4.6 Article

Quantitative evaluation of surfactant-stabilized single-walled carbon nanotubes: Dispersion quality and its correlation with zeta potential

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
Volume 112, Issue 29, Pages 10692-10699

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp8021634

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Stable dispersions of single-walled carbon nanotubes in deionized water were prepared using six common surfactants: sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (SDBS), sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), lithium dodecyl sulfate (LDS), tetradecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (TTAB), sodium cholate (SC), and Fairy liquid (FL). For all nanotube dispersions (C-NT = 1 mg/mL), the optimum concentration of surfactant was found to be close to C-Surf = 10 mg/mL by measuring the fraction of nanotubes remaining after centrifugation for a range of surfactant concentrations. The aggregation state of each nanotube-surfactant dispersion was characterized as a function of nanotube concentration by AFM analysis of large numbers of nanotubes/bundles deposited onto substrates. The dispersion quality could then be quantified by four parameters: the saturation value (at low concentration) of the root-mean-square bundle diameter, the maximum value of the total number of dispersed objects (individuals and bundles) per unit volume of dispersion, the saturation value (at low concentration) of the number fraction of individual nanotubes, and the maximum value of the number of individual nanotubes per unit volume of dispersion. According to these metrics, the dispersion quality of the six surfactant-nanotube dispersions varied as SDS > LDS > SDBS > TTAB > SC > Fairy liquid. It was found that each of these dispersion-quality metrics scaled very well with the measured zeta-potential of the surfactant-nanotube dispersion. This confirms that dispersion quality is controlled by the magnitude of electrostatic repulsive forces between coated nanotubes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available