Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 140–146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtice

Dispersion of graphene in aqueous solutions with different types of surfactants

and the production of graphene films by spray or drop coating
Nen-Wen Pu a, Chung-An Wang b, Yuh-Ming Liu c, Yuh Sung c, Ding-San Wang d, Ming-Der Ger c,*
a
Department of Photonics Engineering, Yuan Ze University, Chung-Li, Tao-Yuan 320, Taiwan
b
Graduate School of Defense Science, Chung Cheng Institute of Technology, National Defense University, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan 335
c
Department of Chemical & Materials Engineering, Chung Cheng Institute of Technology, National Defense University, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan 335
d
Department of Business and Entrepreneurial Management, Kainan University, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan 338

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The performances of different kinds of surfactants for dispersing hydrophobic graphene in aqueous
Received 29 January 2011 solutions were studied. These surfactants included cationic, non-ionic, anionic, and polymer types. The
Received in revised form 4 June 2011 results of UV–vis analysis and sedimentation test suggested that optimum dispersion was achieved with
Accepted 20 June 2011
200–300 ppm of polyoxyethylene (40) nonylphenylether (Igepal1 CO890), a non-ionic type surfactant.
Available online 4 August 2011
The aqueous graphene suspensions were used to fabricate graphene films by two economical
techniques—spray and drop coating. The graphene films have a significantly lower sheet resistance than
Keywords:
the films of commercial nanographite conductive colloid. The graphene films dispersed with CO890
Graphene
Dispersion
showed higher electrical conductivity than those with SDS, in consistence with the analysis of dispersion
Conductive films performance. Our technique for preparing stable and low viscosity aqueous graphene dispersions
Sheet resistance combined with a spray coating method can produce conductive graphene films with uniform
distribution, large area, and controllable thickness at low cost.
ß 2011 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction research effort, the application of graphene as a filler material for

In recent years, graphene – a new allotrope of carbon in two-
dimensional (2D) form – was isolated and immediately attracted
great attention from both the experimental and theoretical
scientists [1–3]. Single-layer graphene is a planar sp2-bonded
six-membered-ring sheet of carbon, and is the basic building block
for carbon nanotubes (CNTs), buckyballs, and graphite [3]. Single-
layer graphene is supposed to be a gapless semiconductor with a
linear dispersion relation [4]. The electronic band structure rapidly
evolves with the number of layers [5], so single-, double-, and few-
layer graphene can be distinguished as three different types of 2D
crystals [3]. Therefore few-layer graphene is a bridge between pure
2D and bulk systems, and can be used to study the interesting
physics at the crossover regime [6].
This new material is expected to have plenty of unique
properties such as high thermal conductivity, mechanical stiffness,
and fracture strength [7], and exceptional electrical mobility due to
the extraordinary carrier transport behavior [3]. Although the
realization of most graphene-based devices still requires great
* Corresponding author at: Electrochemical Microfabrication Lab, Department of
Chemical & Materials Engineering, Chung Cheng Institute of Technology, National
Defense University, Ta-His, Tao-Yuan 335, Taiwan. Fax: +886 3 3892494.
E-mail address: mingderger@gmail.com (M.-D. Ger).
polymer composites can be easily implemented. However, efficient
approaches to produce pure and well-separated graphene sheets in
large quantities are required.
Mechanical cleavage of graphite is an easy way to obtain pure
graphene sheets and is widely used by many researchers [1].
Unfortunately the productivity is too low for any large-scale use.
Bulk-quantity production of graphene sheets can be realized by
thermal [8] or chemical reduction [9,10] of graphene oxide (GO).
Some researchers have introduced various methods to circumvent
the oxidation of grapheme [11–15]. For example, Li et al. [11]
suggested a method of re-intercalation and dispersion for high-
yield and high-quality graphene suspension without the oxidation
step. Other methods such as liquid-phase exfoliation of graphite in
organic solvents [12,13], supercritical fluid exfoliation of graphite
[14], and electrochemical exfoliation of graphite electrodes [15]
have also been proposed for mass production of graphene.
Pristine graphene is hydrophobic, so producing stable suspen-
sion of graphene in water or organic solvents is an important issue
for the fabrication of many graphene-based devices [16,17].
Prevention of aggregation was of particular importance for
graphene sheets because most of their unique properties were
only associated with individual sheets and keeping them well
separated was required. Stable suspensions of GO in aqueous
solutions have been widely used instead of graphene suspensions
because of the ease in preparation. GO can be converted back to

1876-1070/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jtice.2011.06.012
 N.-W. Pu et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 140–146
conducting graphene by hydrazine reduction or other means.
However, the chemically converted graphene still contains certain
residual functional groups, which are undesirable for some
applications. In addition, the use of hydrazine should be minimized
due to its toxicity. Furthermore, the use of hazardous reducing
agents or solvents can be detrimental to composites containing
delicate molecules such as biomolecules or conjugated polymers
[17]. So there is still a need to develop techniques for directly
dispersing relatively pure graphene sheets in water. After that,
many solution-phase processing methods, which are low-cost and
suitable for large-area applications, can be used in numerous
technological areas, such as electrically and/or thermally conduc-
tive thin films, multifunctional composite materials, biosensors
[18], ultracapacitors [19], bipolar plates in fuel cells [20], and
hydrogen storage [21].
In this work, the dispersion of graphene in aqueous solutions
using various kinds of surfactants was studied. The graphene was
produced from exfoliation of natural graphite by the Staudenmaier
method [22]. The resultant graphene was dispersed by sonification
in water solutions of surfactants of different concentrations and
types including cationic, non-ionic, anionic, and polymer types.
The performances of these surfactants were evaluated by
ultraviolet–visible (UV–vis) absorption spectra and a sedimenta-
tion test. In addition, the graphene suspensions were spray- or
drop-coated onto different substrates to form graphene films, and
the resistivity was measured and compared with that of
commercial nanographite films, which are widely used in industry
currently in the shadow process for directly electroplating copper
on nonconductive substrates.
2. Experiments
2.1. Fabrication of graphene
Commercial powdered natural graphite (from Alfa Aesar) was
used as our starting material. The commercial graphite has a
particle size of 70 mm with a purity of 99.99995% and a density of
2.25 g/cm3. Graphite was oxidized following the Staudenmaier
method to form graphite oxide (GO). In this method, graphite (5 g)
was first mixed with sulfuric acid (87.5 ml) and nitric acid (45 ml)
and stirred. When graphite was uniformly dispersed, potassium
chlorate (55 g) was added slowly and stirred for over 96 h. After the
completion of oxidizing reaction, the mixture was added into
deionized water and then filtered. The GO was repeatedly rinsed
and redispersed in a 5% solution of HCl for three times. It was then
washed continually with deionized water until the pH of the
filtrate was neutral [22]. The GO slurry was dried and pulverized.
Potassium stays in the GO even after several times of washing.
Therefore multiple washing cycles used in conjunction with bath
ultrasonication in fresh ethanol are needed for the removal of
residual potassium [23]. After this the GO was dried and pulverized
again. Finally, the GO was heated to 1050 8C and held in the furnace
for 30 s to form graphene.
2.2. Dispersion and characteristic analysis of graphene
The produced graphene was dispersed in solutions containing
one of the following surfactants: a cation type surfactant,
tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB); a non-ion type,
polyoxyethylene (40) nonylphenylether (CO890); an anion type,
sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS); and a polymer type, polycarboxylate
(H14N). All solutions were prepared by mixing a certain amount of
graphene with 20 ml aqueous solution of one of the surfactants (at
various concentrations) in a flask. The resultant mixture was then
ultrasonicated for 30 min. All sonication processes were carried
out with a cylindrical tip.
141
To evaluate the performance of dispersants, UV–vis absorption
spectra between 200 and 800 nm were measured (Varian Cary 50
Bio UV–vis spectrophotometer), and the results were cross-
checked with a sedimentation test. In addition, a ‘‘dispersion
stability analyzer’’ (L.U.M. GmbH, LUMiSizer1) was employed to
quantitatively evaluate the dispersion and stability of the graphene
solutions. The graphene solutions were put in a high-speed
centrifuge with a relative centrifugal force (RCF) of 2325  g. The
variation with time of the optical transmission (at 880 nm)
through the graphene dispersions was recorded.
Also, the morphology of dispersed graphene was examined
with a transmission electron microscope (TEM) (JEOL, JEM-
2000EXII, operating at 100 kV) and the result was compared to
that of untreated graphite. The Raman spectra of the graphene
samples were analyzed using Jobin Yvon, iHR550, at an excitation
wavelength of 488 nm.
In addition, graphene films were formed by repeatedly spraying
or dropping the graphene suspensions onto PET or flame retardant
woven glass reinforced epoxy resin (FR-4) plates. The conductivity
of the produced graphene film was measured using a four-point
probe and compared to that of commercially available nanogra-
phite (Electrochemicals Inc., Shadow1 Conductive Colloid) widely
used in shadow processes for electroplating.
3. Results and discussion
The graphene in this study was produced by means of acid
treatment of exfoliated GO. The GO was reduced to graphene by
heating to 1100 8C. Fig. 1 shows the top-view TEM images of the
original graphite and exfoliated graphene. A small flake of graphite
particle is seen in Fig. 1(a). The opacity of the graphite indicates
that the electron beam hardly penetrates through the thick
structure. Fig. 1(b) shows the low-magnification TEM image of the
graphene reduced from GO. The size of the graphene sheet is about
1–2 mm. The surface of graphene shows several large meandering
wrinkles. The thickness of graphene can be determined from the
high-magnification TEM image (Fig. 1(c)). The folded edges of
graphene as indicated by the arrows show that our graphene
sheets are composed of 4–6 atomic layers.
The Raman spectra for the graphene is shown in Fig. 2. The
typical features for graphene, i.e., the G band at around 1580 cm1,
the D band at around 1350 cm1, and the 2D band at around
2700 cm1 are clearly seen. An additional peak at around
2950 cm1 is ascribed to the G + D or the D + D0 band [24,25].
The D/G peak ratio has proven a useful indicator for the disorder or
defects in the graphene sp2 network. The D/G ratio for our
graphene is as high as 1, which indicates that, after the strong
chemical oxidation and thermal reduction at 1050 8C, there are a
lot of defects and residual function groups in the graphene. The
2D/G ratio is often used to estimate the number of atomic layers in
graphene. Judging from this ratio, the thickness is greater than 4
atomic layers, which is consistent with the TEM observation.
Graphene is hydrophobic and unavoidably aggregates in water,
as shown in Fig. 3(b). In Fig. 3(a), stable suspension of graphene in
water is achieved by adding a surfactant, SDS, at a concentration of
200 ppm. For most applications, keeping graphene sheets well
separated was required. Here the authors would compare the
performances of surfactants of different types – CTAB, CO890, SDS,
and H14N – at various concentrations for graphene dispersion. The
chemical structures of these surfactants are shown in Fig. 4
[26,27].
Yu et al. [28] discovered that individual CNTs are active in UV–
vis region and exhibit characteristic bands corresponding to
additional absorption due to 1D van Hove singularities [29–31].
Bundled CNTs are inactive in the wavelength region between 200
and 1200 nm – their photoluminescence is quenched – most
142 N.-W. Pu et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 140–146

D G

Intensity
2D

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

-1
Raman shift (cm )

Fig. 2. Raman spectrum for the thermally reduced graphene.

[10,16,34–38]. All four kinds of surfactants were mixed with

0.01 wt.% graphene in water at various concentrations. Figs. 5–8
display the UV–vis absorption spectra for graphene dispersed with
CTAB, CO890, SDS, and H14N, respectively. In each case, the
spectrum for the solution of pure surfactant without graphene is
also shown for comparison. After ultrasonication, the absorption
spectra of these graphene solutions show a maximum between
250 and 300 nm and gradually decreases as the wavelength moves
from UV to near-IR, which is partly due to scattering, especially in
the lower wavelength range. Similar results have been reported for
UV–vis absorption spectra of single-walled [33] and multi-walled
CNT [28]. Fig. 5 shows that the UV absorption peak of the graphene
solution rises monotonically with increasing concentration of
CTAB in the range between 100 and 400 ppm. This peak is due to
graphene alone because the solution of pure CTAB does not show
any absorption at this wavelength. As the concentration of CTAB
increases, graphene is coated with more and more surfactant
which overcomes van der Waals interaction and leads to the
dispersion of graphene. The increasing amount of isolated
graphene sheets results in an increasing area of the absorption
peak. Concentrations higher than 400 ppm were avoided because
too much surfactant will deteriorate the conductivity of graphene
coating.
Fig. 6 indicates that the best performance of dispersion for
CO890 is achieved at 200–300 ppm. Note that excessive
surfactant shows a negative effect: at 400 ppm CO890, the
absorption peak reduces obviously because of reaggregation of

Fig. 1. TEM images of (a) graphite and (b) graphene. (c) High magnification TEM
image of a graphene sheet, whose thickness is 4–6 atomic layers as indicated by the
arrows.

probably because of carrier tunneling between neighboring

nanotubes [32]. Therefore, it is possible to establish a relationship
between the amount of dispersed CNTs and the intensity of the
corresponding absorption spectrum [33]. Similarly, the dispersion Fig. 3. Aqueous solutions of 0.01 wt.% graphene (a) with a surfactant, SDS, at
of graphene or GO can also be evaluated by UV–vis spectroscopy 200 ppm and (b) without any surfactant.
 N.-W. Pu et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 140–146
Fig. 4. Chemical structures of (a) CTAB, (b) CO890, (c) SDS, and (d) H14N.
graphene. For CO890 in general, the values of peak absorption are
much higher than those for CTAB (Fig. 5) and the other two
surfactants (see Figs. 7 and 8). This suggests that CO890 possibly
will perform the best in dispersing graphene in water. Unfortu-
nately, CO890 itself has a strong absorption peak overlapping with
graphene’s at 280 nm, which makes quantitative comparison
difficult. Therefore some other experimental results will be
presented for better evaluation of performance.
The UV–vis spectra for graphene dispersed with the anion type
surfactant, SDS, and the polymer type, H14N, are shown in Figs. 7
and 8, respectively. Pure H14N and SDS shows no absorption at
around 250–300 nm in UV–vis spectra. These surfactants contain
hydrophilic functional groups – SO4 for SDS, and SO3 and COO
for H14N – on the outer end of a long-chain molecule which
adsorbs on graphene. Again the absorption data show that
100 ppm of SDS or H14N are not enough to fully disperse graphene
Fig. 5. UV–vis spectra for the graphene dispersed with CTAB: (a) 100 ppm; (b)
200 ppm; (c) 300 ppm; (d) 400 ppm and (e) for 300 ppm CTAB without graphene.
143
Fig. 6. UV–vis spectra for the graphene dispersed with CO890: (a) 100 ppm; (b)
200 ppm; (c) 300 ppm; (d) 400 ppm and (e) for 300 ppm CO890 without graphene.
in water solution. Optimum dispersion is achieved at 200 ppm
for SDS and 300 ppm for H14N. Similar to the results for CO890,
excessive surfactant results in reaggregation of graphene. Note
that the largest value of peak absorption in Fig. 7 (graphene
dispersed with SDS) is almost twice that in Fig. 8 (graphene
dispersed with H14N). After comparing the UV–vis spectra of the
graphene dispersed with four different surfactants at various
concentrations, we found that the non-ion type surfactant, CO890,
and the anion type surfactant, SDS, performed better than the other
two in dispersing graphene in water. However, the absorption peak
of CO890 at 280 nm causes confusion and difficulty in making a
quantitative judgment. Therefore, an alternative way was used to
clearly compare the efficiency of surfactants, we employed a
dispersion stability analyzer to quantitatively evaluate the
variation of graphene dispersion with time. The results of
dispersion stability analysis are displayed in Fig. 9 for the 4
graphene solutions. The relative centrifugal force was 2325  g.
The curves, from top (worst) to bottom (best), correspond to the
solutions of CTAB, H14N, SDS, and CO890. The lower the integral
transmission, the better the dispersion of graphene. Obviously, the
best dispersion is obtained using CO890, followed by SDS. They
both show a high concentration of well-dispersed graphene
colloids in the solution and very good stability of the colloids.
In order to further evaluate the dispersing performance, a
sedimentation experiment was carried out. The four graphene
solutions dispersed with each type of surfactant at their individual
Fig. 7. UV–vis spectra for the graphene dispersed with SDS: (a) 100 ppm; (b)
200 ppm; (c) 300 ppm; (d) 400 ppm and (e) for 300 ppm SDS without graphene.
144 N.-W. Pu et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 140–146
Fig. 8. UV–vis spectra for the graphene dispersed with H14N: (a) 100 ppm; (b)
200 ppm; (c) 300 ppm; (d) 400 ppm and (e) for 300 ppm H14N without graphene.
optimum concentrations were placed in measuring cylinders and
allowed to settle at room temperature for over 60 days. None of the
solutions showed observable sedimentation in hours or even in a
few days, indicating that the four surfactants all have rather good
ability in dispersing graphene. The photographs of the graphene
solutions after 60 days are displayed in Fig. 10. Undoubtedly
300 ppm CO890 (Fig. 10(b)) produced the most stable and uniform
graphene suspension—the solution remained totally opaque and
homogeneous from top to bottom. In contrast, the graphene
suspensions dispersed with H14N and CTAB (Fig. 10(a) and (d))
were clearly separated into three regions: a black surface layer of
graphene aggregates floating at the water/air interface, a dark
slurry layer of sediment on the bottom (not shown), and a semi-
transparent column in the middle. SDS (Fig. 10(c)) performed
better than H14N and CTAB – no distinctly separated regions were
seen – but the solution did show varying grayish tints from top to
bottom. According to Li et al. [16], graphene sheets easily
agglomerate at the water/air interface due to water evaporation
and a black layer of solid will appear on the liquid surface. This
problem is overcome by using CO890 and SDS as dispersants. To
more clearly distinguish the differences among the four surfac-
tants, we carried out an accelerated sedimentation test with a
centrifuge (2325  g for 1 h, which corresponds to 194 days
under the Earth gravity). The photograph was shown in Fig. 11. The
performance of the surfactants can be unambiguously compared.
Again, CO890 outperform the others, as evidenced by the darkness
of the graphene dispersion. SDS is the second best—the solution is
still grayish although some sediment is clearly seen on the bottom.
The graphene dispersions with H14N and CTAB became completely
transparent, with floating graphene agglomerates in the solutions.
Fig. 9. The results of dispersion stability analysis for graphene solutions: the lower
the transmission, the better the dispersion of graphene. The surfactants used are,
from top (worst) to bottom (best), CTAB, H14N, SDS, and CO890.
Fig. 10. The sedimentation experiment of graphene solution dispersed by different
surfactants: (a) 400 ppm CTAB; (b) 300 ppm CO890; (c) 200 ppm SDS and (d)
300 ppm H14N.
The results of this test are in good agreement with the UV–vis
absorption spectra.
In order to visualize the degree of dispersion of graphene in
solution and to support the interpretation of the UV–vis results, TEM
investigations have also been performed. Fig. 12 shows the typical
TEM images of the best dispersed graphene using the four different
surfactants. Isolated graphene sheets are highly transparent to
electron beam and appear as light grey areas. For the cases of
400 ppm CTAB and 300 ppm H14N (Figs. 12(a) and (d)), many areas
are obviously darker, indicating that the graphene sheets are not
fully exfoliated and some remain agglomerated. This is consistent
with the low absorption in the UV–vis spectra, as shown in Figs. 5
and 8. However, dark patches of graphene aggregates are not seen by
TEM for the cases of 200 ppm CO890 and 200 ppm SDS (Figs. 12(b)
and (c)), indicating that almost all the graphene are well separated
when optimum dispersion is reached. This is in good agreement with
the stronger absorption in their UV–vis spectra (Figs. 6 and 7) and
the results of sedimentation test.
To further evaluate the performance of CO890 and SDS for the
applications in conductive films, the graphene solutions dispersed
with 200 ppm SDS or 200 ppm CO890 were repetitively sprayed
and dried on PET sheets to form a conductive layer, and the sheet
Fig. 11. The accelerated sedimentation test of graphene solutions by centrifuge. The
surfactants used are, from left to right, H14N, CTAB, SDS, and CO890.
 N.-W. Pu et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 140–146
Fig. 12. TEM images of the graphene dispersed with different surfactants: (a) 300 ppm CTAB; (b) 300 ppm CO890; (c) 200 ppm SDS and (d) 300 ppm H14N.
resistances were measured (Fig. 13). The sheet resistance data in
Fig. 13 is consistent with the observed dispersing performance, i.e.,
the graphene films dispersed with CO890, which gives better
dispersion stability and uniformity, exhibit higher conductance.
The sheet resistance of graphene films dispersed with SDS or
CO890 was about 50 kV per square at a transparency (at 550 nm)
of 80%. This value is unfortunately too high for the transparent
conductive films in solar cells and liquid crystal display panels.
However, they can find applications in many other fields [11,39,40]
such as antistatic coatings, shadow coatings for electroplating,
supercapacitors [19], support for metallic catalysts, chemical and
biosensors [18], and graphene–polymer composites [20].
To evaluate the conductivity of our graphene in comparison
with commercial nanographite, thin conductive films of both
materials were drop-coated on FR-4 plates. Fig. 14 shows the TEM
Sheet resistance (k-ohm/sq)
100
SDS
10
CO890
6 8 10 12 14
Times of spraying
Fig. 13. The sheet resistance of spray-coated graphene films with 200 ppm CO890 or
200 ppm SDS solutions.
145
image of commercially available dispersed nanographite. The
particle size of the commercial graphite was approximately 1–
3 mm. This particle size and the thickness of the commercial
nanographite are bigger than graphene. Commercial nanographite
solution or the solutions of 0.01 wt.% graphene dispersed with
200 ppm CO890 were separately dropped with a micro-liter
pipette repeatedly on FR-4 and dried by heating at 60 8C on a hot
plate. The results are shown in Fig. 15. Compared to commercial
nanographite, graphene effectively reduces the sheet resistance of
the film at a much lower amount of material per unit area. This
performance shows that our inexpensive approach for making
graphene films has already found immediate applications in
shadow processes and antistatic coatings.
16
Fig. 14. The TEM image of commercial nanographite.
146 N.-W. Pu et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 140–146
1000
commercial nano graphite
Sheet resistance (kohm/sq)
100
10
CO890 200ppm
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
2 by supercritical CO2 exfoliation of graphite. Mater Lett 2009;63:1987–9.
Amount of graphene per unit area(mg/cm )
Fig. 15. The sheet resistance of graphene dispersed with 200 ppm CO890, in
comparison with that of commercial nanographite.
4. Conclusions
Preparation of aqueous or organic solutions of well-dispersed
graphene colloids is of great significance for the fundamental
research and applications. In this work, the authors studied the
dispersion of graphene in aqueous solution using different
surfactants at various concentrations. The performances of four
different types of surfactants, CTAB, CO890, SDS, and H14N, were
compared. From the UV–vis absorption spectra, sedimentation
tests, and the TEM images, we conclude that the non-ion type
surfactant, CO890, at a concentration of 200–300 ppm disperses
graphene the best. In addition, conductive films of graphene were
easily made by spray- or drop-coating these aqueous solutions on
substrates. The graphene dispersed with CO890 gave lower
resistance than that with SDS, in consistence with the dispersion
tests. Also, the graphene dispersions in this study have out-
performed commercial nanographite conductive colloids at much
lower loadings. Our findings suggest that the techniques of
graphene dispersion together with solution-phase processing
methods offer a low-cost and facile route to large-scale fabrication
of graphene-related materials and devices in many technological
applications.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the
National Science Council of Taiwan under Contracts NSC-97-
2221-E-606-001 and NSC-98-2221-E-606-005.
References
[1] Novoselov KS, Geim AK, Morozov SV, Jiang D, Zhang Y, Dubonos SV, et al. Electric
field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science 2004;306:666–9.
[2] Novoselov KS, Jiang D, Schedin F, Booth TJ, Khotkevich VV, Morozov SV, et al.
Two-dimensional atomic crystals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102:10451–3.
[3] Geim AK, Novoselov KS. The rise of graphene. Nat Mater 2007;6:183–91.
[4] Novoselov KS, Geim AK, Morozov SV, Jiang D, Zhang Y, Dubonos SV, et al. Two-
dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in grapheme. Nature 2005;438:
197–202.
[5] Partoens B, Peeters FM. From graphene to graphite: electronic structure
around the K point. Phys Rev B 2006;74:075404.
[6] Graf D, Molitor F, Ensslin K, Stampfer C, Jungen A, Hierold C, et al. Spatially
resolved Raman spectroscopy of single- and few-layer graphene. Nano Lett
2007;7:238–42.
[7] Stankovich S, Dikin DA, Dommett GHB, Kohlhaas KM, Zimney EJ, Stach EA, et al.
Graphene-based composite materials. Nature 2006;442:282–6.
[8] McAllister MJ, Li JL, Adamson DH, Schniepp HC, Abdala AA, Liu J, et al. Single
sheet functionalized graphene by oxidation and thermal expansion of graph-
ite. Chem Mater 2007;19:4396–404.
[9] Stankovich S, Piner RD, Nguyen ST, Ruoff RS. Synthesis and exfoliation
of isocyanate-treated graphene oxide nanoplatelets. Carbon 2006;44:
3342–7.
[10] Stankovich S, Piner RD, Chen X, Wu N, Nguyen ST, Ruoff RS. Stable aqueous
dispersions of graphitic nanoplatelets via the reduction of exfoliated graphite
oxide in the presence of poly(sodium 4-styrenesulfonate). J Mater Chem
2006;16:155–8.
[11] Li X, Zhang G, Bai X, Sun X, Wang X, Wang E, et al. Highly conducting graphene
sheets and Langmuir–Blodgett films. Nat Nanotechnol 2008;3:538–42.
[12] Hernandez Y, Nicolosi V, Lotya M, Blighe FM, Sun ZY, De S, et al. High-yield
production of graphene by liquid-phase exfoliation of graphite. Nat Nano-
technol 2008;3:563–9.
[13] Lotya M, Hernandez Y, King PJ, Smith RJ, Nicolosi V, Karlsson LS, et al. Liquid
phase production of graphene by exfoliation of graphite in surfactant/water
solutions. J Am Chem Soc 2009;131:3611–20.
0.20
[14] Pu NW, Wang CA, Sung Y, Liu YM, Ger MD. Production of few-layer graphene
[15] Liu N, Luo F, Wu H, Liu Y, Zhang C, Chen J. One-step ionic-liquid-assisted
electrochemical synthesis of ionic-liquid-functionalized graphene sheets di-
rectly from graphite. Adv Funct Mater 2008;18:1518–25.
[16] Li D, Müller MB, Gilje S, Kaner RB, Wallace GG. Processable aqueous dispersion
of graphene nanosheets. Nat Nanotechnol 2008;3:101–5.
[17] Liu Z, Robinson JT, Sun X, Dai H. PEGylated nano-graphene oxide for delivery of
water insoluble cancer drugs. J Am Chem Soc 2008;130:10876–7.
[18] Wu H, Wang J, Kang X, Wang C, Wang D, Liu J, et al. Glucose biosensor based on
immobilization of glucose oxidase in platinum nanoparticles/graphene/chit-
osan nanocomposite film. Talanta 2009;80(1):403–6.
[19] Stoller MD, Park S, Zhu Y, An J, Ruoff RS. Graphene-based ultracapacitors. Nano
Lett 2008;8:3498–502.
[20] Hsiao MH, Liao SH, Yen MY, Teng CC, Lee SH, Pu NW, et al. Preparation and
properties of a graphene reinforced nanocomposite conducting plate. J Mater
Chem 2010;20:8496–505.
[21] Liu Y, Ren L, He Y, Cheng HP. Titanium-decorated graphene for high-capacity
hydrogen storage studied by density functional simulations. J Phys Condens
Matter 2010;22:445301.
[22] Schniepp HC, Li JL, McAllister MJ, Sai H, Herrera-Alonso M, Adamson DH, et al.
Functionalized single graphene sheets derived from splitting graphite oxide. J
Phys Chem B 2006;110:8535–9.
[23] Viculis LM, Mack JJ, Mayer OM, Hahn HT, Kaner RB. Intercalation and exfolia-
tion routes to graphite nanoplatelets. J Mater Chem 2005;15:974–8.
[24] Elias DC, Nair RR, Mohiuddin TMG, Morozov SV, Blake P, Halsall MP, et al.
Control of graphene’s properties by reversible hydrogenation: evidence for
graphane. Science 2009;323:610–3.
[25] Rao CNR, Biswas K, Subrahmanyam KS, Govindaraj A. Graphene, the new
nanocarbon. J Mater Chem 2009;19:2457–69.
[26] Paria S, Yuet PK. Solubilization of naphthalene by pure and mixed surfactants.
Ind Eng Chem Res 2006;45:3552–8.
[27] Plank J, Sachsenhauser B. Experimental determination of the effective anionic
charge density of polycarboxylate superplasticizers in cement pore solution.
Cem Concr Res 2009;39:1–5.
[28] Yu J, Grossiord N, Koning CE, Loos J. Controlling the dispersion of multi-
wall carbon nanotubes in aqueous surfactant solution. Carbon 2007;45:
618–23.
[29] Kataura H, Kumazawa Y, Maniwa Y, Umezu I, Suzuki S, Ohtsuka Y, et al. Optical
properties of single-wall carbon nanotubes. Synth Met 1999;103:2555–8.
[30] Hamada N, Sawada S, Oshiyama A. New one-dimensional conductors: gra-
phitic microtubules. Phys Rev Lett 1992;68:1579–81.
[31] Saito R, Fujita M, Dresselhaus G, Dresselhaus MS. Electronic structure of chiral
graphene tubules. Appl Phys Lett 1992;60:2204–6.
[32] Laurent JS, Voisin C, Cassabois G, Delalande C, Roussignol Ph, Jost O, et al.
Ultrafast carrier dynamics in single-wall carbon nanotubes. Phys Rev Lett
2003;90:057404–0574047.
[33] Jiang LQ, Gao L, Sun J. Production of aqueous colloidal dispersions of carbon
nanotubes. J Colloid Interface Sci 2003;260:89–94.
[34] Liang Y, Wu D, Feng X, Müllen K. Dispersion of graphene sheets in organic
solvent supported by ionic interactions. Adv Mater 2009;21:1679–83.
[35] Li D, Muller MB, Gilje S, Kaner RB, Wallace GG. Processable aqueous disper-
sions of graphene nanosheets. Nat Nanotechnol 2008;3:101–5.
[36] Paredes JI, Villar-Rodil S, Martı́ónez-Alonso A, Tascón JMD. Graphene oxide
dispersions in organic solvents. Langmuir 2008;24:10560–4.
[37] Li JT, Li M, Li JH, Sun HW. Removal of disperse blue 2BLN from aqueous solution
by combination of ultrasound and exfoliated graphite. Ultrason Sonochem
2007;14:62–6.
[38] Shen J, Hu Y, Li C, Qin C, Ye M. Synthesis of amphiphilic graphene nanoplate-
lets. Small 2009;5:82–5.
[39] Kaempgen M, Duesberg GS, Roth S. Transparent carbon nanotube coatings.
Appl Surf Sci 2005;252:425–9.
[40] Mair HJ, Roth S, editors. Elektrisch leitende Kunststoffe. Munich Wien: Carl
Hanser Verlag; 1989. p. 108.