GO,[14] and cellulose[60]. There are strong hydrogen bonding interactions between these materials and PEG with oxygen‐containing functional groups. A typical example is the PEG‐based shape‐stabilized composites with ultra‐low content of GO (4 wt%).[14]
2.2.3 Porous Supporting Scaffolds
Considering the complicated technological process of micro/nanoencapsulated PCMs and the low utilization efficiency of functional materials in the processing of phase change composites through physical blending, impregnating PCMs into porous supporting scaffolds to develop form‐stable PCMs with high energy storage density has attracted extensive attention in recent years. Lightweight three‐dimensional (3D) porous supporting architectures not only inherit the intrinsic characteristics from individually functional components but also create new collective properties from the monoliths, including large specific surface area, high porosity, and unique network structure, and these features are beneficial to improving the comprehensive performance of PCMs through the strong interactions between PCMs and supporting components in the form of hydrogen bonding, interfacial adhesion, capillary force, and van der Waals forces. Therefore, their physicochemical characteristics, such as pore size, specific surface area, and hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity, have an important influence on the properties of the final composites. The porous supporting scaffolds for polymeric phase change composites can be divided into three categories: polymeric porous scaffolds, inorganic porous scaffolds, and organic–inorganic hybrid porous scaffolds.
Polymeric porous scaffolds with high strength/weight ratio and porosity, such as poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) aerogel,[61] PU foam,[62] and polypropylene (PP) aerogel,[63] have been acted as excellent supporting materials for PCMs. More interestingly, a rapid preparation of PEG‐based phase change composites containing 3D cellulose network constructed by UV‐induced thiol‐ene click chemistry has been achieved by a solvent exchange strategy without additional freeze‐drying operation.[64] In comparison to polymeric porous scaffolds, inorganic porous scaffolds can provide supporting effect and conductive network simultaneously. The above‐mentioned partial supporting nanomaterials can be constructed into 3D porous scaffolds (e.g. biological porous carbon,[16] GO aerogel,[65] GO/BN scaffolds,[66] and hybrid graphene aerogels[55]) by high‐temperature pyrolysis (biomass carbonization), self‐assembly, and other methods, and then they can be introduced into phase change matrices to effectively prepare shape‐stabilized polymeric phase change composites. Additionally, it is difficult for a portion of functional fillers to form 3D structural materials by themselves, and organic components are often required as additives. The most popular one is cellulose‐based composite scaffolds, successfully developing cellulose/CNT,[67] cellulose/graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs),[68] cellulose/BN,[69] cellulose/MXene,[70] and cellulose/black phosphorus[71] hybrid aerogels for polymeric phase change composites.
2.2.4 Solid–Solid Composite PCMs
Different from solid–liquid PCMs, solid–solid PCMs can store heat via phase transition from one crystalline form to another similar form without generation/leakage of liquid or gas and additional encapsulation. The main strategy to obtain solid–solid PCMs is to construct secondary structure capable of preventing liquid noncrystalline phase from flowing through chemical bonding. In solid–solid polymeric PCMs, the phase change component as the “soft segment” is structurally incorporated into the macromolecular backbone as the “hard segment” via side‐chain grafting, block‐polymerization, hyper‐branching, or crosslinking copolymerization approaches. Phase transition behaviors and thermophysical properties of solid–solid polymeric PCMs can be tailored by adjusting the relative length and physicochemical structure of the soft and hard segments.[72] At present, solid–solid polymeric PCMs have been designed and optimized as thermoplastics and thermosets for TES systems.[73, 74]
Owing to the active terminal groups on PEG and its derivatives, great progresses in PEG‐based solid–solid PCMs have been witnessed in recent decades.[3] Commonly, it gains wide popularity in the preparation of PU‐based solid–solid PCMs via the direct reaction of PEG with crosslinker‐like isocyanate.[75] Alternatively, the preparation route of PU‐based PCMs involves pre‐polymerization of PEG with diisocyanate and chain extending or crosslinking with the participation of the chemicals containing multifunctional groups like 1,4‐butanediol,[76] tetrahydroxy compound,[77] and hyperbranched polyester[78]. For example, PU‐based solid–solid PCMs with the maximum latent heat storage capacity of 136.8 J g−1 were synthesized utilizing PEG and hexamethylene diisocyanate trimer through one‐step and solvent‐free method.[79]
Compared with the sophisticated encapsulation procedure and weak physical interaction between supporting materials and phase change parts in leakage‐proof polymeric phase change composites discussed above, chemical grafting or blocking is a promising route to fabricate shape‐stabilized PCMs with superior chemical stability and thermal reliability, but it is accompanied by a decrease in phase change latent heat or energy storage density. The origin of this reduction may result from several aspects: dilution of working substance, mobility or packing restrictions of the crystalline moieties, and strong interaction between phase change part and polymer backbone. Figure 2.6 summarizes the melting enthalpy and melting temperature ranges of polymeric solid–solid PCMs.[72] Besides, the majorities of these solid–solid polymeric PCMs are fabricated in solvents, which is not environmentally friendly and hinders their applications.
Figure 2.6 The melting enthalpy and melting temperature ranges for solid–solid polymeric PCMs.
Source: Fallahi et al. [72]. Reproduced with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
2.3 Thermally Conductive Polymeric Phase Change Composites
Heat is transferred mainly by heat conduction in solids. The main carriers are photons, electrons, and phonons, and phonon mechanism (lattice vibration) for heat transferring predominates in polymeric phase change composites. Apart from poor formability, another fatal shortcoming for PCMs is low thermal conductivity (0.1–0.3 W m−1 K−1), which affects the working efficiency during heat charge/discharge process. Thermally conductive fillers, mainly including metals, carbon materials, ceramics, and their hybrids, are usually employed as enhancement component to improve the thermal conductivity of polymeric phase change composites. The thermal conductivity of the composites is closely related to the intrinsic thermal conductivity, addition content, geometric size, and distribution state/stacking mode of the functional fillers as well as the interface interaction between the filler and the matrix. The thermal conductivities of common organic PCMs and thermally conductive fillers are shown in Table 2.3.
The thermal conductivity can be determined by either steady‐state technique tracking the heat flow across a sample with a known thickness or transient technique measuring the energy dissipation through a sample when subjected to a heat pulse. Transient plane source (TPS) or hot disk and laser flash as transient techniques are commonly applied to measure thermal conductivity of the composites.[83] It is worth mentioning that more and more researchers use infrared thermal imagers to record the temperature distribution of samples during heating or cooling, further reflecting the thermal response rate of the sample. Generally speaking, the dispersion of thermally conductive fillers in the composites prepared by facile solution or melt blending is random, and thus forming disordered heat conduction network with large thermal resistance and limited thermal conductivity enhancement. In other words, in order to significantly improve the thermal conductivity of the composites, a large number of thermally conductive fillers, especially non‐carbon materials, have to be added, which in turn affects the energy storage density of the phase change composites.