4.6 Article

Towards High-quality graphite oxide from graphite - Systemization of the balance in oxidative and mechanical forces for yield enhancement

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 259, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2022.117815

关键词

Graphite oxide; Graphite; Oxidation; Exfoliation; Ultrasonic processing; Yield

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi
  2. CSIR-Institute of Minerals and Materials Technology, Bhubaneswar through the in-house projects [OLP-71, MLP-72, HCP-0030]
  3. SERB-funded project [GAP-336]
  4. CSIR-IMMT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on improving the quality and yield of graphene oxide/graphite oxide (GO) production through modifications of the Hummers method. By adjusting factors such as the quantity of oxidant and the duration of ultrasonic-assisted oxidation, the oxidation efficiency and the yield of defect-free GO were enhanced.
Despite intensive research on graphene, large-scale production of high-quality graphene oxide/graphite oxide (GO) is challenging. The labour-intensive oxidative mechanical exfoliation is frequently found to be the rate-limiting step. In this study, we report ways to improve GO quality and yield by modifying two promising scalable process variants of Hummers method, viz., Kim's and Tour's method for GO production. To achieve a desired crystallite size with minimal defects, we report possible adjustments to the exfoliation process by evaluating the oxidation mechanism against GO's structural integrity. The modifications such as altering the quantity of the oxidant, the duration of ultrasonic-assisted oxidation and the order of washing cycles improved the oxidation efficiency resulting in yield enhancement of defect-free GO. The structure and quality of the synthesized GO were found to depend on the rigorousness of washing cycles and the quantity of oxidant used rather than on the nature of the oxidant alone.(c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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