541
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
DOI: 10.17344/acsi.2024.8794
Feature article
Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect  
for Electrocatalysis
Ivo Bardarov
1,2
, Desislava Y ordanova Apostolova
1
, Maris Minna Mathew
1
,  
Miha Nosan
1
, Pedro Farinazzo Bergamo Dias Martins
1,2
 and Bostjan Genorio
1
*
1 
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Večna pot 113, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2 
National Institute of Chemistry, Department of Materials Chemistry, D10, Hajdrihova 19, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
* Corresponding author: E-mail: bostjan.genorio@fkkt.uni-lj.si
Received: 05-07-2024
Abstract
The increasing demand for sustainable and efficient energy conversion technologies requires ongoing exploration of new 
materials and methods. Flash Joule Heating (FJH) emerges as a promising technique for large-scale graphene produc-
tion, boasting advantages over conventional methods. FJH rapidly heats carbon-based precursors to extreme temper-
atures using high electric currents, forming flash graphene upon rapid cooling. This approach offers rapid processing, 
high throughput, and can utilize diverse carbon sources, including biomass and waste, making it sustainable and cost-ef-
fective. Moreover, it generates minimal waste and yields flash graphene with enhanced conductivity, crucial for energy 
applications. FJH’s scalability, versatility, and efficiency position it as a key method for commercializing graphene across 
industries, particularly in energy conversion. This review comprehensively discusses FJH synthesis principles, emphasiz-
ing efficiency, scalability, and sustainability. Additionally, it analyzes recent advancements in flash graphene-based elec-
trocatalysts, exploring their impact on renewable energy and sustainable electrocatalysis. Challenges and opportunities 
are addressed, outlining future research directions. Continued advancements hold immense potential to revolutionize 
graphene production and integrate it into next-generation energy systems, driving the transition towards cleaner energy 
solutions.
Keywords: Synthesis of graphene; Flash Joule heating; Flash graphene; Electrocatalysis
1. Introduction
Graphene, the foundational two-dimensional (2D) 
structure of all carbon's graphitic forms, has captured sig-
nificant attention since its groundbreaking isolation in 
2004 by Geim and Novoselov.
1
 The significance of this 
achievement cannot be overstated and was duly recog-
nized by the scientific community in 2010 when it earned 
the Nobel Prize in Physics.
2,3
 Prior to its isolation, 
graphene's remarkable properties remained largely unex-
plored due to its inherent binding to substrates (e.g., plati-
num single crystal surface).
4
 These properties encompass a 
broad spectrum, including exceptional attributes like high 
electron mobility (measuring at 2.5 × 10
5
 cm
2
 V
–1
 s
–1
)
5
 and 
extraordinary intrinsic mechanical properties (reaching 
130 GPa),
6
 making graphene a suitable candidate for appli-
cations in completely unrelated fields e.g., electronics
7
 and 
cement
8
 technologies. Unsurprisingly, researchers span-
ning various fields of expertise have enthusiastically em-
barked on graphene experimentation, considering it a 
prime candidate for replacing conventional materials in 
established applications. Moreover, its extensive array of 
astonishing properties has sparked optimism about the 
potential birth of disruptive technologies.
7
 Consequently, 
this surge of interest has given rise to a metaphorical "gold 
rush" directed towards diverse applications of graphene.
9
 
Among those, the use of graphene and graphene-based 
materials for energy storage and conversion have shown 
considerable improvement over the past years.
10–13
 The 
aim of this work is to discuss the pros and cons of different 
graphene production methods in terms of scalability and 
sustainability, considering specifically its application as 
electrocatalysts for sustainable technologies. Focus is giv-
en to a relatively new synthesis method based on a process 
called flash Joule heating (FJH), how its versatility may 
open new doors for the easy tuning of graphene properties 
toward applications in energy-related technologies, and 
the potential for breaking into the market due to its sim-
plicity and low-cost.

542
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
2. A Brief Introduction  
of the Main Methods for Graphene 
Production and Their Application  
in Electrocatalysis
For almost 20 years graphene-related research con-
tinues to be enthusiastic, and the quest for a method to 
produce defect-free flat carbon monolayers in large-scale 
persists. This journey, in turn, also gave rise to a rather up-
setting fact at first glance; that graphene and graphene-
based materials properties (physical, electronic, and opti-
cal) vary strongly with the method employed for their 
synthesis.
14
 Therefore, the production method used to pre-
pare any graphene-like material will ultimately enable or 
impede its final application. In fact, during this period, a 
so called “graphene family”
15
 of 2D carbon forms varying 
in terms of morphology, lateral dimensions, number of 
layers, different types and number of structural defects 
emerged. Despite the abundance of scientific publications 
focused on large-scale graphene production and manufac-
turing technologies, the practical implementation of 
graphene remains limited. To achieve industrial-scale ap-
plications, a mass production technique must not only 
yield the necessary quantities but also ensure consistent 
quality. Unfortunately, current graphene manufacturing 
methods continue to be either cost prohibitive or underde-
Figure 1. Schematic overview of common graphene production methods varying from top-down to bottom-up approaches. (*A low value represents 
a high-cost method).

543
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
veloped as new difficulties always emerge as the process is 
scaled from the research laboratory to the industry.
16–28
The main production methods of graphene and its 
derivative materials are shown in Figure 1. The produced 
graphene can be classified into two major characteristic 
groups, large area single layer graphene sheets and bulk 
graphene composed of graphene flakes having smaller lat-
eral sizes. As it will be discussed later, bulk graphene is de-
sirable for large-scale energy storage and conversion appli-
cations mainly due to its comparatively high surface area 
and relatively easy scalability.
2. 1. Mechanical Exfoliation
Mechanical exfoliation is a fundamental technique 
for producing graphene from graphite. This approach in-
volves repeatedly cleaving a piece of highly ordered pyro-
lytic graphite (HOPG) with adhesive tape to obtain in-
creasingly thin layers of graphene.
1
 The pros of this method 
include its simplicity and the high quality of the graphene 
produced. It yields monolayer graphene with minimal de-
fects and excellent electronic properties, making it suitable 
for various applications in electronics and nanotechnolo-
gy. However, there are several cons associated with me-
chanical exfoliation. It is a time-consuming and labor-in-
tensive process, limiting its scalability for large-scale 
production. Additionally, it is challenging to control the 
number of graphene layers produced, and it generates a 
substantial amount of waste material. As such, while me-
chanical exfoliation remains a crucial technique for re-
search and fundamental studies of graphene, it may not be 
the most practical method for industrial scale produc-
tion.
29
2. 2. Liquid-phase exfoliation (LPE)
Liquid-phase exfoliation (LPE) of graphite is widely 
employed by industries to produce graphene in large 
quantities. Its principle is based on weakening the interac-
tion between graphite layers using non-aqueous solvents 
or aqueous solutions containing surfactants, followed by 
physical agitation or sonication to separate and disperse 
the graphene flakes. Due to incomplete delamination of 
the graphite precursor even after prolonged treatment, 
centrifugation is usually necessary to separate monolayer 
flakes from the bulk solution. Because of the presence of 
surfactants or organic solvents, a purification step is need-
ed if the graphene flakes are to be used for energy storage 
and conversion applications. Moreover, LPE generates a 
lot of hazardous wastes, which renders it to be unsustaina-
ble for mass production of graphene.
2. 3. Oxidation with Successive Reduction
Another method heavily adopted by industry is the 
oxidation of graphite pellets, on which the graphite oxide 
formed is ultrasonically exfoliated in aqueous solutions. 
The oxidation of graphite increases the inter-layer distance 
of individual sheets, hence facilitating its separation. The 
as-prepared graphene oxide (GO) flakes are isolated by 
centrifugation, followed by reduction to form reduced 
graphene oxide (rGO). The reduction process can be per-
formed chemically or thermally; nevertheless, part of the 
product will always remain oxidized. One major drawback 
of this method is the introduction of structural defects in 
the rGO sheets, which may compromise the desired ap-
pealing properties of graphene. Like the LPE method, the 
production of rGO generates large quantities of harmful 
chemical waste, requiring extra-step(s) for its treatment 
before it can be discarded, which ultimately increases the 
overall cost of graphene production.
2. 4. Unzipping of Carbon Nanotubes
The top-down approach of graphene production 
through the unzipping of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) pre-
sents both advantages and drawbacks in the field of nano-
material synthesis.
30
 One key advantage is the inherent 
structural uniformity of carbon nanotubes, which facili-
tates the controlled production of graphene with well-de-
fined characteristics.
31,32
 This approach allows for the tai-
loring of graphene sheets with specific dimensions and 
properties, offering versatility in applications ranging from 
electronics to energy storage.
33–37
 Moreover, the unzipping 
process enables the integration of functional groups onto 
the graphene surface, enhancing its compatibility with 
various matrices and facilitating the development of com-
posite materials with tailored properties.
38–40
 Despite these 
advantages, drawbacks include the potential introduction 
of defects during the unzipping process, which can ad-
versely impact the electrical and mechanical properties of 
the resulting graphene.
31,38
 Additionally, the scalability of 
this method may be limited, and the need for specialized 
equipment and precise control over reaction conditions 
poses challenges for large-scale production. For instance, 
the unzipping of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) through a 
solution-based oxidative treatment has been successfully 
demonstrated.
41
 This innovative method facilitates the 
longitudinal opening of multi-walled CNTs with an im-
pressive yield approaching 100%, even on a large scale. 
However, it is noteworthy that this procedure is accompa-
nied by certain limitations. Despite its efficiency, the re-
sulting graphene ribbons exhibit a width surpassing 100 
nm and are characterized by pronounced structural de-
fects and oxidized sites, reminiscent of rGO. This outcome 
underscores the challenges associated with achieving pre-
cise control over the unzipping process, leading to the 
compromise of structural integrity and the introduction of 
undesirable chemical moieties. Consequently, while this 
approach presents a noteworthy step forward in the large-
scale production of longitudinally opened CNTs, further 
refinement is essential to address the inherent issues relat-

544
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
ed to the dimensions and quality of the produced graphene 
materials. Advances in optimizing this methodology hold 
significant promise for unlocking the full potential of 
graphene-based structures across diverse scientific and 
technological applications.
2. 5. Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD)
Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) is a prominent 
method for the large-scale production of graphene, offer-
ing several advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost, 
yield, reproducibility, and quality.
42–48
 It enables the syn-
thesis of graphene on various substrates, mostly metals, 
such as copper or nickel surfaces, making it suitable for 
industrial applications.
43,46,47,49–55
 Moreover, CVD can 
yield high-quality graphene films with excellent electrical 
and mechanical properties, which are crucial for many ad-
vanced technologies.
30,43,56–58
 However, there are notable 
disadvantages associated with the CVD method. Cost can 
be a limiting factor, as it requires specialized equipment, 
precise control over reaction conditions, and the use of 
high temperatures and vacuum, making the initial setup 
and operation expensive. Additionally, the yield of 
high-quality graphene is greatly dependent on factors such 
as substrate quality and the need for post-processing steps 
to transfer graphene from the growth substrate. This can 
reduce the overall production efficiency and further in-
crease costs. Reproducibility in CVD is another challenge, 
as slight variations in growth conditions can lead to differ-
ences in graphene quality and thickness. Achieving uni-
formity across large-scale production can be difficult, re-
quiring tight process control.
Although the epitaxial growth of graphene on the Si 
crystal plane of silicon carbide (SiC) has emerged as a 
promising method to produce high-quality graphene, its 
distinct disadvantages, particularly in the context of large-
scale production, inevitably restrict the use of graphene to 
fundamental research and restrict applications, such as 
electronic devices and high frequency transistors.
59
 One 
significant advantage of this method is its ability to pro-
duce high-quality single-layer graphene directly on a 
technologically relevant substrate.
42,60–63
 The SiC lattice 
closely matches the graphene lattice, promoting epitaxial 
growth and reducing defects. This results in exceptional 
electronic quality, making it highly desirable for electron-
ic and optoelectronic applications. Additionally, the 
method offers good reproducibility, as it relies on well-es-
tablished semiconductor growth techniques.
61–63
 Howev-
er, there are notable disadvantages to consider. First, the 
cost of SiC wafers and the epitaxial growth equipment can 
be relatively high, which poses a barrier to large-scale 
production. Second, while the quality of graphene pro-
duced through this method is exceptional, the process 
may not be as scalable as some other techniques. The 
growth rate may be limited, impacting overall yield and 
production speed. Furthermore, the requirement for spe-
cialized SiC substrates can limit versatility and increase 
costs.
2. 6.  Polymerization from Organic Precursors
The organic synthesis of graphene is a bottom-up 
method based on the oxidative cyclodehydrogenation of 
oligophenylene and polyphenylene precursors to produce 
nanographene molecules and graphene nanoribbons 
(GNRs).
30,64–70
 The main advantage of this method is the 
possibility to create bandgap in the electronic structure of 
graphene and control its magnitude, which has enormous 
implications for application of graphene-based materials 
in electronic devices.
71–81
 For instance, by varying the 
width and edge termination of the GNRs, it is possible to 
tailor the magnitude of the bandgap with extreme preci-
sion, an essential step to design GNRs with accurate and 
reproducible electronic, optical, and magnetic properties 
for impending nanoelectronics, optoelectronics, and spin-
tronics applications.
29,82–86
 However, the scalability of the 
organic synthesis of GNRs together with its transfer pro-
cess remains challenging for practical application in devic-
es.
87,88
2. 7.  Graphene and Graphene-Based 
Materials as Passive Components for 
Electrocatalysis
Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that convert 
chemical energy directly into electrical energy. Graphene's 
high electrical conductivity, large surface area, and chemi-
cal stability make it an ideal candidate for various compo-
nents in fuel cells. The use of graphene-based materials as 
catalyst supports, gas diffusion layers, and current collec-
tors has shown remarkable improvements in the overall 
performance and durability of fuel cells.
89–93
 These ad-
vancements contribute to increased power density, faster 
reaction rates, and prolonged cell life. For instance, in a 
study conducted by Y oo et al., it was observed that sub-na-
no Pt clusters, when supported on graphene nanosheets 
(Pt/GNS), demonstrated superior CO tolerance during the 
hydrogen oxidation reaction (HOR) compared to Pt clus-
ters dispersed on carbon black (Pt/CB).
94
 Electrochemical 
characterization revealed that, under pure H
2
 conditions, 
Pt/GNS, Pt/CB, and PtRu/CB exhibited comparable elec-
trocatalytic activities for the HOR, notwithstanding the 
variation in the carbon material utilized. Notably, the Pt/
GNS sustained a 52% activity level in the presence of H
2
 
and 500 parts per million (ppm) of CO, whereas the Pt/CB 
exhibited only 11% activity under the same conditions. Al-
though the mechanism behind the improved CO tolerance 
for Pt/GNS remains unclear, these findings underscore the 
enhanced CO tolerance and high durability of Pt/GNS, 
positioning graphene-based electrocatalyst supports as 
promising candidates for improving the performance of 
fuel cells.

545
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
The oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) occurring at 
the cathodes of proton exchange membrane fuel cells 
(PEMFCs) is a crucial electrochemical process that signif-
icantly influences the overall efficiency of these energy 
conversion devices. Despite its importance, the slow kinet-
ics associated with the ORR remains a major drawback, 
impeding the widespread deployment of practical fuel 
cells. The sluggish nature of the ORR can be primarily at-
tributed to the complex four-electron transfer mechanism 
involved in reducing molecular oxygen to water. The intri-
cate nature of this process, coupled with the inherently 
limited surface area of conventional cathode materials, re-
sults in substantial overpotential and hinders the rate of 
oxygen reduction. Kou et al. utilized functionalized 
graphene sheets (FGSs) as support for Pt nanoparticles as 
electrocatalyst for the ORR in acidic media.
95
 Specifically, 
The FGSs were synthesized through the thermal expan-
sion of graphite oxide, and Pt nanoparticles, featuring an 
average diameter of 2 nm, were homogeneously deposited 
onto FGSs utilizing impregnation methods. Comparative 
analysis revealed that Pt-FGS exhibited a superior electro-
chemical surface area and oxygen reduction activity, cou-
pled with enhanced stability, in comparison to a commer-
cially available catalyst (20% Pt supported on Vulcan 
XC-72 carbon). Complementary techniques such as trans-
mission electron microscopy, X-ray photoelectron spec-
troscopy, and electrochemical characterization collectively 
indicate that the enhanced performance of Pt-FGS can be 
ascribed to the smaller particle size and reduced aggrega-
tion of Pt nanoparticles on the functionalized graphene 
sheets. This study highlights the significance of tailored 
catalyst-support systems in optimizing the electrocatalytic 
performance of oxygen reduction reactions for potential 
applications in energy conversion technologies.
A recent study about the influence of support’s struc-
ture and chemistry on platinum-based electrocatalysts 
showed that graphene derivative (GD) support confers 
higher stability and activity during ORR compared to the 
commercial benchmark carbon black (CB) support.
96
 Ac-
celerated degradation testing, conducted utilizing a 
high-temperature liquid electrolyte disc electrode, re-
vealed that reduced graphene oxide (rGO)-supported cat-
alysts exhibited enhanced electrochemical stability in both 
electrochemically active surface area and mass activity re-
tention compared to their CB-supported counterparts, in-
cluding the commercially recognized benchmark from 
Umicore (Elyst Pt30 0690). X-ray photoelectron spectros-
copy and Raman spectroscopy results suggested that the 
improved durability of the electrocatalyst is attributed to 
the increased content of sp
2
 carbon and the reduction of 
structural defects in the rGO support. These alterations 
may induce a modified metal-support interaction, influ-
encing the enhanced durability and performance of 
GD-supported catalysts. Furthermore, evaluation of high 
current density performance was conducted by measuring 
activity in a gas diffusion electrode half-cell. On average, 
both electrocatalysts based on rGO exhibited superior ki-
netic performance and high current density, pertinent for 
industrial applications. Notably, the peak power density 
values of the rGO-supported materials in this study sur-
passed those reported in prior publications and exceeded 
the state-of-the-art commercial Pt-Co benchmark. This 
positions rGO-based materials as highly promising candi-
dates for potential industrial applications as carbon-based 
catalyst supports, warranting further exploration in this 
direction.
Pavko et al. systematically assessed the durability of 
selected graphene derivatives (reduced graphene oxides, 
rGOs, and reduced graphene oxide nanoribbons, rGONRs) 
and carbon black (CB) employed as carbon supports for 
platinum-based ORR electrocatalysts.
97
 Two distinct series 
of electrocatalysts, one based on PtCu and the other on Pt-
Co nanoparticulate intermetallics, were uniformly dis-
persed on the specified carbon supports. Characterization 
through X-ray diffraction, transmission electron microsco-
py, and scanning electron microscopy indicated compara-
ble metallic components in both series (PtCu and PtCo) of 
the composite samples, with the primary distinction lying 
in the nature of the carbon support - a critical considera-
tion for investigating carbon support durability. In-depth 
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis affirmed sub-
stantial differences among the carbon supports in terms of 
total oxygen content, sp
2
 carbon content, and the nature of 
oxygen functionalities. To assess carbon support durability, 
the authors conducted specialized electrochemical acceler-
ated degradation tests (HT-ADTs), deliberately inducing 
carbon corrosion as the primary degradation mechanism. 
On average, electrocatalysts supported by rGO demon-
strated superior electrochemical durability compared to 
their CB supported counterparts. Notably, the CB support-
ed sample, despite exhibiting the lowest oxygen content, 
did not demonstrate the highest stability, suggesting that 
factors beyond total oxygen content significantly influence 
carbon support durability. Among these factors, the 
amount of sp
2
 carbon and its corrosion stability emerged as 
crucial, specifically, higher sp
2
 content correlated with in-
creased durability of the carbon support. Finally, the para-
mount parameter influencing electrochemical durability 
was identified as the content of carboxyl functional groups; 
higher amounts of this functional group in the carbon sup-
port corresponded to lower electrochemical durability. 
These findings were corroborated by direct measurements 
of evolving CO
2
 signals using an advanced in-situ electro-
chemical cell-mass spectrometry, which demonstrated car-
bon support degradation during potential cycling. The ob-
served trend aligned with that of HT-ADTs, where the least 
stable catalyst exhibited the highest CO
2
 signal, while the 
most stable catalyst exhibited the lowest, providing strong 
support for the results obtained from HT-ADTs. The 
knowledge gained can guide the development of more sta-
ble carbon supports, essential for the realization of practical 
and durable fuel cell systems.

546
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
Alkaline direct ethanol fuel cells (ADEFCs) have 
emerged as a significant fuel cell type, particularly for 
portable and transportation applications, owing to their 
high theoretical energy density (8 kWh kg
–1
), environ-
mental friendliness, and the ease of handling ethanol com-
pared to other fuels like hydrogen.
98
 Ethanol, with advan-
tages such as production from agricultural products, 
relatively non-toxic fuel, and lower crossover from the an-
ode to the cathode, presents distinct merits over methanol. 
Despite these benefits, ADEFCs face a critical challenge in 
the development of cost-effective, highly active, and stable 
electrocatalysts for the ethanol oxidation reaction (EOR) 
at the anode.
99
 Addressing the impediment of sluggish ki-
netics in the EOR, Wolf et al. focused on the synthesis of a 
PdNiBi nanocatalyst supported on reduced graphene ox-
ide (rGO) through a facile synthesis method.
100
 Successful 
anchoring of PdNiBi nanoparticles onto the rGO support 
was achieved using the modified instant reduction meth-
od. Physicochemical analyses revealed a characteristic 
two-dimensional wrinkled sheet morphology associated 
with graphene-based materials. Additionally, the analyses 
demonstrated uniform and well-distributed metal parti-
cles, featuring an average diameter of 2.6 nm on the carbon 
support. This distribution was attributed to strong C–O–M 
(M = metal sites) bridges formed by the remaining oxygen 
functionalities of the rGO. Electrochemical tests high-
lighted the PdNiBi/rGO composite superior performance 
for EOR activity and stability compared to commercial 
Pd/C. The enhanced electrocatalytic activity was attribut-
ed to the generation of abundant active sites facilitated by 
the rGO support and the presence of oxophilic Ni and Bi 
elements.
2. 8.  Graphene and Graphene-Based 
Materials as Active Components for 
Electrocatalysis
Among metal-free electrocatalysts the development 
of electrocatalysts, carbon-based nanomaterials exhibit 
many advantageous properties, such as variously tunable 
chemical structures, large surface area, thermal stability, 
conductivity, excellent mechanical properties, and high 
durability in various electrochemical environ-
ments.
89–93,101–106
 These properties ensure that the materi-
als that serve as catalysts are inexpensive and have high 
tolerance to a wide pH range. In contrast, pristine carbon 
nanomaterials exhibit low electrocatalytic activity. There-
fore, various approaches have been developed to modify 
carbon structures and generate electronic structures with 
highly active catalytic activities. These modifications are 
achieved by localized distribution of charge and spin den-
sity.
107
One strategy for fine-tuning the electronic proper-
ties of carbon nanostructures involves introducing intrin-
sic defects or increasing the edge structure. Among the 
various defects, the effect of point and line defects in 
graphene clusters was investigated using the DFT method 
on the catalytic ORR activity. The point defects used in the 
study were Stone-Wales defect, single vacancies, double 
vacancies, and substituting pentagonal ring and for one 
dimensional line defects pentagon-heptagon and penta-
gon-pentagon-octagon chains were used. It was found that 
the defects can generate spin density and catalyze ORR, 
similar to the graphene edges.
108
Second possibility is to dope the carbon nanostruc-
ture with heteroatoms. The most popular heteroatoms are 
nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P) and boron (B)
109–112
 or 
bonds with oxygen (O), sulfur (S), chlorine (Cl), bromine 
(Br) and iodine (I)
113,114
 atoms at the edges. The different 
electronegativity of carbon and heteroatoms changes the 
local charge and spin density, which can have a positive ef-
fect on catalytic activity. The active sites in heteroa-
tom-doped carbon nanostructures are the carbon atoms 
near the dopant, the carbon atoms at the edges, or the do-
pant itself. For ORR activity, the density functional theory 
(DFT) calculations showed that heteroatom doping with N, 
P , B, S, Cl, Br, and I significantly change the charge and spin 
density and further increases the activity. It was also shown 
that oxygen functional groups such as –C–OH–, –C=O and 
–COOH near the edge enhance the ORR activity.
115
The third technique is physisorption of organic com-
pounds to the graphene derivative nanostructures. It in-
volves various organic molecules (TCNE, C
3
N
4
, etc.) ad-
sorbed onto carbon nanotubes or graphene nanostructures. 
The catalytic potential results from electron transfer either 
between the organic compound and the graphene deriva-
tive. Electron transfer creates electrocatalytically active 
sites on carbon atoms with higher charge density.
116,117
In 2010, nitrogen-doped graphene (N-graphene) has 
been successfully synthesized through chemical vapor 
deposition (CVD) of methane in the presence of ammo-
nia.
118
 This novel N-graphene exhibits remarkable electro-
catalytic activity, long-term operational stability, and 
crossover tolerance superior to platinum when employed 
as a metal-free electrode for oxygen reduction through the 
four-electron pathway in alkaline fuel cells. This study 
marks the pioneering use of graphene and its derivatives as 
metal-free catalysts for oxygen reduction. The incorpora-
tion of nitrogen into the graphene structure plays a pivotal 
role in enhancing the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR). 
The N-graphene film outperforms Pt/C electrodes, show-
casing a threefold increase in steady-state catalytic current 
over a broad potential range. Additionally, its long-term 
stability, crossover tolerance, and resistance to CO poison-
ing surpass those of Pt/C for oxygen reduction in alkaline 
electrolytes. This work not only underscores the versatility 
of N-doping in ORR, as demonstrated with nitro-
gen-doped carbon nanotubes and N-graphene, but also 
suggests broader implications for the development of di-
verse metal-free ORR catalysts for fuel cell applications.
Graphene derivatives doped with nitrogen have 
emerged as promising non-noble metal materials for the 

547
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
ORR in both proton exchange membrane and alkaline fuel 
cells.
118–120
 Nosan et al. developed a rapid and scalable 
electrical induction heating method for the preparation of 
nitrogen-doped heat-treated graphene oxide deriva-
tives.
121
 Materials synthesized using this method exhibited 
significantly elevated specific surface areas and demon-
strated improved ORR activity compared to conventional 
synthesis approaches. Interestingly, the authors demon-
strated that the temperature program of induction heating 
could finely modulate the concentration of nitrogen func-
tionalities. Specifically, the amount of graphitic-N configu-
ration increased directly proportional to the final temper-
ature employed, coinciding with enhanced ORR activity in 
both alkaline and acidic electrolytes, suggesting that the 
concentration of graphitic-N could be responsible for the 
increased ORR activity. These findings contribute valuable 
insights for the development of non-metal nitrogen-doped 
heat-treated graphene oxide derivatives for applications in 
energy conversion systems.
The hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) and oxygen 
evolution reaction (OER) play a pivotal role in the field of 
electrocatalysis, particularly in the context of water elec-
trolyzers, where they serve as the cathodic and anodic 
half-reactions, respectively.
122–126
 HER involves the reduc-
tion of protons to produce molecular hydrogen and OER 
involves the conversion of water into oxygen and protons, 
crucial processes for the sustainable generation of hydro-
gen gas as a clean and renewable energy carrier. Efficient 
electrocatalysis of the HER and OER are imperative for 
enhancing the overall performance and economic viability 
of water electrolyzers, as it determines the rate at which 
hydrogen and oxygen are produced and influences the sys-
tem's energy efficiency.
127–131
 Electrodes with high catalyt-
ic activity for HER and OER facilitate lower overpoten-
tials, reducing the energy input required for hydrogen and 
oxygen evolution.
132–136
 Consequently, advancements in 
the design and development of electrocatalysts for HER 
and OER have significant implications for the scalability 
and commercialization of water electrolysis technologies, 
offering a pathway towards the realization of a clean and 
sustainable hydrogen economy.
Zheng et al. study presents the synthesis of a met-
al-free electrocatalyst, comprising exclusively carbon and 
nitrogen components, achieved through the integration of 
graphitic carbon nitride (g-C
3
N
4
) and nitrogen-doped 
graphene (N-graphene; NG).
137
 The resulting C
3
N
4
@NG 
hybrid exhibits distinctive molecular architecture and 
electronic characteristics, rendering it suitable for electro-
catalytic hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) applications. 
Despite not reaching the activity levels of state-of-the-art 
Pt catalysts, this metal-free hybrid demonstrates HER per-
formance comparable to well-established metallic coun-
terparts, including nanostructured MoS
2
 materials. Exper-
imental observations, complemented by density functional 
theory (DFT) calculations unveil the unique electrocata-
lytic properties arising from a synergistic effect within this 
hybrid nanostructure: g-C
3
N
4
 furnishes highly active hy-
drogen adsorption sites, while N-graphene facilitates the 
electron-transfer process during proton reduction. These 
results demonstrate the potential of well-designed met-
al-free catalysts, comparable to precious metals, for highly 
efficient electrocatalytic HER. Consequently, this work 
opens a promising avenue for the broader utilization of 
metal-free alternative materials, reducing reliance on no-
ble metals across diverse applications.
Jiao et al. systematically explored the HER across a 
range of non-metal heteroatom-doped graphene materi-
als, incorporating nitrogen, phosphorus, oxygen, sulfur, 
and boron.
138
 Employing electrochemical reaction rate 
measurements and density functional theory (DFT) calcu-
lations to assess adsorption energetics, the study estab-
lished a correlation between current density on each mate-
rial and hydrogen adsorption strength on molecular 
models. The integrated experimental and theoretical anal-
ysis revealed that the suboptimal catalytic activity of car-
bon-based catalysts stems from weak hydrogen adsorption 
on graphene surfaces. A distinctive volcano-shaped rela-
tionship emerged, linking the activity (current density) to 
the free energy of hydrogen adsorption, with an optimal 
doped-graphene electrocatalyst predicted to reside at the 
volcano's apex. To validate this hypothesis, the researchers 
fabricated and evaluated three co-doped graphene samples 
(nitrogen-sulfur, nitrogen-phosphorus, and nitrogen-bo-
ron), calculating their hydrogen adsorption energy using 
DFT. Both experimental and theoretical results converged, 
demonstrating that nitrogen-sulfur co-doped graphene 
emerged as the most active catalyst, attributed to its lowest 
hydrogen adsorption energy. This enhancement in activity 
is postulated to arise from a synergistic coupling effect be-
tween the two heteroatoms, highlighting the potential for 
tailored multi-element doping or the introduction of 
structural defects to engineer idealized doped graphene 
electrocatalysts for improved HER performance.
Zhao et al. study presents an investigation into the 
electrocatalytic activity of nitrogen-doped graphite nano-
materials derived from a nitrogen-rich polymer.
139
 These 
materials exhibit superior performance in the oxygen evo-
lution reaction (OER) in alkaline environments compared 
to conventional electrocatalysts. Remarkably, in the ab-
sence of transition metals, the optimized nitrogen/carbon 
materials demonstrate OER overpotentials as low as 0.38 
V at a current density of 10 mA cm
–2
 at pH 13, surpassing 
other non-metal OER electrocatalysts. Comprehensive 
electrochemical and physical analyses reveal that the im-
proved OER activity of the nitrogen/carbon materials aris-
es from active sites associated with pyridinic-N and/or 
quaternary-N functionalities. Specifically, carbon atoms 
adjacent to nitrogen atoms are postulated to be positively 
charged due to the electron-withdrawing nature of nitro-
gen atoms in a graphene π-system. This positive charge 
facilitates the absorption of OH
–
 ions by the positively 
charged carbon, a phenomenon crucial for OER. In the 

548
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
context of the limiting step of OER, the authors consider 
one plausible explanation is that the neighboring posi-
tive-charged carbon atoms aid the facile recombination of 
two oxygen adsorbed species (O
ads
). Finally, the authors 
suggest that another potential mechanism may involve ni-
trogen atoms, as their density of state in a graphitic sp
2
 car-
bon network is proximate to the Fermi level.
140,141
 Note-
worthy, further studies corroborated with these 
findings.
142,143
Hydrogen peroxide (H
2
O
2
) serves as an environ-
mentally friendly oxidizing agent with diverse applica-
tions, prompting the exploration of alternative, efficient 
routes for its production. The two-electron oxygen reduc-
tion reaction (2e
–
 ORR) emerges as a promising avenue, 
offering an attractive alternative to the energy-intensive 
anthraquinone oxidation process. However, conventional 
catalysts for 2e
–
 ORR fall short of meeting industrial de-
mands. Addressing this, Lee et al. synthesized 3D graphene 
catalysts with controlled oxygen functional groups and de-
fects, achieved through a one-step aerosol spray drying 
process.
144
 A systematic investigation into the struc-
ture-electrochemical performance relationship of these 
graphene catalysts underscored the decisive role of oxygen 
functional groups and defects in facilitating H
2
O
2
 produc-
tion. The optimized graphene catalyst demonstrated ex-
ceptional H
2
O
2
 selectivity (92–100%) across a wide poten-
tial range with remarkable stability and a high production 
rate at 0.4 V vs. RHE (ca. 450 mmol g
cat
–1
 h
–1
). Comple-
mentary DFT calculations elucidated the contribution of 
diverse oxygen functional groups and defect sites to the 
2e
–
 ORR pathway, establishing a scaling relation between 
OOH and O adsorption strengths. This thorough investi-
gation establishes a critical structure-mechanism-perfor-
mance relationship for nanostructured carbon systems in 
2e
–
 ORR, offering crucial insights for the design of highly 
active and selective metal-free carbon electrocatalysts for 
H
2
O
2
 production, achievable through the precise tuning of 
oxygen functional groups and defect structures.
3. Flash Joule Heating (FJH)  
Method for Bulk Graphene  
Production
Flash Joule heating (FJH) is an electro-resistive 
method used for the synthesis of a broad spectrum of ma-
terials. As its name suggests, the method relies on the joule 
heat produced by the passage of rapid pulses of high-den-
sity electrical current through a conductive material. Un-
like most other thermal methods where heat (or energy 
flux which gets converted to heat) from an external source 
is applied on the surface and then penetrates trough the 
material in a process limited by the thermal conductivity 
of the sample, in FJH the heat is distributed uniformly 
throughout the whole volume. This feature allows very 
rapid heating rates in short periods of time, i.e. “in a flash” .
Joule heating has been in use for the sintering of ma-
terials for a long time and under different modifications 
lies in the basis of numerous processes. Under the umbrel-
la term “resistance sintering”, Orrù et al. summarized 60 
different process names by their first appearance in litera-
ture.
145
 In another review article, Grasso et al. trace trace 
the history of the technology back to the patent submitted 
by Bloxam from 1906 as “the first patent on pure direct 
current (DC) resistance sintering” .
146
 Despite the various 
processing parameters that differentiate the existing tech-
niques, they are all based on the same physical phenome-
non, the usage of the Joule heat for the synthesis of materi-
als.
Since the early 20th century, the FJH technology has 
been applied to a wide variety of advanced materials, but 
only recently it was used for the synthesis of graphene by 
Luong and co-authors.
8
 The graphene and its derivatives 
synthesized using FJH deserve significant attention, be-
cause of the remarkable properties reported. These prop-
erties are attributed to the rotationally disordered or tur-
bostratic structure of the flash graphene.
147
 The 
turbostratic arrangement of the individual graphene layers 
(or rotational mismatching about the axis normal to the 
graphene sheets) is a direct result of the rapid cooling rate. 
Specifically, the extremely fast temperature change (on the 
order of 10
4
 K s
–1
) during the cooling process impedes the 
produced flash graphene (FG) to not assume the thermo-
dynamically favored arrangement and stacking of the 
graphene sheets (Bernal AB-stacked form).
148
Figure 2. Typical flash Joule heating (FJH) setup diagram.
The Flash Joule Heating (FJH) process is typically 
conducted in a quartz tube (Figure 2 – element 1), chosen 
for its high thermal resistance. In this setup, a small quan-
tity of carbonaceous material is placed between two graph-
ite electrodes, which apply compression from both sides 

549
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
until the desired electrical resistance is achieved. Since the 
FJH process requires rapid, high-current pulses that stand-
ard power grids cannot supply in such a brief time span, a 
large capacitor bank (Figure 2 – element 2) is generally 
used. This capacitor bank is charged to hundreds of volts, 
temporarily storing the necessary electrical energy, which 
is then swiftly discharged into the sample. A specialized 
electrical switch (Figure 2 – element 4), capable of han-
dling the high current, is employed to control this dis-
charge. As the flash process occurs within milliseconds, 
the switch is typically controlled by a microcontroller (Fig-
ure 2 – element 5) that manages the rapid release of the 
capacitor’s energy into the sample and halts the process 
once the pre-set pulse duration is reached. During the pro-
cess, an oscilloscope (Figure 2 – element 6) monitors the 
current and voltage in the system for detailed analysis. 
Temperature measurement is performed using an optical 
device (Figure 2 – element 8) that detects the light emitted 
by the heated carbon material, which is then compared to 
the spectrum of a grey body to estimate the temperature. 
When the pulse duration is completed, the electrical switch 
disconnects the circuit, ceasing the discharge and stopping 
further heat generation. From this point, the sample cools 
rapidly by natural means, typically 10
4
 K s
–1
. The tempera-
tures reached in this process can exceed 3,000 K. At this 
temperature, all chemical bonds get broken and almost all 
the hetero atoms that are more volatile than carbon (O, H, 
N, S, P , etc.) leave the system through outgassing. This al-
lows the use of a wide range of materials as precursors to 
produce turbostratic FG. Almost any carbon-based pre-
cursor can be transformed into bulk quantities of 
graphene.
149
 Since no toxic and/or corrosive chemicals, 
solvents, and reactive gases are used, FJH offers a cheap 
and environmentally friendly method for the recycling of 
waste materials. Particularly, one of its key advantages over 
the traditional technologies for the synthesis of graphene 
is the possibility of upcycling low-value materials into 
high-value nanomaterials. Carbon-containing wastes and 
byproducts of different origins that often have little to no 
practical value require disposal or expensive utilization 
and even pose environmental hazards can be used as feed-
stock for flash graphene. For example, Luong and co-au-
thors have shown the use of coal, coke, and even negative 
value materials such as waste plastics, rubber tires and dis-
carded food can be processed into FG with purity greater 
than 99%.
8
In terms of applicability, Tour and co-authors report 
that the FG produced shows higher quality compared to 
bulk graphene flakes produced using traditional methods 
(e.g., LPE and Oxidation with successive reduction). For 
instance, their carbon black-derived FG was used to pre-
pare cement composites which showed compressive and 
tensile strength three times larger than those of other re-
ported graphene-cement composites with the same load-
ing.
8
 In another work, FG prepared from rubber waste was 
again used as a reinforcing additive to cement and led to a 
~30% increase in concrete strength.
150
 Hence, if the FG 
production can be implemented on industrial scale, it 
would have a significant impact on our world. Stronger ce-
ment would lead to a reduction in the amount of concrete 
needed, which in turn can result in significant carbon 
emission reduction as the cement industry is one of the 
main sources of greenhouse gases, accountable for 5–7% 
of the global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions,
151
 
and at the same time represents ca. 7% of the industrial 
energy consumption.
152
When FG (in this case derived from metallurgical 
coke)
153
 is applied as an additive in epoxy composites, the 
resulting composites have shown record high loading ra-
tios that haven’t been reported in the literature. Although 
graphene and other carbon nanomaterials have shown to 
improve the mechanical properties of epoxies, their high 
production costs limit their use on an industrial scale.
153
 
Since FG can be produced inexpensively and from low val-
ue material sources, it has been successfully used as a rein-
forcing and filler agent at weight ratios up to 50%. The re-
sulting composites show a significant increase in Young’s 
modulus, hardness, compressive strength and maximum 
elongation, as well as an impressive 496% increase in 
toughness compared to FG-free composites. Furthermore, 
the addition of such high amounts of FG to the epoxy 
composites resulted in a reduction of greenhouse gas 
emissions, and water and energy consumption during pro-
duction by more than a third compared to the pure epoxy, 
making FG a promising candidate for a more sustainable 
chemical industry.
153
 In terms of sustainability FJH offers 
additional advantages. Since the electrical energy used for 
the process is temporarily stored in a capacitor bank, FJH 
can act as a flexible load, meaning it can adjust its power 
consumption based on the availability of renewable elec-
tricity. Induction heating as well as other high temperature 
methods can benefit from the same source, but cannot 
compete with the ease, efficiency and speed offered by 
FJH.
121
 Moreover, it was demostrated that the application 
of electric current through the sample can facilitate the 
crystallization of graphene, leading to the formation of a 
higher quality product.
154
4. Flash Graphene (FG) Applied to 
Electrocatalysis
The need to address rising energy consumption and 
environmental concerns requires the development of sus-
tainable and environmentally friendly energy storage and 
conversion technologies. Promising innovations in the 
field of energy conversion include fuel cells and electrolyz-
ers integrated into the electrochemical water cycle. This 
cycle revolves around oxygen reduction (ORR), oxygen 
evolution (OER), hydrogen evolution (HER), and hydro-
gen oxidation (HOR), central processes for the production 
of electricity, hydrogen, or chemical compounds. The ef-
fectiveness and accessibility of these energy solutions de-

550
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
pend largely on the catalysts used. The most effective cata-
lysts are currently based on precious metals such as 
platinum, but their scarcity and exorbitant costs prevent 
their widespread use. Therefore, there is an urgent need for 
innovations in catalysts that not only offer better perfor-
mance and longevity but are also economically viable and 
do not require precious metals.
107,155
Because the application of high-quality graphene 
and its derivatives for energy storage and conversion nec-
essarily requires large quantities to be produced at indus-
trial scale, FJH promises to have a tremendous influence in 
this field in the years to come (Figure 3). Although the use 
of FJH to produce FG and its derivatives is a relatively new 
technology, a few noteworthy examples for the application 
of FG in electrocatalysis already exist. Wyss and co-au-
thors used the FJH process to produce holey and wrinkled 
flash graphene (HWFG) from mixed plastic waste. Among 
the applications demonstrated, HWFG was used as elec-
trocatalyst for the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) in 
acidic media in view of its high concentration of pores and 
edge defects.
156
 When derived from high-density polyeth-
ylene (HDPE), HWFG electrocatalyst showed an overpo-
tential of 613 mV (versus reversible hydrogen electrode, 
RHE) for hydrogen evolution in acidic media (Figure 4). 
Moreover, due to HWFG high surface area and porous 
structure, hydrogen gas (H
2
) can easily escape as it evolves 
from HWFG active sites, allowing for constant H
2
 produc-
tion over time. Because FJH synthesis process does not 
involve the use of transition metals, the HWFG activity for 
HER is solely related to carbon-based surface-active sites. 
Consequently, HWFG showed very promising stability for 
20 hours test, and even a slightly overpotential decrease 
(19 mV) over a –20 mA cm
–2
 current density, which was 
ascribed to the creation of more defects by cavitation 
caused by the H
2
 constant evolution.
Graphene doping is a well-known strategy to create 
electrocatalytic active sites within graphene sheets.
102
 Be-
cause of the harsh reagents usually employed for top-down 
synthesis of heteroatom-doped graphene (e.g., graphene 
oxide doping
157
), the possibility of producing heteroa-
tom-doped FG with high quality and impurity-free 
graphene flakes in bulk quantities at low-cost may open 
opportunities for its broad implementation in energy stor-
age and conversion applications. In a recent work, Chen 
and co-authors used the FJH method to synthesize 
graphene doped by different heteroatoms in bulk quanti-
Figure 3. Diverse applications of flash graphene and other carbon 
allotropes.
Figure 4. Assessment of HER electrochemical activity of mixed PW 
HWFG: a) Linear scan voltammograms; b) Tafel slope; c) Stability 
testing of HWFG at –20 mA/cm
2
. Graphs reproduced from refer-
ence.
156
 HWFG = holey and wrinkled flash graphene. FG = flash 
graphene. Pt/C = platinum nanoparticles supported on carbon.

551
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
ties.
111
 Both doped (boron, nitrogen, oxygen, phospho-
rous, and sulfur) and co-doped (when more than one ele-
ment is used) FG showed high quality, similar to undoped 
FG, i.e. turbostratic structure, larger interlayer spacing 
between graphene sheets, and remarkable dispersibility. 
When applied as electrocatalysts for the oxygen reduction 
reaction (ORR) in alkaline media (Figure 5), sulfur-doped 
FG showed the highest activity, with a potential of 0.88 V 
(versus RHE) at a current density of –0.2 mA cm
–2
, and a 
Tafel slope of 74 mV dec
–1
. This result is in line with previ-
ous theoretical studies, where density functional theory 
(DFT) calculations revealed that sulfur-doped graphene 
clusters can be a competitive electrocatalyst for ORR de-
pending on their doping structures.
114
A widely adopted strategy for enhancing and selec-
tively tuning the electrocatalytic properties of graphene is 
the introduction of defects into its crystal structure. In a 
paper published by S. Dong and co-workers flash joule 
heating is used as a new approach for reducing graphene 
oxide using an exceptionally brief flash duration of a mere 
1 ms. This approach enables the fabrication of defective 
graphene without intricate functional groups. The result-
ing material harbors a multitude of defects, and its unique 
three-dimensional structure allows it to withstand high 
Figure 5. Electrochemical characterization of electrocatalysts synthetized by Flash Joule heating (FJH): a) Schematic representation of heteroa-
tom-doped turbostratic graphene synthesis via FJH; b) Comparison of the oxygen reduction reaction performance among variously doped function-
alized flash graphene in 0.1 M KOH solution at 1600 rpm; c) Corresponding Tafel plots. Image and graphs reproduced from reference.
111
 FG = flash 
graphene. N-FG = nitrogen-doped flash graphene. S-FG = sulfur-doped flash graphene. B,N-FG = boron-nitrogen-doped flash graphene.

552
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
currents and prolonged cycles without drastic failures 
when used as an anode material in LIBs. It exhibits a re-
markable reversible capacity of 1007 mAh/g after 5000 cy-
cles at the current density of 5 A/g – surpassing the perfor-
mance of graphene modified by other techniques.
158
Several studies have highlighted the feasibility of 
flash joule heating as an effective method for recycling and 
regenerating graphite from spent lithium-ion batteries. 
Natural graphite is classified as a critical raw material by 
the European Union, highlighting its strategic importance. 
To achieve true sustainability, it is essential to develop ro-
bust recycling programs for graphite, which are currently 
not widely established. In another study, S. Dong and 
co-workers utilized flash joule heating to recycle graphite 
from end-of-life lithium-ion batteries, demonstrating that 
the recycled graphite outperforms new commercial graph-
ite in terms of electrical conductivity. Their comparison 
with other recent methods shows that the anodic graphite 
recovered through FJH exhibits higher initial Coulombic 
efficiency, near-complete capacity recovery, and is pro-
duced at significantly lower cost, all while requiring 
minimal processing time thus showing great potential for 
commercial applications.
159
 In a more recent study, Tour 
et. al demonstrated an ultrafast flash recycling method to 
regenerate the graphite anode. During this process the in-
trinsic 3D layered graphite core structure is preserved and 
is coated with a solid-electrolyte-interphase derived car-
bon shell, contributing to high initial specific capacity, su-
perior rate performance, and cycling stability, when com-
pared to anode materials recycled using a high- 
temperature-calcination method. An additional advantage 
of the process is that it allows the extraction of metal ions 
from the flashed anode waste with average recovery effi-
ciency reaching >99% using just 0.1M HCl.
160
Since this technology is in its initial state of develop-
ment and application, the literature lacks comprehensive 
studies directly comparing the electrocatalytic properties 
of flash-graphene (FG) to those of the well-established car-
bon materials, the results available thus far affirm that flash 
joule heating is an exceptionally robust and sustainable 
method for synthesizing carbon-based electrocatalysts.
5. Perspective and Closing Remarks
In the fields of materials science and clean energy 
technologies, flash Joule heating (FJH) stands out as a 
groundbreaking method poised to revolutionize the large-
scale production of graphene and simultaneously open 
new pathways for advanced recycling, upcycling and utili-
zation of waste materials. This innovative technique har-
nesses the renewable power of high electric currents to 
rapidly elevate carbon-containing precursors to extreme 
temperatures, leading to the formation of turbostratic 
graphene (flash graphene (FG)). The remarkable attributes 
of FJH offer a new perspective on graphene manufactur-
ing, effectively addressing longstanding challenges in the 
industry. One of the most compelling aspects of FJH is its 
exceptional speed, with heating times measured in milli-
seconds. This rapid processing capability not only enables 
high production throughput but also promises to alleviate 
one of the critical bottlenecks in graphene manufacturing. 
Furthermore, FJH exhibits a unique ability to utilize a wide 
range of carbon sources, including biomass and waste ma-
terials, aligning with the pursuit of sustainability and eco-
nomic viability in materials production. This versatility, 
combined with the method's minimal waste generation, 
results in flash graphene with exceptional crystallinity, en-
dowing it with superior electrical and thermal conductivi-
ty. These attributes are of paramount importance for vari-
ous energy-related applications. As we consider the 
implications of FJH on a broader scale, it becomes evident 
that its scalability, versatility, and efficiency position it as a 
game-changer in graphene production. This transforma-
tive approach offers a promising pathway toward unlock-
ing the full commercial potential of graphene across vari-
ous industries, particularly in energy storage and 
conversion. In the context of clean energy, the imperative 
for innovation extends beyond materials production to ca-
talysis. Electrochemical processes such as oxygen reduc-
tion reaction (ORR), oxygen evolution reaction (OER), 
hydrogen evolution reaction (HER), and hydrogen oxida-
tion reaction (HOR) are pivotal in energy conversion and 
storage devices like fuel cells, electrolyzers, and metal-air 
batteries. Catalysts play a crucial role in accelerating these 
reactions, but their efficiency and cost-effectiveness are of 
outmost importance. Traditional precious metal catalysts, 
notably platinum, face limitations due to their scarcity and 
high cost, driving the need for alternative, metal-free cata-
lysts. Herein lies the significance of carbon-based nano-
materials as electrocatalysts, particularly in the context of 
graphene. These materials offer a plethora of advantages, 
high thermodynamic stability including tunable struc-
tures, high surface area, thermal stability, and conductivi-
ty. However, pristine carbon nanomaterials exhibit limited 
electrocatalytic activity. Innovative strategies such as in-
troducing intrinsic defects or edge structures, doping with 
heteroatoms, and physisorption of organic compounds 
have emerged to enhance their catalytic performance. The 
manipulation of carbon nanostructures through these 
techniques has yielded promising results. Point and line 
defects, as well as heteroatom doping, can generate charge 
and spin density, catalyzing crucial electrochemical reac-
tions. Moreover, the physisorption of organic compounds 
onto graphene derivatives fosters electron transfer and 
creates electrocatalytically active sites, contributing to im-
proved performance. In the quest for large-scale produc-
tion of high-quality graphene and its derivatives for energy 
applications, FJH holds great promise. Recent examples of 
its application in electrocatalysis, such as holey and wrin-
kled flash graphene (HWFG) for the hydrogen evolution 
reaction (HER), showcase its potential in energy conver-
sion. Notably, FJH-derived materials exhibit impressive 

553
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
stability and cost-effective performance, devoid of transi-
tion metals, reaffirming the pivotal role of carbon-based 
surface-active sites in electrocatalysis.
As this novel method was only developed relatively 
recently in 2020,
8
 there are still some challenges and obsta-
cles to overcome for wider applicability. Many of the key 
challenges for scaling flash graphene production identified 
in the literature are related to the need for a deeper under-
standing and precise control of the processes occurring 
during FJH, which can vary depending on the specific 
feedstock used. In addition, life cycle assessments (LCA) 
of the production process and its overall environmental 
impact are essential. This requires the development of ad-
vanced computer models and process optimization as well 
as the implementation of comprehensive quality control 
protocols and standardization of the resulting graphene 
products.
161,162
 The reported ongoing industrial scaled up 
to 1 ton per day by early 2023 and targeted for 100 tons per 
day by 2024,
163
 at an electricity cost of around $100 per ton 
of graphene produced emphasize the promising future of 
the technology.
As we look ahead, the convergence of FJH and 
graphene-based electrocatalysis represents a paradigm 
shift in clean energy solutions. The integration of scalable 
and sustainable materials production with advanced cata-
lytic systems holds the key to unlocking the full potential 
of renewable energy technologies. The journey of scientific 
exploration and development in these domains promises a 
brighter and more sustainable future, where the marriage 
of innovation and sustainability will lead us towards clean-
er, more efficient energy solutions.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Slovenian Re-
search and Innovation Agency (ARIS) for funding through 
Research programme: P2-0423 and Research project J7-
4636.
6. References
1  K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. 
Zhang, S. V Dubonos, I. V Grigorieva, A. A. Firsov, Science 
2004, 306, 666–669.   DOI:10.1126/science.1102896
2.   K. S. N o v os e lo v , Rev. Mod. Phys. 2011, 83, 837–849.
 DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.83.837
3.   A. K. G eim, Rev. Mod. Phys. 2011, 83, 851–862.
 DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.83.851
4.  T. A. Land, T. Michely, R. J. Behm, J. C. Hemminger, G. Com-
sa, Surf. Sci. 1992, 264, 261–270.
 DOI:10.1016/0039-6028(92)90183-7
5.  M. Orlita, C. Faugeras, P . Plochocka, P . Neugebauer, G. Mar-
tinez, D. K. Maude, A.-L. Barra, M. Sprinkle, C. Berger, W . A. 
de Heer, M. Potemski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 101, 267601.
 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.267601
6.  C. Lee, X. Wei, J. W . Kysar, J. Hone, Science 2008, 321, 385–
388.   DOI:10.1126/science.1157996
7.  A. C. Ferrari, F. Bonaccorso, V. Fal’ko, K. S. Novoselov, S. 
Roche, P. Bøggild, S. Borini, F. H. L. Koppens, V. Palermo, 
N. Pugno, J. A. Garrido, R. Sordan, A. Bianco, L. Ballerini, 
M. Prato, E. Lidorikis, J. Kivioja, C. Marinelli, T. Ryhänen, A. 
Morpurgo, J. N. Coleman, V. Nicolosi, L. Colombo, A. Fert, 
M. Garcia-Hernandez, A. Bachtold, G. F. Schneider, F. Guin-
ea, C. Dekker, M. Barbone, Z. Sun, C. Galiotis, A. N. Grig-
orenko, G. Konstantatos, A. Kis, M. Katsnelson, L. Vander-
sypen, A. Loiseau, V. Morandi, D. Neumaier, E. Treossi, V. 
Pellegrini, M. Polini, A. Tredicucci, G. M. Williams, B. Hee 
Hong, J.-H. Ahn, J. Min Kim, H. Zirath, B. J. van W ees, H. van 
der Zant, L. Occhipinti, A. Di Matteo, I. A. Kinloch, T . Seyller, 
E. Quesnel, X. Feng, K. Teo, N. Rupesinghe, P . Hakonen, S. R. 
T . Neil, Q. Tannock, T . Löfwander, J. Kinaret, Nanoscale 2015, 
7, 4598–4810.   DOI:10.1039/C4NR01600A
8.  D. X. Luong, K. V. Bets, W. A. Algozeeb, M. G. Stanford, C. 
Kittrell, W. Chen, R. V. Salvatierra, M. Ren, E. A. McHugh, 
P. A. Advincula, Z. Wang, M. Bhatt, H. Guo, V. Mancevski, 
R. Shahsavari, B. I. Yakobson, J. M. Tour, Nature 2020, 577, 
647–651.   DOI:10.1038/s41586-020-1938-0
9.  A. K. Geim, K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Mater. 2007, 6, 183–191.
 DOI:10.1038/nmat1849
10.  J. Hou, Y. Shao, M. W . Ellis, R. B. Moore, B. Yi, Phys. Chem. 
Chem. Phys. 2011, 34, 15384-15402.
 DOI:10.1039/c1cp21915d
11.  R. Raccichini, A. Varzi, S. Passerini, B. Scrosati, Nat. Mater. 
2015, 14, 271–279.   DOI:10.1038/nmat4170
12.  M. F. El-Kady, Y. Shao, R. B. Kaner, Nat. Rev. Mater., 2016, 7, 
1-14.   DOI:10.1038/natrevmats.2016.33
13.  X. Chen, R. Paul, L. Dai, Natl. Sci. Rev. 2017, 4, 453–489.
 DOI:10.1093/nsr/nwx009
14.  K. S. Novoselov, V . I. Fal’Ko, L. Colombo, P . R. Gellert, M. G. 
Schwab, K. Kim, Nature 2012, 490, 192-200.
 DOI:10.1038/nature11458
15.  A. Bianco, H.-M. Cheng, T. Enoki, Y. Gogotsi, R. H. Hurt, 
N. Koratkar, T. Kyotani, M. Monthioux, C. R. Park, J. M. D. 
Tascon, J. Zhang, Carbon N Y 2013, 65, 1–6.
 DOI:10.1016/j.carbon.2013.08.038
16.  L. Lin, H. Peng, Z. Liu, Nat. Mater. 2019, 18, 520-524.
 DOI:10.1038/s41563-019-0341-4
17.  S. H. Choi, S. J. Yun, Y. S. Won, C. S. Oh, S. M. Kim, K. K. 
Kim, Y . H. Lee, Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 1484.
 DOI:10.1038/s41467-022-29182-y
18.  S. P a r k, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 1-2.
 DOI:10.1038/natrevmats.2016.80
19.  W. Kong, H. Kum, S. H. Bae, J. Shim, H. Kim, L. Kong, Y. 
Meng, K. Wang, C. Kim, J. Kim, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 
927-938.   DOI:10.1038/s41565-019-0555-2
20.  E di t o r i a l , Nat. Mater. 2019, 18, 519.
 DOI:10.1038/s41563-019-0394-4
21.  P . B øg g i ld , Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 1126.
 DOI:10.1038/s41467-023-36891-5
22.  A. Zurutuza, C. Marinelli, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2014, 9, 730–
734.   DOI:10.1038/nnano.2014.225

554
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
23.  W . Ren, H.-M. Cheng, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2014, 9, 726–730.
 DOI:10.1038/nnano.2014.229
24.  C. A. Clifford, E. H. Martins Ferreira, T. Fujimoto, J. Herr-
mann, A. R. Hight Walker, D. Koltsov, C. Punckt, L. Ren, G. J. 
Smallwood, A. J. Pollard, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2021, 3, 233–235.
 DOI:10.1038/s42254-021-00278-6
25.  S. M i l a n a, Nat. Phys. 2021, 17, 1068–1068.
 DOI:10.1038/s41567-021-01339-4
26.  A. P . Kauling, A. T . Seefeldt, D. P . Pisoni, R. C. Pradeep, R. Ben-
tini, R. V . B. Oliveira, K. S. Novoselov, A. H. Castro Neto. Adv. 
Mater. 2018, 30, 1803784.   DOI:10.1002/adma.201803784
27.  P . B øg g i ld , Nature 2018, 562, 502–503.
 DOI:10.1038/d41586-018-06939-4
28.  T . B a r ka n, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 904–906.
 DOI:10.1038/s41565-019-0556-1
29.  X.-Y. Wang, A. Narita, K. Müllen, Nat. Rev. Chem. 2017, 2, 
0100.   DOI:10.1038/s41570-017-0100
30.  M. B a tzi l l , Surf. Sci. Rep. 2012, 67, 83–115.
 DOI:10.1016/j.surfrep.2011.12.001
31.  A. L. Higginbotham, D. V Kosynkin, A. Sinitskii, Z. Sun, J. M. 
Tour, ACS Nano 2010, 4, 2059–2069.
 DOI:10.1021/nn100118m
32.  L. Jiao, X. Wang, G. Diankov, H. Wang, H. Dai, Nat. Nano-
technol. 2010, 5, 321–325.   DOI:10.1038/nnano.2010.54
33.  C. Zhang, Z. Peng, J. Lin, Y. Zhu, G. Ruan, C.-C. Hwang, W . 
Lu, R. H. Hauge, J. M. Tour, ACS Nano 2013, 7, 5151–5159.
 DOI:10.1021/nn400750n
34.  J. Lim, U. Narayan Maiti, N.-Y. Kim, R. Narayan, W . Jun Lee, 
D. Sung Choi, Y . Oh, J. Min Lee, G. Y ong Lee, S. Hun Kang, H. 
Kim, Y .-H. Kim, S. Ouk Kim, Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 10364.
 DOI:10.1038/ncomms10364
35.  H. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Hu, X. Wang, ACS Appl. Mater. Inter-
faces 2012, 4, 6827–6834.   DOI:10.1021/am302000z
36.  B. Xiao, X. Li, X. Li, B. Wang, C. Langford, R. Li, X. Sun, 
J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 881–890.
 DOI:10.1021/jp410812v
37.  Y . Song, H. Hu, M. Feng, H. Zhan, ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 
2015, 7, 25793–25803.   DOI:10.1021/acsami.5b07700
38.  A. Sinitskii, A. Dimiev, D. V Kosynkin, J. M. Tour, ACS Nano 
2010, 4, 5405–5413.   DOI:10.1021/nn101019h
39.  Q. Shu, Z. Xia, W . Wei, X. Xu, R. Sun, R. Deng, Q. Yang, H. 
Zhao, S. Wang, G. Sun, ACS Appl. Energy Mater.2019, 2, 
5446–5455.   DOI:10.1021/acsaem.9b00506
40.  D. B. Shinde, J. Debgupta, A. Kushwaha, M. Aslam, V . K. Pil-
lai, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 4168–4171.
 DOI:10.1021/ja1101739
41.  D. V . Kosynkin, A. L. Higginbotham, A. Sinitskii, J. R. Lom-
eda, A. Dimiev, B. K. Price, J. M. Tour, Nature 2009, 458, 
872–876.   DOI:10.1038/nature07872
42.  L. Sun, G. Yuan, L. Gao, J. Yang, M. Chhowalla, M. H. Gha-
rahcheshmeh, K. K. Gleason, Y. S. Choi, B. H. Hong, Z. Liu, 
Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2021, 1, 5.
 DOI:10.1038/s43586-020-00005-y
43.  C. Mattevi, H. Kim, M. Chhowalla, J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 
3324–3334.   DOI:10.1039/C0JM02126A
44.  S. Marchini, S. Günther, J. Wintterlin, Phys. Rev. B 2007, 76, 
075429.   DOI:10.1103/PhysRevB.76.075429
45.  P. Sutter, J. T. Sadowski, E. Sutter, Phys. Rev. B 2009, 80, 
245411.   DOI:10.1103/PhysRevB.80.245411
46.  J. Lahiri, T. Miller, L. Adamska, I. I. Oleynik, M. Batzill, Nano 
Lett 2011, 11, 518–522.   DOI:10.1021/nl103383b
47.  L. Gao, J. R. Guest, N. P. Guisinger, Nano Lett. 2010, 10, 
3512–3516.   DOI:10.1021/nl1016706
48.  C.-M. Seah, S.-P . Chai, A. R. Mohamed, Carbon N Y 2014, 70, 
1–21.   DOI:10.1016/j.carbon.2013.12.073
49.  S. Bhaviripudi, X. Jia, M. S. Dresselhaus, J. Kong, Nano Lett 
2010, 10, 4128–4133.   DOI:10.1021/nl102355e
50.  X. Li, C. W. Magnuson, A. Venugopal, R. M. Tromp, J. B. 
Hannon, E. M. Vogel, L. Colombo, R. S. Ruoff, J. Am. Chem. 
Soc. 2011, 133, 2816–2819.   DOI:10.1021/ja109793s
51.  M. Losurdo, M. M. Giangregorio, P. Capezzuto, G. Bruno, 
Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 20836.
 DOI:10.1039/c1cp22347j
52.  H. I. Rasool, E. B. Song, M. Mecklenburg, B. C. Regan, K. L. 
Wang, B. H. Weiller, J. K. Gimzewski, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 
133, 12536–12543.   DOI:10.1021/ja200245p
53.  A. Dahal, M. Batzill, Nanoscale 2014, 6, 2548.
 DOI:10.1039/c3nr05279f
54.  J. Wintterlin, M.-L. Bocquet, Surf. Sci. 2009, 603, 1841–1852.
 DOI:10.1016/j.susc.2008.08.037
55.  Y. Zhang, L. Gomez, F. N. Ishikawa, A. Madaria, K. Ryu, C. 
Wang, A. Badmaev, C. Zhou, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2010, 1, 
3101–3107.   DOI:10.1021/jz1011466
56.  Q. Yu, L. A. Jauregui, W . Wu, R. Colby, J. Tian, Z. Su, H. Cao, 
Z. Liu, D. Pandey, D. Wei, T. F . Chung, P . Peng, N. P . Guising-
er, E. A. Stach, J. Bao, S.-S. Pei, Y. P . Chen, Nat. Mater. 2011, 
10, 443–449.   DOI:10.1038/nmat3010
57.  Y . Zhang, L. Zhang, C. Zhou, Acc. Chem. Res. 2013, 46, 2329–
2339.   DOI:10.1021/ar300203n
58.  L. P . Biró, P . Lambin, New J. Phys. 2013, 15, 035024.
 DOI:10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/035024
59.  Y.-M. Lin, C. Dimitrakopoulos, K. A. Jenkins, D. B. Farmer, 
H.-Y . Chiu, A. Grill, Ph. Avouris, Science 2010, 327, 662–662.
 DOI:10.1126/science.1184289
60.  I. Shtepliuk, V. Khranovskyy, R. Yakimova, Semicond. Sci. 
Technol. 2016, 31, 113004.
 DOI:10.1088/0268-1242/31/11/113004
61.  P . N. First, W . A. de Heer, T. Seyller, C. Berger, J. A. Stroscio, 
J.-S. Moon, MRS Bull. 2010, 35, 296–305.
 DOI:10.1557/mrs2010.552
62.  K. V. Emtsev, A. Bostwick, K. Horn, J. Jobst, G. L. Kellogg, 
L. Ley, J. L. McChesney, T. Ohta, S. A. Reshanov, J. Röhrl, E. 
Rotenberg, A. K. Schmid, D. Waldmann, H. B. Weber, T. Sey-
ller, Nat. Mater. 2009, 8, 203–207.
 DOI:10.1038/nmat2382
63.  C. Berger, Z. Song, X. Li, X. Wu, N. Brown, C. Naud, D. May-
ou, T. Li, J. Hass, A. N. Marchenkov, E. H. Conrad, P . N. First, 
W . A. de Heer, Science 2006, 312, 1191–1196.
 DOI:10.1126/science.1125925
64.  L. Talirz, H. Söde, T. Dumslaff, S. Wang, J. R. Sanchez-Valen-
cia, J. Liu, P . Shinde, C. A. Pignedoli, L. Liang, V . Meunier, N. 
C. Plumb, M. Shi, X. Feng, A. Narita, K. Müllen, R. Fasel, P. 

555
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
Ruffieux, ACS Nano 2017, 11, 1380–1388.
 DOI:10.1021/acsnano.6b06405
65.  G. D. Nguyen, H.-Z. Tsai, A. A. Omrani, T. Marangoni, M. 
Wu, D. J. Rizzo, G. F. Rodgers, R. R. Cloke, R. A. Durr, Y. 
Sakai, F. Liou, A. S. Aikawa, J. R. Chelikowsky, S. G. Louie, 
F. R. Fischer, M. F. Crommie, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2017, 12, 
1077–1082.   DOI:10.1038/nnano.2017.155
66.  J. Cai, C. A. Pignedoli, L. Talirz, P . Ruffieux, H. Söde, L. Liang, 
V . Meunier, R. Berger, R. Li, X. Feng, K. Müllen, R. Fasel, Nat. 
Nanotechnol. 2014, 9, 896–900.
 DOI:10.1038/nnano.2014.184
67.  A. Celis, M. N. Nair, A. Taleb-Ibrahimi, E. H. Conrad, C. 
Berger, W . A. de Heer, A. Tejeda, J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 2016, 
49, 143001.   DOI:10.1088/0022-3727/49/14/143001
68.  A. J. Way, R. M. Jacobberger, N. P . Guisinger, V . Saraswat, X. 
Zheng, A. Suresh, J. H. Dwyer, P . Gopalan, M. S. Arnold, Nat. 
Commun. 2022, 13, 2992.
69.  J. Cai, P. Ruffieux, R. Jaafar, M. Bieri, T. Braun, S. Blanken-
burg, M. Muoth, A. P . Seitsonen, M. Saleh, X. Feng, K. Mül-
len, R. Fasel, Nature 2010, 466, 470–473.
 DOI:10.1038/nature09211
70.  A. Narita, X.-Y. Wang, X. Feng, K. Müllen, Chem. Soc. Rev. 
2015, 44, 6616–6643.   DOI:10.1039/C5CS00183H
71.  Y.-C. Chen, D. G. de Oteyza, Z. Pedramrazi, C. Chen, F. R. 
Fischer, M. F. Crommie, ACS Nano 2013, 7, 6123–6128.
 DOI:10.1021/nn401948e
72.  R. S. K. Houtsma, J. de la Rie, M. Stöhr, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021, 
50, 6541–6568.   DOI:10.1039/D0CS01541E
73.  H. Wang, H. S. Wang, C. Ma, L. Chen, C. Jiang, C. Chen, X. 
Xie, A.-P . Li, X. Wang, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2021, 3, 791–802.
 DOI:10.1038/s42254-021-00370-x
74.  P . H. Jacobse, A. Kimouche, T. Gebraad, M. M. Ervasti, J. M. 
Thijssen, P . Liljeroth, I. Swart, Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 119.
 DOI:10.1038/s41467-017-00195-2
75.  Y.-C. Chen, T. Cao, C. Chen, Z. Pedramrazi, D. Haberer, D. 
G. de Oteyza, F. R. Fischer, S. G. Louie, M. F. Crommie, Nat. 
Nanotechnol. 2015, 10, 156–160.
 DOI:10.1038/nnano.2014.307
76.  W . Niu, S. Sopp, A. Lodi, A. Gee, F . Kong, T. Pei, P . Gehring, J. 
Nägele, C. S. Lau, J. Ma, J. Liu, A. Narita, J. Mol, M. Burghard, 
K. Müllen, Y. Mai, X. Feng, L. Bogani, Nat. Mater. 2023, 22, 
180–185.   DOI:10.1038/s41563-022-01460-6
77.  J. Wu, W . Pisula, K. Müllen, Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 718–747.
 DOI:10.1021/cr068010r
78.  A. Narita, X. Feng, K. Müllen, Chem. Rec. 2015, 15, 295–309.
 DOI:10.1002/tcr.201402082
79.  M. Koch, F. Ample, C. Joachim, L. Grill, Nat. Nanotechnol. 
2012, 7, 713–717.   DOI:10.1038/nnano.2012.169
80.  D. J. Rizzo, G. Veber, T. Cao, C. Bronner, T. Chen, F . Zhao, H. 
Rodriguez, S. G. Louie, M. F. Crommie, F. R. Fischer, Nature 
2018, 560, 204–208.   DOI:10.1038/s41586-018-0376-8
81.  O. Gröning, S. Wang, X. Y ao, C. A. Pignedoli, G. Borin Barin, 
C. Daniels, A. Cupo, V . Meunier, X. Feng, A. Narita, K. Mül-
len, P . Ruffieux, R. Fasel, Nature 2018, 560, 209–213.
 DOI:10.1038/s41586-018-0375-9
82.  L. Talirz, P. Ruffieux, R. Fasel, Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 6222–
6231.   DOI:10.1002/adma.201505738
83.  P . H. Jacobse, M. J. J. Mangnus, S. J. M. Zevenhuizen, I. Swart, 
ACS Nano 2018, 12, 7048–7056.
 DOI:10.1021/acsnano.8b02770
84.  S. Kawai, S. Nakatsuka, T . Hatakeyama, R. Pawlak, T. Meier, J. 
Tracey, E. Meyer, A. S. Foster, Sci. Adv. 2018, 4.
 DOI:10.1126/sciadv.aar7181
85.  X. Zhang, O. V Yazyev, J. Feng, L. Xie, C. Tao, Y.-C. Chen, L. 
Jiao, Z. Pedramrazi, A. Zettl, S. G. Louie, H. Dai, M. F . Crom-
mie, ACS Nano 2013, 7, 198–202.   DOI:10.1021/nn303730v
86.  J. Lawrence, A. Berdonces-Layunta, S. Edalatmanesh, J. Cas-
tro-Esteban, T. Wang, A. Jimenez-Martin, B. de la Torre, R. 
Castrillo-Bodero, P. Angulo-Portugal, M. S. G. Mohammed, 
A. Matěj, M. Vilas-Varela, F. Schiller, M. Corso, P . Jelinek, D. 
Peña, D. G. de Oteyza, Nat. Chem. 2022, 14, 1451–1458.
 DOI:10.1038/s41557-022-01042-8
87.  V. Saraswat, R. M. Jacobberger, M. S. Arnold, ACS Nano 
2021, 15, 3674–3708.   DOI:10.1021/acsnano.0c07835
88.  V. Saraswat, R. M. Jacobberger, M. S. Arnold, ACS Nano 
2021, 15, 9194-9194.   DOI:10.1021/acsnano.1c03098
89.  M. Liu, R. Zhang, W . Chen, Chem. Rev. 2014, 114, 5117–5160.
 DOI:10.1016/j.cyto.2014.07.121
90.  J. Hou, Y. Shao, M. W . Ellis, R. B. Moore, B. Yi, Phys. Chem. 
Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 15384.   DOI:10.1039/c1cp21915d
91.  H. Su, Y . H. Hu, Energy Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 958–983.
 DOI:10.1002/ese3.833
92.  A. Ambrosi, C. K. Chua, A. Bonanni, M. Pumera, Chem. Rev. 
2014, 114, 7150–7188.   DOI:10.1021/cr500023c
93.  H. Jin, C. Guo, X. Liu, J. Liu, A. V asileff, Y . Jiao, Y . Zheng, S.-Z. 
Qiao, Chem. Rev. 2018, 118, 6337–6408.
 DOI:10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00689
94.  E. Yoo, T. Okada, T. Akita, M. Kohyama, I. Honma, J. Naka-
mura, J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 110–115.
 DOI:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.07.024
95.  R. Kou, Y. Shao, D. Wang, M. H. Engelhard, J. H. Kwak, J. 
Wang, V . V Viswanathan, C. Wang, Y . Lin, Y . Wang, I. A. Ak-
say, J. Liu, Electrochem. Commun. 2009, 11, 954–957.
 DOI:10.1016/j.elecom.2009.02.033
96.  L. Pavko, M. Gatalo, M. Finšgar, F. Ruiz-Zepeda, K. Ehelebe, 
P . Kaiser, M. Geuß, T. Đukić, A. K. Surca, M. Šala, M. Bele, S. 
Cherevko, B. Genorio, N. Hodnik, M. Gaberšček, ACS Catal. 
2022, 12, 9540–9548.   DOI:10.1021/acscatal.2c01753
97.  L. Pavko, M. Gatalo, T. Đukić, F. Ruiz-Zepeda, A. K. Surca, 
M. Šala, N. Maselj, P . Jovanovič, M. Bele, M. Finšgar, B. Geno-
rio, N. Hodnik, M. Gaberšček, Carbon 2023, 215, 118458.
 DOI:10.1016/j.carbon.2023.118458
98.  C. Lamy, E. M. Belgsir: Handbook of Fuel Cells, Wiley-VCH, 
Weinheim, Germany, 2010.
99.  A. L. Dicks, D. A. J. Rand: Fuel Cell Systems Explained, Wiley-
VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2018.
 DOI:10.1002/9781118706992
100.  S. Wolf, M. Roschger, B. Genorio, N. Hodnik, M. Gatalo, F. 
Ruiz-Zepeda, V. Hacker, J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 2023, 13, 
771–782.   DOI:10.1126/sciadv.1500564
101.  J. Zhang, Z. Xia, L. Dai, Sci. Adv. 2015, 1.
102.  D. Deng, K. S. Novoselov, Q. Fu, N. Zheng, Z. Tian, X. Bao, 

556
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
Nat. Nanotechnol. 2016, 11, 218–230.
 DOI:10.1038/nnano.2015.340
103.  X. Chia, M. Pumera, Nat. Catal. 2018, 1, 909–921.
 DOI:10.1038/s41929-018-0181-7
104.  F. Bonaccorso, L. Colombo, G. Yu, M. Stoller, V . Tozzini, A. 
C. Ferrari, R. S. Ruoff, V . Pellegrini, Science 2015, 347.
 DOI:10.1126/science.1246501
105.  Y . Li, W . Zhou, H. W ang, L. Xie, Y . Liang, F . W ei, J.-C. Idrobo, 
S. J. Pennycook, H. Dai, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2012, 7, 394–400.
 DOI:10.1038/nnano.2012.72
106.  J. Benson, Q. Xu, P. Wang, Y. Shen, L. Sun, T. Wang, M. Li, 
P. Papakonstantinou, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 
19726–19736.   DOI:10.1021/am5048202
107.  Z. Zhao, L. Zhang, C.-Y. Lin, Z. Xia: Carbon‐Based Metal‐
Free Catalysts, 2018, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, pp. 
1–33.   DOI:10.1002/9783527811458.vol1-ch1
108.  L. Zhang, Q. Xu, J. Niu, Z. Xia, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 
2015, 17, 16733–16743.   DOI:10.1039/C5CP02014J
109.  Y . Sun, L. Silvioli, N. R. Sahraie, W . Ju, J. Li, A. Zitolo, S. Li, A. 
Bagger, L. Arnarson, X. Wang, T. Moeller, D. Bernsmeier, J. 
Rossmeisl, F . Jaouen, P . Strasser, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 
12372–12381.   DOI:10.1021/jacs.9b05576
110.  J. Shui, M. Wang, F. Du, L. Dai, Sci. Adv. 2023, 1, e1400129.
111.  W . Chen, C. Ge, J. T. Li, J. L. Beckham, Z. Yuan, K. M. Wyss, 
P . A. Advincula, L. Eddy, C. Kittrell, J. Chen, D. X. Luong, R. 
A. Carter, J. M. Tour, ACS Nano 2022, 16, 6646–6656.
 DOI:10.1021/acsnano.2c01136
112.  S. W ang, L. Zhang, Z. Xia, A. Roy, D. W . Chang, J.-B. Baek, L. 
Dai, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 4209–4212.
 DOI:10.1002/anie.201109257
113.  I.-Y. Jeon, H.-J. Choi, M. Choi, J.-M. Seo, S.-M. Jung, M.-J. 
Kim, S. Zhang, L. Zhang, Z. Xia, L. Dai, N. Park, J.-B. Baek, 
Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 1810.
114.  L. Zhang, J. Niu, M. Li, Z. Xia, J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 
3545–3553.   DOI:10.1021/jp410501u
115.  C. Su, M. Acik, K. Takai, J. Lu, S. Hao, Y. Zheng, P. Wu, Q. 
Bao, T . Enoki, Y . J. Chabal, K. Ping Loh, Nat. Commun. 2012, 
3, 1298.
116.  Y . Zheng, Y . Jiao, Y . Zhu, L. H. Li, Y . Han, Y . Chen, A. Du, M. 
Jaroniec, S. Z. Qiao, Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 3783.
 DOI:10.1038/ncomms4783
117.  J. W an, Z. Zhao, H. Shang, B. Peng, W . Chen, J. Pei, L. Zheng, 
J. Dong, R. Cao, R. Sarangi, Z. Jiang, D. Zhou, Z. Zhuang, J. 
Zhang, D. Wang, Y. Li, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 8431–
8439.   DOI:10.1021/jacs.0c02229
118.  L. Qu, Y. Liu, J.-B. Baek, L. Dai, ACS Nano 2010, 4, 1321–
1326.   DOI:10.1021/nn901850u
119.  L. Dai (Ed.): Carbon‐Based Metal‐Free Catalysts, Wiley-
VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2018.
 DOI:10.1002/9783527811458
120.  D. Guo, R. Shibuya, C. Akiba, S. Saji, T. Kondo, J. Nakamura, 
Science 2016, 351, 361–365.   DOI:10.1126/science.aad0832
121.  M. Nosan, L. Pavko, M. Finšgar, M. Kolar, B. Genorio, ACS 
Appl. Energy Mater. 2022, 5, 9571–9580.
 DOI:10.1021/acsaem.2c01184
122.  J. Durst, A. Siebel, C. Simon, F. Hasché, J. Herranz, H. A. 
Gasteiger, Energy Environ. Sci. 2014, 7, 2255–2260.
 DOI:10.1039/C4EE00440J
123.  J. K. Nørskov, T. Bligaard, A. Logadottir, J. R. Kitchin, J. G. 
Chen, S. Pandelov, U. Stimming, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2005, 
152, J23.   DOI:10.1149/1.1856988
124.  A. L a si a: Handbook of Fuel Cells, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 
Germany, 2010.
125.  H. N. Nong, L. J. Falling, A. Bergmann, M. Klingenhof, H. 
P . Tran, C. Spöri, R. Mom, J. Timoshenko, G. Zichittella, A. 
Knop-Gericke, S. Piccinin, J. Pérez-Ramírez, B. R. Cuenya, 
R. Schlögl, P . Strasser, D. Teschner, T. E. Jones, Nature 2020, 
587, 408–413.   DOI:10.1038/s41586-020-2908-2
126.  A. E. Thorarinsdottir, S. S. Veroneau, D. G. Nocera, Nat. 
Commun. 2022, 13, 1243.   
 DOI:10.1038/s41467-022-28723-9
127.  D. Liu, X. Li, S. Chen, H. Y an, C. W ang, C. Wu, Y . A. Haleem, 
S. Duan, J. Lu, B. Ge, P . M. Ajayan, Y. Luo, J. Jiang, L. Song, 
Nat. Energy. 2019, 4, 512–518.
 DOI:10.1038/s41560-019-0402-6
128.  Y. Zheng, Y. Jiao, A. Vasileff, S. Qiao, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 
2018, 57, 7568–7579.   DOI:10.1002/anie.201710556
129.  N. Dubouis, A. Grimaud, Chem. Sci. 2019, 10, 9165–9181.
 DOI:10.1039/C9SC03831K
130.  A. Grimaud, O. Diaz-Morales, B. Han, W. T. Hong, Y.-L. 
Lee, L. Giordano, K. A. Stoerzinger, M. T. M. Koper, Y . Shao-
Horn, Nat. Chem. 2017, 9, 457–465.
 DOI:10.1038/nchem.2695
131.  J. Herranz, J. Durst, E. Fabbri, A. Patru, X. Cheng, A. A. Per-
myakova, T. J. Schmidt, Nano Energy 2016, 29, 4–28.
 DOI:10.1016/j.nanoen.2016.01.027
132.  R. Subbaraman, D. Tripkovic, D. Strmcnik, K.-C. Chang, M. 
Uchimura, A. P . Paulikas, V . Stamenkovic, N. M. Markovic, 
Science 2011, 334, 1256–1260.
 DOI:10.1126/science.1211934
133.  D. Strmcnik, P. P. Lopes, B. Genorio, V . R. Stamenkovic, N. 
M. Markovic, Nano Energy 2016, 29, 29–36.
 DOI:10.1016/j.nanoen.2016.04.017
134.  P . P . Lopes, D. Y . Chung, X. Rui, H. Zheng, H. He, P . Farinaz-
zo Bergamo Dias Martins, D. Strmcnik, V . R. Stamenkovic, 
P. Zapol, J. F. Mitchell, R. F. Klie, N. M. Markovic, J. Am. 
Chem. Soc. 2021, 143, 2741–2750.
 DOI:10.1021/jacs.0c08959
135.  D. Y. Chung, P. P. Lopes, P. Farinazzo Bergamo Dias Mar-
tins, H. He, T. Kawaguchi, P . Zapol, H. Y ou, D. Tripkovic, D. 
Strmcnik, Y . Zhu, S. Seifert, S. Lee, V . R. Stamenkovic, N. M. 
Markovic, Nat. Energy. 2020, 5, 222–230.
 DOI:10.1038/s41560-020-0576-y
136.  J. Suntivich, K. J. May, H. A. Gasteiger, J. B. Goodenough, Y. 
Shao-Horn, Science 2011, 334, 1383–1385.
 DOI:10.1126/science.1212858
137.  Y . Zheng, Y . Jiao, Y . Zhu, L. H. Li, Y . Han, Y . Chen, A. Du, M. 
Jaroniec, S. Z. Qiao, Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 3783.
 DOI:10.1038/ncomms4783
138.  Y. Jiao, Y. Zheng, K. Davey, S.-Z. Qiao, Nat. Energy 2016, 1, 
16130.   DOI:10.1038/nenergy.2016.130
139.  Y. Zhao, R. Nakamura, K. Kamiya, S. Nakanishi, K. Hashi-

557
Acta Chim. Slov. 2024, 71, 541–557
Bardarov et al.:   Flash Graphene: a Sustainable Prospect for Electrocatalysis
Except when otherwise noted, articles in this journal are published under the terms and conditions of the  
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
moto, Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2390.
 DOI:10.1038/ncomms3390
140.  R. Czerw, M. Terrones, J.-C. Charlier, X. Blase, B. Foley, R. 
Kamalakaran, N. Grobert, H. Terrones, D. Tekleab, P. M. 
Ajayan, W . Blau, M. Rühle, D. L. Carroll, Nano Lett. 2001, 1, 
457–460.   DOI:10.1021/nl015549q
141.  Z. Hou, X. Wang, T. Ikeda, K. Terakura, M. Oshima, M. 
Kakimoto, Phys. Rev. B 2013, 87, 165401.
 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevB.87.165401
142.  S. Chen, J. Duan, M. Jaroniec, S. Qiao, Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 
2925–2930.   DOI:10.1002/adma.201305608
143.  T. Y. Ma, S. Dai, M. Jaroniec, S. Z. Qiao, Angew. Chem. Int. 
Ed. 2014, 53, 7281–7285.   DOI:10.1002/anie.201403946
144.  K. Lee, J. Lim, M. J. Lee, K. Ryu, H. Lee, J. Y. Kim, H. Ju, H.-
S. Cho, B.-H. Kim, M. C. Hatzell, J. Kang, S. W . Lee, Energy 
Environ. Sci. 2022, 15, 2858–2866.
 DOI:10.1039/D2EE00548D
145.  R. Orrù, R. Licheri, A. M. Locci, A. Cincotti, G. Cao, Mater. 
Sci. Eng. R Rep. 2009, 63, 127–287.
 DOI:10.1016/j.mser.2008.09.003
146.  S. Grasso, Y. Sakka, G. Maizza, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 
2009, 10, 053001.   DOI:10.1088/1468-6996/10/5/053001
147.  K. M. Wyss, Z. Wang, L. B. Alemany, C. Kittrell, J. M. Tour, 
ACS Nano 2021, 15, 10542–10552.
 DOI:10.1021/acsnano.1c03197
148.  K. M. Wyss, J. L. Beckham, W . Chen, D. X. Luong, P . Hundi, 
S. Raghuraman, R. Shahsavari, J. M. Tour, Carbon 2021, 174, 
430–438.   DOI:10.1016/j.carbon.2020.12.063
149.  B. I. Yakobson, J. M. Tour, M. G. Stanford, K. V . Bets, D. X. 
Luong, P. A. Advincula, W. Chen, J. T. Li, Z. Wang, E. A. 
McHugh, W . A. Algozeeb, ACS Nano 2020, 14, 13691–13699.
 DOI:10.1021/acsnano.0c05900
150.  P. A. Advincula, D. X. Luong, W. Chen, S. Raghuraman, R. 
Shahsavari, J. M. Tour, Carbon 2021, 178, 649–656.
 DOI:10.1016/j.carbon.2021.03.020
151.  E. Benhelal, G. Zahedi, E. Shamsaei, A. Bahadori, J. Clean 
Prod. 2013, 51, 142–161.   DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.049
152.  A. Cantini, L. Leoni, F. De Carlo, M. Salvio, C. Martini, F. 
Martini, Sustainability 2021, 13, 3810.
 DOI:10.3390/su13073810
153.  P. A. Advincula, W. Meng, L. J. Eddy, J. L. Beckham, I. R. 
Siqueira, D. X. Luong, W . Chen, M. Pasquali, S. Nagarajaiah, 
J. M. Tour, Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2023, 308, 2200640.
 DOI:10.1002/mame.202200640
154.  J. Y. Huang, S. Chen, Z. F. Ren, G. Chen, M. S. Dresselhaus, 
Nano Lett. 2006, 6, 1699–1705.
 DOI:10.1021/nl0609910
155.  X. Liu, L. Dai, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 16064.
 DOI:10.1038/natrevmats.2016.64
156.  K. M. Wyss, W . Chen, J. L. Beckham, P . E. Savas, J. M. Tour, 
ACS Nano 2022.
157.  X. Wang, G. Sun, P. Routh, D.-H. Kim, W . Huang, P. Chen, 
Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 7067–7098.
 DOI:10.1039/C4CS00141A
158.  S. Dong, Y. Song, M. Su, G. Wang, J. Chem. Eng. 2024, 481, 
147988.   DOI:10.1016/j.cej.2023.147988
159.  S. Dong, Y. Song, K. Ye, J. Yan, G. Wang, EcoMat 2022, 4, 
12212.   DOI:10.1002/eom2.12212
160.  W. Chen, R. Salvatierra, J. Li, C. Kittrell, J. Beckham, Adv. 
Mater. 2023, 8, 2207303.
161.  K. Wyss, D. Luong, J. Tour, Adv. Mater. 2022, 8, 2106970.
162.  X. Zhu, L. Lin, M. Pang, M, Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 3218.
 DOI:10.1038/s41467-024-48591-9
163.  W . Chen, J. Chen, K. Bets, R. Salvatierra, K. Wyss, Sci. Adv. 
2023, 9, 5131.   DOI:10.1126/sciadv.adh5131
Povzetek
Naraščajoče povpraševanje po trajnostnih in učinkovitih tehnologijah za pretvorbo energije zahteva stalno raziskovanje 
novih materialov in metod. Metoda Flash Joule (FJH) se pojavlja kot obetavna tehnika za množično proizvodnjo grafena, 
saj ponuja prednosti pred tradicionalnimi metodami. FJH hitro segreje ogljikove prekurzorje do ekstremnih temperatur 
z uporabo visokih električnih tokov, pri čemer se po hitrem ohlajanju tvori bliskoviti grafen. Ta pristop omogoča hitro 
obdelavo, visoko zmogljivost in uporabo različnih ogljikovih virov, vključno z biomaso in odpadki, kar ga naredi tra-
jnostnega in stroškovno učinkovitega. Poleg tega ustvarja minimalne odpadke in proizvaja bliskoviti grafen z izboljšano 
prevodnostjo, kar je ključnega pomena za energetske aplikacije. Zaradi možnosti razširitve, vsestranskosti in učinkovi-
tosti se FJH postavlja kot ključna metoda za komercializacijo grafena v različnih industrijah, zlasti pri pretvorbi energije. 
Ta pregled celovito obravnava principe sinteze FJH, s poudarkom na učinkovitosti, razširljivosti in trajnosti. Poleg tega 
analizira nedavne napredke pri elektrokatalizatorjih, temelječih na bliskovitem grafenu, in raziskuje njihov vpliv na ob-
novljivo energijo ter trajnostno elektrokatalizo. Obravnavani so izzivi in priložnosti, pri čemer so začrtane smernice za 
prihodnje raziskave. Nadaljnji napredek ima velik potencial za revolucijo v proizvodnji grafena in njegovo vključitev v 
energetske sisteme nove generacije, kar bo prispevalo k prehodu na čistejše energetske rešitve.