To what extent does the thickness of an electrophoretically deposited (EPD) reduced graphene oxide (rGO) coating affect the electrical conductivity of copper (Cu) wire?SL
Loading scores...
A
Official IB Result
30/34
Criteria A: Focus and Method
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
A.1Topic communication and explanation
Excellent
A.2Research question formulation and focus
Excellent
A.3Research methodology
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Clear and effective topic communication throughout the report
- Well-focused research question repeatedly linked to methodology and discussion
- Comprehensive methodology with appropriate choice of sources and clearly identified variables
- Minor drift in extensive theoretical background (band theory) that was not tightly linked to the research question
- Some methodological details (e.g., foil purity, justification for applied voltage) lacked explicit justification
- Reliance on theoretical thickness calculations acknowledged as a limitation
1.1·Strength
Page 1
The research question is explicitly stated and narrowly focused on coating thickness and conductivity, demonstrating strong alignment with the investigation aim.
1.2·Strength
Page 1
The title concisely frames the investigation’s focus on rGO coatings and copper wire conductivity, establishing clear purpose and relevance.
1.3·Suggestion
Page 3
The second paragraph mentions rGO synthesis challenges but does not explicitly tie them to conductivity metrics; strengthen link to the RQ.
1.4·Weakness
Page 3
The introduction provides extensive graphene background but spends limited space linking key literature directly to the research question; refocus to avoid drift.
1.5·Suggestion
Page 6
The band theory exposition is thorough but lengthy; consider summarizing key points and relating directly to rGO’s conductivity for conciseness.
1.6·Suggestion
Page 11
Al foil addition calculation is clear but lacks a stated purity or surface area of the foil, which influences reaction kinetics; specify grade.
1.7·Suggestion
Page 13
The rationale for selecting 5 V in the EPD process is not justified; reference literature to support the chosen field strength and its effect on deposition rate.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
B.1Application of source material
Good
B.2Subject knowledge
Good
B.3Use of terminology and concepts
Good
Criteria Feedback
- Source material is largely peer-reviewed and applied correctly to calculations
- Clear and coherent subject knowledge of graphene chemistry and conductivity theory
- Generally accurate use of specialized terminology (Smoluchowski equation, Dirac point, contact resistance)
- Occasional misapplication of numerical values (viscosity units, sheet resistance notation)
- Conceptual slips (contradictory copper resistance values, misspelling of ‘van der Waals forces’)
- Some descriptive passages rely on speculative statements without supporting data
2.1·Suggestion
Page 3
Numerical citations are applied correctly, but some claims (e.g., ‘super material’) lack direct data support; include more evidence from sources.
2.2·Weakness
Page 4
The sheet resistance units () do not match standard notation for surface resistivity; verify and correct unit conventions.
2.3·Weakness
Page 5
The stated bulk copper sheet resistance (~0.5 Ω m⁻¹) contradicts the literature on IACS standards; cross-check values to ensure accurate data application.
2.4·Weakness
Page 5
The term ‘van de Walls forces’ is misspelled and inconsistent; use precise chemical terminology (‘van der Waals forces’) throughout.
2.5·Suggestion
Page 6
When discussing Dirac points and massless electrons, explicitly contrast the behavior in pure graphene vs rGO to highlight relevance to the RQ.
2.6·Weakness
Page 15
Inline calculation of viscosity uses 0.89 mPa·s rather than 0.89 cP; clarify units to avoid confusion in dynamic viscosity values.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
12/12
0
6
12
Criteria Strands
C.1Research quality
Good
C.2Analysis depth
Moderate
C.3Discussion and evaluation
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- Research is extensive, up-to-date and consistently aligned with the research question
- Analysis is thorough, with well-supported conclusions and clear interpretation of anomalies
- Discussion and evaluation are critical, with detailed consideration of systematic/random errors and suggestions for methodological improvement
- No formal statistical significance testing or error-propagation calculations were performed
- Dependence on theoretically estimated coating thickness rather than direct measurement limits complete empirical validation
- A few innovative apparatus choices (e.g., custom filtration setup) were unreferenced
3.1·Question
Page 10
The custom filtration apparatus is innovative but unreferenced; explain why this method was chosen over conventional vacuum filtration.
3.2·Suggestion
Page 16
The Smoluchowski mobility calculation is thorough but could be strengthened by citing the Debye length value used in the ka ≪ 1 justification.
Criteria D: Presentation
4/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
D.1Structure appropriateness
Excellent
D.2Layout considerations
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Clearly appropriate structure following IB conventions with logical headings and subsections
- All layout considerations present (title, word count, page numbers, figures, tables)
- Equations and references are consistently formatted and integrated
- Minor formatting inconsistencies in figure scaling and caption detail
- Inconsistent numbering fonts in the table of contents
4.1·Suggestion
Page 2
The table of contents effectively outlines sections but inconsistent numbering and font styles reduce navigational clarity; standardize numbering format.
4.2·Suggestion
Page 7
Figure 1 caption lacks detail on experimental conditions; expand caption to describe axes, units, and sample preparation.
4.3·Suggestion
Page 11
pH progression is tracked well but the figure could benefit from a supporting table of values to aid numerical interpretation.