Comparison of carbon nanofiller-based polymer composite adhesives and pastes for thermal interface applications

•Carbon nanofiller-based composites were evaluated for electronic cooling.•Small GNPs offer better interfacial thermal conductance than large GNPs.•Carbon black composites have lower thermal conductance than GNP composites.•GNP-As based thermal paste outperformed most of the composite adhesives and pastes.•Nature of matrix appreciably affects interfacial thermal conductance.

Graphite nanoplatelets (GNP), carbon black (CB) and carbon nanotubes are extensively researched to produce thermal interface materials (TIMs). This work reports comparison of interfacial thermal conductance (ITC) of carbon nanofiller-based polymer composite adhesives and pastes. The results show that total thermal contact resistance (TTCR) of GNP/rubbery epoxy composite was the same as that of an equivalent glassy epoxy composite. Although CB-based rubbery epoxy and silicone composites can be applied as thin bondlines, their TTCRs were significantly higher than GNP/rubbery epoxy. GNP incorporation into CB/rubbery epoxy composite improves the ITC of the CB/rubbery epoxy composites but the performance of CB/GNP/rubbery epoxy was inferior to GNP/rubbery epoxy. The thermal paste of GNP/polyetheramine had TTCR of 4.8 × 10− 6 m2·K/W which is comparable to commercial TIM-paste. The paste produced with silicone had relatively poor ITC versus that prepared with polyetheramine. The paste having smaller particle sized GNPs offers lower TTCR than that prepared with large sized GNPs. The GNP/rubbery epoxy adhesives produced from precursor pastes gave the lowest TTCRs in comparison with the other adhesives. This study suggests that GNPs offer potential for enhancing ITC of TIMs and that ITC of adhesives depends on fillers' thermal conductivity and their interfacial contact with substrates.

Graphical abstractFigure options