Scholarlink

<p>This study presents a method for synthesizing graphene oxide (GO) and reduced graphene oxide (rGO) to evaluate their humidity sensing capabilities. GO was synthesized using a modified Hummers’ method. GO reduced to rGO using L-ascorbic acid under mild reaction condition. The optical properties were assessed through UV-visible and Raman spectroscopy, while structural characteristics were evaluated using several techniques, including powder X-ray diffraction (pXRD), fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The intensity ratio of D- by G-band (I<sub>D</sub>/I<sub>G</sub>) was calculated and analyzed using Raman spectra. Additionally, we compared the performance of GO with rGO in terms of response and recovery times. The study found that rGO exhibited a response of 11–97%, with a response time of 15s and a recovery time of 28s, yielding a hysteresis of 0.20%. In contrast, GO demonstrated a response time of 18&#xa0;s, a recovery time of 31&#xa0;s, and a hysteresis of 0.30%.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Enhanced Humidity Sensing using Graphene Oxide and Reduced Graphene Oxide Synthesized via Modified Hummers’ Method

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月10日

查看全文
  • Shivendra Tripathi,
  • Nisha Gangwar,
  • Chinky Gangwar,
  • R. K. Shukla

摘要

This study presents a method for synthesizing graphene oxide (GO) and reduced graphene oxide (rGO) to evaluate their humidity sensing capabilities. GO was synthesized using a modified Hummers’ method. GO reduced to rGO using L-ascorbic acid under mild reaction condition. The optical properties were assessed through UV-visible and Raman spectroscopy, while structural characteristics were evaluated using several techniques, including powder X-ray diffraction (pXRD), fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The intensity ratio of D- by G-band (ID/IG) was calculated and analyzed using Raman spectra. Additionally, we compared the performance of GO with rGO in terms of response and recovery times. The study found that rGO exhibited a response of 11–97%, with a response time of 15s and a recovery time of 28s, yielding a hysteresis of 0.20%. In contrast, GO demonstrated a response time of 18 s, a recovery time of 31 s, and a hysteresis of 0.30%.