The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Electrochemistry at carbon nanotubes: perspective and issues
Abstract
Electrochemistry at carbon nanotubes (CNTs) is a large and growing field, but one in which there is still uncertainty about the fundamental activity of CNTs as electrode materials. On the one hand, there are many reports which focus on the favourable electrochemical properties of CNT electrodes, such as enhanced detection sensitivity, electrocatalytic effects and reduced fouling. On the other hand, other studies suggest that CNTs may be no more electroactive than graphitic powder. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the catalytic nanoparticles from which CNTs are formed may dominate the electrochemical characteristics in some instances. A considerable body of the literature presumes that the CNT sidewall is inert and that edge-plane-graphite-like open ends and defect sites are responsible for the electron transfer activity observed. In contrast, studies of well characterised single-walled nanotube (SWNT) electrodes, either as individual tubes or as two-dimensional networks, suggest sidewall activity. This review highlights how the various discrepancies in CNT electrochemistry may have arisen, by taking a historical view of the field and identifying crucial issues that still need to be solved. When assessing the behaviour of CNT electrodes, it is vitally important that careful consideration is given to the type of CNT used (SWNT or multi-walled), the quality of the material (presence of impurities), the effect of chemical processing steps in the fabrication of electrodes and the experimental arrangements adopted. Understanding these key features is an essential requirement to develop a fundamental understanding of CNT electrochemistry, to allow a wide range of electroanalytical applications, and to move the field forward rationally. As part of this process, high resolution electrochemical and electrical imaging techniques are expected to play a significant role in the future, as well as theoretical developments which examine the fundamentals of electron transfer at different types of CNTs and their characteristic surface sites.
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
Donaldson, K., Aitken, R., Tran, L., Stone, V., Duffin, R., Forrest, G., & Alexander, A. (2006) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfj130 · Cited by 1,167
Oops they did it again! Carbon nanotubes hoax scientists in viability assays
Wörle-Knirsch, J. M., Pulskamp, K., & Krug, H. F. (2006) · Nano Letters · doi:10.1021/nl060177c · Cited by 994
Carbon nanotube coating improves neuronal recordings
Keefer, E. W., Botterman, B. R., Romero, M. I., Rossi, A. F., & Gross, G. W. (2008) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.174 · Cited by 721
Metadata
- Authors
- Dumitrescu, I., Unwin, P. R., & Macpherson, J. V.
- Venue
- Chemical Communications
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2009
- Issue
- 45
- Pages
- 6886
- ISSN
- 1359-7345 (ISSN-L)
- 1364-548X
- OpenAlex
- W2088653799
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 23.76
- 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: Electrochemistry at carbon nanotubes: perspective and issues. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/b909734a
- The paper
- Dumitrescu, I., Unwin, P. R., & Macpherson, J. V. (2009). Electrochemistry at carbon nanotubes: perspective and issues. Chemical Communications. https://doi.org/10.1039/b909734a
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.