(Invited) Towards Industrialization of Boron Nitride Nanotubes: Purification and Quality Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boron nitride nanotubes (BNNTs) exhibit a range of properties that are as impressive as their isoelectronic carbon nanotube (CNT) cousins but with unique features including substantially higher thermal stability, wide band gap, transparency in the visible region and better biocompatibility 1 . Historically, very low production volume has prevented the science and technology of BNNTs from evolving at even a fraction of the pace of CNTs. We have addressed this limitation through the development of an industrially scalable plasma process for the manufacturing of BNNT 2,3 . Although kg quantities of BNNT can now be synthesized daily, the material contains several impurities which must be removed to exploit fully the superlative properties of BNNT in various applications. In the first part of the talk, I will present our recent advances in purification. We have developed a gas phase process that raises the purity of as-produced BNNT above 90% in a single-step. The process relies on the use of pure or diluted chorine gas at high temperature. The process has been examined at various temperatures, up to 1050 °C, using a range of imaging and spectroscopic assessments. The next step in advancing the field of BNNT is the development of a method for quality (purity + defect density) assessment of bulk samples, an area that has plagued the field of carbon nanotubes for more than 30 years. In the next part of the talk, I will show how the specific and strong interfacial interaction between regio random poly(3-hexyl thiophene) (rra-P3HT) and BNNT leads to the emergence of structured absorption and emission bands that can be used to quantify the relative quality of BNNT samples 4,5 . 1. J. Augustine, T. Cheung, V. Gies, J. Boughton, M. Chen, Z. J. Jakubek, S. Walker, Y. Martinez-Rubi, B. Simard and S. Zou, Nanoscale Advances , 1 , 1914-1923 (2019). 2. K. S. Kim, C. T. Kingston, A. Hrdina, M. B. Jakubinek, J. Guan, M. Plunkett and B. Simard, ACS Nano, 2014, 8 , 6211-6220. 3. K. S. Kim, M. Couillard, H. Shin, M. Plunkett, D. Ruth, C. T. Kingston and B. Simard, ACS Nano ,12, 884-893 (2018). 4. Y. Martinez-Rubi, Z. J. Jakubek, M. B. Jakubinek, K. S. Kim, F. Cheng, M. Couillard, C. Kingston and B. Simard, J. Phys. Chem ., C, 119, 26605 (2015). 5. Y. Martinez Rubi, Z. Jakubek, M. Chen, S. Zou, and B. Simard, ACS Applied Nano , 2, 2054-2063 (2019).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".