4.7 Article

Continuous preparation and formation mechanism of few-layer graphene by gliding arc plasma

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 387, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.124102

关键词

Graphene; Arc plasma; Reactive molecular dynamics; Mechanism

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [21246002]
  2. Minjiang Scholarship of Fujian Province [Min-Gaojiao[2010]-117]
  3. Central-government Guided Fund for Local Economic Development [830170778]
  4. R&D Fund for Strategic Emerging Industry of Fujian Province [82918001]
  5. International Cooperation Project of Fujian Science and Technology Department [830170771]
  6. Teaching and Researching Fund for Young Staff of Fujian Educational Department [JT180040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Environmental-friendly, rapid, and continuous preparation process of few-layer graphene has been developed by alternative-current (AC) rotating gliding arc plasma, which contains the characteristics of equilibrium plasma and non-equilibrium plasma. In the process, methane was directly cracked in the plasma and then graphene sheets were generated. The effects of hydrogen and gas flow rate on the yield, size, morphology and structure of graphene have been investigated. In addition, the formation mechanism of graphene was also revealed by using the reactive molecular dynamic method. The simulation results showed that the growth process of graphene clusters by methane radicals includes three stages: elongation of the carbon chains, cyclization of the carbon chains, and condensation and sheeting of clusters. The carbon source concentration influences the graphene clusters. Increasing the carbon source concentration was found to enlarge the size of graphene clusters but are more prone to curling and closing. The formation of C-H bonds can reduce the peripheral dangling bonds of the clusters, thereby delaying the closure of the clusters. It laid a foundation for understanding the growth mechanism of graphene.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据