Since graphene discovered (2004) later then CNTs (1991) it surpassed the CNTs in respect of many properties like adsorption and chemical catalysis due to high surface area available in case of graphene:
but still today widely used CNTs as electrocatalyst and anode material in lithium ion batteries why?
so some broader views and comments are required from senior researchers and colleagues in the field of carbon nanomaterial please.
Thanks in advance
Just a tip: CNTs are spongy and thus have large surface area without the need to be additionally dispersed, contrary to graphene which has to be exfoliated.
Thanks alot Vladmir. Basiuk ....I never felt before this CNTs property better than graphene, No doubt its hollowness i,e inner cylindrical porous structure may have many advantages like selectivity to retain some metallic ions without fuctionalization or so due to pi-pi interaction or other Vander walls interaction which might not as effective as in case of graphene as i have seen many papers related to graphene in which authors show dispersion of transition metals like Ni, Co, and Fe on graphene surface for best application of graphene. Any way sir, thank you very much for your response and answer.
Some 17 years ago, when carbon nanotubes (CNTs) were first discovered, physicists and material scientists were fascinated with this new form of carbon that forever changed the paradigm of the three basic forms of carbon: diamond, graphite and amorphous carbon.
Since then a lot of hope and a lot of research has been devoted to exploiting some of some CNTs beneficial characteristics to electronics applications, namely their charged-carrier mobility.
But working with CNTs has always been hampered by the intrinsic difficulty in putting them where you want them and connecting them.
While research continued in earnest on CNTs, a hypothetical material called grapheneâ''single, one-atom thick, sheets of graphiteâ''was gaining more attention. Graphene had only been postulated about until 2004 when researchers at the University of Manchester in the UK produced some of the material.
A new star was born. The world of solid-state physics was enamored with a new â''wonderâ'' material that displayed many of the positive characteristics of CNTs in electronic applications, but was easier to interconnect and could follow relatively simple chemical doping techniques.
Unlike CNTs, which require a different set of processing techniques from silicon, graphene shared the same set of processing techniques currently used for silicon. The difference being that silicon becomes pretty useless at the nanometer scale.
In just a few short years, graphene has begun to show some research results within the last few months, with a number of research groups announcing some positive results for graphene in electronics applications, not the least of which being IBM
and the University of Manchester researchers touting the â''smallest transistor ever madeâ''.
But there are some big questions remaining about graphene, including it doesnâ''t have brilliant intrinsic switching propertiesâ''you can change it slightly but you canâ''t seem to turn it completely offâ'¿so far. And the deposition of stable graphene thin-films is still pretty tricky.
Whether these problems will be easier to surmount than the problems that have plagued CNTs remains to be seen. But it appears that for now the new darling of the nanomaterial world is graphene.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/graphene_versus_carbon_nanotub
http://www.nano.northwestern.edu:8081/MyMeso/research/carbon-nanotubes-and-graphene
Dear Mohd Shoeb ,
Just a minor comment on the "first discovery" of CNTs:
Who should be given the credit for the discovery of carbon nanotubes?
- August 2006
- Carbon 44(9):1621-1623
- DOI:
- 10.1016/j.carbon.2006.03.019
Article Who should be given the credit for the discovery of carbon nanotubes?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Carbon Materials
- Graphite
- Graphene