Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:16:16.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigations of dc electrical properties in electron-beam modified carbon nanotube films: single- and multiwalled

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Sanju Gupta ,
N. D. Smith ,
R. J. Patel  and
R. E. Giedd
Sanju Gupta
Affiliation:
sgup@rocketmail.com, Missouri State University, Physics and Materials Science, 901 S. National Ave., Springfield, MO, 65897, United States, 4178368565, 4178366226
N. D. Smith
Affiliation:
nds167s@smsu.edu
R. J. Patel
Affiliation:
rishipatel@smsu.edu
R. E. Giedd
Affiliation:
ryangiedd@smsu.edu
Get access

Abstract

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) in the family of nanostructured carbon materials are of great interest because of several unique physical properties. For space applications, it needs to be shown that CNTs are physically stable and structurally unaltered when subjected to irradiation becomes indispensable. The CNT films were grown by microwave Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) in the family of nanostructured carbon materials are of great interest because of several unique physical properties. For space applications, it needs to be shown that CNTs are physically stable and structurally unaltered when subjected to irradiation becomes indispensable. The CNT films were grown by microwave plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition (MWCVD) technique using Fe as catalyst. Synthesis of both single- and multiwalled CNTs (SW and MW, respectively) were achieved by varying the thickness of the Fe catalyst layer. To investigate the influence of electron-beam irradiation, CNTs were subjected to low and/or medium energy electron-beam irradiation continuously for a few minutes to several hours. The CNT films prior to and post-irradiation were assessed in terms of their microscopic structure and physical properties to establish property-structure correlations. The characterization tools used to establish such correlations include scanning electron microscopy (SEM), high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM), Raman spectroscopy (RS), and current versus voltage (I-V) measuring contact resistance (two-probe) and dc conductivity (four-probe) properties. Dramatic improvement in the I-V properties for single-walled (from semiconducting to quasi-metallic) and relatively small but systematic behavior for multi-walled (from metallic to more metallic) with increasing irradiation hours is discussed in terms of critical role of defects. Alternatively, contact resistance of single-walled nanotubes decreased by two orders of magnitude on prolonged E-beam exposures. Moreover, these findings provided onset of saturation and damage/degradation in terms of both the electron beam energy and exposure times. Furthermore, these studies apparently brought out a contrasting comparison between mixed semiconducting/metallic (single-walled) and metallic (multiwalled) nanotubes in terms of their structural modifications due to electron-beam irradiation.

Keywords

chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (deposition)electron irradiationelectrical properties
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 887: Symposium Q – Degradation Processes in Nanostructured Materials , 2005 , 0887-Q06-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Iijima, S., Nature 354, 56 (1991);Google Scholar
Baughman, R. H., Zakhidov, A. A., and de Heer, W. A., Science 297, 787 (2002).Google Scholar
2. Dreselhaus, M. S., Dresselhaus, G., and Eklund, P. C., in Science of Fullerenes and Carbon Nanotubes, Academic Press Inc. San Diego, Ch. 19 (1996).Google Scholar
3. Li, J. and Banhart, F., Nano Lett. 4, 1143 (2004);Google Scholar
Banhart, F., Nano Lett. 1, 329 (2001).Google Scholar
4. Crespi, V. H., Chopra, N. G., Cohen, M. L., Zettl, A., and Louie, S. G., Phys. Rev. B 54, 5927 (1996);Google Scholar
Chopra, N. G., Benedict, L. X., Crespi, V. H., Cohen, M. L., Louie, S. G., and Zettl, A., Nature 377, 135 (1995);Google Scholar
Benedict, L. X., Crespi, V. H., Chopra, N. G., Cohen, M. L., Louie, S. G., and Zettl, A. (unpublished).Google Scholar
5. Ugarte, D., Nature 359, 707 (1992).Google Scholar
6. Smith, B. W. and Luzzi, D. E., Appl, J.. Phys. 90, 3509 (2001).Google Scholar
7. Gupta, S., Patel, R. J., Smith, N. D., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 851, NN6.3 (2004).Google Scholar
8. Gupta, S., Patel, R. J., Smith, N. D., Giedd, R. E., and Wang, Y. Y., J. Appl. Phys. (2005) (in press).Google Scholar
9. Segal, B. M., Nantero Inc. Woburn, MA (www.nanotero.com).Google Scholar
10. Wang, Y. Y., Gupta, S., Nemanich, R. J., Liu, Z. J., and Qin, L. C., J. Appl. Phys. 98, 014312 (2005) and references therein;Google Scholar
Gupta, S., Weiss, B. L., Weiner, B. R., Pilione, L., Badzian, A., and Morell, G., J. Appl. Phys. 92, 3311 (2002) and references therein.Google Scholar
11. Marquardt, D. W., J. Soc. Indis. Appl. Math. 11, 431 (1963).Google Scholar
12. Gupta, S., Smith, N. D., Patel, R. J., and Giedd, R. E., J. Mater. Res. (2005) (submitted).Google Scholar
13. Wang, Y. Y., Gupta, S., and Nemanich, R. J., Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 2610 (2004).Google Scholar
14. Rao, A. M., Richter, E., Bandow, S., Chase, B., Eklund, P. C., Williams, K. A., Fang, S., Subbaswamy, K. R., Menon, M., Thess, A., and Smalley, R. E., Science, 275, 187 (1997).Google Scholar
15. Dresselhaus, M. S. and Eklund, P. C., Adv. Phys. 49, 705 (2000).Google Scholar