4.7 Article

Liquid-phase laser ablation synthesis of graphene quantum dots from carbon nano-onions: Comparison with chemical oxidation

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 527, 期 -, 页码 132-140

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2018.04.113

关键词

Graphene quantum dots; Laser ablations; Photoluminescence lifetime

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Division of Chemistry [CHE-1362102]
  2. University of Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund
  3. National Science Foundation [1355438]
  4. NSF EPSCoR grant [0814194]
  5. Kentucky Science and Engineering Foundation
  6. Division Of Chemistry [1362102] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Graphene quantum dots (GQDs) have been synthesized reproducibly by chemical oxidation (CO) of carbon nano-onions (nCNOs) and a one-step pulsed laser ablation (LA) of nCNOs in deionized water. The photoluminescence (PL) spectra show that the LA-GQDs have blue shifted emission relative to the CO-GQDs which is attributed to the effects of both particle sizes and surface functional groups. The CO-GQDs have an average diameter of 4.1(8) nm and a thickness corresponding to two or three graphene layers, while the LA-GQDs have an average diameter of 1.8(6) nm and a thickness comparable to a single layer of graphene. The CO-GQDs favor the presence of carboxylic groups and have a higher fraction of sp(2) carbons, while the LA-GQDs prefer the presence of hydroxyl groups and have a higher fraction of sp(3) carbons. PL lifetime data suggests that surface functional groups are the main source of radiative deactivation and the sp(2) carbon domains are mainly responsible for non-radiative decay. PL lifetimes are measured to be 7.9(6) ns for the emission from the carboxylic groups and 3.18(10) ns from the hydroxyl groups. Compared to CO, liquid-phase LA is a faster and cleaner one-step method for producing GQDs with fewer starting chemicals and byproducts. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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