ArticleScientific reports2024
Experimental comparison of the effects of the two designed probes for exfoliation of graphene by sonication.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Recent advances and emerging mechanisms in graphene-based materials for cartilage tissue engineering.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- Heavy metal adsorption by graphene oxide modified with 5-amino-3(2-thienyl)pyrazole using central composite design/response surface methodology (CCD/RSM).RSC advances · 2025Article
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
In the present research, comparative simulation and experimental investigation were carried out for two different probes to improve the efficiency and quality of few-layer graphene utilizing liquid-phase exfoliation. Two differently designed shaped probes are fabricated for this study, i.e., a simple probe and a stepped probe. The acoustic pressure distribution in the vessel is simulated for both probes at different output powers. In the experiment, both probes exfoliate graphite powder in a mixture of deionized water and ethanol. Different sonication times and output power were studied for different pulse modes. The graphene layers were characterized using Ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy (UV‒Vis), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), and Raman Microscope. The simulation shows that the total displacement on the tip of the stepped probe is 5.7% greater than that of the simple probe. Also, the pressure difference produced by the stepped probe is 9.15 × 10
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.