Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 247

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of the Quality of Aqueous Dispersions of Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes Using Surfactants and Biomolecules

Haggenmueller, Reto, Rahatekar, Sameer S., Fagan, Jeffrey A., Chun, Jaehun, Becker, Matthew L., Naik, Rajesh R., Krauss, Todd, Carlson, Lisa, Kadla, John F., Trulove, Paul C., Fox, Douglas F., DeLong, Hugh C., Fang, Zhichao, Kelley, Shana O., Gilman, Jeffrey W.·2008·Langmuir

Abstract

The use of single wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) in current and future applications depends on the ability to process SWCNTs in a solvent to yield high-quality dispersions characterized by individual SWCNTs and possessing a minimum of SWCNT bundles. Many approaches for the dispersion of SWCNTs have been reported. However, there is no general assessment which compares the relative quality and dispersion efficiency of the respective methods. Herein we report a quantitative comparison of the relative ability of "wrapping polymers" including oligonucleotides, peptides, lignin, chitosan, and cellulose and surfactants such as cholates, ionic liquids, and organosulfates to disperse SWCNTs in water. Optical absorption and fluorescence spectroscopy provide quantitative characterization (amount of SWCNTs that can be suspended by a given surfactant and its ability to debundle SWCNTs) of these suspensions. Sodium deoxy cholate (SDOCO), oligonucleotides (GT)(15), (GT)(10), (AC)(15), (AC)(10), C(10-30), and carboxymethylcellulose (CBMC-250K) exhibited the highest quality suspensions of the various systems studied in this work. The information presented here provides a good framework for further study of SWCNT purification and applications.

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/la703008r

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 247

Metadata

Authors
Haggenmueller, R., Rahatekar, S. S., Fagan, J. A., Chun, J., Becker, M. L., Naik, R. R., Krauss, T., Carlson, L., Kadla, J. F., Trulove, P. C., Fox, D. F., DeLong, H. C., Fang, Z., Kelley, S. O., & Gilman, J. W.
Venue
Langmuir
Published
2008-04-29
Volume
24
Issue
9
Pages
5070-5078
ISSN
  • 0743-7463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5827
OpenAlex
W1975251635
Cited by
247
References
1
FWCI
10.61
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of the Quality of Aqueous Dispersions of Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes Using Surfactants and Biomolecules. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/la703008r
The paper
Haggenmueller, R., Rahatekar, S. S., Fagan, J. A., Chun, J., Becker, M. L., Naik, R. R., Krauss, T., Carlson, L., Kadla, J. F., Trulove, P. C., Fox, D. F., DeLong, H. C., Fang, Z., Kelley, S. O., & Gilman, J. W. (2008). Comparison of the Quality of Aqueous Dispersions of Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes Using Surfactants and Biomolecules. Langmuir. https://doi.org/10.1021/la703008r

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.