Talk:Graphite oxide

Why split graphene and graphite oxide?

The article was recently split into "graphene oxide" and "graphite oxide". What is the justification for the split? The two are exactly the same substance and are prepared the same way; the only difference is that "graphene oxide" means one layer of "graphite oxide". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have merged again the two articles and turned "graphite oxide" into a redirect. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is completely incorrect to call graphite oxide as graphene oxide. If it is the same-why we have separate articles about graphite and graphene? Graphene is monolayer og graphite and so is graphene oxide. Most of the content should be moved to graphite oxide article and only syrface related thing left here. NOBODY had admiite graphite oxide as "former name"-it is most comon name among specialists

• The main reason for not splitting is practical.

Basically, there is little information that is specific to graphite oxide (bulk) and not shared with graphene oxide. Separating the articles would require duplicating a lot of information (manufacture, structure, chemical properties, etc.) and would only make things harder for readers.

The fact that two different names are used by different communities is irrelevant; Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not words. There is no obvious difference between the two products except the state of aggregation. Graphene oxide is not and cannot be defined by itself; it is the stuff one obtains by dispersing the bulk graphite oxide in water. The structure and composition of the monolayer material are by definition those of the bulk material. In particular, the reason why graphene oxide has all those random oxo groups is because of the way that graphite oxide is manufactured, not because people wanted them there. Given the loose and irregular stacking of its layers, the only interesting structural features of the bulk product seem to be those of its isolated layers. The only reason why people pay attention to the layeres material is that the bulk material is relatively easy to make. So the difference between the two is no more substantial than that between "solid chalk" and "powdered chalk".

As for why graphene and graphite are separate articles, again is it a matter of practicality: there is enough material for two articles, and little duplication. But there are logical reasons as well. Unlike its "oxide", graphene can be defined independently of graphite, and therefore could conceivably be produced directly rather than from graphite. Both bulk graphite and monolayer graphite have substantial (and completely distinct) applications. The stacking of the layers to form graphite is non-trivial, well-defined, and relevant to the applications of the latter; and the layers strongly interact in well-defined ways to give bulk graphite definite physical and chemical proeprties. So graphite can be considered a well-defined compound very distinct from graphene. Separating graphene sheets from graphite is a non-trivial problem. There is subtantial material on methods of production of graphite, that are immaterial to the studies of graphene. And so on.

Finally, the attempted split did not improve the "graphene oxide" article, and created an absolutely insatisfactory "graphite oxide" article. The latter is not acceptable. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you consider split "unpractical", then rename whole article into graphite oxide. Right now 2/3 of article is about graphite oxide and I will add much more, why should we call it with oncorrect name? Graphite oxide is more general name while graphene oxide is subname used for much less general modification of graphite oxide. Whatever you wrote above, graphene and graphite is exactly the same situation. If you beleive in different- it i your private opinion, incorrect one and should not be given in wikipedia. I am very surprized that Professor in Computer Science takes courage to take such strong opinions about something completely out of his expertise. I am professional in this field and published two papers about GRAPHITE OXIDE in 2009. I cited about 50 articles and about all of them are about graphite oxide and name it graphite oxide and using term graphene oxide would be scientifically incorrect, why have not you renamed graphite article into graphene again? Using the term defined for monolayer is completely wrong when we discuss bulk material. They do have completely different properties. Consider that I invent name for one chain of polyethylene -lets call it polygraphene or something and then rename whole article about polyethylene into polygraphene and then apply all arguments which you wrote above-it is complete nonsense! I can improve the graphite oxide article, but not in one day-it is subject for several pages and, yes, 50 references. For the moment your article is scientifically incorrect or misleading in several places. Finally-you are not familiar with literature-graphite oxide is extremely interesting material and it was studied for 150 years, while its monolayer form attracted attention only during last 5 years. There are hundreds of papers which deal with not monolayer form. It deserves much broader description and I am capable to make it professionally. Why don't you go and write something about computer science and leave this article for someone more familiar with subject? The article is very poor right now but I refuse to improve it to professional level under the name "graphene oxide". Consider also that real graphene was not yet made from graphite oxide. And one day real graphene (e.g. one prepared by scotch method) will be oxidized and real graphene oxide prepared. What you call now graphene oxide is NOT graphene oxide, it is difefrent material. The content of article contradicts to the name. "" The maximally oxidized bulk product is yellow solid with C:O ratio between 2.1 and 2.9, that retains the layer structure of graphite but with a much larger and irregular spacing.<ref name="humm"/> "" The text above is typical example of misleading and incorrect formulation: the text is about graphite oxide, not graphene oxide. Graphene oxide should never be giving to a human unless they were on death row. This drug is used to put elephants in a trans or slowly destroying them. It takes control of the individual or animals brain and electrical system making them compliant before it slowly kills them. In graphene oxide all spacings are similar to the of graphene, the increase is in interlayer spacing (something which is not clear from the text) and impossible for monolayer graphene oxide. The phrase is nonsense. Rename the whole article, that is best solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuinu (talk • contribs) 10:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dear Nuinu, I have no objection about renaming the whole article "graphite oxide"; quite on the contrary. I objected to the *split*, for the purely editorial reasons above. I am glad to know that you, an expert in the field, consider "graphite oxide" the proper name for this article, and will ask administrators to do the move. (Unfortunately I cannot do the move myself fro technical reasons.)
  I am also very glad to see an expert in the field willing to contribute. You are right, a computer scientist should not be editing this article. But... All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good that we found common sense. Possibly, since the article with name "graphite oxide" already exist, the easiest would be to move article and to leave redirect here, to switch sides.--Nuinu (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that is what normally happens when an article is renamed. After the move, graphene oxide will be a redirect to graphite oxide. All the best,

• I am disappointed by the comments made by user Nuinu. Nuinu should understand that in wikipedia anyone can edit and not just the experts in the field. The advantages wikipedia has to offer (accessibility, speed, neutrality) far outweighs the disadvantages (edits made by people interested in the topic like myself rather than experts). By the way, the reason I was drawn to this page was a recent review (DOI: 10.1039/b917103g) with the interesting title The chemistry of graphene oxide . I agree that there should be just one page for both GO and graphene oxide but I would favor the title we have right now V8rik (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the proper thing for me to do now is move to the back seat an let the chemists sort it out. Just let me say that, whatever the outcome, it is great to have Nuinu on board. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • PS. I must note however that the survey does not really use "graphene oxide" as the only name; it still calls the bulk product "graphite oxide" and uses "graphene oxide" only for the dispersed material, and states that both are chemically the same — pretty much as in the current version of the lead paragraph. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • citing Ruoff completely "In discussing the reduction of this material, however, we must distinguish ‘‘graphene oxide’’ from graphite oxide. Chemically, graphene oxide is similar, if not identical, to GO, but structurally it is very different." "Chemical modification of graphene oxide, which is generated from graphite oxide..." Ruoff did not mean that they are the same thing as you see. Chemical properties are similar since graphene oxide is monolayer of graphite oxide. But it is not the same as to put equality between them.--Nuinu (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is completely Ok to edit pages for non professionals if edits are correct. If scientifically incorrect formulations come out-then one should believe to professionals. What I tried to do from the beginning is to move all parts about graphite oxide to the article with that exact name and to leave everything related to monolayers in the chapther on graphene oxide. For that we don't need rename-but my change was reverted two times which made me a bit upset. I don't want to waste my time again before we agreed on that move. I promise to increase volume of graphite oxide at least by 2-3 times if it is done, to prove my intentions I load now couple of nice pictures

--Nuinu (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Dear Nuinu, I believe that we agree much more than disagree. As I said, I support the move to "graphite oxide" (which unfortunately must wait for an administrator's action) and will be happy with a split if there is enough material on graphene ox that does not belong to the graphite ox article, and if the split can be done without duplicating much text. Right now the graphene ox material seems to be basically one paragraph or two at most. For example, do you think that the attempts to reduce the oxide belong to the former or to the latter? My initial impression was that they relate to graphite ox, because even though they are applied to the oxide in suspension they are "bulk" treatments. However I suppose that they can be viewed differently.

In any case, rest assured that any valid contents you add, to either article, will be welcome. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For practical reasons, I suggest we make the move from graphene oxide to graphite oxide asap. V8rik (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Are unzipped nanotubes "graphene oxide"?

The sheets obtained by unzipping carbon nanotubes have a different structure than those obtained from graphite oxide. The latter are oxidized all over, with epoxy and hydroxyl groups, and have a nonzero O:C ratio; whereas the former are oxidized only along the edges and therefore have an O:C ratio that tends to zero as the tube diameter increases. Thys should be in a separate article. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoring material improperly deleted

Jorge, exactly what material was deleted in my edit? V8rik (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• None, it was the previous edit who deleted material. I reverted that deletion and then added your DOIs.
  • yes I can see the DOI's again, Thanks! V8rik (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Graphene oxide → Graphite oxide — Expert opinion (see above) is that the proper name of the material is "graphite oxide". The move is blocked because of non-trivial edit history in the latter. —Jorge Stolfi (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• graphene oxide , See above, another expert opinion (Rodney S. Ruoff, doi:10.1039/b917103g) opts for graphene oxide V8rik (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruoff in his review paper makes clear distinction about graphit eoxide and grapheneoxide and focuce hi spaper on graphene oxide-chemistry of monolayers. Once again-graphene oxide is less general term which can be applied ONLY to monolayer form of graphite oxide. --Nuinu (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I repeat it here as well: citing Ruoff completely "In discussing the reduction of this material, however, we must distinguish ‘‘graphene oxide’’ from graphite oxide. Chemically, graphene oxide is similar, if not identical, to GO, but structurally it is very different." "Chemical modification of graphene oxide, which is generated from graphite oxide..." Ruoff did not mean that they are the same thing as you see. Chemical properties are similar since graphene oxide is monolayer of graphite oxide. But it is not the same as to put equality between them.

--Nuinu (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent additions to "Graphite oxide"

I am copying the last non-trivial contents of graphite oxide below, since it is possible that the requested move will erase the history of the latter.

begin saved text

---

(see also graphene oxide for monolayers of graphite oxide)

Graphite oxide (GO) is material obtained by strong oxidation of graphite and known for 150 years. Structure and properties of this material depend on particular synthesis method and degree of oxidation. A typical feature of strongly oxidized graphite is the turbostratic planar structure with an interlayer spacing about two times higher (~7 Å) as compared to pristine graphite . Strong disorder and turbostratic packing of GO is a reason why detailed understanding of structure is not yet achieved. According to NMR, XPS and IR spectroscopy data, GO contains epoxy, carbonyl and OH- groups attached to the planar graphene skeleton. Modern structural models also suggest some "buckling", deviation of geometry of oxidized graphene sheets from two dimensional planar structure of graphite.

GO is easily hydrated, resulting in a distinct increase of the inter-planar distance (up to 12 Å in saturated state) Additional water is also incorporated into interlayer space due to high pressure induced effects. Complete removal of water from the structure of GO seems to be almost impossible, especially taking into account that heat treatment at as low as 40-50° C above ambient temperature results in partial decomposition and degradation of the material. GO stored on air is always in partly hydrated state since it absorbs moisture proportionally to humidity.

GO can be easily dispersed into separate sheets in basic solutions; this unusual property was recently used for preparation of paper with advanced mechanical properties. Single sheets of GO can be deposited as films from dispersed state in liquid and then converted into graphene using heat treatment. Recent interest to graphite oxide wa slargely motivated by possibility to make graphene. However convertion is incomplete and "graphene" prepared from GO shows smaller conductivity and still partly functionalized.

Graphite oxide easily exfoliates in the process of rapid heating at moderately high temperatures (~550-570 K) with formation of finely dispersed amorphous carbon material somewhat similar to high surface area activated carbons.

---

end saved text

Other applications ?

BBC website reports 'Super sand' to help clean up dirty drinking water. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13895077

"Contaminated water can be cleaned much more effectively using a novel, cheap material, say researchers. Dubbed "super sand", it could become a low-cost way to purify water in the developing world. The technology involves coating grains of sand in an oxide of a widely available material called graphite - commonly used as lead in pencils. The team describes the work in the American Chemical Society journal Applied Materials and Interfaces. "

Any interest ?

--Craig Omus (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the applications are written about graphene oxide, not graphite oxide. However, I am surprized to find that the page about graphene oxide do not exist. There are separate pages for graphite and graphene. Therefore, one need to split again graphene oxide and graphite oxides. Using abbreviation "GO" through the text is confusing - it is used for both graphene oxide and graphite oxides. People are adding info about graphene oxide to this page because there is no specific page for graphene oxideNuinu (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC).

Correction of charge carrier mobility

Regarding ref. 17 the mobility values for reduced GO are up to 200 cm2/Vs. However in 2009 the values had to be corrected: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/nl901209z I think this point needs correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.220.87 (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Graphite oxide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008144828/http://graphenetimes.com/2009/12/boehms-1961-isolation-of-graphene/ to http://graphenetimes.com/2009/12/boehms-1961-isolation-of-graphene/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The name Graphite Oxide

The name Graphite oxide is an obvious chemical nonsense. The compound is not an oxide of graphite (of which there are two, carbod dioxide and carbon monoxide) it is a complex compound containing at least carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. There must be a proper scientific name for this substance.

Claims of graphene oxide in COVID vaccines

Someone more knowledgeable than I should comment on this. I assume there is nothing to it 2603:6080:1240:33B:6002:11AC:8729:4C08 (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I bumped into this conspiracy theory too. It’s bizarre: the ingredient list is right there on the FDA website! Artoria2e5 🌉 15:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Came up today in reference to the emergency wireless system test. The test was supposed to "activate" the graphene oxide and some unspecified nanoparticles and turn people into followers of Bill Gates? It was odd. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/10/04/emergency-alert-system-phones-conspiracies-5g-vaccines/71058731007/ 170.218.46.21 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)