Table 1 Comparison of aqueous reactions generating SWCNT fluorescent quantum defects
From: Creating fluorescent quantum defects in carbon nanotubes using hypochlorite and light
Reference | Defect type | Photoexcited species | D/G Raman ratio | Relative decrease in \({\mathrm{E}}_{11}\) absorption | \({\mathrm{E}}_{11}^ \ast /{\mathrm{E}}_{11}\) emission ratio | Reaction time (min) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Doped | Pristine | ||||||
This work | O-doping | ClO− | 0.037 | 0.01 | 17% | 5.3 | 0.67 |
Ghosh et al.18 | O-doping | SWCNT (E22) | 0.17 | 0.03 | 30% | 5.2 | 960 |
Chiu et al.19 | O-doping | SWCNT (E22) | 0.27 | 0.13 | 9% | 7.7 | 50 |
Piao et al.21 | sp 3 | – | 0.21 | 0.01 | 24% | 18.1 | 14,400 |
Kwon et al.50 | sp 3 | – | 0.15 | – | –a | 8.9 | 16 |
Wu et al.51 | sp 3 | SWCNT (E22) | 0.04 | 0.016 | – | 1.4 | 30 |
