There is an open secret in the graphene industry that everyone involved knows but few discuss publicly: a significant fraction of the materials sold as “graphene” are not graphene by any reasonable scientific definition. They are multilayer graphitic particles, poorly exfoliated flakes, or heavily oxidized carbon materials that share a family resemblance with graphene but lack the properties that make graphene valuable.
This is not a fringe claim. Independent characterization studies, industry working groups, and standards bodies have documented the problem repeatedly. It undermines buyer confidence, distorts the market, and — perhaps most damagingly — creates a cycle where end users try “graphene,” find that it does not deliver the expected performance, and conclude that graphene itself does not work. The material was never the problem. The label was.
The Scale of the Problem
The most frequently cited evidence comes from a series of independent studies that purchased commercial graphene products and subjected them to rigorous characterization. The findings have been consistent and sobering.
A widely referenced study examined dozens of commercial products sold as “graphene” from multiple international suppliers. Using transmission electron microscopy (TEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), and Raman spectroscopy, the researchers found that the majority of products contained material with significantly more than 10 layers — placing them firmly in the “graphite nanoplatelet” or simply “graphite” category by any standard definition. True few-layer graphene (fewer than 10 layers) was the minority, and genuine monolayer graphene was rare to nonexistent in bulk powder products.
A separate 2023 study focused specifically on graphene oxide products, characterizing 34 commercially available GO samples. The variation was dramatic: oxygen content, layer count, lateral size, and defect density differed substantially not just between suppliers but between batches from the same supplier. Some products advertised as GO had properties more consistent with partially oxidized graphite than with well-exfoliated graphene oxide sheets.
These are not isolated findings. They reflect a structural problem rooted in how the graphene market developed.
Why the Mislabeling Persists
Several factors converge to sustain the mislabeling problem.
There is no universally enforced definition. The scientific community generally defines graphene as a single layer of carbon atoms in a hexagonal lattice. ISO standards extend the term to include materials up to 10 layers (as “few-layer graphene”), with specific subcategories for bilayer and trilayer graphene. But these definitions are voluntary. No regulatory body prevents a supplier from calling a 50-layer graphite platelet “graphene” on their product sheet. Unlike pharmaceuticals or food products, there is no mandatory testing or labeling regime for nanomaterials in most jurisdictions.
The incentive structure rewards broad labeling. “Graphene” carries cachet and commands premium pricing. “Graphite nanoplatelets” and “expanded graphite” do not, even though these are often more accurate descriptions. A supplier sitting on tonnes of exfoliated graphite faces a straightforward commercial temptation: call it graphene and access a higher-margin market. Some do this knowingly; others may genuinely believe their product qualifies because they have not invested in rigorous characterization.
Characterization is expensive and non-trivial. Properly characterizing a graphene product requires multiple complementary techniques — Raman spectroscopy (ideally mapping, not single-point), TEM or AFM for layer counting, XPS for surface chemistry, BET for surface area, and particle size analysis for lateral dimensions. This suite of measurements costs thousands of dollars per sample and requires specialized expertise to interpret. Many smaller producers simply do not have access to or budget for this level of characterization, so they rely on less definitive methods or supplier claims from their own raw material sources.
Buyers often cannot verify. Most graphene buyers — materials engineers at composites companies, R&D teams at battery manufacturers, procurement managers evaluating additives — do not have Raman spectrometers or TEMs on their bench. They rely on supplier datasheets, which vary enormously in quality and completeness. A datasheet that shows a single Raman spectrum with a prominent 2D peak may look convincing but tells you almost nothing about the statistical distribution of layer counts across the bulk product.
What “Graphene” Actually Means — The Classification Framework
Understanding the mislabeling problem requires understanding what the scientific and standards communities have tried to establish as a common language.
The ISO/TS 80004-13 standard provides a vocabulary framework for graphene and related 2D materials. The key categories based on layer count are:
- Monolayer graphene: A single layer of carbon atoms. The material that earned the Nobel Prize.
- Bilayer graphene: Two layers. Has distinct electronic properties (notably a tunable bandgap) that monolayer does not.
- Few-layer graphene (FLG): 3 to 10 layers. Properties begin to converge toward bulk graphite as layer count increases, but some graphene-like behavior persists.
- Graphene nanoplatelets (GNP): Typically more than 10 layers but less than 100 nm thick. These are essentially thin graphite particles. They have utility in composites and coatings but do not exhibit the quantum-mechanical properties of true graphene.
- Graphite: More than 100 nm thick. This is simply graphite, regardless of how small the lateral dimensions are.
Beyond layer count, the classification also considers lateral size (nanosheets vs. microsheets), defect density, and oxygen content. A “graphene” product with a C:O ratio of 4:1 is really graphene oxide, regardless of what the label says.
The Graphene Council has complemented the ISO framework with a voluntary verification program that tests commercial products against defined specifications. Suppliers who pass receive a “Verified Graphene Producer” certification. This is a step in the right direction, but participation is voluntary and the program has limited market penetration to date.
How This Affects Real Applications
The consequences of mislabeling are not abstract. They play out in laboratories and pilot plants every day.
Failed development programs. A composites company reads a research paper showing that 0.1 wt% graphene addition increases tensile strength by 30%. They purchase “graphene” from a commercial supplier, add it to their resin at 0.1 wt%, and see a 3% improvement — or none at all. The problem is not that graphene does not work in composites. The problem is that the material they purchased was predominantly 30–50 layer graphite platelets with a fraction of the specific surface area and none of the monolayer properties assumed in the research paper. The development program gets shelved. The company’s internal report concludes “graphene didn’t work.” A market opportunity dies quietly.
Wasted R&D budgets. Research groups spend months optimizing dispersion protocols, surface treatments, and processing parameters for a material that was never what the supplier claimed. The optimization converges on parameters that are specific to the actual material (thick graphite flakes) rather than to the intended material (few-layer graphene). When they eventually switch to a higher-quality source, all that optimization work is irrelevant.
Eroded market confidence. Every failed application trial that was actually a mislabeling problem becomes a data point against graphene in the collective industry memory. Decision-makers who have been burned once are unlikely to approve a second attempt. This is arguably the most damaging long-term consequence: the mislabeling problem is slowing graphene adoption by creating a false narrative of underperformance.
How to Protect Yourself
If you are buying graphene for any application, these practices will significantly reduce your risk of getting something other than what you need.
Start with your application requirements, not product names. Define the properties you actually need: layer count range, lateral size, defect tolerance, oxygen content limit, electrical conductivity threshold. Then evaluate products against those specifications, not against marketing claims.
Request statistical characterization data. A single Raman spectrum or TEM image is almost meaningless for a bulk product. Ask for:
- Raman mapping data showing the distribution of I(2D)/I(G) ratios across multiple measurement points. For true few-layer graphene, the 2D band should be intense and sharp, with I(2D)/I(G) ratios consistently above 0.5 for FLG and above 1.0 for monolayer.
- Layer count distribution from AFM or TEM across a statistically meaningful number of flakes (at least 50–100 measurements).
- XPS data showing the C:O ratio. True graphene should have C:O ratios well above 20:1. If it is below 10:1, you are looking at graphene oxide or heavily oxidized material.
- BET surface area. Theoretical monolayer graphene has a surface area of approximately 2,630 m²/g. Commercial FLG powders typically achieve 300–700 m²/g. If the surface area is below 100 m²/g, the material is mostly thick graphite.
Start with a small qualification batch. Before committing to production volumes, purchase a small sample and either characterize it yourself (if you have the equipment) or send it to an independent testing lab. The cost of characterization is trivial compared to the cost of a failed development program.
Check for Graphene Council verification. While not a guarantee, suppliers who have undergone the Graphene Council’s verification program have at least submitted their products to third-party testing against defined standards. It is a useful filter, though not a substitute for your own due diligence.
Ask suppliers direct questions. What is the layer count distribution? What exfoliation method do they use? What is their batch-to-batch variability for key metrics? Suppliers who are confident in their product will answer these questions readily. Suppliers who deflect or provide only vague claims (“high-quality graphene,” “advanced nanomaterial”) deserve skepticism.
Where Standards Are Headed
The situation is improving, slowly. ISO continues to refine its graphene vocabulary and measurement standards. The Graphene Council’s verification program is gaining visibility. The European Graphene Flagship, which ran from 2013 to 2023, invested in standardization efforts that are now feeding into formal standards processes.
Several national metrology institutes — including NPL in the UK, NIST in the US, BAM in Germany, and others — have active programs developing reference materials and validated measurement protocols for graphene characterization. These reference standards, once widely available, will give both buyers and suppliers a common yardstick.
But the gap between where standards are and where they need to be remains wide. Full implementation of a reliable, enforceable classification system is likely still several years away. In the meantime, buyer vigilance is the most effective quality control mechanism available.
The Bottom Line
The graphene market has a trust problem, and it is largely self-inflicted. The mislabeling of multilayer graphite, poorly characterized powders, and oxidized carbon materials as “graphene” has created confusion, wasted resources, and slowed adoption of a genuinely promising material.
As a buyer, you do not need to be a graphene expert. But you do need to be a skeptical one. Define your specifications. Demand characterization data. Verify independently when the stakes are high. The suppliers producing genuine graphene want you to ask these questions — it is the mislabeled products that cannot survive scrutiny.
This article is part of our Standards & Safety series. For a detailed procurement checklist, see Buying Graphene: A Procurement Guide for Engineers and Managers. For background on how different forms of graphene are produced, see How Graphene Is Made: Every Production Method Explained.
