4.1 Article

Assessment of Antioxidant Activity of Pure Graphene Oxide (GO) and ZnO-Decorated Reduced Graphene Oxide (rGO) Using DPPH Radical and H2O2 Scavenging Assays

Journal

C-JOURNAL OF CARBON RESEARCH
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/c5040075

Keywords

GO; ZnO-rGO; antioxidant activity; DPPH radical; H2O2 assay

Funding

  1. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research - Algeria (MESRS)
  2. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy [AL16MO06]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this work, zinc oxide-decorated graphene oxide (ZnO-rGO) was successfully synthesized with a fast reflux chemical procedure at 100 degrees C. An equal mass ratio of graphene oxide (GO) and zinc acetate was used as starting materials dissolved, respectively, in ultrapure distilled water and dimethylformamide (DMF). Particularly, pure GO was synthesized using Hummers modified protocol by varying the mass ratio of (graphite:potassium permanganate) as follows: 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4, which allow us to obtain six types of pure and decorated samples, named, respectively, GO1:2, GO1:3, GO1:4, ZnO-rGO1:2, ZnO-rGO1:3, and ZnO-rGO1:4 using reflux at 100 degrees C. X-ray diffraction, FTIR, and Raman spectroscopy spectra confirm the formation of wurzite ZnO in all ZnO-decorated samples with better reduction of GO in ZnO-rGO1:4, confirming that a higher degree of graphene oxidation allows better reduction during the decoration process with ZnO metal oxide. Antioxidant activity of pure and zinc oxide-decorated graphene oxide samples were compared using two different in vitro assays (DPPH radical and H2O2 scavenging activities). Considerable in vitro antioxidant activities in a concentration-dependent manner were recorded. Interestingly, pristine GO showed more elevated scavenging efficiency in DPPH tests while ZnO-decorated GO was relatively more efficient in H2O2 antioxidant assays.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available