All That Matters

Today it was announced that the 2010 Nobel prize in physics goes to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov “for groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene.”

Geim’s and Novoselov’s work on graphene has been frequently predicted for the Nobel prize, although interestingly graphene has been studied long before they entered the field. Studies on graphene go back at least to the 1970s, and the name for this atomically thin layer of carbon came into more wider use in the 1980s.

A model of graphene. Image by AlexanderAlUS via Wikimedia Commons.

So what is the big deal with Geim’s and Novoselov’s research? Well, they developed a really simple method to fabricate graphene. Graphene is a close relative of graphite. Graphite consists of layers of carbon where in each layer the carbon atoms arrange as hexagons. These layers can be visualized as sheets of chicken wire.

Graphene is nothing but a single one of those sheets that make up graphite. The method Geim and Novoselov developed in 2004 to extract graphene is stunningly simple. Take a graphite pencil and write with it on a piece of paper. Then take a post-it note and use it to lift off tiny pieces of graphite. Look under the microscope and identify the single layer ones, and that’s it! But of course, in the meantime more efficient fabrication technologies for graphene have been developed.

As Geim, Novoselov, and many others consequently demonstrated, graphene is a unique material, fundamentally different to graphite. It is highly conducting, and electrons can travel through it for long distances without being deflected. This makes it interesting for fast transistors, and this is the point also of Geim and Novoselov’s ground-breaking first paper on graphene published in Science in 2004. Graphene shows also some interesting electronic properties owing to its electronic band structure, even the fractional quantum Hall effect.

And then of course the electronic bonds in graphene are very strong, which not unlike carbon nanotubes makes it an excellent structural material. Then there are possible applications in molecular sensing and many others. All this makes graphene highly interesting for researchers from many scientific areas. However, some of the rationale expressed by the Nobel Committee strikes me a bit odd, evidenced by this tweet: “According to Nobel Committee, practical applications for graphene include touch screens, fast transistors & DNA sequencing. #nobelprize.”

Flakes of graphene. Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Nature Materials 6, 183-191 (2007).

Indeed, I agree that graphene has potential in all these areas. But we still have to see those promised applications. The last application in this list, DNA sequencing, is from a Nature paper less than a month old!

As for transistors, well, the edges of graphene cause a lot of problem, and so does fabrication. I recently blogged about attempts to use nanowires to make graphene transistors, which are still very far off commercial uses as well. And when it comes to the band structure properties of graphene such as the so-called Dirac point, well, topological insulators show similar physics but could be far more promising.

Graphene is a highly interesting and versatile material with cool properties. But when it comes to applications, well, we will see whether an all-rounder such as graphene will be able to beat incumbents. This is certainly far from clear yet. So please let’s stay realistic on the practical implications of graphene.

Overall of course, I am very happy for Geim and Novoselov, they certainly deserve the prize. At the same time I find it interesting that Sumio Iijima‘s discovery of carbon nanotubes hasn’t been rewarded yet.

In any case, it is a great week for UK science, with Nobel prizes in medicine and physics going to UK institutions. This recognition shows the high standard of UK science, which is presently in severe danger from government budget cuts.

Reference:
Novoselov, K., & Geim, A. (2004). Electric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films Science, 306 (5696), 666-669 DOI: 10.1126/science.1102896

Further reading:
Geim, A., & Novoselov, K. (2007). The rise of graphene Nature Materials, 6 (3), 183-191 DOI: 10.1038/nmat1849

This post was chosen as an Editor’s Selection for ResearchBlogging.org

This week my colleagues at Nature Chemistry landed an impressive scoop, the publication of a paper by Michael Strano and colleagues from MIT on self-regenerating solar cells.

The performance of any kind of solar cell tends to degrade over time. This is particularly the case for organic solar cells, where sunlight can easily destroy the structure of the molecules used. Natural light-harvesting processes have a similar problem, for example during photosynthesis. The way plants solve this problem is through a self-repair mechanism.

Schematic of the regenerating solar cell consisting of light-absorbing proteins, lipid disks and carbon nanotubes. Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Nature Chemistry, advance online publication (2010)

Taking cues from such self-regeneration strategies, Strano and colleagues use a concept that is surprisingly simple. They prepare a solution containing carbon nanotubes, bacterial light-harvesting proteins and discs made from lipid molecules — the structural components that form the membrane of cells. Once the surfactant that keeps all these molecules separate is removed the molecules assemble themselves: the proteins bind to the lipids, which then attach to the carbon nanotubes. No assembly required.

During solar cell operation sunlight is absorbed by the proteins and creates electronic charges that are transported along the carbon nanotubes to the electrical contacts of the solar cell. To regenerate the proteins damaged by the sunlight, surfactant is added again, along with a small quantity of new proteins to replace damaged molecules. This dissolves the structure. But once the surfactant is removed the molecules reassemble, fully repaired.

In the study, the solar cells ran on a 40 hour cycle: 32 hours of operation, followed by 8 hours regeneration. Despite so many hours of regeneration overall cell performance was up by a remarkable 300% in comparison to cells that are not regenerated. And this could be just the beginning. At the moment, as soon as the cells are turned on they lose about 60% efficiency within the first hour or so of operation. Delaying the onset of degradation or finding a more efficient way of regeneration should lead to further enhancements. But who knows, nature may have a solution to this problem, too.

Reference:
Ham, M., Choi, J., Boghossian, A., Jeng, E., Graff, R., Heller, D., Chang, A., Mattis, A., Bayburt, T., Grinkova, Y., Zeiger, A., Van Vliet, K., Hobbie, E., Sligar, S., Wraight, C., & Strano, M. (2010). Photoelectrochemical complexes for solar energy conversion that chemically and autonomously regenerate Nature Chemistry DOI: 10.1038/NCHEM.822