SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

WFRF:(Sandén Björn 1968)
 

Search: WFRF:(Sandén Björn 1968) > (2010-2014) > Is graphene a ”wond...

Is graphene a ”wonder material” also from an environmental life cycle perspective?

Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984 (author)
Chalmers tekniska högskola,Chalmers University of Technology
Kushnir, Duncan, 1979 (author)
Chalmers tekniska högskola,Chalmers University of Technology
Sandén, Björn, 1968 (author)
Chalmers tekniska högskola,Chalmers University of Technology
show more...
Molander, Sverker, 1957 (author)
Chalmers tekniska högskola,Chalmers University of Technology
show less...
 (creator_code:org_t)
2014
2014
English.
In: Abstract of Papers of the American Chemical Society. - 0065-7727. ; 247
  • Conference paper (other academic/artistic)
Abstract Subject headings
Close  
  • The nanomaterial graphene has attracted great interest for its many potential applications, including composites and electronic devises, and has been referred to by some as a "wonder material" from a technical point of view. However, the question remains whether graphene is also a "wonder material" from an environmental life cycle perspective. In order to investigate this, we applied life cycle assessment (LCA) to assess the cradle-to-gate environmental impacts of graphene production. The focus of the assessment was on the foreground system and on more inherent impact categories, namely energy use, water use, human toxicity, and ecotoxicity. Two different production routes were investigated. In the first, called chemical reduction, graphite is first oxidized to graphite oxide, and then reduced by hydrazine to form graphene sheets in solution that could be used in e.g. composites. The second is ultrasonication, where graphite is exposed to ultrasound, and thereby breaks up into graphene sheets in solution, also possible to use in composites. These two routes were compared on a kg of graphene basis. The results indicate that ultrasonication has a considerably lower cradle-to-gate impact than chemical reduction for all included impact categories. For example, the energy use of chemical reduction-made graphene appears to be more than 100 times higher than that of ultrasonication-made graphene. Comparing to the energy use of other nanomaterials, chemical reduction-based graphene appears to have an energy use close to the median. Ultrasonication-made graphene, however, appears to have a lower energy use than any previously assessed nano material. This implicates that the chemical industry should focus their efforts on developing the ultrasonication production route rather than chemical reduction.

Subject headings

TEKNIK OCH TEKNOLOGIER  -- Naturresursteknik -- Annan naturresursteknik (hsv//swe)
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY  -- Environmental Engineering -- Other Environmental Engineering (hsv//eng)

Publication and Content Type

kon (subject category)
vet (subject category)

Find in a library

To the university's database

Search outside SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view