ArticleScientific reports2022
Verification of experimental results with simulation on production of few-layer graphene by liquid-phase exfoliation utilizing sonication.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experimental comparison of the effects of the two designed probes for exfoliation of graphene by sonication.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Recent Advances in the Preparation and Application of Two-Dimensional Nanomaterials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Graphene, an extraordinary tow-dimensional carbon nanostructure, has attracted global attention due to its electronic, mechanical, and chemical properties; therefore, there is a need to find out an economical mass production method to produce graphene. In the present research, the aim is to find out optimal conditions for exfoliation of few-layers graphene (FLG) in a water-ethanol green solution. We varied different parameters of the ultrasonic probe like power quantity and time duration of sonication to investigate the effects on the number of graphene layers and density of graphene in the solution. Also, an attempt has been made to predict the acoustic pressure distribution by solving the wave equation in various output powers of the ultrasonic probe (sonotrode) using numerical simulations. The simulations and experimentations verify each other. Concluding that modifying the output power at the same condition will significantly alter the acoustic pressure inside the sonoreactor. The difference in acoustic pressure at 90% output power of our experimentations is much higher than in other conditions. Experimentation results utilizing UV-visible spectra, SEM (Scanning electron microscope), TEM (Transmission electron microscope) images and Raman spectrum indicate that the minimum thickness and maximum exfoliation for these samples are acquired for sonication at 90% of the maximum effective output power of the sonicator being 264 W for 55 min.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.