mass fraction %/40 mass fraction %) prior to SEM imaging. 

2.3.2. Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA) 

A Q-500 GA Thermal Gravimetric Analyzer (TGA, TA Instruments, New Castle, DE) was used 

to measure the concentration of CNF on the substrates (Table 1, Mass fraction % CNF on 

CNF/PUF). The samples (20 mg ± 3 mg) were placed on a ceramic pan (250 μL, TA 

Instruments) then loaded into the furnace by the autosampler. Under a nitrogen atmosphere, the 

temperature was stabilized at 90 °C ± 1 °C (30 min) then ramped to 800 °C ± 2 °C at 10 °C/min. 

The reported CNF content was based on the remaining mass fraction % at 600 °C. All values are 

reported with 2σ standard uncertainty. 

2.3.3 Cone Calorimetry (Cone) 

A dual Cone Calorimeter (Cone, Fire Testing Technology, East Grinstead, United Kingdom), 

operating at 35 kW/m2

 with an exhaust flow of 24 L/s, was used to measure the fire performance 

of uncoated and CNF coated PUF. The experiments were conducted according to standard 

testing procedures (ASTM E-1354-07). A ((10.2 cm / 10.2 cm / 5.1 cm) ± 0.1 cm) sample was 

placed in a pan constructed from aluminum foil. The pan was slightly larger than the test sample 

and the pan sides were flared away from the sample. This allowed the sides as well as the top of 

the sample to be exposed during testing. Following the methodology developed by Zammarano 

[50], the Cone data was normalized to account for a change in surface area of the specimens 

during testing. When exposed to the external heat flux, the PUF melted and the MWCNT/PUF 

shrank slightly. By the end of the experiment, the MWCNT/PUF had an two times larger 

average surface area than the PUF melt pool. Therefore, the MWCNT/PUF data presented here 

was reduced by a factor of 2. All values are reported with 2σ standard uncertainty (± 5% in HRR 

and ± 2 s in time). 

3. Results and Discussion 

3.1. MWCNT coating morphology 

In order to fabricate MWCNT coatings that contained a high concentration of well distributed 

MWCNTs, the MWCNTs needed to form a stable suspension in the depositing solution and 

adhere to the surface of the coated PUF. Initially, a stable MWCNT suspension was attempted 

using PEI or sodium deoxycholate surfactant. After sonicating for three hours, the MWCNTs 

appeared well dispersed and stable, but the suspension rapidly destabilized over one hour. 

Qualitatively, the coatings fabricated of PUF from these solutions had low content and 

non-uniform distribution of MWCNTs (non-uniform and mostly light gray color after six 

bilayers). A drastic improvement resulted from using MWCNTs functionalized with PEI [49]. 

6 
The MWCNT-PEI formed a stable suspension in DI over several days without the need for a 

stabilizing surfactant. The coatings fabricated on PUF with the MWCNT-PEI were a uniform 

black color after six bilayers suggesting a higher content and more uniform distribution of 

MWCNTs compared to using PEI or sodium deoxycholate. However, during the coating process 

the MWCNT-PEI would transfer from the PUF into the PAA depositing solution (PAA solution 

became gray). This suggested poor adhesion of the MWCNT-PEI to PAA likely due to the 

MWCNT-PEI having a relatively weak charge. Rather than working to improve adhesion, the 

problem of MWCNT-PEI retention was addressed by depositing a PEI layer after the 

MWCNT-PEI (creating a TL) as the adhesion was then based more on pure PAA and PEI 

interactions, which strongly adhere to each other. 

SEM was used to characterize the LbL fabricated MWCNT coatings on PUF. Other than dust 

and debris on the surface of the PUF, the as-received PUF surface appears smooth and 

featureless even at high magnification (Figure 3). Prior to depositing the first layer, the PUF was 

washed with DI water, which completely removes all of the debris (Figure 3h). The wavy edges 

of the PUF walls are a result of the manufacturing process. The PUF was initially closed cell 

with a very thin polyurethane membrane connecting the walls. When the membrane was 

“popped” to form this open cell structure, there was a slight relaxation of the strained edges of 

the walls and the membrane snapped back onto the walls which created the wavy appearance 

observed in Figure 3h. 

 

The images of the MWCNT/PUF in Figure 4 are of a section near the center of a MWCNT/PUF 

specimen and representative of the type of coatings observed on specimens. At low SEM 

magnifications, the surface appears to be void of MWCNTs other than a few sparsely populated 

MWCNT aggregates that are on the order of tens of micron in size (Figure 4a through Figure 4e). 

Higher magnifications (Figure 4e through Figure 4h) reveals the PUF surface was completely 

covered with a uniform coating, which contained well distributed MWCNTs completely 

embedded in the polymer coating. A few small surface cracks (10 nm ± 5 nm) are observed and 

are believed to result from the drying process. These types of cracks are common in thicker LbL 

coatings. It was assumed that these surface cracks would not deteriorate the fire performance of 

the MWCNT/PUF; therefore, there was no further investigation of the cracks. 

SEM images of a fractured MWCNT/PUF were taken with the fracture surface in the plane of 

the image, which provides cross sectional views of the PUF and the coating (Figure 5). The 

MWCNT coating was 440 nm ± 47 nm thick based on seven measurements taken on each of 12 

different MWCNT/PUF specimens. The surface morphology at low magnifications is consistent 

with that observed in Figure 4 (high MWCNT uniformly distributed and completely embedded 

in polymer. The cracks in this MWCNT coating are assumed to have resulted from the 

fracturing process, because they are an order of magnitude larger than any cracks observed prior 

to fracturing, are primarily located at the fracture surface, and contain exposed MWCNTs. 

7 
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 3. SEM images of as-received PUF at (a) 1x, (b) 2x, (c) 5x, (d) 10x, (e) 20x, (f) 50x and 

(g) 100x and washed PUF at (h) 5x. The PUF surface contained a significant amount of debris 

(dust, etc.) that was removed upon washing (h). The wall surface was smooth and featureless. 

The edges of some struts are wavy due to recoiling of material from breaking the membrane 

and/or shrinkage from solvent loss during the PUF manufacturing. 

8 
(a) (b) 

(c) (d) 

(e) (f) 

(g) (h)

Figure 4. SEM images of the inside section of a MWCNT coated foam at (a) 1x, (b) 5x, (c) 10x, 

(d) 20x, (e) 50x (f) 100x, (g) 200x, and (h) 500x. The MWCNTs were well dispersed and 

distributed throughout the polymer coating. The coating was smooth and featureless except for a 

few small larger aggregates and a few 10 nm ± 5 nm wide cracks. Values are reported with 2σ

standard uncertainty. 

9 
(a) (b)

(c) (d) 

Figure 5. SEM images of the inside section of a MWCNT coated foam at (a) 50x, (b) 100x, (c) 

200x, and (d) 500x. The MWCNT coating was 440 nm ± 47 nm based on seven measurements 

of 12 different MWCNT/foam specimens. The cracks in the coating were significantly larger 

than those observed in the pre-fractured specimens, appeared rougher, and were primarily 

located near the fracture surface; therefore, we assumed the fracture process created these cracks. 

Values are reported with 2σ standard uncertainty. 

3.2. MWCNT/PUF thermal analysis and fire performance 

TGA and a microbalance were used to determine the actual mass of MWCNTs and coating 

deposited onto the substrates. The five TL MWCNT coatings increase the mass of the substrate 

by 3.4 mass fraction % ± 0.4 mass fraction %, of which, 51 mass fraction % ± 1 mass fraction % 

is MWCNTs. The total MWCNT content relative to the substrate mass is 1.8 mass fraction % 

 ± 0.1 mass fraction %, which is a typical loading level of carbon nanotubes or nanofibers 

incorporated into polymers (not a coating) to improve the polymer’s fire performance. Unlike 

these other nanocomposites, the MWCNTs in these coatings are concentrated at the surface 

rather than randomly dispersed and distributed throughout the polymer matrix [28]. 

Cone is a routine bench scale fire test that simulates a developing fire scenario on a small 

specimen and is used to measure the forced burning fire performance of polymers. The 

parameters reported from the test, such as time to ignition of the combustion gases (TTI), the 

time to peak and the peak maximum heat release rate (PHRR), and the total heat release (THR), 

are directly related to the potential fire threat of the burning polymer. The values of these 

parameters are the bases of the performance metrics for several existing or proposed national fire 

regulations. Cone heat release rate measurements are referenced to sample surface area 

(kW/m2

). The raw data collected in this study was adjusted as the surface area of the PUF and 

10 
11 

MWCNT/PUF changed during the test. More specifically, the uncoated PUF melts to form a 

pool fire (flaming drips began at 27 s ± 2 s, all PUF was a pool fire at 40 s ± 2 s) with an exposed 

surface dimensions of 10.2 cm ± 0.1 cm by 10.2 cm ± 0.1 cm. In contrast, the MWCNT/PUF 

only shrank (no melting) during the test because of the MWCNT network created by the LbL 

coating. The average surface area of the MWCNT/PUF at the end of the experiments is two 

times larger than the average PUF pool fire surface area. In other words, the same fuel load was 

spread over twice the surface area in the MWCNT/PUF. All exposed surfaces (top and sides) of 

the MWCNT/PUF were contributes to the HRR while only the top surface of the PUF pool fire 

contributes to HRR. The surface area adjusted Cone heat release curves indicate the five TL 

MWCNT coatings significantly reduce the flammability of PUF (Figure 6 and Table 2). The 

440 nm ± 47 nm MWCNT-based coating that resulted in 50.3 mass fraction % ± 0.1 mass 

fraction % MWCNT loading on PUF causes a decrease of 

• 55% ± 6% in the PHRR (435 kW/m2 ± 26 kW/m2

 to 197 kW/m2 ± 11 kW/m2), 

• 51% ± 5% in the THR (33 MJ/m2

 ± 2 MJ/m2 to 16 MJ/m2 ± 1 MJ/m2), and 

• and 22% ± 2% in total burn time (158 s ± 2 s to LbL s ± 2 s), 

as compared to PUF. 

Unlike the PUF, the MWCNT/PUF has a steady state HRR from 27 s ± 2 s to 95 s ± 2 s 

(185 kW/m2

 ± 15 kW/m2). This suggests the coating yields a more controlled/steady combustion 

of the polyurethane. A significant reduction in PHRR value and/or loss of a PHRR is common 

behavior in char forming materials. The char forms a protective layer (armor) surrounding the 

substrate, which thermally protects the substrate and reduces/prevents the volatile combustion 

products from contributing as fuel to the fire. The post-Cone residual mass (char yield) is five 

times higher for the MWCNT/PUF specimens (11.1 mass fraction % ± 0.4 mass fraction % as 

compared to 2.2 mass fraction % ± 0.1 mass fraction % for the MWCNT/PUF and PUF, 

respectively). Adjusting for MWCNT content and PUF char yield, and assuming a negligible 

impact of the PEI and PAA polymers, the MWCNT/PUF resulted in 8.1 mass fraction % 

± 0.4 mass fraction % increase in non-pyrolized polymer (e.g. char yield). The improved fire 

performance of MWCNT/PUF measured in the Cone is partially attributed to this increased char 

yield; however, the primary driver is the shape retention and hence the two times larger burning 

surface area of the MWCNT/PUF. 

As indicated previously, the PUF melts to form a pool fire, whereas, the MWCNT/PUF retains 

most of its original dimensions. In a real fire scenario and full scale tests, the formation of a pool 

fire approximately increases the fire threat (as calculated from HRR, THR, and burn time) of the 

burning product by 35% [51]. This impact is not captured in Cone data because there is no 

product (soft furnishing, etc.) for the pool fire to pose an additional flux upon. With this in mind, 

the Cone data is a conservative measure of the improved fire performance created by the 

MWCNT coating, but the actual benefit in real fires from using a MWCNT/PUF instead of PUF, 

could be 35% greater than that reported here. 
Figure 6. Heat release rate (HRR) curves of the washed standard PUF and the MWCNT/PUF. The five TL MW

resulted in a 55% ± 6% reduction in PHRR, 51% ± 5% reduction in THR, and a 21% ± 3% reduction in total burstandard uncertainty is ± 5% in HRR and ± 2 s in time. 

27 s ± 2 s: First flaming melt drips 

40 s ± 1 s: All PUF is a pool fire 

Table 2. Cone Calorimetry data of the PUF and MWCNT/PUF samples. The approximate 52% ± 6% reduction iPUF resulting from the MWCNT coatings is comparable to the values measured for CNF coatings on PUF (55% values are reported with 2

σ standard uncertainty.

Peak 1 Peak 2 THR 

(MJ/m2) 

Residue MaFraction % 

HRR (kW/m 

2) Time (s) HRR (kW/m2) Time (s) 

PUF 194 ± 10 28 ± 2 435 ± 22 103 ± 3 33 ± 2 2.2 ± 0.1 

MWCNT/PUF 197 ± 4 28 ± 2 --- --- 16 ± 1 11.1 ± 0.4 

12 
3.2.1. Comparison to CNF/PUF 

The characteristics of the previously reported CNF-based coatings on PUF are distinctly different 

to what is reported here for MWCNT. More specifically, the MWCNT coatings completely and 

uniformly cover the entire surface of the PUF and, other than a few sparsely distributed tens of 

micron sized MWCNT aggregates, the coating appears smooth and featureless at lower 

magnifications. In contrast, the CNF-based coatings are rougher with an appearance more 

similar to a fibrous network rather than a smooth, uniform coating [28]. The coatings cover all 

the PUF surfaces. Due to its large dimensions the fibers tend to deposit as groups rather than 

individual fibers, which results in regions of high (tens of microns in size) and regions of no (less 

than a few microns in size) CNFs. The highly aggregated regions contain fibers that are only 

partially embedded in the polymer coating. The regions of smaller aggregates (islands) generally 

contain fibers almost completely embedded in the polymer coating. The CNF and MWCNT 

loading in the coatings were the same (50 mass fraction % ± 1 mass fraction %), but the CNF 

coating was 28% ± 8% thinner than the MWCNT coating (359 nm ± 36 nm as compared to 

440 nm ± 47 nm, respectively). 

One of the major factors impacting the physical characteristics of the coatings is the stability of 

the coating preparation suspensions. It was reported that within 4 h of stopping sonication, the 

CNFs began to settle to the bottom of the depositing solution as indicated by a color gradient 

(darker at the bottom) in the CNF suspension [28]. During deposition the CNF suspension 

appeared very uniform. However, it was proposed that the reason the CNFs deposited as 

aggregates was because the CNFs had already begun to aggregate in the suspension. In 

comparison, the MWCNT suspensions in this study remained visibly uniform over two days. 

This difference in quality of the suspensions is most likely a result of the smaller dimensions 

and/or the PEI functionalizing of the MWCNT. 

Even though the physical characteristics of the coatings were quite different, the improvement in 

PUF fire performance due to the CNF or MWCNT LbL fabricated coatings were very similar. 

More specifically, both coatings resulted in a 53% ± 6% reduction in PHRR and THR, and 

21% ± 3% in total burn time. The primary reason for this drastic decrease in flammability is that 

the coatings prevent foam melt dripping and increase char formation. 

3.2.2. Comparison to other flame retarding technologies 

Najafi-Mohajeri used Cone to measure the impact of 17 flame retardant additive packages (five 

non-halogen, four halogen, and seven halogen-phosphorous) on the flammability of a standard 

PUF [52]. These additive packages are commercially available and reported to be commonly 

used by the PUF industry. The five non-halogens reduced the PUF PHRR and THR by an 

average of 15% and 14%, respectively. The best performing non-halogen additive was a silicone 

additive with amine functionality (Dow Corning® I-9641), which reduced PHR and THR by 

40% and 6%, respectively, at a 3.3 mass fraction % loading. The four halogens reduced the PUF 

PHRR and THR by an average of 31% and 16%, respectively. The best performing halogen 

additive package was a pentabromodiphenyl oxide additive blend (Great Lakes DE-60F), which 

reduced PHRR and THR by 37% and 31%, respectively, at a 20 mass fraction % loading. The 

13 
seven halogen-phosphorous systems reduced the PUF PHRR and THR by an average of 14% and 

7%, respectively. The best performing halogen-phosphorous additive package was a 

28 mass fraction % halogenated phosphate ester (Great Lakes Firemaster® HP-36, 44.5% 

halogen and 5.5% phosphorous) and 7 mass fraction % antimony oxide (Laurel Industries), 

which reduced PHRR and THR by 43% and 7%, respectively. 

Also using a Cone, Price [53] measured the flammability impact of incorporating melaminebased flame retardants into PUF. The exact composition materials are unknown as they were 

purchased from a supplier. The melamine and melamine chlorate phosphate blend reduced the 

PHRR by 10% and 15%, respectively. As an alternative to using flame retardants, the authors 

also measured the impact of using fire blocking barrier fabrics to reduce the PUF flammability. 

Of the six specimens tested, the best performing combination was wrapping the standard PUF 

with zirconium hexafluoride flame retardant treated wool (FR-wool), which gave a 29% 

reduction in PHRR. This FR-wool also gave the greatest reduction in PHRR of the flame 

retardant foams (32%), which was quite similar to what was reported for wrapping the standard 

PUF with this FR-wool. These results suggest the fire performance benefits gained by using 

these flame retardants are partially mitigated by the FR-wool. 

Compared to these competitor flame retardant (FR) systems, the MWCNT coatings developed in 

this project delivers a greater reduction in PHRR and/or THR (12% to 44%) using a significantly 

lower amount of FR (1.6 mass fraction % CNF, as compared to 3 mass fraction % to 

35 mass fraction % of these commercial FRs [52,53]). This reduction in PHRR and THR for the 

MWCNT/PUF was 18% and 20% greater, respectively, than measured for the best performing 

halogen flame retardant filled PUF and 12% and 44% greater, respectively, than measured for 

the best performing halogen-phosphorous flame retardant filled PUF. Compared to melamine 

chlorate phosphate filled PUF and FR-wool wrapped PUF, the reduction in PHRR for the 

CNF/PUF was 40% and 22% greater, respectively. 

4. Conclusion 

For the first time, LbL assemblies made with MWCNTs are shown to improve the fire 

performance of polyurethane foam. The process described here generates 440 nm ± 47 nm thick 

PAA/MWCNT-PEI/ PEI trilayer-based coatings containing 51 mass fraction % ± 1 mass fraction 

% MWCNT that are well and uniformly distributed across all of the internal and external 

surfaces of the porous polyurethane foam. Other than isolated/sparsely populated MWCNT 

aggregates and small surface cracks, the MWCNT/PUF coatings are smooth and featureless. 

Critical to this LbL process is using PEI functionalized MWCNTs and depositing a layer of PEI 

between the MWCNT-PEI and PAA layers. This LbL coating significantly reduces the heat 

release rate, total heat release, and total burn time of the PUF with just five bilayers 

(e.g., 55% ± 6% reduction in PHRR). Compared to FR systems commercially used to reduce 

PUF flammability and using CNF embedded in the PUF, these MWCNT-based coatings yield a 

significantly greater reduction in PUF flammability at a significantly lower additive 

concentration (e.g., 1.6 mass fraction % MWCNT coating on PUF yields a 20% lower THR than 

a 20 mass fraction % brominated FR in PUF). The reduction in PUF flammability by using LbL 

assembled CNFs-based coatings is the same as reported here for these MWCNT coatings. The 

MWCNT coatings also prevents the formation of a melt pool of burning foam, which in a real 

14 
15 

 

fire scenario, may further reduce the resulting fire threat of burning soft furnishings in residential 

homes. This research lays the foundation for using LbL to fabricate coatings on foam and barrier 

fabrics using a range of nanoparticles and other performance-enhancing additives. Single-walled 

carbon nanotubes, clay, cellulosic fibers, and mixed additive coatings are currently being 

investigated on both foam and barrier fabrics. Additionally, the release of nanoparticles during 

aging and the change in fire performance due to aging are currently being measured. 

5. Future Research 

This research has laid the foundation for using LbL to fabricate coatings on foam and barrier 

fabrics using a range of nanoparticles and other performance enhancing additives. We are 

currently fabricating and analyzing clay coatings, cellulosic fiber coatings, and mixed additive 

coatings on both foam and barrier fabrics. In addition, we are measuring the release of 

nanoparticles during aging and measuring the change in fire performance due to aging. 

6. References 

[1] J.R. Hall. Total cost of fire in the United States. National Fire Protection Association; 

February (2008). Summary available from: 

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/totalcostsum.pdf. 

[2] J.R. Hall, B. Harwood. The national estimates approach to U.S. fire statistics. Fire Tech. 

25(2) (1989) 99-113. 

[3] M. Greene, D. Miller. 2006-2008 Residential Fire Loss Estimates. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission report. August (2010). Available from: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/fire06.pdf. 

[4] M. Ahrens. Home fires that began with upholstered furniture. National Fire Protection 

Association. May (2008). Summary available from: 

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/UpholsteredExecutiveSum.pdf. 

[5] 16 CFR 1632 Standard for the flammability of mattresses and mattress pads. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission. May (1991). Available from: 

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/testmatt.pdf. 

[6]16 CFR 1633 Standard for the flammability (open flame) of mattress sets. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission. March (2007). Available from: 

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr06/mattsets.pdf. 

[7]16 CFR Part 1634, Standard for the flammability of residential upholstered furniture 

(proposed rule). Consumer Product Safety Commission. March (2008). Available from: 

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr08/furnflamm.pdf.

[8] http://echa.europa.eu/reach_en.asp

[9] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/

[10] Decher G. Chapter 1 Polyelectrolyte multilayers: An overview. Mutlilayer Thin Films: 

Sequential Assembly of Nanocomposite materials: G Dechner and JB Schlenoff (Eds.); 

Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2003. 
16 

 

[11] Podsiadlo P, Shim BS, Kotov, NA. Polymer/clay and polymer/carbon nanotube hybrid 

organic-inorganic multilayered composites made by sequential layering of nanometer scale 

films. Coordination Chemical Reviews. 2009;253:2835-2851. 

[12] Li YC, Schulz J, Mannen S, Delhom C, Condon R, Chang S, Zammarano M, Grunlan JC. 

Flame retardant behavior of polyelectrolyte-clay thin film assemblies on cotton fabric. ACS 

Nano. 2010;4(6):33258-3337. 

[13] Y. Shimazaki, R. Nakamura, S. Ito, M. Yamamoto. Molecular Weight Dependence of 

Alternate Adsorption through Charge-Transfer Interaction. Langmuir. 17 (2001) 953-956. 

[14] Lv F, Peng ZH, Zhang LL, Yao LS, Xuan L. Photoalignemnt of liquid crystals in a 

hydrogen bonding directed Layer-by-layer ultrathin films. Liquid Crystals. 2009;36:43-51. 

[15] Bergbreiter DE, Chance BS. “Click”-Based covalent Layer-by-layer assembly on 

polyethylene using water soluble polymeric reagents. Macromolecules. 2007;40:5337-5343. 

[16] Mermut O, Barrett CJ. Effects of charge density and counterions on the assembly of 

polyelectrolyte multilayers. Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 2003;1072525-2530. 

[17] Chang L, Kong X, Wang F, Wang L, Shen J. Layer-by-layer assembly of poly(N-acryloylN’-propylpiperazine) and poly(acrylic acid): effect of pH and temperature. Thin Solid 

Films. 2008;516:2125-2129. 

[18] Priolo MA, Gamboa D, Grunlan JC. Transparent clay-polymer nano brick wall assemblies 

with tailorable oxygen barrier. ACS Applied Materials. Interfaces. 2010;2:312-320. 

[19] Aoki P, Volpati D, Riul A, Caetano W, Constantino CJL. Layer-by-layer technique as a new 

approach to produce nanostructured films containing phospholipids as transducers in 

sensing applications. Langmuir. 2009;25:2331-2338. 

[20] Fu JH, Ji J, Fan DZ, SHen JC. Construction of Antibacterial multilayer films containg 

nanosilver via Layer-by-layer assembly of heparin and chitosan-silver ions complex. Journal 

Biomedical Material Research A. 2008;79A:665-674. 

[21] Hiller J, Mendelsohn JD, Rubner MF. Reversibly erasable nanoporous antireflection 

coatings from polyelectrolyte multilayers. Nature Materials. 2002;1:59-63. 

[22] Podasiadlo P, Michel M, Lee J, Verplogen E, Kam NWS, Ball V, Lee J, Qi Y, Hart AJ, 

Hammond PT, Kotov NA. Exponential growth of LbL films with incorporated inorganic 

sheets. Nano Letters. 2008;8:1762-1770. 

[23] Li YC, Grunlan JC. Polyelectrolyet/nanosilicate thin-film assemblies: Influence of pH on 

growth, mechanical behavior, and flammability. ACS Applied Materials Interfaces. 

2009;1:2338-2347. 

[24] Davis RD, Gilman JW, Vanderhart DL. Processing degradation of polyamide 

6/montmorillonite clay nanocomposites and clay organic modifier. Polymer Degradation 

and Stability. 2003;79:111-121. 

[25] Gilman JW, Bourbigot S, Shields JR, Nyden M, Kashiwagi T, Davis RD, Vanderhart DL, 

Demory W, Wilkie CA, Morgan AB, Harris J, Lyon RE. High throughput methods for 

polymer nanocomposites research: extrusion, NMR characterization, and flammability 

property screening. Journal of Materials Sceince. 2003;38:4451-4460. 
17 

 

[26] Davis RD, Lyon RE, Takemori MT, Eidelman N. Chapter 16 High throughput techniques 

for fire resistant materials development, Fire Retardancy of Polymeric Materials 2nd Edition. 

CA Wilkie and AB Morgan (Eds.): Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL. 2010; p 421-451. 

[27] Zammarano M, Kramer RH, Harris RH, Ohlemiller TJ, Shields JR, Rahatekar SS, Lacerda 

S, Gilman JW. Flammability reduction of flexible polyurethane foams via carbon network 

formation. Polymers for Advanced Materials. 2008;19:588-595.

[28] Davis RD, Kim YK. Impact of Carbon Nanofiber Layer-by-layer Coatings on Polyurethane 

Foam Flammability, National Institute of Stnadards and Technology Technical Note 

XXXX, in press. September 2010. 

[29] Nikolaev P. Gas-phase catalytic growth of single-walled carbon nanotubes from carbon 

monoxide. Chemical Physics Letters, 1999;313(1-2):91-97.

[30] Coleman JN. Small but strong: A review of the mechanical properties of carbon nanotubepolymer composites. Carbon, 2006;44(9):1624-1652.

[31] Yu M.F. Tensile loading of ropes of single wall carbon nanotubes and their mechanical 

properties. Physical Review Letters. 2000;84(24):5552-5555. 

[32] Thess A. Crystalline ropes of metallic carbon nanotubes. Science. 1996;273(5274):483-487. 

[33] Yu C. Thermal conductance and thermopower of an individual single-wall carbon nanotube. 

Nano Letters. 2005;5(9):1842-1846. 

[34] Fantini C. Investigation of the light emission efficiency of single-wall carbon nanotubes 

wrapped with different surfactants. Chemical Physics Letters. 2009;473(1-3):96-101. 

[35] Grossiord N. Toolbox for dispersing carbon nanotubes into polymers to get conductive 

nanocomposites. Chemistry of Materials. 2006;18(5):1089-1099. 

[36] Moore VC. Individually suspended single-walled carbon nanotubes in various surfactants. 

Nano Letters. 2003;3(10):1379-1382. 

[37] Yu C. Thermoelectric Behavior of Segregated-Network Polymer Nanocomposites. Nano 

Letters. 2008;8(12):4428-4432. 

[38] Kang YK. Helical Wrapping of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes by Water Soluble Poly(pphenyleneethynylene). Nano Letters. 2009;9(4):1414-1418. 

[39] Zou JH. Dispersion of pristine carbon nanotubes using conjugated block copolymers. 

Advanced Materials. 2008;20(11):2055-2071.

[40] Liu L, Grunlan JC., Clay assisted dispersion of carbon nanotubes in conductive epoxy 

nanocomposites. Advanced Functional Materials. 2007;17(14):2343-2348. 

[41] Zhu J. Dispersing carbon nanotubes in water: A noncovalent and nonorganic way. Journal 

of Physical Chemistry B. 2004;108(31):11317-11320. 

[42] Liu L. Comparison of Covalently and Noncovalently Functionalized Carbon Nanotubes in 

Epoxy. Macromol Rapid Communications. 2009;30(8):627-632. 

[43] Lafuente E. The influence of single-walled carbon nanotube functionalization on the 

electronic properties of their polyaniline composites. Carbon. 2008;46(14):1909-1917. 

[44] Bartholome C., Influence of surface functionalization on the thermal and electrical 

properties of nanotube-PVA composites. Composites Science and Technology. 

2008;68(12):2568-2573.
18 

 

[45] Certain commercial equipment, instruments or materials are identified in this paper in order 

to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to 

imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are 

necessarily the best available for this purpose. 

[46] The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all its publications, and to 

provide statements of uncertainty for all original measurements. In this document 

however, data from organizations outside NIST are shown, which may include 

measurements in non-metric units or measurements without uncertainty statements. 

[47] In this document, we have provided link(s) to website(s) that may have information of 

interest to our users. NIST does not necessarily endorse the views expressed or the facts 

presented on these sites. Further, NIST does not endorse any commercial products that may 

be advertised or available on these sites. 

[48] Future Foam Inc, 2451 Cypress Way, Fullerton CA 92831-5103, 714-871-5103. 

[49] Liao K, Wan A, Batteas JD, Bergbreiter DE. Superhydrophobic Surfaces Formed Using 

Layer-by-layer Self-Assembly with Aminated Multi-walled Carbon Nanotubes. Langmuir. 

2008 Apr 1;24(8):4245-4253. 

[50] M. Zammarano. BFRL Foam Flammability Consortia homepage, 

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/foam/. [cited 2010 July 20]. 

[51] Pitts WM, Haspias G, Macatangga P, Fire spread and growth on flexible polyurethane foam. 

Eastern States Section of the Combustion Institute Fall 2009. Uiversity of Maryland, 

College Park, MD. October 18-21, 2009; p. 11-22. 

[52] N. Najafi-Mohajeri, C. Jayakody, G.L. Nelson. Cone Calorimetric Analysis of Modified 

Polyurethane Elastomers and Foams with Flame-Retardant Additives. Fire and Polymers. 

American Chemical Society; 2010; p 79-89. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bk2001-0797.ch007 

[53] D. Price, Y. Liu, R. Hull, G.J. Milnes, B.A. Kandola, A.R. Horrocks. Burning behavior of 

fabric/polyurethane foam combinations in the cone calorimeter. Polym. Intern. 49 (2000) 

1153-1157.