For most of graphene’s commercial history, the word itself has been the problem. A supplier could describe a twenty-layer nanoplatelet powder and a monolayer CVD film using the same term, and no standard existed to tell a buyer they were not comparable products. That gap is the root cause of the mismatch between marketing claims and delivered material that we examined in Why Most ‘Graphene’ Products Aren’t Really Graphene.
In 2025, ISO published two technical specifications that begin to close it.
What Was Published
ISO/TS 9651:2025 — Nanotechnologies: Classification framework for graphene-related 2D materials. Published in July 2025, this document sets out a framework for classifying and comparing graphene-related 2D materials regardless of how they were produced or what feedstock they came from. It specifies the material characteristics deemed relevant for commercial use, identifies the measurement methods applicable to each, and — importantly — establishes a syntax for consistent naming and description. It also provides the basis for technical data sheets containing an agreed minimum set of characteristics, intended to be usable by producers, users, and regulators alike.
The characteristics it addresses include layer number, lateral size, defect density, and morphology.
ISO/TS 23359:2025 — chemical characterization. Published in August 2025, this specification covers methods for analysing chemical properties in graphene powders and dispersions, including elemental composition, oxygen-to-carbon ratio, trace metal impurities, and functional groups, using techniques such as XPS, TGA, ICP-MS, and FTIR.
The classification framework originated with the Graphene Council, now the Advanced Carbons Council, and was developed over several years with input from more than a hundred subject matter experts before being adopted as an ISO technical specification.
The Structural Characterization Standards
These two specifications sit alongside the existing structural characterization work. ISO/TS 21356-1, published in 2021, specifies a sequence of methods for characterizing the structural properties of graphene, bilayer graphene, and graphene nanoplatelets from powders and liquid dispersions — covering layer number and thickness, lateral flake size, level of disorder, layer alignment, and specific surface area, with suggested protocols for sample preparation and data analysis.
Part 2 of that series, addressing structural characterization by transmission electron microscopy, has been developed with a large international interlaboratory effort led from the UK and is expected to publish in 2026. It builds on established good practice guidance for characterizing graphene structure and gives the measurement of single-atom thickness a reproducible protocol.
Together, these documents mean a buyer can, for the first time, ask for characterization against a named international standard rather than against whatever the supplier’s internal method happens to be.
Why This Matters Commercially
Three practical consequences.
Comparability. Two suppliers reporting layer number against the same specification are reporting the same quantity. Historically they were not — one might report an average from AFM on a favourable sample, another an inference from BET surface area, and the numbers would differ by a factor of several with neither party lying.
A default data sheet. The classification framework’s technical data sheet template gives buyers a legitimate baseline to demand. “Please supply the ISO/TS 9651 data sheet for this grade” is a specific, answerable request. A supplier who cannot produce one is telling you something.
Regulatory alignment. Consistent classification and naming feeds directly into regulatory processes, where the identity of a substance determines what obligations attach to it. This connects to the broader regulatory picture covered in our article on graphene and REACH.
What the Standards Do Not Do
Realism is warranted here.
A technical specification is not a full International Standard. TS documents are published when there is sufficient support but the subject is still developing; they are reviewed and may be converted, revised, or withdrawn. They carry authority but not finality.
Compliance is also voluntary. Nothing compels a producer to characterize against these documents, and nothing prevents a producer from continuing to sell “graphene powder” with a one-page data sheet listing carbon content and nothing else. The standards give buyers a tool; they do not remove the buyer’s obligation to use it.
Nor do the standards specify performance. Knowing a material’s layer number distribution, lateral size, and oxygen content tells you what it is. It does not tell you whether it will work in your epoxy. That remains an application-development question, and the gap between characterization and performance is where most graphene projects still fail.
Finally, third-party verification is a separate matter from the existence of a standard. Characterization data supplied by the producer, against a standard method, is better than characterization data against an unnamed method — but independent testing remains worthwhile for material entering a qualified product.
How to Use This in Procurement
A practical checklist:
- Ask for the classification and naming syntax from ISO/TS 9651 in quotations and purchase specifications, not just a trade name.
- Require the minimum characteristic set on the certificate of analysis for each batch, not just for the qualification sample.
- Specify which techniques were used for chemical characterization, referencing ISO/TS 23359. An oxygen-to-carbon ratio from XPS and one from TGA are not interchangeable.
- Write batch variation limits into the supply agreement. The standard tells you what to measure; only your contract tells the supplier what range is acceptable.
- Retain samples. Standardized characterization is only useful if you can go back and test a retained sample when a production problem appears months later.
For buyers who have spent years comparing incomparable data sheets, this is the most useful development in the graphene market in some time. It does not make graphene easier to use. It does make it possible to know what you bought.
This article is part of our Standards & Safety series. For the measurements the standards formalise, see How Graphene Is Characterized and Graphene Quality Control: What Raman Spectroscopy Actually Tells You. For the mislabelling problem these standards exist to address, see Why Most ‘Graphene’ Products Aren’t Really Graphene. For applying this in purchasing, see the Procurement Guide.
