The capacitive deionization behaviour of a carbon nanotube and reduced graphene oxide composite

Response to “Comments on ‘carbon nanotube/graphene composite for enhanced capacitive deionization performance’ by Y. Wimalasiri and L. Zou”

“…This approach contributed in the higher electrosorption results in our report. A common characteristic which is used to predict the electrosorption performance of carbon materials is the specific capacitance (F/g) [3].…”

“…We disagree with the ''very similar synthesis route'' [1] The more effective exfoliation of graphite oxide to GO was achieved by ultrasonication followed by dilution with a significant quantity of water [2]. This method achieved to produce nano sheets-like GO in contrast to GO nano-flakes [3].…”

“…Zhang et al [6] used a thermal reduction method which is vastly different from the chemical reduction method which was used by WZ [2]. On the other hand, Li et al [3] used a similar chemical reduction to WZ, however conducted under different experimental conditions. The method used by WZ is more effective in removing the oxygenated functional groups on GO [7].…”

“…Both Zhang et al [6] and Li el al. [3] used diluted nitric acid (1 M), whereas WZ [2] used a mixture of highly concentrated sulfuric (98%) and nitric acid (70%) at 343 K. The resultant graphene and CNTs composite would have more of a sandwiched structure, and result in higher capacitive deionization performance.…”

“…This approach contributed in the higher electrosorption results in our report. A common characteristic which is used to predict the electrosorption performance of carbon materials is the specific capacitance (F/g) [3].Biesheuvel et al have used the BET specific surface area method which is designed to characterize porous materials as a key criterion to compare the electrosorption performance reported by WZ [1]. As distinct from activated carbon, graphene is not a porous material [4].…”