Cited by 46Carbon Nanotubes in CompositesUltrasound and Cavitation PhenomenaGraphene research and applications

Optimization of Carbon Nanotube Dispersions in Water Using Response Surface Methodology

Open access
Zaib, Qammer, Ahmad, Farrukh·2019·ACS Omega

Abstract

The aim of this work was to demonstrate an optimization methodology to reliably obtain stable macrodispersions (i.e., for ≥24 h) of carbon nanotubes in water using sonication. Response surface methodology (RSM) was utilized to assess and optimize the sonication parameters for the process. The studied input parameters were (i) sonication time (duration), (ii) amplitude (of vibration), and (iii) pulse-on/off (duration) of the sonicator. The analyzed responses were mean diameter and size distribution of multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWNT) aggregates in water, which were measured by the dynamic light scattering technique. A semiempirical model was developed and statistically tested to estimate the magnitude of sonicator parameters required to obtain specified MWNT macrodispersions (i.e., aggregates’ mean diameter and distribution) in water. The results showed that MWNT aggregates of 2 ± 0.5 μm can be obtained by optimizing sonicator parameters to a sonication time of 89 s, amplitude of 144 μm, and pulse-on/off cycle of 44/30 s. These process settings for 100 mg/L MWNTs in a 30 mL aliquot of deionized water would consume 863 J/mL of sonication energy. Contrary to the popular belief, “sonication time” and/or “sonication energy input” were not found to be proportional to the degree of dispersion of MWNTs in water. This might be the reason for the frequent disparity and nonreproducibility of sonication results reported in scientific literature, especially for dispersing nanomaterials in a number of different systems. The amplitude of vibration was noted to be the most sensitive parameter affecting MWNT aggregates’ diameter and distribution in water. The characterization of MWNTs was performed using electron microscopy, surface area analyzer, thermogravimetric analyzer, and zeta potential analyzer. This study can be helpful in evaluating sonication dispersion of particulate matter in other incompressible fluids such as graphene dispersion in organic solvents.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acsomega.8b02965

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The RSM model exhibited satisfactory approximation of actual Cr(VI) adsorption removal, with a high correlation coefficient R2 of 0.99, implying that 99% of variations in results can be attributed to studied factors.

    “The RSM model exhibited satisfactory approximation of the actual Cr(VI) adsorption removal (%), as demonstrated by the high correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.99 (Fig. 3), implying that 99% of the variations in the results can be attributed to the studied factors34,35.”

    From Optimized removal of hexavalent chromium from water using spent tea leaves treated with ascorbic acid (2022) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Materials and Methods section describes RSM models for carbon-nanotube dispersion, not Cr(VI) removal. Model Fitting and Analysis reports good agreement between predicted and observed nanotube measurements, but does not report an R² of 0.99 or attribute 99% of variation in Cr(VI) removal to studied factors. Searches for Cr(VI), chromium adsorption, and the claimed value found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Mason T. J.; Lorimer J. P. Applied Sonochemistry. The Uses of Power Ultrasound in Chemistry and Processing; Wiley-VCH, 2002; pp 1– 48.
  2. Condon J. B. Surface Area and Porosity Determinations by Physisorption: Measurements and Theory; Elsevier, 2006.
  3. Santos H. M.; Lodeiro C.; Capelo-Martínez J.-L. The Power of Ultrasound. Ultrasound in Chemistry; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2009; pp 1– 16.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zaib, Q., & Ahmad, F.
Affiliations
Khalifa University of Science and Technology (AE)
Corresponding author
Ahmad, Farrukh
Venue
ACS Omega
Published
2019-01-10
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
849-859
ISSN
2470-1343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2910353206
Cited by
46
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACS Omega (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Masdar Institute of Science and Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Carbon Nanotubes in Composites
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Ultrasound and Cavitation Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Graphene research and applications
Keywords
carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, ultrasonic dispersion, sonication time, nanotube aggregates, aggregate size distribution, sonication energy, semi-empirical model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review