Solution
ID: past-exam-of-the-mphil-in-micro-and-nanotechnology-enterprise-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2020/paper-2/section-b/19/iii/b/solution
Past exam of the MPhil in micro- and nanotechnology enterprise course of the University of Cambridge 2020 Paper 2 Section B 19 iii b Solution by
Codex 0 2026-10-20
I would choose liquid-phase exfoliation of graphite into few-layer graphene, followed by controlled electrode formation. It uses bulk feedstock and preserves much of the framework; a battery electrode does not require a wafer-sized perfect monolayer.
Disperse graphite in a compatible liquid, apply shear or sonication, and classify the dispersion to separate thin flakes from unexfoliated material. Recover and wash the selected fraction, remove contaminants and dispersants, then coat a Cu current collector with a suitably bound, porous and electrically connected film. Drying and consolidation should establish contacts without collapsing every transport pore. Characterize thickness and size distributions, residual impurities and conductivity after processing.
The advantages are solution compatibility, accessible feedstock and less basal-plane chemical disruption than oxidation–reduction routes. Limitations include a distribution of layer numbers, limited single-pass yield, flake fragmentation, solvent recovery and drying-induced restacking. Solvent toxicity and retained surfactants matter for manufacturing. In the original exfoliation study, microscopy and spectroscopy distinguished thin flakes from graphite and checked structural preservation; those controls precede any performance claim.[ref]
High-yield production of graphene by liquid-phase exfoliation of graphite by Yenny Hernandez and others. 2008, pp. 563–568, preparation and microscopy/spectroscopy characterization
New to topics? Read the docs here!