Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Ultrasonic-assisted liquid phase exfoliation for high-yield monolayer graphene with enhanced crystallinity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that pre-milling graphite and heating the ultrasonic bath produces monolayer graphene flakes with better crystallinity than conventional liquid-phase exfoliation.

desk verdict The paper's own Raman data describe turbostratic graphene, directly contradicting the monolayer claim that the title and abstract hang on. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20123 v1 pith:WM2GGFQE submitted 2024-12-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Kaitong Sun , Si Wu , Junchao Xia , Yinghao Zhu , Guanping Xu , Hai-Feng Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords MonolayergrapheneUltrasonicintercalationexfoliationHighcrystallinityTurbostraticstructureScalableproductionAtomicforcemicroscopyX-rayphotoelectronspectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that a simple, scalable mechanical route—vibratory ball milling of natural graphite followed by ultrasonic exfoliation in warm ethanol—produces monolayer graphene flakes with high crystallinity. The authors report 0.5 nm thick, micrometer-wide nanosheets, a strong (0 0 2) XRD reflection, and a Raman 2D band they assign to turbostratic stacking, and they claim these sheets are more crystalline than what conventional liquid-phase exfoliation gives. They also find that depositing the graphene onto copper foil changes the foil's surface carbon bonding, which they interpret as a way to engineer metal surface properties. If the monolayer and crystallinity claims hold, the method would give laboratories a two-hour, chemical-free route to freestanding graphene and a coating that alters the surface chemistry of metals.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ultrasonic high-energy intercalation exfoliation process: 40 kHz, 300 W ultrasound in an ethanol bath heated to 50 °C, applied to graphite powder that has been vibratory-milled for 60 minutes. Cavitation is the proposed mechanism—microbubbles form and collapse in the interlayer gaps, generating local pressure that pries layers apart, while ethanol wets and stabilizes the freshly exfoliated surfaces. The milling step is what the authors credit for shortening the process and raising yield compared with low-intensity, long-duration ultrasound alone. The signatures that carry the monolayer and crystallinity claims are the AFM step height, the (0 0 2) preferred orientation in XRD, and the two-component, broad 2D Raman band assigned to turbostratic stacking.

What would settle it

Count a statistically meaningful set of flakes by AFM: if the median apparent height is well above 0.5 nm, or if the Raman 2D band of individual flakes fits a single Lorentzian rather than the two broad components shown here, the monolayer assignment fails. Likewise, a direct comparison run of the same graphite through conventional liquid-phase exfoliation would settle the superior-crystallinity claim by comparing (0 0 2) peak width, I_D/I_G, and thickness distributions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a high-energy ultrasonic intercalation exfoliation, preceded by 60 minutes of vibratory milling and carried out in ethanol heated to 50 °C for 120 minutes, extracts monolayer graphene directly from natural graphite. The evidence offered is a 0.5 nm step height in one AFM region (within the 0.4–0.9 nm range cited for monolayer on mica), SEM showing micro-sized separated sheets, an XRD pattern with strong (0 0 2) and (0 0 4) peaks of the graphite-2H phase, and a Raman spectrum whose 2D band splits into two Lorentzian components at 2678.7 and 2713.7 cm−1 with broad linewidths—a signature the authors associate with turbostratic graphene, i.e., layers stacked with rotational disorder rather than Bernal order. XPS further shows that a small amount of deposited graphene changes the C 1s bonding of copper foil, which the paper reads as a surface chemical modification that can alter electrical transport. The stated upshot is a high-yield, scalable production route for monolayer, high-crystallinity graphene that outdoes conventional liquid-phase exfoliation.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the product is monolayer rests on a single 0.5 nm AFM step height being representative of the suspension, while the Raman signature the paper reports is actually closer to turbostratic (rotationally disordered) stacking than to isolated monolayer graphene.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Graphene suspensions can be made in about two hours from mineral graphite using only ethanol, a vibratory mill, and a heated ultrasonic bath, without surfactants or oxidizing chemistry.
  • Freestanding monolayer flakes with micro-sized lateral dimensions can be harvested from the supernatant, and heavy impurities settle within an hour.
  • Depositing the graphene onto copper foil changes the surface C 1s bonding pattern, implying that a thin graphene coat can modify a metal's surface chemical state and potentially its transport properties.
  • The same ultrasonic intercalation procedure is claimed to transfer to other layered materials, boosting yield and crystallinity for scalable production.
  • The (0 0 2) preferred orientation and turbostratic stacking assign a specific stacking disorder that distinguishes these sheets from Bernal-stacked few-layer graphite.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The monolayer claim would be on much firmer ground if the 0.5 nm step height were backed by a statistical AFM histogram: a median thickness near 0.5 nm across dozens of flakes would separate true monolayer exfoliation from a rare thin flake in a mostly few-layer suspension.
  • Since the Raman 2D band the paper reports is itself characteristic of turbostratic stacking rather than isolated monolayer graphene, the method may be producing rotationally disordered few-layer flakes; a cross-check would be a single-Lorentzian 2D fit or an interlayer breathing mode (R mode) in the low-frequency Raman region.
  • The claimed 'superior crystallinity compared to the conventional method' is testable by running the same batch of graphite through standard liquid-phase exfoliation and comparing XRD (0 0 2) peak width, I_D/I_G, and flake thickness distributions under identical measurement conditions.
  • If the XPS surface-modification effect is real, it suggests a coating protocol: one brief dip in the graphene suspension could alter metal electrode surfaces, which could be checked by four-point probe or Hall measurements before and after coating.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an ultrasonic-assisted liquid-phase exfoliation method, preceded by vibratory ball milling of natural graphite, and claims that it produces high-yield monolayer graphene with superior crystallinity relative to conventional liquid-phase exfoliation. The authors characterize the product by AFM, SEM, XRD, Raman, and XPS, and conclude that the nanosheets are monolayer, turbostratic, and high-crystallinity. The central claims in the abstract and conclusion are that the method extracts monolayer graphene and that the nanosheets show superior crystallinity compared with conventional methods.

Significance. If the central claims were supported, a scalable, high-yield route to monolayer graphene with enhanced crystallinity would be of practical importance for applications in electronics, energy storage, and composite materials. The paper also contains a potentially useful observation that depositing graphene on copper alters the surface chemical bonding, as seen in XPS. However, the evidence presented does not substantiate the monolayer or high-yield claims; the manuscript's own Raman analysis identifies a turbostratic structure, which is inconsistent with a monolayer assignment, and no quantitative yield data or conventional-method control is provided. As it stands, the significance is limited because the main claims are unverified and internally inconsistent.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4] The Raman analysis directly contradicts the monolayer claim. The 2D band is fitted with two Lorentzian components at 2678.7 and 2713.7 cm−1 with FWHM values of 62.7 and 40.2 cm−1, and the authors state that this shape 'resembles neither few-layer graphene nor graphite' but is 'more akin to a turbostratic graphene sample,' with 'much smaller I2D/IG and broader linewidth of the 2D band compared to monolayer graphene.' Turbostratic stacking requires at least two rotationally disordered layers, so a monolayer cannot exhibit turbostratic interlayer stacking. The conclusion in Section 4 also states that the detectable components were 'turbostratic graphene with distinct interlayer spacing.' Thus, the paper's own Raman evidence undermines the abstract's central claim of monolayer graphene.
  2. [§3.1] The monolayer assignment rests on a single height measurement of ~0.5 nm in an 'optimal area' of Fig. 2(b), while the text in the same section notes that Fig. 2(a) illustrates 'multiple layers of graphene nanosheets.' No flake-height distribution, no statistics, and no indication of the fraction of monolayer flakes in the suspension are provided. The claimed high-yield monolayer production is therefore unsupported by the AFM data.
  3. [Title, Abstract, and Conclusions] The claims of 'high-yield' and 'superior crystallinity compared to the conventional method' are not supported by any quantitative yield measurement or any side-by-side comparison with conventional liquid-phase exfoliation. Section 2.2 describes the procedure but provides no concentration, mass, or yield figures; Table 1 lists qualitative advantages but no quantitative metrics. The XRD data in Section 3.3 show strong graphite-2H (002) and (004) reflections, which indicate stacked graphitic material, and no control sample is presented. These claims are therefore not evidenced in the manuscript.
  4. [§3.4] The G-peak shift statement is internally inconsistent. The measured G peak is at 1568.8 cm−1, which is 11.2 cm−1 lower than the quoted bulk graphite value of 1580 cm−1, yet the text states it is '11.2 cm−1 higher than the bulk graphite at 1580 cm−1.' The sign of the shift is reversed, and the interpretation of chemical doping based on this shift is therefore not supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 and §2.2] The procedure description in the text says the mixture was 'gradually heated to 50 °C over a period of 120 minutes,' while Fig. 1 labels 'Ultrasonic cleansing 120 mins, 50 °C'; please clarify whether the 120 minutes refers to the heating ramp or the total ultrasonication duration.
  2. [References] The reference list has two entries numbered [2] (Lee et al. and Novoselov et al.) and no entry [3]; the citation numbering in the introduction should be corrected.
  3. [§3.2] The SEM image in Fig. 3(b) shows a 10 µm scale bar, but the text states an average particle size of ~5 µm; reporting a size distribution would make the claim more quantitative.
  4. [§3.5] The XPS discussion attributes the C–O–C and O–C=O components largely to adventitious carbon, yet the claim that a 'small amount of graphene layers deposited on metal significantly alters the chemical bonds' is made without quantitative analysis or a control deposit of another carbon material.
  5. [Graphical Abstract] The graphical abstract is not referenced in the text; either cite it where the synthesis scheme is described or remove it as a figure element.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper is an experimental characterization study with no fitted 'prediction' loop, and its few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental synthesis and characterization workflow; it contains no derivation chain, no fitted parameters, and no quantity that is 'predicted' from inputs in a way that reduces to those inputs by construction. The central claims of monolayer graphene, high yield, and superior crystallinity are presented as interpretations of AFM, SEM, XRD, Raman, and XPS data. Even if those interpretations are contestable—for example, the Raman 2D-band fit is described as 'turbostratic graphene' with 'much smaller I2D/IG and broader linewidth ... compared to monolayer graphene,' which sits uneasily with the monolayer assignment, and no conventional liquid-phase-exfoliation control is provided for the 'superior crystallinity' claim—these are evidence-quality or correctness issues, not circularity. The self-citations [18-20] appear when describing the ball-milling precursor step and SEM usage; they are routine methodological references and do not carry the load of the monolayer or crystallinity conclusions, and nothing in them is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the paper's own characterization data. There is no equation in the paper that equals its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The analysis therefore finds no significant circularity, with only a trivial level of ordinary self-citation present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard characterization interpretations, several of which are not independently validated and one of which (Raman) contradicts the monolayer assignment. No free parameters are fit in a quantitative model, but the experimental conditions are chosen without optimization data.

free parameters (3)
  • Water-bath temperature (50 °C) = 50 °C
    Chosen experimental condition; no optimization or justification beyond the claim that heating helps exfoliation.
  • Ultrasonic treatment durations (120 min and 30 min) = 120 min, 30 min
    Chosen by hand; no test of how yield or layer number depends on these durations.
  • Ultrasonic power (300 W) and frequency (40 kHz) = 300 W, 40 kHz
    Instrument settings; no evidence that these values are optimal for the claimed outcome.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption AFM height of 0.5 nm corresponds to monolayer graphene on mica
    This interpretation is standard but contested; the paper cites refs [21,22] for a range of 0.4-0.9 nm, and the single measurement in one 'optimal' area is not statistically validated.
  • domain assumption Raman 2D band shape is indicative of turbostratic stacking
    The authors invoke refs [25,27,28] to interpret the broad 2D band as turbostratic, but this conflicts with their own monolayer claim.
  • domain assumption XRD (002) peak at 26.34° indicates high crystallinity of graphene
    The (002) peak is also characteristic of graphite or stacked layers; the interpretation as graphene crystallinity is not independently calibrated against a known monolayer sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrasonic-assisted liquid phase exfoliation for high-yield monolayer graphene with enhanced crystallinity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WM2GGFQE

@misc{pith2026241220123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrasonic-assisted liquid phase exfoliation for high-yield monolayer graphene with enhanced crystallinity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WM2GGFQE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20123}
}
read the original abstract

Graphene stands as a promising material with vast potential across energy storage, electronics, etc. Here, we present a novel mechanical approach utilizing ultrasonic high-energy intercalation exfoliation to extract monolayer graphene from graphite, offering a simple yet efficient alternative to conventional methods. Through a comprehensive series of characterizations involving atomic force microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, Raman spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, the resulting graphene nanosheets demonstrate superior crystallinity compared to those obtained via the conventional method. The high-crystalline freestanding graphene nanosheets derived from this method not only facilitate easier separation but also significantly enhance the physical performance of the original materials. This method showcases the potential for scalable production of layered materials with increased yield and crystallinity, paving the way for their utilization in various applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20123 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic representation of the synthesis procedure for a monolayer graphene suspension in liquid. properties of graphene during the decomposition of carbon-containing gases on metal substrates [11]. The epitaxial growth method involves heating silicon carbide (SiC) crystals in a controlled environment, causing the sublimation of silicon atoms and leaving carbon atoms to epitaxially grow graphene on the SiC substr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Topography of an AFM image in a 10 µm × 10 µm area, with a scale bar of 2 µm. (b) Measured height in the marked box in (a), revealing a measured height of ∼ 0.5 nm. SEM (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Microstructure of graphite powders, with a scale bar of 1 µm. (b) Top view of graphene suspension on aluminum foil, with a scale bar of 10 µm. turbostratic stacking nature. Additionally, XPS was utilized to determine the bonding type of graphene and the sur￾face valence change of the copper foil after graphene coating. The successful preparation of graphene through the ultrasonic exfoliation method offers a prom… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The observation of a preferred orientation of (0 0 h) in graphite-2H phase is evident in graphene. 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 1 2 3 4 5 Graphene suspension Raman spectrum 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 D G 2D Intensity (10 3 counts) Intensity (10 3 counts)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Under an excitation source of 514 nm. (b) Fitting of Lorentz functions for the 2D band. facilitated the penetration of ethanol and microbubbles into the graphite interlayers, transforming the bulk graphite into a homogeneous monolayer graphene suspension. 2.3. Char…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Survey XPS spectra depicting graphene powder (black line), graphene suspension on Cu foil substrate (red line), and copper foil (blue line). XPS C 1s core level spectra of (b) graphene powder, (c) copper foil, and (d) graphene suspension on the Cu foil substrate. i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. K. Geim, K. S. Novoselov, The rise of graphene, Nature Materials 6 (2007) 183–9195

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V . Morozov, D.-e. Jiang, Y . Zhang, S. V . Dubonos, I. V . Grigorieva, A. A. Firsov, Electric field e ffect in atomically thin carbon films, Science 306 (2004) 666–9

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    L. L. Zhang, X. Zhao, Carbon-based materials as supercapacitor electrodes, Chemical Society Reviews 38 (2009) 2520–31

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Al Hassan, A

    M. Al Hassan, A. Sen, T. Zaman, M. Mostari, Emergence of graphene as a promising anode material for rechargeable batteries: a review, Materials Today Chemistry 11 (2019) 225–43

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    M.-Y . Lim, H. J. Kim, S. J. Baek, K. Y . Kim, S.-S. Lee, J.-C. Lee, Improved strength and toughness of polyketone composites using extremely small amount of polyamide 6 grafted graphene oxides, Carbon 77 (2014) 366–78

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Kuilla, S

    T. Kuilla, S. Bhadra, D. Yao, N. H. Kim, S. Bose, J. H. Lee, Recent advances in graphene based polymer composites, Progress in Polymer Science 35 (2010) 1350–75

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Schedin, A

    F. Schedin, A. K. Geim, S. V . Morozov, E. W. Hill, P. Blake, M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, Detection of individual gas molecules adsorbed on graphene, Nature Materials 6 (2007) 652–5

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Kim, J.-H

    H. Kim, J.-H. Ahn, Graphene for flexible and wearable device applications, Carbon 120 (2017) 244–57

    work page 2017

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    K. Yang, L. Feng, Z. Liu, Stimuli responsive drug delivery systems based on nano-graphene for cancer therapy, Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 105 (2016) 228–41

    2016

  2. [10]

    Garg, C.-H

    B. Garg, C.-H. Sung, Y .-C. Ling, Graphene-based nanomaterials as molecular imaging agents, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology 7 (2015) 737–58

    2015

  3. [11]

    Elmarakbi, W

    A. Elmarakbi, W. Azoti, State of the art on graphene lightweighting nanocomposites for automotive applications, Experimental Characteri- zation, Predictive Mechanical and Thermal Modeling of Nanostructures and their Polymer Composites (2018) 1–23

    2018

  4. [12]

    Y . Liu, T. Thiringer, N. Wang, Y . Fu, H. Lu, J. Liu, Graphene based thermal management system for battery cooling in electric vehicles, in: 2020 IEEE 8th Electronics System-Integration Technology Conference (ESTC), IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–4

    2020

  5. [13]

    K. M. Shahil, A. A. Balandin, Thermal properties of graphene and multilayer graphene: Applications in thermal interface materials, Solid State Communications 152 (2012) 1331–40

    2012

  6. [14]

    Monetta, A

    T. Monetta, A. Acquesta, F. Bellucci, Graphene /epoxy coating as multifunctional material for aircraft structures, Aerospace 2 (2015) 423–34

    2015

  7. [15]

    Raimondo, L

    M. Raimondo, L. Guadagno, V . Speranza, L. Bonnaud, P. Dubois, K. Lafdi, Multifunctional graphene/POSS epoxy resin tailored for aircraft lightning strike protection, Composites Part B: Engineering 140 (2018) 44–56

    2018

  8. [16]

    Dervin, D

    S. Dervin, D. D. Dionysiou, S. C. Pillai, 2D nanostructures for water purification: graphene and beyond, Nanoscale 8 (2016) 15115–31

    2016

  9. [17]

    Zhang, L

    C. Zhang, L. Yao, Z. Yang, E. S.-W. Kong, X. Zhu, Y . Zhang, Graphene oxide-modified polyacrylonitrile nanofibrous membranes for efficient air filtration, ACS Applied Nano Materials 2 (2019) 3916–24

    2019

  10. [18]

    Kirkland, T

    N. Kirkland, T. Schiller, N. Medhekar, N. Birbilis, Exploring graphene as a corrosion protection barrier, Corrosion Science 56 (2012) 1–4

    2012

  11. [19]

    D. H. Seo, S. Pineda, Y . C. Woo, M. Xie, A. T. Murdock, E. Y . Ang, Y . Jiao, M. J. Park, S. I. Lim, M. Lawn, et al., Anti-fouling graphene-based membranes for effective water desalination, Nature Communications 9 (2018) 683

    2018

  12. [20]

    Chuah, Z

    S. Chuah, Z. Pan, J. G. Sanjayan, C. M. Wang, W. H. Duan, Nano reinforced cement and concrete composites and new perspective from graphene oxide, Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 113–24

    2014

  13. [21]

    X. Yu, H. Cheng, M. Zhang, Y . Zhao, L. Qu, G. Shi, Graphene-based smart materials, Nature Reviews Materials 2 (2017) 1–13

    2017

  14. [22]

    Mueller, F

    T. Mueller, F. Xia, P. Avouris, Graphene photodetectors for high-speed optical communications, Nature Photonics 4 (2010) 297–301

    2010

  15. [23]

    Liu, Y .-C

    C.-H. Liu, Y .-C. Chang, T. B. Norris, Z. Zhong, Graphene photodetectors with ultra-broadband and high responsivity at room temperature, Nature Nanotechnology 9 (2014) 273–8

    2014

  16. [24]

    L.-J. Wang, G. Cao, T. Tu, H.-O. Li, C. Zhou, X.-J. Hao, Z. Su, G.-C. Guo, H.-W. Jiang, G.-P. Guo, A graphene quantum dot with a single electron transistor as an integrated charge sensor, Applied Physics Letters 97 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    M. Li, T. Chen, J. J. Gooding, J. Liu, Review of carbon and graphene quantum dots for sensing, ACS Sensors 4 (2019) 1732–48

    2019

  18. [26]

    Berman, A

    D. Berman, A. Erdemir, A. V . Sumant, Graphene: a new emerging lubricant, Materials Today 17 (2014) 31–42

    2014

  19. [27]

    Chouhan, H

    A. Chouhan, H. P. Mungse, O. P. Khatri, Surface chemistry of graphene and graphene oxide: A versatile route for their dispersion and tribological applications, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 283 (2020) 102215

    2020

  20. [28]

    J. Liu, L. Cui, D. Losic, Graphene and graphene oxide as new nanocarriers for drug delivery applications, Acta Biomaterialia 9 (2013) 9243–57

    2013

  21. [29]

    Chakravarty, M

    D. Chakravarty, M. B. Erande, D. J. Late, Graphene quantum dots as enhanced plant growth regulators: effects on coriander and garlic plants, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 95 (2015) 2772–8

    2015

  22. [30]

    Kotsilkova, I

    R. Kotsilkova, I. Petrova-Doycheva, D. Menseidov, E. Ivanov, A. Paddubskaya, P. Kuzhir, Exploring thermal annealing and graphene-carbon nanotube additives to enhance crystallinity, thermal, electrical and tensile properties of aged poly (lactic) acid-based filament for 3D prin...

    2019

  23. [31]

    X. You, J. Yang, S. Dong, Structural and functional applications of 3D-printed graphene-based architectures, Journal of Materials Science 56 (2021) 9007–46

    2021

  24. [32]

    Meftahi, P

    A. Meftahi, P. Samyn, S. A. Geravand, R. Khajavi, S. Alibkhshi, M. Bechelany, A. Barhoum, Nanocelluloses as skin biocompatible materials for skincare, cosmetics, and healthcare: formulations, regulations, and emerging applications, Carbohydrate Polymers 278 (2022) 118956

    2022

  25. [33]

    B. B. Bhat, P. P. Kamath, S. Chatterjee, R. Bhattacherjee, U. Y . Nayak, Recent updates on nanocosmeceutical skin care and anti-aging products, Current Pharmaceutical Design 28 (2022) 1258–71

    2022

  26. [34]

    Gonz ´alez, E

    J. Gonz ´alez, E. Perfetto, Critical currents in graphene josephson junctions, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20 (2008) 145218

    2008

  27. [35]

    M. V . Feigel’man, M. A. Skvortsov, K. S. Tikhonov, Proximity-induced superconductivity in graphene, JETP Letters 88 (2008) 747–51

    2008

  28. [36]

    B. Xia, Y . Yan, X. Wang, X. W. D. Lou, Recent progress on graphene-based hybrid electrocatalysts, Materials Horizons 1 (2014) 379–99

    2014

  29. [37]

    X. Li, J. Yu, S. Wageh, A. A. Al-Ghamdi, J. Xie, Graphene in photocatalysis: a review, Small 12 (2016) 6640–96. 11

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.