ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
CONTENT TYPES

System Message

The ACS Publications site will be temporarily unavailable for planned maintenance on Friday, Oct. 15 starting at 6:00 pm ET for up to 4 hours. We apologize for this inconvenience.

Electron Transfer Kinetics on Mono- and Multilayer Graphene

View Author Information
School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, School of Materials, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
Department of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
*Address correspondence to [email protected]
Cite this: ACS Nano 2014, 8, 10, 10089–10100
Publication Date (Web):October 7, 2014
https://doi.org/10.1021/nn504298r
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society
ACS AuthorChoiceACS AuthorChoicewith CC-BYlicense
Article Views
5509
Altmetric
-
Citations
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (5 MB)
Supporting Info (1)»

Abstract

Understanding of the electrochemical properties of graphene, especially the electron transfer kinetics of a redox reaction between the graphene surface and a molecule, in comparison to graphite or other carbon-based materials, is essential for its potential in energy conversion and storage to be realized. Here we use voltammetric determination of the electron transfer rate for three redox mediators, ferricyanide, hexaammineruthenium, and hexachloroiridate (Fe(CN)63–, Ru(NH3)63+, and IrCl62–, respectively), to measure the reactivity of graphene samples prepared by mechanical exfoliation of natural graphite. Electron transfer rates are measured for varied number of graphene layers (1 to ca. 1000 layers) using microscopic droplets. The basal planes of mono- and multilayer graphene, supported on an insulating Si/SiO2 substrate, exhibit significant electron transfer activity and changes in kinetics are observed for all three mediators. No significant trend in kinetics with flake thickness is discernible for each mediator; however, a large variation in kinetics is observed across the basal plane of the same flakes, indicating that local surface conditions affect the electrochemical performance. This is confirmed by in situ graphite exfoliation, which reveals significant deterioration of initially, near-reversible kinetics for Ru(NH3)63+ when comparing the atmosphere-aged and freshly exfoliated graphite surfaces.

Graphene has attracted significant interest due to its unique properties, namely, record charge carrier mobility, (1) high thermal conductivity, (2) and mechanical strength, (3) discovered following its isolation in 2004. (4) While applications of graphene in high-frequency transistors, flexible touch screens or photodetectors (5, 6) will require high-quality material, other properties of this two-dimensional (2D) nanomaterial, such as high specific surface area, optical transparency, (7) and the ability to sustain large current densities, (8) can be exploited using medium-quality material. Proposed applications include corrosion protection, (9) sensing and biotechnology, (10) and energy conversion/storage, i.e. Li-ion batteries, (11) solar cells, (12) and supercapacitors. (13) To evaluate graphene’s performance as an electrode material, the heterogeneous electron transfer (ET) rate between graphene surfaces and a redox mediator, k0, has to be determined and compared with its three-dimensional (3D) relative–graphite. Furthermore, the difference in ET kinetics at the basal planes, edges and defects of graphitic materials has been a topic of considerable scientific interest even before the discovery of graphene. (14, 15) The literature, however, offers some contrasting views on the reactivity of mono- and multilayer graphene. Early ET measurements on individual graphene sheets were first reported by Li et al., (16) using both mechanically exfoliated (ME) and chemical vapor deposition (CVD) grown flakes with ferrocenemethanol (FcMeOH) redox mediator, and Valota et al., (17) using ME flakes and Fe(CN)63–: both reported accelerated kinetics on monolayer compared to bilayer samples (∼2-fold) (17) and graphite (∼10-fold), (16) respectively. Reactivity toward ET has been probed with Raman spectroscopy to measure the extent of diazonium functionalization of ME graphene: the reactivity of the monolayer was again found to be higher than bi- and multilayers; similarly the diazonium reduction kinetics on the edge were faster than those on the basal plane. (18)
ME yields high-quality flakes of pristine surface with limited contamination, allowing the fundamental electrochemical properties of graphene to be explored. Nevertheless, ME preparation is laborious, requires “hunting” for flakes, reliable contacting/masking of the electrode, and is further complicated by fracture of monolayer graphene upon exposure to many aqueous and organic solutions. (19) Most reports of graphene electrochemistry use a mixture of graphene platelets of various thicknesses and lateral dimensions, usually prepared via liquid-phase exfoliation or reduction of graphene oxide, immobilized on a conducting substrate. (20-22) While this method is convenient for characterization of graphene composites, sensing layers or paints, it does not provide insight into electrochemical activity of individual graphene flakes and the roles of the basal/edge plane and defects, due to the sample’s polycrystalline nature and the presence of the underlying conductor. Also, the discontinuous nature of the platelet mixture results in poor conductivity in thin samples. (23) Brownson et al. reported slow ET kinetics for samples with a high basal-to-edge plane ratio (for Fe(CN)63–, Ru(NH3)63+, and two other mediators). (20) Similarly, Zhang et al. reported extremely high k0 for Fe(CN)63– and Ru(NH3)63+ on reduced graphene oxide (∼1 and 10 cm s–1, respectively) attributed to edges and defects. (24) Ambrosi et al. found that open graphene edges exhibit faster kinetics than folded edges (Fe(CN)63–), (25) while Goh and Pumera concluded that the ET rate is independent of the number of graphene layers (dopamine and ascorbic acid mediators). (21)
CVD grown graphene has also been a popular choice for ET studies, either using the original growth substrate (typically Cu or Ni) (26) or following transfer onto an insulating substrate as shown for Fe(CN)63– and IrCl62– mediators. (27) The underlying conductive substrate or chemicals used during the flake transfer, however, can interfere with the electrochemical response. Considerable advances have been made with the employment of scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM), which can be efficiently used to monitor the electrochemical response of a surface with submicrometer scale spatial resolution. Tan et al. reported increased ET rates on mechanically and chemically induced defects, in comparison to the pristine graphene surface, using FcMeOH and Fe(CN)63–. (28) The same group followed with an extensive study in both aqueous and organic solutions, demonstrating finite to near-reversible kinetics (k0 between ∼10–4 to 10–2 cm s–1) of 10 different redox mediators including FcMeOH, Fe(CN)63– and Ru(NH3)63+, with the limits in kinetics being inherent both to graphene and the nature of the mediator. (29) A variant of SECM, scanning electrochemical cell microscopy (SECCM), was used successfully by Güell et al., who reported increasing ET kinetics with increasing number of CVD stacked graphene layers (from 1 to 7) using a ferrocene derivative as a mediator. Furthermore, no increase of the ET rate was observed by these authors at the edges or steps in comparison to the basal planes. (30)
From the above summary, it is clear that despite the significant body of literature on graphene and graphite electrochemistry, the fundamental ET behavior on these surfaces is not fully understood. Even previously unquestionable views, such as accelerated electrode kinetics on the edges/steps relative to basal planes, are not now unanimously accepted. Here, we present electrochemically determined heterogeneous ET rates from a large number of high-quality ME flakes, deposited on insulating oxide-covered silicon wafers. The experiments were carried out in a microdroplet thin-layer cell configuration, reported earlier for CVD grown graphene on Si/SiO2 (27) and mechanically exfoliated graphene on polymer substrate, (19) which allows for the accurate and controlled deposition of a liquid containing redox mediator on a specific surface site. A photograph and a schematic of the experimental setup are shown in Figure 1. The work was driven by the need for a systematic study of high-quality flakes of varied thicknesses between monolayer graphene and bulk graphite, in this case about 1000 graphene layers thick. Using this method, we found that the ET activity of the pristine basal plane of graphene/graphite flakes, free from microscopic defects, varies significantly across the surface of the same crystal. This variation is attributed to airborne or solution-based contamination which affects the electrochemical performance and masks any underlying trend in ET dependence on graphene thickness. Significantly, the ET kinetics measured on in situ cleaved graphite is almost 2 orders of magnitude faster than average kinetics on atmosphere-aged samples. These insights could explain the striking number of contradictory results on both graphene and graphite surface in recent literature.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Experimental setup. (a) Photograph of the experimental setup. (b) Schematic depicting the Si/SiO2 wafer with mechanically exfoliated flakes (working electrode, WE) contacted via silver epoxy and copper wire, microscope objective and a micropipette, which contains reference (RE) and counter electrodes (CE) and is connected to a micromanipulator and microinjector. (c) An optical micrograph of a droplet deposited on the surface of a monolayer graphene flake. The dashed lines and curves indicate edge planes (black), steps (white), cracks/defects (orange), folds (green), and microdroplet/flake interface (blue).

Results and Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Cyclic Voltammetry on Basal Plane Graphene/Graphite

The droplets containing a redox mediator (either Fe(CN)63–, Ru(NH3)63+, or IrCl62–, each at a concentration of 3 mM) dissolved in 6 M LiCl aqueous solution, were deposited on the basal plane of the graphene flake and a series of cyclic voltammograms (CV) were recorded as shown in Figure 2. CVs of electron transfer between a bilayer graphene electrode and ferri/ferrocyanide (Fe(CN)63–/4–) with the corresponding reduction and oxidation of the mediator species, are shown in Figure 2a. The quasi-reversible nature of a reaction, where ET rate is comparable with diffusion rate, results in a peak-to-peak separation (ΔEp) increase with scan rate (ν) and allows the heterogeneous ET rate (k0) to be determined, using the analysis developed by Nicholson. (31)where ψ is the dimensionless kinetic parameter determined from ΔEp, α is the transfer coefficient, n is the number of electrons transferred, F is the Faraday constant, and R and T have their usual meanings. In most cases, it can be assumed that the diffusion coefficients of the oxidized and reduced form (DO and DR, respectively) of the mediator are approximately equal and the reduction/oxidation kinetics are fairly symmetrical (α ∼ 0.5). In that case, ΔEp depends solely on ψ (one-electron processes), (31) the latter is determined from ΔEp, and eq 1 can be simplified toIn practice, ψ is calculated from ΔEp using an appropriate working function and k0 determined from the slope of the ψ–ν–0.5 dependence corresponding to eq 2 as shown in Figure 2e.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Cyclic voltammograms and associated kinetic analyses at graphene/graphite electrodes. (a) CV of Fe(CN)63–/4– on bilayer graphene, (b and d) show comparison of ET kinetics on 4-layer graphene using Ru(NH3)63+/2+ and on ∼70-layer thick graphite using IrCl62–/3–. Corresponding Klingler-Kochi and Nicholson analyses and calculated ET rates (k0) are shown in (c) and (e), respectively. The insets in the bottom right of graphs (a), (b), and (d) show micrographs of the deposited droplets. The series of voltammetric curves were obtained starting from the fastest scan rate of 1000 mV s–1 (dark blue) down to the slowest scan rate of 100 mV s–1 (gray) for Fe(CN)63–/4– and Ru(NH3)63+/2+ and 3000–250 mV s–1 for IrCl62–/3–. The potential was referenced against Ag/AgCl wire in 6 M LiCl, and held at the upper vertex potential for 10 s prior to the voltammetry (1 V for IrCl62–/3–). Change of the initial direction of the potential sweep had no observable effect.

Full details of the Nicholson method can be found in the Supporting Information. While the working curve defined using this approach is limited to ΔEp below ca. 220 mV, a method developed by Klingler and Kochi allows much larger ΔEp to be used for k0 evaluation. The following expression, which is derived under assumptions of electrode reaction irreversibility, can be used to directly calculate k0 from the scan rate and ΔEp, and is reliable for ΔEp ∼ 150 mV and beyond: (32)As in the case of Nicholson analysis, it was assumed that the reduction and oxidation are symmetrical, i.e., α ≈ 0.5. The method was also validated by finite-element simulation of the voltammograms (Figure S4, Supporting Information).
The diffusion coefficient, required for the above analyses can be determined from the Randles-Ševčík equation, which relates the peak current, Ip, to the scan rate for the case of planar diffusion: (33)where A is the area of the flake surface in contact with the liquid and c is the bulk concentration of the mediator. Although eq 4 has been widely used by researchers to determine diffusion coefficients during ET rate measurements, it is only strictly valid for reversible electrochemical reactions, i.e., where ET kinetics are significantly faster than mass-transport. The peak current in quasi-reversible reactions, as is the case here, is no longer proportional to ν1/2 and instead more complex analysis is required to describe the peak current, with the quasi-reversible reaction zone corresponding to ΔEp of ∼62/n to 1000/n mV. (34) We also found that the linear ψ–ν–0.5 dependence breaks down when the droplet is significantly smaller than 20 μm in diameter and/or the scan rate is decreased below 100 mV s–1, most likely due to a deviation from the ideal semi-infinite linear diffusion regime within small droplets. Hence, the applied scan rate was kept between the limits of 100 and 1000 mV s–1, or 250 and 3000 mV s–1, corresponding to typical ΔEp ranges of 200–600 and 300–900 mV, or 60–250 mV, for Fe(CN)63– and Ru(NH3)63+, or IrCl62–, respectively. For these reasons, diffusion coefficients of the redox mediators in 6 M LiCl (aq.) were determined independently, using a platinum disk macro-electrode with well-defined reversible ET behavior, as 1.84 (±0.19) × 10–6 cm2 s–1, 2.36 (±0.11) × 10–6 cm2 s–1, 2.27 (±0.14) × 10–6 cm2 s–1 for Fe(CN)63–, Ru(NH3)63+ and IrCl62–, respectively (full details of analysis in Supporting Information).
For ΔEp < 220 mV, the kinetic parameter ψ was plotted as a function of the inverse square root of scan rate (all of IrCl62–/3– and some Fe(CN)63–/4– data). (31, 34) This dependence yields a linear gradient, which is analyzed using eq 2 and the heterogeneous ET rate, k0, calculated as shown in Figure 2e. For ΔEp > 220 mV, eq 3 was used to calculate individual k0 for each scan rate and the arithmetic mean was obtained (all of Ru(NH3)63+/2+ and most of Fe(CN)63–/4– data) as shown in Figure 2c. The above analysis was performed for each individual droplet, i.e. for a microscopic surface of area ca. 300–3000 μm2, and, except for the near-reversible kinetics of IrCl62–/3– reduction/oxidation, the kinetics were found to be independent of the droplet/graphene area (full details in Supporting Information, Figure S8). A comparison of the CVs reveals wider ΔEp, hence slower kinetics, for Ru(NH3)63+/2+ and Fe(CN)63–/4– reduction/oxidation (Figure 2a,b) and smaller ΔEp, hence faster kinetics, for IrCl62–/3– reduction/oxidation (Figure 2d).

Dependence of Electron Transfer Kinetics on the Number of Graphene Layers

This work was motivated by the lack of literature consensus on the effect of the number of graphene layers on ET kinetics of a pristine basal plane. However, during the initial investigation, it was found that the ET rate often varied significantly across the surface of the same flake and the resulting plot of the averaged ET rate vs, number of graphene layers was very scattered. On these grounds, eight or more individual droplet measurements were carried out on several flakes of the same thickness (or similar thickness for >20 layers) and the arithmetic mean of k0 obtained, with a total of 435 individual droplets analyzed across the surface of 69 individual flakes. The k0 values for Fe(CN)63–/4–, Ru(NH3)63+/2+, and IrCl62–/3– reduction/oxidation on flakes of varied thickness between 1 and ca. 1000 graphene layers are shown in Figure 3, panels a, b, and c, respectively. It is apparent that despite the large statistical sample there is not a strong correlation between the flake thickness and the basal plane ET kinetics, although the variation is more pronounced for flakes with thickness less than 20 graphene layers. The k0 values are scattered around the arithmetic mean of the whole data set, which is indicated by the colored dashed line. For Fe(CN)63–/4–, the mean ET rates range from 0.13 (±0.02) × 10–3 cm s–1 for the bilayer to 2.09 (±1.27) × 10–3 cm s–1 for 7 layers, with an overall mean value of 0.90 (±0.13) × 10–3 cm s–1. Ru(NH3)63+/2+ kinetics range from 0.11 (±0.12) × 10–4 cm s–1 for 20–30 layers to 1.55 (±0.14) × 10–4 cm s–1 for 7 layers and an overall mean value of 0.53 (±0.04) × 10–4 cm s–1. Finally, IrCl62–/3– reduction/oxidation kinetics range from 2.14 (±0.32) × 10–2 cm s–1 for 8–9 layers to 4.91 (±0.58) × 10–2 cm s–1 for a bilayer and an overall mean value of 3.13 (±0.10) × 10–2 cm s–1. The IrCl62–/3– kinetics recorded on multilayer graphene flakes are on the same order of magnitude as our previous work on flakes on a polymer substrate. (19)

Figure 3

Figure 3. Heterogeneous ET rate, k0, between the aqueous-based redox mediator and mechanically exfoliated graphite flakes of varied thicknesses. The averaged ET rates of reduction/oxidation of (a) Fe(CN)63–/4–, (b) Ru(NH3)63+/2+ and IrCl62–/3– reduction/oxidation are plotted as a function of the number of graphene layers. Each point on the graph is an arithmetic mean of at least 8 (thick flakes >7 layers) or 12 (thin flakes ≤7 layers) individual droplet measurements on a pristine basal plane surface of one or more flakes of a given thickness. The error bars are standard deviations of the mean. The number of individual droplets included in the analysis was 145, 146, and 144 for Fe(CN)63–/4–, Ru(NH3)63+/2+, and IrCl62–/3–, respectively. In total, 69 individual crystal surfaces were used for the analysis. Note that the graphs are shown on a semilogarithmic scale.

The effects of uncompensated resistance due to flake thickness/ohmic contacts, which would affect ΔEp and hence the calculated k0, were ruled out (Figures S11–S14, Supporting Information).
The variation of the kinetics across the surface of the same graphene crystal is the dominating factor, which increases the uncertainty and masks any underlying trends in the change of kinetics with flake thickness. Table 1 summarizes the ET kinetics data obtained for all three redox mediators.
Table 1. Heterogeneous ET Rate, k0, of Reduction/Oxidation of Three Redox Mediators on Natural Graphene/Graphite Electrodes of Varied Thicknessesa
 Fe(CN)63–/4–Ru(NH3)63+/2+IrCl62–/3–
no. of layersk0/10–3 cm s–1Δ/k0k0/10–4 cm s–1Δ/k0k0/10–2 cm s–2Δ/k0
10.15 ± 0.020.120.31 ± 0.100.313.48 ± 0.470.13
20.13 ± 0.020.161.02 ± 0.120.124.91 ± 0.580.12
30.93 ± 0.350.380.52 ± 0.120.233.15 ± 0.480.15
40.57 ± 0.130.220.36 ± 0.090.243.07 ± 0.220.07
50.23 ± 0.050.230.52 ± 0.090.172.87 ± 0.190.07
60.46 ± 0.110.251.14 ± 0.120.102.93 ± 0.170.06
72.09 ± 1.270.611.55 ± 0.140.094.08 ± 0.470.11
8–90.95 ± 0.250.272.14 ± 0.320.15
11–132.07 ± 0.830.400.15 ± 0.050.343.16 ± 0.200.06
20–301.97 ± 0.980.500.11 ± 0.060.593.40 ± 0.110.03
50–600.68 ± 0.170.250.22 ± 0.100.473.11 ± 0.170.05
80–900.24 ± 0.120.510.28 ± 0.080.292.73 ± 0.220.08
100–1301.22 ± 0.160.130.36 ± 0.030.093.20 ± 0.150.05
220–2500.84 ± 0.170.200.17 ± 0.030.162.87 ± 0.120.04
300–5001.33 ± 0.490.370.45 ± 0.080.193.30 ± 0.150.05
>10000.78 ± 0.180.230.23 ± 0.070.312.25 ± 0.150.07
mean0.90 ± 0.130.300.53 ± 0.040.253.13 ± 0.100.08
cleaved47.3 ± 3.90.08
a

The errors are standard deviations of 8 or more measurements at various locations on flakes of the same thickness. The number of graphene layers was determined using a combination of optical microscopy, Raman spectroscopy and atomic force microscopy (AFM) as described in the Methods. The variation of the ET kinetics on flakes of the same thickness is reflected in the relative error, Δ/k0. Arithmetic means and their standard deviations are also listed at the bottom of table.

Surface Sensitivity to Contaminants

Significant variation of the ET rate across different surface sites of the same flake is also reflected in the large relative errors of some of the data in Table 1 (especially for Fe(CN)63–/4–). This confirms that, beyond any intrinsic dependence flake thickness, the kinetics also reflect local surface conditions, i.e., are spatially dependent. Unfortunately, these two factors are difficult to separate experimentally. Sensitivity of graphite surfaces to exposure to the atmosphere and therefore oxygen, moisture and other contaminants, has been previously reported to affect electrode kinetics measurements. (35) For example, Patel et al. performed an extensive study of reduction/oxidation of Fe(CN)63–/4– and Ru(NH3)63+/2+ on highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG), demonstrating that both atmospheric exposure of the HOPG and prolonged voltammetric measurement significantly diminish the ET kinetics, indicating surface poisoning and passivation. (35) Indeed, other recent studies by the same group confirmed that the pristine basal plane of freshly cleaved HOPG actually has remarkably high ET activity, (36, 37) in contrast to previous reports. (38, 39)
We observe a significant difference in kinetics between freshly cleaved and aged surfaces of natural graphite, exposed to the ambient environment for days or weeks, in accordance with results reported by Patel et al. (35) The tip of the micropipette was used to cleave layers of graphite from the edge, forcing the liquid into contact with the freshly exposed surface, without exposure to the atmosphere. The CVs recorded immediately after the in situ cleavage of graphite (original thickness of 313 nm, ∼933 graphene layers) revealed significantly reduced ΔEp of ca. 80–130 mV for the applied scan rate range, and k0, averaged for three different cleaved areas, was determined as 4.73 (±0.39) × 10–3 cm s–1, indicating near-reversible kinetic behavior, close to 2 orders of magnitude faster than the overall arithmetic mean for all the atmosphere-aged basal planes (see Table 1). It is evident that Ru(NH3)63+/2+ reduction/oxidation exhibits much faster kinetics on the freshly cleaved surface than on surfaces exposed to the ambient environment. The microcleaved area includes the edges of graphite, so measurement of a droplet deposited such that it covered the edge plane was carried out as a control. This did not reveal a significant change in the ET rate, which confirms that the observed difference is purely due to the inherent difference between freshly cleaved and aged surfaces of graphite (Figure S15, Supporting Information). The in situ cleavage was also attempted on thinner flakes; however, the method fails for thicknesses below ca. 20 nm as it is difficult to avoid tip-induced damage of the flakes. The rapid deterioration of the surface upon exposure to air is likely to occur within minutes or hours after exfoliation as suggested by other groups. (35, 40)
The findings above lead to several conclusions about the ET kinetics on mono- and multilayer graphene surface. The data supports an increasing amount of evidence in the literature, (17, 19, 30, 35-37) that the basal plane of graphitic surfaces is active with respect to electron transfer. Only pristine basal planes, whose defect-free nature was confirmed by the absence of D-peak in Raman spectrum (see Methods), were chosen for the droplet deposition. Nevertheless, the optical resolution of this method is ∼1 μm, meaning that nanoscale defects could remain undetected and affect the ET measurement. In such a scenario, the large variation of the kinetics across the surface of the same flakes could be explained by random distribution of nanoscale defects increasing the ET activity, in accordance with the traditional view of graphite electrochemistry. (14, 15) Recent studies on the mobility of atoms on graphene surfaces show that not only does the graphene lattice undergo a self-repair mechanism of its basal plane, but also metallic impurities tend to migrate toward the edge planes and defect sites, where they are stabilized. (41, 42) This insight plays a significant role in the electrochemistry of graphene and contributes to the ongoing debate regarding edge plane/defect vs basal plane ET activity, as most metals have very fast ET kinetics toward most redox mediators. (43) This was also demonstrated by Ritzert et al., who observed an increased ET rate upon adsorption of kinetic-enhancing redox-active species on ca. 1/100 of the graphene surface, confirming that even small amounts of impurities play a significant role in electrode kinetics. (29) Furthermore, formation of electron and hole “puddles” was observed and attributed to either warping of the suspended graphene sheets (44) or doping induced by the underlying substrate. (45) These imperfections will naturally lead to nano- or microscale inhomogeneity of the graphene surface.
Another significant observation is the acceleration of kinetics on freshly cleaved graphite. We found that the surface conditions and the sample exposure to the ambient environment significantly perturb any inherent relationship between ET activity and the flake thickness. This is most likely due to a chemical modification of the graphene/graphite surface due to reaction with oxygen, water or other chemicals present in the air and/or adsorption of contaminant molecules/functional groups on the surface. (15, 46-48) X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) shown in Figure 4 and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) (Figures S18 and S19, Supporting Information) were performed on both atmosphere-aged and freshly cleaved graphite surfaces.

Figure 4

Figure 4. XPS survey spectra of atmosphere-aged (>1 month) graphite surface (top green) and pristine graphite surface cleaved immediately prior the XPS measurement (bottom red). Both spectra show data averaged from 5 different sites on the surface (spot size of 400 μm2). The quantitative elemental analysis is given in Table 2.

The spectra are averaged over 5 different surface sites to obtained maximum sensitivity to trace impurity elements. The full quantification of the spectroscopic data across the 5 different surface sites is found in Table 2. Analysis of the averaged spectra revealed no substantial variation in the elemental composition. Both aged and cleaved surfaces contain ca. 92.8–93.2% carbon, 4.4–5.0% oxygen, 0.8–1.1% of fluorine and a total of 0.7–2.0% of other impurities, including N, Na, Al, Si, S, K, Ca, and Ni (atomic percentages). The cleaved sample, however, exhibits significant site-to-site variation, particularly in carbon and oxygen concentration, in comparison to the aged sample. We attributed this to high reactivity of the freshly cleaved graphite and enhanced ability of the pristine surface to adsorb organic and inorganic molecules (Table 2), whereas the prolonged exposure of the aged graphite to the ambient environment yields similar carbon/oxygen ratio at different surface sites indicating uniformity of the surface modification. Furthermore, the extent of sp2 hybridization of carbon atoms in both samples is directly correlated with the overall carbon concentration (Figure 5), which most likely points toward formation of an organic, sp3-rich adsorbent layer, or suggests that the contaminants react with carbon and modify the graphite lattice (full details of XPS and EDX analyses are found in Supporting Information).
Table 2. Quantitative Analysis of the XPS Spectra Obtained at Five Different Surface Sites on Aged and Cleaved Graphite Samples
 surface site variation/At%mean/At%
elementagedcleavedagedcleaved
C88.54–94.0885.76–97.4292.8493.17
N0.09–0.560.00–0.330.370.12
O4.31–8.061.35–12.104.984.39
F0.23–1.550.45–1.870.781.09
Na<0.010.01–0.510.010.08
Al0.07–0.490.01–0.790.160.34
Si0.39–1.600.51–1.510.650.72
S0.14–0.240.00–0.100.140.03
K0.00–0.130.00–0.100.040.04
Ca0.00–1.64<0.010.030.00
Fe<0.01<0.010.000.00
Ni0.00–0.010.00–0.060.010.03

Figure 5

Figure 5. Effect of impurities on hybridization and functionalization of carbon atoms expressed by XPS analysis of both atmosphere-aged (circles) and cleaved (triangles) graphite surface. The extent of carbon sp2 hybridization, determined from C 1s peak (green) and Auger peak (D-parameter, blue), is proportional to the total carbon content (XPS survey quantification).

Comparison of the Kinetics for Fe(CN)63–/4–, Ru(NH3)63+/2+, and IrCl62–/3–

The droplet-to-droplet variation of ET rate on flakes of the same thickness, expressed in the arithmetic mean of the relative errors (Δ/k0) in Table 1, is most pronounced for Fe(CN)63–/4–, slightly less for Ru(NH3)63+/2+, and the least for IrCl62–/3–. The same trend is observed for a difference between the maximum and minimum averaged and absolute kinetics for the three mediators. The maximum difference in averaged kinetics (from Table 1) is ca. 16-, 14-, and 2-fold, and the maximum difference in absolute kinetics (from individual droplet measurements) is ca. 3 orders of magnitude for both Fe(CN)63–/4– and Ru(NH3)63+/2+ and only ca. 8-fold for IrCl62–/3–. This is consistent with Fe(CN)63– being an inner-sphere redox mediator with inherent sensitivity to surface states, (15) and indeed, previously reported k0 values for this mediator on graphene vary significantly. (17, 19, 20, 24, 27-29) In an idealized scenario, the observed kinetics of a genuine outer-sphere mediator, which maintains its original coordination sphere during the ET process, (14, 15, 34) would only depend on the density of states (DOS) of the electrode material and would therefore be less sensitive to mild surface contamination. This behavior is, to an extent, observed for IrCl62– as reflected in the error analysis above. Furthermore, the fact that the variation in ET kinetics of the two outer-sphere mediators (Ru(NH3)63+ and IrCl62–) is most pronounced for the thin flakes (<20 layers) raises a question as to whether this is related to local impurity-induced changes in the DOS, which should be most pronounced in mono- and few-layer graphene.
Interestingly, the absolute value of k0 for Ru(NH3)63+ reduction/oxidation is much lower than reported literature values, (15, 29, 35, 37, 49) contrary to the common conception of Ru(NH3)63+ as an outer-sphere mediator. Although, the number of electrochemical studies carried out on natural graphite is very limited, in contrast to the well-studied kinetics on other carbon electrodes such as glassy carbon and HOPG, the slow kinetics observed in this work is not the sole exception to the fast kinetics generally assumed for this mediator: k0 of ca. 10–5 to 10–4 cm s–1 were reported on the basal plane of HOPG surface. (36) To provide a direct comparison with other materials, we employed a microdroplet technique to measure Ru(NH3)63+/2+ ET kinetics on platinum, gold and HOPG electrodes. Comparison of voltammetry and kinetics on these surfaces in Figure 6, panels a and b, respectively, shows that the kinetics on both cleaved HOPG and natural graphite reach values close to those of unpolished metal surfaces (Pt and Au). The difference between cleaved and aged surfaces, however, seems to be less pronounced for HOPG than natural graphite, and furthermore, aged HOPG exhibits kinetics almost 1 order of magnitude faster than that of aged natural graphite. Slow Ru(NH3)63+/2+ kinetics observed on natural ME graphite/graphene cannot solely be explained via the intrinsically low DOS in these materials because of the relatively facile kinetics of the other two mediators. The different behavior with Ru(NH3)63+/2+ is therefore attributed to fundamental differences between natural graphite/graphene and other carbon materials and misclassification of Ru(NH3)63+ as a “true” outer-sphere mediator. This is also supported by the two-orders of magnitude difference between the freshly cleaved and aged surface described above. Furthermore, adsorbed organic molecules and/or a functionalized surface would alter the DOS at the electrode surface and, in the case of a sufficiently thick layer of modified surface, alter the measured kinetics of an outer-sphere mediator.

Figure 6

Figure 6. (a) Cyclic voltammograms recorded on natural graphite (solid curve), HOPG (dashed curve), platinum (dotted curve), and gold (dash-dot curve), and (b) corresponding ET kinetics obtained as an arithmetic mean of three independent measurements. Data in red and gray correspond to aged and cleaved surfaces, respectively. Mechanically polished metal surfaces exhibited almost reversible kinetics (>10–2 cm s–1) with peak separation below 65 mV at 1 V s–1.

Ongoing work is aimed at producing a full understanding of the fundamental electrochemical properties of graphene/graphite and elucidation of the inherent relationship between ET kinetics and thickness, without interference from surface functionalization/contamination, which requires very careful surface preparation/treatment control.

Conclusions

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The basal plane of graphene/graphite is found to be electrochemically active, despite some contradictory findings in previous literature: both edge and basal planes will have significant roles in the performance of future graphene-based electrode materials. The electron transfer kinetics between a substrate-bound natural graphene/graphite and three different redox mediators, Fe(CN)63–, Ru(NH3)63+, and IrCl62– is dominated by the local microscopic condition of the flake surface, a fact largely neglected in electrochemical studies of graphene. A significant variation of the measured ET rate across the surface of a single basal plane crystal is observed, which largely obscures any inherent correlations between the kinetics and number of graphene layers. This is attributed to exposure of the graphene/graphite surface to ambient environment and subsequent adsorption of contaminants and/or functionalization of the surface. Most importantly, the Ru(NH3)63+ couple on the in situ cleaved surface exhibits kinetics several orders of magnitude faster than that of an aged surface. These considerations are crucial for full exploitation of the large specific surface area and transparency of graphene electrodes while maintaining superior electrochemical performance. It is clear that further investigations in this area are desirable and that high surface quality control is necessary to separate the effects of contamination and the graphene/graphite thickness on electrochemical activity. Crucially, future studies should focus on distinguishing spatial variations in kinetics from the temporal ones.

Methods

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Chemicals

Acetone (≥99.0%), ethanol (≥99.0%), potassium ferricyanide(III) (99+%), hexaammineruthenium(III) chloride (98%), ammonium hexachloroiridate(IV) (99.99%), lithium chloride (99%), and potassium chloride (99%) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, U.K. Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK, 99.0+%) and isopropyl alcohol (IPA, 99.5%) were obtained from Fisher Scientific UK Ltd. All chemicals were used as received and aqueous solutions prepared using deionized water (18.2 MΩ cm, Milli-Q Direct 8, Merck Millipore, Nillerica, MA).

Experimental Setup

A photograph and a detailed schematic of the experimental setup are shown in Figure 1, panels a and b, respectively. The solution-filled borosilicate micropipette with a tip of ca. 1 μm internal diameter (Figure S1, Supporting Information), was connected to a MX7630 motorized micromanipulator with MC 1000e motion controller (both Siskiyou, OR), providing motion control in horizontal and vertical plane (5–2000 μm s–1) and visualized using either a GXML3030 optical microscope (200× magnification) equipped with a GXCAM-9 CCD camera (both GT Vision Ltd., U.K.) or Nikon Eclipse LV100ND optical microscope with a DS-Fi2 U3 CCD camera (both Nikon Metrology, UK, Ltd.).
A pair of reference and counter electrodes was embedded in the micropipette. The Ag/AgCl reference electrode (RE in Figure 1b) was made by oxidation of a partially exposed PTFE coated silver wire (99.99%, 0.15 mm diameter) in 0.1 M KCl and the counter electrode (CE in Figure 1b) was made from platinum wire (99.99%, 0.1 mm diameter). Graphene/graphite flake working electrodes (WE in Figure 1b), visualized using a SMZ-168 stereomicroscope (Motic GmbH, Germany), were connected to a copper wire (99.9%, 0.15 mm diameter) with a silver epoxy (RS Components Ltd., UK). SPI-1 grade HOPG (SPI Supplies Inc., West Chester, PA) and platinum and gold foils (both 99.99%) were connected the same way. All metals were purchased from Advent Research Materials, U.K. All the measurements were carried out at times longer than 24 h after exfoliation (minimum time needed for the silver epoxy to set). Comparison of the ET activity of the same flake within a range of 24 h up to 1 month after exfoliation revealed no systematic changes in kinetics, which could be attributed to the varied time after exfoliation. The electrochemical cell, which was enclosed in a Faraday cage and controlled by a PGSTAT302N potentiostat (Metrohm Autolab B.V., The Netherlands), can be described as follows:where X is K3Fe(CN)6, Ru(NH3)6Cl3, or (NH4)2IrCl6. The reference electrode potential (Ag/AgCl, 6 M LiCl) of +193 mV vs SHE was determined from the Nernst equation and thermodynamic data (eqs S1–S3, Supporting Information). The high concentration of the electrolyte was used to prevent evaporation of the droplet. Dispensing and aspiration of the liquid from/into the micropipette was controlled via a microinjector (PV820 Pneumatic PicoPump, WPI, Worcester, MA) and argon gas (99.998%, BOC Industrial Gases, U.K.). The diameter of the deposited droplet (typically 20–50 μm in diameter, 2–30 pL volume) was controlled via combination of pressure and deposition time. The micropipette and the liquid was changed every 6–10th droplet deposition. A micrograph in Figure 1c shows a microdroplet deposited on a basal plane surface of a graphene monolayer. The droplet/graphene interfacial area was determined using either GXCapture 7.3 software (GT Vision Ltd., U.K.) or NIS Elements (D) software (Nikon Metrology, UK Ltd.). The experiments were carried out at ambient temperature (25–29 °C), which was recorded and accounted for in k0 calculations.

Flake Preparation

All samples were prepared by micromechanical exfoliation of graphite. Briefly, natural graphite crystals (NGS, Naturgraphit, GmbH, Germany) were repeatedly cleaved using high-tack, low-stain cello-tape to obtain a flat and pristine graphite surface, which was pressed onto clean Si/SiO2 wafers. The tape was dissolved in MIBK and wafers washed with IPA, blow-dried with nitrogen, and baked on a hot plate for a couple of minutes. A fresh flake surface was exposed by a final peel using the above tape. Suitable flakes were found using optical microscopy and the wafer was immobilized on a microscope slide so electrical contact could be made, as described above.
Monolayer graphene has been previously shown to be susceptible to damage by fracture, upon deposition of a liquid, when prepared via the above procedure, but stable on polymer-coated substrates. (19) The reasons behind the monolayer stability/instability are currently under investigation. Full details of the flake preparation are found in Supporting Information.

Flake Characterization

The number of graphene layers in thin flakes was estimated using optical microscopy, reliable for up to 6–7 graphene layers providing there is a variety of comparable thin flakes present on the sample. (50)Figure 1c shows an example of a monolayer graphene, with a bilayer ribbon stretching from the top left corner toward the middle and some thicker (3–7) terraced surfaces in the lower part of flake. The optical microscopy (brightfield and darkfield) was also used to locate areas of pristine basal plane of the flake surface for droplet deposition. Optical assessment of the samples was supported by Raman spectroscopy carried out using Renishaw RM MkI 1000 spectrometer with a 633 nm HeNe laser (∼1 mW power) and an Olympus BH-2 microscope at 500× magnification, reliably distinguishing between mono-, bi-, and trilayer graphene, and also providing valuable information about doping and presence of lattice defects. (51, 52) Raman spectra of a monolayer, bilayer and three thicker flakes are shown in Figure 7a. Finally, atomic force microscopy (AFM), using a Dimension Icon and SNL-10 Si-tip on a Si3N4 cantilever in a PeakForce tapping mode and MultiMode 8 software (Bruker UK Ltd.), was employed to determine the number of layers in thick flakes based on the minimum graphite interlayer spacing of 0.3358 nm. (53) A representative AFM image of a thicker flake and its cross section are shown in Figures 7, panels b and c, respectively.

Figure 7

Figure 7. (a) Raman spectra of the mono-, bi-, tri-, tetra/penta-, and multilayer graphene flakes, bottom to top, respectively (each spectrum is shown on a different intensity scale for the purpose of clarity). (b) 3D and 2D AFM scans (top and bottom-left, respectively) of a ca. 4/5-layer thick graphene flake with another monolayer on top, inset (bottom-right) shows the optical image of the scanned area, (c) cross-section of the same flake, indicated by green lines in (b).

Elemental analysis of both atmosphere-aged and freshly cleaved graphite surface was obtained using XPS and EDX techniques. One sample was exposed to ambient environment for longer than 1 month (aged sample), whereas the other was cleaved several times (using the tape above) until a pristine shiny graphite surface was exposed (cleaved sample) and placed immediately into XPS, EDX vacuum chamber, respectively. XPS analysis was performed at 5 different surface sites using the largest available spot size (400 μm2) on K-Alpha monochromated (Al–1486 eV) X-ray Photoelectron Spectrometer system (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.). All XPS data were analyzed and quantified using CasaXPS Software (version 2.3.16, www.casaxps.com). Details of the EDX instrumentation and analysis are found in Supporting Information.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Micropipette preparation, reference electrode potential determination, Nicholson method, cyclic voltammetry fitting, mediator-free blank voltammetry, AFM of the stable and collapsed microdroplets, flake preparation procedure, determination of the redox mediator diffusion coefficients, kinetics-droplet size correlation, comparison of the raw and analyzed kinetic data, uncompensated resistance, comparison of electrode kinetics on basal and edge plane of graphite, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analysis of atmosphere-aged and freshly cleaved graphite surface. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
    • Robert A. W. Dryfe - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Matěj Velický - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
    • Dan F. Bradley - Department of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
    • Adam J. Cooper - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
    • Ernie W. Hill - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
    • Ian A. Kinloch - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
    • Artem Mishchenko - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
    • Konstantin S. Novoselov - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
    • Hollie V. Patten - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
    • Peter S. Toth - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
    • Anna T. Valota - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
    • Stephen D. Worrall - †School of Chemistry, §School of Computer Science, ∥School of Materials, ⊥School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZD, United Kingdom
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgment

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The authors thank EPSRC (grant references: EP/I005145/1, EP/K039547/1 and EP/K016954/1) for financial support. The authors also thank Dr. Anders Barlow at nanoLAB (Newcastle University) for XPS measurement, and Greg Auton, Sheng Hu and Huafeng Yang, all from Manchester University, for their help with sample preparation and characterization.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 53 other publications.

  1. 1
    Mayorov, A. S.; Gorbachev, R. V.; Morozov, S. V.; Britnell, L.; Jalil, R.; Ponomarenko, L. A.; Blake, P.; Novoselov, K. S.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.et al. Micrometer-Scale Ballistic Transport in Encapsulated Graphene at Room Temperature Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 2396 2399
  2. 2
    Balandin, A. A. Thermal Properties of Graphene and Nanostructured Carbon Materials Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 569 581
  3. 3
    Lee, C.; Wei, X.; Kysar, J. W.; Hone, J. Measurement of the Elastic Properties and Intrinsic Strength of Monolayer Graphene Science 2008, 321, 385 388
  4. 4
    Novoselov, K. S.; Geim, A. K.; Morozov, S. V.; Jiang, D.; Zhang, Y.; Dubonos, S. V.; Grigorieva, I. V.; Firsov, A. A. Electric Field in Atomically Thin Carbon Films Science 2004, 306, 666 669
  5. 5
    Geim, A. K. Graphene: Status and Prospects Science 2009, 324, 1530 1534
  6. 6
    Novoselov, K. S.; Fal’Ko, V. I.; Colombo, L.; Gellert, P. R.; Schwab, M. G.; Kim, K. A Roadmap for Graphene Nature 2012, 490, 192 200
  7. 7
    Nair, R. R.; Blake, P.; Grigorenko, A. N.; Novoselov, K. S.; Booth, T. J.; Stauber, T.; Peres, N. M. R.; Geim, A. K. Fine Structure Constant Defines Visual Transparency of Graphene Science 2008, 320, 1308
  8. 8
    Moser, J.; Barreiro, A.; Bachtold, A. Current-Induced Cleaning of Graphene Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 91
  9. 9
    Topsakal, M.; Aahin, H.; Ciraci, S. Graphene Coatings: An Efficient Protection from Oxidation Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2012, 85
  10. 10
    Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Lin, Y. Graphene and Graphene Oxide: Biofunctionalization and Applications in Biotechnology Trends Biotechnol. 2011, 29, 205 212
  11. 11
    Lee, J. K.; Smith, K. B.; Hayner, C. M.; Kung, H. H. Silicon Nanoparticles-Graphene Paper Composites for Li Ion Battery Anodes Chem. Commun. (Cambridge, U.K.) 2010, 46, 2025 2027
  12. 12
    Wang, X.; Zhi, L.; Müllen, K. Transparent, Conductive Graphene Electrodes for Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells Nano Lett. 2008, 8, 323 327
  13. 13
    Stoller, M. D.; Park, S.; Yanwu, Z.; An, J.; Ruoff, R. S. Graphene-Based Ultracapacitors Nano Lett. 2008, 8, 3498 3502
  14. 14
    Brownson, D. A. C.; Kampouris, D. K.; Banks, C. E. Graphene Electrochemistry: Fundamental Concepts through to Prominent Applications Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 6944 6976
  15. 15
    McCreery, R. L. Advanced Carbon Electrode Materials for Molecular Electrochemistry Chem. Rev. (Washington, DC, U.S.) 2008, 108, 2646 2687
  16. 16
    Li, W.; Tan, C.; Lowe, M. A.; Abruña, H. D.; Ralph, D. C. Electrochemistry of Individual Monolayer Graphene Sheets ACS Nano 2011, 5, 2264 2270
  17. 17
    Valota, A. T.; Kinloch, I. A.; Novoselov, K. S.; Casiraghi, C.; Eckmann, A.; Hill, E. W.; Dryfe, R. A. W. Electrochemical Behavior of Monolayer and Bilayer Graphene ACS Nano 2011, 5, 8809 8815
  18. 18
    Sharma, R.; Baik, J. H.; Perera, C. J.; Strano, M. S. Anomalously Large Reactivity of Single Graphene Layers and Edges toward Electron Transfer Chemistries Nano Lett. 2010, 10, 398 405
  19. 19
    Toth, P. S.; Valota, A.; Velicky, M.; Kinloch, I.; Novoselov, K.; Hill, E. W.; Dryfe, R. A. W. Electrochemistry in a Drop: A Study of the Electrochemical Behaviour of Mechanically Exfoliated Graphene on Photoresist Coated Silicon Substrate Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 582 589
  20. 20
    Brownson, D. A. C.; Munro, L. J.; Kampouris, D. K.; Banks, C. E. Electrochemistry of Graphene: Not Such a Beneficial Electrode Material? RSC Adv. 2011, 1, 978 988
  21. 21
    Goh, M. S.; Pumera, M. The Electrochemical Response of Graphene Sheets Is Independent of the Number of Layers from a Single Graphene Sheet to Multilayer Stacked Graphene Platelets Chem.—Asian J. 2010, 5, 2355 2357
  22. 22
    Xie, X.; Zhao, K.; Xu, X.; Zhao, W.; Liu, S.; Zhu, Z.; Li, M.; Shi, Z.; Shao, Y. Study of Heterogeneous Electron Transfer on the Graphene/Self-Assembled Monolayer Modified Gold Electrode by Electrochemical Approaches J. Phys. Chem. C 2010, 114, 14243 14250
  23. 23
    De, S.; Coleman, J. N. Are There Fundamental Limitations on the Sheet Resistance and Transmittance of Thin Graphene Films? ACS Nano 2010, 4, 2713 2720
  24. 24
    Zhang, B.; Fan, L.; Zhong, H.; Liu, Y.; Chen, S. Graphene Nanoelectrodes: Fabrication and Size-Dependent Electrochemistry J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 10073 10080
  25. 25
    Ambrosi, A.; Bonanni, A.; Pumera, M. Electrochemistry of Folded Graphene Edges Nanoscale 2011, 3, 2256 2260
  26. 26
    Brownson, D. A. C.; Banks, C. E. Cvd Graphene Electrochemistry: The Role of Graphitic Islands Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 15825 15828
  27. 27
    Valota, A. T.; Toth, P. S.; Kim, Y. J.; Hong, B. H.; Kinloch, I. A.; Novoselov, K. S.; Hill, E. W.; Dryfe, R. A. W. Electrochemical Investigation of Chemical Vapour Deposition Monolayer and Bilayer Graphene on the Microscale Electrochim. Acta 2013, 110, 9 15
  28. 28
    Tan, C.; Rodríguez-López, J.; Parks, J. J.; Ritzert, N. L.; Ralph, D. C.; Abruña, H. D. Reactivity of Monolayer Chemical Vapor Deposited Graphene Imperfections Studied Using Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy ACS Nano 2012, 6, 3070 3079
  29. 29
    Ritzert, N. L.; Rodríguez-López, J.; Tan, C.; Abruña, H. D. Kinetics of Interfacial Electron Transfer at Single-Layer Graphene Electrodes in Aqueous and Nonaqueous Solutions Langmuir 2013, 29, 1683 1694
  30. 30
    Güell, A. G.; Ebejer, N.; Snowden, M. E.; MacPherson, J. V.; Unwin, P. R. Structural Correlations in Heterogeneous Electron Transfer at Monolayer and Multilayer Graphene Electrodes J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 7258 7261
  31. 31
    Nicholson, R. S. Theory and Application of Cyclic Voltammetry for Measurement of Electrode Reaction Kinetics Anal. Chem. 1965, 37, 1351 1355
  32. 32
    Klingler, R. J.; Kochi, J. K. Electron-Transfer Kinetics from Cyclic Voltammetry. Quantitative Description of Electrochemical Reversibility J. Phys. Chem. 1981, 85, 1731 1741
  33. 33
    Randles, J. E. B. A Cathode Ray Polarograph. Part II. The Current-Voltage Curves Trans. Faraday Soc. 1948, 44, 327 338
  34. 34
    Bard, A. J.; Faulkner, L. R. Electrochemical Methods. Fundamentals and Applications, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, 2001.
  35. 35
    Patel, A. N.; Collignon, M. G.; Oconnell, M. A.; Hung, W. O. Y.; McKelvey, K.; MacPherson, J. V.; Unwin, P. R. A New View of Electrochemistry at Highly Oriented Pyrolytic Graphite J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 20117 20130
  36. 36
    Edwards, M. A.; Bertoncello, P.; Unwin, P. R. Slow Diffusion Reveals the Intrinsic Electrochemical Activity of Basal Plane Highly Oriented Pyrolytic Graphite Electrodes J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 9218 9223
  37. 37
    Lai, S. C. S.; Patel, A. N.; McKelvey, K.; Unwin, P. R. Definitive Evidence for Fast Electron Transfer at Pristine Basal Plane Graphite from High-Resolution Electrochemical Imaging Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 5405 5408
  38. 38
    Banks, C. E.; Davies, T. J.; Wildgoose, G. G.; Compton, R. G. Electrocatalysis at Graphite and Carbon Nanotube Modified Electrodes: Edge-Plane Sites and Tube Ends Are the Reactive Sites Chem. Commun. (Cambridge, U.K.) 2005, 829 841
  39. 39
    McDermott, M. T.; Kneten, K.; McCreery, R. L. Anthraquinonedisulfonate Adsorption, Electron-Transfer Kinetics, and Capacitance on Ordered Graphite Electrodes: The Important Role of Surface Defects J. Phys. Chem. 1992, 96, 3124 3130
  40. 40
    Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Kozbial, A.; Shenoy, G.; Zhou, F.; McGinley, R.; Ireland, P.; Morganstein, B.; Kunkel, A.; Surwade, S. P.et al. Effect of Airborne Contaminants on the Wettability of Supported Graphene and Graphite Nat. Mater. 2013, 12, 925 931
  41. 41
    Hardcastle, T. P.; Seabourne, C. R.; Zan, R.; Brydson, R. M. D.; Bangert, U.; Ramasse, Q. M.; Novoselov, K. S.; Scott, A. J. Mobile Metal Adatoms on Single Layer, Bilayer, and Trilayer Graphene: An ab Initio DFT Study with van der Waals Corrections Correlated with Electron Microscopy Data Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2013, 87
  42. 42
    Zan, R.; Ramasse, Q. M.; Bangert, U.; Novoselov, K. S. Graphene Reknits Its Holes Nano Lett. 2012, 12, 3936 3940
  43. 43
    Rooney, M. B.; Coomber, D. C.; Bond, A. M. Achievement of Near-Reversible Behavior for the [Fe(CN)6]3–/4– Redox Couple Using Cyclic Voltammetry at Glassy Carbon, Gold, and Platinum Macrodisk Electrodes in the Absence of Added Supporting Electrolyte Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 3486 3491
  44. 44
    Meyer, J. C.; Geim, A. K.; Katsnelson, M. I.; Novoselov, K. S.; Booth, T. J.; Roth, S. The Structure of Suspended Graphene Sheets Nature 2007, 446, 60 63
  45. 45
    Wang, Q. H.; Jin, Z.; Kim, K. K.; Hilmer, A. J.; Paulus, G. L. C.; Shih, C. J.; Ham, M. H.; Sanchez-Yamagishi, J. D.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.et al. Understanding and Controlling the Substrate Effect on Graphene Electron-Transfer Chemistry via Reactivity Imprint Lithography Nat. Chem. 2012, 4, 724 732
  46. 46
    Elias, D. C.; Nair, R. R.; Mohiuddin, T. M. G.; Morozov, S. V.; Blake, P.; Halsall, M. P.; Ferrari, A. C.; Boukhvalov, D. W.; Katsnelson, M. I.; Geim, A. K.et al. Control of Graphene’s Properties by Reversible Hydrogenation: Evidence for Graphane Science 2009, 323, 610 613
  47. 47
    Pierce, C.; Ewing, B. Localized Adsorption on Graphite Surfaces J. Phys. Chem. 1967, 71, 3408 3413
  48. 48
    Schedin, F.; Geim, A. K.; Morozov, S. V.; Hill, E. W.; Blake, P.; Katsnelson, M. I.; Novoselov, K. S. Detection of Individual Gas Molecules Adsorbed on Graphene Nat. Mater. 2007, 6, 652 655
  49. 49
    Davies, T. J.; Moore, R. R.; Banks, C. E.; Compton, R. G. The Cyclic Voltammetric Response of Electrochemically Heterogeneous Surfaces J. Electroanal. Chem. 2004, 574, 123 152
  50. 50
    Blake, P.; Hill, E. W.; Castro Neto, A. H.; Novoselov, K. S.; Jiang, D.; Yang, R.; Booth, T. J.; Geim, A. K. Making Graphene Visible Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 91
  51. 51
    Ferrari, A. C. Raman Spectroscopy of Graphene and Graphite: Disorder, Electron-Phonon Coupling, Doping and Nonadiabatic Effects Solid State Commun. 2007, 143, 47 57
  52. 52
    Malard, L. M.; Pimenta, M. A.; Dresselhaus, G.; Dresselhaus, M. S. Raman Spectroscopy in Graphene Phys. Rep. 2009, 473, 51 87
  53. 53
    Walker, P. L.; McKinstry, H. A.; Wright, C. C. X-Ray Diffraction Studies of a Graphitized Carbon—Changes in Interlayer Spacing and Binding Energy with Temperature Ind. Eng. Chem. 1953, 45, 1711 1715

Cited By


This article is cited by 120 publications.

  1. Matěj Velický. Electrolyte versus Dielectric Gating of Two-Dimensional Materials. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2021, 125 (40) , 21803-21809. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c04795
  2. Péter S. Tóth, Gábor Szabó, Csaba Janáky. Structural Features Dictate the Photoelectrochemical Activities of Two-Dimensional MoSe2 and WSe2 Nanostructures. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2021, 125 (14) , 7701-7710. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c01265
  3. Manu Gautam, Zahid M. Bhat, Abdul Raafik, Steven Le Vot, Mruthunjayachari C. Devendrachari, Alagar Raja Kottaichamy, Neethu Christudas Dargily, Ravikumar Thimmappa, Olivier Fontaine, Musthafa Ottakam Thotiyl. Coulombic Force Gated Molecular Transport in Redox Flow Batteries. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2021, 12 (5) , 1374-1383. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c03584
  4. Anur Yadav, Michel Wehrhold, Tilmann J. Neubert, Rodrigo M. Iost, Kannan Balasubramanian. Fast Electron Transfer Kinetics at an Isolated Graphene Edge Nanoelectrode with and without Nanoparticles: Implications for Sensing Electroactive Species. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2020, 3 (12) , 11725-11735. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.0c02171
  5. Irina M. Terrero Rodríguez, Alexandra J. Borrill, Katherine J. Schaffer, Jocelyn B. Hernandez, Glen D. O’Neil. Light-Addressable Electrochemical Sensing with Electrodeposited n-Silicon/Gold Nanoparticle Schottky Junctions. Analytical Chemistry 2020, 92 (16) , 11444-11452. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c02512
  6. Matěj Velický, Sheng Hu, Colin R. Woods, Péter S. Tóth, Viktor Zólyomi, Andre K. Geim, Héctor D. Abruña, Kostya S. Novoselov, Robert A. W. Dryfe. Electron Tunneling through Boron Nitride Confirms Marcus–Hush Theory Predictions for Ultramicroelectrodes. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (1) , 993-1002. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.9b08308
  7. Yi Xiao, Yi Su, Xiaodong Liu, Weilin Xu. Defect-Driven Heterogeneous Electron Transfer between an Individual Graphene Sheet and Electrode. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2019, 10 (18) , 5402-5407. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b02134
  8. Renat R. Nazmutdinov, Michael D. Bronshtein, Elizabeth Santos. Electron Transfer across the Graphene Electrode/Solution Interface: Interplay between Different Kinetic Regimes. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2019, 123 (19) , 12346-12354. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.9b02164
  9. Matěj Velický, Peter S. Toth, Colin R. Woods, Kostya S. Novoselov, Robert A. W. Dryfe. Electrochemistry of the Basal Plane versus Edge Plane of Graphite Revisited. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2019, 123 (18) , 11677-11685. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.9b01010
  10. O. Charles Nwamba, Elena Echeverria, David N. McIlroy, Aaron Austin, Jean’ne M. Shreeve, D. Eric Aston. Thermal Modification of Graphite for Fast Electron Transport and Increased Capacitance. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2019, 2 (1) , 228-240. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.8b01887
  11. Elham Rahmanian, Carmen C. Mayorga-Martinez, Rasoul Malekfar, Jan Luxa, Zdenek Sofer, Martin Pumera. 1T-Phase Tungsten Chalcogenides (WS2, WSe2, WTe2) Decorated with TiO2 Nanoplatelets with Enhanced Electron Transfer Activity for Biosensing Applications. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2018, 1 (12) , 7006-7015. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.8b01796
  12. Kai-Wen Chang, Ian Alvarez Santos, Yen Nguyen, Yen-Hsun Su, Chia Chen Hsu, Ya-Ping Hsieh, Mario Hofmann. Electrostatic Control over the Electrochemical Reactivity of Graphene. Chemistry of Materials 2018, 30 (20) , 7178-7182. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.8b03152
  13. Ran Chen, Amin Morteza Najarian, Niraja Kurapati, Ryan J. Balla, Alexander Oleinick, Irina Svir, Christian Amatore, Richard L. McCreery, Shigeru Amemiya. Self-Inhibitory Electron Transfer of the Co(III)/Co(II)-Complex Redox Couple at Pristine Carbon Electrode. Analytical Chemistry 2018, 90 (18) , 11115-11123. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.8b03023
  14. Joel M. Katzen, Matěj Velický, Yuefeng Huang, Stacey Drakeley, William Hendren, Robert M. Bowman, Qiran Cai, Ying Chen, Lu Hua Li, Fumin Huang. Rigorous and Accurate Contrast Spectroscopy for Ultimate Thickness Determination of Micrometer-Sized Graphene on Gold and Molecular Sensing. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2018, 10 (26) , 22520-22528. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.8b01208
  15. Amin Morteza Najarian, Ran Chen, Ryan J. Balla, Shigeru Amemiya, and Richard L. McCreery . Ultraflat, Pristine, and Robust Carbon Electrode for Fast Electron-Transfer Kinetics. Analytical Chemistry 2017, 89 (24) , 13532-13540. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.7b03903
  16. R. Narayanan, H. Yamada, B. C. Marin, A. Zaretski, and P. R. Bandaru . Dimensionality-Dependent Electrochemical Kinetics at the Single-Layer Graphene–Electrolyte Interface. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2017, 8 (17) , 4004-4008. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b01688
  17. Xiao-Dong Yang, Yanping Zheng, Jing Yang, Wei Shi, Jin-Hui Zhong, Cankun Zhang, Xue Zhang, Yu-Hao Hong, Xin-Xing Peng, Zhi-You Zhou, and Shi-Gang Sun . Modeling Fe/N/C Catalysts in Monolayer Graphene. ACS Catalysis 2017, 7 (1) , 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.6b02702
  18. Yuqin Zou, Alex S. Walton, Ian A. Kinloch, and Robert A. W. Dryfe . Investigation of the Differential Capacitance of Highly Ordered Pyrolytic Graphite as a Model Material of Graphene. Langmuir 2016, 32 (44) , 11448-11455. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b02910
  19. Xianwen Mao, Fei Guo, Esther H. Yan, Gregory C. Rutledge, and T. Alan Hatton . Remarkably High Heterogeneous Electron Transfer Activity of Carbon-Nanotube-Supported Reduced Graphene Oxide. Chemistry of Materials 2016, 28 (20) , 7422-7432. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b03024
  20. Patrick R. Unwin, Aleix G. Güell, and Guohui Zhang . Nanoscale Electrochemistry of sp2 Carbon Materials: From Graphite and Graphene to Carbon Nanotubes. Accounts of Chemical Research 2016, 49 (9) , 2041-2048. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00301
  21. Shigeru Amemiya, Ran Chen, Nikoloz Nioradze, and Jiyeon Kim . Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy of Carbon Nanomaterials and Graphite. Accounts of Chemical Research 2016, 49 (9) , 2007-2014. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00323
  22. Ran Chen, Ryan J. Balla, Zhiting Li, Haitao Liu, and Shigeru Amemiya . Origin of Asymmetry of Paired Nanogap Voltammograms Based on Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy: Contamination Not Adsorption. Analytical Chemistry 2016, 88 (16) , 8323-8331. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b02273
  23. Matěj Velický, Mark A. Bissett, Colin R. Woods, Peter S. Toth, Thanasis Georgiou, Ian A. Kinloch, Kostya S. Novoselov, and Robert A. W. Dryfe . Photoelectrochemistry of Pristine Mono- and Few-Layer MoS2. Nano Letters 2016, 16 (3) , 2023-2032. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b05317
  24. Zhiting Li, Andrew Kozbial, Nikoloz Nioradze, David Parobek, Ganesh Jagadeesh Shenoy, Muhammad Salim, Shigeru Amemiya, Lei Li, and Haitao Liu . Water Protects Graphitic Surface from Airborne Hydrocarbon Contamination. ACS Nano 2016, 10 (1) , 349-359. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.5b04843
  25. Philippe Fortgang, Teddy Tite, Vincent Barnier, Nedjla Zehani, Chiranjeevi Maddi, Florence Lagarde, Anne-Sophie Loir, Nicole Jaffrezic-Renault, Christophe Donnet, Florence Garrelie, and Carole Chaix . Robust Electrografting on Self-Organized 3D Graphene Electrodes. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2016, 8 (2) , 1424-1433. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b10647
  26. Aleix G. Güell, Anatolii S. Cuharuc, Yang-Rae Kim, Guohui Zhang, Sze-yin Tan, Neil Ebejer, and Patrick R. Unwin . Redox-Dependent Spatially Resolved Electrochemistry at Graphene and Graphite Step Edges. ACS Nano 2015, 9 (4) , 3558-3571. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.5b00550
  27. Jing Jiang, Guangcan Luo, Ziling Zhang, Bo Tan, Xuxiang Guo, Wei Li, Jingquan Zhang. Highly responsive ZnO nanorods array ultraviolet photodetectors modificated with reduced graphene oxide layer. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 2021, 54 (31) , 315104. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/abfe7d
  28. Muhammad Munem Ali, Jacob John Mitchell, Gregory Burwell, Klaudia Rejnhard, Cerys Anne Jenkins, Ehsaneh Daghigh Ahmadi, Sanjiv Sharma, Owen James Guy. Application of Molecular Vapour Deposited Al2O3 for Graphene-Based Biosensor Passivation and Improvements in Graphene Device Homogeneity. Nanomaterials 2021, 11 (8) , 2121. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11082121
  29. Yabin An, Tengyu Liu, Chen Li, Xiong Zhang, Tao Hu, Xianzhong Sun, Kai Wang, Chengduo Wang, Yanwei Ma. A general route for the mass production of graphene-enhanced carbon composites toward practical pouch lithium-ion capacitors. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2021, 9 (28) , 15654-15664. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1TA03933D
  30. Kai Luo, Ye-Bin Dai, Ming Li, Xue-Feng Wang, Li-Ping Zhou. Full range modulation of giant magnetoresistance in graphene–like zigzag nanoribbons via dual edge disorders. Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 2021, 130 , 114703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physe.2021.114703
  31. Stefan Goodwin, Zachary Coldrick, Sebastian Heeg, Bruce Grieve, Aravind Vijayaraghavan, Ernie W. Hill. Fabrication and electrochemical response of pristine graphene ultramicroelectrodes. Carbon 2021, 177 , 207-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2021.02.078
  32. Zuzana Vlčková Živcová, Milan Bouša, Matěj Velický, Otakar Frank, Ladislav Kavan. In Situ Raman Microdroplet Spectroelectrochemical Investigation of CuSCN Electrodeposited on Different Substrates. Nanomaterials 2021, 11 (5) , 1256. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11051256
  33. Sergey V. Doronin, Yury A. Budkov, Daniil M. Itkis. Electrocatalytic activity of doped graphene: Quantum-mechanical theory view. Carbon 2021, 175 , 202-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2021.01.020
  34. Jiahong Wang, Zhen Zhang, Si Wang. Facile fabrication of Ag/GO/Ti electrode by one-step electrodeposition for the enhanced cathodic reduction of nitrate pollution. Journal of Water Process Engineering 2021, 40 , 101839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101839
  35. Wenjie Liu, Xiong Zhang, Yanan Xu, Chen Li, Kai Wang, Xianzhong Sun, Fangyuan Su, Cheng‐Meng Chen, Fangyan Liu, Zhong‐Shuai Wu, Yanwei Ma. Recent Advances on Carbon‐Based Materials for High Performance Lithium‐Ion Capacitors. Batteries & Supercaps 2021, 4 (3) , 407-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/batt.202000264
  36. Qiuqiu Wang, Juanhua Zhang, Yanbo Xu, Yingyi Wang, Liang Wu, Xuexiang Weng, Chunping You, Jiuju Feng. A one-step electrochemically reduced graphene oxide based sensor for sensitive voltammetric determination of furfural in milk products. Analytical Methods 2021, 13 (1) , 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0AY01789B
  37. R. Ashwini, V.G. Dileepkumar, K.R. Balaji, R. Viswanatha, C.R. Ravikumar, Chandan Srivastava, Mysore Sridhar Santosh. Ternary alkali metal chalcogenide engineered reduced graphene oxide (rGO) as a new class of composite (NaFeS2-rGO) and its electrochemical performance. Sensors International 2021, 2 , 100125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100125
  38. Matěj Velický, Robert A.W. Dryfe. Electrochemistry of 2D nanomaterials. 2021,,, 485-536. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820055-1.00009-5
  39. Sergey A. Kislenko, Sergey V. Pavlov, Renat R. Nazmutdinov, Vitaliy A. Kislenko, Petr M. Chekushkin. Effect of a Au underlayer on outer-sphere electron transfer across a Au/graphene/electrolyte interface. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2021, 26 https://doi.org/10.1039/D1CP03051E
  40. Natasha Ross, Noniko Civilized Nqakala. Electrochemical Determination of Hydrogen Peroxide by a Nonenzymatic Catalytically Enhanced Silver-Iron (III) Oxide/Polyoxometalate/Reduced Graphene Oxide Modified Glassy Carbon Electrode. Analytical Letters 2020, 53 (15) , 2445-2464. https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2020.1745223
  41. Tilmann J Neubert, Michel Wehrhold, Nur Selin Kaya, Kannan Balasubramanian. Faradaic effects in electrochemically gated graphene sensors in the presence of redox active molecules. Nanotechnology 2020, 31 (40) , 405201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6528/ab98bc
  42. Reda Elshafey, Patrick Brisebois, Haya Abdulkarim, Ricardo Izquierdo, Ana C. Tavares, Mohamed Siaj. Effect of Graphene Oxide Sheet Size on the Response of a Label‐free Voltammetric Immunosensor for Cancer Marker VEGF. Electroanalysis 2020, 32 (10) , 2205-2212. https://doi.org/10.1002/elan.202000065
  43. Susan Sadeghi, Samaneh Ebadi. Sensitive Quantification of Fe(III) in Food Samples at Screen Printed Carbon Electrode Modified with Graphene and Piroxicam by Catalytic Adsorptive Voltammetry. Electroanalysis 2020, 32 (9) , 1983-1992. https://doi.org/10.1002/elan.202060068
  44. Zonglin Pan, Fangpeng Yu, Lin Li, Ming Liu, Chengwen Song, Jiawei Yang, Hanxu Li, Chunlei Wang, Yanqiu Pan, Tonghua Wang. Electrochemical filtration carbon membrane derived from coal for wastewater treatment: Insights into the evolution of electrical conductivity and electrochemical performance during carbonization. Separation and Purification Technology 2020, 247 , 116948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2020.116948
  45. O. Charles Nwamba, Elena Echeverria, Qiong Yu, Krishnan S. Raja, David N. McIlroy, Jean’ne M. Shreeve, D. Eric Aston. Increased electron transfer kinetics and thermally treated graphite stability through improved tunneling paths. Journal of Materials Science 2020, 55 (25) , 11411-11430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-020-04846-6
  46. Tylan S. Watkins, Dipobrato Sarbapalli, Michael J. Counihan, Andrew S. Danis, Jingjing Zhang, Lu Zhang, Kevin R. Zavadil, Joaquín Rodríguez-López. A combined SECM and electrochemical AFM approach to probe interfacial processes affecting molecular reactivity at redox flow battery electrodes. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2020, 8 (31) , 15734-15745. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0TA00836B
  47. Meng Jiang, Leiyu Feng, Xiong Zheng, Yinguang Chen. Bio-denitrification performance enhanced by graphene-facilitated iron acquisition. Water Research 2020, 180 , 115916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115916
  48. Philippa M. Shellard, Thunyaporn Srisubin, Mirja Hartmann, Joseph Butcher, Fan Fei, Henry Cox, Thomas P. McNamara, Trevor McArdle, Ashley M. Shepherd, Robert M. J. Jacobs, Thomas A. Waigh, Sabine L. Flitsch, Christopher F. Blanford. A versatile route to edge-specific modifications to pristine graphene by electrophilic aromatic substitution. Journal of Materials Science 2020, 55 (24) , 10284-10302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-020-04662-y
  49. Pawin Iamprasertkun, Andinet Ejigu, Robert A. W. Dryfe. Understanding the electrochemistry of “water-in-salt” electrolytes: basal plane highly ordered pyrolytic graphite as a model system. Chemical Science 2020, 11 (27) , 6978-6989. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0SC01754J
  50. Elham Rahmanian, Carmen C. Mayorga-Martinez, Nasuha Rohaizad, Jan Luxa, Zdenek Sofer, Martin Pumera. Structural transition induced by niobium doping in layered titanium disulfide: The impact on electrocatalytic performance. Applied Materials Today 2020, 19 , 100555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2020.100555
  51. Natalia Festinger, Kamila Morawska, Vladimir Ivanovski, Magdalena Ziąbka, Katarzyna Jedlińska, Witold Ciesielski, Sylwia Smarzewska. Comparative Electroanalytical Studies of Graphite Flake and Multilayer Graphene Paste Electrodes. Sensors 2020, 20 (6) , 1684. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20061684
  52. Feiyan Liu, Huiping Zhang, Haoxin Huang, Ying Yan. Synthesis of graphene with different layers on paper-like sintered stainless steel fibers and its application as a metal-free catalyst for catalytic wet peroxide oxidation of phenol. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2020, 384 , 121246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121246
  53. Shigeru Amemiya. Nanoelectrochemistry of Adsorption‐Coupled Electron Transfer at Carbon Electrodes. 2020,,, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119468288.ch1
  54. Je Min Yoo. Catalytic Degradation of Phenols by Recyclable CVD Graphene Films. 2020,,, 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2233-8_2
  55. Marcin S. Filipiak, Daniel Vetter, Kishan Thodkar, Oscar Gutiérrez-Sanz, Martin Jönsson-Niedziółka, Alexey Tarasov. Electron transfer from FAD-dependent glucose dehydrogenase to single-sheet graphene electrodes. Electrochimica Acta 2020, 330 , 134998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2019.134998
  56. Di Yin, Yiyang Liu, Pengfei Song, Peng Chen, Xie Liu, Lankun Cai, Lehua Zhang. In situ growth of copper/reduced graphene oxide on graphite surfaces for the electrocatalytic reduction of nitrate. Electrochimica Acta 2019, 324 , 134846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2019.134846
  57. Jie Zhang, Jiayao Guo, Duan Chen, Jin-Hui Zhong, Jun-Yang Liu, Dongping Zhan. Heterogeneous electron transfer kinetics of defective graphene investigated by scanning electrochemical microscopy. Applied Surface Science 2019, 491 , 553-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.06.181
  58. Xuelei Pan, Xufeng Hong, Lin Xu, Yanxi Li, Mengyu Yan, Liqiang Mai. On-chip micro/nano devices for energy conversion and storage. Nano Today 2019, 28 , 100764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2019.100764
  59. Rubén Rizo, Sara Pérez‐Rodríguez, Gonzalo García. Well‐Defined Platinum Surfaces for the Ethanol Oxidation Reaction. ChemElectroChem 2019, 6 (18) , 4725-4738. https://doi.org/10.1002/celc.201900600
  60. Michel Wehrhold, Tilmann J. Neubert, Anur Yadav, Martin Vondráček, Rodrigo M. Iost, Jan Honolka, Kannan Balasubramanian. pH sensitivity of interfacial electron transfer at a supported graphene monolayer. Nanoscale 2019, 11 (31) , 14742-14756. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9NR05049C
  61. F. Bourquard, C. Donnet, F. Garrelie, A.‐S. Loir, F. Vocanson, V. Barnier, C. Chaix, C. Farre, N. Jaffrezic‐Renault, F. Lagarde, G. Raimondi. Self‐Organized 3D Graphene as a Robust Sensing Platform. 2019,,, 483-507. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119468455.ch102
  62. Chen Li, Xiong Zhang, Congkai Sun, Kai Wang, Xianzhong Sun, Yanwei Ma. Recent progress of graphene-based materials in lithium-ion capacitors. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 2019, 52 (14) , 143001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aaff3a
  63. Meichuan Liu, Hongyang Ke, Caiqin Sun, Guoqiang Wang, Yu Wang, Guohua Zhao. A simple and highly selective electrochemical label-free aptasensor of 17β-estradiol based on signal amplification of bi-functional graphene. Talanta 2019, 194 , 266-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2018.10.035
  64. Lucyano J. A. Macedo, Rodrigo M. Iost, Ayaz Hassan, Kannan Balasubramanian, Frank N. Crespilho. Bioelectronics and Interfaces Using Monolayer Graphene. ChemElectroChem 2019, 6 (1) , 31-59. https://doi.org/10.1002/celc.201800934
  65. Meichuan Liu, Caiqin Sun, Guoqiang Wang, Yu Wang, Hanxing Lu, Huijie Shi, Guohua Zhao. A simple, supersensitive and highly selective electrochemical aptasensor for Microcystin-LR based on synergistic signal amplification strategy with graphene, DNase I enzyme and Au nanoparticles. Electrochimica Acta 2019, 293 , 220-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2018.09.197
  66. Zhenfei Chen, Yan Zhang, Jing Zhang, Jian Zhou. Electrochemical Sensing Platform Based on Three-Dimensional Holey Graphene for Highly Selective and Ultra-Sensitive Detection of Ascorbic Acid, Uric Acid, and Nitrite. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 2019, 166 (10) , B787-B792. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.1111910jes
  67. Jing Zhang, Yan Zhang, Jian Zhou, Ling Wang. Construction of a highly sensitive non-enzymatic nitrite sensor using electrochemically reduced holey graphene. Analytica Chimica Acta 2018, 1043 , 28-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2018.08.045
  68. Lin Jiang, Wangyang Fu, Yuvraj Y. Birdja, Marc T. M. Koper, Grégory F. Schneider. Quantum and electrochemical interplays in hydrogenated graphene. Nature Communications 2018, 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03026-0
  69. Réka Csiki, Simon Drieschner, Alina Lyuleeva, Anna Cattani-Scholz, Martin Stutzmann, Jose A. Garrido. Photocurrent generation of biohybrid systems based on bacterial reaction centers and graphene electrodes. Diamond and Related Materials 2018, 89 , 286-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diamond.2018.09.005
  70. Xuejiao Ma, Miao Li, Xiang Liu, Lele Wang, Nan Chen, Jiacheng Li, Chuanping Feng. A graphene oxide nanosheet-modified Ti nanocomposite electrode with enhanced electrochemical property and stability for nitrate reduction. Chemical Engineering Journal 2018, 348 , 171-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.04.168
  71. Sabine Szunerits, Rabah Boukherroub. Graphene-based nanomaterials in innovative electrochemistry. Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2018, 10 , 24-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2018.03.016
  72. Xing Xuan, Hyo S. Yoon, Jae Y. Park. A wearable electrochemical glucose sensor based on simple and low-cost fabrication supported micro-patterned reduced graphene oxide nanocomposite electrode on flexible substrate. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 2018, 109 , 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2018.02.054
  73. Karsten Lehmann, Olena Yurchenko, Julia Melke, Anna Fischer, Gerald Urban. High electrocatalytic activity of metal-free and non-doped hierarchical carbon nanowalls towards oxygen reduction reaction. Electrochimica Acta 2018, 269 , 657-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2018.03.054
  74. Swagotom Sarker, Pavan Chaturvedi, Litao Yan, Tom Nakotte, Xinqi Chen, Stephanie K. Richins, Sanjib Das, Jonathan Peters, Meng Zhou, Sergei N. Smirnov, Hongmei Luo. Synergistic effect of iron diselenide decorated multi-walled carbon nanotubes for enhanced heterogeneous electron transfer and electrochemical hydrogen evolution. Electrochimica Acta 2018, 270 , 138-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2018.03.064
  75. Qi Xiao, Mengmeng Feng, Yi Liu, Shuangyan Lu, Yingzi He, Shan Huang. The graphene/polypyrrole/chitosan-modified glassy carbon electrode for electrochemical nitrite detection. Ionics 2018, 24 (3) , 845-859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11581-017-2247-y
  76. Samuel J. Rowley-Neale, Edward P. Randviir, Ahmed S. Abo Dena, Craig E. Banks. An overview of recent applications of reduced graphene oxide as a basis of electroanalytical sensing platforms. Applied Materials Today 2018, 10 , 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2017.11.010
  77. Xiao Zhang, Yanhua Wu, Yanfang Sun, Peng Ding, Qingyun Liu, Lin Tang, Jinxue Guo. Hybrid of Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3 nanocubes and MoS2 nanosheets on nitrogen-doped graphene realizing improved electrochemical hydrogen production. Electrochimica Acta 2018, 263 , 140-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2018.01.051
  78. Chandan Singh, Md. Azahar Ali, Venu Reddy, Dinesh Singh, Cheol Gi Kim, G. Sumana, B.D. Malhotra. Biofunctionalized graphene oxide wrapped carbon nanotubes enabled microfluidic immunochip for bacterial cells detection. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 2018, 255 , 2495-2503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2017.09.054
  79. Edward P. Randviir, Craig E. Banks. Graphene-Based Electrochemical Sensors. 2018,,, 141-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/5346_2018_25
  80. Qinggang Zhang, Wenming Xu, Congcong Han, Xiaokai Wang, Yixian Wang, Zhongtao Li, Wenting Wu, Mingbo Wu. Graphene structure boosts electron transfer of dual-metal doped carbon dots in photooxidation. Carbon 2018, 126 , 128-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2017.10.006
  81. Qi Xiao, Jinrong Feng, Jiawen Li, Mengmeng Feng, Shan Huang. A label-free and ultrasensitive electrochemical aptasensor for lead( ii ) using a N,P dual-doped carbon dot–chitosan composite as a signal-enhancing platform and thionine as a signaling molecule. The Analyst 2018, 143 (19) , 4764-4773. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8AN00994E
  82. Je Min Yoo, Baekwon Park, Sang Jin Kim, Yong Seok Choi, Sungmin Park, Eun Hye Jeong, Hyukjin Lee, Byung Hee Hong. Catalytic degradation of phenols by recyclable CVD graphene films. Nanoscale 2018, 10 (13) , 5840-5844. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8NR00045J
  83. Pranati Nayak, Qiu Jiang, Rajeshkumar Mohanraman, Dalaver Anjum, Mohamed Nejib Hedhili, Husam N. Alshareef. Inherent electrochemistry and charge transfer properties of few-layered two-dimensional Ti 3 C 2 T x MXene. Nanoscale 2018, 10 (36) , 17030-17037. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8NR01883A
  84. Maziar Ghazinejad, Sunshine Holmberg, Oscar Pilloni, Laura Oropeza-Ramos, Marc Madou. Graphitizing Non-graphitizable Carbons by Stress-induced Routes. Scientific Reports 2017, 7 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16424-z
  85. Qi Xiao, Shuangyan Lu, Chusheng Huang, Wei Su, Shuyu Zhou, Jiarong Sheng, Shan Huang. An electrochemical chiral sensor based on amino-functionalized graphene quantum dots/β-cyclodextrin modified glassy carbon electrode for enantioselective detection of tryptophan isomers. Journal of the Iranian Chemical Society 2017, 14 (9) , 1957-1970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13738-017-1134-9
  86. K. Jaouen, O. Henrotte, S. Campidelli, B. Jousselme, V. Derycke, R. Cornut. Localized electrochemistry for the investigation and the modification of 2D materials. Applied Materials Today 2017, 8 , 116-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2017.05.001
  87. Matěj Velický, Peter S. Toth. From two-dimensional materials to their heterostructures: An electrochemist's perspective. Applied Materials Today 2017, 8 , 68-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2017.05.003
  88. Peter S. Toth, Matěj Velický, Thomas J.A. Slater, Stephen D. Worrall, Sarah J. Haigh. Hydrogen evolution and capacitance behavior of Au/Pd nanoparticle-decorated graphene heterostructures. Applied Materials Today 2017, 8 , 125-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2017.07.008
  89. H. Yamada, R. Narayanan, P. R. Bandaru. Electrochemical kinetics and dimensional considerations at the nanoscale: the influence of the density of states. MRS Communications 2017, 7 (3) , 651-657. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrc.2017.93
  90. Daniela Báez, Helena Pardo, Ignacio Laborda, José Marco, Claudia Yáñez, Soledad Bollo. Reduced Graphene Oxides: Influence of the Reduction Method on the Electrocatalytic Effect towards Nucleic Acid Oxidation. Nanomaterials 2017, 7 (7) , 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano7070168
  91. Matěj Velický, Peter S. Toth, Alexander M. Rakowski, Aidan P. Rooney, Aleksey Kozikov, Colin R. Woods, Artem Mishchenko, Laura Fumagalli, Jun Yin, Viktor Zólyomi, Thanasis Georgiou, Sarah J. Haigh, Kostya S. Novoselov, Robert A. W. Dryfe. Exfoliation of natural van der Waals heterostructures to a single unit cell thickness. Nature Communications 2017, 8 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14410
  92. Jicun Li, Feng Wang. Water graphene contact surface investigated by pairwise potentials from force-matching PAW-PBE with dispersion correction. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2017, 146 (5) , 054702. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4974921
  93. Benjamin Diby Ossonon, Daniel Bélanger. Functionalization of graphene sheets by the diazonium chemistry during electrochemical exfoliation of graphite. Carbon 2017, 111 , 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2016.09.063
  94. Kontad Ounnunkad, Hollie V. Patten, Matěj Velický, Anna K. Farquhar, Paula A. Brooksby, Alison J. Downard, Robert A. W. Dryfe. Electrowetting on conductors: anatomy of the phenomenon. Faraday Discussions 2017, 199 , 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6FD00252H
  95. Dongtao Liu, Md. Mahbubur Rahman, Chuangye Ge, Jaecheon Kim, Jae-Joon Lee. Highly stable and conductive PEDOT:PSS/graphene nanocomposites for biosensor applications in aqueous medium. New Journal of Chemistry 2017, 41 (24) , 15458-15465. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7NJ03330C
  96. Zhenbo Peng, Rui Yang, Min A. Kim, Lei Li, Haitao Liu. Influence of O 2 , H 2 O and airborne hydrocarbons on the properties of selected 2D materials. RSC Advances 2017, 7 (43) , 27048-27057. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA02130E
  97. Y. C. Jeong, J. H. Kim, S. H. Kwon, J. Y. Oh, J. Park, Y. Jung, S. G. Lee, S. J. Yang, C. R. Park. Rational design of exfoliated 1T MoS 2 @CNT-based bifunctional separators for lithium sulfur batteries. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2017, 5 (45) , 23909-23918. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7TA08153G
  98. Yan Zhang, Congyu Wu, Jingyan Zhang, Shouwu Guo. Mass Transport Effect on Graphene Based Enzyme Electrochemical Biosensor for Oxalic Acid Detection. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 2017, 164 (2) , B29-B33. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0401702jes
  99. Arunas Ramanavicius, Natalija German, Almira Ramanaviciene. Evaluation of Electron Transfer in Electrochemical System Based on Immobilized Gold Nanoparticles and Glucose Oxidase. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 2017, 164 (4) , G45-G49. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0691704jes
  100. Yan Zhang, Huilian Hao, Linlin Wang. Effect of morphology and defect density on electron transfer of electrochemically reduced graphene oxide. Applied Surface Science 2016, 390 , 385-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.08.127
Load all citations
  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Experimental setup. (a) Photograph of the experimental setup. (b) Schematic depicting the Si/SiO2 wafer with mechanically exfoliated flakes (working electrode, WE) contacted via silver epoxy and copper wire, microscope objective and a micropipette, which contains reference (RE) and counter electrodes (CE) and is connected to a micromanipulator and microinjector. (c) An optical micrograph of a droplet deposited on the surface of a monolayer graphene flake. The dashed lines and curves indicate edge planes (black), steps (white), cracks/defects (orange), folds (green), and microdroplet/flake interface (blue).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Cyclic voltammograms and associated kinetic analyses at graphene/graphite electrodes. (a) CV of Fe(CN)63–/4– on bilayer graphene, (b and d) show comparison of ET kinetics on 4-layer graphene using Ru(NH3)63+/2+ and on ∼70-layer thick graphite using IrCl62–/3–. Corresponding Klingler-Kochi and Nicholson analyses and calculated ET rates (k0) are shown in (c) and (e), respectively. The insets in the bottom right of graphs (a), (b), and (d) show micrographs of the deposited droplets. The series of voltammetric curves were obtained starting from the fastest scan rate of 1000 mV s–1 (dark blue) down to the slowest scan rate of 100 mV s–1 (gray) for Fe(CN)63–/4– and Ru(NH3)63+/2+ and 3000–250 mV s–1 for IrCl62–/3–. The potential was referenced against Ag/AgCl wire in 6 M LiCl, and held at the upper vertex potential for 10 s prior to the voltammetry (1 V for IrCl62–/3–). Change of the initial direction of the potential sweep had no observable effect.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Heterogeneous ET rate, k0, between the aqueous-based redox mediator and mechanically exfoliated graphite flakes of varied thicknesses. The averaged ET rates of reduction/oxidation of (a) Fe(CN)63–/4–, (b) Ru(NH3)63+/2+ and IrCl62–/3– reduction/oxidation are plotted as a function of the number of graphene layers. Each point on the graph is an arithmetic mean of at least 8 (thick flakes >7 layers) or 12 (thin flakes ≤7 layers) individual droplet measurements on a pristine basal plane surface of one or more flakes of a given thickness. The error bars are standard deviations of the mean. The number of individual droplets included in the analysis was 145, 146, and 144 for Fe(CN)63–/4–, Ru(NH3)63+/2+, and IrCl62–/3–, respectively. In total, 69 individual crystal surfaces were used for the analysis. Note that the graphs are shown on a semilogarithmic scale.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. XPS survey spectra of atmosphere-aged (>1 month) graphite surface (top green) and pristine graphite surface cleaved immediately prior the XPS measurement (bottom red). Both spectra show data averaged from 5 different sites on the surface (spot size of 400 μm2). The quantitative elemental analysis is given in Table 2.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Effect of impurities on hybridization and functionalization of carbon atoms expressed by XPS analysis of both atmosphere-aged (circles) and cleaved (triangles) graphite surface. The extent of carbon sp2 hybridization, determined from C 1s peak (green) and Auger peak (D-parameter, blue), is proportional to the total carbon content (XPS survey quantification).

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. (a) Cyclic voltammograms recorded on natural graphite (solid curve), HOPG (dashed curve), platinum (dotted curve), and gold (dash-dot curve), and (b) corresponding ET kinetics obtained as an arithmetic mean of three independent measurements. Data in red and gray correspond to aged and cleaved surfaces, respectively. Mechanically polished metal surfaces exhibited almost reversible kinetics (>10–2 cm s–1) with peak separation below 65 mV at 1 V s–1.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. (a) Raman spectra of the mono-, bi-, tri-, tetra/penta-, and multilayer graphene flakes, bottom to top, respectively (each spectrum is shown on a different intensity scale for the purpose of clarity). (b) 3D and 2D AFM scans (top and bottom-left, respectively) of a ca. 4/5-layer thick graphene flake with another monolayer on top, inset (bottom-right) shows the optical image of the scanned area, (c) cross-section of the same flake, indicated by green lines in (b).

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 53 other publications.

    1. 1
      Mayorov, A. S.; Gorbachev, R. V.; Morozov, S. V.; Britnell, L.; Jalil, R.; Ponomarenko, L. A.; Blake, P.; Novoselov, K. S.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.et al. Micrometer-Scale Ballistic Transport in Encapsulated Graphene at Room Temperature Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 2396 2399
    2. 2
      Balandin, A. A. Thermal Properties of Graphene and Nanostructured Carbon Materials Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 569 581
    3. 3
      Lee, C.; Wei, X.; Kysar, J. W.; Hone, J. Measurement of the Elastic Properties and Intrinsic Strength of Monolayer Graphene Science 2008, 321, 385 388
    4. 4
      Novoselov, K. S.; Geim, A. K.; Morozov, S. V.; Jiang, D.; Zhang, Y.; Dubonos, S. V.; Grigorieva, I. V.; Firsov, A. A. Electric Field in Atomically Thin Carbon Films Science 2004, 306, 666 669
    5. 5
      Geim, A. K. Graphene: Status and Prospects Science 2009, 324, 1530 1534
    6. 6
      Novoselov, K. S.; Fal’Ko, V. I.; Colombo, L.; Gellert, P. R.; Schwab, M. G.; Kim, K. A Roadmap for Graphene Nature 2012, 490, 192 200
    7. 7
      Nair, R. R.; Blake, P.; Grigorenko, A. N.; Novoselov, K. S.; Booth, T. J.; Stauber, T.; Peres, N. M. R.; Geim, A. K. Fine Structure Constant Defines Visual Transparency of Graphene Science 2008, 320, 1308
    8. 8
      Moser, J.; Barreiro, A.; Bachtold, A. Current-Induced Cleaning of Graphene Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 91
    9. 9
      Topsakal, M.; Aahin, H.; Ciraci, S. Graphene Coatings: An Efficient Protection from Oxidation Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2012, 85
    10. 10
      Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Lin, Y. Graphene and Graphene Oxide: Biofunctionalization and Applications in Biotechnology Trends Biotechnol. 2011, 29, 205 212
    11. 11
      Lee, J. K.; Smith, K. B.; Hayner, C. M.; Kung, H. H. Silicon Nanoparticles-Graphene Paper Composites for Li Ion Battery Anodes Chem. Commun. (Cambridge, U.K.) 2010, 46, 2025 2027
    12. 12
      Wang, X.; Zhi, L.; Müllen, K. Transparent, Conductive Graphene Electrodes for Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells Nano Lett. 2008, 8, 323 327
    13. 13
      Stoller, M. D.; Park, S.; Yanwu, Z.; An, J.; Ruoff, R. S. Graphene-Based Ultracapacitors Nano Lett. 2008, 8, 3498 3502
    14. 14
      Brownson, D. A. C.; Kampouris, D. K.; Banks, C. E. Graphene Electrochemistry: Fundamental Concepts through to Prominent Applications Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 6944 6976
    15. 15
      McCreery, R. L. Advanced Carbon Electrode Materials for Molecular Electrochemistry Chem. Rev. (Washington, DC, U.S.) 2008, 108, 2646 2687
    16. 16
      Li, W.; Tan, C.; Lowe, M. A.; Abruña, H. D.; Ralph, D. C. Electrochemistry of Individual Monolayer Graphene Sheets ACS Nano 2011, 5, 2264 2270
    17. 17
      Valota, A. T.; Kinloch, I. A.; Novoselov, K. S.; Casiraghi, C.; Eckmann, A.; Hill, E. W.; Dryfe, R. A. W. Electrochemical Behavior of Monolayer and Bilayer Graphene ACS Nano 2011, 5, 8809 8815
    18. 18
      Sharma, R.; Baik, J. H.; Perera, C. J.; Strano, M. S. Anomalously Large Reactivity of Single Graphene Layers and Edges toward Electron Transfer Chemistries Nano Lett. 2010, 10, 398 405
    19. 19
      Toth, P. S.; Valota, A.; Velicky, M.; Kinloch, I.; Novoselov, K.; Hill, E. W.; Dryfe, R. A. W. Electrochemistry in a Drop: A Study of the Electrochemical Behaviour of Mechanically Exfoliated Graphene on Photoresist Coated Silicon Substrate Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 582 589
    20. 20
      Brownson, D. A. C.; Munro, L. J.; Kampouris, D. K.; Banks, C. E. Electrochemistry of Graphene: Not Such a Beneficial Electrode Material? RSC Adv. 2011, 1, 978 988
    21. 21
      Goh, M. S.; Pumera, M. The Electrochemical Response of Graphene Sheets Is Independent of the Number of Layers from a Single Graphene Sheet to Multilayer Stacked Graphene Platelets Chem.—Asian J. 2010, 5, 2355 2357
    22. 22
      Xie, X.; Zhao, K.; Xu, X.; Zhao, W.; Liu, S.; Zhu, Z.; Li, M.; Shi, Z.; Shao, Y. Study of Heterogeneous Electron Transfer on the Graphene/Self-Assembled Monolayer Modified Gold Electrode by Electrochemical Approaches J. Phys. Chem. C 2010, 114, 14243 14250
    23. 23
      De, S.; Coleman, J. N. Are There Fundamental Limitations on the Sheet Resistance and Transmittance of Thin Graphene Films? ACS Nano 2010, 4, 2713 2720
    24. 24
      Zhang, B.; Fan, L.; Zhong, H.; Liu, Y.; Chen, S. Graphene Nanoelectrodes: Fabrication and Size-Dependent Electrochemistry J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 10073 10080
    25. 25
      Ambrosi, A.; Bonanni, A.; Pumera, M. Electrochemistry of Folded Graphene Edges Nanoscale 2011, 3, 2256 2260
    26. 26
      Brownson, D. A. C.; Banks, C. E. Cvd Graphene Electrochemistry: The Role of Graphitic Islands Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 15825 15828
    27. 27
      Valota, A. T.; Toth, P. S.; Kim, Y. J.; Hong, B. H.; Kinloch, I. A.; Novoselov, K. S.; Hill, E. W.; Dryfe, R. A. W. Electrochemical Investigation of Chemical Vapour Deposition Monolayer and Bilayer Graphene on the Microscale Electrochim. Acta 2013, 110, 9 15
    28. 28
      Tan, C.; Rodríguez-López, J.; Parks, J. J.; Ritzert, N. L.; Ralph, D. C.; Abruña, H. D. Reactivity of Monolayer Chemical Vapor Deposited Graphene Imperfections Studied Using Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy ACS Nano 2012, 6, 3070 3079
    29. 29
      Ritzert, N. L.; Rodríguez-López, J.; Tan, C.; Abruña, H. D. Kinetics of Interfacial Electron Transfer at Single-Layer Graphene Electrodes in Aqueous and Nonaqueous Solutions Langmuir 2013, 29, 1683 1694
    30. 30
      Güell, A. G.; Ebejer, N.; Snowden, M. E.; MacPherson, J. V.; Unwin, P. R. Structural Correlations in Heterogeneous Electron Transfer at Monolayer and Multilayer Graphene Electrodes J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 7258 7261
    31. 31
      Nicholson, R. S. Theory and Application of Cyclic Voltammetry for Measurement of Electrode Reaction Kinetics Anal. Chem. 1965, 37, 1351 1355
    32. 32
      Klingler, R. J.; Kochi, J. K. Electron-Transfer Kinetics from Cyclic Voltammetry. Quantitative Description of Electrochemical Reversibility J. Phys. Chem. 1981, 85, 1731 1741
    33. 33
      Randles, J. E. B. A Cathode Ray Polarograph. Part II. The Current-Voltage Curves Trans. Faraday Soc. 1948, 44, 327 338
    34. 34
      Bard, A. J.; Faulkner, L. R. Electrochemical Methods. Fundamentals and Applications, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, 2001.
    35. 35
      Patel, A. N.; Collignon, M. G.; Oconnell, M. A.; Hung, W. O. Y.; McKelvey, K.; MacPherson, J. V.; Unwin, P. R. A New View of Electrochemistry at Highly Oriented Pyrolytic Graphite J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 20117 20130
    36. 36
      Edwards, M. A.; Bertoncello, P.; Unwin, P. R. Slow Diffusion Reveals the Intrinsic Electrochemical Activity of Basal Plane Highly Oriented Pyrolytic Graphite Electrodes J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 9218 9223
    37. 37
      Lai, S. C. S.; Patel, A. N.; McKelvey, K.; Unwin, P. R. Definitive Evidence for Fast Electron Transfer at Pristine Basal Plane Graphite from High-Resolution Electrochemical Imaging Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 5405 5408
    38. 38
      Banks, C. E.; Davies, T. J.; Wildgoose, G. G.; Compton, R. G. Electrocatalysis at Graphite and Carbon Nanotube Modified Electrodes: Edge-Plane Sites and Tube Ends Are the Reactive Sites Chem. Commun. (Cambridge, U.K.) 2005, 829 841
    39. 39
      McDermott, M. T.; Kneten, K.; McCreery, R. L. Anthraquinonedisulfonate Adsorption, Electron-Transfer Kinetics, and Capacitance on Ordered Graphite Electrodes: The Important Role of Surface Defects J. Phys. Chem. 1992, 96, 3124 3130
    40. 40
      Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Kozbial, A.; Shenoy, G.; Zhou, F.; McGinley, R.; Ireland, P.; Morganstein, B.; Kunkel, A.; Surwade, S. P.et al. Effect of Airborne Contaminants on the Wettability of Supported Graphene and Graphite Nat. Mater. 2013, 12, 925 931
    41. 41
      Hardcastle, T. P.; Seabourne, C. R.; Zan, R.; Brydson, R. M. D.; Bangert, U.; Ramasse, Q. M.; Novoselov, K. S.; Scott, A. J. Mobile Metal Adatoms on Single Layer, Bilayer, and Trilayer Graphene: An ab Initio DFT Study with van der Waals Corrections Correlated with Electron Microscopy Data Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2013, 87
    42. 42
      Zan, R.; Ramasse, Q. M.; Bangert, U.; Novoselov, K. S. Graphene Reknits Its Holes Nano Lett. 2012, 12, 3936 3940
    43. 43
      Rooney, M. B.; Coomber, D. C.; Bond, A. M. Achievement of Near-Reversible Behavior for the [Fe(CN)6]3–/4– Redox Couple Using Cyclic Voltammetry at Glassy Carbon, Gold, and Platinum Macrodisk Electrodes in the Absence of Added Supporting Electrolyte Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 3486 3491
    44. 44
      Meyer, J. C.; Geim, A. K.; Katsnelson, M. I.; Novoselov, K. S.; Booth, T. J.; Roth, S. The Structure of Suspended Graphene Sheets Nature 2007, 446, 60 63
    45. 45
      Wang, Q. H.; Jin, Z.; Kim, K. K.; Hilmer, A. J.; Paulus, G. L. C.; Shih, C. J.; Ham, M. H.; Sanchez-Yamagishi, J. D.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.et al. Understanding and Controlling the Substrate Effect on Graphene Electron-Transfer Chemistry via Reactivity Imprint Lithography Nat. Chem. 2012, 4, 724 732
    46. 46
      Elias, D. C.; Nair, R. R.; Mohiuddin, T. M. G.; Morozov, S. V.; Blake, P.; Halsall, M. P.; Ferrari, A. C.; Boukhvalov, D. W.; Katsnelson, M. I.; Geim, A. K.et al. Control of Graphene’s Properties by Reversible Hydrogenation: Evidence for Graphane Science 2009, 323, 610 613
    47. 47
      Pierce, C.; Ewing, B. Localized Adsorption on Graphite Surfaces J. Phys. Chem. 1967, 71, 3408 3413
    48. 48
      Schedin, F.; Geim, A. K.; Morozov, S. V.; Hill, E. W.; Blake, P.; Katsnelson, M. I.; Novoselov, K. S. Detection of Individual Gas Molecules Adsorbed on Graphene Nat. Mater. 2007, 6, 652 655
    49. 49
      Davies, T. J.; Moore, R. R.; Banks, C. E.; Compton, R. G. The Cyclic Voltammetric Response of Electrochemically Heterogeneous Surfaces J. Electroanal. Chem. 2004, 574, 123 152
    50. 50
      Blake, P.; Hill, E. W.; Castro Neto, A. H.; Novoselov, K. S.; Jiang, D.; Yang, R.; Booth, T. J.; Geim, A. K. Making Graphene Visible Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 91
    51. 51
      Ferrari, A. C. Raman Spectroscopy of Graphene and Graphite: Disorder, Electron-Phonon Coupling, Doping and Nonadiabatic Effects Solid State Commun. 2007, 143, 47 57
    52. 52
      Malard, L. M.; Pimenta, M. A.; Dresselhaus, G.; Dresselhaus, M. S. Raman Spectroscopy in Graphene Phys. Rep. 2009, 473, 51 87
    53. 53
      Walker, P. L.; McKinstry, H. A.; Wright, C. C. X-Ray Diffraction Studies of a Graphitized Carbon—Changes in Interlayer Spacing and Binding Energy with Temperature Ind. Eng. Chem. 1953, 45, 1711 1715
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    Micropipette preparation, reference electrode potential determination, Nicholson method, cyclic voltammetry fitting, mediator-free blank voltammetry, AFM of the stable and collapsed microdroplets, flake preparation procedure, determination of the redox mediator diffusion coefficients, kinetics-droplet size correlation, comparison of the raw and analyzed kinetic data, uncompensated resistance, comparison of electrode kinetics on basal and edge plane of graphite, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analysis of atmosphere-aged and freshly cleaved graphite surface. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect

This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By continuing to use the site, you are accepting our use of cookies. Read the ACS privacy policy.

CONTINUE