| Literature DB >> 32260227 |
Dinesh K Patel1, Hye-Been Kim1, Sayan Deb Dutta1, Keya Ganguly1, Ki-Taek Lim1.
Abstract
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are considered a promising nanomaterial for diverse applications owing to their attractive physicochemical properties such as high surface area, superior mechanical and thermal strength, electrochemical activity, and so on. Different techniques like arc discharge, laser vaporization, chemical vapor deposition (CVD), and vapor phase growth are explored for the synthesis of CNTs. Each technique has advantages and disadvantages. The physicochemical properties of the synthesized CNTs are profoundly affected by the techniques used in the synthesis process. Here, we briefly described the standard methods applied in the synthesis of CNTs and their use in the agricultural and biotechnological fields. Notably, better seed germination or plant growth was noted in the presence of CNTs than the control. However, the exact mechanism of action is still unclear. Significant improvements in the electrochemical performances have been observed in CNTs-doped electrodes than those of pure. CNTs or their derivatives are also utilized in wastewater treatment. The high surface area and the presence of different functional groups in the functionalized CNTs facilitate the better adsorption of toxic metal ions or other chemical moieties. CNTs or their derivatives can be applied for the storage of hydrogen as an energy source. It has been observed that the temperature widely influences the hydrogen storage ability of CNTs. This review paper highlighted some recent development on electrochemical platforms over single-walled CNTs (SWCNTs), multi-walled CNTs (MWCNTs), and nanocomposites as a promising biomaterial in the field of agriculture and biotechnology. It is possible to tune the properties of carbon-based nanomaterials by functionalization of their structure to use as an engineering toolkit for different applications, including agricultural and biotechnological fields.Entities:
Keywords: agricultural; biotechnological; carbon nanotubes; electrochemical; engineering toolkits
Year: 2020 PMID: 32260227 PMCID: PMC7178645 DOI: 10.3390/ma13071679
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1The conceptual diagram showing the general dimensions of the length and width of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) and multi-walled CNTs (MWCNTs) [2].
Comparative study between single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) [2].
| SWCNTs | MWCNTs |
|---|---|
| Single layer of graphene | Multiple layer of graphene |
| Expensive | Cheaper |
| Thermal conductivity in the range of 6000 W/m·K | Thermal conductivity in the range of 3000 W/m·K |
| Semiconducting and metallic properties (excellent field emission capability) | Low physical properties |
| Bulk synthesis is difficult | Easy to synthesis in bulk |
| Easily twisted | Difficult to twist |
| Catalyst needed for synthesis | Manufactured without catalyst |
| Low purity | High purity |
| Less accumulation body | Greater accumulation in body |
| More defection during the functionalization | Less defection, but hard to improve |
Figure 2An overview of the properties of CNTs and with synthetic and transdermal applications. Various properties of CNTs enabling them to be used as the transdermal applications are depicted. Additionally, synthetic applications of CNTs are also depicted.
A comparative study of different types of methods used in the synthesis of CNTs.
| Methods | Arc Discharge | Laser Vaporization | Chemical Vapor Deposition | Vapor Phase Growth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Condition | Voltage 25–60 V | Temperature 1200 °C and pressure 500 Torr | Temperature 550–1000 °C at atmospheric pressure | Supplying reaction gas and organometallic catalyst in the reactor |
| Yield | 30–90% | ~70% | 20–100% | - |
| Carbon | Graphite | Graphite | Fossil-based hydrocarbon, | Hydrocarbon |
| Advantage | Excellent crystallinity | High quality, | Can be controlled | Could be produce in bulk |
| Disadvantage | Difficult to obtain uniform length nanotube, | Difficult to maintenance, | Affected the temperature change and position, | - |
| References | [ | [ | [ | [ |
Figure 3(a) Schematic representation of how a graphene sheet is rolled to form three chiralities of nanotubes: (b) zigzag, (c) armchair, and (d) chiral nanotubes [39].
Figure 4(a) Transmission electron microscopy images of plant cells. Green arrows indicate chloroplasts in (i,v); black arrows indicate the cell wall for (iv,vii,ix); navy blue arrows indicate CNTs deposition for (iii,vi,vii,viii,x); and light blue arrows indicate cell membrane in (iv,vii,ix) [73]. (ii) Growth enhancement on (b) switch grass and (c) sorghum seedlings by exposure to carbon-based nanomaterials. Effects on growth of bioenergy crops by CNTs added to growth medium. Measurements were performed on 10-day-old seedlings (n = 30 for both sorghum and switch grass). (* p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01) [75].
The effects of different carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) on plant and crop growth.
| Type of CNMs | Plant | Treatment | Effect | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MWCNTs and oxidized MWCNTs (o-MWCNTs) | 23 × 10−3 and 46 × 10−3 mg/mL of MWCNTs for 5 and 10 days and | After 10 days, seedlings treated with low concentration of o-MWCNTs developed the highest shoot (4.2 cm) and root (5.8 cm) length. Seeds treated with a low concentration of MWCNTs also showed shoot about 1.5 times and root about two times longer than original seeds | [ | |
| Fullerol and MWCNTs | Tomato seeds | 50 mg/L and exposure ranged from 0 to 60 min (0, 5, 10, 30, or 60 min) | When exposed for a short period of 5 min, the germination rate was higher than that of the control group and showed no harm to germination | [ |
| Single-walled carbon nanohorns (SWCNHs) | Barley, Corn, Rice, Soybean, Switchgrass, Tomato | 25, 50, and 100 μg/mL for 2 and 6 days | The highest germination rate was recorded for barley, corn, rice, and switchgrass seeds exposed to 100 μg/mL SWCNHs and the highest germination rate was observed at 25 μg/mL SWCNHs in tomato seeds | [ |
| MWCNTs | Broccoli | 10 mg/L MWCNTs, 100 mM NaCl, and 100 mM NaCl + 10 mg/L MWCNTs | The MWCNTs-treated plants had positive effects on growth compared with the control and NaCl alone application | [ |
| MWCNTs | Barley, Soybean, Corn | 25, 50, and 100 μg/mL for 2 and 6 days | After six days, all seeds treated with MWCNT reached a germination rate of 100% compared with control seeds reaching a germination rate of 63% | [ |
| MWCNTs | Tomato plants | 50 and 200 μg/mL | The CNT-treated tomato plants produced twice as many flowers as the control plants | [ |
| CNTs | Rice | 50, 100, and 150 μg/mL | CNTs at appropriate concentrations (~100 μg/mL) promoted rice seed germination and root growth | [ |
| SWCNTs and functionalized SWCNTs | Cucumber, Onion | 28, 160, 900, and 5000 mg/L for 2 and 3 days | Non-functionalized CNTs enhanced root elongation in onion and cucumber, the effects were more pronounced at 24 h than at 48 h | [ |
| SWCNTs (non-functionalized, OH-functionalized, or surfactant stabilized) | Corn | 0, 10, and 100 mg/kg | Root length was significantly higher in plants exposed to non-functional SWNT 100 mg/kg and plant root uptake also followed the trend of non-functionalized > surfactant stabilized > OH-functionalized | [ |
Figure 5ConCap response curves toward penicillin G detection at different concentrations for LB film-incorporated EIS sensors: (a) seven-layer DMPA-penicillinase; (b) one-layer DMPA-CNTs-PEN; and (c) seven-layer DMPA-CNTs-PEN. (d) Calibration curve of ConCap responses for the LB films correlated with penicillin concentrations [93].
Figure 6Ag-CNT-PDMS-based wearable sensors for monitoring the physiological conditions of the human body. (a–e) SEM morphologies of the wrinkled CNTs (left) and Ag/CNT/PDMS nanocomposite films under variant strain and release conditions (1 µm). (f) Schematic illustration of sensor location and its application. (g) Signals received from the finger-bending involving the normal bending (blue) and stimulated bending (red). (h–j) Signal from wrist, upper lip, and chest showing the significant change in peak [92].
The effects of CNMs in the solid-phase extraction (SPE) technique.
| CNTs | Analyte | Sample | CNTs Amount (mg) | Recovery (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MWCNTs | Disulfoton sulfoxide, ethoprophos, disulfoton, terbufos sulfone, cadusafos, dimethoate, terbufos, chlorpyrifos-methyl, fenitrothion, malaoxon, pirimiphosmethyl, malathion, chlorpyrifos, disulfoton sulfone, and fensulfothion | Water (run-off, mineral, and tap water) | 130 | 67–107 | [ |
| GO–MCNTs-diethylenetriamine | Cr(III), Fe(III), Pb(II), and Mn(II) ions | Wastewater | 30 | 95 | [ |
| MWCNTs | Organophosphate | Garlic | 1.2 | 97–104 | [ |
| MWCNTs | 4-Chlorophenol, 3-chlorophenol, dichlorophenol, trichlorophenol, and pentachlorophenol | River water | 300 | 93–117 | [ |
| MWCNTs | Tolclofos-methyl, fenitrothin, malathion, phorate, diazinon, isocarbophos, and quinalphos phenamiphos | Peanut oil | 100 | 86–115 | [ |
| MWCNTs | Ethoprophos, diazinon, fenitrothion, malathion, and phosmet | Agricultural soil, forestal soil, and ornamental soil | 100 | 54–91 | [ |
The effects of CNMs in the solid-phase micro-extraction (SPME) technique.
| CNTs | Analyte | Sample | CNTs Amount (mg) | Recovery (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MWCNTs | Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) | River water, waste water, milk | 20 mg | 90–119 | [ |
| SWCNTs | Ethoprophos, terbufos, thiometon, tefluthrin, iprobenfos, vinclozolin, octachlorodipropyl ether, isofenphos, phenthoate, chlorfenapyr, propiconazol, Ethyl- | Teas (green tea, oolong tea, white tea, and flower tea) | - | 75–118 | [ |
| SWCNTs | Hexachlorcyclohexan, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane | Lake water | 2 g | 88–111 | [ |
| CNTs–silicon dioxide | Diazinon, fenthion, parathion, and chlorpyrifos | River water and agricultural wastewater, pear, grape, and eggplant | 50 mg | 79–99 | [ |
Figure 7(a) Comparison of the performance of carboxylated (c)-SWCNTs and MWCNTs for the isolation of the selected pesticides from virgin olive oil samples. (b) Influence of the amount of c-SWCNTs packed in the solid-phase extraction (SPE) cartridge for the preconcentration of the selected pesticides from virgin olive oil samples [107].
The electrochemical performances of CNTs-based Li-ion batteries. CVD, chemical vapor deposition.
| CNMs | Method | Current Density | Initial Discharge Capacity (mA·h/g) | Cycles | Residual Reversible Capacity (mA·h/g) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNTs–SnSb0.5 | CVD | 50 mA/g | 549 | 30 | 369 | [ |
| CNTs–LiCoO2 | CVD | 0.2 C | 118 | 20 | 118 | [ |
| CNTs | arc discharge | 2 C | 300 | 300 | 255 | [ |
| MWCNTs | arc discharge | 0.2 mA cm−2 | 117 | 30 | 113 | [ |
| Short CNTs | CVD | 0.8 mA cm−2 | 491 | 30 | 170 | [ |
| Fe2O3/CNT–graphene foam | CVD | 200 mA/g | 1190 | 10 | 900 | [ |
| CNTs–cobalt oxide | 0.1 C | 1250 | 100 | 530 | [ | |
| Zn2SnO4/CNT | 100 mA/g | 1925.4 | 30 | 703.8 | [ |
Figure 8Schematic diagram representing different modification processes of CNTs for contaminant removal from water and wastewater (C: carbon; CNT: carbon nanotube; ENVT: environmental; Hg: mercury; KOH: potassium hydroxide) [129].
Applications of CNMs in wastewater treatment. COD, chemical oxygen demand.
| Applications | Desirable Nanomaterials Properties | Type of CNMs | Efficiency of the CNMs | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catalysts | Higher catalyst loads and stability, stronger metal–support interactions, high dispersion, high stability and activity, low cost | Ruthenium/MWCNT-COOH-Na2CO3 | 98.3% and 70.3% aniline and total organic carbon (TOC) removals | [ |
| Ruthenium/MWCNT-COOH | 89.9% and 53.7% aniline and TOC removals | [ | ||
| Mass Transfer | Facilitate contaminant mass transfer, large surface areas, high electrochemical efficiency, degrade organics with much higher current Efficiency and lower energy consumption | CNTs | The efficiency was 340–519% higher than the conventional reactor, and the energy consumption was only 16.5–22.3% of the conventional reactor | [ |
| Adsorption | Large specific surface areas, high chemical and thermal stabilities, high aspect ratios, exceptional mechanical strength, diverse contaminant–CNT interactions | SWCNTs, MWCNTs | The maximum zinc adsorption capacities of SWCNTs and MWCNTs were 43.66 and 32.68 mg/g, respectively, in the initial zinc ion concentration range (10–80 mg/L) | [ |
| Flocculation | Exceptional adsorption capabilities and efficiencies, larger surface area, affinity towards target compounds | CNTs | Demonstrated the ability to successfully coagulate colloidal particles in the brewery wastewater | [ |
| Electrode | Effective compound adsorption and oxidation, high energy efficiency, fast reaction rate, electrochemical oxidation | Ti/SnO2-Sb-CNT electrode | 80.12% and 46.01% COD and TOC removals | [ |
Figure 9(a) (i) Adsorption capacities and (ii) their changes in single and binary dye systems. (b) Adsorption isotherms of methyl orange (MO) (iii) and methylene blue (MB) (iv) on CNTs/Fe@C fitted by the Langmuir and Freundlich models. The maximum adsorption capacity of MO (v) and MB (vi) increased with the concentration of the other dye [139].
The effects of the carbon-based electrode on microbial fuel cells (MFCs).
| Type of Electrode | MFCs | Type of MFCs | Effect | Power Density | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anode | Cathode | |||||
| Graphite fiber | Carbon nanotube/Pt | Effluent from an air-cathode MFC | Single chamber MFCs | The cathode had a maximum power density of about two times higher than that of the carbon cloth cathode | 329 | [ |
| Carbon paper | CNTs/Poly-pyrrole | Anaerobic digester sludge collected from Indah Water Konsortium treated Palm oil mill effluent (POME) | Two cubic shaped chambers | COD removal of the system using CNT/PPy was 96% | 113.5 | [ |
| Carbon cloth | N-CNTs on carbon cloth | Acetate-laden synthetic wastewater | Air-cathode cylindrical-shaped MFCs, dual chamber | The maximum power density was about 9% higher than that of Pt-carbon on carbon cloth | 135 | [ |
| Carbon paper | CNTs/Pt | Palm oil mill effluent (POME- Selangor, Malaysia) sludge | Two cylindrical H-shaped chambers | The composite electrode increased the power output of MFC by 8.7~32% compared with Pt electrode | 169.7 | [ |
| Carbon paper | Chemically activated carbon nanofibers | Palm oil mill effluent (POME) anaerobic (Selangor, Malaysia) sludge | Two cylindrical and H-shaped chambers | COD removal was approximately 82.3% and could generate up to 3.17 times more power than carbon paper | 61.3 | [ |
| Carbon fiber | Nitrogen-doped CNTs (N-CNTs) | 20% domestic wastewater collected from a municipal wastewater treatment plant of Shanghai, China | Air-cathode single chamber MFCs | The power density drop rate was low, so electricity can be produced more permanently than the platinum catalyst | 1600 ± 50 | [ |
| MWCNT/ rGO-biofilm | carbon fiber brush | H-type dual-chamber | Composite electrodes provide higher maximum power density than individual MWCNTs and rGO | 789 | [ | |
| Vertically Aligned CNTs | Cr/Au film | Acetate-fed microbial electrolytic cells (MEC) with Geobacter-enriched bacterial community from anaerobic digestion sludge | 61.3% of Coulombic efficiency | 270 | [ | |
| Randomly Aligned CNTs | Cr/Au film | 73% of Coulombic efficiency | 540 | |||
| Spin/spray layer-by-layer CNTs | Cr/Au film | 73% of Coulombic efficiency | 540 | |||
| CNTs/polyaniline (PANI) | Pt | Bacteria | Composite electrodes containing 20 wt.% CNTs provide high discharge performance and high power output | 42 | [ | |
| CNTs | CNTs/Pt | Bacteria | Air-cathode MFCs | COD removal was 95% and the maximum coulombic efficiency was 67% | 65 | [ |
| rGO-CNT sponges | - | Anaerobic sludge | Aerobic chamber and anoxic chamber | Produced higher durability | Max. current density of 335 A m−3 | [ |
Hydrogen storage efficiency of different kinds of CNMs at different conditions.
| CNMs | Storage (wt.%) | Temperature (K) | Pressure (MPa) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNTs | 9.6 | 77 | 10 | [ |
| CNTs | 1.5 | 296 | 12.5 | [ |
| SWCNTs | 4.5 | 77 | 6 | [ |
| Chemically activated carbon | 5.6 | 77 | 4 | [ |
| Carbon with boron | 5.9 | 298 | 10 | [ |
| SWCNTs | 1.73 | 77 | 10 | [ |
| SWCNTs-SnO2 | 2.4 | 623 | 5 | [ |
| Si-doped SWCNTs | 2.5 | 298 | 10 | [ |
| Un-doped SWCNTs | 1.4 | 298 | 10 |
Figure 10Hydrogen storage in nanotube bundles. Snapshots from grand canonical Monte Carlo simulations taken under 100 Bar pressure at 77 K (left), 175 K (middle), and 293 K (right) [173].