Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative Evaluation of Surfactant-stabilized Single-walled Carbon Nanotubes: Dispersion Quality and Its Correlation with Zeta Potential

Sun, Zhenyu, Nicolosi, Valeria, Rickard, David, Bergin, Shane D., Aherne, Damian, Coleman, Jonathan N.·2008·The Journal of Physical Chemistry C

Abstract

Stable dispersions of single-walled carbon nanotubes in deionized water were prepared using six common surfactants: sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (SDBS), sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), lithium dodecyl sulfate (LDS), tetradecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (TTAB), sodium cholate (SC), and Fairy liquid (FL). For all nanotube dispersions ( C NT = 1 mg/mL), the optimum concentration of surfactant was found to be close to C Surf = 10 mg/mL by measuring the fraction of nanotubes remaining after centrifugation for a range of surfactant concentrations. The aggregation state of each nanotube−surfactant dispersion was characterized as a function of nanotube concentration by AFM analysis of large numbers of nanotubes/bundles deposited onto substrates. The dispersion quality could then be quantified by four parameters: the saturation value (at low concentration) of the root-mean-square bundle diameter, the maximum value of the total number of dispersed objects (individuals and bundles) per unit volume of dispersion, the saturation value (at low concentration) of the number fraction of individual nanotubes, and the maximum value of the number of individual nanotubes per unit volume of dispersion. According to these metrics, the dispersion quality of the six surfactant−nanotube dispersions varied as SDS > LDS > SDBS > TTAB > SC > Fairy liquid. It was found that each of these dispersion-quality metrics scaled very well with the measured ζ-potential of the surfactant−nanotube dispersion. This confirms that dispersion quality is controlled by the magnitude of electrostatic repulsive forces between coated nanotubes.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jp8021634

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 33 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sun, Z., Nicolosi, V., Rickard, D., Bergin, S. D., Aherne, D., & Coleman, J. N.
Venue
The Journal of Physical Chemistry C
Published
2008-06-25
Volume
112
Issue
29
Pages
10692-10699
ISSN
  • 1932-7447 (ISSN-L)
  • 1932-7455
OpenAlex
W2042443175
Cited by
381
References
33
FWCI
14.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.