The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Graphene Production by Ultrasonication and Chemical Reduction
Open accessAbstract
One promising future bulk application of graphene is as composite additive. Therefore, we compare two production routes for in-solution graphene using a cradle-to-gate lifecycle assessment focusing on potential differences in energy use, blue water footprint, human toxicity, and ecotoxicity. The data used for the assessment is based on information in scientific papers and patents. Considering the prospective nature of this study, environmental impacts from background systems such as energy production were not included. The production routes are either based on ultrasonication or chemical reduction. The results show that the ultrasonication route has lower energy and water use, but higher human and ecotoxicity impacts, compared to the chemical reduction route. However, a sensitivity analysis showed that solvent recovery in the ultrasonication process gives lower impacts for all included impact categories. The sensitivity analysis also showed that solvent recovery is important to lower the blue water footprint of the chemical reduction route as well. The results demonstrate the possibility to conduct a life cycle assessment study based mainly on information from patents and scientific articles, enabling prospective life cycle assessment studies of products at early stages of technological development.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Recent developments in life cycle assessment
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., & Suh, S. (2009) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018 · Cited by 3,444
Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., Schmidt, W.-P., Suh, S., Weidema, B. P., & Pennington, D. W. (2004) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005 · Cited by 2,753
Reduction of graphene oxide via l -ascorbic acid
Zhang, J., Yang, H., Shen, G., Cheng, P., Zhang, J., & Guo, S. (2010) · Chem. Commun. · doi:10.1039/b917705a · Cited by 2,344
Cited by
van der Giesen, C., Cucurachi, S., Guinée, J., Kramer, G. J., & Tukker, A. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120904 · Cited by 386
Functionalized graphene materials for hydrogen storage
Jain, V., & Kandasubramanian, B. (2020) · Journal of Materials Science · doi:10.1007/s10853-019-04150-y · Cited by 299
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Guide to Best Practice
(2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9783527655625 · Cited by 299
Holey and Wrinkled Flash Graphene from Mixed Plastic Waste
Wyss, K. M., Chen, W., Beckham, J. L., Savas, P. E., & Tour, J. M. (2022) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.2c00379 · Cited by 91
Optimization of Carbon Nanotube Dispersions in Water Using Response Surface Methodology
Zaib, Q., & Ahmad, F. (2019) · ACS Omega · doi:10.1021/acsomega.8b02965 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Arvidsson, R., Kushnir, D., Sandén, B. A., & Molander, S.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-03-27
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 4529-4536
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2017800598
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.