*3.3. Interfacial Adhesion Strength between Graphene and Polymer Matrix*

The interfacial adhesion strength between graphene sheets and a polymer matrix can be explored through the microscopic examination of cryofractured cross-sectional surfaces. Shown in Figure 5a is a SEM image of the neat multimodal-HDPE surface exposed by cryofracture. The SEM micrograph exhibits fibrils with various extents of surface fibrillation in the draw direction. The occurrence of fibrils may suggest that the fracture was due to chain slippage or scission in crystalline (long fibrils) and amorphous (short fibrils) regions [50]. Contrastingly, graphene was shown to have a significant effect on the microstructure of the adjacent polymer as evident by changes to the fibrous morphology of the PE-g-1% shown in Figure 5b. The SEM micrograph of the nanocomposite exhibits a number of graphene platelets protruding out of the fracture surface of the polymer matrix, i.e. embedded and strongly tied to the matrix.

These flakes are well dispersed and evenly distributed within the multimodal-HDPE matrix, which may have formed a continually interconnected network structure throughout the matrix [50–54]. Interestingly, the fractured surface of the nanocomposite become rough, compared to that of the unfilled multimodal-HDPE. Conceptually, the fracture toughness is quantified by the amount of the energy absorbed per unit crack extension [52]. Therefore, the significant change in the breaking (crack propagation) mechanism accordingly suggests that the strong interfacial bonding between the polymer matrix and graphene platelets likely split the material into cavities and molecular bundles under large loading [50]. The facilitated stress transfer along the large interfacial area between the reinforcement and matrix is expected to potentially display mechanical reinforcement [50–53]. In Figure 5c, the storage modulus measured by dynamic thermomechanical analysis (DTMA) increased by 75%, 84%, and 118% at -100 ◦C, -50 ◦C, and 23.5 ◦C, respectively. The tensile modulus increased by ≥35%, from 835 ± 13 MPa for neat multimodal-HDPE, to 1135 ± 17 MPa for PE-g-1%, as shown in Figure 5d. Moreover, the maximum tensile strain increased by 11%, from 615 ± 43 % for neat

multimodal (extruded), to 680 ± 31% for the PE-g-1%. This increase in the tensile strain was possibly preceded by a prolonged exposure of the neat polymer to a high temperature in the extruder, under a combined high shear and elongation forces [55]. Thus, graphene has most likely acted as an antioxidant and protected the polymer from excessive thermo-oxidative degradation [55,56]. The maximum tensile strain of the nanocomposite is therefore compared to a non-extruded multimodal-HDPE for verification. Interestingly, the tensile strain decreased from >800% for neat multimodal-HDPE (non-extruded) to only 680 ± 31% for the PE-g-1%. This latter subject will be discussed in greater detail later in this study. Nevertheless, this indicates that graphene reinforced the polymer through the heat transfer from the polymer matrix to graphene platelets along the interface.

**Figure 5.** Assessment of the interfacial adhesion strength between graphene sheets and polymer matrix. SEM images of a cross-section fracture surface from (**a**) neat multimodal-HDPE and (**b**) PE-g-1%. (**c**) Dynamic-thermomechanical analysis (DTMA) of the neat multimodal-HDPE and PE-g-1%. (**d**) Tensile stress-strain curves for the pristine multimodal-HDPE (non-extruded), neat multimodal-HDPE (extruded), and PE-g-1%. The pristine polymer is the powder polyethylene. (**e**) Shift with strain of the 2D and G Raman bands of the graphene during deformation upon PE-g-1% nanocomposite (laser excitation energy 2.33 eV). The corresponding 2D and G Raman shifts as a function of applied strain are shown in the two graphs on the right.

The interfacial adhesion strength between the polymer matrix and graphene platelets was further investigated by the stress-induced Raman band shifts [57–60]. In Figure 5e, the 2D and G Raman bands of graphene in a nanocomposite shifted to higher wavenumbers as a function of applied strain, suggesting that the graphene platelets went into biaxial compression as reported in the literature [57,58]. Beyond ~9% strain however, these two bands reverted closer to that of the unstrained peak positions, due to relaxation of the graphene sheets upon debonding between the nanocomposite constituents [57–60]. The 2D and G Raman bands have significantly downshifted after ~9% strain, by ~34 cm−1 and 28 cm−1, respectively. Surprisingly, the 9% strain is around the yield point as can be

seen in the stress-strain curve shown in Figure 5d. Overall, the results show that a strong interfacial bonding is created between graphene sheets and polymer matrix [57–60].