Heterogeneity of porous structures is an important material property involved during the design of adsorbents, catalysts and molecular recognition materials. This review discusses the mathematical methods that can characterize adsorption site energies and surface heterogeneity from the adsorption isotherms.

Since the discovery of buckminsterfullerene over 30 years ago, sp²-hybridised carbon nanomaterials (including fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, and graphene) have stimulated new science and technology across a huge range of fields. Despite the impressive intrinsic properties, challenges in processing and chemical modification continue to hinder applications. Charged carbon nanomaterials (CCNs), formed via the reduction or oxidation of these carbon nanomaterials, facilitate dissolution, purification, separation, chemical modification, and assembly. This approach provides a compelling alternative to traditional damaging and restrictive liquid phase exfoliation routes. The broad chemistry of CCNs not only provides a versatile and potent means to modify the properties of the parent nanomaterial but also raises interesting scientific issues. This review focuses on the fundamental structural forms: buckminsterfullerene, single-walled carbon nanotubes, and single-layer graphene, describing the generation of their respective charged nanocarbon species, their interactions with solvents, chemical reactivity, specific (opto)electronic properties, and emerging applications.

The growing interest in the development of next-generation net zero energy systems has led to the expansion of molybdenum disulfide (MoS₂) research in this area. This activity has resulted in a wide range of manufacturing/synthesis methods, controllable morphologies, diverse carbonaceous composite structures, a multitude of applicable characterization techniques, and multiple energy applications for MoS₂. To assess the literature trends, 37,347 MoS₂ research articles from Web of Science were text scanned to classify articles according to energy application research and characterization techniques employed. Within the review, characterization techniques are grouped under the following categories: morphology, crystal structure, composition, and chemistry. The most common characterization techniques identified through text scanning are recommended as the base fingerprint for MoS₂ samples. These include: scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and Raman spectroscopy. Similarly, XPS and Raman spectroscopy are suggested for 2H or 1T MoS₂ phase confirmation. We provide guidance on the collection and presentation of MoS₂ characterization data. This includes how to effectively combine multiple characterization techniques, considering the sample area probed by each technique and their statistical significance, and the benefit of using reference samples. For ease of access for future experimental comparison, key numeric MoS₂ characterization values are tabulated and major literature discrepancies or currently debated characterization disputes are highlighted.

Although lithium, and other alkali ion, batteries are widely utilized and studied, many of the chemical and mechanical processes that underpin the materials within, and drive their degradation/failure, are not fully understood. Hence, to enhance the understanding of these processes various ex situ, in situ and operando characterization methods are being explored. Recently, electrochemical atomic force microscopy (EC‐AFM), and related techniques, have emerged as crucial platforms for the versatile characterization of battery material surfaces. They have revealed insights into the morphological, mechanical, chemical, and physical properties of battery materials when they evolve under electrochemical control. This critical review will appraise the progress made in the understanding batteries using EC‐AFM, covering both traditional and new electrode–electrolyte material junctions. This progress will be juxtaposed against the ability, or inability, of the system adopted to embody a truly representative battery environment. By contrasting key EC‐AFM literature with conclusions drawn from alternative characterization tools, the unique power of EC‐AFM to elucidate processes at battery interfaces is highlighted. Simultaneously opportunities for complementing EC‐AFM data with a range of spectroscopic, microscopic, and diffraction techniques to overcome its limitations are described, thus facilitating improved battery performance.