1. science
2. physics

Business Briefing
Graphene
Applications and future uses
February 2014 | www.iop.org/business
The Institute of Physics is a
leading scientific society. We are
a charitable organisation with a
worldwide membership of more
than 50,000, working together
to advance physics education,
research and application. We
engage with policymakers and
the general public to develop
awareness and understanding of
the value of physics and, through
IOP Publishing, we are world
leaders in professional scientific
communications.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Gemma Lavender for writing this report.
Foreword
Since its isolation in Manchester 10 years ago, graphene has moved
rapidly from scientific curiosity to genuine advanced material. It is one of
many areas of physics research that may yield revolutionary technological
advances and significant opportunities for businesses in the UK. The
question now is how to make this happen.
There is already significant activity in the graphene market in the UK.
There is a growing and diversifying research landscape with numerous
institutions undertaking research and development on the material. In
addition to the fundamental research being pursued, there is significant
interest in the commercial applications of graphene and the impact that
this could have on our everyday lives.
However, there is still a lot of confusion and hype surrounding graphene
and other graphene-like advanced materials. There remain some
barriers to large-scale production, including technical challenges such
as finding a suitable transfer process for mass production, but there are
also commercial challenges including needing graphene or another 2D
material to make its way onto the mass market.
This report, the first in a series of IOP Business Briefings, describes the
current state of the graphene industry in the UK from the points of view of
experts in research, development and investment, including case studies
from companies that have adopted graphene technology and those
that are holding out. This is followed by a summary of discussions and
recommendations from meetings of stakeholders held at the Institute
of Physics, specifically looking at how to navigate the graphene supply
chain to ensure that this technology is given the greatest chance of
success in the UK.
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
3
Recommendations from the IOP
graphene commercialisation programme
1
2
3
4
5
4
Graphene:
There should be greater communication of real possibilities of graphene and
2D materials – cutting through the media hype of a “wonder material” to explain
the realistic potential applications to show government and business that there
are reasons to invest in graphene.
There is a need for industry standards and standardisation of nomenclature to
ensure that everyone knows exactly what material they are getting and what the
properties associated with the specific materials are. This will increase consumer
confidence when it comes to purchasing this material because they will know
what it is and what it is expected to do.
Continue funding blue-sky research to ensure that the UK continues to excel at
research and allows for new, potentially game-changing, discoveries to spring
from the country, upholding it as a global leader in science research.
Have a long-term plan including continued investment by government and
formation of a strategy that will support the industry and not remove financial
support while the technological development is still in its infancy so that the
graphene industry can reach its potential.
There is a need for greater evidence on what the most successful ways to connect
ideas and commercialisation in the UK are, and how these could be created.
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Contents
1. Introduction
6
2. Who are the leaders in graphene innovation?
8
3. Case study: HEAD
10
4. Case study: electronics
13
5. Who could benefit from graphene?
16
6. The graphene industry in the UK
18
7. Other 2D materials
23
8. Summary
25
9. References
26
Appendix: Discussion notes
27
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
5
1
Introduction
Dubbed the “miracle material”, graphene is a form of carbon that has
the potential to revolutionise material science, from tennis racquets to
touchscreen electronics. Its properties are varied, from its efficiency as
an electrical conductor a million times better than copper to its incredible
tensile strength. Indeed, experiments by Lee et al. (2008) [1] have
shown that graphene, with a breaking strength of 42 N m–1, is intrinsically
harder than diamond and stronger than steel, assuming a steel sheet
the same thickness as graphene – around 3.35 Ångstroms or one atom
thick (hence it is often referred to as 2D technology). Its high breaking
strength, which results from the strong bonds between its carbon atoms,
means that it can be stretched and bent, and this flexibility coupled with
its electrical and thermal properties makes it a powerful material for the
21st century.
Yet graphene is not a rare substance. In fact, many of us have made it.
Graphite, like that found in a pencil, is comprised of layers of carbon atoms
joined up by bonds. The carbon atoms within the graphite are arranged
in sheets with a honeycomb
Graphene is now being integrated into existing
structure, stacked layer upon
and future technology, and as a result this
layer. When we write with a pencil,
material has been thrown into the public eye
we are peeling away these layers
as they transfer onto paper;
among the graphite we may have made some flakes of graphene. At the
atomic level, graphene holds some resemblance to chicken wire with its
regular hexagonal pattern of carbon atoms and the flexibility that brings.
“
However, isolating graphene into single stable layers one atom thick was
not thought possible until October 2004, when graphene “monolayers”
were produced in the laboratory by University of Manchester scientists
Prof. Sir Andre Geim and Prof. Sir Konstantin Novoselov. The pair won the
Nobel Prize in Physics in 2010 for their experiments involving graphene.
Thanks to its versatility, graphene is now being integrated into existing
and future technology, and as a result this material has been thrown into
6
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
IOP Institute
of
Physics
1: Introduction
the public eye. The UK government,
through the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
is investing £50 m in research
to boost the commercialisation
of graphene manufacturing and
applications. Whether graphene
meets the high levels of hyperbole
that surround it depends greatly on
the maximisation of its properties
in industrial applications and
convincing the public of its benefits.
Scientists have already made plans for its potential uses, piecing
together a roadmap for possible applications that could perhaps see it
replace some of the currently used materials and lead to new markets.
The beauty is that some businesses and industries really have nothing
to lose in investing in it – if it doesn’t quite tick all of the boxes in one
aspect, it will still prove useful in several others. However, this versatility
can also be graphene’s downfall in the eyes of the consumer. Unlike
other new technologies, graphene does not have one single tag line, so
the consumer may find it difficult to understand exactly what graphene
does and how it can be used. “We see that the wide field of possible
applications can sometimes create confusion on the side of normal
customers,” reports Ralf Schwenger of sports manufacturer HEAD, which
now integrates graphene into the structure of its racquets.
“
Unlike other new technologies, graphene does
not have one single tag line, so the consumer
may find it difficult to understand exactly what
graphene does and how it can be used
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
7
2
Who are the leaders in graphene innovation?
Numerous companies in the UK are now active in their use of graphene,
according to Prof. Peter Dobson OBE of the University of Warwick, who
specialises in facilitating the rapid transfer of new technology and
knowledge from research to commercial interests. He acknowledges that
there could also be many more businesses at an early stage of applying
graphene to their products.
Patent applications
Yet despite having been the nation in which the graphene industry began,
but perhaps as a result of the relatively small number of active graphene
companies in the country, the UK lags a long way behind the rest of the
world in terms of graphene patents, numbering a mere 57. Compare this
with China (2200), the US (1700) and South Korea (1200), which are
then followed by Japan and Germany before the UK. The UK government’s
Intellectual Property Office reports that in July 2011 there were 3018
published patent applications around the world involving graphene [2]. By
February 2013 this had increased to 8416, making the UK’s 57 patents
look paltry indeed. South Korean company Samsung leads the way for
individual companies, with 210 inventions using graphene from 405
published patent applications. Meanwhile, much of the boost to the
number of patents between July 2011 and February 2013 has come from
Chinese-based applications, which have seen their numbers soaring.
Many of the top inventors applying for patents are academic institutions,
mostly in China and South Korea.
Relative Specialisation Index
Patent applications do not automatically correspond to actual inventions
and products. However, a “weighted” list of patents, taking into account
the usual level of invention in a country, makes even worse reading
for the UK. The Intellectual Property Office reveals that the Relative
Specialisation Index (RSI) shows the UK down in 10th, with Singapore
top, showing their high propensity to turn patents into products led
by their two patent leaders Nanyang Technological University and the
8
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
IOP Institute
of
Physics
2: Who are the leaders in graphene innovation?
National University of Singapore. Yet Singapore is only 13th in the list of
top patent appliers. Either way, both lists illustrate clearly the size of the
challenge for the UK industry to embrace graphene with more conviction
and to take on an “applied research ethos” that will see research into the
material applied to commercial products.
Financial support for graphene
Andre Geim has suggested that global expenditure on graphene
research must be in the region of US $1 bn (£600 m) given the amount
of published papers on the subject (10,000 papers in 2012 alone) [3].
The European Union has matched
It is hoped that the money and expertise being
that by injecting 71 bn (£800 m)
invested will enable UK companies to begin to
into graphene research and the UK
bridge the gap with the US and South-East Asia
government has promised £60 m,
while a £61 m National Graphene
Institute is being opened at the University of Manchester in the first half of
2015. Meanwhile, the University of Cambridge will also open the £30 m
Cambridge Graphene Centre. It is hoped that the money and expertise
being invested will enable UK companies to begin to bridge the gap with
the US and South-East Asia.
“
A graphene industry in the UK?
Peter Dobson wonders if there is such
a thing as a “graphene industry”, at
least in the UK, saying, “it might be part
of a more general carbon or advanced
materials industry”. This leaves companies
in a quandary: should they simply be
IOP Institute
of
Physics
manufacturers of graphene, providing the
“raw materials” for use by other companies
in their applications? Or should they involve
themselves in also integrating graphene
into technology, providing “complete
solutions” that can be bought off the shelf?
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
9
3
Case study: HEAD
The sports equipment company HEAD
has been using graphene-reinforced
tennis racquets since filing a patent
application towards the end of 2008. At a
Graphene Application Summit in London
in June 2013 Ralf Schwenger, who is head
of racquet research and development at
HEAD, suggested that the 2010 Nobel prize
award and the hype that has accompanied
graphene from the start has been a
definite boon to investment in graphene.
Nevertheless, he is keen to stress a point
that all companies manufacturing with
graphene should take heed of: that the
end user is rarely interested in technology
for the sake of technology and that it is the
overall benefits that graphene brings to the
consumer that ultimately matter. HEAD has
been focusing its R&D to utilise graphene
because it is the best material for the job,
rather than because it is currently desirable
in material sciences to use graphene.
The weight distribution in modern tennis
racquets is crucial for players to have the
right swing, and to hit the ball firmly and as
intended without incurring stress injuries.
At HEAD, the graphene-reinforced racquets
were the culmination of a decade-long
search for a new, more-balanced racquet
that exhibits a reduction of weight in the
middle area thanks to the addition of
graphene, shifting the weight to the ends of
10
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
the racquet instead. For the tennis player,
this increases the racquet’s swing weight
and recoil weight, improving their overall
swing. According to Schwenger, “The
graphene alone does not make the racquet
play better. The key was for us to use the
material improvements by graphene in the
right way so that in the end the player has a
benefit.”
Why graphene?
The main issues from the consumer’s
point of view, as HEAD sees it, are
the following. Is a racquet containing
graphene better than one without? Does a
graphene racquet offer a clear consumer
benefit? Is the 10% impact strength that
the carbon fibre/graphene composite
alloy produces enough of a wow factor to
entice consumers to bite? If the answers
to these questions were no, then there
would be no clear consumer benefit and
using graphene would simply be jumping
on the hype bandwagon, which in the long
run is not viable. Schwenger suggests
that by and large consumers are not
“
The graphene alone does not
make the racquet play better. The
key was for us to use the material
improvements by graphene in the
right way so that in the end the player
has a benefit
IOP Institute
of
Physics
technology addicted; rather, they are keen
only for noticeable benefits and if new
technology can bring those benefits then
they will accept that technology. If it is just
technology for the sake of technology –
graphene for the sake of using graphene
because there is lots of hype surrounding
it – then Schwenger suggests that
consumers will not be interested. At the
end of the day, tennis players are judging
HEAD’s new racquets based on how they
shape their overall tennis play, not on what
they are made of.
For HEAD, the answers to the above
points – improved performance, consumer
benefits and wow factor – were all yes
and so it made sense to use graphene
even though it is an expensive product
for the company. The improvement that it
brought to the racquets outweighed the
costs. As Schwenger says, “Graphene is
expensive for us but we are happy because
it has enabled us to improve our racquets
significantly.”
User feedback
Nevertheless, despite the improvements
that graphene brings in real terms, HEAD
is still capitalising on the hype surrounding
the material and using the technology to
help sell racquets. When Andy Murray
walks out on Centre Court at Wimbledon
with his “HEAD Graphene Radical”
racquet, in a case emblazoned with a
stylish, angular capital “G”, it is clear that
IOP InstItute
Of
PhysIcs
HEAD is using the hyperbole surrounding
graphene as a means by which to promote
the racquets, getting top tennis players
to endorse them. Advertisements feature
Novak Djokovic and his “new secret
weapon” – the graphene racquet [4]. And
how about this for a
quotable soundbite:
“The new HEAD
Graphene Radical
really suits my game.
It gives me the
power I need without
compromising on my
creativity on court,” it
says on Andy Murray’s
website [5].
Credit: HEAD Sport
3: Case study: HEAD
Collaboration
The R&D process
embarked on by HEAD
also illustrates some of
the wide possibilities
open to businesses when developing
graphene-involved products. Because it is
not a specialist in material science, HEAD
invited four different suppliers of graphene
– XG Sciences, Graphene Supermarket,
Cheap Tubes and the Industrial Technology
Research Institute (ITRI) in Taiwan – to
show what they could do with regards to
manufacturing and resin modification,
whereby the graphene is integrated into
the carbon-fibre structure of the racquets
(when graphene powder is applied to
GraPhene:
aPPlIcatIOns and future uses
f e b r u a r y 2 014
11
3: Case study: HEAD
a polymer it is termed “dispersion”).
Requesting tests on several levels, from
single-layer graphene to multiple layers,
HEAD ultimately selected ITRI to be its
partner and do the majority of the material
development work. However, it is just an
“
Graphene is expensive for us but we
are happy because it has enabled us
to improve our racquets significantly
12
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
example of the variety of suppliers out
there should a company wish to invest in
graphene for their products.
Graphene has not yet been taken up by
everyone, but non-users are nevertheless
keeping watch, adding to the feeling that
graphene exploitation is going to play a
larger role in industry in the future, rather
than the present.
IOP Institute
of
Physics
4
Case study: electronics
One such industry where graphene is still
seen as an immature technology – albeit
a new technology with the potential for
making a great impact – is in electronics.
Dr Cliff Weatherup, strategic technology
manager at e2v in Chelmsford, Essex,
which produces semiconductors, lists
graphene as one to watch in the sense
that it can be a “potentially disruptive
technology” – disruptive in the positive
sense because it can be a game changer.
However, that time is still a few years away.
Having attended a workshop organised
by the UK’s Knowledge Transfer Network
for Electronics, Sensors and Photonics
(ESP KTN), where graphene was discussed
with regards to its role in electronics,
Weatherup came away with the feeling
that it will be another 10 or 20 years before
the technology matures sufficiently to be
of use in semiconductor manufacturing,
which is currently mostly silicon-based. This
opinion is echoed by Peter Dobson and Dr
Keith Strickland, chief technology officer for
Plessey Semiconductors, which is based in
Swindon and Plymouth.
Like e2v, Plessey Semiconductors is
keeping a “low-level watching brief” on
graphene-related technologies of interest
to electronic applications and is not
planning, as of the time this report was
compiled, to invest any time, effort or
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Tunnelling transistor based on vertical graphene
heterostructures. Tunnelling current between
two graphene layers can be controlled by gating
Image courtesy: University of Manchester.
monetary resources in pursuing graphene
development within electronics until the
technology has matured. Even at that point,
Strickland is not convinced that graphene
will usurp silicon in electronics, at least
not in the next decade or two. Instead,
he believes that graphene and silicon will
operate in complementary fashion, but that
there are still obstacles to overcome before
graphene can reach the same performance
levels as silicon. The main challenge in
“
The main challenge in using
graphene for electronics is being
able to make electrical contacts
in the graphene, and integrating
the substance into standard
integrating circuits
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
13
4: Case study: electronics
using graphene for electronics is being
able to make electrical contacts in the
graphene, and integrating the substance
into standard integrating circuits. This
could require some changes to the design
of electronics, although Strickland believes
that large-area or printed electronics could
use graphene in a more straightforward
and crucially affordable fashion without
any significant design alterations.
Similarly, LED lighting could also be an
early adoptor of graphene, given that
applying graphene coatings would not be
as complicated as involving it in circuitry.
“
Integrated circuits using graphene
transistors are still problematic,
limited as they are by the size of the
graphene layers that can currently
be produced
Graphene Industries in Manchester is more
optimistic about the use of graphene in
electronics. While it acknowledges that
many applications are still some years
away, it points out that graphene can make
excellent transistors because graphene
is so thin it is easy to control whether it
electrically conducts or not. Such control
cannot be wielded over metal transistors
because it is not possible to make metal
films sufficiently thin like graphene to
affect their conductivity in any meaningful
way. Furthermore, suggests Graphene
Industries, graphene-based transistors
have the ability to operate at higher
14
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
frequencies and with more efficiency than
silicon, contrasting with Keith Strickland’s
opinion that graphene is complementary
to silicon electronics, rather than a direct
threat to the silicon industry. However,
there is agreement that integrated circuits
using graphene transistors are still
problematic, limited as they are by the size
of the graphene layers that can currently
be produced.
Touchscreens and sensors
The enhancements that graphene
can provide any given application are,
performance-wise, superior to many
traditional materials. This means that
there is a clamour for its integration into
many products but, as the example of
electronics has shown us, not all markets
have matured to the point where they can
start utilising graphene to full effect.
An example of this is one of the first
commercial uses of graphene –
touchscreens. Even to this day most
touchscreen panels are made from indium
tin oxide, despite graphene having more
functionality, because indium tin oxide
can be manufactured and integrated into
the product at a lower price point – the
benefits of graphene in touchscreens do
not as yet outweigh the costs.
Other uses that hold promise include
sensors. For example, graphene-based
sensors are ultrasensitive – if even one
IOP Institute
of
Physics
4: Case study: electronics
gas molecule lands on a graphene sensor
it can register detection. But like the
touchscreens, graphene sensors have to
break into a market dominated by cheaper
and well established alternatives based on
carbon black.
Endless potential
Many future applications of graphene
may not have been invented yet as a
lot of people are still to cotton onto its
potential. Peter Dobson suggests that
many customers still have a “so what?”
attitude to graphene, but an analogy can
be drawn with the invention of the optical
laser by Charles Townes in 1960. Back then
many people – scientists included – had
a nonchalant attitude to the invention,
particularly as the first lasers were fairly
weak devices. Few people envisioned the
IOP Institute
of
Physics
way that lasers would integrate themselves
into our everyday lives, or become so
powerful that they could fuse atoms.
A technology can only be considered
miraculous in the commercial sense when
there are practical and efficient uses for it.
Give graphene time like the laser and it will
become a cost-effective solution to many
engineering and material problems.
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
15
5
Who could benefit from graphene?
Part of any current hesitation in using graphene is the lack of education.
With any new technology or material there is going to be a steep learning
curve as people ask, “what is this?” and then proceed to find out. Only
at the peak of the learning curve does one find widespread market
acceptance.
Educating potential customers and innovators
The level of education that companies have about graphene can vary
depending on their expertise. Whereas some companies possess staff
with research experience of
The quicker a company gets on that learning
graphene, who can simply order
curve, the sooner it can reap the rewards and
a quantity of it and then have
beat its competitors
the skills and equipment to get
on with things and do as they
wish with it, others know nothing at all about the material other than
the hype that they have read in the media. The quicker a company gets
on that learning curve, the sooner it can reap the rewards and beat its
competitors.
“
“It is important generically to have the fastest uptake to any new
technology and to minimise the innovation timescale,” according to
Peter Dobson. Certainly the level of education can accelerate or hamper
this uptake, but it also takes time to innovate – new commercial solutions
do not simply appear overnight, as engineers need to become familiar
with graphene’s properties and have the insight into how to do something
novel with it. Then more time is needed for the patent application to go
through and the technology to filter its way down to the consumer. As we
have seen with electronics, this entire process can take a decade or more
in some cases. Simply dropping a new technology such as graphene in
to replace an existing technology can, however, speed the process up.
HEAD’s tennis racquets are an example of this.
16
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
IOP Institute
of
Physics
5: Who could benefit from graphene?
Opportunities in Manchester
The University of Manchester is seeking to capitalise on the discovery of
graphene by two of its researchers by encouraging commercialisation of
graphene applications. The aforementioned National Graphene Institute,
which opens in 2015, should provide a large boost to both researchers
and industry specialists in graphene, while a new annual award seeks
to inspire students and alumni of the University of Manchester to
develop new enterprises in
The National Graphene Institute, which opens
graphene. The Eli and Britt Harari
in 2015, should provide a large boost to both
Graphene Enterprise Award is
researchers and industry specialists in graphene
co-funded by the North American
Foundation for the University
of Manchester through the support of Dr Eli Harari, who graduated from
Manchester in 1969, and his wife Britt, with additional support from the
UK government’s Higher Education Innovation Fund. The judging panel
is to be chaired by Andre Geim and the award of £50,000 will go to the
individual or team (up to six members, of which at least three must have
graduated from Manchester in 2012 or 2013) with the best business plan
for a graphene-related business that is both innovative and commercially
viable, with the award acting as seed money from which to grow the new
idea. To assist applicants, workshops and seminars will be held up to
the closing date of 10 April 2014. While the winner(s) is free to locate
their business anywhere, given that the University of Manchester is the
“home of graphene” as described by Ivan Buckley, project manager at
the upcoming National Graphene Institute, it is expected that the winning
team will want to base itself near Manchester to make the most of the
links with the university.
“
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
17
6
The graphene industry in the UK
The key word that describes the nascent graphene industry in the
UK is “co-operation”. It is an understanding that this new technology
can only prosper if all interested parties come together in coalitions.
The UK government has been at the heart of encouraging the new
graphene movement – its £60 m stimulus package is evidence of
that – motivating the industry and helping to push for more of what
Peter Dobson calls an “applied research ethos” that bridges the gap
between research and commercialisation, the result being a sharp
increase in collaboration between science and business. So we have a
scenario wherein researchers are being encouraged to identify potential
practical applications for graphene, which business can then turn into a
commercial product.
Dr Yu-Ming Lin, the co-founder and vice president of technology at
Bluestone Global Tech, the UK’s largest manufacturer of graphene,
describes the real-world benefits of such co-operation, including
“the economic strengthening
The UK government has been at the heart of
that such co-operation brings
encouraging the new graphene movement
– job formation, trickle-down
consumer spending, etc”. In the
long term, he says, it is much less expensive for everyone, especially the
government, to operate in this collaborative manner and he cites the
European Union’s Graphene Flagship programme – which is channelling
71 bn into the industry – as something that will ultimately prove this
ethos.
“
Industrial/academic partnerships
Such collaboration can be witnessed in the industrial partnerships that
are now beginning to blossom as part of the various graphene networks
that are being developed. The government feeds money into the research
centres – Manchester’s National Graphene Institute and Cambridge’s
Graphene Centre being the two most prominent examples – and then
these academic hubs attract business partners to collaborate with
18
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
IOP Institute
of
Physics
6: The graphene industry in the UK
the university researchers and find new avenues for the application of
graphene. Bluestone, for example, is closely allied with the University of
Manchester and is one of 18 industrial partners, also including Sharp
and Samsung, which, as we saw earlier, is the world’s graphene patent
leader. Meanwhile Cambridge has ties with multinationals such as
DuPont, Dyson, Philips, Nokia and BAE Systems. Nor is there necessarily
competition between the two academic hubs – Manchester and
Cambridge also collaborate when the need arises. Yu-Ming Lin describes
the UK graphene landscape as having an “open-source feel” about
it, where a multitude of interested parties are invited to come in and
develop their own uses for graphene, and this freedom helps accelerate
the development of innovative products – “many hands make for lighter
work”, as Yu-Ming Lin says.
“
The Bluestone vice president thinks
Yu-Ming Lin describes the UK graphene
that this is the UK’s secret weapon
landscape as having an “open-source feel” about
in the race to come out on top in
it, where a multitude of interested parties are
the competitive global graphene
invited to come in and develop their own uses for
market, where the winners will
graphene and this freedom helps accelerate the
be those nations and companies
development of innovative products
that can deliver applications to
the market the fastest. A fractured
industry where neighbouring companies are fighting their own little
turf wars hampers, rather than helps, the development of the industry,
according to Yu-Ming Lin.
Where is the UK’s graphene industry?
Yet there is evidently a disconnect here. If the UK graphene industry is so
efficient and innovative, with a smooth relationship between research
and commercialisation, why is the UK lagging so far behind in the number
of patents and therefore the number of novel applications of graphene?
According to Peter Dobson the issue is a lack of ready-made markets.
Yu-Ming Lin takes a slightly different tack, suggesting that the biggest
challenge for the UK graphene industry to overcome has been the lack
of an “industrial backbone”. Dobson echoes this statement, recognising
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
19
6: The graphene industry in the UK
that the UK’s manufacturing industry is rather limited, lacking large-scale
electronics fabrication capabilities, for example.
Certainly both Dobson and Lin’s concerns sound plausible, but
additionally we can see the beginnings of a roadmap that is going to
overcome these obstacles. As we have seen, the electronics industry, for
example, still needs to develop
Businesses must be brave enough to take the
the integration of graphene, but
lead on market readiness
a timescale of sometime in the
next decade has been suggested
by numerous people within that industry. For companies such as HEAD,
the market is already there. New innovations may also find ready-made
markets that were not at first realised. Meanwhile the co-operative
networks forming in the UK are helping to build the industry from the
ground up. The arrangement of academic hubs and close partners, which
often organically grow out from the universities as start-ups, helps to
create the market as they go along. It is up to the companies, whatever
their size, to make judgements on the market readiness and, while
businesses may be adept at judging this and getting the timing right in
order to make profits (hence the reluctance of companies such as e2v
and Plessey Semiconductors to delve into the graphene electronics
market just yet), Dobson worries that this instinctive know-how is not
always fully understood by researchers or politicians, which could
potentially place strain on academic–commercial partnerships as the
government pushes for investment in graphene. As a result, businesses
must be brave enough to take the lead on market readiness.
“
Applied Graphene Materials
Manchester and Cambridge are not the only academic institutions with an
active interest in graphene. In the north-east, Applied Graphene Materials
(formerly Durham Graphene Science Ltd), based in Redcar, was spun
out from Durham University in 2010 after developing a novel sustainable
process for manufacturing high-spec graphene for batteries, capacitors,
advanced composite materials, electronic displays, inks and paints,
and 3D printing materials. This process is protected by patent and will
20
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
IOP Institute
of
Physics
6: The graphene industry in the UK
be used at its new production facility, which
is designed to produce tonnes of graphene
per year. Its launch on the stock exchange
in the form of an Initial Public Offering in
November 2013 was highly over-subscribed,
with potential revenues of up to £26 m raised
from the public flotation, more than twice
that expected. The money will be used to fund
the company’s graphene plant, which will be
able to increase production from one tonne of
graphene per year to eight tonnes [6]. Clearly
launching a graphene-based business can
yield a huge return on profits as the interest
and demand continue to grow in unison.
Commercial players in UK graphene
So who are the current commercial players in the graphene market?
Bluestone Global Tech is currently the largest graphene producer in the
UK, with its production line going into full operation by 2015. It is also
the only large-scale manufacturer in the US, while in China its graphene
facility, which supports the Asian graphene market, is about to ramp
up production to 100 km2 per day. Yu-Ming Lin explains that Bluestone
strategically chose the UK for its first European facility, partly because of
its proximity to the bulk of its customers.
A brief run-down of some of the UK’s other graphene-based companies
reveals similar innovation. Haydale in Ammonford is a subsidiary of
the larger company Innovative Carbon Ltd and has developed an
environmentally friendly process of producing graphene known as
the “split plasma” method, which it finds to be quicker and more
cost-effective than other methods. Like Applied Graphene Materials’
process, the split plasma method is also protected by patent, but it is
clear that being sustainable and environmentally friendly are important
requirements for the conscientious consumer.
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
21
6: The graphene industry in the UK
Graphene hub in Manchester
Over in Manchester, two leading companies are Graphene Industries
and 2-DTech, both spun out of the university – the “home of graphene”.
Graphene Industries was the world’s first supplier of the quantity and type
of graphene required by industry for electronics and research purposes.
Meanwhile 2-DTech is owned by the University of Manchester, and is
aligned with the institution’s Condensed Matter Research group, although
neither Andre Geim nor Konstantin Novoselov are involved in the venture.
It supplies graphene for “bendable” electronics such as touchscreens,
as well as transistors, photodetectors, composite materials, inks, paints,
batteries and capacitors, and bioapplications – the same sectors as
Applied Graphene Materials.
The importance of Manchester in the graphene world cannot be
overstated. The new companies spinning out of this academic hub are
reminiscent of the Stanford-sponsored technology companies in the
1940s, 1950s and 1960s that emerged in what is now known all across
the world as Silicon Valley. As graphene’s influence in the manufacturing
and electronics world increases, and companies ally themselves with
the academic hub, it is feasible that we could be seeing the beginnings
of equivalent “graphene valleys” around their academic hubs. Taking
Manchester as an example, the Harari Graphene Enterprise Award intends
to encourage companies to set up close ties with Manchester. Graphene
Industries considers being close to Manchester as a boost to its business
given the acclaim that the Condensed Matter Research Group has in the
graphene world. Bluestone located in Manchester for similar reasons,
citing the presence of customers that are beginning to emerge in the
graphene community. The National Graphene Institute has appointed
a business development and strategy director, Nathan Hill, to oversee
strategic industrial partnerships with the Institute and to further strengthen
the ties between the academic hub and the commercial companies.
22
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
IOP Institute
of
Physics
7
Other 2D materials
It would seem that novel 2D materials are like buses – wait ages for one
and then many come along at the same time. Only six years after the
development of graphene, along came the silicon equivalent – silicene. This
is a 2D version of silicon, with a honeycomb distribution of silicon atoms
similar to the way that carbon atoms are arranged in graphene.
Silicene
Silicene was created in 2010 by
Patrick Vogt of Berlin’s Technical
University and Guy Le Lay at
Aix-Marseille University by condensing
silicon vapour onto a silver plate to
form a single layer of atoms. The hope
for silicene is that it will be easier to
integrate into silicon-based electronics
than graphene, but the reality is that
silicene is proving to be an awkward
material to work with.
Heterostructures based on 2D atomic crystals for photovoltaic
applications. Image courtesy: University of Manchester.
Of great concern is silicene’s
tendency to stick to things, which is a
consequence of its structure; while graphene lies perfectly flat, silicene
is wrinkly, with rough ridges brought about by the way the single layer of
silicon atoms bond together. This uneven surface makes it easier to stick
to things. Silicene is also exceptionally reactive, oxidising in the air and
bonding chemically to materials, whereas graphene is comparatively
chemically inert. Silicene’s reactivity and stickiness make it much harder
to produce than graphene and to date it has only been “grown” on top
of a material, such as silver, zirconium diboride and a crystalline form of
iridium. The problem is that these materials conduct electricity, which can
mask silicene’s electrical properties. Early research had suggested that
silicene shared graphene’s electronic properties, but this has since been
disputed [7]. Graphene has a head start in terms of development, and is
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
23
7: Other 2D materials
easier to produce and to work with, but do the two materials necessarily
have to be in competition with each other? For example, if silicene was
sandwiched between two layers of graphene it could stabilise the silicene
and prevent it from reacting, while making use of silicene’s properties and
ease of integration into silicon chips [8].
Boron nitride
Graphene can also be used in unison
with another material, known as boron
nitride. It is a synthetic chemical
compound of equal numbers of
boron and nitrogen atoms, and
is capable of remaining stable in
temperatures up to 1000 °C in air.
Structurally, nanotubes and lattices
of boron nitride are very similar to
carbon nanotubes and graphene,
but boron nitride is an electrical
insulator unlike graphene. It is also
atomically very smooth, making it an
ideal substrate (surface) on which to
place graphene [9], insulating any electrical current running through the
graphene and aiding graphene’s employment within electronics.
Ultimately, which material wins out, or whether they can be
complementary, goes back to the question asked by HEAD’s
Ralf Schwenger: what provides the greatest benefit to consumers?
It is also worth remembering that graphene is just one part of a wider
research area into graphene-like advanced materials (GLAMs) and to put
graphene into context then this needs to be borne in mind.
“
Ultimately, which material wins out, or whether
they can be complementary, goes back to the
question asked by HEAD’s Ralf Schwenger: what
provides the greatest benefit to consumers?
24
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
IOP Institute
of
Physics
8
Summary
Graphene is clearly an important technology with potential that is only
now becoming clear. From these opportunities a nascent industry is
growing, identifying niches in electronics and composite materials
where effort can be focused. However, despite the hype, graphene is not
going to be an overnight success; the industry must remain patient and
watchful, and pick its time. The main challenge facing the industry is to
learn how to utilise graphene in a manner that leads to clear benefits,
not just for the manufacturer but also for the consumer. However, by
fostering the spirit of co-operation that has typified the UK graphene
industry so far, picking the right time for a business to jump onboard the
graphene bandwagon is not a decision that has to be made in isolation,
thereby reducing the risk for individual businesses. Bearing in mind the
learning curve and the timeline for various graphene-related technologies
to mature, now is the right time for companies to take an interest in
graphene – the miracle material.
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
25
9
References
[1] Measurement of the Elastic Properties and Intrinsic Strength of
Monolayer Graphene, Lee et al. (2008)
www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5887/385
[2] Graphene: The Worldwide Patent Landscape in 2013
www.ipo.gov.uk/informatics-graphene-2013.pdf
[3] w ww.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f4717b6-66f9-11e2-a83f00144feab49a.html#axzz2jV9Qpqm7
[4] w ww.tennisexpress.com/head-racquets-blog/
head-graphene-novaks-secret-weapon-is-here
[5] w ww.andymurray.com/news-and-blog/
andy-introduces-the-new-head-graphene-radical/
[6] w ww.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f94ac34-4f94-11e3-b06e00144feabdc0.html#axzz2lZ6C9mpt
[7] w ww.newscientist.com/article/mg21428625.400-move-overgraphene-silicene-is-the-new-star-material.html#.UoAcDxwU5LE
[8] w ww.nature.com/news/sticky-problem-snares-wondermaterial-1.12586 Nature 495 152 doi:10.1038/495152a
[9] w ww.nature.com/nnano/journal/v5/n10/full/nnano.2010.172.
html
[10] w ww.iop.org/news/13/nov/page_62017.html
[11] w ww.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/
value-scientific-research
26
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Discussion notes
Following an initial invitational meeting
at the Institute of Physics (IOP), chaired
by Dr Frances Saunders with attendees
representing academia, industry, policy
and funding bodies, the Institute initiated
discussions on the current state of
graphene research and development in
the UK, and how this compares with other
countries. Recommendations from this
meeting were for clearer communication
of graphene and related technologies
particularly “cutting through the hype”,
and the development of coherent
strategies for graphene applied research
and the role of UK businesses in the
graphene supply chain.
The Institute worked in partnership with
the National Physical Laboratory (NPL)
to bring together more people – including
those who do not yet work in the graphene
industry but could benefit from graphene
and other 2D materials – for a larger
discussion. The event on Monday 18
November 2013 was split into two parts.
The first was driven by NPL, introduced
graphene and other 2D materials, and
then discussed five questions: what
will be the first “real life” applications of
graphene? When will these applications
come to market? What are the longerterm applications? How can metrology
accelerate the development of graphene?
IOP Institute
of
Physics
What are the UK’s strengths in this area?
How will these be realised?
The second part of the event was hosted
by IOP. This was a dinner discussion,
chaired by the Institute’s vice president
for business and innovation, Prof. Alison
McMillan, who introduced talks from
Dr Nathan Hill from the National Graphene
Institute in Manchester and Dr Mike
Worboys from BAE Systems’ Advance
Technologies Centre.
The meeting on 18 November was part
of a series of events at IOP, including a
lecture from Nobel Laureate Prof. Sir
Konstantin Novoselov [10] and hosting
the Nanotechnology Knowledge Transfer
Network’s meeting on the graphene supply
chain in the electronics industry.
The discussions covered a wide range
of topics and the following points are a
summary of the conversations held across
the two sessions.
Discussions about where graphene could
make a true impact on the market focused
on not just where it could replace a current
material but where it will make a significant
performance increase and financial impact
on current and new technologies. It was
also discussed how this impact may not
arise from graphene itself but may instead
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
27
Appendix: Discussion notes
come from the use of other 2D materials
that have been developed following the
isolation of graphene.
It was considered that graphene is likely to
thrive where its properties can be used to
improve more than one issue, i.e. utilising
its strength and conductivity. For example,
HEAD NV cites the strength and weight of
graphene as reasons behind its inclusion
in tennis racquets. However, many agreed
that we need to harvest the “low-hanging
fruit” to penetrate the market. The UK
currently has a strong aerospace industry
and the discussion groups thought that this
area would have some of the first usage of
new high-capability materials.
• Recommendation 1: There should
be greater communication of real
possibilities of graphene and
2D materials – cutting through the
media hype of a “wonder material”
to explain the realistic potential
applications to show government and
business that there are reasons to
invest in graphene.
Another area discussed was the need to
introduce standards and benchmarks
for graphene as well as making the
nomenclature used more uniform in the
industry. This would build the confidence of
would-be commercial users of graphene.
28
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
Further to these early requirements for
standardisation is the need for careful
metrology to understand the behaviour and
durability of graphene in real applications
in real environments. Exactly which
property needs to be measured will vary
depending on application, for example,
electrical resistance or mechanical
strength.
The need for quality assurance and
batch-to-batch uniformity was raised, as
well as the control with manufacturing.
The discussion groups suggested that
large-scale, high-throughput methods
for non-contact characterisation will be
needed; this will be particularly important
to enable the realisation of the potential for
electrical applications. They also thought
that industry would need assurance of
large-scale product uniformity in future
production methods.
• Recommendation 2: There is a
need for industry standards and
standardisation of nomenclature to
ensure that everyone knows exactly
what material they are getting and
what the properties associated with
the specific materials are. This will
increase consumer confidence when it
comes to purchasing this material as
they will know what it is and what it is
expected to do.
IOP Institute
of
Physics
Appendix: Discussion notes
The current UK government’s enthusiasm
for graphene (and other 2D materials) is a
core strength in the UK, with funding for the
National Graphene Institute as an example,
as well as the strong applied science
research base supported by government
funding. Within this, research clustering
to develop multidisciplinary teams from
academic and industry backgrounds
was seen as important. Alongside this
the discussion cited the UK strengths
in fundamental research as key. This is
supported by the international council for
science funding, which states that major
innovation is rarely possible without new
knowledge generated from fundamental
research [11].
• Recommendation 3: Continue funding
blue-sky research to ensure that the
UK continues to excel at research
and allows for new, potentially gamechanging, discoveries to spring from
the country, upholding it as a global
leader in science research.
The UK is seen as being good at initial
research, but often unsuccessful at getting
initial products to market. This may be
due to either a lack of desire to invest
in the necessary development by UK
businesses or financial backers, or the lack
of appropriate skills in the UK. Members
from the business community commented
on how there is a skills shortage throughout
IOP Institute
of
Physics
the manufacturing pipeline. One
suggestion for the shortage of graduates
entering science and engineering jobs is
the uncompetitive salaries and benefits
offered in comparison with other sectors,
in particular the financial-services
sector. Furthermore, the lack of process
engineers in the UK hinders the scale-up of
technology on home soil, which may be one
of the reasons that the UK has yet to fully
realise its potential regarding graphene
and other 2D materials.
The long timescales often associated with
the commercialisation of scientific- and
engineering-based innovations would
benefit from a long-term cross-party
commitment from government ministers
and Members of Parliament to ensure that
funding commitments continue. The UK
must continue pursuing blue-sky research
to maintain its position as a global leader
in this area but must also look to funding
further along the technology readiness
levels. Furthermore, the role of government
in investment could increase with the
development of a two-tier investment
bank considering different levels to reflect
industry risk and perspective. Alternatively,
anchor companies – bigger companies
supporting SMEs – could be invited to
share risk that may not otherwise be
considered due to financial implications or
restrictions.
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
29
Appendix: Discussion notes
• Recommendation 4: Have a long-term
plan including continued investment
by government and formation of a
strategy that will support the industry
and not remove financial support
while the technological development
is still in its infancy so that the
graphene industry can reach its
potential.
A further area of discussion was the
framework currently in place to drive
innovation in the UK, looking specifically
at product lifecycles and the length of
time between funding and scale-up. One
suggestion for bridging the gap between
different sectors and bringing together
people with the relevant skills was the
introduction of frameworks that would
triangulate between “idea generators”,
funders and engineers. These frameworks
should be more than networks and ideally
would be physical places to help facilitate
collaboration. There are some of these
facilities in the UK with the Institute of
Making based in London and MAKlab in
Glasgow, which both provide a physical
space where potential collaborators have
a place to meet and a facility to house
30
Graphene:
a pp l i c a t io n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s
F e b r u a r y 2 014
some equipment. These centres allow
for a non-linear approach to innovation,
which might facilitate new and profitable
collaborations. The developing Catapult
centres have the potential to play similar
roles in different sectors, many of which
could involve graphene and other 2D
materials.
• Recommendation 5: There is a need
for greater evidence on what are the
most successful ways to connect
ideas and commercialisation in the
UK, and how these could be created.
Useful websites
http://graphene-flagship.eu
www.silicene.com
www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk
www.appliedgraphenematerials.com
http://2-dtech.com
http://grapheneindustries.com
http://bluestonegt.com
www.graphene.cam.ac.uk
www.haydale.com
www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/
display/?id=11019
IOP Institute
of
Physics
For further information contact:
Dr Fiona Jamieson MInstP
76 Portland Place, London W1B 1NT
Tel +44 (0)20 7470 4922
E-mail [email protected]
www.iop.org
Charity registration number 293851
Scottish Charity Register number SC040092
The report is available to download from our website and if you require an
alternative format please contact us to discuss your requirements.
The Kitemark is a symbol of certification by BSI and has
been awarded to the Institute of Physics for exceptional
practice in environmental management systems.
Certificate number: EMS 573735