Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T16:32:41.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Irradiation-induced structural modifications in multifunctional nanocarbons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Sanju Gupta
Sanju Gupta*
Affiliation:
sgup@rocketmail.com, University of Missouri-Columbia, Electrical and Computer Engineering, 6th St. 303 EBW, Columbia, MO, 65211-2300, United States, 57388200948, 5738820397
Get access

Abstract

Severe environmental tolerability is the prime factor in the development of novel space materials exhibiting excellent physical properties accompanied by lightweight, reusability, and multifunctional capabilities. Diamond is known for its reputation being radiation hard besides a range of outstanding properties (electronic, optical, mechanical, and chemical) and hence it is preferable in harsh environments. Carbon nanotubes are also of great interest because of several unsurpassable physical properties and it needs to be shown that they are physically stable and structurally unaltered when subjected to irradiation. Therefore, a family of novel nanocarbons (nanodiamond and nanotubes) films deposited by microwave plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition (MWCVD) technique was subjected to gamma radiation (1, 5, and 20 Mrads) and to medium energy electron-beam irradiation to study their effects on the microscopic structure and corresponding physical properties to establish property-structure correlation. Microstructural and physical properties characterizations prior to and post-irradiation include scanning electron microscopy (SEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), Raman spectroscopy (RS), X-ray diffraction (XRD), field emission (FE), and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM). Dramatic improvement in the field emission properties for microcrystalline diamond and relatively small but systematic behavior for nanocrystalline diamond with increasing radiation dose is discussed in terms of the critical role of defects which tends to form clusters. The results also indicate that nanocrystalline carbon tends to reach a state of damage saturation they are discussed in terms of sp3, sp2+δ ←→ sp2 C inter-conversion. The effects of electron beam irradiation on the carbon nanotube show that multi¡Vwalled nanotubes tend to be relatively more robust than those of single–walled. This is because increased exposure on an individual bundle of single-walled nanotubes promoted graphitization, pinching, and cross-linking similar to polymers forming intra-molecular junction (IMJ) within the area of electron beam focus, possibly through aggregates of amorphous carbon. Formation of novel nanostructures (nano– ring and helix– V like) due to irradiation is also observed. These studies gleam on the dynamics of nano-manufacturing and a regime of possible relevance to these materials for a) short-term space missions; b) radiation hard programmable logic circuits; and c) radiation pressure sensors.

Keywords

chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (deposition)diamondradiation effects
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 956: Symposium J – Diamond Electronics—Fundamentals to Applications , 2006 , 0956-J14-01
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

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); R. H.Baughman, A. A. Zakhidov, and W. A. de Heer, 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 Field, J. E., The Properties of Diamonds (Academic Press, London, 1979).Google Scholar
4. 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
5. Campbell, B. and Mainwood, A., Phys. Status Solidi A 181, 99 (2000).Google Scholar
6. Banhart, F., Rep. Prog. Phys. 62, 1181 (1999).Google Scholar
7. Li, J. and Banhart, F., Nano Lett. 4, 1143 (2004).Google Scholar
8. Banhart, F., Nano Lett. 1, 329 (2001).Google Scholar
9. Gupta, S., Giedd, R. E., and Patel, R. J., J. Mater. Res. (Submitted, 2006).Google Scholar
10. Gupta, S., Patel, R. J., Smith, N., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 851, NN6.3-NN6.10 (2004); S. Gupta, N. Smith, R. J. Patel, and R.E.Giedd, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 887, Q6.3–Q6.9 (2005).Google Scholar
11. Wang, Y. Y., Gupta, S., and Nemanich, R. J., Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 2601 (2004).Google Scholar
12. Gill, P. R., Murray, W., and Wright, M. H., The Levenberg-Marquardt Method, Sec. 4.7.3 in Practical Optimization, (Academic Press, London, 1981), pp.136–137.Google Scholar
13. Campbell, B. and Mainwood, A., Phys. Status Solidi A 181, 99 (2000).Google Scholar
14. Ferrari, A. C. and Robertson, J., Phys. Rev. B 61, 14095 (2001); H. Kuzmany, R. Pfeiffer, N. Salk, B. Günther, Carbon 42, 911 (2004).Google Scholar
15. Levy, P. W. and Kammerer, O. F., Phys. Rev. 100, 1787 (1955).Google Scholar
16. Zaiser, M. and Banhart, F., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3680 (1997).Google Scholar
17. Thess, A., Lee, R., Nikolaev, P., Dai, H., Petit, P., Robert, J., Xu, C., Lee, Y. H., Kim, S. G., Rinzler, A. G., Colbert, D. T., Scuseria, G. E., Tománek, D., Fischer, J. E., and Smalley, R. E., Science, 273, 483 (1996).Google Scholar
18. 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
19. Dresselhaus, M. S. and Eklund, P. C., Adv. Phys. 49, 705 (2000).Google Scholar