The aligned MWCNTs were found to generate voltages 15 times higher than

SWCNTs. We also reported that semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes (s-SWCNTs) can produce voltages three times higher than m-SWCNTs in flowing liquids [5]. Similar phenomena were observed on graphene surfaces on exposure to fluid flows. Dhiman et al. reported that a graphene surface could generate a peak voltage of approximately 25 mV in fluid flows [6]. They proposed surface ion hopping as the major mechanism for the flow-induced voltage generation. However, the precise mechanism of flow-induced voltage generation over graphene and CNT surfaces remains unclear. To understand the origin of the Gemcitabine mouse flow-induced voltage, we previously conducted experiments with two different electrode-flow

configurations: electrodes aligned parallel and perpendicular to the fluid flow. These experimental results suggested that the main mechanism for parallel alignment was the ‘phonon dragging model’ [9], while that for perpendicular alignment was the ‘enhanced out-of-plane phonon mode’ [8]. Here, we modified the flow to have a transverse component by introducing staggered herringbone grooves in the microchannel to further examine the origin of the induced voltage BIIB057 molecular weight in Figure 1a,b. The staggered herringbone grooves enable rapid mixing in the microchannel by creating transverse flows [10, 11]. Note that the x-direction indicates the longitudinal flow direction along the channel, while the y-direction indicates the transverse or lateral direction of the channel. Flow-induced

voltages measured in devices with and without herringbone grooves were analyzed Adenosine to examine the effects of the transverse flow component on voltage generation. The effects of flow rate and electrode-flow alignment were also investigated. The results suggested that flow-induced voltage generation with parallel and perpendicular alignments of the electrode with respect to the flow direction is due to different mechanisms, supporting our previous interpretation [8]. Figure 1 Device preparation. (a, b) Schematic illustration of the test device without and with herringbone grooves. (c) Raman spectra of monolayered graphene. (d) Fabrication and assembly. (e) SEM images of herringbone grooves. (f) Four different types of device configurations according to the electrode-flow alignment and the presence of herringbone grooves. Methods A monolayer of graphene was grown separately on Cu foil in a chemical vapor deposition ��-Nicotinamide chamber, as reported previously [12, 13]. It was verified that the graphene was a monolayer using Raman spectroscopy (the ratio of G and 2D peaks was 2 as shown in Figure 1c) [14]. The fabrication process for the device is shown in Figure 1d. To make the herringbone grooves in a silicon wafer, we used deep reactive ion etching (DRIE) [15, 16].