Table 2.
Comparison of EM absorption performance for some representative microwave absorbers from various preparation methods
| Samples | Preparation | RL values (dB) [frequency (GHz), thickness (mm)] | EAB (GHz) [range (GHz), thickness (mm)] | Filler loading (wt%) | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rGO sheet | Chemical reduction method | − 37.2 ( 5.9, 3.5) | 2.5 (8.0–10.5, 3.5) | 30 | [183] |
| Ti3C2Tx | Mixture pyrolysis | − 40.0 (7.8, 2.0) | 6.8 (11.2–18.0, 2.0) | 50 | [184] |
| Annealed-Ti3C2Tx | Calcination | − 48.4 (11.6, 1.7) | 2.8 (9.5–12.3, 1.9) | 50 | [185] |
| Ni/graphene composite | Atomic layer deposition method | − 22.1 (15.0, 2.0) | 4.0 (12.1–16.1, 2.0) | 10 | [186] |
| Fe/graphene composite | Hydrothermal method | − 45.0 (7.1, 3.0) | 4.4 (9.9–14.3, 2.0) | 40 | [187] |
| Ni-modified Ti3C2Tx | Decoration | − 24.9 (11.2, 2.0) | 6.3 (11.7–18.0, 1.5) | Unknown | [188] |
| Ti3C2Tx/Ni chain | Decoration | − 49.9 (11.9, 1.8) | 2.1 (10.9–13.0, 1.8) | 50 | [189] |
| CoNi/rGO composite | Decoration | − 31.0 (4.9, 4.0) | 7.3 (9.5–16.8, 2.0) | 60 | [190] |
| Ti3C2Tx/FeCo composite | Decoration | − 17.9 (9.3, 1.6) | 8.8 (9.2–18.0, 1.6) | 70 | [191] |
| CoNi@NC/rGO composite | MOFs-derived method | − 68.0 (10.9, 3.0) | 6.7 (11.3–18.0, 2.5) | 25 | [83] |
| FeCo/NC/rGO composite | MOFs-derived method | − 43.3 (11.3, 2.5) | 9.3 (8.7–18.0, 2.6) | 25 | [85] |
| FeCo/C@WC aerogel | MOFs-derived method | − 47.6 (15.7, 1.5) | 8.9 (9.1–18.0, 1.9) | 15 | [154] |