ArticleGraphene and 2D materials2024
Investigation of commercial cut-resistant gloves claiming graphene additive content.
Article in Graphene and 2D materials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Five commercially available cut-resistant gloves were sourced from four different worldwide manufacturers which were advertised to contain graphene. A method was developed to assess the fibers composing each glove, including dissolution of the constituent fibers using sulfuric acid or liquid paraffin at elevated temperature, to extract and analyze particle additives. Scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy was applied to fibers and extracted particles for morphological and elemental analysis; Raman spectroscopy was applied to discern the composition of carbonaceous materials for the ultimate purpose of identifying any graphenic additives. Only one of the five tested products contained conclusive evidence of material in the graphene family, as graphene oxide was clearly presented as advertised. Two of the products, which were sourced from the same manufacturer, exhibited evidence most suggestive of graphite or amorphous carbon rather than graphene. The remaining two products exhibited signatures of amorphous carbon without evidence of graphitic or graphenic material. The four products that did not conclusively present evidence of advertised graphene also contained prolific alternative cut-resistant additives such as steel wire, glass fiber, or a silicon-based particle that elemental analysis suggests may be silicon carbide. Methods and techniques for the evaluation of products claiming graphene content are demonstrated for the purposes of improving market integrity and consumer confidence in product claims.
Indexed as
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.